Drilling for Oil in Alaska Essay Example for Free

Drilling for Oil in Alaska Essay Currently, there are more than 70 million drivers who drive more than 113 million vehicles each day. Compared to 30 years ago, drivers have increased their driving by about 44 percent in terms of the miles they have driven. It is likewise suggested that since 1970, traveling vehicles per year have increased about 145 percent. These information is according to the American Petroleum Institute; with increased driving miles and vehicles traveling on the road comes the corresponding increase in the need for fuel (Beyond, int). Though fuel can be considered the most reliable source of energy, it is unfortunate that it is not the most environmental friendly source. Any individual who choked walking behind a car due to exhaust fumes knows for a fact that it is not beneficial for the environment as an energy source. Right after cars leave noxious black smoke, the need to have some effective means of fuel refinement becomes a pressing concern. The gas industry did not take long to develop technology for cleaner fuels. Modern fuels including unleaded fuels in the market nowadays are said to be less of pollutants and less hazardous compared to fuels of the past decades. According to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, there was a dramatic 41% decline in vehicle emissions since 1970. While there was such a decline, this does not mean that the associated environmental problems on fuels are solved (Beyond , int). The major issue is in the process of getting crude oil from the earth. Transport accidents, oil spills and pipe leaks still remain common. The American Petroleum Institute asserts that there are many steps which are initiated to ensure that natural gas and oil can have minimal impact in the environment upon production. Moreover, the institute also asserts that with the use of diect technology in drilling, they are allowed to access gas resources and oil that lie beneath the sensitive areas of the earth (Chance 105). So far, despite the very impressive advancements in drilling technology, human intrusions and oil rigs still continue to modify the environment and cause habitat devastation. The Alaska Wilderness League’s legislative director, Brian Moore knows the harm produced by drilling. According to him, the Prudhoe Bay 400 toxic spills annually, and those spills do not only affect the drilling site but also nearby lands. The devastating effects are clear and real, and these are not made up by environmentalists. It is very difficult to forget the otters, seabirds and seals covered in oil, which slowly died during the spill of 10 million gallons of crude oil in 1989 from Exxon Valdez. It is very natural for environmentalists to campaign and strategize plans against the drilling in a wildlife dense area. The possibility of drilling the lands of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is a well-renowned area for pristine habitat and unique wildlife is shocking and alarming news to all environmentalists and nature lovers (Exxon Valdez disaster—15 years of lies). Viewing the issue from a different angle, the oil drilled in Alaska can reduce the oil imports of the United States of America by 15%, since at present, the oil imports of the country is over 25% from the Middle East. The effect of oil from Alaska in helping in the management of oil prices is very essential. However, it can be quite pointless, given that all Americans can reduce their consumption of oil by simply eradicating commercial vehicle SUVs granted exemptions from the standards of fuel efficiency, developing hybrid technologies and drastically raising the requirements in fuel efficiency (Beyond, int). If the refuge of Alaska is made open for drilling, then the Rocky Mountains and the coast of California will come in next, and if oil drilling will be open everywhere without any limits, the available oil will increase by magnitude, which can probably ensure the energy source of the US for decades. Not only of the US but of the world. The availability of oil will help the industrialization of many nations; however, in the same measure, the risks to the environment will also substantially increase (Berger 40). The officials of the Bush administration claim that the drilling in the areas of the Arctic will pave the way to enhancing U. S security by diminishing imported oil dependence. They are also promoting this controversial undertaking by asserting that drilling will help reduce the shortages on energy of the country. On the other hand, only a meager portion of electricity comes from oil. It was explained by the American Petroleum Institute that crude oil prices are established in the world markets retorting to supply and demand. The fresh discoveries will be critically significant to supply. Each oil barrel domestically produced is one less barrel that should be bought from foreign sources. In the long term, added U. S. supplies will help reduce the prices of crude oil given that the demand for crude oil from sources which are not from the US is muck lower compared to what it will be without additional domestic production (Berger 85). To alleviate the emergency of frequent blackouts in California and the increasing prices of gasoline, President Bush is promoting the increase in supply of energy instead of decreasing its demand. It may be too late to put a stop to the rising prices of gas, especially for traveling seasons like summer. The president is supporting the plan of utilizing the oil supply of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (LaDuke 30). As expected, this proposition of the president has clashed with activists of the environment and with some residents of the targeted area. They are arguing that ANWR’s available supply of oil is insufficient to validate the potential damage to the environment. It is very hard believe that oil drilling in Alaska will guarantee benefits to the citizens of the US, since any kind of oil in existence will take almost a decade to enter the oil market and the estimates on the oil amount in the area are but tentative. Moreover, prices of oil will not change from drilling oil in Alaska given that the oil amount is minimal in the refuge. Harmful pollution and oil spills are foreseeable effects of this proposal of drilling from the area (Stage, int), and much more if it goes together with industrialization. In Alaska, there is an estimate of 300 to 400 oil spills annually, which is approximately greater than one oil spill a day (Oil spills in, int). America’s largest oil spill was the oil spill of Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska last 1989 on March 24. More or less, 10. 9 million gallons have spilled to over 1,100 miles of coastline in Alaska. It all began when an oil tanker hit a reef in the Sound (Heinrichs). The death toll of wildlife was extremely upsetting. Over 2,800 sea otters, 250,000 seabirds, 300 harbor seals, nearly two dozen whales and 250 bald eagles (Don’t, int) perished due to the event. Oil is still present in the area and it is now toxic (Exxon, int) even though Exxon insists that everything is been cleaned and paid for. A more recent event happened on December 7, 2004, where a freighter of Malaysia ran aground. It was carrying 21,000 of diesel fuel and 483,000 gallons of heavy bulk fuel (Oil spill devastates, int). The oil spill was so alarming and devastating, since oil is extremely difficult to clean up and threatens the refuge of nearby (Oil spill devastates, int). As the drilling increases, the occurrence of oil spills tends to follow in the same pace, such trend is sure to exist with more oil drilling in ANWR even as responsible large companies have promised to respond quickly. The risk of devastating wildlife is always there (Montgomery 38). How can people justify permission of oil companies to drill in an area rich with endangered wildlife? Why do oil companies still continue to drill even with the massive oil spills and its dangers? Is this activity truly worthwhile for the country? Sadly, these questions remain unanswered; however, it does not mean that these should not be asked incessantly. While importing foreign oil is a dire need, the solution is not in the destruction of pristine areas for oil supply. What should be done is for the government to invest dollars from taxes in renewable and clean energy (Stage, int). Together with this proposal for the government, Americans should act to help save what remains of our wildlife. ANWR is something that the United States of America can truly be proud of primarily because of its wildlife. It is unlike anything else. Its beauty is incomparable and unmatched. The prospect of drilling the land for oil should not be presented to oil companies. Such activity should be be discouraged as much as possible, there are many other ways to find alternative energy sources. Everyone must help to protect and preserve one of Alaska’s grandeurs or else, it will just be a picture of a beautiful landscape left in everyone’s memory. Works Cited Berger, Thomas R. Village Journey: The Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission, Hill Wang, New York. 1995. p. 40 â€Å"Beyond the Brooks Range: What is at Stake in Alaska Concerns More Than Just Caribou†. Ecoworld. com. 28 December 2004. http://www. ecoworld. com/home/articles2. cfm? tid=360. 25 March 2008. Chance, Norman A. The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography of Development. Holt, Rinehart Winston Press, New York. 1990. p. 105 â€Å"Don’t Allow Big oil to drill in the Arctic National wild life Refuge†. Defenders of Wildlife. 17 March 2005. http://www. defenders. org/wildlife/arctic/print/overview. heml. 25 March 2008. â€Å"Exxon Valdez disaster—15 years of lies†. Greenpeace. 19 March 2005. http://www. greenpeaceusa. org/features/details? item_id=681778. 25 March 2008. LaDuke, Winona. Alaska: Oil and the Natives. Earth Island Journal. San Francisco: 2003. Vol. 18, Iss. 3, p. 30. Montgomery, David. ANWR 1002 area and development: One question, many issues. Oil Gas Journal. Tulsa: 2003. Vol. 101, Iss. 15; pg. 38, 5 pgs â€Å"Stage is set to drill in Arctic Refuge†. Greenpeace. 19 March 2005. http://www. greenpeaceusa. org/features/details? item_id=796496. 25 March 2008.

George Lopez Essay -- Media Television TV

The television show, George Lopez, is a series in which Latinos make up the entire cast of the family. It takes place in the present day Los Angeles and focuses on a family and their daily lifestyle. This is one of two television shows that are directed to the English speaking population that has the Latino minority as the main ethnicity of the cast. Only 4% of Hispanics make up the cast of prime-time television shows, a miniscule amount considering that Hispanic-Americans are the largest minority group in the US. The ways in which minorities are portrayed in the show have their good aspects as well as bad aspects. This is to be expected since showing all good points or all the bad points isn't a fair perspective of the Latino population. As a show that points out a minority, its necessary to look as the good as well as the bad to find if it is actually a optimistic view of the race or a pessimistic one. The positives shown in The George Lopez Show are demonstrated by the members of the family in many different ways. The main character George, was promoted to plant manager of an L.A. airplane parts factory in the beginning of the series. He also receives an award for excellence in business management later on in the series. These represent the success of a Latino man. In one episode, when George finds out that one of his son's friends is having a rough home life, he makes arrangement for someone to take him in and take care of him until his home is safe enough for him to reside in. This show's how human and how caring he towards others as well as his family. When his son, Max, needs help with his baseball skills in another episode, George shows that he is a devoted father and works tirelessly on improving his son's skills. ... ... Show† properly portraying Hispanic Americans in this country? Or is it just hopeful thinking on the part of Mr. Lopez on what he hopes will change (Porter, 2002)? It is true that â€Å"The George Lopez Show† does not stoop to the usual levels of stereotyping Hispanics as lazy or gang members (Morales, 2002). For the most part the show does a good job in portraying Hispanics in a non stereotypical way, however, the way that certain characters on the show talk, such as the mother and the brother, are very much the stereotypical Mexican dialect. Also, Lopez’s children are extremely lazy, which is stereotypical of the Hispanic culture, although its also very abundant in teenage culture too (Morales, 2002). The â€Å"George Lopez Show† has been very successful up until now in starting to remove the typical Mexican stereotypes in America, but it still has a long way to go.

Catch 22 By: Joseph Heller Essay

Catch 22 has many scenes of violence in it that helps to contribute to the meaning of the complete work. The first scene of violence that helps portray the complete meaning of the novel is Kid Sampson being cut in half by McWatt while flying his plane too low to the ground. The second scene of violence was when Yossarian broke Nately’s nose on Thanksgiving while some men were playing around with the machine gun. And finally the last example of violence in Catch 22 the help contributes to the meaning of the novel is Milo Minderbinder making a contract with the Germans to have him fire on his own unit to help the syndicate. These scenes give a good idea on how the violence of Catch 22 contributes to the meaning of the complete work of the novel and shows the importance of the violence to the novel. The first scene of violence that helps portray the meaning the novel Catch 22 is McWatt accidently killing Kid Sampson on the beach. McWatt was flying way too low to the ground like he does all of the time and flew over the beach. Then he went right at Kid Sampson and then sliced him to pieces with the blade of his ship. Kid Sampson was at the beach with everyone else and he was standing on a raft when he got hit by the plane. McWatt was on a training flight with two new pilots showing them how to fly when it happened. They parachuted out of the plane and he rode it into the side of a mountain. Everyone thought Doc Daneeka died in the plane accident becasue McWatt put Doc Daneeka name down for flight hours but he was really on the ground with everyone else. Yossarian warns him about flying so low but he still decides to fly low to the ground. Colonel Cathcart is so devastated about what happened he made the missions go up even more than it was before. This is how McWatt accidently ki lling Kid Sampson is important to the novel. The second scene of violence in Catch 22 is Yossarian breaking Nately’s nose on Thanksgiving when Nately tried to stop Yossarian from shooting the guys firing the machine gun at the base. Then Nately told his whore and she hated Yossarian for that. When Nately got killed in the disastrous crash on the La Spezia mission with Dobbs, Yossarian decides to go to Rome and tell her what happened to Nately. When he was there, she tired to kill and was throwing  stuff at him. Then she keeps following him around wherever he went. She was in the plane when it landed and she was at the base. Then she jumped out of a bush after he got out of the Colonel Cathcart and Colonel Korn office. They were discussing sending home Yossarian and about giving him a medal. But she stabbed him and he had to go to the hospital. This is why Yossarian breaking Nately’s nose on Thanksgiving was important to the story. The last major scene of violence in Catch 22 that was important to the novel had to do with Milo and the M &M Enterprises is in the business for finding the best deals and trading to make a profit for the syndicate. His only failure was buying Egyptian cotton was going to ruin his business because he can’t sell it. He made a deal with the Germans who by the way were the enemies of America in the war. The deal stated that he had to bomb his own outfit and many of his own men were hurt during this. Milo even decided it was best for him to tip off the Germans during a surprise attack by the Americans. But instead of getting punishes for shooting his own unit the public celebrates all of his profits he made. His explanation for playing for both sides was if it benefits the syndicate it benefits the men and it is worth taking a risk for. Then he decides he wants to fly more missions because he has only seven but Colonel Cathcart makes him agree to have the men fly his missions for him. This is the cause for more un needed deaths in the novel. This is how Milos bombing his own unite helps show how violent scenes are important to the novel. Throughout the novel Catch 22 there are many scenes of violence. These violent scenes help to contribute to t he meaning of the book. The first scene was when Yossarian broke Nately’s nose during the Thanksgiving celebration which causes Nately’s whore to hate him. The second scene of violence that contributed to the meaning of the book was when McWatt Killed Kid Sampson with his airplane. And finally the last scene was when Milo started shooting at his own unit after making a deal whit the Germans. This is how these scenes help to contribute to the whole meaning of Catch 22.

Company Profile Of Glaxosmithkline ( Gsk ) - 1454 Words

1.0 Company Profile GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), with its headquarters in the UK, is one of the world’s leading research-based pharmaceutical and healthcare companies. â€Å"GSK currently has sales of more than $35 billion and employs over 100,000 people worldwide. Over 42,000 employees work at 108 manufacturing sites in 41 countries and over 16,000 are in RD. RD is based at 24 sites in seven countries.† (Lager, T., 2002) GSK is the leader in four major therapeutic areas – the anti-infective, central nervous system, respiratory gastro intestinal, and metabolic fields. In addition, GSK is a leader in the field of vaccines and over-the-counter medicines and nutritional healthcare. 2.0 Critical Supply Chain Management Problem faced by GSK and its†¦show more content†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¢ Supply chain participants tried to optimise their own performances, without considering the needs of others, causing inventories to increase because safety stocks were required. It was found at GSK the presences of significant inventories based on a desire to protect production, distribution or marketing against both or either upstream or downstream fluctuations in supply or demand. 3.0 The Strategy used by GSK to Deal with the SCM Problem Following the supply chain review GSKs decided to change the planning management system and replenishment system. The purpose was to substitute the traditional CMI with Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI). GSK embarked on a partnering initiative using VMI both upstream and downstream in its supply chain in order to better coordinate the flows of materials and information between different participants, supporting efforts to improve data collection, management decentralisation and performance management system. It must be noted, prior to pursuing a VMI, GSK implemented a program to redesign its supply chain, with the aim of reducing the cost of its supply chain by reducing the number of manufacturing facilities drove manufacturing specialisation in a reduced across a reduced product