Bursic 2:00
R01
THE ETHICS INVOLVED IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Brian Edwards (bte6@pitt.edu)
WHAT IS HYDRAULIC FRACTURING?
Hydraulic fracturing is a process used to extract natural
resources, such as shale gas and natural gas, from deep
inside rock structures far under the earth’s surface. This
process can be very difficult and very dangerous to the
workers and the environment. If part of the process
malfunctioned, there could be catastrophic damage to the
environment. Due to this risk, we must be extremely careful
in how we approach a hydraulic fracturing process and what
techniques we use in order to extract the resources.
WHY IS HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
IMPORTANT?
In recent years, different countries, including the United
States, have started to realize that we must find alternative
means for energy due to the immense decrease in the
abundance of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. The dwindling
of these other natural resources has put an extreme weight
on the fact that we may need to look more into other types of
gas, for example, natural gas. This gas is impacted in layers
of shale, thousands of feet under the earth’s surface, which
can be obtained through hydraulic fracturing. However, this
process can result in leakage of natural gas and other
chemicals into the atmosphere and the environment if not
done correctly. If every aspect of the process is carried out
with precision and planning, this will be a very profitable
and safe way to answer the ever-persisting problem with the
deteriorating amount of coal and oil left on our planet.
HOW DOES HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
WORK?
Hydraulic fracturing—also known as fracing—is a twostep process that involves drilling vertically thousands of
feet into shale deposits and then making a ninety degree turn
to go horizontally into the natural gas deposit. The main
reason for this horizontal drilling is to minimize the escape
of natural gas in order to maximize profits and decrease, or
even eliminate, the harm done to the environment [1].
In the second phase is the phase in which the shale is
actually fractured. Once the drill has reached the goal point
of contact, a liquid substance, either water, acid, or foam
mixed with sand and a small amount of chemicals, is
pumped into the well. The liquid is pumped, at high a very
high pressure, into the well in order to break the rock. The
sand is used as a substance to keep the well-bore open in
order to aid in the extraction of natural gas. The different
chemical additives are used so that the amount of bacteria
University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering
2014-10-28
and buildup is minimized which keeps the extracted gas very
high quality and very pure [1].
After the hydraulic fracturing process is complete, the
excess water that was used to fracture the shale is mostly just
left in the well. This does not have a very significant impact
because the well is so far under the earth’s surface.
Unfortunately, some of the water, about fifteen to twenty
percent, can get pushed back up to the surface. This small
percentage may not seem like an extremely large amount of
fluid but when there are millions of gallons of water that are
being pumped in, the fifteen percent can have a huge
detrimental effect to the environment. There are many ways
to clean up and collect this excess flowback fluid such as
pumping it out and put into a lagoon or storage tank
temporarily until it can be taken to a disposal facility, or
sometimes the flowback water can be recycled and used at
another fracing facility nearby in order to save the company
costs. This process of cleaning up flowback water is
extremely important because the water with the added
chemicals can be extremely harmful to the environment if it
is not all collected and disposed of properly [1].
THE ADVATAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
DIFFERENT FRACTURING FLUIDS
The three main types of fluids used in the fracturing
process are water with added chemicals, acid-based
fracturing, and foam-based fracturing. Each of these has
advantages, disadvantages, and different situations that
would make one type more useful than the others. In general
water based fracturing is the more predominantly used and is
much safer for the environment than acid fracturing but it
can be more dangerous that foam based because the water
must be pumped in at extremely high pressures where with
foam-based fracturing it is pumped in lower volumes and
then injected with different gases to allow it to expand.
Acid-based fracturing can be useful in certain scenarios
where there is gas trapped inside more reactive rocks, such
as limestone, because the acid can dissolve it and allow
easier access to the natural gas than other types of fracturing
would. However, acid-based fracturing, if not done
correctly, can be extremely harmful to the environment
because if any of the acid leaks into the ground near the
surface, it can significantly impact the environment
negatively where it would be harmful to vegetation and
different species living around the drilling site. Foam-based
fracturing is look at as being the most environmentally
friendly fracturing fluid. It is a much more stable alternative
to acid fracing and does not have nearly as much of an issue
with flowback as water-based fracturing does. If flowback
Brian Edwards
does occur with foam fracing, it is not as much of a concern
as with water based because it does not contain the
destructive chemicals that water-based fracturing does.
Overall foam-based fracturing is the most useful and
specifically when it comes to dealing with the environment,
the safest method to use [2].
his company are heading toward being environmentally
friendly.
THE DILEMMA FROM AN ETHICAL
STANDPOINT
Almost everything my boss, the owner of Ohio Oil and
Gas, has asked of me has been in violation of my personal
code of ethics along with many other, professionally
recognized code of ethics. For me to truly know how to deal
with the tasks that have just been asked of me I need to
consult various different resources and evaluate how to go
about the rest of the project and how to effectively keep
myself protected from anything that may endanger my wellbeing, the companies well-being, the well-being of the
general population around the fracturing site, and the
environment. I will consult and be referencing various codes
of ethics including the National Society of Professional
Engineers’ code of ethics, the Society of Petroleum
Engineers’ code of ethics, and various case studies relating
to situations of similarity.
THE SCENARIO
As a petroleum engineer, Ohio Oil and Gas has asked
me to plan, construct, and carry out the process of creating a
new hydraulic fracing site. They would like it to be
constructed in Eastern Ohio where there is an abundance of
Utica and Marcellus shale formations. As to where
specifically they should put the well was in Monroe County.
Monroe County is home to two of the largest natural gas
producing hydraulic fracturing sites in the state of Ohio
producing more than 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas just
last quarter according to The Columbus Dispatch [3].
For this particular project I have advised Ohio Oil and
Gas that we should be using a foam-based fracturing
technique due to the large amount of wildlife throughout
Monroe county and in order to help the companies image of
being environmentally friendly. Even though this process—
foam-based fracturing—does not require the cleanup of
flowback fluid because it is virtually nonexistent. Since the
volume of actual liquid that is pumped into the well is so
minute, once the gas breaks the surface tension of the foam
it is able to release up to the surface in the form of nonharmful, nitrogen and oxygen gas. In this case it would be
more expensive than using water-based fracturing but it is
the safer way so I feel it is more important to do that than to
endanger the workers, the nearby towns, and the
environment around the drilling site.
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS’ CODE OF ETHICS
This task of which I am being asked not only violates
one, but two of the fundamental canons that appear in the
National Society of Professional Engineers’ (NSPE) Code of
Ethics. The first canon states “Hold paramount safety,
health, and welfare of the public” [4]. Firstly just by
changing it to a water-based process instead of foam-based it
was a way of endangering the environment more than we
truly needed to. When my boss asked me to take out the part
of the process that disposes of the wastewater, it plainly
violated this canon. By taking out the collection of flowback
water the safety of the towns surrounding can be
compromised due to the added chemicals in the flowback
water. If I would choose not include the last step of the
process by failing to collect the flowback water, the nearby
rivers, streams, and lakes could be intensely affected by the
contaminated waste-water which has been seen in various
cases. Failing to collect this wastewater has been shown to
have a negative health effect on, not only the animals living
in the environment nearby, but also the people that inhabit
neighboring towns due to the wastewater runoff into wells
that supply water to houses [5]. Such a scenario happened in
Wyoming in 2009 when fracing cause contamination into
wells that people used for drinking water. The EPA
conducted an investigation that concluded that the
contamination was caused by hydraulic fracturing due to the
amounts of natural gas and toxic chemicals that were found
in the well water [6]. If this process of cleaning the flowback
water is not dealt with the detrimental effects from the
chemicals will be catastrophic to the citizens living near the
drilling site.
THE DILEMMA
Once I presented this to my boss he seemed very
pleased until he saw that the cost of the process was much
higher than that of water based fracturing, which he had use
on previous projects in more isolated areas, both from the
general population and from heavily forested areas. He
decided that he was going to ask me to change my plan in
various ways. The first thing he asked was that change from
foam-based fracing to water-based fracing. At first I thought
that was fine and I would be able to do that but I would just
have to make adjustments in order to collect the flowback
water so it wouldn’t result in any harm to the community.
He then told me that we were going to just skip over that
process and construct a new version that does not include the
cleanup of flowback in order to cut back on costs and
maximize profits. In addition he asks that in my pubic
statement tomorrow that I give the plan that I had originally
showed to him because he would like it to seem like he and
2
Brian Edwards
Also, by asking me to partake in an untruthful public
statement, I would be in violation of the third canon in the
NSPE Code of Ethics. This canon states that engineers must
“Issue public statements in an objective and truthful
manner” [4]. I would be in clear violation of this canon if I
decide to go through with this public statement. Blatantly
breaking two of the fundamental canons put in place by the
NSPE is horrendous and is extremely unethical along with
being tremendously unprofessional. In addition to violating
these two fundamental canons, I would also be in violation
of section III.2.2, section III.2.4, and section III.3.1. These
three sections, in short, have to do with informing the public
truthfully and completely, as well as making sure that the
earth and environment will not be damaged and will be
protected for generations to come [4]. Included in section
III.2.2 is a statement that if my employer insists on me
signing a deal or plan that does not stay in line with
engineering standards then I am obligated to report them to
the proper authorities [4]. In this case I feel that this could be
a possible solution in that I would be able to effectively deal
with the problem in an efficient manner simply by following
the necessary steps laid out for me in the Code of Conduct.
From the standpoint of strictly the different Codes of
Ethics, it seems fairly clear that what I am being asked of is
extremely unethical. In order to fully understand and be able
to effectively come up with a reasonable solution to my
predicament, I must also consult case studies with similar
scenarios that could be of use to me. Additionally I would be
able to seek out other sources, such as people, that are more
experienced than myself due to their knowledge and
expertise in this field of business.
CASE STUDIES
In the analysis of my dilemma I found one case study
particularly helpful in providing insight into another way to
look at the situation and find a solution. Case 1010 from the
National Institute for Engineering Ethics (NIEE) can be very
easily related to the scenario that I am involved with. In this
particular case, Julie Adams, the owner of a small
engineering firm, was asked to evaluate the structural
integrity of the building and determined it was structurally
sound. She then discovers that the quite massive granite
blocks on the outside of the building are not securely
attached and relays the information to her client in which he
seems to be unbothered. Since the granite blocks were not
part of her original task she was not able to put it into her
report but felt it was important to share with her client that
was selling the building. He seemed not to care much and
said the sale was too far through to do anything about it. As
an engineer it was her responsibility to make sure that the
building was safe for the public however she must keep all
the information between her and her client, therefore she
was unable to share this with the general public. In this case
it seems obvious that she must do something, so the best
way for her to protect the safety and welfare of the public is
to write a separate report to her client so that the public can
be aware and she will not violate another code by sharing
confidential information with the public without her client’s
consent [8]. This was a way for her to get around the client
confidentiality because she was able to issue a secondary
report that did not violate any part of the Code of Ethics. It
also ensured that she was able to keep the public safe
because he public can now be aware that the granite blocks
are potentially dangerous and can deal with it accordingly.
In addition, it is a way for her to maintain a good
relationship with her client so that he will seek out her
services in the future.
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS’ CODE
OF ETHICS
The Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) has also
created a Code of Ethics, very similar to that of the NSPE.
The SPE’s code of ethics, however, is slightly more focused
on the specific jobs and daily tasks that would pertain more
to a petroleum engineer than to most other types of
engineers. For instance, the third fundamental idea in the
SPE Code of Conduct states that engineers “Are honest,
truthful, ethical, and fair in presenting information and in
making public statements reflecting on colleagues
professional matters and their professional role, whether
verbal or through printed or electronic media” [7]. Again,
the statement that my employer has asked me to give would
be untruthful, dishonest, and unethical. By issuing this
formal statement to the public I would be inadequately
educating the people that would be put in harm’s way if
something were to go wrong. In addition, the tenth point in
the SPE Code of Conduct states that engineers are obligated
to “Seek to adopt technical and economic measures to render
potentially adverse impacts to environment or the health,
safety, and security of the public as low as reasonably
practicable” [7]. This simply means that it is my duty, as the
head petroleum engineer on the project, to do what is in my
power and ability to minimize the negative effect of fracing
on the community and the environment. This is the complete
opposite of what is being asked of me. I am capable of
lessening the potential risk to the environment however, I
am being asked to do what I can to save the company money
but unfortunately in order to do that best, I would have to
risk harming the environment catastrophically.
SEEKING OUT ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
In my efforts to find the best possible solution I spoke to
two individuals that were able to advise me and help me the
more than any book source or case study could have. The
first person I sought out was my dad. He is a quality
assurance manager for Rotating Machinery Services and was
previously employed by General Electric’s Oil and Gas
3
Brian Edwards
division. He was able to help me to lie out what the positive
and negatives were. The fact that he knows me so well and
knows what type of a person I am helped me to be able to
realize what I value and what is important to me. He knows
that, for me, that if anything were to happen to other people
because of something that I did, then I would not be able to
live with that. His way of explaining to me my personal
ideals was better than book or website could have done. He
is able to help me see that if I don’t do this one job and keep
thousands of people, plants, and animals healthy because of
my choice, then it is going to be worth it [9].
I also had a conversation with one of my dad’s very
good friends, Nigel Hearne. Mr. Hearne is the president of
Chevron’s Appalachia business unit. I believe that his advice
will be extremely helpful, due to his knowledge of the
hydraulic fracturing business with Chevron’s involvement
with Marcellus shale fracing, from a manager’s standpoint.
He did end up being extremely useful because he was able to
teach me that even though profits are an extremely important
part of the business, no amount of money is worth
endangering the lives of humans and the environment. One
project that will potentially make a larger amount of revenue
for the company will not make up for compromising
personal views and violating the Code of Ethics put in place
by the NSPE. It could possibly damage my reputation as an
engineer as well as the reputation of the company that I am
working for. He helped me to look at the situation from a
futuristic standpoint and allow me to look at what might
happen if I decided to go through with the process. Overall
he was most beneficial in helping me to look at the “big
picture,” instead of just this one project [10].
the end of the day, you need to do what feels right to you
and what is ethically correct.
REFERENCES
[1] Ohio EPA. (2014). “Drilling for Natural Gas in the
Marcellus and Utica Shales: Environmental Regulatory
Basics”.
(Online
Article).
http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov/portals/oilgas/pdf/EPA-factsheets/DrillingforNaturalGasintheMarcellusandUticaShales_
EnvironmentalRegulatoryBasics.pdf
[2] J. Fink. (2013). Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals and
Fluids Technology. (Book). p. 20-23
[3] D. Gearino. (2014). “Ohio Oil, Gas Production From
Shale Shifts South.” The Columbus Dispatch. (Online
Article).
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2014/09/1
0/ohio-oil-gas-production-from-shale-shifts-south.html
[4] National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007).
“NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” (Code of Ethics).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[5] E. Hancox. (2012) “Hydrofracking Fact and Fiction:
What You Need to Know About the Controversial Practice”.
Policy.mic.
(Online
Article).
http://mic.com/articles/10408/hydrofracking-fact-andfiction-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversialpractice
[6] A. Mall (2013) “EPA Risks Crisis of Confidence in
Protecting Drinking Water From Fracking” The Energy
Collective. (Online Article).
http://theenergycollective.com/amymall/241336/epa-riskscrisis-confidence-its-dedication-protecting-drinking-waterfracking-risks
[7] Society of Petroleum Engineers (2013) “Code of
Conduct for Petroleum Engineers.” (Code of Conduct).
http://www.spe.org/about/docs/professionalconduct.pdf
[8] NIEE (2014) “What’s the Angle? (Case 1010).” Texas
Tech University: Ethics Cases. (Online Article).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
[9] T. Edwards (2014, October 25). Interview
[10] N. Hearne (2014, October 25). Interview
COMING TO AN ETHICAL
CONCLUSION
The answer to whether or not to go through with this
process seems very evident. I have decided that what my
boss is asking of me is too unethical and I cannot bring
myself to change the original plan I had created. The shear
fact that I would be violating ethical rules set in place by the
NSPE and SPE along with my personal ethical values is just
too much and I do not feel it is right to continue. In the case
where he is extremely insistent on me changing the process
and going through with the interview I will file a report with
the proper authorities and remove myself from the project
due to the misconduct that my employer will be asking of
me [4]. I feel that discontinuing my involvement in this
project and with this company is what will be best for my
career and my personal well-being. If I would stay with this
company and continue to work on projects with them, it
would be a daily struggle within myself as to whether I am
doing the right thing or if everything I am doing is unethical.
If any aspiring engineers face a struggle similar to mine I
would advise them to take a very similar course of action. In
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
(2014) “Adoption of a Safe Component”. Stanford
Biodesign: Ethics Case Studies in Biodesign. (Online
Article).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/19safecompon
ent.jsp
NIEE (2014) “Priming the Town Pump (Case 1012).” Texas
Tech University: Ethics Cases. (Online Article)
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
4
Brian Edwards
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all of my friends that I have made
at college for helping me through this school year.
Additionally I would like to thank all of my professors for
making my classes enjoyable and helping me to gain the
knowledge that is required for me to complete my college
career. In addition I would like to thank Morgan Kappler for
giving me inspiration to write this paper.
5