[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:Barnett Shale

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Meerwind7 in topic resource or extraction values questionable
Learn more about this page

Royalties

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have been told that my house is in the Barnett shale area and that we will be getting compensated for the Gas drilling. How can I find out for sure? (12:01:10 2005-11-30)

Answer: Check the Royalty Owners of Texas discussion forum at

Blumtexas 07:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maps

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Comment: This article needs some maps. A map showing the location of drillsites would be helpful, along with a generalized cross-section through the Ft. Worth Basin showing the position of the Barnett Shale ~~zyzzy2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyzzy2 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Comment

edit

Don't allow them to drill under your house. It's gonna destroy your property value to have a giant rig behind your house and natural gas drilling will poison your water supply. - Simeon (21:26:01 2008-03-01)

Impacts

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article does not discuss any of the negative impacts of drilling in residential neighborhoods -- either environmental or related to decreases in property values. It obviously is being written and maintained by people with a vested interest in promoting drilling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.50.33 (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

clearly. and here you have one of the major drawbacks of wikipedia: paid editing. gas exploration companies and advocacy groups have paid staff editing this page (and most others related to natural gas drilling), while those whose neighborhoods and property have been ruined must compete with them pro bono. hollow PR shill companies generate "research" which can then be cited authoritatively, further skewing the debate. wikipedia has a policy to address problems like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_avoid_COI_edits tellingly, it consists of a mild, toothless admonition that editors avoid conflict of interest. wikipedia has something in common with democracy in general, apparently: a giant loophole for cash that completely queers the deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.198.182 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article also fails to discuss the increase of earthquake activity in the region after Frakking began. This has lead to Cleburne Texas establishing a commission to study the relation between the drilling & frequent earthquakes. Kenalynn —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC).Reply
edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To the anonymous PenTeleData user at 24.152.204.190: Please stop adding that commercial link to this and other oil shale pages. If you have any non-commercial sites to recommend, please add them; the articles would benefit. (Your blog with Google ads doesn't count as non-commercial.) Yasha1969 (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

extensive editing by drilling advocates and my response.

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

when i first read this article, i found an entirely uncritical industry advocacy page with demonstrably false claims concerning compensation for mineral rights owners, the dangers of drilling for and transporting gas. no mention, for example, was made of an extensive history of tests done by the TCEQ, nor the debate between the TCEQ and the EPA over this issue. rather than spend all my time battling pr departments and web business folk at gas exploration companies, i made a few edits, and then solicited the help of staff at the Fort Worth Weekly and the Fort Worth Star Telegram.

since then, numerous misleading edits have been added of the "report the controversy" variety, and studies cited in foot- and endnotes which were directly commissioned by exploration companies or industry advocacy groups. i have no objection to opposing viewpoints in this article, however the net effect of these changes has been a reference for the people of fort worth that is essentially designed to mislead them for the purpose of favorable treatment in local politics and in the signing of gas company leases.

repeated reverts of edits have claimed that the page is too long as the result of extensive section on the economic and environmental effects of drilling, and that such material should be the subject of another (certainly less viewed) page. the main Barnett Shale page would presumably deal strictly with the geological formation. none of the reverted edits, however, exclude the economic and technological data provided by early pro-industry authors.

if that is the consensus, i propose that ALL material not related to the Barnett Shale geological formation be removed to a separate article devoted to the issues related to drilling in the Shale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theotocopolis (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are a couple of issues: first is the introduction of identical edits by multiple editors without substantive discussion, using extracts from copyrighted sources without appropriate attribution. The attribution can be corrected, and inexperienced editors may be forgiven if they don't have the hang of referencing. The second issue is that the edits swing the pendulum in the opposite direction, leading to the article becoming an overtly anti-drilling advocacy piece. A more measured approach is needed to maintain WP:NPOV. Acroterion (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)I actually wouldn't mind that. We just have to make sure that Drilling issues in the Barnett Shale doesn't become a coatrack, but at least that article could then stand or fall on its own. BTW I want to thank you for actually coming to discuss it now. The meatpuppet IP with abusive edit summaries wasn't really helping "your side" (whether or not they were actually associated with you). Syrthiss (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have no opinion concerning pro-or-anti drilling, but I do see the article turning into a platform for anti-drilling advocacy. The pre-existing article appears to be reasonably neutral to an outside eye. A daughter article would not be permitted to become a free-fire zone for advocacy on either side. The main article would still need a summary of the dispute, sourced and neutrally discussed. As Syrthiss mentions, please review WP:COATRACK, and thanks for coming here to discuss constructively. It's always better to hash it out here and reach a mutually acceptable result that complies with WP policy. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
the "pre-existing article" still contains many of my edits. however, while i agree that the ensuing material was overlong (much of it not my edits), the current effect is still misleading. i believe you when you say you have no dog in this fight, however much of what remains is unsourced and not questioned, for example, "In 2005–2007 horizontal drilling in the Barnett Shale extended south into Johnson, Hill, and Bosque counties, with a 100 percent success rate on completed wells." when one side of a dialectic is manufactured, the result is not balance. for example, "A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article reported over 100,000 new leases were recorded in Tarrant County in 2007. Terms of recent leases have included $15,000 per acre ($37,000/ha) and a 25% royalty for homeowners in Ryan Place, Mistletoe Heights, and Berkley on Fort Worth's south side, and $22,500 per acre and a 25% royalty for a group of homeowners in south Arlington." this is a legitimate, sourced tidbit from a newspaper often criticized as pro-drilling. while it is not my place to force Wikipedia to adopt or not adopt its position, references to subsequent articles in the Fort Worth Weekly, reporting that the above claims were not paid or were paid late, were removed. if the article is not to become too long, and a "stub" is unacceptable, and sloppy pasting (some of that may've been mine, sorry) is unacceptable, it's difficult for me to see another option than funding a phony research firm for the purpose of providing footnotes. a "B-Class" article can be sincere or disingenuous, true or false, just like anything else.
and stop thanking me for posting in the correct forum. you're starting to sound like Persian bureaucrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theotocopolis (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Your observations are correct: it is possible to have an apparently fine article that on close inspection by someone familiar with the subject, is not. Gutting it is not, however, appropriate. Correcting it, in collaboration with other editors, is. Regarding research, you should stick as closely as possible to major third-party media for sources. Is there coverage in Dallas? Other Texas papers? I seem to recall something recently in The Economist: as I remember, it was rather optimistic.
We have been thanking you so much because it's a regrettably rare occurrence, and because we wish to encourage you. Consider yourself all thanked and encouraged: we'll stop now. Acroterion (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fracking the Neighborhood: Reluctant Activists and Natural Gas Drilling by Jessica Smartt Gullion, 2015, MIT Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barnett Shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Barnett Shale/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Answer: Check the Royalty Owners of Texas discussion forum at Blumtexas 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barnett Shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Barnett Shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

resource or extraction values questionable

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article says "In January 2013, the Barnett produced 4.56 billion cubic feet per day". That is equal to 0,13 km3 (cubic kilometers) per day or 47 km3 annually. Above it is said that "The field is thought to have 2.5×1012 cu ft (71 km3) of recoverable natural gas"

Both together would mean that the field would have been exhausted after 18 months at that extraction rate, which certainly was not the case. So where is the mistake? Meerwind7 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barnett_Shale&oldid=1258760139"