DISCUSSION OF DECISION CRITERIA Sample Clauses

DISCUSSION OF DECISION CRITERIA. A unit may be formed to conserve the natural resources of all or a part of an oil or gas pool, field, or like area when determined and certified to be necessary or advisable in the public interest. AS 38.05.180(p). The commissioner will approve a proposed unit upon a finding that it will (1) promote conservation of all natural resources, including all or part of an oil or gas pool, field, or like area; (2) promote the prevention of economic and physical waste; and (3) provide for the protection of all parties of interest including the state. In evaluating these three criteria, the commissioner will consider: 1. Environmental costs and benefits of unitized exploration or development; 2. Geologic and engineering characteristics of the potential hydrocarbon accumulation or reservoir proposed for unitization; 3. Prior exploration activities in the proposed unit area;
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
DISCUSSION OF DECISION CRITERIA. The DNR Commissioner reviews unit expansion applications under AS 38.05.180(p) and 11 AAC 83.303. The Commissioner will approve a proposed unit expansion if the commissioner finds that it will conserve the natural resources of an oil or gas reservoir and is necessary or advisable to protect the public interest. To approve a proposed unit expansion, the commissioner must find that the proposed unit will: 1) promote the conservation of all natural resources; 2) promote the prevention of economic and physical waste; and 3) provide for the protection of all parties of interest, including the state. A. The Conservation of All Natural Resources. B. The Prevention of Economic and Physical Waste. C. The Protection of All Parties in Interest, Including the State.
Sample 1
DISCUSSION OF DECISION CRITERIA. AS 38.05.180(p) gives DNR the authority to approve an oil and gas unit. The Commissioner of DNR (Commissioner) reviews unit applications under 11 AAC 83.301 – 11 AAC 83.395. By memorandum dated September 30, 1999, the Commissioner approved a revision of Department Order 003 and delegated this authority to the Director of the Division of Oil and Gas. The Division’s review of the Application is based on the criteria set out in 11 AAC 83.303 (a) and (b). A discussion of the subsection (b) criteria, as they apply to the Application, is set out directly below, followed by a discussion of the subsection (a) criteria. A. Decision Criteria considered under 11 AAC 83.303(b) 1. The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Unitized Exploration or Development
Sample 1

Related to DISCUSSION OF DECISION CRITERIA

  • Review of Decision Within sixty (60) days after the Secretary’s receipt of a request for review, he or she will review the Company’s determination. After considering all materials presented by the Claimant, the Secretary will render a written opinion, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the Claimant, setting forth the specific reasons for the decision and containing specific references to the pertinent provisions of this Agreement on which the decision is based. If special circumstances require that the sixty (60) day time period be extended, the Secretary will so notify the Claimant and will render the decision as soon as possible, but no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after receipt of the request for review.

  • Arbitration Decisions Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the arbitrator(s) shall render a decision within ninety (90) Calendar Days of appointment and shall notify the Parties in writing of such decision and the reasons therefor. The arbitrator(s) shall be authorized only to interpret and apply the provisions of this Agreement and shall have no power to modify or change any provision of this Agreement in any manner. The decision of the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the Parties, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The decision of the arbitrator(s) may be appealed solely on the grounds that the conduct of the arbitrator(s), or the decision itself, violated the standards set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act or the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The final decision of the arbitrator must also be filed with FERC if it affects jurisdictional rates, terms and conditions of service, Attachment Facilities, System Upgrade Facilities, or System Deliverability Upgrades.

  • SITE-BASED DECISION MAKING A. The District shall provide the training and staff development to support accountability/site- based decision-making activities. Teachers shall be given release time to attend these programs. B. Participation on the SAC shall not serve as a basis for the evaluation of any teacher. C. A minimum of three (3) to a maximum of five (5) teachers from each school shall serve on their school’s budget advisory committee formed for the purpose of making recommendations on the school’s general fund budget. Teacher members shall be elected by the faculty. Minutes from such meetings may be requested by the faculty and may be posted on the CTA bulletin board at the school by the Association Representative.

  • Independent Decision The Investor is not relying on the Issuer or on any legal or other opinion in the materials reviewed by the Investor with respect to the financial or tax considerations of the Investor relating to its investment in the Shares. The Investor has relied solely on the representations and warranties, covenants and agreements of the Issuer in this Agreement (including the exhibits and schedules hereto) and on its examination and independent investigation in making its decision to acquire the Shares.

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Disagreement on Decision Should the parties disagree as to the meaning of the Board's decision, either party may apply to the Chairperson of the Arbitration Board to reconvene the Board to clarify the decision, which it shall make every effort to do within seven days.

  • Notice of Decision If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the Plan Administrator shall notify the claimant in writing of such denial. The Plan Administrator shall write the notification in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant. The notification shall set forth: (a) The specific reasons for the denial; (b) A reference to the specific provisions of the Agreement on which the denial is based; (c) A description of any additional information or material necessary for the claimant to perfect the claim and an explanation of why it is needed; (d) An explanation of the Agreement’s review procedures and the time limits applicable to such procedures; and (e) A statement of the claimant’s right to bring a civil action under ERISA Section 502(a) following an adverse benefit determination on review.

  • Arbitration Decision The arbitrator’s decision will be final and binding. The arbitrator shall issue a written arbitration decision revealing the essential findings and conclusions upon which the decision and/or award is based. A party’s right to appeal the decision is limited to grounds provided under applicable federal or state law.

  • Negotiation; Alternative Dispute Resolution The Parties will attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to the performance of services under this Agreement. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute, then, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 21.36, Contractor may submit to the Contracting Officer a written request for administrative review and documentation of the Contractor's claim(s). Upon such request, the Contracting Officer shall promptly issue an administrative decision in writing, stating the reasons for the action taken and informing the Contractor of its right to judicial review. If agreed by both Parties in writing, disputes may be resolved by a mutually agreed-upon alternative dispute resolution process. If the parties do not mutually agree to an alternative dispute resolution process or such efforts do not resolve the dispute, then either Party may pursue any remedy available under California law. The status of any dispute or controversy notwithstanding, Contractor shall proceed diligently with the performance of its obligations under this Agreement in accordance with the Agreement and the written directions of the City. Neither Party will be entitled to legal fees or costs for matters resolved under this section.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!