Talk:Fracking in the United Kingdom

Redundant links

Many links have become dead with the transfer from now redundant DECC website to the Gov.UK website. the oft referred to 'Water' and 'Air' publications appear to have disappeared, and alternative sources of that info will need to be linked. I have some time now and will go through the various comments and update, after time away. Kennywpara (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The new references are appearing and I have found many of them on the .gov.uk site. In many cases they have been rewritten. I have added quotes in many cases, tho I seem unable to avoid small errors. Is there a template for that?Kennywpara (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kennywpara: Adding a quote can be done using the drop down citation menu. This won't concern you from now on, as you are politely requested to confine yourself to suggesting edits and refrain from editing the article itself, as per Wiki policy already explained to you succinctly in the talk page archives for the reasons given below. Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving sections into other Wiki pages

I note that various sections that I wrote about well integrity have been put into 'Shale gas in the UK'. I see no logic in that. If editors are to move stuff from this page could they at least leave a link. Otherwise it just appears that information is being buried. Kennywpara (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kennywpara: This is an article on hydraulic fracturing in the UK. The section on well integrity belonged in the shale gas article. The moving of sections belonging to Shale gas in the UK has been discussed at length by other editors on this talk page (as well as myself). Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kennywpara: For some of the previous discussions on moving non-HF info into SG in the UK

See also: Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2 § Citation_for_Clean_up., Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2 § Umbrellas, and Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_4 § Moving_information_from_HF_in_the_UK_to_Shale_gas_in_the_UK_to_avoid_WP:POVFORK_other_policy_violations

I am still working my way through the list of recommendations made in Citation for Clean up. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Friends of the Earth and the ASA, and editor kennywpara

I have to declare a personal involvement in this as I made a complaint against FoE as did Cuadrilla, following an advert they issued. This is not a COI issue as I have already declared that my only involvement with this is to ensure that false scientific claims are not used. FoE used false claims.

On 4th Jan 2017 the ASA revealed that they required that FoE should not repeat claims concerning use of toxic chemical, carcinogenic chemicals, asthma, health effects and plummeting house prices, without adequate evidence. This was after a 14 month investigation, and the ASA consulted experts. See this for Guardian coverage You can see more at https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/friends-of-the-earth-fck-it-up/ I am not sure how this should be handled. FoE reject the ASA judgement, however they were not able to provide adequate evidence for their claims. I suppose this matter should not be used by me as an editor, tho others can feel free. Kennywpara (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kennywpara: Your COI needs to be declared in a connected contributor on this page, following Wikipedia behavioural guidelines. You have now plugged the blog of an admin for the Backing Fracking facebook page. You have worked with this admin for a number of years. Your declared involvement "to ensure that false scientific claims are not used" is a clear denial of the extent of your activism. It's equivalent to an anti-fracking activist saying that people who oppose fracking don't oppose fracking, they oppose the way that fracking advocates use information in a misleading way to gain public support, and all they're doing is exposing that misleading information. You probably don't realise how unconvincing your insistence that you're not a pro-fracking activist sounds. On this article, you have edit warred, made POV additions that didn't match the source material, used a sockpuppet to edit as though it were a new user, repeatedly argued with editors about the use of maintenance tags invariably claiming that they were: added as 'part of a campaign' or to destroy the article, continued to add material that creates a POVFORK despite being asked by experienced editors to avoid this, edited this article as though it were a public information page for all-things-shale gas instead of being an encyclopedia, been asked repeatedly not to make false statements of established editors intent, removed and attempted to remove and prevent the addition of valid source material, failed to address the concerns of other editors and effectively attempted to own this article including promoting it widely across social media in your own pro-fracking activism.

Please confine yourself to suggesting edits for other editors to action from now on. Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I finally found out what a connected contributor is Luther Blissetts (talk). Wikipedia policies are not always easy to find, which is why I highlighted the matter in the title of this and requested assistance in the matter. I only edited once I had waited for more than a week for someone else to take up the matter, and realise that was not acceptable and I would like to apologise for that. Reading through the acres of material on this, I have updated my page User:Kennywpara with a statement that I have made complaints to the ASA. I am very happy not to edit any of the sections on the Fracking debate, and have largely steered clear of that recently. My main interest is that the main body of the article is technically accurate, and NPOV. Kennywpara (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note Luther Blissetts (talk) I have updated my clarification on my talk page of connected contributer statusKennywpara (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance tag

I have removed the maintenance tag. It has been on there for 6 months and I and others have tried to sort out the real and in some cases imaginary issues. I will continue to look at a few minor outstanding issues and I hope other editors will too. Could I suggest that if there are particular issues with a chapter, then that chapter should be flagged with a maintenance tag, rather than the whole article. This page should not be a blog for anti activism. Neither should it be a blinkered pro industry mouthpiece. It should be a balanced and authoritative page, with references to reliable sources. I hope it meets that standard. Just like any other Wiki page in fact! Kennywpara (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Kennywpara, It has been established that you are an activist on these talk pages (archived). It has been established that you created a sockpuppet which you have used to edit this article and circumvent a block on the use of images which don't meet Wikipedia's criteria. Wikipedia article pages are off limits for activists. It would be best if you limit yourself to making suggestions on this talk page for other editors to action. Alternatively, you could start your own blog.

The maintenance tag is now restored. Please do not remove it again, and in future please confine your input to this talk page. Luther Blissetts (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion

In view of the ingoing issues and disagreements between Luther Blissetts (talk) and myself I am referring this for a WP:THIRDOPINION I will post my referral here. In the meantime I request that LB stops ant further editing until this is resolved. Kennywpara (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In the event of WP:3 not working out, then I will elevate this to dispute resolution WP:DRR/DRNKennywpara (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)all of the

I continue to be concerned about the edits of Luther Blissetts.

On 20th March 2017 Luther Blissetts (talk): wrote this

Your COI needs to be declared in a connected contributor on this page, following Wikipedia behavioural guidelines. You have now plugged the blog of an admin for the Backing Fracking facebook page. You have worked with this admin for a number of years. Your declared involvement "to ensure that false scientific claims are not used" is a clear denial of the extent of your activism. It's equivalent to an anti-fracking activist saying that people who oppose fracking don't oppose fracking, they oppose the way that fracking advocates use information in a misleading way to gain public support, and all they're doing is exposing that misleading information. You probably don't realise how unconvincing your insistence that you're not a pro-fracking activist sounds. On this article, you have edit warred, made POV additions that didn't match the source material, used a sockpuppet to edit as though it were a new user, repeatedly argued with editors about the use of maintenance tags invariably claiming that they were: added as 'part of a campaign' or to destroy the article, continued to add material that creates a POVFORK despite being asked by experienced editors to avoid this, edited this article as though it were a public information page for all-things-shale gas instead of being an encyclopedia, been asked repeatedly not to make false statements of established editors intent, removed and attempted to remove and prevent the addition of valid source material, failed to address the concerns of other editors and effectively attempted to own this article including promoting it widely across social media in your own pro-fracking activism.

‘’Please confine yourself to suggesting edits for other editors to action from now on’’. (end of statement by Luther Blissetts)

My response It is unacceptable for this editor to ‘ban’ me from editing this page without any concensus from other editors.

I have stated previously

1. I do not have a COI. Nothing financial/family/friends/shares etc. Nothing. WP:COI That states That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, ’’not a judgment about that person's OPINION or integrity’’ I understand from Twitter feed that Luther Blissetts has anti frack sentiments. Does that give him a conflict of interest? I do have an opinion that this page should reflect the science and UK regulatory regime.

2. I will repeat again, I am not, and never have been an editor of Backing Fracking Facebook. I have never attended a rally, or meeting. Why would that be an issue anyway? I have no idea who the editor(s) are, or if the organisation is funded.

3. I aspire not to use information in a misleading way although LB accuses me of that. There is no need. The basic research, and eminent bodies that have looked at the technology all say it is fine as long as its done properly. Those are the sources that this page needs to follow.

4. The sockpuppet issue has been dealt with. It was a new user error and I explained this at ‘Also known as kennywpara’ chapter on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:F.Nonsense Please see WP:NEWBIE

5. I have argued with maintenance tags, in particular the one at the top of this page. Perhaps you wish to have it there to indicate the info may be disputed or unreliable? Perhaps you could advise what issues you are having problems with, as that is what the tag is for, as was suggested by another editor. You have no concensus for that, yet have acted in a high handed manner as though you are the sole arbiter. I stated when I removed the tag that the vast bulk of the issues had been dealt with, and that I would clean up the rest in due course.

6. I have ‘edited this article as though it were a public information page for all-things-shale gas instead of being an encyclopedia’. Isnt an encyclopaedia a ‘public information’ device? I genuinely fail to see what you are trying to suggest here.

7. I do not feel the last section is worthy of a response.

Could I ask other editors (who probably have been driven away by unpleasant atmosphere created by LB) offer their opinions please Mike Norton (Mike Norton)

Plazak (Plazak) Beagel (Beagel) Jytdog (Jytdog)Kennywpara (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kennywpara:, Please could you say which content or sources you have a problem with. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about content, or sources. It is a discussion about you summarily 'banning' me, acting in an inappropriate manner. I will respect that and I would expect you also to respect my request to not edit until this is clarified. I see below that the Third Opinion request has been rejected as this is a matter of editor conduct. I will be placing this on the administrators noticeboard, shortly. Luther Blissetts (talk)Kennywpara (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kennywpara:On 20th March 2017 Kennywpara: wrote this "I have no idea who the editor(s) are"

Kennywpara - your defence here is presumably going to rest on your general credibility. I find it inconceivable that you are seriously expecting the other editors and contributors on this page to believe that you are unaware that your co-complainant in your unsuccessful attempt to get the ASA to rule on the FoE leaflet (to which you have admitted so no WP:OUT there) is, by his own admission, an admin on a Facebook page that you both post on on a daily basis. A post on that page on 16th December by another admin asks you why you "didn't you add it [an extra comment] before posting?". As we both know the only people who can post new articles on that page are in fact admins. This clearly indicates that you have admin status on that page and I have a screen shot of the sequence of posts. I find your protestation of non-involvement there totally unconvincing, as I also find your claim not to be a pro-fracking activist wholly unconvincing. In my view you should adopt a similar position to the one I have done, which is to admit to holding a partisan viewpoint and not to post further on this page but to limit yourself to commenting on this talk area. Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not normally respond to anything written by Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) as his use of ad hominem attack, and his publishing of my personal address on his website as a method of intimidation is not acceptable to me and many others.

I am fully aware of the post. My co complainant sometimes posts very confusing posts on social media. I have asked him numerous times to indicate irony with a smiley face or similar. He has also posted that he has been paid thousands of pounds and has a new car in response to charges of bribery, all with no indication of irony. I have spoken to him about this a few times. Why would I post something as 'editor/admin' of Backing Fracking (which I am not) and then allow following comments to stand? Why would I post as BF editor/admin, and then make a comment in my own name questioning that? The obvious thing to do by an editor/admin would be to remove or change the offending comment. I would have done that except that I do not have the ability to do that, as I am not an editor/admin. I am a frequent contributor, debunking anti science claims, but I will state again, I am not and never have been an editor of Backing Fracking Facebook. As this is one of the main factors in the comments made by Luther Blissetts (talk) then this is an important point. I am also aware of your desire to undermine this page, as it presents properly resourced information about the science and regulation of fracking, something that you would prefer to stifle. This page has been and should continue to be based on reliable evidence. Kennywpara (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kennywpara: I am not sure why Kennywpara refers to my comments as an ad hominem attack. I am merely pointing out that his protestations that he is not an activist in the area of Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom are at odds with the available evidence, and that his editing on an Encyclopaedia page on the subject is therefore inappropriate. I can accept this logic as regards myself. I fail to understand why he can't as well. I am not sure how his argument above is supposed to demonstrate that he is not (as he clearly now admits the evidence suggests) an admin of a pro-fracking Facebook group. Regardless of that, presumably he is not going to attempt to deny having been an admin of the "Blackpool Fracking For A Better Future Facebook" campaigning page as well? That in itself is ample evidence of an activist approach to the subject. I presume he will also not deny having waged an extremely vitriolic activist campaign against IET member Mike Hill in which he made a large number of damaging accusations against Mr Hill, all of which were dismissed on evaluation by the IET board. That too was the behaviour of an activist. I make no secret of my distaste for @Kennywpara's methods of campaigning, but we are not discussing personal antipathy here. What is under discussion here is whether @kennywpara's campaigning and activism means he is able to maintain WP:NPOV (or has WP:COI). I can't, he can't and neither of us should be directly editing this article. Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request for a 3O has been removed (i.e. declined) because as stated this is more a dispute about editor conduct, than about article content, 3O, DRN, and formal mediation do not handle disputes about editor conduct. If you have a complaint about editor conduct, speak to an administrator or, after carefully reading and following the instructions there, file a complaint at Administrator's noticeboard/incidents. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC) (3O Volunteer)

Two activists, one pro-, one anti-, battling out on wikipedia. I suggest both are constrained to only suggesting edits, or topic-banned as WP:SPA/Advocates. Can they both User:Kennywpara and User:Fyldeman please take their 'fracking/antifracking activism' away from wikipedia and back to wherever it is they normally do this (social media?). Content battles with other editors (see archives 1 2 3 4) go round in circles WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:DEADHORSE, with every attempt to keep article on topic (HF in the UK), it is undone with further off-topic additions 'to inform the public', because according to User:Kennywpara, 'if you google fracking uk, this is where you end up' (or words to that effect). Concerned that ordinary edits are being twisted by User:Kennywpara into accusations of POV, I welcome every assistance to get this article back on topic and away from tendentious editing/advocacy. Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hiding information

Could you please provide a rationale Luther Blissetts as to why you have moved all of the videos into a section at the end. I placed videos in the relevant chapter, regulatory video in the regulation section and so on. Surely that is the place for them to be? After all if someone was to want to know about regulation, an recent authoritative video from the govt or regulatory bodies would be a good place to start. A cynic might say that you were trying to make the info harder to find. Looking at other Wiki pages that does not seem to be normal practice. Kennywpara (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that the manual of style indicates that media files should be in the section that they refer to. See media files and 'other media files'. Chapter 18 WP:MOS Kennywpara (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I provide some rationale in the edit summary, User:Kennywpara. If videos are included in the article body, descriptions are required. There was no summarised description for the majority of these videos that would have told the reader what the video was about, without having to click on the link. 'This is a video of that' is not enough to support its placement in an article.

I have edited at least one of these 'this is a video of that' entries to provide a description.

The same video was referred to twice in the article - once in the body and once in external links.

If you're going to start quoting the manual of style, then it might be useful to have followed it when you added these videos in the first place. The relevance for their inclusion needs to be established & described, and to be included in the article they need to relate specifically to hydraulic fracturing in the UK.

The information has not been hidden. It is still there for the reader to access.

If you're going to accuse an editor of hiding information, when they haven't, it helps not to have done the same yourself, when you did.[6]

I have a suggestion for you. Try editing some other pages, perhaps something you're interested in, that you aren't involved in as an activist/advocate. Do please refer the archives to avoid repetition. Since you're a WP:SPA, I highly recommend experiencing the wider wiki world of editing any other article than this one (and the other one). Nay, I urge you to go forth and discover the joys of wikipedia editing.

18:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the 'hiding information',Luther Blissetts (talk) I hid it rather than deleted it and commented "Hid this section as its overly long, complex, and is covered in the UKOOG link above KW Mar 2107". This was after reading another comment by an external editor that the page should be concise and not overly long. The section is now simple to read and has all of the information for someone wanting to access that.

Perhaps you could explain why a brief description of a video on Regulation that describes the Regulatory system by the regulators needs a detailed justification in a chapter on Regulation? And also why it needs to compiled at the end of a very long page where it is unlikely ever to be seen? Perhaps a better policy would be to add a short description if it was felt that was appropriate. If there were two references then that should be deleted. I use Wikipedia a lot BTW and am very familiar with many aspects as a user. Sadly I do not have any other areas where I have expertise to comment although I will happily follow your suggestionKennywpara (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kennywpara:, Where is this comment by an external editor saying that a concise summary of regulations relating to hydraulic fracturing in the UK should be removed and replaced with a single link to UKOOG that appears to be about regulation of shale gas in the UK? Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Luther Blissetts (talk)It was another overly long section that was highly technical that also benefitted from a trim down, sticking to the key points. I cannot recall which section. It follows WP:BECONCISE IIRC. It seemed to apply to the regulation page as well. Better to give reliable links that will stay up to date.The hidden taxt was very opaque. Kennywpara (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Kennywpara, Perhaps you could explain in more detail. The evolution of the edits to the regulation section are below. Please:

1) explain how the 2nd column text is 'highly technical' and 'opaque' and didn't stick to the key points;

2) explain why you initially opposed column 2 - saying "your proposal is WP:POV ... I see little logic or reasoning for the proposed changes, and I see much inaccuracy and inappropriate evidence." "To me you appear to be presenting some anti frack lines, that do not hold water when examined by scientists, or regulators.";

3) explain why you didn't add 'reliable links' that will stay up to date' to the column 2 text, where appropriate;

4) explain how you know the link you provided to UKOOG in column 3 will 'stay up to date';

5) answer my original question, which was 'Where is this comment by an external editor saying that a concise summary of regulations relating to hydraulic fracturing in the UK should be removed and replaced with a single link to UKOOG that appears to be about regulation of shale gas in the UK?'

6) explain why you have changed the title from 'Regulation' (columns 1 & 2) to 'Drilling and HF Regulation' (column 3), when this is an article about HF in the UK, and not 'drilling and HF in the UK'.

Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2017 (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.

References

Certainly Luther Blissetts (talk)

1)The bit I hid to was TL;DR

2) I cannot find the bit you refer to. I objected to the way you structured the EU comment from 2014 as criticism of regs published in late 2016. The EU 2014 stuff informed the regulatory process.

3) Not clear what you mean.

4)UKOOG is the industry body. It has to keep stuff up to date.

5) The comment from another editor was about making concise edits. Thats what I explained above.

6) Because its Drilling and HF regulation. Its an accurate description, whereas the previous one was less so. It incorporates drilling AND HF operations. It clearly needs to be in this page. Kennywpara (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Kennywpara

1) You made the edit claiming: "Put in UKOOG link for regulations and hid overly long and complex wording."[7]; you claim it was WP:TLDR. In what way did was the previous process of reducing the wording from column 1 (c.700 words) to column 2 (c.200 words), TLDR? Your edit summary, and the hidden description in the edit itself (Hid this section as its overly long, complex, and is covered in the UKOOG link above KW), comes across as a circumvention of normal WP:CONSENSUS editing and discussion. TLDR "can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing". It is not a policy. If the links were not up to date, then {{dead link}} could have been added, alerting editors of to the need to find up to date links. If the wording was overly long, it could have been reduced further or split into another article when appropriate or tagged with {{very long}}. See: summary style and WP:SPINOFF. Nowhere does it say "hide it, and replace it with a link to an Advocacy group". Now, when a reader uses 'Contents' to navigate to read about Regulation, they are met with no summary explaining what regulation of hydraulic fracturing is or how it came into being. Instead they are met with a section giving undue weight in terms of size, and placement to Permitted chemicals (see here, here, which contains information covering regulation, legislation, environmental impacts, and method/hydraulic fracturing fluids (used at Preese Hall 1 well). The summary of regulations has been removed (hidden). Chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid belongs in Method, while a brief sentence/para about the regulation of permitted chemicals belongs in regulation, while concerns re. frac fluids on groundwater, spills, etc belongs in environmental impacts.

2) a) The bit I refer to is here. Your response to a transparent methodology being laid bare in the hope it might prevent your insinuations as to my motives was: "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." and you rejected the proposal to reduce the wording saying: "To me you appear to be presenting some anti frack lines, that do not hold water when examined by scientists, or regulators". I suggest this is WP:STONEWALL and is related to your position as an activist/advocate, as it does not my position, and you provided no proof or diffs to support your insinuation of motive.

2) b) I did not place EU para in 'Criticism (of regs published in 2016'. It was placed in Legislation. There is an historic process with respect to the development of both regulation and legislation which includes directives, consultations, draft regulations, legislation and regulation. Please stop accusing me of things I haven't done!

3) Simply, that first removed a paragraph saying it was overly long (after the previous paragraph had been more than halved in word count); when asked for an explanation, you said " Better to give reliable links that will stay up to date.The hidden text was very opaque.", so I asked why you didn't provide reliable links if the links were dead or outdated (consensus edit as saying it's TLDR doesn't explain why you thought the hidden paragraph was "opaque" and should be hidden rather than improved.

4) UKOOG are not a regulator. UKOOG is an trade association and advocacy group for the industry. As a stakeholder, they lobby regulators with respect to regulations and parliament with respect to both regulations and legislation. They also produce information collaboratively that represents the industry in a positive light to the public.

5) Please show me the comment from an "external editor" about making concise edits to this page. You did not raise that in your original discussion here.

6) But this is an article about Hydraulic Fracturing in the United Kingdom. It's not about drilling in the United Kingdom or Shale Gas in the United Kingdom. It is not clear to me at all that another topic deviation should occur after all the discussions that have gone before about the continued addition, by you, of information that belongs elsewhere.

I'm asking for a third opinion in the hope that this issue can be swiftly resolved. Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is there any editing?

I would like to ask why Luther Blissetts (talk) is editing? I have respected your request that I do not edit until certain matters are clarified. In view of my taking this to a higher level I have asked you not to edit. You have not respected that. I am in the process of making a complaint as you are in breach of many Wiki policies. You do not WP:OWN this page, and you have no consensus. I will ask again to cease editing until my complaint has been resolved. Kennywpara (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Kennywpara, Which wikipedia policies am I in breach of? Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Luther Blissetts (talk) You are in breach of WP:OWN in my opinion. Any comment that is made, you immediately respond with a wall of comment. I suspect his is why other editors have given up. Please note I have made a connected contributor statement above as I realise I was inadvertently in breach of Wiki policies, and am now compliant. That is in fact why I publicly highlighted the issue If I am not, then please indicate where I am not. Kennywpara (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Kennywpara, The connected contributor template goes on this talk page. On your own page you make a statement of your connections to activism/advocacy. Hope that helps. Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Water depletion

User:Kennywpara, You added this sentence in the 'water depletion section.diffs Please provide a citation (on this talk page, please!).

"It is equivalent to watering a golf course for a month.[citation needed]"

Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk 20:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, this is a quote from one of the publications that is now withdrawn, (DECC Fracking 'Water') that I highlighted in the Talk chapter 'Redundant Links'. I gather it is based on US material anyway. The water depletion chapter is due an update. Kennywpara (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that somebody who strenuously claims their only interest is in correcting misapprehensions about fracking like Kennywparais not aware of the provenance of that quote and its irrelevance to hydraulic fracturing in the UK. It is discussed at length and in some detail on my website for those who are interested http://www.refracktion.com/index.php/why-do-they-need-to-lie-to-us/ Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Citations in Lead

Hi Luther Blissetts (talk I assume it was you that put 'citations needed' in the Lead. Looking at this they are not required. WP:LEADCITE. If it is so important the first one could use this [8] Kennywpara (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Kennywpara, Thank you for your assistance and the providing of a link. In the end, I decided to use links that appear in the body, rather than add a new one, and generalise the statement. WP:CITE does not say that lead/lede citations are not required. It says: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving info relevant to Shale gas in the United Kingdom article

I am continuing to move, as previously discussed in the archives 1 2 3 and 4 , information which clearly belongs to the SG in the UK article, however I feel it is best (as previously discussed) to edit first then move so that the need to present in summary-style is not shunted on to editors of the SG in the UK article. In the edit summary, I am placing a Shale gas in the United Kingdom link, and in the SG in the UK article I am placing a link back to Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. I notice there is also a 'copied to/from' box in each page. Can I ask @Beagel: to ask if he feels that adding the diffs/old to the 'copied' box is an absolute requirement for this process, given the amount of information that needs to be copied over? Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

BLP and COI

Comments have been posted here that violate our biographies of living persons policy, which applies to all edits about living persons on any page, including talk pages. Please use this page only to discuss the content of the article.

Anyone with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged from editing the article, and should avoid overwhelming the talk page with suggestions. Anyone involved in a real-life dispute should not make edits—to articles or talk pages—about any other person involved in that dispute. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 06:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi SarahSV ^(talk) I declared a connected contributor status for the various complaints I have made. Nothing more. I did highlight the issue in the title in my edit 'Friends of the Earth and the ASA, and editor kennywpara' followed by

'I have to declare a personal involvement in this.....'. Might I ask why other editors did not simply advise me it was not acceptable, as I expected, rather than waiting for me to (unwisely) do an edit on something I was involved with? What about WP:BITE? That states Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once, and in some ways even the most experienced among us are still newcomers. The reasons I have done these complaints is that the science that was being presented to the public was false, as is reflected in the fact that all of the bodies agreed to withdraw their leaflets to avoid a full judgement. To do that needs a good knowledge of the subject.

Where has the suggestion that I am a paid contributor come from? That is what the citation tag suggests. I gather that accusation has been made by the private message you sent me. I have declared several times that I have not and never would take any remuneration for editing. There cannot be any evidence as I have never been remunerated! Is Wiki to be edited based on malicious rumour? My motivation is to present an authoritative page that correctly presents HF in the UK. The reason is that I was horrified by the lack of reliable comment, and the poor state of the page when I started editing. That means almost entirely using entirely reliable sources (Royal Society/RAE report/Public Health England etc), and avoiding unreliable comment, and fake science of which there is much. I was advised that when I started editing by a senior editor. As I write there are many protests taking place with pollution of water as a focus. Surely this page should reflect the science, and avoid conjecture.

In terms of NPOV, I inserted the [Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Conflicts_of_interest|'Conflicts of Interest'] Chapter. Why would someone someone with a pro industry POV do that? I do have an opinion that the science says that HF is safe, an opinion shared by dozens of independent expert bodies.

I will be contacting admin shortly as I feel that there is much more to be said on the edits of this page. It is a concern that there is only one editor active currently, as all the previous contributors appear to be avoiding commenting now.

As for the BLP I apologise for that. I was drawn into a debate concerning an unreliable source, and I thought that Talk pages were not covered by editor codes so closely. Kennywpara (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Kenny, thank you for apologizing for the BLP violation. I've replied further on your talk page. Just to be clear, I didn't send you a private message; I left a message on your talk page. I also didn't accuse you of being a paid editor; rather, I advised you about the policy on paid editing, in case it applied. Please reply further on your talk page. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Kennywpara complained about part of the ASA section. Some of that text relied on a personal or activist website, and another on a Google doc reporting a local council meeting. I've removed those sources and the text that relied on them. When discussing living people, please use only high-quality secondary sources. Anything contentious about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately, particularly when there is a complaint about it. See WP:BLPSOURCES. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, SarahSV. WRT to the information being based on information from an activist's personal blog, I take your point!. It had been previously recommended as a reference on the talk page by Kennywpara. I will triple-check the source of the source of the source from now on where BLP is concerned and if any of that chain are not RS, then I won't use it. I had thought the planning document would be a RS. The PDF of the minutes of a planning meeting from North Yorkshire County Council website had been cached by google, so I used that as if you click on it, it gives a direct download PDF, and therefore I thought this was an unsuitable link for Wikipedians. If the letter-writer now says that his letter was wrongly included as a letter of support for a planning application and was not a letter of support for hydraulic fracturing planning application, then it's not a problem to not use it. Has the letter writer informed the council concerned to rectify this mistake? Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant to add: please give consideration to Kenny's request not to use the names of complainants. At present, the names are included without explanation (the "two supporters" text was not in a reliable source and was one of the issues complained about). That's an editorial decision, not directly a BLP issue, so I haven't removed the names that are reliably sourced, but I'd suggest adding a brief description (again, based on RS) or leaving out them. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I have given some consideration to the request, and I cannot support the names of ASA complainants being omitted as they are supported by high-quality secondary sources.[9][10].

I found a comment from 4 January 2017[11] complaining about the name NOT being included in The Guardian's article about the ASA and Friends of the Earth:

"Perhaps the Guardian want to present this as big business crushing the poor defenseless FoE? Its the fifth complaint that I have taken out with the ASA, and in all cases, anti frack groups have withdrawn."

I found another comment in a published letter to the BMJ linking the name to more ASA complaints made about anti-fracking material.[12] The person mentioned clearly takes ownership of this most recent and previous ASA complaints in public, on social media, and on this talk page. Additionally,they have given their real name at least once that I remember in the talk page archive. I think there is no reason for the names of complainants not to be included. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Advertising Standards Authority Complaints section

Please can I make the following suggestions for edits / additions:

The sentence "In April 2013, "fracking activist" Refracktion reported Cuadrilla's brochure to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), who deemed that of the 18 statements made, 11 were acceptable and six had breached the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) code." is factually incorrect. The "community newsletter" as it should be described made more than 18 statements but only 18 were in fact investigated. The ASA's summary () states "18 issues were investigated, of which 11 were Not Upheld, 6 were Upheld and one was Upheld in part." I also think that "opponent of fracking" would be more WP:NPOV than "fracking activist", and in any case Refracktion would be more accurately described as an *anti*-fracking activist.

I would therefore like to suggest that the content is changed to something along the lines of "In April 2013, an opponent of fracking, Refracktion, reported Cuadrilla's "Community Newsletter" to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), for making statements regarding the safety and impact of hydraulic fracturing which were exaggerated, misleading and which could not be substantiated. The ASA deemed that, of the 18 statements investigated, 11 were acceptable but six had breached the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) code and one had breached it in part."

For completeness I also think something like the following needs to be added to this section (after the Refracktion reference to keep chronology consistent):

"In 2014 A press advertisement in the Daily Telegraph, paid for by Breitling Energy, expressed support for the use of hydraulic fracturing in the UK to extract natural gas from shale rock and made claims, including that "decades worth of gas" would lead to "lowering energy prices for millions" and "freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia's political games with your gas supply". In total six complaints were investigated and it was found that in all six instances the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) code had been breached. Breitling Energy were told that they must not repeat the claims in their current form."

Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also point out that the statement "The ASA resolved the complaint with an informal ruling that the group, Residents Action On Fylde Fracking (RAFF), had "exaggerated the size and scale of planned fracking operations"." is questionable. The ASA do not make "informal rulings" - they either make a ruling (adjudicate) on a complaint or they arrive at an informal resolution (or they dismiss the complaint). I would suggest that it would be more accurate to replace the text above with the simple statement that "The ASA resolved the complaint informally". There is no official record that I can find to support the current version and the ASA's reference to the resolution on its own site does not make any such claim about exaggeration. Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Unusually, Luther Blissetts (talk) I agree with most of Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) comments. The one exception is the with the RAFF complaint, the text should be 'After consideration of complaints the ASA received, RAFF agreed to amend or withdraw advertising without the need for a formal investigation'. That is based on the exact wording used by the ASA.Kennywpara (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Kennywpara (talk) I am glad we can strive together to improve the article in a neutral fashion. The phrasing you used there is the generic ASA heading for informal resolutions and does not apply specifically to RAFF (providing for, as it does, two possible outcomes - amend or withdraw). I would submit that my original proposal is factual and sufficiently complete.Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Fyldeman: and @Kennywpara:, Thank you for highlighting the informal ASA judgement process. I have now checked the ASA search for rulings[13] and agree that there is no reason given for the RAFF informal ruling. It's the same for all four informal rulings in that list relating to fracking:

"After consideration of complaints we received, the following companies and organisations agreed to amend or withdraw advertising without the need for a formal investigation."

• Frack Free Ryedale 03 February 2016 Number of complaints: 1 Media: Regional press
• Residents Action on Fylde Fracking 07 January 2015 Number of complaints: 1 Media: Leaflet
• Frack Free Alliance 03 June 2015 Number of complaints: 1 Media: Leaflet
• Frack Free Somerset 07 May 2014 Number of complaints: 1 Media: Leaflet

Additionally, this complaint had a formal ruling that was initially upheld, but was then withdrawn making it not upheld:

Greenpeace Ltd 21 September 2016 Not Upheld National press https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/greenpeace-ltd-a15-291715.html

A formal ruling that was not upheld for:

*Rathlin Energy Ltd Not Upheld Circular 01 July 2015 https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/rathlin-energy-ltd-a14-287437.html

I don't know where the specific information in the news sources could have come from. It doesn't appear to be attributed to anyone in the articles on it. If there's any thing else to discuss about ASA's or if you find tthere are any ASA's that I have left out, please respond below. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Regulations

Hi Luther Blissetts (talk) I was about to write that I was generally happy with the tone of the recent editing. I do propose to monitor, but will contact when I have serious concerns. One matter does concerns me. In 'Regulation' I can find no mention of the recently issued regulations which apply to drilling, and specific HF activities. This is the a crucial document as it is the cumulation of a long consultation process. It needs to be available in all UK based pages, or at least have prominent links to the document. Currently as far as I can see the only reference is at the end of a page in the 'shale in the UK' Regulation page. I would hope it can be returned to the 'Drilling and HF Regulation' section simply as a link, with a brief description. It does after all contain all of the protocols for flowback disposal and produced water and other HF activities. Kind regards. Kennywpara (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, OOGSG 2016 in Regulations relating to HF is  Done. Eventually, only those regulations relating directly to HF will remain and anything relating to SG in the UK generally will be moved to that article. For now, am working still on structure and summarising what is there now, as I tried moving it without cleanup first and it didn't sit well with me to dump the info unreviewed into another article. Drilling is common to C or U O&G, not just HF specific. This article is about the HF process but in my opinion, appears to be largely written from the perspective of shale gas regulation. To address HF specific drilling, there needs to be a section on well types in Method. The reference you speak of is , I believe, mentioned 15 times in the HF article, and appears as two different references: OOGSG 2016(13) and OOGSG1(2):

• Regulations = 2
• Environmental impact = 5
• Water = 1
• Flowback fluid = 5
• Seismicity = 1
• Public health = 1

I might have missed out a mention of it. Sorry if I have. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Public Opinion section

I note that this section is in need of an update. Can I propose the following as a replacement more reflective of current polling? It summarises the major recent and ongoing UK polls that I am aware of as a starting point to which others may wish to add to or discuss.

Quarterly "Wave" polling, originally commissioned by DECC (now BEIS), has been monitoring public opinion on shale gas with its Energy and Climate Change Public Attitudes Tracker since Wave 8 (December 2013). The eighth wave showed 27% supported "extracting shale gas to generate the UK’s heat and electricity", while 21% opposed. As of Wave 20 (December 2016), that position has shifted with 18% supporting extraction of shale gas and 31% opposed.

The University of Nottingham ‘Survey of Public Attitudes to Shale Gas Extraction in the UK’ has been running since March 2012. This series of polls shows that public support for the extraction and use of shale gas (from those who correctly identified shale gas in the gateway question), has fallen from a peak of 58.3% in July 2013 to just over 37.3 % by the twelfth poll in October 2016. In the same time period opposition is shown as having grown from 18.8% to 41.1%. The October 2016 poll was "a milestone" according to its authors as for the first time a majority of respondents were opposed to its development in the UK. Moreover, across the survey there had been an increase in respondents associating shale gas with negative environmental impacts. As concerns about the environmental impacts of shale gas have increased the poll's authors say they have seen the UK public become less convinced of its benefits to the economy and the energy security of the UK.

A survey by YouGov for Friends of the Earth, published in August 2016 , found that 33% of people would support fracking in their local area if individual households received a payment of up to £10,000. According to the research, 43% said they would oppose fracking despite the payment and 25% said they didn’t know.

July 2016 Polling by ComRes for Remsol showed support for shale gas at 26% with opposition at 46%, with shale gas being the least popular energy source when compared to solar, onshore wind, nuclear, biomass and electricity storage.

Both the 2016 YouGov and ComRes polling showed that while men in the UK were evenly divided about fracking, women were strongly against it; DECC/BEIS wave polling has shown that support for renewables has consistently been stronger than support for fracking, with support for on-shore wind having increased from 66% to 71% between Waves 1 and 19." Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

I support the presentation of each poll in one paragraph. I've tweaked the first paragraph a little (and removed the vernacular 'fracking') and added more links. Feel free to change any of it. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that this section will need to be moved to Shale gas in the United Kingdom, as it is about public perceptions of shale gas development, not the process of hydraulic fracturing in the UK. In my opinion, there is no reason that the existing section in the article can't be updated first, and then moved, to avoid dumping information that isn't up-to-date-on an article that has few issues. If any editors have a problem with this section being moved to SG in the UK, please can they add their comment below. Please be aware that the move of non-HF info that belongs to the SG in the UK article has already been discussed extensively in the archives Thanks. Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Rationale for moving sections of this article

Although it has been discussed before, perhaps Luther Blissetts (talk) could explain why that should happen in view of the fact that the Govt view the two matters as virtually synonymous.

• Under the section About shale gas and hydraulic fracturing this article is published. In that, Chapter 3 is titled What is shale gas and fracking?. A short video then follows.

• 'Chapter 4 is titled. The potential of shale gas and oil so moving any of the material to a chapter about gas would not be justifiable.

• Chapter 5 is a video on evidence on safety and the environment. This is the video that you moved away from the chapter on regulation, into a video section at the end in contravention of MOS which states that supporting media should appear alongside the chapter it refers to. I raised this matter in the [above] and that issue still is not resolved.

(It is also not clear for the rational of removing all trace of the [UK regulations document from the chapter on regulation)

• Then there is a link to the authoritative Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering report. This represents the pinnacle of UK science. This is titled as a 'review of hydraulic fracturing' yet the pdf is called 'Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing'. This states 'The review concluded that “the health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation.” '

• I see in a hidden comment that you want to move the Public Health England conclusions to 'Shale gas in the UK'. However, this same page (remember the title) has a link to Public Health England report with the statement

'Public Health England has assessed the risk to human health of extracting shale gas. They evaluated available evidence on issues including air quality, radon gas, naturally occurring radioactive materials, water contamination and waste water. They concluded that “the risks to public health from exposure to emissions from shale gas extraction are low if operations are properly run and regulated.” Please explain why the only authoritative public health study applicable to the UK should be moved?

Every section of the webpage has a close link between shale gas, fracking and oil.Kennywpara (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara,

• 1) I can't comment on the government publications or the government's view. If you can provide a secondary RS that discusses this, please do so.
• 2) Please see the discussion on Regulations above and contribute there.
• 3) The RS/RAE report has three reference entries - 1, 85 and 88. In all cases the full title of the document is included.
• 4) Please see the discussion on Moving info relevant to SG in the UK above and contribute there.

Quick links:

See also: Talk:Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom § Regulations, and Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom § Moving_info_relevant_to_Shale_gas_in_the_United_Kingdom_article

Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi, Luther Blissetts They say more discussion on 3O. Why not stick to reliable sources from the regulatory bodies? Theres a huge amount of official comment which should be the basis of discussion. It does after all involve official policies and comment. I will post on suggested place Kennywpara (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, You began this section to discuss moving information to the Shale gas in the United Kingdom (for which there is already a section open for discussion above and which I have directed you to, for further comment). Now you have made the discussion about an alleged provision of unreliable sources, for which I would appreciate if you opened a new section to talk about what sources you consider unreliable. Additionally, if you are going to make accusations that I have added unreliable sources, then you need to provide evidence (i.e. the diffs links to the actual edit where these supposed unreliable sources were added). Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Luther Blissetts (talk) and apologies if you took offense. It was an observation. You inserted a letter from an antifrack site that lead discussion that fracking was to be performed in Balcombe, and that influenced editing. That is what I would classify as an unreliable source. It was the Balcombe protests that first drew me into the HF debate as I could not beleive the scientific inaccuracies being claimed. This article should refelect proper science from reliable sources. Please see this relaible link and this reliable link In fact Balcombe is to be tested as a traditional oil well with no fracking needed as its a traditional limestone oil well. When its on the Gov.uk site, it will be based on planning docs etc, rather than speculation. You can see a huge range of HF related material on this link and this link Kennywpara (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never inserted a letter from an antifrack site into this article. I did insert two RS news articles in 2017 when editing that section showing that there were plans for hydraulic fracturing at Balcombe.Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, The source you claim I added was added on 29 February 2012, over 4 years before I began editing this article. If you go to the edit history for the article, you will see an option to list 500 past edits (and 500 older edits). Use this to find the edit you are concerned about, click on 'cur' and post that link to it in single square brackets, e.g. [14] Please will stop accusing me of adding links/text without providing any evidence to back your accusation up.

See also: Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2 § Use_of_dated_resources

Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Luther Blissetts (talk in that case the sincerest of apologies. I saw a hidden comment referring to that but there have been so many edits I was unable to find that. In fact using 'Oldest' and 500 and the date I was able to find it easily. That is new to me. It was Iloveandrea. I did see an unsigned hidden note in the article referring to that but that could have been anybody. (unless there is a way of finding that out which I dint know about...Kennywpara (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

More disussion on 3O

Hi Kennywpara, Sorry, can you explain what you mean by They say more discussion on 3O? Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

They explained Luther Blissetts (talk that any disputes about content should be done on the talk page. That was pretty well it Kennywpara (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara Who has eplained that disputes about content should me discussed on the talk page and where was this discussed (link please!)? Thanks.Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea. It was done on the anonymised chat helpline. I was assigned a different anonymised username. That was all new to me. Kennywpara (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, Thank you for clarifying. I note you also raised a WP:DRN, which was closed by volunteer Yashovardhan, who then notified me of its closure (which was the first I knew about the DRN, and had been given no opportunity by you to add my comments) for the following reasons:

not enough related discussion at the talk page. Please note that before filing a dispute here, continuous discussion at the talk page is mandatory. Presently, it seems that all discussion is only sporadic and not continuous under one single header. Moreover, if it's about the conduct of a user, admins notice board is more appropriate. Consider refiling if no consensus is achieved after proper discussion. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, for your information, SarahSV is an administrator, who helped to the write: the guidelines on WP:COI, and WP:SOCK; and the content policy on WP:BLP. Luther Blissetts (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

References to add the article

If you have a RS reference that you want to be added to the article, just give clear instructions in a new talk page section marked Please add these references to the article or something similar. ETA 08:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC) about the reference you would like to be added and where it should go, below. Thanks. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

After the positive suggestion from Luther Blissetts (talk) Here is a list of some of the key points. I only propose to comment on serious issues. The re ordering of subjects is fine, and I am pleased that comments about subjects like the Medact report are fully documented. (

1) If the PHE report is to be moved to the shale gas article, please replace it (at the top) with

'The Royal Academy of Engineering concluded that “the health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation.”' with a link to the RAE report (which has HF in its title). This is lifted straight from this link

The best solution would be to have both the PHE AND the RAE report section copied direct and in both articles. They are the most authoritative sources of public health info after all.

2) To assist, clarification for the disposal of flowback fluid not being permitted is on the flowchart Figure 5 of page 46 of the EA regs link where is states 'Reinjection of flowback fluid for disposal into any geological formation is not permitted'

3) Clarification for the first sentence in 'Fracture Fluids' should be a link to Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Permitted_chemicals Adding a link to a US based article needs a warning that in the UK only 'non hazardous chemicals are permitted. Perhaps a better wording would be 'Fluids used in the UK have to be licenced by the Environment Agency, and non hazardous'Kennywpara (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Increased seismicity and re-injection of produced water for disposal

Hi Kennywpara, Thanks for your response. I will address 2) first.

The statement about 'disposal method' was in the Seismicity section, and related to the use of deep disposal wells (in the US) of produced water (not flowback) from the oil and gas industry (conventional and unconventional) that had caused the increase in seismic events in Oklahoma.(diffs) Do you have a reference for this not being permitted? I was certain from a reading of the EA regulations 2016 that is permitted under certain conditions.Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not permitted as per the reference I gave aboveLuther Blissetts (talk) Page 46 in the flowchart. It is confusing as produced water (ie water produced with oil) can be reinjected in either producing formations, as happens in Wytch Farm, or into other dirty/salty formations. Under no circumstances can flowback be disposed of like that. Shale will not produce water. Flowback will be coughed up through the life of the well, and that must be reinjected on another frack job(preferred method to minimise waste) OR disposed of through water treatment. They have tanks and separators at the side of the wellhead.Kennywpara (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC) It may have been permitted before but the new regs of Aug 2016 preclude that Kennywpara (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara 'This is not permitted' was written after a video from the US about increased seismicity due to deep disposal wells in Oklahoma that are used to dispose of produced waters from conventional and unconventional oil and gas. The statement said 'This is not permitted'. It is permitted under certain circumstances

Re-injected of treated flowback water to facilitate hydrocarbon production is a different topic to re-injection of produced water to facilitate hydrocarbon production. Re-injection of flowback water for disposal is a different topic to re-injection of produced water for disposal. It is the latter which has caused an increase in seismic activity in the US state of Oklahoma Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, My query of the statement after reading the source:(here). I then changed the wording so it matched the source (diffs). I have found your removal of the edit (diffs) In my opinion the edit you made does not reflect the facts. Disposal of produced waters is permitted. The EA consider this to be 'the best environmental option' (see Ionizing radiation). Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The video link has been moved Luther Blissetts (talk) so the sentence makes no sense. Its important to separate 2 issues from US experience.

1. The earthquake risk worldwide from fracking which is very small, and covered in the Refine link, ::::and

2. The earthquake risk from injecting into the geology specific to Oklahoma to dispose of waste. ::::Fluid injection goes on all the time, in just about every oilbearing hydrocarbon formation.

Its often claimed that fracking caused the swarm of Oklahoma earthquakes, some of which have damaged homes. That is false. To me it seems reasonable to make that distinction in this article. I am leaving for the weekend and so will not be able to respond further, tho please continue these useful discussions. Kennywpara (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps something like 'Seismic events as reported in Oklahoma and elsewhere, are unlikely, as the method of fluid disposal that caused that is not permitted in the UK. (with the reference)Kennywpara (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I read your post again. Just to clarify, Luther Blissetts (talk) produced water is not the topic. The topic is flowback, a different animal, and the reference is what the article needs to reflect. It could contain quantities of chemicals and NORM and salts. Produced water (from oil or traditional gas production) will be pretty gunky as well, but I suppose they have made this distinction to allay concerns. Thats why they are going to truck it away and dispose of as industrial waste, under the licence from the EA, if they cant re inject it. Its all on the page I referred to ages ago, in the simple flowchart. (Not the MUCH more complex flowchart a couple of pages before. That refers to produced water) Have a good weekend. Kennywpara (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

From page 44 this is the explaination

"This section sets out the Environment Agency's position on the re-injection of produced water

and flowback fluid generated from the exploration and production of onshore oil and gas.

When we use the term produced water we are referring to those waters resulting from the

exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons that are produced from a well alongside oil and gas

(with the exception of flowback fluid).

When we refer to flowback fluid, we mean the mixture of hydraulic fracturing fluid, which may

include mobilised natural gas and formation water which returns to the surface following high

volume hydraulic fracturing.Kennywpara (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

ITS PAGE 47!! NOT 46. Doh on my part, and apologies for the incorrect number. Its the text on the right side of the flowchart in Figure 5. Kennywpara (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, I've watched the video and read the USGS report which says: "scientific studies have linked the majority of this increased [seismic] activity to produced water injection in deep disposal wells (table 1) (Ellsworth, 2013; Keranen and others, 2014; Walsh and Zoback, 2015; Weingarten and others, 2015).[15]

The video from Stanford says that increased seismicity in the US is NOT due to injection of flowback for well stimulation or disposal. It was for produced water re-injection (produced water) disposal from oil-producing formations in North Central Oklahoma. Because the producers didn't want to re-inject the produced water for disposal (not for re-injection to maintain pore pressure) back into the formation that it came from (which would potentially reduce production) they decided to use disposal wells in the Arbuckle formation. Because the amount of produced water for re-injection has increased dramatically, the pressure in the formation has increased. Due to the fluid pressure increase, the produced water has then been able to enter faults in the basement below, increasing the stress on already stressed faults and reactivating them, triggering the earthquakes. The claim made in the video is that injecting the produced water (disposal) into the deeper Arbuckle geological formation has caused the earthquakes. I'm really not sure why you keep mentioning flowback water for disposal by re-injection, when that is clearly not permitted - it is only permitted to re-inject flowback after treatement (for another hydraulic fracturing stage). EA clearly state that re-injection of produced water into a formation that has had hydrocarbons extracted from, or into a formation that has been designated as unsuitable for other purposes, IS PERMITTED. Re-injection of produced water for disposal (as talked about in the video) is clearly allowed into the two different types of formation I have mentioned, and this can be either on the same site or a different site. The flow chart for produced water disposal is Figure 4 on page 46. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Kennywpara, The wastewaters from unconventional oil and gas production are: 1) flowback and 2) produced water. Flowback is a product of the hydraulic fracturing process. Produced water (for the purposes of this discussion relating to the two articles HF and SG in the UK) is a product of unconventional shale gas production, and produced alongside the gas for the lifetime of the well. When discussing induced seismicity in this HF in the UK article, the only wastewater is the flowback and the only induced seismicity is caused by the hydraulic fracturing process. In the shale gas article, the wastewater is both flowback and produced water (because the whole process of extraction is able to discussed there) and the induced seismicity comes from either the hydraulic fracturing process, or potentially from the disposal of produced water. Confusion arises in this article from the insertion of the Stanford video into the induced seismicity section, along with a statement that 'this method is not permitted', because the video is about induced seismicity relating to the injection of produced water for disposal into disposal wells in different formation than where it came from, and while you appear to be talking about flowback disposal, the video does not talk about induced seismicity from flowback reinjection for production or disposal except to say that it is not responsible for the increase in induced seismicity in the US. In the US, the triggering of earthquakes by produced water disposal into a deeper formation that hasn't produced hydrocarbons is directly related to a) the very large volumes of produced water being disposed of, and b) the fluid pressure increase in the overlying formation faults that are directly activating the shear zones in the basement below the formation.

The injection of produced water into formations that have not produced hydrocarbons is allowed in the UK, as long as the formation has been designated by the EA as unsuitable for any other purposes, but this information does not belong in the hydraulic fracturing article, it belongs in a section on induced seismicity in the shale gas article. I hope all of this makes sense. In my opinion it is best for the article if the statement is removed. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have removed this information from the induced seismicity section:

<---See video section in external links-- retained as context for following statement that requires clarification: In Feb 2016, Stanford Earth published video to explain why seismicity has occurred in waste water disposal from traditional oil wells in US geology.--> This method of fluid disposal is not currently permitted in the UK.

Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

But what if they frack tight shale oil? Or tight sandstone like in Germany? They are doing that in the US big time. Thats why I think this whole HF/shale separation is daft. Shale and tight formations is a pointless division. They both could be fracked for gas or oil. Luther Blissetts (talk) Still the regs do state shale gas, so I suppose that has to go to shale gas. Why not put a note below saying 'For further information on seismicity see Stanford Earth video in 'Videos'.Kennywpara (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Kennywpara The Stanford video is about produced water re-injection into deep disposal wells into a different formation than the oil-bearing formation from whence it came that caused increased seismicity in Oklahoma. What does it have to do with hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom? I won't be adding any notes anywhere in the article to say 'For further info see video'. The video belongs in a produced water disposal/induced seismicity discussion relating to the US. Discussion about the disposal of flowback (water/wastewater) or its reuse (fracturing fluids) belongs in this article about HF in the UK. The disposal of produced water belongs in the SG in the UK article. A brief mention that flowback and produced water contain hydraulic fracturing fluid and formation water will be mentioned too. There may even be a graph. Luther Blissetts (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Kennywpara. The hydraulic fracturing process ends with the final stage (flowback). In the Environmental impacts section on Flowback, the fact that disposal of flowback is not permitted has already been mentioned. I have also removed the Stanford video from the External links/Videos section. In my opinion, this discussion is closed. In future, please will you check whether what you want to discuss has already been included in the article or discussed extensively already on the talk page archives. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

See also: Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom § Flowback_fluid

References

Environmental impact

See also: Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom § Environmental_impact

I have now begun work on the Environmental impact of HF section. Please feel free to make any comments and add any useful references below. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Process

See also: Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom § Process

I'm working on the Process for HF (low and high volume). I would appreciate any technical commentary on how to improve this. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Fracturing fluids

Hi Kennywpara, Regarding your point in Refences to add to the article:

3) Clarification for the first sentence in 'Fracture Fluids' should be a link to Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Permitted_chemicals Adding a link to a US based article needs a warning that in the UK only 'non hazardous chemicals are permitted. Perhaps a better wording would be 'Fluids used in the UK have to be licenced by the Environment Agency, and non hazardous'

I have updated the page on List of additives for hydraulic fracturing which now highlights the differences between US and UK, the nature of the chemicals and added a table of chemicals. In the Fracturing fluids section I have removed the US/UK differences, and placed an in-wiki link to the List of additives for hydraulic fracturing page. Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought this page was supposed to have UK specific informationLuther Blissetts (talk) The link at the top of the page takes you to the 'Hydraulic Fracturing' not a page about chemicals. Apart from the list of chemicals and proppants use in PH1 there is absolutely no reference to UK law and restrictions about chemicals. That is in [Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Permitted_chemicals Permitted chemicals] What is the point of this section? The chemical restrictions cover all of this. This chapter seems to be superfluous, and misleading. Again, if this page is needed at all (and it is effectively a poor quality duplicate of the clear 'Permitted Chemicals' chapter then it should reflect UK practice, hence my request for a link to Permitted Chemicals. Is this another case of hiding information?

It certainly is not encyclopaedic, as it does not represent the truth or the UK practice. An example of [WP:TE]. The UK is totally different to the US, yet the reader would not be aware of the differences. It also fails to mention other possible fluids such as gels/foams and the like.Please check the links Kennywpara (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Kennywpara (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)