Financial decision making about found oil and gas in Ghana : real options vs. traditional methods

This research is a study of the use of capital budgeting methods for investment decisions. It uses both the traditional methods and the newly introduced approach called the real options analysis to make a decision. The research elucidates how capital budgeting can be done when analysts encounter projects with high uncertainty and are capital intensive, for example oil and gas production. It then uses the oil and gas find in Ghana as a case study to support its argument. For a clear understanding a thorough literature review was done, which highlights the advantages and disadvantages of both methods. The revenue that the project will generate and the costs of production were obtained from the predictions by analysts from GNPC and compared to others experts’ opinion. It then applied both the traditional and real option valuation on the oil and gas find in Ghana to determine the project’s feasibility. Although, there are some short falls in real option analysis that are presented in this research, it is still helpful in valuing projects that are capital intensive with high volatility due to the strategic flexibility management possess in their decision making. It also suggests that traditional methods of evaluation should still be maintained and be used to value projects that have no options or those with options yet the options do not have significant impact on the project. The research points out the economic ripples the production of oil and gas will have on Ghana’s economy should the project be undertaken. These ripples include economic growth, massive job creation and reduction of the balance of trade deficit for the country. The long run effect is an eventually improvement of life of the citizens. It is also belief that the production of gas specifically can be used to generate electricity in Ghana which would enable the country to have a more stable and reliable power source necessary to attract more foreign direct investment.

Review of assessment, design, and mitigation of multiple hazards

Large parts of the world are subjected to one or more natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, tropical storms (hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons), costal inundation and flooding. Virtually the entire world is at risk of man-made hazards. In recent decades, rapid population growth and economic development in hazard-prone areas have greatly increased the potential of multiple hazards to cause damage and destruction of buildings, bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure; thus posing a grave danger to the community and disruption of economic and societal activities. Although an individual hazard is significant in many parts of the United States (U.S.), in certain areas more than one hazard may pose a threat to the constructed environment. In such areas, structural design and construction practices should address multiple hazards in an integrated manner to achieve structural performance that is consistent with owner expectations and general societal objectives. The growing interest and importance of multiple-hazard engineering has been recognized recently. This has spurred the evolution of multiple-hazard risk-assessment frameworks and development of design approaches which have paved way for future research towards sustainable construction of new and improved structures and retrofitting of the existing structures. This report provides a review of literature and the current state of practice for assessment, design and mitigation of the impact of multiple hazards on structural infrastructure. It also presents an overview of future research needs related to multiple-hazard performance of constructed facilities.

Preparing writing centers and tutors for literacy mediation for working class campus-staff

Writing centers work with writers; traditionally services have been focused on undergraduates taking composition classes. More recently, centers have started to attract a wider client base including: students taking labs that require writing; graduate students; and ESL students learning the conventions of U.S. communication. There are very few centers, however, which identify themselves as open to working with all members of the campus-community. Michigan Technological University has one such center. In the Michigan Tech writing center, doors are open to “all students, faculty and staff.” While graduate students, post docs, and professors preparing articles for publication have used the center, for the first time in the collective memory of the center UAW staff members requested center appointments in the summer of 2008. These working class employees were in the process of filling out a work related document, the UAW Position Audit, an approximately seven-page form. This form was their one avenue for requesting a review of the job they were doing; the review was the first step in requesting a raise in job level and pay. This study grew out of the realization that implicit literacy expectations between working class United Auto Workers (UAW) staff and professional class staff were complicating the filling out and filing of the position audit form. Professional class supervisors had designed the form as a measure of fairness, in that each UAW employee on campus was responding to the same set of questions about their work. However, the implicit literacy expectations of supervisors were different from those of many of the employees who were to fill out the form. As a result, questions that were meant to be straightforward to answer were in the eyes of the employees filling out the form, complex. Before coming to the writing center UAW staff had spent months writing out responses to the form; they expressed concerns that their responses still would not meet audience expectations. These writers recognized that they did not yet know exactly what the audience was expecting. The results of this study include a framework for planning writing center sessions that facilitate the acquisition of literacy practices which are new to the user. One important realization from this dissertation is that the social nature of literacy must be kept in the forefront when both planning sessions and when educating tutors to lead these sessions. Literacy scholars such as James Paul Gee, Brian Street, and Shirley Brice Heath are used to show that a person can only know those literacy practices that they have previously acquired. In order to acquire new literacy practices, a person must have social opportunities for hands-on practice and mentoring from someone with experience. The writing center can adapt theory and practices from this dissertation that will facilitate sessions for a range of writers wishing to learn “new” literacy practices. This study also calls for specific changes to writing center tutor education.