Analysis of electron-ion mixing in ion engines Final report, 30 Apr. 1964 - 30 Jun. 1965

Computer program for analysis of electron-ion mixing in ion engin

Implementing a novel self-care clock strategy as part of a trauma awareness intervention in a university setting

Purpose: This study compared post- and preintervention trauma-informed care attitudes, explored relationships among outcomes, and identified self-care behavior changes participants are willing to make. Design and Methods: A quasi-experimental study with content analysis was conducted with 96 adults that took part in a Trauma Awareness Intervention including a novel self-care clock. Conclusions: Participants\u27 trauma-informed care attitudes improved (p ≤ 0.05) compared to baseline and were positively related to their post-intervention compassion scores (p \u3c 0.05). Qualitative analyses revealed self-awareness, self-care, empathy, applying a trauma lens, changing the narrative, and student-centeredness as the main themes in participants\u27 responses. Practical Implications: This university-based initiative had a positive impact on attitudes toward trauma and should be explored in other settings, as there is an unmet need for trauma-informed care strategies at the community level

Provisions on Liability for Decommissioning Upstream Offshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure in Investor–State Contracts

Offshore oil and gas operations are inherently hazardous to the environment, posing environmental risks and impacts throughout all stages of the operations: exploration, development, production, and decommissioning. Offshore decommissioning consists of the process of planning, funding, and implementing measures aimed at safely closing, repurposing, or removing the infrastructure and equipment used in the exploration and production of oil and gas in the marine environment, and at mitigating their impacts. It encompasses a series of activities, including the safe plugging and closure of wells, the removal of equipment and pipelines, the repurposing of platforms, the disposal of non-usable materials and potentially polluting products, and the cleaning of surrounding areas. In some cases, it also entails the rehabilitation of the extraction site as close as possible to its prior condition. Decommissioning typically occurs after the oil or gas resource is depleted or its production is economically unviable. The impacts of climate change, the imperative of the energy transition away from fossil fuels, and the adoption of increasingly stringent climate policies are likely to push the oil and gas sector to expedite the decommissioning of many of these operations, highlighting the need for robust regulation of liability for the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure. Countries can use various legal instruments for governing oil and gas operations and their environmental risks and impacts, from statutes to decrees or regulations to investor–state contracts. Domestic statutes, decrees, and regulations are the ideal instruments to govern the environmental liability for decommissioning of offshore oil and gas infrastructure, since they apply across the industry and are, in principle, not subject to negotiation with private entities. Statutory and regulatory frameworks can establish the scope of decommissioning (activities, facilities, territory, timing, trigger, etc.), the minimum content and standard of obligations, and enforcement and funding mechanisms

Decommissioning Liability at the End of Offshore Oil and Gas: A Review of International Obligations, National Laws, and Contractual Approaches in Ten Jurisdictions

Offshore oil and gas infrastructure faces an existential threat: the increasingly pressing need to address the climate emergency. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that GHG emissions from existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure will push global warming past the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C threshold, and more detailed projections estimate that “nearly 60 per cent of oil and fossil methane gas ... must remain unextracted to keep within a 1.5 °C carbon budget.” The growing urgency of climate action, coupled with the increasing adoption of renewable energy systems and energy-efficient technologies, may strand thousands of offshore oil and gas installations across the globe. This creates a risk for the public, because governments often sit as the “decommissioner of last resort. Most countries with significant offshore oil and gas resources have laws, regulations, and contracts that require private offshore oil companies to bear the cost of decommissioning their facilities. However, the legal and economic tools that states use to ensure that oil companies pay decommissioning expenses were often adopted without much, if any, consideration to climate change or the energy transition. As a result, a rapid phase-out of offshore oil and gas could cause a series of defaults and create immense financial burdens for governments of oil- and gas-producing jurisdictions. This paper provides an overview of the statutory, regulatory, and contractual regimes governing offshore oil and gas decommissioning in ten countries, and identifies key financial and environmental risks that might arise in a “rapid phase-out” scenario presented by the energy transition. In doing so, it highlights areas in which these regimes may create risks in a rapid phase-out scenario involving the widespread cessation of offshore oil and gas activities. The first part of this paper provides a high-level overview of the legal and economic structures that govern offshore oil and gas decommissioning, highlights gaps and risks that are presented by a rapid phase-out scenario, and presents recommendations for policymakers, academics, and industry participants to reform decommissioning laws in the face of the climate-driven energy transition. The second part, Appendices 1 through 10, provides overviews of the laws, regulations, and contracts governing decommissioning in ten major oil- and gas-producing jurisdictions: Angola, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Provisions on Liability for Decommissioning Upstream Offshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure in Investor–State Contracts

Decommissioning upstream offshore oil and gas operations involves dismantling infrastructure and equipment and mitigating their environmental impacts when the oil or gas resource becomes depleted or economically unviable. Stricter climate policy and the energy transition away from fossil fuels are likely to accelerate decommissioning processes.  This paper provides an overview of the statutory, regulatory, and contractual regimes governing offshore oil and gas decommissioning in ten countries, and qualitatively identifies key financial and environmental risks that might arise in a “rapid phase-out” scenario presented by the energy transition. In doing so, it highlights areas in which these regimes may create risks in a rapid phase-out scenario involving the widespread cessation of offshore oil and gas activities

Relationships between CYP2D6 phenotype, breast cancer and hot flushes in women at high risk of breast cancer receiving prophylactic tamoxifen: results from the IBIS-I trial

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike Licens

Decommissioning Liability at the End of Offshore Oil and Gas: A Review of International Obligations, National Laws, and Contractual Approaches in Ten Jurisdictions

Offshore oil and gas infrastructure faces an existential threat: the increasing exigency of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that GHG emissions from existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure will push global warming past the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C threshold, and more detailed projections estimate that “nearly 60 percent of oil and fossil methane gas . . . must remain unextracted to keep within a 1.5 °C carbon budget.” The growing urgency of climate action, coupled with the increasing adoption of renewable energy systems and energy-efficient technologies, may strand thousands of offshore oil and gas installations across the globe. This paper provides an overview of the statutory, regulatory, and contractual regimes governing offshore oil and gas decommissioning in ten countries, and qualitatively identifies key financial and environmental risks that might arise in a “rapid phase-out” scenario presented by the energy transition. In doing so, it highlights areas in which these regimes may create risks in a rapid phase-out scenario involving the widespread cessation of offshore oil and gas activities

Alkaline-Silicate REE-HFSE Systems

Development of renewable energy infrastructure requires critical raw materials, such as the rare earth elements (REEs, including scandium) and niobium, and is driving expansion and diversification in their supply chains. Although alternative sources are being explored, the majority of the world’s resources of these elements are found in alkaline-silicate rocks and carbonatites. These magmatic systems also represent major sources of fluorine and phosphorus. Exploration models for critical raw materials are comparatively less well developed than those for major and precious metals, such as iron, copper, and gold, where most of the mineral exploration industry continues to focus. The diversity of lithologic relationships and a complex nomenclature for many alkaline rock types represent further barriers to the exploration and exploitation of REE-high field strength element (HFSE) resources that will facilitate the green revolution. We used a global review of maps, cross sections, and geophysical, geochemical, and petrological observations from alkaline systems to inform our description of the alkaline-silicate REE + HFSE mineral system from continental scale (1,000s km) down to deposit scale (~1 km lateral). Continental-scale targeting criteria include a geodynamic trigger for low-degree mantle melting at high pressure and a mantle source enriched in REEs, volatile elements, and alkalies. At the province and district scales, targeting criteria relate to magmatic-system longevity and the conditions required for extensive fractional crystallization and the residual enrichment of the REEs and HFSEs. A compilation of maps and geophysical data were used to construct an interactive 3-D geologic model (25-km cube) that places mineralization within a depth and horizontal reference frame. It shows typical lithologic relationships surrounding orthomagmatic REE-Nb-Ta-Zr-Hf mineralization in layered agpaitic syenites, roof zone REE-Nb-Ta mineralization, and mineralization of REE-Nb-Zr associated with peralkaline granites and pegmatites. The resulting geologic model is presented together with recommended geophysical and geochemical approaches for exploration targeting, as well as mineral processing and environmental factors pertinent for the development of mineral resources hosted by alkaline-silicate magmatic systems

Prevalence of von Hippel-Lindau gene mutations in sporadic renal cell carcinoma: results from the Netherlands cohort study

BACKGROUND: Biallelic von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) gene defects, a rate-limiting event in the carcinogenesis, occur in approximately 75% of sporadic clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC). We studied the VHL mutation status in a large population-based case group. METHODS: Cases were identified within the Netherlands cohort study on diet and cancer, which includes 120,852 men and women. After 11.3 years of follow-up, 337 incident cases with histologically confirmed epithelial cancers were identified. DNA was isolated from paraffin material collected from 51 pathology laboratories and revised by one pathologist, leaving material from 235 cases. VHL mutational status was assessed by SSCP followed by direct sequencing, after testing SSCP as a screening tool in a subsample. RESULTS: The number of mutations was significantly higher for clear-cell RCC compared to other histological types. We observed 131 mutations in 114 out of 187 patients (61%) with clear-cell RCC. The majority of mutations were truncating mutations (47%). The mean tumor size was 72.7 mm for mutated tumors compared to 65.3 mm for wildtype tumors (p = 0.06). No statistically significant differences were observed for nuclear grade, TNM distribution or stage. In other histological types, we observed 8 mutations in 7 out of 48 patients (15%), 1 mutation in 1 of 6 oncocytoma, 3 mutations in 2 of 7 chromophobe RCC, 2 mutations in 2 of 30 papillary RCC, no mutations in 1 collecting duct carcinoma and 2 mutations in 2 of 4 unclassified RCC. CONCLUSION: VHL mutations were detected in 61% of sporadic clear-cell RCC. VHL mutated and wildtype clear-cell RCC did not differ with respect to most parameters

FGF receptor genes and breast cancer susceptibility: results from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium

Background:Breast cancer is one of the most common malignancies in women. Genome-wide association studies have identified FGFR2 as a breast cancer susceptibility gene. Common variation in other fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptors might also modify risk. We tested this hypothesis by studying genotyped single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and imputed SNPs in FGFR1, FGFR3, FGFR4 and FGFRL1 in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Methods:Data were combined from 49 studies, including 53 835 cases and 50 156 controls, of which 89 050 (46 450 cases and 42 600 controls) were of European ancestry, 12 893 (6269 cases and 6624 controls) of Asian and 2048 (1116 cases and 932 controls) of African ancestry. Associations with risk of breast cancer, overall and by disease sub-type, were assessed using unconditional logistic regression. Results:Little evidence of association with breast cancer risk was observed for SNPs in the FGF receptor genes. The strongest evidence in European women was for rs743682 in FGFR3; the estimated per-allele odds ratio was 1.05 (95 confidence interval=1.02-1.09, P=0.0020), which is substantially lower than that observed for SNPs in FGFR2. Conclusion:Our results suggest that common variants in the other FGF receptors are not associated with risk of breast cancer to the degree observed for FGFR2. © 2014 Cancer Research UK