Texas Gulf Sulphur Case Study

By having knowledge of the chromium in the water supply, PG&E should have been required to let the people know that were affected by it. By not telling the citizens, they were withholding information that affected these people’s lives. Because a risk was created, consequences came, and nothing was done to prevent such injuries that did occur, PG&E should have been considered negligent.

There was no precedent for this decision. A court of inquiry is an arcane and extremely rare legal procedure, unique to Texas, that can be used to investigate wrongdoing, most often on the part of state officials. But as far as anyone can remember, it has

My bias affected my understanding of the reading because I believe that people have the right to know what they are drinking in the water. I’m not one to think of what is contaminating the water I use daily, however, after reading this I believe I will think more of it. I would be livid if I lived in Wyoming, contamination of the waterways is important and should not be kept a secret. Even from the first beginning of the reading I agreed instantly with the people that do not agree with this law.

was in the New York Times. Although this was a major step in informing the American

We thank your for tuning into our show today. We hope you learned something new about the oil industry. Over all, the oil business changed Texas for the better! Without oil, we would not have the resources we have today. There was not very many big things going on in

thought they had a case. They filed the paperwork, and waited to hear back. The news wasn't

The evidence I wished he would conveyed is the actual damage drilling was causing and the cost of drilling really accounts to. Overall, I was not intrigued or captured and I feel that Hill was right about the self-indulgence of the environmentalist because I feel Ritzman is as well.

Interesting because the lecture didn’t paint the people who were against the fracking project as stereotypical extreme activists as they were on some social media when this was happening. But, although Howe did go into a lot of detail about the events of what happened, the people that were involved and some of the violence that happened in this all, he didn’t really go into detail about the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracking. For example, Howe did mention that hydraulic fracking in New Brunswick would be a recipe for disaster, but he did not go into much detail of how. It’s important to give evidence, especially when it is backed up with science to the public rather than just stating that something is bad. It was also interesting to see how many people had heard about this incident, and by a show of hands it turned out not that many. As not everyone had heard about this, it would have been a great opportunity for Howe to explain in more depth about the implications of hydraulic fracking. For example, specifically how the extraction of shale gas is highly polluting. This is important because this situation is not isolated to just one part of Canada, because these types of projects happen everywhere and impact every one. Its also an opportunity to educate the public, because not everyone in the audience may know what hydraulic

Regan asked rhetorically during the conference, making an analogy to the consequences of placing an embargo on South Africa. When the story was printed in the Los Angeles Times, the quote was cited from a “high Administrative Official” instead of “Administrative Official” which the guidelines had stated. Unfortunately, these guidelines are not set in stone and a reporter can “… claim the right to ignore them” (Matthews 184). As a result of the story being printed, a political firestorm was unleashed upon Regan, bringing charges of sexism and racial insensitivity, and because of the citation used in the story in the Los Angeles Times, everyone knew that the “high Administrative Official” was Don Regan. There is nothing that binds reporters from keeping information “on background” or “off the record”, if the story is big enough, reported can find an alternate source for the information given to them and print it that way.

According to this article the publisher jumps back in forth about what happened or what was done. But after seeing news coverage on tv and reading into depth on this subject I believe the publisher is incorrect on a few points.

The state of Texas is an individualistic and traditionalistic state. Texas is ranked the second largest state in the United States. Knowing that Texas is a large state it has many industries that the state receives revenue from. Some of these industries are free enterprise system, medical, technology, tourism, oil and gas, real estate, banking, fishing, and agriculture. All of the industries benefit Texas in a good positive manner, and receive revenue. These industries help Texas thrive as a state in many major and needed industries. In 2014 Glenn Hegar Texas Comptroller of Public Account did a study on how much the state gained from the industries in the state of Texas. The sale of vehicles in Texas gained the state $4,514,186,360. Natural

Please remember this case has not been to court. That is why the names and location are not disclosed.

One of our most world-renowned business women and television personalities Martha Stewart decided to dip her feet into illegal insider trading. Martha served five months in a federal prison at Alderson in West Virginia and two additional years of supervised release after a portion in home confinement. Back in 2001, Martha Stewart sold all her shares from a biotech company she invested in called ImClone. Ironically, a few days after she sold her shares the company’s stock fell sixteen percent after they publicly announced that the FDA did not approve ImClone’s pharmaceutical product (Moffatt, 2017). With her selling her shares before the company went public and the subsequent drop in stock’s value, Martha avoided a $45,673 loss. In addition, she wasn’t the only one who benefitted from the quick sale. The CEO of ImClone, Sam Waskal, ordered to

Therefore, Market West accepted the corporation stock as partial debt. Hooper and Yoder agreed to add Brian Bradley who worked for Market West as the third director. Hooper colluded with Bradley and violated a fiduciary duty to Yoder by issuing 95 shares of stock to himself, 5 shares to Bradley, and none to Yoder. Furthermore, Hooper got paid $141,000 salary from the business without Yoder knowing. More importantly, Hooper and Bradly voted to force Yoder to leave the corporation. After Yoder found out that Hooper broke their agreement, violated Yoder’s rights and duties, acted dishonestly, and made unethical decisions, Yoder sued Hooper and Beautiful Daydreams in the District Court. Under the common law, with these facts, the court supported Yoder and ordered Hooper to give back one-half of the salary plus one-half of the shares of stock to Yoder.

More specifically, they were trying to avoid the blame and further their individual motives. When I saw the film I thought to myself there’s no possible way this happens in real life, but the article shows two examples. The Challenger case as well as the Macondo Well blowout showed that even though engineers might have noticed a problem, in the end management or other engineers decided that it was safe enough to proceed. Then during the investigation, the leaders of the company or project managers decided to play innocent and ignorant. The other thing that I found interesting is the “practice defines facts” model. If correlations are found, then they become facts until they are disproven; this is the problem with the model. A fact should not be able to change, if a fact is truly a fact then the evidence should always support it. When we spread misinformation by stating a correlation is fact, it can lead to many people thinking that it is the truth. It goes back to the first articles we read in class about misleading information in science. Not only does the Macondo/Challenger article tie into the film that we watch it also ties into other topics that we learned about ethics. People in certain situations have an innate self-interest that hurts