Download Writing Assignment 3

Dr. Schaub 4:00
Group L03
FALSE FRACKING REPORT: THE ETHICS IN MY DECSION
Sarah Masterson ([email protected])
for Reese Township’s water sources, and take the $10,000
reward?
INTRODUCTION: APPROACHED WITH A
DILEMMA
UNDERSTANDING FRACKING
A little over two months ago I was hired by a town
councilman from Reese Township, Pennsylvania to
investigate a neighboring town’s fracking well and
wastewater storage site. Councilman Rooney wanted a
chemical engineer to submit a report on the safety of the
process and the effects on Millville, the town in which it was
located. This report could be used to determine whether or
not the councilman should allow a well to be drilled in Reese
Township. I worked for several weeks collecting data from
the well and wastewater storage site as well as Millville’s
water sources. The next few weeks were spent analyzing the
data, doing research, and preparing my report for Councilman
Rooney.
I was on my way to have a meeting with Councilman
Rooney concerning the status of my report when I was
approached by a man who lived in Reese Township. He told
me that he knew I had found unsafe traces of Methane in
Millville’s water sources but to leave this information out of
my report. According to this man, Councilman Rooney
would never allow a well to be drilled that would pollute the
town’s water sources. He told me that Reese Township
needed this well. The town had been struggling financially
since the recession hit and the well would supply many men
and women in Reese Township with jobs. Also, landowners
in town all needed to sell their mineral rights for help with
paying bills. He told me that he had done some research
himself and he believed that the town’s water sources would
not be noticeably polluted with methane for a considerable
amount of time and he explained to me that no one would
blame me for not knowing that it would happen. He
informed me that his research also led him to believe the
methane levels would not be high enough to cause serious
health risks to the members of Reese Township.
In the fifteen minutes I had with this man I never learned
his name, but I assume that he himself was not one of the
town members that were struggling financially because he
offered me $10,000 to keep the methane pollution out of my
report. He told me that we would be in touch concerning my
decision very soon. I missed my meeting with Councilman
Rooney and told him that I would be submitting my report
within the next week. I took my report home with me, and
pondered what was right in this situation. Do I submit the
report containing the methane pollution information and
leave the members of Reese Township struggling to pay bills,
while also turning down $10,000? Or do I rewrite my report
altering my data to make it seem as if the well would be safe
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2013-10-29
To understand my investigation, it is important to
understand the fracking process. Fracking, or hydraulic
fracturing, is a process that has been used for over sixty years
to extract oil or natural gas. This oil or natural gas can be
used for energy purposes but is trapped in rock under the
earth. The fracking process involves pumping water mixed
with sand or small ceramic balls and a combination of
chemicals into a well drilled deep into the ground. The water
is pumped under great pressure in order to allow the water to
fracture the rock and the sand or ceramic balls within the
water to prop open the fractures. The water is then pumped
back out of the well, and the oil or gas, now released from the
rock, follows [1]. The wastewater is then transported and
stored in an on-site pit. The wastewater is there only
temporarily until it is transported to either EPA-approved
underground storage wells or to a municipal waste treatment
facility [2].
Hydraulic fracturing has recently been combined with a
relatively new technology to allow for the fracking of shale, a
rock found in abundance across the United States, especially
in Pennsylvania, and also known for its ability to trap large
amounts of natural gas [3]. This new technology is
horizontal drilling, which when combined with fracking,
creates the new process called horizontal hydraulic fracturing.
Horizontal hydraulic fracturing includes the same process as
normal fracking, but after the well is drilled down vertically,
the drill is turned and then moves horizontally through a seam
of shale rock where the water is then used to fracture the rock
and release the natural gas [1].
MY INVESTIGATION RESULTS
After cancelling my meeting with Councilman Rooney, I
went home and reviewed the results from my investigation. I
went over the data I collected that revealed a methane level in
the Millville’s water wells 14 times higher than the levels of
Reese’s wells. I then reviewed the data that I collected from
Millville’s drinking water that also showed high
concentrations of methane. The fracking well had been there
for almost a year and the levels had reached alarming highs.
I then reviewed my notes from investigating the fracking
process. I had made notes that the temporary wastewater
storage site was not lined, since not all states require that the
pits are lined [4]. However, I did not find this to be the only
probable cause for methane pollution of Millville’s water
1
Sarah Masterson
sources. I learned from the workers that a few months ago
the cement that held the steel casings around the drill hole
experienced cement failure, which happens to one in ten
fracking wells [3]. The cement around the wells has since
been repaired but the surrounding groundwater was
contaminated by fracking fluid before this was possible [5].
Methane pollution of groundwater is very dangerous since
town members of Millville, like those of Reese Township,
obtain their drinking water from groundwater aquifers
through private and public wells.
Was I ready to accept the consequences that a false report
would cause?
WEIGHING THE DIFFERENT SIDES
I had to decide what parts of the different codes of ethics
were more important for me to uphold in this situation. Our
country’s reliance on oil as a top energy resource is becoming
a major problem both economically and environmentally.
Economically, the price of oil is rising as our relations
worsen with the Middle Eastern countries from which we buy
oil. Environmentally, we continue to deplete the earth’s
supply of oil at an unsustainable rate. Oil needs to be
replaced as the leading energy source for the United States,
and natural gas is a promising replacement. Natural gas
currently provides almost 25% of the United States’ energy
supply. According to a report done by IHS Cambridge
Energy Research Associates, with further development and
research into fracking and other processes, natural gas could
supply 50% of our country’s energy needs by the year 2035
[2], and with recent discoveries of vast reserves, natural gas
could continue this supply for 100 years or longer [3].
Was a more sustainable energy resource worth violating
other sections of the codes of ethics? I turned to an article
from Springer Publications on science and engineering ethics.
This article concerned the recent addition of encouraging
sustainable practices to the NSPE Code of Ethics. It
explained that engineers should “recognize the lives, safety,
health and welfare of the general public” when advancing
sustainable practices [8]. It became even more obvious to me
than before that sustainability was not something that anyone
should find more important than the health and well-being of
people.
HEALTH RISKS
Methane pollution of water sources is dangerous because
it poses many health risks. Methane is harmful to the
respiratory and gastrointestinal systems, the liver, and various
sensory organs. Many families living near oil and natural gas
extraction sites have reported symptoms that began at the
same time as drilling, symptoms that include burning eyes,
difficulty breathing, confusion and delirium, and nosebleeds
[4]. Few cases of these symptoms have been reported in
Millville, but the fracking well is still relatively new. Now,
with methane levels as high as they are there, I believe there
are more reports coming soon.
TURNING TO CODES OF ETHICS
As I thought about my decision, I turned to the National
Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics for
guidance. The NSPE Code of Ethics stressed right away the
need for engineers to “hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare” of the public. Issuing public statements in a truthful
manner was also something that stood out to me [6]. Falsely
reporting that the methane concentration was at a safe level
would not be truthful and could be very harming to Reese
Township if a well were to be drilled. The code went on to
state that engineers should not accept financial compensation
from an outside party with interest in their projects.
Engineers should also avoid deceptive acts [6]. Not only
would I be accepting money from outside parties, but I would
also be participating in a deceptive act. I was not sure that I
was ready to go against the ethics of my profession.
The NSPE Code of Ethics has also added in the past
several years a section that advised engineers to “adhere to
the principles of sustainable development” [6]. Although a
false report would be dishonest, it would advance more
sustainable energy practices than the ones our country is
currently relying on. Reporting the high methane levels
would hinder the sustainable development in the Reese
Township area.
After thoroughly rereading the NSPE Code of Ethics, I
read through the American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Code of Ethics. I noticed that this code of ethics stated that
chemical engineers accept responsibility for their actions [7].
ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY
Now I had to decide if I was willing to accept the
responsibility for the consequences of a false report. I knew
that I was not ready to allow the harm of the members of
Reese Township through methane pollution of their water
sources. However, it seemed the people of the town had
already accepted it for themselves. They wanted a booming
town again, which they had not had since the recession
began. They believed that a fracking well in their town
would help Reese Township out of its hole.
I went back to researching. I wanted to know if it was
truly possible for a town to thrive off of a fracking well. I
found in my research a town called Pithole. Pithole was a
town that was founded on its oil supply. For years the town
thrived off of oil until its wells went dry and then the town
became abandoned [9]. If Reese Township is already
struggling, a fracking well will only delay the town’s
struggle, not end it. Reese Township may be ready to accept
the consequences that come from my false report, but I am
not so sure that I find the consequences worth the outcome.
2
Sarah Masterson
I went back to the article I was reading from Springer
Publications and found a passage that helped me realize the
full impact my decision would make. The passage explained
that every action has cumulative impacts. One impact leads to
another, and the “ending negative impact is massive” [8]. If I
were to submit this report stating that it is completely safe for
Reese Township to drill a fracking well, they will not be
aware of the possible danger of methane pollution, they will
not know of the need to monitor it, and many neighboring
towns may follow in their steps and also make themselves
susceptible to the dangers I failed to warn them of. The
ending impact could be much bigger and devastating than I
was willing to accept.
Township, and those dangers will all be included in my report
for Councilman Rooney.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Merril. (2013). “Four Questions About Fracking.”
Case Western Reserve Law Review. (Online Article).
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA334277565
&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=LT&sw=w&asid=b6dafcbbf
1c3334f6656358b02c8cbcf
[2] J. Manuel. (2010). “EPA Tackles Fracking.”
Environmental Health Perspectives. (Online Article).
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA227470418
&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=deebe
7dc770aa76f3b5769044d29d3e2
[3] “Engineering Better Fracking Practices.” Engineering
Degree.
(2013).
(Online
Article).
http://www.engineeringdegree.net/resources/engineeringbetter-fracking-practices/
[4] R. McDermott-Levy, N. Kaktins, B. Sattler. (2013,
July). “Fracking, the Environment, and Health.” American
Journal
of
Nurses.
(Online
Article).
10.1097/01.NAJ.0000431272.83277.f4
[5] D. Holzman. (2011, July). “Natural Resources.
Methane Found in Well Water Near Fracking Sites.”
Environmental Health Perspectives. (Online Article).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41329080
[6] “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National
Society
of
Engineers.
(2013).
(Online
Article).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[7] “Code of Ethics.” American Institute for Chemical
Engineers.
(2013).
(Online
Article).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[8] D. Michefelder, S. Jones. (2011, Sept 6). “Sustaining
Engineering Codes of Ethics for the Twenty-First Century.”
Springer
Publications.
(Online
Article).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-0119310-2/fulltext.html
[9] B. Black, M. Ladson. (2012). “The Legacy of
Extraction: Reading Patterns and Ethics in Pennsylvania’s
Landscape of Energy.” Project MUSE. (Online Journal).
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pennsylvania_history/v079/79.4.
black.html
[10] “Bible: Standard American Version.” (Print Book).
[11] J Masterson. (2023, October 28). Phone Call.
BEYOND THE CODES
I finally realized that I couldn’t make this decision solely
based on codes of ethics. No institute or society could come
up with a set of rules for every scenario I could encounter as
an engineer. I remembered one of my favorite quotes from
scripture that always gave me comfort when I needed to face
a dilemma. Jeremiah 17:7 reads “Blessed is the man who
trusts in the Lord and has made the Lord his hope and
confidence” [10]. I realized that I just had to put my trust in
God and have faith that He would make sure the right answer
would come to me.
TURNING TO SOMEONE I TRUST
After saying a prayer for guidance, I knew it was time to
turn to someone I trusted with these situations. I called my
father, who was an industrial engineer for forty-seven years
before retiring. I explained to him my situation and my
thoughts on both sides of the decision. He then told me that
the money should not a deciding factor for me, and no
engineer should be influenced to make a false claim by
money. He told me that I should have faith in the principles
presented in the codes of ethics because they never steered
him wrong throughout his career. The next piece of advice
he gave me helped me reach my final decision. He said, “Do
what you think is right, not what others are telling you is
right” [11].
CONCLUSION: MY FINAL DECISION
After the phone call with my father, I realized everything
that was pointing me towards the decision to submit a false
report was based on what the man told me. He thought he
was right to offer me money to hide the facts about methane
water pollution. However, I know that I have the duty as a
professional chemical engineer to reject his offer and to be
truthful in my reports. I also have the duty to protect the
public from what I know are possible dangers. I discovered
the potential dangers in drilling a fracking well in Reese
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the National Society of Professional
Engineers and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers
for publishing their Codes of Ethics that helped guide me to
the right decision. I would also like to thank my father who
also guided me through this dilemma and encouraged me that
he had faith in the fact that I would make the best decision.
3