Jump to content

Talk:Fracking in the United States/Archive 2

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

Structure

The current structure of this article is quite eclectic. I propose to change the structure to follow the structure of similar articles. I propose the structure as following:

  1. History. This section is currently exists but needs expancion.
  2. Geographical scope. The section name may be different but it should to give an overview in which areas of the Unites States hydraulic fracturing is used. Potentially there may be some overlapping with Shale gas in the United States but that kind of overview would be useful.
  3. Regulations. The existing section is ok but instead on short subsections by states the information should be better summarized in to subsections )federal and state/local).
  4. Economic impact. The current section but it should be expanded.
  5. Environmental impact. Should adequately summarize Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States.
  6. Health and safety concerns. Combining existing Workplace safety subsection and health concerns from the environmental subsection.
  7. Legal issues. Should include information about different lawsuits etc.
  8. Public debate.

Beagel (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that this page needs some organization - and just went and put all the economic info in the same section - I am concerned that referring readers on to the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States page for environmental information fragments the topic too much and makes it harder for readers to access relevant information. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Right now there is almost complete duplication here of the wiki article Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Plazak (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

article

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/us/california-oil-and-ag-face-rift-on-fracking.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.7.83 (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Iodine-131

In next-to-last paragraph in the section on the ongoing EPA hydraulic fracturing study, we have the following sentence:

"Thus, despite concerns about the elevated levels of iodine-131 (a radioactive tracer used in hydraulic fracturing) in drinking water in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, downstream from hydraulic fracturing sites,[61][62][63] iodine-131 is not listed among the chemicals to be monitored in the draft plan for the study."

The clear implication of the above is that hydraulic fracturing is thought to be responsible for high concentrations of radioactive iodine in Pennsylvania drinking water! But the cited references tell a very different story. References [61] and [62] concern EPA detection of temporary spikes in I-131 levels in Pennsylvania in early 2011 due to the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, but at levels which the EPA says "do not raise public health concerns" (ref [62]). Reference [63] concerns spikes in I-131 concentrations in Wissahickon Creek, a small watershed in SE Pennsylvania far from any hydraulic fracturing; the high I-131 there was ascribed to urine from thyroid cancer patients being treated with iodine-131. None of the three cited references even mention hydraulic fracturing.

At the very least, the passage is misleading, unacceptable WP:SYN, and should be eliminated. If there is any genuine concern over I-131 from hydraulic fracturing, it should be documented with a citation from a WP:RS. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is true that iodine-131 is not being assessed by the EPA study (see list of what substances are being measured: http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/HFStudyPlanDraft_SAB_020711.pdf), which is odd considering that iodine-131 is one of the most commonly used radiotracers used in hydraulic fracturing (see NRC manual[1], or any of numerous patents for fracking fluid)[2][3][4]. It is not listed on Frac Focus either. Although drilling is not yet in the immediate Philadelphia area, there have been several incidents of local water treatment facilities accepting it, and there has been illegal dumping/spills of hydraulic fracturing wastewater (one of which is documented here, where it is dumped on the border between the Wissahickon and Neshaminy watersheds[5]) which includes iodine-131, but they have not determined the source of the iodine-131 in Philadelphia's drinking water. They have just been able to eliminate (so to speak) all of the other sources they were considering (nuclear energy, medical, weaponry), except the thyroid patients' urine.[6] So, some comment about the exclusion of iodine-131 from the EPA hydraulic fracturing study despite its widespread use is indicated. Regarding the connection to Philadelphia's iodine-131 problem, perhaps not yet. The EPA's response has been to stop reporting on the levels of iodine in drinking water after several consistent readings above the maximum contaminant level,[7] and in the case of the City of Philadelphia, to stop releasing its annual water quality report altogether, and label the old report as new.[8] Is it from hydraulic fracturing wastewater? Power plants (they said they ruled that out)? Urine? Who knows, but the iodine-131 levels are rising, so hopefully there will probably be a RS about it soon, one way or another.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jack E. Whitten, Steven R. Courtemanche, Andrea R. Jones, Richard E. Penrod, and David B. Fogl (Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (June 2000). "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Well Logging, Tracer, and Field Flood Study Licenses (NUREG-1556, Volume 14)". US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved 19 April 2012. labeled Frac Sand...Sc-46, Br-82, Ag-110m, Sb-124, Ir-192{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ [1] Scott III, George L. (03-June-1997) US Patent No. 5635712: Method for monitoring the hydraulic fracturing of a subterranean formation. US Patent Publications.
  3. ^ [2] Fertl; Walter H. (15-Nov-1983) US Patent No. US4415805: Method and apparatus for evaluating multiple stage fracturing or earth formations surrounding a borehole. US Patent Publications.
  4. ^ [3] Scott III, George L. (15-Aug-1995) US Patent No. US5441110: System and method for monitoring fracture growth during hydraulic fracture treatment. US Patent Publications.
  5. ^ David Caruso (2011-01-03). "44,000 Barrels of Tainted Water Dumped Into Neshaminy Creek. We're the only state allowing tainted water into our rivers". NBC Philadelphia. Associated Press. Retrieved 2012-04-28.
  6. ^ Sandy Bauers (2012-03-30). "Radioactive iodine in Phila. water tied to thyroid patients". Philadelphia Inquirer. p. 2. Retrieved 2012-04-03. Iodine-131 also is a byproduct of nuclear power plants. But officials have ruled out the Limerick nuclear power plant, located on the Schuylkill south of Pottstown, and any of the region's medical, research, or pharmaceutical firms as the source of the iodine-131. By excluding everything else, they settled on the patients themselves as the source.
  7. ^ "Iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia, PA drinking water". EPA RadNet Environfacts. EPA. Retrieved 7 December 2012.
  8. ^ "Philadelphia Water Department drinking water quality reports". Philadelphia Water Department. Retrieved 1 June 2013.
I really have to call to your attention that you misrepresented your source when you wrote: "it is dumped on the border between the Wissahickon and Neshaminy watersheds." That was a greatly misleading statement. Your own source specifically stated that the local POTW discharged the water into Neshaminy Creek. The rest of your comments are just your own speculation, contradicted by the health authorities. This is clearly WP:SYN and WP:OR. Right now all we can really truthfully say is: "A Wikipedia editor suspects that I-131 in Philadelphia drinking water is from frack water, contrary to the findings of the local public health authorities." All you need to provide to justify a section on I-131 here is a single WP:RS: a scientist or professional health worker who shares your suspicion. But you have apparently not been able to find even one. You write above: "there will probably be an RS about it soon". There are actually a number of WP:RSs on the subject, it's just that none of them agree with you. If and when there is a WP:RS on the subject of I-131 from frack water, you will be right to include it. But until then, these personal speculations of yours do not belong in Wikipedia. Plazak (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is little in the article Alaska fracking that is particular to Alaska, as opposed to the United States in general. I support the proposed merger with this article. Mikenorton (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge. Agree with Mikenorton that Alaska fracking has little that is unique to Alaska, and would be better as a section in this article. Plazak (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Dream of U.S. Oil Independence Slams Against Shale Costs"

Bloomberg article that urges caution and that also has some stats. 86.176.255.225 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary style

The section on environmental impacts is bloated. It should be a summary of Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States, and I will towards making it so. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Fully support this. Of course, at first we need to cleaning up Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States to have a decent article to summarize. Beagel (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

New image

I just uploaded it. Not sure if it has a place in the article, or would be maybe a good ext link. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Companies

I can't find any information regarding the companies that use Hydraulic Fracturing (the drilling companies and the oil-and-gas companies who hire them). It would be VERY HELPFUL if Wikipedia includes a list of such companies. Readers search online for company information for many different reasons. Some may be attempting to look up information on a specific company (maybe they can do that via a search on the company name -- but unless Wikipedia includes this type of information, many times the only data that comes up online is company P.R. releases or other biased data sources). Other folks want general information regarding business-type companies in their area, state, or national (e.g., which oil-and-gas companies in Texas are using hydraulic fracturing, etc.). Some readers may be informed investors who either want - or do not want - to invest in companies that have profits tied to the practice.

I rarely find information on Wikipedia that lists specific companies tied to the specific article written. This is not isolated to this particular article, so I am wondering if it is Wikipedia policy to exclude data that informs readers about specific companies. Are there liability fears? Is it a concern that the lists would have to be periodically brought-up-to-date?

Regardless, my long-winded point is that I am trying to do a search to find a list of companies that are tied to hydraulic fracturing. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find this data on Wikipedia. This is not an isolated case; there are several other occasions where I wanted to do preliminary research (conscience investing) that gave me a list of companies tied to a specific industry, practice, or production. If I am blind or ignorant as to how Wikipedia houses such article data (i.e, the data does exist), I would appeciate a reply from my smarter Wikipedia-ites. Conversely, if I am correct, and Wikipedia article are generally lacking in providing associated-company lists, is there a way to include this practice in this and other articles -- as a service to readers and in following our desire to increase knowledge? Tesseract501 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Which oil companies? All of them. The list would be too long. Regards, Plazak (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Workplace safety

Quite recently the "Workplace safety" subsection was expanded massively. While some of this information is useful, I see some problems here. First, most of this information is not US-specific but universal. That kind of information belongs not here but in Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing which has special "Health risks" section. Second, most of information on risks from hydrocarbon gases and vapors exposure is not related to hydraulic fracturing but to oil and gas production in general. Therefore, it articles on hydraulic fracturing, only workplace safety aspects related to hydraulic fracturing and not to oil and gas industry in general, should be included. Third, there is more specific article Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States with the "Workers health" subsection. To avoid POVFORK, All information should go there and in this article here it should be properly summarized by using summary style. Beagel (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Changes are made. Beagel (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Environmental and health impact

There are several differences in the information in that section compered to the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. To avoid POVFORK, the current text in this section here should be replaced with a proper summary of Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States (using summary style). That article needs some work, of course, before it would be ready to be summarized. Beagel (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I see that this was proposed already back in October 2014 by User:RockMagnetist. (#Summary style). Beagel (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

State Map

We should have a map of the states that ban fracking and those that don't. QubecMan (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fracking_in_the_United_States/Archive_2&oldid=1219759289"