Talk:Fracking/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Hatnote linking to article about the US

This is improper and is against policy WP:RELATED if someone wants to know about fracking in the US they can simply read the article and find the relevant linkBarryob (Contribs) (Talk) 07:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Barryob: I see your point. I wasn't familiar with that policy before. And I noticed that the navbox on the right has links to several different countries' articles. So thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The notice was originally meant to be invisible for readers and was specifically meant for editors who think that everything related to the U.S. should be in this article and not in the U.S.-specific articles. In certain time it was a big problem. Last year, Tavix changed this notice into the hatnote. I restored the notice how it was used originally. Beagel (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate diagram

| image = HydroFrac2.svg | caption = Schematic depiction of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas

High quality diagram but inaccurately depicts rare pollution mechanisms, not drawn do scale. Induced seismicity also inaccurately depicted via hydraulic fracturing while recent studies depict wastewater injection of produced frac fluid as main culprit .--63.171.234.11 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 April 2016‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "rare pollution mechanisms." The drawing is a schematic; it's not expected to be to scale. Fracking itself injects fluid at high pressure into rock formations; in that way the process is similar to injection wells. As far as I can tell (can't get to the full text), that study did not evaluate the fracking process at all, just the disposal of the fluids used. The article you linked to says, "The elevated pressures increase the chances of triggering slip on a nearby fault that is already under natural stress." Isn't that what's illustrated in the diagram?

I'm putting it back in the article until there is a consensus here that it should be removed. — Gorthian (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~.

Sure. The EPA article summarizes more common means of pollution notably through the earth's surface from the injection 'fresh' water reservoirs (which are incorrectly labeled waste water ponds here) that do contain, I believe, some antibacterial/algae chemicals. These reservoirs typically contain primarily fresh water and/or recycled/refuse water. Another potential, more common method of pollution is from the chemical tanks and or spills on the surface, then travel through the earth into fresh water bearing zones. I believe these mechanisms have been well documented to be more likely to contribute to pollution rather than through the wellbore's cement and steel pipe. I think a cartoon depicting the dangers of fracking, which this cartoon seems to be partially aimed at, should include those more accurate mechanisms, not the improbable and possibly undocumented ones labeled. I tend to believe the EPA's finding that these routes of pollution are rare and do not have 'widespread, systemic' impacts on water, which leads me to question the aim, basis and subjectivity of the cartoon in an otherwise fairly objective article - although I do think the cartoon can potentially be saved with some relabeling and moved arrows.

As for induced seismic activity, please refer to the Wiki article itself and many other sources which I could find later with more time,

"Increases in seismic activity following hydraulic fracturing along dormant or previously unknown faults are sometimes caused by the deep-injection disposal of hydraulic fracturing flowback (a byproduct of hydraulically fractured wells),[10] and produced formation brine (a byproduct of both fractured and nonfractured oil and gas wells).[11]"

The fracture waste water is produced out and disposed of at concentrated location in a 'disposal well' far away from the hydraulically fractured well (as in several wells in a city/county send their produced waste water to the same disposal location). This is where the process of waste water injection/disposal may last for months or years and, while related, is not hydrofracturing and is thought to be the primary culprit of induced seismicity. I believe there are other, more accurately labeled illustrations that are drawn to scale that would be more pertinent to readers.

I don't know if I know what you mean by that~~~~ --63.171.234.11 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 29 April 2016‎ (UTC)

That's how to make sure that your comments are "signed"

As the person who drew the schematic in the first place, to replace one that was poorly drawn as I recall, I should probably reply. Induced seismicity during fraccing is not common but it does happen - as in Lancashire [1]. Putting waste water into uncovered holding ponds is probably no longer considered good practice, but it did happen and contamination did occur see Page 33 of report. I'm open to improving the diagram, so please do make suggestions. Mikenorton (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. It's not poorly drawn, just needs a few improvements to depict the most probable concerns the public should and may have about fracking.

1. The frac ponds you have labeled as 'wastewater' ponds do not contain produced water, they contain fresh water (either reclaimed, tap, surface or ground) which is considered potable. Produced fluids must be stored in sealed tanks or piped to facilities for processing, with secondary barriers such as sealed dikes deemed allowable by SPCC in the US. These blue ponds should be called 'frac ponds', 'fresh water ponds' or 'water ponds'. I would suggest removing the blue arrow you have going to surface water sources as this would not cause noteworthy pollution because this water contains no hazardous chemicals other than chlorine, etc., too may arrows may overwhelm the reader or may make the cartoon appear biased. If you would like, you may want to draw one white, round storage tanks on or off the pad with a production line and blue arrows running to them. Labeled this tank 'wastewater' or 'produced water' (this may come in handy on #4). Please also replace the oil derrick with a wellhead.

After reading the link you mention on page 33 of the EPA report, I realize you are describing drilling pits which are of concern and certainly can cause ground water contamination from drilling mud and drilling cuttings containing drilling fluids, oil, gas, arsenic, heavy metals etc. However, drilling is an entirely separate process from hydraulic stimulation and does not use drilling pits in any way. Frac ponds are significantly larger than drilling mud pits and, again, contain fresh water. I would advise making separate cartoons showing the potential for drilling rigs to pollute ground water through their reserve pits, which by the way are very dirty, dark brown and should not be colored blue. Drilling pits have the potential to contaminate ground water in all countries where drilling is currently allowed (even if fracking is banned) unless existing law bans drilling pits such is the case in New Mexico and Pennsylvania. Jpku88 (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

2. "Fraccing fluid" [sic] label is misleading, also should be spelled fracing or fracking, the chemicals used to mix with water on either slick water or gel treatments are stored in chemical bins on mixing trucks called blenders. I would replace the boxes you have with trucks and label them 'frac trucks and chemicals.' This is very important, the primary and perhaps only significant ground water contamination route is from spills/breaches from these chemical vats, please leave your arrow to the surface water and add a blue arrow from the frac trucks directed at the shallow aquifer ground water. This is the mechanism that has been identified in the articles I have linked to above and should be of primary concern to readers of any article depicting hydraulic fracturing pollution.

3. The blue arrows depicting pollution of frac fluid through the wellbore directly into the shallow and deep aquifers is highly unlikely. Hydraulic fracturing treatments last days to weeks, almost always in new well bores with new cement and steel barriers preventing any possible route for fluids to contaminate ground water. Later in a well's life, it is possible that the steel and cement barriers may breakdown leading to produced gas leaking into the aforementioned zones, not frac fluid as you have labeled. I would suggest removing the arrows completely or replace them with red arrows and question marks to illustrate this.

4. The largest discrepancy with your drawing and recent EPA and regulatory findings is the induced seismicity mechanism. I would strongly recommend using a product water tank (as described in #1) blue arrows and a production line running to an properly labeled water injection well (either horizontal or vertical). Please label this 'water disposal well' or if you like 'wastewater disposal well'. I would remove the fault, induced seismicity and blue arrow from the horizontal production well and instead place those same features on the wastewater disposal well. You may be able to more easily fit this on the third dimension of your drawing. It may also be of value to draw other white tanks and water production lines running to the disposal well to illustrate that many wells' produced water is combined and injected in large volumes into one disposal well.

5. Lastly, I would recommend adding a two sided arrow to one corner of the figure between the surface and the hydrocarbon bearing formation labeled with "not drawn to scale" although this is not absolutely necessary. Please let me know if you have questions. Jpku88 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. It will take me a while to work out how to change this - I don't draw this sort of diagram quickly. I understand your points, although to some extent it was intended to show the sort of pollution mechanisms that had been proposed. That was more than three years ago and we probably do have a lot more information. Earthquakes during fraccing are not common, so that should probably go in this general diagram - a separate diagram for a deep disposal well seems like a good idea, rather than trying to combine them, but I will think on that. Mikenorton (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

References

slickwater fracturing

I edited the paragraph concerning application of the slickwater fracturing by Mitchell Energy to take account the quite recent addition by Curb energia but at the same time to avoid the problem mentioned by Plazak. However, the current text needs probably some copyediting for clarity. Beagel (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding the first slickwater wells by Mitchell energy were vertical wells, and it wasn't until after Devon bought Mitchell Energy (2001) that the process was successfully applied to horizontal wells. This was primarily because there were problems with horizontal wells in the Barnett shale commonly hitting water at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.63.126.66 (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Early attempts at horizontal wells in the Barnett were plagued by fracturing reaching the Ellenberger water zone -- and losing all of its rock fracturing energy. (Later improved well and fracking design largely avoided this problem.) So, Mitchell wells were vertical. It is worth remembering, however, that horizontal well technology wasn't particularly new at the time Fracking shale rocks to create productive wells was. So the breakthrough technology was indeed fracking. Adding horizontal well design improved the economics of stimulating the Barnett Shale, leading to a rapid growth of fracking. The source of this is. From page 143-4: "Mitchell Energy had been drilling a lot of plain vertical wells, straight down, and then using its new fracking technique. This practice worked well enough in a portion of the Barnett Shale where the rock sits above limestone. But there was a much larger area where there was gassy Barnett, but no limestone. Underneath the shale was the Ellenberger formation, rocks riddled with salty water. When wells in this area were fracked, the slick water injected into the well came in contact with the salty reservoir. Most of the energy of the frack—the massive horsepower assembled to force in millions of gallons of water—would dissipate in the Ellenberger. Instead of creating large man-made fractures to drain the Barnett, it would create small fractures into the Ellenberger. The result was expensive salt-water wells. If Devon wanted to create a replica of the Dead Sea in northern Texas, these wells were ideal. For any other purpose, they were duds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb energia (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Oil from expensive oil extraction: never to be used

According to Robert Litterman (Kepos Capital), the expensive oil dug from oil sands, undersea deposits, fracking ... will never be used, due to the fact that only 1/3 of all fossil fuels can actually be mined any more, due to the 2°C limit. As such, only 1/3 of those deposits is still financially of value, and the rest will have no value any more. Things are hence becoming a race to mine everything, at the lowest cost, and expensive oil extraction methods will hence fall out of the boat. 02:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Seems important to add this info to the article, so please do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 December 2015‎ (UTC)

I believe he was referring to them being used up, since the expensive oil has already been used. This could be the case, since a similar situation happened with fixed nitrogen (fertilizer). We were rushing to mine natural fixed nitrogen (guano and like), but the creation of artificial sources prior to WWI lead to the mines being abandoned after the technology spread. The only technology I do not see ready any time soon is any storage media to match fossil fuel. I know people are quick to point out batteries, but our current technology on batteries is no where close to matching the energy densities of fossil fuels. On top of that current battery technology is taking almost two decades to double in capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.208.116 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Environmental impact

There was a user who made a few edits in the Environmental Impact section that I do not think match with the source material. I tried to change it but ran into issue so let's discuss it here.

1. With the first issue the sentence reads "Hydraulic fracturing has been directly linked to induced seismicity or earthquakes". Before it was edited it read "Hydraulic fracturing has been sometimes linked to induced seismicity or earthquakes".

I do not believe this is accurate in the source. This is very exaggerated from what it was. the source says "Many questions have been raised about hydraulic fracturing—commonly referred to as “fracking”—and USGS studies suggest that this process is only rarely the cause of felt earthquakes". I tried to change it to rarely to match the source but I think the previous edit as "sometimes" was fine.

2. There is a cnn article as a source and the sentence on the page reads. "In September 2016 a 5.6-magnitude earthquake caused by fracking activities shook at least six states. In response the state of Oklahoma shut down 37 disposal wells over a 725-square mile area".

I do not believe the source makes this claim. Here is the quote from the source:

Five months before Saturday's 5.6 magnitude temblor in central Oklahoma, government scientists warned that oil and natural gas drilling had made a wide swath of the country more susceptible to earthquakes.

The strongest thing you can pull from that article is ,"The report found that oil and gas drilling activity, particularly practices like hydraulic fracturing or fracking, is at issue." This edit was by the same person and it is stretching it. I went to AP and local OK news where it occurred to write a better sentence but none of them supported it and that sentence it used to make a big claim. I think it is reaching. Due to the lack of information I think it should be removed. Contentcreator (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have waited for several week but receive no response. Since I did not recieve any responses I went for a much milder approach than original stated. I made edits and I tried to keep the context of the source while still presenting the potential environments negative impact.

I strongly feel that the changes to the the 'shook at least six states' should stay. I saw this as misreading cnn article a misreading the sentence. It also feels like it contradicted the last sentence

I still kept the original goal of the last sentence but information is not being misrepresented.

Contentcreator (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Fracturing fluids Section needs work

The fracturing fluids is currently very confusing by jumping back and forth between types of fluid mixtures (i.e. slickwater or borate crosslink), uses of chemicals (i.e. breaker or biocide), and specific chemicals (i.e sodium chloride or polyacrylamide). The best description I've seen for the uses of chemicals comes from fracfocus chemical use, but I have not seen a public clear list for the different types of fluid mixtures. Part of the complication is the uses of chemicals can have different names from different companies and it gets worse for types of fluid mixtures. The only thing consistent is specific chemicals named by chemistry not the industry. If anyone has any recommendations it could use some work. A big thing that is not mentioned anywhere, as far as I can see, is during a well the fluid mixture can be changed multiple times while pumping either because it was planned or to react to the wells response to the injection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.63.126.66 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You can see an example of this in the first sentence, "The main purposes of fracturing fluid are to extend fractures, add lubrication, change gel strength, and to carry proppant into the formation." Three of the items are referring to what was called types of fluid mixtures, but "change gel strength" is a uses of chemicals category mixed in the middle of the statement. The add lubrication statement could go either way or both types of fluid mixtues and uses of chemicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.28.82 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

At the very least in the opening statement the gel strength statement needs to be removed, since it is not a purpose of fracturing fluid. The change of gel strength will modify the fracture geometry, but the purpose of fracturing fluid is to create fractures (usually with a desired geometry), not change gel strength. The change gel strength is an additive purpose or a chemical use purpose, but not the fracturing fluid itself. Changing the gel strength changes the fracturing fluid attributes, not the fracturing fluid's purpose. This brings up the question is this section about Fracturing fluids and how the attributes drive different results for different formations or is it about how additives of fracturing fluids create different attributes of the fracturing fluid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.37.112.202 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Hydraulic fracturing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015081325/http://www.aogc.state.ar.us/ALL%20FayettevilleFrac%20FINAL.pdf to http://www.aogc.state.ar.us/ALL%20FayettevilleFrac%20FINAL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313051634/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-10/health-effects-of-fracking-need-study-says-cdc-scientist.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-10/health-effects-of-fracking-need-study-says-cdc-scientist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130905130921/http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf to http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121203005215/http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/hfresearchstudyfs.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/hfresearchstudyfs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721042543/http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf to http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501060306/http://www.johnsonwright.net/newsletters/2011-December/Fracking-The_Controversy_Over_its_Safety_for_the_Environment.htm to http://www.johnsonwright.net/newsletters/2011-December/Fracking-The_Controversy_Over_its_Safety_for_the_Environment.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527000429/http://www.efdsystems.org/Portals/25/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20BMPs%20White%20Paper.pdf to http://www.efdsystems.org/Portals/25/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20BMPs%20White%20Paper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312072026/http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/NaturalGas_Report.pdf to http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/NaturalGas_Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508195902/http://ohiodnr.com/Portals/11/pdf/wastewater-fact-sheet.pdf to http://www.ohiodnr.com/Portals/11/pdf/wastewater-fact-sheet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227233416/http://scrantontimestribune.com/waterproject/970.pdf to http://scrantontimestribune.com/waterproject/970.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227234448/http://scrantontimestribune.com/waterproject/352.pdf to http://scrantontimestribune.com/waterproject/352.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426012426/http://www.pasdegazdeschistes.rd-h.fr/wp-content/uploads/NaturalGasManuscriptPDF09_13_10-Th%C3%A9o-Colborn.pdf to http://www.pasdegazdeschistes.rd-h.fr/wp-content/uploads/NaturalGasManuscriptPDF09_13_10-Th%C3%A9o-Colborn.pdf

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

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

• 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) 05:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox diagram

When I created this diagram back in 2012, it was intended to show both the technique and the main environmental concerns. Things have moved on - we now have a separate article Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, and there is more definitive information available about specific concerns, such as wastewater handling etc. I'm happy to improve the existing diagram or see it replaced with another that contains the same information about the technique, but to just remove it doesn't seem the best way forward. I await comments. Mikenorton (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hydraulic fracturing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323151130/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277219/Air.pdf to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277219/Air.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140215144110/http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Geomechanical-Study-of-Bowland-Shale-Seismicity_02-11-11.pdf to http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Geomechanical-Study-of-Bowland-Shale-Seismicity_02-11-11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019024105/http://www.usgs.gov/faq/?q=categories%2F10132%2F3830 to http://www.usgs.gov/faq/?q=categories%2F10132%2F3830

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

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

• 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) 09:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, everyone!

I found this article interesting and I am available to contribute as much as I can. I know there is so many very knowledgeable here but I am here to learn as well. I hope all you guys doing ok ;). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsDivine (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Two more edits to the article

Hi, fellow Wikipedians!

I posted 2 new edits to the article. One is located in the Health Risk section and the other one in the Enviromental Impacts section. Please take a moment to review these contributions.

“Statistics collected by the Department of Labor and analyzed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show a correlation between drilling activity and the number of occupational injuries related to drilling and motor vehicle accidents, explosions, falls, and fires. Extraction workers are also at risk for developing pulmonary diseases, including lung cancer and silicosis (the latter because of exposure to silica dust generated from rock drilling and the handling of sand). At the well sites, workers can be exposed to dangerously high levels of silica—as many as 79% of hydraulic fracturing sites exceed the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health standards for silica dust.”

“The air is significantly impacted by fracking operations, including by the release of methane, which is especially likely during the initial period following hydraulic fracturing injection and during transport of the fuel to customers. Public health threats related to climate change, which is partly a function of the continued release of greenhouse gases like methane, are forecast to be one of the greatest global health concerns of this century. Moreover, high levels of known carcinogens in the air, such as benzene, have been attributed to natural gas drilling operations.”

Citations are provided in the article.

NewsDivine (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

4 more contributions!

Hi, fellow Wikipedians! Once again, I'd like to present the following contributions that I made for this article regarding Hydraulic Fracking. Below are the paragraphs:

Economic Effects> The Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy estimates that 45% of US gas supply will come from shale gas by 2035 (with the vast majority of this replacing conventional gas, which has a lower greenhouse-gas footprint).

Environmental Impacts> People obtain drinking water from either surface water, which includes rivers and reservoirs, or groundwater aquifers, accessed by public or private wells. There are already a host of documented instances in which nearby groundwater has been contaminated by fracking activities, requiring residents with private wells to obtain outside sources of water for drinking and everyday use.

Health Risks> Additionally, the extraction workforce is at increased risk for radiation exposure. Fracking activities often require drilling into rock that contains naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), such as radon, thorium, and uranium.

Environmental Impacts> Despite these health concerns and efforts to institute a moratorium on fracking until its environmental and health effects are better understood, the United States continues to rely heavily on fossil fuel energy. Currently, 36% of annual U.S. energy consumption is derived from petroleum, 26% from natural gas, 20% from coal, and 8% from nuclear sources, with only 9% supplied by renewable energy, such as wind and solar power.

The content is already cited and you can see it accessing through the View History or the article itself.

NewsDivine (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Massive Fracturing and Public Debate edits

Hello, Wikipedians

I am going to present these edits before I put them up the article online.

Massive fracturing section:

Fracking operations have grown exponentially since the mid-1990s, when technologic advances and increases in the price of natural gas made this technique economically viable.

Source: McDermott-Levy, By R., Nina Kaktins, and Barbara Sattler. "Fracking, the Environment, and Health." AJN, American Journal of Nursing, vol. 113, no. 6, 2013, pp. 45-51.

Public Debate section:

Fracking is currently taking place in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Other states, such as Alabama, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, are either considering or preparing for drilling using this method. Vermont has permanently banned fracking, and New York and North Carolina have instituted temporary bans. New Jersey currently has a bill before its legislature to extend a 2012 moratorium on fracking that recently expired, whereas Maryland has decided not to approve fracking permits until a state panel studying its safety has completed its final report, which is expected in mid-2014. Although a fracking moratorium was recently lifted in the United Kingdom, the government is proceeding cautiously because of concerns about earthquakes and the environmental impact of drilling. Fracking is currently banned in France and Bulgaria.

Source: McDermott-Levy, By R., Nina Kaktins, and Barbara Sattler. "Fracking, the Environment, and Health." AJN, American Journal of Nursing, vol. 113, no. 6, 2013, pp. 45-51.

I'll appreciate your feedback very much or any concern about this information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsDivine (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

"Exponentially" ? Really ? 2A00:23C5:8D83:C500:8C6E:20F9:D452:563B (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Induced earthquake map

I suggest adding a figure to the Environmental Impacts section of this Article showing an earthquake map such as found here: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/hazard-estimation-induced-earthquakes?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects . Charles Juvon (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Airborne radioactivity increases downwind of fracking, study finds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/13/airborne-radioactivity-increases-downwind-of-fracking-study-finds

John Cummings (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of depleted uranium munitions in hydraulic fracturing

Are depleted uranium projectiles ever used in the hydraulic fracturing process, fired into the sides of lateral boreholes to fracture the gas-bearing shale? I have read that this is the case, yet depleted uranium is mentioned nowhere in the current version of this article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Changing the description for Glutaraldehyde

The description for glutaraldehyde should be tied closer to fracking so it can be clear to the reader what the chemical is doing in the process of fracking. Captincrunch00 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding PFAS

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances(PFAS) should be talked about. They are used in fracking and are harmful to humans and the environment. Captincrunch00 (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Waterless fracking

There should be more information on waterless fracking, propane gel. Propane gel is only brought up once.Captincrunch00 (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Land used for fracking

Information about the amount of land used for fracking in the US should be added. Captincrunch00 (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

EPA scientific evidence

The reasons of when drinking water can be contaminated is missing from the article. Captincrunch00 (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Tiago Morais.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-specific language

I'm a reader attempting to better understand the seriousness of the environmental concerns of fracking. Unfortunately, the article is rife with vague language like "usually" and "often" (sometimes in ways that seem to contradict one another). I don't have the information to update this myself, but I think the article would be more informative if someone were to provide actual data (for example, "only 30% of detected seismic activity causes detectable activity at the surface, and 15% can be felt by humans." I feel like the current language may be caused by multiple editors with different political views about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.106.128.218 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 20 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Closing some hours early given the WP:AVALANCHE here. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Hydraulic fracturing → Fracking – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Fracking" has become the overwhelmingly common term for this subject, as is clearly demonstrated by the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support The current name is too formal Chidgk1 (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support - apparently the term "fracking" has started to replace "hydraulic fracturing" even when discussing examples of natural hydraulic fracturing, such as occurs in the formation of mineral veins, although "hydraulic fracturing" still remains the common name in that context. Mikenorton (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support as fracking has become the common term. Suonii180 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support with revisions for this and other pages that discuss fracking to use the word fracking. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. X-750 _{List of articles I have screwed over} 21:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom—blindlynx 22:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

University of Pittsburgh study results

https://paenv.pitt.edu/results.html (secondary sources Pittsburgh Post-Gazette AP) I was thinking that this could go at the end of the "Health risks" section but it might be better to be integrated throughout the article. Mapsax (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)