Identifying Existing Risks
Desalination is an important project, especially in South Adelaide, since it helps the people have access to potable water. The government of Adelaide, introduced the plant in order for the people to have access to 100 gigalitres (gl) of water every yea. The project was to be completed in 2011. However, there are some risks that are associated with the project, since it is of a large scale. The following report will aim to look at the risks, and classify them into Big, Medium or Low Risks. It will also look at the risks post the mitigation of the project and the rating of risk past the completion of the project.
There are many existing risks that have been associated with the project. The first is the environmental risks. When desalination is done to a large extent, then it would mean that the waste of the salination is dumped back into the ocean. This can impact the marine life to a large extent. This would be defined as a medium risk, since it would not be harmful to the people who benefit from the desalination plant. However, the plants would also kill millions of fish in the process of gathering the water for desalination (Tan-Kantor, Abbott and Jubb, 2017). This can dramatically affect the local fishermen, since their prospects and the methods of catching fish would need to be revaluated, which could turn out to be expensive and a loss to business. This would constitute a high risk, since the people would suffer, and local businesses might have to shut down as well.
The third risk would be the expense factor. Most desalination plants are extremely expensive to build. The current budget might seem enough to build a desalination plant; however, it might not be enough. This would also constitute a medium risk, since it would mean that the plant might not be built on time, or efficiently, due to cost-cutting techniques that would have to be taken into consideration as well.
A low risk would be the energy required to run the plant. Desalination plants require a lot of energy in order to run. This means that the energy has to be sourced from somewhere. If the energy is sourced from non-renewable sources, it would mean that the effect that the desalination plant has on the environment increases (Tuner, et al, 2017, p. S128). Desalination plants already emit a lot of greenhouse gases, and are thus, harmful to the climate as well. by using non-renewable energy, it would mean that the plant would further harm the climate and lead to global warming.
Targeted Risks to Be Mitigated
Another risk is that the public might not respond positively to the plant. The public might not like the fact that they are being forced to have seawater in their homes, which could cause public outcry. The public have to be adequately informed and their opinions, suggestions and doubts have to be taken into consideration as well (Sadgrove, 2016). This is a high risk, since not having public consensus on the plant would mean that the government would have to shut the project down, so as to not cause any issues of a large scale.
Another high risk would be the contractors who have been given the contract to build the plant. The contractors, if they are not of excellent repute, could cause a lot of damage to the plant as well. Corruption could destroy the plant, since it would mean that money would be skimmed off, which would lead to low quality of materials used (Kosovac, Hurlimann and Davidson, 2017). The people who would be running the plant, which would also include those who are in charge of mixing the appropriate chemicals to make it more potable, have also to be of high repute.
There are 2 medium risks, 3 high risks and 1 low risks. The impact that it has on fishermen, contractors that build the plant, and the reaction and inclusion of the public would be considered a high risk. The impact that it has on the environment, such as the dumping of the saline slurry in the after, and the expense would be a medium risk, since they could be solved to a large extent. The energy efficiency of the plant, and the type of energy-resource used would be a low risk, since it can be solved easily.
There are many risks that have been targeted and mitigated through the proposal that has been sent by the government.
The first risk, that of environmental damage and the dumping of the waste, was solved by the government. In the proposal, the government stated that they would try to build the plant in a way that is sustainable. This would ensure that the waste is dumped in a responsible manner, in order to ensure that there is as little damage as possible. This step was essential in order to ensure that the risk is mitigated. In order to ensure that the risk of damage to the fishermen is mitigated, the project is set to be built in a way that the mechanism that swallows fish and plankton is minimised as much as possible (Ziolkowska, 2015). The government has also ensured that the fisherman have been advised to find alternative fish routes so that they are less affected by the plant. This mitigates the high risk that was posed by the salination plants to the livelihoods of the fishermen and the local business. The plant is also situated as far away from the regular fishing routes of the fishermen, which is why it creates very little damage to the fishermen.
Post-Risk Completion Evaluations
The government has set aside a budget of $1.1 billion for the completion of the plant in the proposal that has been setup by the government. This has ensured that the plant is effective in the way that it functions. It also ensures that the plant is finished and everything is in order. The funding that is received from the government proposal is adequate enough that it ensures that there need not be cost-cutting, or the use of low-cost materials in order to complete the project as well (Yan, et al, 2016, p. 870).
The government proposal mentions that the salination plant would use the energy that is derived from renewable resources. Though the type of resources has not been mentioned, it would most likely be solar or tidal energy, since it would be easy to source solar energy. The energy could be taken from the Australian grid, which would mean that it would be energy sustainable in most ways. While the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted from the desalination plant cannot be controlled to a large extent, ensuring that is uses renewable, green energy in order to run would be a good method to reduce their carbon footprint (Metzger, et al, 2016).
The government has also ensured that there are public meetings, and publications in the gazette that would inform the people about the plant and take their opinions into the plant as well. This would also ensure that the people are not as opposed to the plant as they generally would be.
The government has ensured that the contractors that build the place are of high repute. There is also regular assessment that is done by the proper authorities, in order to ensure that the contractors have been using the proper materials and sticking to the deadlines that have been committed. There will be formal guidelines and detailed assessment that is done by the government, in order to ensure that the plant is completed as per schedule.
Post the completion of the project, the risks would be very low. While the risks to the fishermen would be medium, since to a large extent it cannot be mitigated in any way, the other risks would be at a minimum level. The risk of damage to the plant due to external factors would be high, but the risk of delayed completion, or the risk of emission of greenhouse gases, or energy consumption have been minimised to a large extent. Most of the risks are now low risks.
Conclusion
The salination plant at Adelaide has seen a lot of problems, and the risks that have been associated with the plant have been increasing. However, due to careful mitigation of the proposal, and after the completion of the project, the risks have been considered to be very low risks, since they have not done any damage to the plant. The local fishermen have had to change their fishing course, and the ecosystem of the sea has been changed somewhat, but to a large extent, the risks have remained minimal. This has been beneficial to the plant, and to the government. It has ensured that there is an adequate amount of potable water in Adelaide, which is beneficial to the people.
References
Kosovac, A., Hurlimann, A. and Davidson, B., 2017. Water experts’ perception of risk for new and unfamiliar water projects. Water, 9(12), p.976.
Metzger, E., Owens, B., Reig, P., Wen, W.H. and Young, R., 2016. Water-energy nexus: business risks and rewards. World Resources Institute.
Sadgrove, K., 2016. The complete guide to business risk management. Routledge.
Tan?Kantor, A., Abbott, M. and Jubb, C., 2017. Accounting Choice and Theory in Crisis: The Case of the Victorian Desalination Plant. Australian Accounting Review, 27(3), pp.273-284.
Turner, A., Sahin, O., Giurco, D., Stewart, R. and Porter, M., 2017. Reprint of: The potential role of desalination in managing flood risks from dam overflows: the case of Sydney, Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163, pp.S125-S137.
Yan, H.M., Cao, C.Y., Bai, G. and Bai, W., 2016, April. Seawater Desalination Technology Route and Analysis of Production Capacity for Large Commercial Nuclear Power Plant. In International Confernece Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference. pp. 865-872. Springer, Singapore.
Ziolkowska, J.R., 2015. Is desalination affordable?—regional cost and price analysis. Water resources management, 29(5), pp.1385-1397.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
