Talk:Fracking/Archive 1

Removal of Federal Regulation

 * The Energy Policy Act of 2005 further strengthened the states' regulatory position, specifically exempting hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.[12]

Isn't this just a weaselly way of saying that federal regulation was removed due to oil lobby pressure? Instead they make it sound like federal regulation was standing in the way of state regulation (it never has). --66.66.187.132 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article cited does not present this as a victory in any way for state's rights, instead depicting it as a victory for oil companies. --66.66.187.132 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The title of this section is misleading and inacurate.

In reality (of which there is very little when it comes to the discussion of hydraulic fracturing, VERY VERY little) the Energy Policy Act of 2005 kept hydraulically fractured, producing wells from being reclassified as injection wells and placed under UIC regulation. Even if this exemption had not been given, the end result would only have been to add an additional layer of permitting. In other words, producing wells that required hydraulically fracturing (which would include 90% of wells) would have to be classified and permitted as both injection wells AND as producing wells. However, injection wells would not have to be classified as both producing and injection wells. Classifying wells in contradictory terms would create a conflict of definitions, additional layers of paperwork, the need for additional state employees and general confusion in the permtting process. It would however, create multiple permitting fees payable to the State for each well. This might have been goal in the first place of the efforts to redefine 31 years of UIC precedent and enforcement. It's important that a discussion or UIC laws be detailed along with any ignorant accusations that any effort has been made to remove regulations from well permitting, construction or operation. The topic CANNOT be understood and discussed rationally without an understanding of UIC laws and the reasons producing wells need to be called producing wells and injection wells need to be called injection wells. In point of fact the provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 merely kept in place 31 years (now nearly 37 years) of what continues to be a very functional regulatory system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.224.169 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Move from Hydraulic fracture to Hydraulic fracturing
Does this seem reasonable? This article describes the technique of creating hydraulic fractures rather than the fractures themselves (see Fracture (geology) for a short article for this general topic). If there are no objections, I'll do this in the next few days. + m t  05:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. + m t  20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Reservoir fracturing and Fracing
It would seem appropriate to merge these subjects into this article. "Fracing" is too industry and layman's terms, and "Reservoir fracturing" assumes that this technique is used for oil reservoirs, which is false. + m t  05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, these should be merged.
 * Done. + m t  20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is going to hate me, and maybe undo my edits (all within the past hour or so), but "fracing", when read by a literate person, rhymes with "facing".

I added a note about that on the "Fracing" redirect page; it will probably be removed. I've seen both spellings in a brief journey around the Web pages on the topic. Habitual misspelling because of weak literacy doesn't make a spelling official, even if computer people consistently [mis]spell "compatible" as "compatable", and made "referer" an officially-recognized term. There are other consensus misspellings around... If English teachers (I'm not one) got more respect, we'd probably be a more-literate nation. Nikevich (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Geology
Natural hydraulic fractures are one aspect of geology and geoscience. This page, as currently written, is mostly about industrial hydraulic fracturing. Some information about natural hydraulic fractures is given, but not much. So does it really fit into a geoscience project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.65.211 (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You should see Fracture (geology) for natural fractures. (It is the first interwiki link on the page). + m t  03:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just linked to this page from an article that discussed the formation of greisen veins. IMO there should be no problem in including a section on natural examples of hydraulic fracturing as there is no difference in the underlying principles involved. I'm adding this to my list of things to do. Mikenorton (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fracturing vs. Fractures vs. Fissures
I'd prefer to use the word 'fissure' instead of 'fracture' when mentioning about natural fractures, though in the industry, people do say 'reservoir fractures'. Also, I think when saying 'Hydraulic Fractures' people don't mean 'Natural Fractures', but man-made fractures to increase production. One more thing to add, it seems when people talking about 'Frac', they sometimes mean 'Acid Frac' which is quite different from 'Hydraulic Frac' in terms of the mechanism. There might be a necessity to create a separate page for that, along with the more general 'Reservoir Stimulation' term. DairyKnight (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Acid fracturing only differs from typical hydraulic fracturing in the method of propping the fracture - acid etching of the rock vs. proppant, respectively. They do not differ at all in the mechanism used to fracture the rock, it is still downhole hydraulic pressure. Acid fracking certainly don't require a whole new entry, though they could definitely be mentioned.--Texinian (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Health and environmental concerns..
Is there a reason there is no discussion of health and environmental concerns? See the following sources: --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a section. --Delirium (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hydraulic fracturing is not directly the cause of any environmental impact. The composition of the fluids and solids injected may have an environmental impact.  In waste storage activities, hydraulic fracturing is used to dispose of waste in deep rock formations. In near surface waste remediation, hydraulic fracturing is used to place microbes or other material to attack an existing spill.  In water well stimulation, water is used to fracture the rock as is the case in many oil and gas stimulations.  The point is - it depends on what is injected and how, not just that it is done by hydraulic fracturing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.79.184 (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I added some information on possible seismic activity relation to this drilling process as found in an AP article on 6/12/09 entitled "Drilling Might Be Culprit Behind Texas Earthquakes". User:Bear77

It would be useful to upgrade the references cited for the environmental section, in my opinion. Citing newspaper stories in an article is not up the the encyclopedia standard. Almost everything appears in a news story at some time or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.89.17 (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. However, I think the newspapers references should be kept, as they are more readable. Peer-reviewed article references are ideal here, however are less readable. + m t  16:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The point of better reference material is to improve the accuracy, not the readability. An encylopedia must be accurate or it is not worth using.


 * Newspaper articles are good references for ongoing political debates, which is what much of the section focuses on: it's mostly about a 2004 EPA report, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and recent statements by Congresspeople about repealing parts of the 2005 Act. Newspapers probably aren't a good source for scientific analysis of the underlying issues, but I don't see any problem with using them to document the public and legislative debate about those issues. Maybe to be clearer about that, the section should have a title like "U.S. regulatory debate". --Delirium (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

'The Citation from the AP has been removed. However, fracturing is not believed to be the culprit of the Texas quakes in the Barnett Shale. The local TV news, and The Fort Worth Star Telegram have reported that 2 disposal wells which take care of flowback fluids and produced saltwater from gas wells may be the cause of those tremors. Seems the disposal wells, which are commonly drilled into the Ellenberger formation beneath the Barnett were drilled close to a fault. This is not common to place a disposal well near a fault, and disposals usually do not cause any problem. However, these 2 disposal wells have been closed down due to suspected seismic activity. Search Fort Worth Star Telegram, Disposal Wells cause earthquake TX and you should be able to find it, and the company involved. Another comment about disposal wells used for frac and produced water fluids. The depth of the well, is commonly very deep, and several layers of bedrock below any water table.'

I moved this section added to the article, as it appears to form part of this discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Much of this section must have been written by the PR department of some oil & gas lobby. The language used repeatedly tries to minimize the danger of this method as shown by the use of the word "potential" and "speculation." The phrase "potential risks to air quality" is verbose and clouds the reader's sense of danger. The phrase "New technological advances and appropriate state regulations are working to study and safely implement the process." does not make any sense. The first paragraph is completely uncited which leads me to believe its vague language probably can't be supported by any evidence.

Somebody ought to rewrite the entire thing so it sounds like an encyclopedia instead of a public relations robot monologue.

Kst447 (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we need to stay emotionally disconnected while conveying the severity of this problem (people being able to ignite the water coming out of their faucet), so feel free to edit. Wikipedians shouldn’t put their trust in the lobbyists :) –Flying sheep (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Composition of fluids and treatment of the injured
Maybe it's an impractical hope, but medical people who treat injuries related to secret formulations, I would say, have a right to learn the identity of the substances they are dealing with. They are not obliged to make that information public, I'd say. If the fracking company won't disclose the nature of the substances, there should be provisions to analyze them to determine their constituents. There could be regional analysis centers, and their findings could be kept secure. Extrapolate (a lot) the reluctance to to give this info. to medical people, and you have Bhopal. Nikevich (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But this is placing the burden of prove on either the injured or the medical community. What I don't understand is why the industry does not see credibility as a business requirement. All they have to do is come clean, name their list, eliminate/change to protect the public, and their stock will go up. If they maintain secrecy, don't care about the public, their stock goes down. In terms of policy, certainly any State ought to protect the public over the industry, thus, the State must approve the use of the chemicals, and we are back at the federal level - the EPA. Lewismatson (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bogus references.
The pointer to the New Your State list of chemicals actually has nothing to do with chemicals. It is about "applications for permits to drill horizontal wells to evaluate and develop the Marcellus Shale for natural gas production." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.44.116 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Found the correct link and fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super7 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

cost
why does this article not talk about the cost of Hydr. Frac. inducement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.104.61 (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Commercial fracturing costs cover a large range. Some water well stimulation fracture treatments might cost only a few thousand dollars each while a massive treatment for a low perm gas well can easily cost several hundred thousand dollars. A cost to benefit analysis is often part of the design process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.133.74 (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the cost easily go into the multimillion dollars per well not counting cost of water.

When talking about the costs (and the benefits), one needs to look at the fully-loaded cost, which can only be done by pricing in externalities. Currently gas companies in the NE are taking water from the Delaware River Basin. They are not paying for this water, but there is a cost to society to have lost this clean water forever. The water is then driven in heavy trucks on public roads, and the communities are left to pay for the ensuing road damage out of their taxes. The most important costs that need to be understood and quantified, of course, stem from the impact on the environment and public health. The cost to society on both of those fronts is very high. If we are to fairly price this (and other) energy sources, let's understand the full cost of extracting, transporting and burning unconventional natural gas, and let's make sure that the people who are profiting from hydraulic fracturing for natural gas are the ones bearing the full cost. AnnaLark (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In actuality producers are required to post bonds which are used to repair damage to roads. Also, the burning of natrual gas releases much more water vapor than the volume water used to treat a well. Anna, it's a very simple stoichiometric equaition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.224.169 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted somewhere that a well that has been fractured produces on average 7 to 8 times as a well that is not. Even though the cost of hydraulic fracturing is a small part of the cost of the overall well it effects the production of the well by a disproportionate amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.70.143 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Chemicals not inherent to the hydrofracing process
Hydraulic fracturing uses pressure to fracture rock. Chemicals, which can leak into aquifers and contaminate them, are added to force the gas out of the rock. This is an important distinction. Hydrofracing is used in geothermal wells, particularly enhanced geothermal systems, and does not carry the same risk of chemical contamination as natural gas wells in shale. Since hydrofracing is essential to EGS some discussion of it here, and how it differs, both in challenges and execution would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Stillwater (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The chemicals used for oil and gas stimulation are added for a range or reasons. A common reason is to increase the viscosity of the fracturing fluid so it will transport the proppant more efficiently (thus use less water). Mostly, they are not added to force the gas out of the rock though. Hydraulic fracturing is done with water in stimulating water wells. Fracturing of EGS reservoirs may or may not include added chemicals. Typically only water is pumped because the volumes involved are very large and the cost of adding chemicals would likewise be large. Fracturing fluids used in shale gas stimulation do not contain many additives compared with fluid used in other application areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.158.243 (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is not neutral. It misleadingly suggests a comparison between current fracking and natural processes, and that current fracking methods have been in practice for "over 60 years". It makes no mention of the chemicals currently introduced for fracking, although these chemicals are very significant to current public understanding. http://www.smh.com.au/business/list-reveals-toxic-chemicals-used-in-coal-seam-mining-20101018-16qt5.html The general processes here - industry deploys a chemical cocktail in the environment, prevents the public from knowing the chemicals used, claims there is no evidence of harm in a situation where this can't be properly assessed due to the industry's own withholding of information - recall the processes utilized by industry for Corexit in the recent gulf oil spill - see Wikipedia's own article on Corexit.

This Wikipedia introduction appears to have significant influence from industry vested interest. Another poster has noted the involvement of Halliburton in this article. Industry vested interest has significant financial resources, political and media influence to manipulate public perception for profit. Wikipedia needs to be careful to maintain neutrality of these articles in the face of pressure from / interference by industry vested interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uiop75 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As an Environmental Science teacher, I can't tell that there is influencing or editing by the industry. I thought the article disorganized but it included information I would want to know, and want my students to know. The last section on the FRAC Act appeared to promote the work of particular politicians. I updated the facts. Perhaps the Congressional staffer didn't make it to the new Congress. I guess we need a more open editing process (perhaps I'm being naive). I'd just as soon editors be identifiable. If a Haliburton or political staffer is adding information, at least have the integrity to identify yourself. What do I go to Wikipedia for? - A fair summary of the subject. Lewismatson (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that many of the "toxic" chemicals included are usually added because they were produced from other wells. The simple logic being: if it came out of the ground it should be good enough to go back into the ground. Though I know Haliburton because of the chemical controversy developed a food grade line of chemicals, but is not happy that they can't use proprietary rules to shield what they developed from their competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.116.215 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Short list of the categories of chemicals. For simple jobs no more than a couple of chemicals may be used. The chemicals used will depend on many things including water quality and formation.
 * 1) Acid Corrosion Inhibitors - Protects the steel casing of the well from deterioration when it is in contact with acid
 * 2) Bactericides - Kills or controls bacteria.  Bacteria can cause instabilities in viscosity or produce H2S gas
 * 3) Breakers - Reduce the viscosity of fluids over time.
 * 4) Clay Control - Control clays that swell in water and controls clays that migrate in the formation
 * 5) Crosslinkers (complexors)- increase the viscosity of gelling agents by connecting the separate gel polymers together.
 * 6) Fluid Loss Control - control the amount of fluid "leak off" or lost to the formation
 * 7) Foaming Agents - when used with nitrogen to create a stable foam
 * 8) Friction Reducers - Help reduce the friction between fluids and the tubular.
 * 9) Gelling Agents - Most important use is to increase viscosity.
 * 10) ph Control - ph affects several things: protect clay and shale formation, the rate gelling agents develop viscosity, & assist in controlling bacterial growth
 * 11) Scale Inhibitor - Prevents scale build up in well
 * 12) Surfactants - addative that reduce the surface tension of a liquid. This helps to prevent water blocks, prevent emulsions between formation fluids and treatment fluids, help stabilize emulsions when using an emulsified treatment fluid, and aid in fluid recovery.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Carbon Sequestration
Could some expert explain the relationship between this proposed "clean coal" solution and hydraulic fracturing? Could the carbon itself serve as a fracturing fluid? Could gas still be removed withour releasing the carbon? Would the fractured rock formation still contain the carbon or would it make leakage more likely? Net, are these processes complementary or in conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.133.233 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't qualify as an expert, but I'm fairly confident that there is no relationship.  Carbon sequestration is a concept that arises when a carbon-based fuel is burned.  The chemical reaction that produces the heat also involves the production of carbon dioxide, and the idea of carbon sequestration is to try to prevent the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Hydrofracking doesn't relate to the burning of a fuel, but rather to a method of obtaining one particular carbon-based fuel, natural gas.  Once it's obtained, its burning could be subject to some sort of attempt at carbon sequestration, but the same is true of the burning of any natural gas, regardless of how it was obtained.  I've never seen any reference to carbon sequestration in the context of the extraction of the gas, as opposed to the burning of it. JamesMLane t c 07:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the section just above corrects some errors contained in the paragraph immediately above. Hydraulic fracturing might be used to enhance injectivity of wells for CO2 sequestration, especially if the target is a coal seam. Most saline aquifer reservoirs that are being considered for CO2 sequestration are high permeability and would probably not require any fracturing. Also, it is worth noting that the gas produced from hydraulically fractured wells, if used to generate electricity, produces about 50% less CO2 than the same amount of electricity generated by burning coal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.244.213 (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CO2 is used as a fracturing fluid is some situations and is the most likely carbon seqestration material that would be injected. It would come from power plants. After separating it from nitrogen and other gasses, it would be compressed and injected into a permeable saline aquifer where it would be stored for thousands of years. Some CO2 would desolve in the water in the aquifer and, over time, most of it would. I expect there is a page describing carbon sequestration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.4.31 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fracing vs. Fracking
It seems there is no consensus regarding the spelling of the gerundial abbreviation of frac. Based on the rules of the language it should be fracking. I am removing the part stating "fracing is commonly misspelled as fracking." See --Texinian (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Industry people use fracing, opponents of hydraulic fracturing use fracking.

I agree what those who spell it "fracking" only do so because that's how it was spelled in the movie Gasland. I've been in the industry for over 30 years and I have *never* seen the term "fracking." When someone goes to "frac a well," it's always referred to as a "frac job," thus fracing / frac'ing have been the only spellings I've ever seen.63.171.234.11 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Or possibly because they've been corrupted by BSG? (P.S. "Go frack a well" is my new favorite curse.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.57.5 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be "fracking" rather than "fracing". When I google fracing it asks if I want fracking and gives me 55k hits.  Fracking gives 700k.  When I google "fracking fracing spelling", I get an NGSA pdf saying "The spelling that appears to be prevailing is “fracking,” but other spellings are commonly encountered."   (The link works when I paste it into the address bar, but not when I put it in tags.  I tried taking out the percent codes manually, and that didn't work either.  Can someone who understands ref tags fix it please?) I also get this page  arguing for "fracking" by analogy with "trafficking and "picnicking". --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)  Strikethrough added, same person, Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the drilling and production industry "frac job" was the common term when I retired 20 years ago. Like 63.171.234.11, I also never saw it spelled with a K, although admittedly "fracing" might be pronounced "FRAY-ssingg" with a soft S, and "frac'ing" is awkward. So with a K may be acceptible now that the term has come into everyman's vernacular. Even though the NGSA merited a google hit, I don't think they would be the authoritative source; they'e more midstream oriented.  The only references in the Society of Petroleum Engineers' Style Guide  are "frac pack (noun)" and "frac-pack (adj.)".  Schlumberger is in the pressure pumping business; their Oilfield Glossary  (Reference 1 in the article) has nine entries with "frac" and none with a K but also neither "fracing" nor "fracking".  In any event, I think the article's introductory sentence covers the matter just fine.  Useage in the rest of the article should be consistent.Casey (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It would be nice to have a better source for the fact that the spelling with a K is the more common one outside the industry, even though it's sort of obvious to anyone who googles it.  (Also belaying my previous request for someone to fix the link.  It works now.  I think it just didn't seem to load because I already had it open.) --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The OED? NYTimes Style Manual? Casey (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As an issue of common English spelling in America, people would be likely to spell it "fracking" but as it is derived from the word fracturing, the 'k' is then misleading and as a result people aware of its derivation choose to use "frac'ing." The most common term will almost certainly become "fracking," but IMO it's incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.234.185.201 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Those in the industry prefer that the industry continues to spell the word "frac" and that activists continue to spell the word "frack". This convention makes identifying the bias of an article's author simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.224.169 (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'consensus' will come from the public and reporting media and less from scientists and activists. Look at how we pronounce words to see that 'fracing' seems to rhyme with 'racing' and 'fracking' rhymes with 'tracking' or 'racking'. Which will become predominant? Obviously the word that rhymes with 'tracking', and not the word that rhymes with 'racing'. Class closed — don't you think? . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Although this petroleum engineer thinks "fracking" is most logical from a linguistic standpoint, the May 2011 issue of the Journal of Petroleum Technology used "fraccing" and "fracced" in a summary of the Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference put on in January 2011 by the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Casey (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Move the political and environmental debate to new page
The environmental and political debate is overwhelming the other content on this page. I think a new page to discuss the politics of hydraulic fracturing should be started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.58.243 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A wiki article should be discussing what is and what is not part of the process. Not some political debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 34.254.119.222 (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep it consolidated: Political and environmental ramifications are part of the topic. The "overwhelming" concern can be addressed through page organization. While facts and opinions should stand on their own, it is worth noting that the comment above from 34.254.119.222 was made anonymously from the Halliburton network (34.0.0.0 - 34.255.255.255) registered to Halliburton per ARIN. 24.130.175.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Very good catch. Wikipedia can benefit from such internal corporate knowledge which is certainly suspect of bias, but overcome by an adequate explanation posted on this discussion page.Lewismatson (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hydrofracking explained
NYC published a study on the effects of hydrofracking called th "Final Impact Assesment Report" go to http://www.nyc.gov/html and in the search box, type in the name of the report. It is 90 pages long, but don't miss page 31, which charts the requirements per pad suporting from 6 to 10 wells. The process used to fracture the shale is the chemical reaction between sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and water (H2O) injected at high pressure to create the explosion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginativekhan (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the process to fracture shale or any other type of formation has nothing at all to do a reaction between any chemicals, hence the term "hydraulic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.224.169 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this! There should be a giant headline: NYC says NO! to FracKXploitations in Warning to World. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/news/natural_gas_drilling_overview.shtml for the 90-page-impaired version. I'm overwhelmed with questions: Can you sue your neighbors oil company if you prove they're horizontal slickwater'ing "your gas"/property, seems like thievery from the neighbors - mile(s) away?(maybe poisoning by mistake)!? Any insight into that seemingly overlooked issue = is "horizontal drilling" detectable short of core samplage/how to tell if you've           been 'horizontally drilled'[Asidefromfieryfaucets)? Can USBP?, so notachancetilthe well runs dry/short of            drilling?  Can you ping it from an existing well? Will my metal detector find it?Can I LIDAR it?            (Do mineral rights go to the earths core or is there some alleged threshold these things are below?)             *Are* they "over-horizontaling"/is it detectable-remediable/sue-able etc.             RANT: It's unfortunate that Fracksters are giving a bad name to frac'ing with the secret sauce but get over it, if u legit            u should know it and be happy to tell-sharin' the wealth, not ripping poor ppl off like it's 1990 coal or something.             Everybody's thrice-removed from an Oilman - so the only secret is that they're apparently not using a Standard magic substance or Regulated Procedures, guess that keeps the Union costs down? At least Operation Plowshare didn't make it east of the Rockies (just a little dust), all the best intentions no doubt.

I have to wonder if there are even regs like minimum acreage footprint/distance from neighbors etc is that all State or dependent on UIC status? Whats a UIC? Are they stealing my dirt if they don't get a right-of-way, for any depth of a trespassing pipe? What constitutes a proper right-of-way for a slickpipe, does it have to be specific, like they say "we want to build a pipeline", you assume it's aboveground Alaskan-at the surface relatively, 'cause that's all you've ever seen/heard of, not that they are drilling 20000 leagues below ya and oh btw might deteriorate undetectably inexplicably sucking dry other wells/water/creeks/cause earthquakes/kills Bambi etc? Make Good Caving for the Future-News at 11. Excuse the propSpeak I seemingly can't ask the questions without sounding biased but I'm unclear on those potential issues for owners-i know this aint the place for amateur landowner brainstorming but considering the options, I think a source of answers to any of the above ?s might be relevant to some future spinoff article..? Can you call my IP and let my descendants know what ya found out? :)            One more comes to mind: Can you revoke a fraudulently obtained right-of-way if a horizontal slickpipe            allegedly allowed by it busts and causes an earthquake that topples your neighbors house into a new wetland           and he sues you for relief?? Or can he only sue them?  Nobody? Can ya revoke it in an aboveground spill, or say -            ya don't like the color of the pipe?  Why does my comment get a whiteout background?  What browser am i using?

98.169.80.254 (talk) 02:00, 7 >>December 2010 (UTC)Iforgotmyacctname

Link Added
Added a link, to a radio documentary discussing hydraulic fracturing from a community and environmental perspective. Arquebus1 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge "Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act"
I propose FRAC_Act be merged into this article. swain (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, forget my last post, i misunderstood. So you want to keep this article and merge the other one into this one... Well, then try on the talk page of the other article. But as long as this piece of legislation is not totally dead, why merge? If this piece of legislation really is dead, which i doubt, a merger might be appropriate. Unless Wikipedia wants to preserve such articles about pieces of legislation that would have been interesting but failed due to corporate interests while probarbly being in the best interest of US citizens.79.230.18.169 (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

-- the legislation is dead; it was passed to committee; never went further; the 111th Congress adjourned Jan 3. Dead. Over. The 112th has not yet re-introduced or introduced something new. Obviously the reasonable public expects and deserves new legislation. The EPA has to come on line, explain the subject properly, and choose the right option. They have to take the lead. The Marcellus Shale underlies several States. One law in one State won't equal a law in another. Do the offices of science and attorneys general in each State have this capability? I doubt it.Lewismatson (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This political issue clearly elicits strong opinions. I think the editors of this page may need a reminder to maintain neutrality and present different points of view. In the above comment, the terms "obviously", "reasonable", "deserves", "properly", and "have to" all reflect implicit value judgments. Whether these subjective terms apply is for the reader to judge. Using loaded terms is not an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. __ø(._. ) Patrick("\(.:...:.)/")Fisher 09:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

.....Hey Patrick: this is a discussion page. Where we can 'talk' about the subject, which is loaded with important politics. The best current article will include good summary of the current politics. Yes, objective summary -- you go for it. Ideally it would be great to have someone from EPA edit the article. I'm just a high school Science teacher. Lewis Matson 13:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewismatson (talk • contribs)

Meeks case study in Wyoming
This article provides a fairly detailed overview of a particular case which seems to have received more attention than most. The guy, Meeks, was featured in the Gasland documentary. Might be worth incorporating into the article somehow. II | (t - c) 22:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemicals used in Hydralic Fracturing
I'm no writer but I did find this http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page295046?oid=535997&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.144.166 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize Environmental and Health Effects section
This section has gotten a little unruly, and while it's much better supported by the evidence than it used to be, it doesn't really have any clear organization, with new studies being tacked on to the end as they appear. I'm going to start to add subsections like "threats to drinking water," "concerns about chemicals involved" and the like. Sindinero (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's great - I noticed how jumbled it was when I read it to add the study I just posted.Gandydancer (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice job! And thanks for catching my error when I did not notice that the 2011 study I posted was already in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

-- You guys improved this article significantly from when I whacked away at it in March -- excellent effort. Lewis Matson 13:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Article focus
There seems to be substantial overlap between natural gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing (a method for natural gas extraction). What would be the best way to focus the article more on the subject and not its related subjects? ZHurlihee (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of any sections/claims in particular? Sindinero (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Occupational Health Hazards section jumps out. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't see that. The OHH section involves specific hazards of chemicals involved in fracking, and not just natural gas extraction in general. Sindinero (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Definition of "Hydraulic Fracturing" is overly verbose and ambiguous.
Hydraulic fracturing (called "frac jobs,"[1][2] "frac'ing,"[3] "fracking,"[4] fraccing[5] or "hydrofracking") is the process of initiating, and subsequently propagating a fracture in a rock layer, employing the pressure of a fluid as the source of energy.[6] The fracturing is done from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations, in order to increase the extraction and ultimate recovery rates of oil and natural gas.

Hydraulic Fracturing is the act of injecting a highly pressurized fluid into the earth in order to force what's in the earth to come out. That's the defintion, or something close to it. The article's defintion doesn't say that; it tiptoes around the action and it's purpose, and denies any connection between Hydraulic Fracturing and the reader in the first two sentences. If more technical language is needed for clarity, it can happen later in the article. This definition sounds like it has come out of a field manual for people in the industry

Here are the words I object to, and why:

"frac'ing" - This ain't no article on southern colloquialisms, and it don' need no over-use of apostrophes for apostrophe's sake.

"fraccing" - Is "frassing". How many words in English use a double "c" to make a hard "k" sound?

"process" - Everything is a "process". Writing, walking, setting your alarm; everything can be called a "process", therefore the word is meaningless. Fracking is an action. Machines and people DO something for a purpose, and then something happens as a result of those actions. If the definition fails to make clear that Fracking is an ACTION, then no one will wonder what the results of that ACTION might be, nor will they consider that the ACTION has a purpose.

"initiating" - This word has no place in the definition of fracking. Fracking is an action; There are an infinate number of was fracking can be "initiated". One could argue it is "initiated" with a Geological Survey.

"subsequently" - After the unnecessary notion of "initiating" fracking has been asserted, the word "subsequently" becomes necessary and makes the definition even more cumbersome.

(the source of) "energy" - Fracking is not a "process" (lol) of recharging a battery or providing power to a television. This mention of "energy" comes in with no connnection to the "processes" purpose, and then just hangs there with no reason for it's existance.

"reservoir rock formations" - It's pretty much all "rock" down there, and that "reservior" is a big bunch of oil and/or gas. The word "formations" makes the definition sound scientific and "geologist-y". It's not necessary to harken back all the way to the volcanic "formation" of the planet in order to describe the action of a pressuized fluid being used to force oil and gas out from below the earth. That "rocks" may crack is also less relevant. Some rock DOESN'T crack, but whether the rocks crack or they don't, the primary objective of fracking is to extract oil and gas by injecting highly pressurized fluid into the earth.

"increase" the extraction - Increased from WHAT? Again, an unnecessary word all over again.

"extraction" - The oil and the gas is being extracted. Why mention the extraction without clearly stating WHAT is being extracted?

"ultimate recovery rates" - The word "ultimate" has no place at all. This is gas and oil being pressured from the earth; there is no "ultimate" anything here. If fracking increases the amount of oil and/or gas, then that's what it does. "Ultimate" makes it sounds like this is some theoretical exercise in physics. "recovery" - The oil and/or gas was never "lost" and so cannot be "recovered". This is no rescue; this is mining, and the word "rate" is a mathematical concept, as in "miles per hour" and "dollars per gallon". If the word "rate" is going to be mentioned as a unit of measure, those units should be mentioned. What exactly is the "rate" in oil and gas extraction? Gallons per dollar? Cubic feet per week? Pounds (of pressure) per square inch?

Finally, this defintion sounds like it was extracted from an industry document; one that was crafted so as to avoid being quoted in a manner that can be used against the oil and gas industry.

Manipulating the Definitions of Words is the process of initiating, and subsequently propagating a fracture in the communities' understanding of language, employing electronic repetition as the means of redirection, for the purpose of making huge profits by employing industrial oil and gas extraction methods that may pollute the nation's potable drinking water forever, and endangering the health of everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 07:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The definition of hydraulic fracturing here isn't perfect, particularly because it is also a natural process (and that is the right word) that produces fractures in rock. However, the terms used in the definition have not been made up by the industry, they are just descriptive. Hydraulic fracturing involves raising the fluid pressure at the bottom of the wellbore until the rock in contact with the unlined part of the wellbore fractures. The technique is used in geothermal energy and in oil and gas production in what are called 'tight' (i.e. low permeability) reservoirs (rock units that hold the hydrocarbons, or hot water in the case of geothermal) and not just for shale gas. Ultimate recovery is just the final amount of hydrocarbons that are produced from a field. No-one is playing with words here - these are just the terms that are used. Mikenorton (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I came to this article to learn about fracking in the US, and in the process of checking the discussion page ran across this remarkable rant by Jonny Quick. I was unable to understand the rationale for even one of his many objections, which struck me as unreasonable and illogical.  Plenty of processes are called processes, and the argument that "everything" is a process is obviously false: how is a toaster a process, for example?  Every single thing he objected to seemed perfectly reasonable to me.  If some people write "fraccing," who is he to claim that they don't?  And so on.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Horwath Study
Here is why I would like to see the study deleted from the article. From the CFR's Michael A. Levi

"[The NETL documents don’t address the Howarth study explicitly, but if you flip to page 25, you’ll see a big part of the discrepancy explained. Some readers will recall that Howarth found a large fraction of produced gas from unconventional wells never made it to end users, assumed that all of that gas was vented as methane, and thus concluded that the global warming impacts were huge. As the NETL work explains, though, 62% of that gas isn’t lost at all – it’s “used to power equipment”."

Rather than play a he said she said with the Horwath Study, I'd just as well remove the whole thing because its fundamentaly flawed. If thats not acceptable, Horwath's paper should be presented as the minority view on the subject and given approproate weight. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Levi piece. After reading that, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other; I have a slight preference for leaving the study in, qualifying it as a minority view and adding the criticism you've introduced - even if flawed, the study was fairly high-profile, and seems as though it should be addressed in the article in some way, unless and until it's been totally debunked. But if you feel it would be better to remove it, feel free. Sindinero (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You raise a good point about the prominence given to the report. I think it would be best to rephrase and keep. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias - Tone
This article is a compendium of the horrible, largely antecdotal, problems associated with fracking technology. Lis Jackson - head of the EPA was asked in Congressional Testimony last month whether there was ANY documented case of water contamination associated with this technology. Here answer was, "No, but there are some investigations ongoing". Hardly the inditment you'd expect after reading this scary overview. The case is "Gasland" that everyone referes to, (i.e., setting your faucet on fire), was investigated by a Colorado Environmental Agency who concluded that the soluble methan in the water that casued the falme was due to the owners drilling his well through existing seams of coal which are numerous in the area. They stated that fracking has no part of the phenomenon. And while we're discussing horrible consequence, what are the consequences of costly or non-existent energy for average citizens, not to mention those living on the edge of poverty. There's a direct corellation between energy cost/availability and the price/availablity of food. This is much more consequential than the potential, unproven environmental consequences, (which can all be controlled with proper technology and regulation). When you get to the point of citing this, (from the article), as a consequence(s), it's sort of pathetic in it's "kitchen sink" quality of biased condemnation - "There is the potential for noise and light pollution complaints, reports of crime can go up, motor vehicle accidents increase, traffic and road degradation increase, sexually transmitted infections increase, and strain on schools are all some potential problems facing communities where gas drilling is nearby" People - a little common sense, a little perspective, a little science to back up this horro show we've presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.83.101.23 (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm all for science, but you're not being very specific in your objections to the article, and the one passage you do cite is backed up by multiple news sources, not Gasland. Do you feel that there are other areas that aren't supported by reliable sources? Our job as editors is not to make a given topic appear "worse" or "better" based on outside standards, but to portray the topic thoroughly and helpfully based on existing reliable sources. Unless you have reliable sources to challenge what you feel is an inaccurate, unduly weighted portrayal of hydraulic fracturing, then it's hard to see what your accusations of bias are based on except for a feeling that, well, fracking isn't quite that bad, which is itself, well, a bias. Sindinero (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

-- Agreed. If you think the article is biased now, go back in history to February. The current article is a huge improvement. Great effort by a few. --Lewis Matson 13:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

-- I would second the original complaint. If you, the editors, think that serious minded people won't discredit the idea that sexually transmitted diseases are a consequence of hydraulic fracturing, you are sadly mistaken. You may like to hide behind the "show your alternative sources" cloak, but this doesn't pass the sniff test. Shockingly, I wasn't able to find anything about sexually transmitted diseases and fracturing. By listing this as a consequence, you imply causation---I could find no mention in the sources you cited. Instead, one would have to make inferences from the anecdotal reportage when alluding to out of town men impressing the local women. If you truly believe this is relevant to the discussion, then in the interests of logical consistency, I would urge the editors of Wikipedia to include some boiler plate language around every industrial pursuit. In fact, any human endeavor which tends to draw a large number of people into a common location should have this language to educate the reader in the dangers of catching herpes whenever they enter a job creation zone, which, by the way, I'm sure just innocently slipped your "consequences" of fracturing. There's nothing more horrifying than watching a town suffer from the pangs of economic booms. Instead, we would be far more content in a stable state of economic collapse, which is exactly what Towanda had been before fracturing became economically viable.

The real tragedy is that the sources do indeed include concerns worthy of discussion, but by only presenting one side and not the up side that is present even in these same sources, you do yourself a great disservice in establishing credibility. That's all you have, by the way, and writing tripe like this you do nothing else but damage it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.215 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I too have to agree with the original complaint. First, "population boom" has been a mixed blessing since before Leif Erickson and Christopher Columbus, as well as an obvious and inevitable consequence of development of any kind, so it's specious for Wikipedia to point it out for every single development project it documents with an article.  Second, what is the point of going into long-winded detail about the consequences of population boom when these are always the same; this particular kind of development is no different from any other in that respect.  Third, listing only the negative consequences of population boom (sexually transmitted disease for starters) is pure advocacy, just as it would be if you listed only its positive consequences (bringing in jobs, raising median income of the neighborhood, improving the quality of the local schools and other neighborhood services, etc.).
 * Those looking for evidence that Wikipedia has a liberal bias would have a field day with this section of the article.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources on Fracking
Alternative POV

http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels

One of many alternative POVs on Fracking. Please note the source is Salon, (hardly an Oil/Gas shill publication).

167.83.101.23 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Dave Bueche

The July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "The New Ugliest Word" by Bill McKibben (author of The End of Nature, a 350.org founder).
The July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "The New Ugliest Word" by Bill McKibben (author of The End of Nature, a 350.org founder). See "Addicted to oil", Planetary boundaries and Climate change denial. 108.73.114.77 (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:RSN — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Using emotive cliches like "addiciton to oil" and posting a link about "climate change denial", (which was not mentioned), reveal the very bias you're attempting to refute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.85.38 (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As in Talk:Christianity and environmentalism, Talk:Climate_change_mitigation (Talk:Climate_change_mitigation), and Talk:350 (Talk:350.org); Why is Sojourners not wp:rs, or is that just your opinion Mr. Rubin? 99.190.81.244 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll assume it is just Art's opinion.  99.112.214.230 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The former WP:RSN provides two other editors who suggest that it's not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I make a mistake; Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 99 had one reply which suggested that all "articles" are opinion pieces, and should only be included if the author is a recognized expert. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the RSN topic and wish I could have commented on it then. Oh well. McKibben's not an expert on the subject and his opinion is not particularly notable. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Significant Difference Between "Natural" Hydraulic Fracturing and the Industrial Process
I don't know how to use Wikipedia well enough to search through the past edits, but I do not recall the natural process of hydraulic fracturing being incorporated into the article previously, however I do notice it just now. I believe it is inappropriate to combine the two actions into the same definition because it lends the "natural" halo effect to the Industrial Process of artifically injecting potentially toxic fluid into the earth at extremely high pressure, potentially contaminating the potable drinking water therein, with whatever natural action might be taking place without the involvment of multinational corporations (such as Haliburton) employing artifical means to extract oil and gas from the earth.

It seems to me that anyone familiar with Geology should have a clear understanding that these two actions are completley different, and while they can be handled within the same Wikipedia Article, they should not be mixed and interwoven within that single article to the extent that the reader percieves them to be equivalent. They are not. To fail to have this clear understanding indicates bias and taints the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Natural hydraulic fracturing has been in the article right from the beginning . In both cases the rock fractures because of an increase in fluid pressure, so they are not completely different. If you want to leave out the natural process, you would need to rename the article. Mikenorton (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Water Isn't Water Anymore
Those are three documentary films critical of the fracking method. There's enough material out there for a new "Film" section in the article. Here are a couple recent sources I've been able to turn up: —Biosketch (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fracking Hell: The Untold Story
 * Frac Attack
 * Water Isn't Water Anymore
 * 1) |topnews|text|FRONTPAGE Anti-fracking event set for Ithaca College
 * 2) Fracking foes applaud Phish concert promotion

EPA Study
I have added some information to the section on the EPA study. If you have any suggestions, let me know. Katherine 16:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Damage costs, liability insurance, etc.
I don't see a section on the cost of damages caused by fracking. The cost of lost water supplies, contaminated water supplies, contaminated lands, etc.. Also, the cost added to the real cost of fracking. Similar to the info here:
 * Cost of electricity by source

DOE panel finds natural gas production presents serious risks to public health and the environment. August 12, 2011 by Amy Mall on the Natural Resources Defense Council staff blog: "Some recommendations we’d like to see included in the next round".

Here is one of the recommendations (emphasis added):
 * "Increased financial responsibility requirements (bond, insurance, trust fund, etc.) for oil and gas activities that are adequate to cover all reclamation, potential costs of corrective action, well plugging and abandonment, emergency and remedial response, long-term monitoring, and any clean up action that may be necessary in case of catastrophic events." --Timeshifter (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Quoting opinion columns?
You can't get any more non-factual than this:

"In an opinion column June 2010, the Wall Street Journal mentions that EPA administrator Lisa Jackson had informed Congress that there were no "proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water".[18]"

Mrs. Jackson has routinely denied the environmental impact of fracking, greenhouse gasses, coal mining, and many other issues the scientific community at large agrees upon. She has taken huge amounts of funding from lobbyists and private business. I don't think including such biased quotes is appropriate for this article. We should stick to facts and not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.70 (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Discussion of Hydro-Fracking being "Scrubbed"?
All references to earthquakes, the thousands of different possible toxic chemicals that are added (that are not governed by the EPA), all criticism of the very poor definition of fracking (particularly it's failure to adequately differentiate between toxic, man-made and possibly dangerous hydrofracking with what may not really occur naturally, ALL of these have been removed from the Discussion section. In short, scrubbed, and with no explanation.````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by .Jonny Quick (talk)04:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The 'Environmental Concerns' section currently takes up about a third of the article and mentions 750 chemical additives, and has a short section on earthquakes, so they haven't been removed. The main change to this article was to split off an article specifically about Hydraulic fracturing in the United States in attempt to get a more balanced geographical coverage. As to natural hydraulic fracturing, there is nothing about the basic physics that separates man-made and natural hydraulic fractures at the point of fracturing, even if after that they differ a great deal. Mikenorton (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the explanation above... If you're looking for your comments from last June, they can be found here If you look at the discussion page history, there is an explanation given in the edit summary.   Wikipelli  Talk   18:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but none of the above makes any effort to explain why it was moved.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Other consequences
"When drilling companies move into a new area the population increases and with it comes problems related to population boom. There is the potential for noise and light pollution complaints, reports of crime can go up, motor vehicle accidents increase, traffic and road degradation increase, sexually transmitted infections increase, and strain on schools are all some potential problems facing communities where gas drilling is nearby.[59]"

Anybody else think that its a little far fetched to claim that sexually transmitted infections increase as a result of fracking? None of the sources linked contain any mention of the subject. If there are no objections I'll remove it. Katherine 15:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur and just removed the extraneous stuff. Casey (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

SciAm resource, regarding drinking water
The Truth about Fracking; Fracturing a deep shale layer one time to release natural gas might pose little risk to drinking-water supplies, but doing so repeatedly could be problematic by Chris Mooney SciAm October 19, 2011 Also see Planetary boundaries. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Frac
In my opinion, the term Frac is an abreviated form for Hydraulic Fracturing and is often used in less formal or conversational type discussions. Reservoir Fracturing is ambiguous in the sense that this term by itself can mean natural fractures in a reservoir. I have not heard it often (or ever except here) used to refer to hydraulic fracturing though.

Maybe these terms could be included into this page in a terminology section. But I would like to see a reference for the term Reservoir Fracturing first.
 * Please sign your comments. Racklever (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Fracking causes Earthquakes?
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/fracking-and-faulting-how-a-gas-extraction-method-produced-tremors-in-uk.ars What wiki rule is being used to justify archiving a discusson on hydraulic fracturing possibly causing earthquakes? Also, why would the article's discussion be "split" geographically? Fracking causes earthquakes in one part of the planet, but not in another? The chemicals injected into the earth are toxic and pollutes the ground water in one area, but the same chemicals are safe to ingest somewhere else?Jonny Quick (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a note to Hydraulic fracturing in the United States suggesting that it is merged into this article. Racklever (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Racklever You should also add a 'Merge from' tag here and open a discussion in a new section on one of the two talk pages and link from the tags. Mikenorton (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jonny Quick The article now states that hydraulic fracturing can directly cause minor earthquakes, based on the UK drilling results and subsequent investigation (the report certainly makes interesting reading (ref#36), explaining why these are the largest earthquakes ever caused in this way). It also mentions earthquakes caused by deep disposal wells, so I don't see your problem. Mikenorton (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

New sections
I've added two sections on the physical mechanism and on natural examples, as these have been under-represented in the article to date in my view. I still need to rewrite the lead, because this should start by stating what hydraulic fracturing is before splitting off into both natural and man-made varieties. I also need to find another section heading to replace 'purpose' as natural fractures don't have one. Mikenorton (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

BusinessWeek resource
Could Shale Gas Reignite the U.S. Economy? "Unlocking vast reserves of shale gas could solve the energy crisis, the jobs crisis, and the deficit. Now, about fracking’s safety ..." November 03, 2011, 4:50 PM EDT by Paul M. Barrett. 99.181.135.155 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource, in contrast with Renewable energy in the United States
Here Comes the Sun by OP-ED COLUMNIST PAUL KRUGMAN published November 6, 2011 99.181.132.65 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

deleting mention of Murdoch
A mention I made of Murdoch was deleted here. I had put it in as the recent scandals in UK suggest readers might want a warning about Murdoch publications. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No pictures?
I'll see if I can scare some up. Does anyone else have some? A13ean (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Page move to "Hydraulic fracturing in the United States"
I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with the move that was done apparently without discussion on the talk page. The move is well-intentioned, and the article as it stood was too weighted towards a US-centric perspective (if I recall, I originally added the template calling for more global focus). However, I'm not sure this is the solution. Looking over the sections, it seems like at least sections 1-7 are globally applicable, and 8 probably is as well. The reason that most of the sources on the process or environmental effects, for example, refer to the US is because that's where most of the HFing has been done to date. That in itself isn't a US-bias on the part of the article. I think that the better solution would be to move the article back to its old namespace, and add subsections for drilling operations, effects, reactions, forecasts, etc., in other countries, rather than having long articles with substantial redundancies for every place fracking is being done. As I see it, the article on HFing as such will look a lot like this article, with some local anecdotal color removed. That seems problematic. What do others think? Sindinero (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is work in progress. I will add under construction to both articles. I inadvertently removed the tag when I saved the edited Hydraulic fracturing in the United States article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The tags certainly help. :) I'm just curious about why the move is necessary in the first place, rather than an expansion of the original article.  It seems like this will lead, at best, to a proliferation of parallel articles and at worst, the message that hydraulic fracturing is radically qualitatively different in different countries and regions.  The technology's the same, and many of the companies are the same; the regulation and actual effects will of course differ in their specifics from place to place, but certain features - both the promise to be a huge new source of domestic energy, and the [potential or actual] harm to watersheds, for example - are common to many sites of HFing, past present and future.  I guess ultimately my feeling is that HFing is a unified phenomenon with many various instances - it is a technological process, but also a historical, social, economic, and ecological situation that generates parallel discourses in many locales, rather than something that can be talked about in separate articles as if it were a unique occurrence in every instance.  Does that make sense?  Sindinero (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Initially I was going to spit out the info relating to the United States and then I decided that there so much US-specific info that I decided to move the whole page to this title. The moving and splitting is a way of preventing systemic bias - which is often strongly towards the US. If it is not moved and split it will be a US-centric article for a very long time based on what I have seen to date on WP. Given all of US specific info in the article there was sufficient reason for my edits. It was such a blindingly obvious solution that I felt there was no need for discussion. And it is hardly a bold' move. Give me a chance to finish the process and then see how it looks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to just have one article as the process of hydraulic fracturingis the same in every country. Racklever (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the merge tag since the discussion (on the other article's talk page) is decidedly in favor on not merging. Also the US Fracking article may need a current events tag depending on edits.Darqcyde (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

US Regulation unclear wording
The following wording appears in Hydraulic fracturing:
 * The decision for this may be due in part to the fact that underground sources of oil and gas already contain high levels of hydrocarbons, including carcinogens like benzene. Hydraulic fracturing for these purposes therefore falls under state jurisdiction.  State regulations are inconsistent.  All other hydraulic fracturing falls under the EPA regulations as do the handling and disposal of recovered fluids.

The phrase "may be" is a red flag to me: if this is unsupported supposition it should be removed from the article. Also, this proposed explanation for the exemption is quite unclear: why do "high levels of hydrocarbons" mean this falls under state jurisdiction? What is the significance of "high levels of hydrocarbons" in oil and gas anyway, since oil and gas are nothing but hydrocarbons? This sounds like meaningless technobabble to me. What is the significance of state regulations being 'inconsistent', and in what manner are they 'inconsistent'?

"Hydraulic fracturing for these purposes": what purposes? To mine oil and gas? "All other hydraulic fracturing": does this mean all hydraulic fracturing for other purposes, i.e. for purposes other than mining oil and gas? Clearly not, because that would be nonsensical, but what, then is intended by the phrases "for these purposes" and "All other"?

In fact, these few sentences are so nonsensical on so many counts that I think they warrant removal. I have no idea what they're intended to convey; perhaps someone who does know can attempt a rewrite. Fuzzypeg★ 07:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've moved that section into the specific US part of 'by country'. This article keeps on having too much US specific stuff added to it - this should all be in Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Mikenorton (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you here, and I have added some information to the US section. Also, the introductory information under “Environmental Concerns” discusses regulatory policy in the US, which would be better suited under “US Regulation” (maybe a subsection should be added to "United States" since it is seemingly impossible to get away from US HF policy) or moved to the “Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States” page, if that is to remain a separate page. I also think that, if this is to remain a more globally focused page, of the exclusively U.S. environmental contamination examples some should come from those from countries other than the US. EnvPolKAL (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)EnvPolKALEnvPolKAL (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource, Pavillion, Wyoming northwest of Cheyenne
EPA Ties Fracking, Pollution DECEMBER 9, 2011 (page A3 in print) by DEBORAH SOLOMON and RUSSELL GOLD, excerpt ...

99.181.136.158 (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is more from the NYT ... E.P.A. Links Tainted Water in Wyoming to Hydraulic Fracturing for Natural Gas by KIRK JOHNSON published December 8, 2011, excerpt ...

99.181.141.143 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And another Fracking: Pollution finding could hurt gas drilling; Fracking – a modern method to extract oil and gas – may be contaminating drinking supplies in Wyoming. But EPA report on the impact of fracking is not conclusive. by Timothy Gardner, Reuters / December 11, 2011  99.181.141.143 (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And from the WSJ, Colorado to Rule on Fracking Fluid 10.December.2011 by STEPHANIE SIMON and DANIEL GILBERT, excerpt ...   99.181.141.143 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An update States Force Disclosure of Fracking Chemicals by Russell Gold and Stephanie Simons WSJ 14.December.2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Excerpt ...
 * 99.190.85.111 (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

potential WSJ resource
China Bids in Fracking; "Cnooc, Sinopec battle Saudi Aramco for stake in U.S. firm" by Dinny McMahon (in Beijing) and Chester Yung (in Hong Kong) 16.December.2011 (page B4 in print), excerpt ... See US-China relations and Saudi Arabia–United States relations

99.19.45.160 (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

When you fracture rock, does groundwater flow down the cracks to a lower level?
I was noticing that the landlocked areas of the US with higher seismic activity are desert/arid regions. Have there been studies or scholarly papers published addressing whether earthquakes and the fissures they create (or similarly, cracks created by hydraulic fracturing) result in the lowering of the water table as water drains down through the cracks to lower levels? I'll check the literature, but this isn't my area.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many examples of changes in groundwater associated with earthquakes. Some wells and springs dry up, while other may form. Fractures at depth may open and become fluid filled as stress levels increase before the earthquake and then expel that fluid during the earthquake itself, something called 'seismic pumping'. However, the fracturing caused by a major earthquakes is on a much greater scale than happens in induced hydraulic fracturing. A properly designed 'frack job' should only affect the rock unit containing the fluid that is to be produced - if you extend the fractures into more permeable rock units, you not only waste your fracturing fluid, but provide another pathway to the surface for the hydrocarbons/hot water that you're trying to collect, so you wouldn't expect it to happen in general. Note that even if such fractures are created, they are a long way down and unlikely to be directly connected to surface water. Mikenorton (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I recently read that hydraulic fracturing may be contributing to seismic activity, though it seems to be relatively shallow seismic activity.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hydraulic fracturing has been linked to earthquakes in two ways: firstly by stimulating existing faults during the fracking - this was what happened in Lancashire with Quadrilla and secondly with deep wells use for disposal purposes, which can generate quite sizeable earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

new and old techniques
This article doesn't really contrast the two techniques, there's the slickwater treatments used on shale and tight gas reservoirs, say, and the "vanilla" fracking techniques used to stimulate conventional wells that use far less water. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 22:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource with internal links
Other internal links: See Talk:Atmosphere of Earth also. 99.109.125.85 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Methane Losses Stir Debate on Natural Gas by Tom Zeller Jr. New York Times April 12, 2011, 9:01 AM, excerpt ...
 * http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-cornell-shale-study/
 * Marcellus Shale on New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
 * http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf See IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
 * Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions in Science 30 October 2009: Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718 DOI: 10.1126/science.1174760
 * http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/faculty/RWA/photos/marcellus_related_images/marcellus_blog/thoughts-on-life-cycle.html
 * see Marcellus Formation. 99.181.143.133 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

poor discussion of closure stress, maximum prinicipal horizontal stress, etc.
While environmental concerns are very relevant, such geological discussions are very relevant too. DeRanged Resources (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Article needs more information about water quality downstream
This article could be improved by the addition of well sourced information regarding water quality downstream from drilling sites and water treatment plants.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hiding of 'Mechanics' section
I would have thought that the reason that hydraulic fracturing occurs might be regarded as vital to this article. It may be overly technical (kind of related to the subject matter), but I would challenge that it's worthless. Stress is difficult stuff to describe to a non-technical audience but that's no reason to hide it from view in my opinion. Mikenorton (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You either didn't read what I wrote, or didn't understand it. I said that, in its current form, the explanation was worthless. The use of entirely unexplained technical jargon is neither clever nor informative. If you want to rewrite it it a way that is comprehensible, go for it. As it stands, it is utterly and completely worthless. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote, I get that you don't understand it - that doesn't mean that other people don't understand it. It needs improvement for sure and feel free to tag it as too technical, but I don't understand why you wish to hide it. Mikenorton (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make it a little clearer and added some more internal links with additional references and unhidden it. Mikenorton (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Curious - just the fluids or is it more?
Do they use explosives first to loosen things up, and then hold the crevices open with the sand, etc.? I read the explanations here and elsewhere, but it isn't making sense to me. Is there any evidence that they are using Gasbuggy-like techniques in addition to the fluids? Smm201`0 (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the hydraulic pressure of the fluid fractures the rocks, hence the name. It has nothing to do with explosives. -- Racklever (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I read further last night and saw that they are different approaches, but also read that explosions using nitroglycerin were used in combination in the past. What isn't described in this article is the role of chemical interactions and heat they generate in creating the pressure. That made it make more sense to me. Also that radioactive isotopes are included in the fluid so that they can track where the fracking fluid has had its impact. Interesting stuff.Smm201`0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

I also read that, as I suspected, that at least the early forms of hydraulic fracturing used in the 1960s and 1970s were not powerful enough to access certain reserves - that nuclear explosions were better for that, but were too expensive at the time and raised too much public concern. Perhaps the technology has increased the effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing at this point. It sounded like the nuclear approaches are still sitting on that back burner though.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Although explosives are not currently used in the actual hydraulic fracturing. Explosives on site today are currently used to perforate the well into the formation with a shaped charge in the "plug and perf" method. In the "plug and perf" method some perforations at the bottom of the well are usually open before a hydraulic fracturing crew shows up on site. After they have stimulated or fractured those perforations a plug is set isolating the first perforations and more perforations are created above the plug. The stimulation of the next set of perforations is done and possible multiple more plugs and sets of perforations are made. I have heard of as many as 40 stages of perforation sets and plugs separating each set of perforations, but I have only seen a maximum of 25 on one occasion. Usually I see about 15 stages of perforations. The explosive are usually on another type of crew known as wireline that also sets the plugs between each stage. The shaped charges or guns as they are known on sites create a hole in the casing through the cement into the formation sometimes as far as 6 feet (usually about a 1.5 feet into the formation). There are also some other methods that do not require perforations to be made with explosives in between hydraulic fracturing stages. Instead perforation are only opened up that were made during the casing process (I personally have not yet seen this only heard about it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of LIQUID NITROGEN pumped into holes to help Frack ?
Could one use LIQUID NITROGEN pumped into the holes to help Frack ?

If you soak a pliable material (for example a Rubber Ball) in liquid nitrogen, it becomes very brittle (due to the cold) and readily shatters. When the liquid nitrogen evaporates, it is harmless (78 % of our atmosphere is Nitrogen).

Presumably, the may be potentially MUCH cleaner (and cheaper) than using traditional Fracking chemicals ?

Does anyone have any info on this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.128.56 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It takes massive energy to compress and cool liquid nitrogren. Millions of gallons of fluid are required. You would need nuclear power plants compressing nitrogen year round to generate enough to replace water for the job. 67.139.67.194 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't actually take a whole lot of energy to condense LN2 (Nitrogen and Enthalpy of vaporization), although it is expensive compared to water (I pay ~ $0.20 a liter). However I'm not sure what the point would be -- fracking takes place at depths of 5,000-20,000 ft according to the article, and I think it would be pretty hard to get it down that far without all of it boiling off.  Even if you did, I'm not sure that the that it would help much -- you wouldn't be able to cool a sizable volume of rock, and I'm not even sure they would fracture much easier at a reduced temperature.  You would also probably locally freeze out the natural gas.  I'm not sure you would get any advantage over just using compressed gasses, which it looks like they have considered.  a13ean (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rock is generally brittle enough already. Anyway you would still need to use a proppant (and it might be difficult to get that mobilised by the gas) and various chemicals - it's not the water that's the problem (apart from the volume required and the disposal afterwards of course). Mikenorton (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nitrogen and CO2 are commonly used with fluids in stimulating wells and are known in the industry as energized fluids. In several jobs that I was involved in the consideration of using CO2 or Nitrogen the price was more than quadruple the amount in cost for even the cheapest CO2 job. This added a cost of about 5 million dollars for a single well. As far a chemical additives it would still be the same as a regular job with a couple of extra chemicals. The chemicals being added were to ensure stability of the chemical system. The only thing being replaced was water for CO2 or Nitrogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)