Talk:Fracking/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New study: "Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health"

This might be useful - I don't have the time to dedicate to this article right now, but I thought I'd pass this article along: "Study suggests hydrofracking is killing farm animals, pets". And here's the link to the study itself: [1] Sindinero (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add it.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Chemicals

Until recently the only concern many hydraulic fracturing companies had as far as their chemical additives was the Department of Transportation. So many of the concerns were focused on how to transport the chemicals to sites. Here are some of the major types of chemicals they had to worry about transporting. The vapors on any of these chemicals can be toxic.

Anaerobic, Biocide or BIO - These are chemicals used to kill all living organisms in the fluid in the hydraulic fracturing job and in the well. This helps to prevent H2S (a dangerous gas that is produced as a byproduct of bacteria) in a well. I once saw an equipment operator placing a few drops of one of this type of chemical on his arm and laughing how it turned it grey. Then I told him yeah because it is killing his skin cells and he wasn't so amused. In large amounts can cause death. The hydraulic fracturing companies adding this is similar to your local municipal water system adding chlorine to the water you drink to kill microbes. Usually pumped about .025% by volume of total fracturing fluid.

Strong PH chemicals - These can be either strong Acids (like HCl or Acetic) or strong bases (like Potassium Hydroxide). These chemicals when diluted can be handled fairly easily, but when in the concentrate form can quickly scar someone or kill them if doused with enough. The highest concentration I have worked with pH modifiers is .2% by volume of the fracturing fluid. We will also pump down as much as 6000 gallons of 28% HCl by weight of the fracturing fluid for an initial breakdown of the formation before starting sand. 28% HCl is considered oil field max because there is not any corrosion inhibitor available that can handle anything stronger than this.

Corrosion Inhibitors - This is one chemical that has some of the weirdest and most questionable effects. One time I got a little of one type of this chemical on me and it turned my skin yellow for days. Even though I did not get any of this chemical near my mouth I tasted metal for days as well. This is one chemical I am most weary about. The main purpose of the chemical is to ensure acid doesn't destroy the casing of the well. Usually pumped about 2% or less by volume of acid.

There are other dangerous chemicals like oxidizers or diesel based chemicals. All of the chemicals that were once diesel based have been phased out, but occasionally stalks of these chemicals still show up. The diesel based chemicals were usually a powder chemical suspended in the diesel to meter the chemical with a small pump. All the chemicals that were once suspended in diesel have been changed to mineral oil over the past couple of years.

There are alternatives in development or being made available to each questionable chemical but it is hard to tell what is a sales pitch and what is fact as far as the alternatives currently being offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

US specific stuff in lede

I think that the lede is getting overloaded with US specifc stuff about pipelines and the like - this is why the US article was split off in the first place. Mikenorton (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no response to this, so I've gone ahead and removed most of that part of the lede. Mikenorton (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So now it's all been put back. This article is just about beyond help. The lede section of an article is supposed to summarise its contents - none of what I removed appears anywhere else and none if it relevant to hydraulic fracturing in a global context. Mikenorton (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Consultation before cutting?

Could we talk about potential reorganization, moving sections, and deleting sections before taking action please?Smm201`0 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the section higher up the page - there was no response so I acted. Mikenorton (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Where? I may actually agree with you on some points, but no response (yet) means no consensus either.Smm201`0 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what WP:BRD is all about. Could you please explain how that section is a summary of part of the article as laid out in WP:LEAD? Also, every part of what has been restored refers specifically to the US, even if it involves some global companies. Mikenorton (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So, still try to get some discussion going. Maybe move it to a section on market forces, global economy. Don't automatically delete. There is more US content because of the way Wikipedia is set up, but the way it is set up also leads to more US readers. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC) If you give me 24 hours, maybe I'll even think of a solution. I actually had never seen the word "lede" used, and I'm published. Go figure...Smm201`0 (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

To me 'lede' is just a wikipedia thing, I should have used 'lead section' and will from now on. I'm about to sign off for the night - good luck with finding a solution and I won't hold you to the 24 hours but soon would be good. Mikenorton (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias and irrelevance

On the section 'Chemicals used in fracturing', the chemicals used are not examine in depth and few cited specifics are given. It seems to address negative aspects of the chemicals used rather than the chemicals themselves as well. 173.217.196.83 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

When reading about iodine-131, the article seems to suggest that fracking is responsible for the increase levels found in milk. However, the cited articles attribute the increase to radiation from the Japaneese crisis, not to fracking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.151.82 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well...there are references that indicate that iodine-131 is listed as a radioactive tracer in several fracking patents and articles that say there is unexplained iodine-131 in drinking water, milk, and waste water. There is an article that says they have now eliminated the Japanese incident as the culprit, are skeptical about Thyroid cancer patients' urine being the source, and are still looking for the source. There are references to show that iodine-131 has been found near fracking sites (EPA monitoring data; well maps). There is also a reference to say that EPA's new study will not be testing for iodine-131. So...there are credible sources for all of the statements. I stopped short of saying that fracking was the source because I only saw comments to that effect on minor web sites. Actually...some people are still denying that fracking causes any contamination, even after the UT study. What we need is for companies to come clean about what is in the fluid, and to have EPA do an objective, comprehensive study of whether the chemicals end up in ground water and report all of the results. Iodine-131 may be one of the "proprietary" chemicals not included in the EPA study, since it is replaced by a number on some copies of the patents and not others.Smm201`0 (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) The EPA should have known about iodine-131 if it only took me a 2 minute Google search to find it.Smm201`0 (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I contributed to several sections, and tried not to be redundant, so you may need to read the whole article to see all of the references.Smm201`0 (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Radioactive tracers are used in fracing, although it is very uncommon. I've frac'd hundreds of wells, and only seen radioactive tracers used probably 10 times. The third party company that does it will pump perhaps two gallons of fluid out of around 250,000 gallons total. I should say though, that because I've been on so few of these jobs, I'm not aware of the specific blend that they use. One of the more concerning points of this article is the way that some sections use "fracing," and "drilling" very interchangeably. Sure, both of these practices are used on natural gas wells, and a well must be drilled before it can be fractured. But that is where the relationship ends. They are done at different times, by different people, with different equipment, and for wildly different reasons. (Unless, of course, you zoom out far enough to say that they are both done to extract natural gas.) It's like saying that CERN and the Discovery Channel both have the same mission, but the two organizations are nothing alike. I also think that it is worth mentioning that many energy companies no longer use the lined "ponds" that are mentioned, all waste from a fracturing operation is flowed back into tanks, and sent to treatment plants by truck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.76.206 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of US politics stuff

I didn't do the deletion, but have no trouble working out why it was done - why is there anything about current US politics in an article about Hydraulic Fracturing? - it only has relevance to the specific US article. Mikenorton (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with that point. They could have just said that instead of doing a delete and run.Smm201`0 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC) They didn't delete the whole thing, though, just the part they didn't like...Smm201`0 (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Image Incorrect

The caption reads "tower for fracturing of marcellus shale." That is incorrect. That is a drill rig. Fraccing setups involve a much smaller shorter valve tree on top of the well to which are attached anywhere from 5-30 massive engines/pumps mounted on the back of semi trucks etc. This happens after the drill rig has left the area. This is what the actual fraccing looks like: http://lingo.cast.uark.edu/LINGOPUBLIC/images/photos/fracjob.jpg

I've changed the caption - but it can stay there I think until a better image (like the one that you linked to above) comes along. Mikenorton (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This article needs more illustrations. At the moment one illustration is about the above-mentioned rig which, I agree, does not belong to this article and another about two politicians. There is certainly need for a photo about the fraccing equipment. I also think that some schematic illustration of the process would be a great help to understand the process better. I find a good image File:Gasbohren-schema.PNG, but unfortunately it is in German. Anyone knows how to translate it into English? Beagel (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A translation of most of it

• Oberflachenwasser=Surface water
• Zwischenlager Bohrschlamme Auslaufgefahrl=Risk of leakage from interim storage of drilling fluids
• Bohrstelle=Drillsite
• Staube=Dust
• Luftbelastung: austretende Gase (Radon, Quecksilber)=Air pollution (Radon, Mercury)
• Zement mantel = Casing
• Grundwasser = Groundwater
• Tone, Mergel Kalksandstein = Clay, marl, calcareous sandstone
• Muschelkalk = Upper Triassic
• Deckegebirge=Overburden - or in this context presumably the 'top seal', the impermeable layer above the gas shale
• Buntsandstein=Bunter Sandstone (lower Triassic)
• Moglische durchgehende risse und verwerfungen=Possible (leakage?) through fractures and faults
• Anhydrit=Anhydrite
• Salze=Halite
• Karbon gasfuhrende Schicht = Carboniferous gas-bearing layer
• FRAC -Risse=Hydraulic fractures
• Flozleeres carbon=Carboniferous barren coal measures

Hope that helps. Mikenorton (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually I meant "translation" in the context of making the same image with English text. Sorry for my mis-wording. Beagel (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, well I may be able to help with a more generic diagram (not so specific to German geology) - I'll see what I can come up with. Mikenorton (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a schematic diagram based around the one that you linked to. I'm open to suggestions/criticisms - I may have tried to include too many things, generally a problem that I have. Mikenorton (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! Thanks a lot! Beagel (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Second that, it looks good! Sindinero (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we delete this talk section since it no longer applies, unless you want to discuss getting a picture of something else like say a hydraulic fracturing crew or equipment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are not deleted, they are archived. It is done automatically by the bot with every section which is not edited during the last 30 days (this is one reasons why comments have to signed with time templates). Before your edit, this section eas to be archived on 1 May, but now the new date is set for 18 May. Beagel (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits re: Gasland

User:Arzel recently added the following information: " The film received considerable attention for the false claim that natural gas drilling is responsible in allowing a man to light his faucet water on fire. The clip has been called wildly inaccurate and irresponsible." I've removed it twice now, but per WP:BRD I think the best thing to do would be to discuss it here. A few points need to be made:

• First and foremost, the article in no way endorses Gasland's claims in Wikipedia's editorial voice, at least not in the section in question and anywhere else that I can see. The sentence on Gasland states that the film "claims" that fracking chemicals pollute groundwater, not endorsing (in this sentence) that this is in fact the case. Reporting prominent views on topics is fully consistent with wikipedia policy.
• Secondly, the Forbes source introduced is an opinion piece, and doesn't seem to constitute a reliable source.
• Thirdly, neither the Forbes source nor the PBS footnote demonstrate that the claim in Gasland is false. To add new material, it needs to be supported by the source: we cannot claim in WP's editorial voice that the film presents a false claim unless we have a good source to back this up. True, we can use opinion pieces to show that the author of the opinion piece believes these claims, but then the burden would be on Arzel to show that the author of the piece is actually a notable view on the subject. This is simply Wikipedia policy.
• Finally, the allegations of propaganda, besides being an insult to other editors working on the piece (and thus not the best way towards consensus), seem pretty misguided. I think that most people recognize a difference between propaganda, criticism, claims, peer reviewed scientific studies, and other kinds of statements. If you think the article is propagandistic, in the sense that it is presenting claims that are purely politically-motivated while misrepresenting the sources to do so, please give specific examples so that we can all work to improve the article. If you think more information on the technique and its history will "balance" the piece, then please add the material based on responsible use of reliable sources. If, on the other hand, you don't like what the reliable sources (including scientific studies) are saying about hydraulic fracturing, then wikipedia certainly isn't the place to wage that battle. Sindinero (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of Gasland is propaganda since that faux documentary is nothing more than propaganda. The guy that created it is not a scientist, and knows nothing of the science behind fracking. He simply didn't like it and thought it was going to mess up his favorite wilderness area so he went about to make a "documentary" to get the practice stopped. He made a knowingly false claim that water being lit on fire was a direct result of fracking. It is riddled with errors and outright false and misleading statements. There is enough stuff for the environmental left to use against fracking, I don't see why you need to resort to jumping the shark with crap like that. I used the proper sourcing and did not provide a WP voice, which ironically is how many of these article read from the other point of view. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're using "propaganda" in a neutral, informative sense, with all due respect. Gasland collects anecdotal evidence - interviews with people, that sort of thing - and is obviously not making claims the same way that a scientific report does. Intelligent readers will understand this, and treat it with a grain of salt. The film has become a prominent voice in the debate on fracking, and it's irrelevant whether the creator is a scientist or not, since nobody's treating it as science. Secondly, as I said before, the article stated simply that Gasland "claims" this and that; it does not use Gasland to support a claim. Do you see the difference?

If you have a source that supports your claim that "He made a knowingly false claim that water being lit on fire was a direct result of fracking", by all means, introduce it. The Forbes article, as I've said, does not support that claim; it merely opines its probability. It is an opinion source and is therefore not a WP:RS to demonstrate claims of fact.

Furthermore, what Economides' piece basically claims, if you cut through the shrill acrimony and maledictions, is that correlation does not imply causation - in other words, that there are many other ways for tapwater to become flammable, so that the mere presence of fracking does not necessitate the fact that fracking caused the flammable tapwater. This is obvious. But the fact that correlation does not imply causation does not rule causation out, either. His whole argument is to show how improbable it is that fracking is responsible for the flaming tapwater. But I would expect a statistician to acknowledge the difference between "improbable" and "false". To demonstrate conclusively that the film's claim is false, as opposed to improbable, would require a lot of on-site research, as you as an industrial engineer must surely know. In the absence of this, Economides' dismissal is simply another instance of the predictable industry denials and obfuscations. We've seen this before, with the tobacco industry, oil industry, etc. There's nothing wrong with industry denials, they have their rights to say whatever they want, but we should not accept them uncritically; unlike environmental or peer-reviewed studies, the economic self-interest of industry statements tempers their objectivity, to put it lightly.

I'll ask again and hopefully for the last time: do you see anywhere specific in the article where the article bases a claim of scientific fact upon a non-scientific source like Gasland, rather than simply attributing a view to the film? Sindinero (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you have concerns about Gasland, why don't you object to FrackNation? Smm201`0 (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete references

Arzel, I am aware that you also are deleting sourced material from Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Please review Sindinero's comments, as well as my own on that page. If you have references that support other views, please add that rather than delete reference for views that you do not support. The references that you deleted were not redundant. I had condensed the text covering the issue at another editor's request (Mike Norton). I still need the sources to support the statement, which covers a lot of information.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me why this sentence. "to export oil and gas to Europe and Asia (e.g., China and Korea) via new pipelines to export terminals on the Gulf Coast and East Coast" needs SEVEN sources. It is clear that you have only one purpose here and that is to promote a political point of view. At first I didn't think too much of the "export" wording until it started to come up in almost every democratic talking point against Keystone. The current Democratic talking point is that Keystone oil is not going to be used in the US, but will be exported, thus it wont have any effect on gas prices in the US. It irritates me to no end to see WP being used for political propaganda purposes. Arzel (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So now you object to articles that are too well sourced? This is an interesting strategy for editing wikipedia. Sindinero (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am asking why the editor is trying to make a WP:POINT. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Source 12 is dead, and 13, 14 & 15 do not mention export at all - a couple would suffice, one would probably be enough. Mikenorton (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I greatly condensed the text dealing with the pipelines to the export terminals at MikeNorton's request. Those references have to do with the pipeline itself, the export terminals, and market issues. If you have articles that say that the pipelines and intent to export are not realities, add those as a counterpoint. The companies involved are already advertising their intent to export on their web sites, and the reliable business news sources are discussing it. I will fix the dead link.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course the oil is going to go to the world market. That is how oil (and most commodities) work. The left, however, is trying to make this an emphasis to negate one of the arguments in favor of Keystone. You all are trying to imply that this is somehow unique or unusual when it is simply the way things work. You, providing multiple redundant sources for that statement, are clearly trying to make a WP:POINT. It is stuff like this that shows me that you are clearly editing with democratic talking points in mind. So I ask again, why do you feel the need for so many sources for one singular statement? I simply removed a couple of the opinion pieces and left most and you got all bent out of shape about it. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have stated the reality and backed it up with references. That is what one does in WP. As I said, I greatly condensed the text dealing with the pipelines to the export terminals at MikeNorton's request. Those references have to do with the pipeline itself, the export terminals, and market issues. They are not redundant.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, have you even actually read WP:POINT? In what way does that possibly apply here? WP:POINT says, "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed." Is there any coherent way that this possibly applies here? Or are you just name-dropping policy because you are personally opposed to the inclusion of certain well-sourced content? I think it's inaccurate to say that anyone is trying to imply anything. Your comments are getting increasingly shrill and decreasingly useful here - you might want to step back for awhile and think what actually needs to happen with this article. It's nonsensical to claim that a statement has too many reliable sources behind it. If you have specific challenge to the reliability of particular sources, of course, this is a different point, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying here. Sindinero (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, please also review the definition of WP:OR and when you make or edit a statement, please back it up with a reference from a reliable source.Smm201`0 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is original research. You are inserting your own interpretation that politicians need this money by using campaign donations to promote your POV. I don't have time to go through all of the activism you are inserting into this article. It is clear that you have a strong anti-fracking POV and you should really stop using WP to promote your environmental activism. The other statements I included were already within those sources you used. Arzel (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not original research. That is a statement backed up with a source. A previous source raises the issue. The data in the source is not mine. The problems caused by campaign contributions are also acknowledged by those of both political parties, so it is not even controversial - just a reality, as you put it. I didn't put that in the article though. Please review what is meant by original research.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Arzel, this is getting frustrating. A diversity of opinions on any article is great - it's what makes wikipedia so vibrant. But at least do other editors the courtesy of actually reading and understanding the article material you'd like to challenge, as well as the policies (like WP:OR, WP:POINT, and WP:RS) you're attempting to reference in order to make your claims. A claim backed up by a source is not original research, period. If you have a problem with the wording ("depend," eg), make the change instead of deleting it entirely. Instead of stonewalling the article, it would be more helpful if you would identify particular problem areas and provide suggestions or make the changes yourself, within the bounds of wikipedia policy. And please do your research on the article history and who has contributed what, rather than lumping all the other editors who have worked on it at various stages into the enemy camp of devious environmentalists. Isn't it just a little embarrassing to continue to accuse other editors of changes they didn't even make? Sindinero (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The source has to make the statement. You can't make the statement and then find some statistics that make your claim true. Unless you have a source that makes the claim, you cannot put it in without violating undue weight. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You're on the right track here, although you're still confusing WP:UNDUE with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I get the sense sometimes that you're throwing policy terms like "undue" or WP:POINT up against the wall to see what sticks - clearly not the best way to go about getting consensus. I fully agree that poorly-sourced material should be fixed or, if that's not possible, deleted. Your persistent point, however, has been that there's too much environmental stuff in this article, and you've even been opposed to material on the grounds that it is too well sourced. As long as the article is making responsible use of reliable sources, then vaguely objecting to the inclusion of environmental material because you think it's POV activism will itself seem like a POV-based position to other editors, as I hope you can see. Sindinero (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

This source "Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) (115(2))." does not cite any documents. It is an opinion "perspective" published in a journal. I have done some of these myself in my feild, and this is not a reliable source for factual information. Most of the article is anecdotal evidence. I am going to remove references to it unless there is a very good reason why opinion is being used as a scientific result. Arzel (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What rule are you invoking here?Smm201`0 (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC) When I was condensing, I paraphrased a quote by her. She is a professional science writer. Look at the publication that her piece is in - it is a reliable source. Could you try adding information that led you to hold your views rather than trying to delete everything? Smm201`0 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You do know what a "perspective" is in a journal do you not? They are an opinion of the author. It is like an editorial in a newspaper, they are not referenced to sources, and have no scientific backing. You often see them in journals and are basically a "I think that this is important because....". You seem to have knowledge of journals. Have you been published before, do you understand how they work? Arzel (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The journals whose boards I've served on don't have that type of section. Everything that is published is based on the research and/or theory. Even letters to the editor are expected to be informed by research. Smm201`0 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well now you know. Think about the word "perspective" and the definition of the word. That should help you understand something you have not previously encountered. Editors of these journals ask others there perspective (opinion, point of view, thoughts) and present them with minimal changes since they are opinions. Thus you cannot use a persepective for factual claims or scientific research claims. Arzel (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Activism

In my effort to validate the 8 million cubic feet of methane claim in Casper Wyoming (which by the way I found the following source [2] and it does not mention drilling fluids. I was unable to find the Nov 17 article whish supposedly mentions it) I noticed the following source.

[3] with the following passages

"In 2006, drilling fluids and methane were detected leaking from the ground near a gas well in Clark, Wyoming; 8 million cubic feet of methane were eventually released, and shallow groundwater was found to be contaminated."

with the same passage here.

"In 2006 drilling fluids and methane were detected leaking from the ground near a gas well in Clark, Wyoming; 8 million cubic feet of methane were eventually released, and shallow groundwater was found to be contaminated.[73]"

and

"In Dish, Texas, elevated levels of disulphides, benzene, xylenes and naphthalene have been detected in the air, alongside numerous local complaints of headaches, diarrhea, nosebleeds, dizziness, muscle spasms and other problems."

Which is identical to the following uncited passage in this article here.

"In DISH, Texas, elevated levels of disulphides, benzene, xylenes and naphthalene have been detected in the air, alongside numerous local complaints of headaches, diarrhea, nosebleeds, dizziness, muscle spasms and other problems.[citation needed] "

and

"In the town of Dimock, Pennsylvania, 13 water wells were contaminated with methane (one of them blew up), and the gas company, Cabot Oil & Gas, had to financially compensate residents and construct a pipeline to bring in clean water. "

-The source (MSNBC) for this one does not use the wording "blew up"

which is very close to

In 2009 13 water wells Dimock, Pennsylvania were contaminated with methane (one blew up). Cabot Oil & Gas had to financially compensate residents and construct a pipeline to bring in clean water.

None of the sources here have the wording in () only the blog does.

It is pretty clear that this blog is being used as a basis for sections of this article. Could we please have some NPOV put into this article. This type of activism is quite disheartening. Arzel (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The more urgent problem would be plagiarism; we cannot include material that is identical or nearly identical to the sources without quoting it. See WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:COPYVIO. Sindinero (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I found and added the DISH sources. And quotation marks as needed. They are both from journals, and one ref was at the end of the paragraph already. You might want to double check the paragraph, or google a few key words. I believe these are all places with EPA studies.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC) The Star Tribune article may be a print document. I can see that a lot of people cite it. The New York Times article says "blew up." I don't have time to check the rest. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Actually, I think that covers it.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

EPA

This is from the EPA report.

"EPA has not reached any conclusions about how constituents of concern are occurring in domestic wells with this ARR. The additional investigation results will help determine where the constituents are coming from. Even with the additional information, EPA may not be able to definitively pinpoint a specific source or sources."

I assume you understand the verbage, but just in case you don't. Constituents refers to the contaminents relating to HF. Thus the EPA has not linked fracking to those incidents, you cannot give the impression that they have, and you cannot say that the statement is unsourced. Also, I take exception to your deceptive removal of that statement. Arzel (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted that line because it was a cut & paste error. The sentence is from the section on groundwater contamination. It looks like someone tried to add a reference to the summary, and accidentally brought the text with it. If you look closely, it was pasted in the middle of another sentence. It is too much detail for the lede.Smm201`0 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I left the cut and paste piece for you but put the other sentence back together.Smm201`0 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism: Deleting well documenrted information on the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing.

It appears that Allen Liefting did not move the section on environmental impact to the US page but merely deleted it. This was all well sourced information. I agree that it could be more succinct and international, but deletion borders on vandalism. I am reinserting the information. Please give me a week to condense the information. I will then reinsert the edited version. In the meantime, readers should not be deprived of access to research. Thank you. I am hoping that we can resolve this without administrators. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is a bit strong, but I do think that the deletion was not the right way to go. Your proposal sounds like a good one. Sindinero (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hesitated to use the word, but he wrote that he had moved it when he had really deleted a huge amount of text. Anyway, I will work on it.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

See Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Vsmith (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So that's where it went to. But still, why the need for a separate article? Is it concerns about readability or length, or a question of POV? To me, a new article with this title seems like it might be susceptible to charges of WP:POVFORK. I don't think there's any good reason not to include it in the article on hydraulic fracturing (as such, or in the US). Sindinero (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the version by Alan Liefting. The moving of content to a subarticle was not vandalism and a link to the new article was left for editors & readers to follow. Please discuss your concerns. Vsmith (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That page was isolated from hydraulic fracturing. No "see also," "not in categories." It looks like an attempt to hide information from readers. Again, please let me craft a succinct summary of environmental issues. I need until next Monday. Thank you.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at what you are reverting. A prominent See also link to the subpage was left in the article. No one is attempting to "hide" anything as the subarticle was clearly linked. Please read WP:AGF. Vsmith (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There is already a page on hydraulic fracturing in the US. That is where I looked. I think that the detailed information about environmental concerns in the US should probably be integrated into that page. The topic is too fragmented with the 4 pages. That too will take a little time. Some of the information is already there, some not. I would still like a week to work on the main summary.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I also looked at the "see also" section at the bottom of the page and it wasn't there.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC) In any event, in my opinion, it would have been preferable to discuss such a big decision before acting on it.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC) One last note - there had been a discussion about moving the information from that section to the HF in US page, but there was no consensus in support of doing that. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, the article as it stands is overwhelmed by the environmental concerns stuff, most of which is far too US specific. It looked a lot better with that section removed, although it does need a summary (perhaps a couple of paragraphs) to cover the main areas of concern (and hopefully managing to not mention the US if at all possible, as the concerns are common to most countries where there is exploration for shale gas, even if it's best documented in the US). Mikenorton (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

From HF US...What I plan to do in the Environmental section of the main HF page is glean info from the different country subsections to balance the section in terms of nationality, but greatly condense it. Wish me luck - there is a lot of content. There is actually a lot of discussion and research going on in other countries. I saw the articles when I was looking for sources. Perhaps because this piece of Wikipedia is in English and targeted partly for the US, it draws US contributors. I know searches from different countries pull up different content. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Updating on Environmental Concerns Summary I have been working on reorganizing and internationalizing this segment this week. It is a beast. Although many of the studies were done in the US, they are still relevant to the practice of the process in general. I will try to pull in studies from other countries for international balance, but could use some help on that from those who speak other languages and have access to international sources. I have started from scratch a couple times already, but have decided that the existing subsections work. I am going to go paragraph by paragraph and condense what is there, focusing on what the research says, deleting duplicate mentions of studies and excess verbage, but keeping refs and links to them. Perhaps once it is pared down, other ways to improve it will become apparent.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC) I have found an article that indicates the US studies are being used to promote the use of hf internationally because the US has been the innovator in the technology. That is probably the reason it has been hard to find studies from other countries.Smm201`0 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Still article is about hydraulic fracturing as technology which is not country specific. Therefore, country-by-country descriptions ddoes not belong here as we already have Hydraulic fracturing by country article. Link to that article is enough. Beagel (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Can the authors of this article try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than fighting a deletion war or isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other? Also, undue weight should not be given to the minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. kgrr ^talk 07:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What sections are you referring to, and what minority views do you have in mind? Sindinero (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is dominated by environmental activism issues, which are largely minority views. This process has been used safely for decades, but for one to read this article you would think it is the most dangerous thing currently being done. Arzel (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not good enough, Arzel. On WP, we go by what the sources say. I'm not sure what your particular view on the subject may be, nor am I as interested in playing "guess the other editors' POVs" as you seem to be; yet I find it hard to explain the tenor of your comments that there's simply too much (well sourced) information on environmental issues (not "environmental activism issues") in this article. In general, the way you make vague or mistaken assertions or gestures towards policy that you cannot back up when challenged is getting a little frustrating.

In any event, I suspect kgrr meant something more specific and more useful by "minority views", and I'm interested to hear what it is. I can hardly imagine that an attention to the potential environmental issues surrounding the practice - which have featured prominently in the news coverage of it in recent years - would constitute a "minority view". Sindinero (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a good example of POV writing

"It is to the university's credit that the distortion seemed only to be the focus on the injection stage. There are extensive links between UT and the oil & gas industry, with the giving of Royal Dutch Shell to the university currently standing at more than $24.8 million, $4m alone having been handed over for 2012.[107][108] Since 2011, Shell has partnered Texas in a program called Shell-UT Unconventional Research, and the university has a similar research program in place with Exxon Mobil.[109] Halliburton, the largest supplier of fracking services in the United States, has also given millions of dollars to the university.[110] Statoil announced a $5m research agreement (part of which will focus on oil shale) with UT's Bureau of Economic Geology in September 2011, whose program director, Ian Duncan, was the senior contributor for the parts of the Texas study to do with the environmental impacts of shale gas development."

None of the references say anything about distortion, nor do any of them link the results of the study to funding sources to the university. If an RS reports that this compromises the study, then it can be mentioned, if not then it should all just go as synthesis. This paragraph infers that the UT study results were influenced by oil industry funding, but fails to demonstrate that this was the case. Mikenorton (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. The funding info isn't from me, but was well sourced when I read it. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC) The refs still look appropriate to me. I removed the transitional phrase. I see the references as providing a context for the research. The transition phrase was actually a backhanded compliment. It's tough to do research that might bite the hand that feeds you.Smm201`0 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That sentence assumed that there was wrongdoing. The rest of that section still implies it by the juxtaposition of the funding information with the report details. You may think that this is obvious, but we need a source that explicitly states that the findings of the the UT report were influenced by the funding received. Just about any geology department in any university round the world gets some of its funding from oil and mining companies, but you can't suggest that that means that none of them are capable of producing balanced reports. That section still need to go unless you have a source that says that it's so. Mikenorton (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ Mikenorton here. Combining facts attested by separate WP:RSs (UT has studied fracking, UT has economic ties to the oil and gas industry) into a broader claim (economic ties affect studies) is synthesis. We would need a source that states the connection and influence explicitly. Sindinero (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I didn't add the funding material. I agree, there are lots of conflicts of interest in research. In publications and news stories the source of funding and other related issues are typically stated to address this. It's required in advertising as well. I'm guessing that some source has covered this and will look. Although I will look, I don't think this is a big enough conceptual leap to be considered synthesis.Smm201`0 (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Any conceptual leap would be synthesis. I will remove that bit if no source is forthcoming. The above was just an example, there are several other sections with similar issues such as the pipeline bit in the lead section, where no single source says what is being said there. Also please remember that Hydraulic fracturing is not synonymous with shale gas, even if some people treat it as such - the pipeline stuff would be relevant to Shale gas in the US, not a general article on hydraulic fracturing. Mikenorton (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I added the ref early this morning. I can find more if you'd like. I'll check to see what conceptual links are missing regarding the pipeline, but I believe those references cover everything. As long as all the facts are referenced and there is no need to assume anything beyond them, it should be fine. There is no requirement that all facts be in the same source. I think you are misinterpreting a rule.Smm201`0 (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC) By the way, I already condensed that pipeline section greatly at your request. You then tried to claim info wasn't in it that actually was. That is why I then broke it into pieces of information with refs right next to them. Wondering why you are doing this.Smm201`0 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC) I read the pipeline info. It has to do with the global impact of the new technique on natural gas supplies.Smm201`0 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a weak source, just a mention of one critic, it doesn't justify the whole section. However, you are obviously convinced that the UT study is compromised and that seems to be enough for you. This article as it currently stands is dreadful - it is hopelessly unbalanced, it mixes up shale gas with HF, it is US centric and appears to be determined to show the process in the worst possible light. HF has problems, but there must be ways of reporting this that stick to Wikipedia's policies. I'm giving up here as I'm getting nowhere and I will start to lose my cool if I stay. Mikenorton (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I can probably find a better source, but that source (which appears pro-industry) is used several times elsewhere. I didn't raise the conflict of interest issue, but that kind of disclaimer is standard in research. I thought it was an interesting study. At an industry meeting, Rendell (former PA governor), who was trying to strike a balance between industry and environmental concerns in PA, told the industry reps he was annoyed that they hadn't been more forthcoming about the chemicals used, or more careful in conducting the practice. He said their approach had made the public and environmentalists unnecessarily suspicious, and added to objections. He may be right. Anyway, sorry for your annoyance. I am similarly annoyed by deletionists who don't contribute sourced material. I am still trying to condense the environmental section. I just have a day job and it will take a while. As I said in another talk section, when I went looking for international articles, I read one from the NYT that described the US as being the test case for the effectiveness of the technology and its environmental impact. The US has more experience with the technology that most other countries, so there are going to be more US-oriented articles. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing, and I read through some of the additional sections last night, is synthesis of material. Very clever synthesis, but synthesis nonetheless. Here is a good example where three sources are tied together to present a novel point of view. The New York Times reporting has predictably been criticized by aggrieved parties,[125] but one venerable science writer has taken issue with one instance of the newspaper's presentation and explanation of its calculations regarding dilution,[126] charging that a lack of context made the article's analysis uninformative.[127] Pretty much the entire enviromental section is written like a research paper, and since I now know that you have editor journals I am quite convinced that you are imcorporating your own original research into almost that entire section. Please stop using WP to promote your personal point of view regarding this subject. Arzel (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"That sentence assumed that there was wrongdoing. The rest of that section still implies it by the juxtaposition of the funding information with the report details. You may think that this is obvious, but we need a source that explicitly states that the findings of the the UT report were influenced by the funding received."
Perhaps personal correspondence with the authors of the Texas study admitting their findings were indeed swayed by the knowledge that the business interests of major donors to their institution and research programmes would likely be substantially affected in the negative if said findings did not produce a clean bill of health for fracking? I mean, that's about the only way you could ever meet your demand. What an utterly absurd request. It's easy to see why it was made, though: just set the bar so high it can't be jumped, then use the failure as an excuse to chop out what you don't like. Maybe you'd have me hack the e-mail accounts of the authors, fish around for evidence (assuming there is even any there), then leak it to a major newspaper so they can write an article that I can cite on here. Only the most naive idiot can fail see the potential for conflict of interest from a study put out by Texas. The university's state is the heart and soul of US oil & gas, but that's certainly not worthy of so much as a mention given that which is also true: the university has multi-million-dollar and other links with the largest provider of fracking services in the United States, not to mention other oil & gas companies with interests in fracking. I have no idea whether their report was swayed by industry links, but only a fool would suggest the potential isn't there. If you don't like the juxtaposition, just open up a gap with a caveat—and make it as weak, pathetic and denigrating as you like for all I care, maybe something like, "socialist—nay, communist!—campaigners in the pay of a European Maoist group have alleged a potential for a conflict of interest, noting that..." For comparison, take the recent global-warming sceptics at the Heartland Institute: as soon as details of the Institute's funding were leaked, they were prominently reported in the press. We don't even need leaks here, the information is freely available to anyone who takes the time to find it out, as Smm201`0 and others have done. All you are interested in doing is eliminating even mention of perfectly obvious potential for conflict of interest. According to Ian Urbina, we can't even get a decent, untarnished report out of the EPA; unlike Texas, the EPA doesn't even take industry funding, for god's sake, yet still it can't escape heavy industry pressure to redact. Aside from irrelevances like minor earthquakes, I have no idea whether fracking is causing all the problems it is alleged to, though I am extremely suspicious given the documented efforts of industry (and their paid-for puppets in government) to tone down or eliminate negative findings, and the truly just ridiculous claims about fracking's potential by people like Lord Browne here in England. And I couldn't care less if fracking's safe or not. Why should I? or anyone? If it's not, it's not; if it is... it is! Outside of a lunatic asylum, who would care? If it is safe (enough), bring it on: jobs, tax receipts, increased energy security, reduced use of coal burning... only a fool wouldn't be interested in those things, particularly given the current economic situation. What I don't like are those desperate only to hear what they want to hear making up totally unreasonable tests so they can get rid of what they regard as offending material.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I simply ask that you read WP:SYN to understand why a source is required (see what Sindinero and Arkel said above as well) - it didn't have to be from the university saying "Yes we did it", but I felt that there should at least be a newspaper article that could be sourced stating that this is a concern. Following that discussion, Smm201`0 added such a source, although it was a bit general I felt and I'm sure that a better one could be found. There is also the issue of the several sentences detailing all the examples of industry funding that anyone can find - just state that the department has large research grants from the industry with a couple of cites and that would be sufficient. The detailed list of funding looks like someone trying to make a point. Mikenorton (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

By country section

Hey beagle, that wasn't even my work. I reinserted it because it was supposed to serve as a summary, with a note saying more detailed info was on the other page. As a summary, it needs more CITED meat on it. More importantly, the reason it is missing refs is that whoever condensed it wasn't paying attention to that. Please see earlier discussion of both it and the environmental concerns sections.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If I put it back, I'll be sure to reinsert the refs. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no mean to put it back. If this article about hydraulic fracturing as an industrial process, it is the same in every country. There may be country specific concerns, but they are country specific, not global, and therefore belongs in the separate article. It is enough to have the specific article listed under See also section. Keep it short, encyclopedic and avoid unnecessary duplications as these often leads to WP:POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Oil and gas export

The second paragraph of the lead includes:

"Oil and gas companies have sought and received permission from the US Department of Energy (DOE)[9] to export oil and gas to Europe and Asia (e.g., China and Korea)[8] via new pipelines[10][11] to export terminals[12][13] on the Gulf Coast and East Coast.[14][9] Higher prices abroad have also led to acquisition of US natural gas companies[15] and shares of companies and their shale plays by Chinese, Japanese, and French companies[16][17]"

What this has to do with hydraulic fracturing? This does not belong to this article not talking about the lead. First of all, this is country-specific, not universal or global, so, if anything, it should be in the country specific article, not here. Secondly, linking hydraulic fracturing with US oil and gas export and infrastructure projects is WP:SYNTH and does not belong to Wikipedia. Therefore, I will remove these two sentences.

Once more, this article should be what is hydraulic fracturing universally (that is from technological/geological point of view), what kind of technologies are proposed/in use, what is its economic and environmental impact etc. Making the article for partisan campaigning site (notwithstanding from which point of view) is not acceptable. Beagel (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There was never a decision to remove this as synthesis. It may look like synthesis because it was condensed a lot, but if you read the articles it is clear that no synthesis is involved. There are additional sources in the business news journals and papers as well, but it was already criticized for having too many references. Please put it back.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is US specific synthesis and therefore does not belong to this article, particularly not in the lead. Also, a thread was started about this issue, so I don't understand why you can't discuss under the same section but should be start the new one? Beagel (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the thread. There was originally a misquote in the lede saying this technology was credited for making this the golden age of gas. There was talk about global impact and US independence. The pipeline and exporting were part of that theme. I have an article that talks about all the pieces dated June 2011, if that helps. There is US emphasis because the US has the longest history with HF and very large reserves.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It may be relevant in Hydraulic fracturing in the United States or Energy policy of the United States but not here. However, WP:SYNTH should be avoided. As for foreign companies buying oil and gas assets in the United States, it has even less to do with hydraulic fracturing. Implying that Norwegian state-owned company Statoil's assets in the United States (even not saying how this is related to the hydraulic fracturing) is a threat the U.S. energy security, is kind of conspiracy theory which does not belong to Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

labeling: "activists" and "environmentalists"

Why is anyone criticizing fracking called an "activist"? There are also plenty of pro-drilling "activists." Same for "environmentalists." Why don't we call pro-drilling folks "industrialists"? The labeling, even if it is common, seems to detract from neutral point of view.Smm201`0 (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I can understand its use when talking about someone who aligns themselves with, is a leader in, or is representing an environmental organization, but not when talking about a researcher or research.Smm201`0 (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When someone claims to be a researcher but has already decided the answer to their research question they are no longer a reasearcher, they are an activist. The end result of their research has become clouded by their bias regarding the research question. With HF it would appear that the activists cannot accept that methane is a naturally occuring substance in ground water, ever, and that it must somehow be related to fracking. The HF activists cannot beleive that the chemicals used in fracking do not nominally reach the surface. A real researcher goes in with the hypothesis (H0) that X does not cause Y, and they does statistical testing of the data to prove H0 true. The activist sets out to prove that X does cause Y, and then they keep refraining the question until they can make their predetermined belief true. A real researcher goes in with the full belief that they do not know what causes Y or if it can even be determined. Arzel (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Any reason the ToC for this article is on the right side of the page? With the new illustration in the lead, it would look better, and be more standard, to have it on the left side. Any objections? Sindinero (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. I have no strong feelings about where it is placed, but when it was on the left, there was a big space created, and you couldn't see the TOC when you accessed the page - you had to scroll down to find it. I picked function over form...Smm201`0 (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, I was just curious. I'm fine with it on the right; we could float it to the left so that it's still visible from the top of the page, but that would have weird effects on the following section heading. Maybe just best to leave it be. Sindinero (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

New Article?

The 'Environmental Concerns' section is now very large and consideration should probably be given to spinning off a new article called 'Environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing' or similar, with a summary kept in this article. Thoughts? Mikenorton (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Environmental Concerns section needs to remain on the hydraulic fracturing page. I'd like to review the structure of the articles and add some headings to help readers find the content that they are seeking though. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting removing it, but replacing it with a summary. Without such a change this page will become 'Environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing' with a bit of stuff about the actual process. Mikenorton (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently over 105 KB in size, of which over 55 KB is the environmental concerns section. Wikipedia:Article size suggests that any article over 100 KB "Almost certainly should be divided". Mikenorton (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am waiting for other people to weigh in with their views. I think there should be several editors involved with the decision. I took a look at the environmental content to think about how it might be summarized. In doing that I noticed that "chemicals" appeared misplaced and moved it. That is not in the service of the argument to keep everything on the same page, but to improve organization. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mikenorton, I think that you misunderstand WP:Article Size. The numbers in that guideline refer to readable prose size, not the total article size, which includes tables, references, mark-up code and other stuff not counted in the readable prose size. Currently, the readable prose size is 59 KB, according to this script. At this size, WP:Article Size gives editors more discretion in deciding whether to split the article. I'm not opposed to a split, but I'm also not convinced it needs to be done right away. If a split were to be done, then "Environmental concerns" is the obvious choice, since it's the largest of the major sections. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah OK, I should read things more carefully. However, the expansion of the article continues and the need I think will just increase - we're close to 60 KB, above which the guideline says 'probably should be split'. Mikenorton (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Split. The environmental section is about half of this article. It is long enough to be a separate article. I support moving this section into separate article Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and replace this section with a summary of the new article. Beagel (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This topic has been discussed elsewhere in this talk page. The resulting plan was to leave the environmental section on this page, but condense it, and then include a link to more detailed accounts on the other page. I am doing that condensing, but was also dealing with some disruptive editing, and trying to be careful and respectful of the original texts, so it is going slowly. It will be done, however. The plan was similar for the international (by country page). That segment you deleted referred readers to the by country page. Deleting the environmental and by country sections would result in a very biased picture of hydraulic fracturing. Not neutral at all.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you're trying to condense the section but somehow it still keeps on getting longer - currently 32 KB in prose size out of 57 KB for the whole article. Mikenorton (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody talks about deleting environmental sections. It is so long that serves as an independent article. The environmental section should be definitely be in this article but as a summary of the longer and more specific and detailed article. AS for country-by-country section, the technology is a same, what the point anyway? Beagel (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the country-by-country material had to do with the level of development and regulation in each country. Most of the environmental material was US because the US has a longer history. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing the Environmental concerns section

All the environmental concerns has been copied to the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States articles. As the main concern with these articles was that environmental information will be deleted, I may confirm that during this process nothing was deleted. However, as the environmental concerns section in this article is too large and gives un-proportional weight to environmental concerns (WP:WEIGHT), it should be summarized according to WP:SUMMARY. All major concerns should stay in the summary, but all details and more specific arguments would be better to discuss in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing article. Any proposalö how to proceed with this task? Beagel (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Tracers

I know a lot of people are concerned about the radioactive sand used to trace the fractures during a job, but these are not done every well. I may see this once out of every ten wells. This is just an additional monitoring method of a hydraulic fracture job. Most jobs I have been on will not have a tracer. Yes I understand the concern for any radioactive sources, but the amount that they are working with is extremely small. The main reason I am stating this is that someone put one of the reasons for the fracturing fluid. This is never a consideration in any fracturing fluid design that I have done or am aware of. For this reason I am suggesting that the transport of tracer should be removed as a function of the fracturing fluid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, take a look at the multiple patents describing their use in hydraulic fracturing. They are listed as references.Smm201`0 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are thousands of patents which actually never used in practice. Listing all radioactive elements which potentially may be used (and repeating this information in several locations) and not be specific what, how much, and how often used seems WP:UNDUE. We need a information what tracers and in which quantities are used in practice. Beagel (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it will be hard to get information that specific, especially because proprietary formulas are protected. The use of tracers has been around a while so there may not be much new non-proprietary field research on them. I read through a lot of patents, and most list the same isotopes. I was able to find some glossaries and ads that provided information about current use, but the ads aren't RS.

• Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary [4]
• Tracermax Scientific [5]
• EPA: Tracking Fracture Fluid Movement with Chemical and Gamma emitting Tracers with Verification by Microseismic Recording [6]
• Halliburton Services [7] Smm201`0 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I take that back...I just found where the tracers are listed in the NRC web site ( NRC web site ). They are also listed in some state regulations (VA). Just not on the chemical lists for each well... Smm201`0 (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting...the DOE partnering with industry and using tracers to track the fracking fluid to see where it goes. [8] US subsidizing use of tracers in exchange for information. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

An interesting experimental approach that has been used for a long time to understand groundwater flow. Also, making the presumption that the aerial photograph of a fracking site is by the NETL, we could use that picture in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If that is permitted, sure. I had been wondering why nobody was using the tracers injected by the industry to determine the fate of the fluids. Maybe it requires a longer half life. I think there was an earlier EPA report that talked about using Br-82 for this sort of thing. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You would need a longer half-life as you would want to be able to pick up the tracer weeks to months later, rather than something you check within days of the frac job. The NETL is part of the Department of Energy so should count as a U.S. Federal source, but I'll check on that. Mikenorton (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Josh Fox

There's no need to qualify Josh Fox (in the external links and see also sections) as an "Environmental Activist." That kind of qualification is unnecessary for this context; it's linked, so people can go to Fox's page and see that he's an environmental activist. For this kind of thing, we need to use the most neutral, simply descriptive language possible. Gasland is a documentary, it was made by Josh Fox, and it concerns the environmental impact of fracking - this kind of language passes absolutely no judgment on the veracity of the claims Gasland makes. Arzel has been restoring the qualifier "Environmental Activist" each time I delete it; if one considers Arzel's past contributions to the talk page here and at Hydraulic fracturing in the United States, it becomes plausible that calling Fox an environmentalist is a POV attempt to discredit him in advance. Sindinero (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant because Fox is first and foremost and environmental activist. As to discredit, Fox did that himself by making false claims like linking HF to being able to light your water on fire. Arzel (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, this seems to show that you don't get it. It is not relevant whether or not Fox discredited himself; that is not for us to decide. As a documentary filmmaker, he can make claims, erroneous or substantive, that we as wikipedia editors may not. It is not NPOV to attempt to discredit him by labelling him in this way. We need to be descriptive and to the point; neutrality in this case entails that we avoid giving Fox various attributes -- we could get into an attribute war, if we wanted, and I could label him something like, "a filmmaker whose family land is threatened by hydraulic fracturing." This would also be fully relevant to why he made the documentary, but I don't add it. Why? It's clearly not NPOV, as it subtly attempts to guide readers' perception of his documentary in advance, as does your label. That's not appropriate here. Sindinero (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEALSO, "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". However, we already have a short section about this film with a direct link to the film. Therefore, it does not belong to the See also section at all. Per WP:SEEALSO, I will remove it from the See also section. Beagel (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Works for me, but the above point still stands if we keep it in the external links section. Sindinero (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Roughshod removal of chunks of information and reliable sources throughout article at 14:38, 14 April 2012‎

Big chunks of information and sources were removed throughout HF article, leaving several reference and typographical errors. I would like some help undoing the damage. Thanks. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Looking at what has been deleted, some is the most recent research on the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, which has also found more evidence of contamination than earlier studies. POV edit. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

POV deletion of information about US plans to build pipelines and export gas from hydraulic fracturing to global market.

The US was the first country to use fracking and is further along in it's use and in production than other countries around the world. As such it is a key player in meeting the need for natural gas that you allowed to remain in the lede. It's participation in hydraulic fracturing has a huge impact on the global market for natural gas and the economic consequences of this. Please discuss before massively deleting information from the lede. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This article IS about hydraulic fracturing, which is an overview of the technology/geological occurrence with all relevant aspects related to it. However, this article IS NOT about hydraulic fracturing in specific country, about the US energy policy or geopolitics of shale gas. Also, I would kindly ask you to stop calling normal clean up process POV deletion. I am sorry to say that but looking your edits one could make conclusion that there is some other editor who may be called SPA and POV-editor. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What you did was not "normal clean up" and there was not consensus for it. You are not being consistent - you left the part about global demand for natural gas, and deleted how it is likely to get met. There is no basis for your accusations of SPA and POV, and you know it. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I left the global part, as global part MAY BE relevant to this article. Country specific, e.g. US energy policy, IS NOT relevant for the article about hf in general. I am event not sure, if this information belongs to the Hydraulic fracturing in the United States, probably more to the Shale gas in the United States article. Please be aware the distinction between the process (hydraulic fracturing) and product (shale gas). However, if you think that the part about global demand should be removed, I have nothing against it.

I would also like to ask you to read my comment once more. I did not accused you. I said that based on your edits one COULD MAKE conclusion about SPA and POV. It is quite different from your accusation of POV deletion. Quite contrary to your statement, I don't know who you are, so I will make my conclusions based on your edits. So my advice is to avoid accusations and to be constructive. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I probably am looking like a SPA lately. I originally came to the page looking for information, and found that some sources weren't related to statements, so I either edited the statement or found a better source. Then, as I read more elsewhere, I would add that information. It's kind of addictive. I'm usually a recreational editor, editing and adding sources and pictures sporadically. Sorry about the misunderstanding.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Pressurized fluid

The terms "pressurized fluid" and "highly-pressurized fracking fluid" are used in the intro. The wording implies to me that the fluid itself is pressurized like pressurized gas (i.e. dive tank, gas cooker bottle). I was under the impression that a fluid could not be pressurized save maybe due to small impurities. If pressure is mentioned in relation to fluid after the intro it doesn't create the impression of a pressurized and thus compressed fluid. Instead it reads like a non-pressurized fluid is being pumped and the resistance along its path is what causes pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.206.137 (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are taking high pressure to mean compressed, but in this case It is meant to mean under pressure or a force per area. 173.224.2.231 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

High pressure is seen at the surface, but nothing directly controls it. The only thing that is truly controlled on the surface is the rate and type of fluid going into the well. The formation gives some resistance known as the bottom hole pressure and the friction of the fluid going into the formation adds to it. Hydrostatic subtracts from the surface pressure. Thus the formula for surface treating pressure is equal to bottom hole pressure plus friction minus hydrostatic (STP=BHP+friction-hydrostatic). On the surface the only immediate control over pressure is friction which is a function of the rate as well as other factors. Hydrostatic can be controlled in the long term, but requires displacing fluid in the vertical of the well with a fluid of a differnt density which takes time. Friction can be better controlled in the long term through chemicals that can slick the casing to reduce friction or others that break down blockages, but again take time. Nothing closely controls bottom hole pressue, but is the formations natural pressure with extra pressure applied. We can release the pressure on the surface by releasing fluids from the well, but this could cause a dangerous situation if not controlled. 173.224.2.231 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about extra sources

How does WP handle preventing citation overkill but keeping useful additional sources accessible? On one page, I saw an additional "sources" list at the end of the article. The reason I ask is that I already spent some time finding those sources and I don't want to have to start my search all over in order to access information from a deleted article. Is there any place WP says useful extra sources can be kept? Just archived pages? Smm201`0 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC) One reason I ask is that some of the newest articles from RS were deleted. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably just swap them out if they are better and keep the rest in my sandbox. Isn't there something called "additional reading" though? Smm201`0 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, having Further reading section which is in line with Wikipedia:Further reading and WP:External links is ok. However, policies such as WP:LINKFARM, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT should be followed. Also, if your links only about the environmental concerns, they would be better suited in the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing or the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States, if the United States specific, articles. Beagel (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Radiation poisoning

The impact of exposure to radiation as a result of exposure to both naturally occurring radiation (e.g., from radium) and made-made radiation (from radioactive tracer isotopes like iodine-131) is both short term effects, such as acute radiation syndrome, moderate term effects, such as thyroid cancer from iodine-131, and longer term, such as death from the increased cancer risk. NYT has reported elevated radioactivity levels near fracking sites and EPA is stepping up its studies of radioactivity associated with fracking in PA. Interestingly, the lists of symptoms experienced by individual reported in the groundwater contamination studies cited above match those for acute radiation syndrome, but it seemed to be more appropriate to put the info in the radiation section. The information I inserted spells out the impact radiation can have, and why people are concerned about the levels.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The sort of radiation levels that are being described from wastewater are a lot higher than permitted levels in drinking water, but nowhere near enough to cause acute effects. Add a source that shows that acute radiation syndrome has been observed as a result of hydraulic fracturing or that it is considered a significant risk (other than to the workers that handle isotopes) or please remove it. The risks of increased cancer deaths is obviously an issue. As it reads now, it clearly implies that there is significant risk of acute radiation effects as a result of radioactive contamination from hydraulic fracturing, otherwise it's just there to say "radiation is really scary stuff". It is extremely disheartening to have most changes to this article reverted within minutes, I really don't know why I bother. Mikenorton (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'll look for a reference that quantifies risks by exposure levels. Regarding reversion, I have edited a lot in response to your suggestions, if that counts for anything. So your input does have an impact. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As no sources have been forthcoming, I've removed that sentence. Mikenorton (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I forgot about this request. There are a couple articles that talk about it in Bradford County, PA and on the Gulf Coast. I'll track them down. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a study that talked about the need to replace iodine-131 because of its effects on personnel handling it and in flowback problems. There are a couple product ads that say the same. They are listed on this page. I'll track down the article though. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed the offending sentence again - I note that it was reworded, but it's still unsourced and therefore goes. Mikenorton (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

COI in academic research

This is with regard to the last paragraph in the groundwater contamination section. Recently someone removed a large portion of the material devoted to an apparently conflict of interest. I reverted their change because I felt the reasons given in their edit summary were invalid. Then, on closer consideration I removed one line dedicated to grants that various companies had given generally to the university, department or program. I think the guardian article noting the lead author's conflict of interest is clearly notable, and such a clear conflict of interest is notable here. That being said, I don't think it's noteworthy to mention the general support of the department from industry support. To a large extent many geology programs are supported by similar grants, and it would be unreasonable to assume a COI in all geologists. Doing research under a research program partially funded by industry is something that may need to be disclosed on the final report, but I don't think it's notable here.

Similarly, groups I have worked with(in an unrelated field) has been supported in part by various government agencies and several technology companies, but it would be unreasonable to assume that I have a COI with respect to any of them. a13ean (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't making a COI argument, I was making a synthesis argument. Source "A" makes a claim that donations from "Group X" make it hard for UT to have an objective view. Then comes Source "B" stating that "Member of Group X" has donated money to UT, implying that the research has been biased in favor of "Group X" It is a pretty clear example of synthesis of material. Joining of multiple sources to present a new idea not made in any of the existing sources. Source "B" for example was simply a statement of a donation without any mention of the study. I see that you only reverted part of the removal of synthesis of material, but I agree that what you later removed was the most extreme of the two. Arzel (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A13ean, I think it is appropriate to make a suscinct, just-the-facts, statement about general university funding sources because it still plays a role in university pressures/politics, and is in the interest of neutrality and being transparent about conflicts of interest. The issue is raised by a source. I think the "notability" issue is more relevant to a topic having an article in Wikipedia. If reliable sources cover something, it is important enough to include. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Arzel here, this is just synthesis. It's not up to us to provide evidence to back up an issue raised by a source. It only matters if that evidence is raised by that source. Mikenorton (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0 do you see a consensus here to include this material, because I don't? Mikenorton (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any consensus to remove it. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is raised by the source. The university rep says the university takes funding from a variety of sources, and the refs list the ones related to the COI. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And that is your synthesis. Mikenorton (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not synthesis - there's no original idea unrelated to the sources there. The article is talking about UT funding sources. The refs are about UT funding sources. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary "information about this conflict of interest needs to be stated, albeit succinctly, to be NPOV" shows the problem. There is no need for this to be stated, the article already says "Critics have noted that it is "difficult for researchers to be objective if their university receives a lot of grants and funds from the industry.”[105] A UT Energy Institute spokesperson said that the study was not funded by the industry. He said funds came from the university, which has a variety of funding sources.[105] ", which is quite sufficient. Also the only critic mentioned in the supporting source is a 'Sister Elizabeth Riebschlaeger of Cuero', which is pretty weak as I've pointed out here before. If this is really considered an issue there will be mainstream media sources that cover it - find them or expect it to be removed again. The Statoil funding section really needs to go as well unless someone has called that as a COI, which there's no evidence for that I can see. Mikenorton (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Smm201'0, by putting the donation amounts after that statement you are implying that the donation has biased the study. This is synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I didn't write that material. Second, what? That makes no sense. THAT is your synthesis. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Mikenorton, I see you have no problem with deletions without consensus from someone who shares your POV. It is disappointing that someone from the industry who could help with the information about HF in the top section that still needs citations, focuses instead on the deletion of material that reflects negatively on the industry. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC) And oh yeah, radiation from hf is a special kind of radiation that never causes health problems!! Uh-huh. Right. Radiation syndrome is relevant. Your edits are censorship. COI. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So what exactly is my conflict of interest? I'm a geologist who has worked in both the nuclear waste disposal and oil & gas exploration industries, but never in Shale Gas or any other area that uses large scale hydraulic fracturing. I am also a member of a well-known environmental organisation, going back to 1974, so I'm not sure where that leaves me. There are a few 'citation needed' tags, but I have no special knowledge to help with those. I am happy to see unsourced material that makes controversial claims removed and I have no time for synthesis, a problem that you appear not to understand, even when it's pointed out. To reiterate - there is a source that mentions a single critic saying that it's "difficult for researchers to be objective if their university receives a lot of grants and funds from the industry". There is another source that questions 'Chip' Groat's objectivity due to his paid position on the board of an Oil & Gas exploration company, and this is detailed in the article. There is, however, no source that links particular industry funding to the university as a COI in the particular case of the UT study. To add this material is making a case that there is such a COI by presenting them together, that's the synthesis. I haven't removed the "Critics have noted ..." bit, despite this offending against WP:UNDUE (just one critic? - there has to a better source out there, unless of course that isn't a significant view). Mikenorton (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly a very contentious topic so we should all make a special effort to ensure that everything we say is clearly and unambiguously supported by reliable and neutral sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Challenges to research

The "Challenges to research" subseaction states: "Industry and governmental pressure have made it difficult to conduct and report the results of comprehensive studies of hydraulic fracturing. EPA investigations into the oil and gas industry's environmental impact have been narrowed in scope and/or had negative findings removed due to industry and government pressure." This is very strong statement without proper backing by reliable sources. Currently there are two sources. The first one by EPA says: "The scope of the research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing, from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced water and its ultimate treatment and disposal." It says nothing about industry of government pressure nor that the scope was narrowed and negative findings removed. The another reference says that "How the agency defines the scope of the study will be crucial because it will dictate what topics get handled. While environmentalists have aggressively lobbied the agency to broaden the scope of the study, industry has lobbied the agency to narrow this focus." So, The New York Times is mentioning an aggressive lobby from both side, while this statement in this articles is mentioning only one-sided lobby. Beagel (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the wording should be changed to match the sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the wording should match the source, but one of the original reference for that was an Urbina article that talked about the narrowing of scope, and exactly what was narrowed. There are other articles that discuss that as well. I'll check on that later this morning.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the sources is a link to a number of sources, some of which do support the statement made. Other sources listed are unrelated. I will edit the article to include those specific sources, but also add the both sides lobbying piece. I think the Urbina article (which I will also find) was connected to the collection of sources. I think I may have included the whole EPA plan so people could read for themselves what was included. I'm going to start using the quote field to help clarify things. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the quote in that source - I couldn't even find "narrowed in scope" - are you sure that it's this Urbina article? Mikenorton (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok...I found and re-inserted the Urbina quote and source, followed by the link to various related docs, some of which deal with the scope issue. I deleted the actual EPA study plan because it is not directly related to statement. It is listed elsewhere in article if people want to read it and see the scope for themselves. I added that environmental and industry groups are both lobbying. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Added wrong link, will fix.Smm201`0 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now. Mikenorton (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making it in line with sources. However, I have to repeat once my my concern that as the environmental section in this article should be a summary (which it is not at the moment) and more detailed information should be given in Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States articles. My point is that the same changes should be done in these two mentioned articles while we should start to summarize the environmental section in this article4. At the end of the day, I am not sure if it belongs in the environmental summary at all, while it has its place in the more environmental impact focused articles. Beagel (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the environmental section, you'll see that I have been working on trimming it down, and will continue to do so. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC) I haven't even started picking at the groundwater one yet. I'm going to have to re-read those sources to look for commonalities to summarize. I'd like to get each type of issue down to a few paragraphs. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

One paragraph per every subsection will be enough for the summary here. More detailed information should be included in the two above-mentioned articles. Beagel (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Eddy covariance

I removed this from the see also, because I couldn't find any sources that supported this as relevant to hydraulic fracturing. Ref #41 (now linked to the correct url) does not support this either, it only mentions hf once, and not in this type of context but only referring to modelling of geological sequestration scenarios sub-surface. So a citation is still needed. Mikenorton (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't the article discuss its use in identifying methane seeping through soil to air? Smm201`0 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry didn't notice your reply here. Yes, but not in the context of hydraulic fracturing. Mikenorton (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact I can find no sources anywhere that link 'hydraulic fracturing' with 'atmospheric gas monitoring' see this google search for these two terms [9]. I've removed the sentence as unsourced - the ref that was used to support this only mentions hydraulic fracturing once, in a section on geological sequestration (as I mentioned above). Mikenorton (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated/Irrelevent Information

Already mentioned but it should be discussed, there is information irrelevent to hydraulic fracturing. Some I have identified, I only have time to mention an obvious one at the moment. The entire paragrah: "Two studies conducted in Denver...". This information, while detailed and well written, talks about methane production which does not relate to hydraulic fracturing and should be removed. Reasoning: for example, an article for coal mining practices should not refer to inefficiencies of coal as an energy source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountaing33k (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll check but I am pretty sure it was about fracking. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

One is clearly about emmissions from fracking. I think the other is a continuation of a previous fracking study. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The first source says nothing about hydraulic fracturing. It reports 4% of gas (methane) leaks from the gas wells without specifying if this is conventional gas drilling, hydraulic fracturing or something else. Therefore, the first reference here (author:Devin Powell) is irrelevant. However, the second reference is very relevant as it compares directly gas emissions from hydraulic fracturing with gas emissions from the conventional gas production. It says: "3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing." We should reword the current text according to this information and be precise what the source says. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a paragraph under air emission subsections which says: "One group of emissions associated with natural gas development and production, are the emissions associated with combustion. These emissions include particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Another group of emissions that are routinely vented into the atmosphere are those linked with natural gas itself, which is composed of methane, ethane, liquid condensate, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)..." Well, gas combustion definitely has environmental impact. However, this effect of gas combustion exists notwithstanding how the gas is produced (conventional natural gas production, hydraulic fracturing, coal gasification or other syngas production) as it is related to the gas properties, not to the production method. Therefore, this information belongs to the Environmental impact of natural gas or Environmental impact of methane articles (well, we don't have these articles but I think we should one of them). It is even not shale gas specific, but natural gas specific. Relating it with hydraulic fracturing is POV. It is the same as adding information about killed people to the article about an assembly line because assembly line is used for manufacturing AK-47. Beagel (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

EPA to Crucify the industry

Given the recent relevation that the EPA attempted to make an example of some companies by making false accusations and then having to retract the complaint, the charges regarding Radation really need to be examined. In fact, this recent story should also be included in this article. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

It is increasingly difficult to tell whether this is a run-of-the-mill content disagreement, or whether there are editors who are involved in the hydraulic fracturing business who are making COI edits, or perhaps even engaging in paid advocacy. It has happened before on this page. No accusations, but definitely wondering whether this is the case yet again. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Smm201`0, please stop calling the names. Fact that other editors do not agree with your POV does not mean that they are involved in the business or being paid advocacy. However, I most welcome if uninvolved editors will look edits in this page and talk page and also all edits of all involved editors to make make sure if the is any COI or not. I would like ask even wider consideration and to check these edits against of activist POV. I am particularly concerned by edits of one single SPA editor who's most of edits are related to hydraulic fracturing and who uses any possible mean to make a point how harmful is hydraulic fracturing. I was hoping it would be possible to make this article neutral, well-written, at least class B (and further) article, but unfortunately it seems to be an activists battlefield. Beagel (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As a recent arrival I can confirm that I have no connection with either the oil and gas industry or any environmental group and my only aim is to help produce an article that has a neutral POV. That is achieved by the use of independent reliable secondary sources not by adding long and irrelevant lists from random patents and other sources. If a particular material poses special environmental or other dangers then find a sources which says so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Citation Overkill

There is an ongoing dispute concerning a number of citations needed for the lead, particularly for the sentence about environmental impact what has right now 10 references. As all these impacts are discussed in more details in the relevant sections, one editor has expressed concerns that the reason for such large number of references in one sentence is POV pushing and making a point. The proponents argue that references are added for all impacts separately because most studies focus on one type of contamination. As there seems to be no consensus between editors, outside comments are requested how to implement WP:LEADCITE, WP:RS and WP:NPOV in this particular case. Beagel (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion

Would someone please explain why there continues to be citation overkill for the lead. I have fixed it a couple of times, but it continues to expand. I am going to simply remove the first 5 since 11 are not needed for one statement. Please give valid reasons for the excessive citations. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to trim, don't do it thoughtlessly (just taking the first 5? tell me you're joking, right?) - make sure the strongest citations are the ones left in the article. There are also other ways (like bundling of reducing citation clutter. Sindinero (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have done that twice already with Smm simply reverting. So if you can't pick yourself I will simply remove the first five. Arzel (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a statement with a number of citations after it which was condensed from a longer sentence with a few sources listed after each topic. The sentence should probably be re-expanded rather than sources deleted.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Sometimes sources cover different aspects of a statement.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That is the lead, which is a summary. That section certainly does not need to be expanded in the lead. Read up on WP:Citation overkill. The manner in which some are being used is purely POV pushing. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The original statement was succinct and just listed the types of environmental contamination that had been documented by RS - air, water, radiation, etc., with a source or two after each. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really WP:Citation overkill. The lead is a summary and all these impacts are described later in more details. Having two new citations for every kind of impacts seems weird—there is certainly possible to find e.g. 2 reliable sources listing all these impacts. Beagel (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Most studies focus on one type of contamination. The newest studies with the better technologies have not all been reported in one place.Smm201`0 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As there is specific subsections for every kind of impact, there is no need to add all specific studies in the lead. By my understanding, if the fact is cited in the prose in the specific section or subsection, it does not need a reference in the lead at all. However, I understand that somebody may ask a reference for this sentence in the lead, so the best way should be finding one or two references naming all these impacts. Saying that there is no such kind of references, is just nonsense.

Another thing is that, as a rule, references should be placed at the end of the sentence, and not in middle of it. The current practice in this article to place references massively in the middle of sentences makes it harder to read and very difficult to edit. Beagel (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So instead of removing the citation overkill you simply doubled down? You even added citation overkill to the preceding section. You do not need 4 citations to mention exports....unless you are trying to make a point. Your continued POV pushing is getting out of hand. Arzel (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As is yours, Arzel. Simply removing the first five is not an adequate solution to anything. Why don't you list specific citations that you think are not necessary, and your rationale for finding them unnecessary? Sindinero (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not simply remove the first five. I went through each one and chose the weakest and then went back and fixed up the refs which I messed up in the process. It was a lot of careful work. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I made the mistake of taking what you wrote at face value..? You started this thread by saying, "I am going to simply remove the first 5 since 11 are not needed for one statement." That doesn't seem very ambiguous to me, but maybe you meant something else...? Sindinero (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You can remove the weakest references for each point, that than the first five. And I support your point, Arzel. A reader comes to read an article not read a clutter of references. e^xtra999 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

...except that there are only 1-3 references per point now, and citation overkill is defined as 4 or more. Smm201`0 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There are 10 references for one sentence. And this is definitely citation overkill, particularly for the lead. Beagel (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they don't all pertain to the same piece of information. Having read all the sources I know that they are all very recent (published in 2011 & 2012), which doesn't allow enough time for the media to pull them all together in one article. Such an article would also be further removed from the source of the information.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that you are incapable of editing from a neutral point of view on this matter. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Agree that there are too many citations - per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEADCITE. The last sentence and a half of the lead discusses the negative views on hydraulic fracturing. This negative material contains 15 citations, or about two thirds of the citations in the lead. Per WP:WEIGHT, the number of references for the negative views should be proportional to the prominence of those views in reliable sources. I really doubt that negative views take up two thirds of the material in reiable sources on hydraulic fracturing, so the number of references is way too large.

Also, WP:LEADCITE suggests that references in the lead should be used sparingly unless the material is likely to be challenged. In the current lead, we have three references for "risks to air quality" alone. This fragment doesn't mean that there is consensus about the risks, but that some have expressed concerns about the risks. That should not be so controversial as to require three references! One should do. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you read the UT study, they report on the number of negative media stories, which is larger than positive stories. More importantly though, the last sentence is not about negative points - it is about environmental impact, which is reportedly negative. If you can find sources documenting positive environmental impact, please cite them.`Smm201`0 (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree that excessive citations in the lead should be avoided. However, having watched and occasionally worked on this article for a couple years now, I can say that it's a contentious topic, and that every now and then people come along (sometimes obviously and demonstrably industry shills) to try to reduce mention of negative environmental impacts associated with fracking. I think that the excessive citations, especially in the lead, have piled up as a defensive bulwark against this type of POV censorship. This isn't a justification so much as an explanation. While I agree with JTSchreiber that the fact that some have expressed concerns about the risks should not be so controversial, unfortunately is has proven to be so for this topic. Would bundling be an appropriate compromise here? That way the article and even the lead could be well-supported with strong sources in the predictable event that someone will challenge the environmental claims, but there won't be the distracting visual clutter. Sindinero (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is the clutter aspect and then there is the NPOV aspect. The clutter is annoying to read, but the obvious attempt to push a POV is worse. By using so many sources for one statement the implication is that the is really really really important. Much more important than anything else in the lead. Why can't you just edit from a NPOV and leave it at that? Arzel (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you back of the lazy ad hominem attacks? I do edit from an NPOV (please show me a diff if you think the contrary is true). Your dismissive statement doesn't address my point at all (as usual on your part, unfortunately). The citation overkill, while it does need to be fixed, is the result of the constant Sisyphean labor of combating the industry-backed denials that seem to plague this topic; there are people who have edited this article who seem to be working from the perspective that no mention of environmental issues is needed whatsoever, abundance of reliable sources be damned. We need to fix the citation overkill, true - but we also need to make sure that the well-sourced material on environmental concerns is better protected from censorious removal. Your charmingly arbitrary suggestion (remove the first five) doesn't cut the proverbial mustard here.

There's a similar situation over at the article on the English Defense League - despite what the sources say, there are constant attempts to portray an Islamophobic, far-right fringe group as something other than an Islamophobic, far right fringe group. Unfortunately, shoring up the best, neutral version of that article has also resulted in an overabundance of citations. We do need to pare down excessive citations here, but you also need to realize that citation overkill sometimes results from good-faith intentions to support the best neutral version of articles on contentious topics, and not automatically from a desire to push a given POV. Sindinero (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not simply remove the first 5 sources, and repeating it does not make it so. I went through them all and removed what appeared to be the least notable and left the strongest. It was reverted, which to me shows a lack of good-faith. While you may claim to desire to edit from a NPOV, the actions of SMM clearly show that he does not. As for the response from the industry, well that is probably a reflection of the attacks directed at them. Perhaps if the environmentalist did not try to blame everything under the sun on them they would not respond in kind. For years the far left has been crying about Coal and Oil and Nuclear and pretty much everything and when presented a gift of what was one of their desired solutions (natural gas powered electric plants) they have gone off the rails against that as well. It is little wonder that industry is fighting back against them. Arzel (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You were the one who said you were going to remove the first five sources; I simply took you at your word. Additionally, your POV shows through in your (frankly, quite naive) notion of the relationship between industry, environmentalists, and the "far left." You really think industry is just acting defensively, because they've been attacked? It's not really coherent to portray industry and environmentalists as two more or less symmetrical sides in a squabble, each with their own 'interests.' Industry is heavily financially invested in their practices of the moment, and corporations historically downplay any of the risks or drawbacks (cf. big tobacco of bygone decades). In a sense, there's no blaming them for this; they're just trying to maximize their bottom line. But it does mean that they will be aggressively fending off critiques in advance. There's no blaming them; but that doesn't mean that their self-interested dismissal of criticism and risk needs to be taken with a few grains of salt. It's really nonsensical to see environmentalists (including scientists, here) and industry as symmetrical actors, although this is a common ploy of corporate apologists. Industry has a vested interest in minimizing perception of risk and legislative obstacles; environmentalists don't have a vested interest in pointing out that something might be harmful to the environment. This should just be common sense. Sindinero (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you please drop the five sources statements. Your view of how corporations view their environment may have been true decades ago, but this has largely changed due to early environmental actions (which were very good btw). Today, industry is extrememly cognizent of their environment and the perception related to their actions. Coal mining (for example), which I have a far more extensive knowledge than most, is done in the midwest large by way of strip mining. In the 70's during the initial height of environmental concerns they had a number of problems regarding runoff and destruction of the land that had been striped. As a result major changes were made and now the resulting land is left in a condition superior to before it was stripped. I know farmers that were hopeful that there land would be strip mined because they new that the resulting end product would be more suitable for farming. These changes were the result of symmetrical actions on the part of industry, scientists, environmentalist, and the land owning population, and I know people in all four areas. The only naive ones are those that have been fooled (like yourself) by the far left environmentalist that others have been co-opted and that industry is applying your ploy of corporate apologists. The fact is that most environmentalist today have very little understanding of the science (people like Josh Fox). They think they do understand and they scream loudly. This gets the public involved, and then the politicians respond by funding studies to study the impact of the industry. Research simply follows the funding and as the science becomes a product of the forces that supply the money. All because most environmentalist are simply not that smart and have a poor understanding of science. Arzel (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop the five sources thing, but then I'm not sure why you said, "I am going to simply remove the first 5". Dead horse, in any case. Your naive attacks on the intelligence of other editors and of environmentalists in general demonstrate your POV, and don't really help this article. (If you're going to make ad hominem intelligence attacks, at least work on your orthography a bit and figure out the difference between 'there' and 'their,' it'll make the condescending persona you seem to be striving towards a little more convincing. Just a tip.) I'd be curious to hear how you think something like mountaintop removal, e.g., leaves the land in a superior condition. This is an interesting claim indeed. Sindinero (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So you read my whole comment and the best you could come up with is a miss-application of their and there? If you can point to some mountains in the midwest that have been strip-mined I will readjust my view of your intelligence. FTR I don't have a dim view of all environmentalists, I obtained most of my coal information from an environmental engineer who worked to resolve many of the environmental problems at that point. However, so long as environmentalist here feel the solution is to drive industry to other countires where they can do far more damage I will hold my view of them as such. Arzel (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there wasn't really much of substance in your comment besides the predictable anti-environmentalist rant. I'm aware mountaintop removal is not done in the midwest. I took your comment as a more general statement that sometimes, things that seem environmentally bad can be environmentally good. If your comment isn't more broadly applicable, then I'm not sure I see its relevance. It's "misapplication". And I'd repeat what I said about the ad hominem intelligence attacks. Cheers. Sindinero (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So you ignored that I am actually pro-environment. The difference is that I understand the realities of the world we live in and actual science and math, while many environmentalist are ideologically blinded and have a poor understanding of statistical risk. Arzel (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This particular dialogue is yielding diminishing returns for all sides, I'd venture to say, so I'll keep this short. When you started posting heavily on the talk pages of hf-related articles, you did so by claiming --vaguely and aggressively-- that these articles had too much information on the environmental aspects of fracking, and that other editors working on them were doing so out of sinister, far-left, environmentalist POVs. So I don't think you actually get to say that you're pro-environment to then give yourself the leverage to then claim that you're like an environmentalist, only smarter and more realistic. That seems disingenuous, at the very least. Statistical risk is an interesting concept; perhaps you're right that many don't understand it enough. However, as WP editors, people aren't really required to -- we go by what the sources say, and in the case of fracking those have often been environmentally-damaging incidents, not statistical potentialities. Something that might have a 0.001% chance of happening, before the fact, leaves the domain of statistics once it has happened, and enters the messier world of ecology, local economies, adjudication, and politics. And in my experience, those who claim to "understand the realities of the world we live in" tend to be the most raving idealists. Sindinero (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sindinero, thanks for trying to find a compromise. While bundling would not be as bad, there would still be undue weight in the references section. Would it be possible to provide a diff of the article or talk page to illustrate the POV censorship you wrote about? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Here are a couple, from one user who no longer seems that active (at least under that name).[10][11] As the user's name is also the name of a linkedIn profile for a communications person at Chesapeake, I wouldn't be surprised if they pop up again under a different user name. There are more, further in the past, but they'd take some digging; some of them were IPs who simply removed claims without a summary. To be clear, I don't have anything against getting the citations (especially in the lead) down to a reasonable number; I would only hope that those who are so gung-ho about this necessary step will also be there to help the article out when the shills return. Sindinero (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple more: [12][13][14]. I don't think all the removals had the same motivation, but in their preference for removing large chunks of text without much or any explanation, I certainly don't think they helped the article at all. Sindinero (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I do plan on watching this article for awhile and will revert deletions of environmental info when appropriate. Thanks for looking up those diffs! I've looked through them all, and I don't see much of a case for saying that there is unusually agressive editting in this article. There will always be vandals and others who delete appropriate information no matter how well sourced. Also, in some of the cases, I think that the deletions were correct or debatable. For example, in the first diff, the editor stated that hydraulic fracturing is not mentioned in the source. Assuming that's true (I don't have access to the source for verification), then WP:SYNTH says that source should not be used in this article. Also, in your fifth diff, the material was moved to a U.S.-specific section with an earlier edit. (It would've been helpful to have that in an edit comment.) If you want to discuss those diffs some more, let me know. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The first diff's edit summary is false. The source (still in the article) mentions the Wyoming thing as a result of fracking (F3 search the text for 'Wyoming'.) It's impossible to misunderstand, and based on that editor's probable identity (and other edits), I don't think it was a mistake. With the fifth diff; although that information might have eventually made it into the US specific section, I don't see that that was what this editor was doing (I haven't found the diff where that editor restores that deleted material to another section), so I think the diff I provided does actually show the sort of tendentious deletion I'm talking about.

You're right that there will always be vandals, but there are vandals and there are vandals; individual motivation or the fun of just messing with Wikipedia are one thing. People who work for the major corporations involved and heavily invested in fracturing, or who are coming at this article from the position that it simply shouldn't mention the environmental risks of the process, are another. Thanks in advance for your future help with this, however aggressive it may turn out to be. Sindinero (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In the fifth diff, the editor had already copied the material to the "United States" section before doing the deletion shown in that diff. That's why you won't find the addition afterward. Thanks for providing the NIH link for the first diff. That link wasn't part of the reference at the time it was deleted, which is why I didn't know about it before. Yes, that was an inappropriate deletion, but I'm not sure that extra references would help. The editor could simply say that none of the references apply and delete them all.

The diff 1 editor was pushing a POV, but gave up quickly. I've seen problem editors who put up much more of a fight. I think that a larger number of references may be helpful with those editors, especially when they debate the quality of references at length on the talk page, but I'm not seeing that kind of situation with this article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, I looked at the UT study. For the keywords in their media search, they mainly used terms used which have a negative connotation for fracking. They found a lot of negative coverage because that's what they looked for. That doesn't prove anything.

The last sentence in the lead of the Wikipedia article is negative,not only because negative issues are listed, but because the wording "environmental concerns" is inherently negative. If positive impacts were added without reducing references for the existing issues, as you suggest, then this would give environmetal issues undue weight as well. That's not an acceptable solution. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC).

Just trying to be empirical, and it is a study everyone cites. Such data isn't usually available. There was another article about media coverage as well (more ad time than news coverage; news coverage mostly negative), but I don't think it would clarify the issue. From what I've read, the only potential environmental positive would have been that HF gas production was better for the environment that coal, but that is now in question. I haven't seen anything else about hf having a positive environmental impact - not even in the industry literature. Although there aren't environmental positives far as I have read, there are other positives, one of which is listed in the paragraph above - the increased ability to meet the demand for natural gas and increased revenues for some. That seems to be the ongoing discussion regarding hf - energy production benefits vs. environmental impact, yet to be understood. I don't see how omitting negatives because there aren't positives would make the article more neutral. Aren't we supposed to report what is published in RS in a neutral, representative way, rather than neutralize positive or negative published RS information? That would be like saying Mick Jagger is an English musician, singer, and songwriter. Period. Smm201`0 (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, positives such as increases to the current energy supplies and jobs should be added to the lead section, along with references. Per WP:LEADCITE, those additions should not have many references because they aren't likely to be challenged. That would still leave the lead with an unduely negative balance in its references,

I don't think that the Mick Jagger analogy applies to this RfC. This whole discussion has been about the number of references, not whether environmental issues can be mentioned. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support It is best to be alert for not falling victims of the common fallacy that "if this, then not that". For example, does the statement "Are there sufficient inline citations" automatically disqualify the statement "There are insufficient inline citations"? That is, are the two statements mutually exclusive? It is important to sort of this out, or else, I see this subject will return back to haunt everyone here again. For example, imo, (I am not defending either side; I am simply stating my opinion) it has been established that there are sufficient inline citations when we consider certain sources which appear to focus in "practical" (as compared to, say, legal) issues -- reliability of sources blah blah blah included -- and that there are sometimes reliable sources cited when we consider that it is the only acceptable practice here. There are some very valid neutral sources, included, that state the obvious issues very well, but the crux is in the proving the non-obvious. An editor pointed out above that while citations are mentioned (rightfully or not) (and as I doubled checked this appears to be by a seemingly endless number of sources) none of the other several sources cited are ever mentioned as official. We need to consider what sort of weight that reality should carry/not carry. We also need to consider definitions, what do we mean by "official", or, for example, does the fact that sources state that is enough for Wikipedia to contain that statement/claim?/fact? An editor above stated (and I am not saying this is right or not, only pointing out why having clear definitions is probably the first step in this discussion) that in order for something to be official it "must be declared so in a neutral document". Is this our definition of "neutral"? why? why not? Also, is it OK for us as editors to play the role of supreme court of the land and interpet what was meant by some respected academic source? IMO, we would probably be frowned upon if we took this direction. Agreed? Sonarclawz (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • • Could we ask for a little clarification? I've read your comment four times now and am still having trouble, well, distilling its essence. Do you think there are too many sources? Also, what exactly do you mean by 'official' sources? As far as I know, that's not really a relevant distinction for wikipedia policy. Sindinero (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe the 1st sentence alone should explain and 'distill' its essence. What it means is that you have to take care about painting anything in black or in white. There are shades of grey to any argument.What it also means is that in such arguments it is very easy to shoot down your opposition by claiming that the sources - even when abundantly provided as in this case - are not neutral enough.... and you can go on defining your own standard of neutrality to disqualify whatever your opponent provides. So simply put - its moot!Sonarclawz (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
        • In this RfC discussion, no one is saying that the content of each source needs to be neutral. The discussion is about how many sources can be used to illustrate and verify the significance of each point of view. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Qualified response Agree that excessive citations in the lead should be avoided, but there is no one or two articles that cover the newest information about all of the environmental impacts - the sources are all 2011 and 2012, so there hasn't been enough time for an overarching article to be written. This is a current issue, and new information is continually emerging. I deleted the older sources and weak one already.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • You approach is what I have objected to in the past. You are writing this article as if you are writing a research paper. That is NOT what WP is for. Aside from the basic issue of citation overkill that you have employed is the greater problem of original research, which I have only had a small chance to examine. If you want to write a research paper and have it published on the perils of HF than I suggest you go through the appropriate process. Arzel (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Again, the facile ad hominem attacks aren't helping anything. Nothing Smm201'0 has done looks like "a research paper." Tone down the condescension and actually take the time to engage with specifics, please. Sindinero (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Here is a good example of research which I removed. Is that specific enough four you? I removed the actual source and replaced them with (source) because some of the "sources" won't translate properly.
        • Proponents of hydraulic fracturing have erroneously reported in the press and other media that the recent University of Texas Study ("Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development") found that hydraulic fracturing caused no environmental contamination,(source) when in fact the study found that all steps in the process except the actual injection of the fluid (which the study separated,(source) spuriously,(source) from the rest of the process and designated "hydraulic fracturing") have resulted in environmental contamination.(source) The radioactivity of the injected fluid itself was not assessed in the University of Texas study.(source) While the EPA recognizes the potential for contamination of water by hydraulic fracturing, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified in a Senate Hearing Committee stating that she is not aware of any proof where the fracking process itself has contaminated water.(source)
        • Arzel (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The article already has a reference name "HeatOnGas"(Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives. 115 (2). US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: A76. PMC 1817691. Retrieved 2012-05-01.), which already lists alt these potential impacts. As the reasoning to have an extensive number of references for the one sentence was that there is no singel sources mentioning all these impacts, this reference will solve this problem. In addition, it was published in the academic journal. I would like to propose to replace all other references on this particular sentence with this reference per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEADCITE. Beagel (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is from a journal, which is good, but it is 5 years old, so it doesn't cover the most recent information, and likely contradicts it, from what I recall. That is why it wasn't used. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

And which most recent information is included in this sentence which is not covered? This argument is really odd. Beagel (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, you seem to be under the impression that the references in the lead section need to cover as much of the latest research as possible. Why is that? I see no such requirement in Wikipedia policy. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No...a brief listing of main areas of environmental hf studies with a couple of sources each seems good. "As much of the research as possible" would be a lot more than two for each area! Smm201`0 (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) WP:Citation overkill suggests a limit of three references per sentence. Arguing instead for eight references is pushing for as much as possible. (2) To justify the use of many more than three references for the sentence, you wrote, "The newest studies with the better technologies have not all been reported in one place." Where does WP policy state that the references for a brief overview needs to cover all that? Again, that is pushing for as much as possible. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The focus should be on whether facts in a statement have sources to back them up, not how many sources one needs per sentence... But that is kind of a moot point now, don't you think? A dated source that doesn't cover the information in the sentence has replaced the former, more current sources. AND, in the last 2 weeks, 34 sources have been removed from the articles, so it's less over-supported. Progress! You should be a happy man about now.Smm201`0 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be one thing if you had to read past the references' actual authors' names and years of publication like in print articles, but we are talking about a couple of little numbers that link to information. WP says 2 refs per fact are recommended (it offers a back up for broken links). The number of refs has already been reduced. Looks fine to me. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken links could be and usually they are problematic if we have bare url links or links with limited information linking to unknown pages. It usually helps if all available citation template parameters are filled, so it could be repaired using webarchive or finding the same information from the alternative source. It is even easier with scientific journal which have volume, issue, page numbers and other identification codes (pmc in this case) included. In that case, even if the source is not anymore available online, it is always possible to find as a printed version. Eight references for one sentence is not ok if we have a single reliable source which covers all the issues. This is actually what was also said by the third party non-involved editors. I am sorry to say that but your only motivation seems to be having a maximum number of references about environmental impacts to make an impression HOW BAD the hydraulic fracturing is. This is not acceptable and this is defined as POV. Beagel (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No...I already condensed the text referring to such studies - there are just a couple refs for each area. There is a whole lot more research available if I wanted to load it up. I can't see using an outdated (2007) article that misrepresents the current status of the literature just because it names the various types of research. That doesn't seem in the spirit of WP, or good science writing. Not including the environmental info would be biased. Smm201`0 (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

For saying that the potential environmental impacts include "contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the health effects of these" one does not need to included eight reference or "a whole lot" reference. It is enough to have one reliable reference, published in the scientific journal and listing all these impacts. Saying that this is outdated is a nonsense. What exactly means "outdated" in this context? All the impacts are listed in the sentence in the lead are confirmed by the source. Saying that it "misrepresents the current status of the literature" or calling it "not good science writing" is something which has nothing to do with questions if the source corresponds ro WP:RS and if it confirms what the sentence says. For both questions the answer is yes. Also, the scientific journal is probably more "scientific writing" and "reliable source" than some blogs you are using to make a point. Beagel (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from a new editor

There clearly are those here who have concerns about the health and environmental impact of HF. It is quite right and proper that such concerns should be mentioned here.

I live in the UK where the use of HF has only recently been proposed. Many UK residents may well ask themselves whether this process harmful in any way and they may well look to WP for information on the subject. When these people look they will see not a reasoned presentation of harm that can be caused by HF, backed by evidence from reliable sources, but a hysterical tirade that demonstrates little or no understanding of the issues involved. This may convince a few susceptible people to campaign against the process but the majority will see it for what it is and assume that WP is dominated by scaremongers.

What we need here are hard facts, along the lines of, 'substance X, which has been identified as resulting from HF, has been found in sufficient quantities somewhere or other to present an environmental or health hazard', supported by an independent and reliable source. (I might add that the argument about radioactive iodine made by combining half a dozen sources will not do).

We can also state that some environmental groups have expressed concerns about HF but we must not present those concerns as though they are undisputed fact or give them undue weight.

A well written and properly sourced article is the best way there is of helping people to properly assess the dangers and benefits of HF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

This article is about hydraulic fracturing in general. In addition, we have articles Hydraulic fracturing in the United States, Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States articles. These articles also include information about Pennsylvania waste water issue. Therefore, why this US-environment specific information should be included in this article while it is already included in the more specific articles? At the same time, the need to summarize environmental section in this article has been raised several times; however, any this is reverted all the time without explaining why this information should be here and not in the more about subject articles. I really want to understand what rational argument is behind of this. Beagel (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As explained previously, most of the environmental studies to date have been conducted in the US because the US has the longest history with HF. The US is essentially the guinea pig for the effects of HF. It is relevant to the global practice of HF for that reason. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

And what is wrong with the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing? Why do you want to put all details in this article here notwithstanding the WP:UNDUE? Beagel (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The main HF page should include information about all aspects of hf, albeit not in the detail that the spin off pages may have. Why do you want to cut all of the environmental impact info off the main hf page? Should we have separate pages for history, well pad, fluid injection, potential gas production, etc., too. That would not make any sense either. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I never wanted to cut off the environmental info from this article. If you look at my comments here at the talk page or look at my edits, you see that your accusations are not true. I said, and I will repeat, that the environmental section should be summarized properly to resolve WP:UNDUE issue and to avoid WP:POVFORK. As for you question, if the history etc sections will grow to the size they will serve better as separate articles, yes, they should be split-off and to be summarized for this article. However, differently from the environmental section, this is not an issue today. Beagel (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The section should be a summary rather than an extensive report, since the details are already present in the more focused US environmental article. However, the shortened version didn't really represent an actual summary of that data. Rather than cutting out the chunk that's been warred over, I summarized the entire section (hopefully to everyone's satisfaction) and added a main article link directly to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States#Radioactive contamination, where all the details are already present (practically word-for-word, actually).

Note that I moved refs in this section down to the References section per WP:LDR. Afterwards when I shortened the section, I incidentally removed the usage of certain refs from the text, which resulted in some cite errors in the References section. These shouldn't be misconstrued as missing refs -- they're just refs that are still defined but no longer in use. I'm commenting them out, in case anyone needs to use them later. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. My feeling is that the Pennsylvania part needs some more trimming for this article but that is ok. However, could you please help to summarize the whole environmental section of this article as a duplication of the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I've got the next couple weeks free :) This warred-over section was my reason for stepping in. I'll try and contribute to summarizing the rest, but it will take more than just me. I mean, I have a cat to feed (humor). It's not too difficult, just read a paragraph and summarize it, stick to main events and remove details that aren't necessary to get the overall picture, go to the next paragraph (just don't chop out large contiguous sections, that's asking for it). Equazcion ^(talk) 04:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I fully agree what you say about summarizing and I have done this for a number of articles, some of them with FA status at the moment. This cut-off was not originally initiated by me but it seemed reasonable that time as very US-centric. However, I think that the current summary is fine. There are by my understanding some issues with the last paragraph of this subsection, but this has nothing to do with summarizing and I will discuss it separately below. As for summarizing the whole section, I hesitated long time to start this process and after the latest accusations I think it would be better if I am not the main editor to do this, so you kind assistance is very timely and most welcome. Beagel (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for wading through that section. I had reduced it to half of its original size, but it still needed more condensing. I may add a fact or two back in later, but not more than that. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the radioactive contamination section says: "The EPA is also concerned about radionuclide levels in drinking water, and has asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to require community water systems in certain locations, and centralized wastewater treatment facilities to conduct testing for radionuclides. "Safe drinking water standards" have not yet been set for many of the substances known to be in hydraulic fracturing fluids or their radioactivity levels, and their levels are not included in public drinking water quality reports." At its current form, it does not make clear how and why it is related to hydraulic fracturing. I will change little bit the wording to reflect the linkage to hydraulic fracturing which was mentioned by Urbina. Beagel (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are some repeatings in the Chemicals section and Radioactive contamination section concerning iodine-131. Beagel (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in the context of the approved uses for each of the tracers and providing information about the process. Useful information.Smm201`0 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Again! This section is completely undue weight and misleading.

In April 2011, the EPA found elevated iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia's drinking water and milk from Little Rock, Arkansas.[49][114] Iodine-131 is associated with nuclear energy production, cancer treatment, and is a radioactive tracer used in hydraulic fracturing. The National Cancer Institute has reported that children exposed to iodine-131, especially those drinking a great deal of milk, may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer.[115] Iodine-131 was still found in source water and at several sewage treatment plants near Philadelphia in late July. Upon reviewing Philadelphia's EPA records, it was found that iodine-131 had been found in several Philadelphia drinking water samples long before the Fukushima accident, and were the highest in the 59-location set across the United States in the last decade.[51] The Philadelphia Water Department and EPA have ruled out nuclear and hospital sources[116] and determined that wastewater effluent is one source, perhaps due to cancer patients' urine. Hydraulic fracturing waste has also been processed at local water treatment plants.[117] The EPA and the Philadelphia Water Department are still investigating the sources of the Iodine-131.[118][119]

It strongly implies that HF is responsible for the Iodine-131 when all of the sources strongly point towards Philadelphia's Thyroid Cancer treatment as the source. Smm, please explain how this does not violate WP:UNDUE WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Also, what does Little Rock, Arkansas have to do with the Iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia? Arzel (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

They have confirmed wastewater effluent as a source of iodine-131, but are still investigating the sources. Thyroid treatment urine has not been ruled out. There is a history of fracking wastewater dumping at wastewater treatment centers in the area, and iodine-131 is a common tracer. There are sources for all of this information. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a source which says that fracking is considered a possible source for the I-131 found in the drinking water? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After going through this particular paragraph I am very confused why this paragraph is included here. It starts stating that EPA found elevated iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia's drinking water and milk from Little Rock. This is a fact. So far so good although added references does not mentioning the source (not talking about HF), only speculating about impact of Fukushima disaster. The next sentence describes health impact of iodine-131. This is also a separate fact. The following sentence says that iodine-131 is still found in July and concerns arose about Fukushima as a source. Again, this is well sourced fact although not mentioning HF. After that it says that nuclear and hospital sources are ruled out, again well sourced. For some reason it says what is ruled out and only saying what is perhaps suspected to be the source although added reference and some other sources used in this article link this phenomena directly to thyroid patients. This source does not mentioning HF. After that was for some reason copied information that HF wastewater is treated in some treatment plants. This is again fact; however, this fact was already included in the previous paragraph and the reference after this sentence does not make any link to the above-mentioned event. The paragraph ends with a sentence that EPA still investigating the source. This is again fact nobody doubts. At least, here one of references is mentioning HF by saying: "PWD is requesting the following actions before drilling is allowed to take place in the basin: 1. Advanced notification of accidents and spills relating to Marcellus Shale (i.e., a commitment by all dischargers, facilities and transporters of wastewater from fracturing to join the Delaware Valley Early Warning System). Of course, this is important; however, it is no related to the rest of the paragraph. In general, we have a number of solid facts supported by solid references but notwithstanding the feeling that this is all about HF, there is nothing which is actually about HF, not talking about HF relation to the above-mentioned event. This is the best example of WP:SYNTH I have seen so far in the Wikipedia. I support the proposal to delete the whole paragraph, but I think that rest of paragraphs of this subsection should stay. Beagel (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed as clear synthesis of material. Smm, I suggest if you want to work that hypothesis you write your own research paper, rather than try to prove something here. Arzel (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Smm201`0. Before continuing making a point, please read and try to understand WP:SYNTH. Your recent addition by this source does not say a word about iodine-131. It talks about HF waste water and this reference is useful for the Groundwater contamination subsection, but please do not make a original research. This source does not say it is linked to the above mentioned event. Saying that "Both Cancer patients' urine and hydraulic fracturing waste end up in the area's wastewater, and have not been eliminated as sources" is a synthesis. Please provide reliable source which says that HF is a reason or it may be reason. If the source does not mention HF at all, it is true it does not say it is eliminating, but it also does not say this about a number of thing. References should be used to cite what they say, not what they did not even mentioning. Beagel (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Iodine-131 is a common hf tracer, sources provided. Hf wastewater has been dumped into water treatment facilities around Philly, source provided. It is possible that the iodine-131 in the wastewater may be from the hf fluid, like it is possible that the urine may be the source of the iodine-131, source provided. Each has a source. Note that I reintroduced the urine issue for the sake of balance, and you responded by being destructive. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you read WP:SYNTH? Because what you wrote is the perfect example of synthesis. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." What you did was exactly taking fact A and Fact be to imply your own conclusion C which was not mentioned in any sourced at this paragraph. I also hope that you support your claim that I responded being destructive with solid evidences, such as links to diffs. Otherwise I will consider your comment as personal attack. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The logic, categories, and concreteness of the content are such that it really is not SYNTH. It is too much of a no-brainer for SYNTH. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are digging your well pretty deep, perhaps you should step away from the ledge before you fall in and drown on hydraulic fracing fluid. Arzel (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Smm201`0, apparently you don't understand SYNTH at all. This has been clear to me for some time - that's why you have been struggling to keep so much of it in the article for so long - you just don't see it. Mikenorton (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, can I ask again, do we have a source which says that fracking is considered a possible source for the I-131 found in the drinking water? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with the details of this issue as everyone else here, and pretty much just dealt with the text I saw, but just to comment on this discussion -- unless a reliable source can actually show the connection between fracking and iodine-131 in drinking water (Pennsylvania's or otherwise) it actually would be considered WP:SYNTH. Even if you bring one source that says iodine-131 is bad and another that says iodine-131 could be released due to fracking (my understanding is that we don't even have those two) it would still be synthesis. I'm not thrilled about the extreme reducing of the Pennsylvania section in general after what had appeared to be successful attempt at a compromise though, aside from this synth removal. I thought each side would allow themselves to be open to sacrificing a bit of their ideal version in order to create some stability here, but that apparently wasn't true. Then again, if it's just one person here in favor of the extended version, while everyone else has come to a consensus for the shortened, Smm201 may want to consider that he simply holds an extreme minority opinion here and let it go. Just my thoughts. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not just Smm201; I'm in favor of a substantive summary of the environmental issues on this page. Your hunch, Equazcion, about the unwillingness to compromise, is well-founded. While most of the editors currently working on this page are doing so in good faith, there have been many deletions over the past couple months based on the often explicit belief that the article simply has too much material on the environmental effects. While this article, like any other, should follow WP:DUE, we need to be aware that a) much of material represented in reliable sources on hydraulic fracturing (especially in mainstream journalistic media) concerns its potential and actual environmental effects; this is simply part of the discourse, and having a substantive section on environmental issues of hf is actually in line with due weight, rather than the reverse. And b), that with a topic as contentious as this one with heavily vested interests involved, "cui bono?" might be useful to keep in mind when weighing possible deletions. While I don't have reason to think that any current editors working on the article are themselves corporate shills, the article has attracted them in the past, and I do think it's fair to be concerned about the potential censorship of a sensitive topic.

For these reasons, while we're working this article into the shape it deserves, it seems sensible to err on the side of inclusion. People have been doing some hard work to improve this article, and I don't think the knee-jerk deletionism helps much. Sindinero (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In general, I agree what you said. However, could you be please more precise what information about HF was deleted during last months? I hope that you understand that after all these name-callings and accusations during last days (not talking about false reporting), everybody is little bit sensitive about that kind of allusions, so I appreciate if you could give examples what you exactly mean. There have been three or four spin-off articles (which is not deletion but moving information into separate article) but is there anything more. I also hope you did not mean the synthesis which was discussed in this section. I have to admit that this synthesis was perfectly done and I myself became sure that this is synthesis only after reading through all references. But it is still synthesis which is one part of original research. Beagel (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

SYNTH is a policy with a clear line, while summary style is open to interpretation. How much content constitutes a valid summary is up to the editors at an article to decide, and since we have a disagreement here, effort should be made at accepting a compromise. A compromise is when neither side gets everything they want. One side here favored a much longer section than the compromise, while the other favored a much shorter one. The problem is, those who favored the short have implemented it over the compromise version. Should they want to change that perception, they can restore the compromise version on their own. Otherwise the dispute will just continue. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was writing this reply as the above response was added, but here it is anyway... Yeah, I should have let it be, but, ironically, I added the sources and statements that I thought were needed to support the statements. Maybe I'm missing something, but this is what we have:

• iodine-131 has been found in drinking water and in wastewaster effluent in and around Philadelphia. [15]
• Japanese nuclear incident, medical, and hospital sources have been ruled out. [16]
• EPA says wastewater effluent is one source of iodine-131. Mention that industry and mining use radionuclides. Say they are doing follow-up investigations re: I-131 to characterize levels and identify sources. Say studies elsewhere point to potential causes, but connections have not been examined comprehensively. They are continuing to study issue. [17]
• Philadelphia Water Department says they have confirmed wastewater plant effluent as pathway for I-131; have not confirmed other pathways [18]
• Articles says cancer patients' urine is in wastewater and a suspected source of iodine-131 [19] [20]
• Article says hf waste has been dumped at a wastewater treatment plant near Philly. Article raises concerns about contamination of drinking water supply with fracking wastewater. [21] and another article says dumping hf waste at water treatment plants is a recurring problem [22].
• Sources say iodine-131 is a tracer commonly used in hf (various patents listed and [23] )

Given that, is it that big a jump to say that hf waste may be a potential source? I think synthesis involves more of a leap than that. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Any "jump" at all is synthesis, even if it's not a big one. Whenever you use multiple sources to draw a conclusion that isn't actually expressed in a source, it's synthesis. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is in fact a major and completely unjustified assumption. Find a source that says what you claim or remove it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Or, (to E) I'm overjustifying the crap out of it in its defense. My guess is that the idea, and perhaps verification will show up in print, all in one article shortly anyway, if only because it is such a no-brainer.Smm201`0 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. When it happens, you're free to include it. Until then, it should stay out. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And when I do, I have no doubt it will be deleted anyway. I don't think the rules are the real issue, even if they apply.Smm201`0 (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Response to Beagel, above): Here are a few diffs which I've already posted above in another thread: [24][25][26][27]. The first two were made by someone who, to all appearances, works for Chesapeake energy, so I hope you can see the concern. Furthermore, one editor (Arzel) came to this article (and HF in the US) a couple months ago from the explicit position that there was too much material on the environmental aspect - not because of WP:DUE (it actually took Arzel awhile to stumble upon that policy point, after unsuccessfully trying to make others stick), but because the article had allegedly been hijacked by radical lefty environmentalists (A's words, more or less). As you say, the atmosphere is sensitive, and I hope you can see why the 'inclusionists' here have also gotten a bit touchy. If you look back over the article history, the tone wasn't always this way, and the current atmosphere notwithstanding, Smm201 is still to be commended for turning the "environmental effects" section from a grab bag of vague claims and chance newspaper citations into something more systematic, based to a much greater extent on better sources. Please keep that in mind. Sindinero (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The rule here is that you do not attack other editors. I have absolutely no connection whatever with the oil or gas industry and came here in response to the RfC. My first impression was exactly the same as that of Arzel. The most obvious examples of the kind of thing that Arzel was talking about are the long lists of chemicals and radioactive tracer materials used in HF. Their main supporter agrees that, just by being there, they show HF in a negative light yet there are no sources to back this up. If there were source saying X chemical or Y nuclide was considered as a danger to health or the environment, I would be the first to support its continued inclusion here but no such source has been supplied. Every thing we say or imply must be verifiable; that is how WP works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Who's attacking other editors? Sindinero (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(Response to Sindinero) I see. Edits from the Chesapeake network are clear-cut COI, no doubt about this. The increasing attempts to use Wikipedia for corporate promotional (or whitewashing) purposes is not a problem only with this article, but with a number of different articles, and this practice is not acceptable. While edits from the COI account may be sometimes even useful, a policy described in WP:COI should be followed to ensure balanced and NPOV editing. Concerning the environmental issues, I think that the situation with editing was recently overheated, but hopefully it is calming down and we would continue in constructive way. I fully agree that we can't have a good and neutral HF article without well-sourced environmental section covering all important aspects. It seems that we may have different opinions how it should be summarized in this article (but maybe this is just due to miscommunication). I think that the work done by user:Equazcion to summarize the Radioactive contamination subsection was balanced and well done, and if there is a general agreement with this, I would like to repeat my proposal that maybe he/she will the person to make the draft summarizing of the whole environmental section. Of course, we have always after that an opportunity for the fine-tuning, but I think that probably this way we will avoid potential conflicts about deletion before any work is done. I hope that Equazcion still agrees to take that job. Of course, there are still some other issues under discussion at the talk page which are not related to the summarizing (e.g. from myself two structure-related proposals) but I think that we could discuss these issues separately case-by-case. In the longer term, also other HF related articles needs some systematization and cleanup as the current situation is quite messy. However, I think we should discuss this after resolving issues with this article as umbrella article for all HF related articles and without stable, well-written and neutral umbrella article it would be difficult if not impossible to be done. Beagel (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What you say is sensible. I second your hope that Equazcion will still take on the drafting of a summary, and that the more gung-ho deletionists will hold off in the interests of consensus and compromise. Sindinero (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good for someone to sensibly summarise the environmental section in the interests of consensus and compromise, but always based on what is said in reliable sources. I look forward to seeing this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay Equazcion and Smm201 (as the two editors who have volunteered at various times to draft a substantive summary for the envir. section): I think we have consensus that we're ready for a good summary, which we can fine-tune once in place. How do we want to proceed? Sindinero (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My proposal that Equazcion would prepared the draft summary was motivated by the need to have an editor who is trusted by all parties. After looking the summary made by Equazcion two days ago and reading reactions here at the talk page, my feeling was and still is that Equazcion is an experienced editors, does not have any particular bias about the subject, and his/her work was taken positively by involved editors. Unfortunately I don't believe that Smm201`0 has trust from all involved parties, particularly after the issue with synthesis. Two weeks ago I though myself to prepare the summary (my original plan was to create a subpage for drafting and to replace the text in the main article only after having discussion with all involved parties); however, I will voluntarily step back because as of today, there are editors who does not trust any of my edits at this article. Of course, everybody is free to edit Wikipedia (if not banned but this is not the case). However, I have a feeling that to avoid new conflicts a consensus about this voluntary arrangement is needed. Beagel (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Radioactive contamination in the US

I have removed this section as being a attempt to sythesise a problem that is not reported in reliable sources.

Although the facts presented in the section may well be true they have been put together in a way that implies that US drinking water has been contaminated by radioactive material from fracking. We cannot say this without a reliable source which says this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the above discussion (under Talk:Hydraulic fracturing#Pennsylvania), please hold off from wholesale deletions. This is a section that has already been looked at and summarized by User:Equazcion, whom we've agreed would be the best person to summarize the environmental sections. I don't imagine that user will have the patience or motivation to take on this thankless task if their progress is constantly being eroded behind them. As we've discussed, let's leave the section some time to be summarized, and then address remaining issues on a point-by-point basis. Sindinero (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sindinero, there simply is nothing to report on the subject. Some editors here have sythesised a story that radioactive contamination from fracking has reached the water supply. The story actually makes no sense at all when analysed critically but that is not the point. The point is that no reliable source makes the claim that radioactive iodide from fracking has made its way into the drinking water supply. In fact we do not have a reliable source to say that this substance is used at all.

WP is not a place for people to expound their pet theories it is a place to give facts based on what is said in reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The point, for now, is that one user (Equazcion) has recently come to the article and agreed to summarize a hitherto contentious section, with the support of almost all parties. Equazcion stated, after some heavy-handed deletions of summarized material,

"I'm not thrilled about the extreme reducing of the Pennsylvania section in general after what had appeared to be successful attempt at a compromise though, aside from this synth removal. I thought each side would allow themselves to be open to sacrificing a bit of their ideal version in order to create some stability here, but that apparently wasn't true."

Furthermore, the summarized section on radioactive contamination was met with satisfaction by User:Beagel, who has tended to be one of the parties calling for a reduction (or at least a solidification) of the material on the environmental aspects.

("I think that the work done by user:Equazcion to summarize the Radioactive contamination subsection was balanced and well done, and if there is a general agreement with this, I would like to repeat my proposal that maybe he/she will the person to make the draft summarizing of the whole environmental section.")

Because of these facts, I reiterate my request, which seemed to gain your consensus as well, that people hold off from whole-sale deletions until Equazcion has had the time to draft a summary; then we can start hammering out the kinks. Acceptable?

And finally, the section in question is in fact backed up by reliable sources, which do support the claims made. Please note that the section does not claim "that radioactive iodide from fracking has made its way into the drinking water supply," as you seem to imply; rather, it addresses the risks of radioactive contamination more generally. In my opinion, Equazcion's summarized version manages to avoid synthesis. Sindinero (talk)

However, there is an argument to be made that, whatever the merits of the existing text and sourcing, there is no good reason why this section should be in a general article on hydraulic fracturing, as it is specific to Pennsylvania. Mikenorton (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That argument could be made, but I don't necessarily think it's a convincing one. As others have pointed out, the US, and especially PA, have been where HF has made its mark thus far. Sure, this isn't necessarily a WP:GLOBAL view of the subject, but that problem on WP is usually fixed by adding information from other areas and countries. In this case, that information isn't really available yet, due to the nature of the topic. If we remove all country or region-specific information from the article, we'll be left with a needlessly barebones article that addresses HF strictly as a technological process; and this would certainly not give due weight to the various topics -- economic, social, ecological, regulatory -- spoken to in the literature.

But be that as it may, in the interests of compromise and consensus, I have to ask again that we give time for a neutral, 3rd-party editor to summarize the environmental sections; then we can begin tweaking. Otherwise, I doubt this article will ever gain the stability it needs.

Sindinero (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have retitled the section. With the new title it is considerably less misleading. Although it appears to paint a simple picture it is in fact still a confused mixture of concerns. Perhaps Equazcion could revisit the sectionMartin Hogbin (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If you take another look at the sources, they are not about iodine-131. There are other radionuclides, like radium, associated with fracking wastewater. The sources state that they have verified that wastewater with high radionuclide content is making it into the rivers that supply drinking water and state that it is a risk to drinking water supplies. That is different from the iodine-131 content which basically said I-131 is used in fracking (source), fracking wastewater is being dumped into rivers that supply drinking water (source), and that therefore fracking wastewater could be a source of the I-131 in Philly (SYNTH). It has been confirmed that the other radionuclides are making it into the source water. There is a map of the levels posted by the NYT.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on checking I see that all the referenced to I-131 have been removed. With my new title I think it is OK. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Chemicals

As the Chemicals section deals mainly with impacts of these chemicals and uncertainties of their presence, this section probably suits better as a subsection to the Groundwater contamination section (to be added before the Radioactive contamination in the United States subsection). I propose to add the first paragraph and two first sentence from the second paragraph to the Fracturing subsection and to move the rest of the Chemical sections to the Groundwater contamination section as subsection. In this case, the radioactive contamination issue will be described in more logical way and allows to avoid repeating information. Beagel (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no environmental studies listed in the chemicals section. What's covered are the chemicals themselves and their effects, uses in hydraulic fracturing, and toxicity. Those things really belong in that section. There is some talk about US regulations and the proprietary issue, but the proprietary issue may also apply to disclosure in other countries. I think the chemical information needs to stay in the chemical section. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Effects and toxicity is exactly what is called environmental impact. Beagel (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I think it is talking about "health effects." By the way, I reduced the chemical list to something focused on current use with more of a context. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the "Chemicals" section deals with both—describing them as a part of fracturing fluids and at the same time it deals also with environmental and health impacts. After creation of the "Fracturing fluids" subsection that means that there is overlapping with other sections and some information repeat is repeated in different sections. I still think that information about used chemical as a substance of fracturing fluid should be presented in the "Fracturing fluids" subsection while information about environmental and health impacts (including the "proprietary" issue of disclosure of used chemicals) should be moved into "Impact" section. Of course, that means that the issue with the list of chemicals should be resolved. Beagel (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

The Terminology section seems to be out of place. Right now it is a subsection of the Chemicals sections, but it is not about chemicals. It seems that originally it was a subsection of the Induced hydraulic fracturing section. I also think that this is not a standard section of the articles. As a rule, specific terms should be linked and explained in the text or explained bu the footnotes. Also, some of them are already explained in the text. I think that maybe we should integrate these definitions into the body text. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I merged the terminology into body text. Some definitions were already given. Beagel (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Terminalogy Section Under Induced Hydraulic Fracturing

I suggest a Terminology Section to be placed under Induced Hydraulic Fracturing Section. I know many of these were on the article previously, but I still believe these to be relevant to this section. Here is what I propose and if there is any comments, suggestions, or disagreements with me, I would like to hear them.

Terminology

Screen-off - When proppant is pumped at a high concentration either intentionally or unintentionally to create a screen of proppant at either the perforations in the well or at the tips of the fractures.

Flow-back - When the well is opened and the pressure of the formation naturally pushes the fluids up and out of a well to a tank. (One of the reasons of a frac job is to increase the rate of fluid from the formation)

Blow-out - The uncontrolled release of pressure from a well. An extremely dangerous situation.

Proppant – Usually a sieved sand or specific size. Based on the strength required can be bauxite, ceramic or other material. Varies based on the size and strength requirements.

ISIP - (Initial Shut-in Pressure) Is the pressure seen at the surface immediately after shutting down all the pumps. Is used to determine the pressure inducing fractures at the formation.

STP - (Surface Treating Pressure) Is the pressure seen on the surface at the well head. Is also known as the Wellhead Treating Pressure (WTP). Several service companies also have other names for this as well.

BHP - (Bottom Hole Pressure) The pressure seen at the formation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Frac Gradient – Is the pressure seen at the formation while inducing fractures divided by the vertical depth. Used to help determine the effect of future fracturing and the effect of previous work. Usually around 1 for most formations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This was merged into the text with this edit and explained here, FYI. I don't have an opinion right now on it. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is covered by WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTMANUAL, so I oppose this proposal. However, I have nothing against it if the List of hydraulic fracturing terminology or any similar list is created. Beagel (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Pressure Section Under Induced Hydraulic Fracturing

I Suggest a Pressure section under Induced Hydraulic Fracturing Section. Again I am asking for your comments which I like to have.

On any Hydraulic Fracturing Site, there are two common considered dangers, chemicals and pressure. High pressure is seen at the surface, but nothing directly controls it. The only thing that is truly controlled on the surface is the rate and type of fluid going into the well. The formation gives some resistance known as the bottom hole pressure and the friction of the fluid going into the formation adds to it. Hydrostatic subtracts from the surface pressure. Thus the formula for surface treating pressure is equal to bottom hole pressure plus friction minus hydrostatic (STP=BHP+friction-hydrostatic). On the surface the only immediate control over pressure is friction which is a function of the rate as well as other factors. Hydrostatic can be controlled in the long term, but requires displacing fluid in the vertical of the well with a fluid of a different density which takes time. Friction can be better controlled in the long term through chemicals that can slick the casing to reduce friction or others that break down blockages, but again take time. Nothing closely controls bottom hole pressure, but is the formations natural pressure with extra pressure applied. We can release the pressure on the surface by releasing fluids from the well, but this could cause a dangerous situation if not controlled. Releasing pressure on surface is usually only used to break down blockages. Ultimately releasing pressure on the surface is not a guarantee it will reduce pressure in long term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.2.231 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Public policy/information resources

In the public policy, education, and relations section I had included links to sources of public information web sites about hydraulic fracturing. Initially I had included one from an environmental group, but decided to limit the sources to news and government sources. Beagel moved them back to the EL, buried under the reference section, and I reverted this. I put them back because they are relevant to that section, and will make the information more accessible. This isn't forbidden under WP:EL, just not normally done. In this case it seems to make sense to have the sites linked since this is source-quality material. WP:EL reads "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." They are relevant to this section's content. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We have external links section. We have also extensive references section, so there is no any reason for exception from the "they should not normally be used in the body of an article" other than promotion of these sites. "Buried under the reference section" is not a valid reason for exception from this policy. These links does not belong to the body and I will remove them for above-mentioned reasons. Beagel (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

This article uses several blogs as sources. As they are mainly blogs of media outlets and similar organizations, they could be used by WP:NEWSBLOG. However, they should be properly attributed as the statements/opinions of the writers. It seems that this is not always done, so all these blogs needs checking against the WP:RS and particularly WP:NEWSBLOG. Beagel (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

History

The article says that "The first hydraulic fracturing was performed in 1947, at the Hugoton gas fields of southwestern Kansas, in limestone deposits by Halliburton". However, the reference confirms the year but not fact that it was conducted by Halliburton. This source says that "the first experimental treatment to “Hydrafrac” a well for stimulation was performed in the Hugoton gas field in Grant County, Kansas, in 1947 by Stanolind Oil". It also says that "A patent was issued in 1949 [to Stanolind Oil], with an exclusive license granted to the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company (Howco) to pump the new Hydrafrac process." So it seems that although Halliburton commercialized the process by conducting the first commercial fracturing treatments in Archer County, Texas, on March 17, 1949, it was not the inventor of the process nor the conductor of the first experimental process.

The above mentioned paper provides also some information about the pre-history dating back to 1860s. Beagel (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging emission related subsections

After going through the Air emissions and pollution subsection and the Greenhouse gas emissions subsection, I would like to propose to merge and cleanup these. Both of them are air emissions and it is quite hard to make clear distinction between them. Mos of emitted gases are GHGs. HF related emission are emissions created by the HF process. It does not includes emissions from the natural gas (main product of HF, but HF is used also for other purposes) combustion as the quantity and quality of emissions does not depends by which process natural gas is produced (HF, conventional gas production, gasification processes). So, the information is relevant in the natural gas related articles but it is not related to HF. The main emission from the HF process is methane. Right now, it is discussed in both subsections which is confusing. Beagel (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC) These sections are merged. During the merging process, only repeated information was removed, and no summarizing was conducted, which is a subject of separate action discussed above at this talk page. This subsection still is needing an expert checking if all methane/CO2 emission information is related to HF or if it still contains some information about natural gas combustion. Beagel (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is the discussion on this? This appears unilateral by Special:Contributions/Beagel without any other discussion listed here ... much information has deleted or changed ... 108.195.136.132 (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please look the talk page and its history before making baseless accusations. This was also discussed in this section. There was also reasonable time for discussion. If nobody commented these issues that means that nobody opposed these. Concerning your edit summary, it is a personal attack and I hope you will avoid that kind of actions in the future. I also hope that instead of dynamic IP you will consider commenting under your own account. Beagel (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

108, there have been a lot of content and structural changes to this article recently for various reasons. If you see references or content that has been deleted, describe the specifics on this page so others can check it out, or do a BOLD and discuss. I've caught some unintentional errors since some of the changes were made as well. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Radioactivity again.

The section on radioactivity still reads like a section on witchcraft. It starts:

'Radioactive wastewater contamination has been of particular concern in Pennsylvania'.

No source, and certainly no justification for 'particular concern' and no indication of concern by whom.

'In Pennsylvania, much of the wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants.[100]'

Now we have a sourced fact that shows a possible reason for some concern

'Treatment plants are still not equipped to remove radioactive material and are not required to test for it.[101]'

What does this mean (my emphasis) '...still not equipped to remove radioactive material'? Why should there be any requirement to remove radioactive material if there is none?

This is only the first paragraph. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that "much of the wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants" is important as one source of concerns about HF. However, as an waste water management issue, it should be mentioned in the general part of the Waste water section and not in the Radioactivity subsection. Beagel (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that fact might be mentioned as a cause for concern in general, although we should have a source to show that there is concern, it is not up to us to show concern. However this fact does not justify the opening sentence. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Times source shows the concern, and the intro sentence is just that, an intro or lead-in, for readability. Not every single statement needs an inline ref, so long as its facts are sourced in general. We have the freedom (often the obligation) to restate things in our own words, and the word "concern" would seem to describe what the Times reported on. Pointing out that treatment plants aren't equipped to test for/remove the component that is of concern in this section would seem to be appropriate, so long as a source states the same concern, and it does. I removed "particular" and "still" as unnecessary/dubious qualifiers though. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that is better now.

This statement is a bit misleading though, 'Safe drinking water standards have not yet been established for many of the substances known to be in hydraulic fracturing fluids or their radioactivity levels'. The NY Times article refers only to naturally occurring radioactive materials; there is no suggestion that radioactive tracers are a danger. The EPA article 'Radionuclides in Public Drinking Water' suggests that water contamination by naturally occurring radionuclides is a much more general problem and has no special link with fracking. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturally occurring radionuclides are brought back up with the fracking fluid, so the concern is fracking related. That is in several of the NYT articles. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know but the article gives the impression that tracers may be a problem, the sources do not suggest ths. The issue of natural radioactivity from rocks in drinking water is not just related to fracking, the article does not make this clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The section on radioactivity no longer mentions tracers at all (even though they can be part of the wastewater and iodine-131, one of the few routinely tested for for other reasons, has been found downstream of dumping sites). Smm201`0 (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

All I am suggesting is that Equazcion rewrites this paragraph to make the facts clearer. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion but I have to admit I'm a little confused about the issue. I see the times source [28] talks about the radioactive concern in connection with fracking. I'm not sure if it talks about tracers, but it seems tracers aren't in the content here now. Martin, could you restate what you think needs clarification? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just confused perhaps due to the technical details, which I'm not quite an expert on yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that above in a different section we say, 'Injection of radioactive tracers along with the other substances in hydraulic fracturing fluid...', the statement, 'Safe drinking water standards have not yet been established for many of the substances known to be in hydraulic fracturing fluids or their radioactivity levels' would lead many people to believe that many radioactive substances are added to fracturing fluids and that these added substances pose a known threat to drinking water.

The facts given by the sources are: fracturing fluids may carry naturally radioactive substances found deep rocks; naturally occurring substances from rock, from general sources (HF is not mentioned in that source) present a possible danger to drinking water; water companies are not required to test for radioactive contamination in general.

All I am suggesting is that the wording make clear (or at least not suggest otherwise) that the possible radioactive contamination is from natural sources and that this is a problem that already exists independently of HF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources are talking about radionuclides in general, rather than just naturally occurring radionuclides, more recently. Here is the official letter from EPA requesting the testing in PA, which was sent to the state capital shortly after the elevated levels of I-131 in Philadelphia's drinking water were found to be persistent: [29] I-131 had only been found at levels below half the MCL before, and was being detected in wastewater effluent - and you can hear those words echoed in this letter. I'm not advocating for the inclusion of the I-131 material, I'm showing you that the testing order was for radionuclides in general, not just naturally occurring ones, and it involved concern about radionuclides in the wastewater, including the flowback and fracking fluid. It looks like the I-131 levels were the impetus for the increased testing for radionuclides, but that would be SYNTH, so I'm sticking to the point that they are testing for radionuclides in general, not just naturally occurring ones. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know but there is no suggestion that the testing is required because of non-naturally occurring nuclides from fracking. Th facts are exactly as I have stated above.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Radionuclides from fracking operations, from the letter: "Since, in previous monitoring, radionuclides were not detected or were detected at levels less than one-half of maximum contaminant levels, the CWS have not sampled after the introduction of Marcellus Shale operations. Discharges from these operations could increase radionuclide levels substantially." "I believe it is critical to investigate the presence of these substances in the treated drinking water in affected watersheds and to inform the public as to whether and at what levels radionuclides occur in their water supply. At the same time, it is equally critical to examine the persistence of these substances, including radionuclides, in wastewater effluents and their potential presence in receiving waters." So, the concern is about increased levels of radionuclides resulting from fracking operations. A month later, more about the joint testing effort: [30], saying they are testing for "all radionuclides." Smm201`0 (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's another quote from the letter that indicates that the radionuclide concern is fracking-related: "...several sources of data, including reports required by PADEP, indicate that the wastewater resulting from gas drilling operations (including flowback from hydraulic fracturing and other fluids produced from gas production wells) contains variable and sometimes high concentrations of materials that may present a threat to human health and aquatic environment, including radionuclides, organic chemicals, metals and total dissolved solids. Many of these substances are not completely removed by wastewater treatment facilities, and their discharge may cause or contribute to impaired drinking water quality for downstream users" Smm201`0 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As I understand, Martin's concern is that the statement suggested that radioactive elements are used in the fracturing fluid itself (pre-injection), when the sources actually only say it's been found in the waste water, which is an important distinction. I've edited the statement accordingly. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the tracer and chemicals section, there are sources, including one from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), that document that radioactive tracers are included in the hydraulic fracturing fluid to monitor the fracturing. I'll add the NRC and book sources to the section. So, radioactive tracers actually are included in the fluid, in frac sand and other forms.

"Injection of radioactive tracers along with the other substances in hydraulic fracturing fluid is used to determine the injection profile and location of fractures created by hydraulic fracturing." Here are the sources: A book: Reis, John C. (1976). Environmental Control in Petroleum Engineering. Gulf Professional Publishers. The NRC list of radionuclides currently used in US, and a sampling of related patents (there are hundreds of these): Patent US4415805, Patent US5441110, Patent US5441110. So, the tracers are actually added to the fluids. There isn't just a concern that this "might" be occurring. Smm201`0 (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Our source that points out the lack of safe drinking water standards for radioactivity [31] doesn't mention the tracers though, only the waste water. We can't connect the two and say that "safe drinking water standards don't test for the tracers they use" -- that would be a WP:SYN problem again. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this statement you just added: "radioactive tracers are used to monitor the fracturing process", do the sources say that this is a water contamination concern? If they just talk about about the tracers without connecting to a health concern, we can't really make that statement here. The excerpt you quoted here doesn't seem to qualify. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing the safe water statement per se. The EPA/PADEP letter talks about concerns about radioactivity levels in fracking fluid, flowback, and wastewater. I thought that you were asking for a source that verified that the radioactive tracers were added to the fluid, so I provided that. The sources claim that they plan to test for "all radionuclides." That's unlikely, but that is what the Buck's source says. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to this statement, "As I understand, Martin's concern is that the statement suggested that radioactive elements are used in the fracturing fluid itself (pre-injection), when the sources actually only say it's been found in the waste water, which is an important distinction."Smm201`0 (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, that comment was incomplete and misleading. To clarify, we would need a source connecting use of radioactive tracers in fracking fluid to a water contamination concern, in order to include mention of the tracers in this section. The EPA showing concern for radioactivity in fracking fluid doesn't necessarily mean they're talking about possible water contamination (or about tracers), but I haven't scanned the source for that. If we wanted to furthermore add mention of tracers in connection with lax safe drinking water standards, we'd need a source explicitly making that connection as well. Can you point out relevant excerpts that do state either of those, if you know of any? Equazcion ^(talk) 13:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the way you narrowed the Environmental section worked well - you did it mostly on the basis of the visible statements (and my comment about people actually reading the article was not directed at you). Once the overwhelming verbiage was removed, it was easy to go in and make sure the refs were placed correctly. If we are going to go in depth on this subsection, though, could you please read all of the sources associated with it (they are relatively brief) and tell me exactly what pieces of information are missing? Although we can't have SYNTH, my understanding is that you don't have to have absolutely every detail in the same reference. Ask and I shall retrieve... Smm201`0 (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Feb 2011 Urbina article, that talks about naturally occurring radiation, predates the EPA-PADEP letter that led to testing to "all radionuclides" because of the Iodine-131 concern. The EPA-PADEP letter talks about concerns regarding fluid, flowback, and wasterwater. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see any issues with the content as it stands now, I'm just saying if you wanted to add the things I mentioned, you would need to be able to back them up with sources. If you're saying I should read through the sources looking for that material, then let you know if I don't find the relevant statements, that's not really how it works. If you want to add something I'm afraid you'll need to show how it can be backed up with the sources.

It's true that not every statement needs to be in sources, but every detail actually does -- or rather, every point or claim you seek to make. Saying that safe drinking water standards don't account for radioactive tracers is a new point, separate from mention of tracers in fracking fluid, or mention of radioactivity in the waste water afterwards. Combining them is pointing out something new. Without a source, it's purely a concern we've spotted based on our own observation of the situation, and that's not something we can include. Radioactive waste water in one report, plus documents of radioactive tracer use, does not mean we get to say tracers can cause radioactive water contamination. This isn't investigative journalism, and it's the purpose of WP:SYN to make that poignantly clear. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Urbina Feb 2011, I don't see mention of tracers there [32], unless I'm looking at the wrong link? Can you point me to the relevant text? Equazcion ^(talk) 14:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I misread -- where is the EPA-PADEP letter? Equazcion ^(talk) 14:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting too weird. I did not state or intend to state the things you are talking about, especially re: the safe water sentence. I have provided sources for everything I have written. I even gave you direct links to them here. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

These were just examples, in answer to your comment that not every detail needs to be in sources. I'll simplify though, regarding the current issue: The last thing you wanted to add was mention of radioactive tracers, in our section on radioactive water contamination concerns. Is there a source that says radioactive tracers could (even potentially) be a cause for radioactive water contamination? We would need one to make that statement. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how radioactive tracers that I've documented get injected to monitor wells couldn't possibly cause water contamination, unless they magically encapsulate and stay underground...no evidence of that. The EPA letter, however, voices concerns about radionuclides in general (not just naturally occurring ones) in fracking fluid (not naturally occurring) as well as flowback and wastewater. Their intensive testing includes testing for Iodine-131, which is a radioactive tracer. It can be used in the most forms (gas, liquid, sand) and is listed in the most patents of the process. Here are the two related links, but I now realize I am likely going to have to wait until some anal reporter spells the situation out step-by-step. EPA to PADEP letter link: [33] Additional notice about stepped up testing from water company: [34] Smm201`0 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how radioactive tracers...couldn't possibly cause water contamination, unless they magically encapsulate and stay underground..." -- You're saying it's obvious, which I might agree with, but that's really not enough. Maybe they do somehow stay underground. Maybe the tracer use described in the documents weren't actually used in the incidents from the studies. Or maybe you're right and it is obvious. But being right and even obvious doesn't equal inclusion. Welcome to Wikipedia editing -- it sucks sometimes and you're not the first, nor will you be the last, to point out that something is so blatantly obvious that there's no conceivable reason not to include it. I've said the same when I felt strongly about a topic, but was equally proven wrong when others pointed out that obvious is not enough.

From my reading of the letter, I'm not seeing concern about radionuclides in the fracking fluid, only in the waste water. If you can point something out please do. I ran the PDF letter through OCR to create a searchable Word doc, if anyone is interested please email me. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Recovered fracturing fluids are referred to as flowback." [35]

"...several sources of data, including reports required by PADEP, indicate that the wastewater resulting from gas drilling operations (including flowback from hydraulic fracturing and other fluids produced from gas production wells) contains variable and sometimes high concentrations of materials that may present a threat to human health and aquatic environment, including radionuclides [36] Smm201`0 (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fracture monitoring

In this section we have the sentence, 'Some of the most commonly used appear to be Antimony-124, Bromine-82, Iodine-131, Iodine-125, Iridium-192, and Scandium-46.' The wording of the sentence itself indicates the problem, we do not put things that 'appear to be' in WP. The earlier version which gave the shortest and longest half life isotopes that have been proposed for use was more useful and more neutral. Unless someone can give a rational for the unreferenced sentence I propose to restore the earlier, more informative version. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The half life line is in Chemicals. I'll edit the fracturing line to get rid of the appears piece.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Method Fracturing section not logical

The method section didn't seem that logical to me so I tried to write my own, any comments.

A hydraulic fracture is formed by pumping the fracturing fluid into the wellbore at a rate sufficient to increase pressure downhole to exceed that of the fracture gradient of the rock, but if the formation is not held open (or propped open) with proppant the formation will naturally close. The main purpose of fracturing fluid is to get proppant (usually a sieved sand or specific size sand) into the formation and stay there with out damaging the formation or production of the well. Two methods of transporting the proppant in the fluid is high rate and/or high viscosity.

With high rate you get jobs known as a slickwater where a fracturing fluid is pumped at a high rate to ensure the rate of the fluid carries the proppant down the well through the perforations and into the formation. With these types of jobs there is usually a polymer pumped with the fluid known as a friction reducer. The purpose of a friction reducer is to reduce pressure loss to friction thus allowing the pumps to pump at a higher rate without having greater pressure on the surface. Rate jobs have trouble at high concentrations of proppant thus more water is required to carry the same amount of proppant. Slickwater is usually the most desired type of job on shale formations, but this is not always the case.

There are a variety of chemicals that can be used to increase the viscosity. With any viscosity increase, some type of gelling chemical must be used first. One of the most common gelling agent used is guar (commonly used in ice cream as a thickening agent), but there are several others including guar derivatives and cellulose gelling agents. These are known as gel jobs. Oil can also be used to increase the viscosity for formations that are water sensitive, but are not considered gel. All of these are known as gels in the frac industry, but the main thing that links them is that they are long polymers chains on the chemical level to increase the viscosity. The rate of viscosity increase for several gelling agents is pH dependent and thus occasionally pH modifiers must be added to ensure viscosity of the gel.

If a greater viscosity is needed than a gel job, an ion can be added known as a crosslinker. A crosslinker takes the long chemical chains and connects them thus the concept of crosslink. There are several types of chemicals that can be used as a crosslinker (some only work with certain gels), borate being the common one used with guar gels. Diesel could be cross linked since it is a long polymer, and creates a fluid almost identical to naepolm (again good for formations sensitive to water or water is detrimental to production). Many crosslink chemicals are only effective in a certain pH range thus pH modifiers almost always need to be run with crosslinkers or some crosslinker chemicals have pH modifier premixed. These are known as crosslink jobs.

Viscosity is used to carry proppant into the formation, but when a well is being flowed back or produced it is undesireable to have the fluid pull the proppant out of the formation. For this reason, a chemical known as a breaker is almost always pumped with all gel or crosslinked fluids to reduce the viscosity. This chemical is usually an oxidizer or an enzyme. The oxidizer reacts with the gel to break it down to reduce the fluids viscosity to ensure no proppant is pulled from the formation. An enzyme acts as a catalyst for the breaking down of the gel.

CO2 and Nitrogen are also pumped with the fluid occasionally. These are known as energized fluid jobs. These are usually pumped with a foamer to ensure the fluid mixes well with the gas.

Initially it is common to pump some amount (6000 gallons or less) of HCl (usually 28%-5%) or Acetic (usually 45% -5%) acid to clean the perferations or break down the near well bore and ultimately reduce pressure seen on the surface. At this points the pumps are usually brought up to the rate the job calls for or what can be accomplished without exceeding pressure limits. Then the proppant is started and stepped up in concentration. For slickwater it is common to include sweeps or a reduction in the proppant concentration temporarily to ensure the well is not overwhelmed with proppant causing a screen-off.

Terminology

Screen-off - When proppant is pumped at a high concentration either intentionally or unintentionally to create a screen of proppant at either the perforations in the well or at the tips of the fractures.

Flow-back - When the well is opened and the pressure of the formation naturally pushes the fluids up and out of a well to a tank. (One of the reasons of a frac job is to increase the rate of fluid from the formation)

Blow-out - The uncontrolled release of pressure from a well. An extremely dangerous situation. 173.224.2.231 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: NPOV

Hydraulic fracturing is a controversial technique for extracting natural gas. Comments regarding how best to achieve and maintain NPOV would be helpful.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This RfC is poorly formed. The question is biased by the presentation of the question. For one, the technique is not new, and was not controversial until just recently. This RfC should be struck and reformed in a neutral form. Arzel (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is easy. Only use scientific sorces (governmental & university for example). Also, only allow facts to be reported, don't allow conclusions to be made in the post. Mountaing33k (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)mGeek

Exactly. I added a summary of a summary from Science, surely a reliable source, that said that a major review had concluded that fracking per se did not cause contamination and that some of the observed methane contamination was due to natural causes. My summary was removed from the lead, and it was folded into the more detailed summary of the original article (UT study), so the key point made in the Science article is no longer easily understood. If you want this article to be balanced, you have to give equal prominence to studies published in reliable sources that say the opposite of what the article now says.--Gautier lebon (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this page or the HF USA page? I think you are talking about the US specific article. In that one, the UT study has two paragraphs in the environmental section, so the review should probably appear near one of them. I was the one who put it with the main UT paragraph. I thought I kept the wording the same. The study (which is also linked), says everything except the injection stage caused some form of contamination - good news/bad news. You could make it a separate paragraph under the UT study paragraph, but do identify it as related to the UT study, as opposed to a different study. They separate the types of methane sources in articles more recently. Regarding the lede, there was recently a big debate regarding just putting general comments introducing the topic up there and putting the detail below. Better to discuss it on that page's talk page though.Smm201`0 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast reply. I added identical material to this page and the HF USA page. It was removed from the lead on all pages. I saw that you added the summary within the UT article, but that isn't my point. My point is that a short summary should to into the lead, reporting that a recent major review does not support the theory that fracking per se results in methane pollution. It is not consistent for Wikipedia leads to say nothing substantive. They should fairly summarize the content of the article. So, in this case, they should present highlight of the UT study. --Gautier lebon (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Proof by list

There seems to be long lists of certain substances and I get the impression that this is intended to prove something. Why do we need these lists? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If no one can explain the purpose of these lists I propose to delete them and replace them with concise summaries. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I support their replacement with a summary - some of them appear three times. Mikenorton (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Which lists? The lists I'm aware of describe substances involved in the process of hydraulic fracturing. They should be included if they are used. Why don't you want them named? I am concerned that there is a push for brevity where content might reflect negatively on the practice of hydraulic fracturing. Other detail appears acceptable. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To start with there are two lists of radionuclides used in fracking. What is the purpose of these lists? Is it to show that a wide variety of nuclides are used? Is it to show that they are dangerous or harmful or to show that great care is taken in their selection to make them safe? If we want to make statement like this we need to find a reliable source that makes them, the list itself means nothing.

Also, there is no data on the quantities used, how they are used, why they are used, or what happens to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The radionuclides and other substances are listed because they are used in the process, period. There are sources for that. There is already a discussion of what they are used for. There are sources available that discuss safety issues and concerns, if you want that info. Quantities and combinations may be proprietary, though I saw one article with info on that too. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that we must list everything that is used in the process, every equipment manufacturer, every type of steel, every other metal, every type of plastic, every piece of electronic equipment? You are trying to make some point but you are leaving it up the the reader to guess what that point is. If want to make a point, find a reliable source that says it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, a lot of different people contributed material to those sections. Secondly, I don't think the suppliers of the radionuclides or the various brands of equipment need to be listed, and they aren't. In the US, hydraulic fracturing companies are now required to report the substances included in hydraulic fracturing fluid as a matter of course. What the substances are is another relevant piece of information describing the process of hydraulic fracturing. The sources listed support that. That is why they should be included. Smm201`0 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That does not constitute a reason for listing every possible substance that might be used any more that we need to list every type of steel used in the process. What we need to do is to give a clear summary of the techniques used and of the problems and advantages of those techniques as reported in reliable sources. Giving a list of just one kind of material used in the process is clearly trying to make some kind of point. If you cannot say what this point is and support it by reliable sources then the list must be removed, it serves no useful purpose.

I have looked at the sources and most of them seem to be patents. When writing a patent you try to over all the possible angles to stop people from getting round the patent. Just because a substance is listed in a patent does not mean that it is actually used. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the patents there are sources that document actual use.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant and excessive detail is not censorship. The list that I removed is just a quote from a random patent on the subject. If you want to make a point about radioactive materials used do it properly, find a source that makes the point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Radiation yet again.

I have tried several different placements for the isotope information, but you don't seem satisfied with any of them. I believe that this is relevant information and there are sources to support it. Under what WP guideline are you excluding it now? Smm201`0 (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The list serves no encyclopedic purpose and can only be there to make some unjustified point. If you were to look at all the patents relevant to HF you would see that the industry uses the metals: zinc, copper, iron, chromium, nickel, platinum and many more and that it uses the plastics: polyethylene, polypropylene, nylon etc yet we do not list these materials even though we could undoubtedly find sources to say that they are used.

There are risks specific to using radioactive materials and it is therefore right to state that a wide range of radioactive tracers are used. Showing the range of half lives gives some kind of crude overview of the longer term dangers posed by the substances used but to list every radioactive material used does not help our readers.

If we had a source showing that a specific radionuclide originating from HF had found its way into the human food chain or had caused some environmental harm then it would be right to include that, but we have no such source.

If we had a source showing that some substances pose special dangers or are used in a specially harmful or risky way then we should say that too, but there are no such sources

Can you give me any reason for listing what seems to be an arbitrary selection of radionuclides used in HF. Just, 'because they are used' is not good enough. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If no one can produce a reason why we should have in the article an arbitrary list of nuclides used as tracers in HF I will remove the list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason to include them has nothing to do with risk, and the sentence about the risks should be removed unless that concern can be sourced (a source mentioning fracking in connection). However, if those substances are part of the fracturing process, sure they should be included. This is the fracturing article, where all the information on its process should be presented. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

We obviously cannot include everything that is known about HF or all the substances used in the process. As I say above many metals and plastics will be used in the process but we do not list them all in the article. Why do we list radionuclides? Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to metals and plastics used in the construction of the equipment? It depends, but I would say that's going overboard in most cases because it's tangential information that isn't central to the technology of fracking. Something like that is probably better suited to an article on hydraulics and compressors (if it's relevant even in those places), unless a particular metal or plastic is used in fracking equipment due to it being uniquely suited to this particular task. How liquid is used, and what it's made up of, are central to the technology though. If you go to read about LCD displays, you won't expect it to list substances used to manufacture the factory equipment that makes them, but you will expect detailed info on the substances the LCD technology uses. Fracking is all about the liquid, primarily, and people who go to read about fracking will expect information on its composition. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sure many materials are used in the pumps and pipes and other equipment that is specific to fracking but we do not list them. The radiotracers are not specific to this industry but for some reason we must list them. What encyclopedic point does the list serve? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? The particular materials used in pipes and pumps is relevant to the technology, rather than being somewhat interchangeable? Do the fracking patents and other documents list those as well, in addition to the particular radioactive tracer substances we know are listed? Perhaps that's a good test. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

When writing a patent the objective is to prevent the opposition from finding a way round it. Where there is a choice of possible materials it is common in patents to find a list of all the materials that could possibly be used on order to prevent others from using them. I am sure that if you were to look at all HF patents you would find lists of all sorts of things, but we do not show them here.

I think you are missing my point though. The list, to my mind serves only on purpose, to increase irrational fears about the use of radioactive tracers. Do you think it serves any genuine encyclopedic purpose? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's far from the primary objective of patents, and there's no good reason to say that's the reason these were included with any conviction. Yes, I do think it serves an encyclopedic purpose. It's relevant detail about the process. Relevance can be somewhat subjective, but I can say that if I were looking up information on fracking and saw that radioactive tracers were used, I'd find it interesting to see which particular substances are used for that. Perhaps the risks were the original intent of the editor who inserted them, but that doesn't mean they don't belong regardless. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't knowing exactly about HF patents, but if to make comparison with oil shale, there are hundred patents about possible processes how to extract shale oil; however, only four of them are in commercial use at the moment and most of the patented processes will never used outside of laboratory. I think that with HP patents it may be similar (although maybe not so drastic). Therefore, I have serious concerns about using patents as sources to list the trackers. What we need is a source saying that most commonly used trackers are X, Y, and Z. Beagel (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a good point, patent ≠ practice. I'm not sure if the same goes for the NRC sources? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that not what I said? The primary purpose of a patent is to stop competitors from using your invention not to supply encyclopedic information. Like Beagel, I would be happy with a source which said something like, 'X is often used for HF tracing because it has a half live of Y and an easily identifiable gamma spectrum that can be detected at the surface to enable deep fractures to be traced' or gave some similar background on why a particular nuclide is used in HF but a list from a patent, or even a regulatory body (who also need to cover all the angles) is not appropriate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You said patents strive to intentionally include things they won't necessarily use, implying a kind of ulterior motive, which PS. is based on a re-reading of your original comment about patents, where I realize now that I misinterpreted it at first. So I do apologize for that. Although, this still isn't reason alone to exclude the info. Beagel's point (as I'm reading it) is merely that practice doesn't necessarily follow the patent, which could be for a variety of reasons other than original intent, which I think is much sturdier rationale.

I agree on the type of source we should ideally have. Though again I'd like to ask about the NRC sources that are also present in describing the different tracers. I assume you both think they also don't suffice? Why not? I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not familiar enough with this to say without hearing arguments. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you said regulatory bodies need to cover all their bases. I'll go check those sources to see if that's what it looks like and come back to comment. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

PS. I just now realized this content doesn't fall under the section that it was agreed I would "mediate", so I'll just offer my opinion here minus the attitude from now on ;) Equazcion ^(talk) 09:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The NRC source [37] seems to be outlining the different substances that companies can apply for a license to use, rather than saying which are commonly used, as the content of the article currently states. I'd say barring a better source, the content either needs to be re-worded to clarify that these are just possible tracers for which the NRC will issue a license to use in fracking, or it should be removed altogether. Just my opinion though. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I dug up the NRC source in response to earlier concerns that the patents weren't necessarily indicative of practice. The patents were actually pretty redundant in which tracers they named. I stopped reading them after a while for that reason. The NRC source indicates which tracers used in the US, which is the leading user of the technology. That source also provided some info about how they are used, what forms, etc. The NRC source doesn't list a huge number of different tracers. I first came to this page to find out whether iodine-131 was being used in hf and found nothing. I Googled hf and iodine-131, found the patents, and added that missing info to the article. As I continued to read, I added what I found. I also reduced the tracer list from the larger list I originally added based on feedback. I think the info that remains is useful and relevant to an encyclopedic resource. One of the things I like about WP is that it is generally less censored than mainstream media, and like public radio and TV in the US, more likely to present different perspectives in an even handed way, plus includes linked sources to back them up (that I can check if I am dubious). Regarding hysteria over radiation, a while back I also added a source that discusses everyday sources of radiation as well as overexposure to put radiation in context. I would like to see what's left of the original list kept. MH says his main concerns is that the list might scare people. That's not a reason to keep accurate info out of WP. Smm201`0 (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Equazcion, thanks for your helpful mediation here, although I would point out that I came here in response to the RfC to try to help settle an existing dispute.

Smm201`0, the use of the word 'censored' is not appropriate or helpful here. I am not trying to censor anything. We should describe the practices of the HF industry here and, if they happen to be dangerous and damaging to the HF industry, that is too bad, they should stay here.

My objection to the list is that partial information is worse than useless. We currently have, 'Some of the most commonly used include Antimony-124, Bromine-82, Iodine-125, Iodine-131, Iridium-192, and Scandium-46'. Do we have any evidence that these are the most commonly used tracers? How commonly are they used? In what quantities? For what purpose? In what form? Some nuclides may be added to the fracking fluid, others are used as sealed sources. There is a vast difference in the potential risks between these two uses.

Increasingly, people rely on WP for good quality information; that is what we need to give them, not an arbitrary list based on a Google search. What we need are reliable sources to show exactly what substances are actually used by the industry and how each substance is used. If we cannot find such sources than we must say nothing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

When I listed all of the tracers permitted for this use in the US, you said there were too many. I also answered all but the "how commonly they are used" because only the industry would know that. Maybe the NRC. I will list them again below. If you would like these things included, perhaps you should do some research yourself instead of directing others to do it for you. You may want to start with the NRC web site.

1. What substances are actually used in HF? NRC document lists the ones for the US. There are probably similar resources for UK, etc. Although other countries may look to the US for ideas on how to implement it in their countries, countries may choose other isotopes from those deemed suitable based on things such as the geology and availability and pricing of isotopes in that country. This would argue for representing information about the broad range of isotopes deemed suitable in some practical way. [38]

The NRC is a regulatory body, has to cover all substances that might be used. Some might be actually used, some not, but how do we know which?

1. How frequently they are used? There are sources that describe their use as "common," "typical," and the "best way to optimize production" that I could add.

But is that one per site, once per year, once per week. Are all the substances used with the same frequency.

1. In what quantities are they used? The maximum allowed use for each listed substance, both per injection and total, is listed in the NRC document. [39] I noticed that this was in the NRC doc last night. People can request to use larger amounts, but need approval. Some of the quantities listed are:

Iodine-131, gas form, 100 millicuries total, not to exceed 20 millicuries per injection

Iodine-131, liquid form, 50 millicuries total, not to exceed 10 millicuries per injection

Iridium-192, "Labeled" frac sand, 200 millicuries total, not to exceed 15 millicuries per injection

Silver-110m, liquid form, 200 millicuries total, not to exceed 20 millicuries per injection
[40]

These are the normal maxima that are allowed they may not be typical of actual usage. One interesting point is that Iridium-192 is used to label sand. That is a specific usage that we could quote.

1. For what purpose are they used? This was already described in the monitoring section, and in the Reis and other refs.[41][42][43]

This is just for radioisotopes in general. If you are going to list them you need to be specific, 'Iridium-192 is used to label the frac sand' for example.

1. What is each specific isotope used for?

Each tracer isotope is used to mark a stage of the fracking process. Wells are fracked in stages, sometimes as little as 5 stages, but they can be fracked multiple times [44] [45] up to 20-30 times. To tell how much progress has been made, they use tracers isotopes of varying half-lifes so that they can differentiate between the results of each fracking injection. That's why they need to use several different isotopes at a time. The presence of the tracers is detected by equipment (see Halliburton ads) at the surface.

So do they use several at once and, if so which ones?

1. In what form are they used? This is described in the patents - liquid, gas, bonded to sand. NRC, [46] and patents above. See the documents for the details.

Again I meant specifically, we have an example with Iridium-192, which is used to label sand.

There is nothing in the WP rules that says that you have to have all the information before you can include information, but we have most of it anyway. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We have very little real information. We might say that the Iridium isotope is used to label the sand proppant but even that is quite close to OR. I am assuming that frac sand is intended as a proppant and that the Iridium-192 is one of the most common nuclides used for this purpose but I have no source for that.

The kind of thing we should write would be, 'Sand proppant labeled with typically 50 millicuries of Iridium-192 is added to the fracking fluid at intervals of about 3 months to enable the progress of the proppant into the fractures to be tracked by surface monitoring'. The only problem is that I have just made that up. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't read the sources, have you? Please read the sources. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I there is something in a source that I have missed which makes a statement along the lines I have suggested above then please feel free to add it but I have seen no such statement on the sources you have cited. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear what I am saying, my statement above about iridium-labelled sand is my understanding of what may well happen in practice based on the cited sources but it is not what the sources actually say. I could be wrong. That is why OR is not allowed in WP. We would have to find a reliable source which actually says what I have said above to add it to the article. If you believe you know of such as source pleas quote the relevant text from it and I will have no argument with you. Note though that a patent mentioning a process, or a limit set by a regulatory body, is not evidence that a particular method is actually used. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)