Talk:Fracking in the United States/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Fracking in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Frac

In my opinion, the term Frac is an abreviated form for Hydraulic Fracturing and is often used in less formal or conversational type discussions. Reservoir Fracturing is ambiguous in the sense that this term by itself can mean natural fractures in a reservoir. I have not heard it often (or ever except here) used to refer to hydraulic fracturing though.

Maybe these terms could be included into this page in a terminology section. But I would like to see a reference for the term Reservoir Fracturing first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.194.55.74 (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2007

Removal of Federal Regulation

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 further strengthened the states' regulatory position, specifically exempting hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.[12]

Isn't this just a weaselly way of saying that federal regulation was removed due to oil lobby pressure? Instead they make it sound like federal regulation was standing in the way of state regulation (it never has). --66.66.187.132 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The article cited does not present this as a victory in any way for state's rights, instead depicting it as a victory for oil companies. --66.66.187.132 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The title of this section is misleading and inacurate.

In reality (of which there is very little when it comes to the discussion of hydraulic fracturing, VERY VERY little) the Energy Policy Act of 2005 kept hydraulically fractured, producing wells from being reclassified as injection wells and placed under UIC regulation. Even if this exemption had not been given, the end result would only have been to add an additional layer of permitting. In other words, producing wells that required hydraulically fracturing (which would include 90% of wells) would have to be classified and permitted as both injection wells AND as producing wells. However, injection wells would not have to be classified as both producing and injection wells. Classifying wells in contradictory terms would create a conflict of definitions, additional layers of paperwork, the need for additional state employees and general confusion in the permtting process. It would however, create multiple permitting fees payable to the State for each well. This might have been goal in the first place of the efforts to redefine 31 years of UIC precedent and enforcement. It's important that a discussion or UIC laws be detailed along with any ignorant accusations that any effort has been made to remove regulations from well permitting, construction or operation. The topic CANNOT be understood and discussed rationally without an understanding of UIC laws and the reasons producing wells need to be called producing wells and injection wells need to be called injection wells. In point of fact the provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 merely kept in place 31 years (now nearly 37 years) of what continues to be a very functional regulatory system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.224.169 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Move from Hydraulic fracture to Hydraulic fracturing

Does this seem reasonable? This article describes the technique of creating hydraulic fractures rather than the fractures themselves (see Fracture (geology) for a short article for this general topic). If there are no objections, I'll do this in the next few days. +mt 05:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. +mt 20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Reservoir fracturing and Fracing

It would seem appropriate to merge these subjects into this article. "Fracing" is too industry and layman's terms, and "Reservoir fracturing" assumes that this technique is used for oil reservoirs, which is false. +mt 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these should be merged.

Done. +mt 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is going to hate me, and maybe undo my edits (all within the past hour or so), but "fracing", when read by a literate person, rhymes with "facing".

I added a note about that on the "Fracing" redirect page; it will probably be removed. I've seen both spellings in a brief journey around the Web pages on the topic. <opinion> Habitual misspelling because of weak literacy doesn't make a spelling official, even if computer people consistently [mis]spell "compatible" as "compatable", and made "referer" an officially-recognized term. There are other consensus misspellings around... If English teachers (I'm not one) got more respect, we'd probably be a more-literate nation.</opinion> Nikevich (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Geology

Natural hydraulic fractures are one aspect of geology and geoscience. This page, as currently written, is mostly about industrial hydraulic fracturing. Some information about natural hydraulic fractures is given, but not much. So does it really fit into a geoscience project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.65.211 (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You should see Fracture (geology) for natural fractures. (It is the first interwiki link on the page). +mt 03:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just linked to this page from an article that discussed the formation of greisen veins. IMO there should be no problem in including a section on natural examples of hydraulic fracturing as there is no difference in the underlying principles involved. I'm adding this to my list of things to do. Mikenorton (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fracturing vs. Fractures vs. Fissures

I'd prefer to use the word 'fissure' instead of 'fracture' when mentioning about natural fractures, though in the industry, people do say 'reservoir fractures'.
Also, I think when saying 'Hydraulic Fractures' people don't mean 'Natural Fractures', but man-made fractures to increase production.
One more thing to add, it seems when people talking about 'Frac', they sometimes mean 'Acid Frac' which is quite different from 'Hydraulic Frac' in terms of the mechanism. There might be a necessity to create a separate page for that, along with the more general 'Reservoir Stimulation' term.
DairyKnight (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Acid fracturing only differs from typical hydraulic fracturing in the method of propping the fracture - acid etching of the rock vs. proppant, respectively. They do not differ at all in the mechanism used to fracture the rock, it is still downhole hydraulic pressure. Acid fracking certainly don't require a whole new entry, though they could definitely be mentioned.--Texinian (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Health and environmental concerns..

Is there a reason there is no discussion of health and environmental concerns? See the following sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section. --Delirium (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing is not directly the cause of any environmental impact. The composition of the fluids and solids injected may have an environmental impact. In waste storage activities, hydraulic fracturing is used to dispose of waste in deep rock formations. In near surface waste remediation, hydraulic fracturing is used to place microbes or other material to attack an existing spill. In water well stimulation, water is used to fracture the rock as is the case in many oil and gas stimulations. The point is - it depends on what is injected and how, not just that it is done by hydraulic fracturing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.79.184 (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I added some information on possible seismic activity relation to this drilling process as found in an AP article on 6/12/09 entitled "Drilling Might Be Culprit Behind Texas Earthquakes". User:Bear77

It would be useful to upgrade the references cited for the environmental section, in my opinion. Citing newspaper stories in an article is not up the the encyclopedia standard. Almost everything appears in a news story at some time or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.89.17 (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. However, I think the newspapers references should be kept, as they are more readable. Peer-reviewed article references are ideal here, however are less readable. +mt 16:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The point of better reference material is to improve the accuracy, not the readability. An encylopedia must be accurate or it is not worth using.

Newspaper articles are good references for ongoing political debates, which is what much of the section focuses on: it's mostly about a 2004 EPA report, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and recent statements by Congresspeople about repealing parts of the 2005 Act. Newspapers probably aren't a good source for scientific analysis of the underlying issues, but I don't see any problem with using them to document the public and legislative debate about those issues. Maybe to be clearer about that, the section should have a title like "U.S. regulatory debate". --Delirium (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

'The Citation from the AP has been removed. However, fracturing is not believed to be the culprit of the Texas quakes in the Barnett Shale. The local TV news, and The Fort Worth Star Telegram have reported that 2 disposal wells which take care of flowback fluids and produced saltwater from gas wells may be the cause of those tremors. Seems the disposal wells, which are commonly drilled into the Ellenberger formation beneath the Barnett were drilled close to a fault. This is not common to place a disposal well near a fault, and disposals usually do not cause any problem. However, these 2 disposal wells have been closed down due to suspected seismic activity. Search Fort Worth Star Telegram, Disposal Wells cause earthquake TX and you should be able to find it, and the company involved. Another comment about disposal wells used for frac and produced water fluids. The depth of the well, is commonly very deep, and several layers of bedrock below any water table.'

I moved this section added to the article, as it appears to form part of this discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Much of this section must have been written by the PR department of some oil & gas lobby. The language used repeatedly tries to minimize the danger of this method as shown by the use of the word "potential" and "speculation." The phrase "potential risks to air quality" is verbose and clouds the reader's sense of danger. The phrase "New technological advances and appropriate state regulations are working to study and safely implement the process." does not make any sense. The first paragraph is completely uncited which leads me to believe its vague language probably can't be supported by any evidence.

Somebody ought to rewrite the entire thing so it sounds like an encyclopedia instead of a public relations robot monologue.

Kst447 (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we need to stay emotionally disconnected while conveying the severity of this problem (people being able to ignite the water coming out of their faucet), so feel free to edit. Wikipedians shouldn’t put their trust in the lobbyists :) –Flying sheep (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Composition of fluids and treatment of the injured

Maybe it's an impractical hope, but medical people who treat injuries related to secret formulations, I would say, have a right to learn the identity of the substances they are dealing with. They are not obliged to make that information public, I'd say. If the fracking company won't disclose the nature of the substances, there should be provisions to analyze them to determine their constituents. There could be regional analysis centers, and their findings could be kept secure. Extrapolate (a lot) the reluctance to to give this info. to medical people, and you have Bhopal. Nikevich (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But this is placing the burden of prove on either the injured or the medical community. What I don't understand is why the industry does not see credibility as a business requirement. All they have to do is come clean, name their list, eliminate/change to protect the public, and their stock will go up. If they maintain secrecy, don't care about the public, their stock goes down. In terms of policy, certainly any State ought to protect the public over the industry, thus, the State must approve the use of the chemicals, and we are back at the federal level - the EPA. Lewismatson (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bogus references.

The pointer to the New Your State list of chemicals actually has nothing to do with chemicals. It is about "applications for permits to drill horizontal wells to evaluate and develop the Marcellus Shale for natural gas production." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.44.116 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Found the correct link and fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super7 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

cost

why does this article not talk about the cost of Hydr. Frac. inducement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.104.61 (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Commercial fracturing costs cover a large range. Some water well stimulation fracture treatments might cost only a few thousand dollars each while a massive treatment for a low perm gas well can easily cost several hundred thousand dollars. A cost to benefit analysis is often part of the design process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.133.74 (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the cost easily go into the multimillion dollars per well not counting cost of water.

When talking about the costs (and the benefits), one needs to look at the fully-loaded cost, which can only be done by pricing in externalities. Currently gas companies in the NE are taking water from the Delaware River Basin. They are not paying for this water, but there is a cost to society to have lost this clean water forever. The water is then driven in heavy trucks on public roads, and the communities are left to pay for the ensuing road damage out of their taxes. The most important costs that need to be understood and quantified, of course, stem from the impact on the environment and public health. The cost to society on both of those fronts is very high. If we are to fairly price this (and other) energy sources, let's understand the full cost of extracting, transporting and burning unconventional natural gas, and let's make sure that the people who are profiting from hydraulic fracturing for natural gas are the ones bearing the full cost. AnnaLark (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In actuality producers are required to post bonds which are used to repair damage to roads. Also, the burning of natrual gas releases much more water vapor than the volume water used to treat a well. Anna, it's a very simple stoichiometric equaition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.224.169 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted somewhere that a well that has been fractured produces on average 7 to 8 times as a well that is not. Even though the cost of hydraulic fracturing is a small part of the cost of the overall well it effects the production of the well by a disproportionate amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.70.143 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Chemicals not inherent to the hydrofracing process

Hydraulic fracturing uses pressure to fracture rock. Chemicals, which can leak into aquifers and contaminate them, are added to force the gas out of the rock. This is an important distinction. Hydrofracing is used in geothermal wells, particularly enhanced geothermal systems, and does not carry the same risk of chemical contamination as natural gas wells in shale. Since hydrofracing is essential to EGS some discussion of it here, and how it differs, both in challenges and execution would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Stillwater (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The chemicals used for oil and gas stimulation are added for a range or reasons. A common reason is to increase the viscosity of the fracturing fluid so it will transport the proppant more efficiently (thus use less water). Mostly, they are not added to force the gas out of the rock though. Hydraulic fracturing is done with water in stimulating water wells. Fracturing of EGS reservoirs may or may not include added chemicals. Typically only water is pumped because the volumes involved are very large and the cost of adding chemicals would likewise be large. Fracturing fluids used in shale gas stimulation do not contain many additives compared with fluid used in other application areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.158.243 (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is not neutral. It misleadingly suggests a comparison between current fracking and natural processes, and that current fracking methods have been in practice for "over 60 years". It makes no mention of the chemicals currently introduced for fracking, although these chemicals are very significant to current public understanding. http://www.smh.com.au/business/list-reveals-toxic-chemicals-used-in-coal-seam-mining-20101018-16qt5.html The general processes here - industry deploys a chemical cocktail in the environment, prevents the public from knowing the chemicals used, claims there is no evidence of harm in a situation where this can't be properly assessed due to the industry's own withholding of information - recall the processes utilized by industry for Corexit in the recent gulf oil spill - see Wikipedia's own article on Corexit.

This Wikipedia introduction appears to have significant influence from industry vested interest. Another poster has noted the involvement of Halliburton in this article. Industry vested interest has significant financial resources, political and media influence to manipulate public perception for profit. Wikipedia needs to be careful to maintain neutrality of these articles in the face of pressure from / interference by industry vested interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uiop75 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As an Environmental Science teacher, I can't tell that there is influencing or editing by the industry. I thought the article disorganized but it included information I would want to know, and want my students to know. The last section on the FRAC Act appeared to promote the work of particular politicians. I updated the facts. Perhaps the Congressional staffer didn't make it to the new Congress. I guess we need a more open editing process (perhaps I'm being naive). I'd just as soon editors be identifiable. If a Haliburton or political staffer is adding information, at least have the integrity to identify yourself. What do I go to Wikipedia for? - A fair summary of the subject. Lewismatson (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that many of the "toxic" chemicals included are usually added because they were produced from other wells. The simple logic being: if it came out of the ground it should be good enough to go back into the ground. Though I know Haliburton because of the chemical controversy developed a food grade line of chemicals, but is not happy that they can't use proprietary rules to shield what they developed from their competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.116.215 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Short list of the categories of chemicals. For simple jobs no more than a couple of chemicals may be used. The chemicals used will depend on many things including water quality and formation.

Acid Corrosion Inhibitors - Protects the steel casing of the well from deterioration when it is in contact with acid
Bactericides - Kills or controls bacteria. Bacteria can cause instabilities in viscosity or produce H₂S gas
Breakers - Reduce the viscosity of fluids over time.
Clay Control - Control clays that swell in water and controls clays that migrate in the formation
Crosslinkers (complexors)- increase the viscosity of gelling agents by connecting the separate gel polymers together.
Fluid Loss Control - control the amount of fluid "leak off" or lost to the formation
Foaming Agents - when used with nitrogen to create a stable foam
Friction Reducers - Help reduce the friction between fluids and the tubular.
Gelling Agents - Most important use is to increase viscosity.
ph Control - ph affects several things: protect clay and shale formation, the rate gelling agents develop viscosity, & assist in controlling bacterial growth
Scale Inhibitor - Prevents scale build up in well
Surfactants - addative that reduce the surface tension of a liquid. This helps to prevent water blocks, prevent emulsions between formation fluids and treatment fluids, help stabilize emulsions when using an emulsified treatment fluid, and aid in fluid recovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Carbon Sequestration

Could some expert explain the relationship between this proposed "clean coal" solution and hydraulic fracturing? Could the carbon itself serve as a fracturing fluid? Could gas still be removed withour releasing the carbon? Would the fractured rock formation still contain the carbon or would it make leakage more likely? Net, are these processes complementary or in conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.133.233 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't qualify as an expert, but I'm fairly confident that there is no relationship. Carbon sequestration is a concept that arises when a carbon-based fuel is burned. The chemical reaction that produces the heat also involves the production of carbon dioxide, and the idea of carbon sequestration is to try to prevent the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Hydrofracking doesn't relate to the burning of a fuel, but rather to a method of obtaining one particular carbon-based fuel, natural gas. Once it's obtained, its burning could be subject to some sort of attempt at carbon sequestration, but the same is true of the burning of any natural gas, regardless of how it was obtained. I've never seen any reference to carbon sequestration in the context of the extraction of the gas, as opposed to the burning of it. JamesMLane t c 07:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the section just above corrects some errors contained in the paragraph immediately above. Hydraulic fracturing might be used to enhance injectivity of wells for CO2 sequestration, especially if the target is a coal seam. Most saline aquifer reservoirs that are being considered for CO2 sequestration are high permeability and would probably not require any fracturing. Also, it is worth noting that the gas produced from hydraulically fractured wells, if used to generate electricity, produces about 50% less CO2 than the same amount of electricity generated by burning coal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.244.213 (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CO2 is used as a fracturing fluid is some situations and is the most likely carbon seqestration material that would be injected. It would come from power plants. After separating it from nitrogen and other gasses, it would be compressed and injected into a permeable saline aquifer where it would be stored for thousands of years. Some CO2 would desolve in the water in the aquifer and, over time, most of it would. I expect there is a page describing carbon sequestration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.4.31 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fracing vs. Fracking

It seems there is no consensus regarding the spelling of the gerundial abbreviation of frac. Based on the rules of the language it should be fracking. I am removing the part stating "fracing is commonly misspelled as fracking." See [5]--Texinian (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Industry people use fracing, opponents of hydraulic fracturing use fracking.

I agree what those who spell it "fracking" only do so because that's how it was spelled in the movie Gasland. I've been in the industry for over 30 years and I have *never* seen the term "fracking." When someone goes to "frac a well," it's always referred to as a "frac job," thus fracing / frac'ing have been the only spellings I've ever seen.63.171.234.11 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

- Or possibly because they've been corrupted by BSG? (P.S. "Go frack a well" is my new favorite curse.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.57.5 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be "fracking" rather than "fracing". When I google fracing it asks if I want fracking and gives me 55k hits. Fracking gives 700k. When I google "fracking fracing spelling", I get an NGSA pdf saying "The spelling that appears to be prevailing is “fracking,” but other spellings are commonly encountered." [6] (The link works when I paste it into the address bar, but not when I put it in <ref> tags. I tried taking out the percent codes manually, and that didn't work either. Can someone who understands ref tags fix it please?) I also get this page [7] arguing for "fracking" by analogy with "trafficking and "picnicking". --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Strikethrough added, same person, Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In the drilling and production industry "frac job" was the common term when I retired 20 years ago. Like 63.171.234.11, I also never saw it spelled with a K, although admittedly "fracing" might be pronounced "FRAY-ssingg" with a soft S, and "frac'ing" is awkward. So with a K may be acceptible now that the term has come into everyman's vernacular. Even though the NGSA merited a google hit, I don't think they would be the authoritative source; they'e more midstream oriented. The only references in the Society of Petroleum Engineers' Style Guide [8] are "frac pack (noun)" and "frac-pack (adj.)". Schlumberger is in the pressure pumping business; their Oilfield Glossary [9] (Reference 1 in the article) has nine entries with "frac" and none with a K but also neither "fracing" nor "fracking". In any event, I think the article's introductory sentence covers the matter just fine. Useage in the rest of the article should be consistent.Casey (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be nice to have a better source for the fact that the spelling with a K is the more common one outside the industry, even though it's sort of obvious to anyone who googles it. (Also belaying my previous request for someone to fix the link. It works now. I think it just didn't seem to load because I already had it open.) --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The OED? NYTimes Style Manual? Casey (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As an issue of common English spelling in America, people would be likely to spell it "fracking" but as it is derived from the word fracturing, the 'k' is then misleading and as a result people aware of its derivation choose to use "frac'ing." The most common term will almost certainly become "fracking," but IMO it's incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.234.185.201 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Those in the industry prefer that the industry continues to spell the word "frac" and that activists continue to spell the word "frack". This convention makes identifying the bias of an article's author simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.224.169 (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'consensus' will come from the public and reporting media and less from scientists and activists. Look at how we pronounce words to see that 'fracing' seems to rhyme with 'racing' and 'fracking' rhymes with 'tracking' or 'racking'. Which will become predominant? Obviously the word that rhymes with 'tracking', and not the word that rhymes with 'racing'. Class closed — don't you think? . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Although this petroleum engineer thinks "fracking" is most logical from a linguistic standpoint, the May 2011 issue of the Journal of Petroleum Technology used "fraccing" and "fracced" in a summary[10] of the Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference[11] put on in January 2011 by the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Casey (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Move the political and environmental debate to new page

The environmental and political debate is overwhelming the other content on this page. I think a new page to discuss the politics of hydraulic fracturing should be started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.58.243 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A wiki article should be discussing what is and what is not part of the process. Not some political debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 34.254.119.222 (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep it consolidated: Political and environmental ramifications are part of the topic. The "overwhelming" concern can be addressed through page organization. While facts and opinions should stand on their own, it is worth noting that the comment above from 34.254.119.222 was made anonymously from the Halliburton network (34.0.0.0 - 34.255.255.255) registered to Halliburton per ARIN. 24.130.175.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Very good catch. Wikipedia can benefit from such internal corporate knowledge which is certainly suspect of bias, but overcome by an adequate explanation posted on this discussion page.Lewismatson (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hydrofracking explained

NYC published a study on the effects of hydrofracking called th "Final Impact Assesment Report" go to http://www.nyc.gov/html and in the search box, type in the name of the report. It is 90 pages long, but don't miss page 31, which charts the requirements per pad suporting from 6 to 10 wells. The process used to fracture the shale is the chemical reaction between sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and water (H2O) injected at high pressure to create the explosion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginativekhan (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the process to fracture shale or any other type of formation has nothing at all to do a reaction between any chemicals, hence the term "hydraulic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.224.169 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this! There should be a giant headline: NYC says NO! to FracKXploitations in Warning to World.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/news/natural_gas_drilling_overview.shtml for the 90-page-impaired version.
I'm overwhelmed with questions:
Can you sue your neighbors oil company if you prove they're horizontal slickwater'ing "your gas"/property,
seems like thievery from the neighbors - mile(s) away?(maybe poisoning by mistake)!? Any insight into that
seemingly overlooked issue = is "horizontal drilling" detectable short of core samplage/how to tell if you've
been 'horizontally drilled'[Asidefromfieryfaucets)? Can USBP?, so notachancetilthe well runs dry/short of
drilling? Can you ping it from an existing well? Will my metal detector find it?Can I LIDAR it?
(Do mineral rights go to the earths core or is there some alleged threshold these things are below?)
*Are* they "over-horizontaling"/is it detectable-remediable/sue-able etc.

RANT: It's unfortunate that Fracksters are giving a bad name to frac'ing with the secret sauce but get over it, if u legit
u should know it and be happy to tell-sharin' the wealth, not ripping poor ppl off like it's 1990 coal or something.
Everybody's thrice-removed from an Oilman - so the only secret is that they're apparently not using a Standard
magic substance or Regulated Procedures, guess that keeps the Union costs down? At least Operation Plowshare
didn't make it east of the Rockies (just a little dust), all the best intentions no doubt.

I have to wonder if there are even regs like minimum acreage footprint/distance from neighbors etc is that all State
or dependent on UIC status? Whats a UIC? Are they stealing my dirt if they don't get a right-of-way, for any depth
of a trespassing pipe? What constitutes a proper right-of-way for a slickpipe, does it have to be specific, like they
say "we want to build a pipeline", you assume it's aboveground Alaskan-at the surface relatively, 'cause that's all
you've ever seen/heard of, not that they are drilling 20000 leagues below ya and oh btw might deteriorate
undetectably inexplicably sucking dry other wells/water/creeks/cause earthquakes/kills Bambi etc?
Make Good Caving for the Future-News at 11. Excuse the propSpeak I seemingly can't ask the questions without
sounding biased but I'm unclear on those potential issues for owners-i know this aint the place for
amateur landowner brainstorming but considering the options, I think a source of answers to any of the above ?s
might be relevant to some future spinoff article..? Can you call my IP and let my descendants know what ya found out? :)
One more comes to mind: Can you revoke a fraudulently obtained right-of-way if a horizontal slickpipe
allegedly allowed by it busts and causes an earthquake that topples your neighbors house into a new wetland
and he sues you for relief?? Or can he only sue them? Nobody? Can ya revoke it in an aboveground spill, or say -
ya don't like the color of the pipe? Why does my comment get a whiteout background? What browser am i using?

          98.169.80.254 (talk) 02:00, 7 >>December 2010 (UTC)Iforgotmyacctname

Link Added

Added a link, to a radio documentary discussing hydraulic fracturing from a community and environmental perspective. Arquebus1 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge "Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act"

I propose FRAC_Act be merged into this article. swain (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, forget my last post, i misunderstood. So you want to keep this article and merge the other one into this one... Well, then try on the talk page of the other article. But as long as this piece of legislation is not totally dead, why merge? If this piece of legislation really is dead, which i doubt, a merger might be appropriate. Unless Wikipedia wants to preserve such articles about pieces of legislation that would have been interesting but failed due to corporate interests while probarbly being in the best interest of US citizens.79.230.18.169 (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

-- the legislation is dead; it was passed to committee; never went further; the 111th Congress adjourned Jan 3. Dead. Over. The 112th has not yet re-introduced or introduced something new. Obviously the reasonable public expects and deserves new legislation. The EPA has to come on line, explain the subject properly, and choose the right option. They have to take the lead. The Marcellus Shale underlies several States. One law in one State won't equal a law in another. Do the offices of science and attorneys general in each State have this capability? I doubt it.Lewismatson (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This political issue clearly elicits strong opinions. I think the editors of this page may need a reminder to maintain neutrality and present different points of view. In the above comment, the terms "obviously", "reasonable", "deserves", "properly", and "have to" all reflect implicit value judgments. Whether these subjective terms apply is for the reader to judge. Using loaded terms is not an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. __ø(._. ) Patrick("\(.:...:.)/")Fisher 09:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

.....Hey Patrick: this is a discussion page. Where we can 'talk' about the subject, which is loaded with important politics. The best current article will include good summary of the current politics. Yes, objective summary -- you go for it. Ideally it would be great to have someone from EPA edit the article. I'm just a high school Science teacher. Lewis Matson 13:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewismatson (talk • contribs)

Meeks case study in Wyoming

This article provides a fairly detailed overview of a particular case which seems to have received more attention than most. The guy, Meeks, was featured in the Gasland documentary. Might be worth incorporating into the article somehow. II | (t - c) 22:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemicals used in Hydralic Fracturing

I'm no writer but I did find this http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page295046?oid=535997&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.144.166 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize Environmental and Health Effects section

This section has gotten a little unruly, and while it's much better supported by the evidence than it used to be, it doesn't really have any clear organization, with new studies being tacked on to the end as they appear. I'm going to start to add subsections like "threats to drinking water," "concerns about chemicals involved" and the like. Sindinero (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's great - I noticed how jumbled it was when I read it to add the study I just posted.Gandydancer (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice job! And thanks for catching my error when I did not notice that the 2011 study I posted was already in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

-- You guys improved this article significantly from when I whacked away at it in March -- excellent effort. ----Lewis Matson 13:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Article focus

There seems to be substantial overlap between natural gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing (a method for natural gas extraction). What would be the best way to focus the article more on the subject and not its related subjects? ZHurlihee (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of any sections/claims in particular? Sindinero (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Occupational Health Hazards section jumps out. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't see that. The OHH section involves specific hazards of chemicals involved in fracking, and not just natural gas extraction in general. Sindinero (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Definition of "Hydraulic Fracturing" is overly verbose and ambiguous.

Hydraulic fracturing (called "frac jobs,"[1][2] "frac'ing,"[3] "fracking,"[4] fraccing[5] or "hydrofracking") is the process of initiating, and subsequently propagating a fracture in a rock layer, employing the pressure of a fluid as the source of energy.[6] The fracturing is done from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations, in order to increase the extraction and ultimate recovery rates of oil and natural gas.

Hydraulic Fracturing is the act of injecting a highly pressurized fluid into the earth in order to force what's in the earth to come out. That's the defintion, or something close to it. The article's defintion doesn't say that; it tiptoes around the action and it's purpose, and denies any connection between Hydraulic Fracturing and the reader in the first two sentences. If more technical language is needed for clarity, it can happen later in the article. This definition sounds like it has come out of a field manual for people in the industry

Here are the words I object to, and why:

"frac'ing" - This ain't no article on southern colloquialisms, and it don' need no over-use of apostrophes for apostrophe's sake.

"fraccing" - Is "frassing". How many words in English use a double "c" to make a hard "k" sound?

"process" - Everything is a "process". Writing, walking, setting your alarm; everything can be called a "process", therefore the word is meaningless. Fracking is an action. Machines and people DO something for a purpose, and then something happens as a result of those actions. If the definition fails to make clear that Fracking is an ACTION, then no one will wonder what the results of that ACTION might be, nor will they consider that the ACTION has a purpose.

"initiating" - This word has no place in the definition of fracking. Fracking is an action; There are an infinate number of was fracking can be "initiated". One could argue it is "initiated" with a Geological Survey.

"subsequently" - After the unnecessary notion of "initiating" fracking has been asserted, the word "subsequently" becomes necessary and makes the definition even more cumbersome.

(the source of) "energy" - Fracking is not a "process" (lol) of recharging a battery or providing power to a television. This mention of "energy" comes in with no connnection to the "processes" purpose, and then just hangs there with no reason for it's existance.

"reservoir rock formations" - It's pretty much all "rock" down there, and that "reservior" is a big bunch of oil and/or gas. The word "formations" makes the definition sound scientific and "geologist-y". It's not necessary to harken back all the way to the volcanic "formation" of the planet in order to describe the action of a pressuized fluid being used to force oil and gas out from below the earth. That "rocks" may crack is also less relevant. Some rock DOESN'T crack, but whether the rocks crack or they don't, the primary objective of fracking is to extract oil and gas by injecting highly pressurized fluid into the earth.

"increase" the extraction - Increased from WHAT? Again, an unnecessary word all over again.

"extraction" - The oil and the gas is being extracted. Why mention the extraction without clearly stating WHAT is being extracted?

"ultimate recovery rates" - The word "ultimate" has no place at all. This is gas and oil being pressured from the earth; there is no "ultimate" anything here. If fracking increases the amount of oil and/or gas, then that's what it does. "Ultimate" makes it sounds like this is some theoretical exercise in physics. "recovery" - The oil and/or gas was never "lost" and so cannot be "recovered". This is no rescue; this is mining, and the word "rate" is a mathematical concept, as in "miles per hour" and "dollars per gallon". If the word "rate" is going to be mentioned as a unit of measure, those units should be mentioned. What exactly is the "rate" in oil and gas extraction? Gallons per dollar? Cubic feet per week? Pounds (of pressure) per square inch?

Finally, this defintion sounds like it was extracted from an industry document; one that was crafted so as to avoid being quoted in a manner that can be used against the oil and gas industry.

Manipulating the Definitions of Words is the process of initiating, and subsequently propagating a fracture in the communities' understanding of language, employing electronic repetition as the means of redirection, for the purpose of making huge profits by employing industrial oil and gas extraction methods that may pollute the nation's potable drinking water forever, and endangering the health of everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 07:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The definition of hydraulic fracturing here isn't perfect, particularly because it is also a natural process (and that is the right word) that produces fractures in rock. However, the terms used in the definition have not been made up by the industry, they are just descriptive. Hydraulic fracturing involves raising the fluid pressure at the bottom of the wellbore until the rock in contact with the unlined part of the wellbore fractures. The technique is used in geothermal energy and in oil and gas production in what are called 'tight' (i.e. low permeability) reservoirs (rock units that hold the hydrocarbons, or hot water in the case of geothermal) and not just for shale gas. Ultimate recovery is just the final amount of hydrocarbons that are produced from a field. No-one is playing with words here - these are just the terms that are used. Mikenorton (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article to learn about fracking in the US, and in the process of checking the discussion page ran across this remarkable rant by Jonny Quick. I was unable to understand the rationale for even one of his many objections, which struck me as unreasonable and illogical. Plenty of processes are called processes, and the argument that "everything" is a process is obviously false: how is a toaster a process, for example? Every single thing he objected to seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If some people write "fraccing," who is he to claim that they don't? And so on. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Horwath Study

Here is why I would like to see the study deleted from the article. From the CFR's Michael A. Levi

[The NETL documents don’t address the Howarth study explicitly, but if you flip to page 25, you’ll see a big part of the discrepancy explained. Some readers will recall that Howarth found a large fraction of produced gas from unconventional wells never made it to end users, assumed that all of that gas was vented as methane, and thus concluded that the global warming impacts were huge. As the NETL work explains, though, 62% of that gas isn’t lost at all – it’s “used to power equipment”.

Rather than play a he said she said with the Horwath Study, I'd just as well remove the whole thing because its fundamentaly flawed. If thats not acceptable, Horwath's paper should be presented as the minority view on the subject and given approproate weight. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Levi piece. After reading that, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other; I have a slight preference for leaving the study in, qualifying it as a minority view and adding the criticism you've introduced - even if flawed, the study was fairly high-profile, and seems as though it should be addressed in the article in some way, unless and until it's been totally debunked. But if you feel it would be better to remove it, feel free. Sindinero (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You raise a good point about the prominence given to the report. I think it would be best to rephrase and keep. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias - Tone

This article is a compendium of the horrible, largely antecdotal, problems associated with fracking technology. Lis Jackson - head of the EPA was asked in Congressional Testimony last month whether there was ANY documented case of water contamination associated with this technology. Here answer was, "No, but there are some investigations ongoing". Hardly the inditment you'd expect after reading this scary overview. The case is "Gasland" that everyone referes to, (i.e., setting your faucet on fire), was investigated by a Colorado Environmental Agency who concluded that the soluble methan in the water that casued the falme was due to the owners drilling his well through existing seams of coal which are numerous in the area. They stated that fracking has no part of the phenomenon. And while we're discussing horrible consequence, what are the consequences of costly or non-existent energy for average citizens, not to mention those living on the edge of poverty. There's a direct corellation between energy cost/availability and the price/availablity of food. This is much more consequential than the potential, unproven environmental consequences, (which can all be controlled with proper technology and regulation). When you get to the point of citing this, (from the article), as a consequence(s), it's sort of pathetic in it's "kitchen sink" quality of biased condemnation - "There is the potential for noise and light pollution complaints, reports of crime can go up, motor vehicle accidents increase, traffic and road degradation increase, sexually transmitted infections increase, and strain on schools are all some potential problems facing communities where gas drilling is nearby" People - a little common sense, a little perspective, a little science to back up this horro show we've presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.83.101.23 (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for science, but you're not being very specific in your objections to the article, and the one passage you do cite is backed up by multiple news sources, not Gasland. Do you feel that there are other areas that aren't supported by reliable sources? Our job as editors is not to make a given topic appear "worse" or "better" based on outside standards, but to portray the topic thoroughly and helpfully based on existing reliable sources. Unless you have reliable sources to challenge what you feel is an inaccurate, unduly weighted portrayal of hydraulic fracturing, then it's hard to see what your accusations of bias are based on except for a feeling that, well, fracking isn't quite that bad, which is itself, well, a bias. Sindinero (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

-- Agreed. If you think the article is biased now, go back in history to February. The current article is a huge improvement. Great effort by a few. --Lewis Matson 13:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

-- I would second the original complaint. If you, the editors, think that serious minded people won't discredit the idea that sexually transmitted diseases are a consequence of hydraulic fracturing, you are sadly mistaken. You may like to hide behind the "show your alternative sources" cloak, but this doesn't pass the sniff test. Shockingly, I wasn't able to find anything about sexually transmitted diseases and fracturing. By listing this as a consequence, you imply causation---I could find no mention in the sources you cited. Instead, one would have to make inferences from the anecdotal reportage when alluding to out of town men impressing the local women. If you truly believe this is relevant to the discussion, then in the interests of logical consistency, I would urge the editors of Wikipedia to include some boiler plate language around every industrial pursuit. In fact, any human endeavor which tends to draw a large number of people into a common location should have this language to educate the reader in the dangers of catching herpes whenever they enter a job creation zone, which, by the way, I'm sure just innocently slipped your "consequences" of fracturing. There's nothing more horrifying than watching a town suffer from the pangs of economic booms. Instead, we would be far more content in a stable state of economic collapse, which is exactly what Towanda had been before fracturing became economically viable.

The real tragedy is that the sources do indeed include concerns worthy of discussion, but by only presenting one side and not the up side that is present even in these same sources, you do yourself a great disservice in establishing credibility. That's all you have, by the way, and writing tripe like this you do nothing else but damage it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.215 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I too have to agree with the original complaint. First, "population boom" has been a mixed blessing since before Leif Erickson and Christopher Columbus, as well as an obvious and inevitable consequence of development of any kind, so it's specious for Wikipedia to point it out for every single development project it documents with an article. Second, what is the point of going into long-winded detail about the consequences of population boom when these are always the same; this particular kind of development is no different from any other in that respect. Third, listing only the negative consequences of population boom (sexually transmitted disease for starters) is pure advocacy, just as it would be if you listed only its positive consequences (bringing in jobs, raising median income of the neighborhood, improving the quality of the local schools and other neighborhood services, etc.).

Those looking for evidence that Wikipedia has a liberal bias would have a field day with this section of the article. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources on Fracking

Alternative POV

http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels

One of many alternative POVs on Fracking. Please note the source is Salon, (hardly an Oil/Gas shill publication).

167.83.101.23 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Dave Bueche

The July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "The New Ugliest Word" by Bill McKibben (author of The End of Nature, a 350.org founder).

Fracking is just one more way to keep from coming to terms with our addiction to fossil fuels.

See "Addicted to oil", Planetary boundaries and Climate change denial. 108.73.114.77 (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Sojourners — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Using emotive cliches like "addiciton to oil" and posting a link about "climate change denial", (which was not mentioned), reveal the very bias you're attempting to refute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.85.38 (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As in Talk:Christianity and environmentalism, Talk:Climate_change_mitigation (Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#July_2011_Sojourners_is_another_resource:_.22We_have_the_Technology:_Off-the-shelf_renewable_power_can_meet_100_percent_of_world_need_-_if_we_have_the_will..22), and Talk:350 (Talk:350.org#Add_Why_We.27re_Merging_to_Form_a_Climate_Change_Supergroup_.3F); Why is Sojourners not wp:rs, or is that just your opinion Mr. Rubin? 99.190.81.244 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume it is just Art's opinion. 99.112.214.230 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The former WP:RSN#Sojourners provides two other editors who suggest that it's not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I make a mistake; Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 99#Sojourners had one reply which suggested that all "articles" are opinion pieces, and should only be included if the author is a recognized expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the RSN topic and wish I could have commented on it then. Oh well. McKibben's not an expert on the subject and his opinion is not particularly notable. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Significant Difference Between "Natural" Hydraulic Fracturing and the Industrial Process

I don't know how to use Wikipedia well enough to search through the past edits, but I do not recall the natural process of hydraulic fracturing being incorporated into the article previously, however I do notice it just now. I believe it is inappropriate to combine the two actions into the same definition because it lends the "natural" halo effect to the Industrial Process of artifically injecting potentially toxic fluid into the earth at extremely high pressure, potentially contaminating the potable drinking water therein, with whatever natural action might be taking place without the involvment of multinational corporations (such as Haliburton) employing artifical means to extract oil and gas from the earth.

It seems to me that anyone familiar with Geology should have a clear understanding that these two actions are completley different, and while they can be handled within the same Wikipedia Article, they should not be mixed and interwoven within that single article to the extent that the reader percieves them to be equivalent. They are not. To fail to have this clear understanding indicates bias and taints the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Natural hydraulic fracturing has been in the article right from the beginning [12]. In both cases the rock fractures because of an increase in fluid pressure, so they are not completely different. If you want to leave out the natural process, you would need to rename the article. Mikenorton (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Water Isn't Water Anymore

Fracking Hell: The Untold Story
Frac Attack
Water Isn't Water Anymore

Those are three documentary films critical of the fracking method. There's enough material out there for a new "Film" section in the article. Here are a couple recent sources I've been able to turn up:

—Biosketch (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

EPA Study

I have added some information to the section on the EPA study. If you have any suggestions, let me know. Katherine 16:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Other consequences

"When drilling companies move into a new area the population increases and with it comes problems related to population boom. There is the potential for noise and light pollution complaints, reports of crime can go up, motor vehicle accidents increase, traffic and road degradation increase, sexually transmitted infections increase, and strain on schools are all some potential problems facing communities where gas drilling is nearby.[59]"

Anybody else think that its a little far fetched to claim that sexually transmitted infections increase as a result of fracking? None of the sources linked contain any mention of the subject. If there are no objections I'll remove it. Katherine 15:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur and just removed the extraneous stuff. Casey (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Page move to "Hydraulic fracturing in the United States"

I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with the move that was done apparently without discussion on the talk page. The move is well-intentioned, and the article as it stood was too weighted towards a US-centric perspective (if I recall, I originally added the template calling for more global focus). However, I'm not sure this is the solution. Looking over the sections, it seems like at least sections 1-7 are globally applicable, and 8 probably is as well. The reason that most of the sources on the process or environmental effects, for example, refer to the US is because that's where most of the HFing has been done to date. That in itself isn't a US-bias on the part of the article. I think that the better solution would be to move the article back to its old namespace, and add subsections for drilling operations, effects, reactions, forecasts, etc., in other countries, rather than having long articles with substantial redundancies for every place fracking is being done. As I see it, the article on HFing as such will look a lot like this article, with some local anecdotal color removed. That seems problematic. What do others think? Sindinero (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is work in progress. I will add {{under construction}} to both articles. I inadvertently removed the tag when I saved the edited Hydraulic fracturing in the United States article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The tags certainly help. :) I'm just curious about why the move is necessary in the first place, rather than an expansion of the original article. It seems like this will lead, at best, to a proliferation of parallel articles and at worst, the message that hydraulic fracturing is radically qualitatively different in different countries and regions. The technology's the same, and many of the companies are the same; the regulation and actual effects will of course differ in their specifics from place to place, but certain features - both the promise to be a huge new source of domestic energy, and the [potential or actual] harm to watersheds, for example - are common to many sites of HFing, past present and future. I guess ultimately my feeling is that HFing is a unified phenomenon with many various instances - it is a technological process, but also a historical, social, economic, and ecological situation that generates parallel discourses in many locales, rather than something that can be talked about in separate articles as if it were a unique occurrence in every instance. Does that make sense? Sindinero (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Initially I was going to spit out the info relating to the United States and then I decided that there so much US-specific info that I decided to move the whole page to this title. The moving and splitting is a way of preventing systemic bias - which is often strongly towards the US. If it is not moved and split it will be a US-centric article for a very long time based on what I have seen to date on WP. Given all of US specific info in the article there was sufficient reason for my edits. It was such a blindingly obvious solution that I felt there was no need for discussion. And it is hardly a bold' move. Give me a chance to finish the process and then see how it looks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is best to just have one article as the process of hydraulic fracturingis the same in every country. Racklever (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur to have just one global article. All the technical stuff would be the same, and it could have subsections if warranted covering the politics, etc., associated with this. Casey (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The process may be the same but the politics is different. The lobbying, protesting and policy differs for every country. The issues are bound to become more strident so it is better to have separate article developed early since it is always difficult to extricate info out into a sub-article. We already have sufficient information in the two separate articles of a reasonable length. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias in this Wikipedia Article in Favor of the Oil & Gas Industry

A Google Search of the phrase "Hydraulic Fracturing" results in the top wikipedia article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing", which has (in my opinions) been "scrubbed" of any controvery or discussion regarding dangers to the public. In order to find any, one must (somehow) non-intuitively search for the title of this article "Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States", effectively burying any mention that the drilling for natural gas (and not the euphemistic word "exploring") may contaminate water supplies and may cause earthquakes.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/fracking-and-faulting-how-a-gas-extraction-method-produced-tremors-in-uk.ars

I suspect that these wiki articles are being heavily edited and "managed" by those connected in some way to the oil & gas industry in an effort to hide information that is becoming increasingly available online. In addition to making questionable decisions such as splitting Hyraulic Fracturing into two articles based on geography, and archiving open discussions on the possible dangers associated with Hydraulic Fracturing, one editor takes the quesitonable position of merging "natural" (and presumably non-toxic and non-earthquake causing) Fracturing with "not-natural", with a biased description of the not-natural type as sounding rather benign. I ask that more experienced editors review this article and make some kind of statement regarding their opinion of both Article's neutrality, and if the should be re-merged.Jonny Quick (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I split the article into the two topics and you only need to do a quick search on my name to see that is utterly and completely laughable that I may be in any way connected with the oil and gas industry. Additionally, your premise that you got Hydraulic fracturing as the first search is related to influence by the oil gas industry can only be described as a conspiracy theory. The two articles do need work. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I on the other hand, do work in the Oil and Gas industry (and nuclear industry sometimes), something that I'm entirely transparent about. I do not however, work on Shale Gas and don't expect to. I support the split of the articles because it makes logical sense, particularly as natural hydraulic fracturing was described long before it became a term commonly used in the Shale Gas industry and there would need to be an article on the topic even if it wasn't used in that way. The articles do need a lot of work, but I'm convinced that it's the right way to go. Mikenorton (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

boldly closed as do not merge. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposed to Hydraulic fracturing.

Discussion:

Oppose very strongly. They are both notable topics which have huge amounts of information available. I created the article initially since there was a huge amount of systemic bias towards the US. If the articles were merged the problem would return. The US info would swamp the rest. I see that there is still info specific to the US being added to the hydraulic fracturing article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Agree with Alan Liefting. I'm attempting to make the hydraulic fracturing article more general by including things on mechanics and natural examples, although it obviously needs more work. Then we need to remove more of the US specific stuff and summarise the specific US article. Mikenorton (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - Fracking is being carried out by multinational mining companies and is an international topic. Are we going to have seperate pages for Canada and Great Britain ? Racklever (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite probably, because what changes are the environmental/political issues in each country although some technical issues may also be specific, such as the problems with the stress state of the Bowland Shale in the UK in the recent report, which will affect future drilling. Mikenorton (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hydraulic fracturing itself is a topic that is of international interest and is applicable to many countries but there is an increasing amount of information that is country specific that makes individual country articles a viable option. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be reasonable -- those are two other countries with significant fracking activity. Antandrus (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. If the "Hydraulic fracturing by country" section gets bigger I would even split that out to its own article. That is the trend that happens in other articles as they grow in size. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons stated above. It's a big topic, and most of the current controversy, and general discussion, centers on the U.S. (and also Canada and the UK). Seems reasonable to split the articles, as otherwise the single article would grow overlong and be biased towards US coverage. Antandrus (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

BusinessWeek resource

Could Shale Gas Reignite the U.S. Economy? "Unlocking vast reserves of shale gas could solve the energy crisis, the jobs crisis, and the deficit. Now, about fracking’s safety ..." November 03, 2011, 4:50 PM EDT by Paul M. Barrett. 99.181.135.155 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource, in contrast with Renewable energy in the United States

Here Comes the Sun by Op-ed columnist Paul Krugman published November 6, 2011 99.181.132.65 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

resource with resources

Natural Gas and the News; Most messages on fracking ‘brought to you by our sponsors’ from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. 99.109.125.114 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States

I split the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States out of Hydraulic fracturing (a major case of systemic bias!!). The section in the Hydraulic fracturing in the United States article and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States need to be rationalised. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rationalised how? Also, I support the way you trimmed down the article, but I think the current environmental impact section in Hydraulic fracturing is too bare-bones. I think we can afford a short paragraph or two; the fears, instances, and claims of pollution are largely limited to the US, true, but since things like that form an important part of the fracking debate in other countries, I think it would be pertinent to that article to have a little more substance there -- I'm thinking a slightly broader summary of the types of problems (allegedly) involved. Does that sound reasonable? Sindinero (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Two hydraulic fracturing articles. I have had the environmental section from the main hydraulic fracturing articles in my sandbox, anticipating this. I'd like to take the environmental section info from the main artyicles and write an inclusive succinct summary, including subsections on the major areas (water, air, earthquakes, etc.) that includes research from all countries. I would also do a "See Also" for the country pages. But I have a day job, so it might be a few days. I think removing the environmental impact section from the hydraulic fracturing would represent bias and censorship. I think it should stay in the hydraulic fracturing in the United States article. That is all US info. I think those who believe there is no environmental damage should cite those studies, not delete studies that don't support their views.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a good proposal, and I support it. Sindinero (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there was very little left of the environmental section of the Hydraulic fracturing but that is because it was virtually all about the US. Hydraulic fracturing is for a global outlook. Fracking is a huge issue in the US so some elements of the stuff that I split out could be summarised but there needs to be the correct balance. Smm201`0, it sounds like you have a good basis for an Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing article which is sorely needed. There will need to be a summary left al hydraulic fracturing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What I plan to do on the main HF page is glean info from the different country subsections to balance the section in terms of nationality, but greatly condense it. Wish me luck - there is a lot of content. There is actually a lot of discussion and research going on in other countries. I saw the articles when I was looking for sources. Perhaps because this piece of Wikipedia is in English and targeted partly for the US, it draws US contributors. I know searches from different countries pull up different content. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the en-WP is in English and some bits of it suffer from systemic bias. The environmental section of Hydraulic fracturing was a very clear case of bias. Anyway... Don't feel that you have to condense any information on the environmental effects of Hydraulic fracturing. It is a notable topic that can therefore justify its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the environmental section before constituted systemic bias. Part of the reason for the US-focus is that that's where most hydraulic fracturing has already taken place... Surely these issues are of interest more generally as the practice spreads to other continents, no? Could you spell out what bias you are referring to? Sindinero (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The bias was that the section was virtually all about the US with only a brief mention of earthquakes in the UK. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. The types of contamination that have occurred in the US are unlikely to be strictly applicable to the US (though certain types of geological characteristics lend themselves to some problems more than others). At the same time, it would be good to include studies from other countries. I'm going to focus on the comprehensive summary of environmental issues this week, then look for non-US studies next. I wonder whether that info is already on another Wikipedia view.Smm201`0 (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC) What I don't understand is why you moved the international info that was there to another page if you are so concerned about international representation.Smm201`0 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda

This entire article should be renamed as "Political arguments against Hydraulic Fracking in the United States." It is little more than a laundry list of complaints against with little balance. Arzel (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what problems you see with this article and how you'd like to see it improved? What "political arguments" do you even see, as opposed to environmental concerns? I think the POV tag you added is unwarranted (not to mention itself POV) in this case and would strongly support its removal. The article is well-sourced and decently researched; it's not our job to obscure the fact that hydraulic fracturing is a controversial practice if most of the RSs on the topic also include mention of the various controversies. Sindinero (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is by and large arguements against the technique rather than an encyclopedic entry about the technique and the history of the technique (which by the way has been done for close to 100 years in the US without any much of any issue until recently). Arzel (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

But without scientific data, how do we know? First, rather than delete statement and references, trying countering with information from reliable sources that support alternate views. Secondly, one problem is that in order to conduct the research one would need to demonstrate that hydraulic fracturing does not negatively impact the environment would require (1) knowing the contents of fracking fluid, (2) taking baseline, pre-fracking measurements, (3) monitoring the content levels. Because the industry was allowed to drill without collecting such data, and because the Halliburton loophole blocks identification of the chemicals, this issue will be hard to put to rest. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Smm201`0 - if you feel that the article would gain from more information about the technique and its history, please add it. Likewise, if you think the article is propagandistic, in the sense that it is presenting claims that are purely politically-motivated while misrepresenting the sources to do so, please give specific examples so that we can all work to improve the article. The recent history of hydraulic fracturing as conveyed to us in the reliable sources used is also a history of its controversy, for various reasons. It is not up to us as editors to either wish away or censor that controversy, but to convey what the best sources say in the best possible way, so that readers are provided with the resources to make up their own minds. It would be propaganda if the article were claiming in wikipedia's voice that fracking is definitely dangerous and should be avoided; but to neutrally report on what reliable sources say is simply wikipedia policy. Sindinero (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, do you have any specific issues with the article that warrants the template? Unless you can come up with some specific misbalances, misrepresentations of sources, or other specific problems with the article, I think the template should come down. What do others think? Sindinero (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Until the user who instated it can give a more specific justification about why this article is POV (see above), I'm removing the POV template. If others have thoughts on this, please chime in. Sindinero (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I stated my objection. The article deals far too much with the environmental criticism of fracking. I would begin to par it back, but I know that would be met with extreme resistance. I ask the other side to make some concessions here first. Arzel (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not specific enough. WP:POV states, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." And: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources." If the sources out there are largely about the potential or alleged environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing, then that's how we have to represent the subject. Trimming down those sections to suit an abstract notion of "balance" would itself be the POV violation. If you think a section is too long - as a stylistic or organizational problem - and could be tightened up without losing any essential information, that's another issue altogether; not a POV problem. I'm sorry, but I can't see much of a reason for tagging this well-sourced article as POV other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, possibly itself coming from a particular point of view.

I also don't think it's accurate to characterize the editors who have worked on this article as belonging to particular "sides". That's not really what I've seen in the edits and on the talk page, with the periodic exception of obvious industry shills (and to be clear here: I don't mean you) who wander into this and related articles to whitewash them. In general, I see people from a variety of backgrounds and with a variety of focuses working to tighten up these articles and introduce more reliable sources. In this context, what "concessions" do you have in mind? That we ignore the reliable sources because they're making hydraulic fracturing look too bad? I know that's a bluntly-put rhetorical question, but I'm not sure how else to phrase it at this point, since the only justification you give is to repeat that the article deals too much with environmental criticism. What do you suggest we do, since that material is based on the reliable sources we have? Sindinero (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am certainly not an industry shill, but it is clear that there are a number of environmentalist that edit WP articles in these areas and it is clear that they have specific agendas in mind. Instead of trying to present a more balanced approach it is only getting worse as this edit shows. I work in research, and have been published myself and what I see here is publication analysis. This article is not about Hydraulic Fracturing, it is an environmental meta-analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing, and I know that the obvious scholarly researchers that are editing this article know exactly what I am talking about, and know exactly what they are doing. This is why I call this type of article little more than propaganda. You include only research which promotes your point of view. You reject anything which might have any association from the industry as biased, yet include crap like the propaganda film Gasland because that is the only way you can try to fool the general public. I am simply asking for a balanced approach. Arzel (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't call you an industry shill. But honestly, where do you see a misuse of Gasland in this article? It's really only mentioned once, and its view is qualified as such. How do you feel qualified to comment on my "point of view," and how do you even take it upon yourself to think you know what my viewpoint might be? Again, you haven't really pointed to specific problems with the article, or places where sources are misused to represent a particular POV.

Actually, I got this confused with another article. This one doesn't even mention Gasland at all, except in the "See Also" section? Would it be fair to ask what you're even talking about at this point? And as a side note, it's unproductive for you to lump people into "sides". That results in treating other editors as a homogeneous mass to the point where you can accuse me of "including crap like the propaganda film Gasland" in order to "fool" the general public. You're way out of line here, and you should do your research before making shrill odious claims like these. Can you find a single edit of mine that even remotely looks like it's trying to "fool the general public"? And as far as I can remember, I haven't made any edits that use Gasland, although I don't object to a neutral use of the film, as I've implied above. Tone down the personal unpleasantness a touch and you might find editors willing to work with you. As far as your "balanced" approach, you still have yet to provide a specific objection to the article - except for the vague Gasland complaints, which anyone who actually reads this article might be a little bewildered by, since Gasland is not in the article. This confirms my suspicion that you simply don't like environmental criticism of fracking. That itself is WP:POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and doesn't qualify. I'm removing the template - please stop edit-warring this until you actually have something specific and productive to say, rather than vague misinformed objections and personal attacks. Sindinero (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Useful source?

The Big Fracking Bubble: The Scam Behind the Gas Boom, Rolling Stone, March 1, 2012. Largely about Chesapeake Energy, but with substantive material on the fracking boom as well. Sindinero (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think its ok as a source. I googled the topic when I first read it and there are other sources as well.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one I came across today, concerns a new law that prevents doctors from sharing information on fracturing chemicals with their patients. "For Pennsylvania's Doctors, a Gag Order on Fracking Chemicals", Mother Jones. Sindinero (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Only in PA...I hope. PA just passed a law taking away municipalities' rights to control the location of hf wells. They can even put wells in residential zones. People usually associate "big government" with Dems, but PA is Repub controlled right now. This is big gov, Republican style, I guess. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC) It was probably in the same bill. Put it in PA regs?Smm201`0 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I added it, text from the bill (quoted), and a link to the bill itself to the PA reg section.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Media Section

The Media section is not really a Media section, it is a POV section to complain about one supposedly nefarious incident. Furthermore it is being reported from one point of view. How is this relevant to the article in general? Arzel (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Meyrs Study

Smm, regargding this inclusion here are you going to include the response to the study or only those aspects which promote your point of view? Please fix your presentation bias of selecting only sections which promote your point of view. Arzel (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The criticisms are already included in the description, as are potential conflicts of interest. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Penn State Study

Some people are concerned that the fracking process, which involves shooting a mixture of sand, water and chemicals into rock existing far beneath the surface could contaminate drinking water, according to the media outlet. The Penn State study asserts this concern is without basis.

"We looked at 233 water wells before and after drilling of nearby Marcellus gas wells. And in a nutshell what we found was there was no evidence of influences from hydraulic fracturing at least on the wells that we looked at in the time frame that we looked at them," stated study spokesman Bryan Swistock, the media outlet reports.

http://www.rural.palegislature.us/documents/reports/Marcellus_and_drinking_water_2012.pdf

This study is especially notable because baseline water data was available for all wells they sampled. SCH-RAT (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Image

The image at the top of the article is original research and really deals with environmental aspect. This artile is a general article about HF, not specific to possible environmental concerns. Please provide a valid reason for inclusion. Arzel (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I produced the diagram in an attempt to cover both the technique and the potential environmental effects for the main HF article. The potential environmental effects are I think well documented but I agree that it might be better suited to the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States article. If you have any particular concerns about the diagram, then I would be happy to hear them (although perhaps on the image talk page?), I've already updated it once following feedback (I had been over-simplistic with the casing). Mikenorton (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The image is your orignal research. Regardless of your attempts it simply cannot be used in this article. Arzel (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of info re: Nationwide's decision not to cover damage from HF activities.

The information below has been in and out of the article recently. It's inclusion appears to merit discussion. I added it because it made national news and relates to the business of fracking in the US. It is currently in the article, but in case it gets deleted again by Arzel, this is what it says:

Liability and insurance

Nationwide Insurance, a U. S. insurer, issued a statement that its General Liability, Commercial Auto, Motor Truck Cargo, Auto Physical Damage and Public Auto insurance policies do not cover hydraulic fracturing related damage. The company said that it issued the memo because their research led them to decide that the financial exposure created by such coverage was too great. The company will not cover damages to land involved in hydraulic fracturing operations, damages resulting from hauling water, pipe, and lumber to and from drill sites, and damages resulting from the use of bulldozers, dump trucks and other vehicles used in conjunction with hydraulic fracturing.^[1] Company representatives said that they have historically not insured the oil and gas business, but added that they were uncomfortable with hydraulic fracturing's unique risks and could not provide coverage at a reasonable price.^[2] Simon Lomax, the research director for Energy In Depth, has called the decision reckless and uninformed.^[1] Smm201`0 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This has absolutely no impact on HF in the US. That some company that was already not doing business with regards to HF makes a publicity release stating that they are not going to do business with regards to HF says absolutely nothing other than free publicity for National insurrance. Arzel (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not insert your comments in the middle of mine. It makes identity of author confusing. If you read the source, you will learn that it was an internal memo that was reported by news agencies, not a publicity release from the company. Please read sources before commenting and acting. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this material. it is clearly on-topic, properly sourced, and balanced. I just don't see a reason to delete it.Kleptopigstar (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the memo was released to the public makes no difference as to whether or not it is a valid source. It is, in fact, a very valid one. I neither support nor deny the inclusion of this information in this particular article. Quinxorin (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Mary Esch and Rik Stevens (13 July 2012). "U.S. insurer won't cover gas drill fracking exposure". Associated Press. Retrieved 14 July 2012. {{cite news}}: Text "FRONTPAGE" ignored (help); Text "mostpopular" ignored (help); Text "text" ignored (help)
^ Mark Williams (14 July 2012). "Insurers deny drilling claims Nationwide continues policy of not covering policyholders for damage from 'fracking'". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 14 July 2012.

[EschJul122012-1] Mary Esch and Rik Stevens (13 July 2012). "U.S. insurer won't cover gas drill fracking exposure". Associated Press. Retrieved 14 July 2012. {{cite news}}: Text "FRONTPAGE" ignored (help); Text "mostpopular" ignored (help); Text "text" ignored (help)

[WilliamsJul142012-2] Mark Williams (14 July 2012). "Insurers deny drilling claims Nationwide continues policy of not covering policyholders for damage from 'fracking'". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 14 July 2012.

[1]

[2]