1. Geoscience Professionalism and Ethics Mount Royal College – April 2009

2. MRC April 20092 Unlock your potential  Best profession  Solid foundation  Opens many doors  technical & non-technical  national & international  My background

3. MRC April 20093 Objectives  Recognize the ethical obligations of professional licensing  Outline the scope and purpose behind the Code of Ethics (as upheld by APEGGA)  Illustrate how the fundamental principles of ethical conduct may be interpreted and applied 3

4. MRC April 20094 APEGGA Membership APEGGA is the second largest self- governing association in Alberta and the third largest Engineering & Geoscience association in Canada.

5. MRC April 20095 Outline  Objectives  Professionalism  What makes Professional Practice different?  Rock Solid Professionalism  Self Governance  Geoscience Professional Ethics  The APEGGA Code of Ethics  The APEGGA Rules of Conduct  A few case histories 5

6. MRC April 20096 What is APEGGA? The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta  The body given responsibility to regulate the professions  Your Professional Association  Mandatory membership/licensure  Not a Technical Society  ASAP: APEGGA Student Advantage Program

7. MRC April 20097 APEGGA’s Authority The Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act Privilege of self-governance Right to title Exclusive scope of practice Defines practice APEGGA’s role Governance

8. MRC April 20098 Professionalism  Advanced/specialized knowledge  Intensive study and preparation  Continued professional development  Good judgment  High standards  Leadership  Ethical conduct  Duty to protect the public interest 8

9. MRC April 20099 Rock Solid Professionalism 9

10. MRC April 200910 What makes Professional Practice Different?  Skilled Practice  Education, preparation, knowledge, skill and continued study  Ethical Conduct  Code of Ethics, a set of shared values and personal integrity  Duty to the Public  Obligation, trust and respect 10

11. MRC April 200911 Self Governance  A profession also accepts responsibility to regulate its members and services  In Alberta, this task falls to APEGGA (Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta)  Changes to the Act “All members shall recognize that professional conduct is founded upon integrity, competence, dignity and devotion.” 11

12. MRC April 200912 Questions?

13. MRC April 200913 Geoscience and Professional Ethics  The word “ethics” comes from the Greek word “ethos”  The study of standards of right and wrong  Deals with moral conduct, duty and judgment: the relationships between people  Deals with the moral implications of the options available to an informed individual  Signifies a shared commitment to strive for excellence 13

14. MRC April 200914 The APEGGA Code of Ethics The purpose of the Code of Ethics is:  To outline principles of professionalism  To distinguish appropriate conduct  To provide a vision of service to society 14

15. MRC April 200915 The APEGGA Rules of Conduct Professional engineers, geologists and geophysicists shall: 1. In their areas of practice, hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public, and have regard for the environment. 2. Undertake only work that they are competent to perform by virtue of their training and experience. 3. Conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, fairness and objectivity in their professional activities. 4. Comply with applicable statutes, regulations and bylaws in their professional practices. 5. Uphold and enhance the honour, dignity and reputation of their professions, and thus, the ability of the professions to serve the public interest. 15

16. MRC April 200916 Professional Service 1. The public 2. His or her practice (employer or clients) 3. Others (peers, third parties and the professional association) 4. The law 5. The profession The Code defines five groups that professionals must serve: 16

17. MRC April 200917 Questions?

18. MRC April 200918 Rule 1: Health, Safety and Welfare of the Public  “Holding paramount...”  Takes precedence over all other considerations  Safe workplaces and projects  The Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Act, Regulations and Code  “Lead by example”  “Considering the public interest” 18

19. MRC April 200919 Rule 2: Competence and Knowledge  Scope of responsibility  Presentation of qualifications  Expressing opinions and engaging experts  Stamping and signing documents  Continuing professional competence 19U of A Geoscience March 10, 2009

20. MRC April 200920 Rule 3: Integrity, Honesty, Fairness and Objectivity  Acting fairly  Expressing opinions in public  Maintaining confidentiality  Conflict of interest  Having recommendations overruled 20

21. MRC April 200921 Rule 4: Statutes, Regulations and Bylaws  Due Diligence  Being aware of the law  Federal, provincial and municipal  Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act and its regulations  Responsible environmental management  Making clients and employers aware of the law 21

22. MRC April 200922 Rule 5: Honour, Dignity and Reputation  Advertising and presentations  Conduct toward other professionals  Reviewing work of other professionals  Supervising members-in-training  Personal behaviour and conduct  Discrimination and human rights 22

23. MRC April 200923 Summary  Professionals are no better than anyone else, just better prepared  Professionals are supported by the twin pillars of ethical behaviour and skilled, knowledgeable practice  APEGGA is its members: it is a self-governing entity and enforces its own act, the Alberta Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act  Geoscientists hold to the same code of ethics as Engineers, but have a greater responsibility for the environment 23

24. MRC April 200924 Questions?

25. MRC April 200925 Case History #1 Stan Dard, P.Eng., was responsible for supervising the perforating procedures for the well casing opposite a potential gas-producing zone. There was no fluid within the casing. Therefore, after perforation, the flow of natural gas would not be contained by the hydrostatic pressure of fluid within the producing formation. Kim Berlite, P.Geol., who was familiar with operations at the well site and knew that the well could produce significant volumes of gas at a high formation pressure, had correctly selected the depth intervals at which the casing was to be perforated. The perforating company, acting under the supervision of Mr. Dard, proceeded to perforate the dry casing. The perforating tools and cable were blown from the well by a significant, uncontrolled flow of high-pressure gas. A nearly unmanageable amount of natural gas flowed from the well, creating hazards to equipment and placing several lives at risk. Fortunately, the well was brought under control and capped without injury to the workers. This might not have been accomplished under other circumstances — for example, if the gas flow had been greater, or if the gas had contained hydrogen sulphide. 25

26. MRC April 200926 Case History #1: Discussion  Rule 1 of the Code was clearly violated  Failure in communication between two technical professionals endangered the lives of fellow workers  Kim failed to caution Stan about the high gas zone; Stan should have consulted Kim before deciding on perforating procedures  Could have caused significant economic loss and damage to the environment 26

27. MRC April 200927 Case History #2 A geophysical consulting company, LMN Geophysical Inc., was awarded an assignment to design a drilling program, interpret data, evaluate the potential of the field, and prepare a report for use by a client to raise capital from the public. The company president, Cy Smick, P.Geoph., assumed both corporate and professional responsibility for the professional practice of the company. He maintained custody of the permit stamp and only he was authorized to affix and sign it before completed documents were issued. The assignment came at a time when the company was extremely busy, Mr. Smick assigned Dee S. Covery, P.Geoph., to direct and control the project. However, she was not able to devote as much attention to the assignment as she believed was needed to provide an adequate level of professional direction. When it was completed, Ms. Covery discussed the report with Mr. Smick. Although she believed that the project staff had performed their respective duties responsibly and well, Ms. Covery expressed concern that she had not been able to properly supervise the work. She explained that for this reason she had not affixed her professional stamp to the final report. The president accepted this explanation and, without further review, affixed and signed LMN's permit stamp to the report and mailed it to the client. The report was accepted and used to develop a prospectus for distribution to potential investors. Several years later, an error was discovered in the report, which had the effect of overstating the investment potential by a factor of three. The client sued LMN and named Smick and Covery in the lawsuit. One of the investors complained to APEGGA. 27

28. MRC April 200928 Case History #2: Discussion Who should bear the major responsibility - LMN’s president or the geophysicist?  Mr. Smick - neglected to review Ms. Covery’s workload and neglected to review report himself  Ms. Covery could have handled the situation better (should have informed Mr. Smick that she would be unable to provide suitable supervision) 28

29. MRC April 200929 Case History #3 Aurest Corporation has been advised by a pollution-control agency that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into an adjacent lake. The agency has also advised Aurest of the minimum standard that must be met. In an effort to convince the agency that the lake will still meet established environmental standards after receiving the manufacturing wastes, the corporation employs Rick Titude, P.Eng., to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report. After completion of his studies, but before completion of any written report, Rick concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the lake below established standards. He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly. Rick orally advises Aurest Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminates Rick’s contract with full payment for his services performed and instructs him not to render a written report to the corporation. Thereafter, Rick learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that Aurest has presented information to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards. 29

30. MRC April 200930 Case History #3: Discussion  Does Rick have an ethical obligation to report his findings?  Should first consider obligations to the public  How should he go about reporting these findings?  Should have rendered a written report  Should find a way to see that his findings are considered at the hearing  Does he have any obligations to notify Aurest?  Should contact to clarify whether his findings have been included or not  Explain that he has a professional obligation to advise the regulatory agency 30

31. MRC April 200931