From:
To:
Dr. Bradley Harris
Date: 3/17/2019
Assignment 3 Engineering Ethics
Introduction:
For this assignment our group was tasked with judging the keystone XL pipe line construction in
accordance to the ethics of the engineering societies, and the realities of everyday life. The
ethical guidelines that will be used as a rubric are AIChE code of ethics, and the NSPE code of
ethics. The Keystone Pipeline XL is an addition to the already existing Keystone Pipeline. This
addition is essentially a short cut that would lessen the length of pipe the oil needs to travel
through. The NSPE and AIChE code of ethics directly apply to this project because engineers are
going to build and design this pipeline. While the pipeline has received a lot of political
attention, it is still industrial in nature, so the code of ethics or laws of the governments involved
will not be considered. The NSPE and the AIChE code of ethics are easily available online and
can be found in the references section of this report. As this is not a disaster that has already
happened, rather a decision being made right now in our government this report will first outline
all found and thought of pros and cons to the XL pipeline with discussion and analysis, then
there will be a final discussion weighing the discussed pros and cons, discussing liability should
a disaster occur, analysis of the ethical dilemma, and forming a final answer, and finally a
conclusion where other group members viewpoints and voting distribution will be discussed.
Discussion:
Background to the Arguments Associated with the Pipeline:
The main arguments for the pipeline construction are centered around growing the
economy and providing energy independence for the United States. An honorable and worthy
goal. While the main arguments against the pipeline center around the environmental effects of
the pipeline, and the general direction and atmosphere the construction of the pipeline will
produce. These to poles of interest are the deciding factors on the pipeline construction, with
someone’s main interest being the deciding factor on their opinion.
Pros of Building the Pipeline:
The purposed pipeline project will add a significant amount of jobs to the us economy. A
document released by the state department environmental review said the project would create
42,000 temporary jobs and contribute 3.4 billion to the American economy. Both numbers are
quite substantial and would help to improve the American economy. But most of the jobs
generated by the project are temporary, such as construction or food service for the construction
workers. The number of permanent jobs that would be created is stated as 35. A far less
impressive number in comparison. The strengthening of the American economy claimed by
supporters of the pipeline is small, and not a long-term strategy. It makes jobs quick, and then
they go away. The oil industry is not a big producer of jobs as of late, from 2005 to 2010 oil
companies such as ExxonMobile, Shell, and BP have laid off around 11,200 workers despite
making $546 billion of profit in that time period. This shows that the oil industry is not a
sufficient conduit for creating jobs and strengthening the economy. People wanting to do so
should look elsewhere for the changes they desire.
The United States, and most of the world, has been tied to the middle east for oil imports.
One of the benefits of building the pipeline is the continued partnership with the United States
and Canada for oil. Meaning energy independence from the middle east, a very desirable thing
for any government. The new addition to the keystone pipeline would help create energy
independence for the United States. All of this is true, but what we are looking for is energy
independence. There is the argument that this can be achieved in many other ways than through
stable imports of crude oil. If the United States were to start making investments into cleaner
forms of energy, ones that do not need a foreign supply, energy independence can be achieved.
Which makes the argument irrelevant. Add on the fact that fossil fuel is a limited resource, and
that most countries and people are making steps to one day be independent of fossil fuels
entirely, and the argument for the keystone pipeline fall apart. It is a short-term investment, that
will help the economy for a time, but will hinder the economy in the future. Adding more
infrastructure that will become obsolete, more steadfast ways of obtaining energy that will slow
innovation, and more work that needs to be done in the overall scheme. If we are going to make
the switch from fossil fuel to alternative energy, which by most accounts seems to be the
direction the world has agreed to go, why are we still investing in old methods when we know
they will become obsolete. Why not spur the coming changes?
Cons of Building the Pipeline:
The most important reasons for not building the pipeline center around the environmental
effect of the pipeline. From very immediate environmental disasters, to long acting, but still
apparent environmental effects to our economy and the livability of the planet. The proposed
pipeline crosses through many endangered species migration paths or permanent habitats. A total
of 23 endangered species will be affected by the construction, and continued existence, of the
pipeline. If the pipeline is built the result will be much habitat loss for these endangered species.
While endangering wildlife and the environment is not stated anywhere in AIChE or NSPE’s
code of ethics, if you think about how fragile ecosystems are and how the damage could end up
ruining the ecosystem which is a part of people’s lives and lively hoods, it falls under the tenant
of not endangering the public’s health and welfare. Wildlife is a resource to the people around
them, if you destroy a community’s resources you destroy the community. The impacts do not
just effect wildlife, the new pipeline will be built over many rivers and water ways including the
Missouri and Yellow stone rivers. As well as a massive aquifer, an environment that naturally
filters water, the Ogallala aquifer is directly underneath a large stretch of the keystone pipeline
expansion. This aquifer supplies drinking water to 2 million people of the United States. Any oil
spill, or spill of any chemical used in the process will result in large water poisoning,
environmental damage, and loss of yield to any agricultural facilities located in the area. The
mixture of bitumen being pumped through these pipes is an acidic mixture, making the pipeline
more likely to leak due to corrosion. Making the proposed pipeline even more worrisome. The
keystone pipeline that has already been established had one leak in 2017 that let lose 210,000
gallons of oil. The pipeline was evaluated by members of the Environmental Resources
Management (ERM) agency was tasked with assessing the pipelines safety and other related
concerns. Later it was found that this agency and others that had been contracted to evaluate the
project have had workers who worked for TransCanada Corp the company behind the Keystone
pipeline, including the persons who evaluated the pipeline. This is a conflict of interest, and
should have been stated when the company was contracted. A statement about the conflict of
interest should have been made, and this should be seen as a deceptive act. Some of the
arguments for the pipeline state that the pipeline is safe, they are equipped with monitoring
sensors that send data to satellites every 5 seconds. But if that is the case, how did the 210,000
gallon spill occur? Can this pipeline really be thought of as safe with the known environmental
and public health consequences? Any spill from the pipeline would also be worse than a spill
from any other oil source. As most oil clean up methods rely on the fact that oil floats on water.
Oil sand is denser than water and sinks, making the outcome of any spill occurring much worse
for the environment. There are massive public health and safety problems with building the
Keystone pipeline XL.
To be able to enter and operate in any UTC engineering lab we are required to take a lab
safety course and pass a safety exam. During the course we were taught to think of risk on a twoaxis chart. With consequence associated if accident occurs on once axis, and likelihood of
accident happening on the other. A similar graph is shown below.
While this graph is not exactly applicable to the conversation we’re having it does bring
up a good point. If there is such high consequence of a failure from this pipeline should we even
consider it? Any oil leaked by the pipe over the aquifer will no doubt ably poison many peoples
drinking water. Even if the likelihood is said to be low, the consequences of just one spill are
massive. Both the AIChE and NSPE ethical code have for the first rule to hold paramount the
safety and health of the public. The risk associated with the pipeline does not hold the public’s
safety paramount, it is an afterthought.
Aside from the safety issues of the actual pipe, the Keystone pipeline construction would
be detrimental to communities and societies even if the pipeline worked perfect all the time.
During the refinement of oil sand roughly 17% more carbon emissions are generated. While that
isn’t a problem in itself, there has been increasing studies on the effect of climate change brought
about by carbon emissions and other green house gasses. These studies show that as the climate
warms, there will be more severe weather, more hurricanes, more floods, more droughts.
“Superstorm Sandy alone caused an estimated $80 billion in damage. The drought that affected
80% of US farmland last summer destroyed a quarter of the US corn crop and did at least $20
billion damage to the economy”. The damages of climate change are real and growing. If the
decision goes to build the Keystone XL that will only further root us in fossil fuel. Causing more
climate change, meaning more damage to people’s finances and wellbeing. The good for the
economy is essentially canceled out if not over run by the negative effects of associated climate
change. While the keystone pipeline is not directly responsible for all of the greenhouse gas
emissions that are causing climate change, it still maters. It will set up an infrastructure for using
this less efficient, dirty fuel. Paving the way for more and more of this oil sand to be used.
Ultimately making the American people less likely to change. It’s not enough to simply think of
the right way to do something and then tell others to do it, in order for people to change you have
to make the right decision the most convenient and easy decision. Building the Keystone XL
pipeline will only lead to an increased dependency on fossil fuels, which will lead to more
environmental damage and lower quality of life for the United States.
Conclusion:
After consideration of all the arguments for and against the Keystone XL pipeline, it was
decided that the pipeline should not be built. There will be too many adverse effects on the
environment from the construction of the pipeline and too much risk associated with the new
pipeline due to the location of the pipeline track over the aquifers. If any damage were to occur
to wildlife or the public, the associations that should be liable are the TransCanada Corp for
building the pipeline and Environmental Resources Management for determining the pipeline to
be safe. The liable associations are liable to fix any environmental harm they cause, any peoples
livelihood they interfered with, and any damages caused to the people living in the areas affected
by the aquifers.
References:
https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
https://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/what-does-the-proposed-keystone-xl-pipelineentail.html
https://opinionfront.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-project-pros-cons-facts
https://cpb-use1.wpmucdn.com/sites.suffolk.edu/dist/0/841/files/2014/11/20111003_oilpipeline_map.jpg
https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/usgs-ogallala-aquifer-waterquality-currently-acceptable/article_f9a83f7a-5f6b-5ede-b666-db3b9ea593e7.html
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&v
ed=2ahUKEwi7x9b37ozhAhXomOAKHWJ0CvcQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpee
kin.co%2Frisk-management-table-template%2Frisk-assessment-management-table-template-forresume-high-school-student-work-health-andsafety%2F&psig=AOvVaw05cq5Q3VDXMcm_5MUtXSOy&ust=1553038894558786
Due Date: Thursday February 13th, 2020
In 2-4 pages (12 pt font, Times New Roman, Single Space), summarize the case study
discussed amongst your group in class using the outline provided below.
I. Introduction
Discuss the groups, organizations, societies, and bodies that provide ethical guidelines
for the relevant project area or occupation area (AICHE, NSPE, etc). Mention any
publications or means of access to the guidelines.
II. Discussion
Discuss the group's answers to the following questions: 1) How could this have been
prevented? 2) Who was fesponsible? 3) What further actions should the responsible
party take now? Use the problem-solving approach to engineering ethics to analyze the
ethical dilemma. State the problem and provide relevant facts. Discuss the opposing
viewpoints proposed by the group.
III. Conclusions
State the prevailing viewpoint agreed upon by the group. What was the voting
distribution? What were the dissenting opinions?
.
.
.
.
.
1) How could this be have been prevented?
Lazy
Avoidance
Moved the blame
Should have treated water better
Used water from a different place
Racism?
2) Who was responsible?
Health and safety
Broken procedures?
Corrupt government
False information
3) What further actions should the
responsible party take now
• Replacing damaged pipes
Water level standards
Health
programs
Public information
.
.
.
.
Flint Water Crisis
In 2014, drinking water
source for city of FmE ME
changed from Lake Turoni
and Detroit River to Flm
River
Lead contammation in
water supply, exposing
over 100.000 residents.
WATER
ir
Purchase answer to see full
attachment