Talk:Fracking in the United Kingdom

'Favourable' and 'anti-competitive'

I removed these two from the description of the license for Cuadrilla as they are distinctly POV terms unless backed up by a good source, however I see that they have been restored. The Guardian source does not use them and it appears to be an interpretation that the terms mentioned are favourable and anti-competitive. They are standard for hydrocarbon exploration licenses in the UK and I've never see those described in that way. Please provide a source that actually uses these terms. Mikenorton (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see how much this means to you. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, just looking for accuracy. In hydrocarbon exploration in the UK (and in many other countries), companies that are awarded licenses get sole use of the data that they acquire for a fixed period before it becomes released, typically five years after acquisition. Mikenorton (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV tag because of this: "the absurd claim that the Lancashire discovery would be able to satisfy the UK's gas consumption 'for 56 years'". Whether the claim is absurd or not is a matter of opinion. Biscuittin (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I removed it now. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This article seems to be quite controversial (two sections have been blanked) and I think it would be useful to get more people involved in the discussion. Biscuittin (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't intentionally "murdered" any of your additions - I've just been putting things into sections to make them easier to read. Biscuittin (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I meant nothing negative about your modifications to the article! My use of the word 'murder' was just a request not to delete the addition, to immediately kill it off, just yet since I hoped to improve it. The section blanking you speak of was performed by me, not others! The industry-government media campaign, for example, is a section I started and was going to expand, but now probably won't bother with. You can delete if if you like. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Biscuittin (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on a blog

The use of a comment on a blog as a source to suggest that campaigners (in general - as that is the implication) think that the Keele University (and others) study is compromised by a conflict of interest is quite insufficient to make such a claim. If there is a general feeling that this is the case, it would surely have been picked up by the mainstream media. I would just remove that part of the sentence, but experience tells me that I will simply be reverted. Please justify use of this low quality source, or better still find a properly reliable source. Mikenorton (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence completely as the report was by three independent experts, a BGS seismologist, a Keele professor whose field is induced seismicity and a fracking consultant. I've also expanded on the results of that study which qualified their 'green light' by proposing guidelines for mitigating the risks of seismic activity. Mikenorton (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I put in the word "campaigners" without a source; I was picked up on that with a ; I put in a link so the specific campaign group concerned was identified. The subsequent complaint, that this implies a sweeping statement concerning all campaigners, could have been remedied by the following conversion: "campaigners" —> "some campaigners". I have put back in the mention of Keele having links with Cuadrilla, minus any mention of campaigners, but if you take it out again I will not put it back without the mainstream-media source you have requested. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

for discussion

As I do have a point of view, I'm not the right person to update the UK fracking page. But can someone please update the page to reflect that DECC on 17 April 2012 published an independent expert's report which has recommended that Ministers allow the resumption of fracking for shale gas with a number of design and monitoring changes to mitigate the risk of earthquakes. DECC is inviting comments until 25th May 2012 - via email (led.comment@decc.gsi.gov.uk). Ministers will consider the comments received before making a decision. The tech reports and factsheets are on the DECC website - http://og.decc.gov.uk/en/olgs/cms/explorationpro/onshore/cuadrilla_decc/cuadrilla_decc.aspx Thanks Drusy (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, at the very least I think that this would be a useful addition to the External Links section. Mikenorton (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Page title is wrong? Should it be Shale Gas onshore in the UK?

This page failed to mention the extensive use of hydraulic fracturing in the North Sea that has been going on for decades (see for example this 1995 paper: ) until I edited it. The content seems to concentrate entirely on shale gas, and almost exclusively on onshore plays.