Jump to content

Talk:Environmental impact of fracking/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

lead

Kennywpara about your tag, please see Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing/Archive_1#Expansion_of_lead and let me know your thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes Jytdog (talk) I can see its been a bone of contention, but this really needs to follow Wiki protocol. I am happy you changed the tag, just as long as this gets sorted! What about this.

The potential risks associated with hydraulic fracturing include water contamination, noise pollution, air emissions, water consumption, well leaks, flaring, and long term health effects.

There is also public concern over transport issues, development of the countryside, and climate change.

The potential risk effects in different countries are heavily dependant on the regulatory regime in force, local planning laws, and the chemicals permitted for hydraulic fracturing.

Different regulatory approaches have thus emerged. In France and Vermont for instance, a precautionary approach has been favored and hydraulic fracturing has been banned.[19][20] Some countries such as the U.S. have adopted the approach of clearly identifying risks before regulating. In the UK, the regulatory framework is largely being shaped by a report commissioned by the UK Government in 2012, which found that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are manageable if carried out under effective regulation and if operational best practices are implemented.[15]

Short, sweet, and more importantly, leading you on to look further. The body of the article looks a lot better than it did a few months ago. I have done some editing, as have others.Kennywpara (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please could other editors comment? Beagel (talk) Alexbrntalk EllenCT (talk) Lfrankbalm (talk) RockMagnetist(talk) Kennywpara (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

do as you will. i stopped watching these articles a while ago. for what its worth, as I wrote in the earlier note, whatever you do here you should bring over to the main fracking article. Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Which main article? Jytdog (talk) Kennywpara (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Kennywpara if you would have actually read the fucking link I put at the very top of this thread you would know exactly what "main article" I am talking about. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
In general the current lead is much better than was previous version and I would like to thank Jytdog for this. According to the WP:LEAD the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. I think that these conditions are fulfilled. At the same time I agree with RockMagnetist that some trimming is needed. WP:LEAD does not define the length of the lead by a number of symbols but by a number of paragraphs. According to it, as a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. As we have at the moment a number of very short paragraphs (some of them just one paragraph), the first step could be combining existing paragraphs. After that it could be trimmed by some of rewording (but not by replacing existing text with absolutely new one). After doing that I don't think the lead is too long, particularly taking account the overall size of this article.
I strongly disagree with removing naming potential risks from the lead. Potential does not mean they will happen but means they may happen if not avoided, mitigated etc. Leaving only different regulations in the lead is not sufficient and it violates different policies and guidelines, inter alia WP:LEAD, WP:SS and WP:UNDUE. Beagel (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I also would disagree with removing potential risks from the lead, but they should be described as such, not as effects, one of my problems with this. Also theres repetition about noise that isnt needed. Water use is area specific, (not a problem in Europe or most of the US for instance. Industry and farming are much bigger problems. I will give it a go, and do in small sections, with reasoning. Kennywpara (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You have just reverted my edit, so the first sentence says

"The environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing includes". THERE ARE RISKS, eg. there is POTENTIAL impact. There are risks that a wing will fall off a 747, but that risk is mitigated by engineering. Beagel (talk). This is basic stuff. Kennywpara (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Now another revert. This again is basic stuff. Non hazardous chemicals ONLY in the UK and the EU. You prefer to have everyone having the impression that they are all toxic? In the US yes, but NOT in the UK EU. If this 'should be in the body, well agree, and thats why I proposed a much shorter and less POV lead Kennywpara (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:LEAD what it is and how it should include. In addition, it was poorly written. "the United Kingdom, and the EU" — when exactly the UK left the EU? Also how the link was formatted. And I don't think it was good idea to start these edits while discussion was opened and it became clear that consensus needs to be created. Beagel (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well its been there for ages and was really poor. Perhaps other editors can comment on where it as now. The first sentence is not encyclopaedic. Stating that there is an effect when there is a risk is not acceptable.) seems to have reinstalled the rather redundant sentence on what is a minor issue for many, that of noise. In environmental risk assessments in the UK, this is rated as 'low impact' so why repeated references? I have left it in for now.

I removed the sentence about the Oxford study, as it is in the main body, and is not highly relevant anyway in the EU, which is not an area that experiences drought. Water use by fracking is very small anywhere, in comparison to farming and industry.

I reinstalled the phrase 'and are required to be non hazardous in their application' as this does seem to rather crucial and is highly relevant. I do not understand why this was removed. This is under developement by the EU,(which sets minimum standards) but the UK is ahead of that in regulation. The EU stuff on chemicals is still at the investigation stage, under JAGDAG, and will be released soon.

I removed the sentence about contamination by old wells. This is only relevant in places like NE Pennsylvania, which is riddled with old wells, and with shallow frack wells so is hardly a general point. All UK and EU stuff is recommending minimum separations of at least 1000m. In the stated reference "The weight of evidence is that fracture propagation ‘ out of zone ’ to shallow groundwater is unlikely from deep (1000m or 3000ft) shale gas reservoirs; however, this may not be true at shallower depths and consideration is needed of cross connections between wells, including abandoned wells, in neighbouring areas which could provide migratory pathways"

I added an EU link about the developing regime of regulations. This is is currently a recommendation, but if you look at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/unconventional_en.htmyou will see this is evolving. These principles are not optional. Again, its short, basic, and is crucial information.

I do not understand why the last two paras are there. Its nothing to do with the environmental effects of HF.

Will await other comments but please do not revert these until there has been discussion. If other editors are reluctant to come forward it may be that they do not wish to put their heads above the parapet. However, the intro as it started was unacceptable and not NPOV Kennywpara (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit changes of the lead

Good, we seem to be getting somewhere. Thankyou for working on my comments Beagel (talk Its better that way than to have an edit war. I am very happy with 1,2,4, and 5. They are balanced, exclude meaningless words like 'secondary accidents' and identify risks, rather than describing them as effects, one of my major issues.

Number 3 is more problematic. Firstly, all of the water use material seems accurate, but in the context of national production, the unit 'billions of metres cubed'(tonnes), is more appropriate, rather than gallons. The data that water to frack one well for 10 plus years is the same as a 1 GigaWatt coal power station (1 million homes) for 12 hours puts the amount in context. In non desert areas it is insignificant. 0.01% of nationally abstracted amount in the UK for example. Surely something like 'Water usage by fracking can be a problem in areas that experience water shortage' would cover it. This is an often repeated theme by people who are against fracking, yet it is not supported by science in most areas, as I keep saying, agriculture and industry are the big users. Fracking is minor.

Secondly, for I think the second time, you have removed the comments about the EU or UK policy to the body of the article. This leaves the lead saying 'Surface water may be contaminated through spillage and improperly built and maintained waste pits,[10] and ground water can be contaminated if the fluid is able to escape'. This is not balanced. The EU does not allow open pits, and in view that it contains 28 sovereign countries,many of whom have been debating using HF for shale gas, this must appear in the lead. I believe this originates from the 2006 groundwater directive mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Chemicals_permitted_for_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_UK The comments on making a Wiki lead say that it should contain a summary of the key points. That fundamentally is a key point! Anti frack literature is full of pictures of open and leaking pits, yet in these are forbidden in the EU. Its fundamentally dishonest, or ignorant of them to do that but they still do. Leaving the article as it is would foster that falsehood. I will leave this for a day or so but I feel that the points I have raised above are crucial, and would give this article a balance, and a technical credibility it has been sorely missing. Kennywpara (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I just found this. Interesting re health effects, as shale gas could be replacing the infinitely more polluting coal. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths In fact, in places like Pennsylvania, health has improved, as gas has displaced coal. Kennywpara (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I have taken so long to respond - real life intrudes. I don't have time to get into details, but I'll share some general observations. First, I think the lead is much improved, but could use some reorganization. The biggest concern, water pollution, should come first, followed by air pollution. Other less important issues like land use, noise and seismicity could be lumped together in a paragraph. And the paragraph on policy is too long and detailed. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
re@RockMagnetist. Thank you for your comment. Please feel free to re-arrange these paragraphs. And I agree that the policy paragraph needs some trimming. We do not have to report these details inj the lead.
Agree on the policy issues at the end, esp as its not even about environmental issues....Kennywpara (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
re@Kennywpara. To answer your concerns:
  • cubic meters versus gallons. I fully agree that we should use the SI units, that means cubic meters. At the same time these sources has reported the amount in US gallons which is also common unit in the US. Therefore, as of now both units are provided by using {{convert}} template.


  • water to frack one well for 10 plus years is the same as a 1 GigaWatt coal power station (1 million homes) for 12 hours. Please find a reliable source what says this and I am more than glad to see this in the article (in the relevant section, not in the lead). But we need a source saying this, not calculating ourselves as this accounts as WP:SYNTH. And that kind of details do not belong to the lead.
Try page 20 of http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/shale-gas-extraction-in-the-uk Kennywpara (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Water usage by fracking can be a problem in areas that experience water shortage. It seems practical, but please use the official term 'hydraulic fracturing' instead of 'fracking' as was agreed for HF articles a quite long time ago
No problem with that, this is the talk page after all! So one of us can change that then Kennywpara (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Surface water may be contaminated through spillage and improperly built and maintained waste pits, and ground water can be contaminated if the fluid is able to escape. This is balanced and summarise quite well the risk. Of course, there are different regulations but this does not change the nature of this risk.
Different regulations and practises, if appropriate, could be discussed in the relevant section but for the lead this is too detailed (particularly taking account the overall length of the lead). And I also disagree that this is the key point in the context of this article's lead. It should be a key point included in the lead for articles like Hydraulic fracturing waste water management regulations in the European Union, but not for the general article dealing with all environmental impacts in more general level.
Beagel (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The words 'pits' 'spillage' and 'improperly built' are not applicable in the EU and as such it cannot be balanced. Its sealed steel containers, on a chemical proof well pad, that has been flood assessed, and is well able to take spills without possibility of leaks. This for me is a big problem if this stays as it is as it misrepresents the science, thought and engineering that has gone into this to satisfy these concerns, raised because of the bad practice you have described.. I agree the risk of spills is a concern BUT this does not mention (or even refer to) the differences between the US (where this wording does apply) and the EU where these concerns have been mitigated. See pages 3 to 5 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277211/Water.pdf (incidentally, DECC and the UK Govt use 'frack' a lot, as do other publications, but I am happy to use 'hydraulic fracturing')

This could easily be sorted by adding the sentence. In the UK, regulations require that chemical proof pads and sealed steel containers are used to mitigate fluid and gas leaks risks with the appropriate link. Rememeber, the lead should stand on its own as a summary of the article. This is NOT a detail, its a fundamental point that is misunderstood by most. You have removed this 'detail' before. Kennywpara (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Objection to revert

I object to this revert by User:Alexbrn. The edit summary "Npov" is not sufficiently descriptive. "There is concern over the possible adverse public health implications" is poor writing in the passive voice and insufficiently representative of the most recent MEDRSs. The claim that "there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion" has repeatedly been shown to be false, and no evidence to the contrary has been forthcoming. The scare quotes around "potential negative impact" in the context of several recent and well-cited MEDRSs showing proof of actual negative impact is indeed a violation of WP:NPOV as well as very poor quality writing. For these reasons I am adding a NPOV tag to the section. EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing and shale gas extraction are not synonyms. Beagel (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
What specific improvements do you propose? EllenCT (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
If it is not about hydraulic fracturing but about shale gas extraction in more general, it does not belong here but in shale gas-related articles. Beagel (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
PMID 24119661 considers "unconventional drilling for natural gas by means of high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing". That's on topic ain't it? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I say nothing about the source but terminology used in the article. If there is a statement that "unconventional gas extraction has impact" in the article about hydraulic fracturing, it creates a false impression that hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas extraction are synonyms. They are not. Beagel (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
"there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion" is what the cited source effectively says. We can't misrepresent a source just because you don't like what it says! The sentence is not in the passive voice. The quotation marks are not "scare quotes" but delmit a - quotation; this helps avoid plagiarism and indicates to the reader the source is cited precisely here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
We can't use Wikipedia's voice to make a false statement. You can say, "A 201_ review said that there was little evidence from which to draw a conclusion." You can not imply that there are not abundant conclusive MEDRSs which draw strong conclusions from abundant evidence. Please see passive voice. The sentence, "There is concern over the possible adverse public health implications," is most certainly in the passive voice. The idea that a three word quote is addressing plagiarism concerns instead of serving as dismissive scare quotes is absurd. EllenCT (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The statement is not "false", it is accepted knowledge as supported in our best sources and is contradicted by no good source. You are also incorrect about passive voice. "There is concern ..." is active; a passive form would be "Concern has been expreessed ...". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
For what reason do you claim that the multiple well-cited MEDRSs which draw strong, specific, and prescriptive conclusions contrary to the assertion that "there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion" are not good? EllenCT (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
We seem to be going round in circles and you are not engaging with the discussion but repeating questions rhetorically. Primary sources are not usable here as they fail WP:MEDRS. We cannot slide from concerns about risk to statements about health, that's OR or synthesis. Your category of "conclusive" sources (==ones you like) has no meaning here. Meanwhle, you continue to chip away at the article trying to skew its POV. This is disruptive. For the health section please only make proposals based on strong secondary sources that directly address the topic of fracking and health. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The question is most certainly not rhetorical. Fact: at least five well-cited secondary MEDRSs since 2011 claim that fracking is dangerous and contaminates groundwater. Fact: none of the other MEDRSs express any conclusions contrary to those conclusive sources. Fact: the conclusive sources were not in the article until I added them. Fact: all of the prior MEDRSs concluded that additional research was required. Fact: you, User:Alexbrn, claimed that the conclusive sources are not as "good" as the inconclusive sources. Fact: when asked to provide reasons for that claim, you did not provide any such reasons, and instead attempted to avoid the question. Serious question: is there any evidence contrary to or sufficient reason to doubt any of these facts? EllenCT (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
ok please verify, what are 5 sources you believe to be reliable per WP:MEDRS? and please, please stop describing sources as "conclusive." thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
These six, not counting the one about which you said that an indexer with no independent review is more accurate at identifying literature reviews than peer reviewers. Please stop telling other people what words to use. "Conclusive" is entirely appropriate. If you believe it is not, then you ought to be able to provide a reason. Thanks! EllenCT (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
We use some of those already, and I'm surprised I have to re-state that propublica.org is not a WP:MEDRS. There's nothing here to contradict our best sources that specifically give us the current state of human knowledge about the public health impact of fracking (it's pretty much unknown). This issue has been to two noticeboards now and the application of WP:PAGs has been stated & consensus established. This is beginning to look like a display of "I didn't hear that" from EllenCT; time to drop the stick maybe ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the list.
article biomedical journal? indexed in pubmed? primary or secondary MEDRS-compliant? sample statement statement of risk, or statement on health effects?
Centner2013 no no primary no "more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances" risk
Colborn2011 somewhat no kind of no "more than X% "of the chemicals could affect" Y.... may have long-term health effects" risk
Saberi2013 yes yes primary no "Some community residents, as well as employees of the natural gas industry, believe that their health has deteriorated as a result of these operations and have sought medical care from local practitioners" risk
eaton2013 some yes secondary yes "regulatory framework... in inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply" risk
Vidic2013 yes yes secondary yes "technologies are not free from environmental risks"; "controversy whether the methane detected in private groundwater wells ... was caused by well drilling or natural processes" risk
lauver2012 yes yes secondary yes "effects of these agents on the water supply and subsequent human health are not well known and require further investigation" risk

So out of these 6, 3 are arguably compliant with MEDRS, and none of those three describe "conclusive" health effects; all three are conclusive in describing risks. Risks are not effects. Jytdog (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, you have been arguing that if sources are "conclusive" that somehow makes them better sources. This argument is not grounded in our policies and guidelines and is not useful for reaching consensus. You can of oourse write whatever you want, but we need to work toward consensus, and to do that, we all need to ground the discussion on policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments

no consensus reached. Article to remain as is per WP:NOCONSENSUS SPACKlick (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the "Health risks" section of 3 October or 4 October best represent the sources above? 23:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

striking badly formed RfC. EllenCT why don't you work with others so that the RfC really reflects both sides? I don't like either option you offer people. And the sources listed above - your sources - don't even include some of the best sources, like the Finkel review. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC) (restored this comment which was deleted by EllenCT when she reverted my striking of the RfC. amending now, as the RfC is not stricken Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC))
Comments
  • Comment. All biomedical information should be sourced in line with our medical sourcing guidelines and of course accurately represented. Primary sources should be avoided. The current version[1] of the article looks okay: in particular PMID 24119661 is given proper prominence—as a review article in a public health journal which directly addresses the state of our knowledge about health and fracking, it is on point. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
i just made these edits with initial edit note "this is my preferred version, which has never existed. These are the most recent sources that are MEDRS compliant. am doing this so it exists to 1) see if it will fly; 2) provide an alt version if we continue the RfC" I want to note that this includes the 3 MEDRS sources from the table above, plus Finkel and the 2012 report prepared for the EU, which were not in the EllenCT provided. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. (Pulled in via WP:FRS) It is apparent to me the the October 3 version of the article seems to be more passive, which is my prefered outcome when references are weak. While I personally am adverse to fossil fuels and their extraction companies and generally hate them, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and we can't go around being WP:NPOV. The references, as always with medical papers are trepidatious about making any grand statements. It's like Asbestos all over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDragonFire (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Health effects of water contamination?

Why does this article have virtually no summaries of WP:MEDRS sources on the health effects of groundwater contamination, while Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States has plenty? I was intrigued by the nationality and affiliations of the authors of this primary peer reviewed paper that splitting the health effects off into a country-specific article is suspect at best. Are there any sources suggesting that the environmental impact of fracking is different in the US than the rest of the world?

In any, case, here are some recent MEDRS-grade reviews with representative excerpts:

EllenCT (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

EllenCT Okay by me if you add WP:RS and material from the U.S. article here that has passed muster at the U.S. article. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_fracking/Archive_2&oldid=1209185374"