Jump to content

Talk:Fracking in the United Kingdom/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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[1]
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).[1]

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.[1][clarification needed]

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

  1. ^ a b "Produced waters:Re-injection of produced water for disposal" (PDF). Where the produced water contains a concentration of NORM radionuclides above the out of scope values, this can be re-injected for disposal at the original site or at a different site into geological formations from which hydrocarbons have been extracted, or which for natural reasons have been designated by us as permanently unsuitable. This is the best environmental option to minimise the exposure of the public to ionising radiation from the disposal of radioactive waste and is in accordance with our NORM strategy3.
    To do this you will need a permit for a groundwater activity and radioactive substances activities. Where the produced water contains below out of scope NORM waste values it is not considered radioactive waste but can be re-injected for disposal at the original site under a groundwater activity permit4.
    Where produced water contains NORM radionuclides below the out of scope values is proposed to be re-injected for disposal at a different site, it can only be authorised by a groundwater activity permit if the formation to which the produced water is being disposed is a geological formation from which hydrocarbons have been extracted or is a geological formation which has for natural reasons been designated by us as permanently unsuitable This is also the case where the produced water is transferred to another operator for disposal at a different site.
    Where hydrocarbons have not been extracted from a geological formation, or where we have not designated a formation as permanently unsuitable for natural reasons, reinjection of produced water for disposal will not be allowed. In these cases, produced water must be taken to an appropriately permitted waste facility.

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)

Regulation.Permitted chemicals

Hi Luther Blissetts (talk) The clarification for the public declaration of chems can be found in this file on page 46 where it states ' Disclosure of chemical additives Operators will disclose the chemical additives of fracturing fluids on a well-by-well basis. A public disclosure of fracture fluid form is downloadable from www.ukoog.org.uk'. I hope this helps. Kennywpara (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Luther Blissetts (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Another point is that the English is confusing 'The UK's four environment agencies permit chemical additives for hydraulic fracturing fluid that have not been classed as hazardous' should read 'The UK's four environment agencies only permit chemical additives for hydraulic fracturing fluid that have been assessed as non hazardous to groundwater. I hope this helps.Kennywpara (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Its still the same Luther Blissetts (talk) I cleared cache and checked the edit...Kennywpara (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
No, it's  Done [2] Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The citation tag is still there, as of this date stamp. The English is still very poor. It doesnt need to be So its  Not doneKennywpara (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Insurance

To sort out the dead link this link should cover itKennywpara (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Apologies Luther Blissetts (talk I forgot to highlight this. Kennywpara (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kennywpara, Thank for your response. I searched for some of the quotes from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) in the press release by the PR group Newgate Communications for the industry's trade and advocacy group UKOOG and found it was released in response[3] to a January 2016 investigation by The Independent on Sunday[4].
I also found the quotes from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) were made in 2012,[5] 2013,[6] and 2014.[7]
Thank you for providing a live link. Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, I thought you should know that even though you added my name above, I received the last notification from you, 3 days ago. I'm not sure why I am not receiving any of these later ones or why there is a link to my talk page (I don't mind that). Perhaps try pinging me {{ping}} if you want to get my attention, otherwise there's a risk I won't see it. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 19:04, 7 April 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),[1] has been monitoring public opinion on shale gas with its Energy and Climate Change Public Attitudes Tracker since Wave 8 (December 2013).[2] The eighth wave showed 27% supported "extracting shale gas to generate the UK’s heat and electricity", while 21% opposed.[3] As of Wave 20 (December 2016), that position has shifted with 18% supporting extraction of shale gas and 31% opposed.[4]

The University of Nottingham ‘Survey of Public Attitudes to Shale Gas Extraction in the UK’[5] 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 [6], 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 [7]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 [8] 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

  1. ^ "Energy and Climate Change Public Attitudes Tracker - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 29 March 2017.
  2. ^ DECC (4 February 2014). "Wave 8" (PDF). Retrieved 29 March 2017.
  3. ^ Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (December 2013). "DECC Public Attitudes Tracker - Main stage questionnaire - Wave 8" (PDF). HMSO. Retrieved 29 March 2017.
  4. ^ Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (February 2017). "Energy and Climate Change Tracker - Wave 20" (PDF). Retrieved 29 March 2017. {{cite web}}: |author1= has generic name (help)
  5. ^ https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/2016/october/support-for-fracking-is-at-an-all-time-low-says-new-survey.aspx
  6. ^ https://drillordrop.com/2016/08/15/pms-fracking-payment-plan-fails-to-win-majority-support-for-shale-gas-poll/
  7. ^ https://drillordrop.com/2016/08/15/pms-fracking-payment-plan-fails-to-win-majority-support-for-shale-gas-poll/
  8. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-and-climate-change-public-attitudes-tracker-wave-20


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)
Hi Kennywpara, Do you have any comments to make about this section. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
No that looks fine to me. It needed doing. Thanks Kennywpara (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This section has now been updated and moved to Shale gas in the United Kingdom#Political issues Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Environmental impact

See also: Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom § Environmental_impact

I have now begun work on the Environmental impacts (EI) 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)

Some references that I have found useful :
  • conventional low volume HF compared with HF, Section 8: Amec Foster Wheeler Infrastructure 2016 Study on the assessment and management of environmental impacts and risks resulting from the exploration and production of hydrocarbons, includes a comparison between low and high volume EI and risks[8]
  • Amec Foster Wheeler (2015) Technical Support for the Risk Management of Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction[9]
  • AMEC (2014) Technical Support for Assessing the Need for a Risk Management Framework for Unconventional Gas Extraction[10]
  • AMEC (2013) SEA [11]
  • AEA (2012) Support to the identification of potential risks for the environment and human health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving hydraulic fracturing in Europe[12]
Please feel free to add any more useful EI references. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:46, 9 April 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. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 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? If any editor would prefer this not to be made using edit summaries with clear links to the destination/source, then please comment below. There is a lot of material and using the 'copied from/to' box takes a very long time. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:02, 10 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)

I do not understand why this is needed largely and it contradicts Wiki policies. The drilling proposed in the UK is the same as what is being used in the USA. This is creating [WP:CONTENTFORK] Luther Blissetts (talk). These matters are covered in [this link] and other topics in the same article. If there are any UK specific issues they could be highlighted.
There is a need to point out in the process that HF operations are normally completed using a coiled tubing unit, rather than a drilling rig, and that this can be done long after drilling is finished. See this link for one possible link. Kennywpara (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Its easy to change an article. That point is to improve the article. Some of the edits are great and key info is being retained. Some seem more a step backward. Kennywpara (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Luther Blissetts (talk) I would suggest the whole section be replaced by the Royal Academy of Engineering statement which is

1.1 Hydraulic fracturing Shale is a common type of sedimentary rock formed from deposits of mud, silt, clay and organic matter. Shale gas mainly consists of methane, although other gases may also be present, trapped in shale with very low permeability. Shale gas does not readily flow into a well (‘produce’). Additional stimulation by hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) is required to increase permeability (see Figure 1). Once a well has been drilled and cased (‘completed’), explosive charges fired by an electric current perforate holes along selected intervals of the well within the shale formation from which shale gas is produced (‘production zone’). Pumps are used to inject fracturing fluids, consisting of water, sand (‘proppant’) and chemicals, under high pressure into the well. The injection pressure generates stresses in the shale that exceed its strength, opening up existing fractures or creating new ones. The fractures extend a few hundred metres into the rock and the newly created fractures are propped open by the sand. Additional fluids are pumped into the well to maintain the pressure in the well so that fracture development can continue and proppant can be carried deeper into the formation (API 2009). A well may be too long to maintain sufficient pressure to stimulate fractures across its entire length. Plugs may be inserted to divide the well into smaller sections (‘stages’). Stages are fractured sequentially, beginning with the stage furthest away and moving towards the start of the well. After fracturing, the plugs are drilled through and the well is depressurised. This creates a pressure gradient so that gas flows out of the shale into the well. Fracturing fluid flows back to the surface (‘flowback water’) but it now also contains saline water with dissolved minerals from the shale formation (’formation water’). Fracturing fluid and formation water returns to the surface over the lifetime of the well as it continues to produce shale gas (‘produced water’).

Then the UK basis is retained, there is no [WP:CONTENTFORK] Its a 100% reliable UK source, and all of the other superfluous detail can be dealt with in a link to [13] As you can see this relates to shale gas AND hydraulic fracturing, and so is applicable to both sections. Kennywpara (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara,Thank you for your response. I can't cut and paste only shale information into the article to replace the entire summary of the process, but it is certainly a very useful description for hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to produce shale gas. Hydraulic fracturing for conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons in the UK has also been carried out in sandstone, limestone, clay/limestone, and for geothermal, in granite. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that the section Process is currently a WIP (work in progress), please can @Kennywpara: be more specific about his claim that there is non-UK specific material in this section. The RS/RAE can certainly provide an additional citation to support the statements being made in this section. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I will remove the statement about proppants (resin-coated sand, bauxite, and man-made ceramics) other than silica sand until evidence is provided for these having been used in the United Kingdom. The statement already existed before I began editing this page. It is already included in the main article HF/Fracturing fluids. It was inserted 18:21 16 September 2014: here, by Kennywpara, who 40 minutes earlier had also edited the page using his sock, F.Nonsense. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I can see that there is some justification for parts of the 'process' section, but does it need all of those separate paragraphs? It also needs a description of why this is done. Something like "many hydrocarbon bearing formations are very compact and have little permeability. Fracking increases permeability meaning that hydrocarbons that are 'trapped' in the rocks, can be be made to flow.' or similar.
  • 'Perforating' is not HF related. Its a standard oilfield process for decades.
  • Nobody is proposing 'Waterless fracturing fluid systems' at present AFAIK.
  • Fracture Monitoring and microseismic monitoring are pretty well one thing. Kennywpara (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Public health

One small inaccuracy, in [Health] the comments states "In 2016, Medact released an updated public health report,[139] citing" health risks'. It should bepotential health risks The report says "Based on current evidence it is not possible to conclude that there is a strong association between shale gas related pollution and negative local health effects. However, there is clearly potential for negative health impacts."Kennywpara (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Hi, Kennywpara, The reference says "health risks". It doesn't make sense to use 'potential' in relation to risk:

"Risk is the chance or probability that a person will be harmed or experience an adverse health effect if exposed to a hazard", while "a hazard is the potential for harm or an adverse effect (for example, to people as health effects, to organizations as property or equipment losses, or to the environment).[1]

Risks can be high to low (whether a risk is high or low is one of the things I have begun adding to the article in relation to Environmental impacts with RS reference), and are about the chance (potential) for someone or something being harmed by a hazard, which may or may not happen. Hazards are the things that causes harm (chemicals, noise, etc). 'Potential impacts' can be said. 'Potential risks' cannot.
I won't be changing this as per your suggestion, sorry, and would object to any attempt to change it as the quote is both verified and reliably sourced. Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Safety, Government of Canada, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and. "Hazard and Risk : OSH Answers". www.ccohs.ca. Retrieved 16 April 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Fracturing fluids

Hi Kennywpara, Regarding your point in References 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 sentence on 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) 20:16, 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)
Hi Kennywpara, The link at the top of the section takes you to
Main article: Hydraulic_fracturing § Fracture fluids
The wikilink takes you to Chemical additives, to which I have expanded the lead, with a new section for a table of the additives used in hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. I have edited the material placed there in 2014 by another editor from this article a little, but it needs more work. It currently reads:

In the United Kingdom, the environmental regulator permits only 'non-Hazardous' chemical additives for fracturing fluids. All chemicals used in fracturing fluids used must be declared publicly,[citation needed] while the composition must be disclosed if the regulator demands it.[5]

I don't know what you mean when you say 'What is the point of this section'. Please name 'this section' and provide a link. The point of the section on Fracturing fluids is to discuss the content of fracturing fluids in the United Kingdom, in the same manner as they are discussed on the main Hydraulic fracturing article.
I don't know what you mean when you say 'this chapter seems to be superfluous and misleading' or 'unencyclopaedic'. I question why it is superfluous or misleading to have a section on Fracturing fluids in the HF in the UK article I haven't been able to find any detailed information about the use of gels (multi-stage hydraulic fracturing Cheshire 1992), but these are already mentioned in the section, though without details for the UK. In the List of additives for hydraulic fracturing article, nitrogen is mentioned in the list because it has been used in low volume hydraulic fracturing in the UK. I have followed the style and presentation of the exisiting table. I have not hidden anything.
I also ask that you stop accusing me of things and insinuating motive or accusing me of WP:TE. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Luther Blissetts @LutherBlissetts: on this fair Easter morning. Here are some comments to help improve the article. The reason I edited the 'List of additives for HF'page was so that the HF in the UK page 'Fracturing Fluids' could link directly using [link] Currently it links to a US page (not relevant in the UK). It also needs an internal link to the 'Chemicals permitted' chapter [[14]]
Kennywpara (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Kennywpara, The List of additives for hydraulic fracturing page is not a US page. It previously had a brief intro for Europe, UK and USm and a list US to which I added a list for UK. It already has an inwiki link to Permitted chemicals too[15]. Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi Luther Blissetts (talk) I was hoping that you would be able to see the problem with the link, but it appears you cannot. If you want to make a link to the appropriate page then that needs to go directly from the 'fracturing fluids' section to this address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_for_hydraulic_fracturing#United_Kingdom If it has to go through multiple links it is a case of hiding information. Kennywpara (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, The fracture fluids section has a link to the main article (Hydraulic fracturing) and takes you to the section on fracturing fluids. The first two words (Chemical additives) takes you via an inwiki link to the List of additives for hydraulic fracturing page to the section for the UK. I have no idea what you mean when you say "If it has to go throug multiple links it is a case of hiding information." It does not have to go through multiple links. As for your repeated claim of hiding information, you have done this repeatedly to editors without any substance in your accusation, so consider yourself forewarned that more information from this article will be either deleted (and copied to this Talk Page) or 'hidden' in the Shale gas in the United Kingdom', where it belongs, to avoid a POV-fork (please see WP:POVFORK). Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Community Engagement

I dont understand why the last statement of a 28 page document (that is in itself a very complete review of HF) is included Luther Blissetts (talk) I refer to "In March 2016, Stephenson Halliday for the Planning Advisory Service noted that the UKOOG local community benefits scheme "fails all three of the tests" in Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.[89]" The test referred to is an internal one for the Mineral Planning Authority and as such is of no real interest to the public. Is this cherry picking a negative statement to make a point? If we want to present a full (and more recent) development in this area something about the Cuadrilla's payments to local people would appear to be of more relevant. Something like this perhaps? https://www.ft.com/content/ce78547a-c31a-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39656 Kennywpara (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Kennywpara, If you'd like to suggest an edit, please follow the link for suggesting edits and corrections for editors with a conflict of interest. I have added the appropriate tags to your suggestion, but please will you ensure you follow correct procedure in future. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
no Declined The two COI edit requests shown above are closed, per: RE/I for Reviewers: No.1 - "Controversial requests without clear consensus, use 'D,D'" The topic is undergoing discussion. Please feel free to resubmit when consensus is reached. If consensus has been reached, please delineate each specific request along with documentation if necessary. See below for example. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with
Tate purchased[1], then lost, a yellow ball. Tate purchased, then lost, a red ball.[2]
Tate lost the yellow ball[1] after he purchased it. (delete)
(blank space) Tate lost the red ball after purchasing it.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Smith, Jane (2017). "Improperly placed reference".
  2. ^ a b Smith, Jane (2017). "Properly Placed and Formatted Reference". Name of Reference. Who Published the Reference Including the Page Number→. p. 13.

Vandalism

I reverted some vandalism. I think I got it all.Kennywpara (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed adjustment

There are two different intensities of hydraulic fracturing used by the oil & gas sector, which need clarification to take some of the "heat" out of the discussion. The first is restricted fracking, which has been used by the industry to repair formation damage around the wellbore to "reboot" buoyancy flow from conventional reservoirs. This has been done for around 70 years now without incident. The second is pervasive fracking, which is what generates all the excitement because it is much more invasive and is aimed at overcoming much stronger capillary forces characteristic of Unconventional (oil & gas) reservoir. I suggest using this distinction (restricted vs pervasive fracking) and integrating the The rise of unconventional reservoirs from the article on unconventional reservoirs into the history section of this article for clarity. Would anyone like to comment?Geneus01 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, this article avoids looking at the full history of fracking by not referring to restricted or low-intensity (low-volume) hydraulic fracturing, which is used to restore buoyancy to conventional reservoirs following excessive mud invasion during the drilling process, versus pervasive or high intensity "massive" fracturing (high-volume), which is specifically to overcome capillary restrictions to flow dynamics. Whatever terminology you use, it should be to distinguish two separate activities for two different opportunity types with very different impacts on the environment. It appears from this article that the authors are hiding behind decades of restricted fracking to disguise the consequences of pervasive fracturing, whereas in fact, you tar both with the same brush, limiting informed choice. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fracking_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_6&oldid=1242972405"