Wines,
Michael. "U.S. Moves Toward Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate Over
Sea Life." The New
York Times. The New York Times,
27 Feb. 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/us-moves-toward-atlantic-oil-exploration-stirring-debate-over-sea-life.html?ref=science>.
The article “U.S. Moves Toward
Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate Over Sea Life,” by Michael Wines,
focuses on the different effects, outcomes, and sharply divided views regarding
the Interior Department’s recent recommendation to explore oil drilling in the
Atlantic Ocean. This possible drilling
would be of great benefit to the United States, ultimately improving energy
security, opening up 280,000 new jobs, and bringing in close to $200 billion in
private funding. However, despite these
positive results, environmental activists are infuriated. In order eventually to carry out the
drilling, thunderous undersea seismic surveys must be completed. The activists, along with the Interior
Department itself, claim that the noise would injure and kill thousands of
whales and dolphins. Scientists think
that this is an exaggeration, as similar seismic surveys have been carried out
all around the world for years and have not caused even one confirmed whale
death. They believe that the issue of greatest
concern is the possible change in behavior of marine life due to drilling-related
stress, perhaps altering breeding or mating habits or interfering with
communication patterns.
This
article is important to us because it highlights an issue that could directly
impact our lives. We live somewhat close
to the Atlantic Ocean, so the possible disruption of marine life could have an
effect on our environment. The possible
injury to or death of sea life is a concern to anyone who cares about the
environment. On the other hand, the
benefits of the drilling could also have a positive effect on our lives,
creating jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I thought this article was significant
because it is about a real-world problem that is occurring close to where I live
and that could possibly affect my life.
This
article was very well-written and easy to read.
I liked how it gave different points of view on the issue, supporting
the statements with facts, evidence, and quotes. Missing from the article were statements from
scientists in support of the activists’ claims.
One thing that I found very confusing was the fact that research done by
the Interior Department contradicted the predictions of scientists about the possible
effects on sea life of noise created by the drilling process. If the Interior Department wants to drill,
then why would it provide negative information about drilling with which scientists
do not necessarily agree? Overall, I
found this article very interesting and informative, and I am glad that I read
it.
Michael's review was very informative and alerted me to some of the current events that I had not been aware of before. He did a great job of mentioning all of the main facts and once he states it, it is immediately followed by either a detail or a transition. In his second paragraph, he did a good job of looking at both the pros and the cons of the U.S. moving toward the oil in the Atlantic Ocean.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there were small issues that made reading the review a little difficult. Some sentences were confusing and had to be read again and he could have described what the Interior Department's role is (in less than a sentence though).
I learned from everything in this review and I thought it was amazing! I also found it interesting especially, as Michael had pointed out in his third paragraph, since this exploration for oil is happening so close to home. As he said, it will create jobs, but might harm the sea life, although it seems that this issue is still be debated on. Great job!
Michael did a great job with this review because he included very specific statistics from the text (280,000 new jobs, $200 billion in private funding.) I really liked how he talked about how the drilling will effect the marine life, and how he went into a lot of detail. I was also impressed by how he connected this issue to his life and the ones around him.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Michael could've gone into more detail about what action the activists/department are planning on taking or what they have already done. It was also a little hard to follow in the third paragraph but no worries, he did a great job.
I was really surprised by the amount of jobs drilling would generate, 280,000! This review taught me a lot about how drilling can effect wildlife - i had no clue before that the noise would be a problem! Anyways, this review was really informative and I like the topic.
Michael’s review of the article, “U.S. Moves Toward Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate Over Sea Life,” by Michael Wines was very well written. I think Michael really summarized this vast topic into something we can all really understand. I also think he did a great job showing both opinions over this topic. Lastly, Michael really related the issue in the article to our lives which is very important that we can all connect to everyday issues.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Michael probably could have done better was to read over his sentences because I think the sentence structure was a little off making it a bit hard to read the review at points. Another thing he could have done is maybe explain a little more indepthly the role of the Interior Department of just explain it in general because not all of us know what that is.
Something that really stuck in my mind after reading Michael’s review was the fact that some people actually think that drilling in the ocean is a good idea. I mean I’m no scientist but to me that is just a HUGE red flag to all that marine life. Even if the money would help many that money wont mean anything to anyone when all marine life is gone and the oceans are destroyed.
This was a really good review by Michael. There were many aspects of it that I liked. One was that Michael does a really good job explaining both points of views on drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. This gives more insight to both sides of the fight. Michael also does a good job of weaving in information from the article. This helps to validate his claims. In addition to that, Michael’s review flows really well. This is good because it makes the review much easier to read, and there are no confusing parts.
ReplyDeleteThere were a few aspects of the review that could have been better. One was that Michael could have weaved some more transition words into his writing. Also, it was a tad bit wordy in some parts.
I learned a lot from this review about the debate over drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. I had no idea how many jobs drilling in the Atlantic Ocean would open up (280,000) and that it would create 200 billion dollars in private funding. Overall this was a really good review that was really informal, and I was able to relate to it really well.
I felt that Michael’s review was well made. Firstly, I enjoyed that he attached numbers where he could. I enjoyed that he said that drilling could open up 280,000 new jobs and bring in $200 billion instead of just saying that it could help the economy. I also enjoyed that he proposed opposing viewpoints from scientists and environmentalists. Finally, I enjoyed how he made these changes matter to us by showing that they could both help and hurt us.
ReplyDeleteI felt like it would be nice to know the reasoning behind environmentalists saying that the noise could kill whales and dolphins. I would also like to know where specifically in the Atlantic Ocean the drilling would be happening.
I was impressed that seismic activities have not caused a single whale death. I would think that over all of this time we would at least have one confirmed death.
Ryan Murray
ReplyDeleteChem Current Event
Michael I have to say this is a fantastic review. This article is about how oil drilling could benefit the US and open up many jobs for its citizens. First off you summarized the article very planned out and high quality. I thought this review was very interesting and I enjoyed reading it. Michael your transitions were very nicely constructed. Somehow you were able to explain the entire article through just a few lines. The last thing that I thought you did very well was quote some specific fun facts.
Michael this was a very nice review, but you could have improved it in a number of ways. I think you could have improved in several ways. One aspect that I thought that you could have improved on was how you developed your sentences. The second thing that you definitely need to work on is your punctuation There were a number of times that you used your punctuation incorrectly. The third thing you could have worked on in your sentences was how you cited the article. I thought that this could have really helped the flow of this review.
I actually thought this review was very well written. I really enjoyed how you included many facts and this really helped me understand the article. I learned that there are many positives and negatives to the oil drilling and overall I think that it is a positive to our economy. Michael you did an awesome job on this review.