Talk:Fracking in the United Kingdom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Infrastructure Act 2015

Hi Kennywpara, I noticed that you added information on the Infrastructure Act 2015 [1]. You wrote "and changed the definition of hydraulic fracturing' - 'Please can you please explain where it is written that the definition of (high-volume) hydraulic fracturing has been changed, and what it changed from. I also note that the term 'associated hydraulic fracturing' rather than 'hydraulic fracturing' is used throughout that piece of legislation. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC) @Kennywpara: Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC) @Kennywpara: Please will you provide a source for your insertion that states the 'associated hydraulic fracturing' definition has been changed. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, please can you provide a source for your insertion [2] that states that the 'associated hydraulic fracturing' definition, i.e. high-volume hydraulic fracturing, has been changed. The first newspaper article which mentions this doesn't appear until April 2016[3], around a year after your insertion. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, please provide source on this talk page for the above. This is my third request for a source. Luther Blissetts (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, please provide source on this talk page for the above. This is my fourth request for a source. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luther Blissetts (talk I did not respond as I did not see this and was in fact confused as to what you were asking.

As I understand it, previously there was no definition, except that the fracture pressure was exceeded, meaning that rocks would crack. That could be any volume. It never was controversial. The Infrastructure Act defined it as being more that 1000m or 10,000m in total. The original wording was worthy of a change, and I apologise for not picking this up. It appears that the wording has now been defined. This link[[4]] showed that various interpretations were put on this.

I know you think that I am an 'activist' but I did find this legislation to be a bit 'off'. A frack volume of 999m would not be defined as HF. The previous 200 wells mostly would not have been defined as 'fracking', and that could be considered as being deceptive. Having said that from an engineering point of view the HF jobs done in the US have not shown any environmental issues (as recently confirmed by the US EPA) in over 1 million wells. Most of these have used large amounts of water. The small number of pollution issues have all been traced to poor cementation/fluid leaks and poor environmental control etc. There has not been a single case of aquifer pollution due to the fracking process, even when done badly, or at shallow depth. From that point of view I dont understand what all the fuss is about. Kennywpara (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Kennywpara, Thank you for responding. You say you did not see it, but then state that you did not respond because you were confused. Now I am confused! You only had to say that you didn't understand what I was asking you for, and I would have attempted to clarify. Your wording came over as WP:OR WP:SYNTH and I could find no source for it except for one which post-dated your edit. This might explain why another editor tagged that section as OR. The Infrastructure Act 2015 (IA2015) "50: Onshore hydraulic fracturing: safeguards" legislation forms the UK response to the EU's recommendations that "Member States to follow minimum principles when applying or adapting their legislation applicable to hydrocarbons exploration or production using high volume hydraulic fracturing".[5] The definitions by EU are the same. I didn't understand how they could be said to have changed when the EU definition used the same parameters except EU specified this was for high-volume hydraulic fracturing in shale strata. The British definition used the term 'associated hydraulic fracturing' but clearly defines this association is only with shale:

"“Associated hydraulic fracturing” means hydraulic fracturing of shale or strata encased in shale which—

(a)is carried out in connection with the use of the relevant well to search or bore for or get petroleum, and

(b)involves, or is expected to involve, the injection of—

(i)more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage, or expected stage, of the hydraulic fracturing, or

(ii)more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid in total."[6].

It's therefore WP:SYNTH to conclude that the IA2015/EU definitions for shale gas high-volume hydraulic fracturing mean that the 200 onshore wells that have had some form of hydraulic fracturing treatment (of which there are many kinds, for example, nitrogen gas foams)[7] would no longer be classed as having been hydraulically fractured. I don't view this as deception at all. It's not a deception and those 200 onshore hydraulically fracked wells are still classed as having been hydraulically fracked. To the best of my knowledge none were in shale strata and none used high-volume hydraulic fracturing and only one well falls into this IA2015/EU category - Preese Hall 1.

Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Public opinion

I have placed an temporary update notice on this section as it stops at 2014. I have to conduct some research before I am capable of updating this section to reflect the latest opinion surveys. All editors welcome!

Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kennywpara: @Fyldeman: Are the main continuous surveys produced by DECC and University of Nottingham? Are there any others that you feel I should be summarising? Please provide the links here if you know of any that you feel should be included. I'm happy read/summarise to bring this section up to date and appreciate any comments that you have on my efforts.Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@LutherBlissetts: As far as I am aware there are only 2 continuous surveys in the UK for which the results are publicly available. The Wave surveys originally produced by DECC but now produced by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. and the series produced by Nottingham University . Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance Tag

Hello @Plazak: Luther Blissetts @Beagel: @Mikenorton: Could you please justify the reinstalling of the maintainance tag Luther Blissetts I hardly think anyone would want to join in this editing. The updating is being done, so could you please explain your rwasoning. The concerns that you have have been addressed. Again, could I remind you this is not your page, and neither is it mine. It should be a collaborative effort. Thats how Wikipedia works. Kennywpara (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Kennywpara:, On looking back through the talk page archives, I note, with interest, that you have fought every maintenance tag placed on the article, asking for other editors to help. I am not going to restate the reasons for placing maintenance tags inviting other editors to participate. You can read the wikipedia guidelines and these will explain adequately. Please do not remove the template from the article page. I do not consider this article to be my page at all and I would be grateful if you would please cease your near 2-year hostility towards other editors who add maintenance tags to this article in an attempt to improve it. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The requires attention tag states in its documentation "This template should be used when an editor wants help from other editors on certain problems the editor is unsure about." So what are you unsure about? Mikenorton (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mikenorton (talk) Do you mean the maintainance tag on the Main page? I assume so. I also have been questioning why this tag has been there for over 3 months. There has been a little input from other editors, but the bulk of the highlighted issues appears to have been fixed. I never did understand why this was needed in the first place and I know you have had input to this page since 2012, contributing and reverted the occasional bit of vandalism. Perhaps if Luther Blissetts (talk) can explain the areas where he is having difficulty in a polite manner that could be resolved and the tag removed? From the above discussion he/she appears to be the only editor who considers that this maintainance tag should be in place. Interesting that the LB name is so similar to this one used as 'informally adopted and shared by hundreds of artists and activists all over Europe and the Americas since 1994' Kennywpara (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, sorry if that wasn't clear. Mikenorton (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The existence of a maintenance tag spanning a few months is not an unusual sight on Wikipedia. Some have been in existence for years. Discussion about edits are made on this talk page, and queries are made both within the article by way of in-line maintenance tags and on this talk page. The article still needs a lot of work to fix basic citation errors, rewrites in prose style, checking citations reflect content. Please do not remove the tag until the various issues have been addressed. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments by an editor (2)

I am concerned at the editor Kennywpara's suggestion that I have been "banned" by Wikipedia. My editing privileges were temporarily blocked for WP:ORGNAME. To suggest that I have been "banned" is unhelpful to this discussion.

I am also concerned that this editor claims not to "intentionally 'promote' the industry". There is ample documentary evidence suggesting the exact opposite from his social media activity on Twitter, Facebook Pages (Backing Fracking, Blackpool Fracking for a Better Future and Friends of Ryedale Gas Facebook) as well as numerous newspaper comments sections. He publishes regular articles which are clearly pro-fracking advocacy on pro-fracking activist websites. References to the above can be provided but I have refrained from including them here to avoid WP:OUTING.

All of this leads to the inescapable conclusion that this editor is a pro-fracking advocate and thus seems to have fallen foul of WP:ADVOCACY guidelines which suggest that editors should refrain from editing topics that they cannot cover neutrally.

It is beyond any question that this editor does "intentionally 'promote' the industry" yet there is no WP:COI declaration on his page or its associated talk page and neither does he make any WP:COI declaration when editing or commenting on this page, which would appear to be a clear contravention of Wikipedia guidelines.

I would like to suggest that this editor should refrain from further direct editing of articles relating to Hydraulic Fracturing directly but instead, suggests edits on the article's talk page. When he does so he should make sure he clearly discloses his WP:COI. It would be helpful if the WP:COI were clarified on his user page as well.

Please comment below this line rather than in the article. Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fyldeman There is a difference between dubunking false information (which is what I do) and promoting the industry (which I do not do). Many false claims are made and it is important that properly sourced information is put in the public domain. Proper understanding of the processes and the regulations and techniques are key here. My recent comments to LB perhaps have shown that I have included certain negative issues, such as info about the 'independent well surveyor' some time ago.

I saw an statement that your website had been banned. I did not realise that was temporary Kennywpara (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara . I notice that you are commenting again without a WP:COI notice.

I'm afraid that it is beyond any doubt that you do promote the industry regardless of your protestations here to the contrary. Presumably you would not deny that you spoke in favour of Hydraulic Fracturing in the UK at a public debate in Harrogate on October 6th 2016? Presumably you would not deny making statements like "Massive support for safe tax raising local gas over costly imports." referring to UK shale gas on on Twitter? If necessary I can post links to these and many more examples but I am trying to avoid WP:OUTING here.

Can I please ask you to clarify where you "saw an (sic) statement that your website had been banned" as I am not aware that any such statement exists, and my website has nothing to do with this discussion. Had you looked on my talk page, as a responsible contributor should have done prior to making any defamatory comments, you would have seen the reason for the temporary block stated very clearly. It is still there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fyldeman#September_2016 . May I suggest you read it?

Please would you now clarify your WP:COI and ensure that it is referenced where appropriate. Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I recommend to stop commenting other editors and to concentrate on improving the article. Kennywpara made a mistake saying that Fyldeman was banned. In reality it was a soft block because of their previous user name. I understand that Kennywpara apologized for this in his comment and I hope that Fyldeman will accept this, so we can close this issue.

It is not sure if Kennywpara has COI or not according to the current COI policy. Definitely he has a very strong POV, but POV and COI are quite different issues. The potential COI of Kennywpara was raised in the context of this discussion and the understanding of editors was that he does not have COI. On the other hand, I am concerned about potential outing as the comment posted by Fyldeman back in September contains a link which reveals the real life identity of Kennywpara. This is a very serious issue.

The best way to continue would be stopping commenting other editors and to concentrate to the content of the article. Beagel (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel: That was before User:Refracktion commented which shed a whole different light on the matter. Before that point, I had thought him just a WP:SPA. Now I have seen the evidence that he is a highly active activist of some years and admin of a pro-industry group, railing against 'anti-fracking activists' off and on the internet at every opportunity. The BBC summed the anti-pro situation up very well in one of their articles:

"Activists on both sides of the debate gathered outside Bloomfield Road, each side - pro and anti-fracking - trying to make more noise than the other. Chants of "Don't frack Lancashire" came from a crowd made up of local residents and members of environmental organisations, such as Friends of the Earth. A group calling themselves Backing Fracking were among the pro-fracking group, whose members held placards with slogans like "Give shale a chance in Lancs". They told me they "believe Lancashire is for shale and will keep showing that".

His is not just a strong WP:POV, he's been trying to remove certain aspects of the article that he doesn't agree with. He has even tried cunning ways to remove information he doesn't agree with. This won't do. It's time he declared his COI. It's scandalous that he hasn't. His input is welcome of course and should be encouraged as we should encourage all views, but wikipedia is not a WP:SOAP. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel:I would clarify that Kennywpara has made no apology whatsoever. Nor has he explained what I believe to be the clear WP:COI which results from his repeated advocacy. As regards WP:OUTING I assume we are all aware that Kennywpara revealed his real name here himself (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3) so I'm not sure how my comment in September is particularly problematic. I am, however, avoiding revealing the various other social media identities he uses for pro-fracking activism and WP:Advocacy to avoid WP:OUTING . The issue of WP:COI is probably not best resolved by ignoring it. Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel: User:Kennywpara outed himself in August 2016 before User:Refracktion mentioned an event that names him. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@LutherBlissetts:@Fyldeman: Outing is outing. Notwithstanding revealing his name by Kennywpara himself, providing a website with information about an editor which is not mentioned in Wikipedia before is a clear case of outing. I understand that violating of the relevant policy was not intentional; however, it is still a violation of one of the core policies of Wikipedia. As apologies are going both ways, it would be nice if Kennywpara and Fyldeman both of you apology, so we can go forward. I propose one more time to stop accusing each other and to concentrate on improving the article. If anybody believes that there is a COI issue, please bring it up at the relevant discussion board. Beagel (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@LutherBlissetts:@Beagel: I have now removed the link to the event at which Kennywpara presented himself as an advocate for the UK hydraulic fracturing industry at a public event. I do apologise for having referred to something which might confirm the identity which Kennywpara himself previously admitted to. Please note though that apologies are not going both ways as you suggest. I reiterate though that the best way to improve this article is for Kennywpara to admit to and make clear his evident WP:COI. Surely you cannot advocate for this industry every day for years and not have a disclosable WP:COI? That would be too ridiculous. Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel: It isn't a violation if the editor outed themselves previously. It isn't an outing if the editor outed themselves previously. It clearly says: "unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information", "references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing". Additionally, no-one else has mentioned his name. The link to the external could be removed though, (@Fyldeman: [e2a: I see it has been removed now. Thank you] just in case the person who outed themselves removes their self-outing in the future. Can I also bring up the fact that the person who outed themselves in a discussion about their WP:SPA and someone else's undeclared COI, had 'dredged up' a cherry-picked selection (300/23,000 posts) of off-wiki opinions to challenge my edits and infer bad motives, and you didn't speak out that this was a violation of WP:OUT (which it is). It's happened twice now. As much as your kiss-and-make-up suggestion is in keeping with the season of goodwill, this matter would probably be best brought up at WP:COIN because it is interfering with good faith editing on this article and probably putting off other editors. Unless @Kennywpara: prefers to avoid the scrutiny of the COIN crew and declare COI without this process?I find it easier dealing with the alt-right vandalism crew on associated pages than with this particular problem because there are more active and experienced editors involved in keeping some semblance of order. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@LutherBlissetts: COIN was exactly what I proposed: If anybody believes that there is a COI issue, please bring it up at the relevant discussion board. As for outing, posting off-wiki links about another editor is almost always outing, even if they have revealed their real life name. Beagel (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel: I'm a firm believer in not biting the newbie. Perhaps they weren't aware that even after a user outs themselves, that an external link isn't appropriate to include, even if though it provided evidence of the activism/advocacy of @Kennywpara:. I'd like to note for the record that Fyldeman is also an advocate/activist, but this has already been discussed openly on his talk page, and he is following COI protocol. We haven't exhausted all talk page methods yet, and Kennywpara has yet to respond. A declaration of COI is all that's required here, and then we can all (including Kennywpara) move on, and get back to the all important issue of improving this article. I'm itching to get back to editing delights such as reading through two years worth of backdated opinion surveys and summarising them in less than 40 words each so the article can be updated. Happy Chanukah Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luther Blissetts Beagel @Beagel: Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk I responded to a lot of these points first 'inappropriate comments by an editor' section above. Firstly, I am NOT an admin for Facebook Backing Fracking'. I am admin for 'Backing Fracking for a better future' Facebook, whose last post was in September. I have never attended a 'pro fracking' event, (Such as Backing Fracking). I have attended some anti groups, and asked them difficult questions. I did speak against the motion 'This house believes that fracking should be banned' in Harrogate last October. That is not 'promoting' the industry. It was all about debunking false claims. Kennywpara (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

===Updated statement from KW=== Luther Blissetts Beagel @Beagel: Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk I have added this to my status as follows. 'I am involved in the debate about Hydraulic Fracturing, using my engineering experience to ensure scientific accuracy. I am however totally independent from the industry.Kennywpara (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara , Luther Blissetts Beagel

If you are not an Admin for "Backing Fracking" then you should be able to explain why another adminon that page suggested in public that YOU should have been clearer in one of the posts made using the page admin ID? It's in black and white. The post in question was made on 16 December at 17:20 and the response I reference was made 16 December at 17:48. It clearly indicates that in fact you ARE an admin on that page.

Be that as it may, your admission that you are an admin on "Backing Fracking for a Better Future" page is also interesting in this context given the aggressive and ad hominem attacks that characterise a lot of its contents and your postings thereon. You have also more privately attacked experts who oppose fracking. As an example here I would cite your totally unsuccessful attempts to get the IET to sanction Mike Hill, an anti-fracker to whom your social media output would suggest you appear to bear a particular personal animosity.

Again I would clarify that the debate you spoke at, and where you promoted the case pro the industry at some length was on the proposition that "This House Calls for an Immediate End to Fracking in the UK"

Given all of the above your proposed WP:COI declaration seems rather inadequate, and I would invite you to reconsider it. Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments by an editor

I am concerned that editor Luther Blissetts continues to post unhelpful comments. In a recent talk page comment he describes me as an activist/pro-fracking campaigner [[8]]. Presumably he followed a comment from Fyldeman, aka Refracktion. [[9]]. This user has been banned BTW. Also Gosh, what to say to a known, long-time activist using wikipedia as his own personal blog [[10]] In fact all I have ever done is to question the false information a pseudoscience that surrounds this topic. I do not intentionally 'promote' the industry, I debunk false claims as any good Wiki editor should do. This page should be a beacon of science, using well referenced material from reliable sources, such as the Royal Society and other engineering/geological/drilling resources. In all cases where I have taken on organisations for their scaremongering, they have withdrawn, as they were unable to sustain their science. Friends of the Earth are currently trying to justify their 'science' to the Advertising Standards Authority after a complaint from me. This is ongoing [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34570974] The same with Breast Cancer UK. That does not present an issue of conflict of interest. My only interest in this is to have proper, balanced science presented to he public. Hence my concerns when false information is presented to the public, especially by supposedly reputable NGOs. The lack of reliable information was one of my major incentives to improve the rather thin HF in the UK page that existed some years ago. I looked at the Wiki pages for many other contentious subjects. GMOs, Vaccines, and Homeopathy. In all cases the Wikipedia pages reflect science, from suitably qualified or informed editors. Pseudoscience is filtered out. This of course requires judgement from editors. Regarding fracking, apart from misinformation from green NGOs there are a mass of reports from the US relating to health impacts/water contamination/air pollution and so on, some financed by anti fossil fuel organisations, and these fuel reports such as the Chemtrust and Medact reports. These should not be presented as suitable sources of criticism as when looked at, they fail to provide credible information. That is why Public Health England reject these as as valid science. Both of these reports cite chemicals that are not permitted in the UK, and pollution methods that are not permitted in the UK, so they should not appear. That is why I moved the Chemtrust comments from 'Regulation' to 'Political Issues'. Really it has no place in this page at all. It is also why I am flagging up this issue. Luther Blissetts has made several inappropriate comments, and appears at times to be trying to force his viewpoint. He clearly is a skilled editor, but the key point in Wikipedia is the content. The fact that I saw his Twitter feed @(((LutherBlissetts))) and realised his views appeared to have been swayed by pseudocience rang alarm bells. He has now deleted all his 'anti' tweets and retweets, which is interesting. I do have a screenshot of him promoting a boycott of Barclays from 22nd of September however (not a retweet). That has been a typical 'anti' campaign as Barclays fund one of the drilling companies.....

Perhaps the insistence on having the whole page on a maintenance tag is also part of a campaign? That is not an accusation. It is a genuine question. Was the page 6 months ago really that bad? My 'hostility towards maintenance tags' is perhaps because I would prefer a problem to be fixed, rather than flagged up, in some cases to a ridiculous degree. Many of the changes have been positive, some of the links had expired so a relook was possibly overdue. Was it worth so much adrenaline though? The bulk of the content is largely unchanged. Comments from other editors welcome Beagel (talk) Plazak (talk) Mikenorton (talk) Please comment below this line rather than in the article. Kennywpara (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Kennywpara, Two things.

• 1) Upon checking, the wikipedia editor and anti-fracking activist User:Refracktion has not been banned. They were soft blocked pending making a new account or a name change.
• 2) You can't see because I blocked you after you first mentioned it on this talk page (and against wikipedia policy). My activism relates to opposing the extreme right and issues surrounding: racism; religious intolerance, and; racial conspiracy theories, with a searchable internet trail of over a hundred thousand entries stretching back at least 11 years. One swallow does not a summer make, and 300 or so out of 23,000 does not constitute 'antifracking activism'.

To summarise, it seems you are in denial about being an activist/advocate. I do think, as a WP:SPA you try to aim for the best as single-issue editor, but you have a strong WP:POV and your off-wiki activism/advocacy (mentioned in the press and elsewhere) seems to be an undeniable reality. Surely you should come clean and state this on your user page instead of flinging facile accusations, when it's you who is clearly the dedicated activist. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luther Blissetts I was going to get on with other things over the holiday but see there is much activity so will respond. I think I explained this above. I do not promote the fossil fuel industry, I debunk false claims. This was well reported in this link. [[11]] Many government ministers, expert engineering and geological institutions state that fracking is low risk if its done properly, and talk about false science. The Govts Chief Scientist has posted on this [[12]] On the other side of the fence, we have anti groups, and green NGOs making claims that are not supported by science. These include that ideas that water will be contaminated, health will be affected and the like. I post frequently on Twitter, and Facebook and you might see that I debunk false information. If people claim that 'toxic chemicals will be used' for instance, there is ample evidence that this is a false claim. I recently gave a talk in Harrogate with the subject of 'Should Fracking be banned'. I specifically asked for that as the debate was then about the technical reasons for a ban, NOT should it go ahead.

I can see that this could be interpreted as 'activism'. I personally feel it is activism for the truth, something that any Wiki editor should aspire to. My aim has always been to present the whole story, warts and all. There are not many warts, as these things have been looked at by experts, BUT they do exist.

In recent edits you may note that the issue of the independence of the well surveyor is something that I documented, and even presented you with further information. There is also the inappropriately planned well in 'Well Leak concerns', which as an engineer I thought was very poor practice.

I would happily make a COI statement that I 'question and examine scientific claims, with regard to the fossil fuel industry', but I do not promote it.

Hi KennyWpara . You seem to making a good job of continually outing yourself now, but I will continue to avoid WP:OUTING you again myself. Surely you can see that the argument "I debunked what I believe to be a false claim and therefore I am not an activist" is a non sequitur? The link you posted to Prof Loughhead's article doesn't talk about "false science" (as you claim) or indeed mention the word "science" at all.

Whilst you deride the claims made by those opposing shale gas extraction (which are supported by a number of peer reviewed studies as can be seen amongst the papers, articles and journals referenced in the Compendium complied by the group Concerned Health Professionals of New York (), you omit to mention some of the tendentious claims you make yourself (HCl is not toxic. Frac sand is identical to the sand found on a beach. The EA will not permit disposal of waste fluid by re-injection etc). However this is not the place to argue points. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battleground. We are merely trying to establish whether you are prepared to admit your activism and add a suitable notice when you post to make your parti-pris position clear (or better, as I have done here, limit yourself to making suggestions on this Talk page as per Wiki guidelines).

The debate at which you spoke to promote fracking in Harrogate was actually on the proposition that "This House Calls for an Immediate End to Fracking in the UK". The word ban was not in the proposal as you suggest. A minor point perhaps but accuracy is important both here and in the article we are discussing the editing of.

You are correct that your daily promotion of the fracking industry can (and should) be correctly interpreted as "activism". I imagine every activist believes theirs is "activism for truth", but I would point you towards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advocacy and suggest that you read the Defences section carefully. To be fair to you your input to this article is less "activist" than your normal output on Social Media, but I do believe it is important that readers and other editors are aware of the heavily pro-fracking bias which is evident in your other output when considering your contributions to what needs to be a neutral article here.

I am afraid that your proposed WP:COI statement above is not an accurate reflection of your position as you very clearly do promote the fracking industry outside of Wikipedia. Although we are obviously making progress here, as you have admitted that WP:COI is applicable. This is a good thing but I would invite you to reconsider your statement and perhaps take note of the guidelines on COI editing. Happy Christmas.Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You may not be a massive activist LB, but you did post a tweet encouraging people to move assets from Barclays because of fracking and Third Energy!! All your other tweets were deleted. Perhaps that also should be declared? I have also noticed that you appear to want to cherry pick statements, which appear to present fracking as somehow risky. I see you have yet to modify the 'regulation' chapter as I suggested. Presenting the 2014 EU 'call for legislation' as 'criticism' is POV editing. In the same way, presenting the Chemtust report (2014) as a 'criticism' for regulations that were not even published until Aug 2016 (!!) is also inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Perhaps yopu could deal with those issues? With regard to User:Refracktion being banned, I saw a link that this was the case but would apologise for the inaccuracy if that has now changed. At the time I saw it, it was the case. He has engaged in a lot of personal attack against me, including publishing my home address. Probably because I shot down the leaflet that his organisation was using to scare the local population! One of my strengths is that I am totally independent, and have industry knowledge. I have no interest in promoting anything, as I am lucky enough to be financially independent. I hope this explains my position. Kennywpara (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi KennyWpara Luther Blissetts

Again I have to politely request that you should desist from making defamtory statements about another editor. This is not appropriate. You cannot have seen a reference to my being banned as that was never the case, so it can't have changed. I have indeed referenced the home address you published yourself on the internet in your activism relating to paragliding (on the page where you asked people to contact those you opposed where you provided their home addresses, email addresses and phone numbers). However, you have never (as you untruthfully claim here) ever "shot down a leaflet" that I have been involved with. Your apology for that further defamatory suggestion will be accepted if presented in due form. Can I please ask that you cease from inventing things that then require me to respond as this must be very tedious for other editors and is not relevant to the issues of your WP:ADVOCACY and/or the issue of your WP:COI Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kennywpara:

• You can't see my tweets because I blocked YOU after YOU invited other Wikipedia editors to look at my twitter account. I haven't deleted them.
• If you have proof of of me presenting fracking as risky in Wikipedia, then show it, otherwise it's just another example of where your Backing Fracking in Blackpool for a better future activism spills into the editing process here on wikipedia.
• I haven't presented 2014 EU as criticism. It's in a section named Legislation. As such, there's nothing to deal with and I refer you to my earlier extensive comments, now archived.
• I haven't presented Chemtrust as criticism for unpublished regulations. I've never even described it as such. It existed as an entry in this article before I began editing this article. I added a couple of newspaper report citations about Chemtrust and the industry group's response to improve the entry. A quick search shows this report has been mentioned frequently at high-level planning and legislative levels. It was a newsworthy/notable inclusion. The only issue is to ensure its entry and that of the responding lobbyist/PR industry group is mentioned in a NPOV without giving undue weight to either. I'm aware that I'm repeating what has been said before and is now archived (archives 2/3). As such, there's nothing to deal with. I'm now concerned that you're gearing up for another of your move/deleteALL tricks like you did when you removed every mention of the deformation of the wellbore in the production zone that you said was 'irrelevant' despite it having been mentioned as notable in the news and in academic papers.

Talking of deletion, how many times did you delete the Chemtrust inclusion instead of aiming for balance between two groups who lobby for (or against) legally binding regulations?

This is an encyclopaedia. You don't delete things because you disagree with them due to your personal activism.

I will address your suggestions re. Regulation section in due course, in my own time.

Please will you now stop accusing me of things I haven't done? (see Archives 2/3).

Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Environmental impacts

The Environmental impacts (EI) of hydraulic fracturing sections needs to include the EI for both low and high volume fracturing in both conventional and unconventional wells. As the EI currently stands, it does not yet achieve this. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)47

Moving information from HF in the UK to Shale gas in the UK to avoid WP:POVFORK other policy violations

I have begun moving information from Environmental impacts (EI) that ought to be included in Shale gas in the UK/Environmental to avoid WP:POVFORK. Information about the potential EI of exploration and production of shale gas in the United Kingdom belongs in the article about shale gas in the United Kingdom. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)47

Sorry to say that without editing down first (e.g. well concerns/leaks), the moved information just doesn't sit well within the article. Perhaps best to edit first, then move? Suggestions welcome! It's going to be a slow process anyway.Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I moved Land usage to Shale gas in the United Kingdom. I placed a note within to say it had been moved from Hf in the UK. I then removed entirely the information on the Jonah gas field, which neither belonged in a HF in the UK article or a SG in the UK article and already has a substantial/good quality article on WP.Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've flagging a statement in the House prices TALK (below) for removal to the SG in the US article.Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The Fracking Debate

Hi Kennywpara, The link you provided does not support its ambiguous claim :

"This term is commonly used to mean any form of hydrocarbon extraction, "

Commonly used by whom? The press? Activists from both sides? I see no evidence of either in the article you provided. Please provide a citation that supports the statement, else this statement will have to be deleted. I will inline tag {by whom} for now, but if you can't support your edit then the statement ought to be deleted. Please refer to WP:AWW Luther Blissetts 11:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luther Blissetts It is commonly used. The article does clearly state that. The rock is naturally fractured so 'fracking' is unnecessary and possibly not even possible. However, changing the wording to 'is sometimes' is surely accurate. Kennywpara (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kennywpara:, The article does not clearly state that at all. There is no analysis in the article that shows how 'fracking' is 'commonly used' as an umbrella term for hydrocarbon extraction. That might be your opinion, but your opinion is not supported by the source. Changing the wording to 'sometimes' is still WP:AWW. The analysis is yours. Either provide supportive citation or the sentence will be deleted. Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kennywpara:, @LutherBlissetts: Surely the fact that a newspaper headline used a term incorrectly does not either substantiate or justify a suggestion on a Wikipedia page that said term something is "commonly", or even "sometimes" used in that way? The phrase "This term is commonly used to mean any form of hydrocarbon extraction" seems irrelevant and misleading and would be best deleted to avoid confusion. Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Kennywpara: and @Fyldeman: As part of my 'improve don't remove' philosophy (not policy as far as I'm aware) and my habit of tagging for {citation needed} where an unsourced statement occurs as a courtesy to the original editor, I have instead altered the statement to: "Hydraulic fracturing, "or ‘fracking’ as it has become commonly known, is a big issue for local authorities and communities across the country." and the reference I provided supports this statement. I read and re-read the previous source provided and nowhere did it support the statement.

I still need RS citation for the climate change debate. A better image would be a good idea - ideally one without a peculiar POV caption added. Removing the text which points to the image would also be a good idea. No need to say the same thing twice. I have also added a paragraph for balance and included RS for pro-fracking campaigners and their beliefs/aims/hopes. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Kennywpara:, on your sockpuppet page F.Nonsense, you wrote:

"As a matter of information, the protesting at Balcombe AND Horse Hill was referenced as 'fracking protest' at wells where fracking was not proposed. How accurate is it to present the picture as a 'fracking protest' when that is not being proposed? Is that not a matter of curiosity? It was for me, and that is why i started looking into these matters. Compared to some of the other re edits, this is minor issue however."

Could you please explain why the image from Balcombe in the section 'The fracking debate' should be something you found curious (a protest that was as a site having nothing to do with fracking) without first finding a reliable source to support that? Further down in that section, it states:

Industry assurances about its forthcoming plans were tarnished in January 2012, though, when Cuadrilla Resources came under fire for its categorical denials of plans of hydraulic fracturing near Balcombe after documents from parent company AJ Lucas materialised appearing to indicate the complete opposite.[150]

That website you introduced to this talk page recently (http://drillordrop.com) says: "Cuadrilla planned to frack in the Balcombe area"[13]. Surely that solves why there were anti-fracking protests? As for the Gatwick Gusher/Horse Hill antifracking protests, didn't you yourself post a statement about the Gatwick Gusher to this article about Hydraulic Fracturing which I then removed as not being pertinent to hydraulic fracturing since the link stated categorically that the operator they had no plans to use hydraulic fracturing. A common theme throughout your posts is that this article should inform the public (I disagree strongly - it should be encyclopaedic and on topic!). Posting information which doesn't belong in this article can only contribute to confusion. Unless a reliable source discusses this crossover between HVHF anti-fracking/anti-shale gas extraction, anti-UFF, and the wider campaigns against fossil fuels, it can't be used.Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi@Fyldeman: and @Kennywpara:, I've tried for a compromise - and included a sentence that is related to hydraulic fracturing, AND has the word 'commonly' in it, AD relates to the section 'fracking debate', AND can be reliably sourced (RS), rather than deletion. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

House prices

This statement:

The possible effect of house prices due to hydraulic fracturing is a highly emotive one due to large amount of capital invested by the owners.

Is OR unless a suitable RS can be found. If it cannot, it will be deleted.

It previous used the term fracking (diffs); and was originally inserted by @Kennywpara: , so I would appreciate a comment and some effort from this editor to now provide a citation as they had previously removed a request for citation (diffs} without providing a citation. It had previously been edited by an IP (diffs) which refers to a (January 2015 conversation 'The Fracking Debate') with @Martin Hogbin:. The same IP also removed (Howarth 2011) which probably ought to have been moved to SG in the UK/Climate change rather than deleted (WP:TRUTH). It seems that Kennywpara has contributed to this section extensively (diffs) and originally added it (diffs).

This statement:

In certain areas of the US house prices have reduced in areas where hydraulic fracturing is taking place, and whether this will affect the market in the UK remains to be seen. The effect was mainly reported to be with houses that used well water, whereas houses that had piped water saw a slight increase.

Why is this in an article about hydraulic fracturing? It belongs in a US shale gas article. Report mentions shale gas development not hydraulic fracturing. It is OR to comment on whether this will affect UK market without a RS to back this up. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luther Blissetts (talk) I agree with much of the above. First statement remove as it is not needed. The DEFRA report needs to be in there (I put it there originally, as it is relevant, but it needs the cover letter. It was not a great piece of work, as the cover letter shows).

The US source DOES contain the statement 'Results indicate large negative impacts on nearby groundwater-dependent homes, while piped-water-dependent homes exhibit smaller positive impacts, suggesting benefits from lease payments.' and so my edit was accurate. However the relevance in UK homes could be questionable, especially as 99% of UK homes get EU standard water from utilities companies. That is why it is curious to me why so many people go on about water. To me it does seem relevant, the DEFRA redacted report above does refer to US experience after all. Often the US experience is the main source of information. ALL shale gas development involves HF. Not all HF is shale gas.

There has been a house price study in Lancashire, at [14] This was sponsored by the North West Task Force, (ie industry sonsored) but JLL are a world wide professional house price analysis company. There is also a working paper from Bristol Uni that has yet to published. It did receive much publicity, but there is much in the small print that means many of the publicised headlines are conjecture. In addition, the 'differences in differences' approach has little relevance when there is only a single data point (The PH1 well) As a working paper it has no place in Wiki until it it published. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/policybristol/news/2016/fracking-house-prices.html

The Advertising Standards Authority will shortly be publishing the fact that Friends of the Earth have been unable to sustain the claim that fracking will result in 'plummeting house prices' among other things and FOE will be restricted from making that claim again in advertising. This would normally be confidential, but the story was leaked. [15] This is all I have time for at the moment. I will look through other edits later. I see the regulation section is looking better, however there still needs to be more comment on the fact that the 'criticism' predates the current regulation. Kennywpara (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Public health

This:

The content of the Medact Report 2015 and other US origin studies that have been publicised in the UK were commented on by Public Health England, in the planning document from Lancashire County Council Planning Department report. This was published to advise Councillors about upcoming fracking decisions. The quality of the research that underpinned the Medact Report 2015 was called into question. PHE reviewed some US health studies and pointed to many flaws in the quoted research, from pages 307 to 313.

Has been changed to this:

The content of the Medact Report 2015 was referred to by many objectors in the June 2015 Public reports pack for the Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee. Lancashire County Council were uncertain how much weight to attach to the Medact report due to "questions from some quarters" about the objectivity of the report based on association of two its contributors with campaigns relating to shale gas.

Medact:The original statement failed verification after I checked the "Public reports pack 23 June 2015" document. I have included the only comments made on the Medact report by the council. PHE:There were no comments from PHE about the Medact report anywhere in this document. The statement about PHE 2014 reviewing US health studies has been removed and may need to be included in a similar way to summarise the PHE quote at the beginning of this section (which I haven't done yet). I haven't found a RS secondary or tertiary that discusses this primary 'Public reports pack'. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Regulation

I'm rewriting this section. Just this once, to be utterly transparent in my edit methodology, I'm going to place the existing edit alongside the proposed edit in columns beneath this text. Feel free to comment, but please bear in mind that I've not finished yet, and I'm using my preferred method of editing in word first.Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC) So far, this represents around 3 hours work, most of which was checking sources and deciding what doesn't belong in this section, before reorganising condensing and rewording (and it's still not finished). Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC) It's still not finished. Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Regulation

In 2012, the Government commissioned a report to identify the problems and advise regulatory agencies. Jointly published by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, under the chairmanship of Professor Robert Mair,  Done the report included recommendations on groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakage, water usage and disposal, management of environmental risk, implementation of best practice, and various management and regulatory issues.  Not done According to Professor Mair,"well integrity is of key importance but the most common areas of concern, such as the causation of earthquakes with any significant impact or fractures reaching and contaminating drinking water, were very low risk"  Not done but the report stated adequate regulations must be put in place. Done The RAE report stated, "Many claims of contaminated water wells due to shale gas extraction have been made. None has shown evidence of chemicals found in hydraulic fracturing fluids". Not done This report lead to a Government paper that outlined the requirements of the regulatory framework.  Done

Guidance for operators to obtain licences for various aspects of drilling was published in August 2016  Done

There are separate regulatory authorities in Scotland, Wales  Done and Ireland  Not done

There are a variety of Government Agencies involved in regulation.  Done Between 2008 and 2016, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), was one of the key Departments to grant permission. This department was abolished in July 2016, and the responsibilities have been absorbed by the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy.  Not done

It is required that chemicals used must be available for public examination "Chemicals used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing fluids are assessed for hazards on a case-by-case basis for each well by the appropriate environmental regulator (EA, NRW or SEPA). Operators must declare the full details of the chemicals to the regulator and will publish a brief description of the chemical’s purpose and any hazards it may pose to the environment".  Not done

Another regulator on the engineering issues is the Health and Safety Executive. Examination of a brief of their regulations show that well design must be approved by the HSE and then sent to an independent Well Examiner.  Done Under current regulation, the 'independent' Well Examiner can be an employee of the operating company, as identified in the RAE report. Done: mentioned in Criticism because it is a criticism by RS/RAE

In the event of a poor cementation remediation must involve expert opinion of the Well Examiner. Poor cementation has been identified in the RAE report as one of the main pollution paths and sources of surface gas leaks in the US. Not done

The British Geological Survey (BGS) are involved with monitoring potential environmental hazards. Not done

Local Councils also have some regulatory powers, with regard to planning permission.  Done These are generally limited to concerns such as traffic and noise. These can be overturned on appeal.  Not done

The Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) will determine if an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is required. This would be funded by the operating company.  Done

The regulatory process has been set out in publications and guidelines on techniques and practices from the industry body, UKOOG. There are also requirements for community engagement. The industry currently has to comply with 17 European Directives, has to apply for up to nine separate environmental permits and has to reach binding agreements on noise, hours of operation and other local social issues. In compliance with the industry’s engagement charter, each operator engages with the public at six points during the pre-consultation, planning and permitting stag.  Not done

In January 2014, an impact assessment by the European Commission concluded that existing legal and regulatory environments were insufficient, and recommended a new directive with specific requirements for high volume hydraulic fracturing to address: "environmental risks and impacts"; allay "public concerns", and; "enable investments".  Done

The regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the UK has been criticised by the chemicals policy charity CHEM Trust, who argue that it is not sufficiently protective. They also raise concerns about reducing resources for the regulators of hydraulic fracturing, like the Environment Agency. The United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (OKOOG) trade association challenged the CHEM Trust analysis, and CHEM Trust then responded to the issues raised by UKOOG.  Done

Differences between the US and UK

 Not done

Natural gas price comparison, UK, US and Japan

 Not done

In the United States, regulation of oil and gas drilling and production is largely left to the states, and differs from state to state. In 2005 in the US Congress, at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton, exempted hydraulic fracturing from the underground injection regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This meant that any chemical, including toxic and carcinogenic materials were permitted, and public disclosure of these was not required.

There are also differences in fluid security that mean that open fluid storage is not permitted in the EU or the UK. Venting of unburnt gases is also not permitted, except in an emergency.

Paying for regulation

The costs of inspections by the Environment Agency, and the HSE can be reclaimed from operators by those agencies.  Done

The HSE and EA have an agreement concerning the inspection of critical processes.  Done

The Infrastructure Act 2015

In February, the Infrastructure Act 2015 received royal assent. The bill covered many aspects of hydraulic fracturing, and permits hydraulic fracturing under homes, without consent. The legislation is limited to the petroleum and geothermal industries.  Done

This also included clauses on maximizing economic recovery of UK petroleum  Not done on meeting climate change requirements Not done and changed  Not donethe definition of hydraulic fracturing to more than 1000m of fluid per stage ot more than 10,000m in total. Done In addition conditions were attached that mean no hydraulic fracturing can take place at a depth shallower than 1000m, Done and that soil and air monitoring must be put in place. Done 'The associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within protected groundwater source areas' Done statement does not define the category of groundwater protection zone. Not done

Regulation

See also: Regulation of hydraulic fracturing

In 2012, a joint report by the Royal Society and Royal Association of Engineers (RS/RAE), commissioned by the government to identify the problems and advise regulatory agencies, emphasised that regulation "must be fit for purpose" with a focus on maintaining "regulatory co-ordination and capacity" and "the way in which risks scale up should a future shale gas industry develop nationwide." The government responded with a paper that outlined the requirements of the regulatory framework. In August 2016, the Environment Agency followed up their 2013 draft consultation with their final version on guidance for "flow testing and well stimulation, including hydraulic fracturing" for onshore operators in England.

Several government departments and agencies are involved in the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Before onshore hydraulic fracturing can begin, an operator will have obtained a landward licence, known as a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL), from the UK's Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). A series of steps are then taken to obtain permissions from the landowner and council planning authorities. The operator then requests a permit from the [Minerals Planning Authority] (MPA), who determine if an environmental impact assessment (EIA), funded by the operator, is required. Up to nine applications, constituting the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) 2010 are also obtained from the appropriate environmental agency, to ensure that onshore hydraulic fracturing operators fulfil strict environmental regulations. These environmental agencies are: the Environment Agency for England; National Resources for Wales; the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) for Scotland, and; the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) for Northern Ireland. The role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is to focus on the design and integrity of the well, using an independent expert known as the 'well examiner'. The EA and HSE together will "inspect the next series of hydraulic fracturing operations in England and Wales." Finally, any development using hydraulic fracturing is required to "submit a Hydraulic Fracturing Plan to the OGA, and comply with requirements to mitigate any seismic risks."

Legislation

In January 2014, an impact assessment by the European Commission concluded that existing legal and regulatory environments were insufficient, and recommended a new directive with specific requirements for high volume hydraulic fracturing to address: "environmental risks and impacts"; allay "public concerns", and; "enable investments".

<---to help inlcusion below---> }the definition of hydraulic fracturing to more than 1000m of fluid per stage ot more than 10,000m in total. Done In addition conditions were attached that mean no hydraulic fracturing can take place at a depth shallower than 1000m, Done and that soil and air monitoring must be put in place. Done 'The associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within protected groundwater source areas' Done <---END--->

The Infrastructure Act 2015 Section 50 is a legislative bill covering aspects of "associated hydraulic fracturing" (unconventional means) for extracting onshore shale/tight oil and shale gas. The act defined "associated hydraulic fracturing", also known as "high-volume hydraulic fracturing" as "more than 1000m₃ of fluid per stage, and; more than 10,000m₃ in total". Other legal requirements include a range of conditions that operators must comply with: "environmental impacts of development"; 12 months of groundwater methane level monitoring prior to "associated" (high-volume) hydraulic fracturing; "community benefits" and "prohibiting hydraulic fracturing in protected areas" before the Secretary of State can give consent to hydraulic fracturing and geothermal industries.

Criticism

The RS/RAE report was critical of current regulation which failed to ensure independence of the well examiner scheme by ensuring that the well examiner was independent of the operating company. The government responded: "there are a few well operators who wish to use in-house examiners, and that option is legally open to them if they can fulfil the DCR (Design and Construction Regulations) requirements of an appropriate level of impartiality and independence from any aspects of the well design/construction/operation."(paraphrase this instead of using quote)

In June 2015, the UK regulations for hydraulic fracturing were criticised by the chemicals policy charity, CHEM Trust, who argued they were not sufficiently protective, and raised concerns about the reductions in funding for the regulators of fracking, like the Environment Agency. The UK onshore oil and gas industry association, UKOOG, challenged the CHEM Trust analysis, and CHEM Trust responded.

Editor notes

• Suggest a new section within this article where all UK-US differences can be summarised, rather than current sporadic mention across some sections.
• Reworded RS/RAE report to only mention regulation; Detail as per original belongs elsewhere e.g. in Environmental impact/subsections
• !Don't forget to summarise in one sentence only re. cost recovery from operator and include in 'regulation!
• Suggest a section for Hydraulic fracturing in the UKOOG article. Easier to direct reader there if they want to read what UKOOG has to say about it.
• Move 'chemicals' discussussion to Env impact.
• Remove BGS mention. BGS are only involved when any new borehole or existing well is more than 30.5 meters, operator to retain all cores for 6 months and allow access, so it's not about HVHF, but about boreholes/wells
• Anything else I've forgotten after checking content by strikethrough to see what remains.

References

KW response

My comments. I am afraid your proposal is WP:POV Luther Blissetts I see little logic or reasoning for the proposed changes, and I see much inaccuracy and inappropriate evidence.

How peculiar, User:Kennywpara, that you can see WP:POV, "inaccuracy and inappropriate evidence" from a simple rewrite that uses the same information as the original. Are you claiming the same WP:POV, "inaccuracy and inappropriate evidence" existed in the original? I provide clear reasoning why information was not included in the rewrite. Just take a look at the diffs[16], and the reason appears next to every 'Not done' sign. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The original section contains a logical progression. RAE commissioned by Govt---Recommendations made---Key points noted (tho there could be some reduction here)---EA consultion about regulation started---Final regulations published by EA within the last month

I dont have much issue with the first section Regulation, though I fail to see the reason for a change to that. What is there already covers that. I have problems with the fact that little prominence is given to the key points in the EA Guidance doc published less than a month ago. In 'legislation' it should be mentioned. Strictly the EA Guidance is not legislation. In that case the title needs a change. 'What the EA require' would help, with a separate section on legislation. Why is a dated Jan 2014 comment from the EU saying regulations need to be looked at of any relevance when these regulations have just been issued, after extensive public consultation? That should be the main thrust of this section. The Chemtrust report also fails to understand how regulation works. 'Guidance' is issued as a way seeing what will or will not be acceptable, to obtain a licence. Failure to either follow guidance or or propose an acceptable method means that a licence will not be issued. Use of 'Best Available Technique' IS a legal requirement BTW. Perhaps I have problems with the prominence given to the Chemtrust report in this. Reading comments about 'Hazardous chemicals' immediately should ring alarm bells. They are not permitted as can be seen in the [Chemicals'] There is no need for opinion on that, it is simply the law (EU and UK) and as such it is not a POV. The Chemtrust report also fails to understand how regulation works. 'Guidance' is issued as a way seeing what will or will not be acceptable, to obtain a licence. Chemtrust seem to think its not legally enforceable. Failure to either follow guidance or or propose an acceptable method means that a licence will not be issued. Thats why it received such a pounding from UKOOG. Its an advocacy piece, and fails to take account of EU and UK law. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Chemtrust seem to think its not legally enforceable. Its as if they havent bothered to check these basic things.

I have little problem with the Chemtrust/UKOOG rebuttal/Chemtrust response being there, just NOT in a chapter about regulation. Why is there such a long section on 'criticism'? especially as its based on a dated and now irrelevant report from the EU. There is already a comment on the RAE requirement for a so called 'independent' well surveyor in the original writing. There is a problem here and this was noted by the the House of Lords in 2013. As a WP:NPOV editor I gave it due prominence. This is open to abuse and thats why I highlighted it. Please do not change this Luther Blissetts unless you get some consensus. To me you appear to be presenting some anti frack lines, that do not hold water when examined by scientists, or regulators. When I write or comment what I do is give links to proper information. Its all I have ever done. Kennywpara (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, 'presenting anti frack lines' 'motive' 'no place' 'POV' accusations. Again, you use insults, accusations, but provide no evidence for your claims. You are definitely and verifiably an WP:Activist. I am editing this article. I don't take your motive accusations seriously, as you've accused Beagle of the same several times already. You are (I now know for certain) an activist]] who might, as I originally suggested (when I didn't know you were an activist with respect to your accusations of COI in the Chemtrust removal thread), benefit from re-reading and taking the positives from WP:SPA. Other than taking those positives on board and making them work for the good of this article, I can't think of any more suggestions other than most of your problems would probably be solved by getting yourself a blog where you can disabuse the public all you like of the confusion you perceive them to have, a 'confusion' that you presumably discovered during the course of your advocacy/activism across social media. Why are we even going over the ChemTrust and UKOOG inclusions yet again? You even accused me of making an edit in 2015, which you announced you had reverted. From now on, I think it's best that I don't respond to your accusations of POV, insinuations of bad motive, lack of civility, and hostility towards ordinary attempts to rewrite the article in prose rather than present a series of statements where often the reader would have to click on the link to discover what was being talked about. It would be more constructive if you could find the where-with-all to make positive suggestions about edits, without the resort to aggressive accusations of bad faith. Perhaps you would benefit from attempts to edit an unrelated wikipedia article or three, so you can get a feel for life as an editor outside of this article. If you continue in the same vein, you leave me no choice but to request uninvolved editor/admin intervention. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear about how EA regulation works, they state at the start of the Guidance document above " This guidance will help you understand how the existing legislation within our remit applies to oil and gas activities and what you need to do to comply. It explains the permits you will need and, where relevant, the Best

Available Techniques (BAT) that you should use to meet regulatory requirements".

So thats clear, no compliance=no licence= no drilling Kennywpara (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The HSE policy Luther Blissetts on Independent Well Surveyor is here. There is also a statement that they have enough staff to cover now but may need to reassess if production starts. Kennywpara (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have now added the rewrite of the Regulation section as above to the article. The section on US/UK differences has been removed and instead I have inserted links to the relevant articles on Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing and Hydraulic Fracturing in the US/Regulation, both of which are well maintained. As discussed above, anything not pertinent to regulation has been removed. The resulting prose is presented in roughly the same order as before. Two new subsections within regulation deal with: legislation ( EU legislation and related Infrastructure Act 2015), and criticism (of regulation). I disagree strongly with User:Kennywpara that criticism of regulation belongs in political issues. In my opinion, criticism of regulation belongs in a subsection of Regulation labelled Criticism. Other Wikipedia articles present criticism in this manner, within the relevant section as a subsection. The aim of this edit was to make this section read easier to a non-technical person, and remove information such as the image, which quickly becomes outdated. Any reasons for inclusion or non-inclusion can be easily viewed by clicking on the diffs link above.Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luther Blissetts (talk Having seen the finished product there appear to be some inconsistencies, that I would hope you will address. I will not be editing until after Xmas.

Hi User:Kennywpara, I am only too happy to address your concerns regarding perceived inconsistencies. I will be refining this edit and making new ones over the holidays. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally I think this looks better, however my concerns are

• The European Union 2014 link is a working document and was issued to advise member countries as to how to formulate their policies. As such it is not 'legislation', (That would be a Directive). This should be placed in the first paragraph after EA 2013 draft. That would then make a logical timeline. The EA have to formulate the final regs to include the considerations of the EU.

Hi User:Kennywpara, The EU 2014 link is a working document that precedes and provides the background information upon which the IA2015 UK legislation is based on. Although it's not legislation, recommends forms the basis for the IA2015UK regulatory legislative changes in the UK. Other direct impacts on regulatory legislation come from the UKOOG industry trade body, who lobbied the UK government regarding "the clauses on underground drilling access in the Infrastructure Act (sections 43 to 48)".[17]."Legislation:Supported UKOOG's lobbying to get a right of underground access passed through the Infrastructure Act."[18]Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• A link to the industry body UKOOG would be useful as this explains things very well. [[19]]
• I am very happy with the Infrastructure Act section.
• The 'Criticism' about the well examiner is also a very valid point, that was in the original text. Again, as a NPOV editor, I highlighted that. Surely an 'activist' editor would have found a way to bury that? In fact more has been written on this from the House of Lords Report, and also the Royal Academy of Engineering, as can be seen in this link (scroll down a bit to 'Ensuring the independence of well examiners') [[20]]
• The ChemTrust report was written in June 2015. The Finalised EA regulations were issues in August 2016, after 3 years of consultation. It seems unencyclopaedic to include this as it predates the regulations that it criticises. If Chemtrust were to issue an update in light of the regulations then it would be valid to include it. Otherwise it is not. Again, the Chemtrust document falls into the category of 'activism' as it refers to materials and techniques not permitted in the UK.

Hi User:Kennywpara, At this point I feel exasperated with your ongoing attempts to control the inclusion of the Chem Trust report's criticisms of regulations and the responses from UKOOG. An encyclopaedia by its very nature holds a summary of all the information on a topic. If these are historic criticisms and if historicity is clear, there's no reason this criticism can't remain in perpetuity, in the section named Regulation/Criticisms.

Chem Trust appears to be a charity NGO that lobbies for regulations on chemicals in the environment. As I understand it, their singular involvement in lobbying for better regulations and even asking for a moratorium until regulations are in place does not make them either an anti-fracking 'group' or 'activists'. Their work may have been used by anti-fracking activists. They have been in existence for just over 10 years, long before the first anti-fracking group began in the UK.

UKOOG appear to be a lobbying and public affairs group for the onshore industry who relaunched specifically to represent the new wave of onshore prospectors and the respective energy companies involved. [21][22] [23] [24]Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You mention the government consultations. In these consultations, the Government both solicits and considers the views of various stakeholders. These stakeholders include industry (e.g. UKOOG) and environmental NGOs (e.g. Chemtrust).Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of any disputes, I wish you and all other contributors a restful Xmas and New Year. I would hope editing can be done with less rancour. The purpose at the end is to present a fair, up to date, and authoritative document Kennywpara (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance tag

I have removed the maintenance tag. It has been on there for 6 months and I and others have tried to sort out the real and in some cases imaginary issues. I will continue to look at a few minor outstanding issues and I hope other editors will too. Could I suggest that if there are particular issues with a chapter, then that chapter should be flagged with a maintenance tag, rather than the whole article. This page should not be a blog for anti activism. Neither should it be a blinkered pro industry mouthpiece. It should be a balanced and authoritative page, with references to reliable sources. I hope it meets that standard. Just like any other Wiki page in fact! Kennywpara (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Kennywpara, It has been established that you are an activist on these talk pages (archived). It has been established that you created a sockpuppet which you have used to edit this article and circumvent a block on the use of images which don't meet Wikipedia's criteria. Wikipedia article pages are off limits for activists. It would be best if you limit yourself to making suggestions on this talk page for other editors to action. Alternatively, you could start your own blog.

The maintenance tag is now restored. Please do not remove it again, and in future please confine your input to this talk page. Luther Blissetts (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)