Talk:East Midlands Oil Province

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nottinghamshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nottinghamshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NottinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject NottinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject NottinghamshireNottinghamshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Lincolnshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily Mail sources[edit]

Sources cited in the Daily Mail article include:

Andrew Austin, chief executive of IGas Energy
Electrical engineer Tim Downing
Local Jayne Hanson
the Royal Society
the Royal Academy of Engineering
farmer Philip Ponsford

The article has a definite point of view, but it does contain the information that fracked wells are producing next to a nature reserve without any obvious problems. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Bauder: I have replied below regarding the Beckingham West section. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terms for 'New' and 'Old' Fracking technologies[edit]

Looking at the Hydraulic fracturing page, which itself has been questioned on its neutrality, there seems to be no clear terminology to distinguish traditional Fracking and the later developed technology. According to that article the first commercial hydraulic fracking was in 1949.

Massive hydraulic fracturing was introduced in 1968. Horizontal drilling become common in late 1980s. Its unclear when the use of slickwater began (chemicals added to the water, usually toxic).

Are Shale Fracking (new) and Fracking (old) adequate terms? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality - Beckingham West example[edit]

The subsection East Midlands Oil Province#Beckingham West (Nottinghamshire) states:

The gas is piped to a nearby power plant. The wells in the field have been fracked to improve production without resulting in any environmental impact; however, the procedures used for fracking in Beckingham were older techniques which may not pose the danger modern fracking for shale gas pose.

Firstly, the Daily Mail article referenced is disingenuous 50-year-old-fracking-site-makes-mockery-Balcombe-zealots .... Either they don't know the new technology is very different or they are deliberately showing protesters in a bad light.

In the second reference it makes clear, that the terms Fracking and Shale Fracking imply two very different technologies Fracking confusion (BBC).

The sentence should be rewritten as little environmental impact was expected at Beckingham West. The Daily Mail reference should be removed. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text still says "This method does not pose the danger of modern fracking for shale gas", which isn't in the cited reference and implies that all such fracking is dangerous, which it clearly isn't. I suggest replacing that with "The wells in the field were fracked using an older less controversial technique than that used in modern fracking for shale gas". Mikenorton (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton: The reference is the 'Fracking confusion' BBC article. The point to a convey is that it isn't the same technique and the modern causes more disruption. All modern widespread hydraulic fracturing for the extraction of shale gas does more more disruption compared to the old technique. I've switch the phrase to one the article mentions. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wells in the field were fracked using the older less controversial technique. This method does not compare to widespread hydraulic fracturing for the extraction of shale gas.