![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
"Texas-based natural gas company mainly engaged in the fracking and well drilling of shale gas contained in the Marcellus Formation in the Eastern United States. The company was first to devise techniques for extracting gas from the Marcellus Shale, through the use of test wells in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Because much of the Marcellus Shale lies under rural but significantly-populated areas, the company routinely purchases leases from small homeowners for the rights to drill on their land. They have over $1 billion USD invested in southwestern Pennsylvania, [3] while it also has operations in the Southwestern United States."
Range is not a fracking or well drilling company. They are merely the producer. They do actually own or have their own employees working in the field, they subcontract all that work out, kind of like a General Contractor that would build a home. which is why I, and everyone else categorizes them as a "Independent natural gas exploration and production company"
They are dominantly invested in the Marcellus but they are actively drilling and producing gas all over Southwestern US and Virginia. I think we should highlight that right off the bat - "..operating in the Appalachian and Southwestern regions of the United States"-- MelvinWillis ( talk) 14:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
New Fracking? There is no clear explanation or citation for that quote. I would suggest to remove that unless you can cite that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.179.81.54 ( talk) 12:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. There is no citation, nor do you ever hear that phrase used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelvinWillis ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this really an environmental record section? This is a media blitz section.
You cite Eliza Griswold and Sarah Koenig's accusations but not the Department of Environmental Protections findings. I think those are absolutely vital to the full balanced story. I suggest the following additions.
"Relating to the Amwell twp resident - The DEP extensively tested the landowners water, and found that her water was not contaminated. The DEP sent Ms. Beth Voyles this letter Certified Letter that reads "Finally, you raised concerns that your water supply might be contaminated by glycols. There is no credible evidence of the contamination of your water supply by ethylene, di-ethylene, or tri-ethylene glycol. … [N]either the sample analyses performed by Summit Environmental Technologies Inc. … nor Test America’s analyses … showed any evidence of glycol in your water supply....We have concluded our investigation and have determined that there is no evidence to substantiate the complaint. … In summary, DEP has determined that Range has not contaminated your water supply.”
Relating to the Amwell twp resident animal kill - Ms. Voyles own veterinarian disputed her claim that Range Resources harmed her animals. "On November 10, 2010, you voluntarily supplied Range Resources with lab results from both your dog and horse veterinarians. Upon review of these results, Range contacted the canine and equine veterinarians. … [I]t was stated by the veterinarian that the test results were inconclusive for anti-freeze [ethylene glycol] poising. … The veterinarian indicated that the horse had toxicity of the liver, which he felt was not related to [ethylene glycol] poising.” [1]
If this is truly an environmental record section I think we should note that Range was the first company to voluntarily disclose the chemicals used in fracking.
"Range Resources, said it will display the list on its website, giving regulators and landowners an account of the hazardous chemicals injected into each well.
Last month, Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection made public a list of more than 80 chemicals used by the drilling industry. But the Range list, first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday night, goes a step further because it includes the volume, concentration and purpose of the chemicals." [2] -- MelvinWillis ( talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
References
The last paragraph is one man's cheap shot at a company. It offers nothing to the discussion at hand and the editorial itself isn't even about Range or Gas, it just so happens he mentions the ad campaign at the tail end of his rant. I suggest we remove this for the sake it literally brings the page down. It makes it look like we are just bashing this company. Which I don't think any of us are one way or the other. -- MelvinWillis ( talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The incidents you cite, even though are valid and occurred, did not involve Range Resources. You did not cite where you found this information and I know this is not a valid claim. Range is an independent operator and has never worked with EOG or Chief on an interest or partner based facet. -- User:MelvinWillis —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC).
I think that is good to post this stuff, it is accurate and properly cited. It is not false and is true about the company. This wiki cite must be balanced. Also note, I am "newer" to wiki and bare with me for any mistakes I make. -- User:MelvinWillis —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC).
The previous revision was pretty much a press release by the company. This revision is pretty much an attack page. Maybe some content from the previous revision could be merged with the critical content here to make a more encyclopedic article. causa sui ( talk) 02:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Well now it looks like we have wholesale restoration of the previously deleted press release. I've restored the tags for the opposite reasons. causa sui ( talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a good cite [1].
However, the article seems to make an effort to balance the environmental concerns against the economic stimulation the gas drilling has created in rural Pennsylvania. Maybe some mention of that is merited in the article as well. causa sui ( talk) 19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the citeneeded after "had "recent deals primed at $14,000 an acre" because the citation for that is found in the next paragraph (the Forbes paragraph). This also applies to the citeneeded put after "from gas and fracking fluids" -- that can be found in the Forbes citation also. The Sharon Wilson citeneeded is found in the CNBC link. elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( be free) 20:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we may be unintentionally edit warring over italics. Why are we italicizing some quotations and not others? causa sui ( talk) 23:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Even its slogan says "my natural gas company". Where are its significant oil holdings? elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( be free) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So this company has no relation to range resources in australia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.128.146 ( talk) 10:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The Hallowich case certainly deserves coverage in the article, but properly belongs in the "Environmental record" section, under "Washington County, Pennsylvania. This brief paragraph should not be in its own "== =="-level section in the article. Plazak ( talk) 12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of conflict-of-interest editing by a representative of the company. A New York Times reporter is interested in these and other events. Please get in touch with me if you have observed COI/sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting/astroturfing-type activity on this or other articles. -- ConcernedCitizen80 ( talk) 16:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
"Texas-based natural gas company mainly engaged in the fracking and well drilling of shale gas contained in the Marcellus Formation in the Eastern United States. The company was first to devise techniques for extracting gas from the Marcellus Shale, through the use of test wells in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Because much of the Marcellus Shale lies under rural but significantly-populated areas, the company routinely purchases leases from small homeowners for the rights to drill on their land. They have over $1 billion USD invested in southwestern Pennsylvania, [3] while it also has operations in the Southwestern United States."
Range is not a fracking or well drilling company. They are merely the producer. They do actually own or have their own employees working in the field, they subcontract all that work out, kind of like a General Contractor that would build a home. which is why I, and everyone else categorizes them as a "Independent natural gas exploration and production company"
They are dominantly invested in the Marcellus but they are actively drilling and producing gas all over Southwestern US and Virginia. I think we should highlight that right off the bat - "..operating in the Appalachian and Southwestern regions of the United States"-- MelvinWillis ( talk) 14:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
New Fracking? There is no clear explanation or citation for that quote. I would suggest to remove that unless you can cite that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.179.81.54 ( talk) 12:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. There is no citation, nor do you ever hear that phrase used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelvinWillis ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this really an environmental record section? This is a media blitz section.
You cite Eliza Griswold and Sarah Koenig's accusations but not the Department of Environmental Protections findings. I think those are absolutely vital to the full balanced story. I suggest the following additions.
"Relating to the Amwell twp resident - The DEP extensively tested the landowners water, and found that her water was not contaminated. The DEP sent Ms. Beth Voyles this letter Certified Letter that reads "Finally, you raised concerns that your water supply might be contaminated by glycols. There is no credible evidence of the contamination of your water supply by ethylene, di-ethylene, or tri-ethylene glycol. … [N]either the sample analyses performed by Summit Environmental Technologies Inc. … nor Test America’s analyses … showed any evidence of glycol in your water supply....We have concluded our investigation and have determined that there is no evidence to substantiate the complaint. … In summary, DEP has determined that Range has not contaminated your water supply.”
Relating to the Amwell twp resident animal kill - Ms. Voyles own veterinarian disputed her claim that Range Resources harmed her animals. "On November 10, 2010, you voluntarily supplied Range Resources with lab results from both your dog and horse veterinarians. Upon review of these results, Range contacted the canine and equine veterinarians. … [I]t was stated by the veterinarian that the test results were inconclusive for anti-freeze [ethylene glycol] poising. … The veterinarian indicated that the horse had toxicity of the liver, which he felt was not related to [ethylene glycol] poising.” [1]
If this is truly an environmental record section I think we should note that Range was the first company to voluntarily disclose the chemicals used in fracking.
"Range Resources, said it will display the list on its website, giving regulators and landowners an account of the hazardous chemicals injected into each well.
Last month, Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection made public a list of more than 80 chemicals used by the drilling industry. But the Range list, first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday night, goes a step further because it includes the volume, concentration and purpose of the chemicals." [2] -- MelvinWillis ( talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
References
The last paragraph is one man's cheap shot at a company. It offers nothing to the discussion at hand and the editorial itself isn't even about Range or Gas, it just so happens he mentions the ad campaign at the tail end of his rant. I suggest we remove this for the sake it literally brings the page down. It makes it look like we are just bashing this company. Which I don't think any of us are one way or the other. -- MelvinWillis ( talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The incidents you cite, even though are valid and occurred, did not involve Range Resources. You did not cite where you found this information and I know this is not a valid claim. Range is an independent operator and has never worked with EOG or Chief on an interest or partner based facet. -- User:MelvinWillis —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC).
I think that is good to post this stuff, it is accurate and properly cited. It is not false and is true about the company. This wiki cite must be balanced. Also note, I am "newer" to wiki and bare with me for any mistakes I make. -- User:MelvinWillis —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC).
The previous revision was pretty much a press release by the company. This revision is pretty much an attack page. Maybe some content from the previous revision could be merged with the critical content here to make a more encyclopedic article. causa sui ( talk) 02:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Well now it looks like we have wholesale restoration of the previously deleted press release. I've restored the tags for the opposite reasons. causa sui ( talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a good cite [1].
However, the article seems to make an effort to balance the environmental concerns against the economic stimulation the gas drilling has created in rural Pennsylvania. Maybe some mention of that is merited in the article as well. causa sui ( talk) 19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the citeneeded after "had "recent deals primed at $14,000 an acre" because the citation for that is found in the next paragraph (the Forbes paragraph). This also applies to the citeneeded put after "from gas and fracking fluids" -- that can be found in the Forbes citation also. The Sharon Wilson citeneeded is found in the CNBC link. elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( be free) 20:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we may be unintentionally edit warring over italics. Why are we italicizing some quotations and not others? causa sui ( talk) 23:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Even its slogan says "my natural gas company". Where are its significant oil holdings? elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( be free) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So this company has no relation to range resources in australia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.128.146 ( talk) 10:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The Hallowich case certainly deserves coverage in the article, but properly belongs in the "Environmental record" section, under "Washington County, Pennsylvania. This brief paragraph should not be in its own "== =="-level section in the article. Plazak ( talk) 12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of conflict-of-interest editing by a representative of the company. A New York Times reporter is interested in these and other events. Please get in touch with me if you have observed COI/sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting/astroturfing-type activity on this or other articles. -- ConcernedCitizen80 ( talk) 16:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)