Talk:Fracking

Radiation poisoning

The impact of exposure to radiation as a result of exposure to both naturally occurring radiation (e.g., from radium) and made-made radiation (from radioactive tracer isotopes like iodine-131) is both short term effects, such as acute radiation syndrome, moderate term effects, such as thyroid cancer from iodine-131, and longer term, such as death from the increased cancer risk. NYT has reported elevated radioactivity levels near fracking sites and EPA is stepping up its studies of radioactivity associated with fracking in PA. Interestingly, the lists of symptoms experienced by individual reported in the groundwater contamination studies cited above match those for acute radiation syndrome, but it seemed to be more appropriate to put the info in the radiation section. The information I inserted spells out the impact radiation can have, and why people are concerned about the levels.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The sort of radiation levels that are being described from wastewater are a lot higher than permitted levels in drinking water, but nowhere near enough to cause acute effects. Add a source that shows that acute radiation syndrome has been observed as a result of hydraulic fracturing or that it is considered a significant risk (other than to the workers that handle isotopes) or please remove it. The risks of increased cancer deaths is obviously an issue. As it reads now, it clearly implies that there is significant risk of acute radiation effects as a result of radioactive contamination from hydraulic fracturing, otherwise it's just there to say "radiation is really scary stuff". It is extremely disheartening to have most changes to this article reverted within minutes, I really don't know why I bother. Mikenorton (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'll look for a reference that quantifies risks by exposure levels. Regarding reversion, I have edited a lot in response to your suggestions, if that counts for anything. So your input does have an impact. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As no sources have been forthcoming, I've removed that sentence. Mikenorton (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I forgot about this request. There are a couple articles that talk about it in Bradford County, PA and on the Gulf Coast. I'll track them down. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a study that talked about the need to replace iodine-131 because of its effects on personnel handling it and in flowback problems. There are a couple product ads that say the same. They are listed on this page. I'll track down the article though. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed the offending sentence again - I note that it was reworded, but it's still unsourced and therefore goes. Mikenorton (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Method Fracturing section not logical

The method section didn't seem that logical to me so I tried to write my own, any comments.

A hydraulic fracture is formed by pumping the fracturing fluid into the wellbore at a rate sufficient to increase pressure downhole to exceed that of the fracture gradient of the rock, but if the formation is not held open (or propped open) with proppant the formation will naturally close. The main purpose of fracturing fluid is to get proppant (usually a sieved sand or specific size sand) into the formation and stay there with out damaging the formation or production of the well. Two methods of transporting the proppant in the fluid is high rate and/or high viscosity.

With high rate you get jobs known as a slickwater where a fracturing fluid is pumped at a high rate to ensure the rate of the fluid carries the proppant down the well through the perforations and into the formation. With these types of jobs there is usually a polymer pumped with the fluid known as a friction reducer. The purpose of a friction reducer is to reduce pressure loss to friction thus allowing the pumps to pump at a higher rate without having greater pressure on the surface. Rate jobs have trouble at high concentrations of proppant thus more water is required to carry the same amount of proppant. Slickwater is usually the most desired type of job on shale formations, but this is not always the case.

There are a variety of chemicals that can be used to increase the viscosity. With any viscosity increase, some type of gelling chemical must be used first. One of the most common gelling agent used is guar (commonly used in ice cream as a thickening agent), but there are several others including guar derivatives and cellulose gelling agents. These are known as gel jobs. Oil can also be used to increase the viscosity for formations that are water sensitive, but are not considered gel. All of these are known as gels in the frac industry, but the main thing that links them is that they are long polymers chains on the chemical level to increase the viscosity. The rate of viscosity increase for several gelling agents is pH dependent and thus occasionally pH modifiers must be added to ensure viscosity of the gel.

If a greater viscosity is needed than a gel job, an ion can be added known as a crosslinker. A crosslinker takes the long chemical chains and connects them thus the concept of crosslink. There are several types of chemicals that can be used as a crosslinker (some only work with certain gels), borate being the common one used with guar gels. Diesel could be cross linked since it is a long polymer, and creates a fluid almost identical to naepolm (again good for formations sensitive to water or water is detrimental to production). Many crosslink chemicals are only effective in a certain pH range thus pH modifiers almost always need to be run with crosslinkers or some crosslinker chemicals have pH modifier premixed. These are known as crosslink jobs.

Viscosity is used to carry proppant into the formation, but when a well is being flowed back or produced it is undesireable to have the fluid pull the proppant out of the formation. For this reason, a chemical known as a breaker is almost always pumped with all gel or crosslinked fluids to reduce the viscosity. This chemical is usually an oxidizer or an enzyme. The oxidizer reacts with the gel to break it down to reduce the fluids viscosity to ensure no proppant is pulled from the formation. An enzyme acts as a catalyst for the breaking down of the gel.

CO2 and Nitrogen are also pumped with the fluid occasionally. These are known as energized fluid jobs. These are usually pumped with a foamer to ensure the fluid mixes well with the gas.

Initially it is common to pump some amount (6000 gallons or less) of HCl (usually 28%-5%) or Acetic (usually 45% -5%) acid to clean the perferations or break down the near well bore and ultimately reduce pressure seen on the surface. At this points the pumps are usually brought up to the rate the job calls for or what can be accomplished without exceeding pressure limits. Then the proppant is started and stepped up in concentration. For slickwater it is common to include sweeps or a reduction in the proppant concentration temporarily to ensure the well is not overwhelmed with proppant causing a screen-off.

Terminology

Screen-off - When proppant is pumped at a high concentration either intentionally or unintentionally to create a screen of proppant at either the perforations in the well or at the tips of the fractures.

Flow-back - When the well is opened and the pressure of the formation naturally pushes the fluids up and out of a well to a tank. (One of the reasons of a frac job is to increase the rate of fluid from the formation)

Blow-out - The uncontrolled release of pressure from a well. An extremely dangerous situation. 173.224.2.231 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2012

RfC: Citation Overkill

There is an ongoing dispute concerning a number of citations needed for the lead, particularly for the sentence about environmental impact what has right now 10 references. As all these impacts are discussed in more details in the relevant sections, one editor has expressed concerns that the reason for such large number of references in one sentence is POV pushing and making a point. The proponents argue that references are added for all impacts separately because most studies focus on one type of contamination. As there seems to be no consensus between editors, outside comments are requested how to implement WP:LEADCITE, WP:RS and WP:NPOV in this particular case. Beagel (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion

Would someone please explain why there continues to be citation overkill for the lead. I have fixed it a couple of times, but it continues to expand. I am going to simply remove the first 5 since 11 are not needed for one statement. Please give valid reasons for the excessive citations. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to trim, don't do it thoughtlessly (just taking the first 5? tell me you're joking, right?) - make sure the strongest citations are the ones left in the article. There are also other ways (like bundling of reducing citation clutter. Sindinero (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have done that twice already with Smm simply reverting. So if you can't pick yourself I will simply remove the first five. Arzel (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a statement with a number of citations after it which was condensed from a longer sentence with a few sources listed after each topic. The sentence should probably be re-expanded rather than sources deleted.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Sometimes sources cover different aspects of a statement.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That is the lead, which is a summary. That section certainly does not need to be expanded in the lead. Read up on WP:Citation overkill. The manner in which some are being used is purely POV pushing. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The original statement was succinct and just listed the types of environmental contamination that had been documented by RS - air, water, radiation, etc., with a source or two after each. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really WP:Citation overkill. The lead is a summary and all these impacts are described later in more details. Having two new citations for every kind of impacts seems weird—there is certainly possible to find e.g. 2 reliable sources listing all these impacts. Beagel (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Most studies focus on one type of contamination. The newest studies with the better technologies have not all been reported in one place.Smm201`0 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As there is specific subsections for every kind of impact, there is no need to add all specific studies in the lead. By my understanding, if the fact is cited in the prose in the specific section or subsection, it does not need a reference in the lead at all. However, I understand that somebody may ask a reference for this sentence in the lead, so the best way should be finding one or two references naming all these impacts. Saying that there is no such kind of references, is just nonsense.

Another thing is that, as a rule, references should be placed at the end of the sentence, and not in middle of it. The current practice in this article to place references massively in the middle of sentences makes it harder to read and very difficult to edit. Beagel (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So instead of removing the citation overkill you simply doubled down? You even added citation overkill to the preceding section. You do not need 4 citations to mention exports....unless you are trying to make a point. Your continued POV pushing is getting out of hand. Arzel (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As is yours, Arzel. Simply removing the first five is not an adequate solution to anything. Why don't you list specific citations that you think are not necessary, and your rationale for finding them unnecessary? Sindinero (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not simply remove the first five. I went through each one and chose the weakest and then went back and fixed up the refs which I messed up in the process. It was a lot of careful work. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I made the mistake of taking what you wrote at face value..? You started this thread by saying, "I am going to simply remove the first 5 since 11 are not needed for one statement." That doesn't seem very ambiguous to me, but maybe you meant something else...? Sindinero (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You can remove the weakest references for each point, that than the first five. And I support your point, Arzel. A reader comes to read an article not read a clutter of references. e^xtra999 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

...except that there are only 1-3 references per point now, and citation overkill is defined as 4 or more. Smm201`0 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There are 10 references for one sentence. And this is definitely citation overkill, particularly for the lead. Beagel (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they don't all pertain to the same piece of information. Having read all the sources I know that they are all very recent (published in 2011 & 2012), which doesn't allow enough time for the media to pull them all together in one article. Such an article would also be further removed from the source of the information.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that you are incapable of editing from a neutral point of view on this matter. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Agree that there are too many citations - per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEADCITE. The last sentence and a half of the lead discusses the negative views on hydraulic fracturing. This negative material contains 15 citations, or about two thirds of the citations in the lead. Per WP:WEIGHT, the number of references for the negative views should be proportional to the prominence of those views in reliable sources. I really doubt that negative views take up two thirds of the material in reiable sources on hydraulic fracturing, so the number of references is way too large.

Also, WP:LEADCITE suggests that references in the lead should be used sparingly unless the material is likely to be challenged. In the current lead, we have three references for "risks to air quality" alone. This fragment doesn't mean that there is consensus about the risks, but that some have expressed concerns about the risks. That should not be so controversial as to require three references! One should do. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you read the UT study, they report on the number of negative media stories, which is larger than positive stories. More importantly though, the last sentence is not about negative points - it is about environmental impact, which is reportedly negative. If you can find sources documenting positive environmental impact, please cite them.`Smm201`0 (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree that excessive citations in the lead should be avoided. However, having watched and occasionally worked on this article for a couple years now, I can say that it's a contentious topic, and that every now and then people come along (sometimes obviously and demonstrably industry shills) to try to reduce mention of negative environmental impacts associated with fracking. I think that the excessive citations, especially in the lead, have piled up as a defensive bulwark against this type of POV censorship. This isn't a justification so much as an explanation. While I agree with JTSchreiber that the fact that some have expressed concerns about the risks should not be so controversial, unfortunately is has proven to be so for this topic. Would bundling be an appropriate compromise here? That way the article and even the lead could be well-supported with strong sources in the predictable event that someone will challenge the environmental claims, but there won't be the distracting visual clutter. Sindinero (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is the clutter aspect and then there is the NPOV aspect. The clutter is annoying to read, but the obvious attempt to push a POV is worse. By using so many sources for one statement the implication is that the is really really really important. Much more important than anything else in the lead. Why can't you just edit from a NPOV and leave it at that? Arzel (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you back of the lazy ad hominem attacks? I do edit from an NPOV (please show me a diff if you think the contrary is true). Your dismissive statement doesn't address my point at all (as usual on your part, unfortunately). The citation overkill, while it does need to be fixed, is the result of the constant Sisyphean labor of combating the industry-backed denials that seem to plague this topic; there are people who have edited this article who seem to be working from the perspective that no mention of environmental issues is needed whatsoever, abundance of reliable sources be damned. We need to fix the citation overkill, true - but we also need to make sure that the well-sourced material on environmental concerns is better protected from censorious removal. Your charmingly arbitrary suggestion (remove the first five) doesn't cut the proverbial mustard here.

There's a similar situation over at the article on the English Defense League - despite what the sources say, there are constant attempts to portray an Islamophobic, far-right fringe group as something other than an Islamophobic, far right fringe group. Unfortunately, shoring up the best, neutral version of that article has also resulted in an overabundance of citations. We do need to pare down excessive citations here, but you also need to realize that citation overkill sometimes results from good-faith intentions to support the best neutral version of articles on contentious topics, and not automatically from a desire to push a given POV. Sindinero (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not simply remove the first 5 sources, and repeating it does not make it so. I went through them all and removed what appeared to be the least notable and left the strongest. It was reverted, which to me shows a lack of good-faith. While you may claim to desire to edit from a NPOV, the actions of SMM clearly show that he does not. As for the response from the industry, well that is probably a reflection of the attacks directed at them. Perhaps if the environmentalist did not try to blame everything under the sun on them they would not respond in kind. For years the far left has been crying about Coal and Oil and Nuclear and pretty much everything and when presented a gift of what was one of their desired solutions (natural gas powered electric plants) they have gone off the rails against that as well. It is little wonder that industry is fighting back against them. Arzel (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You were the one who said you were going to remove the first five sources; I simply took you at your word. Additionally, your POV shows through in your (frankly, quite naive) notion of the relationship between industry, environmentalists, and the "far left." You really think industry is just acting defensively, because they've been attacked? It's not really coherent to portray industry and environmentalists as two more or less symmetrical sides in a squabble, each with their own 'interests.' Industry is heavily financially invested in their practices of the moment, and corporations historically downplay any of the risks or drawbacks (cf. big tobacco of bygone decades). In a sense, there's no blaming them for this; they're just trying to maximize their bottom line. But it does mean that they will be aggressively fending off critiques in advance. There's no blaming them; but that doesn't mean that their self-interested dismissal of criticism and risk needs to be taken with a few grains of salt. It's really nonsensical to see environmentalists (including scientists, here) and industry as symmetrical actors, although this is a common ploy of corporate apologists. Industry has a vested interest in minimizing perception of risk and legislative obstacles; environmentalists don't have a vested interest in pointing out that something might be harmful to the environment. This should just be common sense. Sindinero (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you please drop the five sources statements. Your view of how corporations view their environment may have been true decades ago, but this has largely changed due to early environmental actions (which were very good btw). Today, industry is extrememly cognizent of their environment and the perception related to their actions. Coal mining (for example), which I have a far more extensive knowledge than most, is done in the midwest large by way of strip mining. In the 70's during the initial height of environmental concerns they had a number of problems regarding runoff and destruction of the land that had been striped. As a result major changes were made and now the resulting land is left in a condition superior to before it was stripped. I know farmers that were hopeful that there land would be strip mined because they new that the resulting end product would be more suitable for farming. These changes were the result of symmetrical actions on the part of industry, scientists, environmentalist, and the land owning population, and I know people in all four areas. The only naive ones are those that have been fooled (like yourself) by the far left environmentalist that others have been co-opted and that industry is applying your ploy of corporate apologists. The fact is that most environmentalist today have very little understanding of the science (people like Josh Fox). They think they do understand and they scream loudly. This gets the public involved, and then the politicians respond by funding studies to study the impact of the industry. Research simply follows the funding and as the science becomes a product of the forces that supply the money. All because most environmentalist are simply not that smart and have a poor understanding of science. Arzel (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop the five sources thing, but then I'm not sure why you said, "I am going to simply remove the first 5". Dead horse, in any case. Your naive attacks on the intelligence of other editors and of environmentalists in general demonstrate your POV, and don't really help this article. (If you're going to make ad hominem intelligence attacks, at least work on your orthography a bit and figure out the difference between 'there' and 'their,' it'll make the condescending persona you seem to be striving towards a little more convincing. Just a tip.) I'd be curious to hear how you think something like mountaintop removal, e.g., leaves the land in a superior condition. This is an interesting claim indeed. Sindinero (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So you read my whole comment and the best you could come up with is a miss-application of their and there? If you can point to some mountains in the midwest that have been strip-mined I will readjust my view of your intelligence. FTR I don't have a dim view of all environmentalists, I obtained most of my coal information from an environmental engineer who worked to resolve many of the environmental problems at that point. However, so long as environmentalist here feel the solution is to drive industry to other countires where they can do far more damage I will hold my view of them as such. Arzel (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there wasn't really much of substance in your comment besides the predictable anti-environmentalist rant. I'm aware mountaintop removal is not done in the midwest. I took your comment as a more general statement that sometimes, things that seem environmentally bad can be environmentally good. If your comment isn't more broadly applicable, then I'm not sure I see its relevance. It's "misapplication". And I'd repeat what I said about the ad hominem intelligence attacks. Cheers. Sindinero (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So you ignored that I am actually pro-environment. The difference is that I understand the realities of the world we live in and actual science and math, while many environmentalist are ideologically blinded and have a poor understanding of statistical risk. Arzel (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This particular dialogue is yielding diminishing returns for all sides, I'd venture to say, so I'll keep this short. When you started posting heavily on the talk pages of hf-related articles, you did so by claiming --vaguely and aggressively-- that these articles had too much information on the environmental aspects of fracking, and that other editors working on them were doing so out of sinister, far-left, environmentalist POVs. So I don't think you actually get to say that you're pro-environment to then give yourself the leverage to then claim that you're like an environmentalist, only smarter and more realistic. That seems disingenuous, at the very least. Statistical risk is an interesting concept; perhaps you're right that many don't understand it enough. However, as WP editors, people aren't really required to -- we go by what the sources say, and in the case of fracking those have often been environmentally-damaging incidents, not statistical potentialities. Something that might have a 0.001% chance of happening, before the fact, leaves the domain of statistics once it has happened, and enters the messier world of ecology, local economies, adjudication, and politics. And in my experience, those who claim to "understand the realities of the world we live in" tend to be the most raving idealists. Sindinero (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sindinero, thanks for trying to find a compromise. While bundling would not be as bad, there would still be undue weight in the references section. Would it be possible to provide a diff of the article or talk page to illustrate the POV censorship you wrote about? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Here are a couple, from one user who no longer seems that active (at least under that name).[1][2] As the user's name is also the name of a linkedIn profile for a communications person at Chesapeake, I wouldn't be surprised if they pop up again under a different user name. There are more, further in the past, but they'd take some digging; some of them were IPs who simply removed claims without a summary. To be clear, I don't have anything against getting the citations (especially in the lead) down to a reasonable number; I would only hope that those who are so gung-ho about this necessary step will also be there to help the article out when the shills return. Sindinero (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple more: [3][4][5]. I don't think all the removals had the same motivation, but in their preference for removing large chunks of text without much or any explanation, I certainly don't think they helped the article at all. Sindinero (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I do plan on watching this article for awhile and will revert deletions of environmental info when appropriate. Thanks for looking up those diffs! I've looked through them all, and I don't see much of a case for saying that there is unusually agressive editting in this article. There will always be vandals and others who delete appropriate information no matter how well sourced. Also, in some of the cases, I think that the deletions were correct or debatable. For example, in the first diff, the editor stated that hydraulic fracturing is not mentioned in the source. Assuming that's true (I don't have access to the source for verification), then WP:SYNTH says that source should not be used in this article. Also, in your fifth diff, the material was moved to a U.S.-specific section with an earlier edit. (It would've been helpful to have that in an edit comment.) If you want to discuss those diffs some more, let me know. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The first diff's edit summary is false. The source (still in the article) mentions the Wyoming thing as a result of fracking (F3 search the text for 'Wyoming'.) It's impossible to misunderstand, and based on that editor's probable identity (and other edits), I don't think it was a mistake. With the fifth diff; although that information might have eventually made it into the US specific section, I don't see that that was what this editor was doing (I haven't found the diff where that editor restores that deleted material to another section), so I think the diff I provided does actually show the sort of tendentious deletion I'm talking about.

You're right that there will always be vandals, but there are vandals and there are vandals; individual motivation or the fun of just messing with Wikipedia are one thing. People who work for the major corporations involved and heavily invested in fracturing, or who are coming at this article from the position that it simply shouldn't mention the environmental risks of the process, are another. Thanks in advance for your future help with this, however aggressive it may turn out to be. Sindinero (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In the fifth diff, the editor had already copied the material to the "United States" section before doing the deletion shown in that diff. That's why you won't find the addition afterward. Thanks for providing the NIH link for the first diff. That link wasn't part of the reference at the time it was deleted, which is why I didn't know about it before. Yes, that was an inappropriate deletion, but I'm not sure that extra references would help. The editor could simply say that none of the references apply and delete them all.

The diff 1 editor was pushing a POV, but gave up quickly. I've seen problem editors who put up much more of a fight. I think that a larger number of references may be helpful with those editors, especially when they debate the quality of references at length on the talk page, but I'm not seeing that kind of situation with this article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, I looked at the UT study. For the keywords in their media search, they mainly used terms used which have a negative connotation for fracking. They found a lot of negative coverage because that's what they looked for. That doesn't prove anything.

The last sentence in the lead of the Wikipedia article is negative,not only because negative issues are listed, but because the wording "environmental concerns" is inherently negative. If positive impacts were added without reducing references for the existing issues, as you suggest, then this would give environmetal issues undue weight as well. That's not an acceptable solution. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC).

Just trying to be empirical, and it is a study everyone cites. Such data isn't usually available. There was another article about media coverage as well (more ad time than news coverage; news coverage mostly negative), but I don't think it would clarify the issue. From what I've read, the only potential environmental positive would have been that HF gas production was better for the environment that coal, but that is now in question. I haven't seen anything else about hf having a positive environmental impact - not even in the industry literature. Although there aren't environmental positives far as I have read, there are other positives, one of which is listed in the paragraph above - the increased ability to meet the demand for natural gas and increased revenues for some. That seems to be the ongoing discussion regarding hf - energy production benefits vs. environmental impact, yet to be understood. I don't see how omitting negatives because there aren't positives would make the article more neutral. Aren't we supposed to report what is published in RS in a neutral, representative way, rather than neutralize positive or negative published RS information? That would be like saying Mick Jagger is an English musician, singer, and songwriter. Period. Smm201`0 (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, positives such as increases to the current energy supplies and jobs should be added to the lead section, along with references. Per WP:LEADCITE, those additions should not have many references because they aren't likely to be challenged. That would still leave the lead with an unduely negative balance in its references,

I don't think that the Mick Jagger analogy applies to this RfC. This whole discussion has been about the number of references, not whether environmental issues can be mentioned. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support It is best to be alert for not falling victims of the common fallacy that "if this, then not that". For example, does the statement "Are there sufficient inline citations" automatically disqualify the statement "There are insufficient inline citations"? That is, are the two statements mutually exclusive? It is important to sort of this out, or else, I see this subject will return back to haunt everyone here again. For example, imo, (I am not defending either side; I am simply stating my opinion) it has been established that there are sufficient inline citations when we consider certain sources which appear to focus in "practical" (as compared to, say, legal) issues -- reliability of sources blah blah blah included -- and that there are sometimes reliable sources cited when we consider that it is the only acceptable practice here. There are some very valid neutral sources, included, that state the obvious issues very well, but the crux is in the proving the non-obvious. An editor pointed out above that while citations are mentioned (rightfully or not) (and as I doubled checked this appears to be by a seemingly endless number of sources) none of the other several sources cited are ever mentioned as official. We need to consider what sort of weight that reality should carry/not carry. We also need to consider definitions, what do we mean by "official", or, for example, does the fact that sources state that is enough for Wikipedia to contain that statement/claim?/fact? An editor above stated (and I am not saying this is right or not, only pointing out why having clear definitions is probably the first step in this discussion) that in order for something to be official it "must be declared so in a neutral document". Is this our definition of "neutral"? why? why not? Also, is it OK for us as editors to play the role of supreme court of the land and interpet what was meant by some respected academic source? IMO, we would probably be frowned upon if we took this direction. Agreed? Sonarclawz (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • • Could we ask for a little clarification? I've read your comment four times now and am still having trouble, well, distilling its essence. Do you think there are too many sources? Also, what exactly do you mean by 'official' sources? As far as I know, that's not really a relevant distinction for wikipedia policy. Sindinero (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe the 1st sentence alone should explain and 'distill' its essence. What it means is that you have to take care about painting anything in black or in white. There are shades of grey to any argument.What it also means is that in such arguments it is very easy to shoot down your opposition by claiming that the sources - even when abundantly provided as in this case - are not neutral enough.... and you can go on defining your own standard of neutrality to disqualify whatever your opponent provides. So simply put - its moot!Sonarclawz (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
        • In this RfC discussion, no one is saying that the content of each source needs to be neutral. The discussion is about how many sources can be used to illustrate and verify the significance of each point of view. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Qualified response Agree that excessive citations in the lead should be avoided, but there is no one or two articles that cover the newest information about all of the environmental impacts - the sources are all 2011 and 2012, so there hasn't been enough time for an overarching article to be written. This is a current issue, and new information is continually emerging. I deleted the older sources and weak one already.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • You approach is what I have objected to in the past. You are writing this article as if you are writing a research paper. That is NOT what WP is for. Aside from the basic issue of citation overkill that you have employed is the greater problem of original research, which I have only had a small chance to examine. If you want to write a research paper and have it published on the perils of HF than I suggest you go through the appropriate process. Arzel (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Again, the facile ad hominem attacks aren't helping anything. Nothing Smm201'0 has done looks like "a research paper." Tone down the condescension and actually take the time to engage with specifics, please. Sindinero (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Here is a good example of research which I removed. Is that specific enough four you? I removed the actual source and replaced them with (source) because some of the "sources" won't translate properly.
        • Proponents of hydraulic fracturing have erroneously reported in the press and other media that the recent University of Texas Study ("Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development") found that hydraulic fracturing caused no environmental contamination,(source) when in fact the study found that all steps in the process except the actual injection of the fluid (which the study separated,(source) spuriously,(source) from the rest of the process and designated "hydraulic fracturing") have resulted in environmental contamination.(source) The radioactivity of the injected fluid itself was not assessed in the University of Texas study.(source) While the EPA recognizes the potential for contamination of water by hydraulic fracturing, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified in a Senate Hearing Committee stating that she is not aware of any proof where the fracking process itself has contaminated water.(source)
        • Arzel (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The article already has a reference name "HeatOnGas"(Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives. 115 (2). US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: A76. PMC 1817691. Retrieved 2012-05-01.), which already lists alt these potential impacts. As the reasoning to have an extensive number of references for the one sentence was that there is no singel sources mentioning all these impacts, this reference will solve this problem. In addition, it was published in the academic journal. I would like to propose to replace all other references on this particular sentence with this reference per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEADCITE. Beagel (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is from a journal, which is good, but it is 5 years old, so it doesn't cover the most recent information, and likely contradicts it, from what I recall. That is why it wasn't used. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

And which most recent information is included in this sentence which is not covered? This argument is really odd. Beagel (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, you seem to be under the impression that the references in the lead section need to cover as much of the latest research as possible. Why is that? I see no such requirement in Wikipedia policy. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No...a brief listing of main areas of environmental hf studies with a couple of sources each seems good. "As much of the research as possible" would be a lot more than two for each area! Smm201`0 (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) WP:Citation overkill suggests a limit of three references per sentence. Arguing instead for eight references is pushing for as much as possible. (2) To justify the use of many more than three references for the sentence, you wrote, "The newest studies with the better technologies have not all been reported in one place." Where does WP policy state that the references for a brief overview needs to cover all that? Again, that is pushing for as much as possible. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The focus should be on whether facts in a statement have sources to back them up, not how many sources one needs per sentence... But that is kind of a moot point now, don't you think? A dated source that doesn't cover the information in the sentence has replaced the former, more current sources. AND, in the last 2 weeks, 34 sources have been removed from the articles, so it's less over-supported. Progress! You should be a happy man about now.Smm201`0 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be one thing if you had to read past the references' actual authors' names and years of publication like in print articles, but we are talking about a couple of little numbers that link to information. WP says 2 refs per fact are recommended (it offers a back up for broken links). The number of refs has already been reduced. Looks fine to me. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken links could be and usually they are problematic if we have bare url links or links with limited information linking to unknown pages. It usually helps if all available citation template parameters are filled, so it could be repaired using webarchive or finding the same information from the alternative source. It is even easier with scientific journal which have volume, issue, page numbers and other identification codes (pmc in this case) included. In that case, even if the source is not anymore available online, it is always possible to find as a printed version. Eight references for one sentence is not ok if we have a single reliable source which covers all the issues. This is actually what was also said by the third party non-involved editors. I am sorry to say that but your only motivation seems to be having a maximum number of references about environmental impacts to make an impression HOW BAD the hydraulic fracturing is. This is not acceptable and this is defined as POV. Beagel (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No...I already condensed the text referring to such studies - there are just a couple refs for each area. There is a whole lot more research available if I wanted to load it up. I can't see using an outdated (2007) article that misrepresents the current status of the literature just because it names the various types of research. That doesn't seem in the spirit of WP, or good science writing. Not including the environmental info would be biased. Smm201`0 (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

For saying that the potential environmental impacts include "contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the health effects of these" one does not need to included eight reference or "a whole lot" reference. It is enough to have one reliable reference, published in the scientific journal and listing all these impacts. Saying that this is outdated is a nonsense. What exactly means "outdated" in this context? All the impacts are listed in the sentence in the lead are confirmed by the source. Saying that it "misrepresents the current status of the literature" or calling it "not good science writing" is something which has nothing to do with questions if the source corresponds ro WP:RS and if it confirms what the sentence says. For both questions the answer is yes. Also, the scientific journal is probably more "scientific writing" and "reliable source" than some blogs you are using to make a point. Beagel (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: NPOV

Hydraulic fracturing is a controversial technique for extracting natural gas. Comments regarding how best to achieve and maintain NPOV would be helpful.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This RfC is poorly formed. The question is biased by the presentation of the question. For one, the technique is not new, and was not controversial until just recently. This RfC should be struck and reformed in a neutral form. Arzel (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is easy. Only use scientific sorces (governmental & university for example). Also, only allow facts to be reported, don't allow conclusions to be made in the post. Mountaing33k (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)mGeek

Proof by list

There seems to be long lists of certain substances and I get the impression that this is intended to prove something. Why do we need these lists? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If no one can explain the purpose of these lists I propose to delete them and replace them with concise summaries. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I support their replacement with a summary - some of them appear three times. Mikenorton (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Which lists? The lists I'm aware of describe substances involved in the process of hydraulic fracturing. They should be included if they are used. Why don't you want them named? I am concerned that there is a push for brevity where content might reflect negatively on the practice of hydraulic fracturing. Other detail appears acceptable. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To start with there are two lists of radionuclides used in fracking. What is the purpose of these lists? Is it to show that a wide variety of nuclides are used? Is it to show that they are dangerous or harmful or to show that great care is taken in their selection to make them safe? If we want to make statement like this we need to find a reliable source that makes them, the list itself means nothing.

Also, there is no data on the quantities used, how they are used, why they are used, or what happens to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The radionuclides and other substances are listed because they are used in the process, period. There are sources for that. There is already a discussion of what they are used for. There are sources available that discuss safety issues and concerns, if you want that info. Quantities and combinations may be proprietary, though I saw one article with info on that too. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that we must list everything that is used in the process, every equipment manufacturer, every type of steel, every other metal, every type of plastic, every piece of electronic equipment? You are trying to make some point but you are leaving it up the the reader to guess what that point is. If want to make a point, find a reliable source that says it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, a lot of different people contributed material to those sections. Secondly, I don't think the suppliers of the radionuclides or the various brands of equipment need to be listed, and they aren't. In the US, hydraulic fracturing companies are now required to report the substances included in hydraulic fracturing fluid as a matter of course. What the substances are is another relevant piece of information describing the process of hydraulic fracturing. The sources listed support that. That is why they should be included. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That does not constitute a reason for listing every possible substance that might be used any more that we need to list every type of steel used in the process. What we need to do is to give a clear summary of the techniques used and of the problems and advantages of those techniques as reported in reliable sources. Giving a list of just one kind of material used in the process is clearly trying to make some kind of point. If you cannot say what this point is and support it by reliable sources then the list must be removed, it serves no useful purpose.

I have looked at the sources and most of them seem to be patents. When writing a patent you try to over all the possible angles to stop people from getting round the patent. Just because a substance is listed in a patent does not mean that it is actually used. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the patents there are sources that document actual use.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant and excessive detail is not censorship. The list that I removed is just a quote from a random patent on the subject. If you want to make a point about radioactive materials used do it properly, find a source that makes the point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Eddy covariance

I removed this from the see also, because I couldn't find any sources that supported this as relevant to hydraulic fracturing. Ref #41 (now linked to the correct url) does not support this either, it only mentions hf once, and not in this type of context but only referring to modelling of geological sequestration scenarios sub-surface. So a citation is still needed. Mikenorton (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't the article discuss its use in identifying methane seeping through soil to air? Smm201`0 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry didn't notice your reply here. Yes, but not in the context of hydraulic fracturing. Mikenorton (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact I can find no sources anywhere that link 'hydraulic fracturing' with 'atmospheric gas monitoring' see this google search for these two terms [6]. I've removed the sentence as unsourced - the ref that was used to support this only mentions hydraulic fracturing once, in a section on geological sequestration (as I mentioned above). Mikenorton (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

COI in academic research

This is with regard to the last paragraph in the groundwater contamination section. Recently someone removed a large portion of the material devoted to an apparently conflict of interest. I reverted their change because I felt the reasons given in their edit summary were invalid. Then, on closer consideration I removed one line dedicated to grants that various companies had given generally to the university, department or program. I think the guardian article noting the lead author's conflict of interest is clearly notable, and such a clear conflict of interest is notable here. That being said, I don't think it's noteworthy to mention the general support of the department from industry support. To a large extent many geology programs are supported by similar grants, and it would be unreasonable to assume a COI in all geologists. Doing research under a research program partially funded by industry is something that may need to be disclosed on the final report, but I don't think it's notable here.

Similarly, groups I have worked with(in an unrelated field) has been supported in part by various government agencies and several technology companies, but it would be unreasonable to assume that I have a COI with respect to any of them. a13ean (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't making a COI argument, I was making a synthesis argument. Source "A" makes a claim that donations from "Group X" make it hard for UT to have an objective view. Then comes Source "B" stating that "Member of Group X" has donated money to UT, implying that the research has been biased in favor of "Group X" It is a pretty clear example of synthesis of material. Joining of multiple sources to present a new idea not made in any of the existing sources. Source "B" for example was simply a statement of a donation without any mention of the study. I see that you only reverted part of the removal of synthesis of material, but I agree that what you later removed was the most extreme of the two. Arzel (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A13ean, I think it is appropriate to make a suscinct, just-the-facts, statement about general university funding sources because it still plays a role in university pressures/politics, and is in the interest of neutrality and being transparent about conflicts of interest. The issue is raised by a source. I think the "notability" issue is more relevant to a topic having an article in Wikipedia. If reliable sources cover something, it is important enough to include. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Arzel here, this is just synthesis. It's not up to us to provide evidence to back up an issue raised by a source. It only matters if that evidence is raised by that source. Mikenorton (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0 do you see a consensus here to include this material, because I don't? Mikenorton (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any consensus to remove it. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is raised by the source. The university rep says the university takes funding from a variety of sources, and the refs list the ones related to the COI. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And that is your synthesis. Mikenorton (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not synthesis - there's no original idea unrelated to the sources there. The article is talking about UT funding sources. The refs are about UT funding sources. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary "information about this conflict of interest needs to be stated, albeit succinctly, to be NPOV" shows the problem. There is no need for this to be stated, the article already says "Critics have noted that it is "difficult for researchers to be objective if their university receives a lot of grants and funds from the industry.”[105] A UT Energy Institute spokesperson said that the study was not funded by the industry. He said funds came from the university, which has a variety of funding sources.[105] ", which is quite sufficient. Also the only critic mentioned in the supporting source is a 'Sister Elizabeth Riebschlaeger of Cuero', which is pretty weak as I've pointed out here before. If this is really considered an issue there will be mainstream media sources that cover it - find them or expect it to be removed again. The Statoil funding section really needs to go as well unless someone has called that as a COI, which there's no evidence for that I can see. Mikenorton (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Smm201'0, by putting the donation amounts after that statement you are implying that the donation has biased the study. This is synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I didn't write that material. Second, what? That makes no sense. THAT is your synthesis. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Mikenorton, I see you have no problem with deletions without consensus from someone who shares your POV. It is disappointing that someone from the industry who could help with the information about HF in the top section that still needs citations, focuses instead on the deletion of material that reflects negatively on the industry. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC) And oh yeah, radiation from hf is a special kind of radiation that never causes health problems!! Uh-huh. Right. Radiation syndrome is relevant. Your edits are censorship. COI. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So what exactly is my conflict of interest? I'm a geologist who has worked in both the nuclear waste disposal and oil & gas exploration industries, but never in Shale Gas or any other area that uses large scale hydraulic fracturing. I am also a member of a well-known environmental organisation, going back to 1974, so I'm not sure where that leaves me. There are a few 'citation needed' tags, but I have no special knowledge to help with those. I am happy to see unsourced material that makes controversial claims removed and I have no time for synthesis, a problem that you appear not to understand, even when it's pointed out. To reiterate - there is a source that mentions a single critic saying that it's "difficult for researchers to be objective if their university receives a lot of grants and funds from the industry". There is another source that questions 'Chip' Groat's objectivity due to his paid position on the board of an Oil & Gas exploration company, and this is detailed in the article. There is, however, no source that links particular industry funding to the university as a COI in the particular case of the UT study. To add this material is making a case that there is such a COI by presenting them together, that's the synthesis. I haven't removed the "Critics have noted ..." bit, despite this offending against WP:UNDUE (just one critic? - there has to a better source out there, unless of course that isn't a significant view). Mikenorton (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly a very contentious topic so we should all make a special effort to ensure that everything we say is clearly and unambiguously supported by reliable and neutral sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Challenges to research

The "Challenges to research" subseaction states: "Industry and governmental pressure have made it difficult to conduct and report the results of comprehensive studies of hydraulic fracturing. EPA investigations into the oil and gas industry's environmental impact have been narrowed in scope and/or had negative findings removed due to industry and government pressure." This is very strong statement without proper backing by reliable sources. Currently there are two sources. The first one by EPA says: "The scope of the research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing, from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced water and its ultimate treatment and disposal." It says nothing about industry of government pressure nor that the scope was narrowed and negative findings removed. The another reference says that "How the agency defines the scope of the study will be crucial because it will dictate what topics get handled. While environmentalists have aggressively lobbied the agency to broaden the scope of the study, industry has lobbied the agency to narrow this focus." So, The New York Times is mentioning an aggressive lobby from both side, while this statement in this articles is mentioning only one-sided lobby. Beagel (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the wording should be changed to match the sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the wording should match the source, but one of the original reference for that was an Urbina article that talked about the narrowing of scope, and exactly what was narrowed. There are other articles that discuss that as well. I'll check on that later this morning.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the sources is a link to a number of sources, some of which do support the statement made. Other sources listed are unrelated. I will edit the article to include those specific sources, but also add the both sides lobbying piece. I think the Urbina article (which I will also find) was connected to the collection of sources. I think I may have included the whole EPA plan so people could read for themselves what was included. I'm going to start using the quote field to help clarify things. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the quote in that source - I couldn't even find "narrowed in scope" - are you sure that it's this Urbina article? Mikenorton (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok...I found and re-inserted the Urbina quote and source, followed by the link to various related docs, some of which deal with the scope issue. I deleted the actual EPA study plan because it is not directly related to statement. It is listed elsewhere in article if people want to read it and see the scope for themselves. I added that environmental and industry groups are both lobbying. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Added wrong link, will fix.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now. Mikenorton (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making it in line with sources. However, I have to repeat once my my concern that as the environmental section in this article should be a summary (which it is not at the moment) and more detailed information should be given in Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States articles. My point is that the same changes should be done in these two mentioned articles while we should start to summarize the environmental section in this article4. At the end of the day, I am not sure if it belongs in the environmental summary at all, while it has its place in the more environmental impact focused articles. Beagel (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the environmental section, you'll see that I have been working on trimming it down, and will continue to do so. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC) I haven't even started picking at the groundwater one yet. I'm going to have to re-read those sources to look for commonalities to summarize. I'd like to get each type of issue down to a few paragraphs. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

One paragraph per every subsection will be enough for the summary here. More detailed information should be included in the two above-mentioned articles. Beagel (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated/Irrelevent Information

Already mentioned but it should be discussed, there is information irrelevent to hydraulic fracturing. Some I have identified, I only have time to mention an obvious one at the moment. The entire paragrah: "Two studies conducted in Denver...". This information, while detailed and well written, talks about methane production which does not relate to hydraulic fracturing and should be removed. Reasoning: for example, an article for coal mining practices should not refer to inefficiencies of coal as an energy source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountaing33k (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll check but I am pretty sure it was about fracking. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

One is clearly about emmissions from fracking. I think the other is a continuation of a previous fracking study. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The first source says nothing about hydraulic fracturing. It reports 4% of gas (methane) leaks from the gas wells without specifying if this is conventional gas drilling, hydraulic fracturing or something else. Therefore, the first reference here (author:Devin Powell) is irrelevant. However, the second reference is very relevant as it compares directly gas emissions from hydraulic fracturing with gas emissions from the conventional gas production. It says: "3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing." We should reword the current text according to this information and be precise what the source says. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a paragraph under air emission subsections which says: "One group of emissions associated with natural gas development and production, are the emissions associated with combustion. These emissions include particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Another group of emissions that are routinely vented into the atmosphere are those linked with natural gas itself, which is composed of methane, ethane, liquid condensate, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)..." Well, gas combustion definitely has environmental impact. However, this effect of gas combustion exists notwithstanding how the gas is produced (conventional natural gas production, hydraulic fracturing, coal gasification or other syngas production) as it is related to the gas properties, not to the production method. Therefore, this information belongs to the Environmental impact of natural gas or Environmental impact of methane articles (well, we don't have these articles but I think we should one of them). It is even not shale gas specific, but natural gas specific. Relating it with hydraulic fracturing is POV. It is the same as adding information about killed people to the article about an assembly line because assembly line is used for manufacturing AK-47. Beagel (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

EPA to Crucify the industry

Given the recent relevation that the EPA attempted to make an example of some companies by making false accusations and then having to retract the complaint, the charges regarding Radation really need to be examined. In fact, this recent story should also be included in this article. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

It is increasingly difficult to tell whether this is a run-of-the-mill content disagreement, or whether there are editors who are involved in the hydraulic fracturing business who are making COI edits, or perhaps even engaging in paid advocacy. It has happened before on this page. No accusations, but definitely wondering whether this is the case yet again. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Smm201`0, please stop calling the names. Fact that other editors do not agree with your POV does not mean that they are involved in the business or being paid advocacy. However, I most welcome if uninvolved editors will look edits in this page and talk page and also all edits of all involved editors to make make sure if the is any COI or not. I would like ask even wider consideration and to check these edits against of activist POV. I am particularly concerned by edits of one single SPA editor who's most of edits are related to hydraulic fracturing and who uses any possible mean to make a point how harmful is hydraulic fracturing. I was hoping it would be possible to make this article neutral, well-written, at least class B (and further) article, but unfortunately it seems to be an activists battlefield. Beagel (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As a recent arrival I can confirm that I have no connection with either the oil and gas industry or any environmental group and my only aim is to help produce an article that has a neutral POV. That is achieved by the use of independent reliable secondary sources not by adding long and irrelevant lists from random patents and other sources. If a particular material poses special environmental or other dangers then find a sources which says so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

This article is about hydraulic fracturing in general. In addition, we have articles Hydraulic fracturing in the United States, Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States articles. These articles also include information about Pennsylvania waste water issue. Therefore, why this US-environment specific information should be included in this article while it is already included in the more specific articles? At the same time, the need to summarize environmental section in this article has been raised several times; however, any this is reverted all the time without explaining why this information should be here and not in the more about subject articles. I really want to understand what rational argument is behind of this. Beagel (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As explained previously, most of the environmental studies to date have been conducted in the US because the US has the longest history with HF. The US is essentially the guinea pig for the effects of HF. It is relevant to the global practice of HF for that reason. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

And what is wrong with the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing? Why do you want to put all details in this article here notwithstanding the WP:UNDUE? Beagel (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The main HF page should include information about all aspects of hf, albeit not in the detail that the spin off pages may have. Why do you want to cut all of the environmental impact info off the main hf page? Should we have separate pages for history, well pad, fluid injection, potential gas production, etc., too. That would not make any sense either. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I never wanted to cut off the environmental info from this article. If you look at my comments here at the talk page or look at my edits, you see that your accusations are not true. I said, and I will repeat, that the environmental section should be summarized properly to resolve WP:UNDUE issue and to avoid WP:POVFORK. As for you question, if the history etc sections will grow to the size they will serve better as separate articles, yes, they should be split-off and to be summarized for this article. However, differently from the environmental section, this is not an issue today. Beagel (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The section should be a summary rather than an extensive report, since the details are already present in the more focused US environmental article. However, the shortened version didn't really represent an actual summary of that data. Rather than cutting out the chunk that's been warred over, I summarized the entire section (hopefully to everyone's satisfaction) and added a main article link directly to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States#Radioactive contamination, where all the details are already present (practically word-for-word, actually).

Note that I moved refs in this section down to the References section per WP:LDR. Afterwards when I shortened the section, I incidentally removed the usage of certain refs from the text, which resulted in some cite errors in the References section. These shouldn't be misconstrued as missing refs -- they're just refs that are still defined but no longer in use. I'm commenting them out, in case anyone needs to use them later. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. My feeling is that the Pennsylvania part needs some more trimming for this article but that is ok. However, could you please help to summarize the whole environmental section of this article as a duplication of the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I've got the next couple weeks free :) This warred-over section was my reason for stepping in. I'll try and contribute to summarizing the rest, but it will take more than just me. I mean, I have a cat to feed (humor). It's not too difficult, just read a paragraph and summarize it, stick to main events and remove details that aren't necessary to get the overall picture, go to the next paragraph (just don't chop out large contiguous sections, that's asking for it). Equazcion ^(talk) 04:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I fully agree what you say about summarizing and I have done this for a number of articles, some of them with FA status at the moment. This cut-off was not originally initiated by me but it seemed reasonable that time as very US-centric. However, I think that the current summary is fine. There are by my understanding some issues with the last paragraph of this subsection, but this has nothing to do with summarizing and I will discuss it separately below. As for summarizing the whole section, I hesitated long time to start this process and after the latest accusations I think it would be better if I am not the main editor to do this, so you kind assistance is very timely and most welcome. Beagel (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for wading through that section. I had reduced it to half of its original size, but it still needed more condensing. I may add a fact or two back in later, but not more than that. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the radioactive contamination section says: "The EPA is also concerned about radionuclide levels in drinking water, and has asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to require community water systems in certain locations, and centralized wastewater treatment facilities to conduct testing for radionuclides. "Safe drinking water standards" have not yet been set for many of the substances known to be in hydraulic fracturing fluids or their radioactivity levels, and their levels are not included in public drinking water quality reports." At its current form, it does not make clear how and why it is related to hydraulic fracturing. I will change little bit the wording to reflect the linkage to hydraulic fracturing which was mentioned by Urbina. Beagel (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are some repeatings in the Chemicals section and Radioactive contamination section concerning iodine-131. Beagel (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in the context of the approved uses for each of the tracers and providing information about the process. Useful information.Smm201`0 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Again! This section is completely undue weight and misleading.

In April 2011, the EPA found elevated iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia's drinking water and milk from Little Rock, Arkansas.[49][114] Iodine-131 is associated with nuclear energy production, cancer treatment, and is a radioactive tracer used in hydraulic fracturing. The National Cancer Institute has reported that children exposed to iodine-131, especially those drinking a great deal of milk, may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer.[115] Iodine-131 was still found in source water and at several sewage treatment plants near Philadelphia in late July. Upon reviewing Philadelphia's EPA records, it was found that iodine-131 had been found in several Philadelphia drinking water samples long before the Fukushima accident, and were the highest in the 59-location set across the United States in the last decade.[51] The Philadelphia Water Department and EPA have ruled out nuclear and hospital sources[116] and determined that wastewater effluent is one source, perhaps due to cancer patients' urine. Hydraulic fracturing waste has also been processed at local water treatment plants.[117] The EPA and the Philadelphia Water Department are still investigating the sources of the Iodine-131.[118][119]

It strongly implies that HF is responsible for the Iodine-131 when all of the sources strongly point towards Philadelphia's Thyroid Cancer treatment as the source. Smm, please explain how this does not violate WP:UNDUE WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Also, what does Little Rock, Arkansas have to do with the Iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia? Arzel (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

They have confirmed wastewater effluent as a source of iodine-131, but are still investigating the sources. Thyroid treatment urine has not been ruled out. There is a history of fracking wastewater dumping at wastewater treatment centers in the area, and iodine-131 is a common tracer. There are sources for all of this information. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a source which says that fracking is considered a possible source for the I-131 found in the drinking water? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After going through this particular paragraph I am very confused why this paragraph is included here. It starts stating that EPA found elevated iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia's drinking water and milk from Little Rock. This is a fact. So far so good although added references does not mentioning the source (not talking about HF), only speculating about impact of Fukushima disaster. The next sentence describes health impact of iodine-131. This is also a separate fact. The following sentence says that iodine-131 is still found in July and concerns arose about Fukushima as a source. Again, this is well sourced fact although not mentioning HF. After that it says that nuclear and hospital sources are ruled out, again well sourced. For some reason it says what is ruled out and only saying what is perhaps suspected to be the source although added reference and some other sources used in this article link this phenomena directly to thyroid patients. This source does not mentioning HF. After that was for some reason copied information that HF wastewater is treated in some treatment plants. This is again fact; however, this fact was already included in the previous paragraph and the reference after this sentence does not make any link to the above-mentioned event. The paragraph ends with a sentence that EPA still investigating the source. This is again fact nobody doubts. At least, here one of references is mentioning HF by saying: "PWD is requesting the following actions before drilling is allowed to take place in the basin: 1. Advanced notification of accidents and spills relating to Marcellus Shale (i.e., a commitment by all dischargers, facilities and transporters of wastewater from fracturing to join the Delaware Valley Early Warning System). Of course, this is important; however, it is no related to the rest of the paragraph. In general, we have a number of solid facts supported by solid references but notwithstanding the feeling that this is all about HF, there is nothing which is actually about HF, not talking about HF relation to the above-mentioned event. This is the best example of WP:SYNTH I have seen so far in the Wikipedia. I support the proposal to delete the whole paragraph, but I think that rest of paragraphs of this subsection should stay. Beagel (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed as clear synthesis of material. Smm, I suggest if you want to work that hypothesis you write your own research paper, rather than try to prove something here. Arzel (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Smm201`0. Before continuing making a point, please read and try to understand WP:SYNTH. Your recent addition by this source does not say a word about iodine-131. It talks about HF waste water and this reference is useful for the Groundwater contamination subsection, but please do not make a original research. This source does not say it is linked to the above mentioned event. Saying that "Both Cancer patients' urine and hydraulic fracturing waste end up in the area's wastewater, and have not been eliminated as sources" is a synthesis. Please provide reliable source which says that HF is a reason or it may be reason. If the source does not mention HF at all, it is true it does not say it is eliminating, but it also does not say this about a number of thing. References should be used to cite what they say, not what they did not even mentioning. Beagel (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Iodine-131 is a common hf tracer, sources provided. Hf wastewater has been dumped into water treatment facilities around Philly, source provided. It is possible that the iodine-131 in the wastewater may be from the hf fluid, like it is possible that the urine may be the source of the iodine-131, source provided. Each has a source. Note that I reintroduced the urine issue for the sake of balance, and you responded by being destructive. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you read WP:SYNTH? Because what you wrote is the perfect example of synthesis. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." What you did was exactly taking fact A and Fact be to imply your own conclusion C which was not mentioned in any sourced at this paragraph. I also hope that you support your claim that I responded being destructive with solid evidences, such as links to diffs. Otherwise I will consider your comment as personal attack. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The logic, categories, and concreteness of the content are such that it really is not SYNTH. It is too much of a no-brainer for SYNTH. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are digging your well pretty deep, perhaps you should step away from the ledge before you fall in and drown on hydraulic fracing fluid. Arzel (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Smm201`0, apparently you don't understand SYNTH at all. This has been clear to me for some time - that's why you have been struggling to keep so much of it in the article for so long - you just don't see it. Mikenorton (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, can I ask again, do we have a source which says that fracking is considered a possible source for the I-131 found in the drinking water? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the details of this issue as everyone else here, and pretty much just dealt with the text I saw, but just to comment on this discussion -- unless a reliable source can actually show the connection between fracking and iodine-131 in drinking water (Pennsylvania's or otherwise) it actually would be considered WP:SYNTH. Even if you bring one source that says iodine-131 is bad and another that says iodine-131 could be released due to fracking (my understanding is that we don't even have those two) it would still be synthesis. I'm not thrilled about the extreme reducing of the Pennsylvania section in general after what had appeared to be successful attempt at a compromise though, aside from this synth removal. I thought each side would allow themselves to be open to sacrificing a bit of their ideal version in order to create some stability here, but that apparently wasn't true. Then again, if it's just one person here in favor of the extended version, while everyone else has come to a consensus for the shortened, Smm201 may want to consider that he simply holds an extreme minority opinion here and let it go. Just my thoughts. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not just Smm201; I'm in favor of a substantive summary of the environmental issues on this page. Your hunch, Equazcion, about the unwillingness to compromise, is well-founded. While most of the editors currently working on this page are doing so in good faith, there have been many deletions over the past couple months based on the often explicit belief that the article simply has too much material on the environmental effects. While this article, like any other, should follow WP:DUE, we need to be aware that a) much of material represented in reliable sources on hydraulic fracturing (especially in mainstream journalistic media) concerns its potential and actual environmental effects; this is simply part of the discourse, and having a substantive section on environmental issues of hf is actually in line with due weight, rather than the reverse. And b), that with a topic as contentious as this one with heavily vested interests involved, "cui bono?" might be useful to keep in mind when weighing possible deletions. While I don't have reason to think that any current editors working on the article are themselves corporate shills, the article has attracted them in the past, and I do think it's fair to be concerned about the potential censorship of a sensitive topic.

For these reasons, while we're working this article into the shape it deserves, it seems sensible to err on the side of inclusion. People have been doing some hard work to improve this article, and I don't think the knee-jerk deletionism helps much. Sindinero (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In general, I agree what you said. However, could you be please more precise what information about HF was deleted during last months? I hope that you understand that after all these name-callings and accusations during last days (not talking about false reporting), everybody is little bit sensitive about that kind of allusions, so I appreciate if you could give examples what you exactly mean. There have been three or four spin-off articles (which is not deletion but moving information into separate article) but is there anything more. I also hope you did not mean the synthesis which was discussed in this section. I have to admit that this synthesis was perfectly done and I myself became sure that this is synthesis only after reading through all references. But it is still synthesis which is one part of original research. Beagel (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

SYNTH is a policy with a clear line, while summary style is open to interpretation. How much content constitutes a valid summary is up to the editors at an article to decide, and since we have a disagreement here, effort should be made at accepting a compromise. A compromise is when neither side gets everything they want. One side here favored a much longer section than the compromise, while the other favored a much shorter one. The problem is, those who favored the short have implemented it over the compromise version. Should they want to change that perception, they can restore the compromise version on their own. Otherwise the dispute will just continue. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was writing this reply as the above response was added, but here it is anyway... Yeah, I should have let it be, but, ironically, I added the sources and statements that I thought were needed to support the statements. Maybe I'm missing something, but this is what we have:

• iodine-131 has been found in drinking water and in wastewaster effluent in and around Philadelphia. [7]
• Japanese nuclear incident, medical, and hospital sources have been ruled out. [8]
• EPA says wastewater effluent is one source of iodine-131. Mention that industry and mining use radionuclides. Say they are doing follow-up investigations re: I-131 to characterize levels and identify sources. Say studies elsewhere point to potential causes, but connections have not been examined comprehensively. They are continuing to study issue. [9]
• Philadelphia Water Department says they have confirmed wastewater plant effluent as pathway for I-131; have not confirmed other pathways [10]
• Articles says cancer patients' urine is in wastewater and a suspected source of iodine-131 [11] [12]
• Article says hf waste has been dumped at a wastewater treatment plant near Philly. Article raises concerns about contamination of drinking water supply with fracking wastewater. [13] and another article says dumping hf waste at water treatment plants is a recurring problem [14].
• Sources say iodine-131 is a tracer commonly used in hf (various patents listed and [15] )

Given that, is it that big a jump to say that hf waste may be a potential source? I think synthesis involves more of a leap than that. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Any "jump" at all is synthesis, even if it's not a big one. Whenever you use multiple sources to draw a conclusion that isn't actually expressed in a source, it's synthesis. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is in fact a major and completely unjustified assumption. Find a source that says what you claim or remove it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Or, (to E) I'm overjustifying the crap out of it in its defense. My guess is that the idea, and perhaps verification will show up in print, all in one article shortly anyway, if only because it is such a no-brainer.Smm201`0 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. When it happens, you're free to include it. Until then, it should stay out. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And when I do, I have no doubt it will be deleted anyway. I don't think the rules are the real issue, even if they apply.Smm201`0 (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Response to Beagel, above): Here are a few diffs which I've already posted above in another thread: [16][17][18][19]. The first two were made by someone who, to all appearances, works for Chesapeake energy, so I hope you can see the concern. Furthermore, one editor (Arzel) came to this article (and HF in the US) a couple months ago from the explicit position that there was too much material on the environmental aspect - not because of WP:DUE (it actually took Arzel awhile to stumble upon that policy point, after unsuccessfully trying to make others stick), but because the article had allegedly been hijacked by radical lefty environmentalists (A's words, more or less). As you say, the atmosphere is sensitive, and I hope you can see why the 'inclusionists' here have also gotten a bit touchy. If you look back over the article history, the tone wasn't always this way, and the current atmosphere notwithstanding, Smm201 is still to be commended for turning the "environmental effects" section from a grab bag of vague claims and chance newspaper citations into something more systematic, based to a much greater extent on better sources. Please keep that in mind. Sindinero (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The rule here is that you do not attack other editors. I have absolutely no connection whatever with the oil or gas industry and came here in response to the RfC. My first impression was exactly the same as that of Arzel. The most obvious examples of the kind of thing that Arzel was talking about are the long lists of chemicals and radioactive tracer materials used in HF. Their main supporter agrees that, just by being there, they show HF in a negative light yet there are no sources to back this up. If there were source saying X chemical or Y nuclide was considered as a danger to health or the environment, I would be the first to support its continued inclusion here but no such source has been supplied. Every thing we say or imply must be verifiable; that is how WP works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Who's attacking other editors? Sindinero (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(Response to Sindinero) I see. Edits from the Chesapeake network are clear-cut COI, no doubt about this. The increasing attempts to use Wikipedia for corporate promotional (or whitewashing) purposes is not a problem only with this article, but with a number of different articles, and this practice is not acceptable. While edits from the COI account may be sometimes even useful, a policy described in WP:COI should be followed to ensure balanced and NPOV editing. Concerning the environmental issues, I think that the situation with editing was recently overheated, but hopefully it is calming down and we would continue in constructive way. I fully agree that we can't have a good and neutral HF article without well-sourced environmental section covering all important aspects. It seems that we may have different opinions how it should be summarized in this article (but maybe this is just due to miscommunication). I think that the work done by user:Equazcion to summarize the Radioactive contamination subsection was balanced and well done, and if there is a general agreement with this, I would like to repeat my proposal that maybe he/she will the person to make the draft summarizing of the whole environmental section. Of course, we have always after that an opportunity for the fine-tuning, but I think that probably this way we will avoid potential conflicts about deletion before any work is done. I hope that Equazcion still agrees to take that job. Of course, there are still some other issues under discussion at the talk page which are not related to the summarizing (e.g. from myself two structure-related proposals) but I think that we could discuss these issues separately case-by-case. In the longer term, also other HF related articles needs some systematization and cleanup as the current situation is quite messy. However, I think we should discuss this after resolving issues with this article as umbrella article for all HF related articles and without stable, well-written and neutral umbrella article it would be difficult if not impossible to be done. Beagel (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What you say is sensible. I second your hope that Equazcion will still take on the drafting of a summary, and that the more gung-ho deletionists will hold off in the interests of consensus and compromise. Sindinero (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good for someone to sensibly summarise the environmental section in the interests of consensus and compromise, but always based on what is said in reliable sources. I look forward to seeing this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay Equazcion and Smm201 (as the two editors who have volunteered at various times to draft a substantive summary for the envir. section): I think we have consensus that we're ready for a good summary, which we can fine-tune once in place. How do we want to proceed? Sindinero (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My proposal that Equazcion would prepared the draft summary was motivated by the need to have an editor who is trusted by all parties. After looking the summary made by Equazcion two days ago and reading reactions here at the talk page, my feeling was and still is that Equazcion is an experienced editors, does not have any particular bias about the subject, and his/her work was taken positively by involved editors. Unfortunately I don't believe that Smm201`0 has trust from all involved parties, particularly after the issue with synthesis. Two weeks ago I though myself to prepare the summary (my original plan was to create a subpage for drafting and to replace the text in the main article only after having discussion with all involved parties); however, I will voluntarily step back because as of today, there are editors who does not trust any of my edits at this article. Of course, everybody is free to edit Wikipedia (if not banned but this is not the case). However, I have a feeling that to avoid new conflicts a consensus about this voluntary arrangement is needed. Beagel (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Chemicals

As the Chemicals section deals mainly with impacts of these chemicals and uncertainties of their presence, this section probably suits better as a subsection to the Groundwater contamination section (to be added before the Radioactive contamination in the United States subsection). I propose to add the first paragraph and two first sentence from the second paragraph to the Fracturing subsection and to move the rest of the Chemical sections to the Groundwater contamination section as subsection. In this case, the radioactive contamination issue will be described in more logical way and allows to avoid repeating information. Beagel (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no environmental studies listed in the chemicals section. What's covered are the chemicals themselves and their effects, uses in hydraulic fracturing, and toxicity. Those things really belong in that section. There is some talk about US regulations and the proprietary issue, but the proprietary issue may also apply to disclosure in other countries. I think the chemical information needs to stay in the chemical section. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Effects and toxicity is exactly what is called environmental impact. Beagel (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I think it is talking about "health effects." By the way, I reduced the chemical list to something focused on current use with more of a context. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the "Chemicals" section deals with both—describing them as a part of fracturing fluids and at the same time it deals also with environmental and health impacts. After creation of the "Fracturing fluids" subsection that means that there is overlapping with other sections and some information repeat is repeated in different sections. I still think that information about used chemical as a substance of fracturing fluid should be presented in the "Fracturing fluids" subsection while information about environmental and health impacts (including the "proprietary" issue of disclosure of used chemicals) should be moved into "Impact" section. Of course, that means that the issue with the list of chemicals should be resolved. Beagel (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging emission related subsections

After going through the Air emissions and pollution subsection and the Greenhouse gas emissions subsection, I would like to propose to merge and cleanup these. Both of them are air emissions and it is quite hard to make clear distinction between them. Mos of emitted gases are GHGs. HF related emission are emissions created by the HF process. It does not includes emissions from the natural gas (main product of HF, but HF is used also for other purposes) combustion as the quantity and quality of emissions does not depends by which process natural gas is produced (HF, conventional gas production, gasification processes). So, the information is relevant in the natural gas related articles but it is not related to HF. The main emission from the HF process is methane. Right now, it is discussed in both subsections which is confusing. Beagel (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC) These sections are merged. During the merging process, only repeated information was removed, and no summarizing was conducted, which is a subject of separate action discussed above at this talk page. This subsection still is needing an expert checking if all methane/CO2 emission information is related to HF or if it still contains some information about natural gas combustion. Beagel (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is the discussion on this? This appears unilateral by Special:Contributions/Beagel without any other discussion listed here ... much information has deleted or changed ... 108.195.136.132 (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Still a pointless list of radionuclides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. What substances are actually used in HF? NRC document lists some of the ones for the US (not sure if this is a comprehensive list, but am going with it for now). There are probably similar resources for UK, etc. [20]

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

1. In what quantities are they used? The maximum allowed use for each listed substance, both per injection and total, is listed in the NRC document. [21] I noticed that this was in the NRC doc last night. People can request to use larger amounts, but need approval. Some of the quantities listed are:

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

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

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

Silver-110m, liquid form, 200 millicuries total, not to exceed 20 millicuries per injection
[22]

1. For what purpose are they used? This was already described in the monitoring section, and in the Reis and other refs.[23][24][25]

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

Each tracer isotope is used to mark a stage of the fracking process. Wells are fracked in stages, sometimes as little as 5 stages, but they can be fracked multiple times [26] [27] up to 20-30 times. To tell how much progress has been made, they use tracers isotopes of varying half-lifes so that they can differentiate between the results of each fracking injection. That's why they need to use several different isotopes at a time. The presence of the tracers is detected by equipment (see Halliburton ads) at the surface.

1. In what form are they used? This is described in the patents - liquid, gas, bonded to sand. NRC, [28] and patents above.

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

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

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

Personnel can spill the stuff, [29] plus the flow back contains all of the contents of the fracking fluid, plus any natural radionuclides it picks up along the way. It comes back up [30] in a somewhat unpredictable manner, and is then deposited in evaporation ponds, used again, or piped or trucked elsewhere. Those sources are on the surface. See the environmental section for what can happen.[31] Underground, if there are any faults, crevices, or fractures, natural or man-made, including from injection wells, that pass through the rock layers, the force of the injection can send the fluid upward towards the surface and ground water. [32] The gas companies try to avoid this, but they can't see what's underneath the surface.

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

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

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

First, they don't test drinking or even source water for most of the tracer isotopes. Iodine-131 is on the radar because of its association with nukes. The ones they do test for they usually test, sporadically [33] every 6-8 years. At the point of entry from a treatment plant into a steam, the concentration is very high and a clear health hazard (see NYT map: [34] ). So far the levels of Iodine-131 in drinking water in Philly would only increase your risk of cancer significantly if you drank it for a while, but that is when iodine-131 is considered by itself. The other isotopes in the fluid can also contribute to risk and scientists are worried about cumulative health impact.[35] Philly has really high background radiation levels, which is a concern in that sense (check out "radiation network" to see what I mean: [36]). Houston, TX has trouble with radioactivity in drinking water. Technically the MCL for radiation is zero. For more information, read this: [37]

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

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

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

1. How great is the danger? Depends on how badly someone screws up! I read an incident report where a spill of less than half the total maximum, and 1.5 times the single injection maximum required a hazmat response. The danger is greatest for the personnel handling the stuff. General info: [38] . Also, some of the stuff has gone missing. I want to find a more comprehensive source for this though.

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

1. What could be done about this? Could include a statement and link to safety procedures for dealing with these substances. Some of this info is in the NRC ref as well. [39]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things we should have in the article

Actual radioactive contamination events

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

These should be presented in some detail, as discussed.

Concerns expressed by reliable sources about possible radioactive contamination

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

Things we should not have in the article

Lists of radionuclides that might be used

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

Things you or I think might be a problem

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

Comments from a new editor

There clearly are those here who have concerns about the health and environmental impact of HF. It is quite right and proper that such concerns should be mentioned here.

I live in the UK where the use of HF has only recently been proposed. Many UK residents may well ask themselves whether this process harmful in any way and they may well look to WP for information on the subject. When these people look they will see not a reasoned presentation of harm that can be caused by HF, backed by evidence from reliable sources, but a hysterical tirade that demonstrates little or no understanding of the issues involved. This may convince a few susceptible people to campaign against the process but the majority will see it for what it is and assume that WP is dominated by scaremongers.

What we need here are hard facts, along the lines of, 'substance X, which has been identified as resulting from HF, has been found in sufficient quantities somewhere or other to present an environmental or health hazard', supported by an independent and reliable source. (I might add that the argument about radioactive iodine made by combining half a dozen sources will not do).

We can also state that some environmental groups have expressed concerns about HF but we must not present those concerns as though they are undisputed fact or give them undue weight.

A well written and properly sourced article is the best way there is of helping people to properly assess the dangers and benefits of HF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Radioactive contamination in the US

I have removed this section as being a attempt to sythesise a problem that is not reported in reliable sources.

Although the facts presented in the section may well be true they have been put together in a way that implies that US drinking water has been contaminated by radioactive material from fracking. We cannot say this without a reliable source which says this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the above discussion (under Talk:Hydraulic fracturing#Pennsylvania), please hold off from wholesale deletions. This is a section that has already been looked at and summarized by User:Equazcion, whom we've agreed would be the best person to summarize the environmental sections. I don't imagine that user will have the patience or motivation to take on this thankless task if their progress is constantly being eroded behind them. As we've discussed, let's leave the section some time to be summarized, and then address remaining issues on a point-by-point basis. Sindinero (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sindinero, there simply is nothing to report on the subject. Some editors here have sythesised a story that radioactive contamination from fracking has reached the water supply. The story actually makes no sense at all when analysed critically but that is not the point. The point is that no reliable source makes the claim that radioactive iodide from fracking has made its way into the drinking water supply. In fact we do not have a reliable source to say that this substance is used at all.

WP is not a place for people to expound their pet theories it is a place to give facts based on what is said in reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The point, for now, is that one user (Equazcion) has recently come to the article and agreed to summarize a hitherto contentious section, with the support of almost all parties. Equazcion stated, after some heavy-handed deletions of summarized material,

"I'm not thrilled about the extreme reducing of the Pennsylvania section in general after what had appeared to be successful attempt at a compromise though, aside from this synth removal. I thought each side would allow themselves to be open to sacrificing a bit of their ideal version in order to create some stability here, but that apparently wasn't true."

Furthermore, the summarized section on radioactive contamination was met with satisfaction by User:Beagel, who has tended to be one of the parties calling for a reduction (or at least a solidification) of the material on the environmental aspects.

("I think that the work done by user:Equazcion to summarize the Radioactive contamination subsection was balanced and well done, and if there is a general agreement with this, I would like to repeat my proposal that maybe he/she will the person to make the draft summarizing of the whole environmental section.")

Because of these facts, I reiterate my request, which seemed to gain your consensus as well, that people hold off from whole-sale deletions until Equazcion has had the time to draft a summary; then we can start hammering out the kinks. Acceptable?

And finally, the section in question is in fact backed up by reliable sources, which do support the claims made. Please note that the section does not claim "that radioactive iodide from fracking has made its way into the drinking water supply," as you seem to imply; rather, it addresses the risks of radioactive contamination more generally. In my opinion, Equazcion's summarized version manages to avoid synthesis. Sindinero (talk)

However, there is an argument to be made that, whatever the merits of the existing text and sourcing, there is no good reason why this section should be in a general article on hydraulic fracturing, as it is specific to Pennsylvania. Mikenorton (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That argument could be made, but I don't necessarily think it's a convincing one. As others have pointed out, the US, and especially PA, have been where HF has made its mark thus far. Sure, this isn't necessarily a WP:GLOBAL view of the subject, but that problem on WP is usually fixed by adding information from other areas and countries. In this case, that information isn't really available yet, due to the nature of the topic. If we remove all country or region-specific information from the article, we'll be left with a needlessly barebones article that addresses HF strictly as a technological process; and this would certainly not give due weight to the various topics -- economic, social, ecological, regulatory -- spoken to in the literature.

But be that as it may, in the interests of compromise and consensus, I have to ask again that we give time for a neutral, 3rd-party editor to summarize the environmental sections; then we can begin tweaking. Otherwise, I doubt this article will ever gain the stability it needs.

Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have retitled the section. With the new title it is considerably less misleading. Although it appears to paint a simple picture it is in fact still a confused mixture of concerns. Perhaps Equazcion could revisit the sectionMartin Hogbin (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If you take another look at the sources, they are not about iodine-131. There are other radionuclides, like radium, associated with fracking wastewater. The sources state that they have verified that wastewater with high radionuclide content is making it into the rivers that supply drinking water and state that it is a risk to drinking water supplies. That is different from the iodine-131 content which basically said I-131 is used in fracking (source), fracking wastewater is being dumped into rivers that supply drinking water (source), and that therefore fracking wastewater could be a source of the I-131 in Philly (SYNTH). It has been confirmed that the other radionuclides are making it into the source water. There is a map of the levels posted by the NYT.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on checking I see that all the referenced to I-131 have been removed. With my new title I think it is OK. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

The Terminology section seems to be out of place. Right now it is a subsection of the Chemicals sections, but it is not about chemicals. It seems that originally it was a subsection of the Induced hydraulic fracturing section. I also think that this is not a standard section of the articles. As a rule, specific terms should be linked and explained in the text or explained bu the footnotes. Also, some of them are already explained in the text. I think that maybe we should integrate these definitions into the body text. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I merged the terminology into body text. Some definitions were already given. Beagel (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary done

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

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

• Before
• After

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

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

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

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

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

Methane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University of Texas study

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

COI research

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

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

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

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

I did a google search on 'University of Texas study hydraulic fracturing "conflict of interest" "ian duncan"' [40] and came up with no useful results and then without 'Ian Duncan' and still found nothing apart from a couple of blogs and a youtube video. I'm still not convinced that this single source is enough to support this whole paragraph - but it appears to be all that's out there. Mikenorton (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waste/ground water header

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radioactivity again.

The section on radioactivity still reads like a section on witchcraft. It starts:

'Radioactive wastewater contamination has been of particular concern in Pennsylvania'.

No source, and certainly no justification for 'particular concern' and no indication of concern by whom.

'In Pennsylvania, much of the wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants.[100]'

Now we have a sourced fact that shows a possible reason for some concern

'Treatment plants are still not equipped to remove radioactive material and are not required to test for it.[101]'

What does this mean (my emphasis) '...still not equipped to remove radioactive material'? Why should there be any requirement to remove radioactive material if there is none?

This is only the first paragraph. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that "much of the wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants" is important as one source of concerns about HF. However, as an waste water management issue, it should be mentioned in the general part of the Waste water section and not in the Radioactivity subsection. Beagel (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that fact might be mentioned as a cause for concern in general, although we should have a source to show that there is concern, it is not up to us to show concern. However this fact does not justify the opening sentence. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Times source shows the concern, and the intro sentence is just that, an intro or lead-in, for readability. Not every single statement needs an inline ref, so long as its facts are sourced in general. We have the freedom (often the obligation) to restate things in our own words, and the word "concern" would seem to describe what the Times reported on. Pointing out that treatment plants aren't equipped to test for/remove the component that is of concern in this section would seem to be appropriate, so long as a source states the same concern, and it does. I removed "particular" and "still" as unnecessary/dubious qualifiers though. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that is better now.

This statement is a bit misleading though, 'Safe drinking water standards have not yet been established for many of the substances known to be in hydraulic fracturing fluids or their radioactivity levels'. The NY Times article refers only to naturally occurring radioactive materials; there is no suggestion that radioactive tracers are a danger. The EPA article 'Radionuclides in Public Drinking Water' suggests that water contamination by naturally occurring radionuclides is a much more general problem and has no special link with fracking. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturally occurring radionuclides are brought back up with the fracking fluid, so the concern is fracking related. That is in several of the NYT articles. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Terminalogy Section Under Induced Hydraulic Fracturing

I suggest a Terminology Section to be placed under Induced Hydraulic Fracturing Section. I know many of these were on the article previously, but I still believe these to be relevant to this section. Here is what I propose and if there is any comments, suggestions, or disagreements with me, I would like to hear them.

Terminology

Screen-off - When proppant is pumped at a high concentration either intentionally or unintentionally to create a screen of proppant at either the perforations in the well or at the tips of the fractures.

Flow-back - When the well is opened and the pressure of the formation naturally pushes the fluids up and out of a well to a tank. (One of the reasons of a frac job is to increase the rate of fluid from the formation)

Blow-out - The uncontrolled release of pressure from a well. An extremely dangerous situation.

Proppant – Usually a sieved sand or specific size. Based on the strength required can be bauxite, ceramic or other material. Varies based on the size and strength requirements.

ISIP - (Initial Shut-in Pressure) Is the pressure seen at the surface immediately after shutting down all the pumps. Is used to determine the pressure inducing fractures at the formation.

STP - (Surface Treating Pressure) Is the pressure seen on the surface at the well head. Is also known as the Wellhead Treating Pressure (WTP). Several service companies also have other names for this as well.

BHP - (Bottom Hole Pressure) The pressure seen at the formation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Frac Gradient – Is the pressure seen at the formation while inducing fractures divided by the vertical depth. Used to help determine the effect of future fracturing and the effect of previous work. Usually around 1 for most formations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This was merged into the text with this edit and explained here, FYI. I don't have an opinion right now on it. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is covered by WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTMANUAL, so I oppose this proposal. However, I have nothing against it if the List of hydraulic fracturing terminology or any similar list is created. Beagel (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Pressure Section Under Induced Hydraulic Fracturing

I Suggest a Pressure section under Induced Hydraulic Fracturing Section. Again I am asking for your comments which I like to have.

On any Hydraulic Fracturing Site, there are two common considered dangers, chemicals and pressure. High pressure is seen at the surface, but nothing directly controls it. The only thing that is truly controlled on the surface is the rate and type of fluid going into the well. The formation gives some resistance known as the bottom hole pressure and the friction of the fluid going into the formation adds to it. Hydrostatic subtracts from the surface pressure. Thus the formula for surface treating pressure is equal to bottom hole pressure plus friction minus hydrostatic (STP=BHP+friction-hydrostatic). On the surface the only immediate control over pressure is friction which is a function of the rate as well as other factors. Hydrostatic can be controlled in the long term, but requires displacing fluid in the vertical of the well with a fluid of a different density which takes time. Friction can be better controlled in the long term through chemicals that can slick the casing to reduce friction or others that break down blockages, but again take time. Nothing closely controls bottom hole pressure, but is the formations natural pressure with extra pressure applied. We can release the pressure on the surface by releasing fluids from the well, but this could cause a dangerous situation if not controlled. Releasing pressure on surface is usually only used to break down blockages. Ultimately releasing pressure on the surface is not a guarantee it will reduce pressure in long term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Public policy/information resources

In the public policy, education, and relations section I had included links to sources of public information web sites about hydraulic fracturing. Initially I had included one from an environmental group, but decided to limit the sources to news and government sources. Beagel moved them back to the EL, buried under the reference section, and I reverted this. I put them back because they are relevant to that section, and will make the information more accessible. This isn't forbidden under WP:EL, just not normally done. In this case it seems to make sense to have the sites linked since this is source-quality material. WP:EL reads "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." They are relevant to this section's content. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We have external links section. We have also extensive references section, so there is no any reason for exception from the "they should not normally be used in the body of an article" other than promotion of these sites. "Buried under the reference section" is not a valid reason for exception from this policy. These links does not belong to the body and I will remove them for above-mentioned reasons. Beagel (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

This article uses several blogs as sources. As they are mainly blogs of media outlets and similar organizations, they could be used by WP:NEWSBLOG. However, they should be properly attributed as the statements/opinions of the writers. It seems that this is not always done, so all these blogs needs checking against the WP:RS and particularly WP:NEWSBLOG. Beagel (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

History

The article says that "The first hydraulic fracturing was performed in 1947, at the Hugoton gas fields of southwestern Kansas, in limestone deposits by Halliburton". However, the reference confirms the year but not fact that it was conducted by Halliburton. This source says that "the first experimental treatment to “Hydrafrac” a well for stimulation was performed in the Hugoton gas field in Grant County, Kansas, in 1947 by Stanolind Oil". It also says that "A patent was issued in 1949 [to Stanolind Oil], with an exclusive license granted to the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company (Howco) to pump the new Hydrafrac process." So it seems that although Halliburton commercialized the process by conducting the first commercial fracturing treatments in Archer County, Texas, on March 17, 1949, it was not the inventor of the process nor the conductor of the first experimental process.

The above mentioned paper provides also some information about the pre-history dating back to 1860s. Beagel (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)