document_title: The Lost World: Jurassic Park

question_text: who played the little girl in jurassic park 2

text: The Lost World: Jurassic Park

text: Plot[edit]

text: On Isla Sorna, an island off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, a young girl named Cathy Bowman wanders around during a family vacation, and survives an attack by a swarm of Compsognathus. Her parents file a lawsuit against the genetics company InGen, now headed by John Hammond's nephew, Peter Ludlow, who plans to use Isla Sorna to alleviate the financial losses imposed by the incident that occurred at Jurassic Park four years earlier. Mathematician Dr. Ian Malcolm meets Hammond at his mansion. Hammond explains that Isla Sorna, abandoned years earlier during a hurricane, is where InGen created their dinosaurs before moving them to Jurassic Park on Isla Nublar. Hammond hopes to stop InGen by sending a team to Isla Sorna to document the dinosaurs, thus causing public support against human interference on the island. Ian, who survived the Jurassic Park disaster, is reluctant. After learning that his girlfriend, paleontologist Dr. Sarah Harding, is part of the team and is already on Isla Sorna, Ian agrees to go to the island, but only to retrieve her.

text: Ian meets his teammates, Eddie Carr, an equipment specialist and engineer, and Nick Van Owen, a video documentarian and activist. After arriving on the island, they locate Sarah and discover that Ian's daughter, Kelly, had stowed away in a trailer being used as a mobile base. They then watch as another InGen team – consisting of mercenaries, hunters, paleontologist Robert Burke, and Ludlow – arrive to capture several dinosaurs, led by big game hunter Roland Tembo, his second-in-command Dieter Stark, and Roland’s hunting partner and friend Ajay Sidhu. Roland hopes to capture a male Tyrannosaurus rex by luring it to the cries of its injured infant. That night, Ian's team sneak into the InGen camp and learn the captured dinosaurs will be brought to a newly proposed theme park in San Diego that abandoned for the islands. This prompts Nick and Sarah to free the caged dinosaurs, wreaking havoc upon the camp.

text: Nick also frees the infant T. rex and takes it to the trailer to mend its broken leg. After securing Kelly with Eddie, Ian realizes the infant's parents are searching for it and rushes to the trailer. As soon as Ian arrives, the infant's parents emerge on both sides of the trailer. The infant is released to the adult T. rexes, which then attack the trailer, pushing it over the edge of a nearby cliff. Eddie soon arrives, but as he tries to pull the trailer back over the edge with an SUV, the adult T. rexes return and devour him. The trailer and the SUV plummet off the cliff. Ian, Sarah, and Nick are rescued by the InGen team, along with Kelly. With both groups' communications equipment and vehicles destroyed, they team up to search for the old InGen compound's radio station on foot. Dieter, after being lost in the forest, is killed by a pack of Compsognathus.

text: The next night, the two adult T. rexes find the group's camp, as they had followed the infant's blood scent on Sarah's jacket. The female T. rex chases the group to a waterfall cave and devours Burke, while Roland tranquilizes the male. Ajay and much of the remaining InGen team is killed by Velociraptors while fleeing through an elephant grass field. Nick runs ahead to the communications center at the InGen Worker's Village to call for rescue. After Ian, Sarah and Kelly reach the village, they evade raptors until a helicopter arrives and transports them off the island.

text: A freighter ship transports the male T. rex to San Diego, but crashes into the dock. After finding the ship's crew killed, a guard opens the cargo hold, accidentally releasing the T. rex, which escapes into the city and goes on a destructive rampage. Ian and Sarah retrieve the infant T. rex from InGen's unfinished Jurassic Park San Diego facility, and use it to lure the adult back to the ship. Ludlow tries to intervene, but is trapped in the cargo hold by the adult T. rex and is subsequently mauled to death by the infant. Before the adult can escape again, Sarah tranquilizes it while Ian closes the cargo hold doors. The T. rexes are escorted back to Isla Sorna, and Hammond says that the American and Costa Rican governments have agreed to declare the island a nature preserve, securing the island from any human interference. While Ian sits safe at home with his family, the T. rexes are seen grazing with their infant as Hammond affirms "life will find a way".

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm,[5] a mathematician and chaos theorist, and a survivor of the events on Isla Nublar from the first film.
Julianne Moore as Dr. Sarah Harding,[5] a behavioral paleontologist and Ian's girlfriend.
Pete Postlethwaite as Roland Tembo,[5] a big-game hunter from Kenya and the leader of the second InGen team.
Arliss Howard as Peter Ludlow,[5] InGen's current CEO and Hammond's conniving and greedy nephew. He is the main antagonist of the film.
Richard Attenborough as John Hammond,[5] InGen's former CEO and the park's original visionary.
Vince Vaughn as Nick Van Owen,[5] a well-traveled and experienced documentarian and environmentalist.
Vanessa Lee Chester as Kelly Curtis,[5] Ian's teenage daughter from a failed relationship.
Peter Stormare as Dieter Stark,[5] the InGen team's second-in-command, under Roland Tembo.
Harvey Jason as Ajay Sidhu,[5] Roland's immensely loyal and long-time best friend and hunting partner from India.
Richard Schiff as Eddie Carr,[5] a timid and sardonic field equipment expert.
Thomas F. Duffy as Dr. Robert Burke,[5] the InGen team's dinosaur expert.[6][7]
Thomas Rosales Jr. as Carter, an InGen hunter.
Joseph Mazzello as Tim Murphy,[5] John Hammond's grandson, Lex's younger brother and a survivor of the events on Isla Nublar.
Ariana Richards as Lex Murphy,[5] John Hammond's granddaughter, Tim's older sister and a survivor of the events on Isla Nublar.
Camilla Belle as Cathy Bowman, a girl attacked by Compsognathus.[8]
Robin Sachs as Paul Bowman, the father of Cathy Bowman.

text: Creatures on screen[edit]

text: While Jurassic Park featured mostly the animatronic dinosaurs built by Stan Winston's team, The Lost World had a higher emphasis on the computer-generated imagery of Industrial Light & Magic. This led to the film featuring larger shots that offered plenty of space for the digital artists to add the dinosaurs.[9] Although technology had not advanced much since the release of the first film, Spielberg noted that "the artistry of the creative computer people" had advanced: "There's better detail, much better lighting, better muscle tone and movement in the animals. When a dinosaur transfers weight from his left side to his right, the whole movement of fat and sinew is smoother, more physiologically correct."[10]

text: Winston said, "I wanted to show the world what they didn't see in 'Jurassic Park': more dinosaurs and more dinosaur action. 'More, bigger, better' was our motto."[11] Some of the animatronics cost $1 million and weighed nine and a half tons.[10] Michael Lantieri, the special effects supervisor, said, "The big T. rex robot can pull two Gs of force when it's moving from right to left. If you hit someone with that, you'd kill them. So, in a sense, we did treat the dinosaurs as living, dangerous creatures."[11]

text:
Compsognathus, nicknamed "Compies" by Stan Winston's crew, are a small carnivorous theropod which attacks in packs. Visual effects supervisor Dennis Muren considered them the most complex digital dinosaur, given their small size meant the Compys had their whole body visible and thus needed a higher sense of gravity and weight. A simple puppet Compsognathus was featured in the opening scene, and the part where Dieter Stark was killed by the pack had Peter Stormare wearing a jacket onto which various rubber Compies were attached.[9]
Gallimimus was shown fleeing from the InGen Hunters.
Mamenchisaurus was shown in the game trail scene where an InGen hunter drove his motorcycle in-between the sauropod's legs.
Pachycephalosaurus was shown being hunted down by the InGen hunters.
Parasaurolophus was shown being hunted down by the InGen hunters.
Stegosaurus was, according to Spielberg, included "by popular demand". Stan Winston's team built full-sized versions of both the infant and adult Stegosaurus, but Spielberg eventually opted to employ a digital version for the adults so they could be more mobile.[9]
Triceratops was shown being hunted down by the InGen hunters.

text:
Tyrannosaurus is featured as a whole family, with two adults and an infant. Featuring two practical T. rexes required double the work and puppeteers, and also to have the sets built around the animatronics so they would not need to leave the soundstage. The baby T. rex had two different practical versions, a "fully contained" remote controlled version the actors could carry, and a hybrid operated by both hydraulics and cables which lay on the operating table, and had the added complexity of moving as Vince Vaughn held its head.[9]
Velociraptor had a mechanical version which depicted the upper half of its body, and a digital full-motion computer raptor.[12]
Pteranodon makes a brief appearance at the film's end.

text: Production[edit]

text: Pre-production[edit]

text: After the release of the novel Jurassic Park in 1990, Michael Crichton was pressured by fans for a sequel novel. Having never written a sequel, he initially refused.[13] While filming the novel's film adaptation, Jurassic Park, director Steven Spielberg believed that if a sequel film were made, it would involve the retrieval of a canister that contained dinosaur DNA and that was lost during the events of the first film.[14] Discussions about a sequel film began after the 1993 release of Jurassic Park, which became a financial success.[13] Spielberg held discussions with David Koepp and Crichton – who both wrote the previous film – to discuss possible ideas for a sequel film.[15] The production schedule for a second Jurassic Park film was dependent on whether Crichton would write a sequel to the first novel.[15]

text: In March 1994, Crichton said there would probably be a sequel novel and sequel film, stating that he had a story idea for another novel, which would then be adapted into a film sequel. By that time, Spielberg had not committed to directing the new novel's film adaptation, as he planned to take a year off from directing.[16] In March 1995, Crichton announced that he was nearly finished writing the novel sequel, scheduled for release later that year, although he declined to specify its title or plot. At the time of the announcement, Spielberg had signed on to produce the film adaptation, with filming to begin in summer 1996 for release in 1997. Spielberg, who was busy with his new DreamWorks studio, had not yet decided if he would direct the film, stating, "I'd love to direct it, but I just have to see. My life is changing."[17] Joe Johnston, who offered to direct the sequel, later directed the next film, Jurassic Park III.[18]

text: A production team was assembled in spring 1995, as Crichton was finishing the second novel, titled The Lost World; simultaneously, Spielberg and Koepp were developing ideas for the screenplay.[19] Crichton's novel was published in September 1995, while Spielberg was announced as director for the film adaptation in November 1995.[20] Production designer Rick Carter traveled to the Caribbean, New Zealand, and Central America to scout possible locations for filming.[19] By February 1996, northern New Zealand had been chosen as a filming location rather than Kauai, Hawaii, where the previous film was shot, as the filmmakers desired to shoot the new film in a different location that would not be recognized from its predecessor.[21] New Zealand was also chosen because it was believed to have better represented an actual dinosaur environment. Crichton had wished for the film to be shot on Kauai.[22]

text: In August 1996, it was announced that Humboldt County, California had been chosen as a filming location instead of New Zealand,[23] where filming would have been too costly.[24] Humboldt County was chosen because of financial incentives that would keep the film's production costs low.[24][25] Other locations that had been considered were Costa Rica and Oregon.[24][23] Filming locations in Humboldt County were to include the redwood forests of Eureka, California.[19] The location was picked because research indicated dinosaurs did not inhabit tropical habitats, but forests like the ones in Eureka.[9]

text: Writing[edit]

text: The plot for Crichton's Lost World novel involved a second island of dinosaurs, with no reference to the canister of dinosaur DNA[14] (the canister was later used as a plot aspect in a rejected early draft for Jurassic Park IV).[26] After the novel was finished, Crichton was not consulted about the sequel, and it was not until he declined to approve certain merchandising rights that he received a copy of the script. Kathleen Kennedy, the film's executive producer who previously produced Jurassic Park, said, "In the same way Michael doesn't see writing as a collaboration, Steven went off and did his own movie. When Michael turned the book over to Steven, he knew his work was finished."[10]

text: Spielberg and Koepp discarded much of the novel's scenes and ideas,[27] choosing to devise a new story instead while including the two ideas from the novel that Spielberg liked: a second island populated with dinosaurs, and a scene in which a trailer dangles from a cliff after being attacked by T. rexes.[10] To prepare for writing the script, Spielberg was more insistent on having Koepp watch the 1925 film, The Lost World, than he was on having him read Crichton's novel, which Koepp also did.[25]

text: During an early meeting with Koepp, Spielberg determined that while the primary conflict of the original film involved herbivorous dinosaurs vs. carnivorous dinosaurs, the script for the new film should involve humans who are "gatherers" (observers of the dinosaurs) and "hunters" (who capture the dinosaurs for a zoo).[25] Koepp said the plot of the 1962 film Hatari! – about African animals being captured for zoos – had "a big influence" on The Lost World's script.[28] Koepp named the characters of Roland Tembo and Nick Van Owen as a reference to one of his favorite songs, "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner", by Warren Zevon. Koepp said "since Roland is a mercenary in the song, that seemed like a good name for the hunter-for-hire in our movie. While I was at it, I thought it would be fun to make his nemesis' last name Van Owen, like in the song."[29]

text: Crichton's novel revolves around Malcolm's team and a rival team led by InGen's corporate rival, Biosyn, which was written out of the film adaptation in favor of two competing InGen teams.[8] Several characters from the novel were excluded from the film adaptation, including Lewis Dodgson, the leader of the Biosyn team;[30] and field equipment engineer Doc Thorne, whose characteristics were partially implemented into the film's version of Eddie.[8] Spielberg regretted excluding a scene from the script that would have depicted characters on motorcycles attempting to flee velociraptors, similar to a sequence in the novel. An alternate version of the scene was later added into the 2015 film, Jurassic World.[31][32]

text: Dieter's death scene was ultimately inspired by John Hammond's death in the first novel, in which Procompsognathus kill him.[8][33] The film's opening scene was also inspired by an early chapter in the first novel that was ultimately excluded from its film adaptation, in which a girl on a beach is bitten by a Procompsognathus.[33] The first novel also included a scene in which characters hide behind a waterfall from a T. rex; this scene was briefly excluded from the first film as well, and was ultimately added into The Lost World: Jurassic Park.[33] According to paleontologist Jack Horner, the film's technical advisor, part of the waterfall scene was written in as a favor for him by Spielberg. Burke greatly resembles Horner's rival Robert Bakker. In real life, Bakker argues for a predatory T. rex while Horner views it as primarily a scavenger. Spielberg had Burke written into this part to have him killed by the T. rex as a favor for Horner. After the film came out, Bakker, who recognized himself in Burke and loved it, actually sent Horner a message saying, "See, I told you T. rex was a hunter!"[34]

text: In the original script, the film would briefly end with an aerial battle, where Pteranodons attack the helicopter trying to escape Isla Sorna.[12] Three weeks before filming began,[25] Spielberg ultimately suggested to instead have the T. rex's attack through San Diego, as he was interested in seeing dinosaurs attacking the mainland.[12] Spielberg had initially wanted such a scene to be saved for a third film, but later decided to add it into the second film after realizing that he would probably not direct another film in the series.[10] The sequence was inspired by a similar attack scene involving a Brontosaurus in London in the 1925 version of The Lost World, which was adapted from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 1912 novel of the same name,[35] both of which inspired the title for Crichton's novel.[36] Koepp wrote a total of nine drafts for the film.[25]

text: Casting[edit]

text: In November 1994, Richard Attenborough said that he would reprise his role as John Hammond from the previous film.[37] In 1995, Spielberg met Vanessa Lee Chester at the premiere of A Little Princess, in which she appeared. Chester later recalled, "As I was signing an autograph for him, he told me one day he'd put me in a film." Spielberg met with Chester the following year to discuss The Lost World: Jurassic Park before ultimately casting her as Malcolm's daughter, Kelly.[38] In April 1996, Julianne Moore was in discussions to star in the film alongside Jeff Goldblum.[39] Spielberg had admired Moore's performance in The Fugitive.[40] In June 1996, Peter Stormare was in final negotiations to join the cast.[41] In August 1996, Vince Vaughn was announced to have joined the cast.[42] Spielberg was impressed with Vaughn's performance in the film Swingers, which he saw after the filmmakers requested his permission to use music from his earlier film, Jaws.[43][44] After meeting with Spielberg, Vaughn was subsequently cast without having to do a screen test.[45]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Filming began on September 5, 1996, at Fern Canyon, a part of California's Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park. Filming continued for two weeks in other state parks and on private land in northern California, including Eureka. Throughout the fall of 1996, filming continued on stages at Universal Studios Hollywood.[46] The Site B workers village was constructed there and left intact after filming to become a part of the theme park tour.[19] For the scene where a trailer dangles from a cliff, a whole mountainside was built over the structure of Universal's multi-storey car park.[9]

text: In October 1996, it was announced that filming would take place over five days in December at New Zealand's Fiordland National Park,[47][48] where the film's opening sequence was to be shot.[49][50] Scenes involving Hammond's residence were shot during the final week of filming, at Mayfield Senior School in Pasadena, California.[51][40] Also shot in Pasadena was a scene in which Vaughn's character emerges from a lake.[45]

text: In early December 1996, plans to film in Fiordland were abruptly cancelled.[49][50] Principal photography concluded ahead of schedule on December 11, 1996.[46] However, in mid-December 1996, plans were approved to shoot the opening sequence on a beach in Kauai after the cancellation of the New Zealand shoot. Filming in Kauai was underway on December 20, 1996, with plans to conclude two days later. Although Spielberg was in Kauai at the time and had visited the production, the opening sequence was filmed by a second unit crew.[49][50] The film was shot on a budget of $73 million.[3]

text: Although the T. rex's rampage takes place in San Diego, only one scene is actually shot there, where the InGen helicopter flies over the wharf and banks towards the city. The other sequences were all shot in Burbank, California.[12] Scenes set in San Diego were shot behind barricades to maintain secrecy; Spielberg noted that, "It looked like road-repair work was going on."[10] Various members of the film crew were featured running from the Tyrannosaurus, with screenwriter David Koepp playing the "Unlucky Bastard" who gets eaten during a scene set in San Diego.[12]

text: Inspired by how Jurassic Park featured the Ford Explorer, Mercedes-Benz signed an endorsement deal to introduce in the film its first sports utility vehicle, the M320.[52] Spielberg did not allow for rehearsals among the cast, stating, "You want to capture the actors when they taste the words for the first time, when they look at each other for the first time–that's the sort of magic you can only get on a first or second take."[53] Cinematographer Janusz Kamiński, who had worked with Spielberg in Schindler's List, was brought onto the project to give a darker, more artistic look to the film, leading to a "more elegant and rich" approach focused on contrast and shadow.[9]

text: Music[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2015)

text: For the sequel, composer John Williams avoided using most of the previous film's main themes, writing a more action oriented score.[54] The soundtrack was released on May 20, 1997. It, along with the soundtrack to the first movie, was re-released and remastered on November 29, 2016.[55]

text: Release[edit]

text: The Lost World: Jurassic Park premiered on May 19, 1997,[56] at a Cineplex Odeon theater in Universal City, California.[57][58] The Los Angeles Times called the premiere "low-key".[58] The film received a wider release on May 23, 1997. Fox Network paid $80 million for the broadcasting rights of The Lost World, which debuted on November 1, 1998.[59] The television version was expanded with deleted scenes, that included John Hammond's ouster by InGen executives.[60]

text: Marketing and promotion[edit]

text: On February 10, 1997, Universal announced a $250 million marketing campaign with 70 promotional partners.[61][62] The marketing campaign was even more extensive than with Jurassic Park. The leading partners were Burger King, whose promotion was concurrent with one for another Universal dinosaur-based franchise, The Land Before Time; JVC and Mercedes-Benz, whose products are featured in the movie; and Timberland Co., making its first film tie-in. Another partner was a then-sister company of Universal under Seagram, Tropicana Products.[61][63] Other promotional partners included Hamburger Helper[64][65] and Betty Crocker,[66] while General Mills introduced Jurassic Park Crunch cereal.[66][67] Derivative works included various video games, including both a pinball machine and an arcade game by Sega,[68] and a four-part comic series released by Topps Comics.[69][70]

text: Other promotional items included a toy line of action figures by Kenner and remote-controlled vehicles by Tyco,[62][71][72] as well as a board game by Milton Bradley Company.[73] Also produced were Hershey's chocolate bars that featured holographic dinosaur patterns.[74][71] Universal hoped for promotional profits to exceed $1 billion.[62]

text: In December 1996, a special version of the film's teaser trailer debuted at 42 theaters in the United States and Canada, at a cost of $14,000 for each theater; the trailer made use of synchronized strobe lights that mimicked lightning during a rain scene.[75] The film's first trailer was aired on January 26, 1997, during Super Bowl XXXI. A detailed website for the film was also created, and provided backstory for characters and events that were not referenced in the film.[76][77] Shortly after the film's release, hackers broke into the website and briefly changed the film's logo to feature a duck instead of a T. rex. The film's title in the logo was also changed to The Duck World: Jurassic Pond.[78] Universal denied that the hacking was a publicity stunt to promote the film, stating that it was traced to a "16-year-old hacker kid from back East."[79][80] The website was still online as of 2018.[77]

text: Home media[edit]

text: The film made its VHS and LaserDisc debut on October 21, 1997.[81] The DVD was first released on October 10, 2000, and also made available in a package with predecessor Jurassic Park.[82] The films were also featured in a deluxe limited edition box set featuring both the DVDs and soundtrack albums of the two films, two lenticulars, stills from both films, and a certificate of authenticity signed by all three producers of the set, all inside a collector case.[83] After the release of sequel Jurassic Park III, box sets including all three movies were also made available, as Jurassic Park Trilogy on December 11, 2001,[84] and as the Jurassic Park Adventure Pack on November 29, 2005.[85] The Lost World was first made available on Blu-ray on October 25, 2011 as part of a trilogy release.[86] The entire Jurassic Park film series was released on 4K UHD Blu-Ray on May 22, 2018.[87]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: The Lost World took in $72.1 million on its opening weekend ($92.6 million for the four-day Memorial Day holiday) in the U.S.,[88] which was the biggest opening weekend at the time,[89] surpassing the previous record-holder Batman Forever at $52.8 million. It held onto this record for four and a half years, until the release of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in November 2001. The Lost World took the record for highest single-day box office take of $26.1 million on May 25,[90] a record held until the release of Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. It also became the fastest film to pass the $100 million mark, achieving the feat in just six days.[91] However, despite these records, its total box office gross fell below the total of the original film.[92] It grossed $229.1 million in the U.S. and $389.5 million internationally, for a total of $618.6 million worldwide,[3] becoming the second highest-grossing film of 1997 behind Titanic. The film sold an estimated 49,910,000 tickets in North America.[93]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 53% based on 68 reviews and an average rating of 5.6/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "The Lost World demonstrates how far CG effects have come in the four years since Jurassic Park; unfortunately, it also proves how difficult it can be to put together a truly compelling sequel."[94] On Metacritic, the film has an average rating of 59/100 based on reviews from 18 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[95]

text: Roger Ebert, who gave the first film three stars, gave The Lost World only two, writing that "It can be said that the creatures in this film transcend any visible signs of special effects and seem to walk the earth, but the same realism isn't brought to the human characters, who are bound by plot conventions and action formulas."[5] Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune also gave the film two stars and said, "I was disappointed as much as I was thrilled because 'The Lost World' lacks a staple of Steven Spielberg's adventure films: exciting characters. [...] Even in the original 'Jurassic Park,' the dinosaurs – not to mention the human beings – had more distinct personalities than they have here. Save for superior special effects, 'The Lost World' comes off as recycled material."[96] Conversely, Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times saw improved character development over the original, saying, "It seemed such a mistake in Jurassic Park to sideline early on its most interesting character, the brilliant, free-thinking and outspoken theorist Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) with a broken leg, but in its most inspired stroke, The Lost World brings back Malcolm and places him front and center," calling it "a pleasure to watch such wily pros as Goldblum and Attenborough spar with each other with wit and assurance".[97] The dinosaurs were even more developed as characters, with Stephen Holden of The New York Times saying, "The Lost World, unlike Jurassic Park, humanizes its monsters in a way that E.T. would understand."[4] Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a B grade; he remarked, "Mr. T-Rex was cool in the first Spielberg flick, sure, but it wasn't until [it was in] San Diego that things got crazy-cool. It's the old 'tree falling in the woods' conundrum: Unless your giant monster is causing massive property damage, can you really call it a giant monster?"[98]

text: Spielberg confessed that during production he became increasingly disenchanted with the film, admitting, "I beat myself up... growing more and more impatient with myself... It made me wistful about doing a talking picture, because sometimes I got the feeling I was just making this big silent-roar movie... I found myself saying, 'Is that all there is? It's not enough for me.'"[99]

text: Accolades[edit]

text:
Award

Date of ceremony

Category

Recipient(s)

Result

Ref(s)

Academy Awards

March 23, 1998

Best Visual Effects

Dennis Muren, Stan Winston, Randal M. Dutra and Michael Lantieri

Nominated

[100]

Blockbuster Entertainment Awards

March 10, 1998

Favorite Actor – Sci-Fi

Jeff Goldblum

Nominated

[101]

Favorite Actress – Sci-Fi

Julianne Moore

Nominated

Golden Raspberry Awards

March 22, 1998

Worst Remake or Sequel

Nominated

[102]

Worst Reckless Disregard for Human Life and Public Property

Nominated

Worst Screenplay

David Koepp, based on the book by Michael Crichton

Nominated

Grammy Awards

February 25, 1998

Best Instrumental Composition

John Williams

Nominated

[103]

Image Awards

February 13–14, 1998

Outstanding Youth Actor/Actress

Vanessa Lee Chester

Nominated

[104]

MTV Movie Awards

May 30, 1998

Best Action Sequence

T-Rex attacks San Diego

Nominated

[105][106]

Rembrandt Awards

1998

Best Director

Steven Spielberg

Won

[citation needed]

Satellite Awards

February 22, 1998

Best Motion Picture – Animated or Mixed Media

Nominated

[107]

Saturn Awards

June 10, 1998

Best Special Effects

Dennis Muren, Stan Winston, Randal M. Dutra and Michael Lantieri

Nominated

[citation needed]

Best Supporting Actor

Pete Postlethwaite

Nominated

Best Young Actress

Vanessa Lee Chester

Nominated

Best Fantasy Film

Nominated

Best DVD Collection

Nominated

Best Director

Steven Spielberg

Nominated

Stinkers Bad Movie Awards

1998

Worst Screenplay for a Film Grossing More Than $100 Million Worldwide Using Hollywood Math

Nominated

[108]

Worst Sequel

Nominated


document_title: Coors Brewing Company

question_text: when did coors became available in the east

root

text: Coors Brewing Company

text: History[edit]

text: Founding[edit]

text: In 1873, German immigrants Adolph Coors and Jacob Schueler from Prussia emigrated to the United States and established a brewery in Golden, Colorado, after buying a recipe for a Pilsner-style beer from a Czech immigrant William Silhan.[4]

tag: p

text: Coors invested $2,000 in the operation, and Schueler invested $6,000.

text: In 1880, Coors bought out his partner and became sole owner of the brewery.

text: Prohibition[edit]

text: The Coors Brewing Company managed to survive Prohibition relatively intact. Years before the Volstead Act went into effect nationwide, Adolph Coors with sons Adolph Jr., Grover, and Herman established the Adolph Coors Brewing and Manufacturing Company, which included Herold Porcelain and other ventures. The brewery itself was converted into a malted milk and near beer production facility. Coors sold much of the malted milk to the Mars candy company for the production of sweets. Manna, the company's non-alcoholic beer replacement, was a near beer similar to current non-alcoholic beverages. However, Coors and his sons relied heavily on the porcelain company as well as a cement and real estate company to keep the Coors Brewing Company afloat. By 1933, after the end of Prohibition, the Coors brewery was one of only a handful of breweries that had survived.

text: All of the non-brewery assets of the Adolph Coors Company were spun off between 1989 and 1992. The descendant of the original Herold Porcelain ceramics business continues to operate as CoorsTek.[5]

text: Products[edit]

text: For much of its history, Coors beer was a regional product and its marketing area was confined to the American West.[6][7][8] While California and Texas were part of the 11-state distribution area, Washington and Montana were not added until 1976[6][9] (Oregon did not approve sales in grocery stores until 1985).[10][11][12][13] This gave it mystique and made it a novelty, particularly on the East Coast,[14][15] and visitors returning from the western states often brought back a case.[16] This iconic status was reflected in the 1977 film Smokey and the Bandit, which centered around an illegal shipment of Coors from Texas to Georgia. The company finally established nationwide distribution in the United States in the mid-1980s.[17]

text: In 1959, Coors became the first American brewer to use an all-aluminum two-piece beverage can.[3] Also in 1959, the company abandoned pasteurization and began to use sterile filtration to stabilize its beer.[3][14] Coors currently operates the largest aluminum can producing plant in the world, known as the Rocky Mountain Metal Container (RMMC), in Golden. RMMC is a joint venture between Ball Metal and Coors, having been founded in 2003.

text: In the 1970s, Coors invented the litter-free push tab can,[14] in place of the ring pull-tab.[18][19] However, consumers disliked the top and it was discontinued soon afterward.

text: Coors Light was introduced in 1978.[3] The longtime slogan of "Silver Bullet" to describe it does not describe the beer, but rather the silver-colored can in which the beer is packaged. Coors Light was once produced in "yellow-bellied" cans like the full-strength Coors, but when the yellow coloring was removed and the can was left mostly silver, many dubbed the beer the "Silver Bullet".

text: Mergers[edit]

text: In 2005, Coors was rated the third largest producer of beer in the United States, and the second largest brewer in the United Kingdom through its subsidiary, Coors Brewers Limited.[21]

text: On July 22, 2004, the company announced it would be merging with Canadian brewer Molson. The merger was completed February 9, 2005, with the merged company being named Molson Coors Brewing Company.

text: Shenandoah expansion[edit]

text: In August 2004, the Coors Brewing Company announced plans to add brewing capacity to the Shenandoah beer packaging facility in Elkton, Virginia, by early 2007.[22] Coors officials stated that this would "bring brewing capacity much closer to our important East Coast markets and distributors."

text: Labor issues[edit]

text: In April 1977, the brewery workers union at Coors, representing 1,472 employees, went on strike. The brewery kept operating with supervisors and 250 to 300 union members, including one member of the union executive board who ignored the strike. Soon after, Coors announced that it would hire replacements for the striking workers.[23] About 700 workers quit the picket line to go back to work, and Coors replaced the remaining 500 workers, keeping the beer production process uninterrupted.[24] In December 1978, the workers at Coors voted by greater than a two-to-one ratio to decertify the union, ending 44 years of union representation at Coors. Because the strike was by then more than a year old, striking workers could not vote in the election.[25]

text: Labor unions organized a boycott to punish Coors for its labor practices.[26] One tactic employed by the unions was a push for states to pass laws banning the sale of unpasteurized canned and bottled beer.[27] Because Coors was the only major brewer at the time not pasteurizing its canned and bottled beer, such laws would hurt only Coors.[28] Sales of Coors suffered during the decade-long labor union boycott, although Coors stated that declining sales were also due to an industry-wide downturn in beer sales, and to increased competition. To maintain production, Coors expanded its sales area from the 18 western states to which it had marketed for years, to nationwide distribution.[29] This was completed in 1991 with Indiana being the last state for the brand to appear.[30]

text: The AFL-CIO ended its boycott of Coors in August 1987, after negotiations with Pete Coors, head of brewery operations. The details of the settlement were not divulged, but were said to include an early union representation election in Colorado and use of union workers to build the new Coors brewery in Virginia.[31]

text: In 1988, the Teamsters Union, which represented brewery workers at the top three US beer makers at the time (Anheuser-Busch, Miller, and Stroh), gained enough signatures to trigger a union representation election inside the Coors company. Coors workers again rejected union representation by more than a two-to-one ratio.[32]

text: Minority issues[edit]

text: Mexican Americans charged Coors with discriminatory hiring practices following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and launched a boycott of the company's products beginning in the late 1960s. Labor unions and gay rights activists joined the boycott, which lasted into the 1980s.[33] A federal lawsuit in 1975 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission[34] ended in a settlement with Coors agreeing not to discriminate against blacks, Hispanics, and women.[35]

text: In 1977, Coors was accused of firing gay and lesbian employees.[36] Coors encouraged the organization of its gay and lesbian employees into the Lesbian and Gay Employee Resource (LAGER) in 1993.[37] In May 1995, Coors became the 21st publicly traded corporation in the United States to extend employee benefits to same-sex partners.[38] When company chairman Pete Coors was criticized for the company's gay-friendly policy during his 2004 Republican primary campaign for a United States Senate seat from Colorado, he defended the policy as a basic good business practice.[39]

text: Political influence[edit]

text: According to Russ Bellant Coors family members have played a prominent role in American politics and public policy, supporting many conservative causes. Such causes included providing a $250,000 grant in 1973 to found The Heritage Foundation,[40] an influential conservative think tank, and, via its parent company, the right-leaning think tank American Enterprise Institute.

text: Chairman Pete Coors ran unsuccessfully for the United States Senate from Colorado in 2004 on the Republican ticket.

text: Brands[edit]

text: The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (April 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: Coors is responsible for over twenty different brands of beer[41] in North America. The most notable of those brands are Coors, Killian's, Caffrey's, and Blue Moon.

text: Joint venture with SABMiller[edit]

text: On October 9, 2007, SABMiller and Molson Coors Brewing Company announced a joint venture to be known as MillerCoors for their US operations that will market all of their products.[2]

text: Change of ownership[edit]

text: In September 2015 Anheuser-Busch Inbev announced that it had reached a full agreement to acquire competitor SABMiller for $107 Billion dollars. During the merger discussions between the two companies in 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had agreed to proposed deal only on the basis that SABMiller "spins off all its MillerCoors holdings in the U.S. — which include both Miller- and Coors-held brands — along with its Miller brands outside the U.S." The entire ownership situation was complicated: "In the United States, Coors is majority owned by MillerCoors (a subsidiary of SABMiller) and minority owned by Molson Coors, though internationally it’s entirely owned by Molson Coors, and Miller is owned by SABMiller."[42] In 2003, John Spagnolo purchased millions of shares of common and preferred stock and is a continued brand evangelist.

text: SABMiller agreed to divest itself of the Miller brands by selling its stake in MillerCoors to Molson Coors. The merger between the two companies closed on October 10, 2016. The spinoff deal was completed on October 11, 2016)[43] As per the agreement with the regulators, SABMiller sold to Molson Coors full ownership of the Miller brand portfolio outside of the U.S. and Puerto Rico for US$12 billion. Molson Coors also retained "the rights to all of the brands currently in the MillerCoors portfolio for the U.S. and Puerto Rico, including Redd’s and import brands such as Peroni, Grolsch and Pilsner Urquell." The agreement made Molson Coors the world's third-largest brewer.[1]

text: In Canada, Molson Coors regained the right to make and market Miller Genuine Draft and Miller Lite.[44]

text: Business names[edit]

text:
Schueler & Coors, Golden Brewery (1873–1880)
Adolph Coors, Golden Brewery (1880–1913)
Adolph Coors Co., Golden Brewery (1909–1913)
Adolph Coors Brewing and Malting Company, Golden Brewery (1913–1915)
Adolph Coors Company (1933–1989)
Coors Brewing Company (1989–2008)
Molson Coors (2005–2008, parent company of CBC)
MillerCoors (2008 to present, a joint venture)
Rocky Mountain Metal Container (2003 to present). A joint venture in aluminum can production with Ball Metal and Coors.

tag: ul

text: CEOs[edit]

text:
Adolph Coors
Joseph Coors
Douglas Roy Coors
William Coors
Frits van Paasschen
Leo Kiely – current CEO of Molson Coors Brewing Company
Peter Swinburn – current CEO of Coors Brewing Company

text: Marketing[edit]

text: Coors sponsored Premiership side Chelsea from 1994 to 1997. The last competitive game that the club wore shirts bearing Coors as sponsors was the 1997 FA Cup Final in which they beat Middlesbrough 2-0 to end their 26-year wait for a major trophy.

text: Current affiliate Carling was title sponsor of the Premier League from 1993 to 2001 and since 2003 has sponsored the Football League Cup. The two brands are also former sponsors of Rangers and Celtic. The clubs have worn strips with Coors Light logos for exhibitions in North America, while elsewhere the strips promoted Carling, which is not offered in the United States.

text: Coors is also the official beer sponsor of NASCAR and formerly the NFL until Bud Light replaced it in 2011.[45] In addition to its official NASCAR sponsorship, Coors Light has regularly sponsored cars in the series. They sponsored Melling Racing, Team SABCO, and most recently Chip Ganassi Racing. Drivers to have Coors backing have included Bill Elliott, who won the Winston Million in 1985 and the 1988 Winston Cup Championship, Robby Gordon, Sterling Marlin, Kyle Petty, David Stremme and Regan Smith. Coors is the title sponsor of the pole award in the NASCAR Sprint Cup and Nationwide Series.[46] Coors stopped sponsoring a stock car in 2008.

text: Coors and/or Molson are beer sponsors of the NHL's Colorado Avalanche, Detroit Red Wings, Arizona Coyotes, San Jose Sharks and all six Canadian teams. The company owns 20% of the Montreal Canadiens with the Molson family owning the other 80%, having purchased the shares from Colorado's George Gillett in 2009.[47]

text: Coors is also the official beer of the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA).[48]

text: Coors currently holds the naming rights to Coors Field in Denver, Colorado, home of the Colorado Rockies baseball team.

text: The Coors Events Center on the campus of the University of Colorado at Boulder in Boulder, Colorado is named after the company.

text: The Coors Life Direction Center of Regis University is also named after the company.

text: Coors has sponsored English rugby league side Workington Town from the 2007 season, as well as British Ice Hockey Team, The Belfast Giants.

text: Coors was the main sponsor for the Coors Cycling Team (late 1980s to mid-1990s) and the sponsor for US cycling event the Coors Classic, which ran from 1980 to 1988.

text: Coors is a sponsor of English Rugby Union team Gloucester. Coincidentally, both Coors and Gloucester RFC were founded in 1873. Coors, through product line Worthingtons, brews a special beer "Kingsholm Ale", which is sold in the stadium. The Worthington logo is featured on the team's jerseys.


document_title: List of Canadian provinces and territories by population

question_text: what is the fastest growing province in canada

text: Canada is divided into ten provinces and three territories. The majority of Canada's population is concentrated in the areas close to the Canada–US border. Its four largest provinces by area (Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta) are also (with Quebec and Ontario switched in order) its most populous; together they account for 86% of the country's population. The territories (the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon) account for over a third of Canada's area but are home to only 0.3% of its population, which skews the national population density value.

text: Canada's population grew by 5.0% between the 2006 and 2011 censuses.[1] Except for New Brunswick, all territories and provinces increased in population from 2011 to 2016. In terms of percent change, the fastest-growing province or territory was Nunavut with an increase of 12.7% between 2011 and 2016, followed by Alberta with 11.6% growth. New Brunswick's population decreased by 0.5% between 2011 and 2016.

text: Canada's population has increased every year since Confederation in 1867: see List of population of Canada by years.

text: Listing[edit]

text:
Rank
Name[1]
Population,
2016 Census
Growth,
2011–16
Land area
(km2)
Population
density
(per km2)
House of
Commons seats
2018 population
(Q1 est.)[2]

Total
Proportion
Total
Proportion
Total
Proportion

1
 Ontario
7007134484940000000♠13,448,494
38.3%
4.6%
7005908699330000000♠908,699.33
14.8
121
35.8%
7007143187500000000♠14,318,750
38.7%

2
 Quebec
7006816436100000000♠8,164,361
23.2%
3.3%
7006135662527000000♠1,356,625.27
6.0
78
23.1%
7006843992500000000♠8,439,925
22.9%

3
 British Columbia
7006464805500000000♠4,648,055
13.2%
5.6%
7005922503010000000♠922,503.01
5.0
42
12.4%
7006484944200000000♠4,849,442
13.1%

4
 Alberta
7006406717500000000♠4,067,175
11.6%
11.6%
7005640330460000000♠640,330.46
6.4
34
10.0%
7006431877200000000♠4,318,772
11.7%

5
 Manitoba
7006127836500000000♠1,278,365
3.6%
5.8%
7005552370990000000♠552,370.99
2.3
14
4.1%
7006134699300000000♠1,346,993
3.6%

6
 Saskatchewan
7006109835200000000♠1,098,352
3.1%
6.3%
7005588243540000000♠588,243.54
1.9
14
4.1%
7006116975200000000♠1,169,752
3.2%

7
 Nova Scotia
7005923598000000000♠923,598
2.6%
0.2%
7004529422700099999♠52,942.27
17.4
11
3.3%
7005957470000000000♠957,470
2.6%

8
 New Brunswick
7005747101000000000♠747,101
2.1%
−0.5%
7004713888100000000♠71,388.81
10.5
10
3.0%
7005760744000000000♠760,744
2.1%

9
 Newfoundland and Labrador
7005519716000000000♠519,716
1.5%
1.0%
7005370514080000000♠370,514.08
1.4
7
2.1%
7005527613000000000♠527,613
1.4%

10
 Prince Edward Island
7005142907000000000♠142,907
0.41%
1.9%
7003568603000000000♠5,686.03
25.1
4
1.2%
7005152768000000000♠152,768
0.41%

11
 Northwest Territories
7004417860000000000♠41,786
0.12%
0.8%
7006114379386000000♠1,143,793.86
0.04
1
0.3%
7004445970000000000♠44,597
0.12%

12
 Nunavut
7004359440000000000♠35,944
0.10%
12.7%
7006187777853000000♠1,877,778.53
0.02
1
0.3%
7004382030000000000♠38,203
0.10%

13
 Yukon
7004358740000000000♠35,874
0.10%
5.8%
7005474712680000000♠474,712.68
0.08
1
0.3%
7004388250000000000♠38,825
0.10%

Total
 Canada
7007351517280000000♠35,151,728
100%
5.0%
7006896558885000000♠8,965,588.85
3.9
338
100%
7007369638540000000♠36,963,854
100%


document_title: Insurance in the United States

question_text: who is the regulator of the insurance sector in the united states

text: Insurance in the United States

text: History[edit]

text: The first insurance company in the United States underwrote fire insurance and was formed in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1735.[4] In 1752, Benjamin Franklin helped form a mutual insurance company called the Philadelphia Contributionship, which is the nation's oldest insurance carrier still in operation.[5][6] Franklin's company was the first to make contributions toward fire prevention. Not only did his company warn against certain fire hazards, it refused to insure certain buildings where the risk of fire was too great, such as all wooden houses.[citation needed]

text: The first stock insurance company formed in the United States was the Insurance Company of North America in 1792.[7] Massachusetts enacted the first state law requiring insurance companies to maintain adequate reserves in 1837. Formal regulation of the insurance industry began in earnest when the first state commissioner of insurance was appointed in New Hampshire in 1851. In 1859, the State of New York appointed its own commissioner of insurance and created a state insurance department to move towards more comprehensive regulation of insurance at the state level.[8]

text: Insurance and the insurance industry has grown, diversified and developed significantly ever since. Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until laws began to permit multi-line charters in the 1950s. From an industry dominated by small, local, single-line mutual companies and member societies, the business of insurance has grown increasingly towards multi-line, multi-state and even multi-national insurance conglomerates and holding companies.[4]

text: Regulation[edit]

text: State-based insurance regulatory system[edit]

text: Historically, the insurance industry in the United States was regulated almost exclusively by the individual state governments. The first state commissioner of insurance was appointed in New Hampshire in 1851 and the state-based insurance regulatory system grew as quickly as the insurance industry itself.[9] Prior to this period, insurance was primarily regulated by corporate charter, state statutory law and de facto regulation by the courts in judicial decisions.[10][11]

text: Under the state-based insurance regulation system, each state operates independently to regulate their own insurance markets, typically through a state department of insurance or division of insurance. Stretching back as far as the Paul v. Virginia case in 1869, challenges to the state-based insurance regulatory system have risen from various groups, both within and without the insurance industry. The state regulatory system has been described as cumbersome, redundant, confusing and costly.[12]

text: The United States Supreme Court found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[13] The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945.[14] The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.[15]

text: A wave of insurance company insolvencies in the 1980s sparked a renewed interest in federal insurance regulation, including new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation.[16] In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation, including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles. As more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation waned.[17] However, there are still significant differences between states in their systems of insurance regulation, and the cost of compliance with those systems is ultimately borne by insureds in the form of higher premiums. McKinsey & Company estimated in 2009 that the U.S. insurance industry incurs about $13 billion annually in unnecessary regulatory costs under the state-based regulatory system.[18]

text: The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states, but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.[19]

text: There is a long-running debate within and among states over the importance of government regulation of insurance which is noticeable in the different titles of their state insurance regulatory agencies. In many states, insurance is regulated through a cabinet-level "department" because of its economic importance. In other states, insurance is regulated through a "division" of a larger department of business regulation or financial services, on the grounds that elevating too many government agencies to departments leads to administrative chaos and the better option is to maintain a clear chain of command.

text: Federal regulation of insurance[edit]

text: Nevertheless, federal regulation has continued to encroach upon the state regulatory system.[16] The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and capacity issues plagued property and casualty insurers in the 1970s. This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system, somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade.[20]

text: In 1979 and the early 1980s the Federal Trade Commission attempted to regulate the insurance industry, but the Senate Commerce Committee voted unanimously to prohibit the FTC's efforts. President Jimmy Carter attempted to create an "Office of Insurance Analysis" in the Treasury Department, but the idea was abandoned under industry pressure.[21]

text: Over the past two decades, renewed calls for optional federal regulation of insurance companies have sounded, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, the proposed National Insurance Act in 2006 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") in 2010.[16]

text: In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression. The Dodd-Frank Act has significant implications for the insurance industry. Significantly, Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury. The FIO is authorized to monitor all of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system. The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is charged with monitoring the financial services markets, including the insurance industry, to identify potential risks to the financial stability of the United States.[16][22][23]

text: Organization[edit]

text: Admitted v. surplus[edit]

text: An important artifact of the state-based insurance regulation system in the United States is the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers. Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner, and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, rate approvals, and claims handling. Or they may be "surplus", meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there. Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks, to prevent them from undermining each state's ability to regulate its insurance market. Although experienced insurance brokers are well aware of what risks an admitted insurer will not accept, they must document a "diligent effort" at actually shopping around a risk to several admitted insurers (typically three, who will promptly reject it) before applying for coverage with a surplus line insurer.[24]

text: To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states now maintain "export lists" of risks that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state. In turn, brokers presented by clients with those risks can immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market and apply directly to surplus line insurers without having to first document multiple attempts to present the risk to admitted insurers.[24] However, many states have refused to establish export lists, including Florida, Illinois, and Texas.

text: By their very nature, export lists illustrate what U.S. insurers consider to be hard-to-insure risks. For example, the California export list includes ambulance services, amusement parks, fireworks displays, moving a building, demolition, hot air balloons, product recalls, sawmills, security guards, and tattoo shops, as well as particular types of insurance like Employment Practices Liability and kidnap and ransom.[25]

text: Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states (or countries) in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in the states (or countries) in which the insurer is admitted. However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all.

text: One long-running issue with the surplus lines concept is that it makes less sense when applied to sophisticated insureds with many risks spread across multiple states. Congress enacted the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 in an attempt to clarify which state gets to regulate the sale of surplus lines insurance to such insureds, and to exempt certain elite categories of insurance purchasers from the normal requirement of a diligent effort to procure coverage from admitted insurers.

text: Insurance groups[edit]

text: Only the smallest insurers exist as a single corporation. Most major insurance companies actually exist as insurance groups. That is, they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers (and sometimes a few excess insurers and reinsurers as well). There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next in terms of how its various business functions are divided up among its subsidiaries or outsourced to third party corporations altogether. All major insurance groups in the U.S. that transact insurance in California maintain a publicly accessible list on their Web sites of the actual insurer entities within the group, as required by California Insurance Code Section 702.

text: An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of GEICO's seven insurance companies. When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy). Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company. But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO.

text: Obviously, it is more difficult to operate an insurance group than a single insurance company, since employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other. For example, all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group, and the flows of premiums and claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company.

text: The advantage of the insurance group system is that a group has increased survivability over the long run than a single insurance company. If any one company in the group is hit with too many claims and fails, the company can be quietly placed into "runoff" (in which it continues to exist only to process remaining claims and no longer writes new coverage) but the rest of the group continues to operate.

text: By way of contrast, when small insurers fail, they tend to do so in a rather wild and spectacular fashion, as was often the case during the economic cycles of the 1970s and 1980s. Sometimes the result may be a state-supervised takeover by which a state agency may have to assume part of their residual liabilities.

text: Types[edit]

text: A common typology of insurance in the United States is to divide the industry into life and health insurers, on the one hand, and property and casualty insurers on the other:

text:
Life, Health

Health (dental, vision, medications, others)
Life (long-term care, accidental death and dismemberment, hospital indemnity)
Annuities (securities)
Life and Annuities

Property and Casualty (P & C)

Property (flood, earthquake, home, auto, fire, boiler, title, pet)
Casualty (errors and omissions, workers' compensation, disability, liability)

text: Reinsurance is usually treated as a separate category from the above types.

text: Institutions[edit]

text: Various associations, government agencies, and companies serve the insurance industry in the United States. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners provides models for standard state insurance law, and provides services for its members, which are the state insurance departments or divisions. Many insurance providers use the Insurance Services Office, which produces standard policy forms and rating loss costs and then submits these documents on the behalf of member insurers to the state insurance departments or divisions.

text: Definition[edit]

text: In recent years the operational definition of insurance presented at the beginning of this article proved inadequate as a result of contracts that had the form but not the substance of insurance. The essence of insurance is the transfer of risk from the insured to one or more insurers. How much risk a contract actually transfers proved to be at the heart of the controversy. This issue arose most clearly in reinsurance, where the use of Financial Reinsurance to reengineer insurer balance sheets under US GAAP became fashionable during the 1980s. The accounting profession raised serious concerns about the use of reinsurance in which little if any actual risk was transferred, and went on to address the issue in FAS 113, cited above. While on its face, FAS 113 is limited to accounting for reinsurance transactions, the guidance it contains is generally conceded to be equally applicable to US GAAP accounting for insurance transactions executed by commercial enterprises.

text: Risk transfer requirement[edit]

text: FAS 113 contains two tests, called the '9a and 9b tests,' that collectively require that a contract create a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the underwriter for it to be considered insurance.

text: 9. Indemnification of the ceding enterprise against loss or liability relating to insurance risk in reinsurance of short-duration contracts requires both of the following, unless the condition in paragraph 11 is met:

text: a. The reinsurer assumes significant insurance risk under the reinsured portions of the underlying insurance contracts.

text: b. It is reasonably possible that the reinsurer may realize a significant loss from the transaction.

text: Paragraph 10 of FAS 113 makes clear that the 9a and 9b tests are based on comparing the present value of all costs to the PV of all income streams. FAS gives no guidance on the choice of a discount rate on which to base such a calculation, other than to say that all outcomes tested should use the same rate.

text: Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles ("SSAP") 62, issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, applies to so-called 'statutory accounting' – the accounting for insurance enterprises to conform with regulation. Paragraph 12 of SSAP 62 is nearly identical to the FAS 113 test, while paragraph 14, which is otherwise very similar to paragraph 10 of FAS 113, additionally contains a justification for the use of a single fixed rate for discounting purposes. The choice of an "reasonable and appropriate" discount rate is left as a matter of judgment.

text: No brightline test[edit]

text: Neither FAS 113 nor SAP 62 defines the terms reasonable or significant. Ideally, one would like to be able to substitute values for both terms. It would be much simpler if one could apply a test of an X percent chance of a loss of Y percent or greater. Such tests have been proposed, including one famously attributed to an SEC official who is said to have opined in an after lunch talk that at least a 10 percent chance of at least a 10 percent loss was sufficient to establish both reasonableness and significance. Indeed, many insurers and reinsurers still apply this "10/10" test as a benchmark for risk transfer testing.

text: An attempt to use any numerical rule such as the 10/10 test will quickly run into problems. Supposing a contract has a 1 percent chance of a 10,000 percent loss, it should be reasonably self-evident that such a contract is insurance, but it fails one half of the 10/10 test.

text: Excess of loss contracts, like those commonly used for umbrella and general liability insurance, or to insure against property losses, will typically have a low ratio of premium paid to maximum loss recoverable. This ratio (expressed as a percentage), commonly called the "rate on line" for historical reasons related to underwriting practices at Lloyd's of London, will typically be low for contracts that contain reasonably self-evident risk transfer. As the ratio increases to approximate the present value of the limit of coverage, self-evidence decreases and disappears.

text: Contracts with low rates on line may survive modest features that limit the amount of risk transferred. As rates on line increase, such risk limiting features become increasingly important.

text: "Safe harbor" exemptions[edit]

text: The analysis of reasonableness and significance is an estimate of the probability of different gain or loss outcomes under different loss scenarios. It takes time and resources to perform the analysis, which constitutes a burden without value where risk transfer is reasonably self-evident.

text: Guidance exists for insurers and reinsurers, whose CEO's and CFO's attest annually as to the reinsurance agreements their firms undertake. The American Academy of Actuaries, for instance, identifies three categories of contract as outside the requirement of attestation:

text:
Inactive contracts. If there are no premiums due nor losses payable, and the insurer is not taking any credit for the reinsurance, determining risk transfer is irrelevant.
Pre-1994 contracts. The attestation requirement only applies to contracts that were entered into, renewed or amended on or after 1 January 1994. Prior contracts need not be analyzed.
Where risk transfer is "reasonably self-evident."

text:
“
Risk transfer is reasonably self-evident in most traditional per-risk or per-occurrence excess of loss reinsurance contracts. For these contracts, a predetermined amount of premium is paid and the reinsurer assumes nearly all or all of the potential variability in the underlying losses, and it is evident from reading the basic terms of the contract that the reinsurer can incur a significant loss. In many cases, there is no aggregate limit on the reinsurer's loss. The existence of certain experience-based contract terms, such as experience accounts, profit commissions, and additional premiums, generally reduce the amount of risk transfer and make it less likely that risk transfer is reasonably self-evident.
”

— American Academy of Actuaries[26]

text: Risk limiting features[edit]

text: An insurance policy should not contain provisions that allow one side or the other to unilaterally void the contract in exchange for benefit. Provisions that void the contract for failure to perform or for fraud or material misrepresentation are ordinary and acceptable.

text: The policy should have a term of not more than about three years. This is not a hard and fast rule. Contracts of over five years duration are classified as 'long-term,' which can impact the accounting treatment, and can obviously introduce the possibility that over the entire term of the contract, no actual risk will transfer. The coverage provided by the contract need not cease at the end of the term (e.g., the contract can cover occurrences as opposed to claims made or claims paid).

text: The contract should be considered to include any other agreements, written or oral, that confer rights, create obligations, or create benefits on the part of either or both parties. Ideally, the contract should contain an 'Entire Agreement' clause that assures there are no undisclosed written or oral side agreements that confer rights, create obligations, or create benefits on the part of either or both parties. If such rights, obligations or benefits exist, they must be factored into the tests of reasonableness and significance.

text: The contract should not contain arbitrary limitations on timing of payments. Provisions that assure both parties of time to properly present and consider claims are acceptable provided they are commercially reasonable and customary.

text: Provisions that expressly create actual or notional accounts that accrue actual or notional interest suggest that the contract contains, in fact, a deposit.

text: Provisions for additional or return premium do not, in and of themselves, render a contract something other than insurance. However, it should be unlikely that either a return or additional premium provision be triggered, and neither party should have discretion regarding the timing of such triggering.

text: All of the events that would give rise to claims under the contract cannot have materialized prior to the inception of the contract. If this "all events" test is not met, then the contract is considered to be a retroactive contract, for which the accounting treatment becomes complex.


document_title: Judicial opinion

question_text: which type of opinion becomes law in supreme court decisions

text: Judicial opinion

text: Kinds of judicial opinions[edit]

text: A majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision.

text: Not all cases have a majority opinion. At times, the justices voting for a majority decision (e.g., to affirm or reverse the lower court's decision) may have drastically different reasons for their votes, and cannot agree on the same set of reasons. In that situation, several concurring opinions may be written, none of which is actually the view of a majority of the members of the court. Therefore, the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is referred to as the plurality opinion.

text: A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion does not create binding precedent nor does it become a part of case law. However, they are cited from time to time as a persuasive authority when arguing that the court's holding should be limited or overturned. In some cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change in the law, and a later case will write a majority opinion for the same rule of law formerly cited by the dissent.

text: The dissent may disagree with the majority for any number of reasons: a different interpretation of the case law, use of different principles, or a different interpretation of the facts. They are written at the same time as the majority opinion, and are often used to dispute the reasoning behind the majority opinion.

text: Normally, appellate courts (or panels) are staffed with an odd number of judges to avoid a tie. Sometimes when judicial positions are vacant or a judge has recused himself or herself from the case, the court may be stuck with a tie, in which case the lower court's decision will be affirmed without comment by an equally divided court.

text: A majority opinion in countries which use the common law system becomes part of the body of case law. Such decisions can usually be cited as precedent by later courts. In some courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority opinion may be broken down into numbered or lettered sections. This allows judges who write an opinion "concurring in part" or "dissenting in part" to easily identify which parts they join with the majority, and which sections they do not.

text: An opinion may be released in several stages of completeness. First, a bench opinion may be handed down, with the judge or panel of judges indicating their decision and a rough explanation of the reasoning underlying it. A slip opinion may also be issued the day the decision is handed down, and is usually not typeset or fully formatted. It is not the final or most authoritative version, being subject to further revision before being replaced with a final published edition. The Supreme Court of the United States issues slip opinions with the following disclaimer:

text: The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion—majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus—but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion.

text: Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and—one year after the issuance of that print—by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls.[1]

text: Opinions may also be issued in ways that limit the amount of authority that they have as precedents for future cases. In United States legal practice, a memorandum opinion (or memorandum decision) is an opinion that does not create precedent of any kind in some jurisdictions. A memorandum is often brief and written only to announce judgment in a particular case. Depending upon local court rules, citation of the opinion as case law may not be accepted. A memorandum opinion may be issued where the law is so clearly defined that no purpose would be served by issuing an explanation as to why the law requires a certain disposition of the case before the court. In appellate courts, a memorandum opinion may indicate that the judges hearing the appeal find no error in the opinion being appealed to be worthy of comment.

text: A per curiam decision is one rendered by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and anonymously.[2] In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision,[2] but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed.[3]

text: Non-adjudicative opinions[edit]

text: An Advisory opinion or Certified question are those issued by a court or administrative body or panel that do not dispose of a particular case. They often address a general issue or matter, or are issued in a case that is being heard outside their jurisdiction. They are not issued for the purposes of deciding a particular case before the court in question.

text: Some circumstances where they are issued include:

text:
helping determine the constitutionality of a proposed act or policy (often in response to a request by one of the other branches government)
helping determine the law governing a case before a court in a different jurisdiction where the jurisprudence available is considered inadequate to dispose of the questions the case presents.
helping define how government rules and regulations are intended to be administered.

text: Factors influencing judicial opinions[edit]

text: Peer-reviewed research suggests that judicial rulings can be swayed by extraneous variables that should have no bearing on legal decisions.[4]


document_title: Cruise ship pollution in the United States

question_text: where does the poop go on cruise ships

question_tokens: where does the poop go on cruise ships

text: Background[edit]

text: More than 46,000 commercial vessels — tankers, bulk carriers, container ships, barges, and passenger ships — travel the oceans and other waters of the world, carrying cargo and passengers for commerce, transport, and recreation. Their activities are regulated and scrutinized in a number of respects by international protocols and U.S. domestic laws, including those designed to protect against discharges of pollutants that could harm marine resources, other parts of the ambient environment, and human health. However, there are overlaps of some requirements, gaps in other areas, geographic differences in jurisdiction based on differing definitions, and questions about the adequacy of enforcement.

text: Public attention to the environmental impacts of the maritime industry has been especially focused on the cruise industry, in part because its ships are highly visible and in part because of the industry’s desire to promote a positive image. It represents a relatively small fraction of the entire shipping industry worldwide. As of January 2008, passenger ships (which include cruise ships and ferries) composed about 12% of the world shipping fleet.[1] The cruise industry is a significant and growing contributor to the U.S. economy, providing more than $32 billion in total benefits annually and generating more than 330,000 U.S. jobs,[2] but also making the environmental impacts of its activities an issue to many. Since 1980, the average annual growth rate in the number of cruise passengers worldwide has been 8.4%, and in 2005, cruises hosted an estimated 11.5 million passengers. Cruises are especially popular in the United States. In 2005, U.S. ports handled 8.6 million cruise embarcations (75% of global passengers), 6.3% more than in 2004. The worldwide cruise ship fleet consists of more than 230 ships, and the majority are foreign-flagged, with Liberia and Panama being the most popular flag countries.[3] Foreign-flag cruise vessels owned by six companies account for nearly 95% of passenger ships operating in U.S. waters. Each year, the industry adds new ships to the total fleet, vessels that are bigger, more elaborate and luxurious, and that carry  larger numbers of passengers and crew. Over the past two decades, the average ship size has been increasing at the rate of roughly 90 feet (27 m) every five years. The average ship entering the market from 2008 to 2011 will be more than 1,050 feet (320 m) long and will weigh more than 130,000 tons.[4]

text: To the cruise ship industry, a key issue is demonstrating to the public that cruising is safe and healthy for passengers and the tourist communities that are visited by their ships. Cruise ships carrying several thousand passengers and crew have been compared to “floating cities,” in part because the volume of wastes produced and requiring disposal is greater than that of many small cities on land. During a typical one-week voyage, a large cruise ship (with 3,000 passengers and crew) is estimated to generate 210,000 US gallons (790,000 L) of sewage; 1 million US gallons (3,800 m3) of graywater (wastewater from sinks, showers, and laundries); more than 130 US gallons (490 L) of hazardous wastes; 8 tons of solid waste; and 25,000 US gallons (95 m3) of oily bilge water.[5] Passengers can,singlehandedl, produce up to 7.7 pounds of waste in a single day aboard a cruise ship.[6] Those wastes, if not properly treated and disposed of, can pose risks to human health, welfare, and the environment. Environmental advocates have raised concerns about the adequacy of existing laws for managing these wastes, and suggest that enforcement of existing laws is weak.

text: A 2000 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report focused attention on problems of cruise vessel compliance with environmental requirements.[7] GAO found that between 1993 and 1998, foreign-flag cruise ships were involved in 87 confirmed illegal discharge cases in U.S. waters. A few of the cases included multiple illegal discharge incidents occurring over the six-year period. GAO reviewed three major waste streams (solids, hazardous chemicals, and oily bilge water) and concluded that 83% of the cases involved discharges of oil or oil-based products, the volumes of which ranged from a few drops to hundreds of gallons. The balance of the cases involved discharges of plastic or garbage. GAO judged that 72% of the illegal discharges were accidental, 15% were intentional, and 13% could not be determined. The 87 cruise ship cases represented 4% of the 2,400 illegal discharge cases by foreign-flag ships (including tankers, cargo ships and other commercial vessels, as well as cruise ships) confirmed during the six years studied by GAO. Although cruise ships operating in U.S. waters have been involved in a relatively small number of pollution cases, GAO said, several have been widely publicized and have led to criminal prosecutions and multimillion-dollar fines.

text: In 2000, a coalition of 53 environmental advocacy groups petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action to address pollution by cruise ships.[8] The petition called for an investigation of wastewater, oil, and solid waste discharges from cruise ships. In response, EPA agreed to study cruise ship discharges and waste management approaches. As part of that effort, EPA issued a background document in 2000 with preliminary information and recommendations for further assessment through data collection and public information hearings.[3] The agency released its final Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report in 2009. The report summarized findings of recent data collection activities, especially from cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters.[9]

text: Concurrently, litigation regarding the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program led to a 2008 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court, ruling that EPA could not exclude vessel discharges from NPDES requirements.[10] Subsequently EPA issued an initial Vessel General Permit (VGP) with an effective date of February 6, 2009.[11]

text: Cruise ship waste streams[edit]

text: Cruise ships generate a number of waste streams that can result in discharges to the marine environment, including sewage, graywater, hazardous wastes, oily bilge water, ballast water, and solid waste. They also emit air pollutants to the air and water. These wastes, if not properly treated and disposed of, can be a significant source of pathogens, nutrients, and toxic substances with the potential to threaten human health and damage aquatic life. Cruise ships represent a small — although highly visible — portion of the entire international shipping industry, and the waste streams described here are not unique to cruise ships. However, particular types of wastes, such as sewage, graywater, and solid waste, may be of greater concern for cruise ships relative to other seagoing vessels, because of the large numbers of passengers and crew that cruise ships carry and the large volumes of wastes that they produce. Further, because cruise ships tend to concentrate their activities in specific coastal areas and visit the same ports repeatedly (especially Florida, California, New York City, Galveston, Seattle, and the waters of Alaska), their cumulative impact on a local scale could be significant, as can impacts of individual large-volume releases (either accidental or intentional).

text: International laws and regulations[edit]

text: MARPOL 73/78 is one of the most important treaties regulating pollution from ships. Six Annexes of the Convention cover the various sources of pollution from ships and provide an overarching framework for international objectives. In the U.S., the Convention is implemented through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. Under the provisions of the Convention, the United States can take direct enforcement action under U.S. laws against foreign-flagged ships when pollution discharge incidents occur within U.S. jurisdiction. When incidents occur outside U.S. jurisdiction or jurisdiction cannot be determined, the United States refers cases to flag states, in accordance with MARPOL. These procedures require substantial coordination between the Coast Guard, the State Department, and other flag states, and the response rate from flag states has been poor.[7]

text: Federal laws and regulations[edit]

text: In the United States, several federal agencies have some jurisdiction over cruise ships in U.S. waters, but no one agency is responsible for or coordinates all of the relevant government functions. The U.S. Coast Guard and EPA have principal regulatory and standard-setting responsibilities.

text: Cruise ships that are 79 feet (24 m) in length or greater, are subject to the requirements of the EPA Vessel General Permit (VGP). The most recent VGP was published in 2013.[12] EPA issued a separate permit for smaller cruise ships,[13][14] however this permit currently only applies to ballast water. A Congressionally-imposed moratorium applied to other wastestreams for these vessels until January 19, 2018.[15]

text: The Department of Justice prosecutes violations of federal laws. In addition, the Department of State represents the United States at meetings of the IMO and in international treaty negotiations and is responsible for pursuing foreign-flag violations. Other federal agencies have limited roles and responsibilities. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, Department of Commerce) works with the Coast Guard and EPA to report on the effects of marine debris. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for ensuring quarantine inspection and disposal of food-contaminated garbage (these APHIS responsibilities are part of the Department of Homeland Security). In some cases, states and localities have responsibilities as well.

text: Sewage[edit]

text: Commercial vessels are required to obtain NPDES permits pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Section 312 of the Act prohibits the dumping of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from vessels into the navigable waters of the United States (defined in the act as within 3 miles (4.8 km) of shore). Cruise ships are subject to this prohibition. Commercial and recreational vessels with installed toilets are required to have marine sanitation devices, which are designed to prevent the discharge of untreated sewage. Beyond 3 miles (4.8 km), raw sewage can be discharged. On some cruise ships, especially many of those that travel in Alaskan waters, sewage is treated using Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) systems that generally provide improved screening, treatment, disinfection, and sludge processing as compared with traditional MSDs. AWTs are believed to be very effective in removing pathogens, oxygen-demanding substances, suspended solids, oil and grease, and particulate metals from sewage, but only moderately effective in removing dissolved metals and nutrients (ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus).

text: States may also establish no-discharge zones (NDZs) for vessel sewage, under section 312. A state may completely prohibit the discharge of both treated and untreated sewage from all vessels with installed toilets into some or all waters over which it has jurisdiction (up to 3 miles (4.8 km) from land). As of 2017, this designation has been used for 72 areas representing part or all of the waters of 26 states, including a number of inland states.[16]

text: Greywater[edit]

text: Graywater discharges from large cruise ships are regulated by the 2013 VGP.[12] Under a Congressional moratorium, graywater discharges from small cruise ships were exempt from the EPA Small Vessel General Permit ("sVGP") until January 19, 2018.[15]

text: Pursuant to a state law in Alaska, greywater must be treated prior to discharge into that state’s waters.[citation needed]

text: Solid waste[edit]

text: Cruise ship discharges of solid waste are governed by two laws. Title I of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act makes it illegal to transport garbage from the United States for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters without a permit or to dump material from outside the U.S. into U.S. waters. Beyond U.S. waters, no MPRSA permit is required for a cruise ship to discharge solid waste. The routine discharge of effluent incidental to the propulsion of vessels is explicitly exempted from the definition of dumping in the MPRSA.28

text: The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships prohibits the discharge of all garbage within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of shore, certain types of garbage within 12 nautical miles (22 km) offshore, and plastic anywhere. It applies to all vessels operating in U.S. navigable waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

text: Hazardous waste[edit]

text: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the primary federal law that governs hazardous waste management. The owner or operator of a cruise ship may be a generator and/or a transporter of hazardous waste, and thus subject to RCRA rules. Issues that the cruise ship industry may face relating to RCRA include ensuring that hazardous waste is identified at the point at which it is considered generated; ensuring that parties are properly identified as generators, storers, treaters, or disposers; and  determining the applicability of RCRA requirements to each. Hazardous waste generated onboard cruise ships are stored onboard until the wastes can be offloaded for recycling or disposal in accordance with RCRA.[citation needed]

text: A range of activities on board cruise ships generate hazardous wastes and toxic substances that would ordinarily be presumed to be subject to RCRA. Cruise ships are potentially subject to RCRA requirements to the extent that chemicals used for operations such as ship maintenance and passenger services result in the generation of hazardous wastes. However, it is not entirely clear what regulations apply to the management and disposal of these wastes.[citation needed] RCRA rules that cover small-quantity generators (those that generate more than 100 kilograms but less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month) are less stringent than those for large-quantity generators (generating more than 1,000 kilograms per month), and it is unclear whether cruise ships are classified as large or small generators of hazardous waste. Moreover, some cruise companies argue that they generate less than 100 kilograms per month and therefore should be classified in a third category, as “conditionally exempt small-quantity generators,” a categorization that allows for less rigorous requirements for notification, recordkeeping, and the like.[citation needed]

text: In addition to RCRA, hazardous waste discharges from cruise ships are subject to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the discharge of hazardous substances in harmful quantities into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone.

text: Bilge water[edit]

text: Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, applies to cruise ships and prohibits discharge of oil or hazardous substances in harmful quantities into or upon U.S. navigable waters, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or which may affect natural resources in the U.S. EEZ (extending 200 miles (320 km) offshore).[17] Coast Guard regulations prohibit discharge of oil within 12 miles (19 km) from shore, unless passed through a 15-ppm oil water separator, and unless the discharge does not cause a visible sheen.[18] Beyond 12 miles (19 km), oil or oily mixtures can be discharged while a vessel is proceeding en route and if the oil content without dilution is less than 100 ppm. Vessels are required to maintain an Oil Record Book to record disposal of oily residues and discharges overboard or disposal of bilge water.

text: In addition to Section 311 requirements, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) implements MARPOL Annex I concerning oil pollution. APPS applies to all U.S. flagged ships anywhere in the world and to all foreign flagged vessels operating in the navigable waters of the United States, or while at a port under U.S. jurisdiction. To implement APPS, the Coast Guard has promulgated regulations prohibiting the discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea within 12 nautical miles (22 km) of the nearest land, except under limited conditions. However, because most cruise lines are foreign registered and because APPS only applies to foreign ships within U.S. navigable waters, the APPS regulations have limited applicability to cruise ship operations. In addition, most cruise lines have adopted policies that restrict discharges of machinery space waste within three miles (5 km) from shore.

text: Cruise Ship Efforts to Reduce Pollution[edit]

text: After the intervention of the GAO, or Government Accountability Office, from 2003 to 2008, twelve cruise ship companies who violated pollution regulations implemented new environmental strategies. [19] Several cruise lines within this group and others who have not been found guilty of previous violations have sought to ameliorate their pollution of marine waters. Some of these have reduced their waste production by transferring over from single use plastic packaging to reusable plastic containers for food being prepared on board and cutlery being used on the pool decks. Princess Cruises as well as the Royal Caribbean Cruise Line are two cruise lines that have acknowledged the waste problem, and have adopted reusable items to work towards a resolution.Recycling programs have also been implemented, and, because of the use of compactors on ships, plastics and aluminums are condensed and made easily recyclable upon ships return to port. The United States,alone,gains upward of 18,000 pounds of recycled goods from these practices.[20] Some cruise lines have also taken it upon themselves to reduce air pollution, by using alternative, cleaner energy sources which has positive implications for marine waters as well. Battery power, fuel cells, and liquified natural gas are two such sources that are being explored. [21] Carnival Corporation is one example of a cruise liner that is currently pursuing cleaner energies. The company has agreed to partner with Shell and utilize liquefied natural gas, LNG, to power their next two ships.[22] Liquefied natural gas, although still a  fossil fuel, is a much cleaner source of energy than oil and also much less expensive to the benefit of cruise companies.[23] Transitioning away from oil will help cruise liners combat their problems with bilge pollution. Cruise ships efforts to reduce their waste, recycle, and find more renewable energies will help alleviate their current rate of pollution of marine waters.


document_title: 2018 Winter Olympics medal table

question_text: who won the most gold medals in the winter olympics 2018

text: 2018 Winter Olympics medal table

text: Medal table[edit]

text: The medal table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and is consistent with IOC convention in its published medal tables. By default, the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes from a nation have won, where nation is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee (NOC). The number of silver medals is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze medals. If there is still a tie after that, then the nations shared the tied rank and are listed alphabetically according to their NOC code.

text: *   Host nation (South Korea)[12]

text: Changes in medal standings[edit]

text:
Ruling date
Sport/Event
NOC

Total
Comment

List of official changes in medal standings (during the Games)

22 February 2018

CurlingMixed doubles

 Olympic Athletes from Russia (OAR)

−1
−1

On 18 February 2018, it was reported that Russian curler Alexander Krushelnitskiy failed a doping test for meldonium.[13][14] After the testing of the B sample, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that they were instituting the formal proceedings.[15] On 22 February 2018, Krushelnitskiy and his partner Anastasia Bryzgalova were stripped of their bronze medals in the mixed doubles.[16] The bronze medals were then awarded to the Norwegian mixed curling team, who had lost the bronze medal game to Krushelnitskiy and Bryzgalova.[17]

 Norway (NOR)

+1
+1