UK emerging results Sample Clauses

UK emerging results. The criteria presented in Chapter 3 have been applied to two UK case study sites, the Grangemouth and Teesside industrial clusters, to assess the potential for re-use of existing oil and gas infrastructure for CO2 transport and storage. These two industrial sites are the focus of technical and non-technical investigations in the ALIGN project for implementation of industrial CCUS. Prospective storage sites have been selected (Task 3.2) that are suitable for storing the volumes of CO2 anticipated to be captured at each industrial site (Task 5.1). The existing infrastructure in the vicinity of the selected storage sites is appraised in the D3.3.2 report deliverable. Both of the UK industrial CO2 source clusters selected have been the focus of multiple CCS project assessments, which helped provide more data to this study than would ordinarily be available. The main limitation to application of the criteria to a full UK screening is the availability of key data on which to make the assessment. The order and ease with which the criteria can be applied to the UK, based on the data and reports available to this study, are discussed below and are summarised in Table 3.2.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to UK emerging results

  • Release Schedule for an Emerging Issuer (a) Usual case If the Issuer is an emerging issuer (as defined in section 3.3 of the Policy) and you have not sold any escrow securities in a permitted secondary offering, your escrow securities will be released as follows: On March 23, 2015, the date the Issuer's securities are listed on a Canadian exchange (the listing date) 1/10 of your escrow securities 6 months after the listing date 1/6 of your remaining escrow securities 12 months after the listing date 1/5 of your remaining escrow securities 18 months after the listing date ¼ of your remaining escrow securities 24 months after the listing date 1/3 of your remaining escrow securities 30 months after the listing date ½ of your remaining escrow securities 36 months after the listing date your remaining escrow securities 3 *In the simplest case, where there are no changes to the escrow securities initially deposited and no additional escrow securities, then the release schedule outlined above results in the escrow securities being released in equal tranches of 15% after completion of the release on the listing date.

  • Expected Results VA’s agreement with DoD to provide educational assistance is a statutory requirement of Chapter 1606, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 1607, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 30, Title 38, U.S.C. and Chapter 33, Title 38, U.S.C (Post-9/11 GI Xxxx). These laws require VA to make payments to eligible veterans, service members, guard, reservist, and family members under the transfer of entitlement provisions. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 1606 is placed on the DoD. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on VA, while the responsibility of providing initial eligibility data for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on DoD. Thus, the two agencies must exchange data to ensure that VA makes payments only to those who are eligible for a program. Without an exchange of enrollment and eligibility data, VA would not be able to establish or verify applicant and recipient eligibility for the programs. Subject to the due process requirements, set forth in Article VII.B.1., 38 U.S.C. §3684A, VA may suspend, terminate, or make a final denial of any financial assistance on the basis of data produced by a computer matching program with DoD. To minimize administrative costs of implementation of the law and to maximize the service to the veteran or service member, a system of data exchanges and subsequent computer matching programs was developed. The purposes of the computer matching programs are to minimize the costs of administering the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; facilitate accurate payment to eligible veterans or service members training under the Chapter of the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; and to avoid payment to those who lose eligibility. The current automated systems, both at VA and DoD, have been developed over the last twenty-two years. The systems were specifically designed to utilize computer matching in transferring enrollment and eligibility data to facilitate accurate payments and avoid incorrect payments. The source agency, DMDC, stores eligibility data on its computer based system of record. The cost of providing this data to VA electronically are minimal when compared to the cost DMDC would incur if the data were forwarded to VA in a hard-copy manner. By comparing records electronically, VA avoids the personnel costs of inputting data manually as well as the storage costs of the DMDC documents. This results in a VA estimated annual savings of $26,724,091 to VA in mailing and data entry costs. DoD reported an estimated annual savings of $12,350,000. A cost-benefit analysis is at Attachment 1. In the 32 years since the inception of the Chapter 30 program, the cost savings of using computer matching to administer the benefit payments for these educational assistance programs have remained significant. The implementation of Chapter 33 has impacted the Chapter 30 program over the past 8 years (fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2017). Statistics show a decrease of 23 percent in the number of persons who ultimately use Chapter 30 from fiscal year 2015 to 2016. The number of persons who use Chapter 33 has consistently been above 700,000 in the past four years. VA foresees continued cost savings due to the number of persons eligible for the education programs.‌

  • Publication of Results The National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. § 20112) requires NASA to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof. As such, NASA may publish unclassified and non-Proprietary Data resulting from work performed under this Agreement. The Parties will coordinate publication of results allowing a reasonable time to review and comment.

  • Notification of Results Within 10 days after satisfactory inspection and/or testing of Interconnection Facilities built by the Interconnection Customer (including, if applicable, inspection and/or testing after correction of defects or failures), the Interconnected Transmission Owner shall confirm in writing to the Interconnection Customer and Transmission Provider that the successfully inspected and tested facilities are acceptable for energization.

  • Evaluation Results A. Evaluation results shall be used:

  • ADVERTISING RESULTS The prior written approval of the Commissioner is required in order for results of the Bid to be used by the Contractor as part of any commercial advertising. The Contractor shall also obtain the prior written approval of the Commissioner relative to the Bid or Contract for press or other media releases.

  • Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).

  • Quantitative Results i. Total number and percentage of instances in which the IRO determined that the Paid Claims submitted by CHSI (Claim Submitted) differed from what should have been the correct claim (Correct Claim), regardless of the effect on the payment.

  • Audit Results If an audit by a Party determines that an overpayment or an underpayment has occurred, a notice of such overpayment or underpayment shall be given to the other Party together with those records from the audit which support such determination.

  • Web-based-WHOIS query RTT Refers to the RTT of the sequence of packets from the start of the TCP connection to its end, including the reception of the HTTP response for only one HTTP request. If Registry Operator implements a multiple-step process to get to the information, only the last step shall be measured. If the RTT is 5-times or more the corresponding SLR, the RTT will be considered undefined.

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