The 10 Deadliest Tsunamis of All Time

When the ocean floor moves enough, the surface finds out about it — in the resulting tsunami. A tsunami is a series of ocean waves generated by large movements or disturbances on the oceans floor. The causes of these disturbances include volcanic eruptions, landslides, and underwater explosions, but earthquakes  are the most common. Tsunamis can occur close to the shore or travel thousands of miles if the disturbance occurs in the deep ocean. Wherever they occur, though, they often have devastating consequences for the areas they hit.   For example, on March 11, 2011, Japan was struck by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake that was centered in the ocean 80 miles (130 km) east of the city of Sendai. The earthquake was so large that it triggered a massive tsunami that devastated Sendai and the surrounding area. The earthquake also caused smaller tsunamis to travel across much of the Pacific Ocean and cause damage in places like Hawaii and the west coast of the United States. Thousands were killed as a result of both the earthquake and tsunami and many more were displaced. Fortunately, it was not the worlds deadliest. With a death toll of only 18,000 to 20,000  and Japan being particularly active for tsunamis throughout history, the most recent doesnt even make the top 10 deadliest. Fortunately, warning systems are becoming better and more widespread, which can cut down on the loss of life. Also, more people understand the phenomena and heed the warnings to move to higher ground when a tsunami possibility exists. The 2004 Sumatran disaster spurred UNESCO to set a goal to establish a warning system for the Indian Ocean ​like exists in the Pacific and increase those defenses worldwide.  Ã¢â‚¬â€¹Ã¢â‚¬â€¹ The Worlds 10 Deadliest Tsunamis Indian Ocean (Sumatra, Indonesia)Estimated Number of Deaths: 300,000Year: 2004 Ancient Greece (Islands of Crete and Santorini)Estimated Number of Deaths: 100,000Year: 1645 B.C. (tie)  Portugal, Morocco, Ireland, and the United KingdomEstimated Number of Deaths: 100,000 (with 60,000 in Lisbon alone)Year: 1755 Messina, ItalyEstimated Number of Deaths: 80,000Year: 1908 Arica, Peru (now Chile)Estimated Number of Deaths: 70,000 (in Peru and Chile)Year: 1868 South China Sea (Taiwan)Estimated Number of Deaths: 40,000Year: 1782 Krakatoa, IndonesiaEstimated Number of Deaths: 36,000Year: 1883 Nankaido, JapanEstimated Number of Deaths: 31,000Year: 1498 Tokaido-Nankaido, JapanEstimated Number of Deaths: 30,000Year: 1707 Hondo, JapanEstimated Number of Deaths: 27,000Year: 1826 Sanriku, JapanEstimated Number of Deaths: 26,000Year: 1896 A Word on the Numbers Sources on death figures can vary widely (especially for those being estimated long after the fact), due to lack of data on populations in areas at the time of the event. Some sources may list the tsunami figures along with the earthquake or volcanic eruption death figures and not split out the amount killed just by the tsunami. Also, some numbers may be preliminary and are revised down when missing people are found or revised up when people die of diseases in coming days brought on by the floodwaters.

The Fine Line between Freedom of Speech or Hate Speech

Question 1: Islam is of the devil shirts in public school. Legal challenges -- freedom of speech or hate speech? It didnt take much digging to find that the shirt, which is offensive to me (and I am Catholic), was inspired by Dove International -- whos head is none other than Quran burning Terry Jones. In my own opinion, Terry Jones is as much a domestic terrorist as Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. Comparing both leaders and their churches -- both are small (less than 100 members), and both are in the south, and in my opinion both profess hate speech. However, the SCOTUS has ruled that the WBC has a right to express their beliefs, and the Southern Poverty Law Center never designated the WBC as a hate group. At issue, however, is whether the children in a Florida public school had the right to wear t-shirts that were distracting to a positive learning environment, and whether the school district had a right to ban the children from wearing them. Schools are not public forums where the freedom of speech would be as protected as they would if they were in a park or other grounds. Schools have the right to set a precedent that is condusive to learning for all who are within their walls. In Tinker/Des Moines, the SCOTUS ruled that students DID have the right to wear armbands as a sign of protest against the Viet Nam conflict because their wearing of the armbands did not inhibit the positive educational environment of the other students. InShow MoreRelatedSpeech On Freedom Of Speech1484 Words   |  6 PagesEthics Freedom of Speech Professor Hunt Culver Stockton College Freedom of Speech Americans have many freedoms that people in other countries can only wish they had. Just imagine a life where you could possibly be killed for speaking your mind and stating your opinion, other countries are living lives like that. According to Katy Davis, The United States ratified the first amendment on December 15th 1791 (Davis, n.d). We as a country don’t know where the government draws the line betweenRead MoreHate Speech And Hate Speech967 Words   |  4 PagesHate Speech: No Exceptions for Malicious Intentions As a constitutional right, people often exercise their right to freedom of speech believing that they also have the right to voice their opinions which can be provocative to opposing parties no matter where they stand. There is a defining line between what can be constituted as hate speech and free speech. Depending on the way that it is expressed, voicing an opinion can easily be misinterpreted causing certain people to feel threatened or attackedRead MoreStudent Code Of Conduct And Employee Handbook867 Words   |  4 Pagesdiscuss public schools in protection of student from cyberbullying and its relationship with 1st Amendment. Cyberbullying â€Å"The jurisdictional line between the public, outside world and the schoolhouse gate is becoming less relevant, however, and physical barriers may no longer solve the problem of whether or not students can be punished for their on-campus speech.†(Boyd, 2010, p.1216). Cyberbullying is a serious offense in Beaufort County. Procedures require that employees transmit the complaint to theRead MoreCensorship from Obscene Material1066 Words   |  5 Pagesin the 1990s, citizens in our society are being bombarded with obscene material from every direction. From the hate lyrics of Guns N Roses to the satanic lyrics of Montley Crue and Marilyn Manson to the sexually explicit graphical content of todays movies, the issue is how much society is going to permit and where we, as a society, should we draw the line. The freedom of speech has always been considered a right, but that doesnt mean that you can shout, Fire! in a crowded movie theater.Read MoreThe First Amendment : The Second Amendment1738 Words   |  7 Pagesamendments today. Everyone in the world uses it and sometimes takes advantage of it and most times uses it when needed to. The Bill Of Rights was created on December 15th of 1779 and was created to make some rules in the future because no one had the freedom to do anything. Most were punished if they spoke their opinion, they did not even have the right to choose their own religion. But that all changed when James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights which is our first ten amendments. The First AmendmentRead MoreEssay on Music Censorship1049 Words   |  5 Pages  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Today, in the 1990s, citizens in our society are being bombarded with obscene material from every direction. From the hate lyrics of Guns N Roses to the satanic lyrics of Montley Crue and Marilyn Manson to the sexually explicit graphical content of todays movies, the issue is how much society is going to permit and where we, as a society, should we draw the line. The freedom of speech has always been considered a right, but that doesnt mean that you can shout, Fire! in a crowded movie theater.Read MoreThe Freedom Of Speech Protected Under The Frist Constitution Essay1769 Words   |  8 PagesThe freedom of speech protected under the Frist Constitution in addition to other beloved values has often struggled in the world with its concept of what’s exactly determined as free speech and what’s not. In other words what’s free speech meaning that a person can state his or her personal opinion as opposed to Hate speech which is meant to offend threatens and insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. It seems that in someRead MoreThe Pros And Cons Of Free Speech1328 Words   |  6 PagesFree speech is important. It enables humans to openly express any thoughts, opinions, or ide as one may have without the risk of government oppression or censorship. Social media act as platforms that promote free speech, as social media allow any person’s thoughts, opinions, or ideas to be shared with the world at the simple click of an â€Å"enter† key. However, there do exist limitations to free speech when threats or hate speech become involved. In these instances, ramifications and legal actions canRead MoreThe Police Officer At Unknown Police Department1635 Words   |  7 Pageshave a nice glass of fine apple cider while expressing his views of the people he dislikes. Christenson uses terrible words to describe minority’s in his community for a couple of days know. Christenson has frequently made comments on Facebook that some have considered racist or homophobic. Some in the community have pointed this out to the police chief at the station. When I see cases like this there are a few things that pop up in my mind that include, what is free speech and what is the importanceRead MoreThe University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill3032 Words   |  13 PagesChapel Hill opened in 1795 as the first public college in the United States. Since then, free speech and the formation of independent ideas and opinions have been seen as integral parts of a student’s educational experience. Unfortunately, through the categorization of public college campuses as designated public forums and the implementation of restrictive student conduct codes and debilitating free speech zones, universities are denying students the expression they deserve. While these policies were

Science ; Future Free Essays

Much of what IVe said would seem uncontroversial or even platitudinous to the scientifically-attuned audiences here in Newcastle this week. But there’s one thing that scientific advisors in any democratic system must not forget. When really big and long-term policies are in contention – whether about nuclear weapons, nuclear power, drug classification, or health risks – political decisions are seldom purely scientific: they involve ethics, economics and social policies as well. We will write a custom essay sample on Science ; Future or any similar topic only for you Order Now Such discussions hould engage all of us, as citizens – and of course our elected representatives. Sometimes this has happened, and constructively too. The dialogue with parliamentarians led, despite divergent ethical stances, to a generally-admired legal framework on embryos and stem cells – a contrast to what happened in the US. And Lisa Jardine has chaired the HFEA, another fine precedent. But we’ve had failures too: the GM crop debate was left too late – to a time when opinion was already polarised between eco-campaigners on the one side and commercial interests on the other. Scientists have a special responsibility to engage – though they should accept that on the economic, social and ethical aspects of any policy they speak as citizens and not as experts. But despite many worthy efforts, there are habitual grumbles that such inputs don’t have much traction with politicians. For them, the urgent trumps the important. The local trumps the global. And getting re-elected trumps almost everything. Anything that gets headlined in the media, or makes their postbag bulge, will get attention. It’s volume not quality that counts. So scientists might have more leverage on politicians indirectly – by publicising their research and letting the media do the campaigning – rather than by more official and direct channels. This is one reason – over and above the general cultural value of our findings – why â€Å"outreach† by scientists is important. And there are special things universities teachers can do. We’re privileged to have influence over successive generations of students. We should try to sensitise them to the issues that will confront them in their careers – ndeed, polls show, unsurprisingly, that younger people who expect to survive most of the century, are more engaged and anxious about long-term issues. We fret too much about minor hazards of everyday life: improbable air crashes, carcinogens in food, low radiation doses, and so forth. But the wide public is in denial about two kinds of threats: those that we’re causing collectively to the biosphere, and those that stem from the greater vulnerability of our interconnected world to error or terror induced by individuals or small groups. The issues impel us to plan internationally (for nstance, whether or not a pandemic gets global grip may hinge, for instance, on how quickly a Vietnamese poultry farmer can report any strange sickness). And many of them – energy and climate change, for instance, involve multi-decade timescales – plainly far outside the â€Å"comfort zone† of most politicians. One issue that should be addressed is whether nations need to give up more sovereignty to new organisations along the lines of IAEA, WHO, etc. Final message Unlike our 17th century forebears who I cited at the beginning of this talk, we know a reat deal about our world – and indeed about what lies beyond. Technologies that our ancestors couldn’t nave conceived enrich our lives and our understanding. Many phenomena still make us fearful, but the advance of science spares us from irrational dread. We know that we are stewards of a precious â€Å"pale blue dot† in a vast cosmos – a planet with a future measured in billions of years, whose fate depends on humanitys collective actions. But all too often the focus is parochial and short term. We downplay what’s happening even now in impoverished far-away countries. And we discount too heavily the problems we’ll leave for our grandchildren. We can truly be techno-optimists. But the intractable politics and sociology – the gap between potentialities and what actually happens – engenders pessimism. We need a change in priorities and perspective – and soon – if we are to navigate the challenges of the 21st century: to share the benefits of globalisation, to prioritise clean energy, and sustainable agriculture; and to handle the Promethian challenge posed by ever more powerful technology. To survive this century, we’ll need the idealistic and effective efforts of natural scientists, environmentalists, social scientists and humanists. They must be guided by the insights that 21st century science will offer, but inspired by values that science itself can’t provide. And I give the last word to a great scientist who was himself once the president of the BA – the biologist Peter Medawar: The bells that toll for mankind are like the bells of Alpine cattle. They are attached to our own necks, and it must be our fault if they do not make a tuneful and melodious sound. How to cite Science ; Future, Papers

Informational Rents in Oil and Gas Concession Auctions

Question: Describe about research the reasons and justification behind host governments moving away from Concessions and replacing with PSAs/PSCs, and why IOCs have accepted such a dramatic change in their own share and profits from Exploration and Production activity in resource-rich countries. Answer: Introduction Traditionally, concession agreements were one of the most important instruments which the host governments used to guarantee foreign investors over oil resources. In the agreement, the International Oil Companies (IOCs) were given exclusive rights to explore, produce, and market oil for a finite period (Herkenhoff, 2014). The first concession right was in the United States in 1859 between Colonel Edwin, Titusville, Drake, and Pennsylvania oil. Concessions became popular in the early 20 th century when most developing countries, especially in the Middle East, were under colonial rule. Since most developing countries were at that time under the British and French rule, Britain and France were the first to obtain concession rights. In the 1960s, concessionary agreements were replaced by Public Sharing Contracts (PSCs) and Public Sharing Agreements (PSAs) due to the rise of nationalism, among other reasons. Reasons and Justification behind Host Governments Moving Away From Concessions to PSAs and PSCs The agreement granted the host government no rights apart from receiving payments based on production. The amount paid by International Oil Companies for the rights over natural resources was mostly uneven and was not tied to the value of resources, but the volume produced (Brasil and Postali, 2014). Since companies determined the amount of production, the interests of host governments (that of revenue maximization) and IOC (profit maximization) often diverged. With total control over the manner and the schedule in which the mineral deposits were explored, companies could reduce production in times of low oil prices without incurring some penalties. The concession agreement was broad, regarding geography and location. The wide limit meant that the interests of the host governments were not always congruent with the companies interests. Foreign companies were granted exclusive rights over large tracts of land, which in most cases extended over the entire country. A prime example is the concessions given by Abu Dhabi and Kuwait rulers, which was regardless of the companies financial interests in comprehensive exploration (Herkenhoff, 2014). International Oil Companies held significant leaseholds and with minimal production until such a time when the producer had the finances or the interests to develop the property further. The concession was signed for longer periods, which was sometimes more than 70 years. A good example is the oil contract between the British millionaire William Knox Darcy and the king of Iran on 29 March 1901, where William Knox Darcys company was given concession rights for exploration, exploitation, transportation and selling, and these rights continued for more than 60 years (Brasil and Postali, 2014). Due to the nature of the contract, the host governments could not seek out thirstier companies, thereby denying them of any potential sources of revenue. Though the host governments were justified to move away from concession agreements, its important to note that the contracts helped oil producing countries to discover oil for the first time. For example, in Iraq 1923, and Iran in 1908, the oil was found, and despite the many criticisms, the host countries have continued to enjoy many benefits later on. Concession agreement thrived because the host countries were unable to do the discovery by themselves because of financial and professional limitation, and most importantly, they had no power over exploration because they were colonies. Reasons that Explains the Willingness of Foreign Companies to Renegotiate Contracts that initially served them well Knowing that the original terms were unreasonable, companies feared that their refusal to negotiate would increase hostility with the locals and host government, potentially leading to more nationalism in the oil industry and the loss of valuable resource. Since the concession agreements were highly profitable, the less favorable terms would still mean profitable production. Therefore, any agreement allowing companies to tap into the benefits this vast resource was deemed as acceptable. Since the oil companies were becoming more vertically integrated- they produced, refined, and marketed nearly 100% of their product- access to resources was becoming more important than a reduction in returns, provided that the profits were guaranteed. Another reason companies were willing to move from concession agreement is that although they assumed all the rewards, they also assumed all the risks. They were overly cautious when bidding for virgin or non-productive areas because of production uncertainties. This was, however, to change under PSAs and PSCs where some countries share risks with the IOC. The formation of OPEC in the 1960s forced International Oil Companies to abandon the concession agreement. OPEC shifted the bargaining power from large oil companies to Oil producing companies. Failure to comply with the terms of this cartel would mean a complete loss of oil reserves to competitors. Furthermore, some countries engaged in direct negotiations with potential licenses when granting the concessions, thereby making concession system unfavorable due to alleged subject to undue influence and corruption (Herkenhoff, 2014). Fundamental Differences between the Concession Systems and PSA/PSC Systems Product Sharing Agreement was first practiced in Indonesia in 1966 as a bridge between concession agreement that gives resource sovereignty to a foreign firm and establishment of National Oil Companies that required some technical know-how (Polyakevich, 2010). Today, more than 10% of gas and oil production is done through the agreement. Furthermore, more than half of countries with oil potential have a tax system that is based on PSC/PSA. The agreement gives IOC the right to explore for natural resources. If the resources are found, the company has rights to recoup sunk costs and share in profits. If the resources are not found, then the company is out of pocket. The PSA incentive shoulders the risk of non-discovery. The major differences between PSC and the concession agreement are the levels of control given to International Oil Companies, levels of involvement by the host government, reward sharing schemes, and the compensation terms. On concessionary system, the IOC gets the license from the host government to take out and own a hydrocarbon in a specific area, and then in return, the state receives income taxation and a royalty payment from the IOC (Heilbrunn, 2014). In PSC/PSA, the state owns all the oil production and the IOCs only serves as contractors to provide financial and technical services for development and exploration operations. In return, production is shared between the IOC and the state as per the stipulation of the PSC. PSA is also different from the concession in that since it doesnt grant the company the ownership of the resource and the government may take an interest in technology transfer, as it prepares for the turning over of the resources to its hands (Goltelova, 2014). Unlike concession that grants the company rights to ownership of resources over specified period, PSA/PSC gives ownership of resources that is tied to recouping of sunk costs and the garnering of profits. It is only in PSC where there is sharing of oil profit. The portion of production left after the cost of oil has been deducted is shared between the IOC and the host government using a predetermined formula. Many countries have a production sharing mechanism that is based on the rate of return or any other assessment to the contractor on a given date (Pongsiri, 2004). These are countries like Tunisia, Libya, Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, India, and Azerbaijan. Unlike in concession, PSA/PSC gives the host government varying degrees of oversight over the decision making (Polyakevich, 2010). The projects life is crucial here. If the venture shifts to government control after the IOC has recouped the sunk costs and garnered the profits, the host must resume for this eventuality right from the start (Polyakevich, 2010). In simple terms, the decision control is to some extent reserved for the host government even in periods of robust private involvement. In comparison to concessionary agreements, PSC/PSA is involving in nature. The foreign company pays a royalty on gross production to the host government. After the deduction of the royalty, the foreign company is entitled to a pre-destined share (e.g. 45 percent) of the production to cater for cost recovery. The remainder (the profit oil), is shared between the host government and the IOC at a specified share (e.g. 70 percent for the government and 30 percent for the International Oil Company). The contractor is then supposed to pay an income tax from its share of profit oil. PSAs have substantially changed over the years and today they take different forms. There is a change of language in PSC/PSA. The state is described as the owner and the foreign company as the contractor, even though the practice is almost equivalent to the classical concessionary agreements (Polyakevich, 2010). PSA/PSC often contains a stabilization clause restricting future governments to pass any new law or change the tax rates, which can be detrimental to the companys future profits. Stabilization clause is very rare in concessionary agreements. The rationale behind producer countries favoring the greater economic rentals they receive through PSAs/PSCs The aim of the government is revenue maximization. Since the international oil industry is an industry in which, normally, huge economic rents can be received, for the reason that the market price exceeds the price required to keep the factor of production in active use and is above the price required to generate profits, host governments can receive more rentals without interfering with the profits. In the past, there has been recurring transformations in the comparative stability of power between host states, major IOCs and their National Oil Companies (NOCs), is insightful of the cyclical character of the gas and oil industry. Some periods, such as the 1970- the 1980s and the 2000s can be grouped as conflicting (Polyakevich, 2010). During these epochs, the rising and fairly high oil prices gifted the host countries with more revenues, which assisted them to re-negotiate their agreements with the International Oil Companies and to gain a bigger share of the economic rent. Depending on the local competencies, International Oil Companies have better knowledge of the actual production costs can inflate the current production cost and capture some of the rent. In such situations, the host governments are justified to seek out for more economic rent from IOCs. Furthermore, the rise of nationalism, sovereignty issues, environmental factors such as air, land and water pollution, externalities and the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource call for greater economic rental. The host governments favor PSAs/PSCs because despite them receiving royalties from the foreign companies, companies also share their profits with the government and pay income tax on their shares of profits (Heilbrunn, 2014). Production Sharing Contract is one of the most attractive models in inviting high investments particularly in virgin or non-productive areas. The government is on the safe side. Unexplored areas can be explored without the governments direct investment. Furthermore, the government can play off companies against each other to get one with the most attractive terms. Depending on the agreement, the contract may specify that all the project related equipment brought by the contractor be passed over to the host government and the cost of equipment be recovered as the operating cost. The contract may further specify that all geological data be the host governments property as was the case with the Pertamina agreement. By keeping the geological data, the host country may begin to see the nationwide picture of its basins. Why host governments have succeeded in extracting more money from the IOCs Some developing nations have succeeded in extracting more money from the International Oil Companies because some countries now have the ability to evaluate the oil assets on their own, independently access on the production costs, and more significantly, develop the oil reserves on their own (Goltelova, 2014). Many of the developing nations have a take it or leave it attitude since they have nothing to lose in the case when IOCs fails to play to their terms. Furthermore, the ever rising competition between the IOC always favors the host governments. They have many options available, and when one company fails to comply with the set terms, they can always seek another until they get the company with most attractive terms. Many countries have recently discovered some oil reserves. The overall availability of larger oil reserves in the host country, the stronger the bargaining power. IOCs know that they need to come back for more transactions, and they need to be seen as fair. In a context of repeat businesses, countries with a reputation for reliability and stability in sticking to the contract (even if unfavorable), can attach these qualities to their oil prices (Heilbrunn, 2014). IOC have often valued and accepted to do business with dictatorial regimes because they provide the much-needed stability (Heilbrunn, 2014). Another reason the host governments have succeeded in extracting more money from International Oil Companies is the emergence on OPEC- which is a sort of a cartel that determines the oil prices and fights for the welfare of the oil producing states (Heilbrunn, 2014). Since the oil-rich countries act like some form of monopoly, IOCs have nothing to do but to comply with the terms or be out of the business. Why the IOCs have continued to explore for, and exploit mineral, assets now their financial share of the profits has been severely reduced? International oil companies have continued to explore and exploit mineral assets despite their share of profits being eroded because under PSC, they enjoy autonomy and can optimize the EP to ensure cost recovery. The rise of OPEC, the vertical integration of IOC, and the rise of nationalism as stated before, also explains why IOC have continued to explore for, and exploit oil now their financial share of profits have been severely reduced. References Brasil, E. and Postali, F. (2014). Informational rents in oil and gas concession auctions in Brazil. Energy Economics, 46, pp.93-101. Goltelova, S. (2014). Production Sharing Agreement As a Special Technique in the Provision of the State Guarantees For Oil and Gas Projects Financing in Russia, (5), pp.324-336. Heilbrunn, J. (2014). Oil, democracy, and development in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press. Herkenhoff, L. (2014). A Profile of the Oil and Gas Industry: Resources, Market Forces, Geopolitics, and Technology, Business Expert Press, New York [ISBN: 978-1-60649-500-1] Polyakevich, V. (2010). Sustainable development and evolution of production sharing agreements. Ottawa: Library and Archives Canada = Bibliotheque et Archives Canada. Pongsiri, N. (2004). Partnerships in oil and gas production sharing contracts. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(5), pp.431-442.