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)

Health impacts

I moved or removed several recent additions from the health impact section. Namely:

• Sentence The number of unconventional natural gas wells in the US rose from 18,485 in 2004 to 25,145 in 2007 and is expected to continue increasing through at least 2020 was moved into the Shale gas in the United States. Reason is that as said several times before, hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas extraction are not synonyms. This is shale gas specific, not HF specific. In addition, as US specific, it suits better in the US specific article.
• While groundwater contamination and radiation exposure are important considerations, the cumulative impacts of tens of thousands of wells on regional air quality should be considered. Emissions from flowback operations, which may include emissions from various sources on the well pads, such as the wells themselves and diesel engines, are likely the major sources of the hydrocarbons observed in well completion samples. Talking about the cumulative impacts of tens of thousands of wells is more about the gas extraction in the broader term, not about the HF as technique. It may be relevant somewhere like Impact of natural gas extraction or in the specific gas play article, but not in the HF umbrella article.
• Multiple studies on inhalation exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons in occupational settings as well as residences near refineries, oil spills and petrol stations indicate an increased risk of eye irritation and headaches, asthma symptoms, acute childhood leukemia, acute myelogenous leukemia, and multiple myeloma. Many of the petroleum hydrocarbons observed in these studies are present in and around natural gas development sites. This is specifically about petroleum hydrocarbons and not about HF.
• Benzene, a known carcinogen, is one of the many hydrocarbons released during flowback. The known health effects of benzene include acute and chronic nonlymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, anemia, and other blood disorders and immunological effects. In addition, maternal exposure to ambient levels of benzene recently has been associated with an increase in birth prevalence of neural tube defects. Was removed per WP:SYNTH. It states that benzene is released during flowback and then provides all impacts benzene causes without giving a reference which says that the amount of benzene released during flowback is big enough to cause in certain conditions this and this and this. This is a classical SYNT case when argument A and argument B are combined to imply argument C, which is not explicitly said by provided sources.
• Public health officials can have the most impact on protecting the public's health by minimizing exposures for those living closet the well pads. They can protect them by controlling and monitoring emissions during completion and transitions and flowback, capturing and reducing emissions through use of low or no emmission flowback tanks, and establishing and maintaing communication regarding well pad activities with the community. Removed as trivia. This is something which public health officers should to do everywhere and this is not about health impacts nor specificity about HF.

Beagel (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent application of principles.

There is a lot of overly detailed US info in the "economic impacts" section that someone has noted should be moved to one of the US HF pages. I could do this, but would prefer that one of you (MH, Beagel, or someone else) do it. I'm surprised that it has stood this long considering how quickly you moved the environmental info to the US HF pages. Some of the info should remain but in more succinct form. Also, the piece about the higher radon levels in Marcellus shale gas produced by HF is relevant. If you are going to push that it is not, I can go over the article and apply the same principle to other content...like economic advantages of using hf to access shale gas... Smm201`0 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are right about the latest additions to the 'Economic impact' section. If you look the text, you see that I marked these edits with a comment about similar concerns. Unfortunately, there was no feedback (yes, I probably had to add these comments at the talk page). What concerns Marcellus gas, well, this is even not the U.S. specific but Marcellus Shale specific and therefore fits in the Marcellus Shale article. Even more, this is a shale-specific issue which has nothing to do with HF as a gas production technique. Therefore, I can't see how it is relevant in this particular article here. Also, threats "if you do this I will do that" is not a serious way to create encyclopaedia. Beagel (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually...it wasn't meant as a threat. I thought you'd be more comfortable doing it yourself, and you have been doing a lot of the main page to US page transfers. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC) In this case...Marcellus Shale transfer. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I see what you are referring to. I had read an article about how the hf process dislodges more radioactive material which results in more radioactivity infused gas and flowback, but cited one that focused more on the radioactivity of the source. I'm going to find the correct article. One thing that might make the shale-specific articles relevant is if one considers hf the only process that can efficiently/economically extract gas from shale. Another way to balance the economic sections would be to make the US part more succinct, add the Cornell Labor Institute report, and add a sampling of impacts in other countries. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As the US is the country where the technology is most widely used and where it was originally pioneered I don't see a strong need to move text into a separate 'US HF page'. And that concerns environmental, economical and other issues. From a non-US citizen. ArticunoWebon (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We already have US-specific articles on the subject, and too much of this article needlessly duplicates detailed US-specific material in either Hydraulic fracturing in the United States or Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. This article should summarize the US experience, but save many of the details for the US-specific articles. Plazak (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitting the high points with summary style

This article is really bloated. Someone has basically used it to collect references, which is not how we should be writing articles. A given fact doesn't need 4 or 5 citations, and we don't need to cover anything in this article. It's also easier if we avoid citations which discuss one-off events in favor of more comprehensive articles. I'm hoping to significantly trim this down. I've been reviewing a 2013 Case Western Law Review Symposium which altogether is fairly comprehensive and coherent. II | (t - c) 02:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

TV program etc

There was a Horizon program on BBC2 on 19/6 on Fracking.

Could fracking cause Soil liquefaction? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Bromide in hydraulic fracturing wastewater.

This isn't just limited to PA. We know bromide is in HF wastewater. Bromide facilitates formation of brominated trihalomethanes, also known as THMs. In order to reduce contaminants from HF, wastewater is taken to water treatment plants. THMs develop when the bromide in hydraulic fracturing wastewater is exposed to disinfectant processes in water treatment plants. That's just chemistry. This is in the articles. It is a concern because studies have linked ingestion of and exposure to THMs with several types of cancer and birth defects. (Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/environment/bromide-a-concern-in-drilling-wastewater-212188/#ixzz2XiPQ09dQ )

You may not be having problems with THMs yet in the UK, but this is a big concern where HF is more developed in the US, especially where drinking water comes from surface source water (rivers and streams) where water treatment plants release their effluent. None of this is unique to PA.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The article currently states "More problematic may be the high levels of Bromide released into the rivers. The Bromide in the water combines with chlorine, which is used to disinfect drinking water at water treatment plants, and forms trihalomethanes (THMs)." The sources used to support this statement don't actually support it. They don't say that the Bromide levels may be more problematic than radioactivity. Source 2 states "Brines generated from oil and natural gas production, including flowback water and produced water from hydraulic fracturing of shale gas, may contain elevated concentrations of bromide (∼1 g/L). Bromide is a broad concern due to the potential for forming brominated disinfection byproducts (DBPs) during drinking water treatment", but that's all it says in the abstract anyway (I don't have full text access to this one). Source 1 says that no-one is really sure where the bromide is coming from - the headline is unequivocal but the rest of the article isn't. As it stands the article now says that there is generally a problem with high bromide levels in rivers due to hf wastewater, not that there may be such a problem in Pennsylvania. This is just another example of synthesis in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Your other source does support there being a greater problem specific to Marcellus shale but it still says that the jury is out about a specific link. Some people are convinced while others remain sceptical - none of that comes through in the existing text and it is still all about Pennsylvania. Mikenorton (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I edited the section to focus on the general water chemistry issue. It was never about that one river. It is associated with hydraulic fracturing in general, not just the practice in PA. As a general principle, this article is about hydraulic fracturing and what it entails. I changed the structure of the talk section because you were responding to the issue above. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was an edit conflict - I started my section without seeing yours, but fine. If it's a general problem rather than just specific to one state and rock unit then there will be sources reporting that, so where are they? Mikenorton (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I edited the section to focus on the general water chemistry issue. It was never about that one river. As a general principle, this article is about hydraulic fracturing and what it entails. I changed the structure of the talk section because you were responding to the issue above. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some of the quotes (see below). It actually does say bromide may be more of a concern than radioactivity.

(1) "Ballooning bromide concentrations in the region's rivers, occurring as Marcellus Shale wastewater discharges increase, is a much bigger worry than the risk of high radiation levels, public water suppliers say."

(2) "Marcellus Shale drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations use an average of 4 million gallons of water to drill and "frack" each well. The drilling industry says it recycles approximately 70 percent of the wastewater from its well fracking operations, but millions of gallons are still funneled through 11 sewage treatment facilities and five brine treatment plants, then discharged into the state's rivers and streams."

(3) "Bromide facilitates formation of brominated trihalomethanes, also known as THMs, when it is exposed to disinfectant processes in water treatment plants. THMs are volatile organic liquid compounds. Studies show a link between ingestion of and exposure to THMs and several types of cancer and birth defects."

(4) "She said the two biggest sources of bromide in the watershed are Marcellus wastewater from sewage treatment facilities and wastewater from new smokestack scrubbers at coal-fired power plants. The plants cannot remove the bromide in wastewater. Bromide levels vary in discharges from both sources, but bromide is generally found at higher concentrations in Marcellus wastewater."

(5) "The Josephine brine treatment facility, also known as Franklin Brine, on Blacklick Creek in the Allegheny's watershed, discharges an average of 120,000 gallons a day of Marcellus wastewater that, at peak levels, contains high concentrations of bromide, chlorides and total dissolved solids, according to sampling done by the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Healthy Environments and Communities. "There's pretty high bromide going into the creek. Certainly it is a public health threat," said Conrad Dan Volz, director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities. "And to remove brominated THMs, that's going to break the bank for public water systems."

There was a lot more but I just focused on the chemistry issue.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There is Bromide in the hydraulic fracturing fluid that is injected, so it's not confined to PA. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source with information about Bromide in hydraulic fracturing fluid, as well as its use in fingerprinting contamination sources. This article is only about movement of fluid through earth, not large amounts being processed at water treatment plants and then released into rivers. Movement through soil takes a while, unless it finds a fault, crevice, cave, artesian spring/well or abandoned gas/oil well. Do a word search for Bromide. http://www.rural.palegislature.us/documents/reports/Marcellus_and_drinking_water_2012.pdf Smm201`0 (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Study about Marcellus

There is a paragraph saying:

Interestingly, a recent study from Duke University found: “Contrary to current perceptions, Marcellus [Shale] wells produce significantly less wastewater per unit gas recovered (~35%) compared to conventional natural gas wells.” Only approximately 15-20% of the injected fluid returns to the surface with the gas. Some remains underground and some may return to the surface through abandoned wells or other pathways. Although not necessarily indicative of broader industry trends, several reports have also highlighted an industry-wide shift toward greater water recycling in the Marcellus Shale.

The study is clearly about the Marcellus play and taking account the Marcellus specifics does not necessarily describe the hydraulic fracturing as a general process. This study is relevant in the articles about Marcellus shale or in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States, but not in the umbrella article about HF. Beagel (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The quote just added to the reference only confirms that this is US specific and does not refer to the hydraulic fracturing in general. Beagel (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful to have some information about (1) the amount of wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing compared to conventional methods and why there is a difference, (2) where the rest of the water goes, and (3) the use of recycling to deal with this issue. A couple sources speaking to the range of amounts would be good, or a comprehensive article speaking to this information. I'll keep an eye open for one. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Beagel that this paragraph is much too narrow for the Hydraulic Fracturing article. It belongs in the Marcellus Shale article. As to Smm201's question (1), the ratio of water to gas is a function of the reservoir rock, and varies all over the place. There are some conventional reservoirs that make almost no water, and some that make great amounts of water, limited only by the cost of water disposal versus the price of gas. The referenced article dealt only with the average, which is perhaps a misleading oversimplification. Fracking, beyond adding large volumes of frack fluid, most of which flows back in the first month or two, cannot alter the productive ratios in the formation; it only allows recovery of higher rates of whatever water and gas are there in the first place, As to question (2), most earth materials are preferentially water wet, and part of the frack fluid is retained in the formation by capillary forces. Plazak (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

The section on veins states (without a reference): "Though permanent, dedicated injection wells used for water disposal have been linked to local seismicity, no link of hydraulic fracturing and earthquake generation has been found."

The section on seismicity states "A British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission investigation concluded that a series of 38 earthquakes ... were caused by fluid injection during hydraulic fracturing in proximity to pre-existing faults."

The latter statement is referenced so I have deleted the earlier statement. The Yowser (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

U.S. specific

The following paragraphs:

In April 2011, the Ground Water Protection Council launched FracFocus.org, an online voluntary disclosure database for hydraulic fracturing fluids. The site is funded by oil and gas trade groups and the U.S. Department of Energy. The site has been met with some skepticism [123] relating to proprietary information that is not included, although President Obama’s energy and climate adviser Heather Zichal has said of the database: “As an administration, we believe that FracFocus is an important tool that provides transparency to the American people.” [124] At least five states – including Colorado [125] and Texas – have mandated fluid disclosure [126] and incorporated FracFocus as the tool for disclosure. As of March 2013, FracFocus had more than 40,000 searchable well records on its site.

The FracTracker Alliance, a non-profit organization, provides oil and gas-related data storage, analyses, and online and customized maps related to hydraulic fracturing. Their web site, FracTracker.org, also includes a photo library and resource directory. [127][128]

are U.S. specific and therefore belong to Hydraulic fracturing in the United States not here. Beagel (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree Plazak (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree also. It is clearly US-specific material. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Moved into Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Some general info about how governments are trying to deal with this issue is probably warranted. I'll see what others are doing. US citizens can't be the only ones asking about the contents of the fluid. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Biased lead

The opening paragraphs, particularly the third, is quite biased. The first sentence gives due weight to pro-fracking, then the entirity of the rest of the paragraph gives undue weight to the anti-frackers. Either the weight of the anti-frackers voice should be reduced, or the weight of the voice of the pro-frackers should be increased.Oxr033 (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesnt look biased to me but of course you could add more pro-fracking info as long as you make sure it is sourced and is a reflection of what comes later on in the article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We should not be presenting pro or anti fracking views in any detail here. Let us keep to the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

European vs US standards

Appearantly, US standards are a lot more lax than European ones, which is part of the reason why groundwater contamination has occured in the USA due to fracking for shale gas.

• In the USA, the sealing of the wells is less well regulated and so less well done; as such cracks have occured in some sites in the USA
• In the USA, the fracturing liquid is kept in open basins, which is illegal in Europe

It seems to me that these better standards, if made mandatory in the USA would increase the cost of drilling for shale gas/make it less profitable. Perhaps that a section on the US/European standards can be included to this article, and the economics can be briefly discussed. KVDP (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

US-specific edits

IP editor added several US-specific examples which does not belong here as an umbrella article but, if included, should go to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Specifically, these examples are:

In Barnhart, Texas the aquifer ran dry because of industrial fracking: one landowner had 104 water wells (designed to supply fracking) dug into his land by his fracker tenants, and the population is left with little recourse for their dry taps.

A Pennsylvania family was forced to abandon because of fracking pollution of their 10-acre farm. The family was paid 750,000USD by Range Resources Corporation to depart from a more recently installed petroleum well plant.

Beagel (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I suggest that you remove them. WP is not a notice board. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Frack versus Frac

I have documents internally with my company going back decades referring to it as a "frac job". It is only recent in the media (past 5 years) that I am seeing the 'k' added. It has become common in the industry to be able to recognize an outsider by if they add the 'k'. Externally when we publish information we always try to eliminate the abbreviation and make it "hydraulic fracturing" or "well stimulation". More than anything I would like Wikipedia to have a standard and stop jumping back and forwards. There are currently only four uses of the term "frac" that I can find in the main article, while there are 104 uses of the term "frack" or "fracking". Again more than anything I would like a possible standard. I would like to ask for an acknowledgement that there is an inconsistency between industry and the public, but as I made clear I am a biased industry insider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent news footage

Investigative reporting: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10841 Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hydrogen sulfide

Currently a subsection about hydrogen sulfide was added in the 'Water' section. This is problematic as this is not about water. Second issue is that hydrogen sulfide in produced petroleum is not caused by hydraulic fracturing but it depends of the chemical composition of the certain reservoir. Therefore it is wrongly placed in this article. Beagel (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Same applies to gas flaring on petroleum production. This is not related to the hydraulic fracturing. There is no interrelation between HF and gas flaring. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As below, I suggest you delete the offending section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

H2S could be caused by the fluid used in a frac job over time. There have been formations that have been made dirty over time (now produce H2S in flow back) that previously had no issue with H2S. It is bacteria in the formation that tend to produce this. That is why it is now nearly impossible to find a hydraulic fracturing job today that some bactericide (aka bio, aka biocide, aka anaerobic) is not being used as an additive to the frac fluid. The exception is where the water is being iradiated with UV light prior to being pumped. Even then sometimes they will still add bactericide as an additive.

I forgot to mention just like oxygen disolves in water, so does H2S. It is common to test water in the oilfield for H2S in water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.18 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Broken link 222

"Shots fired at W. Pa. gas drilling site". Philadelphia Inquirer. 12 March 2013. Retrieved 27 March 2013. New link http://web.archive.org/web/20130729153802/http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130311_ap_shotsfiredatwpagasdrillingsite.html 84.27.162.191 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Source of Philly I-131

The conclusion of the report was that further investigation is warranted. They are still in the process of gathering data. Although in the RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS section it says that "Workshop participants concluded that the likely source of 131 I in Philadelphia’s source waters is residual 131 I excreted from patients following medical treatments" it goes on to describe gaps in the information available. It says, "Over the course of the workshop many data gaps regarding the occurrence, fate, transport, treatment, and management of 131 I were identified. The key data gaps include:..." and one of the gaps described is "the potential contributions of sources other than medical use (e.g., veterinary treatments, contributions from septic systems [diffuse pollution], Sanitary Sewer Overflows [SSOs] and Combined SewerOverflows [CSOs], hydro-fracturing) to occurrence of 131 I in wastewaters and drinking water treatment plant source waters); and..." They go on to discuss the next steps in the investigation. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fracking is not identified as a cause. They are still looking at the causes, even though they are pretty sure that the likely (read statistical significance) cause is cancer patients. Your inclusion of a fringe idea is undue weight to say the least. Arzel (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement said that they are investigating it. That is supported by the source. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)