Range Resources Case Study
1. The stakeholders of Range Resources (RR) are widespread from anyone affected by the economy and the environment in relation to RR’s activities. More directly, the stakeholders range from employees of Range Resources, the employees and officers of federal and state agencies regulating RR’s activities, to the populations in local and distant communities that are either benefiting from the products of RR’s activities or suffering from the byproducts of the same activities. Stakeholders also include the consumers of the natural gas, and the future generations who may reside in the areas affected by the fracturing (“fracking”) process.
At a higher level, RR has a responsibility to follow state and federal environmental rules & regulations as …show more content…
well as any other laws that are applicable to operating their business. However, the article evokes more specific perspectives of several individuals that were almost surely adversely affected by their drilling/fracturing operations in close proximity to their residence. Although the environmental agencies and RR themselves seem to mostly skirt around accepting any direct responsibility – the medical reports and environmental evidence suggests that elevated pollutants do exist in their area. RR had made attempts, albeit meager, to remedy some of the situation by putting the family up in temporary residence and providing drinking water, I don’t think the company nor the environmental agencies have done enough here to compensate this particular family.
2. I think that if I lived in Amwell, my perspective would definitely depend upon whether or not I was on the winning or losing end of the financial vs. environmental and health impacts. Most seem to benefit from the economic gains of the drilling and most of the locals do not seem too concerned about the environmental impacts. The story centers around one family that is adversely impacted in lifestyle, health, and financially because they can no longer live in their house. I think as a long time resident, struggling financially, it would be very hard to not accept the financial gain. However because there is an appreciation for the beauty and history of the land there and a culture of agriculture, I would be skeptical of the environmental impacts and would expect that the government agencies responsible for environmental regulation are doing their part to ensure that RR is adhering to safe and healthy practices.
3. There is a history here and a trend that shows this type of activity is harmful to the environment. I don’t think the government agencies have done enough to research the long term impacts to the environment or to the health of those in the vicinity. Complaints have been lodged by residents and the article also points to the Army Corps of Engineers having to clean up a river damaged by similar activities because of complaints lodged by a steel mill. It seems to me that more attention needs to be paid by the controlling agencies so that proper restrictions are put in place and proper procedures are upheld to minimize the impact of these drilling activities before the damages become more widespread. The cost to the government in providing more restrictions and oversight could be minimized by in turn taxing, penalizing, and charging fees to the industry partners that wish to take part in the fracking operations. I also think that RR themselves and other like-industry partners have an ethical responsibility to pay more attention to the environmental impacts of their operations. They could certainly spend a percentage of their profit on more internal research to find better and safer processes for drilling and controlling the waste byproducts. In turn this could make their company a more attractive partner for the communities to embrace for business. Right now it seems that the complaints of the few are not being heard among the masses. The majority of the people involved with the harvesting of the natural gas are simply caught up in enjoying the financial gains. One has to wonder how much influence these “big oil” and gas companies have over the environmental & health government agencies with the policies that they enact or enforce. Ultimately I believe the federal government needs to step in and provide more oversight in these specific types of harvesting methods and turn the costs on the industry. They need to be accountable to the families and the communities affected because they have not done enough to educate the community on the risks and dangers presented. Once the government establishes the rules and processes, they in turn can begin to charge the industry fees and hold the businesses accountable for cleaning up and properly disposing of waste material from their operations. They can also provide the communities with better awareness and allow them a voice in the activities allowed to take place in and around their property which could adversely impact their health and safety.
4. I think initially the federal government needs to step in and provide aid for the families that have proven to be adversely affected by the fracking activities. I think ethically the company has a duty to also step up and help pay for relocation and medical costs associated with the impacts of their operations in these towns.
5. I think that “persons yet unborn” can be considered to be stakeholders in this problem because it is possible that birth defects and other health issues could be traced back to irresponsible regulation of the industry. Once the problem areas are identified, they should be marked as high risk areas by the governing agencies and the people who are displaced should be rendered aid for medical and housing purposes. I think this should be done prior to the problem becoming more widespread.
B. Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal, Los Angeles Times, 11/13/11
1. The stakeholders in this story are as follows: potential stockholders (specifically those of Chimerix Inc. and Siga), various U.S. Government agencies, including the White House (President Barack Obama), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Small Business Administration (SBA), MacAndrews & Forbes, political parties (specifically the Democratic Party), Siga Technologies, Chimerix Inc., U.S. military personnel, the U.S. civilian population and all U.S. taxpayers.
I see the principals here as being the HHS leadership, the White House, DHS and the drug company Siga Technologies. I would define the key stakeholders in two categories: 1. those that could be directly impacted by the purchase and expenditure of government funds (economic)—the taxpayer; 2. those that could be infected/affected by a Small Pox epidemic--the entire U.S. population and military personnel. The federal agencies have a duty to be responsible with the efficient and effective use of taxpayer money. The federal agencies have a duty to remain unbiased in those roles and by that I believe that individuals should exclude themselves from political/business dealings that could directly impact their financial standings. Siga has a responsibility to their employees in providing enough profit to keep their company in good standing financially and it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure legal and ethical contracting methods are put in place to establish appropriate business relationships for procurement and acquisition of the drug. The DHS and the President have a duty to properly defend the civilian population and to ensure national security by properly equipping the military to do their respective jobs.
2. Based on the information presented in this article, I am strongly against the U.S. Government making a move to procure this drug. The FDA has already provided feedback that there is no feasible plan or way ahead to provide licensure for the use of this drug on humans. There has been no concrete evidence to show the drug will be effective in humans. The credibility of the threat seems flimsy at best. A cheap vaccine with a longer shelf-life already exists and it is stated that it could be administered quickly and effectively if an epidemic of small pox were to take place.
3.
I do not believe that the HHS can ethically determine an appropriate profit margin for Siga. The dealings and relationships between the Government agency leadership, contracts officers, negotiators and company representatives at Siga are highly suspect. The correspondence has been inappropriate between the HHS officials and the Siga reps. When the HHS officials were questioned about the inappropriate correspondence with Siga, the HHS officials have admitted and then retracted their statements. However, Siga has acknowledged the correspondence exists. Next, when HHS officials were not satisfying Siga leadership in the negotiations, Siga merely complained to Government leadership and those negotiations officials were quickly replaced. The SBA stepped in and corrected the contracting methods, stating that a Small Business (Chimerix) should be allowed to compete – the government essentially stonewalled the SBA’s findings and worked around the obstacle. Bottom line: the whole story is very fishy and I think there are way too many hands waiting to be …show more content…
“greased”.
4. The only way to remedy this situation is for the government to confront the inappropriate relationships and conduct that have taken place in this procurement process. The Government officials directly involved should recuse themselves completely from this transaction. The Government should start back at redefining the strategy for how they will strategically execute the bio-defense plan. A study could be done on the representative threat that Small Pox and other bio-weapons could pose to the U.S. national security. The study would serve as validation that a requirement truly exists to procure such a treatment on such a massive scale.
5.
First off, I am questioning whether or not the Small Pox threat is actually viable. There are likely other threats that possibly pose a greater risk to the national security interests of the U.S. I believe it is time for a review of the bio-defense strategy. Ethics should never be set aside in this case but I think that testing on humans, however, does not necessarily have to be considered unethical. Perhaps there are options of eliciting volunteers that have terminal illness (a program somewhat like organ donors) where they might be able to submit themselves as test subjects for some drugs. I believe, for example, that some cancer patients will subject themselves as experimental agents for new cancer treatments. Some may find it beneficial and self-rewarding to donate their own bodies to the greater benefit of humanity and
health.
At a higher level, RR has a responsibility to follow state and federal environmental rules & regulations as …show more content…
well as any other laws that are applicable to operating their business. However, the article evokes more specific perspectives of several individuals that were almost surely adversely affected by their drilling/fracturing operations in close proximity to their residence. Although the environmental agencies and RR themselves seem to mostly skirt around accepting any direct responsibility – the medical reports and environmental evidence suggests that elevated pollutants do exist in their area. RR had made attempts, albeit meager, to remedy some of the situation by putting the family up in temporary residence and providing drinking water, I don’t think the company nor the environmental agencies have done enough here to compensate this particular family.
2. I think that if I lived in Amwell, my perspective would definitely depend upon whether or not I was on the winning or losing end of the financial vs. environmental and health impacts. Most seem to benefit from the economic gains of the drilling and most of the locals do not seem too concerned about the environmental impacts. The story centers around one family that is adversely impacted in lifestyle, health, and financially because they can no longer live in their house. I think as a long time resident, struggling financially, it would be very hard to not accept the financial gain. However because there is an appreciation for the beauty and history of the land there and a culture of agriculture, I would be skeptical of the environmental impacts and would expect that the government agencies responsible for environmental regulation are doing their part to ensure that RR is adhering to safe and healthy practices.
3. There is a history here and a trend that shows this type of activity is harmful to the environment. I don’t think the government agencies have done enough to research the long term impacts to the environment or to the health of those in the vicinity. Complaints have been lodged by residents and the article also points to the Army Corps of Engineers having to clean up a river damaged by similar activities because of complaints lodged by a steel mill. It seems to me that more attention needs to be paid by the controlling agencies so that proper restrictions are put in place and proper procedures are upheld to minimize the impact of these drilling activities before the damages become more widespread. The cost to the government in providing more restrictions and oversight could be minimized by in turn taxing, penalizing, and charging fees to the industry partners that wish to take part in the fracking operations. I also think that RR themselves and other like-industry partners have an ethical responsibility to pay more attention to the environmental impacts of their operations. They could certainly spend a percentage of their profit on more internal research to find better and safer processes for drilling and controlling the waste byproducts. In turn this could make their company a more attractive partner for the communities to embrace for business. Right now it seems that the complaints of the few are not being heard among the masses. The majority of the people involved with the harvesting of the natural gas are simply caught up in enjoying the financial gains. One has to wonder how much influence these “big oil” and gas companies have over the environmental & health government agencies with the policies that they enact or enforce. Ultimately I believe the federal government needs to step in and provide more oversight in these specific types of harvesting methods and turn the costs on the industry. They need to be accountable to the families and the communities affected because they have not done enough to educate the community on the risks and dangers presented. Once the government establishes the rules and processes, they in turn can begin to charge the industry fees and hold the businesses accountable for cleaning up and properly disposing of waste material from their operations. They can also provide the communities with better awareness and allow them a voice in the activities allowed to take place in and around their property which could adversely impact their health and safety.
4. I think initially the federal government needs to step in and provide aid for the families that have proven to be adversely affected by the fracking activities. I think ethically the company has a duty to also step up and help pay for relocation and medical costs associated with the impacts of their operations in these towns.
5. I think that “persons yet unborn” can be considered to be stakeholders in this problem because it is possible that birth defects and other health issues could be traced back to irresponsible regulation of the industry. Once the problem areas are identified, they should be marked as high risk areas by the governing agencies and the people who are displaced should be rendered aid for medical and housing purposes. I think this should be done prior to the problem becoming more widespread.
B. Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal, Los Angeles Times, 11/13/11
1. The stakeholders in this story are as follows: potential stockholders (specifically those of Chimerix Inc. and Siga), various U.S. Government agencies, including the White House (President Barack Obama), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Small Business Administration (SBA), MacAndrews & Forbes, political parties (specifically the Democratic Party), Siga Technologies, Chimerix Inc., U.S. military personnel, the U.S. civilian population and all U.S. taxpayers.
I see the principals here as being the HHS leadership, the White House, DHS and the drug company Siga Technologies. I would define the key stakeholders in two categories: 1. those that could be directly impacted by the purchase and expenditure of government funds (economic)—the taxpayer; 2. those that could be infected/affected by a Small Pox epidemic--the entire U.S. population and military personnel. The federal agencies have a duty to be responsible with the efficient and effective use of taxpayer money. The federal agencies have a duty to remain unbiased in those roles and by that I believe that individuals should exclude themselves from political/business dealings that could directly impact their financial standings. Siga has a responsibility to their employees in providing enough profit to keep their company in good standing financially and it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure legal and ethical contracting methods are put in place to establish appropriate business relationships for procurement and acquisition of the drug. The DHS and the President have a duty to properly defend the civilian population and to ensure national security by properly equipping the military to do their respective jobs.
2. Based on the information presented in this article, I am strongly against the U.S. Government making a move to procure this drug. The FDA has already provided feedback that there is no feasible plan or way ahead to provide licensure for the use of this drug on humans. There has been no concrete evidence to show the drug will be effective in humans. The credibility of the threat seems flimsy at best. A cheap vaccine with a longer shelf-life already exists and it is stated that it could be administered quickly and effectively if an epidemic of small pox were to take place.
3.
I do not believe that the HHS can ethically determine an appropriate profit margin for Siga. The dealings and relationships between the Government agency leadership, contracts officers, negotiators and company representatives at Siga are highly suspect. The correspondence has been inappropriate between the HHS officials and the Siga reps. When the HHS officials were questioned about the inappropriate correspondence with Siga, the HHS officials have admitted and then retracted their statements. However, Siga has acknowledged the correspondence exists. Next, when HHS officials were not satisfying Siga leadership in the negotiations, Siga merely complained to Government leadership and those negotiations officials were quickly replaced. The SBA stepped in and corrected the contracting methods, stating that a Small Business (Chimerix) should be allowed to compete – the government essentially stonewalled the SBA’s findings and worked around the obstacle. Bottom line: the whole story is very fishy and I think there are way too many hands waiting to be …show more content…
“greased”.
4. The only way to remedy this situation is for the government to confront the inappropriate relationships and conduct that have taken place in this procurement process. The Government officials directly involved should recuse themselves completely from this transaction. The Government should start back at redefining the strategy for how they will strategically execute the bio-defense plan. A study could be done on the representative threat that Small Pox and other bio-weapons could pose to the U.S. national security. The study would serve as validation that a requirement truly exists to procure such a treatment on such a massive scale.
5.
First off, I am questioning whether or not the Small Pox threat is actually viable. There are likely other threats that possibly pose a greater risk to the national security interests of the U.S. I believe it is time for a review of the bio-defense strategy. Ethics should never be set aside in this case but I think that testing on humans, however, does not necessarily have to be considered unethical. Perhaps there are options of eliciting volunteers that have terminal illness (a program somewhat like organ donors) where they might be able to submit themselves as test subjects for some drugs. I believe, for example, that some cancer patients will subject themselves as experimental agents for new cancer treatments. Some may find it beneficial and self-rewarding to donate their own bodies to the greater benefit of humanity and
health.