Project Management in the Energy Industry-Comparing Two Projects
Introduction
Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s, utility industries struggled to manage their nuclear power plant construction prudently in the public eye. Throughout this era, litigation chastised the mismanaged organizations to the tune of billions of dollars.
In this same era, Arab countries declared an oil embargo in the United States, oil prices soared and long lines at the gas pumps reflected the nation’s first fuel shortage since World War II. These events fast tracked the immediate need for an increase in alternative domestic energy sources here in the United States.
The purpose of this analysis is to compare and contrast two projects in terms of Project Management, Quantitative Analysis and Economics while illustrating the effects of prudent vice imprudent management. The two case studies reveal different management styles within the organizations and ultimately within the projects. This paper examines the successes and failures of the St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System projects.
These two drastically different projects are located in very different climates; St Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant on Hutchinson Island, Florida and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System that runs from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez in Alaska. As stated, these projects are completely different in scope and perhaps to perform a ‘compare and contrast’ may be unfair without mentioning that power plants were not a new concept whereas TAPS was a very new endeavor at that time. St Lucie Unit 2 completed on time, within budget while TAPS was the exact opposite.
Both projects began construction in the mid 1970’s, both were completed, are still in operation today and both are considered successful because in both of these cases, the end does justify the means. St Lucie Unit 2 - Overview
St. Lucie Unit 2 is located on Hutchinson Island (Appendix A), southeast of Ft. Pierce, Florida (St Lucie Plant, 2010). This project is an 8.8 percent ownership
Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s, utility industries struggled to manage their nuclear power plant construction prudently in the public eye. Throughout this era, litigation chastised the mismanaged organizations to the tune of billions of dollars.
In this same era, Arab countries declared an oil embargo in the United States, oil prices soared and long lines at the gas pumps reflected the nation’s first fuel shortage since World War II. These events fast tracked the immediate need for an increase in alternative domestic energy sources here in the United States.
The purpose of this analysis is to compare and contrast two projects in terms of Project Management, Quantitative Analysis and Economics while illustrating the effects of prudent vice imprudent management. The two case studies reveal different management styles within the organizations and ultimately within the projects. This paper examines the successes and failures of the St. Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System projects.
These two drastically different projects are located in very different climates; St Lucie Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant on Hutchinson Island, Florida and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System that runs from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez in Alaska. As stated, these projects are completely different in scope and perhaps to perform a ‘compare and contrast’ may be unfair without mentioning that power plants were not a new concept whereas TAPS was a very new endeavor at that time. St Lucie Unit 2 completed on time, within budget while TAPS was the exact opposite.
Both projects began construction in the mid 1970’s, both were completed, are still in operation today and both are considered successful because in both of these cases, the end does justify the means. St Lucie Unit 2 - Overview
St. Lucie Unit 2 is located on Hutchinson Island (Appendix A), southeast of Ft. Pierce, Florida (St Lucie Plant, 2010). This project is an 8.8 percent ownership
References: Alyeska pipeline. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/Default.asp Cleland, D.I Derrickson, W. B. (1988). St. Lucie Unit 2: A Nuclear Plant Built on Schedule. In Cleland, D. I., Bursic, K. M., Puerzer, R , & Vlasak, Y (Eds.), Project management casebook (pp. 401-425). Sylva: Project Management Institute. Cohen, B.L. (1990). Costs of nuclear power plants – what went wrong?.In The nuclear energy option. (chapter 9). Retrieved from http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html Florida Municipal Power Agency Florida Nuclear Profile. (2010). St Lucie Power Plant. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/state_profiles/florida/fl.html#_ftn2 Fried, N Johnson, K. (2007). The Trans-Alaska Pipeline. In LitSite. Retrieved from http://www.litsite.org/index.cfm?section=Digital-Archives&page=Industry&cat=Oil-and-Gas&viewpost=2&ContentId=2748 Reitz, A.v U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2010). Contribution of Nuclear Power. In Florida nuclear profile. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/state_profiles/florida/fl.html