Talk:Fracking/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Removal of Colorado School of Public Health reference

I have removed this section from the entry as it cites an unpublished study. In addition, the reference cited says that there disagreements over the conclusion of the study. --Writer1502 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Seismic Image

I have deleted this image as it deals with seismology ans seismic activity, which have been associated with water disposal and geothermal production - not hydraulic fracturing. It also implies a number of possible pathways for contamination that are not associated with hydraulic fracturing. --Writer1502 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have wondered about this image for some time. The primary concern I have is that it is a user created image which is designed to present a certain point of view. It likely violates WP:OR Arzel (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This image was contributed by MikeNorton and is used by some industry reps at public talks, but more importantly, here is the source that says that seismic activity can be induced by both fracking and disposal wells if they are near existing faults:

"...In northwestern England, however, an independent report commissioned by a drilling company, Cuadrilla Resources, concluded that two quakes of magnitude 1.5 and 2.3 near the city of Blackpool last spring were related to a fracking well. The report suggested several ways to avoid further quakes, including monitoring and limiting the pressures and volumes of fluid used. Fracking is known to cause very slight tremors — far weaker than even the Youngstown quakes — when the fluid is injected into the shale under high pressure. Drilling companies often send sensitive instruments called geophones into the drill holes to analyze these tiny tremors because they indicate whether the rock is fracturing as expected.

But the larger earthquakes near Blackpool were thought to be caused the same way that quakes could be set off from disposal wells — by migration of the fluid into rock formations below the shale. Seismologists say that these deeper, older rocks, collectively referred to as the “basement,” are littered with faults that, although under stress, have reached equilibrium over hundreds of millions of years. “There are plenty of faults,” said Leonardo Seeber, a seismologist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “Conservatively, one should assume that no matter where you drill, the basement is going to have faults that could rupture.”

Drilling and disposal companies do not usually know that those faults exist, however. Seismic surveys are costly, and states do not require them for oil or gas wells (although larger companies routinely conduct seismic tests as part of exploration). Regulations for disposal wells are concerned about protecting aquifers, not about seismic risk. The federal Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates oil- and gas-related disposal wells unless its cedes its authority to the states, has no seismic requirements for its disposal wells, an agency spokeswoman said. "

Fracture Monitoring

I just wanted to sort the types of monitoring based on the use.

1. Measurement of rate and pressure. Will never do a hydraulic fracturing job without meters for these two and backups reading.

2. Density Measurement With either a radioactive density meter or Coriolis density meter. Almost always use these in line. Primarily used for measuring the concentration of the sand going into a well.

3. Tracers is the next most common form of monitoring a well. Historically the fluid has been radioactive. The highest frequency I have seen this done was one well out of every 10 wells. I currently have not seen this done in about 4 months or about 20 wells. There are some newer methods that don't even use radioactive fluids. The latest one which I'm not sure if it is just a sales pitch sounded similar to RFID in a ways. It was an inert fluid until a particular sound frequency was sent out and the fluid naturally sent back a frequency allowing the fractures to be monitored that way.

4. Microseismic is the most advanced method and involves monitoring for seismic activity and mapping it. This allows them to understand the path the fractures are progressing. I only tend to see this method about once a year.

Do you have sources that you can cite to verify the information above (e.g., published manuals, newspaper or journal articles, etc.)? You'll need them to meet WP requirements, or someone will delete your stuff. Smm201`0 (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

208.180.246.209 welcome. Can I suggest that you sign your posts by typing four tildes (like this ~~~~ ) at the end. This makes clear who has said what.

You seem to know a lot about this subject so your contributions will be very welcome. Do you have any reliable sources to support what you say above, if so that would be great, you could than edit the article to show actual fracture monitoring practice rather than someone's guess at what happens. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Industry applying pressure to limit EPA study re: wastewater and tracers

I provided the quotes that you requested and they do support the statements made but clearly not your perspective. I was surprised how blatant Chesapeake energy was in trying to block research into the potential environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. The sources support the statement that "Industry applied pressure to limit the study of wastewater and tracers in EPA's study of hydraulic fracturing." Here are the web links. Trial subscription to source are free. Quotes follow.

(1) SAB Pushes To Advise EPA To Conduct Toxicity Tests In Fracking Study. Quote:"...but some members of the chartered SAB are suggesting that the fracking panel revise its recommendation that the agency scale back its planned toxicity testing of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, process, because of the limited resources and time frame...Chesapeake Energy supported the draft recommendation, saying that “an in-depth study of toxicity, the development of new analytical methods and tracers are not practical given the budget and schedule limitation of the study.”" InsideEPA, US Environmental Protection Agency

The cited energy company seem merely to be supporting draft recommendations made by some unknown SAB members; hardly 'applying pressure'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(2)Actual letter from John Satterfield at Chesapeake Energy to EPA "Flowback and Produced water...Chesapeake agrees that an indepth study of toxicity, the development of new analytic methods and tracers are not practical given the budget and schedule limitations of the study...Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal...Chesapeake believes there was unjustified emphasis on the surface disposal of produced water to treatment plants in the SAB's Review...Chesapeake disagrees with the inclusion of water distribution network corrosion and burden of analyzing for contaminants by POTW's into the study." InsideEPA, US Environmental Protection Agency.

Smm201`0 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Again Chesapeake Energy are merely agreeing with a proposal by someone else, for what appear to be practical reasons. This does not justify the characterisation of 'applying pressure'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is how the author of the article described it ("push"). Urbina also wrote about the pressure in his article, also cited. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The only mention of push that I can see is the push by the SAB in favour of Tixicity tests. SAB that 'Pushes To Advise EPA To Conduct Toxicity Tests'. You seem to be misunderstanding your sources. I will remove the offending statement until you can provide a source that actually supports what you claim. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

MH, if you are going to work on this page, you are going to have to start reading the sources. The word "pressure" is used 4 times in the source at the end of that sentence. I have added a link after the word industry, but a link at the end of the sentence should have sufficed. At this point there have been many times that you sought to remove or change information without bothering to read the source for it. In the case of the UT study, you didn't read carefully enough to determine context. If you really care about this article you will start to edit it based on information from reliable sources, which requires that you actually read the sources, and read them carefully, and not just edit based on your opinion. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else care about this?

I came here is response to and RfC and what I have found is an attempt by some to discredit the industry and spread alarm over its practices.

I have no connection with the oil and gas industry and agree that the article should accurately reflect what is actually done in HF even if it does reveal harmful, dangerous, or risky practices but here I see exaggeration and pointless scary listing of substances used.

If no one else cares about the accuracy of this article I will go away and leave you people to it. If there is a feeling that the article should present a balanced view of the industry and that is currently does not do so then I am happy to stay to help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"If no one else cares about the accuracy of this article I will go away"? Diva much? Please try to assume good faith. We all care about the accuracy of this article; now let's move on and keep hammering out the finer points of what we disagree on. Sindinero (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith, or in fact anything, about those who do not comment at all. But to answer the question that you asked in your edit summary: yes I am serious. I have come to RfCs before as a genuinely independent and neutral editor to help decide on disputed issues only to find myself being cast as one of the dispute originators. If no one else is interested in stopping what seems to me to be fairly obvious POV pushing here then I will remove this page from my watch list and move on. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Martin, think positively. If you look in what state this article was just 2 month ago, there has been a significant progress to make it more neutral by removing obvious POV and synthesis. It still needs a work but I still believe it is possible to make a good NPOV article out of it. My story is quite similar to yours — I arrived here two months ago because hydraulic fracturing links were added to some articles in my watch list, found out a total mess and tried to clean it up and remove obvious POV. I was very shortly labelled as "industry paid editor" and falsely reported for edit warring (first time during my six years editing here, by the way). No apology for this, of course. So, I understand very well your frustration and have feel like this by myself. It seems also to be reason why some editors like Mikenorton don't want to take a part of editing this article anymore. However, as I said I believe it would be possible to bring this article to the good article level and I hope you will continue your efforts for this. Answering your question – as I have already said before this is not a place for incriminatory lists. Beagel (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My apparent disengagement from this page was because I was on holiday. Although I am disinclined to make changes, I will continue to take part in discussions. Mikenorton (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Crazy lists return

Three separate lists of radionuclides now appear in the 'Fracture monitoring section. We actually have a good source, the UT report, which shows us how radioactive tracers are used in logging, but all we have in the section is three meaningless lists of substances. When I have the time I will try to rewrite the section to be balanced and informative rather than a scary looking list of radionuclides. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Tracers are not discussed in the UT report. The second tracer source reflects international use, so it not only confirms the international use of tracers listed by the first source, but gives non-US information, which is needed on this page. Rather than censor and distort the information on the page, why don't you do something constructive like find citations for the unsupported material, or add sourced statements that reflect your perspective on the issue. That would be a better way of balancing the information on the page than hiding what you don't like. Alternatively, you could use add sourced statements that support your view that the amounts used do not pose a health threat to allay any fears readers might have. Use sources to provide a context. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Doubled checked the UT study. In the two instances in which the word "tracer" is used, it is in the context of past and potential environmental impact studies, not industry use, and aside from the mention of dyes, the nature of the tracers and context in which they are used in the industry are not described at all. Not informative or useful. By the way, at this time the industry is resisting EPA's proposed use of tracers in this fashion, which could be added to the environmental section. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect MH, if you are going to work on this page, you are going to have to start reading the sources. I shouldn't have to cut and paste text on this talk page for you to read. If you really care about this article you will start to edit it based on information from reliable sources, which requires that you carefully read the available sources, and then accurately report what they say. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon Smm201`0 I gave the wrong reference, it should have been the IAEA ref. I do read the sources but I quoted the wrong one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious use of the English language.

Smm201`0, your last edit summary said,' The source was at the end of the sentence. Again, please read the sources before saying it isn't supported' but in fact you added the reference at that edit.

In fact the ref only says,' “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?” '.

This does not really justify, 'The objectivity of the UT study has been questioned because of industry funding to the university'. Note that the quote says (my bold),'... if their university receives a lot of grants...'. The article goes on to explain that this is not, in fact, the case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote what I said when I proposed that wording above "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." The complete lack of other sources that question the objectivity of the study makes me think the WP:UNDUE applies and we should probably lose those two sentences. Mikenorton (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It is very much WP:UNDUE. All we have is a question from one person, namely Sister Elizabeth Riebschlaeger. If that is all that is needed, WP could say almost anything. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I copied the ref from the end of the next sentence (I think the whole thing was one sentence originally) so that you could see the source more easily. A source that says that the issue was raised is all that is needed. You folks are too funny...one source is not enough, two is too many...Smm201`0 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There are other sources that say the same thing that I could add: From West Virginia...

Except that it doesn't mention a conflict of interest due to funding, it contains criticism of the scope, approach and makeup of the team - not the same thing. Mikenorton (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the paragraph. None of it is supported by the references given. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole section us of dubious value. Its main thrust seems to be that all research on the subject is of no value unless it proves that fracking is harmful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fracturing fluids

The fracturing fluid subsection needs cleanup as it contains some repetitions. It needs probably also some re-arrangements. At the moment this subsection is quite long and messy. Cleaning it up and trimming the text will increase its readability and overall quality. Beagel (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also there are several ref errors in this article that need to be fixed. —Compdude¹²³ 17:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I question the statistic of "There are more than 50 types of fluids that can potentially be used as fracturing fluids, following are the fracturing fluids used at more than 95% of fracturing jobs world wide:". This may have been true several years ago, but with the rise in the number of shale plays, slickwater fracs are becoming increasing dominant. Is there recent verification of this statistic. All the jobs that are listed after this statement are either crosslink or gel style systems. The usual desired system for a shale formation is a slickwater system. This is not always true, but with the rise in shale plays around the country and world, it begs the question if the statement is still accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.246.209 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

208.180.246.209, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end . This will automatically sign and date it so that we can all see who said what and when. Even better why not resister. This gives you access to more features and gives you more editing rights. You can use any user name and your IP address will not be shown so you can remain completely anonymous if you wish.

You obviously know more about the subject than most people here so your input would be very welcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Not just slick-water systems, but energized fluids are usually desired on shale. The problem is it is usually cheaper to go with the least desired system just because it is the most economical. With cross-link, the cost savings of less water may be enough to justify the usuall loss of production of a well. We are talking in generalities though. Does anyone have any recent hard statistic to back up any side of this issue.13:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.19 (talk)

,166.147.72.19 please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end . Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 208.180.246.209. Maybe you are interested to edit this section to cleanup and trim the text. It would be perfect if you also will provided references for this section. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dubious statement

The article includes the following statement: "However, there remain large uncertainties in the amount of gas reserves that can be accessed in this way." As a source, this article by Ian Urbina is given. The statement makes impression that the reason is immaturity of hydraulic fracturing. In fact, the article talks about decreasing of gas reserves estimates for Marcellus Shale. I don't think that the information provided in this source supports the above-mentioned statement and therefore it should be removed. Second, there is a story how Ian Urbina has previously faulty read the data provided by USGS. Although his mistake has been made public, he refers in his story (which is provided as a source) again to this faulty conclusion based on USGS data. It raises a question if Urbina could be taken as reliable source at all. Beagel (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the statement in the article should be clarified to better reflect the source, if you think it's unclear. However, I think it falls outside our purview to decide whether Urbina is qualified or not. If he continues to be published in the daily paper of record, I'm not sure how that wouldn't meet the criteria established at WP:RS. (It would be nice if one could disqualify reporters based on dangerous falsehoods or sloppy reporting; I'd nominate Judith Miller to start with!) Sindinero (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you want clarify about this statement? The information about shale gas at Marcellus Formation is relevant for Marcellus Formation article. The amount of Marcellus shale gas reserves does not change the fact that HF is a method used for shale gas and tight oil production in cases when conventional drilling fails. Beagel (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but HF is not just a method, but is intricately connected to the current shale gas boom it has enabled. Part of this boom are the euphoric predictions about massive supplies that are then occasionally downgraded - not just for the Marcellus, but in the case of Poland as well. I would clarify the statement to make it clear that the amount of gas reserves accessible has nothing to do with the 'immaturity' of the method, as you say, and globalize it by adding reference to Poland. However, it may be worth adding a section or subsection somewhere in the body text to deal with this, since per WP:LEAD the lead needs to summarize the rest. This goes for the preceding sentence as well, which is an important point but not covered in the body: "Proponents of fracking point to the vast amounts of formerly inaccessible hydrocarbons the process can extract." Sindinero (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should summarize the text and not introduce facts not covered in the body text. I am not sure where exactly, but somewhere we should probably add (a) paragraph(s) or a subsection explaining that due to HF, production of shale gas, tight gas and oil, and coal seam gas has become technically more visible. It would be also nice if there is any data how much additional oil and gas is expected to be produced due to HF. However, this data should be explicitly linked to HF and not to be about shale gas reserves or something similar, which is not necessarily the same thing. I have a concern that HF is often interpredated as a synonym of shale gas production. This is true that it is the main method, but at the same time not the only one – e.g. also conventional drilling etc is involved. Also, HF is not limited to shale gas or even to oil and gas industry, although this is the main field of use of it. Therefore, we should avoid lengthy discussion things which instead of this belongs to shale gas articles. Beagel (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would support the proposed new content discussing not just how HF has made production of shale gas etc. more visible/viable, but how it has triggered the shale gas boom and all that entails (a question of emphasis). In academese, HF is not just a technology, but (like any technology) is also a social discourse. Sindinero (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion I added new short section based on the newly published report by the IEA. It has global figures instead of country or region specific figures and it includes not only shale gas figures but also figures about other unconventional gas resources which might be produced using hydraulic fracturing. It seems there are also other information in this report which should be mentioned in this article (e.g. IEA's recommendations). Will study it when will have more time. Beagel (talk) 20:05, 29 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)

I updated information about Dimock case as EPA announced results of testing. Although according to Reuters "Environmental and health groups say that some fracking operations near homes and schools pollute land and water" it was not confirmed by EPA. I would like to ask Equazcion to look this paragraph and copyedit, if necessary. I also wonder if we need this paragraph about Dimock at all if the link with HP is not confirmed. However, I think we should wait until EPA says what it the reason of methane level in one well. Beagel (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the EPA reports, the situation is that after remediation, the installation of special water filtration systems on affected wells, and related interventions, the water presents no health concerns. The contamination did occur, but the EPA, Cabot, and PADEP have corrected the situation, and continue to monitor the wells. Here's some info about what Cabot has to do:[1] and some reports including well info: [2], [3], and [4] EPA Dimock docs: [5] Smm201`0 (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article from Propublica that sums up the current status of the Dimock situation. So is Dimock's water really safe to drink? It looks like there are still issues remaining according to this article. Both the Pavillion and Dimock cases involve other chemical contaminants in addition to methane. Smm201`0 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Propublica reliable source? More reliable than EPA? Also, please keep in mind that hydraulic fracturing is distinguished from the drilling, casing, and cementing of gas wells. So far, there is no reliable source confirming that methane leak was caused by hydraulic fracturing. I personally believe, that it was caused by natural gas extraction activities and I believe that these activities have a number of impacts to environment; however, if there is no proof linking it to hydraulic fracturing, it may belong to the Shale gas in the United States or any other article about gas production in the U.S. and not in the hydraulic fracturing articles. So the question is not if Dimock's water really safe to drink, but do we have any reliable source which says that methane contamination in Dimock's water occurred due to hydraulic fracturing. Beagel (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual Dimock EPA docs and web page I linked also discuss the methane issue. The Propublica article is just more succinct, and no less reliable than Reuters. Although the title may be about whether the water is safe to drink, if you read it, you'll see that the article covers a lot more than that, including the methane source issue. It sounds like EPA is still investigating. Smm201`0 (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming really ridiculous. This is a umbrella article about HF, that means it should give a general overview about all aspects of HF. Methane contamination of ground water should be mentioned as one potential impact of HF. However, giving detailed overview of cases which may or may be not to be caused by HF is not in accordance with WP:UNDUE. The main issue here is even not if these cases are caused by HF or not, but rather if they are presenting the typical consequences of HF or if they are individual cases caused by wrongdoing of companies, by lack of regulations in the certain regions or by coincidence. I fully agree that Dimock and Pavillion cases should be mentioned but it should be done in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States and the relevant companies articles (Cabot Oil), not here. Beagel (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am putting the Dimock and Pavillion cases back in the article. The state has evidence that the Dimock methane is from fracking using the fingerprinting technology. EPA states that the other contaminants are from fracking in the letter. When the section was summarized, the original sources for this information were probably lost. I put an AP article and the EPA letter as the source for this information. There was also evidence of chemical contamination by hf in the Pavillion case. The argument that individual case studies should not be included because they aren't representative of HF is ludicrous. It is the most common type of environmental study there is. In addition, since the US has the longest history of hf, that is where most of the studies to date have been conducted and where we are likely to learn the impact first. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, Dimock and Pavillion cases should be mentioned but it should be done in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States and the relevant companies articles (Cabot Oil), not here. First, although I believe that the methane contamination is related to gas drilling (not necessarily to HF), it is not confirmed by EPA. Second, in the article about the HF in general, it is enough to say that one potential impact of HF may be methane condamination. Describing specific cases does not belong here. We have the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States article which is right place for this and I really can't understand why you don't want to put it there and pushing it here. Removing it from this article; however, please feel free to put it in the relevant articles. Beagel (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Individual news articles should not form part of an encyclopedia article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Beagle - Again, the US is the test case - the guinea pig - for the effects of hydraulic fracturing. It has the longest history with the technique and the most environmental impact studies. If you are not biased, please don't delete the studies with the most definitive evidence of contamination. The state and EPA are both legitimate regulatory agencies. The state has conducted the most sophisticated test for methane source - the one involving "fingerprinting." In addition, numerous other contaminants have been found. This information belongs in this article. I don't understand why you want to hide the demonstrated negative consequences of hydraulic fracturing. That is censorship. All of the information was very well sourced. If you don't want to be accused of bias, you shouldn't do things like add lengthy general disclaimers based on industry funded research. A short disclaimer will do. The disclaimer about methane sources was practically obsolete - most studies now use a variety of techniques to address this issue. If the studies don't use the right techniques, then that info can be added to the description of their results. The recent studies DO address this issue. Please leave all of the succinct, sourced info about contamination studies in the article.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I will try one more time to explain although it seems you don't want to understand. This is umbrella article article about hydraulic fracturing which should give an overview about all important aspects of hydraulic fracturing. These aspects should be described with necessary detailed level; however, this is not the place to put every detail and to describe every HF related case, particularly, if more specific articles are exists. In this case, these two cases belongs to the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States and the relevant companies articles (Cabot Oil). I really don't understand why you don't add this information there. Putting individual cases here is WP:UNDUE which should be avoided. This is not censorship, this is NPOV. As I already said, the methane issue should be mentioned. However, that does not mean to present it by violating WP:UNDUE. I also hope you will specify what you mean by accusing "add lengthy general disclaimers based on industry funded research." I will appreciate if you will provide diffs showing that. Otherwise, it is clear cut personal attack. Also, talking about being biased, I would like to say that this article IS NOT called "List of all bad things I can find about hydraulic fracturing". Beagel (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same. Just because it is true and well-sourced and related to HF does not mean that we have to put it in this article; there would not be room. As Beagel says we already have an section on methane and this should contain a balanced summary of the overall methane issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You personally may not think that the methane is coming from fracking, but the sources report that the methane is associated with fracking. This article is to be based on RS. The Dimock and Pavillion studies are just as legitimate as the industry funded study by Cabot that you added. Their sources are RS. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you didn't hear me. Why does the study by Cabot Oil deserve to be included but not studies by state agencies and the EPA? ...especially when most readers can't access the article to see what it actually says... Smm201`0 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you read why Dimock and Pavillion cases do not belong here? It was explained three times, so please read and try to understand. The reference from Oil and Gas Journal is not to debate what caused the Dimock accident, but it provides one possible explanation to methane contamination. At the moment deifferent views are presented according to NPOV. Also, before making accusations as you like to do, please be aware who added this information and reference and who not. Beagel (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I read your reasoning and I respectfully disagree with it. The section should present the current information about the issue in proportion to what information exists. If there are several major studies with disparate findings, that needs to be presented. To allow Cabot's study to remain and delete the EPA information appears to be UNDUE to me. If there is more positive information, so be it; if there is more negative information, so be it. Reporting information from an NPOV means accurately describing the articles and reports, etc., that are available, not neutralizing the information in them. What's important is that the article reflect/represent the available relevant information on the topic. We had agreed before the environmental section was edited down that it was important to have a comprehensive section on the topic that would succinctly address the issues and main findings. It was noted that much of the available literature described concerns, and that was why there was a good proportion of negative material in the section. I have no problem with trying to be more succinct. The other articles exist for the purpose of fleshing out the issues. BUT I thought that we agreed that the main issues and sources would still be represented in the environmental concerns section of this article. The EPA studies need to be represented as they are key in the US and the US is the pioneer in this technology. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia not a news article. We need a balanced summary of the situation not individual incidents. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:37, 1 June 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"' [6] 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)

Here's a new source on this topic, from the WSJ: Critics question shale gas researcher, schools. Sindinero (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This reference criticises two specific reports. Are we going to present the results of these reports here. It is hard to see why we should mention that two reports have been criticised if we make no mention of the reports themselves or their findings. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 26 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)

Economic impact

I think the new section is a good addition. A couple other aspects, including the economics of leases and estimates, could be touched on, in my opinion, and I've gathered a couple sources below for this purpose.

• Goodell, Jeff (01 March 2012). "The Big Fracking Bubble: The Scam Behind Aubrey McClendon's Gas Boom". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 30 May 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Poland revisits shale gas estimates. (There are better sources than the Prague post - and while this and similar stories almost certainly belong at the Shale gas article, I think they also deserve mention here, under the rubric of the "fracking boom." I think it would be a good idea to make explicit in this section that the current fracturing technology has led to what is widely considered a boom, with attendant effects. Sindinero (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)