Grant agreement No. 640979 ShaleXenvironmenT · 2016. 1. 7. · Grant agreement No. 640979...

Grant agreement No. 640979

ShaleXenvironmenT

Maximizing the EU shale gas potential by minimizing its environmental footprint

H2020-LCE-2014-1

Competitive low-carbon energy

D1.1 Project Management Manual

WP 1 – Management Due date of deliverable Month 4 – 1st January 2016 Actual submission date 04 / 01 /2016 Start date of project 1st September 2015 Duration 36 months Lead beneficiary UCL Last editor Pauline Chetail (UCL) Contributors UA Dissemination level Public (PU)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT MANUAL Version 1.7 | 4th January 2016

Title ‘Maximizing the EU shale gas potential by minimizing its environmental

footprint’ (ShaleXenvironmenT)

Grant Agreement No. 640979

Call Identifier H2020-LCE-2014-1

Duration 1st September 2015 – 31st August 2018 (36 months)

Funder European Commission

Innovation and Networks Executive Agency

EU Contribution € 2,999,201.25

Coordinated by University College London (UCL)

Website www.shalexenvironment.org

http://www.shalexenvironment.org/

Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 2 of 29

Reference Document

The Reference Document for the ShaleXenvironmenT project is the Grant Agreement,

signed by all partners and the European Commission.

It is accessible on the project’s SharePoint site1: here

The Grant Agreement, abbreviated GA, is composed of the following reference documents:

p.3 Terms & Conditions Official EU rules, rights and obligations under the project

p.84 Annex 1 Also called “Description of the Action” (DoA):

PART A contains the work plan (description of the work

packages, deliverables, milestones, etc.)

PART B is the text of the proposal (detailed description of

how the consortium will complete the work plan)

p.267 Annex 2 Budget

p.269 Annex 3 Accession Forms (partners’ signatures )

p.279 Annexes 4 & 5 Models for the financial statements and audit certificates

p.312 Annex 6 Model for the certificate of methodology (audit certificate

needed if personnel costs are declared as unit costs)2

1 Access to the ShaleXenvironmenT’s SharePoint site needs to be granted by UCL (more info on the SharePoint in Section 3.1.1.)

2 In ShaleXenvironmenT, none of the partners plans on calculating and declaring their personnel costs so Annex 6 should not be necessary.

https://sharepoint.adm.ucl.ac.uk/sites/ShaleXenv/Shared%20Documents/Official%20(EC)%20and%20Consortium%20Documents/2015_05_05%20ShaleXenvironmenT%20(640979)%20Grant%20Agreement_FULL_all%20signatures.pdf


Table of Contents REFERENCE DOCUMENT.......................................................................................................................... 2

1. PROJECT FEATURES AND WORK PLAN .............................................................................................. 5

1.1. PROJECT PARTNERS .................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2. PROJECT BUDGET ..................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3. PERSON-MONTH EFFORT ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.4. REPORTING PERIODS AND REVIEWS ............................................................................................................. 7 1.5. WORK PACKAGES .................................................................................................................................... 7 1.6. SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES & MILESTONES ................................................................................................ 9 1.7. SUMMARY OF PROJECT LIFECYCLE ............................................................................................................. 14

2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION....................................................................................... 15

2.1. CONSORTIUM BODIES ............................................................................................................................. 15 2.1.1. Council of Partners (CoP) ........................................................................................................... 15 2.1.2. Work Package Leaders Board (WPL Board) ............................................................................... 17

2.2. EXTERNAL BODIES .................................................................................................................................. 18 2.2.1. External Advisory Board (EAB) ................................................................................................... 18 2.2.2. Industry Practitioners Board (IPB) .............................................................................................. 19

3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES .......................................................................................... 20

3.1. COMMUNICATION .................................................................................................................................. 20 3.1.1. Internal Communication ............................................................................................................ 20 3.1.2. External Communication ............................................................................................................ 21

3.1.2.1. EU disclaimer ...................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2.2. Dissemination & Publication rules ..................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2.3. Website ............................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.2.4. Logos ................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.2. REPORTING ........................................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1. Internal Reporting ...................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.2. Periodic (official) Reporting ....................................................................................................... 25

3.2.2.1. Overview of the Periodic Reporting Process ...................................................................................... 25 3.2.2.2. The Technical Report .......................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.2.3. The Financial Report ........................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.2.4. The Final Report .................................................................................................................................. 27 3.2.2.5. Distribution of Payments ................................................................................................................... 28

USEFUL LINKS ....................................................................................................................................... 29


1. Project features and Work Plan

1.1. Project partners

Name Country Acronym Main (Scientific) Contacts

1 University College London UK UCL

Alberto Striolo [email protected] Adrian Jones [email protected] Pauline Chetail (Management) [email protected]

2 Center for Colloid and Surface Science

Italy CSGI

Pierandrea Lo Nostro [email protected] Moira Ambrosi [email protected] Duccio Tatini [email protected]

3 Association pour la Recherche et le Développement des Methodes et Processus Industriels & Subatech

France ARMINES

Andrey Kalinichev [email protected] Philippe Perceval [email protected]

4 The University of Manchester UK UoM

Peter Lee [email protected] Kevin [email protected]

5 National Center for Scientific Research “Demokritos”

Greece NCSR”D”

Ioannis Economou [email protected] Dr. Loukas Peristeras [email protected]

6 University of Alicante Spain UA

José A. Caballero [email protected] Ana Martínez [email protected] Juan A. Reyes-Labarta [email protected]

7 Institute of Physical Chemistry J. Heyrovský

Czech Republic

HIPC Jiri Cejka [email protected]

8 Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals

Czech Republic

ICPF

Martin Lisal [email protected] Zbysek Posel [email protected]

9 German Research Centre for Geosciences

Germany GFZ

Hiroki Sone [email protected] Erik Rybacki [email protected]

10 Geomecon Germany Geomecon

Tobias Backers [email protected] Simon Dinter [email protected]

11 Halliburton UK Halliburton

Richard Day [email protected] Rob Hull [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


























1.2. Project budget

Estimated eligible costs (per budget category) EU contribution

Direct

Personnel costs

Other Direct costs

Indirect costs Total eligible Costs

Maximum EU contribution

(= grant amount)

% of total

budget Form of costs Actual Actual 25% Flat rate

1.UCL € 547,820 € 123,058 € 158,877 € 829,755 € 829,755 28 %

2.CSGI € 131,988 € 116,000 € 61,997 € 309,985 € 309,985 10 %

3.ARMINES € 177,750.40 € 22,200 € 49,987.60 € 249,938 € 249,938 8 %

4.UoM € 191,541 € 64,453 € 63,998.50 € 319,992.50 € 319,992 11 %

5.NCSR’D’ € 167,400 € 32,600 € 50,000 € 250,000 € 250,000 8 %

6.UA € 185,000 € 39,000 € 56,000 € 280,000 € 280,000 9 %

7.HIPC € 99,000 € 68,990 € 41,997.50 € 209,987.50 € 209,987.50 7 %

8.ICPF € 108,700 € 11,300 € 30,000 € 150,000 € 150,000 5 %

9.GFZ € 158,540 € 41,100 € 49,910 € 249,550 € 249,550 8 %

10.Geomecon € 101,767 € 18,228 € 29,998.75 € 149,993.75 € 149,993.75 5 %

11.Halliburton € 245,000 € 75,000 € 80,000 € 400,000 € 0 13%

TOTAL €2,114,506.40 € 611,929 € 672,766.35 €3,399,201.75 €2,999,201.25 100 %

Please note

The “Maximum EU contribution” is the maximum amount of funding the consortium can request, even if the actual costs incurred and reported are higher

Halliburton is not requesting any EU funding, their costs and total budget % are in the budget for reference

There is no “Subcontracting” or “Direct Costs of Financial Support” (i.e. third parties) budget. However, €35,370 of UCL’s “Other Direct costs” budget is earmarked for the organisation of dissemination activities by the Geological Society of London, and thus excluded from indirect costs.

All partners have a 100% reimbursement rate, i.e. all actual costs are fully reimbursed Please refer to Section 3.2.2. on Periodic (official) Reporting for more information on the financial rules underpinning the use of the project’s budget.

1.3. Person-month effort

UCL CSGI ARM. UoM NCSRD UA HIPC ICPF GFZ Geom. Hall. Total

WP 1 10.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 24.80

WP 2 30 3 - - - - - - 9.50 - 6 48.50

WP 3 3 6 - - 36 - - - 24 2.85 - 71.85

WP 4 3 6 34.50 - 44 - - 22.50 - - - 110

WP 5 2 37.50 - - - 3 - - - - 1.50 44

WP 6 10 - - - 9.50 - 3 3 - 16 - 41.50

WP 7 3 - - - - - 36 3 - - - 42

WP 8 3 6 - - - 38.45 - - - - 0.50 47.95

WP 9 12 - - - - - - 2 - 4 - 18

WP 10 10 - - - - 6 - - - - 0.50 16.50

WP 11 10 2 1 - 2 2 0.50 2 - - - 19.50

WP 12 4 4 2 1.38 12 6 4 2 1 - - 9

Total 100.80 66 39 38.88 69 56.95 45 36 36 24.35 9 520.98


Please note

A “Person-Month”, abbreviated PM, as a measure of effort. One person-month is the amount of work done by one person in one month if they were working full time.

The number of hours that makes a person-month can vary between different organisations. Each partner must calculate their specific productive hours according to the general practice in their organisation.

Person Months are an indicator of the work to be carried out in each Work Package, and not a real “budget”.

1.4. Reporting periods and Reviews In ShaleXenvironment, a reporting period covers 18 months and ends with the submission of a periodic report to the European Commission. There are two 18-months reporting periods in ShaleXenvironment.

Period 1 Months 1 to 18 1st September 2014 – 28th February 2017

Period 2 Months 19 to 36 1st March 2017 – 31st August 2018 In parallel to the drafting and submission of the periodic reports, the European Commission may carry out a formal Review of the project in Brussels at month 19 (February 2017) and at month 36 (August 2018).

1.5. Work Packages We can think of a WP as a “mini project” within the larger ShaleXenvironmenT project. For the project to be completed and successful, all the individual WP will need to reach their objectives.

Number Title Leader Lifetime Associated Deliverables

& Milestones

WP 1 Management UCL

Alberto Striolo M 1 – 36

4 Deliverables 3 Milestones (1,2,3)

WP 2 Shale Core Acquisition and HTHP

Handling Capabilities Halliburton Richard Day

M 1 – 36 3 Deliverables

8 Milestones (4-10,33)

WP 3 Advanced Imaging and

Geomechanical Characterisation UoM

Peter Lee M 1 – 36

5 Deliverables 2 Milestones (11,12)

WP 4 Modelling of Confined Fluids ARMINES

Andrey Kalinichev M 1 – 36


WP 5 Formulation of Hydraulic Fracturing

Fluids CSGI

Pierandrea Lo Nostro M 1 – 36


WP 6 Analytical Models and Software Geomecon

Simon Dinter M 1 – 36

2 Deliverables 4 Milestones (18,19,20,21)

WP 7 Engineered Materials HIPC

Jiri Cejka M 1 – 30


WP 8 Optimization UA

Jose A. Caballero M 1 – 36

1 Deliverable 2 Milestones (25,26)

WP 9 Risk Assessment UCL

Joanna Faure-Walker M 1 – 30


WP 10 Life Cycle Assessment UCL

Paola Lettieri M 15 – 30

2 Deliverables 1 Milestone (29)

WP 11 Suggestions for Policy Formulation UCL

Christine Trenorden M 19 – 36

2 Deliverables 1 Milestone (30)

WP 12 Dissemination NCSR’D’

Ioannis Economou M 1 – 36



WP Objectives Summary WP 1 Management Effective administration, management and governance of the project. Duties covering all aspects of project monitoring, decision making, reporting, financial and contractual administration, ensuring proper communication within the consortium and implementing the project’s decision-making structure. WP 2 Shale Core Acquisition and HTHP Handling Capabilities Providing shale core samples from Europe and North America without loss of fluids for experimental characterization and developing the capabilities of handling and characterizing these core samples, which will contain fluids retained at HPHT conditions. WP 3 Advanced Imaging and Geomechanical Characterisation Providing careful experimental characterisation of the shale rock samples extracted from formations throughout Europe, studying experimental fracture formation and propagation as well as fluid behaviour in core samples. WP 4 Modelling of Confined Fluids Obtain understanding of the properties of fluids in narrow pores found within shale formations and to develop atomistic/molecular scale models capable to predict fluid behaviour up to a meso-pore and macroscopic (bulk) scale. WP 5 Formulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Formulation of hydraulic fracturing fluids specific for the shale formations found in Europe; as fracturing fluids effective in North American shale formations might not be effective in European ones. WP 6 Analytical Models and Software Establishing a connection between atomistic, molecular-scale calculations and predictions for large-scale transport of fluids within shale rocks, in the presence of natural and/or human-made fractures.

WP 7 Engineered Materials Construction of porous materials with selected characteristic representative of shale rocks. The materials will be based on zeolites, materials with precisely controlled pore sizes, pore shapes, and pore chemistry. WP 8 Optimization Developing optimization models that combine continuous and discrete variables to select the Best Available Technologies for the treatment and management of flow-back and produced water in shale gas production. Alternative destinations will be considered for treated water, incl. recycled, irrigation, waste and potable. WP 9 Risk Assessment Correlating the scientific discoveries accomplished with an assessment of potential risks connected with the exploitation of shale gas in Europe. In addition to the environmental footprint, this WP considers the consequences of wellhead failure, and the potential of induced micro-seismicity due to hydraulic fracturing. WP 10 Life Cycle Assessment Assessment of the environmental footprint of shale gas in Europe. The results will quantify the sustainability of shale gas in Europe, and therefore will provide data for policy formulations. WP 11 Suggestions for Policy Formulation Translating the scientific discoveries achieved during this project into suggestions for the formulation of policies to secure the environmentally conscious deployment of shale gas in Europe. WP 12 Dissemination Disseminating the scientific results obtained by ShaleXenvironmenT to all stakeholders.

Please note

Refer to the DoA – Part A work package descriptions (pp.11-48) for a full, detailed description of each work package and their underlying tasks.


1.6. Schedule of Deliverables & Milestones Please note

Please refer to the Deliverable template on the SharePoint site here and make sure to always use it.

Deliverables and Milestones are different. Deliverables are formal documents, to be submitted at the delivery date indicated in the DoA, whereas Milestones are a goal to reach within the DoA’s given timeframe. As such, Milestones do not require drafting or submitting any document.

Bear in mind while drafting them that all Deliverables in ShaleX have a “Public” dissemination level. This means that all submitted Deliverables will be made fully available/downloadable on the project’s website.

WP No. Title Lead Beneficiary

Nature Dissemin. Level

Estimated Del. Date

YEAR 1 – 1st September 2015 to 31st August 2016

WP2 MS 4 Shale core samples for characterization 1

Halliburton Milestone - 01/12/2015

WP1 D1.1 Project management manual UCL Report Public 01/01/2016

WP12 D12.4 Website launch NCSR"D" Websites, patents filling, etc.

Public 01/01/2016

WP1 MS 1 Interim Progress reports 1 UCL Milestone - 01/03/2016



WP7 MS 22

Samples representative of 5 zeolites with different pore sizes in the range from 0.4 to 0.8 nm with full chemical and textural characterization 1

HIPC Milestone - 01/03/2016

WP1 D1.2 Progress report 1 UCL Report Public 01/09/2016

WP2 D2.2 Reservoir conditions for rock library samples

Halliburton Report Public 01/09/2016



WP4 MS 13 Interim kerogens and clay models ARMINES Milestone - 01/09/2016

WP5 MS 17 Principles for the design of fracturing fluids specific for a shale formation

CSGI Milestone - 01/09/2016

WP6 MS 19 Analytical model to describe fluids diffusion in heterogeneous pore networks 1

Geomecon Milestone - 01/09/2016

WP7 MS 23

Samples representative of 5 zeolites with different pore sizes in the range from 0.4 to 0.8 nm with full chemical and textural characterization 2


WP8 MS 25 Industrial technologies available and emerging for treating flow-back and produced water

UA Milestone - 01/09/2016

https://sharepoint.adm.ucl.ac.uk/sites/ShaleXenv/Shared%20Documents/Deliverables/ShaleXenvironmenT%20-%20DELIVERABLE%20NUMBER%20-%20TITLE%20(version%20xx%20DATE).doc



WP12 MS 31 YouTube video updates 1 NCSR"D" Milestone - 01/10/2016

WP12 D12.2 Work-In-Progress forums 1 NCSR"D" Websites, patents filling, etc.

Public 01/01/2017

WP12 D12.5 Summer Challenges 1 NCSR"D" Websites, patents filling, etc.

Public 01/03/2017

WP3 D3.1 Full traditional characterisation on shale core samples representative of EU formations

UoM Report Public 01/03/2017

WP4 D4.1 New models for clay and kerogen pores in shales

ARMINES Report Public 01/03/2017

WP4 D4.5 Equation of states of fluids needed for process design and risk assessment


WP7 D7.1 Characterization of fluid properties in zeolites

HIPC Report Public 01/03/2017

WP1 MS 2 Interim progress reports 2 UCL Milestone - 01/03/2017



WP2 MS 10 Interim traditional characterisation on shale core samples


WP3 MS 11 Interim experimental tomographic imaging

UoM Milestone - 01/03/2017

WP3 MS 12 Interim experimental fluid behaviour in shales

UoM Milestone - 01/03/2017

WP4 MS 14

Interim diffusion data for aqueous systems (including NORM and fracturing fluids) in clays and kerogens

ARMINES Milestone - 01/03/2017

WP5 MS 15 Hydraulic fracturing formulations that contain no controlled substances. 1

CSGI Milestone - 01/03/2017

WP6 MS 20 Analytical model to describe fluids diffusion in heterogeneous pore networks 2


WP7 MS 24

Samples representative of 3 hierarchical microporous / mesoporous materials of different pore sizes synthesized by carbon templating method


WP9 MS 27 Blowout impact model UCL Milestone - 01/03/2017

WP9 MS 28 Assessment methodology for evaluating risks and consequences associated with induced seismicity

UCL Milestone - 01/03/2017

WP10 MS 29 Life cycle inventory, flow sheet, and hot spot analysis for shale gas


WP1 D1.3 Progress report 2 UCL Report Public 01/09/2017

WP3 D3.2

Experimental tomographic imaging of pore size, structure, networks and potential flow paths within selected shale core samples



WP3 D3.4

Experimental characterization regarding fracture permeability and healing properties, elastic mechanical data and creep behaviour under high pressure


WP5 D5.1

A report, along with laboratory scale samples, on hydraulic fracturing formulations effective at high salt content, along with laboratory scale samples of the best formulation prepared in the presence of large amounts of salt

CSGI Demonstrator Public 01/09/2017



WP2 MS 9 First ever utilization of high pressure samples for scientific research 1


WP6 MS 18

Multi-scale (nm to cm) geomechanical model to describe the textural/ geometrical heterogeneity of shale rock samples


WP11 MS 30 Effectiveness of existing regulatory measures


WP9 MS 26 Technologies, models, and optimization for desalination of flow-back and production water

UA Milestone - 01/09/2017



WP12 MS 32 YouTube video updates 2 NCSR"D" Milestone - 01/10/2017

WP10 D10.1

Comparative environmental footprint of shale gas vs. traditional energy sources and alternative low-carbon renewables

UCL Report Public 01/11/2017

WP12 D12.3 Work-In-Progress forums 2 NCSR"D" Websites, patents filling, etc.

Public 01/11/2017

WP12 D12.7 DCO and Doha international conferences 1

NCSR"D" Websites, patents filling, etc.

Public 01/11/2017

WP10 D10.2 Sensitivity analysis of the LCA of the environmental footprint of shale gas in Europe


WP11 D11.1

Regulatory framework on environmental impacts and community acceptance of shale gas


WP12 D12.1 Journal reviews NCSR"D" Websites, patents filling, etc.

Public 01/03/2018

WP12 D12.6 Summer Challenges 2 NCSR"D" Websites, patents filling, etc.

Public 01/03/2018

WP2 D2.1 Report on PTx properties of shale rock samples


WP3 D3.3

Fluid behaviour for water, methane, other hydrocarbons, fracturing fluids and their chemicals confined in the narrow pores found in shale rocks


WP4 D4.2

Preferential distribution of water, methane, simple salts, hydrocarbons within clay and kerogen pores of various sizes typically found in shale rocks


WP4 D4.3

Diffusion coefficients of various fluid mixtures and their individual components in heterogeneous narrow pores typical of shale rocks


WP7 D7.2

Full experimental materials characterisation and fluid transport data within the engineered materials with dual porosity

HIPC Report Public 01/03/2018

WP9 D9.1

Application of well blowout model to an existing well to generate fire and explosion risk contours


WP9 D9.2

Likelihood of induced seismic / micro seismic activity in shale formations throughout Europe, including a risk assessment



WP1 MS 3 Interim progress reports 3 Milestone - 01/03/2018

WP5 MS 16 Hydraulic fracturing formulations that contain no controlled substances. 2

Milestone - 01/03/2018

WP6 MS 21

Analytical model and/or software to describe natural and human-made fractures in shale formations


WP2 MS 33 Shale core samples for characterisation 6


WP12 D12.8 DCO and Doha international conferences 2

NCSR"D" Websites, patents filling, etc.

Public 01/07/2018

WP1 D1.4 Final report UCL Report Public 01/09/2018

WP11 D11.2 Policy recommendations for the effective governance of shale gas operations in Europe


WP12 D12.10 Material for academic course NCSR"D" Websites, patents filling, etc.

Public 01/09/2018

WP12 D12.9 Rock library NCSR"D" Websites, patents filling, etc.

Public 01/09/2018

WP2 D2.3 Reservoir conditions for European samples


WP3 D3.5

Relations between tomographic and geomechanical observations, implications for reservoir conditions and sweet spot identification


WP4 D4.4

Potential of migration of NORM and compounds used in hydraulic fracturing fluids through a shale formation


WP5 D5.2

A report, along with laboratory scale samples, on the additives to be used in hydraulic fracturing formulations to reduce the amount of NORM extracted in flow-back and produced water.

CSGI Demonstrator Public 01/09/2018

WP6 D6.1

Analytical models and software for describing convective and forced fluid transport within fractured shale formations

Geomecon Report Public 01/09/2018

WP6 D6.2

Analytical model and software to describe the transport of hydrocarbons/water/contaminants through shale rock formations, including convective and forced transport and diffusive behaviour

Geomecon Report Public 01/09/2018

WP8 D8.1

Multi-period and logistic optimization-based approaches for wastewater management in shale gas operations

UA Report Public 01/09/2018


1.7. Summary of Project lifecycle

Project Stage Key Management Tools Timeline

Pre-Project Grant Agreement Preparation and Signature Feb. – Apr. 2015

Kick Off Meeting May 2015

Project Initiation Distribution of Grant Agreement and its Annexes Sep. 2015

Distribution of Pre-financing Oct. 2015

First Project Meeting (London) Nov. 2015

Project Management Manual Nov. 2015

Delivery Stage Maintain communication with the EC/the consortium At all times

Deliverables submission At all times

(Period 1) Internal Report at M6 Mar. 2016

Second Project Meeting (Prague) Jun. 2016

Internal Report at M12 Sep. 2016

First Periodic Report at M18 Mar. – Apr. 2017

(Period 2) Project Review at M19 (TBC) Mar. 2017

Distribution of Interim payment at M22 Jun. 2017

Third Project Meeting (Florence) Jun. 2017

Internal Report at M24 Sep. 2017

Internal Report at M30 Mar. 2018

Fourth and last Project Meeting (Alicante) Jun. 2018

Final Delivery Stage Final Periodic Report at M36 Sep. – Oct. 2018

Project Close Distribution of final payment at M40 Dec. 2018


2. Project Management Organisation

2.1. Consortium bodies

2.1.1. Council of Partners (CoP)

Description

This is the main decision-making body in the consortium. It gathers a representative (and substitute) from each partner and takes all main strategic decisions with regards to the project. It meets once a year physically, and if needed more often via teleconference.

Composition

Partner CoP Representative Email CoP Substitute Email

1. UCL Alberto Striolo* Chair [email protected] Adrian Jones [email protected]

2. CSGI Pierandrea Lo Nostro [email protected] Moira Ambrosi [email protected]

3. ARMINES

Andrey Kalinichev

[email protected]

.fr

4. UoM

Peter Lee

[email protected]

c.uk

Kevin Taylor

[email protected]

5. NCSR’D’ Ioannis Economou [email protected]

kritos.gr Loukas Peristeras

[email protected]

6. UA Jose Antonio

Caballero

[email protected] Juan Antonio

Reyes-Labarta

[email protected]

7. HIPC Jirij Cejka [email protected]

8. ICPF Martin Lisal [email protected]

9. GFZ Hiroko Sone [email protected] Erik Rybacki [email protected]

10. Geomecon

Simon Dinter

simon.dinter@geomeco

n.de

Tobias Backers

[email protected]

11. Halliburton

Richard Day

richard.day@halliburton.

com

Don Westacott

donald.westacott@halliburton.

com



























Mandate

Content, finances and intellectual property rights

Proposals for changes to Annexes 1 and 2 of the Grant Agreement to be agreed by the Funding Authority

Changes to the distribution plan

Modifications to the Consortium Agreement attachments (Background Included, List of Third Parties for simplified transfer according to Section, Identified Affiliated Entities)

Evolution of the consortium

Entry/Withdrawal of a new Party to the consortium and approval of the settlement on the conditions of the accession/withdrawal of such a new Party

Identification of a breach by a Party of its obligations under this Consortium Agreement or the Grant Agreement

Declaration of a Party to be a Defaulting Party, Remedies to be performed by a Defaulting Party, Termination of a Defaulting Party’s participation in the consortium and measures relating thereto

Proposal to the Funding Authority for a change of the Coordinator

Proposal to the Funding Authority for suspension of all or part of the Project

Proposal to the Funding Authority for termination of the Project and the Consortium Agreement

Meetings procedure

Frequency. There is one ordinary CoP meeting a year: June 2016 (Liblice), June 2017 (Florence), June 2018 (Alicante).

An extraordinary CoP meeting can be convened at any time upon request of the WPL Board, or 1/3 of the CoP.

Notice. Notice of a CoP meeting should be given at least 45 calendar days in advance for an ordinary CoP meeting, and

15 calendar days in advance for an extraordinary CoP meeting.

Agenda. The Chairperson shall send the agenda of the meetings no later than 21 calendar days for an ordinary CoP

meeting and 10 days for an extraordinary CoP meeting.

Minutes. Decisions will only be binding once the relevant part of the Minutes has been accepted. The Chairperson

shall produce written minutes of each meeting and send a draft within 10 business days of the meeting. The minutes

shall be considered as accepted if, within 15 calendar days of sending, no Member has sent an objection.

Voting. The CoP shall not deliberate and decide unless 2/3 of its members are represented. Decisions are taken by a

majority of two-thirds of the votes cast.

Veto. A Member which can show that its own work, time for performance, costs, liabilities, intellectual property rights

or other legitimate interests would be severely affected by a decision of the CoP may exercise a veto with respect to

the corresponding decision or relevant part of the decision. In case of exercise of veto, the Members of the CoP shall

make every effort to resolve the matter that occasioned the veto to the general satisfaction of all its Members.

Please note

Any decision may be taken without a CoP meeting if the Coordinator circulates a document to all CoP members that is agreed by a majority of 2/3.

The CoP is free to formulate proposals on its own initiative, and it shall also consider and decide upon any proposal made by the WPL Board.


2.1.2. Work Package Leaders Board (WPL Board)

Description

The WPLs are in charge of the day-to-day running of the project. They meet virtually every month to review the project’s progress, share results, identify challenges and ensure inter-WP communication; and they meet physically at the CoP annual meetings.

Composition

WP WP Title WP Leader Email

WP 1 Management UCL Alberto Striolo* Chair

[email protected]

WP 2 Shale Core Acquisition and HTHP Handling

Capabilities

Halliburton Richard Day

[email protected]

WP 3 Advanced Imaging and Geomechanical

Characterisation

UoM Peter Lee

[email protected]

WP 4 Modelling of Confined Fluids ARMINES Andrey Kalinichev

[email protected]

WP 5 Formulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids CSGI Pierandrea Lo Nostro

[email protected]

WP 6 Analytical Models and Software Geomecon Simon Dinter

[email protected]

WP 7 Engineered Materials HIPC Jiri Cejka

[email protected]

WP 8 Optimization UA Jose A. Caballero

[email protected]

WP 9 Risk Assessment UCL Joanna Faure-Walker

[email protected]

WP 10 Life Cycle Assessment UCL Paola Lettieri

[email protected]

WP 11 Suggestions for Policy Formulation UCL Christine Trenorden

[email protected]

WP 12 Dissemination NCSR’D’ Ioannis Economou

[email protected]

Mandate

Monitoring the project implementation and execution

Review of the work progress against the DoA and evaluation of the results

Identification of risks, challenges, obstacles and formulation of mitigation measures

Cross-WP communication

Meetings procedure

Frequency. There is at least one ordinary WPL Board meeting every six months. By default, one WPL Board meeting is

scheduled every month on the 2nd Monday of the month. An extraordinary WPL Board meeting can be convened at

any time upon request of any member of the WPL Board. The WPL Board meets virtually by teleconference, unless

when it can meet physically at the CoP annual meetings.














Notice. Notice of a WPL Board meeting should be given at least 15 calendar days in advance for an ordinary WPL Board

meeting, and 7 calendar days in advance for an extraordinary WPL Board meeting.

Agenda. The Chairperson shall send the agenda of the meetings no later than 21 calendar days for an ordinary WPL

Board meeting and 10 days for an extraordinary WPL Board meeting.

Minutes. Decisions will only be binding once the relevant part of the Minutes has been accepted. The Chairperson

shall produce written minutes of each meeting and send a draft within 10 business days of the meeting. The minutes

shall be considered as accepted if, within 15 calendar days of sending, no Member has sent an objection. Once

finalised, the minutes shall be sent to the CoP for information.

Voting. The WPL Board shall not deliberate and decide unless 2/3 of its members are represented. Decisions are taken

by a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast.

Veto. A Member which can show that its own work, time for performance, costs, liabilities, intellectual property rights

or other legitimate interests would be severely affected by a decision of the WPL Board may exercise a veto with

respect to the corresponding decision or relevant part of the decision. In case of veto, the Members of the WPL Board

shall make every effort to resolve the matter that occasioned the veto to the general satisfaction of all its Members.

2.2. External bodies

2.2.1. External Advisory Board (EAB)

Description and mandate

Appointed and steered by the CoP, the EAB will advise the CoP on the relevance of the various research activities.

The EAB will review the progress of all activities on an annual basis (in parallel to the CoP annual meetings), ensuring that the project is addressing variations within the field of shale gas in national, European and International landscapes, and that it remains independent from commercial and external influences.

Its members are leaders from academia, institutions devoted to public safety, and from bodies that represent industrial associations; and they have no direct benefit from the research conducted within ShaleXenvironmenT.

Composition (to be confirmed in early 2016)

Name Email Organisation

David Cole [email protected] Ohio State University (USA)

John Shaw [email protected] University of Alberta (Canada)

Kate Ronayne* Chair [email protected] Science and Technology Facilities Council (UK)

Paul Chernik [email protected] ERC Equipoise Limited (UK)

Craig Schiffries [email protected] Deep Carbon Observatory (USA)

Paul Ashby [email protected] Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (USA)

Regis Farret [email protected] National Centre for Industry Safety & Envir. Protection (France)

Carl Sondergeld [email protected] University of Oklahoma (USA)

Gary Edwards

gary.edwards@environment-

agency.gov.uk

Environment Agency (UK)

Meetings procedure

The EAB sets its own meetings procedures. The minutes of the EAB meetings are recommendations to the CoP.












2.2.2. Industry Practitioners Board (IPB)

Description and mandate

The IPB is composed of representatives from ShaleX industrial partners and collaborators.

The role of the IPB is to advise ShaleXenvironmenT on how to maintain the fundamental research conducted within the consortium within the realm of practical interest.

The IPB also has the scope of strengthening the relationships between the consortium and industry, and to ensure that the fundamental discoveries have a direct positive impact in the way shale gas is produced, especially with regards to limiting its environmental impact.

Composition (to be confirmed in early 2016)

Name Email Organisation

Richard Day* Chair [email protected] Halliburton (UK)

Jonathan Craig [email protected] ENI (Italy) and University College London (UK)

Michael Chendorain [email protected] ARUP (USA)

Geraint Lloyd P. Geo [email protected] GDF SUEZ (UK)

TBC TBC Lamberti (IT)

Meetings procedure

The IPB sets its own meetings procedures. The minutes of the IPB meetings are recommendations to the CoP.






3. Project Management Procedures

3.1. Communication

3.1.1. Internal Communication

Email

The preferred channel for communication between consortium members is through email.

Email ‘etiquette’ implies to: a) indicate [ShaleX] or [SXT] in the object of every email b) stick to one topic per email

Conference Calls

For WP Leaders, the monthly Conference Call is the main channel of communication (updates and discussion)3.

SharePoint website

The SharePoint website is a secure online repository hosted on UCL servers. It shall be the preferred way to share large amount of data and documents with the rest of the consortium. It should be updated at all times and the folders’ structure respected as much as possible. All official documentation on the project can be found there.

The SharePoint can be accessed here.

Access is granted individually (individual log on and password), and needs to be requested to UCL.

Screenshot of the ShaleXenvironmenT SharePoint’s folders structure

3 For more information on the WP Leaders Conference calls, please refer to Section 2.1.2 (Meeting Procedure, Frequency).

https://sharepoint.adm.ucl.ac.uk/sites/ShaleXenv/default.aspx


3.1.2. External Communication

3.1.2.1. EU disclaimer

Unless the Agency requests or agrees otherwise, or unless it is impossible, any dissemination of results (in any form, including electronic) must:

Display the EU emblem

Include the following text: “This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 640979”.

Please note

When displayed together with another logo, the EU emblem must have appropriate prominence.

Any dissemination of results must indicate that it reflects only the author's view and that the Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

3.1.2.2. Dissemination & Publication rules

Approval process Rules

If you are publishing or presenting something in the framework of ShaleXenvironmenT, you must inform the other partners at least 45 days before the publication.

Any objection to the planned publication shall be made in accordance with the Grant Agreement in writing to the Project Manager and to any Party or Parties proposing the dissemination within 30 days after receipt of the notice.

If no objection is made within the time limit stated above, the publication is permitted.

Objection

An objecting partner can request a publication delay of not more than 90 days from the time it raises such an objection. After 90 days the publication is permitted.

An objection is justified if: a) the protection of the objecting Party's Results or Background would be adversely affected b) the objecting Party's legitimate academic or commercial interests in relation to the Results or Background

would be significantly harmed.

The objection has to include a precise request for necessary modifications. Parties shall discuss how to overcome the justified grounds for the objection on a timely basis and the objecting Party shall not unreasonably continue the opposition if appropriate measures are taken following the discussion.

Please note

Please bear confidentiality obligations in mind, and do not publish any information or work that may be the property of another Partner without their prior written approval (unless the information is already published).


Best Practices

If a publication/activity needs urgent approval, one can ask all partners to come back in less than 40 days, which means that if there are no objections and everyone gave the green-light, there is no need to wait for 40 days

As much as possible, everyone should try and warn in advance of the need for a document/activity to be reviewed (e.g. by sending out a draft well-in-advance), which will reduce the risk of objections when the document is final and will increase response-time

It is recommended to let the partners know the publication type, conference name, web address, etc., when asking for permission to publish

Only the Council of Partners’ representative (or substitute)’s approval is needed – see list in Section 2.1.1.

Record keeping

All partners must keep track of all their publications and dissemination activities related to ShaleXenvironmenT.

These publications and activities shall be reported to the Project Manager at UCL via the Internal Reports (see Section 3.2.1.) and uploaded in the relevant folder in the SharePoint.

The Project Manager at UCL will maintain the overall list of publications and dissemination activities and ensure that this list is up-to-date on the ShaleXenvironmenT’s website.

Open Access All partners must ensure open access to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results. Open access means making publications freely available online for any user.

There are two main routes towards open access to peer-reviewed scientific publications:

1. Self-archiving (also referred to as ‘green’ open access): it means that the published article is archived (deposited) by the author – or a representative – in an online repository before, alongside or after its publication. The article becomes freely available after an ‘embargo period’ of 6 or 12 months).

2. Open access publishing (also referred to as ‘gold’ open access): it means that an article is immediately provided in open access mode as by the publisher. In this model, the payment of publication costs is shifted away from readers, and instead charged to (for example) to the university or research institute to which the researcher is affiliated, or to the funding agency supporting the research.

Please note

‘Gold’ open access fees are an eligible cost that you can charge on the ShaleXenvironmenT grant. Furthermore, if the Publication involves one author from UCL, UCL can help to cover ‘gold’ open access fees.

The steps are as follows:

a) To deposit, as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, an electronic copy of the published version or peer-review publication (even those published after the Final Report) in an institutional or subject-based repository together with the research data needed to validate the results presented in the publications;

b) To ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest: i. on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher (gold open access), or

ii. within 6 months of publication (green open access)


In addition, each partner must ensure open access – via a repository – to the bibliographic metadata that identify the deposited publication. The bibliographic metadata must be in standard format and must include all the following:

The terms ‘European Union (EU) and ‘Horizon2020’

The name of the Action, acronym and grant number

The publication date, and length of embargo period if applicable

A persistent identifier

3.1.2.3. Website

The project’s website is available at this address: www.shalexenvironment.org

All partners shall send to the Project Manager at UCL any news, dissemination activity or information that would enable to keep as much up-to-date as possible.

All partners must ensure that the project’s website is adequately linked on their own organisations’ pages and through any dissemination channel their research group is a part of.

3.1.2.4. Logos

The ShaleXenvironmenT logo is available on the SharePoint here.

The logo has been designed in several sizes and formats: it exists in “small” and “large”, and both with a white background (.jpg files) or a transparent one (.png files).

In addition to the project logo, a picture including all consortium partners’ logos is available.

http://shalexenvironment.org/

https://sharepoint.adm.ucl.ac.uk/sites/ShaleXenv/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2fShaleXenv%2fShared%20Documents%2fSXT%20Official%20Logos&FolderCTID=&View=%7b33FA85AB%2d620E%2d4668%2d8B91%2d2F0B3519DA0E%7d


3.2. Reporting

3.2.1. Internal Reporting Work Package Leaders Board Reporting

Template. Before every WPL Board meeting (teleconference), each WP shall send to the Project Manager at UCL their WP PowerPoint presentation template filled out. Find the presentation template on the SharePoint here.

Content of the template (6 slides) Work Package objectives and deadlines Progress to date Challenges Needs from the Consortium Results (and expected publications/dissemination activities)

Screenshot of one of the WPL Board meetings Presentation Template

Process. The Project Manager will collect all WP presentations individually by email and send them back to the WPL Board at once, ahead of the meeting.

Objectives. Beyond serving as a basis for discussion at the meetings, the presentations will serve as a monthly, brief report for each work package. The Project Manager will use the presentations’ information to pre-fill the bi-annual internal report that partners will be asked to fill out (see next section).

Bi-annual Internal Reporting

Template. Every 6 months, the Project Manager at UCL will ask all partners to draft an Internal Report (financial and scientific) on the basis of a template provided by email. The template will be made available before each Internal Report is due, as it may be subject to small changes from one internal reporting period to the other.

Content of the template Summary of progress and main achievements WP progress against the DoA (for partners leading a WP) Foreseen/unforeseen risks and mitigation measures Gender balance assessment Future priorities Publications and Dissemination Activities Use of financial resources: Personnel involved and corresponding Person Months + Major costs breakdown

https://sharepoint.adm.ucl.ac.uk/sites/ShaleXenv/Shared%20Documents/Meetings%20Minutes%20and%20Presentations/00%20-%20Work%20Package%20Leaders%20Board%20Teleconferences/Meeting%20I%20(2015-12-14)/SXT%20-%20WPL%20Board%20Meeting%20I%20-%20Presentation%20template.pptx


Process. All partner contributions will be reviewed by the Project Manager and the Scientific Coordinator at UCL. Once approved, they will be collated into a comprehensive Internal Report. This report will then be made available to the Consortium.

Schedule of internal reporting periods Please note that the periods between Months 18-24 and Months 30-36 will be covered by the official Periodic Reports.

Months 1 to 6 1st September 2015 – 29 February 2016

Months 6 to 12 1st March 2016 – 31st August 2016

Months 12 to 18 1st September 2016 – 28th February 2017 (Periodic Reporting)

Months 18 to 24 1st March 2017 – 31st August 2017

Month 24 to 30 1st September 2017 – 28th February 2018

Month 30 to 36 1st March 2018 – 31st August 2018 (Periodic Reporting)

3.2.2. Periodic (official) Reporting

3.2.2.1. Overview of the Periodic Reporting Process

Schedule

An official reporting period covers 18 months and ends with the submission of a periodic report to the European Commission. There are two 18-months reporting periods in ShaleXenvironment.

Period 1 Months 1 to 18 1st September 2014 – 28th February 2017

Period 2 Months 19 to 36 1st March 2017 – 31st August 2018

The different components of the periodic reports need to be submitted at once (single submission system), and within 60 days of the end of the reporting period.

Process

The Project Manager and Scientific Coordinator at UCL will be responsible for submitting the periodic report to the European Commission.

They will circulate a template to all partners to collect the necessary information, in order to compile the Technical Report without further involvement of the entire consortium.

The template will be similar to the one for Internal Reporting described in Section 3.1.1, but will cover the whole 18-month-long reporting period instead of six months. The template will be made available before each Periodic Report is due, as it may be subject to small changes from one periodic reporting period to the other.

Content

A Periodic report is composed of two main reports:

The Technical report (see Section 3.2.2.2.) The Financial report (see Section 3.2.2.3.)

In addition to the two reports mentioned above, the second (and last) periodic report comprises

A Final report (see Section 3.2.2.4.)


After Period 1

After Period 2

3.2.2.2. The Technical Report

The Technical Report contains:

An explanation of the work carried out by the beneficiaries

An overview of the progress towards the objectives of the Action, including milestones and deliverables identified in the DoA

This core part of the report will include explanations justifying the deviations between the work expected to be carried out in accordance with the DoA and that actually carried out. The report must also detail the exploitation and dissemination of the results and – if required in Annex 1 – an updated ‘plan for the exploitation and dissemination of the results’

A summary of the project and its results to-date, for publication by the European Commission

The answers to the ‘questionnaire’, covering issues related to the Action implementation and the economic and societal impact, notably in the context of the Horizon 2020 key performance indicators and the Horizon 2020 monitoring requirements (e.g. gender balance)

3.2.2.3. The Financial Report

Process

The Financial Report is distinct from the Technical Report insofar as each partner will need to complete individual financial statements online.

The Project Manager at UCL will send documentation prior to the end of the reporting period, including a ‘Guide to Financial Reporting’ and instructions for partners to fill out and electronically sign their financial statement online.


Basic Financial Rules

Personnel Costs

All personnel whose time is claimed on the grant should be recording the time they spend working on ShaleX in a time recording system (e.g. timesheet, see the Template given as a model by the European Commission).

The following information will need to be added to each staff member’s cost claim: a brief description of the tasks they carried out, the work package(s) and the amount of Person Months associated with these tasks.

A beneficiary can only claim time from staff that is effectively employed by their organisation.

For further information on Personnel Costs, refer to the Grant Agreement Article 6.2 A. (pp.15-19).

Other Direct Costs

Travel costs and related subsistence allowance are eligible if they are in line with a beneficiary’s usual practices on travel.

Furthermore, only trips that are directly linked with ShaleXenvironmenT are eligible (e.g. annual projects meetings, WP meeting, conference in which ShaleXenvironmenT and/or its results are presented, etc.).

Equipment, goods, services, and consumable costs are eligible only if they are purchased and used specifically for ShaleXenvironmenT. E.g. Computers, Tablets, etc. are typically rejected because they are not exclusively used for the project, and therefore considered as being covered by the ‘Indirect Costs’.

Only the depreciation cost of equipment is eligible (not the full purchasing price).

All ‘Other Direct Costs’ will need to be broken down when reported online

For further information on Other Direct Costs, refer to the Grant Agreement Article 6.2 D. (pp.19-20).

Please note

Apart from UCL, no partners have forecast any budget in ‘Subcontracting’ or ‘Third Party’. If any task need to be performed – and thus charged to – an organisation legally distinct from a beneficiary’s; this will need to be approved by the European Commission and accommodated for in the Grant Agreement. Without the latter, the costs incurred by this third party will not be eligible.

3.2.2.4. The Final Report

In addition to the Periodic Report for the second (and last reporting period), UCL will have to submit a Final Report.

The Final Report includes:

A ‘Final Technical Report’ with a summary for publication containing an overview of the results and their exploitation and dissemination, the conclusions of the Action and the socio-economic impact of the Action

A ‘Final Financial Report’ containing:

1. A ‘final summary financial statement’, created automatically online, consolidating the individual financial statements for all reporting periods and including the request for payment of the balance

2. A ‘certificate on the financial statements’ for each beneficiary, if it requests a direct costs contribution of €325,000.00 or more. According to the estimated budget, only UCL should have to submit a certificate.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/legal/templ/tmpl_time-records_en.pdf




3.2.2.5. Distribution of Payments

Funding Distribution Rules Reimbursement of Actual Costs

The budget allocated to Beneficiaries is estimated, i.e. the funding beneficiaries eventually receive at the end of the project depends on the actual costs they have incurred and reported.

Maximum grant amount

The beneficiaries’ estimated budget is called “maximum grant amount”, i.e. even if a beneficiaries’ costs are higher than its budget, the beneficiary will receive up to its maximum EU contribution amount.

Guarantee Fund

Five per cent (5%) of the total EU contribution funding is transferred at the start of the project into the ‘Guarantee Fund’. The European Commission releases it at the end of the project, but it is considered during the entire project as funding that was technically transferred to the consortium.

Funding cap

Beneficiaries may not be transferred more than 90% of their total EU contribution – 85% taking into account the Guarantee Fund – until the end of the project.

Distribution Process

Pre-financing Month 1 – September 2015 At the start of the project, all beneficiaries received an advance payment, corresponding to 45% of their budget4.

Interim Payment Month 22 – June 2017 After the Periodic Report (including all beneficiaries’ individual financial statements) has been accepted, beneficiaries will receive a reimbursement payment corresponding to the amount of costs they have incurred throughout Period 1.

The payment is capped to 85% of a beneficiary’s budget, even if they have incurred more costs.

Final Payment Month 40 – December 2018 After the Periodic and Final Reports (including all beneficiaries’ individual financial statements) have been accepted, beneficiaries will receive a reimbursement payment corresponding to the amount of costs they have incurred throughout Period 2.

The Guarantee Fund is released, so the payment is capped to 100% of a beneficiary’s budget, even if they have incurred more costs.

4 In reality, the Prefinancing corresponds to 50% of the project’s budget, but 5% are kept in the Guarantee Fund.


Useful Links

ShaleX SharePoint https://sharepoint.adm.ucl.ac.uk/sites/ShaleXenv/default.aspx

ShaleX Grant Agreement (through the SharePoint) https://sharepoint.adm.ucl.ac.uk/sites/ShaleXenv/Shared%20Documents/Official%20(EC)%20and%20Consortium%20Documents/2015_05_05%20ShaleXenvironmenT%20(640979)%20Grant%20Agreement_FULL_all%20signatures.pdf

ShaleX Website http://shalexenvironment.org/

Participant Portal (European Commission) https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/

https://sharepoint.adm.ucl.ac.uk/sites/ShaleXenv/default.aspx



http://shalexenvironment.org/

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/

Grant agreement No. 640979 ShaleXenvironmenT · 2016. 1. 7. · Grant agreement No. 640979...

Documents

Transcript of Grant agreement No. 640979 ShaleXenvironmenT · 2016. 1. 7. · Grant agreement No. 640979...