Talk:Fracking/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Radiation

The sources that have been provided do not support the statement added - "Workers on hydraulic fracturing sites are also exposed to radiation from flowback and spills". The first source refers to an accidental release of fluids with sand and small numbers of beads with radioactive tracers during a fracking operation, but goes on to explain that there were no risks from radiation exposure to the workers. The second source only mentions 'radioactive tracers' once saying "but their use poses additional environmental and safety concerns" - it says nothing about the exposure of workers. To get from these sources to the added text is pure synthesis - please remove it or find sources that actually cover this issue. Mikenorton (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarly none of the sources mention 'concerns' - that's just not true. Also the bromide stuff is classic synthesis - you take a source that mentions bromide in rivers (although only possibly from HF water disposal - not proven) and tack this onto something on health effects for people living near fracking sites and make it sound like cancers from exposure to THMs have been directly linked to HF operations - they haven't. So I've removed all this stuff again as it is not supported by the sources given. Mikenorton (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Safety" has nothing to do with workers? What? Give me a break. It is not synthesis, that is just yet another guise to remove material that might be in conflict with the business interests of a consulting firm providing services associated with hydraulic fracturing. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Which firm would that be? As I've said before, if you believe that editors are acting the way that they do because of a conflict of interest, either raise it with the appropriate notice board or stop the snide remarks. You have never shown any understanding of what constitutes synthesis, so your edits that use it will keep on being reverted. Mikenorton (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Radioactivity

I have deleted a number of sentences and phrases in individual edits, with comments showing why. Please discuss them individually on the talk page before reverting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

MH, it is very unproductive and irresponsible of you to delete sections because you are not capable of or willing to read the sources. You are once again being destructive, as I have since learned you have been on other pages. It is also clear that you are engaging in POV editing by censoring sourced material that is inconsistent with your personal biases. Very disappointing and inadequate.You have no standing that qualifies you to serve as gatekeeper on this page. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Smm I am no more gatekeeper than any other editors. Please read my edit comments about individual edits. I will explain again here and welcome your responses. Please bear in mind that this section is about radioactivity.

I removed the comment about salt because salt is not radioactive.

I removed reference to barium because barium is not radioactive but I left radium in because that is a radioactive substance.

I removed the bit about biological damage because, if you read and understand this, it refers to chemical not radioactivity effects. Also it also only applies if the waste is not disposed of properly.

I removed a section that was duplicated.

I removed the bit about radiotracers returning to the surface because nothing in the sources indicate concern about this. If you disagree then please show me the quote that refers to radiotracers returning to the surface. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the sources describes the nature of a clean up of radioactive material after a blowout in order to protect workers and others nearby and the other talks about environmental and safety concerns when using radioactive tracers in hydraulic fracturing. You are removing more than you note above. You are removing well-sourced material because it does not support the oil and gas industry's financial interests and your POV. Have you no reliable sources that support your perspective? I guess not or your sole approach would not be deletion of material that does not support your view.

To link them in the text that you added is synthesis. No-one here agrees with your view, so please do not keep on adding this. This amounts to slow motion edit warring. Also please do not constantly accuse other editors of acting to censor information. Find a source that actually supports the text and that would be fine. Mikenorton (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not synthesis. Uncontrolled releases, blowouts, flowback...whatever you call it, it returns to the surface, and radiotracers (which are used in various forms - bonded to sand, liquid, whatever...were one of the concerns mentioned. I doubt very much that you will allow any information that is related to radiation exposure regardless of how well sourced it is because of your COI. I thought that you were being even handed when you included the picture that included the seismic issue, then realized that was your business... Smm201`0 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus? More like COI.

I'm not sure it is really an even handed sort of consensus when there are COIs involved, and the article clearly supports the statement. I think there is bias rather than consensus. Regarding the articles about problems with exposure to radioactivity, one source details the cleanup of radioactive material after a blowout, noting protection of workers, etc. from said contamination. The other talks about safety concerns when using tracers for hf. Smm201`0 (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of COI issues you are talking about. You have been asked numerous times to stop this or provide proofs. Calling names is something you should be very careful as this is not a tolerated practise in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate place to raise such an issue is here - if you feel that you have the evidence. Mikenorton (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Smm, the first source refers to a local leak at the point at which the fracturing fluid is injected. The source says that the leak was dealt with properly.

The second, completely unconnected, source refers to 'concerns' in the sense of 'things we need to be concerned about' when dealing with radiotracers.

Even if we combine these two sources and draw our own conclusions (which we should not because it is WP:synth) we still do not arrive at the conclusions given in your added text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Smm how about discussing the subject here rather than making baseless accusations against others. I have given a simple and clear argument as to why the cited sources do not support your added text. I am happy to discuss both sources in more detail if you wish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Smm, are you going to discuss this subject?

Or are you just going to wait until you think no one is looking and then add your text back? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Howarth study again

An editor has removed[1][2] the following

Shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas. This is mainly due to the gas released during completing wells as some gas returns to the surface, together with the fracturing fluids. Depending on their treatment, the well-to-burner emissions are 3.5%–12% higher than for conventional gas. According to a study conducted by professor Robert W. Howarth et al. of Cornell University, "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." The study claims that this represents a 30–100% increase over conventional gas production. 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. Howarth's colleagues at Cornell and others have criticized the study's design, however several other studies have also found higher emissions from shale-gas production than from conventional gas production. Howarth et al. have responded, "The latest EPA estimate for methane emissions from shale gas falls within the range of our estimates but not those of Cathles et al, which are substantially lower."

stating that the study is "garbage" and "fundamentally flawed". I don't see any evidence that this is true, although there has been some of the back and forth wrangling that's typical of this field. It's inclusion also appears supported by previous discussions here and here so I've restored it. a13ean (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the quality of the work but I think that is too much text with too much detail for an article on HF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you think one sentence summarizing the plethora of critics who have torn Howarths work to pieces is enough? If more is added, does that put too much of the article's focus on one fatally flawed study instead of being an general over view of the subject. CJ5Fanatic (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You say this is a fatally flawed study, but I see no evidence of this. A different group complained about their methods in a comment, the original group defended them. Several subsequent studies reached fairly similar conclusions. Absent much stronger evidence that the results have been broadly rejected, I wouldn't call it "fundamentally flawed". Fundamentally flawed papers get a reception like the Seralini paper as discussed here. This is just geologists being geologists. a13ean (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Horwaths study counted gas used to power stationary processing equipment and compressors as fugitive emissions. Doesnt that qualify as a fatal flaw? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ5Fanatic (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Could we not just summarise the whole issue, for example:

Some researchers have claimed that shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes 3.5%–12% higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas. Others have criticised this claim.

Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Of course, it should be explained in more detailed way in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing article. Beagel (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The synopsis isn't as informative as the original. I support A13ean's comments. There are always critiques of research, even articles in peer reviewed journals such as this article. Both the results of the study and the criticisms (or at least links to the articles discussing them, as there are now) should be presented. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That was only a suggestion, I would not object to more text but it needs to be more encyclopedic. The current text is a bit disjointed with claims and counterclaims. If we just quote from papers it is hard to see how our readers evaluate the true situation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested summary text

How about:

'Proponents of hydraulic fracturing point out that greenhouse emissions will be reduced by replacing coal with gas, however, some researchers have found that shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes 3.5%–12% higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas, mainly due to the methane released during completing wells as some gas returns to the surface. One report claims that the well-to-burner greenhouse emissions of gas from hydraulic fracturing are greater than those from coal. This latter report has been heavily criticised by fellow researchers and others'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree if attributed with relevant references. I also propose to change the last sentence: "This latter report has been criticized for overestimated leakage rates and inadequate bases of comparison." per source to clarify for what it was criticized. Beagel (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

References? Yes, of course. I like your last sentence too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is we have exactly one study, torn apart by its reviewers, claiming what Howarths paper claims and at least a dozen that have dramatically different conclusion. Why do we give this much space to one outlier? Just because the media has? CJ5Fanatic (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What do sources actually say about the Howarth report? Do any sources actually refer to it as discredited? There is also the issue of Shale gas vs HF; they are not the same thing, this makes the report less relevant here. I agree that we should give the report due weight, which does not seem to be very much.

It is hard to see how we could give the report less space without dropping it completely. Perhaps we could add more about the claimed reduction in greenhouse emissions for gas produced by HF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

How about:

'Proponents of hydraulic fracturing point out that greenhouse emissions will be reduced by replacing coal with gas, however, researchers have found that shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes 3.5%–12% higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas, mainly due to the methane released during completing wells as some gas returns to the surface. One, somewhat discredited, report claims a higher value'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine for me. Beagel (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not really accurate. There wasn't just one report with higher values. The original text reports "...several other studies have also found higher emissions from shale-gas production than from conventional gas production. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That is what I say, 'shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes 3.5%–12% higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas'. One report claims a higher (than 12%) value. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Radon in natural gas

A few points on this subject are worthy of discussion.

The Resnikoff report appears to be a calculation (possibly based on total gamma radiation) of expected radon not an actual measurement.

The high radon levels are caused by the local environment not the method of extraction.

Radon will be released into the combustion products when gas is burned, thus radon in homes will come only from cooking with gas. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google search also fond [this] highly critical commentary on Resnikoff's work. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The radon related to the Marcellus Shale is not related to the hydraulic fracturing as gas extraction technique. The study by Resnikoff says: "The Marcellus shale formation is more radioactive than other sources of natural gas in the United States." Notwithstanding if the Resnikoff's study is correct or not, it clearly says that the specific source is more radioactive, not that the radioactivity is caused specifically by hydraulic fractiuring. Providing this as a typical impact of hydraulic fracturing is synthesis. Beagel (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, how the statement that "Natural gas is a source of radon" is related to the hydraulic fracturing? This is related to the gas properties and should be addressed there but this is not about the HF as technique. Beagel (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I changed the wording to match the sources and, having done so, it looks like it should not be there at all. I think it should go. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose to delete it unless someone can provide a rationale for keeping it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with some of your comments, but not that this "discussion" could be described as "consensus." I had read that natural gas obtained through hydraulic fracturing had more radon associated with it because the process dislodged more material than conventional drilling, and that the increased exposure increased the radioactivity infused in the natural gas. I don't know whether you are familiar with "Gas Buggy" but for a time they actually experimented with using nuclear weapons to fracture the rock to release natural gas. It was part of an effort to find peacetime uses for nuclear weapons. The resulting gas, however, was too radioactive to be used safely and blowouts resulted in more radioactive release, so they stopped using the technique. Anyway, the source I ended up including re: the enhanced radon levels talked more about the radioactivity of the source rather than the technique. I'll see if I can find the other source. Keep in mind that there is some debate about most research that is done. I think that the important filter is to make sure the source is reliable, and to present each side fairly. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if there is a good quality, independent, source which tells us that the HF process increases the radon in natural gas over that which would be expected from conventional extraction methods then we should state that fact here but, as always, we must be careful to put it into context. Does that fact apply generally or only to certain areas? How great is the effect? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Health impacts

I moved or removed several recent additions from the health impact section. Namely:

• Sentence The number of unconventional natural gas wells in the US rose from 18,485 in 2004 to 25,145 in 2007 and is expected to continue increasing through at least 2020 was moved into the Shale gas in the United States. Reason is that as said several times before, hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas extraction are not synonyms. This is shale gas specific, not HF specific. In addition, as US specific, it suits better in the US specific article.
• While groundwater contamination and radiation exposure are important considerations, the cumulative impacts of tens of thousands of wells on regional air quality should be considered. Emissions from flowback operations, which may include emissions from various sources on the well pads, such as the wells themselves and diesel engines, are likely the major sources of the hydrocarbons observed in well completion samples. Talking about the cumulative impacts of tens of thousands of wells is more about the gas extraction in the broader term, not about the HF as technique. It may be relevant somewhere like Impact of natural gas extraction or in the specific gas play article, but not in the HF umbrella article.
• Multiple studies on inhalation exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons in occupational settings as well as residences near refineries, oil spills and petrol stations indicate an increased risk of eye irritation and headaches, asthma symptoms, acute childhood leukemia, acute myelogenous leukemia, and multiple myeloma. Many of the petroleum hydrocarbons observed in these studies are present in and around natural gas development sites. This is specifically about petroleum hydrocarbons and not about HF.
• Benzene, a known carcinogen, is one of the many hydrocarbons released during flowback. The known health effects of benzene include acute and chronic nonlymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, anemia, and other blood disorders and immunological effects. In addition, maternal exposure to ambient levels of benzene recently has been associated with an increase in birth prevalence of neural tube defects. Was removed per WP:SYNTH. It states that benzene is released during flowback and then provides all impacts benzene causes without giving a reference which says that the amount of benzene released during flowback is big enough to cause in certain conditions this and this and this. This is a classical SYNT case when argument A and argument B are combined to imply argument C, which is not explicitly said by provided sources.
• Public health officials can have the most impact on protecting the public's health by minimizing exposures for those living closet the well pads. They can protect them by controlling and monitoring emissions during completion and transitions and flowback, capturing and reducing emissions through use of low or no emmission flowback tanks, and establishing and maintaing communication regarding well pad activities with the community. Removed as trivia. This is something which public health officers should to do everywhere and this is not about health impacts nor specificity about HF.

Beagel (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent application of principles.

There is a lot of overly detailed US info in the "economic impacts" section that someone has noted should be moved to one of the US HF pages. I could do this, but would prefer that one of you (MH, Beagel, or someone else) do it. I'm surprised that it has stood this long considering how quickly you moved the environmental info to the US HF pages. Some of the info should remain but in more succinct form. Also, the piece about the higher radon levels in Marcellus shale gas produced by HF is relevant. If you are going to push that it is not, I can go over the article and apply the same principle to other content...like economic advantages of using hf to access shale gas... Smm201`0 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are right about the latest additions to the 'Economic impact' section. If you look the text, you see that I marked these edits with a comment about similar concerns. Unfortunately, there was no feedback (yes, I probably had to add these comments at the talk page). What concerns Marcellus gas, well, this is even not the U.S. specific but Marcellus Shale specific and therefore fits in the Marcellus Shale article. Even more, this is a shale-specific issue which has nothing to do with HF as a gas production technique. Therefore, I can't see how it is relevant in this particular article here. Also, threats "if you do this I will do that" is not a serious way to create encyclopaedia. Beagel (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually...it wasn't meant as a threat. I thought you'd be more comfortable doing it yourself, and you have been doing a lot of the main page to US page transfers. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC) In this case...Marcellus Shale transfer. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I see what you are referring to. I had read an article about how the hf process dislodges more radioactive material which results in more radioactivity infused gas and flowback, but cited one that focused more on the radioactivity of the source. I'm going to find the correct article. One thing that might make the shale-specific articles relevant is if one considers hf the only process that can efficiently/economically extract gas from shale. Another way to balance the economic sections would be to make the US part more succinct, add the Cornell Labor Institute report, and add a sampling of impacts in other countries. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As the US is the country where the technology is most widely used and where it was originally pioneered I don't see a strong need to move text into a separate 'US HF page'. And that concerns environmental, economical and other issues. From a non-US citizen. ArticunoWebon (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We already have US-specific articles on the subject, and too much of this article needlessly duplicates detailed US-specific material in either Hydraulic fracturing in the United States or Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. This article should summarize the US experience, but save many of the details for the US-specific articles. Plazak (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitting the high points with summary style

This article is really bloated. Someone has basically used it to collect references, which is not how we should be writing articles. A given fact doesn't need 4 or 5 citations, and we don't need to cover anything in this article. It's also easier if we avoid citations which discuss one-off events in favor of more comprehensive articles. I'm hoping to significantly trim this down. I've been reviewing a 2013 Case Western Law Review Symposium which altogether is fairly comprehensive and coherent. II | (t - c) 02:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

TV program etc

There was a Horizon program on BBC2 on 19/6 on Fracking.

Could fracking cause Soil liquefaction? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Bromide in hydraulic fracturing wastewater.

This isn't just limited to PA. We know bromide is in HF wastewater. Bromide facilitates formation of brominated trihalomethanes, also known as THMs. In order to reduce contaminants from HF, wastewater is taken to water treatment plants. THMs develop when the bromide in hydraulic fracturing wastewater is exposed to disinfectant processes in water treatment plants. That's just chemistry. This is in the articles. It is a concern because studies have linked ingestion of and exposure to THMs with several types of cancer and birth defects. (Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/environment/bromide-a-concern-in-drilling-wastewater-212188/#ixzz2XiPQ09dQ )

You may not be having problems with THMs yet in the UK, but this is a big concern where HF is more developed in the US, especially where drinking water comes from surface source water (rivers and streams) where water treatment plants release their effluent. None of this is unique to PA.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The article currently states "More problematic may be the high levels of Bromide released into the rivers. The Bromide in the water combines with chlorine, which is used to disinfect drinking water at water treatment plants, and forms trihalomethanes (THMs)." The sources used to support this statement don't actually support it. They don't say that the Bromide levels may be more problematic than radioactivity. Source 2 states "Brines generated from oil and natural gas production, including flowback water and produced water from hydraulic fracturing of shale gas, may contain elevated concentrations of bromide (∼1 g/L). Bromide is a broad concern due to the potential for forming brominated disinfection byproducts (DBPs) during drinking water treatment", but that's all it says in the abstract anyway (I don't have full text access to this one). Source 1 says that no-one is really sure where the bromide is coming from - the headline is unequivocal but the rest of the article isn't. As it stands the article now says that there is generally a problem with high bromide levels in rivers due to hf wastewater, not that there may be such a problem in Pennsylvania. This is just another example of synthesis in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Your other source does support there being a greater problem specific to Marcellus shale but it still says that the jury is out about a specific link. Some people are convinced while others remain sceptical - none of that comes through in the existing text and it is still all about Pennsylvania. Mikenorton (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I edited the section to focus on the general water chemistry issue. It was never about that one river. It is associated with hydraulic fracturing in general, not just the practice in PA. As a general principle, this article is about hydraulic fracturing and what it entails. I changed the structure of the talk section because you were responding to the issue above. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was an edit conflict - I started my section without seeing yours, but fine. If it's a general problem rather than just specific to one state and rock unit then there will be sources reporting that, so where are they? Mikenorton (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I edited the section to focus on the general water chemistry issue. It was never about that one river. As a general principle, this article is about hydraulic fracturing and what it entails. I changed the structure of the talk section because you were responding to the issue above. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some of the quotes (see below). It actually does say bromide may be more of a concern than radioactivity.

(1) "Ballooning bromide concentrations in the region's rivers, occurring as Marcellus Shale wastewater discharges increase, is a much bigger worry than the risk of high radiation levels, public water suppliers say."

(2) "Marcellus Shale drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations use an average of 4 million gallons of water to drill and "frack" each well. The drilling industry says it recycles approximately 70 percent of the wastewater from its well fracking operations, but millions of gallons are still funneled through 11 sewage treatment facilities and five brine treatment plants, then discharged into the state's rivers and streams."

(3) "Bromide facilitates formation of brominated trihalomethanes, also known as THMs, when it is exposed to disinfectant processes in water treatment plants. THMs are volatile organic liquid compounds. Studies show a link between ingestion of and exposure to THMs and several types of cancer and birth defects."

(4) "She said the two biggest sources of bromide in the watershed are Marcellus wastewater from sewage treatment facilities and wastewater from new smokestack scrubbers at coal-fired power plants. The plants cannot remove the bromide in wastewater. Bromide levels vary in discharges from both sources, but bromide is generally found at higher concentrations in Marcellus wastewater."

(5) "The Josephine brine treatment facility, also known as Franklin Brine, on Blacklick Creek in the Allegheny's watershed, discharges an average of 120,000 gallons a day of Marcellus wastewater that, at peak levels, contains high concentrations of bromide, chlorides and total dissolved solids, according to sampling done by the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Healthy Environments and Communities. "There's pretty high bromide going into the creek. Certainly it is a public health threat," said Conrad Dan Volz, director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities. "And to remove brominated THMs, that's going to break the bank for public water systems."

There was a lot more but I just focused on the chemistry issue.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There is Bromide in the hydraulic fracturing fluid that is injected, so it's not confined to PA. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source with information about Bromide in hydraulic fracturing fluid, as well as its use in fingerprinting contamination sources. This article is only about movement of fluid through earth, not large amounts being processed at water treatment plants and then released into rivers. Movement through soil takes a while, unless it finds a fault, crevice, cave, artesian spring/well or abandoned gas/oil well. Do a word search for Bromide. http://www.rural.palegislature.us/documents/reports/Marcellus_and_drinking_water_2012.pdf Smm201`0 (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Study about Marcellus

There is a paragraph saying:

Interestingly, a recent study from Duke University found: “Contrary to current perceptions, Marcellus [Shale] wells produce significantly less wastewater per unit gas recovered (~35%) compared to conventional natural gas wells.” Only approximately 15-20% of the injected fluid returns to the surface with the gas. Some remains underground and some may return to the surface through abandoned wells or other pathways. Although not necessarily indicative of broader industry trends, several reports have also highlighted an industry-wide shift toward greater water recycling in the Marcellus Shale.

The study is clearly about the Marcellus play and taking account the Marcellus specifics does not necessarily describe the hydraulic fracturing as a general process. This study is relevant in the articles about Marcellus shale or in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States, but not in the umbrella article about HF. Beagel (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The quote just added to the reference only confirms that this is US specific and does not refer to the hydraulic fracturing in general. Beagel (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful to have some information about (1) the amount of wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing compared to conventional methods and why there is a difference, (2) where the rest of the water goes, and (3) the use of recycling to deal with this issue. A couple sources speaking to the range of amounts would be good, or a comprehensive article speaking to this information. I'll keep an eye open for one. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Beagel that this paragraph is much too narrow for the Hydraulic Fracturing article. It belongs in the Marcellus Shale article. As to Smm201's question (1), the ratio of water to gas is a function of the reservoir rock, and varies all over the place. There are some conventional reservoirs that make almost no water, and some that make great amounts of water, limited only by the cost of water disposal versus the price of gas. The referenced article dealt only with the average, which is perhaps a misleading oversimplification. Fracking, beyond adding large volumes of frack fluid, most of which flows back in the first month or two, cannot alter the productive ratios in the formation; it only allows recovery of higher rates of whatever water and gas are there in the first place, As to question (2), most earth materials are preferentially water wet, and part of the frack fluid is retained in the formation by capillary forces. Plazak (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

The section on veins states (without a reference): "Though permanent, dedicated injection wells used for water disposal have been linked to local seismicity, no link of hydraulic fracturing and earthquake generation has been found."

The section on seismicity states "A British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission investigation concluded that a series of 38 earthquakes ... were caused by fluid injection during hydraulic fracturing in proximity to pre-existing faults."

The latter statement is referenced so I have deleted the earlier statement. The Yowser (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

U.S. specific

The following paragraphs:

In April 2011, the Ground Water Protection Council launched FracFocus.org, an online voluntary disclosure database for hydraulic fracturing fluids. The site is funded by oil and gas trade groups and the U.S. Department of Energy. The site has been met with some skepticism [123] relating to proprietary information that is not included, although President Obama’s energy and climate adviser Heather Zichal has said of the database: “As an administration, we believe that FracFocus is an important tool that provides transparency to the American people.” [124] At least five states – including Colorado [125] and Texas – have mandated fluid disclosure [126] and incorporated FracFocus as the tool for disclosure. As of March 2013, FracFocus had more than 40,000 searchable well records on its site.

The FracTracker Alliance, a non-profit organization, provides oil and gas-related data storage, analyses, and online and customized maps related to hydraulic fracturing. Their web site, FracTracker.org, also includes a photo library and resource directory. [127][128]

are U.S. specific and therefore belong to Hydraulic fracturing in the United States not here. Beagel (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree Plazak (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree also. It is clearly US-specific material. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Moved into Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Some general info about how governments are trying to deal with this issue is probably warranted. I'll see what others are doing. US citizens can't be the only ones asking about the contents of the fluid. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Biased lead

The opening paragraphs, particularly the third, is quite biased. The first sentence gives due weight to pro-fracking, then the entirity of the rest of the paragraph gives undue weight to the anti-frackers. Either the weight of the anti-frackers voice should be reduced, or the weight of the voice of the pro-frackers should be increased.Oxr033 (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesnt look biased to me but of course you could add more pro-fracking info as long as you make sure it is sourced and is a reflection of what comes later on in the article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We should not be presenting pro or anti fracking views in any detail here. Let us keep to the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

European vs US standards

Appearantly, US standards are a lot more lax than European ones, which is part of the reason why groundwater contamination has occured in the USA due to fracking for shale gas.

• In the USA, the sealing of the wells is less well regulated and so less well done; as such cracks have occured in some sites in the USA
• In the USA, the fracturing liquid is kept in open basins, which is illegal in Europe

It seems to me that these better standards, if made mandatory in the USA would increase the cost of drilling for shale gas/make it less profitable. Perhaps that a section on the US/European standards can be included to this article, and the economics can be briefly discussed. KVDP (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

US-specific edits

IP editor added several US-specific examples which does not belong here as an umbrella article but, if included, should go to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Specifically, these examples are:

In Barnhart, Texas the aquifer ran dry because of industrial fracking: one landowner had 104 water wells (designed to supply fracking) dug into his land by his fracker tenants, and the population is left with little recourse for their dry taps.

A Pennsylvania family was forced to abandon because of fracking pollution of their 10-acre farm. The family was paid 750,000USD by Range Resources Corporation to depart from a more recently installed petroleum well plant.

Beagel (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I suggest that you remove them. WP is not a notice board. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Frack versus Frac

I have documents internally with my company going back decades referring to it as a "frac job". It is only recent in the media (past 5 years) that I am seeing the 'k' added. It has become common in the industry to be able to recognize an outsider by if they add the 'k'. Externally when we publish information we always try to eliminate the abbreviation and make it "hydraulic fracturing" or "well stimulation". More than anything I would like Wikipedia to have a standard and stop jumping back and forwards. There are currently only four uses of the term "frac" that I can find in the main article, while there are 104 uses of the term "frack" or "fracking". Again more than anything I would like a possible standard. I would like to ask for an acknowledgement that there is an inconsistency between industry and the public, but as I made clear I am a biased industry insider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent news footage

Investigative reporting: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10841 Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hydrogen sulfide

Currently a subsection about hydrogen sulfide was added in the 'Water' section. This is problematic as this is not about water. Second issue is that hydrogen sulfide in produced petroleum is not caused by hydraulic fracturing but it depends of the chemical composition of the certain reservoir. Therefore it is wrongly placed in this article. Beagel (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Same applies to gas flaring on petroleum production. This is not related to the hydraulic fracturing. There is no interrelation between HF and gas flaring. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As below, I suggest you delete the offending section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

H2S could be caused by the fluid used in a frac job over time. There have been formations that have been made dirty over time (now produce H2S in flow back) that previously had no issue with H2S. It is bacteria in the formation that tend to produce this. That is why it is now nearly impossible to find a hydraulic fracturing job today that some bactericide (aka bio, aka biocide, aka anaerobic) is not being used as an additive to the frac fluid. The exception is where the water is being iradiated with UV light prior to being pumped. Even then sometimes they will still add bactericide as an additive.

I forgot to mention just like oxygen disolves in water, so does H2S. It is common to test water in the oilfield for H2S in water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.18 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Broken link 222

"Shots fired at W. Pa. gas drilling site". Philadelphia Inquirer. 12 March 2013. Retrieved 27 March 2013. New link http://web.archive.org/web/20130729153802/http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130311_ap_shotsfiredatwpagasdrillingsite.html 84.27.162.191 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Source of Philly I-131

The conclusion of the report was that further investigation is warranted. They are still in the process of gathering data. Although in the RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS section it says that "Workshop participants concluded that the likely source of 131 I in Philadelphia’s source waters is residual 131 I excreted from patients following medical treatments" it goes on to describe gaps in the information available. It says, "Over the course of the workshop many data gaps regarding the occurrence, fate, transport, treatment, and management of 131 I were identified. The key data gaps include:..." and one of the gaps described is "the potential contributions of sources other than medical use (e.g., veterinary treatments, contributions from septic systems [diffuse pollution], Sanitary Sewer Overflows [SSOs] and Combined SewerOverflows [CSOs], hydro-fracturing) to occurrence of 131 I in wastewaters and drinking water treatment plant source waters); and..." They go on to discuss the next steps in the investigation. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fracking is not identified as a cause. They are still looking at the causes, even though they are pretty sure that the likely (read statistical significance) cause is cancer patients. Your inclusion of a fringe idea is undue weight to say the least. Arzel (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement said that they are investigating it. That is supported by the source. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Replaced 'impact'/'impacts' with 'effect' where appropriate

When used in placed of effect/affect, I find 'impact' to be verging on being a weasel word, as 'impact' implies damage. I've gone through the article and corrected where needed. It's also a bit confusing in an article on fractures to have the word 'impact' misused repeatedly ahpook (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Newer study on ground water/well contamination

• http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4011724
• http://www.propublica.org/article/new-study-finds-high-levels-of-arsenic-in-groundwater-near-fracking-sites

--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

To quote the authors of the study "Well, I can’t say we have a smoking gun. We don’t want the public to take away from this that we have pegged fracking as the cause of these issues". So I don't think that this should be added to the article. Mikenorton (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree; premature. --Pete Tillman (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say report it with the same careful research language that the researchers did. It sounds as if there are other corroborating studies as well. The new research on endocrine disrupting chemicals needs to be added as well. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems in Economic effects section

I added a para. here, from a recent WSJ article on how U.S.-based refineries have gained a competitive edge with their access to relatively-inexpensive shale oil and Canadian crude, and other positive econ. effects of the shale-O&G boom here.

I also noticed and tagged a poorly-written paragraph that appears to be arguing that prosperity isn't good, with nonsensical references to "gas mining", a novel concept. Needs work, and the section needs updating and expansion. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Contentious issues in the "Environmental impact on Air" section

There's a lot of activity here, verging on low-level edit warring. It would be better to discuss these issues here, rather than making contentious edits/reversions.

There are also a number of contentious claims that are uncited. I've tagged these, which should be self-explanatory. But the First paragraph of the section ends oddly, with a bunch of comments re sour gas that don't seem to go anywhere. Could the author (Smm201`0 ?) please revise this section so that the significance of these isolated facts is clear? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There are citations for the statements that I read through so far. I also tried to reorganize the paragraphs. Some of the content was outdated (referred to old EPA info) repetitive or misplaced. Although I've read most of the sources in the section, I didn't write much, if any, of the section. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the sources before claiming a statement isn't sourced. Everything you marked was in the sources, practically verbatim. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it's best to put that exact quote in the cite. It's not like you and wossisname haven't been trading reverts on this stuff. Best to make things crystal-clear, if you're challenged.

And thanks for the rewrite -- I see you trimmed out the weird "gag order" sob story, edit conflict after I rewrote it. Won't be missed. ;-]

I guess I'll trim out the pointless sour-gas stuff, then. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

---

This is a good example of stuff to avoid:

An additional concern is that oil obtained through hydraulic fracturing contains chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, which may increase the rate at which rail tank cars corrode, potentially releasing their load and its gases.

The entire article is larded with stuff like this, purely hypothetical "gee, this would be bad if it actually happened".Violations of WP:Balance & WP:Weight. Thanks to editor Arzel for catching it (& others). I invite comparison to the +/- 1.7 million Chinese who actually die every year from air pollution, mostly from burning coal. See "Richard A. Muller: Why every serious environmentalist should favour fracking" thread, above. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This info was published in RS, and so is fair game. It is also getting a lot of coverage because of the recent rail explosions and some pipeline leaks. They've not had explosions like these with conventionally produced oil. Regarding Muller's viewpoints, go to his sources and get the info from RS there. I don't delete accurately presented RS stuff, regardless of whether I believe it. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That sentence repeats information already in the specific 'Hydrogen sulfide' section - why say it twice? It already seems to be too US specific, referring to oil from one specific source rock, there's no evidence that this is a general problem with Hydraulic fracturing. Mikenorton (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting content. There is no repetition of this content in the other section. The problem is only occurring with oil obtained by hydraulic fracturing and has to do both with Hydrogen sulfide and the other chemicals used in the process. Are you even allowed to contribute directly given your involvement in the industry? Smm201`0 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe that I'm having to say this again but, if you think that my edits are problematic due a conflict of interest then raise the matter at the appropriate notice board Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, otherwise cease with the snide remarks, they are personal attacks. Mikenorton (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And they do have problems with hydrogen Sulfide in Europe: Romania: Shale Gas Prospecting Continues; News In Brief: FX Abandons Ostrowiec-1 Well In Fences Concession. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that H2S problems are unique to O&G produced by hydrofrac, which certainly is not the case. A widespread problem in many oil/gas fields, and one that is well-known. Proper safety precautions are required, but...

Once again, WP:Balance & Weight apply, and there's way too much of this marginal stuff here. We don't put everything in the encyclopedia that can be properly cited: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Norton was trying to argue that they were US specific! heh-heh... This is not just about hydrogen sulphide/sulfide, and the issue (increased corrosion) is getting a lot of coverage in news media, which is why I'm saying it is not marginal. I only listed two articles because that is all that is needed, but I could include more if you need me to show coverage. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Let's try to keep things civil, guys. Please address the edits, not the editor.

Smm201`0, you are criticizing another editor for what you see as a COI. Yet you yourself could reasonably be said to have a COI, by what appears to be your activism in opposing hydraulic fracturing.

All editors come with their own biases and preconceptions. Yet the discussion and negotiation process can go pretty smoothly here, if editors keep their cool and play by the house rules. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Re-wording of "Massive hydraulic fracturing in shales"

At the end of the second paragraph in Massive Hydraulic Fracturing in Shales the reference to using chemicals to increase rate is vague and can easily be taken out context. The chemical refereed to for all "Slickwater" jobs is known in the industry as friction reducer or water friction reducer. The chemical decreases turbulence in the water which decreases water pressure on the surface. With friction reduced it safely allows the increase of rate of injecting the fluid and sand slurry into the well. If friction reducer is not present pressure on the surface and equipment would be much higher thus dangerous to try to increase the rate. In "Slickwater" rate is key to proper placement of the propant, usually sand, in the formation. If rate is not maintained it can become costly to intervene (coil tubing for screen off) in the well or even dangerous (pressure increase to friction can cause equipment failure). I'm not sure how to word this, that is why I am posting this in the comment section. Any suggestions of how to reword the statement in the article without being as wordy as I have been.

What I forgot to mention is that the friction reducer has no direct control over the rate. Friction reducer effect the pressure, which for safety reasons can force a reduction in rate (which also effects pressure). Even though, for most fracturing jobs, there is a critical rate that should be maintained for proper placement of propant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.16 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"60% of all new oil and gas wells"

I removed the following line, as it needs verification: "As of 2010, it was estimated that 60% of all new oil and gas wells worldwide were being hydraulically fractured." This does not accurately reflect the relevant line in the cited source, which is: "Some believe that approximately 60% of all wells drilled today are fractured." (Mongomery: Hydraulic fracturing. History of an enduring technology) The line in the cited source is not suitable for inclusion either, as "Some people believe..." is a vague unattributed claim, and the source document does not provide any further supporting explanation. Cimbalom (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Needs Real Expert Input

This entry is not written by someone who is knowledgeable about the subject. This is shown by the first few lines, where the procedure is identified with water as the only frac fluid used. This is false. Nitrogen foam, cross linked polymer gels, carbon dioxide, and other fluids have been widely employed in frac jobs over the past 30 years. There are many other problems with the text as well. The overwhelming majority of fracing has not been associated in any final way with major environmental problems; this is a recent and highly politicized dimension and is not at all settled---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.142.151 (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue concerning also this article

Issue concerning also this article is raised here. Beagel (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a comment on quotation citing. The example probably should be deleted, as it's factually absurd: quote says "uranium isotopes such as radium-226 and radium-228." I suppose the guy means daughter products, but good grief.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not about this quote only but misuse of quotes in a number of references. To be in line with what was said during discussion at the template's talk page and to avoid copyvio, all these quotes should be trimmed. Beagel (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Richard A. Muller: Why every serious environmentalist should favour fracking

PDF at Centre for Policy Studies

An interesting argument. Muller says the benefits of shale gas, displacing harmful air pollution from coal, far outweigh the environmental costs of fracking. Per Muller, air pollution, mostly from coal burning, kills over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world. Worth digesting, and adding to the overlong litany of possible bad consequences of fracking that we list here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It would be good to have some kind of balance here. Why do you not add something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. See Public-health benefits of hydraulic fracturing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source (not news, not government, not peer reviewed). Also associated with a conflict of interest: their investment in China's shale: http://www.chinashalefund.com/ . Smm201`0 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you are edit warring again. Is there a consensus to remove this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you might want to check out the reliability of the source. I think WP principles trump consensus if consensus is in violation of WP principles. Smm201`0 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The source is perfectly reliable in support of the statement we make: 'Noted physicist Richard A. Muller of Berkeley Earth argues that...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Smm201`0 if you feel the source is not reliable take it to the WP:RSN Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Give a link to the source and the text it's being cited for. Then clearly layout why you think it's not reliable and ask for opinions. Blackash have a chat 03:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Blackash. I have since read elsewhere that Muller is being criticized for conflict of interest because of his financial ties to shale, for inaccurately citing sources, etc., within the scientific community. The sources say the article cited was part of a China Shale Fund sales initiative in China. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the China Shale info -- I agree this should be added, and Muller links his to "Serious Environmentalist" report at the China Shale page. I removed what appeared to be an editorial comment, and fixed the name. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The comment was a clarification based on the source. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

[outdent] You presently have a last line reading "...however the report does not reference any similar studies regarding air pollution from gas produced by hydraulic fracturing." This doesn't seem to make much sense, but appears to be a personal or editorial comment on the Muller report. You need a third party source for this sort of thing: WP:OR. I've also added Muller's job title. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he does not cite any studies that measure emissions from hf gas is verifiable. Furthermore, the whole section should be deleted unless you can cite reliable sources. I took the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and was told that, "It is not reliable. Groups like the CPS exist in order to publish reports defending ideas that cannot be supported in academic journals, because no reasonable assessment of available evidence would lead to those conclusions." The source itself is not reliable. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Link to RSN thread please ? And why didn't you ask editors here for comment? --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it is listed above in this same thread. WP:RSN Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It was one of the editors here who suggested that I ask in the specialized section. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Smm201`0, are you seriously arguing that shale gas has significantly different emissions than ordinary natural gas? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources Noticeboard query

• Would this "report" be considered a reliable source?

Smm201`0 posted this query, got one response, and then deleted the section in question. I've posted a response there, disputing his actions. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)--

I've left a comment at RSN. I suggest finding some other sources stating the same opinion. If it is really a notable fact or opinion there would be more than one source. Blackash have a chat 02:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of the information that Smm201`0 was looking for, about Natural Gas vs. Coal, is in another Muller presentation: Shale Gas in the US and China: Challenges and Opportunites. For instance, 1.2 million deaths/year in China from air pollution (The Lancet, 2012), and an up-to-date chart for emissions from burning gas, oil and coal (EIA, 1998). Worth a browse. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And I took a second look through the "Favour Fracking" report. Sourcing looks impeccable to me, so I think Smm201`0 is blowing smoke. But we can certainly disaggregate sources. For instance,

• Lancet 2012, Global Burden of Disease Study
• Recent Trends in Air Quality Standards in US, Europe and Asia, 2013 -- slide 1 has the 3.2 million deaths chart, sourced to the Lancet, 2010. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My RS objection is that the source (publisher) is not reliable. A peer reviewed scientific journal or major newspaper would be a reliable source. A source whose goal is to advocate for a position is not objective. IN ADDITION...The statements that I don't see sources for relate to statements/studies directly comparing hydraulic fracturing produced gas pollution/emissions to those of coal. I see articles on coal related pollution, but none from reliable sources comparing it to hf gas - just to conventionally produced gas. Having read many of the articles he cites, I know that there are more recent studies, and that some of the sources don't support the statements he makes. Either he is cherry picking articles or hasn't updated his lit review. Smm201`0 (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the page about identifying reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Smm201`0 (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again: Smm201`0, are you seriously arguing that shale gas has significantly different emissions than ordinary natural gas? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That what research suggests. If you look at the emissions over the entire cycle of gas produced by hydraulic fracturing, recent studies suggest that they are higher than those produce by conventionally produced gas, in addition to other issues related to hf produced shale gas, such as emissions related to equipment and transportation, the fate of injected fluid, flowback, and wastewater management. Smm201`0 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Significantly higher? Links to RS's please? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The disputed source is more reliable than many of the environmental activist sources used in the article already. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Read the hydraulic fracturing section on "air." The links to the various sources should be there. One of the issues is cumulative impact: on air, water, seismicity, radiation levels, etc. Regarding RS, I consider major newspapers (NYT, Washington Post), major magazines, government web sites (EPA), and journal articles as RS. I see Energyindepth cited on this page. It is a publication of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), which I've read described as a lobbying/pr group, and therefore wouldn't be considered a reliable source. What non-RS publications are you seeing? I also prefer studies with data, as opposed to government and industry estimates.Smm201`0 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read it. Here's the opening line: "Whether natural gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes higher well-to-burner emissions than gas produced from conventional wells is a matter of contention." It appears to me (and many experts) that there is no significant difference. And there is absolutely no question that NG from any source has a whole lot less emissions than coal. Which is Muller's point. Capiche? Pete Tillman (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand that is what you believe, but for the purposes of WP, you need write based on the current state of the literature, based on RS. Muller's report didn't undergo peer review, nor is it published in a major newspaper, or other RS. At this time, the RSes addressing the topic are at the least contentious, so the results of the various disparate studies (published in RS) need to be represented for balance, along with their funding sources for context. What do the RSes say? Is there consensus? No. That is the issue. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur with user Smm201`0, in that funding sources are contextually relevant for non-peer-reviewed publications when judging them to be WP:RS. Any reputable peer-reviewer would reject a paper on a contentious issue, if it did not mention an obvious conflict of interest. This was not even peer-reviewed, and thus merits a greater burden of addressing funding sources and conflicts of interest. In a sense, the burden makes any contentious claim "exceptional", and thus requires "exception proof" to back up such claims. In a functioning peer-review system, this would suggest a paper of such above-average quality that it would have no trouble being accepted for publication. Only ONE reference or citation to a reasonably similar claim is required for a WP:RS, which includes a paper citing the aforementioned study. Given a reasonable amount of time this burden will be met, and in failing to do so, it is permissible to reject it according to WP:NOR. Even in the information age, science takes time. Until such time, we must present science as it currently stands, and thusly I vote that the aforementioned article be omitted. Mystyc1 (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Tillman WP:Verify not truth seems to apply to this discussion. If text you wanted added is notable you should be able to find a reliable 2nd source for it and use 'Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking.pdf' as a supporting ref. Blackash have a chat 09:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin this is not about whether or not this is more reliable source that others in the article. The question raised:- Is 'Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking.pdf' a reliable source? Sort the refs out one at a time is best. Blackash have a chat 09:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem with flammable volatiles in Bakken crude

Crude-Oil Impurities Are Probed in Rail Blasts , WSJ 01/02/14

The article is specifically about Bakken crude (shale oil), which has now been involved in 3 fiery train-wrecks. Regulators are concerned. Most of this info belongs at Bakken or tight oil, but there is a bit specific to here:

Another possibility is that impurities are being introduced during hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. That process involves pumping chemicals or other additives along with water and sand into a well to free more fossil fuels. One such additive is hydrochloric acid, a highly caustic material, which federal investigators suspect could be corroding the inside of rail tank cars, weakening them.

Oil from fracked wells can also be laced with benzene and other volatile and highly flammable organic compounds.

Enbridge Energy Partners EEP -2.08% LP threatened in May to shut down a North Dakota rail facility operated by the company because there was too much hydrogen sulfide, a potentially deadly and corrosive gas, in the crude being loaded there. The Houston company didn't respond to a request for comment.

So we may have been too quick to criticize Smm's add re H2S problems, above. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The same story is available from marketwatch.com

That true that this source, as also Bloomberg source used in this article, says that hydraulic fracturing may cause impurities in produced crude oil. In this context it names hydrochloric acid which corrode pipes and oil cars. So there is no problem to name hydrochloric acid as chemical which due to hydraulic fracturing may be caused impurities in produced oil (although this is not so much encironmental than safety issue). It is also quite sure that benzene and other flammable substances n oil are most likely introduced during production process. However, hydraulic fracturing is just a part of the production process and it is not clear if it happens due to hydraulic fracturing or due to other production processes which are same for the fractured and conventional wells. So this issue needs clarification. Concerning hydrogen sulfide, these articles do not say that hydrogen sulfide in oil is caused by hydraulic fracturing. The Bloomberg story makes clear distinction talking about investigation on linkage between HF chemicals and corrosion and before talking about hydrogen sulfide uses word "separately". It is not so clear in the WSJ story but also no linkage between HF and hydrogen sulfide was provided. Actually, hydrogen sulfide in oil may be caused by HF. In this archived discussion anon. user provides an interesting theory which is worth to be investigated. Unfortunately, no sources were provided but if we could find reliable sources about this, this is worth to be included. Notwithstanding this, the current hydrogen sulfide subsection is WP:SYNTH and therefore should be removed. As an technical issue, this story from Financial Post is just a re-print of Bloomberg story, so it should be replaced with Bloomberg reference, already in use in this article. Beagel (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. This subsection was removed per above. Beagel (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Drill cuttings

The 'Radioactivity' subsection includes a paragraph which says: "Solid waste such as Drill cuttings can also contain radioactive materials. In 2012 there were 1325 radiation alerts from all sources at dumps in Pennsylvania, up from 423 alerts in 2008. At least 1,000 of the 2012 alerts were set off by waste from gas and oil drilling hydraulic fracturing operations."

Actually, drill cuttings are related to the drilling and not hydraulic fracturing of the well. Also the reference talks about drill cuttings in the context of "all facets of drilling, including ...". It seems to be again confusion of HF with the shale gas drilling as a whole process. Therefore, I propose to remove this paragraph. Beagel (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It belongs in shale gas. Plazak (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Beagel (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Europe has estimated shale gas reserves

This article contains the following sentence: Europe has estimated shale gas reserves of 639 trillion cubic feet (18.1×10^¹² m³) compared with America's 862 trillion cubic feet (24.4×10^¹² m³), but its geology is more complicated and the oil and gas more expensive to extract, with a well likely to cost as much as three-and-a-half times more than one in the United States.

While it is related to the hydraulic fracturing, it is not about hydraulic fracturing but about shale gas, and therefore probably should be moved there. Beagel (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Moved into the Shale gas article. Beagel (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Continued NPOV problems

This article continues to be grossly slanted towards the opinions of those opposed to "fracking". Every conceivable potential problem with fracking is considered in excruciating (and often factually inaccurate) detail, while the benefits of the technique -- more and cheaper fuel, especially clean-burning natural gas -- are skimmed over, and positive discussions disappear over time. In particular, the health benefits of replacing coal with natural gas, especially in countries like China, are obvious, but a section mentioning this has already been deleted. This article is an embarrassment to the Encyclopedia. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with you, changes don't come from "this page sucks" threads. Maybe you could start with suggesting edits? Ckruschke (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Concerning environmental issues, the information was split into separate articles Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. The logic is that this articles here should summarize different impacts as a process, Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing should discuss these impacts in details but without being country-specific and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States should discuss the U.S.-specific environmental issues. Unfortunately this was opposed by one certain editors who have tried to put all negative impacts in this article. As a results, all these three articles create POVFORK mess. Therefore the relevant section in this article should be properly summarized per WP:SS and specific information should be moved into above-mentioned articles, if not already there. After that these articles should be cleaned-up. As there have been extensive WP:SYNTH, all sources should be re-checked. Beagel (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is marked with the POV tag. It would be useful if the issues are specified here at the talk page. Does this tag applies to the whole article or could we move it into some specific sections? Beagel (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Health effects

This entire section needs to be completely rewritten in an encyclopedic style. It is currently just a collection of quotes from various sources generally taken out of context and obviously intended to scare people. I have removed the worst. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fracking Boom Leaves Texans Under a Toxic Cloud

When Lynn Buehring leaves her doctor's office in San Antonio she makes sure her inhaler is on the seat beside her, then steers her red GMC pickup truck southeast on U.S. 181, toward her home on the South Texas prairie. ... Today, however, the ranch-style house she shares with her 66-year-old husband, Shelby, is at the epicenter of one of the nation's biggest and least-publicized oil and gas booms. With more than 50 wells drilled within 2.5 miles of their home, the days when the Buehrings could sit on the deck that Shelby built and lull away an afternoon are long gone. The fumes won't let them.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-20/fracking-boom-leaves-texans-under-a-toxic-cloud.html 86.176.255.225 (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What's being described is a couple with the misfortune of owning a house within a major oil & gas play. The fumes are from industrial operations, and have little or nothing to do with the fracking operations. Not really suitable to use here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

US-centric

An editor added to some sections a notice saying: "Please note that the following applies to the USA. The situation in the UK for instance is completely different as only 'non hazardous' chemicals are permitted by the regulatory authority, the Environment Agency. In the European Union, legislation is developing, these links being relevant. These all require minimum standards that will include baseline studies, declaration of chemicals, and consideration of all environmental effects etc, using the problems that have occurred in the USA as guiding principles of how to mitigate risks." I made this notice to be invisible comment. The reason for this is that as an umbrella article for the hydraulic fracturing articles series, it should summarize the mains aspects and to reflect the global, not country-specific viewpoint. Therefore, the solution should be adding the global view points where necessary or moving country-specific information into country-specific articles, e.g. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Some US-specific information was moved into Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. However, the article still needs some work to represent the global view as an umbrella article for HF. I would also like to ask user:Kennywpara to specify the issues with Fracturing fluids and Health effects sections. Beagel (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Kennywpara here. The issues with toxic frac fluids and health are not relevant in counties where that are not permitted, such as the UK, and it would appear, the whole of the European Union, tho this regulation process is ongoing. Thankyou for adding the 'US specific link!' I added another as well. The European Union issues directives, that mean member countries have to follow this as a minimum standard, or face prosecution. Member countries can then put extra regulation on top of that. In the UK the DECC have stated that only 'non hazardous' chemicals can be used, and this is policed by the Environment Agency. You can see all of the links on Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Regulatory_issues. The chapter after that on chemicals should answer your points about what is permitted in the UK. Its not a final list, but everything has to be declared and non hazardous in its usage. kennywpara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennywpara (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reinserted links to the UK page, and the EU recommendations. Also put the US-centric link on pages that are US centric, such as health. This whole article needs to re direct people to country specific links as so much of this does not relate to countries where many of the problems reported will not occur due to stronger legislation.Kennywpara (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Uranium mining?

In the 2nd paragraph, a Forbes article is cited that hydraulic fracturing is being proposed for uranium mining. But the article itself, aside from the sensationalistic headline, says no such thing. The author does not mention hydraulic fracturing until the 5th paragraph, when he describes the uranium mining as “… a technology that is similar to the hydraulic fracturing,” but without mentioning any fracturing. The process he describes is not hydraulic fracturing at all, but in-situ leaching. Unless someone can come up with a better source, this passage should go. Plazak (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Removed per above. Beagel (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hop Here. In-situ leaching is used to extract uranium, but hydraulic fracturing is used to break up the ore. "UEC has announced that they can produce uranium in the US via a technique that is almost identical to fracking."

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Company-Uses-Fracking-Technique-to-Extract-Uranium.html

Would think hydraulic fracturing is then still a part of uses...no? Sensational titles...."Fracking for Uranium." Hopskins (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note the wording: "almost identical to fracking". The wording in the article text, while literally true, is misleading to casual readers, including, apparently, the headline writers. I'm sorry, but "almost" fracking is not fracking. There is no description, either in the oilprice source or in the previous citation from Forbes, of the rock being fractured during this process. So how can you have hydraulic fracturing without the fracturing? The answer is that you don't. What is being described in both oilprice and Forbes is not hydraulic fracturing at all, but in-situ leaching. Plazak (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

By fracturing the rock it allows ease of access to dissolve minerals in the in-situ leaching process. Does the ambiguity in uranium extraction merit omission? If we can't find reliable information on uranium perhaps including hydraulic fracturing as a use for in-situ leaching? 20:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If the process were indeed fracturing the rock by water pressure, it would certainly be a valuable addition, both here and in In-situ leaching. But I don't see anywhere in either Oilprice or Forbes that says that the rock is being fractured at all. All they say is that the process is "almost identical to fracking" (Oilprice) and "similar to the hydraulic fracturing” (Forbes). The similarity seen by the authors seems to be the injection of water into a geologic formation to recover a resource. But neither source (aside from the headlines, which may have been written by someone else) describes rock being fractured, or comes out and says that hydraulic fracturing itself is being used. Am I missing something? Regards. Plazak (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This sounds more like underground hydraulic mining. No fracturing seems to be taking place. Mikenorton (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it's in-situ leaching, as Plazak noted above. Chemical solution of the ore, as opposed to physical breaking. Hydrofracking is occasionally used in other in-situ leach operations, but I can't recall a uranium ISL mine that needed fracking. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC), an old uranium-mining guy

It certainly has no place in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this as done, though according to the writers for in-situ leaching hydraulic fracturing is used....

 Done. Hopskins (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)