Talk:Environmental impact of fracking/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

include NOAA research

Why were these removed? found in Hydraulic fracturing (view history)

Wells that pump natural gas from the ground in Colorado have leaked about twice as much gas into the atmosphere as previously thought, a new study finds.

Pétron and her colleagues monitored air quality near Denver using a 300-meter tower. NOAA maintains a network of such towers across the country. This one lies southwest of the Denver-Julesburg Basin, an area that feeds more than 20,000 natural gas wells.

Last year, Howarth found higher-than-expected levels of methane being released from wells that extract gas from shale — a process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. His estimates, reported in 2011 in Climatic Change, suggested that extracting shale gas is substantially worse for climate change than mining coal.

Excerpts from Natural gas wells leakier than believed; Measurements at Colorado site show methane release higher than previous estimates by Devin Powell in Science News March 24th, 2012; Vol.181 #6 (p. 16) 108.195.136.132 (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This research is about the leaks from natural gas wells which includes both: conventional wells and hydraulic fracturing wells. There is no specific data about leaks from the hydraulic fracturing in this article and therefore it was removed from the article. However, the Howarth ed. al. gives specifically data about hydraulic fracturing, so these data are included. As of the edit you referred, it was discussed here and at the edit summaries in the hydraulic fracturing section (as the information in the environment section of the HF article and this article were identical, the same edits were implied here.) Beagel (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/annualconference/previous/2011/pdfs/44-110414-A.pdf I haven't seen hydraulic fracturing (HF) specifically mentioned.

What of this April 2012 http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-18/new-epa-rules-could-prevent-fracking-backlash excerpt ...

Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which conducts much of the government’s climate science, then surprised nearly everyone in February when they revealed that air samples from an area of Colorado with a lot of fracking wells contained twice the amount of methane the EPA estimated came from that production method. NOAA’s finding was closer to Cornell’s numbers.

? 108.195.136.132 (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if Business Week misquotes the NOAA study, it (the Business Week artcle) doesn't assert that NOAA finds that the methane comes from fracking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Did Business Week retract or publish a correction? It is not for you to state "misquote". 108.195.136.132 (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We can observe they misquoted it, if they quoted it as saying "fracking". Stating that, in a Wikipedia article, would violate WP:SYNTH, but editors are allowed to note that a particular source is inaccurate, for the purpose of noting that the source is not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(od) No Synth needed, just quote the article directly and attribute that sentence to that source. 99.119.130.61 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, we could do that,....

According to Business Week, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which conducts much of the government’s climate science, then surprised nearly everyone in February when they revealed that air samples from an area of Colorado with a lot of fracking wells contained twice the amount of methane the EPA estimated came from that production method.

We might need to add the fact that the NOAA report didn't discuss fracking, if we can find a reliable source to that effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

On second thought... it should be in a different subarticle of Natural Gas. The only section on environment effects of production points to this article, and Environmental impact of production of natural gas should be a different article, of which this article should be a subarticle. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Started. 99.181.148.240 (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Add propane studies by NOAA?

• Scientist: Air still safe in Erie despite elevated propane levels April 23, 2012 Daily Camera; excerpt ...

  Propane and other emissions cited in the NOAA study are associated with natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing --

108.195.136.132 (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Associated? Is that the best you can do? Even if the article misquoted NOAA as saying "due to", it's possibly relevant in Natural gas, not in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, we can attribute that to the Daily Camera, as there doesn't seem to be a scientific source which makes that statement. And it still probably doesn't belong in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Effects of frac-sand mining

This should probably be added somewhere. I just saw a new article in Mother Jones about it; if I can find others I'll add them here too. Sindinero (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference?

• Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing ? 99.181.131.210 (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  The nonexistent article Environmental impact of natural gas production is where it should go. It doesn't belong in this article without evidence that NOAA investigated fracking in particular. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of this article belongs in Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. As the two articles are now, there is too much overlap. Plazak (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am fully agree. The U.S. focused/specific information should go into Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States while this article should deal with the HF's environmental impact in general. Cleanup of this article is needed. Beagel (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well Cementing

This page should cover well cementing as failures may be a potential cause for methane contmination of drinking water.

Robert Howarth interview in Gasland II, and http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors03/aut03/p62_76.pdf

Rebuttal: http://energyindepth.org/national/debunking-gasland-part-ii/

Well cementing is not HF specific it applies to all gas wells. I agree with the assessment of Arthur Rubin above that we need also an article named Environmental impact of natural gas production. Beagel (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Misleading statement on iodine-131

The third paragraph of the “Scientific debate” section starts with this statement:

“The 2012 EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Draft Plan was also narrowed. It does not include studying the effects of iodine-131 (found in Philadelphia's drinking water)[19][20][21]”

The clear implication of the above is that hydraulic fracturing may be responsible for radioactive iodine observed in Philadelphia drinking water, and that the EPA is ignoring this threat. But the cited references do not support this. References [19] and [20] concern EPA detection of temporary spikes in iodine-131 levels in Pennsylvania in early 2011 due to the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, but at what the EPA says are "levels well below public-health concern.” (ref [20]). Reference [21] describes spikes in iodine-131 concentrations in Wissahickon Creek, a small watershed in SE Pennsylvania far from any hydraulic fracturing; the high iodine-131 there was ascribed to urine from thyroid cancer patients being treated with iodine-131. None of the three cited references even mention hydraulic fracturing.

The statement has the problems that it is misleading, POV, and WP:SYN. If the wiki article is going to beat up the EPA study for not including some substances such as iodine-131, as is the intent of the above sentence, there should be a citation from a WP:RS noting that the study is deficient in leaving it out. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Issue concerning also this article

Issue concerning also this article is raised here. Beagel (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Scientific issues

In discussing the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, and the means by which it can be safely carried out, it might be useful to reference the 2012 report by the Royal Society (Shale gas extraction in the UK), which dealt with the technical and environmental aspects of shale gas extraction. Significantly, the report contains 10 recommendations for operators and regulators that, if faithfully followed, will likely mitigate the dangers associated with fracking. As such, mention of the report would help to frame the issue in this section. Disclosure: I am a former intern at the Royal Society, the science academy for the UK. BeecherP (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT of new study: "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status" (2014)

@Tillman: I came here to add [1] but then I noticed your recent deletion. Could you please explain how WP:WEIGHT applies to the recency of peer-reviewed studies? The PNAS report was in BBC and on NPR today, and the EHP paper got similar widespread secondary media coverage a few days ago, as per Google News. EllenCT (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The classic problem of epidemiological studies like this one is false positives, ie correlations by chance. This has plagued innumerable studies of (forex) cancer "hot spots". Also many problems of Confirmation bias elsewhere, especially in politicized topics. So, premature to put much weight on this one.

That said, I haven't read this study. Does it look legit? No objection to mentioning it in the body, maybe with a caveat, but inappropriate in the lede, as the IP had placed it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The EHP study says n=492 people in 180 households using groundwater, with p-values of 0.004 for the lung problems and 0.01 for the skin problems, which means no more than a 0.4% and 1% chance of false positives, respectively. The usual standard for reporting epidemiological results is a 5% chance of error, so I would certainly include it. The PNAS paper used noble gas spectrography to trace sources of methane, and they say p<0.01 for all the sources of contamination they identified, so it's just as good. Given how much press both studies got, I would be inclined to summarize both of them per the WP:LEAD instructions on prominent controversies. EllenCT (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I took a look. Here's the full text: [2]

Per the abstract, "Methods: We conducted a hypothesis generating health symptom survey..." This is unpromising.

"Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that natural gas drilling activities could be associated with increased reports of dermal and upper respiratory symptoms... (p. 19, PDF) They recommend "further research". OK, but it's all pretty vague. So -- summarize, but best to wait for some third-party RS reactions. We don't have deadlines here ;-] --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what a hypothesis-generating survey is? As opposed to a hypothesis-testing survey? Both reports have already appeared in several international news media RSs. EllenCT (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Any source for health information need to be a WP:MEDRS. This isn't one. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The EHP study has widespread coverage in international secondary news e.g. [3] and the PNAS study's health claims are all part of its WP:SECONDARY literature review section. The remainder of the article makes no health claims, just showing the routes and magnitude of groundwater contamination. EllenCT (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate." -- from the WP:MEDRS PMID 23722091.

http://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1016/j.pedn.2011.07.012 (PMID 22703686) is also a MEDRS, and is very informative as to the specific details. EllenCT (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV?

It doesn't seem the article is written with a very neutral point of view, and seems to jump to conclusions, at least in the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupiakos (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have tried to make it consistent with the MEDRS sources above. EllenCT (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Revamped "Health issues" section

I just cleaned this up. I found inconsistent reference formatting, use of press releases and low quality sources for health content, other cherry-picked and misrepresented sources, and plagiarism. I almost fear to look elsewhere in the article, but notice from the reference list there appears to be a lot of press releases used. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. This is one of articles which has suffered from a campaign of certain editor with very strong POV against HF. Any assistance to clean it up and making more encyclopaedic is welcome.

P.S. You probably would like to check against WP:MEDRS also Hydraulic fracturing, Hydraulic fracturing in the United States, and particularly Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

nondisclosure laws & confidentiality of proceedings

In this dif, EllenCT added: "Mandatory nondisclosure laws and confidentiality requirements of legal proceedings prevented earlier conclusive studies." Three sources provided:

• jenner says nothing about nondisclosure laws or confidentiality of court proceedings
• the propublica source says nothing about nondisclosure laws or confidentiality of court proceedings
• Casper Star Tribune says nothing about nondisclosure laws or confidentiality of court proceedings

So I deleted content, pending sources that WP:VERIFY the content. This sentence also is significant violation of WP:SYN - nothing in those sources says that a) the eaton source is "conclusive". Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the paragraph to read:

"A 2013 review concluded that confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations impede peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts. Additional irregularities involving the US Environmental Protection Agency defending their research while simultaneously disclaiming its conclusions have arisen."

EllenCT (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

please do not use refs on talk unless you include the reflist template. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

the new 2nd sentence about "irregularities" is not good - weasel-wordy WP:SOAPBOX-y. deleted it. what is it you are trying to say here, EllenCT? thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should I give your questions any respect when you have refused to answer a half dozen of mine in the past week? You know exactly what I am trying to say. EllenCT (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

i don't ask rhetorical questions -- I don't know what you want to express. Now you have added "The US Environmental Protection Agency has defended their research into hydraulic fracturing while simultaneously attempting to downplay its results". This really doesn't say anything. As I wrote away above, I think the draft EPA report is a good source and I am working to include it and content based on it. am waiting to hear from beagle and alexbrn and you on that. (in contentious articles i try to go slow when adding content, and try to gather consensus. just being Bold is often counter-productive in articles like this where there are different perspectives) Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Earthquakes

Who has the best sources on earthquakes? What does an initial fracking event usually measure on the Richter scale? EllenCT (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This information is already in this article and sourced. The briefing paper by the Worldwatch Institute says: "Slickwater increases water pressure in these microfractures, inducing shear-slip, or micro-seismic events that generally have magnitudes of less than -1.5 on the Richter scale—about as much energy as is released by a gallon of milk dropped from chest height to the floor." The source of bigger tremors seems to be disposal of flowback water if injected into disposal wells. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What should the introduction say about the risk of dangerous quakes? EllenCT (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Perhaps link Injection well#Injection-induced earthquakes or something more relevant if it exists. The fluid injection is the primary cause for concern when it comes to earthquakes. Dustin (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess that's okay. I'd rather have a MEDRS review source, even as much as I think holding the entire article to the MEDRS guideline which was intended for drugs and therapies is completely absurd. EllenCT (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

At WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking, I have proposed the following language as a compromise proposal for including Rabinowitz, P.M., et al. (2014) "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania" Environmental Health Perspectives DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307732

A 2014 telephone survey of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania reported that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were reported in 18% of the population 1.2 miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. The number of people reporting skin problems increased in from 3% to 13% over the same distances.

Given that this is completely consistent with what I have now shown to be several highly-cited conclusive MEDRSs, what reasons remain for excluding this primary report?

Secondary news sources covering it include [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Would it be better to summarize any or all of those instead? Here are the first three paragraphs of that last Weather.com story:

Those who live 1 kilometer or closer to natural gas fracking wells are more than twice as likely to report skin conditions and upper respiratory symptoms, such as nose bleeds and coughs, as those living more than 2 kilometers away, a new report from Yale University found.

The study, which tracked self-reported health data from 180 households containing 492 people in Pennsylvania's Washington County, is the largest of its kind, lead author Peter Rabinowitz, M.D., who is now with the University of Washington's School of Public Health, told weather.com.

"We got interested in this issue because there were concerns that had been brought up about people complaining of some health symptoms when living near natural gas drilling or extraction facilities," he said. "At the time we started this study, most of these reports were really just that: isolated case reports of a handful of individuals."

(emphasis added.) EllenCT (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

please see Respect secondary sources which says (am copying what it says here):

"Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. Such sources should generally be entirely omitted (in accordance with recentism), because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them). "

please also see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press:

"The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[20] costs, and risks versus benefits,[21] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[22] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[23] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources."

so no, the news reports are not WP:SECONDARY under MEDRS. What you have is a primary source. Please wait until its findings are included a review article that is actually aiming at synthesizing the research that has been done on health effects of fracking. I understand that the EPA is coming out with their review pretty soon. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is adhering to the MEDRS guideline more important than reporting on the largest primary study's confirmation of the unanimous view of all of the conclusive MEDRSs? EllenCT (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS flows directly from the more general guideline, WP:RS. That guideline in turn, fleshes out two policies, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Those policies, and RS, and MEDRS, all express the consensus of the community that secondary sources are more reliable sources, and strongly preferred, compared to primary sources, and primary sources are to be avoided. All that MEDRS does, is define what "secondary" and "primary" sources are for health-related content, and amps up the preference for secondary sources more strongly. All these sources you are bringing are primary. That is the key issue. Does that answer your question? (I very much tried to respond directly to it, so please tell me if anything is not clear) Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Why are you calling professional journalism from widely respected national and international news organizations with editors and reputations for fact checking and accuracy primary, or am I misunderstanding you? EllenCT (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I directly answered your question, quoting the relevant guideline, which has a clear explanation of why we don't use the media for health-related content. your argument is with the guideline, not with me. again, we all need to work within what relevant policies and guidelines say; we don't make things up as we go along. that is how wikipedia works. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

New source from South Africa

Might be useful:

• Mash R, Minnaar J, Mash B (2014). "Health and fracking: Should the medical profession be concerned?". S. Afr. Med. J. 104 (5): 332–5. PMID 25212197. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

—Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for health-related content

Our best sources say that right now we don't know what the health impact is. The content and sources EllenCT have been adding all (appropriately) are subjuntive, and use verbs like "might" and "may" etc. I just made a Bold edit, and moved current health content into the Risk management debate section. Please take a second to really consider it - I think it is a good way to go, because it puts all the "may" and "might" into their proper context -- these are all potential risks that people are concerned about, and that we as a society need to figure out a way to manage. I will not object to this being reverted, but hope folks will consider it and discuss. thanks.Jytdog (talk) 29 September 2014 21:38 (UTC)

That assertion is completely false, and was disproved beyond a shadow of any doubt hours ago. Please remember to sign your talk page posts. EllenCT (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: why do you continue to imply that the inconclusive MEDRSs are superior to the conclusive MEDRSs? Are you in denial? EllenCT (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

please see above in the "compromise proposal" section. you are making up your own rules; in Wikipedia "conclusive" is not a criterium under which we analyze sources per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We all need to understand these policies and guidelines and reason from them; without them this place would be a wild west and there would be no way to rationally work out disagreements. Please ground your arguments on what policies and guidelines actually say - and most importantly on their spirit. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't whether a MEDRS is conclusive a criterion? It follows from common sense and the spirit of preferring new MEDRSs to old ones that a review which reaches a strong conclusion should be preferred to those which claim more research is needed, unless the latter are more recent. When all of the conclusive MEDRSs are in agreement, as is the case here, then why isn't preferring inconclusive reviews anything more than POV-pushing the view from nowhere in an attempt to downplay the results? EllenCT (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This factor, "whether a MEDRS is conclusive" is entirely your invention and plays no part in our WP:PAGs. What does it even mean? Practically all MEDRS sources will have a section called "Conclusion" (or some equivalent). If your argument is with MEDRS, the place to discuss it is at WT:MEDRS. I also recommend this helpful essay. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think moving the health content into the Risk management section improves the article as it better reflects what the sources are saying. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Shale gas

It seems that information about shale gas life-cycle emissions and leakages during shale gas development is misplaced and belongs in Shale gas, not here. While HF is used for shale gas production, it is incorrect to assume that relevant information about shale gas or shale gas production is relevant also for HF. If the emission is not caused by HF, but by other stages of production, it does not belong here. Therefore I propose to move relevant paragraphs into the Shale gas article. Beagel (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Once more, shale gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing ARE NOT synonyms. While hydraulic fracturing is often (but not always) used in the shale gas extraction process, it is only part of the process, not the whole process. E.g. some shale gas extraction impacts take a place due to bad casing and cementing which should be done for every well notwithstanding if it is hydraulically fractured or not. At the same time hydraulic fracturing is used not only for hydrocarbons (oil and gas) wells and also e.g. for water wells.Therefore, these are not synonyms and clear distinctions should be made. If necessary, Environmental impact of shale gas or Environmental impact of shale gas extraction should be created as proposed several times before. Beagel (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Source cited in the opening sentence of this entry did not at all align with the conclusions outlined within the report

The conclusion of this government work is here; "Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future. Yet questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment to date of the types and volumes of chemical used in the hydraulic fracturing process. It shows that between 2005 and 2009, the 14 leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 compounds. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants."

Other than the question raised above, this source makes no conclusions whatsoever.

Even if it is highly probable that "chemicals that are known human carcinogens are present" nothing can be factually proven. You are likely to find sources denying any linkage to widespread impact, and you will find many sources acclaiming widespread impact.

The European fracking study was misquoted as well, it being a preplanning document to avoid risks and mitigate exposures through the implementation of standards and policies to be developed in the future..

Lfrankbalm (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In this series of difs Lfrankbalm made some extensive changes to the lead. I reverted them. Per my edit note:

1. these edits added content not found in body to the lead (the lead just summarizes body per WP:LEAD)
2. the edits changed the first sentence to read "hydraulic fracturing has raised questions..." which makes no sense. fracking is a process not a person. People have raised questions about fracking. perhaps. but the former language "The environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing includes..." is altogether more simple and direct. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Risk management debate" violates WP:CRITS

The old "Scientific debate" and new "Risk management debate" section is a controversy section in violation of WP:CRITS, so unless good reasons for keeping it separate are forthcoming, I intend to re-integrate it. EllenCT (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

can we discuss that? i think it is very helpful to have a discussion about risk management in the article. it is an important topic and very germane to fracking. plus, please see below... Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please strike your repeated false statements here and elsewhere that the MEDRSs on the topic are inconclusive, and I will be happy to discuss it with you. EllenCT (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing in the literature, Jytdog is right: the best sources conclude that the health effects of fracking are currently unknown, that there is concern and risk, and that this topic should be studied. We shall reflect that accepted knowledge here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT this is not a CRIT section. Risk management and risk assessment are legitimate topics in this. in some sections we discuss what the science is telling us about actual and potential issues; in this section the article discusses various approaches governments are taking to address those actual and potential issues. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits contrary to MEDRS conclusions

I disagree with these edits by User:Alexbrn because both the changed and removed texts were consistent with the conclusions of the MEDRS sources which express any conclusions stronger than "more research is needed." I propose "Health issues" and restoring the recent epidemiological measurement consistent with the firmly conclusive MEDRS sources:

"A 2014 study of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania found that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were found in 18% of the population 1.2 miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. People with clinically significant skin problems increased from 3% to 13% over the same distances."

EllenCT (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

References

A study relaying the results of a small self-reporting telephone survey is primary research and not a WP:MEDRS. Even if it were, we are now overstating its tentative conclusions, which were: "these results should be viewed as hypothesis generating". Misuse of a poor source. Smells of POV-pushing to me. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe the survey was self-reporting? Let's take a step back before we get into your allegations of "smells of POV pushing." How many MEDRS are consistent with the results? Multiple. How many are inconsistent? Zero. If you have reason to believe otherwise, please state it. EllenCT (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The results are stated to be of "reported health symptoms" (you cannot really get otherwise from a phone survey). Our best MEDRS sources (e.g. PMID 24119661) say the health effects of fracking are generally unknown, as was discussed at WT:MED. So this is mis-using a primary source, which states its own findings may only be used to form hypotheses, to push a view on Wikipedia at odds with the generally accepted one in the best sources - which is not neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between a self-reported, voluntary survey, and a telephone survey? Why do you believe PMID 24119661 is "best" when we have multiple conclusive MEDRSs? When is an inconclusive MEDRS ever superior to one which finds solid conclusions? A hypothesis-generating survey is one where they ask "have you had medical problems, and if so which?" as opposed to "have you had medical problems X, Y, or Z?" EllenCT (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

When is an inconclusive MEDRS ever superior to one which finds solid conclusions? ← when it's a superior source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any good reasons that any of the conclusive MEDRSs are inferior to any of the inconclusive MEDRSs? If so, please state them. EllenCT (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What's an "inconclusive MEDRSs"? Never seen that term before. Not something mentioned in our WP:PAGs ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The question is if this typical in all HF cases, relevant to the certain countries due their regulations concerning certain chemicals or relevant only for some cases (due to violation of regulations or for some other reason). It should be certainly be clarified in this article if this the case with all HF sites or if it is something which may happen in some certain cases but which is not typical for all sites. Also, if this is about the U.S. only, it belongs to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States rather than here. Beagel (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The locale is described at the beginning of the paragraph. EllenCT (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why I am asking. Because providing just example from certain limited area without proving a context if this is typical for all HF operations or what reasons are behind of these consequences is problematic as it creates an understanding that this is typical for all HF operations. It may or may not be the case but it is not clear from the source. So, the first question is if this global, US-specific, or Washington County-specific. If this global, it belongs here. If it is US-specific, it probably belongs to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. The other question is what is the reason for that impact: is it specific chemical in the fracturing fluid or release of specific substance from the ground due to HF. In the second case it is location geology specific and not global. If it due to certain chemical, the question is if this chemical is allowed to use and if yes, in which countries/states. There is a number of chemicals allowed for HF in the US, but not in Europe. Again, if this country specific, it probably belongs to the relevant country article. This article should reflect the overall global overview while country-specific information should go to the country-specific articles, e.g. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Locale-specific articles on global controversies are WP:POVFORKs. EllenCT (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it depends if the reason and impact is global or country/location/ etc specific. E.g. if the impact is caused by chemical X which is allowed in the country Y but not in the other countries, it is country Y specific and not global issue. If the impact is caused due to the unique geological structure in location Z, it is also not the global issue. On the other hand, if the impact is universal notwithstanding country or location specific conditions, it is the global issue. This is exactly the reason why I asked (without any prejudice) if the results of this study are universal or country/location specific. It is not clear from the source but from your answer (locale is described at the beginning of the paragraph) one could make a conclusion that this is rather location specific, not global. Beagel (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

saw the posting at ProjectMedicine:

• EllenCT was Bold and added a WP:PRIMARY source (Rabinowitz) in this dif on 17:14, 28 September 2014
• Alexbrn Reverted in this dif on 18:16, 28 September 2014
• instead of allowing Discussion to play out per WP:BRD, EllenCT edit warred and re-reverted in this dif. There is no agreement above to include this source,
• I just restored Alexbrn's original reversion in this dif. EllenCT per WP:BRD please finish discussion here and establish consensus for including this source and content based on it before re-adding. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I invite further comment at dispute resolution: WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking. EllenCT (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the notification. btw, that is the "Reliable sources noticeboard". DR is something else. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion that RSN isn't a DR noticeboard is false and absurd. EllenCT (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have now actually gone to DR: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing. glad you figured that out. :) Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

DR opened

Notice to everybody, EllenCT has opened a DR thread on this Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing. Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

and... closed with the reason given: "DRN does not accept content disputes that are already being discussed at other venues." Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

content based on "New Solutions"

In this dif EllenCT introduced the following: "A 2013 review of environmental exposure studies stated that, "introduction of natural gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing to Pennsylvania and neighboring states since 2004 has been accompanied by numerous reports of varied symptoms and illnesses by those living near these operations.""
the source is published by the "New Solutions" journal, article is here (website says it is free access).
This article is in their "movement solutions" series of articles, which are "Papers that describe progressive social movement activities and efforts, describing successes and the steps toward them, as well as challenges and barriers faced in efforts to promote environmental and occupational health, and prevent morbidities and mortality due to occupational and environmental exposures and conditions." (see [10].

I am not at all sure this is MEDRS-compliant.

More importantly, the source is very similar to phone-survey study reported above.

Even more importantly, the article itself makes it clear that we don't know if those reports are related to fracking, and presenting that quote makes it seem like they are. This is not how we present health-related information in Wikipedia. I have removed this content pending discussion here of the source and the content presented. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC) (note - corrected dif per ellenCT's note below. sorry for the error Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

That diff has nothing to do with the insertion of the source to which you refer. The content you removed was:

A 2013 review of environmental exposure studies stated that, "introduction of natural gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing to Pennsylvania and neighboring states since 2004 has been accompanied by numerous reports of varied symptoms and illnesses by those living near these operations."

The journal is indexed by medline, and the article is a secondary review meeting WP:MEDRS. The assertion that it is "similar to phone-survey study reported above" is absolutely false. If you are "not at all sure this is MEDRS-compliant" then what are your reasons? The quote is taken directly from the abstract as vetted by the peer reviewers. EllenCT (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On the MEDRS question. yes the journal is indexed by medline and pubmed. both of those are good things. However, here is the article's Medline entry, and this (PMID 23552656) is the pubmed entry. neither index classifies this as a Review. The article is advice from one doctor to other doctors - to goal is to provide guidance about how to treat patients who present with complaints about health effects from fracking, and how to track those complaints. (in that sense it is much like the article about nurses). It is not a "review" as Medline and Pubmed use the term, "Review" (which is the same way that MEDRS uses it).

On the content question. Per its purpose, the article is not quantitative (it doesn't actually count the number of these complaints (except roughly - the author says he has had "about fifty"). More importantly, the article does not draw conclusions that the complaints actually stem from fracking. The author, a scientist (!), is very concerned about the risks from fracking - that these complaints might indeed be from fracking (and that there may be many more in the future!). But he is not saying that they are.

it is like the phone survey source and content, because the sentence that you quoted is about self-reports. This is not like real epidemiological studies, where scientists and doctors actually collect samples from people (urine, blood, etc) and clinically assess those people, and then record their observations and measurements, and then analyze the data they collected. This is very different from "self-reports" like phone surveys or presenting at a doctor's office with a complaint and its cause.

pretty much all the health-related articles you have brought are like this. they are not actually reporting the scientific consensus on health effects (which is that we don't know yet). They are expressions of concern about risk. Which is why I suggested moving the section into the risk management section... Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How is a review of environmental exposure study methodology, which clearly states it is such a review, anything like a phone survey? "Pretty much all the health-related articles" I have brought are conclusive MEDRS reviews, utterly disproving your repeated false statements that the MEDRSs are all inconclusive. But instead of trying to correct your mistake, you have attempted to dig in. By all means, please continue. EllenCT (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You pointed to the article's being indexed by pubmed and Medline. Neither of them classify this as a review. Why are you classifying it as a review? thanks Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the part where it says it's a review? EllenCT (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

sure i read that. did you read how both medline and pubmed classify it?Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Who do you trust more, the peer reviewers and authors, or a government employee indexing thousands of articles per day? EllenCT (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

indexers. it is their job to classify and index articles; that is what they do and we rely on them for that. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your source for the implication that indexers are more accurate at categorizing literature reviews than peer reviewers? EllenCT (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Endocrine

EllenCT please make your edits more piecemeal. You added the following in this dif: A study conducted in Garfield County, Colorado and published in Endocrinology suggested that natural gas drilling operations may result in elevated endocrine-disrupting chemical activity in surface and ground water." Source: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/en.2013-1697 This is WP:PRIMARY and per MEDRS we do not use primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy. Since this report is also consistent with what I have now shown to be several highly cited conclusive recent MEDRSs, I am inclined to replace it. EllenCT (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

i am sorry but nobody here agrees that you brought any " conclusive recent MEDRSs". This is unfortunately a common and therefore predictable tactic - pile up a bunch of WP:PRIMARY sources and then use the pile to say "look it is conclusive." that is not how things work here, and is WP:SYN. we rely on reviews, and the most recent review says "inconclusive". Again, the EPA report is coming out soon and that should be very very interesting for all of us. I am really looking forward as it will be the most authoritative thing out there. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What evidence do you believe supports the extremely questionable assertion that I have not, over the past few days, added multiple highly-cited and recent MEDRSs sources which are all in agreement that there are very substantial negative health effects from groundwater contamination? Do you have any evidence than any of the conclusive MEDRSs are not in agreement with those that I have added? Why do you continue to pretend that all of the MEDRSs are inconclusive? EllenCT (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

per discussion above, took out Endocrine source which is WP:PRIMARY and fails MEDRS. no consensus to keep this source. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft report by EPA

"Investigation of Ground Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming" is a draft report not final report. It was issued for public comment and independent scientific peer review. However, due to critics the final report was never issued and investigation on the Pavillion case was conveyed to the state of Wyoming. Therefore we should be careful using this draft report. Beagel (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What is your source that the final report was never issued, and what do you mean "due to critics"? The MEDRS [11] describes the EPA report as follows, "recently, EPA stated that from analysis conducted in Pavillion, Wyoming ‘‘the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing’’, the first time such direct link has been suggested by the federal agency (DiGiulio et al., 2011)." EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

E.g. this news. There are more, this was just the first one to pop-up by search. Beagel (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That story should be summarized in the article. EllenCT (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There was a case that a study by Texas University was considered unreliable as the team leader failed to disclosure its links to the subject. At the current stage when EPA is not able to peer review its preliminary report and publish the final report due to critics about methodology, reliability of the draft report raises concerns. That means it is not the best source to use, at least if we talking about its conclusions, particularly when EPA itself has said that the linkage expressed in the draft report is not confirmed by the additional studies. And again, this is about one company activities in certain limited area which does not necessarily reflects the global context. Beagel (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

URL? EllenCT (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

E.g. this. But again, this is not the case, when EPA does not plan to finalize or seek peer review of the draft report. Beagel (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

hmm. The draft report deals with 2 key sorts of contamination: shallow and deep. On page 33 it is clear that they made a definitive finding that waste pits are causing shallow contamination, and that the site's operators are taking action to remediate several of the pits. Especially since the site's operator is taking action, there is nothing fuzzy about that finding. With respect to deep contamination, on page 33 the draft report says "the explanation best fitting the data for the deep monitoring wells is that constituents associated with hydraulic fracturing have been released into the Wind River drinking water aquifer at depths above the current production zone." I think it would be appropriate to use this draft as a source for content about the specific site, with a footnote transmitting the notice on the report, namely "This report has been reviewed and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use." Please note that per congressional testimony of the regional EPA administrator,

"Their findings were subjected to intensive review by career management and staff of our research organization. In addition, a technical review of the results was conducted by independent experts before the full draft report was made available to the public." So this is not some slop job. In that testimony, the administrator said that EPA intended to have an independent panel review that study. i found no discussion of that panel or its findings on othe EPA website (which just sucks to search).Beagel, I was going to ask for your source that EPA is not going to finalize the draft nor have it peer reviewed after all but I found one - an EPA press release from June 2013 - which says that; it also appears that the state of wyoming had plans to issue a report on Sept 30! (tomorrow) hm. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

i have let this sit long enough. absent objections, i will generate content from this source and use it in the article. Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it is fine to use the cited facts but in the light of problems of approval of the final report, I would be cautious with using the findings. I personally think that these two findings about shallow and deep contamination are probably correct; however it reliable sources. It seems that the finding about swallow contamination is universal and belongs in this article (groundwater contamination by waste water ponds is already included). "the explanation best fitting the data for the deep monitoring wells is that constituents associated with hydraulic fracturing have been released into the Wind River drinking water aquifer at depths above the current production zone." is more problematic as this does no clarify if this is universal issue or related to specific site/chemical/company/regulation. It does not say what is the exact reason:

• specific chemical? Is it allowed to use universally or in certain countries?
• exact procedure? Is it universal or allowed only in certain countries?
• violation of regulations? If it is violation by the company, it is not universal but most likely failure of certain supervisory body.

As a report about certain site it fits probably better in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been making an argument in several places that I struggle with - namely, that statements about environmental effects need to somehow applicable to every situation. But every place where fracking is done has local geography and specific ways things are being done; it will not be possible to make any kind of general statements that apply to all fracking sites. So it very much makes sense to provide examples and make clear how they may be possible at other sites, depending on geography and the methods used. being more specific.... ok so we are agreed on the shallow pond thing. i had no intention of making general statements about that, as geography and methods differ from site to site. i would be fine including the statement you quote, ascribing it to the draft report, and to the locale. I will add some content based on that, and will be ready to see it reverted if you are too unhappy with it and we can discuss more.... that will give us something concrete to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

From Hydraulic fracturing in the United States#Groundwater quality studies

Should we summarize [12] and [13]? EllenCT (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That second source is ancient history at this point, thought it played an important role in the history of legislation. Regarding the ongoing debates above, there is rarely research that avoids completely criticism, especially when it involves so many interested parties. If we are to be even-handed, we should probably present the results of the available current RS (peer reviewed and/or official government reports, etc.) along with the criticisms that have been noted for each in succint, summarized form. Stoney1976 (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is that discussion currently taking place? Stoney1976 (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

removed source

i removed the following (removed ref formatting) : ref name="netldoe" cite report |url= http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/Environmental/Produced_Water/00975_MarcellusFlowback.html%7Ctitle= Sustainable Management of Flowback Water during Hydraulic Fracturing of Marcellus Shale for Natural Gas Production |author= Sandy McSurdy & Radisav Vidic |date= 25 June 2013|publisher=National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy |accessdate=29 June 2013|format = PDF/ref.

• the link is broken - the correct link is here.
• That page describes a grant funding proposal, and provides a report of the results of the funded work, back to the funding agency. This is not only WP:PRIMARY but it is not peer reviewed. I would not rely on this. and we don't need it, as there was a second, better source for the same content in the article. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Water contamination

Currently the 'Water contamination' section was renamed 'Groundwater contamination'. While I agree that most of water contamination issues are related to groundwater, I see the new title as too limiting as HF (particularly mismanagement of its wastewater) may cause also contamination of the surface water, e.g. rivers and ponds. I think that the water section should cover both. Beagel (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

fixed, thanks for pointing that out - wouldn't have been offended had you fixed it. :) Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Expansion of lead

@Jytdog: it is good that you have tried to better summarize the article in the lead. The previous lead was pretty skimpy and not really a summary. However, now a lot of trimming is needed. Per LEADLENGTH, the lead should be limited to four paragraphs. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

i had a goal in mind... see Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing#bold_edit Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

i want to add that the issues here are emotionally charged (see sad events below that led to a block). i wanted to meet the goal of keeping the suite of articles aligned so that readers find consistent information throughout WP. To do that on this issue, the move from WP:LEAD here to WP:SUMMARY in the other article needs to be rigorous and clear and more detailed than we would normally do, as being too compressive would be very likely to lead to complaints of censorship or whitewashing. If you can find a way to compress more while being sensitive to other editors' desires to see complete coverage, while keeping the articles well-aligned, I am all ears! i am sure my effort can be improved upon. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)( copyedited Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC))

For now, I'd rather work on the content; I have found some high-quality sources that are not used in these articles yet. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

this discussion is all about content. maybe you mean you want to improve the body of the article? Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Right - sorry for the lack of clarity. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to cut back the lead? It is unbelievably large, with far too much specificity. Arzel (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

please see discussion above. very open to discussion of how to solve the optimization-of-multiple-parameters problem we have. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about massive POV edits

Believe fresh eyes could do this article some good, hence POV tag. Stoney1976 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

please articulate your concerns, based on what WP:NPOV actually says. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Large amounts of well-sourced information has been removed or deleted from a POV angle by the same group of editors. No observable attempted to be neutral. Rules for removing tags are different from those for regular edits.Stoney1976 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You should still get concensus on re-adding the tag. WP:BRD currently the concensus is against you and you appear to be edit warring. I still do not see you mentioning anything specific that I could look at as actionable to look at and make an informed decission on if tag is needed. Concensus is no POV Tag currently VViking_TalkEdits 15:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have put a lot of work into Hydraulic Fracturing in the UK, and have tried to keep it scientific and well resourced from research papers, and Govt regulation rather than speculation. There are so many factual errors in this I resent a link fro the UK site to this one. I can see why there have been 'edit wars', and I do not want to get involved. Also US practice is so different to what is being proposed in the UK, so many comments here are invalid for the UK site.Kennywpara (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(Kennywpara is referring to the link in the navbox.) RockMagnetist(talk) 21:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Kennywpara while i agree that this page has been a nightmare of POV-pushing, we are working to improve it. it would be helpful if you could point out specific errors that we could work on fixing. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kennywpara mentions a couple of specifics at Talk:Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom#Fracturing template: "eg fracking is an earthquake risk, er... no it isnt. Injection wells are a moderate risk but thats not fracking." RockMagnetist(talk) 17:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

pressure groups

matters of "where are the regulators" were of great concern to ellenct and i think (based on history) would be to the-temporarily-blocked Stoney1976 as well. when i made my edits over the weekend and thought about that, it seemed to me that it made sense to have a section dealing with pressure groups, generally, be they more lax or more strict regulation. since RockMagnetist removed the activists, I removed the lobbying as well; seems to me that they should both be in or both be out. in view there has been plenty of coverage of both wrt to environmental impact assessments and risk management, so i prefer leaving them in. i won't edit war over it for sure. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I recovered the material on lobbying that you removed and put it in Regulation of hydraulic fracturing, improving the citations in the process. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

By my understanding the information about pressure groups does not belong here as this is not the environmental impact. Probably Regulation of hydraulic fracturing is better article for that (or maybe some other article). Beagel (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

one of the points that EllenCT tried to make in her infelicitous manner, is that there are plenty of sources talking about the EPA caving to industry and state-government pressure to back off findings it has made on environmental impact; this is one of the reasons we lack really high quality sources for environmental impact in the US (which we have from other countries's governmental bodies). There is good case for there being content about that, in this article.Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And we falling again in the trap turning general/global article into country-specific (even if this specific country is the United States, its still country specific). How do you avoid in this case overlapping with the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States? Beagel (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

c'mon beagal. the US accounts for the huge majority of fracking in the world (87% as of 2012, according to Bloomberg News), so discussion of "what is happening in the US" has a place in any fracking article. not to the exclusion of other countries for sure. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked how do you avoid in this case overlapping with the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States? Beagel (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

again, c'mon beagel. there are all kinds of overlaps among these topics, as we have been discussing. as always, a topic is discussed at greatest length in the article that comes closest to being centered on the topic (so for this, the most discussion would be in the US article) and the topic is discussed with less WEIGHT - but still discussed - in more global (geographically and topically) articles. that is easy and common as dirt in WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Beagel: I think that is a good question. I suspect that if we trimmed out all the primary-source case studies in these articles, they could be merged again. But Jytdog also has a good point - most of the research has been done in the U.S. because that is where the fracking is done, and reports issued overseas probably rely heavily on U.S. research. We probably should just add the material in this article and then decide if some of it needs to be split off. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

i was doing a lot of that trimming-of-primaries over the weekend and after a few hours i got so, sick of it and had to stop. heck yes we need to keep trimming back on that stuff. let's keep doing and we may well end up seeing that articles can be merged! (nice orthogonal solution) great. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for having some coverage of that - this article has a nice summary. But the material that is currently in Policy and science is more on the general approach to regulation and does not belong here. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

it was in a separate section until you removed the section header, mr. magnetist. :) i do see that there is a nice section on this in the main fracking article Hydraulic_fracturing#Research_issues. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The material I am discussing was always above that section header. Not that it has any bearing on whether the material should be in this article. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For my fivepennyworth, pressure groups, etc should NOT be in an article about environmental impactsKennywpara (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC) nor should regulation, which is country specific. Regarding the US centering I agree that most research originates from the US, but from here in the UK with the amount of press protesting and bs that is talked you would think it was a major industry! Kennywpara (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Policy and science

The section Policy and science largely duplicates Regulation of hydraulic fracturing and, in my opinion, is not strictly part of this subject. There are also sections on regulations in Hydraulic fracturing and the country-specific pages. Shall I remove it? RockMagnetist(talk) 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

didn't know that was there! per WP:SUMMARY we should blend what is here back into that article and use the lead of that article here.... in my view all that content should be harmonized. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. If regulation is discussed here, I think it should be part of a section that outlines a variety of responses including advances in technology, industry best practices, and regulation. But it should be fairly succinct because it duplicates content in multiple articles. I'm hoping that the sidebar I added raises awareness of these other articles. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with harmonization and using WP:SS. Beagel (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a concensus that there should be harmonisation. Still not 100% keen but I can see the point to avoid NPOV.FORK (which I read up on). Problems I have with is that so many issues are country specific.eg, use of chemicals such as benzene. It will never be permitted in the UK or EU, so that them impinges on then on health effects etc. Also regulation, etc etc. I tried to make a 'one stop shop' for those with an open mind to be able to look at all the issues that have been raised in the UK, and have some form of reference. Kennywpara (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're agreeing to harmonize. At the moment Policy and science mainly discusses legal philosophy; it should be more directly related to environmental impacts and ways they can be reduced. But I agree with Kennywpara that regulation is mostly a regional issue. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Water depletion

I added some links here on the UN report on water stress. It was removed by Beagel The whole context of parts of this is not proper science. Fracking uses tiny amounts of water compared to industry and farming. Its maybe yet another problem in semi desert areas like Texas, but even there its only 1% and thats a fully operating industry. So why the removal of a recent UN report link on water stress? Does this fail NPOV? I think it does. This section should say that water is a concern in certain areas, but not in many others, and have links that reflect thatKennywpara (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not only about WP:NPOV, it is about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This UN report says nothing about hydraulic fracturing and the impression that it is about HF is your own conclusion, therefore original research which does not belongs here. Information how many water HF uses and how much it is from the total water consumption is already presented in this article in neutral way. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present encyclopedic information neutrally, not to convince readers in certain POV. Beagel (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In an article about water consumption,Beagel a recent report from the UN about water scarcity would seem an impeccable source, and it is relevant. This problem is very important in some areas and not at all important in others. To be able to see those areas is not 'original research', but looking at a reliable map. I modified the previous statement 'Concern has been raised over the increasing quantities of water for hydraulic fracturing' adding 'in areas that experience water stress' as the original was incorrect. It then follows that a reference to indicate where water stress occurs is appropriate. In addition a link showing that over a lifetime a shale gas well uses only 4% of the water of a coal fired power station is also highly relevant, as it directly is about water consumption. (I did not add this BTW) yet this also has also been deleted by you.)

From WP:SYNTH "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception." I am afraid the ball is in fact in your court. I do not accept the criticism that this contians WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Kennywpara (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Methane

The 'Methane' section needs some cleanup and rewriting. At its current stage the second sentence makes statement that methane contamination is not caused by HF. If so, it raises question why in this case we need a three-paragraph subsection about something which is not caused by HF. Beagel (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I also see that you have reverted a reference to a National Academy of Science paper called "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing" In view of the title, and the impeccable source could you please justify that removal? Again it is something that is in the public view, and is highly relevant. The clue is in the title of the paper. It seems that you are removing much of the editing that I have done. On what grounds might this be? There is no mention in this article about the fact that most of the EU and UK get water from water companies, and so will not suffer from this problem, which surely is relevant to any well drilled, for shale gas, LTO, traditional wells etc. If I were to put an edit that reflected that would you revert that, as 'original research', or not relevant to the discussion? Proving that methane is NOT related to HF is one of the points, yet by your logic Beagel, this whole section must be deleted. The trouble is that you need the evidence to show that it is irrelevant. In the US it is a massive debating issue, yet you seem to want to hide that data? Justification please, and comments from other editors please. Kennywpara (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The UN report says nothing about hydraulic fracturing. However, putting it into the article about hydraulic fracturing makes impression that its UN report's conclusion that water scarcity is not a problem for HF in Europe. However, it is not the conclusion of the report but your conclusion and therefore it is OR. It does not matter if the conclusion is correct or false (I personally believe that it is correct) but the thing is that we should not make conclusions based on the primary sources by ourselves. If you have a good source implicitly saying in which regions water scarcity is a problem for implementing HF and in which regions it is not, I am more than happy to have the information cited in this article.

About methane issue, as it has been said a numerous time HF is a not synonym for shale gas production and it is used also for other purposes. Therefore, comparison of emissions from cola-fired power plants and from shale gas life-cycle is highly relevant in articles about shale gas but not articles about hydraulic fracturing. Beagel (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You still have made no justification for the fine distinctions you are identifying. All shale gas wells involve HF. So do LTO, geothermal, and traditional frack wells. Why do you wish to separate them? To make it more difficult for the public to access the information? This article appears to be a one stop shop (much like I have tried to make the 'HF in the UK' page), The issues of methane etc are common to all of these, and some to traditional wells. The regulations for trad wells and unconventional are very similar, as the techniques and concerns are largely the same.

By the same logic,Beagel this article contains loads of totally irrelevant information relating to HF. Air emissions, water consumption, Surface spills, methane, land usage, induced seismicity, noise pollution, safety issues, health risks, policy and science, should all be deleted from this article as they are nothing to do with HF. They should be put in an article about drilling impact. Shall I delete them all? Kennywpara (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not all shale gas is produced by using HF. Most of it yes but not all. As the HF is an important technique used for the unconventional gas production, it is not the only one and it is just a part of the whole production process. So, distinction is there and not just invented by me. As for water consumption, it is very directly related to the HF as one of the main components of this process. And if it causes contamination (air, surface water, groundwater etc) or other direct effects, it belongs here. At the same time, if the contamination or these effects are caused by other processes of unconventional hydrocarbons production, such as drilling, bad cementing etc, it should be removed from this article (and put in the more relevant article, if necessary). I agree that this article still needs a lot of work, but it can't be done by replacing text which quality is not in line with Wikipedia policies with different kind of text with the same (or different) problems.

I also advice to stop guessing my intentions. There is no secret, no hidden agenda. My only intention is to make these article encyclopedic, written encyclopedic way and following style and structure of Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not all shale gas is produced by using HF citation needed.As for water consumption, it is very directly related to the HF as one of the main components of this process so what about other fracking methods?. Please see my 'Umbrellas' post in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Umbrellas as way of explanation. Kennywpara (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference for what? As I said that majority of shale gas (maybe even 99%, I don't know) is produced by usinf HF, but there are still some exceptions, e.g. HF is not allowed and conventional drilling/horizontal drilling without HF is used instead of (e.g. in Denmark). There are also some other well stimulation methods other than HF. Most of them are not in commercial use, but at least pneumatic fracturing is used in the limited scale for stimulation of shallow shale formations. [14] Beagel (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)