Talk:Fracking/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Removal of Colorado School of Public Health reference

I have removed this section from the entry as it cites an unpublished study. In addition, the reference cited says that there disagreements over the conclusion of the study. --Writer1502 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Seismic Image

I have deleted this image as it deals with seismology ans seismic activity, which have been associated with water disposal and geothermal production - not hydraulic fracturing. It also implies a number of possible pathways for contamination that are not associated with hydraulic fracturing. --Writer1502 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have wondered about this image for some time. The primary concern I have is that it is a user created image which is designed to present a certain point of view. It likely violates WP:OR Arzel (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This image was contributed by MikeNorton and is used by some industry reps at public talks, but more importantly, here is the source that says that seismic activity can be induced by both fracking and disposal wells if they are near existing faults:

"...In northwestern England, however, an independent report commissioned by a drilling company, Cuadrilla Resources, concluded that two quakes of magnitude 1.5 and 2.3 near the city of Blackpool last spring were related to a fracking well. The report suggested several ways to avoid further quakes, including monitoring and limiting the pressures and volumes of fluid used. Fracking is known to cause very slight tremors — far weaker than even the Youngstown quakes — when the fluid is injected into the shale under high pressure. Drilling companies often send sensitive instruments called geophones into the drill holes to analyze these tiny tremors because they indicate whether the rock is fracturing as expected.

But the larger earthquakes near Blackpool were thought to be caused the same way that quakes could be set off from disposal wells — by migration of the fluid into rock formations below the shale. Seismologists say that these deeper, older rocks, collectively referred to as the “basement,” are littered with faults that, although under stress, have reached equilibrium over hundreds of millions of years. “There are plenty of faults,” said Leonardo Seeber, a seismologist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “Conservatively, one should assume that no matter where you drill, the basement is going to have faults that could rupture.”

Drilling and disposal companies do not usually know that those faults exist, however. Seismic surveys are costly, and states do not require them for oil or gas wells (although larger companies routinely conduct seismic tests as part of exploration). Regulations for disposal wells are concerned about protecting aquifers, not about seismic risk. The federal Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates oil- and gas-related disposal wells unless its cedes its authority to the states, has no seismic requirements for its disposal wells, an agency spokeswoman said. "

Fracture Monitoring

I just wanted to sort the types of monitoring based on the use.

1. Measurement of rate and pressure. Will never do a hydraulic fracturing job without meters for these two and backups reading.

2. Density Measurement With either a radioactive density meter or Coriolis density meter. Almost always use these in line. Primarily used for measuring the concentration of the sand going into a well.

3. Tracers is the next most common form of monitoring a well. Historically the fluid has been radioactive. The highest frequency I have seen this done was one well out of every 10 wells. I currently have not seen this done in about 4 months or about 20 wells. There are some newer methods that don't even use radioactive fluids. The latest one which I'm not sure if it is just a sales pitch sounded similar to RFID in a ways. It was an inert fluid until a particular sound frequency was sent out and the fluid naturally sent back a frequency allowing the fractures to be monitored that way.

4. Microseismic is the most advanced method and involves monitoring for seismic activity and mapping it. This allows them to understand the path the fractures are progressing. I only tend to see this method about once a year.

Do you have sources that you can cite to verify the information above (e.g., published manuals, newspaper or journal articles, etc.)? You'll need them to meet WP requirements, or someone will delete your stuff. Smm201`0 (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

208.180.246.209 welcome. Can I suggest that you sign your posts by typing four tildes (like this ~~~~ ) at the end. This makes clear who has said what.

You seem to know a lot about this subject so your contributions will be very welcome. Do you have any reliable sources to support what you say above, if so that would be great, you could than edit the article to show actual fracture monitoring practice rather than someone's guess at what happens. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Industry applying pressure to limit EPA study re: wastewater and tracers

I provided the quotes that you requested and they do support the statements made but clearly not your perspective. I was surprised how blatant Chesapeake energy was in trying to block research into the potential environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. The sources support the statement that "Industry applied pressure to limit the study of wastewater and tracers in EPA's study of hydraulic fracturing." Here are the web links. Trial subscription to source are free. Quotes follow.

(1) SAB Pushes To Advise EPA To Conduct Toxicity Tests In Fracking Study. Quote:"...but some members of the chartered SAB are suggesting that the fracking panel revise its recommendation that the agency scale back its planned toxicity testing of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, process, because of the limited resources and time frame...Chesapeake Energy supported the draft recommendation, saying that “an in-depth study of toxicity, the development of new analytical methods and tracers are not practical given the budget and schedule limitation of the study.”" InsideEPA, US Environmental Protection Agency

The cited energy company seem merely to be supporting draft recommendations made by some unknown SAB members; hardly 'applying pressure'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(2)Actual letter from John Satterfield at Chesapeake Energy to EPA "Flowback and Produced water...Chesapeake agrees that an indepth study of toxicity, the development of new analytic methods and tracers are not practical given the budget and schedule limitations of the study...Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal...Chesapeake believes there was unjustified emphasis on the surface disposal of produced water to treatment plants in the SAB's Review...Chesapeake disagrees with the inclusion of water distribution network corrosion and burden of analyzing for contaminants by POTW's into the study." InsideEPA, US Environmental Protection Agency.

Smm201`0 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Again Chesapeake Energy are merely agreeing with a proposal by someone else, for what appear to be practical reasons. This does not justify the characterisation of 'applying pressure'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is how the author of the article described it ("push"). Urbina also wrote about the pressure in his article, also cited. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The only mention of push that I can see is the push by the SAB in favour of Tixicity tests. SAB that 'Pushes To Advise EPA To Conduct Toxicity Tests'. You seem to be misunderstanding your sources. I will remove the offending statement until you can provide a source that actually supports what you claim. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

MH, if you are going to work on this page, you are going to have to start reading the sources. The word "pressure" is used 4 times in the source at the end of that sentence. I have added a link after the word industry, but a link at the end of the sentence should have sufficed. At this point there have been many times that you sought to remove or change information without bothering to read the source for it. In the case of the UT study, you didn't read carefully enough to determine context. If you really care about this article you will start to edit it based on information from reliable sources, which requires that you actually read the sources, and read them carefully, and not just edit based on your opinion. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else care about this?

I came here is response to and RfC and what I have found is an attempt by some to discredit the industry and spread alarm over its practices.

I have no connection with the oil and gas industry and agree that the article should accurately reflect what is actually done in HF even if it does reveal harmful, dangerous, or risky practices but here I see exaggeration and pointless scary listing of substances used.

If no one else cares about the accuracy of this article I will go away and leave you people to it. If there is a feeling that the article should present a balanced view of the industry and that is currently does not do so then I am happy to stay to help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"If no one else cares about the accuracy of this article I will go away"? Diva much? Please try to assume good faith. We all care about the accuracy of this article; now let's move on and keep hammering out the finer points of what we disagree on. Sindinero (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith, or in fact anything, about those who do not comment at all. But to answer the question that you asked in your edit summary: yes I am serious. I have come to RfCs before as a genuinely independent and neutral editor to help decide on disputed issues only to find myself being cast as one of the dispute originators. If no one else is interested in stopping what seems to me to be fairly obvious POV pushing here then I will remove this page from my watch list and move on. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Martin, think positively. If you look in what state this article was just 2 month ago, there has been a significant progress to make it more neutral by removing obvious POV and synthesis. It still needs a work but I still believe it is possible to make a good NPOV article out of it. My story is quite similar to yours — I arrived here two months ago because hydraulic fracturing links were added to some articles in my watch list, found out a total mess and tried to clean it up and remove obvious POV. I was very shortly labelled as "industry paid editor" and falsely reported for edit warring (first time during my six years editing here, by the way). No apology for this, of course. So, I understand very well your frustration and have feel like this by myself. It seems also to be reason why some editors like Mikenorton don't want to take a part of editing this article anymore. However, as I said I believe it would be possible to bring this article to the good article level and I hope you will continue your efforts for this. Answering your question – as I have already said before this is not a place for incriminatory lists. Beagel (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My apparent disengagement from this page was because I was on holiday. Although I am disinclined to make changes, I will continue to take part in discussions. Mikenorton (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Crazy lists return

Three separate lists of radionuclides now appear in the 'Fracture monitoring section. We actually have a good source, the UT report, which shows us how radioactive tracers are used in logging, but all we have in the section is three meaningless lists of substances. When I have the time I will try to rewrite the section to be balanced and informative rather than a scary looking list of radionuclides. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Tracers are not discussed in the UT report. The second tracer source reflects international use, so it not only confirms the international use of tracers listed by the first source, but gives non-US information, which is needed on this page. Rather than censor and distort the information on the page, why don't you do something constructive like find citations for the unsupported material, or add sourced statements that reflect your perspective on the issue. That would be a better way of balancing the information on the page than hiding what you don't like. Alternatively, you could use add sourced statements that support your view that the amounts used do not pose a health threat to allay any fears readers might have. Use sources to provide a context. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Doubled checked the UT study. In the two instances in which the word "tracer" is used, it is in the context of past and potential environmental impact studies, not industry use, and aside from the mention of dyes, the nature of the tracers and context in which they are used in the industry are not described at all. Not informative or useful. By the way, at this time the industry is resisting EPA's proposed use of tracers in this fashion, which could be added to the environmental section. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect MH, if you are going to work on this page, you are going to have to start reading the sources. I shouldn't have to cut and paste text on this talk page for you to read. If you really care about this article you will start to edit it based on information from reliable sources, which requires that you carefully read the available sources, and then accurately report what they say. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon Smm201`0 I gave the wrong reference, it should have been the IAEA ref. I do read the sources but I quoted the wrong one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious use of the English language.

Smm201`0, your last edit summary said,' The source was at the end of the sentence. Again, please read the sources before saying it isn't supported' but in fact you added the reference at that edit.

In fact the ref only says,' “It’s difficult for researchers to be objective if their university receives a lot of grants and funds from the industry,” she said. “How many grants does that university get from oil and gas operations?” '.

This does not really justify, 'The objectivity of the UT study has been questioned because of industry funding to the university'. Note that the quote says (my bold),'... if their university receives a lot of grants...'. The article goes on to explain that this is not, in fact, the case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote what I said when I proposed that wording above "I'm still not convinced that this single source is enough to support this whole paragraph - but it appears to be all that's out there." The complete lack of other sources that question the objectivity of the study makes me think the WP:UNDUE applies and we should probably lose those two sentences. Mikenorton (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It is very much WP:UNDUE. All we have is a question from one person, namely Sister Elizabeth Riebschlaeger. If that is all that is needed, WP could say almost anything. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I copied the ref from the end of the next sentence (I think the whole thing was one sentence originally) so that you could see the source more easily. A source that says that the issue was raised is all that is needed. You folks are too funny...one source is not enough, two is too many...Smm201`0 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There are other sources that say the same thing that I could add: From West Virginia...

Except that it doesn't mention a conflict of interest due to funding, it contains criticism of the scope, approach and makeup of the team - not the same thing. Mikenorton (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the paragraph. None of it is supported by the references given. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole section us of dubious value. Its main thrust seems to be that all research on the subject is of no value unless it proves that fracking is harmful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fracturing fluids

The fracturing fluid subsection needs cleanup as it contains some repetitions. It needs probably also some re-arrangements. At the moment this subsection is quite long and messy. Cleaning it up and trimming the text will increase its readability and overall quality. Beagel (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also there are several ref errors in this article that need to be fixed. —Compdude¹²³ 17:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I question the statistic of "There are more than 50 types of fluids that can potentially be used as fracturing fluids, following are the fracturing fluids used at more than 95% of fracturing jobs world wide:". This may have been true several years ago, but with the rise in the number of shale plays, slickwater fracs are becoming increasing dominant. Is there recent verification of this statistic. All the jobs that are listed after this statement are either crosslink or gel style systems. The usual desired system for a shale formation is a slickwater system. This is not always true, but with the rise in shale plays around the country and world, it begs the question if the statement is still accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.246.209 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

208.180.246.209, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end . This will automatically sign and date it so that we can all see who said what and when. Even better why not resister. This gives you access to more features and gives you more editing rights. You can use any user name and your IP address will not be shown so you can remain completely anonymous if you wish.

You obviously know more about the subject than most people here so your input would be very welcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Not just slick-water systems, but energized fluids are usually desired on shale. The problem is it is usually cheaper to go with the least desired system just because it is the most economical. With cross-link, the cost savings of less water may be enough to justify the usuall loss of production of a well. We are talking in generalities though. Does anyone have any recent hard statistic to back up any side of this issue.13:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.19 (talk)

,166.147.72.19 please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end . Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 208.180.246.209. Maybe you are interested to edit this section to cleanup and trim the text. It would be perfect if you also will provided references for this section. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dubious statement

The article includes the following statement: "However, there remain large uncertainties in the amount of gas reserves that can be accessed in this way." As a source, this article by Ian Urbina is given. The statement makes impression that the reason is immaturity of hydraulic fracturing. In fact, the article talks about decreasing of gas reserves estimates for Marcellus Shale. I don't think that the information provided in this source supports the above-mentioned statement and therefore it should be removed. Second, there is a story how Ian Urbina has previously faulty read the data provided by USGS. Although his mistake has been made public, he refers in his story (which is provided as a source) again to this faulty conclusion based on USGS data. It raises a question if Urbina could be taken as reliable source at all. Beagel (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the statement in the article should be clarified to better reflect the source, if you think it's unclear. However, I think it falls outside our purview to decide whether Urbina is qualified or not. If he continues to be published in the daily paper of record, I'm not sure how that wouldn't meet the criteria established at WP:RS. (It would be nice if one could disqualify reporters based on dangerous falsehoods or sloppy reporting; I'd nominate Judith Miller to start with!) Sindinero (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you want clarify about this statement? The information about shale gas at Marcellus Formation is relevant for Marcellus Formation article. The amount of Marcellus shale gas reserves does not change the fact that HF is a method used for shale gas and tight oil production in cases when conventional drilling fails. Beagel (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but HF is not just a method, but is intricately connected to the current shale gas boom it has enabled. Part of this boom are the euphoric predictions about massive supplies that are then occasionally downgraded - not just for the Marcellus, but in the case of Poland as well. I would clarify the statement to make it clear that the amount of gas reserves accessible has nothing to do with the 'immaturity' of the method, as you say, and globalize it by adding reference to Poland. However, it may be worth adding a section or subsection somewhere in the body text to deal with this, since per WP:LEAD the lead needs to summarize the rest. This goes for the preceding sentence as well, which is an important point but not covered in the body: "Proponents of fracking point to the vast amounts of formerly inaccessible hydrocarbons the process can extract." Sindinero (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should summarize the text and not introduce facts not covered in the body text. I am not sure where exactly, but somewhere we should probably add (a) paragraph(s) or a subsection explaining that due to HF, production of shale gas, tight gas and oil, and coal seam gas has become technically more visible. It would be also nice if there is any data how much additional oil and gas is expected to be produced due to HF. However, this data should be explicitly linked to HF and not to be about shale gas reserves or something similar, which is not necessarily the same thing. I have a concern that HF is often interpredated as a synonym of shale gas production. This is true that it is the main method, but at the same time not the only one – e.g. also conventional drilling etc is involved. Also, HF is not limited to shale gas or even to oil and gas industry, although this is the main field of use of it. Therefore, we should avoid lengthy discussion things which instead of this belongs to shale gas articles. Beagel (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would support the proposed new content discussing not just how HF has made production of shale gas etc. more visible/viable, but how it has triggered the shale gas boom and all that entails (a question of emphasis). In academese, HF is not just a technology, but (like any technology) is also a social discourse. Sindinero (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion I added new short section based on the newly published report by the IEA. It has global figures instead of country or region specific figures and it includes not only shale gas figures but also figures about other unconventional gas resources which might be produced using hydraulic fracturing. It seems there are also other information in this report which should be mentioned in this article (e.g. IEA's recommendations). Will study it when will have more time. Beagel (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary done

I sadly neglected to check the talk page again before going ahead with my edits, so I missed the suggestion to prepare a draft summary first. If there's consensus to restore the old version and discuss a non-live draft instead, we can do that, but propose it here first.

Anyhow, my edits cut down the environmental impact section by about 40%, based on character count before and after (not including my migration of refs to WP:LDR format, which resulted in an invisible further drop in character count).

• Before
• After

The sections may still appear somewhat long, due partly to my inserting some new paragraph breaks, formatting some text to a bullet list, and inserting a new section header (Methane, in the Groundwater section). I'll remind everyone that environmental concerns weigh heavily on energy production topics (whether those concerns are justified or not), so a "lengthy" environmental impact section is to be somewhat expected here.

I'll continue to look over my edits to see if any further over-detail is present, so you may still see further edits. Assuming everyone is okay with doing this live (rather than reverting and dicussing a draft version instead), anyone can suggest further specific removals or restorations, but please provide rationale for those specific requests. If you want to tweak wording or correct grammar etc. go right ahead; however further significant content reductions in this section should be proposed here first, as those are the reason this mess began. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think that the summary you made is a good starting point. If there is any possibility for further trimming or, vice versa, need to (re-)add some details, it could be done by normal editing process, I hope. Also, taking account the recent tensions, I strongly support that large removals/additions should be discussed at the talk page. Beagel (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, Equazcion. I've made one partial restore (the claims of falsehoods in Gasland, in the section on water contamination) since the summarized version stated that the industry's claims were posted on Gaslands website. Sindinero (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, great work on a very daunting task. That was a lot of text to wade through. Thanks. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Methane

The methane subsection makes distinction between biogenic and thermogenic methane: "This methane is often biogenic (created by organic material decomposition), as opposed to thermogenic (created through thermal decomposition of buried organic material"[88]). Thermogenic methane is the methane most often sought by oil and gas companies deep in the earth, whereas biogenic methane is found in shallower formations, where water wells are typically drilled.[89]" This seems to be unnecessary for the summary section and maybe even little bit out of context. This is a part of longer explanation why HF IS NOT often a cause of methane contamination of ground water and therefore is proper in the specific environmental article. However, for the summary the two first sections of this paragraph are enough and we does not need to include the above-mentioned distinction.Beagel (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My understanding was that this intro points out that testing the methane for being thermogenic or biogenic allows us to determine whether its release was caused by water well drilling or gas/oil drilling. Perhaps this needs to be clarified. Part of the material I removed detailed methane studies/incidents where testing for this distinction was instrumental in concluding whether the energy companies were to blame. A small addition describing that in general terms might help. Unless I'm still misunderstanding (I'm still not a fracking expert, though by now you would think...).Equazcion ^(talk) 16:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right—in general this is one the distinctions. However, I think that probably this is too detailed for this article. I think that first two sentences (Groundwater methane contamination is also a concern, however this is not always caused by fracking. Often, local water wells drill through shale and coal layers that can naturally seep methane into groundwater.) are enough to say that not always gas companies are to be blamed. How it could be detected, should be described in the specific article. Beagel (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I was tempted to get rid of that explanation several times because it seemed too long and didn't fit well, it describes a very important distinction that needs to be made when determining the source of methane, e.g., shallow sources (not typically fracking related) versus deeper sources (likely fracking-related). My understanding anyway. Some of the reports go into this in depth. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Could it be edited down to something briefer? Maybe put into a sentence about findings, with a link to its page if there is one?Smm201`0 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

These are just two sentences, so I don't see how it could be shortened. Vice versa, in its current form it needs even more explanation as the linkage is not clear right now. I don't think this article will miss anything by removing this; however, it should be explained more detailed way in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing article. Beagel (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I like the way to incorporated it. I was thinking of the old version.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I copyedited the explanation. It's slightly shorter now, and I think clearer/more fitting for the section. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I updated information about Dimock case as EPA announced results of testing. Although according to Reuters "Environmental and health groups say that some fracking operations near homes and schools pollute land and water" it was not confirmed by EPA. I would like to ask Equazcion to look this paragraph and copyedit, if necessary. I also wonder if we need this paragraph about Dimock at all if the link with HP is not confirmed. However, I think we should wait until EPA says what it the reason of methane level in one well. Beagel (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the EPA reports, the situation is that after remediation, the installation of special water filtration systems on affected wells, and related interventions, the water presents no health concerns. The contamination did occur, but the EPA, Cabot, and PADEP have corrected the situation, and continue to monitor the wells. Here's some info about what Cabot has to do:[4] and some reports including well info: [5], [6], and [7] EPA Dimock docs: [8] Smm201`0 (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article from Propublica that sums up the current status of the Dimock situation. So is Dimock's water really safe to drink? It looks like there are still issues remaining according to this article. Both the Pavillion and Dimock cases involve other chemical contaminants in addition to methane. Smm201`0 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Propublica reliable source? More reliable than EPA? Also, please keep in mind that hydraulic fracturing is distinguished from the drilling, casing, and cementing of gas wells. So far, there is no reliable source confirming that methane leak was caused by hydraulic fracturing. I personally believe, that it was caused by natural gas extraction activities and I believe that these activities have a number of impacts to environment; however, if there is no proof linking it to hydraulic fracturing, it may belong to the Shale gas in the United States or any other article about gas production in the U.S. and not in the hydraulic fracturing articles. So the question is not if Dimock's water really safe to drink, but do we have any reliable source which says that methane contamination in Dimock's water occurred due to hydraulic fracturing. Beagel (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual Dimock EPA docs and web page I linked also discuss the methane issue. The Propublica article is just more succinct, and no less reliable than Reuters. Although the title may be about whether the water is safe to drink, if you read it, you'll see that the article covers a lot more than that, including the methane source issue. It sounds like EPA is still investigating. Smm201`0 (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming really ridiculous. This is a umbrella article about HF, that means it should give a general overview about all aspects of HF. Methane contamination of ground water should be mentioned as one potential impact of HF. However, giving detailed overview of cases which may or may be not to be caused by HF is not in accordance with WP:UNDUE. The main issue here is even not if these cases are caused by HF or not, but rather if they are presenting the typical consequences of HF or if they are individual cases caused by wrongdoing of companies, by lack of regulations in the certain regions or by coincidence. I fully agree that Dimock and Pavillion cases should be mentioned but it should be done in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States and the relevant companies articles (Cabot Oil), not here. Beagel (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am putting the Dimock and Pavillion cases back in the article. The state has evidence that the Dimock methane is from fracking using the fingerprinting technology. EPA states that the other contaminants are from fracking in the letter. When the section was summarized, the original sources for this information were probably lost. I put an AP article and the EPA letter as the source for this information. There was also evidence of chemical contamination by hf in the Pavillion case. The argument that individual case studies should not be included because they aren't representative of HF is ludicrous. It is the most common type of environmental study there is. In addition, since the US has the longest history of hf, that is where most of the studies to date have been conducted and where we are likely to learn the impact first. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, Dimock and Pavillion cases should be mentioned but it should be done in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States and the relevant companies articles (Cabot Oil), not here. First, although I believe that the methane contamination is related to gas drilling (not necessarily to HF), it is not confirmed by EPA. Second, in the article about the HF in general, it is enough to say that one potential impact of HF may be methane condamination. Describing specific cases does not belong here. We have the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States article which is right place for this and I really can't understand why you don't want to put it there and pushing it here. Removing it from this article; however, please feel free to put it in the relevant articles. Beagel (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Individual news articles should not form part of an encyclopedia article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Beagle - Again, the US is the test case - the guinea pig - for the effects of hydraulic fracturing. It has the longest history with the technique and the most environmental impact studies. If you are not biased, please don't delete the studies with the most definitive evidence of contamination. The state and EPA are both legitimate regulatory agencies. The state has conducted the most sophisticated test for methane source - the one involving "fingerprinting." In addition, numerous other contaminants have been found. This information belongs in this article. I don't understand why you want to hide the demonstrated negative consequences of hydraulic fracturing. That is censorship. All of the information was very well sourced. If you don't want to be accused of bias, you shouldn't do things like add lengthy general disclaimers based on industry funded research. A short disclaimer will do. The disclaimer about methane sources was practically obsolete - most studies now use a variety of techniques to address this issue. If the studies don't use the right techniques, then that info can be added to the description of their results. The recent studies DO address this issue. Please leave all of the succinct, sourced info about contamination studies in the article.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I will try one more time to explain although it seems you don't want to understand. This is umbrella article article about hydraulic fracturing which should give an overview about all important aspects of hydraulic fracturing. These aspects should be described with necessary detailed level; however, this is not the place to put every detail and to describe every HF related case, particularly, if more specific articles are exists. In this case, these two cases belongs to the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States and the relevant companies articles (Cabot Oil). I really don't understand why you don't add this information there. Putting individual cases here is WP:UNDUE which should be avoided. This is not censorship, this is NPOV. As I already said, the methane issue should be mentioned. However, that does not mean to present it by violating WP:UNDUE. I also hope you will specify what you mean by accusing "add lengthy general disclaimers based on industry funded research." I will appreciate if you will provide diffs showing that. Otherwise, it is clear cut personal attack. Also, talking about being biased, I would like to say that this article IS NOT called "List of all bad things I can find about hydraulic fracturing". Beagel (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same. Just because it is true and well-sourced and related to HF does not mean that we have to put it in this article; there would not be room. As Beagel says we already have an section on methane and this should contain a balanced summary of the overall methane issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You personally may not think that the methane is coming from fracking, but the sources report that the methane is associated with fracking. This article is to be based on RS. The Dimock and Pavillion studies are just as legitimate as the industry funded study by Cabot that you added. Their sources are RS. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you didn't hear me. Why does the study by Cabot Oil deserve to be included but not studies by state agencies and the EPA? ...especially when most readers can't access the article to see what it actually says... Smm201`0 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you read why Dimock and Pavillion cases do not belong here? It was explained three times, so please read and try to understand. The reference from Oil and Gas Journal is not to debate what caused the Dimock accident, but it provides one possible explanation to methane contamination. At the moment deifferent views are presented according to NPOV. Also, before making accusations as you like to do, please be aware who added this information and reference and who not. Beagel (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I read your reasoning and I respectfully disagree with it. The section should present the current information about the issue in proportion to what information exists. If there are several major studies with disparate findings, that needs to be presented. To allow Cabot's study to remain and delete the EPA information appears to be UNDUE to me. If there is more positive information, so be it; if there is more negative information, so be it. Reporting information from an NPOV means accurately describing the articles and reports, etc., that are available, not neutralizing the information in them. What's important is that the article reflect/represent the available relevant information on the topic. We had agreed before the environmental section was edited down that it was important to have a comprehensive section on the topic that would succinctly address the issues and main findings. It was noted that much of the available literature described concerns, and that was why there was a good proportion of negative material in the section. I have no problem with trying to be more succinct. The other articles exist for the purpose of fleshing out the issues. BUT I thought that we agreed that the main issues and sources would still be represented in the environmental concerns section of this article. The EPA studies need to be represented as they are key in the US and the US is the pioneer in this technology. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia not a news article. We need a balanced summary of the situation not individual incidents. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

University of Texas study

I slightly re-arranged the UT study sections. Seems more logical if impacts found by the study are listed after opening listing of impacts. I also removed proponents claim as unsourced and promotional. Beagel (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

COI research

If we are going to keep the paragraph about COI research, maybe it should be in the Research challenges subseaction instead of the introduction the the Environmental section. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, as does the UT suggestion above. I tweaked the research header to better encompass this. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not wanting to sound like a cracked record, but the sentences "Critics of fracking have expressed several conflict-of-interest concerns over environmental research, including research funding from the energy industry.[61] Statoil announced a $5 million research agreement with UT in September 2011. Their program director, Ian Duncan, was the senior contributor to the Texas study's shale gas development impact sections.[26][62][63]" are not well-supported by the sources. Ref #61 mentions a single critic making a general point about potential conflict of interest "“It’s difficult for researchers to be objective if their university receives a lot of grants and funds from the industry,” she said. “How many grants does that university get from oil and gas operations?” Energy Institute spokesman Gary Rasp said no industry funds paid for the study, and that money for the study “comes from the University directly. That’s all kinds of different sources.”" There are no sources that link Statoil funding to a potential COI for Ian Duncan that I can see. Based on the sources that we do have we could probably say something like:

'The objectivity of the UT study has been questioned because of industry funding to the university. The Energy Institute, however, has said that the funding for the study came not from the industry, but directly from the university, from "all kinds of different sources".

I did a google search on 'University of Texas study hydraulic fracturing "conflict of interest" "ian duncan"' [9] and came up with no useful results and then without 'Ian Duncan' and still found nothing apart from a couple of blogs and a youtube video. I'm still not convinced that this single source is enough to support this whole paragraph - but it appears to be all that's out there. Mikenorton (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There is only a single source for most of the statements in this article, besides which, when you have sources that show the conflict of interest in the form of university funding, that's really all you need. In a situation like that, there's the potential for influence and bias, whether or not it occurs. Someone voicing the concern is really optional, and we have that anyway. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I support wording proposal by Mikenorton as closer to source and not biased. Beagel (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Smm, again you need to consider WP:SYN, as this is a textbook example: A COI concern certainly does need to be shown explicitly in sources in order to include it in our content. Surely the potential for bias exists when funding comes from a source with vested interests, nevertheless as obvious as it may seem that this is worth mentioning in any particular instance, we as editors aren't free to draw that conclusion ourselves and state it in an article. We can only report the conclusions others have stated. The suggested wording seems reasonable so I used it. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't think I actually wrote a synth statement in the first example - that is just where ya'lls heads went. In this case, there is a source that voiced the concerns, though someone may have deleted it. MikeNorton recently complained about it, so it wouldn't have been that long ago. So, no SYNTH. Also COI is different than saying they were paid off, corruption, etc. COI refers to just that - the conflicting interests, not illegal conduct.

As an aside, in academic research, there are often conflicts of interest that may or may not impact the findings. We are required to acknowledge them for ethical reasons, even though they are common. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You said "Someone voicing the concern is really optional" -- It's not optional, it's crucial, and WP:SYN is the reason. Ethics don't factor into what gets included in articles, except perhaps in BLPs. The only sourced COI concern we have is someone asking where the funding came from, and didn't connect the specifics that were detailed in that paragraph before, whose inclusion made some unwarranted implications. If there's a source that mentions them in connection with a COI, we can re-introduce them, but failing that I think they would represent POV. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't member saying that...but it is a moot point since there WAS someone quoted as raising the concern in a source. WE HAVE A SOURCE. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And stop buying the stereotype that I don't source my statements. I source the crap out of what I write and have been criticized for including too many sources (very relevant ones). Better that than those who critique articles without reading them or their sources....Smm201`0 (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Two ironies here. One, those weren't sources I contributed though I may have moved them around. Two, the UT study found that the fracking process caused contamination anyway...

We have a source where someone asks where funding came from and then says the answer was a variety of sources. That's pretty much where it has to end for us. We can't then say, "But hold on, here's evidence that there's still cause for COI concern," which is what the further details implied, at least the way they were presented. If someone wanted to suggest an addition, perhaps where the UT study is first introduced in the article, to purely show its funding, that could be more acceptable -- but only if a source states funding was purposed specifically for that study. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

PS. I'm not aware of anyone complaining that you don't source your statements, other than the previous SYN complaint. Please don't lump me in with others you've conflicted with here. I have no dogs in this fight. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The "ethical issue" in research is that in the interest of neutrality (or "objectivity"), one is supposed to acknowledge potential sources of bias. That way, everything is out on the table - more transparent. So, acknowledging the possible COI is part of reporting in a neutral manner, along the lines of indicating whether an individual is connected with the gas industry or an environmental group when quoting them. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We are not the ones that make that acknowledgement. Doing so makes two WP errors. One, you introduce original research (Synthesis specifcially) by making a causal leap that is not within the actual sources. Two, by making the statement you imply that any potential COI actually does exist, thus violating NPOV. There is no evidence of COI, however you say there may be because of donations. By making that link that there is a possible COI because of the donations the implication is that there is a COI. By presenting what you think is a neutral presentation of information, you actually violate NPOV by implying something that does not exist in RS. Arzel (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a new source on this topic, from the WSJ: Critics question shale gas researcher, schools. Sindinero (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This reference criticises two specific reports. Are we going to present the results of these reports here. It is hard to see why we should mention that two reports have been criticised if we make no mention of the reports themselves or their findings. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Waste/ground water header

Are there any environmental concerns from waste water other than groundwater contamination? If not, this title could be shortened to "groundwater contamination". Equazcion ^(talk) 21:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I was writing this as you were writing...Groundwater and wastewater refer to different things in the articles. Groundwater contamination occurs when the fracking fluid and methane get into the groundwater through leaks, spills, and blow outs during the fracking process. Although wastewater can get into groundwater from spills and illegal dumping on land, the wastewater issue usually deals with the fate of the used fracking fluid, which is sometimes held in retainer ponds, injected into wells, dumped into streams, rivers, or deposited at waste treatment facilities. Wastewater may get into ground water, but it also ends up in surface or source water - water from which drinking water is obtained. Maybe:

Water contamination, with subtitles (1) ground water (detection in monitoring and domestic wells), (2) surface (or source) water (detection in creeks, streams, rivers, and wastewater effluent), and (3) public drinking water (don't think there are findings link to hf here yet, though there are concerns in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Houston) Smm201`0 (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, can anyone point me to info about the abbreviated citation format that is now being used? Thanks. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So can we call the section "Water contamination" then? I guess I'm asking if there's anything else that methane and fracking fluid can affect other than a water supply. The reference format you're referring to is probably list-defined references: instead of placing a load of reference code within the article content, we put that stuff right in the Reference section instead, then refer to them by name in the article. Check the link and if you have questions about it feel to to ask on my talk page -- I transferred this entire article's refs to that format, made it easier to edit, but sorry if it confused. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'll check it out. I wanted to fix a ref and couldn't find the complete text for it. Regarding "Water Contamination," rather than list by water type we could list by type of contaminant, as you have done with methane and radioactivity. Still thinking about this. Smm201`0 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Methane and radioactivity are actually subsections of this one, so this needs to be named something than encompasses it all. Since it's all about water contamination, we should probably just call it that. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The long title was introduced by me. Although the shorter title is better, of course, the issue is that the former title does not cover all aspects (there are also other issues than only groundwater contamination; treatment at the community treatment plants which does not necessarily lead to contamination but still raise concerns). Waste water management is wider, but does not cover leakages from the wells. Ater contamination is also wider, but again, not all concerns are related to actual contamination (results) but also with the process (management). Beagel (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any concern regarding management other than preventing leaks/spills/dumps that could lead to ...contamination? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, one issue is a wastewater treatment. And not any emission of harmful substance is not contamination. If it stays in limits set by regulatory authorities, it does not considered as contamination; however, it may still raise concerns in the society and it still may have some (even limited) impact. Beagel (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

E.g. fact that treatment plants in Pennsylvania are not required to test for some radioactive substances in waste water is a serious issue of waste water management. It may lead to serious contamination; however, it does not mean that actual contamination is happening at every treatment plant. Beagel (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, but we're just talking about a section header, not a verdict. The studies/reports/research here all concern possible water contamination, whether high enough levels were actually found or not, etc. No? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Section header should be also correct and neutral and it should not to be a verdict. Maybe moving Water use section here as subsection and rename the whole section as Water management? Beagel (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We have an Earthquake, Methane, Air emissions, and Radioactive sections, all denoting possible adverse effects. Water contamination is just another. It's not a verdict, it's one of the concerns we're reporting the study of. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed the title for now, but if anyone else has issue with it feel free to comment. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What about the proposal I made in my previous post? You did not commented it. However, compare to other subsection headings, the difference is that they are neutral. The word 'contamination', differently, is quite prejudiced. It is neutral if we talk about contamination cases but if we talk about waste water management issues in the broader sense, the world contamination is not neutral anymore. If you think the longer title is not suitable, lets try to find shorter more neutral one. Beagel (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Neutral" on Wikipedia means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable source," not avoiding words that may have negative connotations. As Equazcion pointed out, the other section headings also denote possible negative effects. The sources are about the concerns of contamination; in the interests of accuracy and neutrality, the section heading should reflect this. Sindinero (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just call this section 'Waste water' then. This is even shorter, neutral and covers also concerns behind actual contamination. Beagel (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The section doesn't cover only waste water though, since methane is part of it and contaminates water a different way. Your "water management" suggestion was a bit more suitable but I'm not sure if that covers methane all that adequately either -- yet methane goes hand-in-hand with the other contamination issues. I don't see "water contamination" as any less neutral than "earthquakes". Again they're both merely possible environmental impacts that have been researched. We could consider some qualifier for the overall "Environmental impact" header, like "Environmental impact potential" or "Environmental impact studies", if others think something like that is warranted, as that at least wouldn't single out one aspect to assign this sensitive wording. Although personally I don't think it's necessary to kill ourselves over finding some politicially-correct way of presenting this to make sure it doesn't sound negative. The way things are currently presented here already falls in line with the way other similar topics are, as far as I know (I could be wrong).Equazcion ^(talk) 12:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Now when you say this and after reading sources, it indeed seems that instead of "earthquakes" will be more precise and scientific to use "Seismic impact". It would also avoid potential dispute what should be called 'tremor' and what should be called 'earthquake'. Beagel (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the headers to simply say "Air", "Water", and "Seismic". I moved the "Water use" section down to the bottom to better differentiate it from the effects on water, and renamed that to "Water consumption" just because that seems more descriptive of the content there. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this is a good solution. Beagel (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Although we all know what "seismic" means, do you think the average reader will? Do the WP guidelines say anything about that? Just wondering. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure offhand if the guidelines address that, but the content of the section would seem to clear up any possible confusion about which types of concerns "seismic" refers to. I added a link for the first instance of "tremor" to help. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I also just renamed/moved water consumption under "water" since that header would now indicate all water concerns. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Economic impact

I think the new section is a good addition. A couple other aspects, including the economics of leases and estimates, could be touched on, in my opinion, and I've gathered a couple sources below for this purpose.

• Goodell, Jeff (01 March 2012). "The Big Fracking Bubble: The Scam Behind Aubrey McClendon's Gas Boom". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 30 May 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Poland revisits shale gas estimates. (There are better sources than the Prague post - and while this and similar stories almost certainly belong at the Shale gas article, I think they also deserve mention here, under the rubric of the "fracking boom." I think it would be a good idea to make explicit in this section that the current fracturing technology has led to what is widely considered a boom, with attendant effects. Sindinero (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Still a pointless list of radionuclides

Why has the pointless list of radionuclides been restored? Can someone please explain its purpose. In the section immediately above we already say that a wide range of radionuclides is used for fracture monitoring.

We obviously cannot list every substance used in fracking. The selective listing is obviously intended to be making some kind of point. What is that point and is it made in any reliable source? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also the first of the lists refers to use in 'Field Flood Studies or Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery Studies in multiple wells' - which has nothing at all to do with hydraulic fracturing. Mikenorton (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but even a list that just refers to HF is unjustified. It is clearly trying to make some point. We do not list all the types of steel or plastic used in the industry, why list all the radioactive materials. It is obvious that someone is trying to make a point. Maybe it is a justified point but if that is the case the point maker needs to find a reliable source that makes that point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is now very clear that you are trying to remove anything vaguely negative about hydraulic fracturing for your own or possibly corporate purposes rather than to make this a balanced, informative page. I was cooperative and narrowed the visible list to those listed by the NRC for specific purposes in hydraulic fracturing which is clearly stated by the source. Now you want to remove that too. That is censorship. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed them for the reasons stated above. It's not censorship - they're on the other page and the ref is still there if anyone wants to look them up. Enough of your unfounded accusations. Mikenorton (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no corporate purpose as I have already made clear, please do not continue to make personal accusations. Removal of superfluous information is not censorship, if something is in the list for a reason then tell us what the reason is and find a source for it. We cannot list every single item used in the process.

I note that you refer to, 'anything vaguely negative about hydraulic fracturing'. It would therefore seems that you regard the list of radionuclides as showing HF in a negative light. Since your have now made clear that your intention of including the list is to show the industry in a negative light without any support from an independent and reliable source I suggest that the list is immediately removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I first came to this page looking to see what radionuclides are used in hf - not just whether they are used, but which ones. When the information wasn't on the page, I used Google to find it, then reported it here. When other editors thought we needed information on actual use rather than just patents, I found the NRC information and added it. Now all of that has been deleted although these tracers play an important role in monitoring fractures in hf. The radionuclide information belongs on the page as much as descriptions of drilling techniques, etc. do. What's worse is that the section on fracture monitoring was well sources and now has been stripped of the sources for tracer use. That does nothing to improve the quality of the page. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It has already been explained that lists of substances from patents are no indication of actual usage and certainly no indication that they pose any environmental or health risk.

As Mikenorton says above, the lists still exist on the more specific article. I think that they should be removed from there too as being totally misleading and unnecessarily alarmist. On the other hand if you were to start an exposition in the specific article (not this one)covering items that I have shown below based on reliable neutral sources I would be fully supportive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

1. What substances are actually used in HF?
2. How frequently they are used?
3. In what quantities are they used?
4. For what purpose are they used
5. In what form are they used?
6. Is there evidence of any specific substance being found in the surface environment?
7. What general radiation risk does this pose?
8. What risks specific to the substance does this pose?
9. How great is the danger?
10. What could be done about this?

I have to retract part of what I said, as the list of isotopes is not in the other article as it wasn't part of the environmental concerns section that was split off - my apologies for misleading people. However, I'm still right that the details are in the ref and I think a full list of all isotopes used (I make a total of 12) is unnecessary, a few examples would suffice - I-131 appears to be a particular concern, so should be mentioned. One thing to note is that neither of the two isotopes currently mentioned for their comparative half-lives are actually used as HF related tracers, so that needs to change. The best place for information about radioactive tracers would be in the 'Fracture monitoring' section, where their use is described. Some of the information is already duplicated there already. Mikenorton (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Mikenorton, as far as I can see there is no source which says that I-131 from fracking is a problem. If there are any radionuclides that are known to be an issue they should, of course, be on the page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about the fracture monitoring and chemicals sections, not the environment section. In terms of hf, iodine-131 is listed as a suitable tracers isotope for fracture monitoring in the patents that are listed under chemicals. The NRC document also lists iodine-131 as a permitted tracer. So, there are plenty of sources that document that iodine-131 is a tracer used in hf. Also, please add your replies to the bottom of the section so that they are in chronological order.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a litany of isotopes is distracting, and in response to your request, I had replaced it with a description of those in the NRC document, with additional refs referring to the others. Someone deleted that info from the fracture monitoring section, leaving unsourced statements. I fixed that. The half life range should probably be left as is, because that is the range for the ones deemed suitable for use, and doesn't involve a massive list. Regarding the list below, see my responses. I dug up some of this information in response to someone's earlier comments.

1. What substances are actually used in HF? NRC document lists some of the ones for the US (not sure if this is a comprehensive list, but am going with it for now). There are probably similar resources for UK, etc. [10]

1. How frequently they are used? There are sources that describe their use as "common," "typical," and the "best way to optimize production" that I could add. I'll look for more specific info.

1. In what quantities are they used? The maximum allowed use for each listed substance, both per injection and total, is listed in the NRC document. [11] I noticed that this was in the NRC doc last night. People can request to use larger amounts, but need approval. Some of the quantities listed are:

Iodine-131, gas form, 100 millicuries total, not to exceed 20 millicuries per injection

Iodine-131, liquid form, 50 millicuries total, not to exceed 10 millicuries per injection

Iridium-192, "Labeled" frac sand, 200 millicuries total, not to exceed 15 millicuries per injection

Silver-110m, liquid form, 200 millicuries total, not to exceed 20 millicuries per injection
[12]

1. For what purpose are they used? This was already described in the monitoring section, and in the Reis and other refs.[13][14][15]

Hogbin: I meant here what is a specific isotope used for?

Each tracer isotope is used to mark a stage of the fracking process. Wells are fracked in stages, sometimes as little as 5 stages, but they can be fracked multiple times [16] [17] up to 20-30 times. To tell how much progress has been made, they use tracers isotopes of varying half-lifes so that they can differentiate between the results of each fracking injection. That's why they need to use several different isotopes at a time. The presence of the tracers is detected by equipment (see Halliburton ads) at the surface.

1. In what form are they used? This is described in the patents - liquid, gas, bonded to sand. NRC, [18] and patents above.

Hogbin: Again, it would be more informative to know how each isotope is used.

1. Is there evidence of any specific substance being found in the surface environment? Not sure what you mean here. These are not naturally occurring or they couldn't be used in that area. There have been spills, but that info isn't relevant to the process - that would go into the environment section.

Hogbin: By surface environment I meant anywhere where it might pose a health or environmental hazard. If the radionuclides decay whilst they are deep underground they are no problem.

Personnel can spill the stuff, [19] plus the flow back contains all of the contents of the fracking fluid, plus any natural radionuclides it picks up along the way. It comes back up [20] in a somewhat unpredictable manner, and is then deposited in evaporation ponds, used again, or piped or trucked elsewhere. Those sources are on the surface. See the environmental section for what can happen.[21] Underground, if there are any faults, crevices, or fractures, natural or man-made, including from injection wells, that pass through the rock layers, the force of the injection can send the fluid upward towards the surface and ground water. [22] The gas companies try to avoid this, but they can't see what's underneath the surface.

That is not evidence it is your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

1. What general radiation risk does this pose? This would be a "health concern," which editors have been listing with the substances in the process description. Now that the amounts allowed are known, can look this up. Browsed casually last night and found some incident reports for smaller amounts, but would prefer more of a reference book source. Suffice it to see that they are using a significant amount.

Hogbin: I am taking about the risk posed by the amount of substance that has been detected in drinking water for example.

First, they don't test drinking or even source water for most of the tracer isotopes. Iodine-131 is on the radar because of its association with nukes. The ones they do test for they usually test, sporadically [23] every 6-8 years. At the point of entry from a treatment plant into a steam, the concentration is very high and a clear health hazard (see NYT map: [24] ). So far the levels of Iodine-131 in drinking water in Philly would only increase your risk of cancer significantly if you drank it for a while, but that is when iodine-131 is considered by itself. The other isotopes in the fluid can also contribute to risk and scientists are worried about cumulative health impact.[25] Philly has really high background radiation levels, which is a concern in that sense (check out "radiation network" to see what I mean: [26]). Houston, TX has trouble with radioactivity in drinking water. Technically the MCL for radiation is zero. For more information, read this: [27]

1. What risks specific to the substance does this pose? This is sometimes found on the isotope's page. It would seem like too much detail to list for each isotope. A general comment could be made.

Hogbin: I am only suggesting listing things that have been shown to pose an actual danger.

Under the right (or wrong) circumstances, they are all potentially dangerous.

1. How great is the danger? Depends on how badly someone screws up! I read an incident report where a spill of less than half the total maximum, and 1.5 times the single injection maximum required a hazmat response. The danger is greatest for the personnel handling the stuff. General info: [28] . Also, some of the stuff has gone missing. I want to find a more comprehensive source for this though.

Hogbin: I was referring to the risks to public health in normal usage, but I do agree that risks to staff, the risks due to accidents and the safety record of the industry are important.

1. What could be done about this? Could include a statement and link to safety procedures for dealing with these substances. Some of this info is in the NRC ref as well. [29]

By the way, the amounts permitted (or at least used, according to one project report) are significantly higher in the UK than the US. I was surprised by this. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The dilemma is that on the one hand, I'd like to be specific regarding which isotopes are actually used, so the NRC listing is helpful. One the other hand, although folks just beginning to use this technology in other countries may look to the US for ideas on how to implement it in their countries, they are unlikely to follow the US's example in all ways. Other countries may choose other isotopes from those deemed suitable based on things such as the geology and availability and pricing of isotopes in that country. This would argue for representing information about the broad range of isotopes deemed suitable in some practical way.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My main point was that, to list a substance we should provide a source to show that, in the specific quantities that it is used it has posed an actual risk to the population (due to entering the human food chain, for example). Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

MH, if you read through the sources linked to the statements, you will find many of the answers to your questions. It is interesting stuff. The tracers are all used to map where fractures were created by the force of the fluid - since you can't tell from the surface. The equipment, etc. is described in the patents (and Halliburton ads). The NRC talks about ways to introduce the tracers and amounts that can be used. Toxicity can be found on CDC and other health pages. There is debate about whether the radiation and fracking fluid will be contained underground. If there are faults or fractures (man-made or natural) that cross layers, the fracking fluid could (and has in some cases) get into aquifers and groundwater sources. EPA said it was not possible/practical/financially feasible to remediate this type of contamination in the Pavillion incident. This has also been true for contamination by other industries in the Northeast US.

The Technology part of the article has a different focus than the environment section. For the environmental section, we need sources to verify things like that there are concerns, what the risks are, whether there is contamination, and the likelihood of health problems now and as fracking activity increases. The info does not need to all be in one source. For the technology/fracking process section, we just need sources that say something is used in the process. We have that. Health info (effects of exposure) has typically been included in the process section; environmental contamination info (air, water, earthquakes, radiation, etc.) in the environment section.

Also, please try to sign your contributions and keep them in chronological order, otherwise it is hard to tell who is saying what.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding formatting, I followed your lead in addressing individual points in-situ.

I suggest that we continue the discussion at Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. I have copied your two paragraphs above there.

The things you list above are just your opinion of what might happen. We need a source to say that it has happened of a source giving an opinion that the things you mention present a danger. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that information is actually from the article's sources...or at least the sources that were linked before the last raid. You might want to read some of the sources if you are going to work on this article. Just a suggestion. If you look at the diagram, the crevice issue is illustrated. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As you do not seem to have addressed the points made in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States I have copied them here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0 (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Things we should have in the article

Actual radioactive contamination events

By this I mean events in which radioactive substances from HF have fount their way into the human food and water supply or have had a significant impact on the environment. They will generally be exceedingly easy to prove since the tracers used have easily identifiable radioactive emissions profiles, which is the reason they are used.

These should be presented in some detail, as discussed.

Concerns expressed by reliable sources about possible radioactive contamination

These can be mentioned, but as concerns, not as facts, giving details of the exact concerns and the body showing the concern together with any responses.

List of countries and states that have banned fracking

France, Bulgaria, South Africa, North Rhine Westphalia (Germany), New York (US), New Jersey (US) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaoming (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Things we should not have in the article

Lists of radionuclides that might be used

These are meaningless to many people, scary to some and annoying to others, like me. If they are there to make a point we need to find an independent reliable source which makes that point

Things you or I think might be a problem

WP is written based on what is said in reliable sources not what you or I think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

References

"Distinction" between low- and high-volume hydraulic fracturing

I have just removed a a couple of statements to the effect that there are two different types of hydraulic fracturing, one low-volume (used to stimulate high-permeability reservoirs) and one high-volume (to stimulate tight gas and shale gas wells), and that only the high-volume form of fracking has "come under international scrutiny". It may or may not be the case that some form of hydraulic stimulation is used in conventional natural gas wells (where the gas filters out of porous sandstone and carbonate reservoirs); all I know is that this is not mentioned in the document cited for these statements. In that document the term "hydraulic fracturing" refers only to the stimulation of tight gas and shale wells.

Neither does the cited document contain the figures 20,000–80,000 US gallons of fracturing fluid for the supposed low-volume form of fracking.

I have thus removed these mysterious factoids. Please replace them, along with correct citation, if you discover a reputable source that makes these claims. Fuzzypeg★ 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a source making this distinction and I re-added this information in the section about well types. Not sure if it the right place for this information, so please feel free to move it into more appropriate location, if necessary.

This source includes also figure about water consumption (less than 80,000 gallons per low-volume hydraulic, 3-7 million gallons per high-volume fracturing). However, as different sources are providing quite different amounts, it should be decided what is the best way to present these figures. The another issue is what figures should be included under fracturing fluid subsection and which one under water consumption subsection. Beagel (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Industry funding of MIT study

I didn't notice change in citation. The funding sources are listed in the first couple of pages. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And what is the reason to add this? When the text said that HF causes methane contamination there was no problem that MIT study was not labelled 'industry funded'; however, when exact citation was provided from the study which is not fully accordance your POV, it suddenly became important. Beagel (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with that. Just mentioning MIT makes it sound university rather than industry funded. When I read about the study before, there was a different source or report format. I don't remember the blue cover. If anything, the deletion of the two EPA studies made me take a closer look at that little was left in the section. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you imply that the study is not reliable? Beagel (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I think we need a balance of industry and non-industry studies, and to represent the current state of the research on hf. It also doesn't seem evenhanded to "name drop" MIT for credibility, and not mention that the study was industry funded. Also, EPA's studies were reliable sources. Smm201`0 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass pro-industry POV deletions

There were a large number of deletions targeting negative aspects of hydraulic fracturing made by pro-industry editors overnight. They are clearly not consistent with a neutral point of view. All of the deleted material was based on reliable sources. Again, this is censorship. Very disappointing. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been asked for several times to stop calling the names. Please also make sure you understand WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE policies. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The description is accurate. The reasons for deleting the material were not discussed and agreed upon and the rationales given in the history are inaccurate. There was no synthesis or undue, and what you have done is make the article less representative of the information available on the topic, which constitutes undue. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed. Also, saying that the description is accurate if calling co-editors "pro-industry editors", is your POV; however, that kind of behaviour is against WP:Wikiquette. Beagel (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. And how is it ok for you to name chemicals, but not me? Smm201`0 (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok...I thought we were talking about different chemicals. So you were acting on that, not just citing the report. I just took out "commonly" to simplify the wording. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And taking out "commonly" is clear POV and biased edit as it was explicitly said by the source. Please to not make cherry picking. Beagel (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Just seemed wordy to me. Didn't know it was a quote, because there are no quotation marks. And repeated throwing unearned WP violation names at me is just another form of name calling. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article is currently far from NPOV. There are excessive sections on risks and dangers of HF but very little on the benefits. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

First time I've looked at a discussion of a wiki post because this one was so alarmingly biased. How many times do we need to be told that some of the chemicals used are carcinogenic? This is where wikipedia fails: on controversial subjects we get the opinions of individuals who have the time on their hands to sit around and delete and re-write articles, while the real qualified writers are doing meaningful work elsewhere. (Citizenconcious55 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC))

Once, is the answer to your question. It is important that we know this fact but also that it forms part of a balanced article on the subject.

I and others have been working to remove unnecessary duplication and improve this article and we have made considerable progress. You are welcome to join us. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that I was contributing too, by making the lead more balanced. But my edits were immediatedly reverted.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Which edits were these? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the reason why your addition was removed from the lead, was because the lead should summarize the whole article, not discuss topics in details. Therefore it was removed by other editor from the lead but it remain in the relevant subsection. I hope that the lead in its current stage is more balanced than in time you made your contribution. However, I think your addition was useful and I hope you will continue improving this article. Beagel (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Indeed the lead is now better, but I think it would be even better if we added "Initial studies suggested that fracking could lead to pollution of drinking water, but more recent studies do not support this hypothesis" or something like that. Is there support for adding that?--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a good source to support your statement? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement I propose is a summary of what is in the article. References are not required for leads, because the lead is supposed to summarize what is in the article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

According to WP style for leads, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview...be 'carefully sourced' as appropriate." Smm201`0 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We do not have to have a reference in the lead. WP:lead says, 'Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. ... The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Gautier, I cannot see anything in the body of the article that justifies your summary. If you believe that I have missed anything please point it out to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. What happened is that the text and references that I'd added to a recent study got removed. You will find that study summarized in some detail at Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States#Groundwater contamination. So I would propose to add a much shorter summary of the most recent study, and then the lead could be modified as I propose.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the rest of that section of WP:LEAD reads, "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." HF is a controversial topic, hence the editing wars here. Smm201`0 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And one of the reasons that things may look better than they are for hf, is that the two recent EPA investigations of Dimock, PA and Pavillion, WY, have been removed from this article. The studies relate to both following up on the effectiveness of both the mitigation efforts (e.g., home water treatment units; remediation (actually ridding the soil of the contamination) is not feasible in such cases according to EPA) and testing of wells not initially included.

Dimock, PA "In 2009, 13 water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania were contaminated with methane, and one exploded. Arsenic, barium, DEHP, glycol compounds, manganese, phenol, and sodium were found in unacceptable levels in the wells. As a result, Cabot Oil & Gas was required to financially compensate residents and provide alternative sources of water until mitigation systems were installed in affected wells. The company continues to deny that hydraulic fracturing was involved. In May 2012 EPA reported that their most recent "set of sampling did not show levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action." Methane and arsenic were still found in one well. Cabot has held that the methane was preexisting, but state regulators have cited chemical fingerprinting as proof that it was from Cabot's hydraulic fracturing activities. Both Duke University and University of Rochester are conducting studies of the age of the well water to confirm the sources of the various contaminants. EPA plans to re-sample four wells where previous data by the company and the state showed levels of contaminants."

Pavillion, WY Case. "Complaints about water quality from residents near a gas field in Pavillion, Wyoming prompted an EPA groundwater investigation, which reported detections of methane and other chemicals, some used or produced in fracking, and some at dangerous levels. A draft report stated that the impact to ground water could be explained by fracking. The report said that ground water contamination of the nature found in Pavillion is "typically infeasible or too expensive to remediate or restore (GAO 1989).""

References

Fracture monitoring

I have edited this section to remove the unencyclopedic and pointless lists and replace them the general principles that are used to select the tracers and short summaries of how typical nuclides are used, taken from the existing sources.

Perhaps editors could say if they think that any important, useful, and encyclopedic information is missing from my version. I am not trying to hide anything, just to make the section read like an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your version is censored and diluted to the point of saying nothing substantive. The vague, often inaccurate, unsourced content you have been adding does little to inform readers about the process. Over the last several weeks there has been a consistent effort to remove negative information about hydraulic fracturing from the article, focus on industry-funded studies and adding poorly written, poorly spelled empty verbiage in its place. Ironically, the numerous uncited paragraphs of industry-related text describing the process remain. If you were really interested in improving the article you would be focusing on that part of the article. This article should present accurate and well sourced information about hf's process, pros, and cons. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, please do not continue to accuse me of censorship, I will raise an RfC/user conduct if you continue to attack other editors.

The content that I have added was taken from the sources previously cited, none of which are industry based. Please tell me what negative information you think that I have removed; it was not my intention to remove any important or useful information. I have removed some pointless lists and replaced them with the principles on which radiotracers are chosen and examples of the uses of specific radiotracers, taken from the sources from which the lists came. If you think that there is important information that is not there or that has been 'diluted' please say what it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Information that has recently been removed from the hydraulic fracturing page

Here is some of the information that has recently been deleted from this article. I believe that it is important information regarding the process and should be included.

Information about other radionuclides added to hydraulic fracturing fluid to monitor fractures

Injection of radioactive tracers, along with the other substances in hydraulic-fracturing fluid, is sometimes used to determine the injection profile and location of fractures created by hydraulic fracturing. Patents describe in detail how several tracers are typically used in the same well. Wells are hydraulically fractured in different stages. Tracers with different half-lives are used for each stage. Their half-lives range from 40.2 hours (Lanthanum-140) to 5.27 years (Cobalt-60). Amounts per injection of radionuclide are listed in the The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidelines. The NRC guidelines also list a wide range or radioactive materials in solid, liquid and gaseous forms that are used as field flood or enhanced oil and gas recovery study applications tracers used in single and multiple wells. According to the NRC, some of the most commonly used include Antimony-124, Bromine-82, Iodine-125, Iodine-131, Iridium-192, and Scandium-46. A 2003 publication by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) provides a detailed description of tracer use, confirms the frequent use of most of the tracers above, and says that Manganese-56, Sodium-24, Technetium-m, Silver-m, Argon-41, and Xenon-133 are also used extensively because they are easily identified and measured. Other potentially suitable tracers are named in various patents. For example, plastic pellets coated with Ag-110mm may be added to the proppant or the sand labelled with Ir-192[30] so that the proppant's progress can be monitored. In terms of quantities used, the NRC gives the following examples: Iodine-131, gas form, 100 millicuries total, not to exceed 20 millicuries per injection; Iodine-131, liquid form, 50 millicuries total, not to exceed 10 millicuries per injection; Iridium-192, "Labeled" frac sand, 200 millicuries total, not to exceed 15 millicuries per injection; Silver-110m, liquid form, 200 millicuries total, not to exceed 20 millicuries per injection[31]

This has been replaced with a more encyclopedic version, see my comments above.

What important information given above do you believe should be in a article about HF? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added the typical quantity of Ag-110 used in frac sand. If we have typical quantities actually used (not regulatory maxima) for other the substance we could add them too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Information about chemicals and risks associated with them

Over the life of a typical well, this may amount to 100,000 gallons of chemical additives.

This is still there in the form of: 'Over the life of a typical gas well, up to 100,000 US gallons (380,000 l; 83,000 imp gal) of chemical additives may be used'.

These additives (listed in a U.S. House of representatives Report include biocides, surfactants, viscosity-modifiers, and emulsifiers. They vary widely in toxicity. Some are not toxic in smaller amounts, however, some are known carcinogens, some are toxic, and some are neurotoxins. For example: benzene (causes cancer, bone marrow failure), lead (damages the nervous system and causes brain disorders), ethylene glycol (antifreeze, causes death), methanol (highly toxic), boric acid (kidney damage, death), 2-butoxyethanol (causes hemolysis).

We still have:'While some of the chemicals used are common and generally harmless, some are known carcinogens or toxic.[37] The most common chemical used for hydraulic fracturing in the United States in 2005–2009 was methanol, while some other most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol.[37]' I was removing duplication as pointed out in the cleanup tag. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Most recent EPA studies of groundwater and drinking water contamination

Most recent EPA environmental studies related to groundwater contamination by both methane and chemicals in fracking fluids. The studies relate to both following up on the effectiveness of both the mitigation efforts (e.g., home water treatment units; remediation (actually ridding the soil of the contamination) is not feasible in such cases according to EPA) and testing of wells not initially included:

Dimock, PA case deleted

In 2009, 13 water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania were contaminated with methane, and one exploded. Arsenic, barium, DEHP, glycol compounds, manganese, phenol, and sodium were found in unacceptable levels in the wells. As a result, Cabot Oil & Gas was required to financially compensate residents and provide alternative sources of water until mitigation systems were installed in affected wells. The company continues to deny that hydraulic fracturing was involved. In May 2012 EPA reported that their most recent "set of sampling did not show levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action." Methane and arsenic were still found in one well. Cabot has held that the methane was preexisting, but state regulators have cited chemical fingerprinting as proof that it was from Cabot's hydraulic fracturing activities. Both Duke University and University of Rochester are conducting studies of the age of the well water to confirm the sources of the various contaminants. EPA plans to re-sample four wells where previous data by the company and the state showed levels of contaminants.

Pavillion, WY Case deleted

Complaints about water quality from residents near a gas field in Pavillion, Wyoming prompted an EPA groundwater investigation, which reported detections of methane and other chemicals, some used or produced in fracking, and some at dangerous levels. A draft report stated that the impact to ground water could be explained by fracking. The report said that ground water contamination of the nature found in Pavillion is "typically infeasible or too expensive to remediate or restore (GAO 1989)."

1987 Kaiser Exploration and Mining Company incident deleted

In 1987, an EPA report was published that indicated fracture fluid invasion into a well in West Virginia. The well, drilled by Kaiser Exploration and Mining Company, was found to have induced fractures that allowed fracture fluid to contaminate groundwater – though the oil and gas industry, as well as the EPA, questioned the accuracy of the report.

Information about conflicts of interest in research

This information was also deleted. Despite their funding, however, the studies did find contamination by hydraulic fracturing. Researchers are expected to state any potential conflicts of interest regarding their research.

Industry funding of MIT study
According to the 2011 industry funded study of the MIT Energy Initiative, "there is evidence of natural gas (methane) migration into freshwater zones in some areas, most likely as a result of substandard well completion practices by a few operators."

Conflicts of interest in the University of Texas study
Critics have noted that it is "difficult for researchers to be objective if their university receives a lot of grants and funds from the industry.” A UT Energy Institute spokesperson said that the study was not funded by the industry. He said funds came from the university, which has a variety of funding sources. Statoil announced a $5m research agreement with UT's Bureau of Economic Geology in September 2011, whose program director, Ian Duncan, was the senior contributor for the parts of the Texas study to do with the environmental impacts of shale gas development. The leader of the Texas study, Charles "Chip" Groat, is a paid director of PXP, an oil and gas company that is engaged in fracking, has acknowledged that a forthcoming report by the EPA will negate his study's findings that there are no adverse environmental consequences unique to fracking.

Smm201`0 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, please be aware that the talk page is for discussion how to improve the article, not for promoting editors' POV. Beagel (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, and it is easier to discuss whether something should be included if you can see it. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It all has been already extensively discussed at this talk page. Beagel (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For the parts of the above that were discussed, the conclusion was to leave them in, not remove them. Some of the above - like the deletion of the main EPA studies of HF's impact on groundwater - were not discussed other than for you to say you were deleting them, and me to say I objected. They warrant more discussion than that.

I don't see why we can't present the different perspectives with their sources and let readers decide what they think. A points-counterpoints approach. Also, if you present the radiation information with accurate information about what constitutes safe levels (though there are different views on that as well), then the radiation info won't sound scary unless it should.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

These EPA studies were removed as the individual cases they referred were moved into more specific article and there is no information in this article which uses these references at the moment. It was explained a number of times why these individual cases does not belong in this article but belong to the US specific environmental impact article. This article should give balanced general overview about all relevant aspects. However, if a more specific articles are exist, more details should be added there and more general and universal aspects should be summarized here. Second, balanced does not mean that we should make a list of all possible sources. That mean that all major viewpoints should be presented and they should be sourced. A statement or a viewpoint should be supported by reliable sources, but that does not mean that all potential sources should be added – it does not matter if there is one or ten references so far as these references are reliable and cited correctly (but of course, avoid cite overkilling). At the moment different viewpoints are presented, so I really don't understand what you want to do. Beagel (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Suggested Updates to a Few sections

I have a few things that I would like to add on the Fracturing fluid sections unless there is a disagreement on some of these updates.

Under Introduction this is more of a discussion point, but I was just on a well that we were using about 4300 bbls per stage for 45 stages. This calculates out to just over 8 million gallons of water for a single well hydraulic fracture job, and in the article it suggests that we use between 1.2 million and 3.5 million. Are we sure these numbers are still relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Under High-rate fracturing

Sometimes a breaker is added to breakdown the friction reducing polymer to ensure it does not reduce production of the well.

Under High-viscosity fracturing

A crosslink fluid is a gelled fluid with an ion added to connect the long polymer chains, thus the concept of crosslink.

Under Other Chemicals Added I know this a list and some people do not like lists, but

Acid Corrosion Inhibitors - Protects steel from deterioration when it is in contact with acid.

Bactericides /Biocides/Anaerobic - Kills or controls bacteria. Bacterial can cause instabilities in viscosity.

Breakers - Reduce the viscosity of fluids over time. Usually enzymes or oxidizers

Clay Control - Control clays that swell in water. Control clays that migrate in the formation. Commonly KCl or a substitute for KCl

Cross-Linkers - Sometimes called Complexors Increase the viscosity of gelling agents by connecting the separate gel polymers together.

Fluid Loss Control - Control the amount of fluid "leaked off" or lost to the formation.

Foaming Agents - When used with nitrogen to creates stable foam.

Friction Reducers - Help reduce the friction between fluids and the tubular.

Gelling Agents - There are two groups one for water based fluids one for oil based fluids. Most important use is to increase viscosity.

Iron Control – Prevents precipitation of metal oxides.

pH Control - pH affects several things: Protect clay and shale formations. The rate gelling agents develop viscosity. Assist in controlling bacterial growth

Scale Inhibitor – Prevents scale deposits in the pipe.

Surfactants - Additives that reduce the surface tension of a liquid this helps to prevent water blocks. Prevent emulsions between formation fluids and treatment fluids. Help stabilize emulsions when using an emulsified treatment fluid. Aids in fluid recovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I would help you could provide also the reference for this information. As you see, at the moment this section needs additional references to confirm several statements in it. I personally believe that the information is correct, but we still need references per WP:V and WP:RS policies. Beagel (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem with information in the industry, any good relevant information usually has a confidentiality statement attached to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The points that you have quoted look to be generally known. Are there any reference books or manuals on the subject that we could cite? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

It seems that Induced hydraulic fracturing section contains large parts which are close paraphrasing of [32]. Although it is probably other way around and this company has used the text from this article without proper references, it still needs copyediting to remove close paraphrasing. Induced hydraulic fracturing section also still needs a proper citing. Beagel (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting dilemma. Has there been any ruling about that? Can a company glean text from WP, and then accuse WP of copyright violations? I've seen a lot of WP text cut and pasted on other sites. I guess the safest thing is to re-paraphrase the material, as you suggest. (Wow, we might actually agree on something...) I actually ran the whole article through Turn-it-in (a plagiarism checker) a while back, and it came back clean then. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that a company can glean text from WP, and then accuse WP of copyright violations. If we are sure that this is what actually happened, and can prove it, then we are safe to leave it as it is, otherwise we should rewrite. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The text was added to Wikipedia sometimes in the beginning of 2011, this annual report was published in January 2012. However, as this part is still poorly referenced, additional references are needed. After resolving the open issues with this article, we need a systematic copyediting through the whole article, so it may be the right time to deal also with this issue. Beagel (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Title

This page should be moved to correct the spelling of the title, Fracturing should be capitalized. If you do some search testing you can see that this is correct. I also checked with a few English professors that I know, and they seem to agree. Not sure why it was moved back. S1id3r0 (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why capitalised? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:LOWERCASE for Wikipeadian policy on capitalization of titles. It says: "Use lower case, except for proper names". Beagel (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing

There is a new article named Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing, which contains similar problems already discussed at the talk page of this article. There is also ongoing deletion discussion of this article. Beagel (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate citing sources

By this edit a sentence about condamination cases was changed as following: "Many cases of groundwater contamination due to fracking waste water have been suspected and several have been confirmed." This is inaccurate for several reasons. First, word "many" is assertion which is classified as "weasel word" and therefore should be avoid. Second, there are four references for the claim that several contamination cases have been confirmed. However, these references do not support this claim. The first reference is about Dimock case. However, It does not says that contamination by HF is confirmed. It says that "There is reason to believe that a release of hazardous substances has occurred." Furthermore, it refers to EPA but EPA did not confirmed that the case was caused by HF. In its latesi press release, dated July 25, 2012, EPA even did not mention HF, but only stated that "Overall during the sampling in Dimock, EPA found hazardous substances, specifically arsenic, barium or manganese, all of which are also naturally occurring substances, in well water at five homes at levels that could present a health concern." So, the Dimock case can't be said is confirmed case although I personally believe there may be linkage with HF. The second and third sources about the case in Pavillion. Again, the sources do not say that this is a confirmed case. According to sources, "the data indi­cates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing". "Likely" and "can be explained" are not the same as "confirmed". The fourth references refers to the 1984 case of Kaiser Gas, which is indeed confirmed case. However, this is not "several cases". Therefore, this sentence should be changed to more neutral and more accurate version. Beagel (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There are far too many edits, which seem to be part of an environmental campaign, to tackle them individually. I suggest we roll back and then discuss each edit before it is made, as suggested above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong disagree, as described above. Smm may have strong feelings about the topic, but I don't think it's fair to describe their contributions as an "environmental campaign." A rollback does seem like a circumvention of consensus, rather than an attempt at it, in this case. Sindinero (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Related to the source issue, if you read the sources I cited, they do support the statement. Changing the word "many" is fine. If you look at the lists of suspected cases, it is quite long, hence the use of the word "many," but you could count them, and use that number. Or I could. Regarding the word "confirmed," I'll go back and see how they communicate the implication of hf and see if I can use their words in quotes. In the Dimock case, the press release is communicating that after their mitigation efforts, the water is safe to drink. The other sources make this clear - they describe the penalties, actions, the mitigation efforts, and follow up resampling process. The Pavillion case was also confirmed. Read the sources, especially the EPA-based sources. Of course, Beagel deleted a lot of sources, especially the New York Times/Urbina articles, so some of the information may not be there anymore, but some remains. I stick to the sources. I'll try to use the quote field more so it is easier to see. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to quote anything to say per sources that there are cases suspected (or 'likely' or whatever the sources say) to be linked (caused) by HF. That is enough hfor this article. Above I provided quotes from the sources, so your claim that the cases are confirmed is not true. As for your accusation about deleting sources, this is again false accusation. Yes, I removed unused references which amounted almost 16k, but no other removal. This is very last request to stop personal attacks in the form of false accusations. Beagel (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That last set of tests that your source describes was conducted to determine whether the water treatment systems, designed to handle methane contamination, were also removing the other substances as they had hoped, and to check for problems in additional residences. That is why they said no 'further' interventions were needed. The sources in the article include this information. Smm201`0 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The latest changes does not address the above mentioned problems. There is still no sources saying that this "confirmed" or "verified" that Dimock and Pavillion cases a caused by hydraulic fracturing. As for Dimock, the added source and its citation talks about methane release to groundwater. Methane release has nothing to do with injected fluid as the title of subsection insists. This also does not say that violation of regulation by Cabot are related to hydraulic fracturing. Please note that hydraulic fracturing and gas drilling are not synonyms as hydraulic fracturing is a specific process while gas drilling is more general term and involves different processes (and hydraulic fracturing is not necessarily always involved). As of inorganic contamination, the EPA's press release makes it clear that there are also other possibilities for contaminating origin, so it is not "confirmed" or "verified". As for Pavillion, the source (draft report) says "the data indi­cates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing." "Likely" and "can be explained" are not the same as "confirmed" or "verified". In addition, as this is a draft report, nothing can't be confirmed or verified before realising the final report. Once more, I personally believe that these two cases are related to gas drilling activities (and probably to hydraulic fracturing); however, that is not confirmed or verified by reliable sources and therefore it classifies as original research. Beagel (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The articles do talk about the fracking fluids (in addition to methane) and the presence of contaminants from fracking. Regarding "verified" and "confirmed," the sources may not use the exact terms, but the Phillips article actually says, "fed­eral envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tors have made a direct link between the con­tro­ver­sial drilling prac­tice known as hydraulic frac­tur­ing and ground­wa­ter contamination." and paraphrasing is permitted. I looked back at the version from after the 3rd party editing and it said "documented" so I will change the word to that one. Although some of the same techniques are used in both hydraulically fractured and non-hydraulically fractured wells, the addition of the injection of fluids at high enough pressure in hydraulic fracturing to break up rock also has the unfortunate consequence of a higher failure rate than traditional drilling for casings and cement, which contributes to the environmental problems. So, same components, but unique use and failure rate. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what Phillips says but this is not what EPA says. Beagel (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

United States specific paragraph

Second paragraph of the Politics and public policy section (In the US, some states have introduced legislation that limits ...) is very US specific talking explicitly only about the U.S. regulations division between the federal and local level. As such, it is relevant to the Hydraulic fracturing in the United States article, but it does not fit in the general article about hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, it would be better to be moved there. Beagel (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a place for an environmental campaign

This is an article on HF not a soapbox for an environmental campaign against it. It is not necessary for every anti-HF suggestion or comment to be added to this article however well sourced it is. The article should be about HF in general, what it is, what it does, and how it works, just like any other WP article. Of course, the environmental controversy should be mentioned but this is not the place to wage a campaign against the process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, will you please stop treating this article as your personal campaign soapbox against HF. I am going to suggest that this page is reverted to its state before your latest flurry of edits and that we seek consensus for changes from that state. Is there a consensus here for that action? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Martin. Kleptopigstar (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just do it. Smm201'0 has been running an activist campaign against HF for months. Arzel (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we ask an admin to roll back the article to before the latest flurry. Any suggestions? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that we could ask any admin. User:DGG, User:HelloAnnyong, user:Elockid, User:EdJohnston, User:BrownHairedGirl, user:HJ Mitchell, User:FayssalF, if to list just some reputable admins I knew.Beagel (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you happy to do that or should I? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

After personal attacks and baseless accusations by one certain editor I prefer not to do this myself. And for the record—I am not happy neither doing this nor the current state of this article (and other HF articles about HF). Beagel (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that asking for administrative rollback is pretty extreme; Smm's done a lot of good work on this article, and we've been able to negotiate consensus in the past. Sindinero (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What consensus do you think exists for Smm's recent flurry of edits? My suggestion is that we roll back and then discuss these edits before they are made to ensure there is indeed a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the recent edits as a "flurry," in the sense that the pace of change has rendered consensus impossible or even more difficult, and I think that before going to an administrator we need to try WP:BRD. What recent changes are objectionable and why, and what's worth keeping? We've been able to do this pretty well in the past, and outside mediation (rather than rollbacks) has proved fruitful before. Sindinero (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have a disagreement with you on this. Pushing POV, manipulating sources and working against reached consensus (as you said: we've been able to negotiate consensus in the past, and I believe it is possible to reach consensus again if all editors are interested about this and don't have hidden agendas) is not what I call "a lot of good work". WP:BRD has been tried and you could see the result here at the talk page in the form of personal attacks and accusations. Therefore, action by non-involved admin seems more appropriate. Beagel (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sindinero, I think you have hit the mail on the head when you say, 'the pace of change has rendered consensus impossible or even more difficult'. Have a look at the recent history and you will see that is exactly what has happened. I find it quite impossible to keep up with the changes made by Smm, except to note that they are all of an anti-HF nature and that many editors disagree with them. BRD is quite impractical in these circumstances. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you do a diff on the "flurry," you'll see that all I did was reorganize the existing content and change a few words, adding sources. The preponderance of content changes consisted of deletions paragraphs pertaining to environmental concerns by others. If you are going to review my contributions, then the same standard should be applied to everyone - but that isn't consistent with WP practices. Anyone can edit. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you do a diff from shortly after the independent editor revised the article (500 edits), most of the changes to the environmental section were deletions of environmental info as well. The Chemical section was moved into environmental from the process section. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What consensus was there for your reorganisation and changes? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

WP doesn't require consensus before editing a page. See WP:BRD. BUT AGAIN, look at the diff. The things I changed were minor. Some were just efforts to try to put back, in a more acceptable form, content that Beagel deleted without consensus. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if your changes are minor, I guess you will not object if we roll back to before you started and then consider adding the changes one by one after discussion? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If the changes are minor, what is the justification for such a drastic step? Sindinero (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Because I do not agree that the changes are minor bit Smm claims that they are. If they are then the step is not drastic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get a roll back to happen. I don't see any large mayor changes, but maybe I missed something. Martin could you please give a diff or two of the worst ones? Blackash have a chat 01:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the problem Blackash, there are so many edits that it is hard to see exactly what has been done, except to note that the edits are generally of an anti-HF nature but you are probably right, we have rather missed the boat for a rollback. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin, lets try working through the problem differently. Give the sentence or paragraph that bothers you the most. Blackash have a chat 11:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what is happening now. Several editors, including myself, now have to sift through the article to find out exactly what changes. It would have been easier if Smm had sought consensus before the changes.Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect for your work and your concerns, this is a little mystifying. You're saying that there are a lot of potentially harmful changes that have been made to the article, enough to warrant a roll-back, but then you're not sure exactly what they are or whether they were harmful..? It seems really strange to call for administrative intervention -- a severe step by any standard -- and then complain that several editors "now have to sift through the article to find out exactly what changes". Since the 15th of August when this thread started, Smm has made 19 out of 34 edits to the article, and two days before that s/he made 14 edits. This frequency is common for articles that are being expanded (by comparison, Beagel made 12 edits on the 4th). How much work could it entail to find out which of those changes you find problematic? Consensus is not permission; the edits were made, now let's seek consensus. Sindinero (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sindinero, with all respect to you, your latest arguments seem quite wikilawyering. Your argument that I made 12 edits on August 4 is true; however, you still may quite easily compare what was changed. It is quite impossible to compare what Smm changed on August 13 as he/she made a massive rearrangement of sections and paragraphs. There is nothing wrong with re-arranging paragraphs if it would be done in neutral way. However, in this case there was also removal of certain information (e.g. the most common chemical used for hydraulic fracturing) and re-adding information which does not belong in this article for reasons explained several times in details at this talk page (e.g. Dimock and Pavillion cases). One of the cases of inaccurate changing of existing text is extensively discussed just section below of this discussion and you could see how hard is to fix just one sentence to be in line with sources. Beagel (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to look at the the pattern of changes since Equazcion, the neutral editor, completed his/her work. It would be helpful if when you think content is not close enough to the source in your opinion, you help bring it closer, rather than just deleting it. Semantics appear to be the main problem. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could be more precise what was deleted instead of improving. Please be aware that in case of WP:SYNTH (e.g. in case on synthesis on radioactive contamination which was removed) there is hardly alternative to deletion. If you refer to US specific information, it was explained that there are more appropriate articles for that. This is not removal but moving into more precise article and this information is now included in the Hydraulic fracturing in the United States and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Removing information and moving information into appropriate article are different things. About semantics–I don't think that any reliable encyclopaedia is allowed to use terms "confirmed" and "verified" as synonyms for "suspected" or "likely". Beagel (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm...they may have used the word "likely" in that one sentence, but if you read the sequence of letters and reports (some of which have already been removed from the reference section), including all that was required of Cabot (whole house mitigation units, etc.), it sounds a lot more certain than "suspected." I think we'll just have to agree that we disagree on a lot of these issues. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what original research is. Beagel (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

But if you stick closely to the content of the source, and don't add new ideas beyond it, it could just be paraphrasing or summarizing. By your definition, the use of the word "suspected" could be original research, just from a different POV. It's a fine line. Smm201`0 (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no "my definition". Please see WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH as you have been asked several times before. Beagel (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Smm, 'neutral editor' has little meaning in respect of this article because it should mainly be about the subject of hydraulic fracturing. We could be 'neutral' by getting a real (as opposed to your imagined ones) gas industry representative to add 101 good things about hydraulic fracturing to the article but that would be wrong. This article is not called 'All the bad things about HF' or even 'The bad and the good things about HF' is just called 'Hydraulic fracturing'.

There is, of course some environmental controversy concerning this subject and it is right that that should be mentioned but this controversy must not me allowed to dominate the article. Can you imagine opening a reputable written encyclopedia and finding not a general description the subject but a personal exposition of one particular aspect of the subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. My 2-cents is that the article seems to come down pretty negatively already. This is no doubt just a reflection of the reliable sources, so I'm not complaining about it. But I would agree that there does not seem to be a crying need to add additional criticism of the technology, unless, of course, it is supported by new and reliable sources.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I found this site [33] interesting and I think it would be reliable source, but didn't see it in the list. Please have a look and give me your opinion. Blackash have a chat 09:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that looks like a good overview of the subject by reputable academic institution. It also gives us an idea of how this article should look. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hydraulic Fracturing in Embankments, Dams, and Levees

I came to this article looking for some quick information on hydraulic fracturing in dams induced by grouting, lugeon tests, or even just standing head pressures. There's nothing about this major issue, currently being investigated at least by academics in the Netherlands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I'm willing to write up a paragraph on the subject - I've collected a bunch of papers on the subject for work - but I'm not sure where this information should be located. It is an unintentional case of "induced hydraulic fracturing," but it is a distinctly separate issue from "hydrofraking." Should it go under "3. Induced hydraulic fracturing" or receive its own section? What should that section be called? --Lost Heretic (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say it should be in the Induced hydraulic fracturing section as in theory this section should be deal with different uses of hydraulic fracturing. Beagel (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The assertion is not supported by the footnote

I looked at the inline reference to GASLAND mentioned by the person just above, and I have a problem with that. The paragraph says:
The 2010 film Gasland presented claims that chemicals polluted the ground water near well sites in Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Colorado.[95] Energy in Depth, an oil and gas industry group, called the film's facts into question.[96] In response, a detailed rebuttal of the claims of inaccuracy was posted on Gasland's website.[97]
The reference [95] is to the movie GASLAND on the PBS site, and the text about the movie on that site does not mention the word "chemicals" or "pollution" or "ground water", nor does it mention Pennsylvania, Wyoming, or Colorado. I assume that a reference is to substantiate the truth of the assertion, but the footnote only supports that there is something called GASLAND. I await an explanation why this PBS reference is better than, or different from, an IMDb reference. As to the assertion that "GasLand presewnte claims that chemicals polluted the ground water", I don't recall Fox saying that explicitly in GASLAND. TRUTHLAND claims that he says that fracking chemicals get into the well water. Is this what you mean? If so, do you have a citation for where he says that? The closest that he comes to that, that I remember, is when some people show a jar of black water to the camera (at 0:20:00 in GasLand), and one can only guess what the black stuff is. Unless by "chemicals", one means methane and other gases, rather than barium and arsenic and mercury. On this issue of fracing, I don't think that it is too much to expect to be able to distinguish between gas migration and heavy metal contamination, or methane vs benzene vs hydrogen sulfide. It seems to me more appropriate to say "gives evidence for ground water contamination" than to say "GASLAND presented claims". GASLAND presents first hand evidence for the claim. ( Martin | talk • contribs 11:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC))

I went to check out FracNation, and it uses the same phrasing, namely "these claims", in what I see as the same way: to imply unsubstantiated claims, doubtful claims, false claims, fear mongering. Frac Nation, the video, starts nicely with the directors introducing themselves and their vitas. But, at only 0:00:30 in, we get this quote "According to (gasland), fracking is poisoning the water. Not only that, but they are claiming that it also can make water flammable". Are they claiming that GasLand says that H₂O can catch on fire? What am I missing? GasLand is saying, among other things, that there are cases where drilling has caused methane contamination to drinking water. Is FracNation claiming that each case of contemporaneous gas contamination is a coincidence? ( Martin | talk • contribs 12:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC))

Reversion of movies

I don't agree that references to movies should be reverted only because they are "too specific" to the USA; that is, about places in the USA. There is nothing else about them that I can see that limits the applicability of the ideas of the movie to USA locations, beyond the English language aspect. THis is the English language Wikipedia. What is needed is more information and awareness, and the experience of many people is helpful, especially in video format and put together carefully and intentionally. If you want to add more movies, set in other countries. I say please do. ( Martin | talk • contribs 05:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC))

I see there is another "USA documentary" listed as "Frac Nation", but it links to another wikipedia page, and that links to a Facebook page, for a movie that is in funding. This does not qualify as a "2012 documentary". Once it is done, link to its IMDb page. ( Martin | talk • contribs 05:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC))

External links are supposed to provide information that is currently not in the article. Links to IMDb entries do not, in my opinion, do that. I will wait for other opinions before doing anything about this. Mikenorton (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Mikenorton that IMDb entries are not in line with the external links policy and therefore should be removed. I also agree that, in general, country-specific and certain country centric information belongs to the country specific articles rather than to the umbrella article of the topic. Beagel (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree and have removed. Vsmith (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

IMDb is the encyclopedia of movies. I can't imagine a better reference if someone wants to follow up about a movie, and I can't imagine why you would disparage learning about a topic from a documentary. The idea that there would be an article on fracing without a reference to GASLAND is quite bizzare, however consistent it may be to the principles you cite.

And that you all would leave in a reference to "Frac nation", which claims to be a film, and is not available anywhere for viewing (and is NOT on IMDb) should help you to see the error of your ways. Martin | talk • contribs 04:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC))

Please enter a request for comments on this issue, if it not too much trouble, and you have the time. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC))

Gasland is linked in the article and FrackNation is now in the see also section - we use internal links when we have them. Mikenorton (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I saw the FrackNation reference. That is not exactly even a film. Here is a quote from their web page: "FrackNation is a feature documentary that will tell the truth about fracking for natural gas. Watch the video to find out more." Future tense. Maybe it will be a wonderful movie, and may be a useful work-in-progress, but even so, the other movies are more established, and give additional helpful and related information. I do request a more formal review of this decision.( Martin | talk • contribs 11:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC))

I also don't feel that edits should be reverted without discussion, just in general. and as noted elsewhere, this article is full of references to the USA: marcellus Shale, New York TImes, USGS, Youngstown Ohio, U of Texas, USEPA/EPA, Cornell, US House of Representatives, and I am sure more.( Martin | talk • contribs 00:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC))

The amount of US oriented information has been a topic of debate. The emphasis on US material is a reflection of the fact that because hf has been used in the US more extensively than it has been in other countries at this point, more incidents and studies have occurred there, and therefore there are more articles about its use in the US. The amount of US-related info is a reflection of its proportional representation in the literature. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hydraulic fractiuring as a synonym for unconventional gas production

This article mixes hydraulic fracturing with unconventional gas production and drilling in general. However, these are not synonyms. The paragraph about Howarth study talk about shale gas (and its production) in general. It says: "3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well." Also statement that "other studies have also found higher emissions from shale-gas production than from conventional gas production." compares shale gas with conventional case. Therefore, this suits better in the Shale gas article. In this article should be information which is explicitly about hydraulic fracturing. I also agree with martin that the sentence "Methane gradually breaks down in the atmosphere, forming carbon dioxide, which contributes to greenhouse gasses more than coal or oil for timescales of less than fifty years." needs a clarification. Beagel (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Those articles were already included (I think Beagel may have added them)(***correction on 9/4/2012: Although Beagel played an active role in editing the Air section, he or she was NOT the the person who added these sources according to a diff that he or she provided.***) but were inaccurately represented as critiques of Howarth's study and/or as providing contradictory results. It looks like the authors added a note to clarify this was not the case. I would argue that hydraulic fracturing, shale gas production, and unconventional gas production are often used synonymously in the press and other articles. If hairs are to be split though, I'll go back and re-read the articles to see how/whether they address hydraulic fracturing, and would recommend others do so as well. Seems like 2 different standards - ok to include if support hf - should be deleted if don't. It may be that the sentence just needs to be edited to be closer to source. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Sometimes the other terms seem to be used as euphanisms to avoid having the use the F-word (fracking). At the very least the are inextricably linked. Here are some quick examples:

• Shale gas extraction
  
• Shale gas extraction
  
• Shale Gas
• unconventional gas production

Encyclopaedia is not about using euphenisms. Also, being technically (not talking about scientifically) correct, is not "splitting hair". If some journalists can't, or being ignorant to understand the difference, it is not the reason why we should mix the things in the encyclopeadia. Just short explanation. Shale gas is natural gas located in shales. It is produced by using different techiques, including hydraulic fracturing. At the same time, hydraulic fracturing is not the only technique. E.g. horizontal drilling, often used together with hydraulic fracturing, is not hydraulic fracturing. So, sale gas or unconventional gas production is a wider term than hydraulic fracturing. On the other hand, hydraulic fracturing is not used only for gas production. That means that we have different things and we have to be sure if we talking about hydraulic fracturing or about something else. If the source says explictly that it is about HF, it belongs to HF articles. If the source talk about shale gas, it belongs shale gas articles, etc. Beagel (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

...which is why I said I was going to look at the articles and what language they used and the details of what they examined. Others should too. And again, I didn't add the article. It was there purportedly as a source that contradicted Howarth's study. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that information about Howarth study as also its critics was added by this single edit on 21 January 2012 by user:Emerituseditor, not by me as you made an allegation above. Therefore, I would kindly ask you to remove your inaccurate allegations. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I said "I think Beagel 'may' have added them." Just guessing, not alleging anything. Sorry. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please remove it then. Beagel (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll add a clarification/correction. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting information about significant contamination cases

The Dimock and Pavillion cases are significant cases in the history of hf use - most environmental studies have been done in the US because of the longer US history with the process. There are other US cases listed. The Dimock and Pavillion ones are more clear and had a larger impact - that is no reason to exclude them. It is bias. I included them in as succinct a manner as possible - they belong in the article. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is general HF article. It should be summarize the topic in general while more details should be added to specific articles. These cases are US specifics. It was discussed here previously. Just re-arranging sections is not excuse to re-add this information here to make your point. And Ia agree with you - re-adding it is red-handed bias. Beagel (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And please stop these COI accusations. I have answered for these several times, e.g. here. I have also stated that I am more than happy if any checkuser/admin will check these accusations. Beagel (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of US content on this page for the reason I mentioned. You selectively delete that which doesn't reflect well on your industry. That is bias. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And I reported you for 3R before, which you have probably just violated. WP:COI is different from 3R. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read my statement. I don't represent any industry and your behaviour to continue calling names without providing any proofs is a violation of WP:Wikiquette and several other guidelines. As for 3RR reporting, it would be polite to apology for false reporting. Beagel (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is some kind of etiquette exception for reporting COI (which I haven't yet done), and re: 3R, you've certainly done it in spirit if not according to the letter of the law. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How can one have a COI in spirit? That just does not make any sense.Kleptopigstar (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

People are not being objective here, I think is plain. The idea that some information should be moved to a US article was one reason told to me for the deletion of a few citations that I think are relevant. It is obvious that this article contains quite a bit of US specific information - Marcellus Shale, New York Times, USGS, Youngstown Ohio, U of Texas, USEPA amd EPA, Cornell, United States, US House of Representives, and I'm sure more. I don't know why there is so much possibly sincere disagreement over the claims that at least some drilling is polluting when there is prima facie evidence of it on film. I don't get it.
And the fact that Frac Nation, a video, gets a reference in the Notes section, while GASLAND, which it is responding to, is not mentioned there (although it is mentioned in the text), seems out of balance. The film on the Baaken shale is generally positive. Some people are happy. Most drilling is probably ok, although it's too soon to tell. The claim that fracking has been going on for a long time misses that what is happening now is slick water fracking combined with horizontal drilling. Not that old - starting up commercially in 1995? Texas(Barnett), Louisianna(Haynesville), and North Dakota(Bakken). ( Martin | talk • contribs 14:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC))

The other thing that isn't mentioned is that although hf has been conducted in some form for a long time, there have not been systematic studies of the impact of any of its forms on water, air, etc., until recently, and even the new studies are limited in scope and sites evaluated. The kinds of potential health impacts involved (e.g., increased cancer risk) often don't show up for decades and are difficult to "prove." Correlation does not prove causation...but the absence of data doesn't mean it is safe to use either. I have been watching and wondering whether a statement to that effect needs to be added after any comment about how long it has been conducted, but am ok with the language in this article for now. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "for a long time" and "safe":   People would rightly object to the argument that since coal mining has been going on "for a long time", therefore uranium mining is "safe". Aspects of it may be "safe". With shale, many objections relate to what is being drilled into, and the new chemicals and methods involved in the process. Admittedly, some people are not all that happy with the industrialization of farmland and are suspicious with the environmental commitment of industry. The fact that there is a SuperFund is a testament to past industrial irresponsibility, and it's easy to recall, here in western New York, that Dioxin is still in Lake Ontario, Love Canal is down the road, West Valley Nuclear Dump Site is two miles from Zoar Valley on Cattaraugus Creek, and the cleanup crew is thinking about letting things rest for twenty years, before taking another look. That is; even "for a long time" may not equate to "safe".( Martin | talk • contribs 02:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

First paragraph. reservoir vs source

"This type of fracturing creates fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations."
In normal drilling, the gas has moved from a (shale) source to a (sandstone) reservoir. This type of drilling goes into the shale, or source, directly. See picture:DTE Energy. So I think it is slightly more precise to say "drilled into the source rock formations." ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC))

Not really, the fractures are created within the rock formation where the gas is stored (the reservoir) - sandstone or limestone in tight but otherwise conventional reservoirs or the shale itself in a shale gas reservoir. Mikenorton (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, with that interpretation, the word reservoir means wherever the end of the drill is. On the other hand, the rationale for saying that it is the "source" rather than the "reservoir" is that when the drilling stops, there is no single reservoir; rather there are millions of tiny unconnected reservoirs, namely the pre-existing tiny cracks in the shale where the gas etc has accumulated, and that fracking unites them into one exploitable reservoir. What follows from that understanding is that the reservoir (singular) can't be drilled "into", because it isn't there until after the fracking. The image I linked to just above (DTE Energy), also identifies the shale layer as "source", not "reservoir", so in addition to a rationale, the idea is supported by a citation to usage. How would you argue for the use of the word "reservoir" as better than the word "source"? ( Martin | talk • contribs 05:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC))

I would argue for it from usage google search for "shale gas reservoir". Also HF is used on tight (low permeability) sandstone and limestone reservoirs, so the word is appropriate. Mikenorton (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The phrase in question is "drilled into reservoir rock formations". The first result, from your suggested google search, that includes the word "reservoir", is "Fractured Shale Gas Reservoir. -Performance Study—An Offset". That supports the idea that after fracking, there is a reservoir - which we both accept. But do you have something that supports the idea that before the shale is fracked the better word is "reservoir" rather than "source", since the question here is what to call the formation that is "drilled into". The idea of source and reservoir I think really applies to standstone, but if one uses those words for shale, one should note that before the days of fracking, the shale was not considered a reservoir - maybe an unproven reserve. Aside from that, what if there is no gas in the rock formation? Fracking would still create cracks in the rock formation, but no one would say it creates cracks in a reservoir rock formation. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC))

Aside from the above reflection, which you might call pointless nit-picking over one word, there is the other idea:  that whereas in the sandstone reservoir, we had to wait a long time for the gas to drift from source to reservoir, now, with shale, we are intercepting the gas in the source location, because we don't want to wait the million years for the gas to gather according to natural processes. We are forcing the gathering phase. It conveys the idea that we are going earlier into the observed life-cycle of gas creation to get our petroleum fix. As the Canadians are doing with the tar sands. ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

A reservoir is a rock formation that contains (or could contain) hydrocarbons (you never know for sure that there are hydrocarbons there when you drill an exploration well). This says nothing about the ability to get those hydrocarbons out of the rock - produceability is a separate matter. There is a very large oil discovery called Ellida in the Norwegian Sea that will probably never be produced because the sands that make up the reservoir are mixed up intimately with muds, destroying the permeability over distances of more than a few centimetres - there is just no connectivity. However, despite the fact that the oil will remain in the ground, the rock that contains it is still a reservoir. Shale gas reservoirs are also source rocks, but that is not the general situation as hydraulic fracturing is used routinely to improve produceability in other reservoirs, so the existing text is fine in my opinion. Mikenorton (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is a mixture of topics

The topic "drilling in shale for natural gas" is a subtopic of "hydraulic fracking".
And (surprising to me) hydraulic fracking in shale sometimes does not use horizontal drilling.

A "drilling in shale" topic is related to, but to be distinguished from,

• drilling in general
• drilling for gas from sandstone reservoirs
• stimulating older wells to rejuvenate them
  

Shale drilling has the same environmental problems as with any natural gas well, namely

• condensate tank venting of hydrocarbons other than methane
• gas pipeline's venting of methane

And has different problems from other gas drilling in that it

• uses more water, pumped at higher velocities (not sure why) and temperatures, with different chemicals
• drills into a material that is hard rather than porous
• may have a few environmental concerns that are unique to it, or exacerbated by it, such as
  • large amounts of produced water pond evaporation
  • earthquake facilitation
  • large amounts of contaminated water that there is no way to dispose of (shale oil residue)
  • large amounts of water needed for frack fluid

(regarding the large amounts of water needed: I suspect that the volume of fracking fluid is much much larger than the volume of the drill pipe - that is, that most of the fluid is injected into the shale to make cracks, and most of it stays in the shale.) calculation: the volume of a pipe 4 sq ft cross section and 5000 ft long is 20,000 cu ft.

In any case, the discussion of Dish, Texas, even though covered in the movie GasLand, is not related to fracking, except in the way that the fracking issue grows to encompass other issues, such as jobs, terrorism, and energy independence. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC))

The industry sometimes claims that slickwater fracking is the same as regular fracking. But clearly the current controversy is over drilling in shale for natural gas. (It isn't clear to me that the drilling in Colorado used directional drilling - the wells seem too closely space, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Agency online maps have an option for "directional" that I don't understand. Have to try to check that site more.) ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

This animation shows that some shale drilling has been done without directional drilling (posted above for other reasons) ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

New image

The new image added to the lead of this article is not very user-friendly and it is hard to follow. It is also in German which is not the best solution for the English Wikipedia. In general, as the previous image by Mike Norton was the simplified (and by my understanding better) version of the very same image, I don't see any reason fort this change. Beagel (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed my image was based on the German one, with the addition of induced seismicity (which we know happens) - the other image doesn't say that it cover the environmental concerns, but it does e.g. Luftbelastung: austretende Gase (Radon, Quecksilber), Mögliche durchgehende Risse und Verwerfungen, Oberflächengewässer Zwischenlager Bohrschlämme Auslaufgefahr = Air pollution: The gases (radon, mercury), Possible through cracks and faults, Surface water drilling muds interim storage risk of leakage. If anyone can suggest improvements to the image, I would be happy hear them, either here or at the image file page on Commons. Mikenorton (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this on wiki commons and it was only after I put it up on a couple of articles, I saw it was not English. Sorry. I do agree it would be better with English text, if we can get it translated I'd be willing to change it. I like the photo as the top of the illustration and I'm thinking I could recreate the whole illustration with a different image and cleaner layers. I've done illustration before [34] but it will be a couple of weeks before I can it done. Mikenorton would you be interested in translating all the text and then I could recreate this image. Blackash have a chat 01:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the text of the new image is very hard to read and as a photo, the image is not so easy to follow as a schematic picture. Maybe this is just my problem, don't know. Beagel (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What I need is for someone to explain to me why an image which is specific to possible environmental problems in extracting shale gas from the Carboniferous of Germany (each layer is identified as a specific unit from the local geology) with (to me) distracting use of textures is preferable to what I've already produced, particularly as I'm willing to modify mine. I generated it following criticism on this talk page of the use of this very image [35]. Mikenorton (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the use of textures is not good but I do like the use of the photo as it gives a perspective to the size of the layers and how large a project, Hydraulic fracturing is. But really it doesn't have to stay. Thanks Mikenorton for the link. Blackash have a chat 08:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Could we move the image created by Mikenorton back to the top or is there any proposal how to modify that image? Beagel (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No-one has followed my suggestion of commenting on the talk page of the image file on Commons - so as yet no proposals. Mikenorton (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys about that, I try to do most of my editing monthly and just talk other wise. I've drawn an image of a Fracting pump. So I've changed the lead image with that. If you guys would rather move it to somewhere else on the page then please do so. Blackash have a chat 23:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please specify the image description. I understand that you draw this picture but what is its source and from which time. Maybe we could move it into Induced hydraulic fracturing (or History) section? Beagel (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I used google images and then used a range of pictures to create this drawing, so it doesn't really have a time or a source. The move to induced hydraulic fracturing sounds ok to me. I have the idea that the fracturing pumps are actually on the trucks but don't know. I also don't know what this piece of equipment is really called. I figured someone else may have better knowledge that me about this. Blackash have a chat 03:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I find [this drawing] at the National Energy Technology Laboratory website, which seems quite interesting. Maybe it is possible to draw an image based on this drawing? Beagel (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

moved films to controversy paragraph, and noted differences in meaning of fracking

I moved the text on GasLand out of the paragraph "flowback" - which seems like an engineering type of topic - to the "public policy" paragraph. Added a note that NY State has a moritorium on drilling in the NYC watershed, but that needs a footnote. I think that the movie was one of the factors of the moratorium, but that would also need a footnote.

Added a note on the differing uses of the term "fracking" in the public policy paragraph, which in part explains the seemingly contradictory claims being made: that fracking has or has not damaged drinking water. I think that the industry claim that there are "no" cases is potentially an overstatement, since they do say that fracking has caused small earthquakes, and it is not clear whether the well casing is designed to withstand that size earthquake, or whether that size earthquake could cause water table contamination by other means. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC))

Reply to comments posted in the text, and my justification for my removal of OR and RS flags: Article excerpt in italics

Proponents of horizontal fracking in shale use the term "fracking" to mean only the operation of making cracks in the shale. Others use the term in a wider sense, meaning the entire process of drilling for gas in shale (sometimes called the lifecycle of shale extraction), starting with building the well pads through recovering the gas, and dealing with the wastewater. This differing usage allows proponents to claim that fracking has never contaminated groundwater[130][unreliable source?], while others claim it has.[original reserarch?]

The examples of the two differing uses are both found in the tv clip cited. The citation is intended to prove that those usages can be found in the popular discussion of the topic, not that the usages are justified or factual. I am guessing that "unreliable source" flag is meant to ask whether the speaker is an authority on the topic of fracking; however I cite this discussion not because the speakers are experts, although they do claim to be knowledgable, but because this is a real discussion taking place in the media where one can see the two differing usages that I describe in the preceding sentences made or referred to. ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC))

YouTube clips are not considered as reliable sources. You should find a reliable source saying that there are different use of this term. So far I restore these two inline tags. As for different documentaries—it is not enough to refer to their home page. Again, reliable sources are needed to prove your claims.

While it is true that YouTube clips are not to be considered generally reliable sources; that is, as a reasonable basis for believing the assertions that are made in the clip are true, any more than a random web page can be trusted to provide only true assertions, or an arbitrary newspaper can be trusted to be completely free of error or bias, nonetheless YouTube clips can be properly used in a Wikipedia article for other reasons, not related to the truth of any assertions made in the clip. See the Wikipedia article on YouTube which contains, in its references, this link to a YouTube clip. The YouTube clip you question is intended as an example of the two different usages of the word "fracking" in a discussion, not to demonstrate the "truth" of either usage. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

The latest additions about documentaries are confusing hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling and conventional shale drilling. They need third party reliable sources saying that they are about hydraulic fracturing and to confirm these statements. Third party reliable sources are needed to establish their notability in general (please see WP:GNG). Beagel (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As to the first sentence, the documentaries are about hydraulic fracking. The article is about hydraulic fracking. So as to the claim that the films are causing a confusion or are not appropriate, I don't see how I can agree with that assessment. They are about what the article is about. As to the second sentence, finding a citation that confirms this, as soon as I get a reply on how to cite movies that everyone will not revert, I will add the citation. I have made a number of efforts to cite these movies, and will comply with the citation requirements, once I understand them. As to the third sentence, whether the films are notable "enough" to mention (WP:GNG), I don't know how one calculates that exactly. I imagine it is a question of "value density": the visual space required versus the significance of the information contained. However, the WP:GNG general notability guideline applies to articles, not to the content of articles. That is, topics that are not suitable for a stand-alone topic in wikipedia may nonetheless be referred to within a wikipedia article (cf WP:NNC). One could easily imagine questioning whether FrackNation should be an article in wikipedia, before one questions whether one could mention (say) the real film Haynesville in an article on hydraulic fracking. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

The text added by you to that section states "two films that advocate horizontal drilling" and "current films about shale drilling". Horizontal drilling and (conventional) shale drilling is not the same as hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is not drilling at all, so these additions confuse very basic things. As for sources, please see WP:RS. Reliable sources are also bases for notability. Beagel (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I will change that to "hydraulic fracking" ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)) Thanks for allowing me to try to make the change in a way that accords with your suggestion. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)) It does leave the text reading that someone thinks that the statement that "opponents of fracking feel it may contaminate groundwater", that that statement is original research. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

Regarding CN: how should one cite a movie

I have a discussion above about removing citations for movies. What type of citation would satisfy you, may I ask? The intent of the citation is to

• verify the claim that the film exists, and
• allow the interested reader to find information about the film from a reliable source.

Not only do you remove my citation of the film web site, but you also removed my [citation needed} for the claimed-to-be-a-film FrackNation, which is not a film. When one follows the Wikipedia link to Fracknation, one can easily read for oneself that this is a film in production, not a released or even a completed film. I have said this before about FrackNation - can you cite something that indicates that that is not true?

I feel you need to clarify theses two aspects of your edits:

• point me to a citation of a film on wikipedia that satisfies you,
• preferable by finding a citation of the "film" FrackNation.

Thanks. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

For citations, please see WP:RS. As a rule, although primary sources may be used to state a fact, third part secondary sources are needed to verify statements and opinions. Beagel (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You provided only general guidance, but I found an example of a reference for a movie in the article about Andy Warhol's film Empire in the wikipedia article about that film. The article links to the site www.allmovie.com, as follows "Empire" AllMovie review. I take it that this type of reference must be at least minimally acceptable to demonstrate the existence of a movie and of summary information about it. ( Martin | talk • contribs 23:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

RE: IMDb and WP:RS. The Reliable Sources guideline contains the following statements:

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.
• Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.
• The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged
• [S]elf-published media ... largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) (note the word largely, and the aspect self-published; meaning Unedited or Unchecked; one person's idea.)
• FAQ: Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? Ans: No.

In addition, it has been the practice on wikipedia to use IMDb as a reference for films where the material cited is ordinary credits related information, does not involve an exceptional claim, and there is no reasonable doubt as to the correctness. See the list of Academy award Winning Documentaries and the first dozen entries link to wiki articles that refer to IMDb. I don't imagine that many people even know about the site "AllMovie", much less would argue that it is a more reliable source for movie cast, date, and plot summary than the IMDb, or that they are likely to place an inappropriate reliance on information found there. ( Martin | talk • contribs 08:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC))

In case of all these documentaries, reliable sources are needed to establish their notability as also to value their weight in the context of this article. Being about hydraulic fracturing is not enough for a documentary to be included in this article—the documentary should also be notable and have enough weight to be included in the umbrella article about hydraulic fracturing. To establish notability and to value the weight, third party reliable sources are needed. Link to IMDb or film website is not reliable secondary source. Also, please be aware that an argument that other stuff exists is not encouraged to be used in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding (a)Reliable and (b)Notable. These are two different questions, and you seem to me to be treating them as one. You might be saying that (a) we cant be sure that the film exists, and (b) even if it does, so what. But (a) and (b) are different editorial criticisms. As I noted above, the RS text states that no source is always unreliable for everything, and as far a demonstrating that the films exist, I don;t see why PBS or AllMove or RogetEbert or any other site is even marginally better. You don't have to explain it to me, but I think you think you have, but you have not. This is regards you editorial comment (a). As for (b), Making the reader aware that there are movies, readily available by the way, that provide a documentary-type discussion of the topic, hardly burdens the article excessively. I believe its true that each word needs to carry its own weight, but are you really hoping to strengthen the article by deleting a reference to a movie; a reference that takes 20 characters at most. I don't get it. I don't think you can believe as a general principle that a reference to a documentary film on the topic is out of place for a wikipedia article, and I don't think that you can believe that there might be too many documentaries on topic to justify listing them all. But I will try to address your criicism, that the article needs a citation to a (a)Reliable source that says the films are (b)Notable, even I think that is a conflation of the requirements. By the way, could you find anyone else who agrees with that position? I don't see how you can object to their inclusion, the use of maybe 100 characters in wikipedia, in view of the importance of the political controversy over hydrofracking throughout the world, and since much of the controversy was started by a film.( Martin | talk • contribs 02:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

This article is not called "Films about hydraulic fracturing", it is called "Hydraulic fracturing" and it is umbrella article for hydraulic fracturing. That means that fact that something exist does not mean that it should be automatically included. There are certainlu thousands of facts which are not notable enaough to be included in this article. For inclusion, the film should be notable and it should have enough weight to be included. For both, a third party reliable sources are needed (not links to films website or films databases). If the films are notable, there could be no problem to find reliable third party sources describing their weight in the context of hydraulic fracturing. It it is not, it does not belong to the article. Beagel (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

On a related but tangential subject, I have posted on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard the discussion that has taken place here among several editors on appropriate use of IMDb, and if it is not too much trouble, and you have the time and interest, I welcome your input into that topic. Thanks ( Martin | talk • contribs 23:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

POV flag of the public policy section

Please explain the POV flag on the public policy section, so that the article can be modified. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

The first two paragraphs in that section seem very neutral and relevant to the section title. The last two, while related to policy, may fit better under a different heading such as "In the Media." All of the information is relevant to the article, however, so I don't see a need to remove anything. If anyone interprets the last paragraph as more than a simple retelling of the facts, then I would say it could probably be trimmed to be more concise. 108.212.226.118 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Water consumption

The sources in the water consumption section are old - it looks like the sources were using 2008 or earlier numbers. Sources were published in 2009 and 2010. Text said numbers were from 2010. A lot has changed since 2008. It would be good to get some newer numbers/sources. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have worked on some wells, in the past six months, where just the hydraulic fracturing operation accounted for 11 million gallons of water.

Do you know of any publicly available reliable sources that document such high water use levels, or is it all still "proprietary" information? Smm201`0 (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow Show

As the reference to Rachel Maddow Show does not provide link to the video or script, it is impossible to verify the claims this reference should support. In addition to the missing link, the reference does not provide the exact date nor exact time when and by whom information the reference has to support was provided in the video. In general, it fails WP:V and through this WP:RS. Beagel (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is verifiable and from a respected network. A Google search easily finds copies of this video. Alternatively, transcripts can be requested from the network using the information included in the reference. The time and date of this news video are sufficient and appropriate for video citations according to citation guidelines. References are not required to have live links. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The video is more than 20 minutes long, so it really useful if the exact time is provided where in the video these statements are made. Concerning the time—this field in the citation template does not mean the time of broadcasting but the exact time (minute, second) in the video when the event occurs (or in this case, the statement is made). It can't be 9:00PM EST which is probably the time when it was broadcast but not the time when event occurs in the video. Also, if Google search easily finds copies of this video, it is probably not a problem for you to provide working link, right? I would like also to say that there is no question if MSNBC is respected network or not—the question is that at this moment it is not possible to verify who made these statements (Rachel Maddow or somebody else) and if the author of these statements is considered as a reliable source for these statements (e.g. expert on this field). Beagel (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I added the time reflecting where the information is in the video. I also tracked down the official video template and inserted the relevant information. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nuisance edits

Beagel, I am concerned about your recent edits. The Neshaminy article does talk about not informing residents about the dumping incident. The house article is widely cited and publicly available. I found myself doing work to figure out what info you wanted in the Maddow cite. You could have easily supplied that info or at least the template information to help me see what you wanted. These behaviors have not been helpful. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide exact citation quate verifying your claim? As your claim about the source in form of video, it was described several times, which information is needed. Beagel (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I added it to the article. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Smm201'1, please do not refer to the good faith work of other editors as 'Nuisance edits'. There is a content dispute. Stick to discussing the content and refrain from attacking other editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Quotes in references.

Why do we need quotes from the cited references? The references are to support the text in the article, not a wp:soapbox for opinion about HF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The last one was probably because of me as I was not able to find in this long article where the withholding of information is mentioned. Right now I see that this interpretation is based on the sentence "...the more than 300,000 residents of the 17 municipalities that get water from the creek or use it for recreation were never informed that numerous public pronouncements that the watershed was free of gas waste had been wrong." However, it would be enough if this was just answered at the talk page at the same section where the question was asked, and definitely it was not meant as a tool for soapboxing. Beagel (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Silica

MH you had requested the results of the study. You had deleted them because you deleted text without carefully reading it. "Many" does not sufficiently describe the study's results, including the standards that are being applied. This information was contributed by another editor, not me, and is supported by the sources. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not remove things because they were added by you, I remove things because they are superfluous to an encyclopedic article. The section shows that there is a problem with silica exposure in the industry. It is not up to us to try to give the reader information so that they can assess the seriousness of the problem themselves. If the problem is serious then this should be reported in a reliable independent source and we can say that here, citing the source, otherwise we should just say that there is a problem.

We should not and cannot put every fact about HF in this article however well sourced, there would clearly not be room. The article is intended to give an overview of the subject, what it is, how it is done, what its benefits are, and what harm it might do. You obviously believe that it is a very harmful activity, that is fine, but WP is not a medium for you to promote your views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, for this whole section to be worthy of inclusion in this article we need to show that silica exposure is regarded as a significant problem for the HF industry in general. At present all we have is your assessment of the importance of exceeding stated standards. Please find a source that says that silica exposure is a significant problem for the industry or remove the section entirely. What was the overall conclusion of the study that you cite? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added this section. The results were as indicated. If you don't believe me, read the articles yourself. The study was reported by a few different major RSes. The agencies listed are the main regulatory agencies in the US. RSes. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It makes no difference who added it, it was far too long and detailed basically an attempt to make a point based on OR. The only points that we should make are those made by reliable sources, which is why I have changed the text to indicate the conclusion on the subject reached by and expert body.

I think the subject does not deserve a section of its own. There is a health concern which a regulatory body has asked the industry to deal with. I sentence would be sufficient in my opinion. Anything else is undue weight. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Writing style conventions

Just so you know, I keep writing the percentages out when they are at the beginning of a sentence because that's what the writing style manual say to do. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Image

Well the image has gone again I see - apparently I produced it 'push environmental positions', although that's not quite how I remember it - I've been accused here in the past of having a COI as a petroleum geologist, so I'm obviously a pretty confused individual. I have asked before for specific suggestions as how to improve the image, but none have been forthcoming. I am still willing to make changes if people don't like what they see. Mikenorton (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As to the image being OR, if you read official reports on the potential environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing such as this one, they discuss (although sometimes dismiss as highly unlikely) all the scenarios shown in the diagram - leaks to the surface and through casing into aquifers, fracturing through into overlying aquifers, leakage from containment ponds and induced seismicity. Mikenorton (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mike and propose to restore the image. If there are ways to improve the image, please make a comment at the image's talk page in Commons as it was asked several times before. It may be moved again to the Environmental section if there will be a better general image about hydraulic fracturing. Two month ago I proposed to create an image based on the image in this document but this proposal stayed without any feedback. Beagel (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I too agree that the image should be restored. The problem is with the caption, which says, 'showing environmental effects'. Those words should be removed as the image seems to me just to show the general process of HF with most of the effects described above not being specifically labelled.

If we want an image showing potential environmental effects then it would be best to have a fully labelled image in the appropriate section as well as the general one in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I restored the image taking account remarks by Martin. Beagel (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we state what slickwater is?

Slickwater is not defined. Could somebody add a sentence at the first useage of the term. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.0.112 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

First usage is in the lead, therefore I added definition to the second usage in the History section. Beagel (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles Groat Study

The study has been condemned by independent reviewers and is considered to be subject to bias. (That is why none of the links to it work -- the University of Texas has taken them down). As a result, this is not a source that lives up to the requirements for Wikipedia. In addition the actual text of the report is not in agreement with what has been quoted in Wikipedia. Anything related to that study needs to be removed. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blue Tie, I'll take a look at how the study is described, and check the links, but the bias in the study was apparent and described in this article from the start by those who read the report. It might be better to mention the study and then describe the concerns with it. That may have already been done. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the review of the study. It has been discredited. UT has agreed with the results. http://www.utexas.edu/news/PDF/Review-of-report.pdf. In addition, it is misquoted in the article. The section is bad in source and in content. It should not remain. Wikipedia is pretty clear about this.--Blue Tie (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the study had a big impact of public perceptions when it came out, and there are still legit news outlets with online articles that present it as proving hf is safe. I think it would be better that WP present a succinct description of the study and the issues with it so that all of the information is in one place. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The study was added again with that misquotation mentioned by Blue Tie above. I fixed the quotation; however, I think that it does not meet the Wikipedia standards and should be removed. Beagel (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed this study as it was added 'Fracturing fluid' section this time. It was not the right section for this study anyway, but taking account that objectivity of this study is disputed it was better to remove it. Beagel (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fracing? Seriously?

How can anyone take seriously a wiki article that misspells the term "fracking" which is fracking easy to type? Fracing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.26 (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The person who changed "fracking" to "fracing" said that the first spelling is offensive to people in the industry. This is supported and/or discussed by sites that look at the spelling, such as http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/12/23/is-it-fracking-or-fracing/ and http://www.pressconnects.com/viewart/20110905/NEWS01/109050342/New-gas-drilling-dispute-Fracking-fracing-. (type "fracking or fracing" in a search pane for these and many other hits.) While being offensive to a particular group is not grounds per se to change some-thing on Wik, at least usage (professional and lay) should be considered. While I had only seen the K spelling until I saw the change here on Wik, a quick Google search indicates that "fracing" is also used but much less frequently. On the other hand, using Google n-grams shows that the K spelling was less common until around 2000, but also dropped in the last year given (?2010). (I did not check to see who was using the spellings or if they could have been referring to other things.) Kdammers (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To avoid any dispute about spelling, the official long version 'hydraulic fracturing' should be used in this and other HF articles. Beagel (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely (unless in a quotation where it should be spelled as in the source). It is more encyclopedic anyway and will avoid any pointless fracing/fracking arguments. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. I second what MH said about unless it is used in the source in some cases. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, direct quotation is an exemption. In the case of the direct quotation inside of quote marks it should be spelled accordingly to the source. Beagel (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Research issues

I moved research issues again to 'Politics and public debate' section. Reasons for this:

• Debate about research difficulties and claims that "researchers, and media outlets have reported difficulty in conducting and reporting the results of studies on hydraulic fracturing due to industry", IS NOT an environmental impact.
• Debate about research difficulties IS public debate issue.
• Providing a context for the status of the research is important; however, it should be done in neutral way. Putting this in the 'Environmental impact' section implies that the following information is not reliable; however that fails policies such as WP:SYNTH, WP:V and WP:NPOV.

Beagel (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the context and biases in research need to be addressed in the section covering research. Although research, politics, and public debate intersect, the scope and biases in research impact the science that is designed to assess environmental impact. Perhaps a more balanced approach is needed. There are accusations of bias from different directions, hence the current emphasis on peer review and stakeholder involvement. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The section is about environmental impact not about the 'research'. It is more balanced approach to put the research issues into the public discussion section as this is not environmental impact itself. I would kindly ask you to revert your edit and discuss instead of it. Beagel (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, there was previous discussion to remove Groat study. Re-adding this less than 24-hours ago does not qualify as 'long-standing version'. It also show that I am not the only one who has problem with your edit. Beagel (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Groat study was only part of the material removed. The Groat study and the other material that you deleted had been there since the revision by Equazcion many months ago. It was only Blue Tie, who hadn't even read the UT study, who wanted it removed. You also appear to be picking away at research that does not support your POV and I have noticed that you have also started to make inaccurate statements in your descriptions of edits, suggesting wrongdoing on my part. On the other hand, you do a really nice job of editing text and are an amazingly prolific editor. You do tolerate some non-POV stuff. Although many of my contributions have criticized fracking (because that is what is out there, what I have read), I have no problem with addition of studies supporting the use of hf...I just haven't found any such studies/information. If there was research supporting it, though, I would be adding that too. If you know of any, please add them. I want this article to be a balanced representation of what is out there. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Critiques of research on environmental impact belong in that section. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to support your claim that I removed anything (except the Groat study which was removed after you replaced it in the section where it does not belong). Otherwise, I would kindly ask you to remove your misleading comment. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OR definition of hydraulic fracturing

The current text in the article says: "Others, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, hold "fracing" to mean the entire process of resource extraction, specifically of gas in shale (which the UT study called the "lifecycle of shale extraction"), starting with building the well pads through recovering the gas, and dealing with the wastewater." This statement is associated with this reference. However, this reference says nothing about HF meaning to be the entire gas extraction process. It seems to be another case confusing hydraulic fracturing with the gas extraction process. As the above-mentioned statement is not supported by the reference, it qualifies as original research. Beagel (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a source that discusses that issue. I thought it was attached to the section, but it may have been deleted along the way. I'll find it. Also, someone did change the spelling. It was originally "fracking." Smm201`0 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags without addressing the issues. First of all, this reference still says nothing about the HF definition covering 'entire process of extraction'. Second source which was added, says "the scope of the research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing." which is not the same as 'entire process of extraction'. Therefore, tags for 'not in source' and 'original research' are restored.

I removed the tags because I believed I had addressed the issue... It may just need a wording, rather than a source, change. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Image

I removed the image because it was user generated original research. Not to mention it was created to present a biased point of view in violation of NPOV. Perhaps there is a neutral image that displays the technique without trying to push the commonly pushed (on this article) environmental activist point of view. Arzel (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This issue is discussed above under the same section heading. I disagree that this image is POV (per arguments in the above-mentioned section). Beagel (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not original research. It presents the way that fracking passes aquifers on its way to the deeper shale. There is no question (or is there? I don't see one in your comments) that this is is what the process looks like in many cases, leading to the controversies. Calling this original research seems more like wikilawyering. II | (t - c) 22:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I overlooked the previous commentary. Regardless, it is Original Research. This is a user generated image to describe a process. It is unpublished in a secondary source. I don't really care who made it or for what purpose, but it is clearly WP:OR The original caption indicates that it was created to show potential environmental factors. Reading the OR policy regarding images I see it as somewhat grey. Arzel (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary it was created to 'include' potential environmental factors as well as demonstrating the process. Most such images on Wikipedia could be be described as OR - if such an image appeared in a secondary source we almost certainly wouldn't be able to use it, that's why the project has so many user generated images. To repeat my response above "As to the image being OR, if you read official reports on the potential environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing such as this one, they discuss (although sometimes dismiss as highly unlikely) all the scenarios shown in the diagram - leaks to the surface and through casing into aquifers, fracturing through into overlying aquifers, leakage from containment ponds and induced seismicity." I have repeatedly asked for any concerns about this image to be raised at the image talk page , which is the proper place to address them. I've put it back in the article as only one editor is against its inclusion. Mikenorton (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Politics and public policy

I have remove a paragraph with many sourced facts which seems to have the purpose of including this line (my emphasis): "This differing usage allows newspapers such as the Vancouver Sun to state that hydraulic fracturing has never contaminated groundwater,[95][96] while The New York Times reports that it likely has.[63][88]".

I cannot find where any source makes this claim. Martin Hogbin (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed in the section above (OR definition of hydraulic fracturing). The whole paragraph was original research which was not supported by RS. Notwithstanding request to provide sources verifying this, the author just continued to remove the tags without fixing the problem. Beagel (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the clear purpose of the whole paragraph seems to be make the point that some newspapers are intentionally using a restricted definition of HF in order not to report harm that it does. If this is the case, it is an important point that should be made in the article but we require a reliable source that clearly makes that point.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of the paragraph is just to state that some sources take a narrower view of what constitutes HF then the article does nothing more than state an obvious fact that applies to almost any subject and it should be removed in its entirety. To summarise, without a source confirming that some newspapers are conspiring to hide bad news about HF the paragraph has no place here. There is no point messing around with tags. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The piece on the public policy page was added by someone who was recently active on the page, and had not read the other entry about the study. The naming issue originated within the UT study. The UT study used the narrow definition of "fracking." Read it and see. The media just ran with it. The EPA and other research entities' reports use a different definition of hydraulic fracturing (read them and see). So, media aren't necessarily being devious - they are just conveying what they are reading in reports, press releases, and statement from involved parties. It creates confusion though. I'm not arguing to re-include it in the PPP section though. Once is enough. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Another way to address the definition confusion may just be to describe the different definitions used. No innuendo. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything worthwhile to describe? Newspapers have never been particularly rigorous in their subject definitions in general. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

True about newspapers. I'm referring to noting the definition of hf that a study uses. If studies are defining the scope of aspects hf covered by their research differently ("operationalizing" hf differently), then that should be noted in the description of the research. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We should not generally be quoting studies here but summarising their contents in an encyclopedic fashion and citing the studies as a references but yes, I do agree that we must always be careful to know what we are referring to.

In my opinion, this article should concentrate on issues which are specific to HF, in other words those issues which are not found in conventional methods of oil and gas production; they belong in other articles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Re: the UT study, in defining "fracking' narrowly, they excluded some issues unique to hf. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Like what? Beagel (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Section heading

I changed this section's heading to 'Politics and public debate' to correspond better to the scope of issue. However, I think even broader heanding is needed to cover different controversies surrounding hydraulic fracturing. Maybe 'Public debate and controversies' should be better title? Beagel (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know...I'd rather just present sourced information about both sides in the sections above PPP. I like the politics and public policy heading because of the relationship between governance and policy setting. It would be interesting to have information about the policies developed by different countries' governments. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Groat study

This study figured prominently in press for a while and deserves mention for that reason. It has to do with research, so there. No consensus to remove - just one editor who hadn't even read the study. There are still articles about it on the web that don't include the latest developments. It deserves inclusion so that people can find the whole story. If it is only going to be listed once, it should be in the research section because it was a research study. It is not about public policy.

It seems a quite disruptive habit to start a new section about the topic which already has an open discussion (in this case Talk:Hydraulic fracturing#Charles Groat Study. However, your statement that only one editor wanted to remove this study is incorrect if you look just the relevant discussion. One could say vice versa–there is only one editor who want to include this. This is not an issue of environmental impact nor about injected fluid. If you would like to insist that notwithstanding what different studies says, they are biased due to bad industry, it does not belong to environmental section. Controversies around the research and this particular stdy are worth for mentioning, but it should be in the public debate (or controversies or something similar) section, not in the environmental impact section. Beagel (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the study seems to have been thoroughly discredited and should be removed. People cannot be helped to find the whole story by giving them incorrect information. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather have them read about the study, and the problems it had so that they can read the whole story and can put it in context. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And what is exactly the context you want everything put on? Why pure facts are not enough? Beagel (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just the facts - what the study covered, what the results were, what the peer reviewers said, including the disclosure issue. All studies have some strengths and weaknesses which can be included succinctly. All studies are funded by someone. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand this article is about HF, not about the Groat study. If the study is compromised, it should be not used for the HF article other than just for controversies section. Beagel (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand why we should include a discredited study, just in order to say that it's discredited - from my own experience, it's impossible to search for this study without mainly getting results relating to the COI issues and we can leave people to do that themselves. Mikenorton (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed this study again per above discussion. Beagel (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet ya'll want that study off the page, considering that although spun as showing fracking to be safe by defining "fracking" as the injection of the fluid once it is underground in isolation from other steps of oil and gas drilling operations, it was pretty damning of hydraulic fracturing. The study reported that other processes of oil and gas production, including drill pad construction and operation, spills, emissions, construction, integrity and performance of the wellbores, flowback of the fluid back towards the surface, blowouts, integrity of other pipelines involved, and disposal of the flowback, including waste water and other waste products, were sources of contamination. I was impressed that the report was so candid about the negative findings despite the now infamous conflicts of interest. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is a place to discuss how to improve the article not the bookies to make your bets nor the place to spread original research or personal point of view. Beagel (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider it part of the debate about whether you are omitting important information and biasing the article. You deleted this study's information, the EPA Pavillion study, and the EPA Dimock study. I think there is a pattern that biases the article. That is appropriate content to discuss on this page. These findings are relevant to the practice of hf in other countries because it could have similar impacts elsewhere. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There was four editors you said that as the study is compromised, it does not belong in this article. The was only one editor insisting to keep this study in this article and continuously re-adding it. There was clear consensus to remove it. Making personal attacks is not way how Wikipedia woks. Therefore, if please provide diffs supporting your claims; otherwise, I would once more ask you to remove your personal attacks and baseless accusations. Beagel (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone interested in verifying the pattern I am seeing can easily review your edits through the system. I am not going to waste time duplicating an automated function unless I decide to file a formal complaint. This page is for discussing content. I am simply calling attention to a pattern that I am seeing and asking you to refrain from further pov deletions from this page. At least one of those other editors has energy industry ties, and the other two don't appear to read the sources. Although you say that you do not have energy ties, you spend a whole lot of time writing on energy topics, which is why I wondered about yours. It could be a hobby, and you could be retired, or it could be something else.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Talking about filing a complain, I still think that it would be appropriate if person who have filed a false complain against fellow editor would apology. Calling removal of information per established consensus POV is just POV itself. Also I have asked several times–if you think that there are COI issues, just file to the relevant notice board. Otherwise, please stop your baseless accusations and allegations. Beagel (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the snide comments and make an official complaint if you feel that you have the evidence against other editors. Mikenorton (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a comprehensive article that describes issues with the study and selective reporting of results, in addition to the conflict of interest issues: Why the UT Fracking Study Controversy Matters]

As it is at the moment, this study effectively no longer exists, as it's been withdrawn. The only reason for including it would be to highlight the controversy it caused and I don't see what that's got to do with this article. Mikenorton (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the study has been thoroughly discredited and has no place here. There is a clear consensus not to restore it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Smm, please refrain from making baseless accusations about other editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary style

It seems that notwithstanding the existence of the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing article (which needs extensive cleanup, sure, but which is still is the main article for the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing), the environmental section of this article (particularly subsections for water) is used as the main target to add environment-related information. Therefore, it should be properly summarized using summary style and all information about the environmental impacts, which are not country-specific, should be added to the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing article. The country-specific information should be added to the relevant articles, e.g. Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There have been extensive discussions about this in the past and the environmental section was significantly trimmed and summarized at that time. It was decided that the environmental information should remain as it is an important issue related to the process. I'll be blunt. You have a pattern of moving negative information about hydraulic fracturing to the bottom of the hf page or to less visited pages (e.g., the EPA Pavillion, WY, study, and the EPA Dimock, PA study). This introduces a significant amount of bias to the article. Although I am fine with maintaining the environmental section in its current succinct form, I am concerned that you are in fact moving succinct content that reflects poorly on hf off the page altogether, censoring the information available. This is yet another example of that pattern. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Since summarizing the Environmental section (which happened after that section was split-off into separate article without removing anything from the text), there has been extensive editing re-adding very specific (and often US-centric) information back into this article. It is not in line with WP:SPLITOUT and WP:SS anymore. Beagel (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been more selective removal of research results. The US has the longest and most extensive history of use of hydraulic fracturing as well as the most environmental studies, which is why its environmental studies dominate the section. Their prevalence is representative - it is a reflection of their relative numbers in the literature and press. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPLITOUT and WP:SS. Beagel (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of my summaries

I tried to summarise the section on the environmental impact of injected fluids only to have my work reverted by Smm. The section is too long and looks like an attempt to make a point by text volume. The section need reducing in volume. If anyone thinks I did a bad job they are welcome to do a better job themselves but, one way or another the section must be summarised. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What are the economic impacts?

Article contains lots of technical and environmental impact information, but nothing about the economic impact of hydraulic fracturing (positive or negative). Why not? What percentage of oil industry revenues come from this practice and what are the trends? How are local economies impacted with jobs, infrastructure growth, tax revenues, etc? How many jobs have come from hydraulic fracturing? What kinds of jobs are they? What are the short-term versus long-term economic impacts?

Just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.114.254 (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent idea. Care to add something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Drilling rig image

I removed the drilling rig image per this archived discussion. I wonder if anybody could create an image of the hydraulic fracturing equipment? Beagel (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is an Environmental Impact Statement required?

Are proposed fracking wells required to file an environmental impact statement as part of their planning an disclosure process? If so, then is this effective in resolving the environmental debate over the safety of fracking? If not, why is this exempt? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I presume that this would vary from country to country and from state to state (in the US) e.g. this for New York, although it seems that "The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that an environmental impact statement be performed before conducting natural gas exploration and production on federal land and for all major federal actions" p. 86 - I can't find anything for other countries as yet. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of relevant negative information about hydraulic fracturing and related sources

I am concerned about the removal of relevant negative information about hydraulic fracturing and related sources. As noted before, the US has a more extensive history with this practice, so there has been more research on it in the US and more policy debate. Other countries are looking to US hydraulic fracturing practices and their consequences as they make decisions about the use of the technique. Thus, information about hf related events, research, and policies in the US belong in the general article. Smm201`0 (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is removed–as very US specific information all of it was included in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States article. The article is still a full of the U.S. examples; however information about concentrations near drilling sites in Sublette County or a general statement that EPA has proposed new regulations is not something what should be included in the top article about hydraulic fracturing and it suits better in more relevant articles. As for the claims that "researchers, and media outlets have reported difficulty in conducting and reporting the results of studies on hydraulic fracturing due to industry", this is not an environmental impact itself but it is more politics and public policy issue and therefore suits better in that section. Beagel (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia not a soapbox or a blog, newsletter, noticeboard or place to right great wrongs. There is no reason why we should have every piece of bad news about HF in the article, regardless of how well sourced it may be. We should be producing an encyclopedia article, explaining what the subject is, how it is done, who does it and why and with a summary of the main problems and benefits of the process. At the moment, the article is very unbalanced, concentrating almost entirely on the bad things about HF, with very little space being given to the benefits. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia presents what is known/verifiable about a topic, good, bad, and in between. To hide, omit, suppress, or censor information biases the article. If you have "benefits" to add that have not yet been mentioned, great. Have at it. But stop censoring the article. I think that you are thinking of the old "World Book Encyclopedia" which contained short, general paragraphs on many topics, written at a grade school level. I view Wikipedia as more sophisticated and informative than those books. It includes a brief overview in the lede (which is similar to a World Book article) followed by more detailed, comprehensive information. Replacing specifics with vague statements is not encyclopedic in the Wikipedia sense of the term. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Smm, I have nothing against comprehensive information, but a collection of news items and quotations from all the critical reports that you can find about the subject is not that. There are undoubtedly concerns about the harm that might be caused by HF and it is quite right that we should mention it here but we need to give this information in an encyclopedic and balanced manner.

Please explain to me how the article can be regarded as being biased in favour of HF when there are several sections on the potential environmental harm and one paragraph on one aspect of the potential benefits. It might be useful to find some independent sources which compare the negative effects of not using HF with those of using it. We should not try to sway the reader by sheer volume of text or level of detail.

Perhaps we could discuss individual items you wish to add rather than fighting over them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is probably appropriate for me to comment here as many of my edits wind up being removed on occupational health effects. What is known and shown is that silica exposures do present a health hazard. That seems to be basic language that everyone feels comfortable with. However, that information means nothing to the common person because it has no meaning unless you understand what silica inhalation winds up doing. The article needs to inform the reader that unsafe levels are associated with silicosis as well as other diseases. I think by using the NIOSH references as well as the OSHA one, it provides the proper foundation to understand the concerns. I imagine there may be some argument over the inclusion of the hazard alert, but that is an important source document because it is an expert written document that incorporates the NIOSH research along with the background research on silica exposures into one document. Yes, it is a synthesis, but it is a synthesis by a group of experts to say something new and defensible. Yes, silica exposures happen at other work places, but in this situation it has been shown to be a major issue that was overlooked because this industry had not dealt with moving around this massive amount of sand. I hope this clarifies things. GrizzBizzy 10:29, 15 January 2013

It is not up to editors to make synthesis but report what the reliable sources says about the subject (in this case subject is hydraulic fracturing not silicon dioxide). WP:SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." Therefore, describing effects of breathing silica in the HF article is a synthesis as the source (NIOSH [2002] Hazard Review, Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica.; the link to this study is by the way [36]) does not say anything about hydraulic fracturing. I think that this is useful information but it belongs to the Silicon dioxide article. Beagel (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Then why is the Hazard Alert, which was written by experts combing the issues together to issue a statement on the issue removed from several iterations? It seems I am in a Catch 22 here with previous edits. I tried to make it work with this last edit. It is important to have the hazard report linked. GrizzBizzy 17:15, 15 January 2013