grant agreement no. 640979 shalexenvironment · 2016. 1. 7. · grant agreement no. 640979...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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.
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 3 of 29
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
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 4 of 29
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 5 of 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]
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 6 of 29
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
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 7 of 29
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
5 Deliverables 2 Milestones (13,14)
WP 5 Formulation of Hydraulic Fracturing
Fluids CSGI
Pierandrea Lo Nostro M 1 – 36
2 Deliverables 3 Milestones (15,16,17)
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
2 Deliverables 3 Milestones (22,23,24)
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
2 Deliverables 2 Milestones (27,28)
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
10 Deliverables 2 Milestones (31,32)
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 8 of 29
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.
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 9 of 29
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
WP2 MS 5 Shale core samples for characterization 2
Halliburton 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
WP2 MS 6 Shale core samples for characterization 3
Halliburton Milestone - 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
HIPC Milestone - 01/09/2016
WP8 MS 25 Industrial technologies available and emerging for treating flow-back and produced water
UA Milestone - 01/09/2016
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 10 of 29
YEAR 2 – 1st September 2016 to 31st August 2017
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
ARMINES Report Public 01/03/2017
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 8 Shale core samples for characterization 5
Halliburton Milestone - 01/03/2017
WP2 MS 10 Interim traditional characterisation on shale core samples
Halliburton Milestone - 01/03/2017
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
Geomecon Milestone - 01/03/2017
WP7 MS 24
Samples representative of 3 hierarchical microporous / mesoporous materials of different pore sizes synthesized by carbon templating method
HIPC Milestone - 01/03/2017
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
UCL Milestone - 01/05/2017
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
UoM Report Public 01/09/2017
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 11 of 29
WP3 D3.4
Experimental characterization regarding fracture permeability and healing properties, elastic mechanical data and creep behaviour under high pressure
UoM Report Public 01/09/2017
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 7 Shale core samples for characterization 4
Halliburton Milestone - 01/09/2017
WP2 MS 9 First ever utilization of high pressure samples for scientific research 1
Halliburton Milestone - 01/09/2017
WP6 MS 18
Multi-scale (nm to cm) geomechanical model to describe the textural/ geometrical heterogeneity of shale rock samples
Geomecon Milestone - 01/09/2017
WP11 MS 30 Effectiveness of existing regulatory measures
UCL Milestone - 01/09/2017
WP9 MS 26 Technologies, models, and optimization for desalination of flow-back and production water
UA Milestone - 01/09/2017
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 12 of 29
YEAR 3 – 1st September 2017 to 31st August 2018
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
UCL Report Public 01/03/2018
WP11 D11.1
Regulatory framework on environmental impacts and community acceptance of shale gas
UCL Report Public 01/03/2018
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
Halliburton Report Public 01/03/2018
WP3 D3.3
Fluid behaviour for water, methane, other hydrocarbons, fracturing fluids and their chemicals confined in the narrow pores found in shale rocks
UoM Report Public 01/03/2018
WP4 D4.2
Preferential distribution of water, methane, simple salts, hydrocarbons within clay and kerogen pores of various sizes typically found in shale rocks
ARMINES Report Public 01/03/2018
WP4 D4.3
Diffusion coefficients of various fluid mixtures and their individual components in heterogeneous narrow pores typical of shale rocks
ARMINES Report Public 01/03/2018
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
UCL Report Public 01/03/2018
WP9 D9.2
Likelihood of induced seismic / micro seismic activity in shale formations throughout Europe, including a risk assessment
UCL Report Public 01/03/2018
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 13 of 29
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
Milestone - 01/03/2018
WP2 MS 33 Shale core samples for characterisation 6
Milestone - 01/03/2018
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
UCL Report Public 01/09/2018
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
Halliburton Report Public 01/09/2018
WP3 D3.5
Relations between tomographic and geomechanical observations, implications for reservoir conditions and sweet spot identification
UoM Report Public 01/09/2018
WP4 D4.4
Potential of migration of NORM and compounds used in hydraulic fracturing fluids through a shale formation
ARMINES Report Public 01/09/2018
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
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 14 of 29
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
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 15 of 29
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
.fr
4. UoM
Peter Lee
c.uk
Kevin Taylor
5. NCSR’D’ Ioannis Economou [email protected]
kritos.gr Loukas Peristeras
6. UA Jose Antonio
Caballero
[email protected] Juan Antonio
Reyes-Labarta
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
11. Halliburton
Richard Day
richard.day@halliburton.
com
Don Westacott
donald.westacott@halliburton.
com
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 16 of 29
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.
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 17 of 29
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
WP 2 Shale Core Acquisition and HTHP Handling
Capabilities
Halliburton Richard Day
WP 3 Advanced Imaging and Geomechanical
Characterisation
UoM Peter Lee
WP 4 Modelling of Confined Fluids ARMINES Andrey Kalinichev
WP 5 Formulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids CSGI Pierandrea Lo Nostro
WP 6 Analytical Models and Software Geomecon Simon Dinter
WP 7 Engineered Materials HIPC Jiri Cejka
WP 8 Optimization UA Jose A. Caballero
WP 9 Risk Assessment UCL Joanna Faure-Walker
WP 10 Life Cycle Assessment UCL Paola Lettieri
WP 11 Suggestions for Policy Formulation UCL Christine Trenorden
WP 12 Dissemination NCSR’D’ Ioannis Economou
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.
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 18 of 29
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.
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 19 of 29
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.
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 20 of 29
3. Project Management Procedures
3.1. Communication
3.1.1. Internal Communication
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).
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 21 of 29
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).
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 22 of 29
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)
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 23 of 29
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.
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 24 of 29
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
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 25 of 29
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.)
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 26 of 29
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.
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 27 of 29
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.
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 28 of 29
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.
Project Management Manual – Version 1.7 – 4th January 2016 29 of 29
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/