Ethics of the Keystone Pipeline

ENGR0011/0711 Section

Group #

ETHICS OF THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE

Ashwin Iyer ()

Ashwin Iyer

INTRODUCTION TO THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE

The Keystone XL pipeline is a pipeline proposed by the TransCanada Company, approximately 1600 miles in length, which will go from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas. If all goes according to plan, the pipeline will carry 900,000 barrels a day of a mixture of crude oil and bitumen. Although this idea sounds promising for America’s oil industry, it is a highly contested issue to the ethical issues it presents. Supporters of the pipeline say that the pipeline will open up many engineering jobs to boost the productivity of the oil industry in America but critics say that the environmental damage done by the pipeline outweighs the benefits. At this point, ethics of engineering come into play and make the decision on whether or not to construct the pipeline. It is well known fact that that the environmental hazards caused by the pipeline has become a main issue when dealing with the pipeline’s implementation so much that President Obama said “the net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward” [1]. The challenge is determining the limit of sacrifice for potential gain. Who in society will the project impact positively? Will it do so at the sake of anyone or anything else? These are questions that we, as engineers, need to ask ourselves before taking on any big project.

AN ETHICAL SENARIO ARISES

Consider this situation. Bob is an engineer working in the Nation’s oil industry. His dream is to find a practical and profitable design for the importation and utilization of foreign oil. Every day, Bob comes to work in hopes that he will finally be able to come up with the ideal design for a trans-continental pipeline but always seems to be one step short. One day, a company sells him their design and asks him to implement it to precision. However, he runs into a slight problem when groundbreaking research shows a discrepancy between implementation of the ideal pipeline and what will most probably be constructed. It shows that even though the most recent engineering techniques have been incorporated into designing the pipeline there is a scope for environmental hazard that has been overlooked. He decides to look into this problem and discover that the gravity of the environmental harm caused by the pipeline could delay the implementation of the project. During his research he discovers that the pipeline will create approximately 42,000 jobs on American soil that will stimulate the U.S. economy [1]. The pipeline, however, will negatively effect the environment during construction and the human health during its actual implementation. Bob is on contract with this company and his dream is about to become reality but he can see that the pipeline design in question may have some important negative aspects. What is the right thing to do? Should Bob violate his contract or should he stay quiet about the faulty design of the pipeline?

UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION

Before making a decision, one must be educated about the circumstances. In this situation, the complete environmental impact of the pipeline must be understood before an educated decision can be made. Therefore it is essential to completely research the background of the topic before continuing to the next step in the decision process. In researching, one will find the extent to which the pipeline will harm the environment.

If the project goes by plan, it would destroy many ecologically important areas, including grasslands in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska and the equipment used during construction would affect the air quality and cause harm to many animals living in these areas [2]. This will result in habitat loss that will eventually upset the ecosystem. It is estimated that there are 23 species protected by the Endangered Species Act in the areas of proposed construction. Of these 23 species present, approximately 10 will be severely affected [2].

There is also an appreciable room for error when operating a pipeline of such magnitude. The idea of spills and leaks should be a major reason for being careful. The TransCanada Company’s first line of safety is identical to the technology that failed to stop an oil spill in Michigan in 2010. Additionally, even if it were improved, two percent of the pipeline’s daily volume (approximately 8,300 barrels) would leak [3]. It is estimated that the maximum spill volume of the pipeline would be roughly 2.8 million gallons, which would be a concern because spills and leaks through the pipeline will most likely be in areas where there is abundance of wildlife [2].

In addition, it can be found that the pipeline is hazardous to human health. Based on the plan for construction, the pipeline would run straight through the Ogallala Aquifer, a major source for drinking water across the country that also provides an abundant supply of water for irrigation [4]. If the pipeline leaks anywhere near the aquifer, a majority of the nation’s water supply would be contaminated. Furthermore, the crude-oil transported by the pipeline contains more amounts of dangerous elements for the human lungs than oil imported from other countries. For example, the excessive sulfur and nitrogen present could contribute to lung diseases, asthma, and cancer [4]. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Keystone XL pipeline is more likely to fail than any other pipeline in the world because the bitumen mixture it carries is extra corrosive [4].

Aside from the possibility of leaks and spills, the danger present in constructing the pipeline, and its effect on human health, a properly functioning pipeline may still cause harm to the environment. Environmentalists believe that the pipeline will increase the America’s dependence on fossil fuels and its greenhouse gas emission by increasing the oil supply present in the country [4]. If the building of the pipeline is successful, its implementation will probably be short lived because sooner or later, we will run out of resources. The idea of short-term compared to long-term effects also brings into question the idea of greenhouse gas emission. It is estimated that by using Tar Sands, a combination of clay, sand, water, and bitumen instead of conventional oil, the Nation’s greenhouse emission will increase from 27 to 125 million tons by 2015 [2]. Also, the production of the oil transported through the pipeline requires the oil to be mined with strip mining or open-pit techniques with a severe environmental impact [4].

DECISION MAKING: AN INTERNAL CONFLICT

Most decisions consist of an internal conflict. In the case presented above, the internal conflict consists of giving up a dream and possibly a career in order to protect the safety of the people. Bob looses either way. If he protests against the design of the pipeline, he violates his contract and gains a negative reputation. However if he doesn’t speak up, he is jeopardizing the successful completion of the project.

There are always grey areas that an engineer needs to see for himself. Most ethical situations exist at a certain point between personal responsibility and public policy [5]. In this scenario, there is a contract in question and changing the specifics of the pipeline to fit a certain priority is a violation. At this point, it may be useful to make a list of positives and negatives in order to make a certain decision. For example it may be noted that the pipeline provides the possibility of a more stable energy future by linking new sources of oil in Canada to Texas and the Midwest [6]. There is also the idea of engineering jobs that are created and an investment in the private sector that will generate approximately $585 million in new taxes that will lead to new and improved infrastructure development [6]. Implementation of the pipeline is in fact profitable for the Nation’s oil industry but should the environment and public well being be sacrificed? There are appreciable examples of the oil industry placing the public at risk. In the documentary Gasland, the narrator was displaced because a natural gas company wanted to drill on his property[7]. He then set out and spoke to citizens to see how natural gas drilling was negatively impacting people. He discovered that in some cases residents experienced chronic health problems due to the contamination of the air of their water wells. In other cases some citizens discovered that their water was flammable and their conditions were unbearable. Fox’s discoveries show that the oil industry has a significant environmental impact on civilization that counters its positive influence and makes the decision more challenging.

A DISCUSSION ABOUT ETHICS

As an engineer, one must know the codes of ethics within a specific field. These codes guide decision making by clearly presenting the extent to which certain stakeholders in projects can take a loss.

In this specific scenario, the design of the pipeline would violate the first fundamental canon of the NSPE code of ethics for engineers which states that all Engineers should “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” [8]. By not speaking up when a discrepancy in the design was found, Bob is sacrificing the environment, and therefore the local people are being placed at risk.

Bob must also abide by the Fundamental Principles of the ASCE code of ethics, which state that Engineers are expected to uphold the integrity, honor, and dignity of the profession [9]. This can be done in many ways that are listed and include using knowledge for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment. Hence, it would be a violation of the fundamental principles if he were not to speak out against the faulty design of the pipeline.

It can easily be seen that violations to the codes of ethics place citizens in harms way. For example, when NASA was working on the Challenger, the engineers under contract warned that if the temperature became too cold, O-Rings that joined the shuttle to its rocket boosters would fail. However, their warnings were ignored because the project became one that relied on budget and deadlines [10]. Ann Tenbrunsel, an ethics researcher at University of Notre Dame says that important issues should be approached through more than one prism. She also states that the prism through which a situation is viewed could alter the decision. For example, there is a study that shows that people are more likely to lie after being told to focus on the business side of a decision rather than the ethical one. By viewing a decision through different aspects, the possibility of unethical decision-making decreases. No matter what aspect of the decision is used, the codes of ethics for engineers still set the framework for a proper decision.

WHAT WOULD OTHERS DO?

Evan Vokes, a materials engineer working for the TransCanada Company found himself in a similar situation a couple years ago. His job was to ensure the company complied with accepted codes of pipeline construction [11]. Vokes strived hard to solve the company’s problems in an ethical way but the organization emphasized speed rather than compliance. Vokes continued to stress compliance to the codes of ethics but multiple projects including the Bison Pipeline and the Keystone1 failed. The Keystone 1 was rushed to completion and 21,000 gallons of oil ended up spilling when an automatic safety feature failed to detect the spill [11]. Vokes continued to challenge the company and at one point he told his boss “I have to quit or fight,” Vokes ended up being fired but the Canadian National Energy Board validated his claims and Vokes gained a positive reputation. In fact, the Canadian Senate invited him to their study of the pipeline safety on June 6, 2013.

Sometimes when faced with a difficult decision it is helpful to take a look back and consider what other successful people did when faced with a similar decision. In this specific situation, it can be seen that Evan Vokes stressed compliance with codes of ethics over completion of a project. It can also be noticed that when the company did not comply with the codes of ethics there was a significant failure. By observing Vokes and following his example, the final decision is easier to make. Vokes may have been fired but he still holds a positive reputation for standing by the codes of ethics that were presented to him.

Bob still has to make the decision for himself but it will be easier if he considers the case of Evan Vokes when he was presented with a similar situation.

SUMMATION OF THE DECISION PROCESS

Bob went through the traditional decision making process that most people go through. First, he did additional research to further enforce his hypothesis that the pipeline is harmful to the environment. He discovered that there is a significant environmental impact presented by the pipeline. After his research, he considered all possible outcomes of his decision and considered possible repercussions. Bob also consulted the NSPE code of ethics and his professional based code. After consulting the codes of ethics Bob furthered his understanding of the situation by looking back at another professional who went through a similar situation and using him as a role model. At this point Bob should have a strong idea of what he wants to do.

FINAL DECISION

Even though the process is mostly over, Bob still has to make his final decision for himself. No matter what information he gathered through research, what the codes of ethics say, or what he discovered through observing other professionals, the decision is still his and he has to take ownership for it. Just like Vokes was fired after he made his decision to speak out against the TransCanada Company, Bob may face negative repercussions. In order to make his actual decision Bob must be strong hearted and know what he wants as a professional engineer, and why he is in the position he is. When he knows what he wants to do and where he wants to go the decision can be made according to the helpful information he gathered. Until then he will be lost in the technicalities.

REFERENCES

[1] (2013). “Even Obama’s State Department Knows Keystone XL Is Not An Environmental Hazard.” Forbes.(Online Article).

[2] J. Palliser. (2012). “The Keystone XL Pipeline.” Science Scope. (Online article).

[3] E. Schor. (2013). “Are Environmentalists Getting it wrong on the Keystone XL Pipeline.” The Atlantic. (Online article).

[4] (2011). “Keystone XL Pipeline Overview.” Congressional Digest.(Online Article).

[5] (2012). “Grave New World.” Prism. (Online Article).

[6] R. Christie Jr. (2012). “Why We Need the Keystone XL Project.” Engineering News-Record. (Online Article)

[7] “Gasland.” (2005). (Movie).

[8] (2013). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” (Online Article).

[9] (2013). “ASCE Code of Ethics.” (Online Article).

[10] (2013). “Increasing Your Odds.” Notre Dame Deloitte Center for Ethical Leadership.(Online Article).

[11] J. Dermansky. (2013). “TransCanada Whistleblower Evan Vokes Details Lack of Confidence of Keystone XL.” Truth-out.org. (Online Article).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my writing instructor, the librarians, and my parents for motivating and encouraging me to write this paper to my best potential.

Ashwin Iyer