Talk:Fracking in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

'Favourable' and 'anti-competitive'

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

for discussion

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

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

Comment on a blog

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

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

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

External links

According to the manual of style, 'External links should not normally be used in the body of an article'. I have therefore started making them into references, with external links, as recommended. Nothing has been removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

This page failed to mention the extensive use of hydraulic fracturing in the North Sea that has been going on for decades (see for example this 1995 paper: ) until I edited it. The content seems to concentrate entirely on shale gas, and almost exclusively on onshore plays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.62.101 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the emphasis should not be exclusively on shale gas. The section "Areas with shale gas potential" should be moved to the UK section of Shale gas by country. Plazak (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In principle I agree. However if you google 'fracking UK' this is where you arrive. To change its name now would mean it becomes hidden, and I think its important that the info here is available for the public.Kennywpara (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively we could just add more info on offshore fracking. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by Martin Hogbin.

I have edited a few sections to make them more encyclopedic and le08:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Kennywpara (talk)ss promotional. I hope everyone is happy with this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am, thanks for the input Martin. Kennywpara (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC) I changed an EU link to get straight to the policy recommendation.Kennywpara (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added more data re well leaks in view of the ReFINE report. Most of the data is based on old wells, and largely does not distinguish between well integrity (ie external leaks) and well barrier (internal leaks that are of great consequence to the operator, but none for the environment). As such it gives very negative headline values. I have contacted Prof Davies about this but no reply. James Verdons blog, 'Frackland' gave the links to the true picture, which is as I guessed. True environmental issues (gas leaks into the earth) are in fact quite rare. As such I have removed the 'health warning' from the Groundwater Protection Council study. Its like everything. if there is a problem, engineers are very good at sorting things out, and unfortunately the ReFINE report does not seem to give emphasis to this. How a leaking well from using 1920s technology impacts on the likelihood of a well leaking in 2014 eludes me.Kennywpara (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Line repetition - Background section

The background section isn't bad, but can I make a suggestion about how it is introduced? There is a repetition of a line almost verbatim. The first line in the article is virtually the same as the first line in the “Background” section, which personally I don't feel reads well. One of the two sentences, I would suggest, should be modified. That aside, I think the background provided is quite good. Disclosure: I am an intern at the Royal Society, the science academy for the UK. BeecherP (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the line from the background section. Thanks for the comment.Kennywpara (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The article lead is intended to be a summary of the main body of the article so it would be better to expand the sentence in the 'Background' section rather than to remove it. As it is, that sections start rather in the middle of the subject, if you see what I mean. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Political issues

Other contributors have quibbled that parts of this article are rather unencyclopedic, and I feel that is a charge that could be laid at the section on Political issues. I don't believe this section is written in an appropriate style for an encyclopaedia article. I'd also suggest this section is lacking some dimensions of the political debate in the UK, and possibly should also be discussed a little bit in a wider European context. BeecherP (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not edit the section yourself in the way that you suggest? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I just offered some minor revisions and references to that section, and for now I've confined myself to dealing with the UK. Happy to discuss further how it should look if anybody is particularly unhappy. Disclosure: I am an intern at the Royal Society, the science academy for the UK. BeecherP (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that just the UK political issues should be covered. It is about the UK after all! It would be interesting if you could expand on the Labour party views! (Thats if you can find them). They do seem to be sitting on the fence. Perhaps something to do with an election coming up?? I intend to do a bit about the spread of vertical and horizontal fractures and their relation to depth and pumping times bit am still researching it. Kennywpara (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one, on further thoughts. There are other pages where such material can be introduced. As for the Labour Party, they are non-committal, aren't they. They appear to be cautiously in favour of fracking, but are making sure they can safely change their mind if opposition to shale gas exploration becomes too great. If I see anything else of relevance, I'll put it in there. BeecherP (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Modification to Introduction

There is a sentence in the introduction concerning the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering report that I am informed is not strictly accurate, and I have made the following change.

What used to read:

“The report from the Royal Academy of Engineering, under the banner of the Royal Society, included recommendations on groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakage, water usage and disposal, management of environmental risk, implementation of best practice, and various management and regulatory issues.[4][5] According to Robert Mair, chairman of the review, ...”

now reads:

“Jointly published by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, under the chairmanship of Professor Robert Mair, the report included recommendations on groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakage, water usage and disposal, management of environmental risk, implementation of best practice, and various management and regulatory issues.[4][5] According to Professor Mair, ...”

Disclosure: I am an intern at the Royal Society, the science academy for the UK. BeecherP (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Too promotional in places

Those who know me from other HF pages may find it hard to believe that I am saying this but some parts of this article are rather unencyclopedic and appear promotional. For example we have , 'Polyacrylomide is a food additive and is used in babies nappies cosmetics and water treatment, as a flocculent'. This seems the reverse side of the coin to the crazy, 'causes cancer in children and destroys the brain heart and lungs' that we see in some other HF articles.

In my opinion shorter and less emotive descriptions are more encyclopedic, with links to the article on the substance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see why there was no link to the Polyacrylamide article. It had exactly the kind of exaggerated scary comment that I refer to above. I have removed it. Let us see how that goes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thankyou for your comments. I want to get this to be a good reference for those that want to get the correct engineering and scientific info to base their opinions on. There is so much misinformation out there. That explains (I hope) why I have put some explanations about hydrostatic pressure, well leaks, chemical concentration etc.. which are all massively misunderstood, and frequently quoted by people who want to find a 'scientific' argument against the technology. I have no problem with that, its just that I want them to base their protests on correct science, not made up nonsense. The Polyacrylomide thing is something I have heard of several times. 'It breaks down into acrylomide, and thats carcinogenic'. Its just bad science, and the link there I think is balanced. Acrylomide comes from overcooking fried food, and is present in many foodstuffs in tiny amounts. I changed it from the previous one as that seemed to be concentrating on the acrylomide content of polyacrilomide, with little info on its usage. I did also add the ReFINE info, which definitely is not a 'profracking' piece of info, the exact opposite, in fact. I completely rewrote the well leak section to reflect that report. It seems that some of the data that I had on well leaks was far too optimistic. I will be rechecking this in coming days as I want it to be accurate. I have written to the author of the report asking for more info on breakdown of 'well integrity' and 'well barrier' classification. I know that many leaks are internal, and do not compromise the environment. Thanks again. Please comment on any bits that you feel are 'promotional'. I was an engineer, with 12 years working in the field on wells, and then was a science teacher and feel I have a good understanding of the mechanics of wells. I hope that will inform what I write, but it does need to be properly referenced, and balancedKennywpara (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

Kenny, I agree with you about disinformation and getting the correct engineering and scientific info. This page is much better than the Hydraulic fracturing page as a result of your work. The other pages seem to being used as a medium for promoting anti-fracing views.

One of the problems with the other HF pages is that the language is enencyclopedic and emotive language. I have recently removed things like, 'They found over 75% of the 353 chemicals affected the skin, eyes, and other sensory organs, 52% affected the nervous system, 40% affected the immune system and kidney system, and 46% affected the cardiocascular system and blood'. This is undoubtedly true but at the same time it is totally misleading in that it takes no account of the likely dose (if any) that might be received by a member of the public as a result of HF. It also is clearly intended to case alarm by listing parts of the body that are harmed by the chemicals.

I think we need to be equally careful with our language here and that wording like, 'Polyacrylomide is a food additive and is used in babies nappies cosmetics and water treatment...', although true is too much pushing a point. We should just say something like 'non-toxic polyacrylamide'.

It is also important to write in an encyclopedic rather than a conversational style, so things like, 'If there are no leaking wells, then why was Preese Hall 1 squeezed?' do not look right here. We should just go straight into the facts.

I do not intend to be too critical if your work, it is great to have someone who actually know something about the subject but in contentious areas like this I think it is best to try to keep to high standards. The presents what we write more credibly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Good points Martin, I will do a little reviewing, tho I think one use of polyacrylomide is fair.Kennywpara (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What you say about polyacrylamide is fair and correct but it is not appropriate for this encyclopedia article, neither is you short section on toxicology. I am fully aware that there are editors here who have no understanding whatever of the dangers of chemical substances but this is not the right place to educate them. I think an internal link to an appropriate page is all that is called for. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of the 'independant' well surveyor after reading the House of Lords, Economic Committee report. I was quite shocked to realise that the 'independent' well surveyor can be employed by the drilling company. This stretches the meaning of 'independant' to a level I was not familiar with. An independent and competent person, who is sufficiently knowledgeable and separate from the immediate line management of the well operations involved, should do the examination. This might be someone employed by the well-operator’s organisation.(!!!) The Lords recommend that this is changed as it rather drives a horse and cart through the idea of independent regulation.Kennywpara (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Toxicity and concentration

I accepted the removal of this as not appropriate but in view of the Advertising Standards Authority judgement against Cuadrilla this needs updating. In complaint A12-203806, raised by Refracktion, against Cuadrilla drilling, please note complaint 11.

The complaint was "Cuadrilla's fracturing fluid does not contain hazardous or toxic components" and it was upheld. If you look at 'hydrochloric acid' on the UK's Health Protection Agency it is classed as toxic, as ingestion will be hazardous to health. Concentration is key here. Hydrogen Chloride, in frozen form, or as a gas is toxic. Conc HCl at 37% will release hydrogen chloride, which very definitely is toxic to the lungs etc. Drinking it would be toxic. Investigating this further the hydrochloric acid is classed as 'corrosive and irritant' in concentrations above 25%, and as an 'irritant' from 10% to 25%. Below that it is not classified. Proposed concentrations for fracking are below 1%. The problem is that when people claim that 'toxic' chemicals are injected into the earth they have the legal backing of the Advertising Standards Authority. It is appallingly bad science and I have written to the ASA to question this, but that is the situation. As such in any authoritative encyclopedia this needs to be highlighted. I would hope that anyone looking in detail about this would expect this to be highlighted. Kennywpara (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Kenny, I have removed it again but added a bit to the text elsewhere. However much we might agree that some users may need it, this is not he place for a short toxicology lesson. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have also added a link to the Toxicity article, which makes the same points that you do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I do understand how true facts can be use by some people to give a totally misleading impression. This might amuse you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree Martin, misunderstandings on toxicity , concentration and polluting effect are key to informing the public about the science of what is going on. It surprises me that even the ASA can be fooled by this bad science. Every bit of poor science reported even by some newspapers carries this claim of 'toxic' fluids being pumped underground. If you check the HPA website, HCL acid is described as a 'poison'. Closer inspection reveals that it is merely 'corrosive', or an 'irritant' to use the correct designations. The skull and bones 'toxic' label is reserved for hydrogen chloride gas, which definitely is very nasty, but many firmly believe that the earth is being poisoned permanently. I have changed the wording in the 'Chemicals permitted' section to use the correct wording and put in some links that should say what I think needs to be said. I did like the link however, and will try to avoid using DHMO with my whiskey!Kennywpara (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Remember that we are writing an encyclopedia. It is not our job to try to change public opinion or that of the ASA or other bodies. We should simply state the facts, which are that, in the concentrations used, substances injected are non-toxic; that is exactly what we do say. Saying any more than that and trying to promote a particular point of view is contrary to the fundamental principle of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, I have added verifiable facts on HCl concentration with links and no comments. I would not want to be seen as trying to change public opinion, merely as providing evidence and links that inform people. I see no problem with honing in on areas where there is considerable poor information however, and this is one of the key areas. Kennywpara (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 19:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Kenny, your edits are still far too promotional. This is not and advertisement to show how safe fracking it it is an encyclopedia article. Please review your edits in the light of what you would expect to find in a written encyclopedia. It is not sufficient that your points are verifiable they must be made in an encyclopedic manner. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Martin, I have removed a few things and added some links to opposition groups. I have also asked a water company biologist friend to review the postings. He speaks his mind, and knows regulation (after 40 years in the business). I feel it does have the correct tone. Please advise as to which sections you feel are promotional. One part in the intro could be considered as such (the comment about no evidence of frac fluids penetrating aquifers) but that could be incorporated into a section specific to that, with more links to the relevant papers. The concentration data took some time to find the authoritative UK based data, and as such think that(correct and directly reported) info needs to be in place. I have posted data that is negative to fracking for gas, the Tyndall Report, The AMEC 2013 impact report, and the ReFINE, and the RSPB report. There is a load in there to feed the 'anti' brigade. I did change the ReFINE report section in light of data I discovered later that clearly shows integrity failures are quite rare, in modern designs of well, which is what concerned people would want to know. I have also tried to find verifiable issues that would be of concern regarding well leaks etc, in the UK but cannot find any. There have been some historic issues of poor well design but they would not be permitted with the current HSE regs. If you have any evidence please post. Regards. Kennywpara (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Kenny, thanks. I am planning to wait until you have finished your current round of editing and then to have a look and rewrite things I think are unencyclopedically written or presented. I hope this will be all right with you. You can, of course comment, on my changes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Martin, I see you have removed the stuff on toxicity. I cannot understand this. It is proper science, and it is not 'promotional' to give an authoritative and properly referenced description of the HCL. You say that no one is going to pump 35% HCl down a well, but 15% is a common treatment for oilwells, to clean them up. Currently 1% is proposed but the latest stuff from the Govt is that chemical concentrations are to be kept secret. As such it is useful to know the whole story. 15% is strong patio cleaner and that would be toxic for plants for sure, if it did not react. There is a common misconception that HCl is classed as toxic, when it is not, except when in gaseous form. I am afraid I do not see why the details of this should not be made available to those that may want to inform themselves of this. I await your comments but as what I have put is proper science, and is something that is an integral part of the public debate, so it seems only reasonable for completeness to revert the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennywpara (talk • contribs) 22:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Flaring

I think a section covering this in the Environmental Issues section as there is no mention of it currently. Flaring will shortly be banned in the US, but the Environment Agency has no such rules currently. I've not got the figures but I think most if not all UK firms intend to flare, with the obvious enviromnental effects of Noise, Light and CO2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.105 (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Have read much about this but the EA do have rules, and would only permit the latest low light, low impact burners, and then thats only for 3 or so days, for the engineers to get the data they need. Its not specifically mentioned in the latest publications so I phoned the EA and thats what they said. Thats probably why I havent seen it as a key point. Flaring is so much better than letting methane escape, from a CC point of view, and really is not that disruptive, using the latest kit. This cover a lot of it https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277219/Air.pdf Also the facts about fracking series are also informative. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing-frackingKennywpara (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Links

I removed this:

The links shows that this is not the current situation with one of the companies mentioned.

Please do not include

Please feel free to reinstate the sentence in accordance with WP:MOS

Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest additions July 2014

Would appreciate feedback. I have done quite a lot of new sections in areas that I feel there was no good info. I have tried as far as possible to keep references to peer reviewed papers, Govt regulations or publications from bodies such as the BGS, CIWEM etc, and have avoided press stuff as far as possible. It was necessary to have some industry links for microseismic monitoring as I couldnt find anything else, and its an important technology in frac monitoring. I have kept it as firmly neutral but science based as I could, and I hope it will inform those who want to learn. I hope the pictures make it look a bit prettier anyway!

I have slightly reordered things, and added sections on horizontal drilling and MWD. The removal of the US frack job picture was fine, and I am trying to source pictures from the one UK frack job from Cuadrilla, but Wiki Commons licencing restrictions are difficult to fathom!. I trust Martin Hogbin, that you were happy with the other material.Kennywpara (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have put a lot of what I think should be in this article and am very happy that Beagel and Martin Hogbin are helping this to be an authoritative resource. Many of the pictures that I have put in have been removed, but hopefully I will get my head around the Wiki commons licencing nightmare, and get these reinstated.Kennywpara (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am going through the links and changing them to an approved format. Thanks for your excellent comments and editing, Martin Hogbin and Beagel.Kennywpara (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC) I am having to change a few as the Gov.uk format means a lot of these links have been archived and I am having to search the latest publications.... Kennywpara (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Style and the lead

The lead section should be a summary of the article as a whole, giving an overview of the subject. I have moved some detail out of it. I suggest that when the body of the article is stable the lead is rewritten to summarise it.

I have made some style changes, such as removing cases where to understand a sentence it is necessary to follow a link and a reference to a report page number. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

This paragraph was recently added to the lead, then removed.

There is a great deal of difference between modern fracking techniques of onshore high volume high pressure multiple horizontal pad slickwater injection hydraulic fracturing near areas of high population and traditional vertical well hydraulic stimulation. Both are referred to as fracking. This conflation has been likened to calling a corner shop and a supermarket as the same thing shopping.

On the face of it, it seems to make an important point which should me mentioned in the lead. It should be written in encyclopedic language though and needs a better source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly a great deal of difference between massive hydraulic fracturing and the small fracs designed to overcome skin damage at the wellbore. But there is much less difference between current massive fracs in horizontal wells and the massive fracs in vertical wells which has been done in onshore Europe and offshore North Sea since the 1970s. Mr. Hill is entitled to his opinion, but is this such an expert opinion that it belongs in the lede? Plazak (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the subject so I cannot answer that question. From what I have seen online Michael Hill, seems to be looking at the subject critically but without the crazy accusations of some of the sources in the US article, he is clearly against fracking though, at least without additional regulation. In this presentation he makes some claims of significant regulatory failures but does not give any references for his claims.

I agree that a YouTube video is not a reliable source for WP but wonder what good independent sources we have on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

removed sentence about health concerns on twitter

I removed the following just now: "Many public health concerns that circulate on social media are based on US practice, which may involve chemicals that are not permitted in the UK, open fluid storage which allows VOCs to escape, and fluids to leak, and poor gas security. These practices are not permitted in under UK legislation." Refs were:

• Raff retweet (note - this and the following 2 were how the actual refs were done - i just fixed the formatting)
• Another retweet
• and another

Each one of those refs is just a retweet from social media - none of them say " are based on US practice, which may involve chemicals that are not permitted in the UK, open fluid storage which allows VOCs to escape, and fluids to leak, and poor gas security. These practices are not permitted in under UK legislation." So, I deleted this as it is someone's WP:OR. if somebody finds a source that actually supports this, of course it can go back in. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits Oct 2014

An unsigned user has put some stuff in, some of which was useful, and some of which was out of date, and some of which seemed to want to draw parallels with other countries. This page is for UK practice only, and as such the regulatory regime here is the one that needs highlighting and discussion, unless it is to point out significant differences. There is so much reference to chemicals and practice that are not permitted by the Environment Agency and HSE and they just confuse the issue and are irrelevant. Kennywpara (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ross, if you want to add stuff please ensure it is encyclopaedic. Kennywpara (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Regulation

The following text has been removed from the article by myself and others. It was not my intention to remove all criticism of regulation of the industry. We should discuss how much of this should be added. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed text

There have been a number of concerns raised regarding conflicts of interest between policy makers and financial links to fracking. Notably Lord Browne of Cuadrilla - The former BP boss is chairman of Cuadrilla, which is exploring for shale gas in Lancashire and West Sussex. He is lead "non-executive " across Government. [135]

[136] [137]

Lord MacGregor’s Conflict of Interest

Lord MacGregor or John MacGregor as he was previously known is the current Chairman of ‘The British Energy Pension Fund Trustees and Chairman, Eggborough Power Ltd Pension Fund Trustees, both now part of EDF Energy.[138]

CPRE West Northamptonshire. Campaign to protect rural england. Chairman David Montag-Smith is also chairman of the board of directors of Rathlin Energy Ltd. This company is exploring Yorkshire for shale gas. Often called a leading environmental group.[139]

At an EU Level

Miguel Arias Cañete was told by MEPs that he must give up his shares in two oil companies if his nomination was to be approved.[140]

Many of the factors that drive local and national opposition to shale gas extraction, such as non-disclosure of fracking fluids or groundwater contamination due to poor well design and construction, drilling close to public water aquifers and a lack of monitoring, are in fact solely a product of the very lax and fragmented – between federal and state level – regulatory framework of the United States. As shale-gas regulation in the EU and the United Kingdom develops in response to the possible development of a shale gas industry, it is important to not pick up ‘bad habits’ or import worrying deregulatory trends from the United States, such as the numerous exceptions granted to the industry, but to adopt best practices and adapt them to the European and United Kingdom context. The analysis of the latter context suggests that additional legislative steps will have to be taken at the European level in the coming years in the event that a full-scale shale gas industry develops in Europe.

The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering stressed throughout their commissioned review of shale gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing that the existing United Kingdom regulatory framework is adequate at this point in time for exploratory activities to proceed. However, and in view of the lack of knowledge of the environmental and health effects of these activities, this article has discovered a number of surprising gaps that contradict the aims and objectives of the relevant EU directives.

A trend towards adopting American-style regulation or at least adopting deregulatory interpretations of existing law can also be detected. Authorizing shale gas extraction without requiring an EIA, a well examination scheme that does not monitor gas wells for specific environmental impacts, waiving environmental permits (and thus not imposing any conditions) for the injection of fracturing fluid into the groundwater, and completely effacing the risk of induced seismicity from the procedure until seismic events actually occurred all point towards a business-friendly regulatory environment bewitched by the shale gas revolution. Such measures may even be sufficient for conventional oil and gas exploration. Proponents of shale gas take pains to emphasize its many similarities with other gas sources. However, since shale gas is classified as an unconventional source and comes with its own particular challenges, a business as usual approach may not be the best way forward. At least, the review commissioned by the British government also contains numerous proposals on how to improve the regulatory framework, along with an explicit acknowledgement that a regulatory framework sufficient for licensing and monitoring a dozen sites nationally may indeed prove inadequate when production increases to commercial levels. [141]

The Government commissioned a report to identify the problems and advise regulatory agencies. Jointly published by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, under the chairmanship of Professor Robert Mair, the report included recommendations on groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakage, water usage and disposal, management of environmental risk, implementation of best practice, and various management and regulatory issues.[142] According to Professor Mair,well integrity is of key importance but the most common areas of concern, such as the causation of earthquakes with any significant impact or fractures reaching and contaminating drinking water, were very low risk but the report stated adequate regulations must be put in place. The RAE report stated, Many claims of contaminated water wells due to shale gas extraction have been made. None has shown evidence of chemicals found in hydraulic fracturing fluids. This report lead to a Government paper[143] that outlined the requirements of the regulatory framework.

One of the suggested requirements was industry specific regulation this requirement has been ignored. Micheal Hill has produced an independent assessment of the regulatory framework. He has found a culture of de regulation.[144] [145]

I think Kenny has resolved this issue now with a section on 'Conflict of interest'. It might be worth mentioning the comments of Michael Hill somewhere though. See below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential POV fork

This article repeats a lot of information which is not the UK-specific but applies to HF in general and which is already included in more general articles, namely Hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. In addition, this articles discuss a lot of information about HF in the United States which is not the topic of this article. Al in all, this creates a potential WP:POVFORK. Therefore, this article needs extensive cleanup. Beagel (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Some information on the global background, including HF in the US, to HF is justified but I agree that there are sections that refer specifically to US studies and experience. There is an argument that these should be included because there are no equivalent studies in the UK but I think they are currently written in a way that is too promotional of HF in the UK, along the lines of, 'any bad stuff about HF only happens in the US'. I think these sections should therefore be toned down a bit to show only important research into HF that is relevant to the UK, even if the research was done elsewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Why so little fracking is done in the UK

This article offers some insight into the difference between American and UK attitudes towards fracking: Editors (24 August 2013). "Dash for cash". The Economist. Retrieved 16 October 2014. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help) RockMagnetist(talk) 15:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good article. Ineos were talking about 6% going to local people, not the local council. That may be a way that would pursuade those on the fence.... Possibly something in political? Kennywpara (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like the right place for it. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fracturing template

@Kennywpara has removed the template {{Hydraulic fracturing}}, stating "I dont see this adds anything as it directs to non UK, and a lot of non UK based links." Well, in addition to "United Kingdom", the title of this article has the words "Hydraulic fracturing". And when I looked at the material on hydraulic fracturing on Wikipedia, it took me some time to realize how many overlapping articles there were. I think this template alerts people to the relationships, and it satisfies all of the criteria for a good sidebar. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair comment RockMagnetist, and I have seen the sidebar article. To find all of the links in the article would take time!Kennywpara (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Having said that, the quality of some of the other articles is not good. Environmental Impact is poor, and has several big inadequacies in it, eg fracking is an earthquake risk, er... no it isnt. Injection wells are a moderate risk but thats not fracking. I can edit to make it a bit more accurate. Lots of other issues as well. These things are covered in the main article which is why I wasnt so keen.Kennywpara (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree the quality is highly variable, and I'm hoping that the sidebar will draw attention to the overlap and the inadequacies. Looks like it's working! RockMagnetist(talk) 21:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point Rockmagnetist. The 'Environmental Impact' link is really poor content, based either on bias, US practice or lack of understanding . (Looking at the talk section there is a bit of an 'edit' war going on. This page has not had that problem mainly). I do not want to make a list of what is incorrect, poorly referenced, or partial as I do not have the time. So why do you want to make a link in the headline section when properly resourced review of those issues is on the main page, and it relates to the UK regulatory framework, RAE report etc etc? This eludes me.Kennywpara (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Where in the documentation for sidebars does it say that all the articles have to be of equal quality? Look at it the other way - suppose someone from the UK wants to learn more about the environmental impact of fracking and they end up (as seems likely) at Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing? Wouldn't you like them to know about this article? There are only four articles on fracking in specific countries, so it is far from obvious that they should look for one. I also think that you may have too high an opinion of the UK page; I haven't had time to read the content, but there are some glaring style issues. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The sidebar article doesnt say they have to be of equal quality, but the points I have made are valid. I have written much of it, and have listened carefully to comments from MH, P, B, and others when I have strayed. There are some issues with citation style (this is not a strong point of mine) but the key issue in any reference is the content!! That's the problem I have with linking to poorly written, biased, non country specific articles, and inaccurate links, when the definitive practice, as regulated by the UK authorities, is on the main page.Kennywpara (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the context, the "main page" you are referring to is Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom, not Hydraulic fracturing or Hydraulic fracturing by country. Am I correct? RockMagnetist(talk) 15:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are, sorry. One point RM, could you alter the picture of the towering rig to something that looks less than about 100m high?!! A lot of the rigs proposed, (in the UK) eg as used by Cuadrilla are 32 m, tho they may use some 50m. As rigs go thats small, the ones I worked on years ago were mainly very big but environmental concerns here seems to have moved towards smaller, less intrusive rigs.Kennywpara (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to find one. I chose it by looking at the choices in Wikimedia Commons, and it won out because it was easily identifiable. Most of the images are of guys standing in a field or a mysterious clutter of equipment. If you can find a better image with an appropriate license, feel free to replace my choice. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that this kind of comprehensive template is useful and I would like to thank RockMagnetist for creating and adding this. If the reason of keeping the template out of article's page is because of it consisting of articles contradicting this article or presenting different POV about the topic, we have a serious problem called WP:POVFORK. This is not an accusation and I do not say this is intentional, but this is exactly POVFORK is by its nature. The only way out of this is ensure that all related articles are WP:NPOV and every article consist of the information specific to the main topic of the article and nothing else, excluding using WP:SS, if appropriate. Just concealing articles having different POV is not acceptable solution. I also believe that Hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, thank to Jytdog and RockMagnetist recent edits are in better shape than this article. Of course, they all like US-specific articles are needing more work to be done. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the template will bring a level of consistency to the articles. They are all getting better in my opinion. This one is mildly too promotional of HF and the US ones still a bit too critical in places. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

problematic section

the section below is problematic for several reasons:

1. The reference to "Freedom of Information request by an editor" is not allowable in Wikipedia; fails WP:VERIFY
2. the content is actually and sources about UK regulations, not EA policy, which is a different level of activity (generally there are laws, implementing regulations, and then agency policy under which regulations and law are applied)
3. a bunch of this has no source at all.

I don't think that we should include any of this content as it is currently stated and sourced, due to that. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

actual section Environment Agency Policy

Obtained by a Freedom of Information request by an editor, the EA have stated

‘Groundwater’ means all water that is below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and in contact with the groundwater or subsoil (EPR, Regulation 2(1)). ‘Aquifer’ means a subsurface layer or layers of rock or other geological strata of sufficient permeability to allow either a significant flow of groundwater or the abstraction of significant quantities of groundwater (WFD Article 2.11).

Under EPR Schedule 22, paragraph 6 we must take all necessary measures to: (a) prevent the input of any hazardous substance to groundwater; and (b) limit the input of non-hazardous pollutants to groundwater so as to ensure that such inputs do not cause pollution of groundwater.

The Environment Agency would not authorise the use of a hazardous substance for an activity, including hydraulic fracturing.

The pollutants the Environment Agency are concerned with for groundwater are:

• ‘Hazardous substances’, which are substances or groups of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate, and other substances or groups of substances that give rise to an equivalent level of concern (EPR Schedule 22, paragraph 4).
• Any non-hazardous pollutants, which is ‘any pollutant other than a hazardous substance (EPR, Schedule 22, paragraph 5).

Substances on List I of the binding Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) are taken to be hazardous substances

The European wide Groundwater Directive is European legislation that states. In order to protect the environment as a whole, and human health in particular, detrimental concentrations of harmful pollutants in groundwater must be avoided, prevented or reduced.

The Environment Agency list of chemicals does not contain all of those that may be proposed in hydraulic fracturing. The regulations above indicate that authorisation would be decided on a case by case basis, using the above protocols.

References

discussion

Yes, and thats why I got all of the actual references, so with removal of the FOI comment the section stands up on its own. Those are are actual policies and are very clear. In fact I was considering changing it to lead with the EU bit, and then go through the various statements from the EPR. Kennywpara (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see why we should have any of this in the article. It is not specifically about HF. Maybe a brief (one sentence) summary, making clear its relevance to HF,would be OK. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

To satisfy verifiability, the parts that have sources can be rewritten so they are summarizing the EPR regulations instead of quoting someone. However, some of it is just legalese that adds nothing to this article (like "Any non-hazardous pollutants, which is ‘any pollutant other than a hazardous substance (EPR, Schedule 22, paragraph 5).'). The key point is that input of hazardous substances into groundwater is not allowed, and EPR provides a list of such substances. This, plus sources, could be added to the top of Chemicals permitted for hydraulic fracturing in the UK, which already has a statement to that effect. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and some information on the European Groundwater directive could be included. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about the comments I agree that it is unnecessary, as the 'chemicals permitted chapter covers this in a different, and redundant way.The EU and EPR regulation stuff should be in there to show the legal basis. It is very much to do with HF however Martin, and is one of the main causes for concern. Will have a look tomorrow, it can be quite brief Kennywpara (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Big thanks to RockMagnetist who has sorted out the links disparity, and helped me in several aspects of editing. Now I have seen the drop down annotation menu, it should make my future edits consistent in this areaKennywpara (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC).

And kudos to you for handling this barrage of criticism so gracefully! RockMagnetist(talk) 21:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

great so it appears we are leaving this out. happy we all agree. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the chemicals permitted section, hope all are happy with it.Kennywpara (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

sources and content about the US?

there is a bunch of content about the US here. why is that? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As a comparison. The US provides almost all of the research base, and experience. Their regulatory regime is lax, and UK is tight, so that needs highlighting. That hopefully highlights that making direct comparisons between events in the US, and what may happen in the UK needs to be thought through. Open flowback pits for example. Loads of pollution problems in the US. None likely in UK due to steel storage tanks used as the norm. Most people do not know that but its a big difference!Kennywpara (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

i agree, it needs distinguishing. right now it just looks like someone loaded US content into this, in an off target way... Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe in Regulation chapter, after the intro? May be a more logical place. Kennywpara (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I put the US methane stuff in 'methane' and the regulatory stuff in 'regulation. I think thats a better structure as it was bit odd. Thanks for highlighting Jytdog Kennywpara (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Environment Agency Policy

@Kennywpara: Your latest edit broke the quotation template, so I'll revert it. I think what you're trying to do is provide a more meaningful title for the page than "Legislative Background and Classification Results", but it's potentially confusing if the title does not match the page title. Maybe it will help if I add another layer of information.

As far as I can tell, all but the first sentence in this section is from the same quote. Is that correct? I couldn't find the quote in the sources that are cited in this section. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe you were just fixing my URL error. I corrected that. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sincere apologies, I couldnt get a handle on all of the {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) kind of stuff, and found brackets where I didnt expect them. I honestly have no idea what most of the previous paragraphs refer to for instance! PLease excuse my inexperience. As I say, its content that to me is the most important, and a link where needed. I have been using <ref> [ description| url] <not ref> as basic template, and I got bit lost over several edits. I found a link to where the statements came from for the main body. Bear in mind this was an email to me. I rephrased the last sentence so that hopefully a citation is not needed. Its kind of obvious anyway. This stuff is new to the EA so they will need to evaluate new chemicals as they are proposed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennywpara (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 October 2014

Quite o.k., I was sure you were acting in good faith. I have never seen your style of citation before, though. When you do something like

[JAGDAG chemical list| http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Substances%],

are you trying to get

JAGDAG chemical list?

The way to do that is to remove the vertical pipe and put them in the opposite order:

[http://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Substances% JAGDAG chemical list].

Note, by the way, that if you want to display code like the above, you need to precede it by <nowiki> and follow it by </nowiki>. Otherwise, you get some strange results, as in your message above before I fixed it. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If your quote is from an email to you, that is a problem. Right near the top of the core verifiability policy, it says "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Of course, that means a source that actually says, verbatim, what you have quoted them as saying. Are you sure that you can't get some of this material from another source? RockMagnetist(talk) 21:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again,RockMagnetist I thought that would be the case, so I have referenced the quotes with the actual EPR links and tidied up the last sentence. I think its fine now. Will try the other method but surely what I have been doing is fine? I remember reading that once a method has been used on a site that should be the prefered method for that site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennywpara (talk • contribs) 12:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Kennywpara (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

O.k., first the easy one - the style. It's true that the MOS entry on citation style says "defer to the style used by the first major contributor", but the style should be consistent with the rest of Citing sources. See also Link titles, where it says "Generally, URLs are ugly and uninformative; it is better for a meaningful title to be displayed rather than the URL itself." And surely you'd agree that, say Ref. 30 looks better and inspires more confidence than Ref. 31? I have edited many thousands of pages, and I have never seen citations like yours before. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that part of your resistance to adopting a MOS-compliant citation style is the amount of work it will require to redo all those citations. There is no deadline for converting them, but the citation style tag will remain on the article until the citations have been fixed. I have converted several of the citations, and I am willing to do more, but only if I know my work won't be undone. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition, the characters [ | ] are Wikipedia markup and are invisible if used correctly. I have tidied up the external links, since that doesn't take long. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Great thanks RockMagnetist again for sorting out the links. I had another look and all the ones I could see seemed to have been following the template system. Have also adopted the quotes thing and the MOS. Are there any more links to change? You know how far you went. If no, then can the citation link come off? I am happy to do em. Kennywpara (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a mixed bag. Most of the links are good now, in the sense that they'd be o.k. in External links. (There are some exceptions, though, like bare URLs in refs 25, 106, 167, 168 and 170. The first two are a mystery to me - as I understand the syntax, the URLs should be hidden. There are also some link titles like "Page 4" that are pretty uninformative.) More than half are not proper citations, though; they don't have information like the actual title of the document, author, publisher and date. That applies to most of the middle column. My conversion of the links was just a partial fix that could be done quickly; it will take a lot of work to make all the citations compliant with the Manual of Style. The tag can help with that - it puts the article on cleanup lists like this one, which may attract people to work on it. So I'd recommend leaving it for a month or so before removing it. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Climate change edits

I put in what I thought were some useful links but Lee Bunce has said they were off topic and removed them? They relate to the high dependance of the UK on coal, a lot of it imported.

Removed text. Currently, the UK generates over 30% of its electricity from coal The National Grid provide live monitoring of the sources of the produced electricity.

CC is of course an area where whole books could be written, but a summary of the key ideas as they relate to the shale gas side of things seems appropriate. The fact the the UK does depend on coal so much seems to me to be one of the key ideas. Most people seem unaware of this. There is often great publicity given when a country generates a large percentage of its electricity on a windy sunny holiday (such as Germany recently) yet not so much when you find that Germany generates 45% of its electricity by strip mining lignite! On the one hand, great for the renewables progress, but on the other lignite?? ! Yuch. Lee has also put in an excellent reference to Prof David McKay, highlighting the point that there is a wide body of opinion that thinks that all of the available HC fuels can never be burned. Surely both of these points should be in there? Opinions from other editors welcomed. Kennywpara (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably just needs more linkage to fracking - e.g., that where fracking increases the supply of natural gas, it mostly displaces coal. This is an important factor that often is not considered in fracking debates. So far, none of the fracking pages discuss the relative health and environmental costs of different sources of energy. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly, it really needs more context to justify inclusion in the section, but that would need a lot more work. The point that fracking could replace coal and reduce emissions is a frequently made argument, though I'd also point to studies suggesting emissions from fracked shale gas are much higher than for natural gas, and perhaps even higher than coal, once methane leakage is accounted for. Similarly the section might also include arguments that we don't really have time for 'transition' fuels at this stage in order to avoid 2 degree rises in global temperature. It's a lively debate that probably does need including. I plan to do a bit more myself in the coming days. Lee Bunce (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine Lee, but its worth taking a look at http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/shale-gas-good-or-bad-for-global.html from Dr James Verdon. He has a very intelligent way of looking at the science, (he is a post doc geophysicist, so knows a lot.) A lot of the 'same than coal for GHG' stuff originates from the Howarth study that appears to be at the edge of what is believable. Also the Prof Davies report that you cited shows that total GHG emissions for shale gas are similar to natural gas, less than imported LNG, and around half of coal. In addition DECC and EA require total fluid security, i.e. no emissions at all, except in an emergency, and green completions are supposed to be the norm (eventually). Kennywpara (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think a key point, which I have seen mentioned in more than one source, is that the oil companies have a financial interest in capturing as much methane as possible, which makes it very likely they will keep reducing the leakage. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons with other energy sources are essential in any meaningful study of the impact of fracking, but they need to be examined closely, because they may be comparing apples and oranges. I think that only industry best practices should be compared, unless there is good reason to think that industries will not adopt them. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC

Agree there is an ongoing debate around this issue. To bring it back to the conent of this page though I suppose we would want to avoid repeating a debate that is covered here.Lee Bunce (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can see that Lee, thanks. I do feel that the 'Environmental Impacts' section does need more work. I realise RM and Plazak and Jytdog are doing loads but it still has a long way to go IMHO. I put the links back in on the end of the 2008 CC act sentence, as the context is appropriate I think, taking note of comments above (thanks BTW). I have used the phrase, 'shale gas would be one possible solution that provides reliable on demand electricity' as I think that is appropriate. Its not the only solution, but the unreliable nature of renewables need an on demand source to back em up. (next paragraph mentions that) Kennywpara (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Climate change is relevant in this context if we consider hydraulic fracturing as synonym of unconventional (shale) gas production. However, they are not synonyms. Therefore, comparison of sources and emissions from shale gas belong to shale gas articles, not HF articles. This information currently in this article should be included in Shale gas in the United Kingdom, which so far says nothing about the climate change or GHG emissions. Beagel (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that by the same logic, the whole of the environment section, drilling concerns etc etc should go elsewhere. When I look at some of the other pages its a very variable feast, some excellent, some appalling and I know that some are working hard to sort it out. Then there's the mish mash of UK based regulation, including papers and information that pertain to CC in the UK shale gas context. The simple fact is that the likely main thrust of HF in the UK is likely to be shale gas. CC is also one of the main things that many are very concerned about, hence all the protesting. Just looking at one of the 'other' pages and it turns out that water usage is a big issue, except that in the UK its been looked at, we aren't at risk except the SE and there's not going to be any shale gas in the SE anyway. On this page you can find all that out fairly quickly with UK based references. You will hear many comments from 'antis' that we will have no water if fracking goes ahead, in spite of the fact that it would 0.01% of abstracted water. That's one of the reasons I am not particularly keen on the side bar (sorry Rock Magnetist!) Kennywpara (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There are environmental concerns related to HF, so the environmental section belongs here. However, I agree that drilling concerns does not belong here because drilling is a separate process. I understand your logic and concerns but it seems that they are about wider topic of shale gas production and not about HF. Just rename the article Shale gas production in the United Kingdom and all these pieces fit here perfectly. The title of the article should correspond to the content and vice versa. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Except for the fact that this page has info on Geothermal, CBM, drilling issues which people are concerned about, in the context of fracking and drilling. To propose yet another page seems silly. Looking at many pages, the whole picture is often presented, with a wide range of topics. It relates to HF in the UK then it should remain on this page. I have written a lot of this and the idea of splitting this up is something I personally would find unnecessary, and a retrograde step. Kennywpara (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC),

Oh and theres already a page called 'Shale gas in the UK'. That is a really good page, with a load of good stuff that is just about reserves, and shale gas stuff, without all of the wider coverage of this page. One possible way to bring things together is to have links within this and other pages to take people to where they want to go. (Like there is for 'Shale gas in the UK' within this page) At present I would not be happy with linking to some outside sites however. Re drilling concerns there is great interest in this, as everyone is concerned with formation fluid contamination and leaking cement, and there is nothing on Wiki that covers that, or squeezing cement, etc etc. There are many internal links anyway Kennywpara (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of this article needs some reviewing. E.g. we have the section called "Environmental issues" and we have a separate section called "Aquifer contamination", but this should actually to be a part of "Water contamination", a subsection of "Environmental issues". Also, I have some doubts about "Drilling issues" which actually discuss broader issues than HF. E.g., horizontal drilling is a specific drilling techniques not necessarily associated with HF and well cementing is a standard procedure of every drilled well, not only hydraulically fractured wells. Beagel (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I had been thinking there is some possible overlap of some of the chapters. Give me a couple of days to sort, as I wrote most of it if thats OK. Re horizontal drilling and drilling issues, I cannot see that there is a problem. Well leak concerns are in the public arena, and its good to have some properly resourced info. Also horizontal drilling is particularly necessary in the UK whether in shale or in oil due to the pad location issues, and also to get a the oil/gas out, with the low permeabilities likely. These are some of the things that many poorly informed people go on about. This page is supposed to inform those who want to learn about this technology, and there are many aspects. Kennywpara (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restructured the chapters. Does this make more sense Beagel (talk)? One problem is that so many chapters could go in several different places. I think it makes more sense now, but comments welcome.Kennywpara (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I combined (without changing content) 'Environmental issues' and 'Aquifer contamination' under title 'Environmental impact' to harmonize the structure with strctures of main HF articles. However, the structure still needs more harmonization. Beagel (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)