Academic literature on the topic 'Obligation in solidum'

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP AS A BASE OF IN SOLIDUM LIABILITY IN ROMAN LAWSummary In the modern civil law joint and several liability of partners in a partnership is a rule rather than an exception. According to the common opinion this concept did not originate in the Roman law but was first invented in the medieval times by glossators and commentators. The Roman partnership created only a private relation between partners (who, due to a conclusion of that contract were reciprocally obliged to act together in accordance with a good faith in order to conduct common business and to divide profits and bear losses in proportion to their respective shares) and its conclusion did not affect their liability against third parties. The partners had no right to bind themselves contractually to any third parties, unless they all acted jointly (in this case, however, their joint representation was derived from their expressed declarations and not the existence of a contract o f partnership). Thus, any commitment made by an individual partner, even if made within the scope of a partnership having obtained other partners’ consent, was treated as a personal debt of this partner and the remaining partners were not liable against his contractor. Then, of course, the partner who made a commitment (acting within the partnership’s business) could claim a part of what he had paid to a third party from other partners in proportion to their respective shares in the common enterprise.Such a solution was necessary because of the purely consensual character o f the Roman partnership and the lack of any formal procedure of its conclusion and dissolution. The existence of that contract could not affect the model of the external liability of partners, because it would be too risky for third parties, which had no possibility to make sure if a contract of partnership between some persons had been actually concluded or not. Thus, the role of a contract of partnership in the Roman law was only limited to determine a mutual liability o f partners, to specify their respective rights and obligations and to define the scope of their liability against other partners.There are only a few written sources concerning so called specific kinds of partnership characterized by untypical joint and several responsibility of partners. Moreover these texts are not very clear and are difficult to interpret, so the issue of specific kinds of a partnership is a matter of doubts among Romanists. Some authors even believe that the specific types of partnership did not exist in the Roman law at all.It should be firstly observed that the texts regarding a contract of partnership itself (the texts included in the title pro socio of Justinian’ Digest) did not raise the question of the external liability of partners because they were devoted to internal settlement o f accounts within sociu Thus, taking into account only these texts one cannot ascertain that a conclusion of a contract of partnership could not affect in any way the model of the partners’ liability against third parties.Secondly, the other texts concerning the regulation of conducting an economic activity in the Roman law (actio institoria, actio exercitoria and actio de peculio) present some regularity in an introduction of joint and several liability of debtors.On the one hand that model of the liability was introduced in situations in which protecting safety of trade required that the creditor be able to claim a whole amount o f the debt from one person only.On the other hand this model of liability could be introduced only in these cases in which some internal relation existed between several debtors. On the grounds of such relations the debtor who satisfied in full the creditor’s claim could sue other debtors in order to recover their respective parts in the debt. In the Roman law that internal relation that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse could be either a joint-ownership or a partnership.Having considered that, one may say that the texts concerning specific kinds o f partnership do not prove existence of any special type of societas. These sources regard only the situations when a joint and several liability between several debtors was introduced because it was justified by the circumstances: that is the necessity to protect the safety of trade on one hand and the existence of the contract of partnership that guaranteed a possibility to realize the recourse, on the other.In conclusion one may say that although a closing of a contract of partnership did not create a joint and several liability of partners, in some cases its existence was decisive for introducing this model of liability since it guaranteed to every party a possibility to act against the others to obtain the recourse. Thus, Roman jurisprudence made an important step towards the future introduction o f joint and several liability of partners as a rule of a civil law.

Depuis l’abolition des appels au Conseil privé britannique en matière criminelle et civile, respectivement en 1933 et en 1949, il n’existe plus d’instance internationale (autre que la Cour pénale internationale) exerçant une autorité sur la protection des droits individuels au Canada. Bien que le Canada dispose d’un des systèmes judiciaires les plus efficaces et solides au monde, il est sain de se questionner sur le renforcement de ses liens avec les organismes internationaux des Amériques, qui luttent pour la défense des droits de la personne. Cela est d’autant plus vrai si l’on se fie aux politiques adoptées sous la gouverne du président Donald Trump, qui contreviennent non seulement aux obligations fondamentales des États-Unis en matière de droits de la personne, mais causent d’énormes torts aux communautés vulnérables des sociétés d’ici et d’ailleurs. Dans ce contexte, il est pertinent de se demander si une adhésion potentielle du Canada à la Convention américaine relative aux droits de l’homme, qui autorise la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l’homme à recevoir des pétitions pour des violations des droits de la personne, serait bénéfique aux justiciables canadiens. Ce texte, au regard critique, a pour but d’analyser les répercussions possibles de l’adhésion du Canada à la Convention américaine ainsi que de présenter en preuve une liste d’arrêts et d’articles représentatifs de la situation actuelle devant la Cour interaméricaine afin d’enrichir le débat à ce sujet.

Theories need precise definition of their terms and concepts. Their arguments require empirical support that is as unequivocal as possible. Good theory typically evolves through an iterative process, being confirmed or refined and modified as empirical evidence dictates over time and experience. The Mediated Learning (ML) model is examined under the lens of empiricism. The author suggests that ML may be seen as two separate models, one concerned with cognitive development, and the other a model that guides application of interventional methodology on behalf of promoting effective cognitive functioning. Fundamental assumptions of the ML developmental model are questioned on the basis of contrary evidence, but the validity of the ML developmental model has little bearing on the value of the ML applied model, which stands or falls on its own merits. Two programs that spring entirely or in part from the ML applied model are considered. One program has shown few if any durable effects that are scientifically reliable over a generation of wide-ranging experience with it, whereas the second program appears to show solidly supported effects as well as durability over a more limited range of applications. The older program has seen little if any revision over its history. The promise of enhanced cognitive functioning is so compelling that program developers have an obligation to modify and adjust their methods, and presumably the model that underlies those methods, in the hope of improving the programs’ efficacy. Data from appropriate evaluative research should be used constantly to modify and refine the programs, as well as to feed back to the theoretical systems on which they are based.The author discusses empiricism as a major philosophical basis for the construction of conceptual systems from which applied programs are then developed and appeals for closer adherence to its scientific methods where applied educational programs are concerned.

AbstractThe right to the highest attainable level of health or, briefly, the right to health is a fundamental human right, solidly embedded in international human rights law. As with other human rights, this right creates corresponding obligations for States which they are due to respect, protect and fulfil.The right to health embodies both positive and negative contents rights, ranging from the right to adequate protection of health to the right to equal access to health care. In addition, the right to health obliges States to create conditions favourable to the achievement and maintenance of the highest attainable level of health.This article describes and analyses national and international case law with respect to these three components of the right to health in an effort to delineate the general contours of this right. It is argued that courts and other (quasi-)judicial bodies more or less explicitly acknowledge that States are required to ensure a minimum level of health protection, (equal access to) essential health care and satisfaction of basic human needs. From the existing body of case law touching on the right to health it remains, however, difficult to conclude how courts define the minimum core content of the right to health, let alone to gain further insights into the normative meaning of this right.

Bien que la solidarité en droit civil français, qui puise ses origines en droit romain, ait été importée dans les Codes civils coloniaux du Vietnam, elle n'est pas adoptée par le droit civil moderne du Vietnam. L'obligation solidaire présentée par le droit civil vietnamien est particulièrement originale. Elle s'écarte du droit civil français ainsi que du droit romano-germanique. Il existe une équivalence fonctionnelle entre l'obligation solidaire en droit vietnamien et la solidarité en droit français. La principale différence est l'absence des effets secondaires de l'obligation solidaire en droit civil vietnamien. Quant à l'obligation in solidum en droit civil français, celle-ci a un équivalent fonctionnel dans la responsabilité solidaire en droit civil vietnamien. Cependant, si l'obligation in solidum en droit civil français présente à la fois une pluralité de sources et une unité de source, la responsabilité solidaire en droit civil vietnamien ne connait qu'une unité de source. La mondialisation du droit et le vent de réformes du droit des obligations en Europe au sein de laquelle la France se trouve, apportent une chance pour que l'obligation solidaire en droit civil du Vietnam puisse s'approcher de la solidarité du droit civil occidental en général et du droit civil français en particulier
The obligation solidaire in French civil law took its origins from Roman law. This law was imported to Colonial Civil Codes of Vietnam, however it was not adopted by the modern civil law of Vietnam. The joint and several obligation presented by the Vietnamese civil law is original. It diverges from the French civil and Romano-Germanic law. The joint and several obligation in Vietnamese private law is functional equivalence to the obligation solidaire in French private law. The main difference is the absence of the secondary effects on the joint and several obligation in Vietnamese civil law. Due to the obligation jointly and severally in French civil law, it has a functional joint and several liability in Vietnamese civil law equivalent. However, if the obligation in solidum in French civil law has both a plurality of sources and a source unit; joint and several liability in Vietnamese civil law recognizes a source unit. The trend of globalization of law and selling reform of contract law in Europe in which France finds itself, provide an opportunity for the joint and several liability in civil law of Vietnam can approach the solidarity of civil law West in general and the French civil law in particular

L’objectif de la thèse est de réévaluer de façon globale la pertinence et la cohérence de la construction légale et jurisprudentielle actuelle organisant les recours dans les chaînes translatives de propriété. En dépit de contributions doctrinales nombreuses, les solutions se sont accumulées sans que leur articulation soit précisément examinée. L’enjeu de cet examen est d’autant plus important que le contexte général a changé (responsabilité du fait des produits, remise en cause des actions contractuelles, projets de réforme du droit de la responsabilité). L’étude est organisée autour de deux types de dommages : le dommage strictement contractuel et le dommage non strictement contractuel. La première partie évalue le droit positif et ses incertitudes (fondement de l’action directe, opposabilité des clauses de responsabilité au sous-acquéreur, recours en contribution etc.), au regard du manquement strictement contractuel (atteinte à l’utilité du contrat). La seconde partie permet de mettre en lumière les difficultés d’articulation des diverses actions désignées pour réparer le dommage non strictement contractuel, ces difficultés nous conduisant à nous interroger sur la nature de la responsabilité qui doit présider, dans les chaînes translatives de propriété, à la réparation des atteintes au contractant. L’ensemble de ces questions permet enfin d’identifier les grands critères et les logiques communes de répartition des responsabilités dans les chaînes translatives de propriété
The purpose of this thesis is to reexamine on a global scale the adequacy and consistency of the current jurisprudential and legal framework related to the contract chains’ liability cases. Despite a large number of doctrinal contributions, the solutions have indeed been aggregated without any underlying logical implication being further investigated. This type of considerations is becoming all the more impactful that the legal environment has evolved. The goal of the first part is to assess the current state of the law and its uncertainties (the direct action ground, enforceability of limitation clause to consumer, contribution to the debt among co-debtors) when it comes to the pure contractual injury, that is when the usefulness of the contract is to be jeopardized. The second part is focuses on how it is hard to articulate the different actions in order to repair non-pure contractual injury. The assessment of those difficulties will bring us to wonder which nature of liability should prevail to repair injuries within property chains. Finally, answering those questions will lead us to identify the major criteria and the common rationales used to spread liability within property chains

Bien que constituant un élément essentiel à tout régime de responsabilité, la notion imputation n’a engendré qu’un nombre très réduit d’études en matière de responsabilité des personnes publiques. Cette recherche s’attachera à démontrer tant l’importance du rôle joué par l’imputation que la pertinence d’une approche visant à appréhender la responsabilité par le prisme de l’opération d’imputation. Loin de se résumer à un simple aspect technique tenant à la détermination du patrimoine responsable, la problématique de l’imputation nous semble à même de permettre l’émergence d’une réflexion plus générale sur la responsabilité elle-même. En effet, parce qu’elle permet de désigner la personne débitrice de la dette de responsabilité, l’opération d’imputation correspond toujours à une prise de position sur la fonction de la responsabilité. Que celle-ci désigne l’auteur du fait générateur ou toute autre personne n’est jamais anodin. Permettant de répondre à la question de savoir pourquoi une personne est responsable, l’étude de l’imputation permet également de découvrir le fondement de la responsabilité. Plus encore, il nous sera possible de constater que le choix d’une modalité d’imputation n’est jamais neutre et induit toujours des conséquences perceptibles sur la physionomie des régimes juridiques des diverses hypothèses de responsabilité. Par le prisme de l’imputation, il nous semble donc possible de proposer une réflexion permettant de saisir la fonction de la responsabilité, d’expliquer l’existence d’une grande diversité de régimes juridiques et, surtout, de proposer une classification des hypothèses de responsabilité prenant appui sur la logique interne qui les anime
Although every attribution system constitutes a key element regarding the matter of liability in the public sector, the concept of imputation has only been the object of a few studies. Our research shows both the importance of the role played by the notion of imputation and the relevance of an approach which would examine the concept of liability through the imputation process. Far from constituting a simple technical tool employed to ascertain the source of liability, the notion of imputation seems to promote the emergence of a wider inquiry regarding liability itself. Indeed, because this notion serves to indicate the debtor of liability, the process of imputation always indicates a statement of views on the function of liability. The utilization of this device is never inconsequential whether it is used to designate the author of the causal event or any other person. Studying the concept of imputation does both answer the question as to why someone can be held accountable and uncover the founding principles of liability. Furthermore, it will come to our understanding that the selection of a particular method of indictment is never neutral and always involves consequences in regards to the physiognomy of the legal status of the various hypotheses of liability. By analyzing the function of liability through the lens of indictment we can grasp its meaning and thus explain the reason behind the wide diversity of legal regimes and above all, offer a classification of the various hypotheses of liability which would rely on their own internal logic

Selon l'analyse classique, l'obligation solidaire et l'obligation in solidum sont conçues comme des obligations au total stricto sensu. Chaque codébiteur est censé être débiteur principal de l'intégralité de la dette. Autrement dit, ces deux types d'obligation donneraient naissance à un faisceau d'obligations au total principales groupées autour d'un même objet. Une analyse plus poussée de la matière révèle que cette vision travestit leur vraie nature juridique. Depuis longtemps déjà, l'obligation solidaire et l'obligation in solidum n'appartiennent plus à la catégorie des obligations au total stricto sensu mais à celle des obligations au total lato sensu. Elles doivent être qualifiées de la sorte parce qu'elles permettent effectivement au créancier d'exiger de chaque codébiteur le paiement de toute la dette. Cependant, cet effet n'est pas dû au fait que chacun est tenu en qualité de débiteur principal par une obligation principale au total, mais parce que le faisceau d'obligations qui en découle combine des obligations principales et des obligations de garantie accessoires aux premières. Souvent, les coobligés se garantissent réciproquement et sont tenus a la fois par une obligation principale pour une fraction de la dette globale et par une obligation de garantie pour le surplus. Chacun agit pour partie à titre de débiteur principal et pour partie à titre de garant des autres codébiteurs. Par ailleurs, l'obligation solidaire et l'obligation in solidum connaissent d'autres schémas explicatifs : la garantie simple, la garantie mutuelle au second degré ou la garantie simple appliquée à une garantie mutuelle.

Si la solidarité fait d’abord penser à une notion éminemment factuelle, elle est un concept juridique opérant en matière pénale. Bien qu’il s’agisse d’une modalité d’exécution d’une obligation civile, elle a été introduite au sein de notre système pénal par le législateur de 1810 qui entendait faire répondre à la solidarité morale dans l’infraction une solidarité matérielle dans la sanction. Or, loin de se limiter à son domaine originel, on la retrouve actuellement au sein de la matière pénale où elle inspire notamment les notions de solidarité criminelle, familiale et humaine ou encore de solidarité des amendes fiscales et douanières. Elle comporte ainsi différentes dimensions qui interagissent les unes avec les autres sans cohérence apparente. Pourtant, elle recouvre sous le même vocable deux réalités différentes et complémentaires. Elle se présente à la fois comme un sentiment moral qui relie les hommes et les oblige à des actes d’entraide et d’assistance mutuels et comme une technique juridique qui permet d’assurer le recouvrement d’une créance. Elle est une valeur sociale reconnue et protégée par le droit pénal en même temps qu’un mécanisme d’exécution d’une sanction pécuniaire prononcée à l’encontre de plusieurs auteurs. Désormais, de nombreuses dispositions l’intègrent au sein de différentes incriminations et en font un élément de la sanction. La solidarité se retrouve au cœur de la matière pénale où elle joue un rôle fondamental. Elle s’inscrit au soutien de valeurs sociales pénalement protégées et assure l’efficacité de la répression pénale en permettant le recouvrement des sanctions pécuniaires. Elle joue ainsi un rôle majeur au sein de notre système pénal
If solidarity first resembles a highly fact-concept, it is a legal concept operating in criminal matters. Although an implementation modality of a civil obligation, it was introduced into our penal system by the 1810 legislature intended to respond to the moral solidarity in the offense a material solidarity in the penalty. But far from being limited to its original domain, it is currently found in the criminal matters where she draws particularly the notions of solidarity criminal, family and human solidarity or of tax and customs fines. It has different dimensions and interacting with each other without apparent coherence. Yet it covers under the same word two different and complementary realities. It comes both as a moral sentiment that connects people and forces them to mutual acts of assistance and as a legal technique that ensures the recovery of a debt. She is a recognized social value protected by the criminal law as well as a delivery mechanism for a penalty imposed on a number of authors. Now, many provisions incorporate it in various offenses and make it a part of the penalty. Solidarity is at the heart of the criminal law where it plays a fundamental role. It falls to the support of criminally protected social values and ensures the effectiveness of criminal enforcement by allowing the recovery of financial penalties. It thus plays a major role in our criminal justice system

Tableau d’honneur de la Faculté des études supérieures et postdoctorales, 2009-2010
La présente thèse propose une étude complète de l'obligation in solidum en droit privé québécois. Elle en embrasse donc tous les aspects : origines, nature, justification, portée et effets. Elle cherche principalement à comprendre et à cerner cette notion (Partie 1) et à en préciser le régime ainsi que le champ d'application (Partie II). Pour éclairer notre analyse, nous retraçons les origines historiques de l'obligation in solidum en droit romain, en Ancien droit français et en droit français moderne. L'obligation in solidum telle qu'elle existe aujourd 'hui est formellement née en doctrine et en jurisprudence françaises au tournant du 20e siècle. Au Québec, avant le début du 21 e siècle, sa présence s'est avérée discrète et incertaine. Nous examinons également, quoique de manière moins systématique, la présence de l'obligation in solidum dans d'autres juridictions de tradition civiliste et en droit de tradition anglaise. Cet exercice nous a permis de construire notre vision de l'obligation in solidum, tout en exposant et critiquant celles des principaux auteurs français et québécois qui se sont intéressés au sujet, et ce de la fin des années 1800 jusqu'à aujourd'hui. À partir de la vision de l'obligation in solidum qui fut ainsi construite, nous avons dégagé le régime juridique de l'institution ainsi que son champ d'application en droit québécois. Par une étude et une comparaison systématique avec le régime de la solidarité, régime qui est prévu de façon détaillée par les législateurs québécois et français, nous proposons un régime juridique pour l'obligation in solidum. Après avoir ainsi posé ces assises générales, notre thèse est complétée avec des assises vraiment particulières au droit québécois. Le champ d'application de l'obligation in solidum est intimement lié dans tout système juridique à l'espace octroyé par le législateur et la jurisprudence à l'obligation solidaire. Le droit québécois diffère à cet égard de façon notable du droit français. Pourtant, le droit québécois a formellement reconnu l'obligation in solidum et la jurisprudence en fait maintenant un usage constant. En s'appuyant sur leur structure, leurs fondements théoriques et leurs effets pratiques, nous dégageons le champ d'application souhaitable de l'obligation solidaire et de l'obligation in solidum en droit privé québécois.

In Bosphorus the ECtHR introduced the so-called Bosphorus presumption: if a member state of an international organization acted in compliance with an obligation arising from its membership and had no discretion, there is a rebuttable presumption that the member state has complied with its obligations under the ECHR provided that the organization itself ensures a protection of fundamental rights equivalent to what the Convention requires. The Court considered that the European Union met this test. If an organization provides equivalent protection, the presumption can be rebutted, but only if this protection was manifestly deficient in the concrete case. By formulating the presumption the ECtHR showed a great deal of respect for the European Court of Justice and placed the relationship between the two European courts on relatively solid ground. A number of questions remain, however.

Where does the concept of human rights come from? How has the human rights movement developed such a solid set of obligations that can be applied worldwide? The human rights issue is often contentious and the language of international human rights has become associated with all sorts of claims and disputes. ‘Looking at rights’ considers early historical invocations of the concept of rights and how modern rights theorists have sought to justify the existence and importance of rights by reference to some overriding value, such as freedom, fairness, autonomy, equality, personhood, or dignity. It shows how the concept of a ‘human rights culture’ means different things to different people.

From a national congressional map the political makeup of the southern United States appears to be solidly red, or Republican, with a few small urban blue, or Democratic, districts surrounding state capitols and major cities. At the state and local levels, however, contemporary religion and politics continues to be an interesting contest between remnants of the old civil rights coalition on the left and the family values coalition religious right. This chapter focusses on former Alabama jurist Roy Moore as an example of the religious right, on Rev. William J. Barber’s Moral Monday’s in North Carolina as a revival of the coalition politics associated with Martin Luther King, Jr., and on the remarkable stand of four Protestant and Catholic bishops in Alabama against making rendering humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants a felony. The bishops won by appealing to the religious obligations to follow the teachings of their faith—to the frustration of some of their own coreligionists.

The right to development is an over-arching, synthesis-based collective right that has found a solid place in the international human rights architecture. Under the UN Declaration on the Right to Development, States have the primary responsibility for establishing national and international conditions favourable to the realisation of the right to development. According to the high-level task force on the implementation of the right to development, this responsibility is at three levels: (a) States acting collectively in global and regional partnerships; (b) States acting individually as they adopt and implement policies that affect persons strictly not within their jurisdiction, and (c) States acting individually as they formulate national development policies and programmes affecting persons within their jurisdiction. The right to development also implies the full realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination. In many contexts, however, onerous debt service obligations and related conditionalities often undermine country ownership of national development strategies, thereby threatening the right to development.

This chapter presents some of the tensions in the objectives and rationales between the fields of immigration control and human rights protection in the current EU migration policies. As it stands today, the common EU policy on asylum appears to struggle to find a solid foundation and solutions in regard of both solidarity among the different EU states and the effective realisation of human rights. The focus on securitisation and policies of non-entrée in the EU asylum structures together with a lack of solidarity among Member States have contributed to a situation where the protection of refugees has in many ways had to give way to strategic considerations of migration management. With this background, the chapter addresses the current reform process of the joint EU asylum system as an opening to opt for an approach that more coherently recognises the human rights obligations that the EU and its Member States owe to asylum seekers and migrants.

Since the UN Convention is being used as a compass for analysis and is the common thread linking all chapters in this book, the purpose of this chapter is to provide a broad overview of the objectives, principles and obligations contained in the Convention directly relevant to the lives of people living with dementia and their family members and to explain how the Convention works. The chapter also draws on Flynn’s typology for classifying the core themes contained in the UN Convention namely equality, participation, autonomy and solidarity, a typology which will be returned to in chapter eight. It identifies those Articles (a total of 12) which will be critically reviewed in later chapters, it explains the PANEL principles and shows that as a human rights instrument underpinned by the social model of disability, the UN Convention provides a solid basis for the reframing of dementia as a disability. The chapter concludes by discussing a number of recent events which have taken place across the world which reflect a slowly evolving rights based movement in dementia policy and practice.

“Energy cost increases are expected to continue.... The impact of these energy cost increases on attractiveness of energy recovery could be significant.” “A number of new technological developments have been underway over the past few years that are now becoming available as full-scale systems and that are greatly expanding the opportunities for energy recovery from mixed municipal waste.” These sound like statements from today’s headlines or the latest marketing brochures reflecting the promise of emerging waste management technologies. The reality is that these statements were made over thirty years ago. Communities planning on implementing any new technology as part of their solid waste management program should proceed with caution. After all, the second quote above was followed by the following statement. “These systems have generally been developed by firms in private industry as new business ventures. Monsanto, Union Carbide, Devco, Garrett Research and Development (a division of Occidental Petroleum), Hercules, Black-Clawson, Horner-Schiffrin and Combustion Equipment Associates have been some of the most active firms.” Although many communities relied upon performance and financial guarantees offered by these companies, none of projects developed by them were successful. Similarly, there was a wave of optimism and projects that were implemented in the 1990’s involving numerous mixed municipal waste biological (i.e., composting) projects that also failed for economic or technical reasons. From these prior experiences, lessons can be drawn to assist communities evaluate the risks and rewards in procuring and contracting for today’s emerging technologies. The waste being delivered to these failed projects, unlike some of the salespersons, did not go away. These failed projects had to be redeveloped and replacement projects implemented to deal with the daily tide at the curb. A number of consultants, including the authors, started in the solid waste business redeveloping some of these failed initial efforts. From these prior experiences, lessons can be drawn to assist communities evaluate the risks and rewards in procuring today’s emerging technologies. New thermal conversion, pyrolysis, gasification, and bioconversion technologies are being proposed for projects throughout the U.S. based on experience in North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Many communities have issued RFP’s to include emerging technologies in their integrated solid waste management systems. To successfully procure and finance a project involving one of these emerging technologies, the project sponsor or developer will need to: • Locate a politically suitable site for the project; • Acquire waste supply commitments; • Develop energy and material sales approaches and agreements; • Arrange for residue disposal; • Obtain permits to operate; and • Arrange for the financing. In addition to the above components, the efficacy of the technology and the financial backing provided by the technology supplier are critical to a successful project. Not unlike the early 1970’s and 1990’s companies are promoting the advantages and successful applications of new approaches to solid waste management. In doing so, some companies are asking communities to provide a suitable site (usually adjacent to or near an exiting permitted landfill or other solid waste management facility), supply waste, dispose of any residue, and assist in the permitting of a new project. The company may take the responsibility to arrange for energy and material markets, obtain the permits, and finance the project. The company’s objective is to develop a demonstration of their technology using mixed municipal solid waste, or a portion of the waste stream, in a U.S. community from which it can build its business. Before entering into long term obligations associated with such arrangements, it is important that a community consider the following: • How much will it cost to deliver waste to the new facility? • What impact will it have on the balance of the solid waste management system? • If the new system does not work, is there an alternative location, both in the short- and long-run to process/dispose of the waste? • If there are odor or other environmental problems that cannot be mitigated, is there a way to terminate the operation of the facility? • If the project does not succeed, will the company be responsible for razing the facility and returning a clean site? What other obligations will the company have? • What are the obligations of the community if the project does succeed? • What is the definition of success? • How long must the project be successfully demonstrated before it is converted into a fully commercial operation? • If this involves an expansion of the project, is the community obligated to proceed? This presentation compares and contrasts the experiences of the past with the current approaches being taken by firms promoting these technologies and communities implementing them in the hope of learning from our past.. Case studies will be discussed to support the conclusions and recommendations presented.

Abstract The Cement Packer approach has been successfully implemented to pursue and monetize minor gas reservoirs of poorer quality. Due to its critical role in power supply to meet the nation's needs, license to operate gas fields oftentimes come with contractual obligations to deliver a certain threshold of gas capacity. The cement packer method is a cheaper alternative to workovers that enables operators to build gas capacity by monetizing minor gas reservoirs at lower cost. Group 1 reservoirs are the shallowest hydrocarbon bearing sand with poorer reservoir quality and relatively thin reservoirs. The behind-casing-opportunities in Minor Group-1 reservoirs previously required a relatively costly pull-tubing rig workover to monetize the reservoir. Opportunities in two wells were optimized from pull –tubing rig workovers to a non-rig program by implementing Cement Packer applications. The tubing was punched to create tubing-casing communication and cement was subsequently pumped through the tubing and into the casing. The hardened cement then acted as a barrier to satisfy operating guidelines. The reservoir was then additionally perforated, flow tested and successfully monetized at a lower cost. Tubing and casing integrity tests prior to well entry demonstrated good tubing and casing integrity. This is critical to ensure that cement will only flow into the casing where the tubing was punched. Once the cement hardened, pressure test from the tubing and from the casing indicated that the cement has effectively isolated both tubulars. Subsequent Cement Bond Log and Ultrasonic Imaging Tool showed fair to good cement above the target perforation depth. These data supported the fact that the cement packer was solid and the reservoir was ready for additional perforation. Taking into account the reservoir quality, it was decided to perforate the reservoir twice with the biggest gun available to ensure the lowest skin possible. Post perforation, there was a sharp increase in the tubing pressure indicating pressure influx from the reservoir. Despite that, casing pressure remained low, confirming no communication and thus the success of the cement packer.The well was later able to unload naturally due to its high reservoir pressure, confirming the producibility of the reservoirs and unlocking similar opportunities in other wells. Additionally, the cement packer approach delivered tremendous cost savings between $6 – 8 mil per well. Besides confirming the reservoirs' producibility,the success also unlocked additional shallow gas behind casing opportunities in the area.This method will now be the first-choice option to monetize any hydrocarbon resources in reservoirs located above the top packer.

Abstract The Cement Packer approach has been successfully implemented to pursue and monetize minor gas reservoirs of poorer quality. Due to its critical role in power supply to meet the nation's needs, license to operate gas fields oftentimes come with contractual obligations to deliver a certain threshold of gas capacity. The cement packer method is a cheaper alternative to workovers that enables operators to build gas capacity by monetizing minor gas reservoirs at lower cost. Group 1 reservoirs are the shallowest hydrocarbon bearing sand with poorer reservoir quality and relatively thin reservoirs. The behind-casing-opportunities in Minor Group-1 reservoirs previously required a relatively costly pull-tubing rig workover to monetize the reservoir. Opportunities in two wells were optimized from pull –tubing rig workovers to a non-rig program by implementing Cement Packer applications. The tubing was punched to create tubing-casing communication and cement was subsequently pumped through the tubing and into the casing. The hardened cement then acted as a barrier to satisfy operating guidelines. The reservoir was then additionally perforated, flow tested and successfully monetized at a lower cost. Tubing and casing integrity tests prior to well entry demonstrated good tubing and casing integrity. This is critical to ensure that cement will only flow into the casing where the tubing was punched. Once the cement hardened, pressure test from the tubing and from the casing indicated that the cement has effectively isolated both tubulars. Subsequent Cement Bond Log and Ultrasonic Imaging Tool showed fair to good cement above the target perforation depth. These data supported the fact that the cement packer was solid and the reservoir was ready for additional perforation. Taking into account the reservoir quality, it was decided to perforate the reservoir twice with the biggest gun available to ensure the lowest skin possible. Post perforation, there was a sharp increase in the tubing pressure indicating pressure influx from the reservoir. Despite that, casing pressure remained low, confirming no communication and thus the success of the cement packer.The well was later able to unload naturally due to its high reservoir pressure, confirming the producibility of the reservoirs and unlocking similar opportunities in other wells. Additionally, the cement packer approach delivered tremendous cost savings between $6 – 8 mil per well. Besides confirming the reservoirs' producibility,the success also unlocked additional shallow gas behind casing opportunities in the area.This method will now be the first-choice option to monetize any hydrocarbon resources in reservoirs located above the top packer.