0011 Dr. Budny 10:00
FRACKING: INJECTING ETHICS TO THE DISCUSSION
Sean Varley (swv1@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION:
It is a Monday morning in the middle of January and the
frosty mud crunches under my work boots as my boss and I
make a monthly inspection of a fracking well in Finleyville,
Pennsylvania, just south of Pittsburgh. This particular well
always falls in compliance with the regulations so the
inspection was always routine. However, a growing issue for
the company has been the transportation of the fracking fluid
after it has come up from the ground to the water-treatment
plant just miles away at the City of McKeesport water
processing plant. Additionally, the subsequent cost to the
company for having the water treated is on the magnitude of
a several million dollars and is continually growing.
As my boss and I finish up the inspection, my supervisor
brings up the cost and transportation of the fracking fluid as
an issue for the company and hints that it would be
advantageous for the company to take its own initiative and
figure out a way to dispose of the contaminated water with
minimal cost. I concur with the idea because I know full well
that the largest expenditure for the company is paying local
treatment plants to process our used fracking fluid. My boss
than offers me the lead on a project that would reduce the cost
of processing the fracking fluid and any money that I save the
company could potentially find its way back to me in the form
of a healthy bonus.
Being young and relatively new to the industry, this
opportunity interests me greatly first as a way to advance my
career within the company and secondly, the monetary bonus
could be substantially large seeing as it could pay off my
student loans. I was excited to be appointed as a project
leader, but then my supervisor began suggesting various
ways in which to dispose of the fracking fluid. One of the first
ideas he hinted at was leaving the fracking fluid in the well
once the natural gas was exhausted from the well. Other ideas
included storage in open air pits, underground injection,
diluting the fluid more, and the most concerning of all was
discharging the fluid into surface waters such as the
Monongahela River.
What started out as excitement slowly turned to concern.
Everyone in the industry knows that fracking fluid is laced
with chemicals that could be potentially harmful to the
environment. Moreover, being that this is a new technology,
no one is really sure what repercussions this technology could
have. Then again, growing up in the region I have seen water
trucks dump the fracking fluid into the Monongahela River
without any issues that I know of. Consequently, should it be
an issue if my company did the same exact thing?
University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering 1
2014-10-28
Furthermore, is it even okay to inject the fluid back into the
ground or store it in man-made lakes?
Hence, driving home from work that day, I faced a
situation I never expected to be in. I was placed with sole
responsibility for bypassing the local water treatment plants
and instead finding a cheaper, more efficient way to dispose
of the chemical cocktail that is known as fracking fluid.
THE DRIVE HOME FROM WORK THAT
DAY:
After having this responsibility placed on my shoulders at
work earlier in the day, I knew that I had to call my father to
help guide me through this situation [1]. Even though he is
not an engineer and knows little about what goes on with my
work, he is always there to listen and has faced numerous
ethical dilemmas in his career as an accountant. During the
call home, he repeated several dictums that were said to me
time and time again as a child that I sometimes forget are still
applicable to adulthood. From our conversation, my father
reminded me of two important phrases that his father always
told him: “When you do the right thing, you never have to
worry” and “Compromise is good in marriage, but not
ethics”.
He did not sway me one way or the other on whether or
not I should take the position, but rather he had me weigh out
all the pros and cons of situation and talked me through it. He
recognized my need for a larger paycheck in paying off my
student loans, and even acknowledged how this could bolster
my progression within the company. Yet, he had me look at
one very important factor that I forgot about earlier in the day.
This possible dumping of fracking fluid into the
Monongahela River or underground injection into the
groundwater would happen right where I grew up. In essence,
any decision that I make could potentially effect the health
and well-being of my neighbors, friends, and most
importantly my family.
Another factor that my dad pointed out was that my
decision, as hard as it already is, should not be based on
whether or not it is your hometown. Rather, you have to look
at society as a whole and whether or not your decision to
dump the fracking fluid or inject it into the ground will set a
precedent for other engineers in your company to follow.
LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE
After only working in the industry a couple months, I
quickly realized that drilling companies were given a little
Sean Varley
leeway in what they could do. One specific example comes
in 2005 when Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act which
officially altered the meaning of “underground injection” to
specifically exclude “the underground injection of fluids or
propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to
hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or
geothermal production activities” [2]. This change in
legislation thereby nullified the preceding Safe Drinking
Water Act which required the “EPA to regulate the
underground injection of fluids to protect underground
sources of drinking water” [3].
Yet another factor affecting my decision is the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers code of ethics where they
require engineers like myself to advance the “integrity,
honor, and dignity of the engineering profession by using
their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human
welfare” [7]. Therefore, I feel obligated to oppose my
director’s suggestion of dumping the polluted water, injecting
it back into the groundwater, and storing it in man-made
lakes. All of these options to me seem potentially harmful to
the human welfare. Moreover, these acts challenge my own
sense of honor and dignity because I cannot knowingly dump
water laced with reactive metals, borate salts, guar gum, and
other chemical additives anywhere where it may cause harm
to local residents [8].
Therefore, this exemption for drilling companies became
known as the Halliburton Loophole because then current
Vice President, Dick Cheney, was the CEO of Halliburton
before taking office. Consequently, because of this
legislation, the oil and gas industry that I currently work for
is not subject to much if any regulation by the federal
government. Furthermore, Earthworks reports that “Several
oil and gas producing states have regulations governing the
aspects of hydraulic fracturing, but rarely, if ever, do they
require companies to provide detailed information on types
and quantities of chemicals being used, and whether the
amount injected returns to surface water” [4].
Therefore as both a resident of western Pennsylvania and
a chemical engineer bound by my code of ethics, I view it as
my responsibility to discover and implement viable solutions
that help ensure the safety and proper usage of fracking fluid
in order to sustain a healthy living environment. Additionally,
because this technology is so recent, there is unclear research
about its large scale health effect making it a goal of mine to
further investigate this liquid’s disposal to ensure that the
public will continue to have safe drinking water.
Consulting my Ethical Codes
What Others Have Done
Hence, it would be very easy for my company to bypass
the water treatment plant in McKeesport simply because
there are little to no regulations, federal or state, that require
drillers to report how much or where their fracking fluid goes.
There are regulations though that make the dumping of
polluted fracking fluid into surface waters such as the
Monongahela River illegal. However, wastewater pits are
legal throughout the state of Pennsylvania where “the state
has permits for 23 such lagoons” [5]. These lagoons are
essentially football sized man-made lakes where the fluid is
allowed to sit for nine months after drilling has been
completed.
After consulting my professional codes of ethics that
evening after work, I also decided to examine what other
young engineers in my field have done when faced with the
prospect of a large bonus if they were to commit an act that
could potentially have negative repercussions. In one
particular case study done by Texas Tech University, an
engineer was offered a bonus check if they contributed it to a
candidate in the next election. Much like my situation where
I would receive a substantial bonus for bypassing the water
treatment center, I tended to agree with the majority of the
respondents in the case study where thirty-three percent were
uncomfortable with the bonus and would tell their boss their
reason for not utilizing the bonus check to contribute to the
local election [9].
The lagoon option could be viable for my company, but
after consulting the National Society of Professional
Engineers code of ethics, it brought me to the realization that
my bosses suggestion of just dumping the fluid went against
the code of ethics established by the NSPE where “Engineers
shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by
a person or firm” [6]. Furthermore, it is imperative for
practicing engineers, like myself, to “hold paramount the
safety, health, and welfare of the public” [6]. Therefore,
knowing that our fracking fluid is laced with potentially toxic
chemicals discourages me from dumping the water, storing
it, or even injecting it back into the well for it might cause
harm to the public and the environment thus violating one of
the code of ethics that I must conform to.
Then, upon further research I found another case study
called To Flush or Not to Flush: That’s the Question where
an engineer observed the obvious dilution of water to hide
what would be a hazardous concentration of toxins in the
water at an industrial plant [10]. I, like the engineer in the in
the case study, am also facing a similar situation where I
could give the directive to purposely dilute the fracking fluid
that my company produces in order to artificially lower the
toxicity levels. As a result of this artificial dilution, it would
then be even easier to report to the public and regulators that
our fluid contained such small levels of chemicals that it
posed no harm to the environment.
2
Sean Varley
However, I disagree with this methodology of
engineering and falsifying data where instead I agree with the
forty percent in the case study who said they would contact
their company’s legal counsel and explain to them the gravity
of the situation. Together with the legal help, it would be
possible to formulate an appropriate plan of action for proper
handling and disposal of the excess hydraulic fluid.
swayed me into executing a plan for dumping the polluted
water.
However, I thought back and remembered a case in 2009
where the EPA found signs of 11 water wells in Pavillion,
Wyoming that were contaminated with chemicals used in
fracking as a result of inappropriate handling of the
contaminated water [12]. This investigation by the EPA
called into question the ethics of those handling the polluted
water and demonstrated how all chemical engineers are
obligated to protect the integrity of the environment and its
inhabitants.
In yet another case study, entitled I’d Rather be Fishing,
a field technician had taken samples of potentially hazardous
waste in drums, but was unsure based on preliminary testing
[11]. The technician is told by the boss to let the findings go
and only report that samples were taken in order to develop a
better relationship with the company they are testing for.
Much like the field technician who is not a licensed
professional, I am a very green engineer who has had little
impact on the industry and is not well regarded. That being
said however, ignoring the possibility of hazardous waste is
a violation of good conscience and the ethical codes of
engineering. Furthermore, communication is key to
addressing both my own situation and that of the technicians
in disposal of the hazardous pollutants and the place to start
the line of communication is with my supervisor in a
professional, but concerned manner.
This incident also made me realize that whether a
chemical engineer is being pressured by his employer to work
in an unethical manner, such as not following industry
standards in order to cut operating costs, it is their
responsibility and duty as an engineer to speak up and not
remain in the dark about cutting corners no matter what sum
of money or promotion is offered. Furthermore, it should be
a requirement for all entry level engineers in the energy field
to undergo a course or seminar on ethics. Therefore, being
properly educated on the possible corruption in the
engineering field could allow engineers to make proper
decisions while keeping the best interest of the public and the
environment at heart.
Overall, after researching several case studies, I can say
that I am better informed on how to appropriately address the
situation at work the next day. Granted, there was not any
direct correlation to my issue, they offered insight on how to
approach superior figures with confidence about a work
related issue and most importantly remaining honest in my
disposal of the fracking fluid.
CONCLUSION – LAYING MYSELF TO BED
THAT EVENING
Finally, after a night full of research, talking to my father,
and constant thinking, I kneel at the end of my bed where I
consult one last source of guidance and information. I bow
my head and consult my religion to conclude the night. I let
my conscience speak its mind to God and I also consult my
Bible where I seek out the gospel of Mark that says: “For
what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit
his soul” [13]. Hence, with those words and all the other
sources that I consulted, it has become clear to me as an
engineer, professional, and most importantly a person what I
must do the next day at work. Hence, as I lay my head to rest,
I also lay to rest my ethical dilemma for I have reached a
decision that will let me sleep soundly.
Thoughts While Eating Three Day Old Pizza
With all this research, I finally took a break to eat my
dinner. As the microwaved beeped, I could not help but to
look at my left-over pizza with utter disinterest. After all, it
had been sitting in my refrigerator for three days because I
was on a tight budget and could not afford substantial meals
every evening especially being fresh out of college. Then
while sitting down to eat, I rattled my brain with the
possibility that no one would ever find out about the
purposeful dumping of the fracking fluid. After all, a nice
bonus check would allow me to eat out more and pay off my
college loans. Furthermore, if anyone did find out about the
dumping, they would go after the company, and not an entry
level engineer like myself.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Varley (2014, October 25). Interview
[2] 42 U.S.C. § 300h(d)(1)(B)(ii).
[3] S. L. Sakmar. (2013). Energy for the 21st Century:
Opportunities and Challenged for Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG). North Hampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
(Print book). pp. 131
[4] J Goldman. (2009). “The Halliburton Loophole.”
Earthworks. (Online article). http://www.earthworksaction.
Another thought also crossed my mind where any
dumping could easily be classified as an accident. Moreover,
a loose valve cap on a tanker truck would easily go
unrecognized by any inspector and would be no cost to the
company. Besides, if I was to save the company any form of
money, it would find my way into my pockets in the form of
a bonus. Admittedly, the money tempted me and almost
3
Sean Varley
org/issues/detail/inadequate_regulation_of_hydraulic_fractu
ring#.VE2inPm-2G7
[5] Sourcewatch. (2014). “Pennsylvania and Fracking.”
Sourcewatch. (Online database). http://www.sourcewatch.
org/index.php/Pennsylvania_and_fracking
[6] National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007).
“Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society of
Professional Engineers. (Online code of ethics).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/Pdfs
/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf
[7] American Institute of Chemical Engineers. (2003).
“Professional code of ethics of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers.” American Institute of Chemical
Engineers.
(Online
code
of
ethics).
http://chbme.eng.usf.edu/graduate/docs/Code%20of%20Pro
fessional%20Ethics.pdf
[8] J. Graves. (2012). FRACKING America’s Alternative
Energy Revolution. Ventura, CA: Safe Harbor International
Publishing. (Print book). pp 125-127
[9] R. Bucknam. (2013). “The Coercive Contribution
Conundrum.” National Institute for Engineering Ethics,
Texas Tech University. (Case study). Case 1006
[10] R. Bucknam (2003). “To Flush or Not to Flush: That’s
the Question.” National Institute for Engineering Ethics,
Texas Tech University. (Case study). Case 1008
[11] WD Lawson. (2006). “I’d Rather be Fishing.” National
Institute
for
Engineering
Ethics,
Texas Tech University. (Case study). Case 1039
[12] J. Entine. (2013). “University of Texas Enviormental
Defense Fund Shale Gas Study Unmasks Politics of AntiFracking Activists Cornell Scinetists.” Forbes. (Online
article). http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine
/2013/09/18/university-of-texas-environmental-defensefund-shale-gas-study-unmasks-politics-of-anti-frackingactivist-cornell-scientists/
[13] Mark. (1995). The New American Standard Bible.
Anaheim, CA: Foundation Publications. (Print book). Mark
8:36.
Environmental Protection Agency. (Scientific study). pp. 7,
61.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). “Evaluation of
Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by
Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs Study.”
Environmental Protection Agency. (Scientific study).
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2
/hydraulicfracturing/wells_coalbedmethanestudy.cfm
M. D. Holloway, O. Rudd. (2013). Fracking: The Operations
and Environmental Consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing.
Salem, MA: Scrivener Publishing LLC. (Electronic book). pp
53
R. W. Kolb. (2014). The Natural Gas Revolution. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. (Print book). pp 116-117
G Shearer, M. D. Tusiani. (2007). LNG: A Nontechnical
Guide. Tulsa, OK: PennWell Corporation. (Print book). pp
100-108
C. Tsai. (2011). “Halliburton Executive Drinks Fracking
Fluid at Conference.” Huffington Post. (Online Blog).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/halliburtonexecutive-drinks-fracking-fluid_n_933621.html
US Energy Information Administration. (2014). “AEO2014
Early Release Overview”. US Energy Information
Administration.
(Scientific
Report).
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_production.cfm
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first like to extend a special thanks to the staff at
Hillman Library for helping me through the research process.
Without their help, I would not have been able to find the
articles, case studies, or novels associated with my topic that
made this paper possible. They showed me how to use the
University of Pittsburgh’s library system effectively and
provided me with a wealth of information. Next, I would like
to thank my father for listening to my fictitious moral
dilemma and helping guide me through it in a professional
way.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
S. Brantley, A. Meyendorff. (2013). “The Facts on Fracking.”
The
New
York
Times.
(Online
article).
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/opinion/global/thefacts
-on-fracking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
R. Drouin. (2014). “As Fracking Booms, Growing Concerns
About Wastewater.” Yale Environment 360. (Online blog).
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_fracking_booms_growing_c
oncerns_about_wastewater/2740/
C. Mooney. (2011). “The Truth about Fracking.” Scientific
America. (Print Article). November 2011 pp. 80-81
Environmental Protection Agency. (2001) “Technical
Program Overview: Underground Injection Control
Regulations, Office of Water 4606, EPA 816-R-02-025”
4