Team:Lethbridge/ethics3

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en"> <head> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/h...")
 
(8 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 27: Line 27:
<li><a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/projectoverview">The Project</a></li>
<li><a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/projectoverview">The Project</a></li>
-
<li><a href="#">Results</a></li>
+
<li><a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/results">Results</a></li>
-
<li><a href="#">Notebook</a></li>
+
<li><a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/notebook">Notebook</a></li>
<li><a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/parts">Parts</a></li>
<li><a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/parts">Parts</a></li>
<li><a class="active" href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/ethics">Human Practices</a></li>
<li><a class="active" href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/ethics">Human Practices</a></li>
Line 43: Line 43:
<h2 id="pagetitle">Human Practices</h2>
<h2 id="pagetitle">Human Practices</h2>
<div class="header_subnav">
<div class="header_subnav">
-
<div style="margin: 0 20%;">
+
<div style="margin: 0 10%;">
<a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/ethics">CAB Extraction vs. Hydraulic Fracturing</a>
<a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/ethics">CAB Extraction vs. Hydraulic Fracturing</a>
 +
<a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/ethics3">CAB Extraction Survey</a>
<a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/ethics2">Lethbridge iGEM Human Practices</a>
<a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Lethbridge/ethics2">Lethbridge iGEM Human Practices</a>
</ul>
</ul>
Line 52: Line 53:
<div class="content-wrap">
<div class="content-wrap">
-
<h2>CAB Extraction vs. Hydraulic Fracturing</h2>
+
<h2>CAB Extraction Survey</h2>
-
 
+
-
<p>The University of Lethbridge 2012 iGEM team has proposed a modified microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) method for the extraction of unconventional carbonate oil deposits. CAB (CO2, acetic acid, and biosurfactant) extraction will utilize the natural carbon fixation machinery in the cyanobacteria Synechococcus elongatus to convert CO2 into sugars needed to fuel acetic acid and biosurfactant production in Escherichia coli. These products will be pumped down into carbonate oil deposits where the acetic acid will react with the rock to increase the pore sizes and help to pressurize the well site, and the biosurfactant will help reduce viscosity to further enhance extraction yields. In order to develop CAB extraction into a sustainable method for unconventional oil recovery, a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts and technological feasibility will have to be performed. The University of Lethbridge 2012 team is aware that our proposed method for CAB extraction would use similar methods for accessing unconventional resources as hydraulic fracturing, and we would like to address some of the issues that have been identified with this technology.
+
-
With operations starting as far back as 1949, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a well stimulation process used in the oil and gas industry to enhance underground resource extraction.1,2 The process involves high-pressure injection of fluids into buried geological formations to open and enlarge fractures in the rock, creating pathways for trapped hydrocarbons to flow into the wellbore at higher rates.2,3 The hydraulic fracturing fluids are a composition of water, sand, and various chemicals added to protect the integrity of the wellbore, create and maintain the fractures, and enhance the flow of natural gas.2 Today, computer programs are available that can predict fracture geometry and model fluid movement through the fractures to assist in determining fracturing fluid compositions.4 After fracturing is complete, the injected fluids rise to the surface through the wellbore and are stored in tanks, pits, or underground reservoirs before disposal or recycling.3 Hydraulic fracturing has been criticized by a variety of groups for its negative impact on the environment, including contamination of water sources, induced seismicity, and poor government regulation.</p><br><br>
+
-
<div style="width: 560px; margin: 35px auto;">
+
-
<img src="http://reamsbottom.net/igem/images/fracking.png">
+
-
<p>Figure 5. Schematic of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing used to extract shale gas. Steel casing lines are drilled deep underground and cemented in place. Fracturing fluid is then injected at high pressures to create fractures in the shale formation to facilitate extraction. Adapted from “Shale Gas: Applying Technology to Solve America’s Energy Challenges”. NETL (2011).</p>
+
-
</div>
+
-
 
+
-
<p>In March 2011, the United States government released the “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” that outlined a collaboration between the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Environmental Protection agency (EPA) to monitor the development of unconventional resource extraction. The three agencies would be responsible for mitigating potential risks ensuing from wellbore integrity, developing green technologies for extraction, evaluating the stress conditions of unconventional resource basin, assessing ecological impact of resource production, and monitoring air and water quality as it pertains to environmental and human health.5 The EPA began a study in 2011 to assess current and potential risks for contamination of drinking water by hydraulic fracturing processes. This is an ongoing study that will focus on both retrospective cases and prospective sites for hydraulic fracturing.6 Recently, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) established new guiding principles for water and fluid management in hydraulic fracturing. The guidelines call for full disclosure of fracturing fluid chemical additives, development of lower risk fluid additives, and safeguarding the quality and quantity of water resources.7 In the last few years, the U.S. federal government and several states have developed public disclosure rules intended to provide the public with information about the chemicals added to fracturing fluid and what role those additives serve, such as corrosion inhibitors, friction reducers, gelling agents, and surfactants.</p><br>
+
-
 
+
-
<p>In a report issued by the BC Oil and Gas Commission in August 2012, high pressure fluid injection for recovery of hydrocarbon reservoirs, injection of waste fluids into deep rock formations, and withdrawal of hydrocarbons from reservoirs were identified as potential causes of altered stress conditions of natural fault lines. While thousands of micro-seismicity events can occur as fracturing fluid is injected into gas shales, these events are of such low magnitude that they are not felt on the surface. Larger magnitude events that may be felt at the surface can occur if the fluid injection causes movement along pre-existing stressed faults, however only one such event studied within this report was reported as felt by workers at the surface and no damage or harm to structures or workers was reported.2 The Davis and Frohlich induced seismicity criteria is a generally accepted methodology for the identification of induced seismicity and can be used to monitor seismic activity at and around hydraulic fracturing well sites.</p><br>
+
-
 
+
-
<p>In contrast to hydraulic fracturing, CAB extraction will not require high pressure injection of fluids. Since CAB extraction will rely on increased porosity generated by the reaction between acetic acid and carbonate rock, high pressure fluid injection will not be needed to create pathways for oil flow. The pressure generated by the breakdown of carbonate rock will help to pressurize the well and should not induce seismic activity that can be felt at the surface. However, extensive study of the subterranean geology should be performed as part of initial site selection procedures to ensure that pre-existing fault lines are not nearby or that fracture barrier layers can be utilized to prevent unwanted fracturing of geological formations. Continual monitoring of seismic activity and potential fracturing of upper geological levels will be necessary safety measures. If larger seismic events are reported, pumping rates or injection volumes can be reduced depending on the nature of the seismic activity.<p><br>
+
-
 
+
-
<p>Additionally, CAB extraction will require the addition of fewer harmful chemicals for successful extraction. Sand and other materials used in hydraulic fracturing to maintain fractures will not be necessary since increasing the porosity of the carbonate rock will require only acetic acid. The natural biosurfactant, rhamnolipid, will be used in conjunction with acetic acid to enhance flow rates. Using natural materials will result in lower risk of harmful contamination of ground water. The use of less harmful chemical additives to maintain wellbore integrity will have to be examined. Water sources will have to be monitored for chemical contamination due to direct or indirect results of CAB extraction. Waste water will be stored for reclamation or alternative synthetic biology technology can be developed to recycle it to be used again in CAB extraction or other processes.<p><br>
+
-
 
+
-
<p>Due to new and updated regulations on hydraulic fracturing processes, this technology for the extraction of unconventional natural resources will be more strictly monitored to ensure environmental safety. Following similar guidelines and regulations will be necessary for the safe use of CAB extraction for tapping into carbonate oil deposits in Alberta and around the world, while maintaining high quality of water, air, and soil in these regions.</p>
+
-
</div>
+
-
<div style="clear:both; height: 20px;"></div>
+
-
<div class="content-wrap">
+
-
+
-
<h3>References</h3>
+
-
<p>1. Montgomery, C. T. & Smith, M. B. Hydraulic Fracturing - History of an Enduring Technology. Journal of Petroleum Technology 62, 26-32 (2010).</p>
+
-
<p>2. BCOGC. Investigation of Observed Seismicity in the Horn River Basin.  (2012).</p>
+
-
<p>3. EPA. Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information, <http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydrowhat.cfm> (2012).</p>
+
-
<p>4. Beckwith, R. Hydraulic Fracturing - The Fuss, the Facts, the Future. Journal of Petroleum Technology 62, 34-41 (2010).</p>
+
-
<p>5. Majumdar, A., Hayes, D. J. & Perciasepe, B. Memorandum of Agreement among the U.S. Departments of Energy and Interior and U.S. EPA about Collaboration on Unconventional Oil and Gas Research.  (2012).</p>
+
-
<p>6. EPA, U. S. Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources.  (2011).
+
-
7. CAPP. CAPP members establish new Guiding Principles for Hydraulic Fracturing, <http://www.capp.ca/aboutUs/mediaCentre/NewsReleases/Pages/GuidingPrinciplesforHydraulicFracturing.aspx> (2011).</p>
+
-
<p>8. GWPC & IOGCC. Chemicals & Public Disclosure - FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry, <http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/chemicals-public-disclosure> (2012).</p>
+
-
<p>9. Davis, S. D. & Frohlich, C. Did (or will) fluid injection cause earthquakes? - Criteria for a Rational Assessment. Seismological Research Letters 64, 207-224 (1993).<p>
+
 +
<p>In order to better understand the public opinion about hydraulic fracturing and methods for extracting unconventional natural resources, we put together a short survey for people to fill out. The responses gave us a chance to think, not only about the science behind our project, but also about the financial, environmental, safety, and engineering aspects of our project. After giving a short description of our proposed CAB extraction method, we asked people the following questions:</p>
 +
<p>1. Thinking about the described procedure for extracting carbonate oil, do you imagine any ethical or environmental problems associated with it? If yes, what kinds of problems or issues come to mind?</p>
 +
<p>2. Do you know what hydraulic fracturing is? Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a well stimulation process that involves high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemicals into buried geological formations to open and enlarge fractures in the rock, creating pathways for trapped hydrocarbons to flow into the wellbore at higher rates. When describing our method, did it make you think of hydraulic fracturing? Now that you are thinking of it, do you see any similarities or differences between hydraulic fracturing and our proposed method?</p>
 +
<p>3. What sort of safety procedures would you like to see implemented if our method for extracting carbonate oil were to be used by oil and gas companies?</p>
 +
<p>4. Do you think that Canadians should be investing in new ways for extracting unconventional oil sources? Do you think this is an important investment for the world as a whole? Do you think there are other sources of energy that we should be investing more time and money into instead of unconventional sources? Why or why not?
 +
Participants were allowed to give free-form answers to these questions, and we boiled down their answers into a few main responses for each questions. Here is a breakdown of the main responses for each question:</p>
 +
<div style="text-align:center;"><p><img src="http://reamsbottom.net/igem/images/CABSurveyFig1.png"></p></div><br>
 +
<p>Overall, participants were mostly concerned with the effects acetic acid would have on ground water and the surrounding plant life. However, almost 30% of the participants could not see any major ethical or environmental issues associated with CAB extraction, mostly because acetic acid did not seem harmful enough to cause any major damage. Some participants were concerned that acidification of the soil due to acetic acid or unregulated side reactions occurring underground could be harmful. Ground stability would have to be monitored, especially if future development was planned near the wellsite.</p>
 +
<div style="text-align:center;"><p><img src="http://reamsbottom.net/igem/images/CABSurveyFig2.png"></p></div><br>
 +
 +
<p>While a large majority of participants did see similarities between hydraulic fracturing and CAB extraction, almost half of the participants thought that CAB extraction would be a safer and less damaging procedure to use for fracturing rock. Approximately 10% of the participants would prefer to use hydraulic fracturing, since it has been in use for many years and a number of the issues surrounding this procedure have already been addressed, whereas CAB extraction seems very experimental and would need much further testing before it was ready to be used.</p>
 +
<div style="text-align:center;"><p><img src="http://reamsbottom.net/igem/images/CABSurveyFig3.png"></p></div><br>
 +
<p>Almost one-third of the participants were most concerned about bacterial contamination of the environment. CAB extraction has been designed to have the bacteria contained within bioreactors and not directly applied to the carbonate rock, helping to prevent contamination of the environment. As well, a kill switch module will be used to prevent proliferation in the event of a contamination. Most participants agreed that regular and thorough testing of water and soil samples would be necessary to ensure that the acetic acid was not causing any minor effects to the surrounding environment. Since Alberta is land-locked and we do not experience earthquakes, nor do we construct buildings with the infrastructure needed to withstand them, careful monitoring of seismic activity and ground stability would also be of high importance.</p>
 +
<div style="text-align:center;"><p><img src="http://reamsbottom.net/igem/images/CABSurveyFig4.png"></p></div><br>
 +
<p>Finally, when asked about alternative sources of energy, our participants were quite evenly divided. Almost half agreed that it is important to keep our minds open to new technologies, whether they be unconventional or green. Those in support of unconventional sources argued that the Canadian economy is dependent upon the production of natural resources, and that it would be best to develop the resources we have rather than rely on other countries to supply us with necessary energy sources. Those in support of green technologies thought that a change in our lifestyles to greener thinking (using electric cars, reducing our greenhouse gas output) is more important, and investing in wind and solar power would be more beneficial. One participant thought that we should look at natural energy-producing systems, and use those as models for a completely new type of energy source (spoken like a true synthetic biologist in the making!). And if those methods fail, we could always try to engineer E. coli to perform cold fusion.
 +
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div style="clear:both; height: 95px;"></div>
<div style="clear:both; height: 95px;"></div>

Latest revision as of 04:03, 4 October 2012

2012 iGEM - University of Lethbridge

CAB Extraction Survey

In order to better understand the public opinion about hydraulic fracturing and methods for extracting unconventional natural resources, we put together a short survey for people to fill out. The responses gave us a chance to think, not only about the science behind our project, but also about the financial, environmental, safety, and engineering aspects of our project. After giving a short description of our proposed CAB extraction method, we asked people the following questions:

1. Thinking about the described procedure for extracting carbonate oil, do you imagine any ethical or environmental problems associated with it? If yes, what kinds of problems or issues come to mind?

2. Do you know what hydraulic fracturing is? Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a well stimulation process that involves high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemicals into buried geological formations to open and enlarge fractures in the rock, creating pathways for trapped hydrocarbons to flow into the wellbore at higher rates. When describing our method, did it make you think of hydraulic fracturing? Now that you are thinking of it, do you see any similarities or differences between hydraulic fracturing and our proposed method?

3. What sort of safety procedures would you like to see implemented if our method for extracting carbonate oil were to be used by oil and gas companies?

4. Do you think that Canadians should be investing in new ways for extracting unconventional oil sources? Do you think this is an important investment for the world as a whole? Do you think there are other sources of energy that we should be investing more time and money into instead of unconventional sources? Why or why not? Participants were allowed to give free-form answers to these questions, and we boiled down their answers into a few main responses for each questions. Here is a breakdown of the main responses for each question:


Overall, participants were mostly concerned with the effects acetic acid would have on ground water and the surrounding plant life. However, almost 30% of the participants could not see any major ethical or environmental issues associated with CAB extraction, mostly because acetic acid did not seem harmful enough to cause any major damage. Some participants were concerned that acidification of the soil due to acetic acid or unregulated side reactions occurring underground could be harmful. Ground stability would have to be monitored, especially if future development was planned near the wellsite.


While a large majority of participants did see similarities between hydraulic fracturing and CAB extraction, almost half of the participants thought that CAB extraction would be a safer and less damaging procedure to use for fracturing rock. Approximately 10% of the participants would prefer to use hydraulic fracturing, since it has been in use for many years and a number of the issues surrounding this procedure have already been addressed, whereas CAB extraction seems very experimental and would need much further testing before it was ready to be used.


Almost one-third of the participants were most concerned about bacterial contamination of the environment. CAB extraction has been designed to have the bacteria contained within bioreactors and not directly applied to the carbonate rock, helping to prevent contamination of the environment. As well, a kill switch module will be used to prevent proliferation in the event of a contamination. Most participants agreed that regular and thorough testing of water and soil samples would be necessary to ensure that the acetic acid was not causing any minor effects to the surrounding environment. Since Alberta is land-locked and we do not experience earthquakes, nor do we construct buildings with the infrastructure needed to withstand them, careful monitoring of seismic activity and ground stability would also be of high importance.


Finally, when asked about alternative sources of energy, our participants were quite evenly divided. Almost half agreed that it is important to keep our minds open to new technologies, whether they be unconventional or green. Those in support of unconventional sources argued that the Canadian economy is dependent upon the production of natural resources, and that it would be best to develop the resources we have rather than rely on other countries to supply us with necessary energy sources. Those in support of green technologies thought that a change in our lifestyles to greener thinking (using electric cars, reducing our greenhouse gas output) is more important, and investing in wind and solar power would be more beneficial. One participant thought that we should look at natural energy-producing systems, and use those as models for a completely new type of energy source (spoken like a true synthetic biologist in the making!). And if those methods fail, we could always try to engineer E. coli to perform cold fusion.