Chemical Engineering at the University of Wyoming - Essay Example

Chemical Engineering at the University of Wyoming Background The B.S. in chemical engineering at the University of Wyoming is ABET-accredited. This means that our program has undergone rigorous evaluation by ABET (formerly the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) and meets the nine criteria for accreditation. This is important for graduates of our program because an ABET-accredited degree is the first requirement for licensure as a professional engineer in most states, including Wyoming. Other key requirements for licensure are: (2) Pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam (which you will take your senior year at UW); (3) Practice engineering after graduation for four years under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer; and (4) Pass the Principles and Practice exam. To maintain ABET accreditation of our B.S. in chemical engineering, we must assess how students perform against 11 outcomes (called the Criterion 3 (a)-(k) outcomes). The outcomes can be found in the General Catalog and also at http://www.uwyo.edu/chemical/undergraduate/department_programs/chemical/program%20objectives.html Outcome assessment can be done in a variety of ways, including using specific assignments that address the outcome of interest. CHE 2005 is used for assessing Outcome (f): "During the course of study in Chemical Engineering, the student should develop an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility." Questions [You should refer to the Ethics and Professionalism lecture and the State of Wyoming Rules and Regulations that are posted under Lectures at the WyoWeb course site.] Bart, a registered professional engineer (PE), works for the oil and gas exploration division of a major oil and gas producer (Company A). Bart’s sister, Lisa, also a registered PE, works for an oil and gas research and development (R&D) company called Well-Aware, LLC whose major client is a company (Company B) that competes directly with Company A. During a family get-together, Lisa excitedly tells her brother Bart all about the new design for a deepwater well sealing system she has been working on with her research group at Well-Aware, LLC. The design could save a lot of money in construction without sacrificing safety. Having studied well design for many years Lisa is exceptional in her ability to understand the intricacies of each design component of a well and how they are interrelated. However, since she is not as familiar with problems that can occur in the field, she asks Bart a few questions relating to the feasibility of the new system. The two saw no harm in this since Company A and Company B were in talks to potentially share each others' new well design technologies. Bart, having had extensive field experience, mentioned a few instances where field implementing the design could be improved. In the following scenarios, unethical and illegal actions may occur. Identify these actions and who is committing them. Support your answers using references as appropriate. According to the scenario, there are a number of unethical and illegal actions that may occur. These actions may occur because Bart and Lisa shared confidential information regarding their respective companied. The following illegal and unethical actions may occur: i. Since Bart’s Company A is competing with Company B which is a major client for Well-Aware LLC, Bart may be tempted to use the information gotten from his sister to help his company gain a milestone over Company B. He may be tempted to forward the information regarding the innovation at Well-Aware LLC to help his company beat Company B at oil and gas production. This is illegal and unethical because he will be revealing private information belonging to Well-Aware LLC which only the company is entitled to revealing to its most preferred or perhaps most paying client. Additionally, Well-Aware LLC may lose a lot of money in the event that Bart reveals this innovation to his company because his company will not have to buy the technology from Well-Aware LLC and would only rather develop it and use it as their own (Harris 68). ii. Aside from Bart revealing the information they discusses with his sister Lisa to his company, Lisa may also use the information regarding the improvement of their new design and sell the technology to Company B (being one of their top clients) which would in turn use the information to beat Company A at oil and gas exploration. It is worth noting that Bart is an employee of Company A and thus the improvement insights he gave to her sister were as a result of his experience and his company. Therefore, this information should only benefit Company A and not Company B; unless Company B pays for it. (a) Lisa incorporates Bart’s suggestions into her final review of her research group's proposed new well-sealing system. Lisa's boss was very impressed. She receives a stellar annual review primarily based on her performance on this project and is promoted to a Task Leader position which comes with the responsibility of critically reviewing other research groups’ proposed well design improvements. She feels she can handle the new position, although every now and then, she asks her brother’s advice on field implementation issues. Lisa learns a lot from her conversations with her brother regarding these field issues. She incorporates his advice into her designs and these continue to benefit Company B and Lisa. She never provides recognition of her brother's contributions and she is continually promoted. On one particularly challenging design review, Bart suggests a specific design change to Lisa. Lisa incorporates it as her own idea. Later, during simulation testing at Well-Aware, LLC, this particular change is predicted to cause significant problems if implemented. Well-Aware, LLC does not recommend this design. Nevertheless, Well-Aware, LLC spent many thousands of dollars pursuing this design improvement before learning it would not be successful. This scenario can also instigate a number of unethical and illegal actions. These include: i. Lisa’s action to incorporate her brother’s suggestions in her final review is illegal. According to the ethics code of conduct, one ought to be impartial, honest and serve their employers with fidelity. This should not only apply to their employers alone but also their clients and the community at large. However, Lisa is making use of another person’s ideas to gain favor from her boss. This is illegal and unethical. ii. After having been promoted as a result of the advice she got from her brother, Lisa is constantly consulting her brother on issues concerning field implementation. This is an implication that Lisa is putting her company at risk of making huge financial losses. Despite knowing that she is incapable of handling field implementation issues, she keeps her new job. In the event that her brother fails to advise her or gives her a wrong advice, her company is put at a risk of facing huge losses. This is not only unethical but also illegal. If this is detected by the managers, Lisa not only risks losing her job but also risks facing criminal charges (Harris 44). iii. Since Bart must have realized that Lisa is using his ideas to run filed implementation operations at Well-Aware, LLC, he may be tempted to feed her sister with the wrong information in order to cripple her sister’s company. Well-Aware, LLC plays an imperative role in assisting Company B to realize its successes. For this reason, by crippling Well-Aware, LLC, Bart will also be maiming Company B which is his company’s biggest competitor in the oil and gas business. (b) Bart is an on-site operations manager of an offshore drilling platform. He presents to his boss a portion of one of the proposed improvements for sealing a deepwater well that he learned in one of his discussions with his sister but he implies that it is his idea. Because Bart has convinced him that this new sealing method should make the system safer and also save money, his boss gives him the go ahead to implement it. It is only a minor modification and there are many fail-safes such as the blow-out preventer that are already built into the design that should prevent any problems from occurring. During a negative pressure test, the test results on the well come back as inconclusive. Bart’s boss, who works at Company A's headquarters and is under pressure to have this well drilled quickly, tells Bart that the results are “close enough" and to resume construction of the well. Bart suddenly doesn’t feel so well. As they evacuate the drilling mud, leaving only the well seals to protect from failure, the well ruptures and many millions of gallons of oil spill into the waterway. This scenario also provides a number of loopholes through which illegal and unethical actions may be perpetrated. Such actions include: i. Just like Lisa, Bart also bends the ethical code of conduct that sates that an employee should be impartial, honest and must serve their employers with fidelity. And this is not only supposed to apply to the employers but also clients and the community at large. As an operations manager, he uses Lisa’s ideas to propose to his boss an improvement for sealing a deepwater well. Even though he is unsure of the extent of his proposal’s safety, he goes ahead and implements it thereby jeopardizing the lives of every individual that works in an around the plant including his own life (Harris 38). This is both unethical and illegal because he could be arrested and charged in a court of law if found doing this. ii. After realizing that the test results on the well came as inconclusive, Bart’s boss ought not to have given Bart a go-ahead with the construction of the well merely because of the pressure from his superiors. He ought to have had Bart solve the issues with the pressure build-up before resuming construction. It is only through this that both Bart and his boss would have prevented the spillage (Harris 54). iii. After the spillage of millions of gallons of oil, it was clear that both Bart and his boss were to blame for the loss of millions of dollars. It is also true that only the two of them were aware of the real cause of the spillage. Bart was wrong for implementing a modification he was unsure of and his boss was wrong for sanctioning the implementation even after being alarmed of a potential threat. The two might be tempted to collude with the aim telling a lie to cover their wrong moves. This is unethical and illegal because employees ought to take responsibilities for their wrong actions and face related consequences according to the company (Harris 28). Works Cited Harris, C. E. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2014. Print. Read More