ANALYSIS OF AN ETHICAL DILEMMA IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Forrest Salamida
(fms11@pitt.edu)
Ethically charged situations are all around us.
They occur when someone drops money on the sidewalk,
as well as when a student cheats on a test. Similarly, ethical
situations occur in the professional world, especially in
engineering. Ethics and engineering go hand in hand
because the decisions that engineers make have lasting
implications on others, whether it be through the
environmental impact of a new chemical process, or the
invention of a new form of transportation. To make these
decisions, engineers turn to a code, created by the board of
ethics on engineering. There is a general code of ethics for
engineers, as well as concentration specific codes.
As an aspiring chemical engineer it is important
for me to familiarize myself with these different codes
because one day I will be faced with ethical decisions of my
own. As a chemical engineer, I may end up in the booming
natural gas industry. This industry is very controversial
because of the use of a new process called hydraulic
fracturing, in which natural gas is extracted from hard to
reach shale deposits, deep in the earth, with the use of a
high-pressure solution that contains dangerous chemicals. I
created an ethically charged scenario that I could possibly
face if I were one day in this field, so that I could acquaint
myself with the codes and demonstrate my understanding
of them.
SCENARIO
A newly discovered shale, containing billions of
cubic feet of natural gas, presides under the state of
Pennsylvania. The easiest entry point to the shale is
underneath a small town near the center of the state. A
group of chemical engineers, employed by a natural gas
drilling company, decide that it is relatively safe to begin
drilling a few miles away from the town. They decide that
the most efficient method to release the natural gas is by
way of hydraulic fracturing. The hydraulic fracturing
operation is initiated, and all the proper protocol is
followed. Extraction of the natural gas seems to be going
off without a hitch for several months. However, after the
initial success of the project, several people in the town
begin to fall ill. It is discovered by the company, through a
series of water tests, that the solution they use in the process
of hydraulic fracturing has contaminated the drinking water
supply of the town, and that this concoction of chemicals is
the possible culprit. As the director of operations for the
natural gas company, I have to determine whether or not to
alert the town’s people about our concerns and if it is
1
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
October 29, 2013
necessary to release the list of contents and concentrations
of said contents to the public.
In order to make a decision like this, I must
interpret the code of ethics for general engineering, and the
code of ethics for chemical engineers. I will also be
referencing other people’s interpretations of these codes,
and their opinions on situations such as this one. Lastly, I
will use my own moral values to assess the situation. Before
I do so, however, it is important to have a general
understanding of the process of hydraulic fracturing and
how situations, such as this one, may arise.
WHAT IS “FRACKING”?
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in and of itself,
is not a new practice. It has been employed in vertical wells
since the late 1940s [1]. Shale beds that were previously
impenetrable by drilling could be fractured with the use of
chemically treated water and sand to release methane gas.
This method proved ineffective at extreme depths, which
led to the development of horizontal drilling [3]. With this
process, thinner horizontal wells are drilled perpendicularly
to the large vertical shafts, which separate the shale layers
and allow for more effective breaking up of the rocks and
releasing of the methane gas [3]. This new technique allows
access to trillions of cubic feet of natural gas previously
thought unattainable, locked away in the shale beds [1].
Nevertheless, horizontal drilling does not come without its
faults, the most alarming of which is the sheer amount of
fracking liquid needed to effectively break up the shale.
Whereas a normal fracking operation would use only
thousands of gallons of liquid, the new technique uses
millions [4].
FRACKING FLUID
Considering the fluid is 99.5 percent freshwater
and .5 percent chemicals [5] may lead people to
underestimate the seriousness of the problem that fracking
poses. Although 0.5 percent seems like a small number. In
the quantities used for commercial fracking, that small
percentage adds up, in that, 50 million gallons of fracking
fluid, is comprised of at least 2.5 million gallons of
chemicals. These chemicals are combined in concentrations
unknown to the public due to the concoction being
“intellectual property” of the company [5]. This poses a
problem because it is important to know the concentrations
of every chemical used in a solution in order to determine
the possible toxicity that can ensue in a habitat. A heavily
Forrest Salamida
concentrated solution can wreak havoc on an ecosystem, or
the human body, even if it is found to be naturally
occurring. An example of this can be seen with a highly
concentrated, one molar, hydrochloric acid solution, which
occurs naturally, but at this concentration can dissolve
mostly anything, including the food that we eat on a regular
basis. The list of potential health risks do not end there.
Many fracking fluids include a myriad of compounds that
are proven carcinogens, as well as solutions that cause
“adverse health effects” to the skin, eyes, respiratory tract,
liver, brain, nervous system, and reproductive system [4].
The ten to twelve chemicals in this solution include, “a
friction reducer to help the mixture flow, a scale inhibitor
to prevent rust, acid to clean the perforations, bactericides
to kill microorganisms that can inhibit some chemical
actions, and more” [5].
companies. The first involves rain water overflowing the
pits of fracking fluid, allowing it to run into streams and
rivers [1]. The second scenario involves the liner tearing in
the pit, allowing the mixture to seep into the ground and
into drinking water reservoirs [1]. Natural gas companies
have been able to play both of these scenarios off as
unrelated to the fracking process for years, which correlates
to the public outcry for stricter regulation against fracking.
ENGINEERING ETHICS
INTERPRETED
The Code of Ethics for Engineers is the basis for
which all decisions in the field of engineering should be
made. They give the general outline of how engineers
should uphold their profession by acting “for each
employer or client as faithful agents or trustees” and by
holding “paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the
public”[6]. They also become extremely specific. For
example in canon three, section four the code states that
“engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential
information concerning the business affairs or technical
processes of any present or former client or employer, or
public body on which they serve”[6].
THE WEAK LINKS
Now that it is understood how harmful the
chemicals are that are used in the process of fracking, it is
also important to understand how it is that contamination
happens. Many companies are able to deny contamination
because they break up the fracking process so that only the
drilling and blasting of the fracking fluid is considered the
hydraulic fracturing stage [3]. If one observes the operation
as a whole a different picture emerges altogether.
The Engineering Code of Ethics was definitely
applicable to my scenario. I had no problem finding canons
that dealt directly with my issue. The code states that I
should not release any information about my company,
without the consent of that company. It also states that I
should make the safety of the public one of my utmost
concerns. After reading the code I realized that it was
almost too applicable. In trying to address all possible
scenarios, the Engineering Code of Ethics creates grey
areas that become extremely difficult to interpret. I decided
that I would look at the chemical engineering code of ethics
to see if it further explained these situations, hopefully
shedding some light on which directive is more important.
Unsurprisingly, I received a similar answer from my
secondary code. I must serve my employers faithfully while
simultaneously protecting the “welfare of the public” [7].
How am I supposed to serve both the public and my
employer equally?
The two weakest links in the fracking process as a
whole are the cement-reinforced shafts and the man-made
ponds that hold the fracking fluid after the operation ends,
until it can be taken to waste treatment facilities. The shafts
are reinforced with cement so that they may withstand the
pressure of the liquid being forced into the shale, but joints
where the horizontal drilling begins cannot be properly
reinforced due to their depth and trajectory [1]. Natural gas
companies like to point out at this point, that these faults
are thousands of feet below the surface, whereas people get
their drinking water from only hundreds of feet
underground, but there is some misinformation here. The
instability at the joints can, in some cases, cause instability
along the main vertical shaft closer to water sources, so that
methane and the fracking fluid may seep out [1]. It has been
estimated that only 1 to 2 percent of wells have this
problem.
The answer is that I cannot. It is impossible to
obey all of the codes of ethics equally in scenarios such as
the one I created for the uses of this paper. With no clear
answer, I turned to other’s interpretations of the codes to
better understand the ethics behind the choice I was going
to make.
After the force of the liquid breaks the shale layer,
the methane that is released forces much of that liquid back
up to the surface, where it is contained in uncovered manmade ponds that are lined with unreactive, synthetic liners
[5]. At this point the fracking fluid not only has the
chemicals in it, but also contains traces of naturally
occurring radioactive elements found deep inside the earth
[1]. Two possible scenarios account for the hundreds of
documented contaminations that are denied by natural gas
One paper that I read described the difference
between engineering ethics and engineers’ ethics. It stated
that there is a distinct difference between the two, but that
they are easily confused and almost indistinguishable when
applied to professional codes of ethics [8]. Therefore, the
best that a code of ethics can do is “engage the members of
2
Forrest Salamida
the association to work and behave according to the
principles of the association,” but that even with the code
in place, engineers will make decisions that are in their own
best interest, while still attempting to abide by the code[8].
All this means is that engineers will use the parts of the code
that best benefit them, and use those clauses or canons to
justify their ethical decisions. If I were to use this ideology,
I would not tell the town’s people about the contamination
because it may have negative consequences on my career if
I were to make the accident public. The paper goes on to
explain that the ideal engineer is one that is “willing to
confront many challenges and perils for the sake of others”
[8]. Their ideal engineer would tell the town, regardless of
the personal consequences, to help the sick people.
information to come to a decision that made sense to me
and agreed with my own moral values.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CODES OF
ETHICS
The process of addressing a scenario with the
codes of ethics is an extremely important one. One day I
will be an engineer, and I will have to make these kinds of
decisions on a day to day basis. By going through this
process I was able to familiarize myself with the codes of
ethics. I was able to see the significance in having a code to
follow, and the importance of being able to understand it. It
is important to have this code so that standard procedures
are followed, minimalizing possible malfunctions in
practice. Understanding the code is important because all
engineers need to be on the same page, to guarantee quality
work for employers. I was also able to see how general the
codes are and that their overlapping creates a need for
careful interpretation. Lastly, going through this process
brought attention to problems in the codes of ethics that I
would possibly like to see amended. The biggest problem
for me specifically was in deciding how some cannons
should overrule others. It is not made clear in the code of
ethics, and so it would be convenient to have some kind of
ranking system in terms of order of importance, to make
engineering decisions less ambiguous.
After reading this source, I realized that the
decision comes down to two main choices. I can decide to
act in my own self-interest, or in the interest of the public.
Technically, neither is wrong, it just depends on your own
interpretation of the engineering codes of ethics.
I decided that it was a good idea to reference at
least one more alternative source in my hunt for the correct
decision to my dilemma. In my second alternative source it
reiterated that many concepts are “messy” and that there are
“areas of vagueness and uncertainty”[9] in ethics, but the
end of the paragraph peaked my interest. It states that
engineering ethics should be taught to engineering students
so that they may understand that uncertainty may exist, but
to reject the view that, “Everyone’s opinion is as good as
anyone else’s when it comes to ethics” [9]. The authors of
this paper express the view that, although there may be
overlapping grey areas in the ethics of engineering, there
are right and a wrong answers to an ethical situation. I
thought about this, and about the previous sources
description of the “ideal” engineer, and was able to come
up with a final decision.
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
In this paper I created a plausible ethical scenario
that I had to address. I came to my conclusion through the
use of the general engineering code of ethics and the
concentration specific, chemical engineering code of
ethics, as well as through the use of other interpretations
of the code and my own moral values. Knowing what I
know now would change the way that I would handle
future situations. Canon three of the engineering code
states that, “engineers shall advise their clients or
employers when they believe a project will not be
successful” [6]. Using this section, I would advise future
employers to not frack in populated areas because the risk
of possible contamination outweighs the possible benefits
of drilling. I would site the evidence that the methane
levels were found to be significantly higher in wells that
were close to drilling operations, in a study that tested 60
wells across Pennsylvania [10]. I would also site my
previous experience and canon one of the engineering
code that states that I must protect the public [6]. This
project has allowed me to gain a glimpse as to what it is
like to be an engineer. I have learned how to ethically
tackle a situation, and I look forward to the day that I may
be able to serve the public.
My final decision is that I would tell the town’s
people about the accidental contamination. I would also
include the concentrations of all chemicals included in the
solution that contaminated the water so that the proper
authorities could take action in combatting the problem. I
came to this decision through several steps. Firstly, I
referenced the Codes of Ethics. The Engineering Code of
Ethics and the Code of Ethics for chemical engineers,
although both having grey areas when it came to my ethical
situation, also both contained sections stating that I must
protect the health of the public [6]. Secondly, I looked at
alternative sources. The idea of the “ideal” engineer in
“Engineering Ethics beyond Engineers’ Ethics” is one of an
engineer that makes decisions for the good of the public
rather than in his own self-interest [8]. Also, in
“Engineering Ethics: What? Why? How? And When?” it is
discussed that ethical issues do have right and wrong
answers, and that not all answers are equally correct [9].
Lastly, I used my own moral code to analyze each piece of
REFERENCES
3
Forrest Salamida
[1] C, Mooney. (18 October 2011). “The Truth about
Fracking.” Scientific American. (Online Article).
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v305/n5
/full/scientificamerican1111-80.html
[2] D, Hou, J, Luo, A, Al-Tabbaa. (May 25 2012). “Shale
gas can be a double-edged sword for climate change.”
Nature.com.(Online
Article).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n6/full/nclima
te1500.html
[3] S, Brantley, A, Meyendorff. (March 13, 2013). “The
Facts on Fracking.” The New York Times. (Newspaper
Article).http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/opinion/glob
al/the-facts-on-fracking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[4] M, Mitka. (May 23/30, 2012). “Rigorous Evidence Slim
for Determining Health Risks from Natural Gas Fracking.”
The Journal of the American Medical Association. (Online
Article).
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=11673
12
[5] M, Fischetti. (July 2010). “The Drillers Are Coming.”
Scientific
American.
(Online
Article).
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v303/n1
/full/scientificamerican0710-82.html
[6] "NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers." NSPE Code of
Ethics for Engineers. National Society of Professional
Engineers, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
[7] "Code of Ethics." AIChE. American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
[8] Basart, Josep, and Montse Serra. "Engineering Ethics
Beyond Engineers' Ethics." Science & Engineering
Ethics 19.1 (2013): 179-187. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
[9] Harris, Charles Edwin, Jr., Michael Davis, Michael S.
Pritchard, and Michael J. Rabins. "Engineering Ethics:
What? Why? How? And When?" Journal of Engineering
Education 85.2 (2013): 93-96. Ebscohost. Web. 29 Oct.
2013.
[10] D, Holzman. (July 1, 2011). “Methane Found in Well
Water Near Fracking Sites.” Environmental Health
Perspectives.
(Online
Article).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222989/
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Christian Brand for
keeping me awake with coffee while I worked away. I
would like to thank Paul Gregotski for not letting me
procrastinate until the last second. Lastly, I would like to
thank Emilie Davignon for believing in me.
4