University of The Cumberlands Operational Excellence Discussion Writing Assignment Help

In a lively 2013 CNN article, “Fears of Quakes and Flammable Tap Water Hit Brittain as Fracking Looms,” Dan Rivers and Ben Brumfield write, “The fear of fracking has come to Britain, replete with worries about potential earthquakes and tap water tainted with natural gas that bursts into flames at the strike of a match.” The lifting in May 2013 of a ban on extracting (drilling) for natural gas found in rock layers deep underground in the town of Balcombe in southern En- gland has several hundred protesters worried. Perhaps they have seen the Amer- ican documentary Gasland II (2013) by Josh Fox, which shows several American homeowners losing the value of their properties and homes to certain energy corporations’ drilling and releasing flammable gas in their kitchen sinks.

The debate over this drilling process in the United States and now in En- gland has proponents and opponents stating their claims and arguing for very large stakes. Opponents fear for their homes and property values and potentially may have to leave their residences (many already have) because of the afteref- fects and devastation caused. Proponents, including President Obama, see nat- ural gas on U.S. soil as an energy-independent national strategy. Cuadrilla, the British energy company waiting to drill in Balcombe, “believes there is about 200 trillion cubic feet of gas under the ground just within one of its local license areas. To put that figure into context, the United Kingdom uses about 3 trillion cubic feet of gas a year.”

What Is Fracking?

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is a process used to retrieve natural gas that is otherwise inaccessible. This technology was first developed in the late 1940s and involves pumping a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals—the “fracking fluid”—deep underground to break up shale rock formations and release pock- ets of gas. Fracking usually occurs when a new well is drilled, but wells may be fractured multiple times to increase gas extraction. In its lifetime, a well can be fracked up to 18 times; 90% of all oil and gas wells in the United States are “fracked” to boost productivity, according to the Interstate Oil and Gas Commission.

First, a well is drilled until it nears the shale layer, typically 5,000 to 12,000 feet below ground. The bore then changes direction and continues drilling hor- izontally. After the drill is removed, production casing is inserted, and cement is pumped through and around the casing. The cement is installed to prevent any- thing from getting into the fresh water aquifers. Explosive charges then puncture the casing and cement on the horizontal portion of the drilled tunnel. A mixture of water, sand, and chemicals is pumped down the well and out of these apertures at high pressures. The fracking fluid is over 99% water, but contains over 500 different chemicals. As a result, a single “frack job” can require as much as 5 mil- lion gallons of water. The mixture fractures the rock and allows the trapped gas to escape into the well bore.

The fracking process not only requires millions of gallons of water but also results in large amounts of toxic waste. Some wastewater comes back up the well and must be collected. This wastewater contains dissolved solids such as sulfates and chlorides, metals, and other potentially hazardous components. Con- ventional municipal sewage or drinking water treatment plants cannot remove the sulfates and chlorides. Instead, the fracking fluid must be sent to a treatment plant, injected into underground disposal wells, or mixed with fresh water and reused.

Benefits

Experts have known for years that natural gas deposits existed in deep shale formations, but until recently the vast quantities of natural gas in these forma- tions were not thought to be recoverable. Hydraulic fracturing makes the drill- ing process more efficient and makes available vast new reserves of natural gas across the country. Natural gas plays a key role in meeting the United States’ energy demands, supplying about 22% of the total. The Energy Information Ad- ministration estimates that there is more than 1,744 trillion cubic feet of techni- cally recoverable natural gas that exists within the United States, 60% of which is contained as shale gas, tight sands, and coaled methane. The total amount of this resource is estimated to be able to provide enough natural gas to the United States for the next 90 years. Separate estimates of the shale gas resource ex- tend this supply to 116 years.

Shale formations in the United States containing large quantities of natural gas are concentrated in the Northeast Appalachian range and the Rocky Moun- tain range of the West. The Marcellus Shale formation, which extends from West Virginia and eastern Ohio through Pennsylvania and into southern New York, could become one of the world’s most productive natural gas fields. It is estimated that this area alone possesses 500 trillion cubic feet of gas or more, enough to supply the entire East Coast for 50 years. The majority of “fracci- dents” have taken place across Pennsylvania in this Marcellus Shale formation, potentially compromising the Delaware River, Monongahela River, and Susque- hanna Rivers. With the help of fracking, natural gas currently satisfies nearly one- quarter of the nation’s power needs. At current drilling rates and consumption levels, it’s expected to provide more than half the nation’s natural gas by 2030, according to an MIT study.

President of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Cal Dooley states, “One of our highest priorities in this country is to establish energy security and to reduce our dependence on imported oil. . . . We see a game-changer here with our ability to capitalize on what is estimated to be a 100-year supply of natural gas in shale deposits.” This abundant domestic supply of natural gas has provided the United States with a competitive edge in overseas markets and a source for consumption within the country.

Sara Banaszak, senior economist for the American Petroleum Institute (API) further states, “Developing domestic supplies of natural gas will mean billions of dollars in government revenue and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

The industry boasts that gas is cleaner than oil or coal, emitting less pollution when burned. In May 2010, an industry-financed study conducted at Pennsylva- nia State University estimated that gas companies spent $4.5 billion developing the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania. As a result, it has generated $389 million in state and local tax revenue and more than 44,000 jobs.

Instant Millionaires

The natural gas boom in the United States has resulted in big businesses com- pensating local individuals for the use of their land to drill. Money is earned in signing bonuses, as well as royalties from the amount of gas extracted. Other landowners cashed in by leasing their mineral rights and allowing gas companies to drill horizontally under their properties. One company, Chesapeake Energy, claims to have contracted with a million American households. This modern-day gold rush has enabled struggling locals to become practically millionaires over- night.

Homeowners are offered anywhere from $350 to $30,000 an acre. With additional royalties, this can be a very tempting offer. Rowena Shager of Louisi- ana negotiated to lease her land. Within a short time, fracking fluid had polluted her family’s drinking water. She states, “If I thought I was putting my family’s life in jeopardy, or taking away from the value of my property, I never would have signed.” A significant number of families are unaware of the potential risks in- volved when signing contracts with natural gas companies and have suffered negative consequences as a result.

Environmental and Health Concerns

The fracking process has received significant attention in the threats it poses to the environment and human health, particularly water and air pollution across the country. Regulators say that flushing too much of this wastewater into a river could severely harm animals. In 2009, 16 cattle dropped dead near a Chesa- peake Energy drilling site in Louisiana after drinking from a mysterious fluid used by drillers that had flooded off during a storm.

Fracking has also been responsible for well-water contamination, filling a basement with methane and blowing up a house in Ohio, and poisoning 17 crows in Louisiana, according to a statement from U.S. environmental group Sierra Club. Nonprofit organization Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) warns that fracking could also trigger earthquakes in certain areas.

The industry maintains its position that hydraulic fracturing has been safe for decades, yet homeowners are coming forward with an entirely different story. Because fracking takes place thousands of feet below the water table where groundwater settles, local drinking water is at risk for contamination. Residents in six states have documented more than 1,000 cases of water contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. In the documentary Gasland (2010), Josh Fox travels across the country meeting families that have been affected by hydraulic fracturing. From these interviews, there is evidence that drinking contaminated water has caused headaches, brain damage, asthma, cancer, arsenic poison- ing, and loss of taste and smell.

The small town of Dimock, Pennsylvania, is at the heart of the drilling debate. Cabot Oil drilled over 40 wells in just a few months. Gas then contaminated lo- cal drinking wells, making the water so hazardous that families are able to ignite their drinking water and start a fire. In late 2009, a group of 19 Dimock residents sued Cabot in federal court for contaminating their wells and devaluing their real estate. The case was finally settled in December 2010, with Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation agreeing to pay $4.1 million to the families affected by methane contamination attributed to faulty Cabot natural gas wells. The settlement also requires Cabot to offer and pay to install whole-house gas mitigation devices in each of the affected homes. Once the terms of the agreement have been met, Cabot plans to resume operations in Dimock.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

A 2004 hydraulic fracturing study by the EPA found no evidence of water-table contamination. The study concluded that 80% of the chemicals degrade under- ground or are recovered. Due to criticisms of the study, as well as increased attention on fracking, the agency has recently begun a new two-year study of hydraulic fracturing. In March 2012, the EPA released test results concluding that Dimock’s water contamination does not pose any risk to human health. The arsenic levels were deemed safe; however, the water of six homes did contain sodium, methane, chromium, and bacteria. Many residents have lost all trust in their drinking water and say they will never use it again. The EPA is continuing its tests of Dimock homes’ drinking water.

It has asked nine natural gas services providers to voluntarily disclose data on chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. These gas companies include BJ Services, Complete Production Services, Halliburton, Key Energy Services, Patterson-UTI, PRC, Inc., Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, and Weath- erford. The EPA intends to use this data in this study underway to determine whether fracking has an impact on water quality for residents living in the vicin- ity. By November 2010, Halliburton was the only company that refused to volun- tarily submit data. As a result, the EPA has issued a subpoena to Halliburton in order to gain this information.

Congress and Regulation

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 and the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, giving the EPA the power to set national standards regarding maxi- mum acceptable levels of water-contaminates in public water systems. The Safe Drinking Water Act also authorizes states to create regulations to protect their underground drinking water sources, as long as each state complies with the EPA’s minimum requirements and receives EPA approval.

The George W. Bush administration introduced the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005 that exempted oil and gas companies from certain federal regulations protecting drinking water, amending the Safe Drinking Water Act. Bush’s vice president Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Cor- poration from 1995 to 2000. His former employment and strong ties to the gas and drilling industry certainly influenced the legislation.

EPACT changed the definition of “underground injection” to exclude “the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pur- suant to hydraulic fracturing operations.” This amendment, which came to be known as the “Halliburton Loophole,” exempted fracking from federal law and gave jurisdiction and authority over hydraulic fracturing operations to the states. Meanwhile, most state oil and gas regulatory agencies do not require compa- nies to report the volumes or names of chemicals being used in extraction. Ac- cording to the nonprofit Oil and Gas Accountability Project, one of the country’s dirtiest industries enjoys the exclusive right to “inject toxic fluids directly into good quality groundwater without oversight.” This is a significant issue be- cause Americans get approximately half of all drinking water from underground sources.

In 2009, U.S. Representative Diane Degette (Democrat, Colorado) intro- duced a bill called the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemical Act (FRAC Act). Under this bill, gas producers would be required to disclose chemical identities of all constituents of the fracturing fluid, making this informa- tion available on a web site.

This would allow emergency crews and first responders to have access to the chemical identities in the case of an emergency. The bill would also close the Halliburton Loophole. As of 2013, Congress has not passed this bill.

State Legislation

More than 30 states have varying degrees of shale production or exploration. A significant number of states’ legislation is based on rules laid down by Colo- rado following many stakeholder discussions. After documented damage from fracking within the state, Colorado implemented a comprehensive drilling plan including: practices to minimize the negative effects on communities and the environment; drilling at a required distance from homes; and reporting chemical identities.

Drilling in the Northeast is the most recent, while hydraulic fracturing opera- tions in the southern and western areas of the country are much more established. Drilling into the Marcellus Shale formation has spurred up controversy and resis- tance. Pennsylvania passed regulations on fracking in November 2010, requir- ing disclosure of a Material Safety Data Sheet with a list of additives used in drilling. In December 2010, New York tried to place a temporary ban on fracking until May 2011, in order to study environmental impacts. Governor David Pater- son vetoed the bill, stating that it would put many people out of work. Instead, he issued an executive order instituting a moratorium that extended until July 1, 2011, beyond the date specified in the original bill. Oil companies are pleased because this executive order makes a distinction between the types of drilling, allowing horizontal drilling but disallowing vertical. Recently the cities of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, and Buffalo, New York, have enacted altogether bans on hydraulic fracturing.

New York State will possibly not be allowing fracking anytime soon, with drill- ing giant Chesapeake Energy reportedly abandoning its fight to retain land leases in portions of the state sitting atop vast natural gas reserves. “We can’t speak to what drove Chesapeake’s decision. However, it’s fundamental that organizations prioritize their resources and make decisions based on the known business cli- mate. They do not embrace uncertainty,” said Jim Smith, spokesman for the Inde- pendent Oil and Gas Association of New York.

Directions

your assignment is to research (internet or library) ONE area of controversy regarding the use vaccines.

Examples of vaccine controversies include:

• Whether or not the MMR, DTaP, or other vaccines cause conditions such as autism, ADHD, diabetes, etc.
• Whether or not states should require vaccines for school attendance (It is the state that has the power to mandate vaccination, not the individual school districts or school boards)
• Should there be parental exemptions for mandated vaccinations? Religious exemptions?
• Recommendations regarding who should receive the HPV vaccine (e.g. gender, age)
• The schedule by which vaccines are given to infants and toddlers. Too frequent? Too many?
• How well the vaccines works to prevent these diseases versus potential side effects of the vaccines
• Whether or not politicians should be involving themselves in vaccination policy making
• Who best to trust? Doctors, Big Pharma, anti-vaxxers, holistic health advocates, bloggers
• There are many other vaccine controversies on the internet—you may choose any controversy that interests you

Grading Information

After conducting some research, write a 1-paragraph statement regarding your position on your chosen controversy. Briefly explain each side of the controversy, and what led you to your belief. (¼ – ½ single-spaced page will be sufficient—you will be following up with more details in CTA 8b.)

Assignment 2-Case Study-Chapters: 7, 8, 9 & 12 : – [5 Marks]

Case Study

When taxes induce people to change their behavior—such as inducing Jane to buy less pizza—the taxes cause deadweight losses and make the allocation of resources less efficient. As we have already seen, much government revenue comes from the individual income tax in many countries. In a case study in Chapter 8, we discussed how this tax discourages people from working as hard as they otherwise might. Another inefficiency caused by this tax is that it discourages people from saving.

Consider a person 25 years’ old who is considering saving $1,000. If he puts this money in a savings account that earns 8 percent and leaves it there, he would have $21,720 when he retires at age 65. Yet if the government taxes one-fourth of his interest income each year, the effective interest rate is only 6 percent. After 40 years of earning 6 percent, the $1,000 grows to only $10,290, less than half of what it would have been without taxation. Thus, because interest income is taxed, saving is much less attractive.

Some economists advocate eliminating the current tax system’s disincentive toward saving by changing the basis of taxation. Rather than taxing the amount of income that people earn, the government could tax the amount that people spend.

Under this proposal, all income that is saved would not be taxed until the saving is later spent. This alternative system, called a consumption tax, would not distort people’s saving decisions.

Various provisions of the current tax code already make the tax system a bit like a consumption tax. Taxpayers can put a limited amount of their saving into special accounts—such as Individual Retirement Accounts and 401(k) plans—that escape taxation until the money is withdrawn at retirement. For people who do most of their saving through these retirement accounts, their tax bill is, in effect, based on their consumption rather than their income.

European countries tend to rely more on consumption taxes than does the United States. Most of them raise a significant amount of government revenue through a value-added tax, or a VAT. A VAT is like the retail sales tax that many U.S. states use, but rather than collecting all of the tax at the retail level when the consumer buys the final good, the government collects the tax in stages as the good is being produced (that is, as value is added by firms along the chain of production). Various U.S. policymakers have proposed that the tax code move further in direction of taxing consumption rather than income. In 2005, economist Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, offered this advice to a presidential commission on tax reform: “As you know, many economists believe that a consumption tax would be best from the perspective of promoting economic growth—particularly if one were designing a tax system from scratch—because a consumption tax is likely to encourage saving and capital formation. However, getting from the current tax system to a consumption tax raises a challenging set of transition issues.”

Q1: What should be taxed – Personal Income or Personal Consumption and why? Provide your opinion based on the case given below. (200 words)

Q2: How may it affect Saudi Economy if an income tax is imposed in KSA? (200 words)

Select and research a company that is having financial difficulties or is on the brink of bankruptcy.

Review “Where Can I Find a Company’s Annual Report and Its SEC Filings?” from Investopedia.

You can also access specific information about a variety of businesses in the University Library by searching the following databases:

• University Library > Databases > B > Business Source Complete
• University Library > Databases > E > EDGAR
• University Library > Databases > P > Plunkett Research Online

Conduct a strategic analysis of the company’s current financial operations. Determine strategies for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace and increasing financial performance.

Write a 1,050- to 1,400-word analysis. When writing your analysis, complete the following:

• Evaluate the company’s current financial plan,including charts and/or graphs showing financial data from the struggling company and make recommendations for improvement.
• Determine strategies for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace and increasing financial performance.
• Create a plan to implement the strategies you selected.

Include APA-formatted in-text citations and a reference page with at least 3 sources.