Download Energy - University of Pittsburgh

Vidic, 14:00
R16
ENERGY
Yun-Nuo Chi ([email protected])
reaction. The majority of the gas is then filtered out of the
reaction chamber except for a small quantity trapped inside
the petroleum produced, and will be released into the air
when it is burned. The gas has been declared harmless by
recent tests. Short term exposures to small quantities of
metal gas will not effect the body. In other words, no
immediate sickness will occur. However, because metal gas
does not exist naturally, and is a relatively new chemical to
us, the long term effects on the environment and humans
remains unknown. The testing process will take up to 5 years
because the wide use of petroleum will make the affected
area tremendous. Once BP adopts the reaction process, metal
gas will be released into the environment everywhere in the
world where petroleum is used. Not only do we need to
understand how metal gas affects the human body, the
impact it could have on the environment also needs to be
evaluated. For instance, metal gases have been know to
break apart the O3 layer when released in large quantities.
Since the gas is released in small quantities, it will not effect
the Ozone layer, but as we increase utilization of this
reaction process, more and more metallic gas will be
released into the atmosphere; the effect it has in small
quantities can accumulate and pose as a potential threat.
Also, metals gas can affect the pH of rain, just like sulfur
dioxide. The change in pH could effect the soil where metal
gas is released and impact the crops around it. Ponds and
rivers could also be effected by the change in pH; many
plants and animals rely on a constant pH to survive. A
change in ±1.3 pH could affect 10% of agricultural plants
[4]. All of these are potential consequences of using metal
gas. The good news is, tests conducted so far are offering
promising positive results.
Although the results are positive so far, cases such as
Thalidomide has forced us to handle new chemicals with
extreme care. Thalidomide was considered a wonder drug
when it was first discovered. Women would take it to relieve
morning sickness and it worked like a charm. But the drug
was not tested properly and the laboratories never tested the
drug on pregnant animals. As it turns out, Thalidomide can
cause the babies of pregnant women to be deformed. It took
over 15 years and 15,000 deformed children before the
doctors linked the birth defects to the drug [3]. Another
example of harmful consequences to humans because of the
lack of understanding of newly discovered chemicals is the
discovery of X-rays. Wilhelm Röntgen discovered X-rays in
1895. He named X-radiation to signify an unknown type of
radiation. Later on all the researchers that were exposed to
X-rays died of cancer. Therefore, it is essential to have a
good understanding of new chemicals and reaction processes
before utilizing them.
1. INTRODUCTION
Extreme energy, a term coined by Hampshire College
professor Michael Klare, refers to energy that is extremely
hard to get; energy that requires ripping apart the earth: for
instance by heating up the ground so that the oil in the tar
sand formation of Canada can flow to the surface. Or by
tearing holes in the crust a mile beneath the surface of the
sea, as British Petroleum was doing when the Deepwater
Horizon well exploded.[1] We as humans have attempted,
time after time, to get energy from nature no matter the cost.
We could have taken the dwindling supply and rising prices
of oil as a signal to convert to sun, wind, and other none
carbon forms of energy. Instead we’ve taken it as a signal to
scour the world for more hydrocarbons [1]. The extreme
methods led to the explosion of Deepwater Horizon Well.
The explosion released 4.9 million barrels of oil into the
Gulf of Mexico. The spill had an enormous effect on the
wildlife of the surrounding area: killing countless animals
and destroying their homes. Incidents such as this make us
take a step back and think: is it worth destroying our
environment over energy resources? The individualistic
business theory states that the only obligation of a company
is to make a profit. The company can do whatever it takes to
make a profit, as long as they stay within the legal
boundaries. In this particular incident, BP did not
purposefully do anything unethical because the accident was
a result of mechanical failure [2]. However, BP knew about
the potential hazard that drilling in the area could cause, and
chose to go forward with it.
Sometimes, ethical dilemmas can not be labeled right
and wrong; only after the event plays out does the decision
result in good or bad outcomes. How we can strike a balance
between business profits and environment protection is
perhaps one of the hardest questions to answer.
An opportunity to do business with the oil giant, British
Petroleum, turned out as an ethical dilemma. The company
offered a handsome amount of money to buy the research on
turning BTEX into octane, the main component of
petroleum. The research proposed a pathway of utilizing
metal complexes as the catalyst, but a byproduct, metal gas,
turns out to be a problem. More time is needed to confirm
the properties of the metal gas. Despite the lack of
information on the newly discovered metal gas, BP plans on
installing the process at the end of the year.
2. METAL GAS
Metal gas is released when the metal complex, titanium
polyhydride, is returned to its original form at the end of the
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2014-10-28
1
Chi, Yun-Nuo
no matter what we do, petroleum is going to be harmful to
the environment. The job of a petroleum engineer is to lower
the “adverse impacts” as low as possible. The use of metallic
complex fits the description potentially. Turning BTEX into
petroleum would decrease the adverse impact petroleum is
imposing on the atmosphere.
3. BTEX
There is no room for error when it comes to new
chemicals. On one hand, no tests have been able to prove
that metal gas can cause harm to humans. On the other
hand, BTEX, a chemical that is removed by a metal
complex, is a known carcinogen. BP is only interested in
incorporating metal complexes into their production process
to increase production of petroleum, but BTEX is removed
nonetheless. The question becomes, would the benefit of
removing BTEX outweigh introducing a new chemical metal gas? By adopting the process early, BP would
eliminate over 2 hundred thousand tons of BTEX from
gasoline every year [6]. Furthermore, metal complexes can
unlock the aromatic compounds that are inaccessible in
biomass. More than 50% of organic compounds found in
plants that are used to produce bio-fuels contain aromatic
functional groups [7]. These aromatic functional groups
cannot be used as biofuel because they are inactive. But with
metallic complexes, the previously untouched energy stored
in aromatic functional groups can be unlocked, resulting in a
higher percent yield of biofuel from plants. The increased
production would lower the price of biofuel and make
sustainable energy even more effective. Sustainable energy
alone is an intriguing reason to introduce metallic complexes
into the production of petroleum.
5. BRITISH PETROLEUM
The negative impacts of petroleum is unavoidable. But
has the petroleum companies tried to minimize the negative
impacts has on the environment, or are they only focused on
maximizing profits? A quick search revealed that BP is not
particularly known to be an environmental friendly
company. According to McClatchyDC, British Petroleum, is
notorious for their ethical violations. The London-based
company has a penchant for putting profits ahead of just
about everything else [9]. A review of BP's history reveals a
pattern of ethically questionable and illegal behavior that
goes back decades.
BP's best known disaster took place in 2005, when an
explosion at its refinery in Texas City near Galveston killed
15 workers, injured 180 people and forced thousands of
nearby residents to remain sheltered in their homes. An
investigation of the explosion by the U.S. Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board blamed BP for the explosion
and offered a scathing assessment of the company. It found
"organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels of the BP
Corporation [9]."
Another instance took place in 2006. Despite warnings
from a leak detection system, a badly corroded 34-inchdiameter pipeline in Prudhoe Bay leaked oil for at least five
days before a worker driving down a nearby service road on
March 2, 2006 smelled oil and spotted the spill, which
covered at least two acres of tundra. Rep. Joe Barton, RTexas, suggested BP had decided to "bet the farm" that the
pipeline wouldn't fail before Prudhoe Bay would run out of
oil, saving it the cost of replacement. He accused the
company of fostering a "corporate culture of seeming
indifference to safety and environmental issues [9]." The
approach BP has toward environmental precautions is
worrying. If the metal gas turns out to have the slightest
negative impact on the environment, the company would
more than likely try to hide the results from the general
public and keep producing the toxins.
4. ETHIC CODES
According to the NSPE code of ethics for engineering:
“Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of
sustainable development in order to protect the environment
for future generations.” Sustainable development as defined
by NSPE is the challenge of meeting human need for natural
resources, energy and effective waste management, while
conserving and protecting environmental quality and the
natural resource base essential for future development. The
results of incorporating metal complexes would definitely be
a sustainable development, therefore be in line with the
code.
Ironically, installing metallic complex would also violate
the NSPE code. The use of metallic complexes would
introduce a potential threat, metal gas, to the environment.
Petroleum is a product known to produce hazardous
byproducts, and the industry is well aware of it. Past
hazardous products such as carbon monoxide, sulfurous
dioxide, nitrogen oxide and many other gas emissions are
only dealt with after they have caused harm to the
environment. Petroleum engineers have accepted the
unavoidable negative impact petroleum has on the
environment; according to the Society of Petroleum
Engineers Ethic Code: “Engineers should seek to adopt
technical and economic measures to render potentially
adverse impacts to environment or the health, safety, and
security of the public as low as realistic [8].” In other words,
6. OUTSIDE THE BOX
Speeches given by motivational speakers, pastors, and
even professors have stimulate conversation on such
controversial topics. Greg Rowe once presented a decisionmaking framework, and one of the question depicted was:
Would I mind having information regarding the decision
publicized? If every action that the corporations take is
announced to the public, would they make the same
2
Chi, Yun-Nuo
decisions? Shouldn’t these big corporations who have such a
huge impact on our environment be held responsible for
their actions? Who get to decide what is more harmful and
what is less harmful? Who gets to decide what level of harm
is acceptable?
A friend in the pharmaceutical field looked at it this way:
He compared the situation to a treatment used on drug
addicts when they go through rehabilitation. The treatment
replaces the drug the addicts were taking with a weaker
drug. The treatment is helpful for the patient even though the
weaker drug would still harm the patient. Similarly, BTEX is
a carcinogen, making it the stronger drug; Metal gas is not
yet proven to be toxic, making it weaker compared to
BTEX. According to this analogy, substituting BTEX with
metal gas actually protects the environment even though
metal gas is potentially harmful. Not burdening the
environment is the ultimate goal, but at the present time it is
not practical. Reducing the damage petroleum has on the
environment is a more practical goal to strive for.
[5] J. Dawson (2008). “Application of luminescent
biosensors for monitoring the degradation and toxicity of
BTEX compounds in soils.” Journal of applied
Microbiology. (book).
[6] Dr. Frederic Leusch and Dr. Michael Bartkow (2010).
“A short primer on benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and
xylenes (BTEX) in the environment.” Smart Water Research
Centre. (research paper).
[7] (2009). “Towards Sustainable Production and Use of
Resources: Assessing Biofuels.” United Nations
Environment Programme. (UN website). www.unep.org
[8] Board of directors (2013). “Code of conduct.” Society of
Petroleum Engineers. (website).
http://www.spe.org/about/docs/professionalconduct.pdf
[9] Richard Mauer and Anna M. Tinsley (2010). “Gulf oil
spill: BP has a long record of legal, ethical violations”
McClatchyDC. (online article).
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/08/93779_bp-has-along-record-of-legal.html?rh=1
CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The negative impact of petroleum on the environment is
unavoidable; lowering its impact, however, is achievable,
and metallic complex is one of the ways to achieve it. How
the new technology is handled also plays an important role
in lowering the negative impact. Metal gas will likely be
feared when it is first introduced to the public, and rightly
so; metal gas should be monitored and handled with extreme
care. BP, however, is not the company to be trusted with this
delicate research. The use of metal complex will benefit the
environment only if metal gas is monitored and treated with
extreme care, and the researcher should bear the
responsibility of making sure such measures will be put in
place by the hands that receive the research.
I gratefully acknowledge Colleen Chi for helping me revise
this writing assignment, and Dan Long, high school organic
chemistry instructor, for offering great insight on the subject.
REFERENCES
[1] Dr. Carl Mitcham (2012). “Extreme Energy & Ethics:
Type I and Type II Analyses” National Academy of
Engineering. (speech).
www.onlineethics.org/Topics/Enviro/Energy/EnergyAPPE2
012/APPEMitcham2012.aspx
[2] John Farrell. (2013, April 15). British Petroleum
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Business ethics cases. (online
article).
http://businessethicscases.com/2013/04/british-petroleumdeepwater-horizon-oil.html
[3] S. V. Rajkumar (2004). “Thalidomide: Tragic Past and
Promising Future.” Mayo Clinic Procedures 79:7 (Book).
[4] Organic Gardening (2010). “Understanding pH” Organic
Gardening. (Online Article).
http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-andgrow/understanding-ph?page=0,0
3