Talk:Shale gas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Shale gas is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Current price of gas?[edit]

The article refers several times to the "current higher price of gas." Natural gas prices have not been high for several years. These statements should be modified to say something like "when the price of natural gas is high..." Landroo (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Chemicals ?[edit]

Is there any additional information available about chemicals used fore exploration shale gas? There are many security concerns about this. (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference 19: minor error[edit]

19: Danny Fortson, "Shale gas blasts open world energy market", The Sunday Times, 1 November 2010.

Note that that date is currently in the future. The article is actually dated 1 November 2009, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeS LeCroy (talkcontribs) 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Impact[edit]

Special:Contributions/ zapped the Environment section because

somebody please make a revision here- the environment section was incredibly biased, citing assertions by un-reviewed academic papers and mere opinion. lets get it right!

I've reinstated what was there before because:

  1. Lazy editors get on my tits - if you don't like what's there then fix it.
  2. There is no rule that references have to be to "reviewed academic papers".

HughesJohn (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The environmental section was written by someone with absolutely no idea about geology or the earth's makeup. To call drilling fluids "produced water" is moronic. Produced waters come from formations themselves. The only way they can "contaminate groundwater" is if there is a release later at the surface. The depths that oil and gas wells are drilled at are far deeper than anything that has to do with groundwater. While problems with wells can create problems with groundwater, these have nothing to do with the drilling fluids used or "produced water." Read a book, learn something, then give a scientifically and industrially educated opinion.

JHend170 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhend170 (talkcontribs) 21:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


I'm not competent to edit this, but the map shows Brazil to have very large reserves, yet there is no discussion. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal[edit]

Right now, more than half of this article describes different shale gas activities in different countries which is unbalanced. As an umbrella article, this article should give an overview of history, geology, extraction methods, economics, reserves and environmental issues. Right now, there are sections about geology, environment and economics; however, all of these needs expansion and more work. Technology, excluding one short paragraph, is missing. There is also no sufficient overview of global resources as this information spread into country descriptions, which have different quality. I propose to have in this article a summary section about global resources and the current country description to split into separate article called Shale gas by country. Beagel (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The country-by-country descriptions should be preserved (or at least the descriptions that are well-sourced), but they are out of proportion to the size of the article. The proposed split would balance the article while preserving the country-by-country descriptions. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I will do it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Referenz No 1 does not longer work[edit]

Referenz 1 is dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to find an archived version of the article on the Wayback Machine and Webcite, but it wasn't on either one. For now, I'm just going to mark it as a dead link and see if someone else wants to work on it. If the article appeared in the print version of the Calgary Herald, that version could be used. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal resource[edit]

The Coal Age Nears Its End December 23, 2011 by Rebecca Smith, excerpt ...

Their owners cite a raft of new air-pollution regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, including a rule released Wednesday that limits mercury and other emissions, for the shut-downs. But energy experts say there is an even bigger reason coal plants are losing out: cheap and abundant natural gas, which is booming thanks to a surge in production from shale-rock formations in the U.S.

Note: accompanying image show burning natural-gas-plant in contrast coal-plant Byproducts on Average Emissions from the power plants in pounds per megawatt hour, such nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide; here is a related excerpt ...

Last July, the agency released its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which requires reductions of sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions in 23 Eastern and Midwestern states beginning next year, as well as seasonal ozone reductions in 28 states. (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"In some areas, shale intervals with high natural gamma radiation are the most productive"[edit]

This is more than citation needed. It does not even make sense. What is a shale interval? Where does this gamma reference come from? Mtpaley (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Overlapping with Hydraulic fracturing article[edit]

There seems to be some overlapping with the the Hydraulic fracturing article, e.g. concerning the environmental sections. For example, the earthquakes sections probably is related to the specific method called hydraulic fracturing and not the shale gas as a type of natural gas. It would be probably necessary to look environmental sections in this article and in the hydraulic fracturing article in complex and decide, which information suits better in which article to avoid unnecessary duplication and mixing the subjects. Beagel (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Really agree with these comments.Iztwoz (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Because "hydraulic fracturing" has become a sort of popular shorthand for environmental concerns associated with unconventional oil and gas, I suggest that the environmental section go to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, or to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States, as appropriate. Plazak (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Error in the Article[edit]

Total published estimates for UK shale gas resources by companies holding shale gas (Cuadrilla, Igas, Dart, Eden) drilling licenses are approximately cTemplate:Onvert.[46]

The sentence is nonsense and the next sentence is about the amount which is missing I think. I marked the wrong passage bold. Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Country Bias[edit]

Please remove the USA bias preferably), or move the article to the USA country page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The US-specific stuff should be moved. Plazak (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

UK report[edit]

Re: the BBC report (URL:, this is not *recoverable* shale gas, as per this article. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a fuller version of the story (URL:, however, again, not *recoverable* shale gas. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Let's wait until we get a better estimate of recoverable gas. The 130 TCF figure is based only on estimates by drillers, previous to the BGS report, that they might be able to recover 10%. Plazak (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


Fracking for shale gas was introduced as a way to get out the last bit of gas, in an economical way. However, since there is a much greater yearly production of organic waste, I was wondering whether biogas production wouldn't be more economical still ? It would be intresting to make an economic analysis of both so as to compare these. KVDP (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Shale gas by country- recommended changes[edit]

This is a hot topic, and should be free of unsubstantiated statements. Within the table (first table on page), suggest changing from estimated recoverable to the correct wording per EIA, "technically recoverable" which is explained in the reference EIA report. In this table I suggest deletion of gas reserves, as it is not part of the EIA report, may not be current and does not necessarily include reserves from gas shale projects within the country. Some countries may not be booking gas shale reserves, only resource estimates. Also, "date of information" should be deleted. A statement could be added that the EIA report was issued in July 2013. We don't know how old the EIA info is. Dblord (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed to "technically recoverable" and to "date of report", as you suggested. But I'm confused about your objections to List of countries by natural gas proven reserves, the source for the "Proven natural gas reserves" column, so didn't change those. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Advocacy tag still needed?[edit]

I've corrected or toned down the worst NPOV vios (that I saw), and added some balancing information. Article now seems reasonably balanced, imo. Note that I'm a geologist -- not an oil guy, but sympathetic to the industry. So editors with other viewpoints should check too. Do we still need the tag? You might ID what you see as problematic stuff.

Article is definitely a shining star compared to, forex, Hydraulic fracturing <G>. Now there's a can of worms.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire section The relative impacts of natural gas and coal is framed in a debating style, suggesting that environmentalists prefer coal mining to shale oil. That’s entirely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and smells like advocacy to me. The tag is definitely still required! ☸ Moilleadóir 03:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)