Schaub 4:00
L10
ETHICAL QUESTIONS POSED BY AN EXTREME CASE OF THE DANGERS
OF FRACKING CHEMICALS
Roman Solomond (rjs126@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION: THE NECESSARY AND
DANGEROUS CHEMICAL
In fracking, chemicals mixed with water are pumped into
a wellbore to created hydraulic fractures in order to assist the
recovery of the gas trapped in the earth. Though the methods
used for fracking normally prevent any of this water chemical
mix from escaping, it is possible and it has happened.[1] In
addition, many water treatment plants are unable to handle the
water from fracking.[2] If the waste water from fracking is
taken to these plants to reintroduce it into the water system,
the water leaves with “concentrations of several of the
chemicals exceeding EPA drinking water standards”.[3]
Finally, even if the water is kept on site and left there, the
chemicals can become airborne.[4]
So, if chemicals that are used in fracking can adversely
affect bad health, there is a very real possibility that they will
affect the public. However, fracking companies are not
required to disclose what chemicals they use in their hydraulic
fracturing and are exempt “from regulation by the
Environmental Protection Agency.”[5] Because of this, it is
impossible for anyone outside the company to know if there
are any such chemicals being used.
However, those working at the company can know what is
being used in the chemical concoction. What if someone with
a nondisclosure agreement finds out that some of the
chemicals have been proved to have the potential to cause
health problems when used in fracking? Furthermore,
fracking is practically impossible to continue without these
theoretical chemicals or any similar ones. While this situation
is purely hypothetical, it is not an entirely impossible
scenario, as there are concerns about major potential damage
if fracking affects fault lines by causing “an increase in
tremors and earthquakes.”[6] The engineer has no need to
disclose it, and furthermore, his nondisclosure agreement with
the company, prevents him from revealing what chemicals are
in the concoction. There is also no guarantee that his
company’s fracking equipment will fault, or that the methods
it uses will cause the chemicals to affect the population. In
addition, fracking provides huge benefits to the population,
giving cheap, abundant energy to the population.
So, is it ethical for the engineer who knows about this
potentially harmful chemical to reveal it? There is a definite
potential that continuing operations could injure the health of
everyone in the area, but allowing the fracking to continue
will definitely result in many benefits, such as an increase in
jobs, cheap energy, and energy independence.
Were I in this situation, my initial reaction would be to
reveal that my company is using a dangerous chemical. Even
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013-10-29
though there is much gain to be had by continuing to frack,
the fact that doing so may cause harm is reason enough to
stop. It is worse to find one innocent man guilty than to let ten
guilty men go free; some benefits to make life easier or better
cannot outweigh causing permanent damage to lives. In
addition, fracking will not completely stop because of this
reveal. At best, the company will be forced to stop using the
chemical and will be forced to either use a vastly inferior
composition of chemicals, resulting in a less efficient yield,
or stop production entirely if there is no profit to be made
anymore. At worst if fracking is entirely impossible without
these necessary and dangerous chemicals, then all procedures
of fracking will be forced to stop, resulting in a weakened
economy and an increase in American dependence on foreign
fuel.
But this is all just a reaction from how I was raised and
from what I was taught to be the right thing. However, such a
decision should not be made based solely on first reactions.
Other sources should be considered, such as the codes of
ethics for engineers. The opinions of both sides should be well
considered. For such a purpose, articles for both sides can be
used to easily see either side of the argument, and a site like
Points of View can be used to gather an understanding of the
pros and cons of either side.
OTHER ARGUMENTS: BENEFITS OF
FRACKING
Many people have argued for both sides of fracking and
have documented their cases. Looking at both sides and
comparing the arguments helps to get a feel for how both sides
present themselves and what can be used to defend or attack
either side. Points of View gives a good starting point for
looking at either side. In defense of fracking, the benefits are
huge. Fracking has caused a huge drop in the prices of gas and
oil, bolstering the United States economy.[7] The abundance
of energy has also lead to a lessening of the use of coal,
resulting in less carbon emissions. Using hydraulic fracturing
for shale gasses and oil is also fairly sustainable, with “vast
reserves of natural gas that could power our homes and
businesses well into the next century,” and some estimates
predict well over one hundred years’ worth of fuel.[7][8]It has
provided jobs to many, and “the energy sector capital
generated by fracking will result in billions in tax
revenues,”[9] again helping the suffering American economy.
Finally, fracking gives us energy that we need so desperately
to match the rise is energy consumption and demand.[9] It
provides the United States with many significant benefits.
Without fracking the States would undoubtedly suffer as a
Roman Solomond
good amount of jobs would disappear and America would
have to rely even more on foreign powers for fuel.
danger would be made pressing because of the omnipresence
of the chemical in fracking combined with the danger of the
chemical. This omnipresence means that any break for any
company at any time would result in major poisonings.
OTHER ARGUMENTS:
HARMFUL EFFECTS OF FRACKING
THE CODES OF ETHICS
But nothing can be totally beneficial, and there is no
pretense that fracking comes anywhere close to perfection. It
has been shown to have previously caused detrimental effects
on surrounding population, though many of fracking’s old
mistakes have been cleaned up.[3][1] However, the fact still
remains that fracking is not completely safe. The wellbores
are not perfect, and are entirely susceptible to breaking,
allowing the chemical filled water to leak out and defile the
aquifers and public drinking water. The chemicals, while well
contained, cannot be completely removed from the water in
any practical way, though work is being done on it.[2] Point
of View also gives an excellent idea of what is wrong with
fracking and why it poses health threats to those living in
areas where fracking is common. First, fracking is rapidly
developing. It has developed quickly enough that legislation
has been unable to keep up with it, so there is no guarantee
that unsafe practices are not in use, though legislation is
catching up and is working on past mistakes.[10] If there is
no law against it and there is no hard science proving that
certain methods are dangerous, then there is very little, or
even nothing, preventing fracking companies from using
these potentially harmful methods in order to get more fuel or
to get the fuel more easily. Secondly, fracking pollutes
groundwater reserves. Though it is not guaranteed, since not
all tap water sources near hydraulic fracturing have been
contaminated, it is still a definite possibility that containment
methods will fail and the chemical laden water will leak into
the public water reserves and poison them. Finally, fracking
is not entirely self-contained. Even if the water is kept
perfectly contained, the process of fracking releases harmful
gasses that can adversely affect the health of any people living
in the area.[6]
These are all very real concerns, and would be made even
more pressing if a situation like the one outlined above came
into play. The progress in legislation to contain fracking and
prevent it from causing any undue or excessive harm is behind
fracking itself. Because of this, fracking methods that pose a
real danger to the health of the population are most likely in
use simply because it is more efficient and there is nothing
forcing the companies to stop. Such would be the case with
the theoretical necessary and malicious chemical. Legislation
would definitely not have addressed such an issue, and even
if it were to try to, the nature of the legislation process itself
would make such a task take far too long, by which time
permanent effects could have already befallen the population.
In addition, fracking methods are not perfect. The wellbores
are subject to fault, and any fault in them means that the
chemicals pumped into them will end up in the public
drinking water, resulting in detrimental, if not lethal, effects
on the population. With the imagined chemicals, such a
There are many dangers with fracking, and very little
precedence. However, code of ethics for engineers provide a
very broad look at what is too be done in scenarios that are
likely to happen and scenarios that were impossible to
foresee. They look at the underlying ideas instead of specific
scenarios, and, because of this broadness, can be used in
nearly any situation that will ever occur. This hypothetical
situation is not made much easier by consulting the codes of
ethics. The same broadness that allows the codes to address
many potential scenarios also makes it nearly impossible to
concretely apply it to any one scenario. In the Code of Ethics
for Engineers, it explicitly states that, “Engineers, in the
fulfillment of their professional duties, shall: 1. Hold
paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”[11]
The Code of Ethics for Chemical Engineers holds a very
similar position, stating, “Members shall: Hold paramount the
safety, health and welfare of the public and protect the
environment in performance of their professional duties.”[12]
These two injunctions alone are very powerful. If the
hypothetical chemical can cause such massive destruction,
then the good of the environment and of the population would
come before any potential benefits. However, this is not a
definite conclusion yet. Some things could still put a hold on
the revelation of this chemical, such as the nondisclosure
agreement, forcing anyone who has knowledge of this
chemical to not reveal it. Such an agreement does have
significant power, and the Code of Ethics for Engineers
directly addresses this twice: “Engineers shall not reveal facts,
data, or information without the prior consent of the client or
employer except as authorized or required by law or this
code,” and “Engineers shall not disclose, without consent,
confidential information… of any present or former client or
employer.”[11] The code is explicit enough to warrant the
employment of these clauses, forcibly stopping the engineer
from taking action since the law does not require it and the
code does not address the situation directly enough to warrant
a breaking of the agreement. Furthermore, though the Code of
Ethics for Engineers states that Engineers should, “Formally
advise their employers or clients … if they perceive that a
consequence of their duties will adversely affect the present
or future health or safety of their colleagues or the public,” it
also states that “Members shall: Act in professional matters
… as faithful agents… never breaching confidentiality.”[12]
This strong statement overrides any force the former quote
may have had.
The codes of ethics are unable to provide any concrete
help. Though a selective or biased read might be able to sway
the decision one way or another, the codes are too vague. It
could be considered “required by… this Code,” to follow the
2
Roman Solomond
first command given in the code, to “hold paramount to the
…health… of the public,” if paramount is interpreted to
contain the necessary power.[11] However, read at face value,
the codes lean in favor of keeping the nondisclosure
agreement.
Article). http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i42/Treating-WaterHydraulic-Fracturing.html.
[3] “Struggles with Fracking Waste Water.” Chemical and
Engineering
News.
(2013).
(Online
Article).
http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i12/Struggles-FrackingWastewater.html.
[4] R. Clarren. (2013). “Fracking Is a Feminist Issue.”
Proquest.
(Online
Article).
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1365233747.
[5] “Fracking con and pro.” American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
(2011).
(Online
Article).
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA272671014
&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
[6] J. Pritchard. (2013). “Counterpoint: Energy Companies
Should Cease All Hydraulic Fracturing Operations in the
United States.” Points of View Reference Center (Online
Article). http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?sid=b9aeffc39549-452e-8479b66a4c5f96b9%40sessionmgr198&vid=4&hid=124
[7] F. Beinecke, D. Whitten. (2013). “Is fracking our energy
future? Hydraulic fracturing (fracking, for short) is a new
drilling technique that can extract hard-to-reach oil and gas.”
New
York
Times
Upfront.
(Online
Article).
http://rt4rf9qn2y.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.
88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fm
t=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=I
s+Fracking+Our+Energy+Future%3F&rft.jtitle=New+York
+Times+Upfront&rft.au=Daniel+Whitten&rft.au=Frances+
Beinecke&rft.date=2013-0128&rft.pub=Scholastic+Inc&rft.issn=15251292&rft.volume=145&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=23&rft.extern
alDocID=2885601151&paramdict=en-US
[8] C. Farmington.
(2013). “US Hydraulic Fracking
Regulations Prevent Groundwater Contamination, Fracking
Industry Boosts Global Demand for Silica Sand.” PR
Newswire.
(Online
Article).
http://rt4rf9qn2y.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.
88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fm
t=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=
US+Hydraulic+Fracking+Regulations+Prevent+Groundwate
r+Contamination%2C+Fracking+Industry+Boosts+Global+
Demand+for+Silica+Sand&rft.jtitle=PR+Newswire&rft.date
=2013-0122&rft.pub=PR+Newswire+Association+LLC&rft.external
DocID=2871655331&paramdict=en-US
[9] J. Pritchard. (2013). “Point: Energy Companies Should
Expand Hydraulic Fracturing Operations in the United
States.” Points of View Reference Center (Online Article).
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?sid=b9aeffc3-9549452e-8479b66a4c5f96b9%40sessionmgr198&vid=4&hid=124
[10] T. Tillet. (2013). “Summit Discusses Public Health
Implications
of
Fracking.”
Enviromental
Health
CONCLUSION
The codes of ethics were not entirely helpful, though they
weren’t helpful in very different ways. The Code of Ethics for
Engineers was not helpful because of the vagueness of the
statement “required by… this Code.”[11] The idea “required”
can be taken very literally, only following that clause when
the code explicitly states that such a thing is to be done.
Alternatively, it could be read in a much looser sense, taking
required to mean a general ‘the code wants me to do this,’
resulting a loose translation that can bend the code to almost
any purpose.
On the other side is the Code of Ethics for Chemical
Engineers. This code is far too strict, simply because of their
use of the word “never.”[12] Such an injunction leaves
absolutely no room any future situations that might be outside
the scope of what the code foresaw.
Codes of ethics are very important to engineers. They give
an unbiased decision that applies evenly across the board.
Even if there are some faults with them, they are absolutely
necessary. Though they provide only a general protection, and
one that can easily manipulated at that, they are better than
absolutely no code whatsoever. Without any code, there
would be no limitations. Although this might be nice in some
situations, like making it easier to reveal some hidden,
malicious information, it would also mean that there is
nothing to stop people with less scruples from running amok,
doing whatever they please with no thought to what harm
might befall the population because of their actions. As much
as they are hated and as much as they are undescriptive, codes
of ethics, with all their faults, are better than nothing.
REFERENCES
[1] C. Tucker. (2013). “Health concerns of ‘fracking’ drawing
increased attention.” The Nation’s Health. (Online Article).
http://rt4rf9qn2y.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.
88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fm
t=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=
Health+concerns+of+%27fracking%27+drawing+increased
+attention&rft.jtitle=The+Nation%27s+Health&rft.au=Charl
otte+Tucker&rft.date=2012-03-01&rft.issn=00280496&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=1&rft.external
DBID=INAH&rft.externalDocID=2613222631&paramdict=
en-US
[2] M. Bomgardner. (2013). “Treating Water From Hydraulic
Fracturing.” Chemical and Engineering News. (Online
3
Roman Solomond
Perspectives. (Online Article). http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121a15/
[11] “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society
of Professional Engineers. (2007). (Online Article).
http://www.nspe.org/ethics/codeofethics/index.html
[12] “Code of Ethics.” American Institute of Chemical
Engineers.
(Online
Article).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
ACKNOWEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Matthew So, who proofread this paper and
made it much more well written.
Thanks to Forrest Salamida for getting me to start
working on this paper as well as providing me with useful
materials.
4