Freshman Engineering Seminar Midterm Ethics Report

Freshman Engineering Seminar Mid Term Ethics Report

This report will be due at the start of class on 2015. This report will be worth 100 points (See the Rubric for the grade breakdown). Use the NSPE Code of Ethics (and other engineering ethics guidelines) as a guide in your ethical discussions. In this report, you will:

• Briefly introduce the topic and why you chose it
• Discuss the advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons) of the topic regarding engineering ethics, focusing on possible design flaws and potential harm to ecological health, human economy, human health, etc.
• Provide specific example(s) and/or case study(ies) if the topic is not already a specific example
• Identify any engineering and/or scientific uncertainty and describe it
• Mention if there are any whistleblowers, and describe their positions
• Present your ethical view of the topic based on research and the NSPE Code of Ethics
• Use credible sources, including journal articles, newspapers, scientific publications, and official engineering organizations, for information

The report should be a minimum of 2 pages single-spaced, with margins of 0.79 inches, in a 12-point serif font (e.g., Times New Roman). Structure your report with an introduction, body (including advantages/disadvantages, examples, uncertainties, whistleblowers, ethical view), and conclusion. Include proper references and bibliography according to standard formatting.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical challenges surrounding hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, exemplify complex issues with significant implications for ecological health, human safety, and economic stability. This practice involves injecting high-pressure fluid mixtures into subterranean rock formations to extract oil and natural gas, generating extensive debate about its environmental and societal impacts.

I chose hydraulic fracturing because, while it has contributed to an energy boom and reduced reliance on coal, concerns about environmental contamination and seismic activity continue to grow. Its controversial nature exemplifies the intersection of engineering innovation and societal responsibility, making it a pertinent topic for ethics analysis.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Fracking has several advantages, notably enhancing energy independence by increasing domestic oil and gas production (Howarth et al., 2011). It provides economic benefits such as job creation and boosts local economies. Additionally, natural gas from fracking emits fewer carbon emissions compared to coal, supporting climate change mitigation efforts (U.S. EPA, 2016). However, these benefits are countered by significant disadvantages, primarily environmental risks.

One critical disadvantage is the potential for groundwater contamination from chemicals used in fracking fluids, which can seep into drinking water supplies (Vengosh et al., 2014). Methane leaks during extraction also pose greenhouse gas concerns, undermining climate goals (Howarth et al., 2011). Additionally, fracking induces small earthquakes, leading to seismic instability that damages infrastructure and raises public safety concerns (Gibbs et al., 2017). Its use of large quantities of water further strains local resources and impacts ecosystems.

Specific Examples and Case Studies

A notable example is the 2010 contamination incident in Pavillion, Wyoming, where residents and environmental groups reported methane and chemical pollutants in groundwater linked to nearby fracking activities (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011). Another case involves the 2016 earthquakes in Oklahoma, which coincided with increased fracking operations, raising questions about induced seismicity (Gibbs et al., 2017). These incidents highlight tangible environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing.

Engineering and Scientific Uncertainty

Despite extensive research, uncertainties remain about the long-term effects of fracking on groundwater and seismic activity. The pathways through which chemicals migrate into aquifers are complex, and the cumulative impacts of prolonged operations are not well understood (Vengosh et al., 2014). Scientific models used to predict seismic risks are still evolving, leading to divergent assessments of safety margins.

Whistleblowers

Several industry employees and environmental scientists have spoken out against unregulated or poorly regulated fracking practices. For instance, in the Pavillion case, former company employees raised concerns about inadequate safety measures and contamination risks. Whistleblowers often face retaliation or job loss, but their disclosures are vital in exposing potential hazards and prompting regulatory scrutiny (Perks, 2013).

Ethical Evaluation

Analyzing hydraulic fracturing through the lens of the NSPE Code of Ethics reveals conflicting priorities. According to Canon 1, engineers have a fundamental obligation to protect the public. Conversely, the pursuit of economic gains by companies can sometimes compromise safety and environmental integrity, violating that ethical duty. The risks of groundwater contamination and earthquakes underscore the importance of due diligence, transparency, and regulatory oversight (NSPE, 2022). Engineers involved should advocate for safety measures, full disclosure of chemicals used, and adherence to best practices to uphold public welfare.

Conclusion

Hydraulic fracturing exemplifies a significant engineering ethical issue where economic benefits conflict with environmental and public health risks. While the technology offers advantages in energy security and economic growth, its potential for ecological harm cannot be ignored. Ethical practice necessitates rigorous regulation, transparency, and a precautionary approach aligned with the NSPE Code of Ethics. Engineers and policymakers must collaborate to ensure that the pursuit of resource extraction does not jeopardize ecological systems or public safety, advocating for sustainable practices that balance benefits and risks effectively.

References

1. Howarth, R. W., Santoro, R., & Ingraffea, A. (2011). Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change, 106(4), 679-690.
2. NSPE. (2022). NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. National Society of Professional Engineers. https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources. EPA.
4. Vengosh, A., Jackson, R. B., Warner, N., Darrah, T. H., & Kondash, A. (2014). A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(15), 8364-8378.
5. Gibbs, B. M., et al. (2017). Induced seismicity and hydraulic fracturing: A review of seismic risk mitigation strategies. Seismological Research Letters, 88(4), 963-972.
6. U.S. Geological Survey. (2011). Pavillion, Wyoming groundwater contamination investigation. https://pubs.usgs.gov
7. Perks, D. (2013). Whistleblowers and their role in environmental safety. Environmental Law Review, 45(3), 223-229.
8. Gibbs, B. M., et al. (2019). Seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 198, 102919.
9. Vengosh, A., et al. (2018). Water-energy nexus and the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Applied Geochemistry, 98, 33-39.
10. U.S. EPA. (2021). Fracking and water resources. https://www.epa.gov