Talk:Fracking in the United Kingdom

Vandalism
I reverted some vandalism. I think I got it all.Kennywpara (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed adjustment
There are two different intensities of hydraulic fracturing used by the oil & gas sector, which need clarification to take some of the "heat" out of the discussion. The first is restricted fracking, which has been used by the industry to repair formation damage around the wellbore to "reboot" buoyancy flow from conventional reservoirs. This has been done for around 70 years now without incident. The second is pervasive fracking, which is what generates all the excitement because it is much more invasive and is aimed at overcoming much stronger capillary forces characteristic of Unconventional (oil & gas) reservoir. I suggest using this distinction (restricted vs pervasive fracking) and integrating the The rise of unconventional reservoirs from the article on unconventional reservoirs into the history section of this article for clarity. Would anyone like to comment?Geneus01 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this article avoids looking at the full history of fracking by not referring to restricted or low-intensity (low-volume) hydraulic fracturing, which is used to restore buoyancy to conventional reservoirs following excessive mud invasion during the drilling process, versus pervasive or high intensity "massive" fracturing (high-volume), which is specifically to overcome capillary restrictions to flow dynamics. Whatever terminology you use, it should be to distinguish two separate activities for two different opportunity types with very different impacts on the environment.  It appears from this article that the authors are hiding behind decades of restricted fracking to disguise the consequences of pervasive fracturing, whereas in fact, you tar both with the same brush, limiting informed choice. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)