Figure 6.1: Oil Drilling Rig

Credit: US Bureau of Land Management (Public Domain)

Examine possible correlations between independently acquired datasets dynamically using open source methods and sources.

Lesson Objectives

• Identify the stakeholders in hydraulic fracturing.
• Describe and categorize the possible ethical issues that emerge in the use of scientific and engineering research on hydraulic fracturing.
• Analyze the potential ethical issues around transparency of reporting, hydraulic fluid contents, and the projected certainty around well leakages.
• Categorize and justify the potential ethical issues as Research Integrity, Broader Impacts, or Embedded Ethics.
• Advanced Options:
  • Level 1: Describe how groundwater is sampled and how, depending on which of the sampling methods is applied, can possibly change the understanding of the risks associated with methane leakages.
  • Level 2: Define what the term "appropriate" means in the discussion of Appropriate Wastewater Management Options.

What is due for Lesson 6?

This lesson will take us one week to complete. Please refer to the Course Syllabus for specific timeframes and due dates. Specific directions for the assignment below can be found within this lesson.

Questions?

If you have any questions, please post them to our Questions? discussion forum (not email), located under the Discussions tab in Canvas. I will check that discussion forum daily to respond. While you are there, feel free to post your own responses if you, too, are able to help out a classmate.

We will begin to identify potential ethical issues in the language of science in the article titled "Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality" which appeared in the May 16th, 2013 issue of the journal Science.

In this article, we will be looking for potential ethical issues that could arise from the scientific study of the impact of shale gas on regional quality water quality.

We will look specifically at the language used in the article to help us locate issues worth further ethical consideration. Later on, we will use the Ethical Dimensions of Scientific Research approach to help us think about where else to look. There is potential for significant ethical issues because the article deals with two issues of immediate importance to contemporary society, namely, development of the energy sector and water quality.

The first sentence of the background indicates to us that natural gas is of significant concern to various regions around the world because of its ability to be a relatively clean energy source as well as reducing dependence on energy imports. As such, we are immediately told that this issue we are about to look at has significant political and environmental importance, often linking us to a variety of ethical considerations. As a transition fuel, methane is also important because it helps is to reduce emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels, various criteria pollutants (NOx, O3, CO, SO2, pm, Pb), and mercury emissions from coal burning, specifically.

Hydraulic fracturing as a way of extracting difficult to reach methane sources has the further appeal of being economically feasible. The process of hydraulic fracturing is a high-pressure process intended to crack rock about 1km below the surface and, as such, this process presents environmental risks to underground water reservoirs through possible gas migration via fractures, the later discharge of the wastewater initially used as hydraulic fluid, and accidental spills in the management of wastewater. What goes unsaid in stating these environmental risks are what these risks also pose to people exposed to such contaminants, but understand that environmental risks are almost always linked to risks to human health, livelihoods, and wellbeing.

As it is stated in the advances in paragraph, the most common problem is with faulty seals around the well casing to prevent leakage of methane. However, the incidence rate of faulty seals is in the range of 1-3% of installed wells. Methane has been detected in areas around well drilling, but there is controversy as to whether or not the methane that was detected was due to the drilling or other natural processes. Without data as to what the conditions were before drilling, what they refer to here as a pre-drilling baseline, it is difficult to determine current conditions from "normal" conditions, as methane has been known to enter into the water table naturally in some of these areas before drilling occurred. As we will see in this article, methods of measuring methane isotopes were used to help answer some of these questions.

Wastewater management of the used hydraulic fracturing fluids is going to dominate environmental debate because wastewater contains both significant chemical additives for the fracturing process as well as vast quantities of heavy metals and radioactive contaminants brought up to the surface from deep underground. As wastewater can only be reused so many times, and as fields mature, there will be growing pressure on finding better strategies for managing the wastewater.

Looking more specifically at the contaminants found in used fracturing fluid, the urgency and risks associated with wastewater management become readily apparent. According to the article, waste management can be more effective through improving three significant areas of research, that is: better modeling of what happens to contaminants of concern, increased long-term monitoring of the wells, and the dissemination of data (which includes improving transparency in the fluid contents). The paper identifies three significant impediments, however, to peer-reviewed research into the environmental impacts of well drilling. First, confidentiality requirements dictated by trade secret laws and what is legal during investigations keep information hidden. Second, the expedited rate of development is making it difficult to conduct studies within a reasonable timeframe, and the limited funds available for research into the impacts of horizontal well-drilling for shale gas. This becomes a problem because the burden becomes to prove harm is being done by this process by a wide range of stakeholders local to drilling sites, as opposed to the burden of having to prove that no harm is being done, which would be put on the drilling and energy companies.

Now, you will want to work through the entire article, reading in a close manner such as this.

Significant Principles

• Read the language of the article closely, trying to notice where certain terms can help us identify potential ethical situations, such as when terms like risk are used.
• Scientific uncertainty can lead to ethical uncertainty, such as in the case of methane migration.
• Terms like 'environmental debate' indicate both a generally public debate (in what is good for the public) along with a consideration of the environment.
• Topics like energy and water quality, particularly when combined together, will almost always have potential ethical considerations connected to them because of their overall importance to everyone involved.
• It is important to trace back to some of the outside sources covered by the review.

Potential ethical questions for consideration

1. What are possible reasons for concern by members of the public (including private landowners)?
2. Why would various stakeholders have such a different set of concerns and perspectives on risk?
3. Is there anywhere in the research you see here as based on assumptions about uncertainty? What are those assumptions?
4. What does the article identify as the significant risks to groundwater from shale drilling? Be able to describe these risks.

Figure 6.2: A deep fracture/the risks associated with shale fracking: methane and fracking fluid in H2O. 2nd image shows exploited and new gas reserves

Credit: ConsumerNotice.org

These articles provide significant insight into the water pollution risks concerning wastewater from hydraulic fracturing, focusing mainly on the Marcellus Shale region. You will see some common findings emerge in these three readings that pose some concern and elicit recommendations from the authors. Pay attention to these findings.

Significant Principles

• Hydraulic fracturing fluid has significant chemical additives, exposure to which can pose problems to the environment and human health.
• There are places of more certainty and less certainty (more uncertainty) about the risks posed by hydraulic fracturing fluid. Can you discern where the main difference is?
• What other key information is missing from the first two articles on pollution and chemical evaluation that would help decision makers (third article)?

Potential ethical questions for consideration

1. What risks are posed by hydraulic fracturing fluids?
2. What do you think the response to these risks ought to be?
3. Who ought to be mitigating any of these risks?
4. Is there enough certainty in the research to support concerns about the risks of wastewater? If not, where could more certainty help?
5. What level of disclosure should there be in terms of wastewater fluid (pre and post use) by the industry?
6. How are concerns about the future discussed here?

Figure 6.3: Abandoned gas well

Credit: Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain)

These articles provide significant insight into the risks concerning methane migration into groundwater from hydraulic fracturing, focusing mainly on the Marcellus Shale region. Like the articles from the prevision section, you will see some common findings emerge in these three readings that pose some concern and elicit recommendations from the authors. Pay attention to these findings.

Significant Principles

• A different set of risks are posed by methane than by wastewater itself. Be able to distinguish between these risks.
• There appear to be two sides to the argument around methane. Pay attention to the main reasons for disagreement.
• There are some important differences here between methods used in various articles. Why would a difference in methods lead to different interpretations of outcomes?

Potential ethical questions for consideration

1. What risks are posed by potential methane release into groundwater?
2. What do you think the response to these risks ought to be?
3. Who ought to be mitigating (fixing) these risks?
4. What are the main differences between uncertainty with methane release versus uncertainty with wastewater?
5. Which perspective on methane release is more correct?
6. Which article would you be most willing to base a decision on? Why?
7. How does the selection of methods make a difference in the evidence you might have?