Budny 10:00
L07
It is 2030, and I am a chemical engineer working with
CONSOL Energy. Water based hydraulic fracturing had been causing enough environmental problems that
CONSOL converted all its drilling operations to Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide. Chemical fracturing is an environmentally safe alternative to water fracturing. The problem is, gas frack fluid is far more expensive and more difficult to control. In addition, it is less effective as far as output is concerned. Liquid Nitrogen and Carbon
Dioxide can be used to fracture as well, and more efficiently, but the temperature necessary to keep both liquid is difficult to maintain. CONSOL’s switch to
Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide prompted all the other drilling companies to follow suit. No company wanted to justify been the non-eco-friendly drilling company. I have been researching proppants to try to increase the efficiency of our wells. I have discovered a new proppant that will increase the depth to which we can drill, and increase efficiency of gas flow through the well to a degree the input capital and total efficiency are equal to those of early 2000’s water frack wells. My proppant,
Proppant A, however, is a powerful carcinogen that has a very low, yet still existing chance of contaminating groundwater in close proximity to the well. This idea will make me copious amounts of money and put CONSOL
Energy on the top of the energy world. Ethical dilemmas arise. My colleagues and I are discussing the ethical positives and negatives of implementing the new proppant into our wells based on engineering codes of ethics.
2
2
Overview
Sam Kisic (sak180@pitt.edu)
Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide can be used to hydraulically fracture geologic formations below ground. The process is similar to water fracturing aside from the fracking fluid.
[8] CONSOL uses both. Both are poor carriers of proppants [9] other than the recently discovered Proppant
A. Hydraulic fracturing is the forcing open of fissures in subterranean rocks by introducing liquid at high pressure, especially to extract oil or gas. When done with water, groundwater levels and purity can be adversely affected.
Nitrogen and CO
2
fracturing are far more eco-friendly.
Cost and care levels are higher, though. Proppant A would increase efficiency and lower costs.
Pros

Up to 95% of the Nitrogen frack fluid is atmospheric Nitrogen.

Nitrogen fracturing as well as Carbon Dioxide fracturing are the most ecologically friendly ways to fracture. [9]

Both can fracture low energy reservoirs.

Treating fluids can be flushed rapidly by the chemical frack fluid.

Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide prevent clay swelling in the Earth’s crust and iron and aluminum hydroxide precipitation.

The chemicals increase permeability within the rock formations.

Chemical fracking reduces surface tension in the well bore compared to water fracking.

Nitrogen, specifically, clears debris for better fluid flow. [3]

Nitrogen will re-enter the atmosphere after being released in any state for a fracture.

Reduction in water use conserves natural resources in arid regions. [10]

There is no formation damage with Nitrogen and
CO
2
as there is with hydro-fracturing.
Cons

Neither carries proppants in the fluid well.

Low density and compressibility of Nitrogen does not allow for efficient fracturing deep into the ground.

CO
2 is a pollutant to both the drinking water supply and the air.
[8]
Relativity to Conflict
Though there are many benefits to both Nitrogen and
Carbon Dioxide fracturing, the three negative aspects are very serious. Proppant A will alleviate two of the three negatives, but because CO
2 is already harmful to the environment, the addition of Proppant A would make the process, although more efficient, less healthy. CONSOL
University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering
2014-09-30

Kisic switched to chemical fracturing to protect the environment. We must now consider whether or not the ends justify the means. The negative public health effects may or may not outweigh the increase in efficiency in harvesting natural resources.
Use of CO
2
and N
2
creates optimal fracture length within the fuel bed. The drawback has always been cost and efficiency. [3] With Proppant A, water would never be necessary to fracture. The new age of hydraulic fracturing will stimulate the world economy through the ability to fracture in arid regions. The price of oil will decrease and the amount of employment will increase as at first the short run, but then eventually long run aggregate supply would increase. Economic growth would be seen across the world.
Relativity to Conflict
Economic growth would benefit everyone, which would abide by the code of ethics for engineers to an extent.
The code states engineers must, “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” This provokes debate again. Is the increase of the welfare of the public based on the economic growth more positively impactful on the population than the increased risk of cancer is negatively impactful?
Increasing Competence and Prestige
The chemical engineering code of ethics defines a chemical engineer as required to increase the competence and prestige of the profession. [1] Proppant A is revolutionary.
If my company and I were to release the proppant into the wells, the energy world would be taken over. Production would be maximized. The chemical and other engineering labor forces would learn the new technique, therefore increasing the value of human capital in the field across the board. As far as prestige Proppant A would be the most lucrative invention ever to hit the field of engineering and would place the profession at an even higher standard than it is already held.
2
Professional Development
Much will be taught and learned about Proppant A and its applications within fracturing. By the chemical engineering code of ethics a chemical engineer must,
“Continue their professional development throughout their careers, and provide opportunities for the professional development of those under their supervision.” [1] All engineers working with me and below me at CONSOL as well as all engineers in the energy field would be forced to develop. Proppant A creates a new field within the engineering field. Chemical fracturing has been progressing and developing along with the engineers developing it, but with Proppant A, there is nothing other than chemical fracturing. The research into ecological benefits of the new proppant would open up fields in itself.
In line with the code of ethics, the use of Proppant A would effectively develop the engineering community.
Environment
The documentary, “Gasland,” gives the environmentalist’s point of view on hydraulic fracturing. They show the contamination of drinking water and light the water from a man’s sink in his home on fire due to the methane in the groundwater. [4] An opposing point of view surfaces in,
“Fracknation.” They argue for fracking from the point of view of an industrialist. Hydro-fracturing is extremely effective and powerful. [2]
Relativity to Conflict
Proppant A would please both ends of the environmentalism spectrum. People like the writers and actors of, “Gasland,” will be pleased by the ecological safety of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide for fracking.
People like the writers and actors of, “Fracknation,” will appreciate the equal amount of power produced by the CO
2 and N
2 fractures. The engineering code of ethics states,
“Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public.” [5]
If compromise can be made on a topic the size of environmentalism, the public is being served without a doubt. Issue can be taken, still, with the increased chance of cancer.

Kisic
Public Health and Welfare
Engineers are supposed to value above all the safety, health, and welfare of the public. [5] If Proppant A is used in the Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide fracturing wells, it will increase the chance of getting cancer in the surrounding area. Cancer is not safe or healthy to give to the public.
The rise in cancer due to the carcinogenic proppant is small, but cancer is a very serious matter. Even a small amount of people getting the disease is noteworthy.
Self Above Profession
“Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession,” reads the engineering code of ethics. [5] If I were to promote the use of Proppant A, and the risk of cancer causes problems in the communities near CONSOL drilling sites, it will come back on me. If everyone started getting cancer because of an engineer, I would be discrediting my profession for the money, which would be highly unethical. I would have to trust the positive economic and environmental benefits of Proppant A would outweigh the adverse health effects, which is a dangerous proposition as far as my career is concerned.
Silence and Implementation
One option is to keep calm and move forward with the implementation of Proppant A. In, “Case 1008,” from the
National Institute of Engineering Ethics,” a man must make a decision to compromise the success of his business by reporting tampering with a water flow setup or not. [11]
My colleagues and my decision is whether or not to compromise public health at the reward of money and ecologically safe drilling. One option for the main character in the scenario is to submit the water report with erroneous results and hope to never be found out as it would keep his business safe. “Silence and
Implementation” would be good on the business end, the productivity end, and the financial end but not good on the social, humanitarian, or public health end. In case study 7, conducted by Northeastern University, a man overhears a colleague breaking a confidentiality agreement. [7] Silence here would put an entire research team in danger. Silence with Proppant A would put the public in danger, against ethical code.
3
Further Research
“Matters of public health and safety take precedence,” reads a case study in which an alarm system will not be immediately operational in a building. It will be addressed when funding is available in the future. [6] Further research is necessary upon Proppant A regarding its carcinogenic effects. Ethically, it would not be sound to use the proppant in the wells with current detrimental health effects. The engineer in the case study is paid for his services even though the building was not up to official codes and standards. A chemical engineer, based on the code of ethics, must, “Formally advise their employers and clients
(and consider further disclosure, if warranted) if they perceive that a consequence of their duties will adversely affect the future health and safety of their colleagues or the public.” [1] If we were to implement Proppant A without disclosure of carcinogenic qualities to clients, it would be breaking the ethical code. If innovation and technology in eco-friendly, public health oriented drilling came about to reduce or eliminate carcinogenic properties in Proppant A, it would be ethically safe to put on the market. If we leave it as is, like the engineer in the case study, we are technically unable to release it to the market by ethical code.
Status Quo
The status quo is normal Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide drilling. Cost is high, as well as labor and effort into drilling. It is difficult to maintain a liquid state within the well and wellbore with these chemicals. One of the fundamental cannons of the code of ethics for engineers is an engineer will, “conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. [5] If the status quo is maintained, engineering would not be progressing. Constant improvement is necessary in the engineering world, and an engineer is never satisfied.
Maintaining the absolute status quo would ensure public health, safety, and welfare in line with the code, but would not improve and progress the engineering profession.
Constantly striving to improve is engineering, and I, personally, will not be able to sit back while Proppant A could be so useful.

Kisic
Based upon the codes of ethics for chemical engineering and overall engineering, the best option for my team would be to fund and promote research into Proppant A.
Although so lucrative, Proppant A is a danger to public health and as an engineer, the pillar of public safety cannot be broken. My colleagues and I will propose the proppant to our management, and attempt to receive further compensation for research. If Proppant A were not a groundwater contaminable carcinogen, it would be ultimately in line with ethical code. The proppant’s effectiveness was never in question, only its safety.
Therefore, if safety concerns could be resolved, the proppant could be ethically implemented into fracturing fluid in all CONSOL drilling systems. The idea would be sold and all drilling operations across the world would convert to CO
2
and N
2
drilling. New wells would be created in arid regions of the world as well, stimulating the economy by creating jobs in drilling in those regions as well as research into how to optimize fracturing performance with CO
2 and N
2
. Ethically, under the current circumstances, Proppant A cannot be used yet.
Further research is definitely necessary because of the possibilities Proppant A brings to the table. It could be the greatest innovation in the history of hydraulic fracturing.
Proppant A would stimulate the world economy, improve the environment, and increase the prestige and development of the engineering profession. It cannot be used yet, due to its carcinogenic properties, but in the future, it is possible, with some alterations, for Proppant A to be beneficial to the public and the engineering community.
4
[1] American Institute of Chemical Engineers . American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics>.
[2] FrackNation . Dir. Phelim McAleer and Ann
McElhinney. 2013. Film.
[3]"Gas and Oil Well Fracking With Nitrogen and Carbon
Dioxide." Linde US . The Linde Group, 2014. Web. 14 Oct.
2014.
<http://www.lindeus.com/en/industries/power_and_energ y/upstream_oil_gas/fraccing/index.html>.
[4] Gasland . Dir. Josh Fox. 2010. Film.
National Institute of Engineering Ethics. "To Flush or Not to Flush: That's the Question." Case 1008 : n. pag. Print.
[5] National Society of Professional Engineers . N.p., n.d.
Web.14Oct.2014.
<http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics>
[6] National Society of Professional Engineers . National
Society of Professional Engineers, 30 4 2014. Web. 14 Oct.
2014.
<http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER%20Case%2
0No%2013-11-FINAL.pdf>.
[7] Web Guru . Northeastern University, n.d. Web. 14 Oct.
2014.
<http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/casestudies/sometimes-silence-golden>.
[8] "Enhanced Oil and Gas Production with Nitrogen
Fracturing." Air Products . Air Products and Chemicals
Inc.,n.d.Web.27Oct.2014.
<http://www.airproducts.com/industries/energy/oilgasproduction/oilfieldservices/productlist/~/media/9546AD3
9B8FE4584B1F802F84D572D1B.pdf>.
[9]"Why Use N2 For Hydraulic Fracturing." Nitrogen .
Ferus, n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.
<http://www.ferus.com/ProductsAndServices/Nitrogen.as
px>.
[10]Gurule, Kendall. "Nitrogen Gas Fracking."
Frackwire . Frackwire, 9 July 2013. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.
<http://frackwire.com/nitrogen-gas-fracking/>.
[11] National Institute of Engineering Ethics. "To Flush or Not to Flush: That's the Question." Case 1008: n. pag.
Print.
Due credit should be awarded to my friends, Eddie
Pacey and Ryan Sterling, for working with me all year in engineering analysis. Through each other’s help, we have gained a strong knowledge base that we will each look to build upon for the rest of the year and years to come. In addition, I would like to thank Nick Deiuliis, CEO of
CONSOL Energy and close personal friend, for introducing me to the world of clean energy.

Kisic
5