Project ranking

With unlimited resources, the investor would take on all projects which meet the screening criteria. Project ranking is necessary to optimise the business when the investor s resources are limited and there are two or more projects to choose between. 

Asterisk ( ) denotes projects ranked high or medium with only one low ranking. 

Keywords economic model, shareholder s profit, project cashflow, gross revenue, discounted cashflow, opex, capex, technical cost, tax, royalty, oil price, marker crude, capital allowance, discount rate, profitability indicators, net present value, rate of return, screening, ranking, expected monetary value, exploration decision making. 

At discount rates less than 18%, Proposal 1 is more favourable in terms of NPV, whereas at discount rates above 18%, Proposal 2 is more attractive. NPV is being used here as a ranking tool for the projects. At a typical cost of capital of, say, 10%, Proposal 1... 

Within the last decade or so, these three remarkable isomers of benzene (2-4) have been synthesized (with considerable difficulty). The purpose of this computer project is to obtain the energies, enthalpies, or Gibbs free energies of compounds (1-4) and rank them according to energy on a veilical scale with the highest at the top. 

Next translate the Fischer projection of l serine to a three dimensional represen tation and orient it so that the lowest ranked substituent at the chirality center IS directed away from you... 

Evaluation. The evaluation of each idea should iaclude a technical description as well as its economic impact and technical risk. Ideas should be ranked for implementation. A report should provide a five-year framework for energy projects. 

When comparing project profitability, the ranking on the basis of net present value (NPV) may differ from that on the basis of dis-counted-cash-flow rate of return (DCFRR). Let us consider the data for two projects ... 

As the project progresses, more information is available therefore, the review technique used can be different at each stage of the project. The use of various hazard evaluation techniques, such as checklist analyses, relative rankings, what-if analyses, ana hazard and operabil-... 

Now that you have determined the likely savings in terms of annual process and waste-treatment operating costs associated with each option, consider the necessary investment required to implement each option. Investment can be assessed by looking at the payback period for each option that is, the time taken for a project to recover its financial outlay. A more detailed investment analysis may involve an assessment of the internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) of the investment based on discounted cash flows. An analysis of investment risk allows you to rank the options identified. 

To verify that the Fischer projection has the R configuration at its chirality center, rotate the three-dimensional r epresentation so that the lowest-ranked atom (H) points away from you. Be careful to maintain the proper stereochemical relationships during the operation. 

On a rank-by-rank (i.e. factor-by-factor) basis, we rotate, or perturb, each pair of factors, (1 spectral factor and its corresponding concentration factor) towards each other to maximize the fit of the linear regression between the projections of the spectra onto the spectral factor with the projections of the concentrations onto the concentration factor. 

The prediction step for PLS is also slightly different than for PCR. It is also done on a rank-by-rank basis using pairs of special and concentration factors. For each component, the projection of the unknown spectrum onto the first spectral factor is scaled by a response coefficient to become a corresponding projection on the first concentration factor. This yields the contribution to the total concentration for that component that is captured by the first pair of spectral and concentration factors. We then repeat the process for the second pair of factors, adding its concentration contribution to the contribution from the first pair of factors. We continue summing the contributions from each successive factor pair until all of the factors in the basis space have been used. 

Once the criteria were clearly established, the project team reviewed available commercial solutions and started out on a serious of presentations from vendors. From the list of possible vendors, a short list was drawn up, in rank order, and pilot evaluations were carried out. In the pilot program the systems were deployed in a real-world environment to approximately 100 scientists worldwide. 

Brans, J.P., Vincke, R, Mareschal, B. (1986) How to Select and How to Rank Projects The PROMETHEE Method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 228-238. 

A number of approaches to predict ionization based on structure have been published (for a review, see [53]) and some of these are commercially available. Predictions tend to be good for structures with already known and measured functional groups. However, predictions can be poor for new innovative structures. Nevertheless, pfCa predictions can still be used to drive a project in the desired direction and the rank order of the compounds is often correct. More recently training algorithms have also become available which use in-house data to improve the predictions. This is obviously the way forward. 

O.M. Kvalheim and Y.-Z. Liang, Heuristic evolving latent projections — resolving 2-way multicomponent data. 1. Selectivity, latent projective graph, datascope, local rank and unique resolution. Anal. Chem., 64 (1992) 936-946. 

---