The biggest thing that I learned was knowning the source my news comes from and that different sources have different views. My news habits have changed because now I check multiple sites about the same story just because I'm interested in how they're written differently. I think this matters because it's important to have our own opinions and know we're not always alone in our opionions. Just because one site says something doesn't neccesarily mean it's right or all other sites agree with it. I can apply this by in the future checking where my information comes from.
Also my news habits have changed because I check political news more. I never was interested in politics but we talk a lot about them in this class causing me to read more about them. I also learned about ways to find articles through sites like LexisNexis and the Penrose database as well as writing tools like the writing center and peer/review editing techniques. I also learned about writing styles and how to integrate quotes.
Monday, March 11, 2013
extended essay 2
Dina Grossman
Extended Essay 2
Environmentalist vs. Oil Company
In an effort to protect the Bowhead Whales that migrate through the magnificent
Beaufort Sea, Shell gasoline in 2007 was not granted permission to drill for oil in this
area. Shell was planning on spending hundred of millions of dollars to make this one
of their largest areas for production. Their main target was the Camden Bay area. The
Camden Bay is located on the eastern side of the Beaufort Sea. This Bay also happens to
be right off the shore of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. In the middle of the 1980’s a
company called Hammerhead (now Sivulliq) drilled in this same area. Shell believes this
area contains somewhere between 100 and 200 million barrels of oil. In 2007 Shell had
planned to look for seismic activities and start making around three wells for exploration
purposes.
A hearing stated that Shell is not allowed to start this drilling process until they
receive proper merit. The hearing was started by Native Alaskan as well as conservation
groups who sued Shell. The hearing took place in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco on Tuesday August 21, 2007. They told the thee-judge panel that drilling here
would disrupt the whales. While they didn’t ask for Shell to completely stop, they did say
that the drilling needs to put off till they review the merit of the case. The court made it’s
decision Wednesday, agreeing with the people. Because of this Shell wasn’t allowed to
start the process this same year. Shell didn’t take this as a huge set-back, instead they set
forward and making plans to get around these groups.
This is the beginning of the story, when it all began. I saw this article in a
McGraw Hill magazine. It definitely took the side that Shell was in the wrong for trying
to drill in Alaska. It talks in a tone that implies environmentalists are correct in not
wanting Shell to drill. The McGraw Hill magazine is based out of is a construction
magazine. I would have thought being a construction magazine they would have wanted
Shell to drill so they can have oil for their construction equipment. The article, however,
is written in a negative tone. I analyze this to mean that they have more of the
environments best interest in mind rather than their own. It’s all very into electrical stuff
and in global energy. Maybe since they focus on a more global level they aren’t as
interested in American drilling. While the company is based in New York City they have
40 offices in other countires. LexisNexis didn’t tell me who the author of this article was,
but perhaps it was written in another country adding another level of why drilling on
American soil is less appealing to them.
I saw the next part to the story on The Washington Post’s website. This is a more
political website. I thought it was taking more of the governments in the right side. It
took a lot more positive quotes saying how it’ll create more jobs and help domesticize
oil. The next part is written in a much more positive tone. The Washington Post is all for
America. They focus on the positive things like all the jobs it will create and how good
it would be to have domestic oil. They analyze the story in a much less critiquing way.
They tend to glide over the negative facts and enhance the positives like the jobs to be
created. They just mention the environmentalists barely to make it a well rounded story,
they don’t go into much detail as to backing up the environmentalists argument. While
the environmentalists are saying the drilling season is almost over the Washington Post
takes the side of, “oh, we’ve got plenty of time!”
Four and a half billion dollars later, Shell is ready to start their drilling process.
Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell compared this to Christmas, they’re just waiting
for santa. Shell is now planning to drill in the Chukchi Sea. They have high hopes that
there will be a large quantity of oil thousands of feet below the surface. Shell petitioned
against the Environment Protection Agency to get rid of a law they had about air
emissions. Finally, Shells new ship the Noble Discoverer went out to sea.
While the environmentalists are having huge problems with global warming, this
is a huge advantage to Shell. With the ice melting and warmer temperatures, the oil is
more accessible than ever. The Environmental Protection Agency is still trying to stop
them. Shell originally was planning on having five or six wells, however the Obama
Administration put some last-minute challenges making it impossible for them to have
more than two says the vice president of Shell, Pete Slaiby. He is still very optimistic
about drilling though, saying they only need a few more permits. The Obama
Administrations support for Shell has gotten them a lot of trouble from groups to protect
the environment, claiming drilling in Alaska is unsafe. Adam Fetcher, the interior
spokesperson, claims that Shell had to go through the toughest permits in history. They
say this is because of the BP oil spill.
Due to a really harsh winter, Shell had to delay their drilling. There were too
many layers of ice for them to drill through. The senator Shell, Lisa Murkowski said
Shell might be postponed even a year. If Shell succeeds in getting all the permits and
everything they need, they’ll be able to start producing oil in 10 years.
Then the next reporting of the Shell story was also found on The Washington
Post. The same way that they wrote the last article they still focus on the good things.
This was also more positive. This talked more about the logistics more than the
environmentalist aspect. While both are important, this talks about all the greedy stuff.
Because Americans are known to care a lot about money it makes sense that an American
publication trying to appeal to American audiences would focus on the things we care
about. The money involved, how much oil will be produced, and things along those lines.
It was also written in a more positive tone. Even though Shell had setbacks, they would
still be on the right track.
On August 31st 2012, Shell got the approval they were waiting for to start getting
the oil reported Ken Salazar. However, they can’t start the real drilling process. They are
only allowed to do what is called a mud-line cellar. What this is, is a 40-feet-deep
structure that is needed to make a blowout preventer. A blowout preventer is used to help
get rid of spills. This means that they still aren’t allowed to drill into the oil-bearing
reservoirs, the reservoirs are still 4,000 feet deeper than they are drilling.
The permission for Shell was sped up because of the limited drilling season. Shell
is only allowed to drill during the open-water season because after this the ice comes
back. Shell is still waiting for the Artic Challenger to get approved by the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Getting it approved is the easy part, this simply
takes around 4 days. But, actually getting it to the drilling spot, the coastal Inuit Town of
Wainwright, will take at least two weeks. Then, building the well takes another 24 days.
If all this isn’t completed in time, Shell can not drill.
Michael LeVine, a Pacific legal counsel at Oceana member, said “The
Department of Interior should not be bending over backward to accommodate a company
that simply cannot get its act together. The window is closing and the company doesn’t
have anyone to blame but itself.” LeVine does not want Shell getting a deadline on their
drilling deadline that the Obama Administration is approving. Shell replied with, “We
appreciate the efford the Department of Interior had made to understand, scrutinize and
support the project of national significance.” Senator of Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, thinks
they are moving in the right direction, “while we would all like to see a discovery this
summer, the most important thing is for shell to continue to make progress and
demonstrate once again that Artic drilling can be done safely.”
The penultimate part to the story I read on The Telegraph, a publication from the
United Kingdom. I thought it was interesting having a different countries opinion since
it’s not as much to their advantage to have the United States producing their own oil. The
Telegraph wrote in a more negative tone. They talked a lot about the set-backs and all the
problems Shell was having. In the future a United Kingdom oil company is planning on
bidding on a land lease in Alaska, so it’s in their best interest for Shell to fail at getting
the oil out of Alaska so they can have it. It makes sense that they would choose to write
in a negative tone for a couple reasons. First, if they want to drill there obviously they
don’t want Shell getting in the way. Second, if America stopped buying oil from other
countries those countries would have to charge more to make up for the difference and
since the United Kingdon is importing oil that means they would need to pay higher
costs. It makes sense that The Telegraph wouldn’t be for Shell drilling in their future
drilling location.
On September 17th, 2012, Shell announced they wouldn’t be meeting the
deadlines and would have to postpone drilling til 2013. One of Shells representatives
thinks what might have happened is gas could have gotten trapped in the dome causing it
to shake. The test took place in Puget Sound on the Artic Challenger. One of their domes
used to contain spills was damaged during a test. Shell said one of the mechanical
devices malfunctioned as it was being put in the water. Environmentalists were thrilled
by this setback. They also used this to foundation their argument that if Shell can’t
handle the calm waters in a test they can’t be trusted in the unpredictable deep Artic
waters. In the deep artic waters they have high wind gusts and strong ice floes.
Unlike the environmentalists, the Obama Administration continued to defend
Shell. They support the drilling because they want to expand oil production inside the
United States. They applauded Shell for admitting their accident. Ken Salazar said
“Through Shell’s efforts, tremendous progress has been made and valuable lessons
will be learned as the company carefully and deliberately moves forward with Artic
exploration activities. As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy, we
look forward to continuing to work with Shell.” To this one environmentalist, Brendan
Cummings, a senior on the counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity said, “This
reaffirms Shell was clearly not ready to drill this summer, and no matter how much the
Obama administration was willing to lower the bar for them, they were not able to cross
it. It opens the door to further challenges in the court and elsewhere.” The Center for
Biological Diversity has brought Shell to court before over them drilling in Alaska. This
hasn’t been their only setback along the way. They had issues getting permits, electrical
problems, and other things that prevented the Coast Guard from giving them approval.
Shell was able to begin drilling their first holes but didn’t get as far as drilling the
exploratory holes that would hold the oil by the October deadline. Shell still has
permission to keep building preliminary holes. These preliminary holes don’t require a
containment dome because they are thousands of feet above where the oil and gas is
located. Inside the preliminary holes is where Shell will store emergency equipment
needed to shut down the systems in an emergency. After they finish drilling them they
will simply put a cap on them till the next summer. Shells final statement was optimistic
saying, “we look forward to the final receipt of our drilling permits for the multiyear
exploration program upon the successful testing and deployment of the Artic
Containment System.”
The final piece to the story is on The Business Monitor Online. A business
magazine of course focused on potential job growth and money more so than the others.
It also talks about the issue in a more neutral tone while talking more about the future and
other companies. Being a business magazine they shy away from getting into the
environmental part of the arguments. They try to stay focused completely on the
numbers. The people reading The Business Monitor Online, I’m sure they do care about
the environment, but mostly they just want to know where they should be investing.
Someone who is hardcore into the environment isn’t going to be reading business
magazines so why would they try to appeal to this audience? They focus on what they’re
good at, money.
On December 31st 2012, yet another obstacle hit Shell. One of its ships The
Kulluk was ran offshore because extreme weather caused it to separate from it’s tow
ship. Luckily, the ship didn’t leak anything damaging the wildlife. The ship costs 300
million dollars so any damages will cause even further setbacks, the ship was sent to
Seattle for further inspection. Even though the other ship, Noble Discoverer, is still
usable they can’t start drilling. Artic drilling rules state that all companies need to have
two ships in case one fails.
Even with all this having happened, Shell still plans to start drilling in Alaska.
They have already spent four and a half billion dollars to try to make this work. Also,
they are in a hurry because ConocoPhillips as well as a Norwegian company Statoil have
both made plans to start drilling in the Chukchi Sea in 2014.
Extended Essay 2
Environmentalist vs. Oil Company
In an effort to protect the Bowhead Whales that migrate through the magnificent
Beaufort Sea, Shell gasoline in 2007 was not granted permission to drill for oil in this
area. Shell was planning on spending hundred of millions of dollars to make this one
of their largest areas for production. Their main target was the Camden Bay area. The
Camden Bay is located on the eastern side of the Beaufort Sea. This Bay also happens to
be right off the shore of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. In the middle of the 1980’s a
company called Hammerhead (now Sivulliq) drilled in this same area. Shell believes this
area contains somewhere between 100 and 200 million barrels of oil. In 2007 Shell had
planned to look for seismic activities and start making around three wells for exploration
purposes.
A hearing stated that Shell is not allowed to start this drilling process until they
receive proper merit. The hearing was started by Native Alaskan as well as conservation
groups who sued Shell. The hearing took place in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco on Tuesday August 21, 2007. They told the thee-judge panel that drilling here
would disrupt the whales. While they didn’t ask for Shell to completely stop, they did say
that the drilling needs to put off till they review the merit of the case. The court made it’s
decision Wednesday, agreeing with the people. Because of this Shell wasn’t allowed to
start the process this same year. Shell didn’t take this as a huge set-back, instead they set
forward and making plans to get around these groups.
This is the beginning of the story, when it all began. I saw this article in a
McGraw Hill magazine. It definitely took the side that Shell was in the wrong for trying
to drill in Alaska. It talks in a tone that implies environmentalists are correct in not
wanting Shell to drill. The McGraw Hill magazine is based out of is a construction
magazine. I would have thought being a construction magazine they would have wanted
Shell to drill so they can have oil for their construction equipment. The article, however,
is written in a negative tone. I analyze this to mean that they have more of the
environments best interest in mind rather than their own. It’s all very into electrical stuff
and in global energy. Maybe since they focus on a more global level they aren’t as
interested in American drilling. While the company is based in New York City they have
40 offices in other countires. LexisNexis didn’t tell me who the author of this article was,
but perhaps it was written in another country adding another level of why drilling on
American soil is less appealing to them.
I saw the next part to the story on The Washington Post’s website. This is a more
political website. I thought it was taking more of the governments in the right side. It
took a lot more positive quotes saying how it’ll create more jobs and help domesticize
oil. The next part is written in a much more positive tone. The Washington Post is all for
America. They focus on the positive things like all the jobs it will create and how good
it would be to have domestic oil. They analyze the story in a much less critiquing way.
They tend to glide over the negative facts and enhance the positives like the jobs to be
created. They just mention the environmentalists barely to make it a well rounded story,
they don’t go into much detail as to backing up the environmentalists argument. While
the environmentalists are saying the drilling season is almost over the Washington Post
takes the side of, “oh, we’ve got plenty of time!”
Four and a half billion dollars later, Shell is ready to start their drilling process.
Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell compared this to Christmas, they’re just waiting
for santa. Shell is now planning to drill in the Chukchi Sea. They have high hopes that
there will be a large quantity of oil thousands of feet below the surface. Shell petitioned
against the Environment Protection Agency to get rid of a law they had about air
emissions. Finally, Shells new ship the Noble Discoverer went out to sea.
While the environmentalists are having huge problems with global warming, this
is a huge advantage to Shell. With the ice melting and warmer temperatures, the oil is
more accessible than ever. The Environmental Protection Agency is still trying to stop
them. Shell originally was planning on having five or six wells, however the Obama
Administration put some last-minute challenges making it impossible for them to have
more than two says the vice president of Shell, Pete Slaiby. He is still very optimistic
about drilling though, saying they only need a few more permits. The Obama
Administrations support for Shell has gotten them a lot of trouble from groups to protect
the environment, claiming drilling in Alaska is unsafe. Adam Fetcher, the interior
spokesperson, claims that Shell had to go through the toughest permits in history. They
say this is because of the BP oil spill.
Due to a really harsh winter, Shell had to delay their drilling. There were too
many layers of ice for them to drill through. The senator Shell, Lisa Murkowski said
Shell might be postponed even a year. If Shell succeeds in getting all the permits and
everything they need, they’ll be able to start producing oil in 10 years.
Then the next reporting of the Shell story was also found on The Washington
Post. The same way that they wrote the last article they still focus on the good things.
This was also more positive. This talked more about the logistics more than the
environmentalist aspect. While both are important, this talks about all the greedy stuff.
Because Americans are known to care a lot about money it makes sense that an American
publication trying to appeal to American audiences would focus on the things we care
about. The money involved, how much oil will be produced, and things along those lines.
It was also written in a more positive tone. Even though Shell had setbacks, they would
still be on the right track.
On August 31st 2012, Shell got the approval they were waiting for to start getting
the oil reported Ken Salazar. However, they can’t start the real drilling process. They are
only allowed to do what is called a mud-line cellar. What this is, is a 40-feet-deep
structure that is needed to make a blowout preventer. A blowout preventer is used to help
get rid of spills. This means that they still aren’t allowed to drill into the oil-bearing
reservoirs, the reservoirs are still 4,000 feet deeper than they are drilling.
The permission for Shell was sped up because of the limited drilling season. Shell
is only allowed to drill during the open-water season because after this the ice comes
back. Shell is still waiting for the Artic Challenger to get approved by the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Getting it approved is the easy part, this simply
takes around 4 days. But, actually getting it to the drilling spot, the coastal Inuit Town of
Wainwright, will take at least two weeks. Then, building the well takes another 24 days.
If all this isn’t completed in time, Shell can not drill.
Michael LeVine, a Pacific legal counsel at Oceana member, said “The
Department of Interior should not be bending over backward to accommodate a company
that simply cannot get its act together. The window is closing and the company doesn’t
have anyone to blame but itself.” LeVine does not want Shell getting a deadline on their
drilling deadline that the Obama Administration is approving. Shell replied with, “We
appreciate the efford the Department of Interior had made to understand, scrutinize and
support the project of national significance.” Senator of Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, thinks
they are moving in the right direction, “while we would all like to see a discovery this
summer, the most important thing is for shell to continue to make progress and
demonstrate once again that Artic drilling can be done safely.”
The penultimate part to the story I read on The Telegraph, a publication from the
United Kingdom. I thought it was interesting having a different countries opinion since
it’s not as much to their advantage to have the United States producing their own oil. The
Telegraph wrote in a more negative tone. They talked a lot about the set-backs and all the
problems Shell was having. In the future a United Kingdom oil company is planning on
bidding on a land lease in Alaska, so it’s in their best interest for Shell to fail at getting
the oil out of Alaska so they can have it. It makes sense that they would choose to write
in a negative tone for a couple reasons. First, if they want to drill there obviously they
don’t want Shell getting in the way. Second, if America stopped buying oil from other
countries those countries would have to charge more to make up for the difference and
since the United Kingdon is importing oil that means they would need to pay higher
costs. It makes sense that The Telegraph wouldn’t be for Shell drilling in their future
drilling location.
On September 17th, 2012, Shell announced they wouldn’t be meeting the
deadlines and would have to postpone drilling til 2013. One of Shells representatives
thinks what might have happened is gas could have gotten trapped in the dome causing it
to shake. The test took place in Puget Sound on the Artic Challenger. One of their domes
used to contain spills was damaged during a test. Shell said one of the mechanical
devices malfunctioned as it was being put in the water. Environmentalists were thrilled
by this setback. They also used this to foundation their argument that if Shell can’t
handle the calm waters in a test they can’t be trusted in the unpredictable deep Artic
waters. In the deep artic waters they have high wind gusts and strong ice floes.
Unlike the environmentalists, the Obama Administration continued to defend
Shell. They support the drilling because they want to expand oil production inside the
United States. They applauded Shell for admitting their accident. Ken Salazar said
“Through Shell’s efforts, tremendous progress has been made and valuable lessons
will be learned as the company carefully and deliberately moves forward with Artic
exploration activities. As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy, we
look forward to continuing to work with Shell.” To this one environmentalist, Brendan
Cummings, a senior on the counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity said, “This
reaffirms Shell was clearly not ready to drill this summer, and no matter how much the
Obama administration was willing to lower the bar for them, they were not able to cross
it. It opens the door to further challenges in the court and elsewhere.” The Center for
Biological Diversity has brought Shell to court before over them drilling in Alaska. This
hasn’t been their only setback along the way. They had issues getting permits, electrical
problems, and other things that prevented the Coast Guard from giving them approval.
Shell was able to begin drilling their first holes but didn’t get as far as drilling the
exploratory holes that would hold the oil by the October deadline. Shell still has
permission to keep building preliminary holes. These preliminary holes don’t require a
containment dome because they are thousands of feet above where the oil and gas is
located. Inside the preliminary holes is where Shell will store emergency equipment
needed to shut down the systems in an emergency. After they finish drilling them they
will simply put a cap on them till the next summer. Shells final statement was optimistic
saying, “we look forward to the final receipt of our drilling permits for the multiyear
exploration program upon the successful testing and deployment of the Artic
Containment System.”
The final piece to the story is on The Business Monitor Online. A business
magazine of course focused on potential job growth and money more so than the others.
It also talks about the issue in a more neutral tone while talking more about the future and
other companies. Being a business magazine they shy away from getting into the
environmental part of the arguments. They try to stay focused completely on the
numbers. The people reading The Business Monitor Online, I’m sure they do care about
the environment, but mostly they just want to know where they should be investing.
Someone who is hardcore into the environment isn’t going to be reading business
magazines so why would they try to appeal to this audience? They focus on what they’re
good at, money.
On December 31st 2012, yet another obstacle hit Shell. One of its ships The
Kulluk was ran offshore because extreme weather caused it to separate from it’s tow
ship. Luckily, the ship didn’t leak anything damaging the wildlife. The ship costs 300
million dollars so any damages will cause even further setbacks, the ship was sent to
Seattle for further inspection. Even though the other ship, Noble Discoverer, is still
usable they can’t start drilling. Artic drilling rules state that all companies need to have
two ships in case one fails.
Even with all this having happened, Shell still plans to start drilling in Alaska.
They have already spent four and a half billion dollars to try to make this work. Also,
they are in a hurry because ConocoPhillips as well as a Norwegian company Statoil have
both made plans to start drilling in the Chukchi Sea in 2014.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
rough draft
In
an effort to protect the Bowhead Whales that migrate through the magnificent
Beaufort Sea, Shell gasoline in 2007 was not granted permission to drill for
oil in this area. Shell was planning on
spending hundred of millions of dollars to make this one of their largest areas
for production. Their main target was the Camden Bay area. The Camden Bay is
located on the eastern side of the Beaufort Sea. This Bay also happens to be
right off the shore of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. In the middle of the
1980’s a company called Hammerhead (now Sivulliq) drilled in this same area.
Shell believes this area contains somewhere between 100 and 200 million barrels
of oil. In 2007 Shell had planned to look for seismic activities and start
making around three wells for exploration purposes.
A hearing stated that Shell is not allowed to start this
drilling process until they receive proper merit. The hearing was started by
Native Alaskan as well as convervation groups who sued Shell. The hearing took
place in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on
Tuesday August 21, 2007. They told the thee-judge panel that drilling here
would disrupt the whales. While they didn’t ask for Shell to completely stop,
they did say that the drilling needs to put off till they review the merit of
the case. The court made it’s decision
Wednesday, agreeing with the people. Because of this Shell wasn’t allowed to
start the process this same year. Shell didn’t take this as a huge set-back,
instead they set forward and making plans to get around these groups.
This is the beginning of the story, when it all began. I
saw this article in a McGraw Hill magazine. It definitely took the side that
Shell was in the wrong for trying to drill in Alaska. It talks in a tone that implies
environmentalists are correct in not wanting Shell to drill. [i]
I saw the next part to the story on The Washington Post’s website. This is a
more political website. I thought it was taking more of the governments in the
right side. It took a lot more positive quotes saying how it’ll create more
jobs and help domesticize oil.[ii]
Four and a half billion dollars later, Shell is ready to
start their drilling process. Lieutenant
Governor Mead Treadwell compared this to Christmas, they’re just waiting for
santa. Shell is now planning to drill in the Chukchi Sea. They have high hopes
that there will be a large quantity of oil thousands of feet below the
surface. Shell petitioned against the
Environment Protection Agency to get rid of a law they had about air emissions.
Finally, Shells new ship the Noble Discoverer went out to sea.
While the environmentalists are having huge problems with
global warming, this is a huge advantage to Shell. With the ice melting and
warmer temperatures, the oil is more accessible than ever. The Environmental
Protection Agency is still trying to stop them. Shell originally was planning
on having five or six wells, however the Obama Administration put some
last-minute challenges making it impossible for them to have more than two says
the vice president of Shell, Pete Slaiby. He is still very optimistic about
drilling though, saying they only need a few more permits. The Obama
Administrations support for Shell has gotten them a lot of trouble from groups
to protect the environment, claiming drilling in Alaska is unsafe. Adam
Fetcher, the interior spokesperson, claims that Shell had to go through the
toughest permits in history. They say this is because of the BP oil spill.
Due to a really harsh winter, Shell had to delay their
drilling. There were too many layers of ice for them to drill through. The
senator Shell, Lisa Murkowski said Shell might be postponed even a year. If Shell succeeds in getting all the permits
and everything they need, they’ll be able to start producing oil in 10 years.
Then the next reporting of the Shell story was found on The
Washington Post as well. This was also more positive. This talked more about
the logistics. The money involved, how much oil will be produced, and things
along those lines. It was also written in a more positive tone. Even though
Shell had setbacks, they would still be on the right track.[iii]
On August 31st 2012,
Shell got the approval they were waiting for to start getting the oil reported
Ken Salazar. However, they can’t start the real drilling process. They are only
allowed to do what is called a mud-line cellar. What this is, is a 40-feet-deep
structure that is needed to make a blowout preventer. A blowout preventer is
used to help get rid of spills. This means that they still aren’t allowed to
drill into the oil-bearing reservoirs, the reservoirs are still 4,000 feet
deeper than they are drilling.
The permission for Shell was sped up
because of the limited drilling season. Shell is only allowed to drill during
the open-water season because after this the ice comes back. Shell is still
waiting for the Artic Challenger to get approved by the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement. Getting it approved is the easy part, this simply
takes around 4 days. But, actually getting it to the drilling spot, the coastal
Inuit Town of Wainwright, will take at least two weeks. Then, building the well
takes another 24 days. If all this isn’t completed in time, Shell can not
drill.
Michael LeVine, a Pacific legal
counsel at Oceana member, said “The
Department of Interior should not be bending over backward to accommodate a
company that simply cannot get its act together. The window is closing and the
company doesn’t have anyone to blame but itself.” LeVine does not want Shell
getting a deadline on their drilling deadline that the Obama Administration is
approving. Shell replied with, “We
appreciate the efford the Department of Interior had made to understand,
scrutinize and support the project of national significance.” Senator of
Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, thinks they are moving in the right direction, “while
we would all like to see a discovery this summer, the most important thing is for
shell to continue to make progress and demonstrate once again that Artic
drilling can be done safely.”
The penultimate part to the story I
read on The Telegraph, a publication from the United Kingdom. I thought it was interesting
having a different countries opinion since it’s not as much to their advantage
to have the United States producing their own oil. The Telegraph wrote in a
more negative tone. They talked a lot about the set-backs and all the problems
Shell was having. In the future a United Kingdom oil company is planning on
bidding on a land lease in Alaska, so it’s in their best interest for Shell to
fail at getting the oil out of Alaska so they can have it.[iv]
On September 17th, 2012,
Shell announced they wouldn’t be meeting the deadlines and would have to
postpone drilling til 2013. One of Shells representatives thinks what might
have happened is gas could have gotten trapped in the dome causing it to shake.
The test took place in Puget Sound on the Artic Challenger. One of their domes
used to contain spills was damaged during a test. Shell said one of the
mechanical devices malfunctioned as it was being put in the water.
Environmentalists were thrilled by this setback. They also used this to
foundation their argument that if Shell can’t handle the calm waters in a test
they can’t be trusted in the unpredictable deep Artic waters. In the deep artic
waters they have high wind gusts and strong ice floes.
Unlike the environmentalists, the Obama
Administration continued to defend Shell. They support the drilling because
they want to expand oil production inside the United States. They applauded
Shell for admitting their accident. Ken Salazar said “Through Shell’s efforts,
tremendous progress has been made and valuable lessons will be learned as the
company carefully and deliberately moves forward with Artic exploration
activities. As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy, we
look forward to continuing to work with Shell.” To this one environmentalist,
Brendan Cummings, a senior on the counsel for the Center for Biological
Diversity said, “This reaffirms Shell was clearly not ready to drill this
summer, and no matter how much the Obama administration was willing to lower
the bar for them, they were not able to cross it. It opens the door to further
challenges in the court and elsewhere.” The Center for Biological Diversity has
brought Shell to court before over them drilling in Alaska.
This hasn’t been their only setback
along the way. They had issues getting permits, electrical problems, and other
things that prevented the Coast Guard from giving them approval.
Shell was able to begin drilling
their first holes but didn’t get as far as drilling the exploratory holes that
would hold the oil by the October deadline. Shell still has permission to keep
building preliminary holes. These preliminary holes don’t require a containment
dome because they are thousands of feet above where the oil and gas is located.
Inside the preliminary holes is where Shell will store emergency equipment
needed to shut down the systems in an emergency. After they finish drilling them they will
simply put a cap on them till the next summer. Shells final statement was
optimistic saying, “we look forward to the final receipt of our drilling
permits for the multiyear exploration program upon the successful testing and
deployment of the Artic Containment System.”
The final piece to the story is on
The Business Monitor Online. A business magazine of course focused on potential
job growth and money more so than the others. It also talks about the issue in
a more neutral tone while talking more about the future and other companies. [v]
On December 31st 2012,
yet another obstacle hit Shell. One of its ships The Kulluk was ran offshore
because extreme weather caused it to separate from it’s tow ship. Luckily, the
ship didn’t leak anything damaging the wildlife. The ship costs 300 million dollars so any
damages will cause even further setbacks, the ship was sent to Seattle for
further inspection. Even though the other ship, Noble Discoverer, is still
usable they can’t start drilling. Artic drilling rules state that all companies
need to have two ships in case one fails.
Even
with all this having happened, Shell still plans to start drilling in Alaska.
They have already spent four and a half billion dollars to try to make this
work. Also, they are in a hurry because ConocoPhillips as well as a Norwegian
company Statoil have both made plans to start drilling in the Chukchi Sea in
2014.
[i] http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T16819902399
[ii] http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T16819900956&format=GNBFI&sort=DATE,A,H&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T16819895927&cisb=22_T16819900939&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8075&docNo=17
[iii] http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T16819900956&format=GNBFI&sort=DATE,A,H&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T16819895927&cisb=22_T16819900939&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8075&docNo=18
[iv] http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T16819900956&format=GNBFI&sort=DATE,A,H&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T16819895927&cisb=22_T16819900939&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=389195&docNo=20
[v] http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T16819900956&format=GNBFI&sort=DATE,A,H&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T16819895927&cisb=22_T16819900939&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=252475&docNo=21
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
the last post p8
Morris, from what I understood, talks a lot about photos being objective. If someone says it's a photo of the Lusitania we more or less believe it. However, once we hear the backstory of what happened to the Lusitania we look at the same exact photo in a different way.
I agree with this. I usually don't question photos but then again, I'm not a journalist so I'm not really looking at them for a story. My family isn't big on family photos so I've never really looked at an old photo and questioned whose in it. Also, since I live with my parents, if I do look at a photo I can always ask my mom or dad who the people are and they'll give me a plethora of information I hardly want.
I do think it's subjective though. If a National Geographic photographer takes a picture of a tree they think is cool and caption it "the very beautifully colored ferifjr tree" a scientist might look at that same photo and be like, "no, that's simply a mango tree." This is even more prominent in religious examples. A christian might post a photo captioned, "the holy cross" where an atheist might just see it as "a plus sign." It all depends on someones beliefs. In this sense I do agree with Morris.
The backstory definitely changes the way I look at photos. I tend to look at photos before reading stories. A very recent example, I saw a photo of Oscar Pistorious and his girlfriend and thought awwww, what a cute couple. I later read that he killed her and it went from a cute photo to a horrifying one instantly.
Anything on The Onion is practically an example of this. With everything they write being bogus it's easy to find an incorrect caption.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/vacationing-detective-just-going-to-pretend-like-h,31355/
This is the current top story on the onion. They don't put the captions below the photo so I just took the headline and used it saying "Vacationing Detective Just Going To Pretend Like He Didn't Even See Dead Body In The Woods," and assumed the man in the photo is the detective. It states the man didn't see a dead body. This is just some random man who has nothing to do with a dead body. However, look at the photo and read the headline and immediately we have negative thoughts about this man. The caption changes the way we view the photo.
Anything on The Onion is practically an example of this. With everything they write being bogus it's easy to find an incorrect caption.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/vacationing-detective-just-going-to-pretend-like-h,31355/
This is the current top story on the onion. They don't put the captions below the photo so I just took the headline and used it saying "Vacationing Detective Just Going To Pretend Like He Didn't Even See Dead Body In The Woods," and assumed the man in the photo is the detective. It states the man didn't see a dead body. This is just some random man who has nothing to do with a dead body. However, look at the photo and read the headline and immediately we have negative thoughts about this man. The caption changes the way we view the photo.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
p7
Taking an approach is, as the book puts it, writing in the spirit of another author. There's a weak and a strong way to do this as Harris talks about. The weak way when "one assumes the role of a disciple, adopting (rather than adapting) the moves and interests of another thinker. Little knowledge is created. Instead the disciple simply shows that the master is correct" (74). In other words, when someone does this they basically just add examples to what's already been written. This is practically every research paper that I have ever written. The same with presentations. As a student a lot of what we do is this weak way of taking an approach. It's what we do in class on tests. We learn something someone else wrote and than we show a mastery of it by answering questions.
There are 3 steps in taking an approach, the first step is to acknowledge the influences. There are 3 steps to the first step
1) defining concerns. This means knowing what this writer usually talks about, what questions they come up with, what types of stories the author is attracted to and what they seem to value most.
2) characteristic methods. This is knowing how the writer answers questions, if they interview people or just make observations, if they use previously done research or look at historical evidence, and if they talk about their own experiences.
3) knowing the style of writing that the author uses. This is things like knowing the writer, are they funny, are they cool with taking unpopular stances, do they like working with others. Once you know all this think about if this is something you admire in a writer.
But, in acknowledging the influence you can't become someone you're not which is why Harris talks about Sennett and Foucaults ideas. They tell us to 1) acknowledge deep influence meaning basically giving the reader an understanding of where your writing is coming from. 2) Define how those influences have directed your work.This is pretty self explanatory. 3) Show how your approach diverges from theirs. For example, if you can't write a sentence that goes along the lines of "My friend's influence may be felt everywhere in the pages... [but] I did not continue as we had begun " (82) then most likely you're not using your influences rather you're just applying them.
The next step in taking an approach is, turning an approach on itself. I found this the most confusing one to understand. This is like taking the questions an author asks someone else but then you ask the author the questions they're asking everyone else. I think, I didn't fully understand.
The last step is reflexivity. This is the last step because its you reflecting on the approach you took. This includes the values and experiences you learned from writing.
I've been following the blogs of all my classmates and a lot, if not all, of what we do is taking an approach. We read another authors work, summarize it, provide an example. Everyones post on this topic, for example, are taking an approach to Harris's chapter "Taking An Approach." In this, a lot of insight is gained. We get other peoples views on it and think about in ways we might not have on our own. What's altered is the way we apply it to real life situations. Since we need to give an example, the way we show it in the real world is different. I don't think anything is really lost in it. Sometimes people put posts off til the last minute and need to rush to get them done so some valuable information may be lost which could alter someones understanding of the topic.
In the New York Times takes an appraoch to things by offering more academic approaches. They go into a lot more depth on topics. They hear about a story somewhere but when they rewrite it they need to go into a lot more depth because of the audience they are writing for.
There are 3 steps in taking an approach, the first step is to acknowledge the influences. There are 3 steps to the first step
1) defining concerns. This means knowing what this writer usually talks about, what questions they come up with, what types of stories the author is attracted to and what they seem to value most.
2) characteristic methods. This is knowing how the writer answers questions, if they interview people or just make observations, if they use previously done research or look at historical evidence, and if they talk about their own experiences.
3) knowing the style of writing that the author uses. This is things like knowing the writer, are they funny, are they cool with taking unpopular stances, do they like working with others. Once you know all this think about if this is something you admire in a writer.
But, in acknowledging the influence you can't become someone you're not which is why Harris talks about Sennett and Foucaults ideas. They tell us to 1) acknowledge deep influence meaning basically giving the reader an understanding of where your writing is coming from. 2) Define how those influences have directed your work.This is pretty self explanatory. 3) Show how your approach diverges from theirs. For example, if you can't write a sentence that goes along the lines of "My friend's influence may be felt everywhere in the pages... [but] I did not continue as we had begun " (82) then most likely you're not using your influences rather you're just applying them.
The next step in taking an approach is, turning an approach on itself. I found this the most confusing one to understand. This is like taking the questions an author asks someone else but then you ask the author the questions they're asking everyone else. I think, I didn't fully understand.
The last step is reflexivity. This is the last step because its you reflecting on the approach you took. This includes the values and experiences you learned from writing.
I've been following the blogs of all my classmates and a lot, if not all, of what we do is taking an approach. We read another authors work, summarize it, provide an example. Everyones post on this topic, for example, are taking an approach to Harris's chapter "Taking An Approach." In this, a lot of insight is gained. We get other peoples views on it and think about in ways we might not have on our own. What's altered is the way we apply it to real life situations. Since we need to give an example, the way we show it in the real world is different. I don't think anything is really lost in it. Sometimes people put posts off til the last minute and need to rush to get them done so some valuable information may be lost which could alter someones understanding of the topic.
In the New York Times takes an appraoch to things by offering more academic approaches. They go into a lot more depth on topics. They hear about a story somewhere but when they rewrite it they need to go into a lot more depth because of the audience they are writing for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)