Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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