Talk:Fracking/Archive 5

Added the current regulatory regime for the UK and the EU
Beagel, As I said I am new to this editing. The problem I have with a post called 'Hydraulic Fracturing', is that anyone looking this up would receive the US view of the world. This would then lead them to talk of hazardous chemicals, severe pollution events etc. These issues have been regulated out in the UK, and are in the process of being regulated out in the European Union, as far as that is possible. That means that anyone from the UK accessing this page would receive a false view. For instance, in the UK, we have a supposedly 'authoritative' study made public yesterday, that makes it appear that 500 or so chemicals could be used in the UK (as per this article). To date only 4 non hazardous ones have been licenced, and everything has to be declared. Its the law. We have had a lot of regulation here, no open lagoons, enclosed gas circulation etc etc etc. Any chapter that has any pollution/health hazard needs, from an NPOV, to have a disclaimer on it saying that regulation is different in other countries with a link. I cannot understand how posting a researched recommendations paper from the European Union is seen as having a ''hidden agenda'. Please advise, as to me the removal of that on the grounds demonstrates the desire possibly conceal that data from others? I would appreciate your comments. The bulk of the article is excellent, but it does need disclaimers. We have a load of people here in the UK who are convinced that poisonous chemicals will be used here, yet it is not true. I await your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennywpara (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that these two sections you commented are too US-specific. However, I temporarily replaced your notices with the relevant maintenance tags. You have to be more specific to explain what should be added or changed in these sections to represent more global view. The right section to discuss it at the end of this page is named 'US-specific'. Please be aware that new sections should be added at the bottom of the page (it is recommended to use the 'new section' link at the top of the page for this) and new comments/posts after the existings posts (if not an answer to the other editor). Beagel (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed references to 'pollution' as this matter has been addressed by the Royal Society report, a peer reviewed paper. Also put a link to fracking in the UK, which I have also updated as many seem not to realise that the chemicals that would be used in the UK have to be classed as 'non hazardous', and do not seem aware of the massive amount of regulation that has been put in place, by the DECC, HSE and EA and other agencies. Also added link to the recent recommendations from the EU re fracking. Ken Wilkinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennywpara (talk • contribs) 10:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you edit. I reverted it for following reasons:
 * The lead should be a summary of the article. That means that this is not the place to put detailed information.
 * The edit was not neutral as it removed the arguments opponent use against HF. They may or may not be true so far it is clearly said that this is a view of the opponents.
 * It is not the place to discuss any country specific issue – for this we have country specific article.
 * However, if correctlyplaced that information could be used in the relevant sections of the body text. Beagel (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Beagel, I am new to this editing, and am still learning but I would like to know why you reverted up to date info.
 * I removed it due to the comments available from the peer reviewed Royal Society report . This is an authoritative peer reviewed document covering all aspects of this for the UK, including the concerns about ground pollution etc. Hence previous comments were out of date.
 * I put a link to the country specific page (Hydraulic Fracturing in the UK). Why is this removed? UK is mentioned, yet no link to the relevant page exists now.
 * I also put a link to the Recommendations from the EU Commission . This is an authoritative source. Why is this removed, leaving a preference for newspaper and media reports? If comment is to be made about fracking regulation in the EU this seems to be the best source.

Kennywpara (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Ken WilkinsonKennywpara (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blanket reverting was not very helpful. There was, as far as I can see, no link anywhere in the article to the sizeable Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom until I added it to See also just now, whereas the US article is linked to at most sections. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion was specifically about the lead. However, that link is included in the lead and therefore it does not belong to the *See also* section. If yo would like to have that link there, et should be removed from the *See also* section as that section should include only links which are not already linked in the body text. Beagel (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Was hidden in the lead (unlike the many links to the US article) - I hadn't seen it. You have the option of moving stuff down rather than just reverting it - frankly this article still needs globalization, & isn't in a good enough state for so many changes to be reverted on sight, as seems to be the case reading this page. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re@ you have the option of moving stuff down rather than just reverting it. This is exactly what I did by this edit. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Btw, Hydraulic fracturing in the United States and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States are different articles. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't understand your point? Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is that when removing Hydraulic fracturing in the United States from the 'See also' section, your edit summary said: "and this one isn't !!!! Only about 20 times. You must be kidding". Above you also said: "unlike the many links to the US article". However, notwithstanding your edit summary, the only link to that article was that one in the 'See also' section, which you removed. At the same time, there was (and is) link to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States which is a different article, so I assumed that you confused these two articles. My apologies if this is not the case. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, though the lack of a link before just shows the need for a section explaining where fracking happens, & to what extent and in what regulatory environment, where all the several by country articles can be linked in the text (the SA & NZ articles still have no direct links). Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Regulatory approaches to evaluating and managing hydraulic fracturing impacts
This is a valid topic; however, for this as umbrella article of the hydraulic fracturing technology as such, it is too long and too specific section having undue weight in this article. Probably it deserves its own stand-alone article. Beagel (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Economic issues
The 'Economic issues' has became again too long, too US-specific and actually deals mainly with the economic impact of shale gas in the United States (which is allowed by implementing of hydraulic fracturing, of course) and not directly with hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, this article is not the best place for it in its current stage. This section needs to be summarized and most of information should be moved into Shale gas in the United States. Beagel (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

New US-centric section: Implementation Process and Regulation
This newly added section is entirely on US regulations. Is there any reason to have this section in this article, rather than in the article Hydraulic fracturing in the United States? Plazak (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Some content has been added to the section regarding France, the UK (North of England) and Australia. So it cannot be said to be US-entric anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul SciencesPo (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It still is. Most of it should be moved into Hydraulic fracturing in the United States while other country-specific information added as subsections should be moved into Hydraulic fracturing by country, if country-specific article does not exist. This article is an umbrella article for hydraulic fracturing, it should given an general overview of all aspects (using summary style where appropriate) and it should not to discuss country-specific regulations or other country-specific issues. Beagel (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

To give an overview of the debates on hydraulic fracturing, it is necessary to talk about different countries since they have different ways of implementing it (as the opposition between risk-based and precaution-based approaches shows). Information cannot be broke into smaller pieces, otherwise no information is given on hydraulic fracturing as a whole. Moreover, much of the content is related to the source on the North of England so it cannot be said to be US-centric in good faith. Fracking is used and implemented differently in different countries, there is no general rule about it so the readers should be given the opportunity to compare it in order to get information on hydraulic fracturing as a whole, which is the purpose of this page. Many links are made to the country-specific pages if readers want to get more information on specific countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul SciencesPo (talk • contribs) 05:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it is still too specific for this article. Regulations should be mentioned but it should be done in more summarized way and not discussion regulations in particular countries. There is already Hydraulic fracturing by country and risk-based versus precaution-based approaches deserve a stand-alone article as supposed below. These approaches are not hydraulic fracturing specific but apply to all processes having environmental impact. Beagel (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Installation of hydraulic fracturing facilities
This short subsection is not encyclopaedic and does not provide any added value into this article. Different environmental impacts are summarised already in the 'Environmental impact' section. Investments into gas industry in the United States is not really a topic of this article (al the same old arguments: US-focused; HF is not a synonym for shale gas/oil and gas drilling/unconventional oil and gas production etc). Mentioning Shell Oil Company and Exxon Mobil is not justified as being among largest oil companies does not mean they are particular in the context of HF. Based on this, I removed this short subsection. Beagel (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead section
The removal of all reference to natural hydraulic fracturing from the lead section means that it no longer represents a full summary of the article as it should. The section used to start with "Hydraulic fracturing is the fracturing of rock by a pressurized liquid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally—certain veins or dikes are examples. " This is no less true than it was and reflects the organisation of the main part of the article, which begins by describing what hydraulic fracturing is in the Mechanics section before giving examples of natural HF. Including this at the start of the lead seems obvious to me, but I don't want put it back in without discussing it here first. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I really do not see what there is to discuss. The lead should summarise the article as a whole and give an overview of the subject of 'hydraulic fracturing'. I suggest that you put it back. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Martin. That part of the lead has been removed before, so I thought that I should at least give the opportunity for other views to be expressed. Done. Mikenorton (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I did some cleanup and copyediting of the lede -- shouldn't be anything controversial (I hope).

We do need a cite for the lifetime stimulation business (and over at well stimulation also). And the "Increases in seismic activity" para needs a sourced line about how minor this is. Basically another FUD spin by the contras, sfaict. Largest known (from a disposal well, not fracking per se) appears to be magnitude 4.0 MMS,  ~equivalent to Mercalli IV:
 * "Felt indoors by many to all people, and outdoors by few people. Some awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors disturbed, and walls make cracking sounds. Chandeliers and indoor objects shake noticeably. The sensation is more like a heavy truck striking building. Standing automobiles rock noticeably. Dishes and windows rattle alarmingly. Damage none." -- see Mercalli intensity scale; Moment magnitude scale article is semi-worthless for civilians.  Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Public Debate
This section is heavily US-centric, and might benefit from being extended to include other parts in the world. Europe, for example, where some countries are seeking to create a shale gas industry (e.g., the United Kingdom, where there are still planning and permitting issues to be resolved, and where there is a not inconsiderable degree of public opposition), whereas in others (e.g., France) it is banned altogether. Further context describing the emerging global picture could enhance this section considerably. BeecherP (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Disclosure: I am a former intern at the Royal Society, the science academy for the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeecherP (talk • contribs) 22:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current section is heavily US-centric and should cover also other regions. At the same time, some of this information is included in the 'Regulations' sections, so we should be careful not to repeat information in the different sections. This section should also not to discuss any specific country in details (for this we have country-specific HF articles and Hydraulic fracturing by country) but rather provide the summarized overview. Beagel (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Study by Food & Water Watch
User:Richard elwell added recently into the Academic research section a study by Food & Water Watch leaving beside the dubious conclusions of this study (these impacts are not related specifically to HF, but any large-scale industrial activity) and its US-focus, it is questionable to call as academic research as Food & Water Watch is not certainly academic but activist organization and as such does not qualify as neutral source. Beagel (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Food and Water Watch produces reputable publications and their works are very well documented. This article contains many industry sponsored sites with little credibility if you want to start attacking sources. As all of their work is credibly sourced, it's work is academic, far more so than many links on this piece.Plebian3 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it at all possible to still add the source by making a section entitled: Public Concerns, with academic or institutional responses and the rebuttals by said activist organizations? It would provide of contention for people to look into while still maintaining neutrality about the conclusions therein. Would this actually satisfied WP:POV by any chance? Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There is already a section called 'Public debate', so if it is not economic, social, environmental or health specific (which all have their own sections), it probably fits there. However, please be sure that this article is not U.S.-specific but should cover the issues in global/general level. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Method
This section is hard to read. There are too many technical words used in a way that confuses the reader as to the workings of the actual processes. There is also little distinction being drawn between the new methods being used with Horizontal High-Volume Slickwater Hydrofracking, which started around 1999, and old methods of Fracking, which incorrectly suggests this new method of fracking has been done for decades longer than it has.

Technical terms should be used when appropriate, maybe an introduction such as the new slickwater fracking being where... they drill so many feet into the earth into shale rock formations, then drill sideways for a mile or so, and then pump millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals into the earth to break apart the rock formations and release deposits of oil and natural gas trapped into the rock...

I want to at least add a beginning paragraph that summarizes it in an understandable way if this cannot be rewritten to be comprehensible.Plebian3 (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

propose deletion or extensive modification of sentence "establishing a causal relationship"
Relevant text: There are reports of health problems associated with compressors stations[103] or drilling sites,[104]; a causal relationship was not established for the wells studied.

the air section has a sentence in it that I flagged today as : "a causal relationship was not established for the wells studied". this is mentioned to subordinate the preceding clause of "there are reports of health problems associated with compressors stations[103] or drilling sites".

I think this is rhetoric, bordering on dishonesty, as the majority of readers is unfamiliar with epidemiology and causal inference, use of Bradford Hill criteria etc.

Epidemiological evidence can show that an exposure to something (risk factor) is associated (correlated) with a higher chance of an effect in the population exposed to the risk factor. The higher the correlation is, the more certain is the association, but epidemiological evidence cannot "prove" the causation.

Unless the sentence is further qualified, explaining the background of inferring causality and that proof if it exists is extremely rare (which I find not doable in the context) I think the sentence is unfit for an encyclopedia and suggest to delete it.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole sentence needs toning down or removing. It is not about HF in general but about a local issue of air polution in Texas caused by gas compression equipment.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Martin Hogbin, I think I am being misunderstood: The sentence I am concerned about is not the first part, it is "a causal relationship was not established for the wells studied", for the reasons I explained above. I am not for removing the sentence before, which is relevant in this particular section --Wuerzele (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not sure exactly what you meant but I am clear about what I mean. The whole sentence is the result of some editors trying to discredit HF by any means possible.  The health problems referred to relate to emisssions from gas compressor stations in breach of the regulations in Texas.  This has no real connection to the process of HF, except that the gas being compressed was originally obtained by HF.  The problem is cause by companies breaching the regulations on emisions.  It is essentially a news item and has no place in an article about HF in general.  It may well be that the emissions referred to in Texas represented a significant health hazard but that is a matter for the local press and enforcement agencies to deal with not an encyclopedia. It is also bordering on dishonesty to try to suggest that the process of HF has resulted in dangerous emissions.


 * The sentence should be removed completely, or at the very least, replaced with something that makes the situation clear, maybe something like, 'In common with most industries, health problem resulting from atmospheric emissions have been reported when regulations governing these are emisssions are seriously breached'.   Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Natural...
Please give it a decent citation. This is a controversial topic. Please quote it ~ R.T.G 12:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Que? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article talks about natural hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulics is a reference to non-natural mechanics.  I saw it disputed somewhere around this page and I just think it can be dropped altogether.  I removed the instance from the lead and then I saw it disputed in the edit histories or here on the talk page so, I said please quote it, but now I am saying, just delete it.  it doesn't lend to either bias wether it is there or not and it doesn't affect the quality of the article.  ~ R.T.G 16:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There were no shortage of citations in the body of the article for natural hydraulic fracturing, there's nothing controversial about it. I've added the test back to the lead with a citation. It does affect the quality of the article, as natural HF would be a notable topic whether or not it was used for well stimulation. Also the lead section should summarise the article, which contains a section on natural hydraulic fractures. Mikenorton (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Schematic Depiction Error (Fraccing Fluid)
The schematic on the pages's right side has an error. Instead of "Fracking Fluid" it says "Fraccing Fluid". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.25.2 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Fraccing' is one of the alternative spellings (as listed in the lead section). Mikenorton (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Terminology has been discussed for several times and it was agreed that the most neutral term is "hydraulic fracturing" which should be preferred instead of "fracking" and "fraccing". Beagel (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We're Sitting on 10 Billion Barrels of Oil! OK, Two
"Lee Tillman, chief executive officer of Marathon Oil Corp., told investors last month that the company was potentially sitting on the equivalent of 4.3 billion barrels in its U.S. shale acreage. That number was 5.5 times higher than the proved reserves Marathon reported to federal regulators. Such discrepancies are rife in the U.S. shale industry." 86.156.118.80 (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As this article is about HF as a process in general, this information does not belong here. Beagel (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tagging
please articulate your concerns, based on what WP:NPOV actually says. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

bold edit
I reviewed the environmental impacts of this article, and saw that it had become totally unmoored from the WP:SPLIT article on Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Per WP:SUMMARY, the content in this article should be a summary of what is in that article. As everybody knows, per WP:LEAD, the lead of an article summarizes the content of that article. So, I took the lead of the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing article and put it here and left an edit comment, that anybody who wants to add to that section, should go first to the [[Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing article, and add it to the body of that article.  If it rises to the importance it should be included in the lead of that article, and only then, added here.  We all have a responsibility to edit the whole encyclopedia, so that readers don't find the information in two places, presented differently - with different sources and possibly different and even conflicting content..  So let's keep it all together!  Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * while I was at it, I cleaned up the reflist and alphabetized it. boy i hate that style of referencing, but that is what has been established here. there is still a ref error but I cannot figure out the problem.  sorry about that.  Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a massive POV hatchet editing job to me, eliminating many RS. Very disappointing. Stoney1976 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary it is very sensible to take the lead section from more detailed article as a summary here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, good improvement from . Alexbrn talk 15:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Stony, please limit your comments to content, not contributors per WP:TPG Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * i should mention that I reviewed what was here before I did that and I didn't find better sources or material here. We can certainly work through any mistakes i may have made.  but again, if there was great material here that I missed, we should add it to the body of the other article, and add to the lead of that article only if it reaches to the lead, and only then add it here.  very open to discussing such things. everybody makes mistakes and people can have good faith disagreements. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about massive POV edits
Believe fresh eyes could do this article some good, hence POV tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoney1976 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See comment by Jytdog above. In what way is this article POV? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Large amounts of well-sourced information has been removed or deleted from a POV angle by the same group of editors, especially from the economic and environmental sections. No observable attempted to be neutral. Stoney1976 (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * that is in part a discussion of contributors not content which is out of bounds per WP:TPG. in addition, you have not articulated a specific concern with specific content changes.  Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Further Research
There is a lot to question about the legitimacy involved in hydraulic fracturing (i.e., fracking). Specialists of the oil and gas industry claim that it is more cost-effective and a more efficient drilling technique than other methods, but the consequences of fracking constitute a long-list of public concern. This concern has been present since the beginning of fracking and has been growing ever since to the extent that it is banned in certain countries (e.g. the United Kingdom and France), but yet this drilling technique is still expanding. This fact questions the underlying motivation of our communities’ leaders. Those who research fracking and its potential implications have received pressure from government officials and the oil and gas industry to veil certain details (e.g., the names of the chemicals omitted into the ground to break the shale rock), which has caused the general public to be concerned and skeptical over the safety surrounding fracking even though leaders of this industry claim that people should not be concerned,. A representative sample of concerned citizens can be taken from the locals in Denton, Texas, where fracking began, who recently voted this week (November 7, 2014) to ban fracking in the area. These citizens are the heart of the oil and gas industry and even these citizens do not approve of fracking at its current state. This should be a clear indication that further research about the impacts of fracking is needed, but serious laws and regulations should be primarily established so that any findings cannot be hidden, manipulated, or biased. For example, the methods, procedures, and utilities (e.g., chemicals) should be clearly stated, and a number of studies should be conducted to account for standard error and experimenter-bias. This wikiarticle already outlined some potential consequences that are of great concern, such as earthquakes and water contamination, which have received serious attention and direct connections to fracking have been found. Studies regarding the technique itself, safety risks, environmental impacts, health impacts, and economic impacts should all be required. Any quick internet search will lead its reader to find a number of sources that do no support fracking, are concerned about fracking, or claim negative impacts caused by fracking drilling (as a side, the references that I have included in this commentary arose from ‘quick searches’, however the references provided throughout the rest of this wikiarticle are worth a read and offer a wide variety of legitimate scientific evidence). Supporters who argue for the benefits of fracking (e.g., financial increase) may also want to consider the money that may need to be spent on environmental clean-up on land and wildlife, property restoration, medical treatment, solving contaminated or depleted water-supply, etc., that altogether may very-well exceed the dollar value that is saved by using hydraulic fracking compared to horizontal drilling or other extraction methods. Investigations into previous claims about just the few examples mentioned should be conducted to find any direct relation to nearby fracking sites and to help improve on the hydraulic fracking procedure. This commentary is not to exploit fracking altogether, merely to point out that at its current state it is not ideal, nor does it seem to be regulated fairly.

Dss110 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

seismic events edit war
has been edit warring a sentence, that I added on seismic events in November 2014. First 'numerous occasions' was tagged with WP:weasel, which I eventually removed, because it is sourced and documented and not WP:weasel. Then Beagel re-added "quantify". This is plain silly ! like this would add any engineering science credibility? Beagel, I removed the tag today, given the plenty sources, and the impossibility to infer anything from adding them up: different regions, different time intervals, different fracking intensity.e.g. 1st ref: 109 earthquakes/yr. I expect that you hash your concerns about this out on the talk page once and for all.

Also to move from seismic events to microseismic and then to microearthquakes is a bit weird. Like trying to downplay teh issue. ref 1 doesnt mention microseismic or microearthquakes a single time. it simply calls a spade a spade. Even if 90 are small and 10 are felt, well those felt ones are "significant". Cheers,--Wuerzele (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

economic section
The last paragraph is terribly written: "A few academic studies from universities have emerged recently.[88][89] The core insights from these studies is that unconventional shale oil and gas may have the potential to dramatically alter the geography of energy production in the US. In the short run, there are significant employment effects and spillovers in counties where resource extraction is happening. One paper finds that employment in the oil and gas sector has more than doubled in counties located above shale deposits in the last 10 years, with significant spill-overs in local transport-, construction but also manufacturing sectors.[88] The latter benefits from significantly lower energy prices, giving the US manufacturing sector a competitive edge compared to the rest of the world. On average, natural gas prices have gone down by more than 30% in counties above shale deposits compared to the rest of the US. However, some research has also highlighted that there are negative effects on house prices for properties that lie in the direct vicinity of unconventional wells.[90] This study finds that local house prices in Pennsylvania go down if the property is close to an unconventional gas well and is not connected to utility water, suggesting that the fears of ground water pollution are priced by markets."

the first sentence is really not fit for WP with tautology and WP:dated - are university studies unacademic? do academic studies need the addition that they are from a university? are there really only a few studies, ie how long is this sentence true? 'core insights' is editorializing, insight is insight. 'dramatically altering': this is wikipedia, no drama. "significant": here the author really betrays their unscientific background...

re ref 88: Fracking Growth - Estimating the Economic Impact of Shale Oil and Gas Development in the US, Fetzer, Thiemo (2014) This is an incomplete and unreliable citation. I could not find where except on his personal website the young Conservative, supported by the German right wing Konrad Adenauer Stiftung has published this. Until this is clarified, I embargo the source and will add. Then "go down" - ?? decrease is the right word. utility water ? this is a foreign translation again- city water maybe. leave alone the euphemism of an "unconventional gas well"... --Wuerzele (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits in lede and Infobox
The citation indicates that one employee initiated the first process in 1947, and that the second, J.B. Clark, wrote a paper on it a year later, rather than co-invented it. Changed spelling "favour" to U.S. English from British. Add saline/brine to the injection process, rather than simply fracking fluids which are of substantially lesser quantity. Due to the pressure and greater quantity of fluids injected, there is a much higher risk/occurrence of seismicity with deep injection than with more shallow horizontal fracking. The statement that Britain has actually repealed the temporary ban on fracking, due to induced seismicity, is not clarified by the link the the U.K. fracking page. A better citation could resolve this question. Activist (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed "jargon" advisory
The term "plug and perf" is standard industry nomenclature, never spelled out as far as I found, usually written "plug-and-perf" or even "P-n-P" I think the text of the section explains it well enough. I was unable to find any definition of the origin or meaning of the term despite an extensive search for a usable citation. It refers to isolating unwanted sections of wellbore from others via selective blocking and accessing desired target sections through the use of perforated casings in the latter. Activist (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a fair summary of the "Environmental impact"
I understand that there are other articles with more detail, but currently the only thing this one says about health effects is e.g. "Research is underway to determine if human health has been affected by air and water pollution, and rigorous following of safety procedures and regulation is required to avoid harm and to manage the risk of accidents that could cause harm" with no specifics.

But http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Offering-a-case-against-fracking-5952016.php says, "since 2009...there were six peer-reviewed studies on how fracking...could affect air and water quality. Another six such studies were added in 2010.... There were 32 more fracking health studies in 2011, 66 more in 2012, and 139 more in 2013.... By the end of November 2014, there were another 154 such peer-reviewed studies.... Of health-related papers, 96 percent cited potential health risks from fracking, according to the study. For air-quality related papers, 95 percent found elevated pollution from fracking; for water-quality related papers, three-quarters found evidence of water pollution."

I think this article needs to reflect the scientific consensus more accurately. 63.228.180.122 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please go forward to discuss and add the relevant information in Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and summarize it here afterwards. Please be aware that all medical information should be in line with WP:MEDRS. AS for air and water pollution, this is already included, so what is your complain in this respect? Beagel (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing already has the relevant information, but it's not summarized here. What information does this article "already include" about air and water pollution? Any specific health effects? I don't see any. 63.228.180.122 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the New York report cited in ? EllenCT (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Global concern?
The source that is used to support the statement that there is 'global concern' statement says:

'Unconventional drilling for natural gas by means of high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is an important global public health issue. Given that no sound epidemiologic study has been done to assess the extent of exposure-related adverse health effects among populations living in areas where natural gas extraction is going on, it is imperative that research be conducted to quantify the potential risks to the environment and to human health not just in the short-term, but over a longer time period since many diseases (i.e., cancers) appear years after exposure. It should not be concluded that an absence of data implies that no harm is being done'.

The words, 'is an important global public health issue' do not mean that there is concern everywhere in the world (global concern} but that this one source thinks it should be of global concern. That is not the same thing at all.

We must not misrepresent sources in this way to make a point or to promote a personal POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Public debate section
This section is truly awful. It starts with the provocative language that fracking companies are using "military tactics" against protestors, which really come down to one executive making an ill-considered comment about protestors and the second hiring psychologists with a military background (which might involve defensive as much or more than offensive psychological warefare tactics). It then turns and paints a horrific picture of the opposition, with gunshots and the like presented in a way that suggests that irrational violent acts are typical on this side of the controversy. I think it would be a better article if the section was toned down and we stay away from scouring the literature for isolated examples of extreme acts and / or statements designed to make one side or the other of the issue look like monsters. While the article implies that this sort of extreme behavior is typical of one side and then the other, I doubt it is representative of either. I think from time to time its good to remind ourselves that just because something is reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean that adding it to the article represents and improvement. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the WP:ADVOCACY is strong there. I'll have a dig for better dispassionate sources. Alexbrn talk 08:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a much wider problem, affecting most of the articles connected with the oil industry. The articles tend to become battlegrounds for fighting between verious factions. In my opinion, the answer to this is for all editors to have a read of a good printed encyclopedia to see how articles are written there.  WP is not a vehicle for telling the world about the bad things that the oil companies are doing, neither is it a place to promote the oil industry, it is an encyclopedia.


 * Encyclopedic content should be based on high quality, independent authoritative sources, not news articles, and should state facts based on these.


 * Where there is controversy and debate this should be mention but the views of the various groups, as shown in news sources, should be presented as just that, opinions, as in 'the XXX say that fracking is causing YYY'. The views of the sides should be presented in summary without emotive language and without those views being stated in WP's voice.


 * This article has been much worse in the past but could still be improved to make it more encyclopedic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose deletion of the Politics and Public Policy subsection of the Public Debate section in its entirety. It consists of little more than dueling efforts of the two sides to demonize each other, and adds nothing of substance to the article. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It does seem to consist of an arbitray collection of news snippets so I would not object. Perhaps it could be replaced when there is consensus about an appropriate encyclopedic content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NPOV: "A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in" controversial subjects. Unless valid reasons are forthcoming that the public policy debate is so obscure as to have insufficient weight to be noteworthy. Given the amount of press which was devoted to, for example, New York's ban last month, I think it is extremely unlikely that any reasons exist. Can you recommend improvements to balance the arguments on both sides of the debate, and describe how it has played out in the US, and in countries where there are no trade secret restrictions on disclosing toxic components of fracking fluids? EllenCT (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure we are discussing the same section. The one I proposed to delete doesn't say anything about the NY ban or trade secret laws. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn I'm just going to fix it. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the section is neither truly awful, nor little more than dueling efforts, nor an arbitray collection of news snippets. It appears the 3 judges just "dont like it". --Wuerzele (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree that it's not well written, but don't think that it should be removed. Improve rather than delete is my view, although I have no clear idea myself how that should be achieved. Mikenorton (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjusted the "military tactics" language. Not sure how to deal with the excessive focus on a handful of acts of violence by individual protestors, I think this is overemphasized here. Would appreciate suggestions on how to keep this section balanced while reducing the level of agitprop language. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed rewriting of first paragraph of the section
International and national and local movements opposed to fracking have emerged in countries such as France and in affected areas such as Balcombe in Sussex where the Balcombe drilling protest was in progress during summer 2013.

The opposition to hydraulic fracturing activities in local townships in the United States has led fracking companies to publicly defend the the process.

Anti-fracking groups say that these companies have to adopted a variety of public relations measures to assuage fears about hydraulic fracturing, including the employing former military personnel with training in psychological warfare operations.


 * Support I think this is reasonable. It should be coupled with changes in the next paragraph toning down the "nut job environmental terrorists" angle. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as an improvement compared to the current text. However, it still needs more encyclopaedic approach. Beagel (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

How many researchers recommend disclosure of fluid components?
Regarding, since the UK government has required disclosure of fluid contents along with limiting them to non-toxic components, doesn't it stand to reason via WP:CK that more than one researcher certainly recommended it?

I think we need more on the history of the UK regulations against toxicity. Where is that? Hansard reports? EllenCT (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions re: Terminology and Health Risks
There needs to be some discussion about the different uses of the term hydraulic fracturing, since it has both a technical meaning and a colloquial meaning. Hydraulic fracturing is technically just a method of well-stimulation. However, the public and media use the term fracking as an umbrella term to refer not just to the well-stimulation itself, but the entirety of fracking related operations. This article oscillates between the two uses of the term and only adds to this confusion. I propose the following paragraph (and refs):

Although hydraulic fracturing is technically only a well-stimulation technique, the term is commonly used by the general public as an umbrella term to refer to a range of activities associated with modern oil and gas development, such as drilling, extraction, and other aspects of production and processing. Various uses of the term to refer to either just the well stimulation itself or also the associated operations have generated miscommunication among the media, industry, scientific community, and general public. While hydraulic fracturing has been employed for decades, only relatively recently has it been combined with other technologies such as directional drilling and high-volume “slickwater” hydraulic fracturing to access oil and natural gas from shale and other unconventional reservoirs at a commercial scale.

The Health risks section is weak and not well sourced, consisting mostly of a single quote from the 2014 Public Health England report. This could be greatly improved as there is now a lot more information on public health risks. It should be balanced with other agencies reports that are more exhaustive and which have arrive at different conclusions, such as the Public Health Review on High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing done by New York State Department of Public Health. Another alternative is the Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health School of Public Health (University of Maryland) report.

As EllenCT points out, the Times Union article references a report that provides the most complete and current scientific consensus on risks to public health, air quality, and water quality (based on all available peer-reviewed literature). This article/report should be incorporated into the article.

Hays452 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Health risks
I agree that some mentionm pf posssible health risks is appropriate in this article but it is not the place to add every source we can find claiming some health risk from HP. I have toned the section down a bit to more accurately relect the sources and removed the section from a nursing arganisation as it cannot be considered qualified to evaluate HF. It also looks biased towards anti-HF advocacy.

Most of the suggested health risks apply specifically to the US wher the main issue identified seems to be secrecy regarding HF fluids. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming that nursing mothers exposed to fracking fluid-contaminated groundwater face fewer risks outside the US than in? If so, on what grounds? specifically refers to "global" heath concerns, so I don't understand why you changed "worldwide concerns" to "some concerns". EllenCT (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the source does not support that statement - see below.


 * In some countries, the UK for example, the content of fracking fluids are much more strictly controlled and must be fully disclosed.   They can contain only non-toxixc substances.


 * You also gloss over the point as to how nursing mothrs might be exposed to HF fluids. The source cited is not qualified to address this issue. There is little or no evidence that the public have any significant exposure to hydraulic fracturing fluids. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That must be nice for the UK. What is the situation for the majority of the readership? EllenCT (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The situation is that there is little or no evidence that the public have any significant exposure to hydraulic fracturing fluids. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you contend that there is not abundant evidence that people using well water near fracking sites are frequently exposed to toxins where toxic fracking fluids are used? If so, on what grounds? EllenCT (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is up to you to produce the evidence. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I see two issues with this section. First, it repeats information which is, or at least should be, in the 'Environmental impact' section. There is an extensive quotation consisting of five sentences. Actually, two sentences in the mid of this quotation (Most evidence suggests that contamination of groundwater, if it occurs, is most likely to be caused by leakage through the vertical borehole. Contamination of groundwater from the underground hydraulic fracturing process itself (ie the fracturing of the shale) is unlikely.) Clearly belongs to the 'Environmental impact' section and the 'Health risks' section looses nothing if it is moved to the section about the environmental imapact.

The second issue is that very US-centric issues are included in the article about the global issues while not included in the country-specific articles such as Hydraulic fracturing in the United States and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. The whole third paragraph about the Marcellus Shale and the New York State's regulations is country specific issue which should be moved into the proper article(s). Beagel (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to making health risks a subsection of environmental impact. I object to deletion of two sentences on groundwater contamination from the health effects section because groundwater contamination is likely the most serious cause of deleterious health effects. I am strongly opposed to shunting off uncomfortable material into the US-specific WP:POVFORKs, which should be merged back into this article. Yes, regulations are much better in the UK and much worse in the developing world, but there should be a few paragraphs saying so and the information proportional to the volume of reliable sources should remain in the article with context specifying the locale of specific incidents and general concerns. EllenCT (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Groundwater and air contamination is an environmental impact which may cause health effects. Therefore, more detailed information about contamination risks should be given in the environmental impact article and its summary in the relevant section here. The sentence "surface spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids or wastewater may affect groundwater, and emissions to air also have the potential to impact on health" still stays in the Health section. Could you please clarify what you mean by "uncomfortable material". Uncomfortable for whom? Beagel (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I am fine with health risks being a subsection of environmental impact, and I guess your proposal is reasonable. Presumably the only people who are comfortable with ignoring how much worse regulations are in the US and developing world are the small fraction of readers in the UK. Are you opposed to merging the POVFORKs back in? EllenCT (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What article are POVFORKs? If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting to merge all country-specific articles back in this article. At the moment, there are seven articles in category:Hydraulic fracturing by country, so I don't think that we could merge them and still be able to provide country-specific information for all of these countries. If you propose to merge only US-specific articles here, I can't understand this approach at all. It also seems that so far as we have a general article and country specific articles, adding country specific information, which is not a summary of the information in the country specific article, into the general article is the the classical POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, forget merging all those back, but keep the most significant issues for the largest part of the English-speaking world's readership here. Just indicate the parts that are US-specific, and include a paragraph saying UK has more disclosure and a non-toxicity requirement, unlike the US and developing world, where groundwater contamination is therefore a greater risk, okay? EllenCT (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

US-specific information is moved into the Hydraulic fracturing in the United States article without removing or changing anything in it. In addition, the information about the New York ban was already included in this article under the 'Regulation' section. Beagel (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A page on hydraulic fracturing is necessarily going to be US-centric because this is where the technology was developed and where it is mostly being used. The vast majority of shale oil and gas development is taking place in the United States and, consequently, this is where hydraulic fracturing has been studied for its impacts on human health and the environment. There are only four countries in the world using hydraulic fracturing to commercially development oil and gas from shale formations: the U.S., Canada, Argentina (oil), and China (gas). In other words, there is no reason US-specific information should be excluded from the main article.

It is also a bit strange that the primary source for health risks comes from Public Health England, an executive agency for a government that has yet to development its shale gas resources, but is quite keen on doing so. There is an appropriate concern here about both a lack of expertise and a potential conflict of interest. There are many other public health reports that are both more thorough and more current - I would suggest including other sources to supplement the PHE report. More importantly, many of the health risks have nothing to do with the U.S. regulatory environment. Certainly, tougher regulations and enhanced disclosure may mitigate some of these risks in countries (and states) where it is adequately managed. However, this is only speculative and it is less appropriate for a Wikipedia article, which should concern itself with empirical evidence and actual experience, not the theoretical expectations of countries that have yet to use hydraulic fracturing at a commercial scale to development onshore unconventional gas and oil.

There also seems to be a fair amount of confusion about the UK non-toxicity requirement. Shale gas is not yet being commercially developed in the UK and there are no final regulations. As such, there is no requirement in the UK that prevents companies from using toxic substances - they would not be able to develop shale formations if this were the case. Here is what the DECC report that is cited for this claim actually says: "Chemicals used in drilling and frack fluids are assessed for hazards on a case-by-case basis for each well by the appropriate environmental regulator (EA, NRW or SEPA). Operators must declare the full details of the chemicals to the regulator and will publish a brief description of the chemical’s purpose and any hazards it may pose to the environment, subject to appropriate protection for commercially sensitivity." It then goes on to refer to the non-toxic chemicals used by Cuadrilla, the only company to hydraulically fracture for shale gas in the UK. This anecdote has little bearing on industry practices and regulations should large scale shale gas development go forward and it certainly provides no indication of a non-toxicity requirement. The DECC report cited says nothing about mandatory public disclosure for all chemicals (including proprietary ones), nor anything about a non-toxicity requirement. Further, even if there was such a requirement most risks to groundwater would still exist because they have to do with what comes back up the well, not what goes into the well. The most likely mechanisms for contamination are well casing failure and wastewater disposal. Flowback and produced waters contain heavy metals (e.g., arsenic), naturally occurring radioactive materials (e.g., radium), and other substances that present clear risks to public health. Hays452 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pediatric nursing journals as a non-WP:MEDRS-compliant source for info on the public health aspects of fracking
per WP:MEDRS, "Other indications that a biomedical journal article may not be reliable are... its content being outside the journal's normal scope (for instance, an article on the efficacy of a new cancer treatment in a psychiatric journal or the surgical techniques for hip replacement in a urology journal).

Here we have an article on the public health aspects of hydraulic fracking written up not in a toxicology journal, nor in a journal of public health, but in a pediatric nursing journal. The author's other published works include


 * Health Fairs as a Forum to Pique Young Children's Interest in Nursing
 * Foster Parenting Children with Chronic Illness and Complex Medical Needs
 * The Lived Experience of Foster Parents of Children With Special Needs Living in Rural Areas
 * The Society of Pediatric Nurses: Position Statement on Child Welfare
 * Understanding lesbians’ mammography utilization
 * Toward evidence-based teaching: evaluating the effectiveness of two teaching strategies in an associate degree nursing program
 * Kids into health careers: a rural initiative.

Normally I do not counter-revert, but I'm sure you'll agree that this article does not meet either the letter nor the spirit of WP:MEDRS. The article is published in a journal that does not normally cover toxicology and evironmental health issues, and the author has no publication track record that exhibits any professional expertise in the subject area. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since when do we use an authors' other publications when determining source reliability? That list proves Lauver is a recognized expert on the welfare of children in rural areas, and last I checked they don't frack much in the city. PubMed says it's a literature review. The review fits the subsequent citation requirements and publication date (2012) to easily exceed the MEDRS criteria. Where are you going to find a better source for breastfed infant risks from mothers drinking well water near fracking sites than the Journal of Pediatric Nursing? The journal frequently publishes on toxicology. Give me some reason to believe you are serious about this and not just trying to get back at me for questioning your edits to the pharma industry article. EllenCT (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ellen
 * No, I'm not trying to "get back" at you. I've edited this article in the past, as well as a number of other articles in the environmental toxicology space.  Nonetheless, I can understand how the timing of my most recent edits could create the appearance of the sort of behavior you are describing, so I will take a break from this article. I hope you'll reconsider this particular source, which strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Best, Formerly 98 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be so strident. But since the source was considered to be MEDRS-compliant by Jytdog at I'm going to replace it. I think of all the populations at risk from fracking-contaminated groundwater, infants are the most for developmental reasons. But of course that changes every time the toxins involve change. EllenCT (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries Ellen. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , could you please provide diffs where exactly says this? It also seems that the source is related explicitly to the Marcellus shale and not to the HF in general. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the last row of his (the only) table in that section. As you can see from the abstract, the article says that the "Marcellus Shale gas well drilling project in northeast Pennsylvania ... serves as a model for how nurses can evaluate such problems in their own communities." Emphasis added. EllenCT (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is still questionable if this certain article is acceptable as a source for this article, particularly taking account that it is about the fracking sites on the Marcellus Shale. The concerns expressed by are still valid. I would like to ask  's comment on this. Beagel (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

in my view the source does comply with MEDRS. But the question of what content to craft based on it, what WP:WEIGHT to give that content, and how this article relates to other articles in the fracking suite, are different. In my view, the health risks are a subtopic of Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. There should be no separate section here on health effects in this article. Instead this content should be included in the "Environmental impact" section of this article, and that whole section should just be the lead of that article, with sources added (if they are not there already). So... the only way this source would appear in this article, would be if the content based on it rises to the lead of that article. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No seperate health risks section in the main article? Most of the news articles about fracking, at least in the US, are primarily about health effects, and have been for years. You are asking for a classic WP:POVFORK to downplay what is the most prominent concern which is treated so differently in the major English speaking countries that, for example, UK fracking must be done with completely disclosed, completely non-toxic fluids, while anything goes in the US where you can get sued for exposing trade secrets if you explain which toxic substances are being used. Preposterous! EllenCT (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with - there's a lot of messy duplication and out-of-place content across this suite of articles. Adding this stuff here makes it worse. Alexbrn talk 17:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hat off, the hypercritical examination of the source, the calling of duplication, the splitting of hairs like the claim the study applies only to the Marcellus shale are quite an array of negative evaluations. Conversely, such arguments are never seen when it comes to editing any odd technical shit about fracking. So, the intent is obvious. Gentlemen, you better give the woman, and her argument a break. She's trying her best to come up with something to throw against your denigrating attitude. I am disgusted by the spirit of arguments made by your, alas, all-male front- and dont tell me its a consensus! You, and  remember how I've caught both of you editing with little understanding of the matter or with largely unsourced material in articles. You sit in the glass house and should not even as much as LOOK at a stone. There's already been content forking out of the articles, get over the fact that health issue must be and will be discussed on the fricking fracking page.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)  --Wuerzele (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I would like ask you to stop your blatant personal attacks. As an editor with a history of baseless accusation against other editors, you should be careful not to behave that way. As you repeated your accusation that I have inserted large amount of unsourced material, I think I have a right for a response. You probably mean this issue with the Coal gasification. First you made an accusation that I inserted copyrighted material. This accusation failed as the material was backwardscopy and not other way around. Then you made accusation that I inserted a large amount of unsourced information. I didn't. What I did was making technical split of existing coal gasification information from the Coal article. You know this, but still continue to repeat your false accusation. Even more, at this page in one the previous discussions you made another personal attack accusing me on edit warring because I questioned your POV wording. I intentionally avoided to comment or edit this part you mentioned there - just to avoid any unnecessary drama. However, your current attack is just too much. Lets just discuss the content and not other editors. Beagel (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is blatantly obvious that a nursing source is not qualified to assess the risks of HF. We have a number of other sources that are independent, authoritative and reliable.  Adding material based on obviously unqualified sources only serves to make WP look silly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is the Journal of Pediatric Nursing not "qualified" on the subject of toxicology of mothers' milk to nursing infants? Have any of the dozens of other articles they've published on toxicology ever been shown to be flawed? EllenCT (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course the Journal of Pediatric Nursing is qualified to talk about the toxicology of mothers' milk. Perhaps there is a suitable article into which you might add something about that subject but this article is about hydraulic fracturing.  The Journal of Pediatric Nursing is not qualified to provide information on that subject just as the 'Journal of Hydraulic Fracturing' would not be qualified to provide information on breast feeding. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And when the JPN publishes a literature review on the effects of fracking fluids from groundwater on the toxicology of milk, as they have in this case, why are they in any way less qualified than if they had surveyed the literature on any other source of toxins? EllenCT (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How are the JPN able to determine that fluids that have come from the hydraulic fracturing process have found thier way into mother's milk? What mechanism to the propose for this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a literature review, not primary research, and the sources they survey discuss the same groundwater contamination from borehole casing leaks that all of the other reviews of groundwater contamination describe. Have you read it? EllenCT (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not read it because I would need to pay to do so. Perhaps you could copy some relevant quotations to this page, or a user page.  Small quotations for private research do not present a copyright problem.
 * The question remains as to what qualifies JPN to select and review literature on the groundwater contamination from HF. Many editors here would make an extremely bad job of that and there is no reason to suppose that the JPN would be any better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The journal piece seems to be about advocacy on this issue by pediatric nurses, not a study of pediatric heath risks. Unless specific information can show that this is not an opinion or advocacy piece in the journal it should not be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Title: "ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY" Quote: "This article presents an overview of the Marcellus Shale gas well drilling project in northeast Pennsylvania and serves as a model for how nurses can evaluate such problems in their own communities. Resources to help nurses become involved in the environmental health advocacy process are made available." This seems to be an article about how to politically organize against fracking, not a scientific paper. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * it seems that way to me too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments

 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
 * The consensus is clearly yes to A, but there's no clear consensus on B though the debate leans toward inclusion of a suitably worded summary within A provided we adhere rigorously to the usual rules on attribution and sourcing. Guy' (Help!) 22:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Should the Hydraulic fracturing article include (A) a discussion of health risks? (B) a discussion of the health reasons for which New York State banned the practice? EllenCT (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC) you mentioned


 * Yes but indirectly, if warranted. We have separate articles for environmental impact (which covers health) and for fracking in the US (which covers what NY State does). If either of those two articles contain info of sufficient weight that it can be summarized here, then it should be done so using the principal of WP:SYNC. The same content shouldn't be spammed across multiple fracking articles especially as this makes the articles look like a POV warrior has gone to town making a kind of miscellany of BAD THINGS about fracking. Alexbrn talk 17:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (A) Yes and No Of course the article should show, in an encyclopedic manner, any health effects of HF that have been shown by authoritataive reliable sources to have been caused specifically by HF. It should also show any analyses by qualified, authoritataive, and independent sources that show that HF presents a significant risk to the general population or any increased risk to oil workers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not list statements from any and every source which claims that HF might cause this or that health problem or risk, or that speculates about what might or could happen. It should not include anything from sources which have not shown some intelligent and realistic calculation of the level of health risk of any industry practice which is claimed to be potentially harmful, based on known and generally accepted scientific facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (B), No more text, beyond that currently in the article, should be added on this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No to (B) per WP:UNDUE in the global article on fracking Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes to (A) BUT the health risks are a subtopic of environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing (the health risks the OP are concerned with are public health risks, and would arise from environmental exposure). There should be no separate section here on health effects in this article.  Instead this content should be included in the "Environmental impact" section of this article, and that whole section should just be the lead of environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, with sources added (if they are not there already). Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, both are of world-wide noteworthiness, because the developing world is tending towards the practices prevalent in the US, where toxic fracking fluids are used but may not be discussed because of trade secret restrictions. The article should also include a detailed description of the debates and evidence which caused UK to require nontoxic fluids and full disclosure of their composition. EllenCT (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes to (A) BUT not in its current form per reasons provided by Alexbrn and Jytdog. In this article it should be a summary of the more specific article (Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing) per WP:SS and not a copy of that. It should also avoid repeating the information already provided in the environmental impact section (e.g. contamination of groundwater). In its current form, the second paragraph of the Health section violates this. As an umbrella article for all aspects related to HF, it should include universal/global concerns and not country/location specific issues. At the same time I agree with Martin Hogbin that risks/effects caused specifically by HF should be presented (using summary style) and presented in an encyclopaedic manner. Beagel (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No to (B) per WP:UNDUE, particularly taking account the fact that the New York ban is already mentioned in the 'Regulations' section. More detailed discussion of it belongs into the Hydraulic fracturing in the United States or/and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is the experience in New York State not pertinent to that of the developing world, where fracking fluids are also kept secret and allowed to contain toxic substances? EllenCT (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes to A and B, because neither censorship (Invoking WP UNDUE because NY ban already mentioned in regs,as reason for not being allowed to be mentioned in health ), nor defeat in detail ("source applies to Marcellus shale only") nor divide and rule, (which includes the existing forks) of WP:IDONTLIKEIT content is helpful to the cause, but detrimental to the value of the article in particular and the spirit of the community and the encyclopedia in general. I see selfish behavior and clear evidence of social undermining of Ellen CT by the editors above at work.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but summary only, with the details in Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. The NY state ban in particular should be mentioned, but not gone into detail in this general article. Plazak (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes to A, and very brief mention of B. There should be a section on health effects, it can be separate from environmental effects, or a subsection there. Darx9url (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes to A, No to B A is obvious and non-controversial. B is undue in this article. This is not about US politics of energy in east coast states, this is the global article about hydraulic fracturing. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes to A and No to B. This is a global article and a discussion of particulars for New York is WP:UNDUE in this article. Better to include that in the US-specific article. Edited to add: General health effects should be included per Jytdog, Beagel, and Alexbrn, which is to say a summary only in an Environmental effects section that links to a larger article. Ca2james (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (second edit: Ca2james (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Use your own judgement in the light of the foregoing points Most of what our friends have said has been pretty reasonable and to the point. Most has also been in mutual agreement, even when the details of their conclusions were at variance. Therefore I suggest that you list the considerations named (offline for your own consideration, not in the article), and consider the relevance of the principles such as WP:SYNC, WP:SS, WP:UNDUE etc in context before writing. Most importantly check this article's content against the content of related articles and try to use linking wherever that is possible instead of repetition of content. Eg if health-related issues already are discussed in a health-related article, then it is counter-productive in this general article, to do more than mentioning them here and supplying links no matter how ethically important and and practically urgent any such concept might be in its own right. JonRichfield (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "our friends...",ehem, meaning what, whom, JonRichfield ?--Wuerzele (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is a polite reference to all those who have commented above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Martin Hogbin was fully correct; I apologise to anyone who found the mode of expression uncomfortably obscure, or otherwise offensive. JonRichfield (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes but summary only Per Alexbrn comments above. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An overview of hydraulic fracturing and other formation stimulation technologies for shale gas production from the European Commission
There has been some discussion about approaching this topic from a more global perspective by including more non-US sources. Here is a comprehensive, accessible source of information on hydraulic fracturing and other formation stimulation technologies for shale gas production from the European Commission's perspective: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/an_overview_of_hydraulic_fracturing_and_other_stimulation_technologies_%282%29.pdf Stoney1976 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent regulations in the United States
Recently the information about the March 2015 regulations in the United States was added into this article. This information was already included in the Hydraulic fracturing in the United States article. Based on information added here, I moved the sentence about the used chemicals storage there. However, as this article deals with general information about HF and it is not the US nor regulations specific, this information suits better there and not in this article. Beagel (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is going to take a crack at inserting something here about Einhorn's critique of the valuation of the frackers? --Christofurio (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Epidemiological studies
Two new epidemiological studies found a connection between the proximity to fracking sites and effects on newborns: --Leyo 00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * J. A. Casey, D. A. Savitz, S. G. Rasmussen, E. L. Ogburn, J. Pollak, D. G. Mercer, B. S. Schwartz: Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Birth Outcomes in Pennsylvania, USA. Epidemiology 2015,,.
 * Shaina L. Stacy, LuAnn L. Brink, Jacob C. Larkin, Yoel Sadovsky, Bernard D. Goldstein, Bruce R. Pitt, Evelyn O. Talbott, Jaymie Meliker: Perinatal Outcomes and Unconventional Natural Gas Operations in Southwest Pennsylvania. PLOS ONE 10, 2015, S. e0126425,,.

I hate to sound harsh and do not question the increase heath risks around unconventional wells. But I do not believe this data was correlated to data from health risks from conventional wells. Thus these articles may not be supportive against hydraulic fracturing in particular, but could argue against oil production around people in general.

Proppant Tracking
There are some new non radioactive techniques for tracking proppant rather than the radioactive tracers. I have only heard about them in passing. I noticed that this article refers to it: http://www.epmag.com/proppant-tracking-technology-could-lead-production-growth-830176 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.208.116 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Drilling Rig Picture Doesn't Apply
I know the drilling rig is iconic when referring to oil production, but never will you find a full drilling rig like the one shown when a well is being hydraulically fractured. The closest situation I have seen is a work over rig (aka pulling unit) used to support a wire line crew, so the wire line crew can keep working without a crane in higher winds of West Texas. The latest boom has been a mixture of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing making formations economical which were once considered trash formations, but we are talking about techniques that are applied at different times in the life of a well. I know people commonly call hydraulic fracturing a well drilling process, but the earliest point in the life of well that it is hydraulically fractured is during the completion of a well. In other words the drilling left long before the the hydraulic fracturing crew arrives. Unless there is some new technique that I haven't heard of you will never see a hydraulic fracturing crew and a drilling rig on the same location. I have actually seen situations where they will shut down the hydraulic fracturing crew out of fear of the well communicating with a nearby well being drilled. In other words all this picture in this article does is drive confusion in the ill informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.208.116 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Hydraulic fracturing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131016032801/http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=PETSOC-98-71 to http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=PETSOC-98-71
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131005005046/http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00026582 to http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00026582
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120713171641/http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00012486 to http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00012486

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

— Gorthian (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fracturing Fluids Section Confusing
I have been a hydraulic fracturing engineer for almost a decade and to me that section is confusing, so I fear what it could be to someone who does not have a knowledge base. First, some of the information seems out of date, particularity the section that says 95% of fracture fluids are gels or crosslinked fluids. I have been on several months (dozens of wells) straight with the only fluids being used are water, propant, friction reducer (some type of polyacrylamide), and biocide (some type of anerobic). Ocassionally we still use gels and crosslinked fluids, but I question the study cited is still applicable to the current industry. The study is listed as 2005 to 2009 which is the time period the industry was also transitioning the type of wells it was drilling. The easiest place to see this was in the transition in the vertical drilling rigs to horizontal drilling rigs during this same period.

Horizontal Rig Percentage

Also the article is talking about the specific chemicals components used in a hydraulic fracturing process and fails to discuss the general classes of chemical mixtures used. The chemicals in the industry are classified based on their use. A good example is one chemical commonly referred to as a pH modifier or Buffer to adjust the pH of the fracturing fluid, so other chemicals which can only become active in a certain pH range can activate. Most crosslinked fluids require some type of buffer. There are other classes of chemicals and even some which can interact badly with others if not accounted for. Occasionally some chemicals may have additional chemicals mixed in like methanol is mixed in with some pH modifiers to allow it be liquid at lower temperatures, but this does not usually change the primary chemicals use. When we train engineers and fluid technicians we teach them for the categories and then get into the specifics of the individual chemicals not the other way around. I feel the current form of the article does nothing other than generate confusion by name dropping of specific chemicals rather than discuss the dynamics of the different classes of chemicals.

If anyone has any suggestions I am open to them. The problem I know I am going to run into is most hydraulic fracturing companies list their information as proprietary, so I would have a hard time citing the information that I can provide.

The defacto book for explaining the types of chemicals and how to validate the quality is "BJ Stimulation Engineering Support Manual" created in 1996. Almost every engineer or fluid technician (who really knows what they are doing) has either this book or a book that was plagiarized from this book. I have talked to people from both major service companies (Halliburton and Schlumberger) and minor service companies who have referenced this book as the goto book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.218.126 (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving incompletely sourced statement out of the article
added this paragraph today: "While hydraulic fracturing is a highly controversial topic, natural gas is a key aspect of the economy within the United States. As the demand for clean-burning fossil fuels increases, so does the economic benefit that results from hydraulic fracturing. As an increasing number of wells are drilled and fracked to meet the fuel demands of the United States, thousands of jobs become available that help to support struggling communities.  Federal and state governments also benefit from the increase in revenues that come from royalties of the oil and gas sales.  Over one million jobs were created by oil and gas in 2012, and because of the massive reserves of oil and natural gas in the US, this number could rise to nearly 2.5 million by 2035 (Suzuki 270)." There are several statements here that need to be sourced; unfortunately, the one source that is named is lacking any contextual information so that it could be tracked down. — Gorthian (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. And even if better sourced, this does not belong here but probably in the more specific articles Shale gas in the United States and Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)