Appalachian Mountains Essay Example for Free

Appalachian Mountains Essay The â€Å"Appalachian Mountains† refers to the mountain range that covers most part of the eastern North America and some sections of another country, the neighboring Canada. Professionals believe that the Appalachian Mountains is divided into three; the south part, the north part and the central portion of the Appalachian Mountains. The presence of the Appalachian Mountain range is important for the US because of several reasons. One of the reasons is that the Appalachian Mountains act as a dividing line separating the Midwest territory of the US from its eastern seaboard via the Eastern Continental Divide, which traces a path alongside the Appalachian Mountain range starting from Pennsylvania leading up to Georgia. There are also other important roles that the Appalachian Mountain range play and it can be socially, economically and geographically. Another important characteristic that is attached to the Appalachian Mountains and it formation is that it marked the beginning of plate collisions which was in turn responsible for the building of several mountains and mountain ranges in the planet, and this mountain building phenomena was believed to be responsible for the creation of Pangaea (Klyza and Trombulak 14). Because of the importance of the Appalachian Mountain range, studies on its geological aspect have been undertaken for years now. The Appalachian Mountains is believed to have undergone a series of different physical transformations and the movements that the Appalachian Mountains experienced throughout its history and creation have made it what it is today. Like other mountain ranges in the world, the Appalachian Mountains, at various times through ages, have risen to great heights from the sea or have been continental rock covered by shallow oceans (Adkins 49). The geological history of the Appalachian Mountains is a very important and very interesting topic to delve on. Because of this, the focus of the paper is centered in discussing the different aspects of the changes that happened on the Appalachian Mountain ranges, from its creation, the timeline involved and the processes that shaped the formation of the Appalachian Mountains from the start until today. When did they form? Most experts believe that the geology of the Appalachian Mountain ranges goes as far back as nearly 500 million years ago, particularly around 480 millions years ago. The timeline of the formation of the Appalachian Mountain ranges involved the changes that happened in several different eras. According to professionals, as far back as the Paleozoic Era there were already movements happening in the natural rock formation of the planet that lead towards the creation of the Appalachian Mountain ranges. This was particularly in the era’s Ordovician Period which was believed to be the time where rock movements led to the rising of the Appalachian Mountain ranges and its transformation from an erstwhile buried state, being submerged underwater during earlier times (Geologic Provinces 3). After the Paleozoic Era, there were still changes that affected the Appalachian Mountains. During the Triassic Period of the Mesozoic Era, structure and feature changes affected the creation of Appalachian Mountains, and some uplifting in the rock formation during the Cenozoic Era also contributed to some of the changes that happened in the Appalachian Mountains (Geologic Provinces 8). How did the Appalachian Mountains Form? The Appalachian Mountain range is a very complex and very old natural geological feature of the planet. The physical characteristics of Appalachian Mountains provide the observer with hints and clues towards how the Appalachian Mountain range was formed and what processes were involved in the formation of this particular mountain range. A major characteristic of its geology is the presence of elongate belts composed of marine sedimentary rocks, volcanic rocks, as well as parts of an ancient ocean floor. These are all impacted by thrust faulting and folding processes that shaped the Appalachian Mountain ranges from how it was during its initial formation up to how it is now after years of constant transformation owed to the natural rock movements that impact natural geological formation of rocks on the planet (Adkins 50). Before it would rise up and become a mountain range, the region where the Appalachian was to rise from was considered as a passive plate margin. Because of this, there are times when the area is found underwater, buried by sea water under a sea that was nonetheless shallow, especially since there were also periods where it was above water. The Appalachian region would not remain passive forever, and the change from being passive to being active happened during the Ordovician Period, wherein plate motion movements changed and paved the way for the Taconic orogenym or what is known as mountain building event, in this case the first during the Paleozoic Era. By this time, the Appalachian is already considered as a plate boundary that is very active in its movements (Geologic Provinces 3). The Iapetus, another oceanic plate situated close to the Appalachian, was considered to collide against the Appalachian. Because the collision eventually sank, it submerges itself under the craton of North America. Because of what was happening in Appalachia and what has happened in the Iapetus, there was a resulting creation of what is known as the new subduction zone. The creation of this new particular feature was believed to be the birth of what would be known today as the Appalachian Mountain ranges (Chapter 2: Plate T-11. Appalachian Mountains 11). The Taconic orogeny was not the first mountain building plate collisions that helped create and develop the Appalachian Mountain Ranges, because there are still a series of other plate collisions that is set to happen that impacted mountain building, particularly the building of the mountains of the Appalachians. Several other orogenies, like the Caledonian orogeny, the Acadian orogeny, the Quachita orogeny, the Hercynian, orogeny as well as the Allegheny orogeny all contributed to the mountain building process that shaped the Appalachian Mountain ranges (Chapter 2: Plate T-11. Appalachian Mountains 5). As the Appalachian Mountain range was developing through the years, experts believed that at one point, it was standing as high as, or even higher than the height of the present day Himalayas. This is largely because of the consistent collision of ancient continents that pushed the mass of land upwards and raised mountains like the Appalachian higher and higher. The activity in the rock features shaping and re-shaping several geological features like the Appalachian mountain ranges experienced change, leading towards being still once again after the Pangea continent started to break apart during the Mesozoic Era. After this, erosion took over, and the once towering Appalachian was transformed into a vast plain. But this situation would not remain permanent. There were new waves of uplifting that would affect the region in the near future following its transition towards becoming a vast plain, and the uplifting allowed the Appalachian to rise up again, particularly during the Cenozoic Era (Geologic Provinces 7). What Geologic Processes were Available for the Formation? There were several geological processes that contribute to the shaping of the features of the Appalachian mountain ranges and the creation of the Appalachian mountain range itself. The most important perhaps is the plate collisions, which pushed the rocks upward to create the mountain range. Erosion was also part of the history of the formation of the Appalachian Mountain ranges. It comes into play during the time when the Appalachian region was flattened, a temporary state since the mountains will eventually be a towering feature again in this area after activity in rock movements resume and allowed the Appalachian mountain range to rise up. Other geological movements, like thrust faulting, are also at play throughout the history of the Appalachian mountain range. Criticisms Despite the presence of the theory on how the Appalachian Mountain ranges was created, there are still criticisms that challenge existing belief by providing newly discovered data involving the geological events and changes directly involved in the shaping and re-shaping the Appalachian Mountains. This is normal especially since the information on the Appalachian mountain range formation is not yet set on stone especially since there are still gapping holes that are not closed because of the absence of solid proofs to support scientific claims. One of the criticisms was raised in 2006 after scientists believed that they have found new evidence that can change how experts look at the formation of the Appalachian mountain ranges. According to an Ohio University professor, the ocean involved in the collision that started the creation of the Appalachian mountain ranges was not Iapetus but rather Rheic (Ohio University 7), which was believed to have been closed down after the collision between Gondwana and North America, leading to the formation of Pangea and the creation of Appalachian Mountain ranges (Ohio University 8). There are also those which point to other assumptions involving the Appalachian mountain ranges. Some believe that there were other mountain ranges and chains involved or interconnected with the Appalachian mountain ranges during the millions of years of its rise and erosion. What is today traditionally called the Appalachian Mountains really represents several different mountain chains, formed at different times over a span of at least 130 million years (Klyza, Trombulak 14). But despite the criticisms, the study and understanding of the Appalachians contribute significantly in scientific study. The scientific attitude and approach towards understanding and studying tectonics as well as mountain-building was developed largely by the efforts to study the Appalachian mountain ranges. Other plate tectonic concepts, even those that involve the studying of how oceans open and close before, was also influenced significantly by the study on Appalachian mountain range formation (Chapter 2: Plate T-11. Appalachian Mountains 3). Conclusion The history of the Appalachian Mountain ranges is something that is eventful and important today because it is significantly important to other important aspects of world history, like the formation of super-continents and its breaking apart, influencing the geography that modern world has today. Understanding this phenomenon may not be as easy but modern literature is growing and growing to provide more information about this aspect. Works Cited Adkins, Leonard M. Appalachian Trail: A Visitors Companion. Menasha Ridge Press, 1998. â€Å"Chapter 2: Plate T-11. Appalachian Mountains. † National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 6 October 2008. 25 February 2009 http://daac. gsfc. nasa. gov/geomorphology/GEO_2/GEO_PLATE_T-11. shtml. â€Å"Geologic Provinces of the United States: Appalachian Highlands Province. † United States Geological Survey (USGS). 13 January 2004. 25 February 2009 http://geomaps. wr. usgs. gov/parks/province/appalach. html. Klyza, Christopher McGrory and Trombulak, Stephen C. The Story of Vermont: A Natural and Cultural History. Middlebury College Museum of Art. 1999. Ohio University. â€Å"Geologists Find New Origins Of Appalachian Mountains. † Science Daily. 17 November 2006. February 24, 2009, from http://www. sciencedaily. com/releases/2006/11/061117123212. htm.

Opening an Italian Restaurant in Ilford Essay -- GCSE Business Managem

Opening an Italian Restaurant in Ilford Introduction I am planning to open an Italian restaurant which will be located in Ilford. The business will be owned and operated by me. My goals are to combine my skills in developing an up market, price competitive restaurant catering for 18 – 35 year old males and females. The restaurant will be focused on meeting customer’s needs, which will ensure steady repeat and referral of the business. In my first year of business, I will work on a rented building. There are many reasons why I am opening my own business. Starting with the fundamentals, I have a strong belief that to be in business you need to have a passion and interest, which can be translated into commitment and dedication to the success of the business. My primary reasons for starting my own business are:  · To be my own boss and take full responsibilities for my decisions  · To support my lifestyle financially  · To be challenged in the work place and build a successful business I can take pride in  · To provide a quality service to my existing and new clientele in a relaxing environment Sole Trader Sole trader is a person who sets up a business by themselves. As a Sole trader the owner himself is responsible for every action made and also keeps all of the profit. This could be a newsagent's shop, for example. Individuals, who provide a specialist service like hairdressers, plumbers or photographers, are also sole traders. Sole traders do not have a separate legal existence. As a result, the owners are personally liable for the firm's debts, and may have to pay them out of their own pocket. Advantages of Sole Trader ========================= - The business is to be set up. Apart from any necessary licenses or planning permission, there are very few legal formalities. - Although accounts are seen by the Inland Revenue, they do not have to be made public. - The business is usually small, and the owner is in charge of the management. Decisions can be made quickly - The owner gets all of the profit from the business - Being a small business can provide attention to the customers Disadvantages of Sole Trader ============================ - Sole traders have to work very long hours particularly when setting up a business. - Difficult for the business to expand - No cont... ...usinesses lose a lot of money through sickness absence, not all of it medically justified. While many of the issues can be handled on the basis of give and take, there are times when clear policies and decisive action are needed to resolve difficult situations. A1 The great majority of new businesses set up each year in the UK choose to do so as sole traders. This arrangement has the advantage of being reasonably free of formalities and restrictions, unless you intend to register for VAT, there are no rules about the records you have to keep. Other than you do have to keep records. As a Sole Trader you take complete responsibility for the running of the business. Your business is one of your assets just like your house or car. An important consequence of this is that if your business fails, your creditors have a claim not only on the assets of the business, but also on your personal assets, subject only to the Bankruptcy Act. Note that being a Sole Trader does not imply that the business only employs one person, If your business grows you may employ extra staff however you will still be a Sole Trader, because it will be your business and your liability.

Destin Brass Products Co.

Problem Statement: Destin Brass president Roland Guidry is concerned with the competitive trends of the company products. He and his staff are worried that company profits are falling in regards to these competitive problems. Analysis: Destin Brass Company manufactures three items dealing with water purification systems: valves, pumps, and flow controllers. The company has been seeing some problems dealing with competition within some of the product markets they produce. Ronald Guidry had two basic questions they wanted answered dealing with this case: 1. Why was it so difficult for the company to stay competitive in the pump market? 2. Why has the company not seen any competition in the flow controller market even with a recent raise in their price to consumers? These questions aroused from Guidry when he realized that the company wasn’t making the standard 35% gross profit margin in pumps. This was the case because the company was forced to reduce the selling price in pumps away from the target price ($97. 10 to $81. 26) due to stiff competition. Management also realized the excessive gross profit margin of 42% in flow controllers even after a recent 12. % increase in price. [pic] The answer to the questions raised by management is directly related to how the company is accounting for their overhead relating to each product. The company had been using a traditional way of allocating overhead. (Exhibit 2) This was a simple and inexpensive way for the company to accomplish this task. However, it really didn’t accurately assign overhead to each product. Destin realized this and had it controller, Peggy Alford, design a revised way for allocating overhead. Exhibit 3) This revised system didn’t seem to answer any questions or alleviate any problems that Destin was having. Activity Based Costing (ABC) was another possibility to allocate overhead and helps answer the questions above. (Exhibit 4) Traditional Cost system: The traditional cost system that was currently being used was a fairly inexpensive way for the company to allocate overhead cost. This system was used to generate a standard unit cost that was then used to produce a target selling price based on the 35% profit margin set by the company. The structure used to assign overhead to each product to arrive at a standard cost was a very inappropriate method for the company to use. There are a number of reasons that this way was inappropriate. First, the only way overhead is allocated using this system is by assigning overhead to production to each product on the basis of production-run labor costs. [pic] The table above shows how the overhead rate was generated for use in the traditional cost system. Using this rate it allocates $4. 39 of overhead for every $1. 00 of run labor used in the product which the labor was applied. This per unit overhead rate is then added with a material and direct labor per unit cost. Adding these three cost up will give you the standard unit cost for producing each product. (Exhibit 2) This system basis all overhead on labor and therefore is not a very accurate way to distribute overhead cost to each product. Take for instance the flow controllers which have a labor usage of . 40 hours per unit. Using the overhead rate above of 439%, overhead allocated to each flow controller is $28. 10. This only takes into account direct labor and nothing else. This creates a problem because even though Flow Controllers take . 40 hours to produce they only use . 20 hours of machine usage. Compare this machine usage to . 50 machine hours to produce each valve which uses . 25 labor hours and . 50 hours to produce each pump which uses . 50 labor hours. This shows that flow controllers are incurring more cost then needed when dealing with machine usage. This problem of over allocating overhead to certain products is also true when dealing with machine depreciation. Machine depreciation accounts for $270,000 of the total overhead, a large percentage. With the overhead rate being determined by labor using this traditional system, machine depreciation is being determined by how much labor is being used to produce each product. In reality machine depreciation should be allocated to overhead using how many machine hour it took to produce each product. With 4,000 flow controllers being produced at a machine usage of . 20 hours they accounts for 800 total machine hours. This number is very small in comparison to valves and pumps which take 3,750 and 6,250 total machine hours to produce, respectively. This means that flow controllers should be allocated less machine deprecation overhead due to the relative small number of total machine hours used. However, since the overhead rate is only calculated using labor in the traditional system Flow controllers are being over allocated. The table below shows how much machine depreciation is being allocated to overhead using the traditional method based on labor hours. [pic] The table below shows what machine depreciation would be if it were calculated using the number of machine hours used produce each product line. [pic] Based on the previous two tables allocating machine depreciation based on direct labor hours can give the company a false cost on how much it cost to produce each unit of a particular product. Pumps are being allocated $19,350 ($175,600-$156,250) too much machine depreciation. With the company producing 12,500 pumps that’s a per unit over charge of $1. 55. While this is only showing the differences in machine depreciation, the other overhead cost associated with Destin producing it products also vary. With these overhead cost being miss-allocated for, there is the potential for Destin to be using bad data to price its products. This could help explain the competition problem the company is facing and will be discussed later in the paper. A second way that this traditional cost system is inappropriate for Destin to use is because it only gives the company one option in dealing with a price change. Since all overhead is figured using direct labor hours if Destin wanted to change it cost associated with overhead, then the only way would be to change the direct labor dollars. This severally limits the company by having only one â€Å"pool† to change prices. Revised Unit Cost System: Destin Brass Products controller Peggy Alford put together a revised cost allocating system in an attempt to better allocate overhead based on activities. This system separates material related overhead and labor related overhead and determines corresponding rates to plug into your unit costs. (Exhibit 3) The table below shows the separation of the two types of overhead used in the revised method. [pic] The revised system is better than the standard system that Destin Brass currently uses to allocate overhead. It takes into account the problem in the standard system which based all allocation of overhead only from direct abor dollars. In correcting this problem the revised structure now takes into account material related overhead which has no relationship to the labor costs of machining. While this dilemma was corrected in the revised system other problems aroused questioning the accuracy of the system allocating overhead to the right products. When looking at the â€Å"other overh ead† section in the table above packing and shipping overhead is included. This creates a problem when the overhead rate for this group of cost is determined using machine hours. Let’s use flow controllers again to better understand the problem that is created. In the revised cost system all overhead not dealing with materials is allocated to products using $42. 59 per machine hour used. With flow controllers taking . 20 hours of machine time to produce the â€Å"other overhead† is assigned to the standard cost at $8. 52 per unit. With valves and pumps both using machine time of . 50 hours to produce each unit, this systems creates an advantage for the flow controllers. Although flow controllers use less machine time they require more shipping and packing cost. Flow controllers require a total of 22 shipments to its customers compared to only seven for pumps and one for valves. With this being true the majority of the $60,000 assigned to packing and shipping overhead should be allocated as cost to flow controllers. Despite this fact the allocation can’t be done because of how overhead is assigned based machine hours used. The following table shows the current overhead assigned to packing and shipping based on the revised system of using machine hours as the basis for overhead allocation. [pic] The next table shows what packing and shipping overhead would be based on a percentage of total shipments company wide. [pic] The second way shown is the better way to allocate overhead based on packing and shipping costs because it takes into account how many shipments and necessary of each product line. Looking at flow controllers again you can see that this product line requires 22 of the 30 shipments. This is a cost of $44,000 that is directly related to the flow controllers. With the current revised system represented in the first table, flow controllers only were allocated $4,430. 0 of cost associated with packing and shipping. This is only 10. 1% of the cost that should be allocated. With this Revised System for costs Destin Brass would still be using bad data to set prices of it products. This could be one possible answer to the questions asked in the beginning by the company. Another problem that arises if this revised system is put into place is one that is similar to the p revious problem. Destin Brass manufacturing manger John Scott is quoted in the case as saying â€Å"(the company) probably spends one-half of our engineering effort on flow controllers. If this is the case, then like before flow controllers aren’t being allocated enough overhead with regards to engineering cost. This is shown in the following two tables. The table on the left shows the amount of engineering overhead being currently allocated to flow controllers. The table on the right shows what the allocation of engineering cost should be to flow controllers based on the estimated number of 50% of total engineering. [pic] [pic] This again is another possible reason for the competition and price problems that Destin Brass is facing. Both of the above methods really restrict the company from implanting changes in price and/or cost. The methods have few â€Å"pools† for management to implement changes using and result gives poor data. A System with the possibilities to implement changes easily is activity based costing. Activity Based Costing A system that would benefit Destin Brass greatly would be to implement activity based coasting as a means to allocate the overhead costs associated with its products. This method traces the costs of resources to the activities consumed. The problem identified in the two previous systems would all be eliminated if ABC where used at Destin. The ABC method is used by applying all direct cost (direct labor and materials) towards the product coast based on the coast summary. (Exhibit 1) Indirect cost (Indirect labor and materials and depreciation) are then applied to each product at a rate that set by the amount of the activity used to produce the good. The amounts used in this case are estimated based on how many transactions occur in total and are caused by each product. Exhibit 5) This way of allocating overhead better illustrates how much cost goes into each product based on the amount of components and runs is needed to complete each product. With this being true flow controllers now have representation to the cost being occurred and the overhead allocated to them. Flow controllers numbers are now more accurate because of the fact the all transactions needed to complete the product are used in generating an allocati on rate. Each flow controller is made up of 10 components and that are being produced in 10 runs. This will account for the company to have 100 transactions (10Ãâ€"10) in order to produce the good. The numbers that Destin came up with using this method are shown in Exhibit 4. With each overhead cost being rated by itself for each product, the company has better data to make sound decisions with. They also have better control on implementing changes. As with the previous methods management could only change labor or machine hours to effectively change coast. With the ABC method each cost is rated separately and therefore a change to a cost would be easily done. When comparing the product unit coast obtained from the three methods discussed in this paper, the companies’ problems dealing with competition and price are easily reasoned with. The following table shows these unit costs for each product line using each of the three methods: This comparison table shows that Destin Brass was allocating its overhead in a way that gave decision makers faulty data. By looking at the numbers obtained using the ABC method and comparing them to the two other methods answers to the two questions raised by the president can be answered. The first question of why was it so difficult for the company to stay competitive in the pump market is explained by the above chart. Destin had believed its production cost for pumps to be $63. 12. With this being said when Destin had to lower their price due to stiff competition the company felt they were no longer going to be able to obtain the desired 35% profit margin. However if Destin new the true cost of producing each pump unit was $37. 70 then lowing the price to stay competitive would have been no longer and issue because the company would still be over the 35% mark. The second question raised by management at Destin Brass dealing with why the company has not seen any competition in the flow controller market is also easily answered using the above table. Destin believed that its standard unit cost for producing flow controllers was $56. 50. Using this cost number the company set a target selling price of $86. 96 to obtain the desired 35% profit margin for the company. When potential competitors looked at this price they felt there was no way they could make a profit in this product line. The potential competitors most likely had a cost of producing a flow controller some where around the price we obtained using the ABC method of $100. 91. Even when Destin raised the price of flow controllers by 12. 5% to $97. 07 competitors would still not want to enter the market based on our selling price. These questions are also easily answered by looking at the following table which take the unit cost obtained using the ABC method and comparing them with last months selling prices: This table shows that the flow controllers were priced to low based our current cost. The company would have incurred a loss of 4% gross margin if this were the unit cost we used last month. Again this shows why now competition was forming because any other company using the ABS method would incur a loss as well. If Destin where however to make a 35% margin at its new unit cost of $100. 91 it would need to sell the flow controllers at $155. 25. This increase in price might fuel some competition. Potential competitors might see this new price Destin is selling at and feel it is a favorable market to get into now competition can sell above their production cost. Pumps are also easily analyzed using this table. Now that the company has an ABC unit cost of $48. 79 they can better compete in the price wars the take place in the pump market. At the price Destin was selling pumps at last month of $81. 26 the company would now be making a 40% gross margin using the ABC cost. This leaves Destin the option of lowering the price in pumps $75. 06 in order to stay competitive and maintain market share. At this price Destin would still be making the company desired 35% profit margin. Net income would not change in the flowing month if the ABC method were to be implemented. This is assuming there are no changes in production, sales, or costs. This is strictly saying that the way you account for overhead as no impact on net income. The ABC method total overhead costs, it only changes how those costs are allocated for internal purposes. With this information shown the ABC method for allocating overhead to products is far superior to anything Destin Brass had used before. The ABC method takes into account all overhead cost and the components involved in each product. In summary a company’s profitability of a product depends on the allocation rules used internally. Recommendations: I would recommend to Destin Brass president Roland Guidry to implement the ABC method for allocating overhead. This method alleviates the two problems he had at the beginning of the case dealing with the question of competition and price. The ABC method will also let Mr. Guidry better control his cost and prices by providing him with a way that’s easier and more effective. I would recommend to Mr. Guidry that he lower the price of the pumps in order to remain competitive in that market. He should lower pump prices as long as he stays at or above the 35% gross margin he wants. I would also recommend that he slowly raise the prices of flow controllers. With the unit cost a lot higher than where it was this price needs to raise and try to obtain the 35% margin. Mr. Guidry should keep a close eye on the competition in this market. As the price is increase potential competitors might enter the market. He should raise the price for flow controllers as long as competition stays to a minimal to retain the market share Destin has already obtained. [pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] [pic]

Dubai - Ten Geographic Facts

Dubai is the largest emirate based on the population of the United Arab Emirates. As of 2008, Dubai had a population of 2,262,000. It is also the second largest emirate (behind Abu Dhabi) based on land area. Dubai is located along the Persian Gulf and it is considered to be within the Arabian Desert. The emirate is known around the world as a global city as well as a business center and financial center. Dubai is also a tourist destination due to its unique architecture and construction projects like the Palm Jumeirah, an artificial collection of islands constructed in the Persian Gulf to resemble a palm tree. The following is a list of ten more geographic facts to know about Dubai: The first mention of the Dubai region dates back to 1095 in the Andalusian-Arab geographer Abu Abdullah al Bakris Book of Geography. By the late 1500s, Dubai was known by traders and merchants for its pearl industry.In the early 19th century, Dubai was officially established but it was a dependent of Abu Dhabi until 1833. On January 8, 1820, the sheikh of Dubai signed the General Maritime Peace Treaty with the United Kingdom. The treaty gave Dubai and the other Trucial Sheikhdoms as they were known protection by the British military.In 1968, the U.K. decided to end the treaty with the Trucial Sheikhdoms. As a result, six of them -- Dubai included -- formed the United Arab Emirates on December 2, 1971. Throughout the rest of the 1970s, Dubai began to grow considerably as it gained revenue from oil and trading.Today Dubai and Abu Dhabi are two of the strongest emirates in the United Arab Emirates and as such, they are the only two that have veto power in the countrys federal legislatur e.Dubai has a strong economy that was built on the oil industry. Today however only a small portion of Dubais economy is based on oil, while the majority is focused on real estate and construction, trade and financial services. India is one of Dubais largest trading partners. In addition, tourism and the related service-sector are other large industries in Dubai.As mentioned, real estate is one of the major industries in Dubai, and it is also a part of the reason why tourism is growing there. For example, the worlds fourth tallest and one of the most expensive hotels, the Burj al Arab, was built on an artificial island off the coast of Dubai in 1999. In addition, luxury residential structures, including the tallest man-made structure the Burj Khalifa or Burj Dubai, are located throughout Dubai.Dubai is located on the Persian Gulf and it shares a border with Abu Dhabi to the south, Sharjah to the north and Oman to the southeast. Dubai also has an exclave called Hatta which is located about 71 miles (115 km) east of Dubai in the Hajjar Mountains.Dubai originally had an area of 1,500 square miles (3,900 sq km) but due to land reclamation and the construction of the artificial islands, it now has a total area of 1,588 square miles (4,114 sq km).Dubais topography mainly consists of fine, white sandy deserts and a flat coastline. East of the city, however, there are sand dunes that are made up of darker reddish sand. Farther east from Dubai is the Hajjar Mountains which are rugged and undeveloped.The climate of Dubai is considered hot and arid. Most of the year is sunny and summers are extremely hot, dry and sometimes windy. Winters are mild and do not last long. The average August high temperature for Dubai is 106ËšF (41ËšC). Average temperatures are over 100ËšF (37ËšC) from June through September however, and the average January low temperature is 58ËšF (14ËšC).