Talk:Fracking in the United Kingdom

Chemtrust removal

I removed a link for this as this is an anti piece from a long standing author of this type of rhetoric. It does not stand up to scrutiny in the UK context, which is why it received such a panning from UKOOG. UKOOG do work with this stuff on a day to day basis and so know the law and requirements. http://www.ukoog.org.uk/about-ukoog/press-releases/151-ukoog-response-to-chemtrust-report-on-fracking Kennywpara (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC) The piece about EU is fine, as it is an impeccable source. This is 18+ months old and there are various groups looking into this so when those conclusions are reached that would be appropriate for an update.Kennywpara (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I understand why this page is essentially just a piece promoting the UK fracking industry trade association (UKOOG) line! Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the debate, not shut it down. The UKOOG response to the CHEM Trust report has been challenged by CHEM Trust; I will now insert this discussion into the article.Mwarhurst1 (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Its supposed to be about the science of the technology. The Chemtrust piece is an advocacy publication. It takes no account of UK regulation, and was written by Dr Michael Warhurst who is a long term senior Friends of the Earth campaigner. Nothing wrong with that but putting this in the body of the article is inappropriate. There should not be debate about the science of fracking. The claims that Chemtrust make were reported in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/11692505/Anti-fracking-report-cited-by-Andy-Burnham-was-based-on-scare-stories.html

It is factually incorrect to state that the CHEM Trust analysis does not consider UK regulation, see pages 27-35 of the full report, as has been pointed out to UKOOG several times; I don't have time at the moment to go through the rest of the inaccuracies in this, the detail is on the CHEM Trust blog. It seems that Kennywpara is very keen on defending fracking, but his user page has no information on his affiliation. For example, he could be Ken Cronin, Chief Executive, UKOOG (United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas), but if he is then surely this should be declared as a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Mwarhurst1 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to take this as anything other than an advocacy publication when there is reference to chemicals that will not be permitted in the UK. Please see the links on 'Chemicals permitted...chapter. Companies have to follow the law, both UK and EU and that is administered by the EA. Chemtrust state 'The current regulations allow companies to conceal the identity of chemicals if they can argue that they are commercially confidential'. This runs counter to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277211/Water.pdf which states ' 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' Commercial sensitivity to me means concentration. The nature of the chemical cannot be concealed.

Please see the bits about the Jagdag list, which is in fact being updated to include chemicals that can be used for HF. Companies cannot hide from this, as all correspondence is open to FOE claims. The idea that these chemicals would be used secretly is fanciful, yet that is what Chemtrust seems to imply.

This is perfectly acceptable in the 'fracking debate' section with suitable warnings about its content. Kennywpara (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The penny has dropped, you are the author of the Chemtrust report. As for who I am, I will add a piece later today. My motivation on this is presentation of proper data to the public, as a graduate engineer with 12 years as a senior engineer. I was shocked at the level of disinformation, of which Chemtrust is a part. Reading what is there it does simply report the publication of this deeply flawed report. Its difficult to see how wildlife and people can be harmed when the fluid security is tight, and the chemicals are non hazardous and public, and the concentraions are very low even when they go in the well. That hasnt even happened in the US where they can use nasty chems. Pollution incidents there have all been due to the poor fluid handling regs/accidents/open fluid pits/unlined pits/truck accidents etc But then you consider fracking is all of the process?? Er... fracking is a small part of a process called drilling. That is ignoring the fact that once the chems are pumped deep down, there is no evidence that they have ever risen to pollute aquifers, (except possibly in very shallow fracking in Pavilion Wyoming). Thats why as you will see the resources that make this page are properly independent ones, like RAE HPE Scottish Govt etc etc. They find there are risks, but these are all manageable with proper regulation and engineering. That is what is happening. The extent of what the companies have to do to satisfy the EA is massive. You seem to be wanting to present a case that fracking is risky, when there is no evidence that it is. That is fundamentally disingenuous. Kennywpara (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Kennywpara (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

After reading through the talk page archives, and page statistics, I am concerned that a large number of non-minor edits have been made by at least one editor with an (as yet) undisclosed (on their userpage) connection to the subject. By connection, I mean they are actively employed in the unconventional oil and gas [UOG] industry, by a company who is actively involved in the extraction of onshore UOG using massive hydraulic fracturing.

It is not possible to mention this editor by name WP:OUTING as, to the best of my knowledge, they have not publicly disclosed their identity or potential WP:COI on their own user/talk pages WP:COIDEC or at the COI Noticeboard or on this talk page.

I would like to remind all editors of this page that:

The COI guideline advises:

"If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection."

and If their Wikipedia edits are seen

"to advance your client's or employer's interests, then you stand in a conflict of interest and should not edit affected articles directly, with or without disclosure."

(Please refer to WP:COI)

The reasons for declaring COI on user_page, user_talk, and articles' talk pages are twofold. Lack of transparency leads to loss of confidence and trust in the information viewed by Wikipedians and casual browsers for any of the subject_pages, especially where an COI editor's contributions go beyond correcting typos.

Very importantly, please also note, that:

Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgement about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.[4] COI is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge."

(Please refer to WP:COINOTBIAS

If any editors who are experienced in these matters would please contribute to the discussion, I would be very grateful. It will take some time to sift through past contributions & other articles within this topic, so in the meantime I will tag a COI notice to this subject page and a Connected contributor tag to this talk page. As the COI has not been declared, I am leaving the usernames blank until such time as they follow policy. (Please also read Advice for editors with COI) Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for the comments, Luther. The subject of Hydraulic Fracturing is full of difficulties, due to the unreliability of so much of what one reads. There are sometimes difficulties as with the Chemtrust issue.

In terms of COI, I have none. 27 years ago I worked in the industry, and as my profile describes, I became my company's most senior technical graduate engineer. That gives me an insight into how wells work. After many years of teaching Physics I am now retired. I began to ask questions to many who were in opposition, and found that there were many misunderstandings in science, and in regulation. I started to look through the regulatory processes and found them to be thorough, yet many say there are there are none. The original page that I found lacked information, and also had much unsourced or unreliable links and information. Over a period of months I researched different aspects of the technology and learned much. I quizzed the regulators, and included their information. I contacted one operator and UKOOG to clarify points I did not understand. I read reliable publications from bodies such as the Royal Academy of Engineering, ReFine, CIWEM, the British Geological Survey and many Government publications. I also was in contact with some researchers who also provided expert assistance. With regard to the Chemtrust issue, it is interesting that the experts in the area of UK public health, namely 'Public Health England',have few issues with fracking, describing it as a well established and easily regulated industry that presents 'low risks' to the public, ie. its safe.

My sole motivation has been to provide an authoritative and balanced presentation of the science of hydraulic fracturing. In the fracking debate, that is sorely needed. Too often the claims made by opposition groups have no basis in fact, when looked at by specialists.

There have been attempts at vandalism and there are several who jump in to correct or revert changes. There has also been robust debate in the archived talk, which you are welcome to look at.

I did not realise that being a single issue editor was an issue. I would only edit on matters I understand!

Ken Wilkinson (my real name)

Hi Kennywpara,

Thank you for your response. There aren't necessarily any issues with being a single-purpose account WP:SPA as long as Wikipedia:Advocacy doesn't get in the way. There are many positives to being an WP:SPA (in-depth knowledge, career-linked expertise), and one only needs to ensure neutrality WP:NPOV and be mindful of WP:ADVOCACY, however passionate you feel about the subject, to avoid the negatives.

In order to provide balance, this means striving for "high-quality, neutral verifiable articles", and graciously hearing from all sides (reports, criticisms, responses, more reports - I'm sure you're aware of how it all works!). So, and probably ChemTrust is as good an example as any: ChemTrust issued a report; UKOOG took issue with ChemTrust's report, and published its criticisms; ChemTrust then published its response to UKOOG criticisms.

As an interested party, I want to hear what all reliable sources have to say (see WP:VER. It would be unbalanced to say there are issues only with ChemTrust's report. ChemtTrust, as I understand it, are not an anti-fracking group. They are a charity with reputable scientists & researchers and and their sole concern is the effect that certain chemicals/emissions have upon biological health of humans and animals. UKOOG are an industry group who represent all onshore oil and gas industries at all levels. As far as I'm aware, both groups seek to have their concerns heard at all levels from policy makers through to the public. (See WP:WEIGHT)

With regards to the government agency, Public Health England (PHE), you're not the only person to have found their responses interesting'. I'm not sure if you are aware of the various criticisms of PHE since its creation; briefly listed in the British Medical Journal:

"PHE has been embroiled in a series of controversies about the quality and credibility of advice it has issued on topics including fracking, NHS health checks, and the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, raising concerns about both its competence and its supposed independence".

With that in mind, you will, I hope, excuse me if I avoiding concluding that the phrase 'low risk' is the same as 'safe', or viewing PHE as a sole authority on matters of public health.

I agree that quality sources are imperative. The best approach laid out in WP:VER:

When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

Weasel words

For example, your use of the negatively loaded 'Too often' is not WP:NPOV - 'Some of the' would have been more neutral, and would have avoided coming across as WP:Advocacy to other editors, but even then, you would have needed to back your claim up, or else WP:WEASEL. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading through your comments again Luther, you appear to have made an assumption that I have a COI. That appears a little presumptuous of you.

Perhaps I could make it 100% clear. I have no interest, financial or otherwise, where I would benefit from the writing I have done. With my background, I find myself in a position where I can contribute to informed debate, to cut through some of the nonsense. I am pro fact, rather than pro industry' Ken W Kennywpara (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello kennywapara. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I'd like to clarify that I'm making no assumptions that you have undeclared WP:COI or WP:FCOI. Your assumption that I have made an assumption that you have a COI, when this was clearly not the case in the note I left regarding your lack of WP:Civility, tendentious editing and WP:SPA on your talk page. It's best to WP:AGF in these matters. Care in the areas of neutrality and advocacy policies ought to help avoid situations like the one in 'Chemtrust removal'. In the heated discussion between you and User:Mwarhurst1 above, a concern with WP:COI developed after your WP:TE removed a link and the ensuing discussion on this talk page was far from civil. To reiterate, IF, as I said in my note to you on your talk page, you have any concerns about conflict of interest, then is best to discuss them here on the talk page first. There are clear policies regarding WP:COI and WP:FCOI which I've outlined above, and all editors who have a COI must declare as per WP:COIDEC. If this situation cannot be resolved here on the talk page, there will definitely be a need to involve the community in it's resolution. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, You wrote:

In the fracking debate, that is sorely needed. Too often the claims made by opposition groups have no basis in fact, when looked at by specialists.

This isn't a fracking debate. It's an encyclopaedic page on Hydraulic Fracturing in the United Kingdom. It's also not a place for factionalism, however controversial this topic is in the public arena. Please re-read WP:ADVOCACY:

Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Cooperate with other editors to neutrally summarize notable topics using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to minority views.

. Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We should of course stick to well sourced statements. We are not part of the debate, but the article (and its sources) will be used in the debate. I have been accused of COI on a number of occasions when contributing to various HF articles, based on the fact that I work in the hydrocarbon exploration industry (although I have never been involved with HF) - being knowledgeable doesn't make someone biased (it might do, but to show that you need evidence). Leaping in with accusations of COI is not particularly helpful, instead I suggest concrete proposals for improving the article. Mikenorton (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike, articulating a concern about the accusations of advocacy and conflict of interest within the discussion Chemtrust removal of this talk page and reminding editors of good practices, isn't "leaping in with accusations of COI'. Whilst an editor is supposed to declare such things; most don't bother. I agree that being knowledgeable doesn't necessarily make someone biased, and that too is mentioned above:

Very importantly, please also note, that:

Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgement about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.[4] COI is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge."

(Please refer to WP:COINOTBIAS)

I'm very interested to hear your concrete proposals for improving the article. Are you going to start a new thread on this? Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant of course that I suggest that you come up with concrete proposals, as you seem to think that the article, as it is, has a problem. Mikenorton (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mikenorton, Thank you for your response. This process has now begun. Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of COI notice

Hello Mikenorton, I noticed you removed the COI notice without discussion first. I've undone your removal. Please would you discuss your reasoning for removing the notice. I have now discovered that the editor has declared a COI (once, perhaps twice, one openly, one possible cryptic), but not with WP:COIDEC on their user page, or on this talk page, or on the other pages which they have extensively edited. I believe it is important to give some time for this editor to decide how they will approach their COI in a more transparent manner.

IF they do not voluntarily declare COI/FCOI in the manner of WP:COIDEC:

If you become involved in an article where you have a general COI (including a financial COI) that does not involve being paid to edit Wikipedia, place the {{connected contributor}} template at the top of affected talk pages. Fill it in as follows, and save:

Example

For a COI editor's talk-page declaration, see:
Talk:Steve Jobs.

{{Connected contributor|User1=Your username |U1-declared=yes| |U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}

THEN I will ask for help from the community for the best way to approach them, after this initial appeal to their good nature to follow wikipedia policy, since it may have been an oversight on their part. WP:AGF.

In the meantime, I ask that you read this: Why is conflict of interest a problem. Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I read the documentation for the template that you used and that states "Use the template when dealing with an editor who has an actual conflict of interest, not merely a potential conflict of interest". You have not demonstrated that any of the contributors have an actual COI, so the template is inappropriate. It is insufficient for you to just say that they have a COI, whoever they are. Looking at WP:COIN I noticed this: "1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}," - you're acting as if such a consensus already exists. Mikenorton (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mikenorton, Thanks for your response. This editor has declared a COI, but not on this talk page, and not on their user page. I use the term 'potential' in order not to be absolutist about this, and I began the discussion here, hoping for constructive input from other editors of this page. I'm not acting as if any consensus exists. The COI was made by an editor, and they haven't followed WP:COIDEC. If no consensus can be reached on this page, then we can take it to WP:COIN, which I see as a last resort. It seemed best to discuss openly here first, then if no consensus can be attained progress to WP:COIN. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I also am confused by the COI notice. In the above writing LutherBlissetts you have stated "I am concerned that a large number of non-minor edits have been made by at least one editor with an (as yet) undisclosed (on their userpage) connection to the subject. By connection, I mean they are actively employed in the unconventional oil and gas [UOG] industry, by a company who is actively involved in the extraction of onshore UOG using massive hydraulic fracturing."

I stated that I have no such COI, and you then replied with "I'd like to clarify that I'm making no assumptions that you have undeclared WP:COI or WP:FCOI. Your assumption that I have made an assumption that you have a COI, when this was clearly not the case in the note I left regarding your lack of WP:Civility, tendentious editing and WP:SPA on your talk page."

In spite my reply, and the comments by Mikenorton you still wish to continue with a COI tag on the page. That I find confusing. This seems to suggest that you still beleive that there is some form of COI.

You have also stated "I have now discovered that the editor has declared a COI (once, perhaps twice, one openly, one possible cryptic), but not with WP:COIDEC on their user page, or on this talk page, or on the other pages which they have extensively edited. I believe it is important to give some time for this editor to decide how they will approach their COI in a more transparent manner." I assume you mean me? I do not understand this. It again seems to infer that I am rewarded in some way for the attempts I make to produce a balanced and engineering based comment on fracking. What about the assumption of good faith. If I have misunderstood this then could you please explain.

As for the issues of PHE as reported by the BMJ, I was unaware of that criticism. PHE are a statutory consultee in all drilling planning applications, and it is difficult to see how their role can be underestimated as the arbiter of public health. If there is any substantive criticism of their role regarding this then I would welcome reliably evidenced editing. I do know that there has been criticism from some BMJ members of fracking, however, there still remains the problem of finding a negative health impact from the technology. Much of this the BMJ opinion based on the Medact report, which reported on hundreds of peer reviewed papers that raised alarm. I am unaware of any lawsuit based on poisoning in the US due to fracking. Indeed recent studies show that health has improved as the usage of coal for generation of electricity has been reduced, and replaced with clean burning gas. See http://www.health.pa.gov/My%20Health/Diseases%20and%20Conditions/A-D/Asthma/Documents/2015%20PENNSYLVANIA%20ASTHMA%20FOCUS%20REPORT%202009-2013%20INPATIENT%20%20HOSPITALIZATIONS%20WITH%20ASTHMA%20AS%20THE%20PRIMARY%20DISCHARGE%20DIAGNOSIS.pdf

As for the use of the word 'low risk' it is used synonymously as 'safe' by engineers when they want to be cautious. It is 'low risk' that I will be hit by a plane while typing this. It is not 'zero risk' as the surviving residents of Lockerbie would testify. Mitigation of risk is a basic engineering process. Along with Mike Norton I am confused as to why this page is perceived to have a problem, and also as to what 'needs to be done' Kennywpara (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara. Thank you for your response. You are mistakenly assuming that I'm talking about you. Hope that is clear to you now. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case I am completely confused, as the main contributor has been me, as the history shows. Mikenorton has mainly reverted vandalism, or links to antifrack literature, which does meet the standard expected in an encyclopedia. He has beaten me to it generally! He has also added internal Wiki links and corrected me a couple of times on basic items of grammar or spelling. Its difficult to see how that makes him a 'major contributor'. Looking back over the past year I do not think he has written anything substantial, but his contribution in policing the site has been very helpful. A such it seems logically unsustainable to have the site with its 'warning' attached. Kennywpara (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Kennywpara. Thank you for your response. I never mentioned "main contributor". I mention someone who declared a WP:COI, but hasn't attached the {{connected contributor}} to this (or any of the pages/talk pages) which they edit r indeed, followed good practices for WP:COI/WP:FCOI. I hope that is clearer to you now. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have become more concerned as I now see that LutherBlissetts uses twitter, and retweets under that name a lot of material pertaining to fracking. A quick look at this shows that it is precisely the type of material that should not appear on a reputable publication such as Wikipedia about fracking in the UK. This includes comments about US frack water waste disposal. (Covered under licence by the responsible body, the Environment Agency) and other practices not proposed in the UK. The material retweeted is poorly sourced, and as such it would appear that rather than acting as a neutral observer, I suspect that the motive is to undermine what has been a stable and rarely challenged scientific resource. As such I feel that further editorial input is needed. I propose to revert the citation in 24 hours as I suspect this is a subtle form of vandalism. So far I have seen no attempt to propose improvements, no indication of what the issue is in terms of NPOV, and no rationale or evidence about the motives of the supposed 'major contributor' with a COI. Please supply the evidence and proposals for improvement. Kennywpara (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara. If you have a problem with my edits to this page, please discuss them in a civilised manner. I have not made any real or subtle vandalisms on wikipedia. I have no idea which citation you are proposing to revert in 24 hours. I have no motive or desire to undermine wikipedia articles. I also don't believe it's appropriate to postulate about the motives of a person who doesn't declare their COI/FCOI openly on wikipedia - COI does not infer bias. WP:COINOTBIAS - it is about relationships.
If you'd like to begin contribute to a discussion about how this article can be improved, then, as I already said to Mikenorton who also suggested I begin such a discussion, then please begin one. I will gladly contribute to it. Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear ALL, I will begin a discussion on how this article can be improved next week, no later than Tuesday 30 August 2016. Please do not remove the COI notice until after the article has been cleaned up with input from all editors and we're all happy with the outcome. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

On reflection, and reading about how and when a COI tag should be removed, I fail to see why it needs 24hrs. LutherBlissetts has failed to provide a rational for the tag, for the reasons above. To quote the Wiki page on this If the maintenance template is not fully supported. Some neutrality tags, such as Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral point of view (POV), require the tagging editor to initiate a dialogue (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed.Kennywpara (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara. Thank you for your comment. I have provided a rationale for the tag, and I have initiated an initial dialogue on the article talk page. This discussion is not dormant. The template may not yet be removed. I have not tagged the user, because they watch this page, and are aware of the dialogue. I am assuming good faith that this editor will declare WP:COIDEC. I would rather not initiate a WP:COIN. I am reinserting the tag. Please do not remove it until this article has been cleaned up as per the COI notice. Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

LutherBlissetts Twitter name is @(((LutherBlissett))) Please could editors check this ( I have a screenshot of many recent tweets if need be.) These indicate someone with a POV about fracking, in that they are against it. Many discredited studies are referred to. This POV means he is not a suitable person to be passing comments about the engineering and technical aspects as he does not appear to have looked at the authoritative expert opinion from the Royal Academy of Engineering, the BGS, PHE and other expert bodies. There is no indication that he has any technical expertise, necessary to critique this. Kennywpara (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara. There is no WP:OWN of this page and I ask that you please contribute to THIS discussion in a civil manner. If you hadn't removed a link to a report that another editor who had declared their COI on their talk page, using derogatory comments, accusations, and uncivil behaviour, then I wouldn't have examined the all contributions to this page and discovered that an editor of this page and numerous other pages related to hydraulic fracturing had declared a COI but not on this or any of the pages they edited where they have a COI. This is why I placed a COI tag on this page. I do not have an undeclared COI for this page or any page on hydraulic fracturing; I'm not an advocate, or an WP:SPA, and I strive to have a NPOV when editing wikipedia. I hope you will cease uncivil behaviour towards myself and other editors on this article, and I hope other editors will get involved and help to tidy up this article. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Luther Blissetts To summarise, there is a 'major contributor' with a non disclosed COI, but it is not me. It is not Mikenorton either, as he has declared his interests. I have been the main content writer of this page over the last 2 years, and looking through the edits from others,they have been largely editing date formats, spelling errors, and minor discussion issues. You have reported 'a large number of non-minor edits' from someone, yet I cannot find anyone who fits that description. You say you are not able to say who this person is, and they have to declare it themselves. On the basis of that you (a single editor) assume the right to tag this page (I used the word citation) to imply it may be industry sponsored. If I question your logic, you imply I am not being polite. Writing directly is not impolite. Asking for justification is not a matter of politeness. It is a matter of evidence. So far I have not seen any, and would respectfully ask you to provide it. Kennywpara (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara, The application of a COI tag to an article has nothing to do with any inference that an article. to quote you, "may be industry sponsored".

I explained clearly from the outset that COI/FCOI is about relationships. Yes, I absolutely believe it is best this user declares COI themselves. I am not going to WP:OUT them because there is a link between their username and their real name. I am not going to initiate a WP:COIN because the article talk page is the best place to discuss. I'm sorry to say that you have been rather impolite. UPDATE: Since you removed the COI tag again, the COI editor has declared their COI to you. Their declaration is still not in accordance with WP:COIDEC, but it is their second declaration for a second article under the same umbrella topic. They have made it clear to you that they do not wish to become involved in this discussion because of their COI. The tag ought not to have been removed by you based on your disagreement with its presence. Your WP:TE removal of a summary of the earthquake/wellbore deformation in the lead as 'scaremongering' is not WP:NPOV, and goes beyond any positives that WP:SPA can bring, straying into the realm of gatekeeping/ownership and activism. You have years of activism and campaigning on this topic. What kind of fuss are you going to make when I cite your activism, using a reliable source, on the article's page? Is all hell going to break loose? Are you going to accused me of being an anti-fracking devil incarnate? I honestly believe your WP:SPA has strayed into WP:ADVOCACY which is a kind of WP:COI. I believe its affecting other editors' ability to contribute to this article (I'm not talking about blatent vandalism). You don't like the Chemtrust paper? Then add the UKOOG response, etc. The final mention of both in the article is NPOV, but your heated comments on the talk page came across as WP:SOAP.

I hope in future this article will be easier to edit, but it's possible that that your external-to-wikipedia advocacy is not conducive to making the clean up of this article an easy task. This was once a simpler article to read, but no longer. It needs a lot of editing to tidy up the referencing and give it some concrete structure. If you want to comment on any edit of mine, please use the section created for that purpose, rather than leaving it in an unrelated section. On that note, because the editor has declared as COI for this article, I am going back to editing the article, and placing a COI editnotice tag on this talk page. I am re-inserting the COI 'connected contributor' tag into the article until all the issues in the article have been gone through and addressed using the 'improve article' section in the talk page. This is not an overnight process, or a three day process. It will take some time, and hopefully other experienced non-involved editors will contribute. Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps after the posting above, you should review your own WP;NPOV. What happened to WP:AGF? and also WP:COOL? Kennywpara (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happened to WP:AGF?! Says the editor who didn't when he mentioned my twitter account. Perhaps it could be restored by your voluntary removal. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You may have noticed in the seismic section that I have fully documented a potentially negative minor risk of fracking, namely, induced seimicity. There are also other references, written by me, about a suspect well design in Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Well_leak_concerns, and also the conflicts of interest section Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Conflicts_of_interest. This was submitted by someone in an inappropriate place, so I placed it in a section by itself. Someone not compliant with WP:NPOV could easily have deleted it, but I felt that would be wrong. I also documented the serious damage, earthquakes, property damage and evasion by gas producers in the Groningen field. Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Subsidence It terms of my 'activism' I only campaign for truth. I see daily, accurate science being ignored or misunderstood by some in the activist community. I have challenged many publications and all have withdrawn their claims. I am simply someone with a keyboard, yet Breast Cancer UK, RAFF, Frack Free Somerset, and others all withdrew their claims. What does that say about their science? They were unable to sustain their claims. It is something that Jimmy Wales would applaud. False science or hysterical claims must not appear in this wiki page. As someone with a technical background, experience with well maintainance and repair at a senior level, and who is financially completely independent, I am in a good place to contribute. I also have the time. I do not back fracking, I back accurate science that allows people to learn about what fracking involves so they can make an informed opinion. That is 100% compliant with the Wiki ideals. As such I am happy for a review of some of the links, (I know some have expired) but this page has seen little challenge, except for the occasional comment on syntax and citation style. I would strongly challenge any attempt to fill this with poorly sourced, unscientific activist material, There is a reason that almost every competent scientific body find little to concern them . Kennywpara (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned about the way that the editor Kennywpara is attacking the other editor LutherBlissets on the basis of his holding an alleged partisan point of view. Kennywpara is publicly and widely recognised as a vocal advocate for fracking, who therefore clearly has a POV about fracking, in that they are for it. Kennywpara is, however, by his own admission "not an expert" (see https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/this-house-calls-for-an-immediate-end-to-fracking-in-the-uk-tickets-27521821509) and there is no indication that he has any technical expertise necessary to critique other editors. Indeed his attempt to have a commentator on fracking (with whom he disagreed) sanctioned by the IET has this week been dismissed unreservedly. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that "If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest". Kennywpara is clearly involved in a campaign to promote fracking as his admission of multiple applications to the Advertising Standards Authority, his complaint to the IET and frequent comments on newspaper articles and social media (esp Twitter and Facebook) all attest. It is clear therefore that he himself is editing in conflict with Wikipedia's published guidelines unless this interest is clearly declared. WP:COIRefracktion (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

COI tag (again)

The documentation for the COI template added to this article states "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement". You haven't demonstrated that that is the case for this article - please do so or remove the template. Mikenorton (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and have asked LutherBlissetts to justify this tag. He has failed to do so. I will revert it. I am concerned that this user is not following Wiki protocols on getting concensus for his edits. I am also concerned about his minor edit of the lead, and would appreciate your comments Mikenorton So far he has had none. I am looking into this as to how to proceed. Please DO NOT REVERT THIS LutherBlissetts Kennywpara (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Kennywpara and User:Mikenorton,

Please [not remove the template].

A template should not be removed if any of the following applies:

• When the issue has not yet been resolved;
• When there is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue;
• When you do not understand the issues raised by the template;
• When you simply disagree with the template (seek consensus first);
• You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest.

As for my minor edit of the lead, which you removed twice, citing 'scaremongering', that is probably better discussed in the subsection for 'Lead' in the article improvement section. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

COI declared

The editor has now declared they have a COI, and has expressed their desire to stay away from this article and its talk page. They have in the past been responsible for a majority of non-minor edits, which I have not yet had a chance to completely check through. This same editor has declared a COI for another article in the same umbrella topic Hydraulic Fracturing and appears to be exercising a similar restraint over their involvement. I have not checked through all their edits for that page either. Since this editor chose a name which links them to the world outside wikipedia, they must not be outed (please see WP:OUT). Please respect this wikipedia policy.

I have placed a COI tag which explains the process for editing this article after a declared COI. Please DO NOT remove this tag. ) 16:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please make a link to or provide diffs of the COI declaration about this article? If I read the declaration at the User:Kennywpara page, I don't see any COI in regard to hydraulic fracturing in general or in the UK in particular. Also in this statement the editor in question says that they don't have any COI. If you think that there is a COI-issue which could be not resolved at this talk page, it could be listed at the relevant notice board. Beagel (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Beagel. This isn't about Kennywpara. The editor has used a name which could identify them in the real world. It is forbidden (strongly forbidden) to WP:OUT, even during WP:COI. The editor has declared a COI, but not in accordance with WP:COIDEC. At this point, after a clear declaration re. this article, I am not going to force the issue further. We're in the process of a big tidy up of the article, which ought to pick up any NPOV that may have inherently (because invariably, as mentioned in WP:COI, having a COI does affect NPOV) affected this article. Hope that clarifies the issue. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@LutherBlissetts: If you make COI claims, you have to indicate clearly who you are taking about. If that person uses their their real name as a wiki usernamename, it is not outing to mention their username. You have to use also {{Connected contributor}} at the top part of the page (with all necessary details, please see the template's documentation. And if the COI declaration was made in Wikipedia (article's talk page, user page, notice board page), this declaration should be also linked in the template. If you are not going mention the username of this editor, you better to strike through all your posting under this section. My apologies to Kennywpara but this thread makes an impression that you are talking about Kennywpara. Beagel (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beagle: Thank you for telling me it's not outing to mention their username. I thought it might be. I will reinsert (for the nth time) the connected contributor template. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please provide the link or diffs (in Wikipedia, of course) of the COI declaration? Beagel (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. In the manner of the Steve Jobs' talk page, I will do just that. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I also am very confused, now I understand who is being discussed Luther Blissetts (talk Beagel (talk. I looked through the history of contributions on this page and see that these are all syntax of dates (one of my VERY weak points) and other minor editing issues. As such, I am not aware of any contentious edits made by this person. It would appear that the person in question has taken an interest in this page, BUT used their awareness of COI to avoid any issues, by not making significant contributions. That means I see no reason at all for the COI tag. It should not reappear. Kennywpara (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara. I'm sorry you are still confused, however it is clearly stated in the various links that I have given to you that being confused is not a reason to remove the COI template/notice. We're not talking about you or this editors relationship to you. We're talking about their COI/FCOI relationship to the subject of this article. You have mischaracterised this editor's contributions. They were editing articles on this article and creating articles in its umbrella topic long before you joined wikipedia. Whilst it's important to assume good faith, and whilst COI doesn't infer NPOV, this editor has stated that their COI means they can't be involved in this page any longer. They are an invaluable contributor on a variety of other topics, but for them to continue editing here (a page created by a sockpuppet) without going through the proper procedure is detrimental. I'm sorry Kennywpara, but you cannot speak for this user. They have made significant contributions to this and other articles where they have COI that go way beyond syntax and fixing links.

I haven't replaced the COI connected contributor for the article itself - yet. I am open to suggestions for an alternative for the article page.

Please DO NOT remove the COI notice at the top of this talk page. This provides the correct procedure to follow for declared COI editors who wish to contribute to this article. Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue with the tag on the talk page. It probably should be there anyway. I cannot see any major issues with the supposed COI editor. Looking back way further a lot of that stuff has been subsequently removed or was purely factual anyway. They have not made any major changes that I have seen for at least 2 years. Kennywpara (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara, COI is not supposed when it's been declared. Yes; a focus on editing patterns is key. That said, we have a whole topic in which to discuss and implement revisions to the article. Focusing on the article as it stands today, I'm looking at suitable cleanup tags for the main article page and leaning towards the 'requires attention' tag which invites editors to read this talk page first before editing the article. It's a 'catch-all' description. Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As there is clarity about the COI editor, the {{connected contributor}} tags is added and there is no more suspected COI-editors, I propose to remove "Individuals with a conflict of interest" warning tag. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Beagel:, We don't remove a COI connected contributor 'tag' or the COI editnotice just because a COI has been declared and you believe there are no more suspected COI-editors. These are permanent notices. It is wikipedia policy to include both the COI connected contributor tag and the edit notice on the associated talk page. We can't propose to remove them for reasons of 'clarity' (that would defeat their purpose - if they weren't there, there wouldn't be clarity any longer). Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Luther Blissetts: I did not propose remove {{connected contributor}} template. However, your own created warning tag is not justified as there is no suspected COI editing after you added user:Plazak to the {{connected contributor}} template. Any warning tag should be used when there is potential risk of misuse wiki policies, not just in the case. Beagel (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Discuss improvements to article

This discussion has been opened to improve the article on all levels, from WP:NPOV to ensuring it's an easier read to someone without technical knowledge of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom and all the issues involved. I aim to start off with some simple things first. I think a subheading for each task and a committment to actioning the proposed solution seems a good way forwards. Any suggestions can then be raised within that subsection. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Where are there issues of WP:NPOV? If there are any please feel free to edit them with appropriate reliable scientific evidence. HF in the UK and its regulation is a technical subject. Kennywpara (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Kennywpara. I will feel free to edit with reliably source verifiable scientific evidence. I don't have a problem with technical subjects, having two science degrees under my belt. This might be a technical subject, but that doesn't mean it can't made more accessible to a non-technical person. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

64 instances of 'this'

I counted 64 instances of the use of 'this' in the text. I intend to go through the article and alter the wording to reduce that count. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is the use of the word 'this' a problem? Its one of the most common words in English Kennywpara (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara, Would you find it useful if I showed you an example, and a proposed fix? Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance tags: When, by whom, and citation needed

As I work my way through this article focusing on 'this' (see above), if I come across any sentences that require a citation, or provision of clarity as to whom and when the statement was made, I will tag them. The aim is to aid myself and other editors to add the required information at a later date. These can be removed once the provisions have been made. To add these notes, just type: {{citation needed}} and {{when}}. The citation tag can also be abbreviated to 'cn' instead of writing out 'citation needed'. If it's not clear who is saying what, then just replace 'when' with 'whom' or 'by whom', using the same coding. If you forget to date these (sometimes I forget), a handy bot will be along shortly after your maintenance tag to tidy them up. Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

History

One reference, name="PI 07Jul2011">{cite news |url=http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/30348/igas-energy-starts-construction-at-doe-green-3-site-well-to-spud-mid-july-30348.html |title=Igas Energy starts construction at Doe Green 3 site, well to spud mid-July |author=Andre Lamberti |date=7 July 2011 |agency=Proactiveinvestors |accessdate=29 February 2012} was included in the history of HF in the UK and describes IGas' intent to drill a new (CBM) well at Doe Green. I tried searching for another reliable secondary source but all I can find is that in 2015 IGas have said that HF has not been used at Doe Green:

"We are not fracking at Doe Green and none of the wells that currently produce gas from the coal seams have actually been fracked."

. Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Seismic events

Improving the section

First, I am going to reorder the existing text so that it reads in chronological order.Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the 2014 paragraph to sit above the 2015 paragraph, and added maintenance tags. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that there is no mention of the deformation in the Preese Hall well. I'm going to add this next. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I have noticed that there seems to be a mention of the well deformation in section History and partially in The 'Fracking' Debate, under Preese Hall #1. I'll abstain from adding to the well deformation info until I'm sure about where in the article the information ought to go Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding the seismicity section to be a laborious read. It jumps from overall information on seismicity to UK specific, then back again. I'm going to reorder this to present general info first, then specific to UK at Preese Hall second, by creating a subsection. Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection if the three videos are moved to an external link section? Perhaps with a subsection entitled 'Videos'? Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Luther Blissetts Please see the comments on editing other peoples work below on Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Editing_comments It is important to get consensus for major changes, something that has been missing so far. Kennywpara (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara, That link leads to a section about the comments made on the talk page (e.g., my adding indents to comments from another editor so I can read another user's response more clearly). It is not about editing the article. The purpose of article editing is to edit the edits of other editors. Please could you clarify; was that an objection, or an approval? Please see the flowchart on including videos.

A simplified flow chart of questions uploaders should consider (click to expand)

The information in the videos needs summarising in the article as it is unclear to the reader what their purpose is or why they would benefit from viewing them. I have already maintenance tagged them accordingly. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not great at some of the IT aspects of Wikipedia Luther Blissetts and have been a little out of practice. I am clear, edits on this page should not be made by others. I am also clear about the general principles of Wikipedia. They are common sense to me, and I have plenty of that. The graphic is useful, but again, common sense. Re the videos, they are relevant and informative. People would want to know what they contain, if they are concerned about the negligable risk from seismicity for example. There are several useful videos on the ReFine and BGS websites from proper experts. I will start to put these on. They are not 'promotional', they are relevant and expert. Kennywpara (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed this in-depth disussion on non-UK seismicity from Seismicity section, which was summarised in the paragraph above it. Not sure if it's been used in any related article on hydraulic fracturing/seismicity, so I'm preserving it here, for posterity.

The M 4.8 Alberta event lead to the suspension of operations by the regulator. It was reported that there had been many events up to M 3 in 2015. In British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission reported that a 4.6-magnitude earthquake in northeastern British Columbia has been linked to the largest earthquake in the province that’s already been attributed to fracking – a 4.4-magnitude earthquake that was felt in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson in August 2014.

Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed "seismic events relating to water disposal wells in the US" from the subsection on seismicity. We don't have water disposal wells in the UK. I have preserved the text below, in case it belongs in another article:

Mentioned on Flowback Fluid above, seismic events with the potential to initiate damage (up to M 5.6) have been associated with some water disposal wells in the US. This is often attributed to flowback water from fracking. "Thousands of disposal wells operate aseismically, four of the highest-rate wells are capable of inducing 20% of 2008 to 2013 central U.S. seismicity"

Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I removed the edit about the 'earthquakes', the casing deformation and the link to the 50 'seismic events' as this is the type of scaremongering that is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, especially in the introduction. This is covered later in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Seismicity_.28Earthquake_Risk.29 The casing deformation of 0.1 inch is not an issue in terms of well integrity, and as such not an issue. The casing was already perforated. Kennywpara (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara. The provision of factual information is not scaremongering. That earthquake was mentioned in the lead/lede. I simply provided the reasons why exploratory HVHF hydraulic fracturing ceased. The wellbore was deformed by the seismic events from 31 March 2011 to 1 April 2011. I see no reason why this ought not to be mentioned. It is a matter of fact. Of course the well casing is perforated. How else would fracturing fluid have entered the shale from the borehole. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Luther Blissetts I see that you reverted the edit that I made. I have changed it back. Please justify why you need to change what should be a BRIEF description of the process, with a couple of newspaper articles as evidence. The edit I made gave a govt link to the results of the extensive research that was done on the issue. It explained the modifications made to regulation, and had further links to the research institutions involved for further research. Reverting the edit seems to indicate a desire to use this website to present a WP:POV. Please explain why '50 events' is relevant. The 2 detectable seismic events were on the limit of human detection. The 50 need specialised equipment to even detect them. If you look at the info graphic, you will see that events of less than 1.5 are not classed as 'earthquakes'. Kennywpara (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara I cited the reports from the news regarding the Preese Hall seismic events with acceptable secondary sources. In those sources 50 tremors are mentioned. They are called tremors to distinguish them from earthquakes. This is of interest, else it would not have been classed as newsworthy. The statement already existed within the lead/lede, but was unsourced. I added citation and expanded that statement to provide verifiable facts. Please do not remove this information for a third time. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@LutherBlissetts:. Your reversion changed back all fixing of references, fixing of headings, dead link templates etc, all together more than 50 edits. I believe this was not intensional; however, this is not acceptable. Therefore I reverted your reversion (and not because of the text about seismic events). However, as I already said, also by my understanding, this text should be discussed in details in the specific section and the lead should just summarize it per WP:LEAD by using summary style. Beagel (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Beagel:. Thank you for pointing out the damage to the article caused by my reversion. It was unintentional and I thank you for assuming good faith and I am sorry for creating unecessary work for you. I do understand that the text should be discussed in detail in the specific section with a summary in the lede/lead as per WP:LEAD. I think that work on improving the lede/lead ought to come at the end of our article tidy-up process as it seems clear from a read of the entire article and its revision history that new information has been inserted since the lead/lede was written, some which will be notable enough to be included as per WP:LEAD. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a seismic event and an earthquake are not synonyms. I also agree that the lead should summarize the the article and details should be provided in the body text in specific sections. Beagel (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Beagel:, My original edit to the lead/lede provided "citations & rewording" and asked "for citations and clarity for an unamed[sic], undated and uncited report"[[2], as per WP:LEADCITE, for an existing statement on notable seismic events in the UK relating to onshore exploratory high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the UK "Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." The solution to Kennywpara's removal is, as you have pointed out, to ensure that:

*1) the notable seismic events, and;

*2) the well casing deformation caused by the related coseismic slip;

as summarised in the lead, are discussed in detail in the subsection on (anthropogenic/induced) seismic events relating to hydraulic fracturing in the UK. I hope you will all forgive me for assuming that such two such notable-to-topic occurrences (seismic events & the well casing deformation caused by the related coseismic slip) were already discussed in detail in the articles subsections at the time of my edit to the lead. I am therefore re-inserting the edit manually into the lead/lede, and will ensure that this particular summary is detailed in the relevant subsection. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Kennywpara:, With regards to the now twice reverted (by you) edit to the lead: the mention of two notable minor earthquakes was already mentioned in the lead, but no citation was given; I maintenance tagged for CN first; I then reworded without losing meaning and added another notable summary of the wellbore defamation; Both these were already discussed in more depth in the body of the article: wellbore deformation is discussed in History and partially discussed The 'Fracking Debate'/Preese Hall #1.

A compromise edit would be to remove the mention of '50 tremors', but to revert the entire edit, twice, label it as scaremongering, use the talk page to actively insult me, is WP:TE and a whole host of other unpleasantaries is completely unecessary. I hope this comment is taken by you as a constructive compromise. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Luther Blissetts (talk The subject of earthquakes is always emotive, as we usually see them representing death and destruction. That is why I used the word 'scaremongering'. '50 tremors' sounds scary. The fact that no one can even feel them is lost. I do not consider that to be an insult to point that out, and is certainly not WP:TE I agree the newspaper reports exist, and I was happy with a citation. As such I added 2 of the most authoritative sources possible, yet now these have been removed. I would like to see them replaced.Kennywpara (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Kennywpara. Thank you for your response. Your first edit, (1) removed the text and links that I had provided for previously unsourced statement, and improved the wording and gave a link for another unsourced statement. [3]. You deemed my edit 'unhelpful text'. My reversion took care not to remove the rewording/information that you had added. [4] I noticed the two other maintenance tags had been removed without being fulfilled, so I put the tags back.[5]. Beagel then removed your addition of the link to the report[6] in the next edit [7] You then reverted (2) my edit, which had not removed your edit (but which had been altered by Beagel) [8] saying "Reverting inappropriate edit by Luther Blissetts. Please see talk page". On the talk page, you removed the edit a second time, citing inappropriate scaremongering as your reason: "I removed the edit about the 'earthquakes', the casing deformation and the link to the 50 'seismic events' as this is the type of scaremongering that is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, especially in the introduction." I then accidentally mass reverted the whole lot (oops) thinking that it would only undo your 2nd rv, which I've apologised for (sorry again, Beagel for the extra work for you). I then reinserted the edits which you had twice removed [9].

Personally speaking, I don't consider the use of the word 'tremors' to be scaremongering. A tremor is a 'slight earthquake'.[10] Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The point of this article is to inform people about the facts of science, and engineering of this process. Kennywpara (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy that the mention of 50 tremors goes in the body in seismicity tho I think it is irrelevant. As you may have seen, I have followed WP:NPOV in reporting all of the earthquakes that have been of a magnitude that could be detected by humans, including the ban in place in British Colombia, due to excessive seismicity. Personally I would guess that is due to the particular geology there, but have made no comment. HF fracking has been done in massive areas of the US with no seismicity at all. Kennywpara (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the news, online, in print, and on TV. I admit, I didn't even consider that 50 tremors might be thought of as irrelevant. I considered the event notable enough to be in the lead, as did whoever mentioned it in the lead in the first place. According to WP:LEAD, not all readers read past the lead. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Luther Blissetts ([[User talk:LutherBlissetts|talk] According to WP:LEAD, not all readers read past the lead. And that is the exact reason why a very minor issue of vibrations that needs a seismometer to detect them, should not be in the lead, as its not of any significance. I barely think its worth a mention anywhere. There was seismicity, and the max value was M 2.3. a minor event, tho one that needed serious investigation, and caused no significant problems. In fact thats pretty well what I wrote originally, concisely, and to the point, without drama. Kennywpara (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, It is precisely because not all readers read past the lead that a summary of the pertinent issues to the subject are included there. The tremors were the reason why a halt to operations occurred, why several reviews & reports were commissioned: by industry & government regulators with experts involved in reviewing the reviews, and why numerous news articles were written.

Activists will routinely cite UNDUE WEIGHT to remove views as too minority, not specialist enough. Only the activists' views will be sufficiently weighty.

I've seen from your edit elsewhere on this talk page that, in your opinion, the news sources are 'wild' (they are WP:RS). I also noticed that you've removed the information on wellbore deformation from the lead for a third time. I've since noticed you've removed an entire section on the Preese Hall wellbore from section "The 'Fracking' Debate", claiming it is discussed in Seismicity/Preese Hall (it is not). Whether that information belongs in that section is a matter for discussion. The outcome of your edits is that you have now removed all mention of wellbore deformation, from both the lead and the article. This is not WP:NPOV editing. It is WP:BADPOV. I am restoring the lead and reinserting the the removed section. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luther Blissetts You have not sought concensus for this edit. In the edit history, Mikenorton has stated 'remove the 50 tremors - it was the two larger events that caused the well to be suspended - also this information is not in the body of the article and certainly doesn't belong in the lead'. The is a breach of many Wiki protocols. WP:NPOV LISTEN Are you trying WP:DAPE You added superfluous information to the lead. Seismicity was already mentioned. Was my edit trying to conceal something? No. Has it been questioned before? No Is it relevant? By all means put this in the PH 1 place but not in the lead. You need to seek concensus and you have NONE. I will have to consider reporting this as deliberately disruptive editing. Kennywpara (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara. We already talked about removing the '50 tremors' in this section above. There is no mention of '50 tremors' in the lead. The larger of the two minor earthquakes caused wellbore deformation. There is partial discussion about the wellbore deformation (poor cementation) in the section The Fracking Debate/Preese Hall #1, which you also removed, and which I have reinstated. I now notice, that before you removed that section, you moved the lead summary for wellbore deformation to The Fracking Debate/Presse Hall #1. And then you deleted that section, so that the effect was to remove all mention of wellbore deformation from the article. Feel free to report my actions. I am happy for you to do so. I am going to expand on the wellbore deformation caused by the second of the tremors, as discussed by reputable sources including scientific and notable news articles, in the Seismicity section. Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance tag

Hello @Kennywpara:, Please stop removing the {{requires attention}} tag. This article still requires a lot of attention to bring it up to scratch, and inviting other editors to participate is the norm on wikipedia. It's not a badge of shame, or a statement about yours or other editors' efforts. Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Many citations are still not fully cited. I am working my way through this, as is Beagel. If anyone else would like to pick a section and improve the citations, and check the text is verified by the citation as per WP:CITE, please join in. This will take some time.

Non UK info in the article

@Beagel: I've noticed that you're also questioning and removing non-UK info from the article. I think this is a great idea, and will improve its readability considerably. Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Blanket removal is a bad idea, it needs judgement. Luther Blissetts @Beagel:@Mikenorton:. There are many US reports that are not applicable in the UK due to regulatory differences. Environmental protections, chemical usage and the like. However, the US has been used by many reviews, for example with regard to well leakage. The UK land experience is limited, with not that many wells drilled recently. The US has a load of recently drilled wells however, so they provide a useful database. I have stated above that if any info is removed, a link should be provided to that info. Kennywpara (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of information

Hi Kennywpara, I notice that have asked editors that "if any info is removed, a link should be provided to that info". Can I ask that you also fulfil your own request. I notice that you are removing UK specific information (e.g. frac fluid "ingredients"), but don't appear to be fuliflling your own request. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Luther Blissetts (talk Thats probably because the info is covered elsewhere. There is also some duplication and irrelevant info and that I have removed. I thought one of the things you were concerned about were those type of things. Please review the Environmental Impact and Groundwater sections. I think they are more readable and relevant now. Kennywpara (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Infrastructure Act 2015

Hi Kennywpara, I noticed that you added information on the Infrastructure Act 2015 [11]. You wrote "and changed the definition of hydraulic fracturing' - 'Please can you please explain where it is written that the definition of (high-volume) hydraulic fracturing has been changed, and what it changed from. I also note that the term 'associated hydraulic fracturing' rather than 'hydraulic fracturing' is used throughout that piece of legislation. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC) @Kennywpara: Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC) @Kennywpara: Please will you provide a source for your claim that the 'associated hydraulic fracturing' definition has been changed. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Environmental impact/Water

Hi Kennywpara, I notice that you've removed the <--Summarise--> tag which I had placed to remind myself, during an editing batch, that the opening paragraphs for Water required rewriting as per Summary style:Rationale. It seems that instead of summarising you have re-organised Water and now there is no general summary at all. I do not do the following to offend you, but I am going to retain all the citations that you have added, but roll-back the article to exclude the new section you have made and return the general water statements back to the summary for future rewriting. The opening statements just needed rewriting in prose style to summarise the entire contents of Water. I'm sorry if there has been any misunderstanding.Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC) I've now removed that new section and returned all the information to the Water summary section without altering any other changes made. At some point, a succinct rewrite of the summary for Environmental impact/Water will be required. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Kennywpara:,

• I've never seen an edit (e.g. moving the RAE statement to 'top billing' as per your revision[12]) to give it "prominence of placement" before! WP:UNDUE Moving it so that the (Water summary) section reads in date order is fine. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Luther Blissetts I am sorry but I disagree with some of the above. I knew there was something wrong with the structure, thought about what unsettled me about it and so changed it to a logical state. When talking about groundwater contamination there are 2 completely separate issues. These are often confused, and thats why I thought it important to separate the items, as they have little in common.

1. Contamination from the HF process, ie cracks penetrating aquifers. The RAE report states that this has never happened. That is still the case after millions of stages in the US. I put all the reports pertaining to that in the section appropriately titled. The 'top billing' for the RAE report is because it is the most reliable and authoritative source. It also made the recommendations that have informed the regulatory bodies, and the infrastructure act. 2. Contamination due to other factors. That includes poorly cemented wells, leading to methane leakage leading to water effects, also spills on the ground, etc for which the EA and HSE have done a load of work. They are factors affecting any well that is drilled, including water wells. Confusion between the two separate hazards is common, and my edit correctly tried to separate out the separate mechanisms, in an easy to understand fully referenced section.

You have now reverted that and I do not understand why. You put a citation notice asking that this be written in an encyclopedic fashion, and I did that, using easy to understand quotes on the key points, and reliable references. I didnt remove the tag as I was happy to wait for concensus. Now it is a big confusing mess again. Kennywpara (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, I don't think there is a guideline for creating a new subsection based on 'a logical state' by removing a section's summary. I've just explained to you that there is no such thing as 'top billing'. Perhaps WP:BETTER and WP:MOS might be a useful read for you? I didn't put a citation notice asking for rewrite in encyclopaedic fashion (that was @Beagel: in the subsection Groundwater contamination. I placed an invisible edit note to remind (mainly for my benefit so I don't forget in between edit sessions) to summarise the subsection Water of section Environmental impact. I don't really find it useful for matters of style to get bogged down in content discussions, so I won't commment on your content comments above, except to say that whatever the content, it still needs summarising in prose-style as per WP:MOS to achieve WP:BETTER. As for this 'common confusion', other editors have already spoken to you about what this article is, and what it isn't, and having to repeat this over and over to you is perhaps less useful than asking if you would be so good as to read back through the archives of this talk page and the advice that other editors have given you over the last two years. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies Luther Blissetts I incorrectly thought it was your citation notice. There have been so many. I am familiar with the MOS and putting information in a logical order under logical headings is basic. The most important or relevant sources should reasonably come top. This page should allow people to become informed about aspects of HF in the UK context. It is remarkably difficult to find proper information about HF. That is why I spend time editing. Please explain why the separation of two separate points is unacceptable. Is it WP:ADVOCACY? Not that I can see. You have moved a lot of material around and I agree the structure is more logical. I have agreed with many of your edits and also realised that some parts written by me were under inappropriate headings, or had extraneous information, or duplicated info or dead links. I have removed many of my own edits. What I did was an extension of that, and is similar to what you have been doing. Two separate items that now have been jumbled together need two separate headings. I am familiar with the history. Some have been critical, and others have complimented me on sorting out what was a very poorly informed page a couple of years ago. I would like to continue to make this page NPOV, using science, and properly informed research and comment. Kennywpara (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, I'm sure it's lovely to have received compliments for your additions to this article, but the truth, and you've said as much 'out there', you are an activist (an anti- anti-fracking activist, I think) of some years now (five, I think I read), and you have been quoted in the newspaper as such. For years now you have made FOIs, write letters, and actively comment on social media, where you absolutely express your POV which does creep into your editing and possibly your attitude towards other very experienced wikipedia editors. Some of the info you have included in this article 'to inform the public' is probably better in a personal blog, which then you could promote as such during the course of your activism, instead of linking to this article in your often very heated arguments as a social media commentator, where you have claimed to be the main editor, repeatedly.

Take a look at where the article needs to be heading in my example edit for Regulation below. None of the information currently in Regulation will disappear - it will be shunted to context-appropriate place, although I continue to wonder why all the comparisons of US to UK are required (surely you ought to do this on your personal blog?), and wonder if an entirely new article might be better suited to that, or at the very least, one section where the differences are neatly summarised which might later become an entirely new article. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain your motive for spending so much time Luther Blissetts particularly as some of your changes seem to express a WP:POV? I do not have a blog, I have never done an FOI request. It is odd that you seem to know about me. Is that because you are yourself an activist? Previous posting seems to indicate that you have a POV that fracking is risky. If people wish to find out about HF in the UK this is the place they should start. That means reliable info that is science, history and regulation based, with appropriate links. My 'activism' as you describe it is confined to getting incorrect information removed, or posting reliable information links, as I have already described. Comparison with US and UK seems a very sensible chapter. It was noted in the RAE report for instance, and many are not aware of the differences in law or the regulatory framework in the UK. There are many experts (I am not one BTW, tho I know people who are) who are industry based who could and should post here, having declared any COI. They would have an insight into what is permitted, and what is not, Please review my comments on your proposed edits to Regulation. Whilst some information could be moved, the tone of that edit is clearly expressing a POV that HF is risky, and unregulated. That is incorrect, and as such should not be in an encyclopedia.Kennywpara (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kennywpara:, I know about you because, during an attempt to hold a civil discussion bout WP:COI, which I began following the accusations of COI raised by both parties in the Chemtrust removal thread, you, clearly an WP:SPA editor, after mentioning your own name, mentioned my @twitter account (in violation of wikipedia policy) and accused me of being an anti-fracking activist (I am not). At that point, and there's nothing odd about it, based on the information you had given here, I looked you up, realised I'd had one encounter with you on Disqus around a month previously while I had been looking more deeply into the issues surrounding hydraulic fracturing in the UK (a holiday indulgence for someone who normally researches the far-right in US/UK/EU). A glance at my little used Disqus account reveals comments on a variety of topics. For you, your Disqus is entirely about hydraulic fracturing/shale gas (fracking). My research on the far-right has been used by journalists for The Spectator, The Times, The Telegraph (to name but a few). Your activism has been mentioned by The Independent, you have written a letter to support Third Energy's proposal at Kirby Misperton site, you have sent letters to various bodies (e.g. BMJ) and you have FOI'd industry bodies and regulatory bodies and attempted to user these pers. comms as source material despite WP:OR. I should also mention that you are being filmed in a public debate on the "pro-frack" side debating an ex-industry "anti-frack" activist who has conspiracy theory tendencies. It's a reasonable to say that you actively pursue anti-fracking activists across social media and from a cursory glance, appear to have extensively commented on across various news articles, websites and blogs on this topic over a number of years. It is therefore fair to say that you are an activist. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

My proposed alterations to Regulation section do not express a POV. They are a (work in progress) rewrite which includes all the original information pertinent to HF regulation and the edits do not lead a reader to conclude that HF is risky or unregulated. The statements are well sourced and at at any point the reader can delve deeper into the source material to find out more information. I think the material on RS/RAE criticism of well examiner independence or lack thereof belongs in the shale gas in the United Kingdom article, not here. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luther Blissetts you still have not explained why you have reverted the edit where two different pollution paths were separated out. The first, due to the HF process, and the second due to other pollution pathways. Its logical to classify them differently. Why is that so controversial? I am concerned that this is an example of WP:POV. To explain, if there was a surface spill of diesel, onto the chemical proof wellpad, would that be attributed to 'fracking', or should it be classified as a surface spill? If however, an HF job lead to frack fluid being forced into an aquifer, that would be a different matter. To classify the surface diesel leak as 'due to fracking' would be misleading. It would appear that putting these two together could confuse someone trying to find out if this was a problem. The RAE have noted for example that the frack process has never caused pollution, whereas there have been surface leaks, poorly sealed surface casings and other spills that have occurred. Unless I see a clear logic for doing that I will revert the edit in a couple of days. Kennywpara (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Kennywpara:, I have explained fully, but it seems you don't accept the reasoning. Beagle had originally asked (in accordance with policy) for a cleanup to summarise that section's overviewin an encyclopaedic manner, and what you delivered was not encyclopaedic summary. I am currently in the process of rewriting in encyclopaedic summary style. If the pathway is not via HF,then why is it in this article? Why not move it to the Shale gas in the United Kingdom article instead where there is more scope for discussing the entire process of extracting shale gas. I presume you introduced that material in the first place. Again, it's not the purpose of wikipedia to disabuse 'the public' of any confusion. If you want to provide that service, please get yourself a blog for your activism. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Regulation

I'm rewriting this section. Just this once, to be utterly transparent in my edit methodology, I'm going to place the existing edit alongside the proposed edit in columns beneath this text. Feel free to comment, but please bear in mind that I've not finished yet, and I'm using my preferred method of editing in word first.Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC) So far, this represents around 3 hours work, most of which was checking sources and deciding what doesn't belong in this section, before reorganising condensing and rewording (and it's still not finished). Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC) It's still not finished. Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates

Type	Family	Handles wiki  table code?†	Responsive/ Mobile suited	Start template	Column divider	End template
Float	"col-float"	Yes	Yes	{{col-float}}	{{col-float-break}}	{{col-float-end}}
	"columns-start"	Yes	Yes	{{columns-start}}	{{column}}	{{columns-end}}
Columns	"div col"	Yes	Yes	{{div col}}	–	{{div col end}}
	"columns-list"	No	Yes	{{columns-list}} (wraps div col)	–	–
Flexbox	"flex columns"	No	Yes	{{flex columns}}	–	–
Table	"col"	Yes	No	{{col-begin}}, {{col-begin-fixed}} or {{col-begin-small}}	{{col-break}} or {{col-2}} .. {{col-5}}	{{col-end}}

^† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

KW response

My comments. I am afraid your proposal is WP:POV Luther Blissetts I see little logic or reasoning for the proposed changes, and I see much inaccuracy and inappropriate evidence.

How peculiar, User:Kennywpara, that you can see WP:POV, "inaccuracy and inappropriate evidence" from a simple rewrite that uses the same information as the original. Are you claiming the same WP:POV, "inaccuracy and inappropriate evidence" existed in the original? I provide clear reasoning why information was not included in the rewrite. Just take a look at the diffs[13], and the reason appears next to every 'Not done' sign. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The original section contains a logical progression. RAE commissioned by Govt---Recommendations made---Key points noted (tho there could be some reduction here)---EA consultion about regulation started---Final regulations published by EA within the last month

I dont have much issue with the first section Regulation, though I fail to see the reason for a change to that. What is there already covers that. I have problems with the fact that little prominence is given to the key points in the EA Guidance doc published less than a month ago. In 'legislation' it should be mentioned. Strictly the EA Guidance is not legislation. In that case the title needs a change. 'What the EA require' would help, with a separate section on legislation. Why is a dated Jan 2014 comment from the EU saying regulations need to be looked at of any relevance when these regulations have just been issued, after extensive public consultation? That should be the main thrust of this section. The Chemtrust report also fails to understand how regulation works. 'Guidance' is issued as a way seeing what will or will not be acceptable, to obtain a licence. Failure to either follow guidance or or propose an acceptable method means that a licence will not be issued. Use of 'Best Available Technique' IS a legal requirement BTW. Perhaps I have problems with the prominence given to the Chemtrust report in this. Reading comments about 'Hazardous chemicals' immediately should ring alarm bells. They are not permitted as can be seen in the [Chemicals'] There is no need for opinion on that, it is simply the law (EU and UK) and as such it is not a POV. The Chemtrust report also fails to understand how regulation works. 'Guidance' is issued as a way seeing what will or will not be acceptable, to obtain a licence. Chemtrust seem to think its not legally enforceable. Failure to either follow guidance or or propose an acceptable method means that a licence will not be issued. Thats why it received such a pounding from UKOOG. Its an advocacy piece, and fails to take account of EU and UK law. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Chemtrust seem to think its not legally enforceable. Its as if they havent bothered to check these basic things.

I have little problem with the Chemtrust/UKOOG rebuttal/Chemtrust response being there, just NOT in a chapter about regulation.  

Why is there such a long section on 'criticism'? especially as its based on a dated and now irrelevant report from the EU. There is already a comment on the RAE requirement for a so called 'independent' well surveyor in the original writing. There is a problem here and this was noted by the the House of Lords in 2013. As a WP:NPOV editor I gave it due prominence. This is open to abuse and thats why I highlighted it. Please do not change this Luther Blissetts unless you get some consensus. To me you appear to be presenting some anti frack lines, that do not hold water when examined by scientists, or regulators. When I write or comment what I do is give links to proper information. Its all I have ever done. Kennywpara (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, 'presenting anti frack lines' 'motive' 'no place' 'POV' accusations. Again, you use insults, accusations, but provide no evidence for your claims. You are definitely and verifiably an WP:Activist. I am editing this article. I don't take your motive accusations seriously, as you've accused Beagle of the same several times already. You are (I now know for certain) an activist]] who might, as I originally suggested (when I didn't know you were an activist with respect to your accusations of COI in the Chemtrust removal thread), benefit from re-reading and taking the positives from WP:SPA. Other than taking those positives on board and making them work for the good of this article, I can't think of any more suggestions other than most of your problems would probably be solved by getting yourself a blog where you can disabuse the public all you like of the confusion you perceive them to have, a 'confusion' that you presumably discovered during the course of your advocacy/activism across social media. Why are we even going over the ChemTrust and UKOOG inclusions yet again? You even accused me of making an edit in 2015, which you announced you had reverted. From now on, I think it's best that I don't respond to your accusations of POV, insinuations of bad motive, lack of civility, and hostility towards ordinary attempts to rewrite the article in prose rather than present a series of statements where often the reader would have to click on the link to discover what was being talked about. It would be more constructive if you could find the where-with-all to make positive suggestions about edits, without the resort to aggressive accusations of bad faith. Perhaps you would benefit from attempts to edit an unrelated wikipedia article or three, so you can get a feel for life as an editor outside of this article. If you continue in the same vein, you leave me no choice but to request uninvolved editor/admin intervention. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear about how EA regulation works, they state at the start of the Guidance document above " This guidance will help you understand how the existing legislation within our remit applies to oil and gas activities and what you need to do to comply. It explains the permits you will need and, where relevant, the Best

Available Techniques (BAT) that you should use to meet regulatory requirements".

So thats clear, no compliance=no licence= no drilling Kennywpara (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The HSE policy Luther Blissetts on Independent Well Surveyor is here. There is also a statement that they have enough staff to cover now but may need to reassess if production starts. Kennywpara (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Flaring

Flaring of gas is not something which is caused by hydraulic fracturing. This is a common to oil and gas industry in general notwithstanding if the well is just drilled of hydraulically fractured. Therefore, this information about gas flaring does not belong here but rather in Oil and gas industry in the United Kingdom. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Information about flaring was moved into Oil and gas industry in the United Kingdom by this edit. Beagel (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It would appear we had an edit conflict, as I was having difficulty finding a link. Beagel

Firstly, thankyou for the date and link tidy ups.

The subject of flaring is covered in specific shale gas guidance. The volumes expected are high, and far exceed the volumes that would be coproduced with oil. New guidance has just been published on https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545924/LIT_10495.pdf It covers the expectations that a shale gas operator would have to meet to be licenced, on page 32.

This publication is also specific to shale gas, and covers the issues https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277219/Air.pdf As such, this is pertinent to the issues of air quality/green completions/ and should remain in the page. Kennywpara (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And again, hydraulic fracturing and shale gas extraction are not synonyms. Flaring is not related to the hydraulic fracturing process. There is a separate article Shale gas in the United Kingdom, so maybe you want to add it also there. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, not massively, but can see your point. I will add a link to that page with the extra link. Kennywpara (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Beagel: on this, it's already mentioned in pasing that venting isn't allowed, similar could be done for flaring (mentioned in passing) in Environmental Impacts/Air. Flaring isn't part of the various hydraulic fracturing processes. Luther Blissetts (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing comments

I would ask to avoid editing and changing comments, particularly comments of other editors per WP:TALK. Beagel (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I also would agree Beagel (talk), This page has been stable and edits have largely been down to fixing links and maintainance for quite some time. I fail to see why this needs a major rewrite, or change in direction. Tidying up is fine, but substituting reliable links for some of the wild newspaper and fake health reports available is not encyclopaedic. Kennywpara (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I will restrain myself when it comes to the urge (which I have, until now, indulged in) to add indents to other editors responses in order to render the talk page easier to read. I can't promise not to correct sp & grammar in my own comments, but will add a decr of the edit, however minor in the edit summary from now on. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have had a session tidying up some dead links, rearranging some inappropriately placed sections, deleting a duplicate chapter, and dealing with some of the comments from Luther Blissetts. Work continues. Kennywpara (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara. On the talk page or the article page? This section is about editing the talk page. Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re-reading I realise this comment is about editing the talk page. I have no intention of doing that. However I think that it is right that any large changes in the main article need discussion to avoid huge amounts of bad feeling, lack of balance, and the extra work. Kennywpara (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead consensus

Should the lead contain the words 'The larger of the earthquakes caused minor deformation of the wellbore[7] and was strong enough to be felt.' Luther Blissetts thinks it should and has reverted my edit several times, with no justification or consensus. The previous sentence reported the felt seismicity, and the minor issue of a 0.1 inch deformation in the perforated production zone that was not even discovered for 6 months is something that seems design to cause unease rather than present the bare facts of the subject. As such that would indicate problems with WP:NPOV I know any engineer would consider it a problem, but not a safety issue. Could you please comment Beagel and Mikenorton Kennywpara (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Kennywpara, This isn't an engineering manual. It's wikipedia. Anyone can look at the history to see that you've reverted my edit several times. No-one else gave their opinion about it, apart from Beagel, to note that a summary in the lead should also be mentioned in more detail in the body of the article. You and I have discussed this extensively on this talk page already, so it's untrue to say there's been no justification for my reinstatement of wellbore deformation into the lead. Your reasons for removal were:

• 1st) 'unhelpful text'
• 2nd) 'Reverting inappropriate edit' whilst on talk page you labelled the inclusion as 'scaremongering';
• 3rd) Done in stages:

• ) Moved the lead summary into The Fracking Debate/PH#1 saying 'excessive info' and that PH#1 was 'the most appropriate place':[14]
• b) 'added coseismic details and links' [15]
• c) after adding 'understanding pressure' to PH#1; then moving 'understanding pressure to a more sensible place', deleted #PH1 entirely along with the 'coseismmic details and links', claiming 'Removed PH1 well section as in exists in section 4.5.1 with broadly the same info)' [16];

That's roughly how a disruptive editing is disguised as constructive editing. WP:STONEWALL This information is well-verified, very reliably sourced from a variety of notable sources.

The wellbore deformation, as Kennywpara and I have already discussed extensively in Improve article/Lead, is a notable event and as such ought to be summarised in the lead. I shall mention it in greater detail in Seismicity. It's metioned in Cuadrilla's reports; It's mentioned in the BGS/Keele review of Cuadrilla's reports; It's mentioned in several (not 'wild') news reports.Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Kennywpara said:

the minor issue of a 0.1 inch deformation in the perforated production zone that was not even discovered for 6 months is something that seems design to cause unease rather than present the bare facts of the subject. As such that would indicate problems with WP:NPOV I know any engineer would consider it a problem, but not a safety issue.

The issue was discovered on 4 April 2011, but not reported until Nov 2011; please stop attempting to ascribe a sinister motive ("design to cause unease") or claim I'm not presenting "the bare facts of the subject". Perhaps it would be more constructive if you contributed to cleaning up all the mis-cited links that are strewn throughout the article instead of attempting to remove pertinent information that was widely reported by industry, experts, and in the news. Please please please don't add any more mis-cited links! The easiest way to cite a link is to click on 'cite' and choose from the pre-made templates (you get to choose cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal). Then fill in the information in the boxes - it couldn't be easier. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There were 2 PH1 sections that duplicated info Luther Blissetts @Beagel: @Mikenorton:. That is why I deleted one, after making sure the info was complete. The info in the original PH 1 section was about cementation, and well pressure. That was not an appropriate place so I moved them, to appropriate places with appropriate headings. I am very happy that the well bore distortion is in the PH1 section, as it was not an important issue, except for engineers. It still confuses me that after 2 sentences about seismicity in the lead, you still insist that a third one was necessary. It also confuses me that an experienced editor such as yourself does not get consensus when making serious changes. Kennywpara (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Collegiate approach

I would like to suggest that all posts should be made according to Wiki protocols. There has been a lot of unpleasantness, and accusations which have breached WP:CIV. There is a need for specialist input, as it is a technical subject, however WP:COI is only a problem if there is an underlying promotional undertone. I have not seen any. I am pleased that the general content of the article is generally sound, and I know it did need some maintenance, and link tidying. However, the opinions of a single editor need consensus if major or critical update is to be made. I think all of the maintainance tags are cleared now. Could I suggest the tags be cleared if the perceived problem has been cleared. It did allow me to add a very important new publication as a source, namely the very recent OOGSG document which postdates several earlier links. I have updated several links. I also learned how to do a 'ref' link, which was easy. Please remember that we all bring different things to the table. I would hope I bring subject knowledge, integrity, and no COI. Kennywpara (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara, Which tags are you talking about (that you suggest should be cleared)? Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Luther Blissetts The one on the main page asking other editors to help, and the list on this page. From what I can gather the matter has been cleared up, both in terms of COI issues and content. (and now I understand what it was all about.) He has stated that he will not be involved in edits.

Hello Kennywpara, The tag on the main page which asks other editors to help is still required. There are, for example, still a lot of errors in way citations and links have been made. It will take some weeks to clear those up , at the very least. For example, it took over hour to address the issues in 'Public opinion' (having to pull out the original insert dates from a search of the revision history) and there is at least one more citation that requires attention in that section. Another example: I began addressing citation issues in 'Flowback Fluid', and having tagged the section, began to edit, but kept having an edit-conflict, so it took a lot longer than I had anticipated to complete that section. Every single section needs checking methodically, and reciting where incorrect citaions are found. Hope this gives you an idea about the length of time it will take to address all the citation issues. Even then, it will be some time before the tag can be removed. Many of the links are just placed there ('this link here; see that link') and not described or cited as per WP:CITE.

Tags are quite a common sight on wikipedia. Requesting other editors pitch in is all part of the collegiate atmosphere. Hope this helps re. the tag on the main page.

I'm not sure which list on this (the talk) page you are referring to. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The list at the top of the page with the exclamation marks. Luther Blissetts Kennywpara (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara, the 'list' with the three exclamation marks (three separate boxes, two on COI, one on citogenesis) is now a permanent fixture on this talk page. They are not to be removed, as per wikipedia guidelines. Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the 2013 to 2016 in seismic as that is correct. I have added the 'felt' earthquake incidents as they have occurred. The There have been none recently. If I hear of one (and I follow people who will know) I will add it, as I have done in the past. The links I provided for that have disappeared. I will add them when I find them. The structure seems fine BTW. I did similar with the PH1 well as there were 2 sections on the well. Kennywpara (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara, your revert in seismicity (instead of just changing the date from 2013 to 2016) has removed the correct citation for an incorrectly cited journal. It is now incorrectly cited again. Not sure why you saw fit to wipe out an entire edit just to make a change of date and add another citation. Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies,Luther Blissetts that was a mistake. Kennywpara (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A warning about certain sources

@LutherBlissetts: Could you please explain why you put that notice on the talk page? As far as I can find from the article's history, that specific source was not used in this article. At the same time, if you want to list all sources which have copied from the Wikipedia, it would be quite hopeless exercise as there are hundreds that type of pages. If there is no specific reason to warning about this specific source, I would recommend to remove this tag. Beagel (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly @Beagel: The warning is specifically to prevent a source, which took its information from wikipedia, being used in the future as a reference for this specific article. The warning is used throughout wikipedia and placed only on talk pages. There is always a specific reason to place such a warning, which provides links to the source which took its information from wikipedia.

To summarise: the warning remains as a permanent fixture to the talk page (as it does on other talk pages),to prevent future use of the named source being used in this article as a source. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, as I said there are hundreds of websites copying information from Wikipedia, inluding this article. We are not giving warnings about them unless the certain website is used by some editor. So far, by my understanding this source was not used in this article (or was it?). Therefore, using this warning at the moment seems overkill. Warning tags are useful and, if necessary, they should be used, but overuse of them may have discouraging effect to edit this article which is not in interests of Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

'The warning remains' rather than 'the warning should remain'Luther Blissetts?@Beagel: This rather sounds like you have decided that this is going to happen, and you are the sole arbiter of the process. Is that compliant with a collegiate approach that I suggested? Is there seriously a problem with someone who copied a couple of sentences that probably dont exist on the page anymore anyway? The editor in question has made no serious contribution for years, except for correcting spelling, and reverting a couple of vandalism attacks I think. Any suspect material has been vetted by myself and others over the years. I can see no reason for continuing with these tags. They are common on badly maintained sites where someone has written something and then never maintained or referenced it. That is not the case here. Do you want to present this site as a 'dodgy industry written sock puppet' page? That to me is what all of the warnings represent.

Are you 'taking ownership' of this site? After the above massive dispute about a slightly distorted casing that is now buried in cement, where you insisted that your opinion rode above the writing of the original writer (me) can you see why it might be difficult to WP:AGF? I have already stated that I am pleased that you have not started to rip this well referenced page apart, and the restructuring you have done is largely positive. You are clearly well experienced as an editor, so I should not have to explain this to you. These tags are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. This page is not compromised by the undeclared COI. If you find something that is inappropriate, please highlight that for discussion, and alternative sources could be found.Kennywpara (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

1) Hello @Kennywpara: and @Beagel:, The citogenesis prevention notice is used to prevent any future editor, who might be looking for a more recent reference for this article's intro (for example, than Mader 1989 etc), from using the named 2015 book source, since it is a verbatim plagiarism from the two first paragraphs as they stand today, on this wikipedia article. Citogenesis warning notices appear on some of wikipedia's finest articles, and so I cannot agree with the characterisation of their appearance as '"common on badly maintained sites where someone has written something and then never maintained or referenced it"'. If I, as an editor, happen upon another article where citogenesis prevention is required, rest assured I will add a prevention template to its talk page. The prevention notice is not about people (someone) or about the quality of an article. The only people-related 'thing' I can think of where citogenesis is concerned is that perhaps it could be construed as a backhanded compliment to the original wikipedia editor who was plagiarised verbatim, and of course, to wikipedia itself. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Still two questions: why this source and not any other which has copied its information from Wikipedia; and, is there a real risk that this source would be used? Beagel (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Beagel:, My apologies. I thought that the actual warning explained clearly enough. To answer your questions:

Q.Why this source? A: This source (2015) takes its information on hydraulic fracturing in the UK from this article - plagiarised verbatim from the article's lead (c.2013).

Q. Is there a real risk that this source would be used? A: Since there is a citogenesis prevention notice on the article talk page, warning not to use that source, No, because any editor can now see that there is a citogenesis were that source to be added to the lead. Hope this helps. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why this source and not all other sources doing the same thing?

Did anybody used this source or was there an actual and immediate risk that this source will be used before you put this tag? Beagel (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

2) Hello @Kennywpara: I have made no attempt to WP:OWN this article and have every intention of welcoming all editors' improvements to this article. Looking back through the talk page archives it is apparent that I am not the first editor whom you have ascribed motive to (e.g. 2014; Beagel). To repeat, WP:COI is about relationships not WP:COINOTBIAS bias. I hope this helps. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

To clear the air here, I presume that Luther Blissetts is referring to me as the editor with an undeclared conflict of interest, which I recently mentioned on Kennywpara’s talk page, as the reason that I had not joined the recent spirited talk page discussion. The idea of officially declaring a COI had not occurred to me, because I have no direct financial interest in Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom, and neither do my wife, cousins, or bartender. I do consulting work for some small US oil companies (too small to have Wikipedia articles), but I am not paid for wiki editing, and I don’t think any of my oil industry acquaintances even know that I edit Wikipedia. So mine is a more nonspecific and generalized conflict, which I try to deal with by sticking to issues of fact in oil-related articles, and avoid pushing my POV in oil-article editing conflicts.

By my count, I have started 22 oil-related articles (please see the list on my home page), including Shale gas (back in 2007) and Shale gas in the United Kingdom (split off in 2013). I also contribute to a number of other oil articles. Luther Blissetts has suggested that he may go through my edits (a more tedious task I can’t imagine). But now that the US is a net exporter of LNG, and the UK still a net LNG importer, my slight financial interest would be to do all I can to discourage gas production in the UK – how’s that for a conflict of interest?

Have I done wrong in not formally declaring myself a "connected contributor" in every oil-related article, and confining myself to edit requests? If such is the case, I need to know. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Plazak:, Connected contributor is normally declared on the user's page as per WP:COIDEC. COI is not about bias WP:COINOTBIAS: "COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI". WP:COI "is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity". For every-day "QC" editing, I'm sure there's no need for you or any other COI editor to submit an edit via the edit notice. At least, that's what I understood from reading through the related COI pages. Perhaps a thorough read-through of those pages might be useful. I hope this helps. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What I understand from the Plazak's statement here, he actually does not have a COI as the definition of COI is used in practice in Wikipedia. After reading that statement I think that the {{connected contributor}} tag is unjustified. However, we should consider that statement as positive example to declare not only factual COI but COI in very broad term about the subject (and not about the certain article) which is not the common practice. Beagel (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry that I wasted so much of everyone's time on this issue. Had I known that my careless use of the phrase "conflict of interest" would set off alarms, I would have rephrased it. All I meant to do was to keep a certain distance from an edit dispute in which it is difficult for me to maintain an NPOV. Plazak (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Plazak: Luther Blissetts @Beagel: @Mikenorton:I have changed the wording of the first sentence, and they are now my words, but the meaning is the same. I have removed the Mader reference as the info can be found in section 1.8 of of the RAE engineering report. I have removed the immediate attention tag, as it would now appear to be unnecessary. Kennywpara (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Plazak: Luther Blissetts @Beagel: @Mikenorton: Could you please justify the reinstalling of the maintainance tag Luther Blissetts I hardly think anyone would want to join in this editing. The updating is being done, so could you please explain your rwasoning. The concerns that you have have been addressed. Again, could I remind you this is not your page, and neither is it mine. It should be a collaborative effort. Thats how Wikipedia works. Kennywpara (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Kennywpara:, On looking back through the talk page archives, I note, with interest, that you have fought every maintenance tag placed on the article, asking for other editors to help. I am not going to restate the reasons for placing maintenance tags inviting other editors to participate. You can read the wikipedia guidelines and these will explain adequately. Please do not remove the template from the article page. I do not consider this article to be my page at all and I would be grateful if you would please cease your near 2-year hostility towards other editors who add maintenance tags to this article in an attempt to improve it. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Shale/HF in the UK?

There is crossover between this site and others. All shale gas wells would be subject to HF. Not all HF wells will be gas. HF can be performed on horizontal wells, and vertical, but there are horizontal wells with no HF in the N Sea, old traditional wells could later be subject to HF, and so on. If a section is considered to be in the wrong place, could I suggest that it be moved, but a brief link be made. I did this on Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Flaring after Beagel comment.Kennywpara (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Misleading section headings

There are two section headings which were changed currently and which are incorrect after these changes. First, the title "Areas where hydraulic fracturing used" is incorrect as it talks about the potential and not about the current HF areas. Therefore, the previous title "Areas with hydrocarbon potential" is more correct. Second, title "Geothermal hydraulic fracturing" is somehow nonsense as it suggest that there is a specific hydraulic fracturing method which uses geothermal energy. Which is not the case. Correct title should be "Geothermal wells" or "Hydraulic fracturing of geothermal wells". Beagel (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Beagel: I prefer "Hydraulic fracturing of geothermal wells". Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Beagel:, would it make more sense to have this section on areas, a) discuss past and current HF, with some examples eg geothermal, Wytch Farm, then discuss the areas with potential? Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Beagel: Luther Blissetts That sounds sensible Kennywpara (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Quotation style and method

I am afraid I spent ages trying to sort out the method of quotation used by Luther Blissetts. I have put the reference OOGSG1 as a link for https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545924/LIT_10495.pdf This seems to be the go to reference for many areas of environmental issues. (there was a link about NORMS that was referenced but this new publication gives all details on OOGSG1, so I deleted it LB as its redundant) In Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Reuse_in_hydraulic_fracturing_and_injection_in_disposal_wells I copied the text I wanted to quote from page 46. There is much useful info on the protocols for disposals of what types of fluid into what types of formation. It explained a lot to me, and as its a final thing and recent it should be here. It would be useful if each subsection could have a quoted link, so you can see the key points by looking at the reference. The trouble is that when I do it that way it seems to try to add that to all the citations, and there is a conflict, and 2 versions of OOGSG1 appear in the 'named references'. Big red letters saying 'cite error' appear, and its a big annoying mess. I had to delete all of the references. Any advice on how this can be done? I spent about an hour with the MOS and learned loads, but not what I want to do. Kennywpara (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Hi Kennywpara, If you want to add a quote, add |quote="quoted text here"| to the citation. If more than one instance of that citation is used, give a unique ref name for the citation-with-quote (e.g. OOGSG1). I fixed your attempt, but didn't change your ref name. You were on the right track, and hopefully that fix is what you were trying to achieve. If not, I think you'll be able to fix yourself. If you can't make it work, let me know. Hope that helps. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. I was starting to realise that must be the only way. Luther Blissetts

Use of dated resources

I reverted an edit by Luther Blissetts in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=738322765&oldid=738322154 This referred to a call from the EU for regulations to protect the environment. After the publication of the EA paper of August 18 2016 that would appear superfluous. The regulatory system has done huge amounts of work to create systems that protect the environment etc as per EU concerns. The date however cannot be the sole decider. Some of the DECC papers explaining fracking go back to 2013, yet they are still 'live' and presumably would be updated if there were any change. I have not seen any conflicts, though would happily modify that position if one appeared. Kennywpara (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara. The text you removed from the Regulation section:

However, the European Commission's impact assessment of potential new regulations on fracking concluded that the current situation "is not effective in addressing environmental risks and impacts, nor in providing legal clarity / certainty nor allaying public concerns", and that a new Directive setting specific requirements for fracking would be the most beneficial option.

was not "an edit by LutherBlissetts". Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kennywpara, Technically, your removal of the historic summary referring to EU Commission's impact assessment dated 22/01/2014 on HVHF regulations to protect the environment can't be classed as a revert, not even a partial one, as the text has not been restored to a version earlier than its inclusion. It might be worth considering if this text might benefit from being condensed/rewritten and retained in the article as part of the historic development of HVHF regulatory practices in the UK. Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of perceived 'dated' information: I'd be wary of removing swathes of information which could remain if they were reworded to set them in historic context. For example, the removed text by @Kennywpara: (see above) would become:

In January 2014, an impact assessment by the European Commission concluded that existing legal and regulatory environments were insufficient, and recommended a new directive with specific requirements for high volume hydraulic fracturing to address: "environmental risks and impacts"; allay "public concerns", and; "enable investments".

This statement provides the context for the EU directive. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)