Bursic, 2:00
R10
Ethics and Morality Associated With Hydraulic Fracking
Ben Lucas (BJL51@pitt.edu)
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN HYDRAULIC
FRACKING
Over the years, hydraulic fracking has become one of the
most controversial issues in the eyes of many engineers. Not
only is hydraulic fracking seen as being an environmental
issue, but it is also being seen as unethical and an obvious
violation to both the overall engineering code of ethics and
the code of ethics specified by the Department of Civil
Engineering. When taking a look at these codes of ethics, it
is clear that hydraulic fracking goes against many main parts
of these codes. The main concern with the engineering behind
hydraulic fracking is that it disregards the part of the code of
ethics that is supposed to protect the public safety and health.
Many people suggest that hydraulic fracking is extremely
detrimental to the environment and the people who live in it.
The engineers behind hydraulic fracking then respond to this
criticism by giving incomplete answers, which is also seen as
an unethical part of fracking stated in the code of ethics.
SCENARIO INVOLVING FRACKING AND
ETHICS
A specific scenario involving ethics and fracking is a
farmer who had her land drilled on for the natural gasses that
were underneath her land. The farm then goes under heavy
pollution and livestock start to die and the owner’s health
starts to decline. All of these things lead people to think that
fracking is the reason for this, but the engineers and people
associated with fracking all deny it. Also, many resources are
being used in massive amounts in the process of fracking. The
code of ethics allows people to make a decision on the
morality of this situation. Altogether, hydraulic fracking and
the engineering associated with it has provided many people
with reasons to question the ethics and morality linked to
fracking.
ENDANGERING PUBLIC HEALTH
The first part of the engineering code of ethics that makes
hydraulic fracking seem unethical to some engineers is canon
one which states, “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety,
health, and welfare of the public” [1]. To many, this is the
most controversial part of hydraulic fracking because of how
different people interpret the effects of fracking. First of all,
Fracking is drilling a well and then shooting a mixture of
chemicals and water down the well to penetrate rock that they
wouldn’t have been able to get through, which would then
release whatever gas that was trapped by the rock [2]. In the
specific scenario, these chemicals can leak into the
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2013/10/29
environment and cause poor conditions for the cattle and the
owner. These chemicals kill some of the cattle, and
contaminate others. This contamination puts the health of the
public at risk. The beef from the cattle will be sold, and
whoever consumes this meat will also be put at risk from the
contamination. This process can make hydraulic fracking
seem unethical because of the effects and pollution that
fracking has on the environment which goes against canon
one of the code of ethics. Hydraulic fracking uses two
hundred thousand liters of acids, biocides, scale inhibitors,
friction reducers, and surfactants, which are toxic [3]. This
mixture can easily contaminate the surrounding area. In a test
of the water wells within one kilometer of a hydraulic fracking
site, seventy five percent of them were contaminated with
methane from fracking [3]. As these statistics tell, fracking is
putting the safety of the environment and the safety of the
public at tremendous danger, which is a direct divergence
from the code of ethics.
INDIRECT DANGER TO THE PUBLIC
The article “What the Frack is in Our Food?” is a perfect
demonstration of the scenario and of the dangers that the
public health and safety is forced into due to hydraulic
fracking. This article directly addresses the potential for
hydraulic fracking to endanger the public safety due to
contamination of the food supply [4]. One specific example
in this article is of a ranch owned by Jacki Schilke in North
Dakota. Schilke is in very poor health, which many think is
due to the thirty two hydraulic fracking wells that have opened
within 3 miles of her ranch. She becomes dizzy when she
goes outside and has chronic pain in her lungs because of
contamination of the air on her ranch. When a certified
environmental consultant tested the air on the ranch, the
results came back with elevated levels of benzene, methane,
chloroform, and other compounds that are associated with
hydraulic fracking [4]. Her well water also tested positive for
many of the same compounds. State health and agricultural
officials acknowledged Schilke’s tests, but told her that she
had nothing to worry about, but in reality, she had serious
problems. She was diagnosed with neurotoxic damage and
constricted airways [4]. Schilke, among others, believe that
it was the fracking wells that caused her poor health.
CONTAMINATION OF CATTLE
Along with Schilke’s poor health, her cattle were also in
poor condition. Five of her cows dropped dead because of the
tainted environment that the fracking wells had created. Since
Schilke didn’t want to endanger anyone else with
Ben Lucas
contaminated food, she discontinued the sale of her beef.
Schilke is not the only one facing these problems too. Many
other farmers are having their cattle die because of air
pollution due to fracking or exposure to fracking fluids. The
cattle that are not being killed by this pollution but are still
exposed to it are being put onto the market for consumption
by humans. The chemicals that the cattle are being exposed
to are also showing up in the meat products and milk that the
cattle produce, which are then going straight into the food
system, putting at risk the health of the consumers of these
products [4]. Comparing this situation to the engineering
code of ethics, it is easy to see that hydraulic fracking puts the
safety, health, and welfare of the public in drastic danger
because of the pollution that this type of drilling generates.
civil engineering code of ethics because each one will
endanger the public’s health and wellness. If it is decided to
inject it back into the earth, the same chemical filled water
will probably come to the surface somewhere else, or
contaminate well water of the surrounding area [6]. The same
thing can happen if you leave this chemical solution exposed
to the environment in order to evaporate; cattle and other
animals can come into contact with the toxins and
contaminate even more of the environment. The final option
of sending the chemical solution to a water treatment plant
seems like a good choice, but the treatment plants aren’t
designed to neutralize fracking chemicals, which means they
will be released into the nearby streams, contaminating the
environment there [4]. In each of these cases there is one
thing in common which is the fact that the public’s health and
safety is being put at danger. People can make a strong case
that hydraulic fracking is unethical under the code of ethics
for engineers.
SERVING THE PUBLIC INTERESTS
In addition to protecting the safety of the public, the
engineering code of ethics is also in place to satisfy the
public’s interests. Canon four of the overarching engineering
code displays this idea by supporting the statement,
“Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest”
[1]. It then goes into specific detail in the Civil Engineering
code of ethics explaining that engineers should, “Work for the
advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of their
community” [5]. Hydraulic fracking and the engineering
involved with it can also be seen as violating this part of the
code of ethics. Fracking is actually going in the opposite
direction of this code. Instead of advancing the safety, health,
and well-being of communities where hydraulic fracking is
located, it actually hinders advancement because of the
pollution created. In the specific scenario, hydraulic fracking
contaminates the surrounding environment causes the people
around these areas to have poor health, which is not serving
the public’s interests at all. This goes against the code of
ethics in that the engineering behind fracking isn’t safe for the
environment and is the opposite of what the public wants.
ENGINEERING AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Another part of canon four of the engineering code of
ethics that is applicable to hydraulic fracking is, “Engineers
are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable
development in order to protect the environment for future
generations” [1]. Ken Homan, a member of the Food and
Water Watch Organization, states that there is considerable
reason to believe that hydraulic fracking will lead to minimal
job growth in the fracking industry and lead to massive
environmental degradation [7]. People are demolishing
mountainsides and other surroundings, first of all, just to get
to the natural gas, and then destroying them even more by
leaving the chemicals that were used in the process to
contaminate the environment [8]. In the case of the specific
scenario, the environment being destroyed is the owner’s
farm. The air and water is being polluted with the chemicals
used for fracking, which creates poor conditions for everyone
near the fracking site. Along with destruction of the
environment, massive amounts of water are used in the
hydraulic fracking well. Seven million gallons of water are
used for the fracking of only one well [7]. It is hard to imagine
how much water is being wasted due to fracking. It may not
be a big deal now, but looking into the future, eventually,
there won’t be enough clean water for people to survive on.
This is what the code of ethics is relating to when talking
about sustainable development. It says engineers should
conserve resources for future generations to come. Therefore,
hydraulic fracking can be considered unethical because of
how it wastes resources that could be limited in the future and
is creating poor conditions for future generations.
HANDLING THE POLLUTION PRODUCED
In addition, another main section included in the article
“What the Frack is in Our Food?” is how the pollution is
produced and how it is handled, which is a big reason that
hydraulic fracking can be considered unethical. For one
hydraulic fracking well, seventy percent of the mixture of
water and chemicals used will make it back to the surface
along with many deep-earth compounds that can cause illness
if people come in contact with them. This waste water is
either injected back into the earth, left in a plastic lining to
evaporate, or sent to a water treatment center [4]. This would
also be the case for the specific situation where the chemicals
are the reason for the poor conditions of the farmer and cattle.
They would be directly exposed to the pollution in any option
that is decided to be done with the waste. All three of these
options, however, can be seen as being unethical under the
DECEIVING THE PUBLIC
2
Ben Lucas
The next part of the code of ethics that pertains to the
situation created is the second and fifth canons which clarify
the fact that engineers are supposed to avoid all deceptive acts
including deceiving the public [1]. So, for the situation, the
engineers behind hydraulic fracking are not allowed to deny
the effects that fracking has on the environment. This means
that by denying it was there fault for the contamination of the
environment surrounding the fracking sites can be considered
a violation of the code of ethics for engineers. In the case of
Jacki Schilke, there is also reason to believe that the engineers
were in denial that fracking caused her to have poor health
even though environmentalists tested the air and water supply
and found the chemical compounds used for fracking in both
places [4]. No one wants to admit to the guilt of endangering
entire communities due do hydraulic fracking sites there, but
it makes what they are doing unethical.
decision that hydraulic fracking and the engineering
associated with fracking is unethical.
REFERENCES
[1] (2013). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” (Online).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[2] K. Williamson. (2012). “The Truth about Fracking.”
National Review. (Online article). pp. 26-31
[3] R. Howarth, A. Ingraffea, T. Engelder, et al. (2011).
“Natural gas: Should fracking stop?” Nature. (Online
Article). DOI: 10.1038/477271a. pp. 271-275
[4] E. Royte. (2012). “What the Frack is in our Food.” Nation.
(Online Article). pp. 11-18
[5]
(2013).
“Code
of
Ethics.”
(Online).
http://www.asce.org/Leadership-andManagement/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/
[6] J. Pritchard. (2013). “Counterpoint: Energy Companies
Should Cease All Hydraulic Fracturing Operations in the
United States.” Points of View: Fracking. (Online Article).
pp. 1-3
[7] K. Homan. (2013). “Unnatural Gas.” America. (Online
Article). pp. 17-18
[8] I. Ratcliffe. (2013). “Fracking is dangerous to the
environment and throws good energy after bad.” Engineering
and Technology. (Online Article). pp. 25
[9] K. Hall. (2013). “Tenn. university's proposal for fracking
research funded by gas profits raises ethics concerns.” The
Canadian Press. (Online Article).
[10] H. Else. (2012). “Fracking splits opinion.” Professional
Engineering. (Online Article). pp. 26-30
[11] P. Hunter. (2011). “’Fracking’ Rule Sparks Debate.”
ENR: Eng. News-Record. pp. 6
DISTORTING THE FACTS ABOUT
FRACKING
Another part of the engineering code of ethics that is
relevant here is canon three which has a subsection that states,
“Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort
or alter the facts” [1]. This means that engineers behind
fracking are supposed to admit to the fact that they are
harming the environment and can’t adjust the facts to make
them seem innocent. Under the code of ethics, they can’t just
ignore accusations and blow it off like it is not a big deal. In
reality, it is a big deal. The issue of deception of the public
and not fully telling the truth comes up many times in both the
overall engineering code of ethics and civil engineering code
of ethics, meaning that this should be taken very seriously.
Many engineers dealing with fracking still continue to deny
the facts that come up again and again in every case, which
violates the code of ethics and creates an impression that
fracking is immoral and unethical.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my family and friends for pushing
me to do the best I can in everything I do and supporting me
through the years. I would also like to thank my professor,
TA, writing instructor, and librarian for showing me how to
use all the technology and resources that I needed to complete
this paper to the best of my ability.
FINAL DECISION ON ETHICS OF
FRACKING
Hydraulic fracking is an issue that has divided people
because it is filled with so many ethical and moral decisions.
Some people believe it is a favorable, quick way to obtain
natural gas from places that were hard to get to before, and
others believe that it is destructive to the environment and the
people nearby [9]. Fracking needs to be ceased to better the
environment and society. In one way or another, fracking
involves every single person, so everyone is being put in
danger [10]. There needs to be a way to solve this issue, like
how Canada has been using petroleum gel, but with
something that is safer for everyone [11]. Until that solution
comes, however, fracking needs to be ended for everyone’s
benefit. Hydraulic fracking goes against parts of the code of
ethics that protects public health and the public from being
deceived by engineers. Therefore, I would make the final
3