Talk:Fracking/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Radiation

The sources that have been provided do not support the statement added - "Workers on hydraulic fracturing sites are also exposed to radiation from flowback and spills". The first source refers to an accidental release of fluids with sand and small numbers of beads with radioactive tracers during a fracking operation, but goes on to explain that there were no risks from radiation exposure to the workers. The second source only mentions 'radioactive tracers' once saying "but their use poses additional environmental and safety concerns" - it says nothing about the exposure of workers. To get from these sources to the added text is pure synthesis - please remove it or find sources that actually cover this issue. Mikenorton (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarly none of the sources mention 'concerns' - that's just not true. Also the bromide stuff is classic synthesis - you take a source that mentions bromide in rivers (although only possibly from HF water disposal - not proven) and tack this onto something on health effects for people living near fracking sites and make it sound like cancers from exposure to THMs have been directly linked to HF operations - they haven't. So I've removed all this stuff again as it is not supported by the sources given. Mikenorton (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Safety" has nothing to do with workers? What? Give me a break. It is not synthesis, that is just yet another guise to remove material that might be in conflict with the business interests of a consulting firm providing services associated with hydraulic fracturing. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Which firm would that be? As I've said before, if you believe that editors are acting the way that they do because of a conflict of interest, either raise it with the appropriate notice board or stop the snide remarks. You have never shown any understanding of what constitutes synthesis, so your edits that use it will keep on being reverted. Mikenorton (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Radioactivity

I have deleted a number of sentences and phrases in individual edits, with comments showing why. Please discuss them individually on the talk page before reverting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

MH, it is very unproductive and irresponsible of you to delete sections because you are not capable of or willing to read the sources. You are once again being destructive, as I have since learned you have been on other pages. It is also clear that you are engaging in POV editing by censoring sourced material that is inconsistent with your personal biases. Very disappointing and inadequate.You have no standing that qualifies you to serve as gatekeeper on this page. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Smm I am no more gatekeeper than any other editors. Please read my edit comments about individual edits. I will explain again here and welcome your responses. Please bear in mind that this section is about radioactivity.

I removed the comment about salt because salt is not radioactive.

I removed reference to barium because barium is not radioactive but I left radium in because that is a radioactive substance.

I removed the bit about biological damage because, if you read and understand this, it refers to chemical not radioactivity effects. Also it also only applies if the waste is not disposed of properly.

I removed a section that was duplicated.

I removed the bit about radiotracers returning to the surface because nothing in the sources indicate concern about this. If you disagree then please show me the quote that refers to radiotracers returning to the surface. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the sources describes the nature of a clean up of radioactive material after a blowout in order to protect workers and others nearby and the other talks about environmental and safety concerns when using radioactive tracers in hydraulic fracturing. You are removing more than you note above. You are removing well-sourced material because it does not support the oil and gas industry's financial interests and your POV. Have you no reliable sources that support your perspective? I guess not or your sole approach would not be deletion of material that does not support your view.

To link them in the text that you added is synthesis. No-one here agrees with your view, so please do not keep on adding this. This amounts to slow motion edit warring. Also please do not constantly accuse other editors of acting to censor information. Find a source that actually supports the text and that would be fine. Mikenorton (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not synthesis. Uncontrolled releases, blowouts, flowback...whatever you call it, it returns to the surface, and radiotracers (which are used in various forms - bonded to sand, liquid, whatever...were one of the concerns mentioned. I doubt very much that you will allow any information that is related to radiation exposure regardless of how well sourced it is because of your COI. I thought that you were being even handed when you included the picture that included the seismic issue, then realized that was your business... Smm201`0 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus? More like COI.

I'm not sure it is really an even handed sort of consensus when there are COIs involved, and the article clearly supports the statement. I think there is bias rather than consensus. Regarding the articles about problems with exposure to radioactivity, one source details the cleanup of radioactive material after a blowout, noting protection of workers, etc. from said contamination. The other talks about safety concerns when using tracers for hf. Smm201`0 (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of COI issues you are talking about. You have been asked numerous times to stop this or provide proofs. Calling names is something you should be very careful as this is not a tolerated practise in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate place to raise such an issue is here - if you feel that you have the evidence. Mikenorton (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Smm, the first source refers to a local leak at the point at which the fracturing fluid is injected. The source says that the leak was dealt with properly.

The second, completely unconnected, source refers to 'concerns' in the sense of 'things we need to be concerned about' when dealing with radiotracers.

Even if we combine these two sources and draw our own conclusions (which we should not because it is WP:synth) we still do not arrive at the conclusions given in your added text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Smm how about discussing the subject here rather than making baseless accusations against others. I have given a simple and clear argument as to why the cited sources do not support your added text. I am happy to discuss both sources in more detail if you wish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Smm, are you going to discuss this subject?

Or are you just going to wait until you think no one is looking and then add your text back? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Howarth study again

An editor has removed[1][2] the following

Shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas. This is mainly due to the gas released during completing wells as some gas returns to the surface, together with the fracturing fluids. Depending on their treatment, the well-to-burner emissions are 3.5%–12% higher than for conventional gas. According to a study conducted by professor Robert W. Howarth et al. of Cornell University, "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." The study claims that this represents a 30–100% increase over conventional gas production. Methane gradually breaks down in the atmosphere, forming carbon dioxide, which contributes to greenhouse gasses more than coal or oil for timescales of less than fifty years. Howarth's colleagues at Cornell and others have criticized the study's design, however several other studies have also found higher emissions from shale-gas production than from conventional gas production. Howarth et al. have responded, "The latest EPA estimate for methane emissions from shale gas falls within the range of our estimates but not those of Cathles et al, which are substantially lower."

stating that the study is "garbage" and "fundamentally flawed". I don't see any evidence that this is true, although there has been some of the back and forth wrangling that's typical of this field. It's inclusion also appears supported by previous discussions here and here so I've restored it. a13ean (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the quality of the work but I think that is too much text with too much detail for an article on HF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you think one sentence summarizing the plethora of critics who have torn Howarths work to pieces is enough? If more is added, does that put too much of the article's focus on one fatally flawed study instead of being an general over view of the subject. CJ5Fanatic (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You say this is a fatally flawed study, but I see no evidence of this. A different group complained about their methods in a comment, the original group defended them. Several subsequent studies reached fairly similar conclusions. Absent much stronger evidence that the results have been broadly rejected, I wouldn't call it "fundamentally flawed". Fundamentally flawed papers get a reception like the Seralini paper as discussed here. This is just geologists being geologists. a13ean (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Horwaths study counted gas used to power stationary processing equipment and compressors as fugitive emissions. Doesnt that qualify as a fatal flaw? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ5Fanatic (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Could we not just summarise the whole issue, for example:

Some researchers have claimed that shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes 3.5%–12% higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas. Others have criticised this claim.

Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Of course, it should be explained in more detailed way in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing article. Beagel (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The synopsis isn't as informative as the original. I support A13ean's comments. There are always critiques of research, even articles in peer reviewed journals such as this article. Both the results of the study and the criticisms (or at least links to the articles discussing them, as there are now) should be presented. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That was only a suggestion, I would not object to more text but it needs to be more encyclopedic. The current text is a bit disjointed with claims and counterclaims. If we just quote from papers it is hard to see how our readers evaluate the true situation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested summary text

How about:

'Proponents of hydraulic fracturing point out that greenhouse emissions will be reduced by replacing coal with gas, however, some researchers have found that shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes 3.5%–12% higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas, mainly due to the methane released during completing wells as some gas returns to the surface. One report claims that the well-to-burner greenhouse emissions of gas from hydraulic fracturing are greater than those from coal. This latter report has been heavily criticised by fellow researchers and others'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree if attributed with relevant references. I also propose to change the last sentence: "This latter report has been criticized for overestimated leakage rates and inadequate bases of comparison." per source to clarify for what it was criticized. Beagel (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

References? Yes, of course. I like your last sentence too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is we have exactly one study, torn apart by its reviewers, claiming what Howarths paper claims and at least a dozen that have dramatically different conclusion. Why do we give this much space to one outlier? Just because the media has? CJ5Fanatic (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What do sources actually say about the Howarth report? Do any sources actually refer to it as discredited? There is also the issue of Shale gas vs HF; they are not the same thing, this makes the report less relevant here. I agree that we should give the report due weight, which does not seem to be very much.

It is hard to see how we could give the report less space without dropping it completely. Perhaps we could add more about the claimed reduction in greenhouse emissions for gas produced by HF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

How about:

'Proponents of hydraulic fracturing point out that greenhouse emissions will be reduced by replacing coal with gas, however, researchers have found that shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes 3.5%–12% higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas, mainly due to the methane released during completing wells as some gas returns to the surface. One, somewhat discredited, report claims a higher value'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine for me. Beagel (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not really accurate. There wasn't just one report with higher values. The original text reports "...several other studies have also found higher emissions from shale-gas production than from conventional gas production. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That is what I say, 'shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes 3.5%–12% higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas'. One report claims a higher (than 12%) value. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Radon in natural gas

A few points on this subject are worthy of discussion.

The Resnikoff report appears to be a calculation (possibly based on total gamma radiation) of expected radon not an actual measurement.

The high radon levels are caused by the local environment not the method of extraction.

Radon will be released into the combustion products when gas is burned, thus radon in homes will come only from cooking with gas. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google search also fond [this] highly critical commentary on Resnikoff's work. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The radon related to the Marcellus Shale is not related to the hydraulic fracturing as gas extraction technique. The study by Resnikoff says: "The Marcellus shale formation is more radioactive than other sources of natural gas in the United States." Notwithstanding if the Resnikoff's study is correct or not, it clearly says that the specific source is more radioactive, not that the radioactivity is caused specifically by hydraulic fractiuring. Providing this as a typical impact of hydraulic fracturing is synthesis. Beagel (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, how the statement that "Natural gas is a source of radon" is related to the hydraulic fracturing? This is related to the gas properties and should be addressed there but this is not about the HF as technique. Beagel (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I changed the wording to match the sources and, having done so, it looks like it should not be there at all. I think it should go. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose to delete it unless someone can provide a rationale for keeping it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with some of your comments, but not that this "discussion" could be described as "consensus." I had read that natural gas obtained through hydraulic fracturing had more radon associated with it because the process dislodged more material than conventional drilling, and that the increased exposure increased the radioactivity infused in the natural gas. I don't know whether you are familiar with "Gas Buggy" but for a time they actually experimented with using nuclear weapons to fracture the rock to release natural gas. It was part of an effort to find peacetime uses for nuclear weapons. The resulting gas, however, was too radioactive to be used safely and blowouts resulted in more radioactive release, so they stopped using the technique. Anyway, the source I ended up including re: the enhanced radon levels talked more about the radioactivity of the source rather than the technique. I'll see if I can find the other source. Keep in mind that there is some debate about most research that is done. I think that the important filter is to make sure the source is reliable, and to present each side fairly. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if there is a good quality, independent, source which tells us that the HF process increases the radon in natural gas over that which would be expected from conventional extraction methods then we should state that fact here but, as always, we must be careful to put it into context. Does that fact apply generally or only to certain areas? How great is the effect? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)