Vidic 2:00
R12
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: A MORAL STANDPOINT
Alex Marnik (atm47@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION TO A MORAL SCENARIO
Hydraulic fracturing, or more popularly, fracking, is the
process of drilling for oil and natural gas in unconventional
geologic formations. The practice is not a new one, but the
recent development of horizontal drilling has maximized the
harvesting of natural gas. While this process gains popularity
in the United States, questions are constantly being raised
over the possible environmental concerns that arise from
drilling. I am a petroleum engineer working for Range
Resources, a company that uses this process to drill a lot in
the Western Pennsylvania area. Recently, a Washington D.C.
based environmental group called Earthworks made the claim
that people living near hydraulic fracturing sites in Butler
County, Pennsylvania, have respiratory, psychological, skin,
and sinus problems [1]. As a response to this claim, my boss
charged me with the task of collecting well water samples
from this area. This was in an attempt to prove that there was
no connection between the health issues found and our
drilling practices. The test results showed an above average
concentration of benzene, a chemical used in the fracking
process, in the well water. I reported my findings to my boss
and he instructed me to sweep it under the rug and ignore the
tests. I need to decide whether I will follow my boss’s
instructions or pursue my test results and further report my
findings. This paper will describe the process of hydraulic
fracturing and some of the other environmental concerns the
process raises and detail my decision-making process
consulting the code of ethics for both the National Society of
Professional Engineers as well as The Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
THE PROCESS AND GENERAL
PROCEDURE
Hydraulic Fracturing was first used in the 1940s as a
method used to increase the productivity of ineffective oil
refineries. At that time, fracking was only available as vertical
drilling. This method means exactly what it implies: drilling
straight into the ground perpendicular to the surface. In recent
years however, the process of directional, or horizontal,
fracking has been developed. This innovation within the
industry really brought hydraulic fracturing to where it is
today. This process involves drilling deep down into the
earth’s surface until the drill head reaches low-permeability
rock formations such as the Utica and Marcellus shale
formations that run from New York through the Appalachian
Basin. From there, horizontal well bores, or laterals, are
drilled parallel to the earth’s surface. From that point, a huge
volume of water and other chemicals (2-4 million gallons of
water and 15-16,000 gallons of chemicals for a single lateral)
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2013-10-29
are pumped at high pressures into the rock to “fracture” the
shale [2]. The fracturing of the shale releases natural gas that
then bubbles back to the surface along with all the flowback
fluid that was pumped underground. This so-called
“flowback” fluid has to be disposed of at the site. It is usually
stored in open-air pits that are normally lined to prevent leaks
[2].
PROCEDURAL SHORTCOMINGS
I decided to start my decision making process by doing
research on the various effects fracking has on the
environment. I wanted to familiarize myself with some of the
other criticisms of the industry before I made my decision. I
found that drilling companies like Range Resources do take
steps to prevent any negative effects to the environment, but
a lot of these steps fail. The liners in the pits that store
flowback fluids prevent it from seeping into the ground, but
liners are known to break and heavy rains are known to cause
these pits to overflow. When these kinds of things happen, the
ground and in turn the groundwater is exposed to all of the
chemicals that are used in fracking, like Radium-226, which
has been known to increase the risk of cancer in humans.
Apart from inappropriate disposal of flowback fluids, the
cement well casings that hold the drill in place and are there
to prevent leaks are known to fail. John Fox, filmmaker and
director of the documentary “Gasland,” puts it into
perspective: “you ask the industry do casings fail? And they
say of course…50% of them fail over the life of a well. 50%
of them fail over the life of a well which means that in 20 and
30 years you’ve got water contamination that’s potentially
catastrophic” [3]. If you have well casings failing at such a
high rate, there is a large margin of error for what amount of
the flowback fluid and methane the drilling company is safely
removing from the ground. The actual fracturing of the shale
also brings up questions about the process. When a lateral is
actually fractured, not much is known about the extent of the
fracture. This drilling is breaking up rock and could be
creating pathways for methane and other chemicals to travel
up to the water table on its own. The various negative effects
of fracking have already started to show up around the
country.
EFFECTS OF PROCEDURAL
SHORTCOMINGS
There are many different reports of drinking wells near
fracking sites that are contaminated with methane. In fact, a
study conducted by Robert Jackson, Associate Dean for
Research at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the
Environment, found elevated levels of methane in 115 of 141
residential wells [4]. Also, in a study published in Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences USA, it was found that
as you move closer to fracking sites, the risk of methane
contamination in water increases [4]. There are also many
horror stories and even videos online documenting families
who use underground wells holding a lighter underneath their
faucet and watching the water catch fire due to the high levels
of methane. While there is not a lot of data available on the
effects of methane-contaminated water because it isn’t
regulated under the EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water
Standards, it is known that at a certain level (usually upwards
of 28 milligrams per liter), the water becomes combustible.
When concentrations are this high, the methane must be
vented out of the water in a process called aeration where air
is pumped into the water causing the methane to be released
[5].
The EPA has also made the claim that wells have been
found that contain the fracking chemical benzene [2].
Benzene is a chemical that has been known to increase the
chances of getting cancer, lower blood platelet levels and
even lead to anemia. Apart from this claim by the EPA, there
is not a lot of data that finds fracking chemicals in water
supplies, and it is also difficult to determine where the water
contamination directly comes from. This gives the drilling
companies a way to argue the claim that their drilling is
causing the contamination. Methane isotopes that have been
found in well water; however, have been studied and have
been shown to have a thermogenic signature as opposed to a
biogenic signature. Methane with a biogenic signature would
suggest that different organisms produced it near the surface
and sources of water, however, the thermogenic signature
suggests that the methane comes from deep below the earth’s
surface, right around at the levels where fracking takes place
[2].
my responsibility to report my findings further in the name of
helping the public. It is not enough for me to just go with what
my boss says if people are in danger. If I were to listen to my
boss, I would be failing in my responsibility to protect the
environment and the people who live there. Another canon
states that “engineers shall avoid deceptive acts” [3]. Ignoring
my findings would be a deceptive act because I would be
hiding information from the people that are affected by
hydraulic fracturing. However, there are a lot of companies
that practice fracking that do not disclose which type of
chemicals they use to fracture the rock. Critics of the industry,
however, argue that companies already know what chemicals
their competitors are using, and they just don’t want the public
to know what types of chemicals are being used [7]. This is a
deceptive act that goes against the NSPE code. However, the
code also requires engineers to “act for each employer or
client as faithful agents or trustees” [3]. Although I do need to
keep in mind the safety of the people, I also have an obligation
to be a trustworthy employee.
CONSULTING THE SPE CODE OF ETHICS
I then consulted the code of ethics for the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. This code of ethics requires petroleum
engineers to “accept a personal responsibility for adherence
to applicable laws, the protection of the environment, and
safeguarding the public welfare in their professional actions
and behavior” [8]. With evidence of leaking wells, faulty
disposal tactics, and methane and benzene contamination of
well water, it would seem that petroleum engineers in general
need to do a better job of adhering to these ethics standards.
The SPE code also requires all engineers to “disclose to
affected parties known or potential conflicts of interest or
other circumstances which might influence-or appear to
influence-judgment or impair the fairness or quality of their
performance” [8]. In order to follow this I would have to
disclose my findings to the general public so they know what
is happening to their well water.
CONSULTING THE NSPE CODE OF
ETHICS
The first cannon of the National Society of Professional
Engineers’ code of ethics states that “engineers, in the
fulfillment of their professional duties shall hold paramount
the safety, health, and welfare of the public” [6]. As an
engineer working for a company that is a big name in
hydraulic fracturing, when my boss told me to ignore the
concentrations of benzene that I found in my well water
samples, this was the first canon that I examined to help me
make my decision. . The information about benzene’s effect
on drinking water that I detailed above clearly suggests that
the health, safety, and welfare of the people who drink this
water are in danger. As a professional engineer, listening to
my boss would be a clear violation of this canon. The NSPE
code of ethics also states: “If engineers’ judgment is overruled
under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall
notify their employer or client and such other authority as may
be appropriate” [6]. This part of the code suggests that it is
OTHER CONSULTATIONS
Through my research of the fracking industry, I really
began to realize how much of an issue this is in America. It is
a moral debate, not only for me trying to decide what I should
do, but all across the country. Shale gas production has
increased twenty percent since 2005 and it is still continuing
to grow [1]. Drilling sites are popping up all over the place
and people living near drilling sites that depend on well water
are in danger of water contamination. There have even been
reports of earthquakes caused by the injection of wastewater
into underground wells [9]. These are significant
shortcomings of a major process. Engineers are tasked with
developing new technologies that are built to last and make
people’s lives better not only for this generation, but all future
generations. We need to do a better job as a profession of
2
Alex Marnik
providing reliable and safe energy for our society. It is easy to
make money in hydraulic fracturing, but we have to evaluate
the toll it takes on well water and the environment as a whole.
www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v309/n3/full/sci
entificamerican0913-21.html
[5] (2012). “Tap Water Torches: How Faulty Gas Drilling can
Lead to Methane Migration.” National Public Radio. (Online
Article).
stateimpact.npr.org/Pennsylvania/tag/methanemigration/
FINAL DECISION AND CONCLUSION
When my boss came to me with the task of testing well
water in Butler County to put rumors to rest about the adverse
effects of fracking, I wasn’t sure what to expect. As a
petroleum engineer at Range Resources, I knew a lot about
the general process of hydraulic fracturing, but I needed to
research the negative sides of the industry. As the results from
the tests came in and it was clear that there were elevated
levels of benzene in drinking water supplies, I knew I had to
report it to my boss, but I wasn’t expecting him to tell me to
ignore it. I assumed that as a professional engineer himself,
he would take the danger the people near fracking sites were
in seriously. He is however, required to maintain the safety
and welfare of the general public. I was immediately
conflicted because I felt that we needed to do something to
correct the problem, but at the same time, I was given explicit
instructions to ignore my findings. After doing extensive
research both on the code of ethics of both the National
Society of Professional Engineers and the Society of
Petroleum Engineers I realized that I had no choice but to go
against my boss and further report my findings. I feel that the
safety of the general public has to be the most important thing
in this situation. If there is any chance that people are in
danger because of the practices of this company, we need to
fix the problem. As engineers our job is to make people’s lives
better, and if instead we are endangering their lives, we need
to make a change. Our job is an important one, and we need
to keep in mind what is truly important.
[6] (2007). NSPE Code of Ethics. (Online).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[7] L. Kahaner. (2011). “The Fractured Ethics of Fracking.”
Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County. (Online
Article). http://gdacc.org/2011/05/31/the-fractured-ethics-offracking/
[8]
(2013).
SPE
Code
of
Ethics.
(Online).
http://www.spe.org/about/docs/professionalconduct.pdf
[9] E. Dalesio (2012). “Fracking rule-making panel in NC sits
down to work.” AP Regional State Report - North Carolina.
(Online
Article).
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&sid=5aee089609b1-47d0-bee5426a467df28d%40sessionmgr110&hid=118&bdata=JnNpd
GU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=4de83a29d6fb483
a981c8671d826d8ec
[10] A. Vesilind. (2002). “Vestal Virgins and Engineering
Ethics.” Ethics and the Environment. (Online Article).
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?sid=e4f821a9-83c3483b-855d9798d14b5061%40sessionmgr115&vid=8&hid=118&bdata
=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=6624571
REFERENCES
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
[1] J. Pritchard. (2013). “Fracking: Overview.” Points of
View:
Fracking.
(Online
Article).
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&sid=e192c322fa9e-463a-af8eb0be2b862d6a%40sessionmgr115&hid=118&bdata=JnNpd
GU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=86451245
M. Tiemann. A. Vann. (10 January 2013). “Hydraulic
Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory Issues.”
Congressional Research Service. (CRS Report).
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41760.pdf
T. Lucas. (2011). “In the Midst of a Fracking Firestorm.”
Dukenvironment Magazine. (Magazine Article).
www.nicholas.duke.edu/dukenvironment/f11/in-the-midstof-a-fracking-firestorm
[2] C. Mooney. (2011). “The Truth about Fracking.”
Scientific
American.
(Online
Article).
www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v309/n3/full/sci
entificamerican0913-21.html
“Basic Information about Benzene in Drinking Water.”
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/be
nzene.cfm (Accessed 26 September 2013).
[3] “Peak oil: Meet the Frackers.” ABC News. (2012).
(Video).
www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2012/s3441606.htm
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
[4] M. Fischetti. (2013). “Fracking and Tainted Drinking
Water.”
Scientific
American.
(Online
Article).
I would like to thank the University of Pittsburgh Writing
Center for their help in reviewing this paper with me. I would
3
also like to thank Ms. Liberty Ferda for her help answering
questions that I had while writing this paper.
4