This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Hi Kennywpara, I noticed that you added information on the Infrastructure Act 2015 [1]. You wrote "and changed the definition of hydraulic fracturing' - 'Please can you please explain where it is written that the definition of (high-volume) hydraulic fracturing has been changed, and what it changed from. I also note that the term 'associated hydraulic fracturing' rather than 'hydraulic fracturing' is used throughout that piece of legislation. Thank you. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC) @ Kennywpara: Luther Blissetts ( talk) 14:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC) @ Kennywpara: Please will you provide a source for your insertion that states the 'associated hydraulic fracturing' definition has been changed. Thank you. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 22:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, please can you provide a source for your insertion [2] that states that the 'associated hydraulic fracturing' definition, i.e. high-volume hydraulic fracturing, has been changed. The first newspaper article which mentions this doesn't appear until April 2016 [3], around a year after your insertion. Thank you. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 11:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, please provide source on this talk page for the above. This is my third request for a source. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, please provide source on this talk page for the above. This is my fourth request for a source. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 19:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Luther Blissetts ( talk I did not respond as I did not see this and was in fact confused as to what you were asking.
As I understand it, previously there was no definition, except that the fracture pressure was exceeded, meaning that rocks would crack. That could be any volume. It never was controversial. The Infrastructure Act defined it as being more that 1000m or 10,000m in total. The original wording was worthy of a change, and I apologise for not picking this up. It appears that the wording has now been defined. This link[ [4]] showed that various interpretations were put on this.
I know you think that I am an 'activist' but I did find this legislation to be a bit 'off'. A frack volume of 999m would not be defined as HF. The previous 200 wells mostly would not have been defined as 'fracking', and that could be considered as being deceptive. Having said that from an engineering point of view the HF jobs done in the US have not shown any environmental issues (as recently confirmed by the US EPA) in over 1 million wells. Most of these have used large amounts of water. The small number of pollution issues have all been traced to poor cementation/fluid leaks and poor environmental control etc. There has not been a single case of aquifer pollution due to the fracking process, even when done badly, or at shallow depth. From that point of view I dont understand what all the fuss is about. Kennywpara ( talk) 10:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Luther Blissetts ( talk) 11:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Luther Blissetts ( talk) 22:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I am concerned at the editor Kennywpara's suggestion that I have been "banned" by Wikipedia. My editing privileges were temporarily blocked for WP:ORGNAME. To suggest that I have been "banned" is unhelpful to this discussion.
I am also concerned that this editor claims not to "intentionally 'promote' the industry". There is ample documentary evidence suggesting the exact opposite from his social media activity on Twitter, Facebook Pages (Backing Fracking, Blackpool Fracking for a Better Future and Friends of Ryedale Gas Facebook) as well as numerous newspaper comments sections. He publishes regular articles which are clearly pro-fracking advocacy on pro-fracking activist websites. References to the above can be provided but I have refrained from including them here to avoid WP:OUTING.
All of this leads to the inescapable conclusion that this editor is a pro-fracking advocate and thus seems to have fallen foul of WP:ADVOCACY guidelines which suggest that editors should refrain from editing topics that they cannot cover neutrally.
It is beyond any question that this editor does "intentionally 'promote' the industry" yet there is no WP:COI declaration on his page or its associated talk page and neither does he make any WP:COI declaration when editing or commenting on this page, which would appear to be a clear contravention of Wikipedia guidelines.
I would like to suggest that this editor should refrain from further direct editing of articles relating to Hydraulic Fracturing directly but instead, suggests edits on the article's talk page. When he does so he should make sure he clearly discloses his WP:COI. It would be helpful if the WP:COI were clarified on his user page as well.
Please comment below this line rather than in the article. Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website ( talk) 15:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
===Updated statement from KW=== Luther Blissetts Beagel @ Beagel: Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website ( talk I have added this to my status as follows. 'I am involved in the debate about Hydraulic Fracturing, using my engineering experience to ensure scientific accuracy. I am however totally independent from the industry. Kennywpara ( talk) 13:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I am concerned that editor Luther Blissetts continues to post unhelpful comments. In a recent talk page comment he describes me as an activist/pro-fracking campaigner [ [8]]. Presumably he followed a comment from Fyldeman, aka Refracktion. [ [9]]. This user has been banned BTW. Also Gosh, what to say to a known, long-time activist using wikipedia as his own personal blog [ [10]] In fact all I have ever done is to question the false information a pseudoscience that surrounds this topic. I do not intentionally 'promote' the industry, I debunk false claims as any good Wiki editor should do. This page should be a beacon of science, using well referenced material from reliable sources, such as the Royal Society and other engineering/geological/drilling resources. In all cases where I have taken on organisations for their scaremongering, they have withdrawn, as they were unable to sustain their science. Friends of the Earth are currently trying to justify their 'science' to the Advertising Standards Authority after a complaint from me. This is ongoing [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34570974] The same with Breast Cancer UK. That does not present an issue of conflict of interest. My only interest in this is to have proper, balanced science presented to he public. Hence my concerns when false information is presented to the public, especially by supposedly reputable NGOs. The lack of reliable information was one of my major incentives to improve the rather thin HF in the UK page that existed some years ago. I looked at the Wiki pages for many other contentious subjects. GMOs, Vaccines, and Homeopathy. In all cases the Wikipedia pages reflect science, from suitably qualified or informed editors. Pseudoscience is filtered out. This of course requires judgement from editors. Regarding fracking, apart from misinformation from green NGOs there are a mass of reports from the US relating to health impacts/water contamination/air pollution and so on, some financed by anti fossil fuel organisations, and these fuel reports such as the Chemtrust and Medact reports. These should not be presented as suitable sources of criticism as when looked at, they fail to provide credible information. That is why Public Health England reject these as as valid science. Both of these reports cite chemicals that are not permitted in the UK, and pollution methods that are not permitted in the UK, so they should not appear. That is why I moved the Chemtrust comments from 'Regulation' to 'Political Issues'. Really it has no place in this page at all. It is also why I am flagging up this issue. Luther Blissetts has made several inappropriate comments, and appears at times to be trying to force his viewpoint. He clearly is a skilled editor, but the key point in Wikipedia is the content. The fact that I saw his Twitter feed @(((LutherBlissetts))) and realised his views appeared to have been swayed by pseudocience rang alarm bells. He has now deleted all his 'anti' tweets and retweets, which is interesting. I do have a screenshot of him promoting a boycott of Barclays from 22nd of September however (not a retweet). That has been a typical 'anti' campaign as Barclays fund one of the drilling companies.....
Perhaps the insistence on having the whole page on a maintenance tag is also part of a campaign? That is not an accusation. It is a genuine question. Was the page 6 months ago really that bad? My 'hostility towards maintenance tags' is perhaps because I would prefer a problem to be fixed, rather than flagged up, in some cases to a ridiculous degree. Many of the changes have been positive, some of the links had expired so a relook was possibly overdue. Was it worth so much adrenaline though? The bulk of the content is largely unchanged. Comments from other editors welcome Beagel ( talk) Plazak ( talk) Mikenorton ( talk) Please comment below this line rather than in the article. Kennywpara ( talk) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I can see that this could be interpreted as 'activism'. I personally feel it is activism for the truth, something that any Wiki editor should aspire to. My aim has always been to present the whole story, warts and all. There are not many warts, as these things have been looked at by experts, BUT they do exist.
The Environmental impacts (EI) of hydraulic fracturing sections needs to include the EI for both low and high volume fracturing in both conventional and unconventional wells. As the EI currently stands, it does not yet achieve this. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 14:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)47
I have begun moving information from Environmental impacts (EI) that ought to be included in Shale gas in the UK/Environmental to avoid WP:POVFORK. Information about the potential EI of exploration and production of shale gas in the United Kingdom belongs in the article about shale gas in the United Kingdom. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 14:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)47
Hi Kennywpara, The link you provided does not support its ambiguous claim :
Commonly used by whom? The press? Activists from both sides? I see no evidence of either in the article you provided. Please provide a citation that supports the statement, else this statement will have to be deleted. I will inline tag {by whom} for now, but if you can't support your edit then the statement ought to be deleted. Please refer to WP:AWW Luther Blissetts 11:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Luther Blissetts It is commonly used. The article does clearly state that. The rock is naturally fractured so 'fracking' is unnecessary and possibly not even possible. However, changing the wording to 'is sometimes' is surely accurate. Kennywpara ( talk) 14:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Kennywpara: and @ Fyldeman: As part of my 'improve don't remove' philosophy (not policy as far as I'm aware) and my habit of tagging for {citation needed} where an unsourced statement occurs as a courtesy to the original editor, I have instead altered the statement to: "Hydraulic fracturing, "or ‘fracking’ as it has become commonly known, is a big issue for local authorities and communities across the country." and the reference I provided supports this statement. I read and re-read the previous source provided and nowhere did it support the statement.
I still need RS citation for the climate change debate. A better image would be a good idea - ideally one without a peculiar POV caption added. Removing the text which points to the image would also be a good idea. No need to say the same thing twice. I have also added a paragraph for balance and included RS for pro-fracking campaigners and their beliefs/aims/hopes. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 19:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Kennywpara:, on your sockpuppet page F.Nonsense, you wrote:
Could you please explain why the image from Balcombe in the section 'The fracking debate' should be something you found curious (a protest that was as a site having nothing to do with fracking) without first finding a reliable source to support that? Further down in that section, it states:
Industry assurances about its forthcoming plans were tarnished in January 2012, though, when Cuadrilla Resources came under fire for its categorical denials of plans of hydraulic fracturing near Balcombe after documents from parent company AJ Lucas materialised appearing to indicate the complete opposite.[150]
That website you introduced to this talk page recently ( http://drillordrop.com) says: "Cuadrilla planned to frack in the Balcombe area" [13]. Surely that solves why there were anti-fracking protests? As for the Gatwick Gusher/Horse Hill antifracking protests, didn't you yourself post a statement about the Gatwick Gusher to this article about Hydraulic Fracturing which I then removed as not being pertinent to hydraulic fracturing since the link stated categorically that the operator they had no plans to use hydraulic fracturing. A common theme throughout your posts is that this article should inform the public (I disagree strongly - it should be encyclopaedic and on topic!). Posting information which doesn't belong in this article can only contribute to confusion. Unless a reliable source discusses this crossover between HVHF anti-fracking/anti-shale gas extraction, anti-UFF, and the wider campaigns against fossil fuels, it can't be used. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi@ Fyldeman: and @ Kennywpara:, I've tried for a compromise - and included a sentence that is related to hydraulic fracturing, AND has the word 'commonly' in it, AD relates to the section 'fracking debate', AND can be reliably sourced (RS), rather than deletion. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This statement:
Is OR unless a suitable RS can be found. If it cannot, it will be deleted.
It previous used the term fracking ( diffs); and was originally inserted by @ Kennywpara: , so I would appreciate a comment and some effort from this editor to now provide a citation as they had previously removed a request for citation ( diffs} without providing a citation. It had previously been edited by an IP ( diffs) which refers to a ( January 2015 conversation 'The Fracking Debate') with @ Martin Hogbin:. The same IP also removed ( Howarth 2011) which probably ought to have been moved to SG in the UK/Climate change rather than deleted ( WP:TRUTH). It seems that Kennywpara has contributed to this section extensively ( diffs) and originally added it ( diffs).
This statement:
Why is this in an article about hydraulic fracturing? It belongs in a US shale gas article. Report mentions shale gas development not hydraulic fracturing. It is OR to comment on whether this will affect UK market without a RS to back this up. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL Luther Blissetts ( talk) 13:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This:
The content of the Medact Report 2015 and other US origin studies that have been publicised in the UK were commented on by Public Health England, in the planning document from Lancashire County Council Planning Department report. This was published to advise Councillors about upcoming fracking decisions. The quality of the research that underpinned the Medact Report 2015 was called into question. PHE reviewed some US health studies and pointed to many flaws in the quoted research, from pages 307 to 313. [6]
Has been changed to this:
The content of the Medact Report 2015 was referred to by many objectors in the June 2015 Public reports pack for the Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee. Lancashire County Council were uncertain how much weight to attach to the Medact report due to "questions from some quarters" about the objectivity of the report based on association of two its contributors with campaigns relating to shale gas. [7]
Medact:The original statement failed verification after I checked the "Public reports pack 23 June 2015" document. I have included the only comments made on the Medact report by the council. PHE:There were no comments from PHE about the Medact report anywhere in this document. The statement about PHE 2014 reviewing US health studies has been removed and may need to be included in a similar way to summarise the PHE quote at the beginning of this section (which I haven't done yet). I haven't found a RS secondary or tertiary that discusses this primary 'Public reports pack'. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 14:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm rewriting this section. Just this once, to be utterly transparent in my edit methodology, I'm going to place the existing edit alongside the proposed edit in columns beneath this text. Feel free to comment, but please bear in mind that I've not finished yet, and I'm using my preferred method of editing in word first. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 13:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC) So far, this represents around 3 hours work, most of which was checking sources and deciding what doesn't belong in this section, before reorganising condensing and rewording (and it's still not finished). Luther Blissetts ( talk) 15:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC) It's still not finished. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
RegulationIn 2012, the Government commissioned a report to identify the problems and advise regulatory agencies. Jointly published by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, under the chairmanship of Professor Robert Mair, Done the report included recommendations on groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakage, water usage and disposal, management of environmental risk, implementation of best practice, and various management and regulatory issues. [8] Not done According to Professor Mair,"well integrity is of key importance but the most common areas of concern, such as the causation of earthquakes with any significant impact or fractures reaching and contaminating drinking water, were very low risk" Not done but the report stated adequate regulations must be put in place. Done The RAE report stated, "Many claims of contaminated water wells due to shale gas extraction have been made. None has shown evidence of chemicals found in hydraulic fracturing fluids". Not done This report lead to a Government paper [9] that outlined the requirements of the regulatory framework. Done Guidance for operators to obtain licences for various aspects of drilling was published in August 2016 [10] Done There are separate regulatory authorities in Scotland, [11] Wales [12] Done and Ireland [13] Not done There are a variety of Government Agencies involved in regulation. Done Between 2008 and 2016, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), was one of the key Departments to grant permission. clarification needed This department was abolished in July 2016, and the responsibilities have been absorbed by the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy. [14] Not done It is required that chemicals used must be available for public examination "Chemicals used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing fluids are assessed for hazards on a case-by-case basis for each well by the appropriate environmental regulator (EA, NRW or SEPA). Operators must declare the full details of the chemicals to the regulator and will publish a brief description of the chemical’s purpose and any hazards it may pose to the environment". [15] Not done Another regulator on the engineering issues is the Health and Safety Executive. Examination of a brief of their regulations show that well design must be approved by the HSE and then sent to an independent Well Examiner. [16] Done Under current regulation, the 'independent' Well Examiner can be an employee of the operating company, as identified in the RAE report. [17] Done: mentioned in Criticism because it is a criticism by RS/RAE In the event of a poor cementation remediation must involve expert opinion of the Well Examiner. Poor cementation has been identified in the RAE report as one of the main pollution paths and sources of surface gas leaks in the US. Not done The British Geological Survey (BGS) are involved with monitoring potential environmental hazards. [18] [19] Not done Local Councils also have some regulatory powers, with regard to planning permission. Done These are generally limited to concerns such as traffic and noise. These can be overturned on appeal. [20] Not done The Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) will determine if an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is required. This would be funded by the operating company. [21] Done The regulatory process has been set out in publications and guidelines on techniques and practices from the industry body, UKOOG. [22]There are also requirements for community engagement. [23] The industry currently has to comply with 17 European Directives, has to apply for up to nine separate environmental permits and has to reach binding agreements on noise, hours of operation and other local social issues. In compliance with the industry’s engagement charter, each operator engages with the public at six points during the pre-consultation, planning and permitting stag. [24] Not done In January 2014, an impact assessment by the European Commission concluded that existing legal and regulatory environments were insufficient, and recommended a new directive with specific requirements for high volume hydraulic fracturing to address: "environmental risks and impacts"; allay "public concerns", and; "enable investments". [25] Done The regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the UK has been criticised by the chemicals policy charity CHEM Trust, who argue that it is not sufficiently protective. [26] They also raise concerns about reducing resources for the regulators of hydraulic fracturing, like the Environment Agency. The United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (OKOOG) trade association challenged the CHEM Trust analysis, [27] and CHEM Trust then responded to the issues raised by UKOOG. [28] Done Differences between the US and UKNot done Not doneIn the United States, regulation of oil and gas drilling and production is largely left to the states, and differs from state to state. In 2005 in the US Congress, at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton, exempted hydraulic fracturing from the underground injection regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This meant that any chemical, including toxic and carcinogenic materials were permitted, and public disclosure of these was not required. [29] There are also differences in fluid security that mean that open fluid storage is not permitted in the EU or the UK. Venting of unburnt gases is also not permitted, except in an emergency. [15]: 4 [30] Paying for regulationThe costs of inspections by the Environment Agency, and the HSE can be reclaimed from operators by those agencies. [31] Done The HSE and EA have an agreement concerning the inspection of critical processes. [32] Done The Infrastructure Act 2015In February, the Infrastructure Act 2015 received royal assent. The bill covered many aspects of hydraulic fracturing, and permits hydraulic fracturing under homes, without consent. The legislation is limited to the petroleum and geothermal industries. [33] Done This also included clauses on maximizing economic recovery of UK petroleum Not done [34] on meeting climate change requirements Not done [35] and changed Not donethe definition of hydraulic fracturing to more than 1000m of fluid per stage ot more than 10,000m in total. Done In addition conditions were attached that mean no hydraulic fracturing can take place at a depth shallower than 1000m, Done and that soil and air monitoring must be put in place. Done 'The associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within protected groundwater source areas' Done statement does not define the category of groundwater protection zone. Not done [36] |
RegulationIn 2012, a joint report by the Royal Society and Royal Association of Engineers (RS/RAE), commissioned by the government to identify the problems and advise regulatory agencies, emphasised that regulation "must be fit for purpose" with a focus on maintaining "regulatory co-ordination and capacity" and "the way in which risks scale up should a future shale gas industry develop nationwide." [37] The government responded with a paper that outlined the requirements of the regulatory framework. [9] In August 2016, the Environment Agency followed up their 2013 draft consultation [38] with their final version on guidance for "flow testing and well stimulation, including hydraulic fracturing" for onshore operators in England. [10] Several government departments and agencies are involved in the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. [39] Before onshore hydraulic fracturing can begin, an operator will have obtained a landward licence, known as a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL), from the UK's Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). [40] A series of steps are then taken to obtain permissions from the landowner and council planning authorities. [41] The operator then requests a permit from the [Minerals Planning Authority] (MPA), who determine if an environmental impact assessment (EIA), funded by the operator, is required. [21] Up to nine applications [38]: 6 , constituting the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) 2010 [42] are also obtained from the appropriate environmental agency, to ensure that onshore hydraulic fracturing operators fulfil strict environmental regulations. [39] These environmental agencies are: the Environment Agency for England; National Resources for Wales; [43] the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) [44] for Scotland, and; the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) clarification needed for Northern Ireland. citation needed The role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is to focus on the design and integrity of the well [45], using an independent expert known as the 'well examiner'. [46] The EA and HSE together will "inspect the next series of hydraulic fracturing operations in England and Wales." [47] Finally, any development using hydraulic fracturing is required to "submit a Hydraulic Fracturing Plan to the OGA, and comply with requirements to mitigate any seismic risks." [48] LegislationIn January 2014, an impact assessment by the European Commission concluded that existing legal and regulatory environments were insufficient, and recommended a new directive with specific requirements for high volume hydraulic fracturing to address: "environmental risks and impacts"; allay "public concerns", and; "enable investments". [49] <---to help inlcusion below---> }the definition of hydraulic fracturing to more than 1000m of fluid per stage ot more than 10,000m in total. Done In addition conditions were attached that mean no hydraulic fracturing can take place at a depth shallower than 1000m, Done and that soil and air monitoring must be put in place. Done 'The associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within protected groundwater source areas' Done <---END---> The
Infrastructure Act 2015 Section 50 is a legislative bill covering aspects of "associated hydraulic fracturing" (unconventional means) for extracting onshore shale/tight oil and shale gas.
citation needed The act defined "associated hydraulic fracturing", also known as "high-volume hydraulic fracturing" as "more than 1000m3 of fluid per stage, and; more than 10,000m3 in total". Other legal requirements include a range of conditions that operators must comply with: "environmental impacts of development"; 12 months of groundwater methane level monitoring prior to "associated" (high-volume) hydraulic fracturing; "community benefits" and "prohibiting hydraulic fracturing in protected areas" before the Secretary of State can give consent to hydraulic fracturing Cite error: The CriticismThe RS/RAE report was critical of current regulation which failed to ensure independence of the well examiner scheme by ensuring that the well examiner was independent of the operating company. [51] The government responded: "there are a few well operators who wish to use in-house examiners, and that option is legally open to them if they can fulfil the DCR (Design and Construction Regulations) requirements of an appropriate level of impartiality and independence from any aspects of the well design/construction/operation."(paraphrase this instead of using quote) [9]: 3 In June 2015, the UK regulations for hydraulic fracturing were criticised by the chemicals policy charity, CHEM Trust, [52] who argued they were not sufficiently protective, and raised concerns about the reductions in funding for the regulators of fracking, like the Environment Agency. [53] The UK onshore oil and gas industry association, UKOOG, challenged the CHEM Trust analysis, [54] and CHEM Trust [55] responded. [56] |
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
PHE did not comment on the Medact report in this document. The Council commented: Many objectors refer to the 2015 report of the public health charity Medact. Medact say the risks and serious nature of the hazards associated with fracking, coupled with the concerns and uncertainties about the regulatory system, indicate that shale gas development should be halted until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment is undertaken. The Medact report has not produced new epidemiological research but has reviewed published literature and has requested short papers from relevant experts in particular subject areas. It has also interviewed academics and experts. Unfortunately, one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report's six chapters – chapters 2, 4 and 5) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. Another contributor to the report (chapter 3) has previously expressed firm views on shale gas and has objected to this application. This has led to questions from some quarters about the report's objectivity.In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the County Council should attach to the report.
RAEreport
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).OOGSG Aug16
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
DECCreg
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |publisher=
at position 15 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 116 (
help)
The guidelines should be clarified to ensure the well examiner is an employee of a separate company. The independence of the scheme must not be compromised.
EAGuide2013
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I dont have much issue with the first section Regulation, though I fail to see the reason for a change to that. What is there already covers that. I have problems with the fact that little prominence is given to the key points in the EA Guidance doc published less than a month ago. In 'legislation' it should be mentioned. Strictly the EA Guidance is not legislation. In that case the title needs a change. 'What the EA require' would help, with a separate section on legislation. Why is a dated Jan 2014 comment from the EU saying regulations need to be looked at of any relevance when these regulations have just been issued, after extensive public consultation? That should be the main thrust of this section. The Chemtrust report also fails to understand how regulation works. 'Guidance' is issued as a way seeing what will or will not be acceptable, to obtain a licence. Failure to either follow guidance or or propose an acceptable method means that a licence will not be issued. Use of 'Best Available Technique' IS a legal requirement BTW. Perhaps I have problems with the prominence given to the Chemtrust report in this. Reading comments about 'Hazardous chemicals' immediately should ring alarm bells. They are not permitted as can be seen in the [ Chemicals'] There is no need for opinion on that, it is simply the law (EU and UK) and as such it is not a POV. The Chemtrust report also fails to understand how regulation works. 'Guidance' is issued as a way seeing what will or will not be acceptable, to obtain a licence. Chemtrust seem to think its not legally enforceable. Failure to either follow guidance or or propose an acceptable method means that a licence will not be issued. Thats why it received such a pounding from UKOOG. Its an advocacy piece, and fails to take account of EU and UK law. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Chemtrust seem to think its not legally enforceable. Its as if they havent bothered to check these basic things.
I have little problem with the Chemtrust/UKOOG rebuttal/Chemtrust response being there, just NOT in a chapter about regulation. Why is there such a long section on 'criticism'? especially as its based on a dated and now irrelevant report from the EU. There is already a comment on the RAE requirement for a so called 'independent' well surveyor in the original writing. There is a problem here and this was noted by the the House of Lords in 2013. As a WP:NPOV editor I gave it due prominence. This is open to abuse and thats why I highlighted it. Please do not change this Luther Blissetts unless you get some consensus. To me you appear to be presenting some anti frack lines, that do not hold water when examined by scientists, or regulators. When I write or comment what I do is give links to proper information. Its all I have ever done. Kennywpara ( talk) 09:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Available Techniques (BAT) that you should use to meet regulatory requirements".
I have removed the maintenance tag. It has been on there for 6 months and I and others have tried to sort out the real and in some cases imaginary issues. I will continue to look at a few minor outstanding issues and I hope other editors will too. Could I suggest that if there are particular issues with a chapter, then that chapter should be flagged with a maintenance tag, rather than the whole article. This page should not be a blog for anti activism. Neither should it be a blinkered pro industry mouthpiece. It should be a balanced and authoritative page, with references to reliable sources. I hope it meets that standard. Just like any other Wiki page in fact! Kennywpara ( talk) 07:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Hi Kennywpara, I noticed that you added information on the Infrastructure Act 2015 [1]. You wrote "and changed the definition of hydraulic fracturing' - 'Please can you please explain where it is written that the definition of (high-volume) hydraulic fracturing has been changed, and what it changed from. I also note that the term 'associated hydraulic fracturing' rather than 'hydraulic fracturing' is used throughout that piece of legislation. Thank you. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC) @ Kennywpara: Luther Blissetts ( talk) 14:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC) @ Kennywpara: Please will you provide a source for your insertion that states the 'associated hydraulic fracturing' definition has been changed. Thank you. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 22:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, please can you provide a source for your insertion [2] that states that the 'associated hydraulic fracturing' definition, i.e. high-volume hydraulic fracturing, has been changed. The first newspaper article which mentions this doesn't appear until April 2016 [3], around a year after your insertion. Thank you. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 11:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, please provide source on this talk page for the above. This is my third request for a source. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, please provide source on this talk page for the above. This is my fourth request for a source. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 19:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Luther Blissetts ( talk I did not respond as I did not see this and was in fact confused as to what you were asking.
As I understand it, previously there was no definition, except that the fracture pressure was exceeded, meaning that rocks would crack. That could be any volume. It never was controversial. The Infrastructure Act defined it as being more that 1000m or 10,000m in total. The original wording was worthy of a change, and I apologise for not picking this up. It appears that the wording has now been defined. This link[ [4]] showed that various interpretations were put on this.
I know you think that I am an 'activist' but I did find this legislation to be a bit 'off'. A frack volume of 999m would not be defined as HF. The previous 200 wells mostly would not have been defined as 'fracking', and that could be considered as being deceptive. Having said that from an engineering point of view the HF jobs done in the US have not shown any environmental issues (as recently confirmed by the US EPA) in over 1 million wells. Most of these have used large amounts of water. The small number of pollution issues have all been traced to poor cementation/fluid leaks and poor environmental control etc. There has not been a single case of aquifer pollution due to the fracking process, even when done badly, or at shallow depth. From that point of view I dont understand what all the fuss is about. Kennywpara ( talk) 10:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Luther Blissetts ( talk) 11:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Luther Blissetts ( talk) 22:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I am concerned at the editor Kennywpara's suggestion that I have been "banned" by Wikipedia. My editing privileges were temporarily blocked for WP:ORGNAME. To suggest that I have been "banned" is unhelpful to this discussion.
I am also concerned that this editor claims not to "intentionally 'promote' the industry". There is ample documentary evidence suggesting the exact opposite from his social media activity on Twitter, Facebook Pages (Backing Fracking, Blackpool Fracking for a Better Future and Friends of Ryedale Gas Facebook) as well as numerous newspaper comments sections. He publishes regular articles which are clearly pro-fracking advocacy on pro-fracking activist websites. References to the above can be provided but I have refrained from including them here to avoid WP:OUTING.
All of this leads to the inescapable conclusion that this editor is a pro-fracking advocate and thus seems to have fallen foul of WP:ADVOCACY guidelines which suggest that editors should refrain from editing topics that they cannot cover neutrally.
It is beyond any question that this editor does "intentionally 'promote' the industry" yet there is no WP:COI declaration on his page or its associated talk page and neither does he make any WP:COI declaration when editing or commenting on this page, which would appear to be a clear contravention of Wikipedia guidelines.
I would like to suggest that this editor should refrain from further direct editing of articles relating to Hydraulic Fracturing directly but instead, suggests edits on the article's talk page. When he does so he should make sure he clearly discloses his WP:COI. It would be helpful if the WP:COI were clarified on his user page as well.
Please comment below this line rather than in the article. Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website ( talk) 15:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
===Updated statement from KW=== Luther Blissetts Beagel @ Beagel: Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website ( talk I have added this to my status as follows. 'I am involved in the debate about Hydraulic Fracturing, using my engineering experience to ensure scientific accuracy. I am however totally independent from the industry. Kennywpara ( talk) 13:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I am concerned that editor Luther Blissetts continues to post unhelpful comments. In a recent talk page comment he describes me as an activist/pro-fracking campaigner [ [8]]. Presumably he followed a comment from Fyldeman, aka Refracktion. [ [9]]. This user has been banned BTW. Also Gosh, what to say to a known, long-time activist using wikipedia as his own personal blog [ [10]] In fact all I have ever done is to question the false information a pseudoscience that surrounds this topic. I do not intentionally 'promote' the industry, I debunk false claims as any good Wiki editor should do. This page should be a beacon of science, using well referenced material from reliable sources, such as the Royal Society and other engineering/geological/drilling resources. In all cases where I have taken on organisations for their scaremongering, they have withdrawn, as they were unable to sustain their science. Friends of the Earth are currently trying to justify their 'science' to the Advertising Standards Authority after a complaint from me. This is ongoing [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34570974] The same with Breast Cancer UK. That does not present an issue of conflict of interest. My only interest in this is to have proper, balanced science presented to he public. Hence my concerns when false information is presented to the public, especially by supposedly reputable NGOs. The lack of reliable information was one of my major incentives to improve the rather thin HF in the UK page that existed some years ago. I looked at the Wiki pages for many other contentious subjects. GMOs, Vaccines, and Homeopathy. In all cases the Wikipedia pages reflect science, from suitably qualified or informed editors. Pseudoscience is filtered out. This of course requires judgement from editors. Regarding fracking, apart from misinformation from green NGOs there are a mass of reports from the US relating to health impacts/water contamination/air pollution and so on, some financed by anti fossil fuel organisations, and these fuel reports such as the Chemtrust and Medact reports. These should not be presented as suitable sources of criticism as when looked at, they fail to provide credible information. That is why Public Health England reject these as as valid science. Both of these reports cite chemicals that are not permitted in the UK, and pollution methods that are not permitted in the UK, so they should not appear. That is why I moved the Chemtrust comments from 'Regulation' to 'Political Issues'. Really it has no place in this page at all. It is also why I am flagging up this issue. Luther Blissetts has made several inappropriate comments, and appears at times to be trying to force his viewpoint. He clearly is a skilled editor, but the key point in Wikipedia is the content. The fact that I saw his Twitter feed @(((LutherBlissetts))) and realised his views appeared to have been swayed by pseudocience rang alarm bells. He has now deleted all his 'anti' tweets and retweets, which is interesting. I do have a screenshot of him promoting a boycott of Barclays from 22nd of September however (not a retweet). That has been a typical 'anti' campaign as Barclays fund one of the drilling companies.....
Perhaps the insistence on having the whole page on a maintenance tag is also part of a campaign? That is not an accusation. It is a genuine question. Was the page 6 months ago really that bad? My 'hostility towards maintenance tags' is perhaps because I would prefer a problem to be fixed, rather than flagged up, in some cases to a ridiculous degree. Many of the changes have been positive, some of the links had expired so a relook was possibly overdue. Was it worth so much adrenaline though? The bulk of the content is largely unchanged. Comments from other editors welcome Beagel ( talk) Plazak ( talk) Mikenorton ( talk) Please comment below this line rather than in the article. Kennywpara ( talk) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I can see that this could be interpreted as 'activism'. I personally feel it is activism for the truth, something that any Wiki editor should aspire to. My aim has always been to present the whole story, warts and all. There are not many warts, as these things have been looked at by experts, BUT they do exist.
The Environmental impacts (EI) of hydraulic fracturing sections needs to include the EI for both low and high volume fracturing in both conventional and unconventional wells. As the EI currently stands, it does not yet achieve this. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 14:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)47
I have begun moving information from Environmental impacts (EI) that ought to be included in Shale gas in the UK/Environmental to avoid WP:POVFORK. Information about the potential EI of exploration and production of shale gas in the United Kingdom belongs in the article about shale gas in the United Kingdom. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 14:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)47
Hi Kennywpara, The link you provided does not support its ambiguous claim :
Commonly used by whom? The press? Activists from both sides? I see no evidence of either in the article you provided. Please provide a citation that supports the statement, else this statement will have to be deleted. I will inline tag {by whom} for now, but if you can't support your edit then the statement ought to be deleted. Please refer to WP:AWW Luther Blissetts 11:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Luther Blissetts It is commonly used. The article does clearly state that. The rock is naturally fractured so 'fracking' is unnecessary and possibly not even possible. However, changing the wording to 'is sometimes' is surely accurate. Kennywpara ( talk) 14:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Kennywpara: and @ Fyldeman: As part of my 'improve don't remove' philosophy (not policy as far as I'm aware) and my habit of tagging for {citation needed} where an unsourced statement occurs as a courtesy to the original editor, I have instead altered the statement to: "Hydraulic fracturing, "or ‘fracking’ as it has become commonly known, is a big issue for local authorities and communities across the country." and the reference I provided supports this statement. I read and re-read the previous source provided and nowhere did it support the statement.
I still need RS citation for the climate change debate. A better image would be a good idea - ideally one without a peculiar POV caption added. Removing the text which points to the image would also be a good idea. No need to say the same thing twice. I have also added a paragraph for balance and included RS for pro-fracking campaigners and their beliefs/aims/hopes. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 19:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi @ Kennywpara:, on your sockpuppet page F.Nonsense, you wrote:
Could you please explain why the image from Balcombe in the section 'The fracking debate' should be something you found curious (a protest that was as a site having nothing to do with fracking) without first finding a reliable source to support that? Further down in that section, it states:
Industry assurances about its forthcoming plans were tarnished in January 2012, though, when Cuadrilla Resources came under fire for its categorical denials of plans of hydraulic fracturing near Balcombe after documents from parent company AJ Lucas materialised appearing to indicate the complete opposite.[150]
That website you introduced to this talk page recently ( http://drillordrop.com) says: "Cuadrilla planned to frack in the Balcombe area" [13]. Surely that solves why there were anti-fracking protests? As for the Gatwick Gusher/Horse Hill antifracking protests, didn't you yourself post a statement about the Gatwick Gusher to this article about Hydraulic Fracturing which I then removed as not being pertinent to hydraulic fracturing since the link stated categorically that the operator they had no plans to use hydraulic fracturing. A common theme throughout your posts is that this article should inform the public (I disagree strongly - it should be encyclopaedic and on topic!). Posting information which doesn't belong in this article can only contribute to confusion. Unless a reliable source discusses this crossover between HVHF anti-fracking/anti-shale gas extraction, anti-UFF, and the wider campaigns against fossil fuels, it can't be used. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi@ Fyldeman: and @ Kennywpara:, I've tried for a compromise - and included a sentence that is related to hydraulic fracturing, AND has the word 'commonly' in it, AD relates to the section 'fracking debate', AND can be reliably sourced (RS), rather than deletion. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This statement:
Is OR unless a suitable RS can be found. If it cannot, it will be deleted.
It previous used the term fracking ( diffs); and was originally inserted by @ Kennywpara: , so I would appreciate a comment and some effort from this editor to now provide a citation as they had previously removed a request for citation ( diffs} without providing a citation. It had previously been edited by an IP ( diffs) which refers to a ( January 2015 conversation 'The Fracking Debate') with @ Martin Hogbin:. The same IP also removed ( Howarth 2011) which probably ought to have been moved to SG in the UK/Climate change rather than deleted ( WP:TRUTH). It seems that Kennywpara has contributed to this section extensively ( diffs) and originally added it ( diffs).
This statement:
Why is this in an article about hydraulic fracturing? It belongs in a US shale gas article. Report mentions shale gas development not hydraulic fracturing. It is OR to comment on whether this will affect UK market without a RS to back this up. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL Luther Blissetts ( talk) 13:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This:
The content of the Medact Report 2015 and other US origin studies that have been publicised in the UK were commented on by Public Health England, in the planning document from Lancashire County Council Planning Department report. This was published to advise Councillors about upcoming fracking decisions. The quality of the research that underpinned the Medact Report 2015 was called into question. PHE reviewed some US health studies and pointed to many flaws in the quoted research, from pages 307 to 313. [6]
Has been changed to this:
The content of the Medact Report 2015 was referred to by many objectors in the June 2015 Public reports pack for the Lancashire County Council Development Control Committee. Lancashire County Council were uncertain how much weight to attach to the Medact report due to "questions from some quarters" about the objectivity of the report based on association of two its contributors with campaigns relating to shale gas. [7]
Medact:The original statement failed verification after I checked the "Public reports pack 23 June 2015" document. I have included the only comments made on the Medact report by the council. PHE:There were no comments from PHE about the Medact report anywhere in this document. The statement about PHE 2014 reviewing US health studies has been removed and may need to be included in a similar way to summarise the PHE quote at the beginning of this section (which I haven't done yet). I haven't found a RS secondary or tertiary that discusses this primary 'Public reports pack'. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 14:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm rewriting this section. Just this once, to be utterly transparent in my edit methodology, I'm going to place the existing edit alongside the proposed edit in columns beneath this text. Feel free to comment, but please bear in mind that I've not finished yet, and I'm using my preferred method of editing in word first. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 13:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC) So far, this represents around 3 hours work, most of which was checking sources and deciding what doesn't belong in this section, before reorganising condensing and rewording (and it's still not finished). Luther Blissetts ( talk) 15:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC) It's still not finished. Luther Blissetts ( talk) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
RegulationIn 2012, the Government commissioned a report to identify the problems and advise regulatory agencies. Jointly published by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, under the chairmanship of Professor Robert Mair, Done the report included recommendations on groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakage, water usage and disposal, management of environmental risk, implementation of best practice, and various management and regulatory issues. [8] Not done According to Professor Mair,"well integrity is of key importance but the most common areas of concern, such as the causation of earthquakes with any significant impact or fractures reaching and contaminating drinking water, were very low risk" Not done but the report stated adequate regulations must be put in place. Done The RAE report stated, "Many claims of contaminated water wells due to shale gas extraction have been made. None has shown evidence of chemicals found in hydraulic fracturing fluids". Not done This report lead to a Government paper [9] that outlined the requirements of the regulatory framework. Done Guidance for operators to obtain licences for various aspects of drilling was published in August 2016 [10] Done There are separate regulatory authorities in Scotland, [11] Wales [12] Done and Ireland [13] Not done There are a variety of Government Agencies involved in regulation. Done Between 2008 and 2016, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), was one of the key Departments to grant permission. clarification needed This department was abolished in July 2016, and the responsibilities have been absorbed by the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy. [14] Not done It is required that chemicals used must be available for public examination "Chemicals used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing fluids are assessed for hazards on a case-by-case basis for each well by the appropriate environmental regulator (EA, NRW or SEPA). Operators must declare the full details of the chemicals to the regulator and will publish a brief description of the chemical’s purpose and any hazards it may pose to the environment". [15] Not done Another regulator on the engineering issues is the Health and Safety Executive. Examination of a brief of their regulations show that well design must be approved by the HSE and then sent to an independent Well Examiner. [16] Done Under current regulation, the 'independent' Well Examiner can be an employee of the operating company, as identified in the RAE report. [17] Done: mentioned in Criticism because it is a criticism by RS/RAE In the event of a poor cementation remediation must involve expert opinion of the Well Examiner. Poor cementation has been identified in the RAE report as one of the main pollution paths and sources of surface gas leaks in the US. Not done The British Geological Survey (BGS) are involved with monitoring potential environmental hazards. [18] [19] Not done Local Councils also have some regulatory powers, with regard to planning permission. Done These are generally limited to concerns such as traffic and noise. These can be overturned on appeal. [20] Not done The Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) will determine if an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is required. This would be funded by the operating company. [21] Done The regulatory process has been set out in publications and guidelines on techniques and practices from the industry body, UKOOG. [22]There are also requirements for community engagement. [23] The industry currently has to comply with 17 European Directives, has to apply for up to nine separate environmental permits and has to reach binding agreements on noise, hours of operation and other local social issues. In compliance with the industry’s engagement charter, each operator engages with the public at six points during the pre-consultation, planning and permitting stag. [24] Not done In January 2014, an impact assessment by the European Commission concluded that existing legal and regulatory environments were insufficient, and recommended a new directive with specific requirements for high volume hydraulic fracturing to address: "environmental risks and impacts"; allay "public concerns", and; "enable investments". [25] Done The regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the UK has been criticised by the chemicals policy charity CHEM Trust, who argue that it is not sufficiently protective. [26] They also raise concerns about reducing resources for the regulators of hydraulic fracturing, like the Environment Agency. The United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (OKOOG) trade association challenged the CHEM Trust analysis, [27] and CHEM Trust then responded to the issues raised by UKOOG. [28] Done Differences between the US and UKNot done Not doneIn the United States, regulation of oil and gas drilling and production is largely left to the states, and differs from state to state. In 2005 in the US Congress, at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton, exempted hydraulic fracturing from the underground injection regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This meant that any chemical, including toxic and carcinogenic materials were permitted, and public disclosure of these was not required. [29] There are also differences in fluid security that mean that open fluid storage is not permitted in the EU or the UK. Venting of unburnt gases is also not permitted, except in an emergency. [15]: 4 [30] Paying for regulationThe costs of inspections by the Environment Agency, and the HSE can be reclaimed from operators by those agencies. [31] Done The HSE and EA have an agreement concerning the inspection of critical processes. [32] Done The Infrastructure Act 2015In February, the Infrastructure Act 2015 received royal assent. The bill covered many aspects of hydraulic fracturing, and permits hydraulic fracturing under homes, without consent. The legislation is limited to the petroleum and geothermal industries. [33] Done This also included clauses on maximizing economic recovery of UK petroleum Not done [34] on meeting climate change requirements Not done [35] and changed Not donethe definition of hydraulic fracturing to more than 1000m of fluid per stage ot more than 10,000m in total. Done In addition conditions were attached that mean no hydraulic fracturing can take place at a depth shallower than 1000m, Done and that soil and air monitoring must be put in place. Done 'The associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within protected groundwater source areas' Done statement does not define the category of groundwater protection zone. Not done [36] |
RegulationIn 2012, a joint report by the Royal Society and Royal Association of Engineers (RS/RAE), commissioned by the government to identify the problems and advise regulatory agencies, emphasised that regulation "must be fit for purpose" with a focus on maintaining "regulatory co-ordination and capacity" and "the way in which risks scale up should a future shale gas industry develop nationwide." [37] The government responded with a paper that outlined the requirements of the regulatory framework. [9] In August 2016, the Environment Agency followed up their 2013 draft consultation [38] with their final version on guidance for "flow testing and well stimulation, including hydraulic fracturing" for onshore operators in England. [10] Several government departments and agencies are involved in the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. [39] Before onshore hydraulic fracturing can begin, an operator will have obtained a landward licence, known as a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL), from the UK's Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). [40] A series of steps are then taken to obtain permissions from the landowner and council planning authorities. [41] The operator then requests a permit from the [Minerals Planning Authority] (MPA), who determine if an environmental impact assessment (EIA), funded by the operator, is required. [21] Up to nine applications [38]: 6 , constituting the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) 2010 [42] are also obtained from the appropriate environmental agency, to ensure that onshore hydraulic fracturing operators fulfil strict environmental regulations. [39] These environmental agencies are: the Environment Agency for England; National Resources for Wales; [43] the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) [44] for Scotland, and; the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) clarification needed for Northern Ireland. citation needed The role of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is to focus on the design and integrity of the well [45], using an independent expert known as the 'well examiner'. [46] The EA and HSE together will "inspect the next series of hydraulic fracturing operations in England and Wales." [47] Finally, any development using hydraulic fracturing is required to "submit a Hydraulic Fracturing Plan to the OGA, and comply with requirements to mitigate any seismic risks." [48] LegislationIn January 2014, an impact assessment by the European Commission concluded that existing legal and regulatory environments were insufficient, and recommended a new directive with specific requirements for high volume hydraulic fracturing to address: "environmental risks and impacts"; allay "public concerns", and; "enable investments". [49] <---to help inlcusion below---> }the definition of hydraulic fracturing to more than 1000m of fluid per stage ot more than 10,000m in total. Done In addition conditions were attached that mean no hydraulic fracturing can take place at a depth shallower than 1000m, Done and that soil and air monitoring must be put in place. Done 'The associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within protected groundwater source areas' Done <---END---> The
Infrastructure Act 2015 Section 50 is a legislative bill covering aspects of "associated hydraulic fracturing" (unconventional means) for extracting onshore shale/tight oil and shale gas.
citation needed The act defined "associated hydraulic fracturing", also known as "high-volume hydraulic fracturing" as "more than 1000m3 of fluid per stage, and; more than 10,000m3 in total". Other legal requirements include a range of conditions that operators must comply with: "environmental impacts of development"; 12 months of groundwater methane level monitoring prior to "associated" (high-volume) hydraulic fracturing; "community benefits" and "prohibiting hydraulic fracturing in protected areas" before the Secretary of State can give consent to hydraulic fracturing Cite error: The CriticismThe RS/RAE report was critical of current regulation which failed to ensure independence of the well examiner scheme by ensuring that the well examiner was independent of the operating company. [51] The government responded: "there are a few well operators who wish to use in-house examiners, and that option is legally open to them if they can fulfil the DCR (Design and Construction Regulations) requirements of an appropriate level of impartiality and independence from any aspects of the well design/construction/operation."(paraphrase this instead of using quote) [9]: 3 In June 2015, the UK regulations for hydraulic fracturing were criticised by the chemicals policy charity, CHEM Trust, [52] who argued they were not sufficiently protective, and raised concerns about the reductions in funding for the regulators of fracking, like the Environment Agency. [53] The UK onshore oil and gas industry association, UKOOG, challenged the CHEM Trust analysis, [54] and CHEM Trust [55] responded. [56] |
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
PHE did not comment on the Medact report in this document. The Council commented: Many objectors refer to the 2015 report of the public health charity Medact. Medact say the risks and serious nature of the hazards associated with fracking, coupled with the concerns and uncertainties about the regulatory system, indicate that shale gas development should be halted until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment is undertaken. The Medact report has not produced new epidemiological research but has reviewed published literature and has requested short papers from relevant experts in particular subject areas. It has also interviewed academics and experts. Unfortunately, one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report's six chapters – chapters 2, 4 and 5) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. Another contributor to the report (chapter 3) has previously expressed firm views on shale gas and has objected to this application. This has led to questions from some quarters about the report's objectivity.In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the County Council should attach to the report.
RAEreport
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).OOGSG Aug16
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
DECCreg
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |publisher=
at position 15 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 116 (
help)
The guidelines should be clarified to ensure the well examiner is an employee of a separate company. The independence of the scheme must not be compromised.
EAGuide2013
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I dont have much issue with the first section Regulation, though I fail to see the reason for a change to that. What is there already covers that. I have problems with the fact that little prominence is given to the key points in the EA Guidance doc published less than a month ago. In 'legislation' it should be mentioned. Strictly the EA Guidance is not legislation. In that case the title needs a change. 'What the EA require' would help, with a separate section on legislation. Why is a dated Jan 2014 comment from the EU saying regulations need to be looked at of any relevance when these regulations have just been issued, after extensive public consultation? That should be the main thrust of this section. The Chemtrust report also fails to understand how regulation works. 'Guidance' is issued as a way seeing what will or will not be acceptable, to obtain a licence. Failure to either follow guidance or or propose an acceptable method means that a licence will not be issued. Use of 'Best Available Technique' IS a legal requirement BTW. Perhaps I have problems with the prominence given to the Chemtrust report in this. Reading comments about 'Hazardous chemicals' immediately should ring alarm bells. They are not permitted as can be seen in the [ Chemicals'] There is no need for opinion on that, it is simply the law (EU and UK) and as such it is not a POV. The Chemtrust report also fails to understand how regulation works. 'Guidance' is issued as a way seeing what will or will not be acceptable, to obtain a licence. Chemtrust seem to think its not legally enforceable. Failure to either follow guidance or or propose an acceptable method means that a licence will not be issued. Thats why it received such a pounding from UKOOG. Its an advocacy piece, and fails to take account of EU and UK law. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Chemtrust seem to think its not legally enforceable. Its as if they havent bothered to check these basic things.
I have little problem with the Chemtrust/UKOOG rebuttal/Chemtrust response being there, just NOT in a chapter about regulation. Why is there such a long section on 'criticism'? especially as its based on a dated and now irrelevant report from the EU. There is already a comment on the RAE requirement for a so called 'independent' well surveyor in the original writing. There is a problem here and this was noted by the the House of Lords in 2013. As a WP:NPOV editor I gave it due prominence. This is open to abuse and thats why I highlighted it. Please do not change this Luther Blissetts unless you get some consensus. To me you appear to be presenting some anti frack lines, that do not hold water when examined by scientists, or regulators. When I write or comment what I do is give links to proper information. Its all I have ever done. Kennywpara ( talk) 09:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Available Techniques (BAT) that you should use to meet regulatory requirements".
I have removed the maintenance tag. It has been on there for 6 months and I and others have tried to sort out the real and in some cases imaginary issues. I will continue to look at a few minor outstanding issues and I hope other editors will too. Could I suggest that if there are particular issues with a chapter, then that chapter should be flagged with a maintenance tag, rather than the whole article. This page should not be a blog for anti activism. Neither should it be a blinkered pro industry mouthpiece. It should be a balanced and authoritative page, with references to reliable sources. I hope it meets that standard. Just like any other Wiki page in fact! Kennywpara ( talk) 07:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)