In this report, you will become an expert in a pure mineral end-member of your choice (Fluorite). As part of this assignment, you will search for and extract mineralogical and geological information from variety of sources, culminating in a brief, properly cited, and well-written research paper.
Successful reports will include four paragraphs, one figure, and references:
Paragraph 1: Background information. What is your mineral (Fluorite) and why did you choose it. What is the historical significance of your mineral (who discovered it, where was it discovered, how was it named, etc.)
Paragraph 2: What are the distinguishing properties of your mineral?
Paragraph 3: Description of regional geologic setting. Where does the mineral form? Why? What type of plate tectonic environment are you likely to find this mineral? What other minerals form with your mineral?
Paragraph 4: What is your mineral used for? How is it valued? Where are locations where you can find your mineral today
Sample Solution
aintenance loans for studies unless the person is classed as worker or a person of such a persons family. She is defined as Charlottes family member who is an EU citizen and a worker in London so according to this Article of the directive it is within her rights to be eligible for the maintenance grant. In the case of Gravier additional fees for non-nationals fell within the scope of Article 18 on the basis that secondary law provisions provided support to Member States under Article 166 TFEU which allowed the court to apply Art. 18 TFEU . The requirement of 5 years of residency in the UK amounts to indirect discrimination to nationality in this case. This requirement largely impacts those citizens who move from other Member States which is also a fundamental freedom of EU citizens. The ESC, in my opinion, must refer questions about the local authorityâs refusal to grant Bjarne a school place to the Court of Justice of the European Union as legally, it is requirement to receive and have an education until the age of 18 in London. The authorityâs refusal of this has not only breached this legal requirement but it has also breached Bjarneâs Article 18 TFEU rights as well which include protection from discrimination of nationality. The fact that Bjarne has special needs means that his schooling options are already limited and the requirement of 6 years residency in the UK is purely discriminatory to any EU citizens who move to another Member State. The freedom to move and reside freely in another Member State is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU and the authority here are clearly breaching it. The reason the ESC must refer the questions about the local authorityâs actions is because the residency requirement is a direct breach of his rights and it should be brought to the Court of Justice that such requirements in order to attend a special needs school should be abolished in all Member States. Especially because Bjarne is still a child and its within his rights to be in full time education at his age anyway. He should have been attending school from a much younger age. Under Article 24 (1) of the Directive 2004/38 he also h>
aintenance loans for studies unless the person is classed as worker or a person of such a persons family. She is defined as Charlottes family member who is an EU citizen and a worker in London so according to this Article of the directive it is within her rights to be eligible for the maintenance grant. In the case of Gravier additional fees for non-nationals fell within the scope of Article 18 on the basis that secondary law provisions provided support to Member States under Article 166 TFEU which allowed the court to apply Art. 18 TFEU . The requirement of 5 years of residency in the UK amounts to indirect discrimination to nationality in this case. This requirement largely impacts those citizens who move from other Member States which is also a fundamental freedom of EU citizens. The ESC, in my opinion, must refer questions about the local authorityâs refusal to grant Bjarne a school place to the Court of Justice of the European Union as legally, it is requirement to receive and have an education until the age of 18 in London. The authorityâs refusal of this has not only breached this legal requirement but it has also breached Bjarneâs Article 18 TFEU rights as well which include protection from discrimination of nationality. The fact that Bjarne has special needs means that his schooling options are already limited and the requirement of 6 years residency in the UK is purely discriminatory to any EU citizens who move to another Member State. The freedom to move and reside freely in another Member State is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU and the authority here are clearly breaching it. The reason the ESC must refer the questions about the local authorityâs actions is because the residency requirement is a direct breach of his rights and it should be brought to the Court of Justice that such requirements in order to attend a special needs school should be abolished in all Member States. Especially because Bjarne is still a child and its within his rights to be in full time education at his age anyway. He should have been attending school from a much younger age. Under Article 24 (1) of the Directive 2004/38 he also h>
