I am curious as to why this citation has been added, by BeagelKennywpara (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC). I have written a lot of the stuff, and it cannot be called 'shale gas production in the UK' as currently there is none.this article uses the term 'hydraulic fracturing' as a synonym of unconventional gas (shale gas) production. It contains a wide amount of material that covers the whole debate of shale gas/geothermal/ (which involves fracking) various drilling issues (which were part of the debate at the Preese Hall no 1 well, which is the only fracked HV well so far and misunderstandings of this are rife), climate change as it refers to UK issues and policy, CBM (which can involve fracking) traditional fracking history, political issues, government publications, opposition etc etc. As such this citation seems baseless.
The second part of the citation is It includes subsection about shale gas areas, horizontal drilling, well cementing, etc issues which are not issues of hydraulic fracturing or which belong to the shale gas articles. I again would like to see a justification for that. Try to find a brief description for horizontal drilling directional drilling and you get an article that has had multiple citations for years and is highly technical. It is one of the main things that relate to fracking (especially in stages) as a technology. Well cementing as it pertains to fracturing is also part of the debate, with so many concerns about methane and frac fluids causing pollution (and also is part of the debate for traditional wells)
I would appreciate comments from other editors. This comment has been added by one person. Looking at a variety of other Wiki sites there is scope for a wide range of material as it relates to the subject. That is what this site has as well. It brings together well sourced references and comment to inform those curious about the whole HF debate as it is currently in the UK.
I do not mind the citation for 'unclear citation style' from Rock Magnetist, as I have been guilty of not really understanding how to use the simple drop down menu. In addition, RM has been trying hard to improve this. Is this citation an attempt to remove well sourced and relevant information from public view? Or to cast doubt on the validity of the content. I would hope not. If there is question about content I would appreciate a mature discussion on that, (as we recently did on the Climate Change chapter. Kennywpara (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I am particularly concerned when I see some of the none NPOV nonsense in parts of the Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing. Now that does need a citation. ( I see there was lots of discussion on that but its still full of poorly referenced, badly written stuff.) The initial section is far too long and needs a total rewrite, but its not cited. Kennywpara (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Beagel is correct that a number of environmental concerns discussed in this article are not due to hydraulic fracturing, but are common to any gas well. I realize that this is a problem because all these subjects are lumped together with fraccing in news coverage, and therefore in people's minds. While it may be convenient to gather all these subjects together in one article, that contributes to the misconception that they are all due to fraccing.
Subsidence, for example can be a problem in extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, and coal, but is not caused by hydraulic fracturing (and as far as I know, there has never been any serious subsidence above any shale gas reservoir). Another potential problem not due to fraccing is the concern about leaking gas wells, and the consequent potential for methane escaping into potable aquifers (methane has been detected in the aquifers, but no frac chemicals have been detected, with the possible but disputed exception of Pavillion, Wyoming - which has very atypical geology). Climate change is a partial exception, as some frac opponents maintain that the massive fraccing process results in significantly more GHG potential than other gas wells. Radioactive sources used in well logging are used in most modern oil and gas wells, fracced or not.
I would disagree with Beagel in that I would retain brief sections in this article on horizontal drilling and shale gas in the UK. These are two subjects closely associated with this article. Horizontal drilling is used exclusively, or almost so, in fracced wells (I'm not speaking of directional drilling), and the short summary of shale gas in the UK serves as a bridge to that allied article.
In defence of this article as it is, all the safety and environmental concerns about gas drilling have become jumbled in the public mind under the term fraccing, which has come to popularly include everything bad about gas drilling, both real and imagined. But Wikipedia should put these controversies in their proper place, which, for some of the items discussed above, would be the article Shale gas in the United Kingdom. Regards. Plazak (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia should use terms correctly notwithstanding the public misconception. That means we should also avoid false impression that the term applies at the same way as the public misconception expects. Beagel (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Surely the point is that all of the sections in theis article are what people want to know about re HF. We have people protesting about oil wells in limestone, with 'no shale gas fracking' signs. Total confusion of HV fracking and traditional. Its all lumped in to one and surely approaching those confusions should be part of this article. Not to put a point of view, but to put the science there in a balanced way, and covering all aspects. That is what I have always strived to do. If you look at 'Frack-Off' you will find horror stories about all of the sections mentioned. Blackpool will sink beneath the waves due to subsidence, radioactive sources will pollute the earth etc etc etc. Presenting properly resourced science allows people to make their own views based on proper information.Kennywpara (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Umbrellas
Beagel has cited this article. It is about HF in the UK. This umbrella covers 1. CBM possibly, 2. Geothermal, 3.low volume tight formation fracking, 4. HV tight formation, 5. Gas fracking. 6. Gel fracking, 7. Light tight oil, and.... oh yes, shale gas fracking, which is probably the most likely one to take place. All of these are in HF in the UK currently
They are all HF, and all in the UK and so this is the right umbrella to be under.
Underneath that is an umbrella covering specific concerns about the process, this would be chemicals, spread of fractures, earthquakes, and frac specific items.
There is another umbrella covering concerns about the process of drilling, whether for HF or not, methane, well leaks, air pollution, traffic, regulation etc etc.
Then there is another umbrella that concerns none drilling or HF related concerns, protest, politics, house values, climate change etc.
The problem I have with Beagels proposal is that the situation is already complicated enough, with many of the issues that could be classed under several umbrellas. Thats why the public are confused with a barrage of good info, but loads of bad info. Taking shale gas out as a separate category has no logical basis. Having a 'Shale Gas HF in the UK' page would logically mean another page called 'HF in the UK but definitely no shale gas'. Many of these umbrella issues would apply to both putative pages. Does this mean duplication? What a waste of everyones time. Shale gas is firmly an HF process and so the only place for it is in the page it already is in, HF in the UK. I have spent a lot of time making a clear structure, taking advice from others as can be seen above. To destroy that (which is what Beagel proposes) has no sense. Wikipedia protocols are based on common sense, and I do not know which one this is in breach of, but in view of shale gas definitely involving HF, this is the place to stay. This means the citation is baseless. If I do not hear any other comments then I will remove the citation in a day or so. talk) 17:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Kennywpara. Taking shale gas out as a separate category has no logical basis. But it is a separate article and a separate category here in Wikipedia. The article on Shale gas exists already since 2007, Category:Shale gas exists since 2011, and Shale gas in the United Kingdom exists since 2013. So these articles and categories are already exist and therefore they are more logical places to put information about shale gas. The current situation when the article about hydraulic fracturing consist of information about shale gas which is not included in the article Shale gas in the United Kingdom is not logical and violates WP's core policies. One could even say that this is hiding information because if you are looking information about shale gas, the shale gas rticle is the most logical place to do this. And situation when we have different information in Shale gas in the United Kingdom and Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom, is a classical POV-fork (please see WP:POVFORK) which should be avoided. Therefore, the information here about shale gas should be moved into Shale gas in the United Kingdom, merged and cleaned up there and after that that article should be summarized here using summary style. I think that also Plazak will agree with this approach as this is resulting with the structure he suggest above.
Having a 'Shale Gas HF in the UK' page would logically mean another page called 'HF in the UK but definitely no shale gas'. You are wrong. You seem to assume that HF and shale gas are the same or similar kind of things. They are not. HF is a technological process. Shale gas is a type of unconventional natural gas, that means resource (before production) or product (after production). So I really don't understand the logic of your argument.
Thats why the public are confused with a barrage of good info, but loads of bad info. This is actually where things are going terribly wrong. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to convince anybody if something good or bad. We are writing encyclopedia and not a propaganda paper (notwithstanding pro or anti). You seem to think that good info is barrage and relevant articles are overloaded with bad info. Believe me, there are people who seem to believe vice versa that there is a massive industry-driven greenwashing campaign in this field (this is not my personal opinion but there are certain editors on these articles who have called me an industry representative for my efforts to make these article NPOV and encyclopaedic).
To destroy that (which is what Beagel proposes)... I never proposed to destroy anything. My proposal was that information should be included in the most appropriate article to avoid WP:POVFORK. I really think you should avoid commenting other editors and to attribute them with intentions they don't have.
Beagel The shale gas sections for all countries are almost entirely devoted to evaluations of reserves, not the wider debate. As such it is an unsuitable place to put an article about the wider debate. You seem to have suggested that shale gas can be produced (commercially) without HF. I have not seen any information that supports that. As such shale gas (as I thought I made clear in my umbrellas piece) is intrinsically linked with HF as it is the process necessary to extract it and it is sensible that it is included under HF in the UK. All of the 'wider debate' stuff is in the articles on HF, notably the US, the UK and less so in South Africa. Indeed the US article has (like the UK) wide ranging discussions about different types of fracking and the wider debate. I think you will see that the US article is broadly similar to the UK one, with a lot of content about gas (like the UK one). So is it a case that everyone else is out of step? Do you propose to put a maintainance tag on the US site? It clearly deserves one by your logic. In terms of WP:POVFORK then if the other articles were up to scratch (which the Environment section is not) and had a section on UK policy I would not have an issue with a link that takes you straight there, provided it is properly written and referenced. I would want to see a massive rewrite, especially of the introduction. Kennywpara (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
All very interesting Beagel except that all of the methods are either about fracturing, by various techniques or 'at the concept stage'. So you are still unable to provide evidence that shale products should NOT go in an article about fracking. And that gives you justication for deleting posts that involve shale gas/oil fracking in an article about fracking? Again you are not presenting a logical case. Kennywpara (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Kennywpara, I really don't understand what you would like me to prove. To prove that information about shale gas should be in the article about shale gas? I think that I explained several times where information should be placed in Wikipedia and what is WP:POVFORK. And I have asked you several times to stop make false statements about my suggestion and intentions. I AM NOT suggesting deleting posts that involve shale gas/oil fracking in an article about fracking because (1) I am talking only about information which is NOT about hydraulic fracturing (in the sense of technique defined in Hydraulic fracturing and not in the sense of common misconception), and (2) I am suggesting merging it into relevant articles, not just deleting it. Beagel (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The dispute is about using {{cleanup}} tag for this article and moving text which is not about hydraulic fracturing into proper articles, if not included already. Beagel (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I personally do not like tags much and think it is best to get on and and fix the problem. It looks as though you have done that by moving off-topic text out of the article. With the changes that you have made are you happy to remove the tag? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@Martin Hogbin. This was the less controversial but not the only issue why I added the tag. There are some other things:
History and rationale. It is mainly about the history and process of HF, which is not the UK specific. It mainly repeats the information already included in the main HF article. The only thing about the UK is HF of North Sea wells in 1970s. At the same time the article actually need more HF history in the UK. Therefore, I suggest to remove (as it is already included in the main article) most of text in this subsection (except information about North Sea fracturing) and to add information about the HF history in the UK.
I added more UK specific information and trimmed other information to make a better balance between the UK and global information. Beagel (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Other methods. Again, repeats information in the main article, except the last sentence, which is unsourced. Therefore I don't see the need for this small subsection; the current last section should be includd in 'Regulations* section.
Except that this is an article about HF, and you are proposing to remove details of possible HF techniques? Isnt that problematic?Kennywpara (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
In this short subsection nothing is the UK specific, therefore belongs into the main HF article and not here. Beagel (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Areas with shale gas potential / Light tight oil potential in the Weald Basin. It currently repeats and therefore creates a POVFORK for Shale gas in the United Kingdom#Shale gas areas. At the same time I agree with Plazak that brief sections is needed. The best way for this is to merge the current content into Shale gas in the United Kingdom#Shale gas areas and to summarize that section here summary style. It also needs to show a clear linkage to HF, so probably some introductory sentence to this section is needed, a la "Hydraulic fracturing together with horizontal drilling, has made making extraction of unconventional hydrocarbon resources in the United Kingdom economically viable." Of corse, in this case it also needs a reference actually saying this, because it is not our task to make the link between HF and shale gas/LTO but it should be done by RS. As its subsection talks also about LTO, the more appropriate section heading could be 'Areas with unconventional hydrocarbons potential.
Agree with the POVFORK issue, so you propose to move an article about HF Light tight Oil (and it will need HF)into an article on shale gas? Is that logical?Kennywpara (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I made more trimming and added the introductory information as proposed above (and it corresponds to what is already said in the lead). Also link tight light oil, directional drilling etc terms, so no need to repeat this in this article. Beagel (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Climate change. It talks about shale gas impact, not about HF impact. At the same time, there is nothing about climate change in Shale gas in the United Kingdom, where it logically belongs. Therefore I propose to move the whole subsection into Shale gas in the United Kingdom. Of course, there is indirect linkage between HF and CC but having this subsection here makes a false impression that HF and shale gas are synonyms. The other issue is that only the second and the fifth paragraphs of this subsection are talking about the UK.
Your statement is incorrect. As I said, there are still shale gas wells which are not hydraulically fractured (notwithstanding the reasons). And this report you are referring makes clear that at least pneumatic fracturing is used in the limited scale for stimulation of shallow shale formations. But this aspect in this dispute is irrelevant as information about shale gas belongs to the shale gas article. Beagel (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Subsidence. Again, caused not directly by HF but due to pressure fall of gas field due to extraction (notwithstanding the extraction method). And again, no UK specific information is included. Probably should be moved into Natural gas field or at least into Shale gas main article.
Agree but see below. 10:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The point is that to find any data on the very rare subsidence issue you have to go worldwide, and it is often mentioned by many that they are concerned about this when HF is used. There is no evidence that this has occurred, so 'evidence of absence' is appropriateKennywpara (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Environmental Impact Assessments. Not clear if this is really about HF but probably may stay if rewritten/copyedited to make the linkage more visible.
Agree. 10:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
As RockMagnetist(talk states below, there are many peripheral issues that concern people, that are not directly about HF, but like many articles it is fair to add these concerns in a scientific way. The concerns are with all aspects of this technologyKennywpara (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Life cycle comparison with other energy sources. This about shale gas, not about HF. Again, this subsection makes a false impression that HF and shale gas are synonyms. At the same time this information is useful and worth to be kept in Wikipedia. Therefore I suggest to move this subsection into Shale gas main article.
As I said above, this argument is incorrect (e.g. shale gas was used in England already at the end of 19th century). Beagel (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Methane / Well leak concerns / Preese Hall # 1 well. The lead of this subsection states that methane leakage s not caused by HF, but by poor cementing of casings but after that we have four paragraphs discussing the topic which is not logical. I think that this article needs to mention this topic but probably one paragraph is enough. The same applies to 'Well leak concerns' subsection.
Horizontal drilling. Does not include anything UK specific. Probably the best way to provide this information could be linking this term at the 'Areas with shale gas potential' (see my proposal above).
This is nothing to do with HF, or shale gas, so why do you propose moving it to shale gas? It is a technique that is used in many types of well.Kennywpara (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, this is nothing to do with HF nor this is UK specific, so I removed this subseaction and linked the term to the relevant article as proposed above. Beagel (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, most shale gas in the UK is only recoverable by HF. Whatever the true facts are I suggest that they are made clear in the introductions to all related articles, with appropriate links. For example, we might have something like, 'The main use of HF in the UK will be to recover shale gas' here, and 'Recovery of shale gas in the UK will generally require HF' in the shale gas article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree that the linkage between different subjects should be made clear and relevant articles (and sections of these articles, if necessary) should be interlinked. I tried to introduce this into the shale gas regions' section and similar approach should be used also with other sections under discussion. Beagel (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have not seen any evidence that shale gas can be completed without using HF, including the article Beagel sent me. It took about 15 years of research to get it to work commerciallyKennywpara (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
These are the main concerns why I tagged this article. Hopefully it clarifies the issue and we could go through all these issues. Beagel (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I mostly agree, but many of these issues (like methane leakage) are discussed in every report on hydraulic fracturing. So there should be summaries on this page. RockMagnetist(talk)16:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with summarizing the current text (and I proposed a similar idea in my comment above) when current text is moved into the relevant article. Beagel (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
but many of these issues (like methane leakage) are discussed in every report on hydraulic fracturing. So there should be summaries on this page I couldnt put it better myself.
This could be very easily solved by changing the title of the 'Shale Gas by country' pages to 'Shale Gas RESERVES by country', seeing as that is what they are about. Then there would be little reason to split this article up. I want people to be able to access the areas of concern, many of which may seem peripheral, but they are part of the wider debate. I thought that was the purpose of Wikipedia. The fact that the whole country appears confused about all aspects of this, with anti frack, (and fracking is always the clarion call) at limestone oil wells and CBM wells where no fracking is planned, tells me it is wrong to split this page up. Especially as the rationale for doing this is that 'shale gas is not synonymous with fracking'. Currently all (not most)shale gas wells are fracked, period. Putting 'peripheral' concerns such as drilling issues in a shale gas article is illogical as it concerns other types of wells drilled. It is lumped in with the many misunderstandings about the whole hydrocarbon business, and as such shuffling this information into loads of difficult to find cul de sacs seems very poor. Kennywpara (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Possible solution for Non HF issues
To avoid the problems perceived above, a section named 'Public Perceptions of HF' would be appropriate, This would mean that rather than removing information that many people are confused about, it would allow sections like, well leaks, climate change, traffic issues, etc, to be presented. These issues are part of the HF debate, even though they may be peripheral, or not even related at all.Kennywpara (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Am away at present (white water kayaking) but will look at this next week. Could I ask Beagel not to start moving sections out until this has been discussed. I personally cannot see this to be a problem and it would reflect what Rock Magnetist seemed to be saying Kennywpara (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and could I ask you Beagel not to move any shale gas articles on the basis that shale gas is not synonymous with HF. I have looked for the paper you referred to Beagel but cannot find the link. Could you possibly repost it for other editors to evaluate? From what I could see from research, there will be no production of shale gas without fracking. (I have 12 years working in the industry and shale most definitely is not a permeable formation, and certainly not producible commercially) To restructure an article based upon a false premise would seem perverse. All shale gas wells are HF, but not all HF wells are shale. As such I have asked several times but an estimated 99% 'I dont know' does not indicate current thinking AFAIK. Kennywpara (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I really can't understand what you mean. I have not moved any shale gas article. And I can't understand what you want to prove. HF is a process and shale gas is a product and both have their own articles. I would not like to waste any more time to this particular point as it seems to be WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:DEADHORSE. Beagel (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not think we need to fight here. Let us reach a consensus about what should be included. HF and shale gas are different things but closely related so there should be some overlap between articles but not too much.
In my opinion this article has (almost uniquely for an oil article) verged on the too promotional so we must take care not to include material that is not specific to the HF in the UK but which shows HF in a favourable light. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at the, 'Use of radioactive sources' section and it seem to attempting to pre-emt criticism that has not actually occurred in the UK. I think it should be reduced and moved back into another section, unless we have a reliable source showing HF in the UK has been criticised for using radiactive sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not really the job of WP to respond to this kind of thing.
If it is to be in a debate section then we need to show some of the other side of the debate or at least summarise the claims, with sources. It might be better, in a toned down form, elsewhere in the article though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Could do, but surely the point of this subsection is to put stuff in that is in the public debate about HF, but is not strictly to do with HF? its to do with any drilling. Its a legal requirement to run these logs on all types of well. (Google PON9b). Kennywpara (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If the section is about debate we should show opinions from both sides, along the lines of, the protesters say this, the gas companies say that. The main content of the section should be in a factual section somewhere else.
I have removed this section pending discussion as it seems to me to contain significant pro-fracking OR.
The first reference cites a householder who was refused insurance by a named company because of proximity to a fracking site. There is no source challenging this fact. The section went on to say that earthquake is covered by home insurance, quoting from two companies. This is OR, we cannot make general statements about insurance from our own research into insurance documents. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I dont see it as pro fracking. Its just fact. It has been put about by many anti groups that your house will be uninsurable if fracking takes place near you. There is no basis for this in this country at present. Thats why I put the links to verify that. I dont see that its original research to google an insurance company and add 'fracking' to it, and to find that there is either no policy, or that there is one that specifically refutes that.Kennywpara (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2014
(UTC) Looking at the Association of British Insurers, https://www.abi.org.uk/ and search there, there is nothing. Looking at an industry paper,http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/insurers-may-ask-for-fracking-site-details/1406864.article it quotes the ABI as saying there is that fracking presents 'little evidence of an increased risk to homeowners'. This isnt research, or if it is classed as such then most of the references I have dug up is 'original research' This is info publicly available from the top of the insurance industryKennywpara (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC) For the ABI to make that statement, they must have done OR, presumably with US based companies, so my reporting of that is validKennywpara (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you are getting at but it is not our job to dispel myths, just to state the facts.
Let us look at the sources:
The first source is a local online journal in which a person is quoted as saying that one insurance company would not cover his house against damage caused by fracking and another refused to insure his house at all. Not the most reliable of sources and certainly not justification for saying, ' It has been widely reported that hydraulic fracturing will make a house uninsurable'.
The third source is the home insurance policy of one insurance company which you have personally interpreted to indicate that cover would be provide for a house in an area of HF.
The second source is better in that it is a public statement by another insurance company specifically refuting claims that fracking is a problem but that is still not justification for stating, 'Earthquake risk is covered as standard in UK buildings insurance and is not mentioned as an exclusion ...'.
What are needed are good quality secondary sources saying that there is a general perceived problem and that this perception is incorrect. Maybe we can find those sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I googled house insurance fracking and got loads. A selection
There is loads more. Surely if a false story is being spread around one of the functions of Wiki is to disabuse people of that misconception with good outside sources. I thought the original did that, with no interpretation necessary from me. Re 'widely reported, I could have put all of these references on, but put one good one. Hiscox Insurance is the one that was reported to have denied insurance yet they specifically have put a statement up. Surely thats enough?Kennywpara (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No, if a false story is being spread around one of the functions of Wiki is not to disabuse people of that misconception. We should provide encyclopedic information for our readers. I have spent a lot of time on other HF articles arguing with anti-fracking editors who want to put every story from their local newspaper (fracking killed my dog, exploded my bath, etc) into WP. The same applies here, individual stories from local papers are not generally suitable for an encyclopedia.
The sources you have now found seem a bit better and it might be possible to add some encyclopedic content to WP based on them. From your sources I can see claims that at least some insurance companies will not cover fracking and statements from other parties denying some aspects of this. The precise situation is still not clear, we need an independent definitive source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
When I say disabuse, I mean exactly what you mean! Provide proper content, argument, and reliable sources. The truth speaks for itself very eloquently I find. This says something on P 6, but is not good enough IMHO.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283832/Planning_v3.pdf.
There was a new policy issued to underwriters (BIBA)in Sept 2014. Unfortunately the policy is only available to BIBA members, and I cannot see any reporting on that. Having said that the Hiscox and the Avantia links still says the same, ie no issues, and no denial of insurance. Not what many would have you believe. Will try to see if BIBA can release that policy for public view. Kennywpara (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Martin Hogbin (talk), I have found a link from UKOOG, quoting the Association of British Insurers. I cannot get a reply from the ABI, or BIBA. I think this is fine. What do you think MH, (or anyone else? Kennywpara (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It was the best I could find on Wiki Commons Mikenorton (talk). I used to be a wireline logger decades ago and I know things have moved on but I wanted to get the idea that this is what people actually look at to evaluate formations. Thanks for you watchful eye on the recent attack BTW. Kennywpara (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added a more informative caption. The cited source only shows a requirement to produce a complog in a certain format, I didn't see a requirement to use specific logging tools. Mikenorton (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Groundwater Contamination
There seems to be a fair amount of confusion about the UK non-toxicity requirement. Shale gas is not yet being commercially developed in the UK and there are no final regulations. Here is what the DECC report that is cited for this claim actually says: "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." It then goes on to refer to the non-toxic chemicals used by Cuadrilla, the only company to hydraulically fracture for shale gas in the UK. This anecdote has little bearing on industry practices and regulations should large scale shale gas development go forward and it certainly provides no indication of a non-toxicity requirement. The DECC report cited says nothing about mandatory public disclosure for all chemicals (including proprietary ones), nor anything about a non-toxicity requirement. Further, even if there was such a requirement most risks to groundwater would still exist because they have to do with what comes back up the well, not what goes into the well. The most likely mechanisms for contamination are well casing failure and wastewater disposal. Flowback and produced waters contain heavy metals (e.g., arsenic), naturally occurring radioactive materials (e.g., radium), and other substances that present clear risks to public health. Hays452 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Hays452 (talk). Any communication with the EA is open for FOI information claims so it would be public anyway. The open disclosure of chemicals was also one of the labour amendments to the infrastructure bill, bringing a legal basis for what was standard practice. All of the chemicals that have been proposed for drilling and fracking have been subject to intense public scrutiny so any 'refusal to disclose' would bring down a great deal of criticism! 'will publish a brief description of the chemical’s purpose and any hazards it may pose to the environment' means to me that the chemical will be declared. "subject to appropriate protection for commercially sensitivity" to me means the concentration will not necessarily be declared. The idea that a 'secret mix' that the EA is not allowed to know about is fanciful in the extreme. I ran that one by my water engineer friend and he laughed! Farmers also know that is nonsense. The EA are the regulator and they have the power. I put in the protocol for decisions on chemical content from EA, based on the EU directive in "Chemicals permitted for hydraulic fracturing in the UK" Thats the law! The word toxic is a difficult one. CO2, oxygen, water, salt, are all toxic. It depends on concentration/dose. I think thats why the word 'non hazardous in its application' has been used. If there were any questions about this then a 'smoking gun' in the form of water coughed up by a production well over would be available for analysis.
The risks are mainly casing failure and waste water disposal and it seems clear that a lot of thought has gone in to this. (HSE regs and EA requirements) I havent read the exact details of the EA requirements for waste water treatment in the Cuadrilla wells but know that technologies do exist, and it seems that cleaning up the water and using it for the next stage seems to sort out a lot of problems with transport. With regard to these chemicals coming in to contact with the casing however, production in wells is done through a tubing which is seated into a packer (seal) deep in the well. As such even if the surface casing failed, the chemicals would not able to get to the environment anyway! Kennywpara (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Just now I saw the same concern in a Q in parliament. This from the Secretary of State.
Before any oil or gas operation can begin in the UK, operators must gain a permit from the relevant environmental regulator (such as the Environment Agency in England). Exactly which permits they need depends on the activities proposed and site specific circumstances such as location, and is determined by the Environmental Agency (EA). The EA will require operators to have a groundwater permit unless they can demonstrate that there will be no, or a trivial, impact on groundwater (this is known as the “de minimis” exclusion). In all other cases, they will require a permit to regulate any actual impact on groundwater or the risk of an impact.
The EA also requires operators to disclose the chemicals they propose to use and the maximum concentration of each one before granting environmental permits. The EA assesses the hazards presented by fracking fluid additives on a case-by-case basis and will not allow substances hazardous to groundwater to be used where they may enter groundwater and cause pollution. Information on chemical substances and their maximum concentrations is included within the environmental permit, along with any other monitoring requirements. The permit is placed on the public register.
In addition, the Infrastructure Act 2015 makes it clear that hydraulic fracturing activity associated with onshore oil and gas exploitation cannot take place within protected groundwater source areas. Protected groundwater source areas will be defined in regulations by the end of July. (Reply by Matthew Hancock, Energy Minister, on 5th March) Kennywpara (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Images
I found the following images to be misleading as they are not about HF in the UK but these photos are taken in the United States:
As this article is about HF in the UK, not about HF in general or HF in the US, these emages should be removed. Beagel (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Just seen this. The trouble is we do not have so many images available and there are loads from the US. If they can be replaced with UK sourced ones that would be great. I will look into it. I got in a real tangle with Creative Commons, but have got the hang of it now. Kennywpara (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If there are images from the UK, it would be prefect. If not, we should live with this. There is no place for the US images in the UK article. Beagel (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Health effects comments
I would welcome comments on the edit I have just done re the recent Medact report. I have held off from commenting on this and other health scares that there have been from the US, often reported in the UK press, as the science often seemed very poor. As a scientist and enginner, I found the Medact Report seemed to be a very weak and biased analysis. That of course was my opinion, and as such has no place in an encyclopedia.
HPE have however reviewed this data in the recent Lancs CC Planning Dept report, and it seems fair to present this, as it is a criticism from an impeccable source.
It could be seen as contentious, and as such I would welcome comment. I firmly feel that this page should avoid bull s""t, that seems to be everywhere, regarding fracking. Certainly none of that gets on to this page, and I know many other editors have been involved in policing the occasional attack Kennywpara (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Still rather promotional in tone.
I have just looked through this article again and the tone is somewhat promotional wuth many sections explaining how HF in the UK does not cause various problems. I am not sure what should be done abou this but I would be interested in comments from others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Martin Hogbin (talk), just seen this. The article mostly seems pretty stable presently, but am not sure which bits you refer to (writing as the main creator). If there are no problems, or suitable regulations are in place then is presenting that promotional? I would say no. If there is a problem area or indication of that I have presented it (eg in well leaks, the dodgy wells in Airth) and also the conflicts of interest section. The only info we have is data from the US as guidance, (which needs to be seen through the lens of chemicals, different regulatory regimes in different states, etc etc), and info from the geological and science statements from Europe. These all say the same. Its perfectly do-able safely if its done properly. The RAE report did look at all of the bad practice from the US (No baseline studies, no chemical control, use of diesel, shallow fracking in Pavillion, leaking pits, venting of gases, no consideration of proximity to housing etc etc) to ensure a proper and well sorted regime. I have only used highly reliable sources,(National academies. PNAS. Govt publications etc) and avoided the advocacy ones. Please feel free to add anything or edit anything that you feel is promotional provided its based on good evidence and science. Bear in mind this has not really got started yet (or at least the shale gas side of things hasnt) so it is all developing. (Oh and I am totally independent, and retired, but with industry and engineering experience, as I think we discussed before!) I do get annoyed when I see comments by certain groups that show a failure to understand some basic well engineering concepts, and I suppose that drives me to ensure the data presented in fair and correct!
I do agree with you that the information in WP should be fair and correct and that there are certain groups who have edited WP to promote an anti-fracking anti-oil POV and who do not understand many basic well engineering concepts. They have not been a problem on this page though. It is more just the tone of pre-emptive defence to some complaints about HF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that Martin Hogbin (talk) OK, if there is an inappropriate pre-emptive defence then pls feel free to modify. You said this page has not come under attack. It seems it is having this problem now. Thanks to Mike Norton for reverting a lot of these edits. One favorite target seems to be the environmental conclusions from EASAC, where 'NONE' of the wells have had problems. I really cannot get my head around why this would be changed to 'ALL', to fundamentally change a reliable source to the opposite conclusion seems bizarre! Kennywpara (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
None, just 12 years as a senior field engineer and an engineering degree to inform me. Good protocol to indicate a user name BTW.Kennywpara (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree - The whole article reads as "There's a concern about z but it couldn't possibly be valid because w, x, y." Not balanced at all. Would be fairer to say "The industry says it's not possible because ...". Feels like someone is massaging this page in an attempt to sway opinion. Kennywpara (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)86.181.118.131 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
See above re user name. Are you suggesting that non science should be introduced? This is after all about the science of this technology. Please indicate sections where you feel there is bias for discussion.Kennywpara (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I've also noticed a subtle pro-fracking tone eg the Infographic - showing drilling depth to scale - says "Big Ben would need to be stacked ~25 time to reach this depth" as if it were a long way down. You might as well say that a molecule of air travelling in a straight line would cover the distance in an average of ~5 seconds. They're both true and both utterly irrelevant beyond spin and perception. 217.37.166.142 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It is a diagram produced by DECC, so it's unlikely to be particularly negative for sure - however it has a scale in miles clearly down one side, so I wouldn't have thought that most people would be mislead by it. There are a lot of strange measures in use these days (whales or elephants for weight, double-decker buses for length, swimming pools for volume etc.), apparently aimed at making things clearer to the non-specialist - I'm never convinced that they do that job particularly well. Mikenorton (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The fracking debate
This section does not clearly state the concerns of the anti-fracking lobby. It seems to consist mainly of a pre-emptive defence against these claims.
This was recently removed
'Problems associated with the process include pressure on infrastructure, including roads and emergency services, air pollution from vehicles and machinery, the use of huge quantities of water which cannot easily be decontaminated, noise and light pollution, contamination of aquifers, rivers and streams, serious damage to human and animal health, economic damage, especially to agricultural, food production and tourism industries and the social costs of boom and bust industries'.
I agree that, as written, it is not appropriate content for WP but we should state the anti-HF case, not in the voice of WP but as a summary of the case put forward by the anti-HF lobby.
We should then give the response to that case by the HF industry, as a response by them. We should not though be putting up our own arguments for either side in this section. Perhaps we could say:
'Anti-fracking protesters say that there are various problems associated with the process include pressure on local transport infrastructure, air and water pollution, the use of huge quantities of water, and potential economic damage to agricultural, food production and tourism industries'.
Note that we are not confirming that these claims are valid, only that they are being made, which is undoubtedly true. We should not be sayining that these claims are false either but we should include a similar weight of response from the HF industry.
Clearly established and well-sourced facts about the process, from which the readers might draw their own conclusions, should of course, be included in the article but not in the 'debate section'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I totally agree with youMartin Hogbin (talk). It was one of several attacks where people have tried to sneakily change 180 degrees the meaning of what a reliable source said, and I reverted the lot. Will add something unless you want to do so. Kennywpara (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
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-frackingKennywpara (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[1]. 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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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 MikenortonKennywpara (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':[1]
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)' [3];
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)
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)
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:, 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)
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.[2]
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".[3]
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)
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.[4] 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.[5]
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" [6]
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."[7]
^"UPDATED 18.24: Arrests made after protest at 'fracking' site in Penketh". Warrington Guardian. 21 Apr 2015. Retrieved 6 September 2016. "We are not fracking at Doe Green and none of the wells that currently produce gas from the coal seams have actually been fracked." "We have stimulated one well at Doe Green with water prior to 2011."
.jpg){kind=link}
