Preface This application handbook is one of a series of application handbooks designed to provide specific application recommendations for SKF customers when. Part 4. Examining Process Chapter 41. Oil and Gas Industry Section 1. Oil and Gas Handbook. TBAMTBEEthanol Remediation Seminar NATIONAL GROUND WATER ASSOCIATION Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water Houston, Texas. Oil and gas production handbook An introduction to oil and gas production, transport, refining and petrochemical industry Hvard Devold. Guidelines for process safety acquisition It is crucial for process safety professionals to be aware of best practices for post merger integration at any level. The Process Synthesis Model presented here is a methodology that integrates technology and economics, thereby improving process design and reducing. Share on Facebook, opens a new window Share on Twitter, opens a new window Share on LinkedIn Share by email, opens mail client Invensys plc, its subsidiaries and. Dissolved air flotation DAF is a water treatment process that clarifies wastewaters or other waters by the removal of suspended matter such as oil or solids. Archive_01/2015/23/17/1422033609035_2844757.jpg' alt='Petrochemical Process Handbook Pdf' title='Petrochemical Process Handbook Pdf' />Series 240 single sphere expansion joints Standard PROCO Style 240AV Expansion Joints shown in Bold Type are considered Standards and inventoried in large quantities. Shell audit tender process disclosure. Introduction. In the 2. Shell disclosed the decision to commence a tender process for the appointment of its external auditor to be completed by mid 2. The external audit tender resulted in the proposal, subject to shareholder approval at the 2. AGM, to appoint EY as the Shell external auditor for the financial year 2. Scope. The scope of the tender consisted of the Shell Group audit and statutory audits of subsidiaries with effect from the financial year 2. The appointment of EY as external auditor for a financial year is subject to approval by the Annual General Meeting in that year. Governance. The overall objective of the audit tender was to select the best auditor in terms of quality within a reasonable price range. To ensure a transparent and robust selection and evaluation process, the following governance model was applied. An Advisory Committee, led by the Chair of the Audit Committee and co opting the Chief Financial Officer CFO and the Executive Vice President EVP Controller, was formed to oversee the tender process. A Steering Committee chaired by the Vice President VP Accounting Reporting and consisting of the VP Controller Upstream, VP Controller Downstream, VP Controller Finance operations, EVP Internal Audit, Head of Reporting and the Contract and Procurement manager for Professional Services was set up to coordinate and execute the audit tender process. The main responsibilities of the different governance bodies were Governance body. Key responsibilities. Audit Committee. Ultimate authority over the tender process and audit firm evaluation. Approve tender strategy. Recommend selection of the. Audit Firm to the Board. Advisory Committee. How To Install Windows 95 Using Cd here. Approve detailed design of the audit tender. Agree objectives evaluation criteria. Oversee the execution of the audit tender. Steering Committee. Approve Request for Proposal Information Requirements. Coordinate detailed assessment of individual Audit Firms. Execute audit tender process. To avoid influencing or the perception of influencing the tender decision, a strict policy was agreed with the participants in the tender process prohibiting the provision of any gifts and hospitality and restricting other engagement with key decision makers to regular business matters only. Both Shell staff and the participants were instructed not to discuss the audit tender and all communications on the audit tender were channelled centrally. Market assessment and selection criteria. A desktop market assessment focusing on the audit market and firms capabilities, network, experience in the oil and gas industry and findings of audit regulator reports, was completed in May 2. One firm withdrew from the process and the invitation to tender for the audit. In order to be successful in the audit tender, the participants were assessed on certain minimum requirements. In addition, a number of selection criteria were applied with specific weightings, as described below Minimum requirements were in respect of Willingness to bid. Audit firm and auditor independence. Commercial scoping including price range. Ethics and compliance standards. Investigations by regulators. Acceptance of legal terms and conditions. Selection criteria Technical criteria including the proposed audit plan, audit quality, structure of audit, innovative tools and the transition plan. Team quality including lead partner and team, industry knowledge, access to specialists and mitigation of frequent team changes. Resources and organisation including representation in industry and accounting bodies and conflict resolution mechanism in the audit firm. Value added including access to accounting training and additional assurance obtained. Weight factors were applied to each of the selection criteria with the technical criteria and team quality being the most significant criteria. The selection criteria to evaluate each of the audit firms participating in the tender formed the basis for the questions included in the request for proposal. Request for proposal. In November 2. 01. Relevant information on Shell, its structure, activities and policies was shared with each of the firms through an electronic data room that was accessible during the tender period. In this period a structured Q A process was in place where responses to clarification questions and additional information requests were shared with all participating firms through the electronic data room. Engagement sessions. To promote a level playing field, Shell arranged a series of structured and targeted engagement sessions with eighteen of Shells key business and function leaders. These sessions provided participating firms the opportunity to better understand the Shell business and discuss certain subject matter areas in greater depth. In addition to the engagement sessions the participating firms were given the opportunity to meet with the Chief Executive Officer, the CFO and the Audit Committee Chair. Each of the participants in the tender was given the opportunity to demonstrate its differentiating capability or technology relevant to the Shell audit in a presentation dedicated to that subject. This meeting was attended by representatives from the Advisory and Steering Committee and selected functional specialists. Each of the participating firms provided a final presentation of their proposal to the Advisory Committee early March 2. EVP Internal Audit and VP Accounting Reporting representing the Steering Committee. Evaluation. The final proposals submitted were compliant with the minimum requirements set and all bids qualified and were assessed for the evaluation against the selection criteria. The Steering Committee reviewed each of the proposals and sought additional clarifications from the audit firms through a structured Q A. In late March 2. 01. Advisory Committee reviewed the evaluation conducted by the Steering Committee and concluded that EY was the preferred firm to conduct the Shell audit engagement. The Advisory Committee also considered the transition arrangements and concluded there were no significant blockers. The Audit Committee during its April 2. Board that it would propose EY for appointment as the external auditors of RDS at the Annual General Meeting AGM for the financial year 2. This advice resulted in a resolution by the Board to recommend EY to the 2. AGM.  BG Group transaction. Following the announcement of the recommended combination with the BG Group in early April, an assessment of the potential consequences for the outcome of the external audit tender was performed. EY has served as auditor for BG Group since 2. EY lead partner for BG Group at the time of the announcement of the transaction was also the proposed lead partner for Shell. Shell, and EY separately, reviewed the potential impact of the recommended combination with regard to potential conflicts of interest and required auditor independence. A formal protocol was agreed with EY to formalise certain safeguards to ensure appropriate independence arrangements and to prevent potential conflicts of interest reflecting distinct scenarios pre and post completion that might be relevant. EYs involvement with the Shell audit tender process ceased approximately one month prior to the announcement of the BG Group proposed transaction and EY had no knowledge of the pending transaction at any time during the tender process.