Tonkawa Massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Name?

Why is Chesapeake based in Oklahoma? That makes no sense. --AW (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found, and added to the article. The founder just likes the Chesapeake. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it not be based in Oklahoma? It makes perfect sense that it is based there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.126.54 (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bauer editor

I'm concerned about the new editor (laurabauer, I believe). All edits by this user have been to the Chesapeake article, and the edits basically turned the page into a PR sheet for the company. I'm hesitant to reverse the edits because they do update some information, but there is also a lot of collateral damage in terms of turning the page into a Chesapeake promo. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, she is Chesapeake's Supervisor of Publications: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/laura-bauer/a/83b/713 She has made recent edits and deleted citations based on facts and sound references. Only reason she appears to have made the edits is because they put Chesapeake in negatively light, even though true. She is claiming a recent report by SAIC as being independent, yet Louis A. Simpson is a Director for both Chesapeake and SAIC. He accepted the position with Chesapeake in January 2011, although he may not have actually come aboard until June 2011[1]. The report and study was still being conducted through June-July 2011, while he was a Director for both companies. He is still a Director for both companies as of today, I also cited a direct e-mail from Jim Gipson, Chesapeake's Director of Media Relations, with full header and whois information showing it came from Chesapeake and his e-mail address. This e-mail stated the report was not independent and never characterized as such, yet it is being marketed as such throughout their Web site and by their PR people like Laura Bauer. She removed this content stating it was not properly sourced because she apparently does not understand how e-mail and the Internet works. How is an exact quote from Chesapeake's very own Director of Media Relations considered not properly sourced? 209.74.45.21 (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am a Chesapeake representative, something I obviously have not attempted to hide. I am checking into the statements you’ve made to determine their validity. My objective is to ensure statements made about the company are true and verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.64.3 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks legit to me. Simple enough to talk to or call John to verify. Certainly their network and his account was not hacked. Badmon4ward (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that concern over a year ago. Since then I had looked her up and noticed she does, in fact, work for Chesapeake. As a matter of full disclosure, my wife used to work at Chesapeake. While I think Bauer's edits seem biased at times, I also have to say that there are multiple IP address editors, possibly all the same real-life person, who seem to be editing the article solely for the purpose of adding even the most trivial of negative publicity regarding Chesapeake. Surely, there is some middle ground. This is an encyclopedia article, not a chronology of sins, big and small. Chicken Wing (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, an e-mail would probably not be a very good source for Wikipedia. The best sources are third-party, reliable sources. It's not to say that the e-mail isn't accurate, it's just not easily verifiable and to some extent might represent original research / original synthesis. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That e-mail is easily verifiable and it shows it was sent from Chesapeake's network. You may consider the negative publicity trivial, but everything she deleted was referenced from newspapers. If their PR people put out lies and irrelevant tid-bits, it's really no different, except the negative is true and their tid-bits are just PR fluff. The e-mail source was only posted to disprove their lies about the report, which they continually edited, and still state as being independent on their own Web site. For some, Wikipedia is the only outlet to truths. The actions of their PR people show everyone that they do not want anyone to know the truth. The report being conducted by a company that is directed by a Chesapeake board member is an ethics violation based on SAIC's own code of conduct. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but an e-mail just isn't considered a reliable source. It is considered original research, especially in the context that you have used it. You are basically "synthesizing" several sources, the e-mail combined with published material, to create an argument. That's original research. If the e-mail had been quoted in a respected journalistic publication, that would be different. Another issue is that chronicling every fine, lawsuit, spill, or negative incident involving Chesapeake is not what an encyclopedia is for. It doesn't matter how well-sourced all the incidents are. Posting every single one of them gives undue weight to the issue. Please see WP:SOURCES, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:SOAP. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't chronicle every fine, lawsuit, or spill (someone else did), but I do believe that it is important information and should probably be changed to their environmental and safety record, similar to BP. I believe such events are more important than mentioning being featured in Forbes or on Mad Money. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m careful not to flippantly remove content, but in doing research, an email does not constitute a verifiable, third-party source. You can find Wikipedia’s rules here on verifiability and no original research. I will be removing the email on these grounds. If his statement was published in a news article by a reputable source, then it would qualify. Newspapers are responsible to get their facts straight and are accountable for their actions. As an independent researcher, you have no accountability for your statements. As I included in my removal, Simpson was NOT a Chesapeake board member during the time of testing, which concluded May 2, 2011, and is available here.

In reference to your statement that I deleted newspaper content, what did I delete that was from a newspaper and was still relevant? Newspaper references are valid as long as they are relevant. As soon as there's new news or a court decision that is more relevant and an accurate depiction of the situation, then that is what should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurabauer (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You or someone else deleted content about the thousands of gallons of fracking fluid that was spilled, which is the reason why Maryland is suing your company. What you are referencing is only the initial report. The final report and testing was still being conducted throughout June and July while he was a Director as shown here: http://www.chk.com/News/Articles/Documents/Final_Water_Well_Redacted.pdf The report itself is dated and signed July while he was a Director for both companies. He accepted the position in January 2011. I and others have been urging newspapers and citizens to report on this, so you may have your third-party verifiable resource in the future, although it may be difficult, since Chesapeake funds most of the media in areas it is drilling in. The report your company posted is not relevant as it is not independent, and Louis A. Simpson stands to benefit from it. Also, the e-mail was provided to me by a third party, so it is not original research and is verifiable by IP and message ID. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.chk.com/news/articles/pressreleases/01-24-11%20simpson%20-%20final.pdf


Request for Third Party With No Relation to Chesapeake Energy

Can someone get LauraBauer to stop editing and stating it's an independent report? Your own Director of Media Relations has already said it wasn't. If he says it's not independent, then why are you? Verify that with him and speak the truth! I have state representatives on this, so you will have references very soon. Further, how can you edit it and say that the study was completed on May 2, 2011 before Louis A. Simpson was a director, when the FINAL study is clearly dated July, 13 2011, while he was a Director? He accepted the position in January 2011, based on Chesapeake's own press release. If you actually read the report, you can see that sampling and testing was still occurring throughout June 2011, while he was a Director. Why do you continue to lie? You do realize that your edit history is retained and showing the true colors of your company by trying to hide the truth, do you not?209.74.45.21 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, people. I'm here because of a request for a third opinion. Firstly, I need to clarify that the third opinion page is only for disputes between two users; when three or more are involved, and normal discussion is not working, you should go to the dispute resolution noticeboard or mediation.

As for the dispute, I think the major problem here is to do with conflict of interest. It seems all/most editors involved have some link with the company, which makes things difficult. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be edited with a neutral point of view. It seems to me that the conflicts of interests here have got in the way of that. Therefore, I suggest that everyone makes sure they are familiar with our WP:NPOV and WP:COI policies and I strongly recommend that anyone with any connections to the company in question abstains from editing this article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the dispute is between myself and LauraBauer, who is the Supervisor of Publications for Chesapeake Energy. I am not disputing any past edits or the opinions of ChickenWing, who also claims to have direct ties to the company through his wife. I am only disputing LauraBauer's repeated edits with cited dates based on an initial report and not the final report as a source for claiming the report was independent. An e-mail received from a third party, with IP verification tied to Chesapeake, which was sent from their Director of Media Relations, Jim Gipson, was also cited as a reference and he stated himself that the report was never characterized as independent when asked about the Director conflict. You can look at the final report yourself here (http://www.chk.com/News/Articles/Documents/Final_Water_Well_Redacted.pdf), which is dated July 13, 2011 and prepared by SAIC, a company who she is claiming being independent even though Louis A. Simpson is a Director for both Chesapeake and SAIC. The final report also shows that sampling was being done throughout June 2011, while Louis A. Simpson was a director. She immediately posted this as an independent report when it was released to the public in October 2011. Their Web site continues to state it as an independent report as well and the majority of the public is unaware of the potential ethics violation with Louis A. Simpson. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:3O exists to get a third opinion - regardless of whom your dispute was with, you had a third opinion in the form of Chicken Wing. The last link you provided me with did not work, so I shall comment on the sources I have seen thus far. I see a number of problems with the report. The report is original research and an unreliable primary source; in addition, it is not very reliable, as the person who carried it out has links with the company, so a conflict of interest exists. I'm not sure who published the report, but if it came from anyone with links to the company, it becomes even less reliable. The e-mail is also original research and unreliable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you suggest that it be changed from "independent report" to "unreliable report" due to conflicts of interest? SAIC published/filed the report through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and they have direct ties with Chesapeake as Louis A. Simpson directs both companies and did so while the report was still not finalized in July 2011. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it should be changed to unreliable report, but it cannot be categorized as an independent report. are there any other options?Millertime246 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the whole In The News section is rather problematic. They all seem to be non-notable news stories which, according to WP:NOTNEWS, should not be included in the article; I would suggest that the whole section is removed. There is probably scope for a Controversies section, provided it is written neutrally and, vitally, anything put into it is actually notable. To be specific, the report in question should only be included if you can find reference to it from a reliable, third-party source, beyond general news coverage. If not, I think we should keep it out. If no one objects, then I shall remove the In the News section. We can then look at creating a neutral section regarding any notable controversies (if any exist). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've removed the 'In the News' section. I think we now need to be selective as to what we incorporate into the article. I think a 'Controversies' section (or something to that ends) would be beneficial, if there are things to go in it. From everything that was in the news section, are there any events which are notable? That means that have had coverage in reliable, third-party sources beyond normal news coverage. If people can provide events with sources, then they can go into the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just tried posting an update, but you edited in the mean time. The report was done based on a natural gas well blowout in Bradford County, PA, which was national news. The million dollar fines related to well contamination and other environmental problems made national news. The donations to PA Governor, Tom Corbett, were also national news as he continues to deregulate and not tax the industry, which some say is because he received millions from the gas industry. Pretty much everything other than their environmental/safety record was not really news. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the ones which were national news, could you provide a source (or a few sources) to verify this, please? If it was national news, then there should at least be some national news coverage. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm off for the night; I'll check back tomorrow to see how we're getting on. Thanks to everyone involved for discussing this in a civil manner - I always appreciate people who will work together, rather than fighting. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some references, which support information that was already posted:
Bradford County Blowout:
Record Fine:
Asia/LNG Export Controversy & Debate:
Maryland lawsuit:
Other lawsuits related to leases:
Fires/Explosions, which they were fined for:
Overview of violations and fines from PADEP:
Tom Corbett Donations Controversy:
209.74.45.21 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ItsZippy for your intervention. I agree with removing the In the News section, as most of it is not appropriate for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Over the years, I’ve tried to minimize my edits to this section as I didn’t originate them and I want to present a neutral point of view, but as false accusations began surfacing, I would step in and tell the company’s perspective or update with more recent rulings or documentation. There are two sides to every story, and I don’t think Wikipedia is the place to argue them. I agree with your assessment to remove, as this page should focus on the company’s history and facts and not news bites and random articles, reports and rants that are immaterial to the company and have strong, conflicting opinions.

I agree that the disputed copy is a conflict of interest for both the anonymous user and myself. He has not identified himself, but his passion for this non-issue indicates that he has a vested interested in something. Also, I feel this anonymous user’s repetitive reference to my personal information is harassment and in violation of Wikipedia’s rules. His statement that I’ve lied is also libelous and unethical. Thanks again for your help and insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurabauer (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it is a conflict of interest for myself. I have no ties to the company. I have identified myself by IP. If you consider the truth and holding corporations and government accountable for their actions a vested interest, then yes, I do have one. I am sorry that you feel what I have posted is harassment. You are using your real name and said yourself that you were not trying to hide the fact that you work for Chesapeake. Why do you feel it is suddenly harassment? It is all public information, made public by yourself and your company. If you feel that it is an outing, then it was an oversight on my part, but I only posted due to your repeated edits and speculation about your account and edits being a conflict of interest. I am also sorry that you feel that I have made libelous and unethical statements, however it is the truth based on what your own Director of Media Relations stated. The report is clearly dated July 13, 2011 while you claim Louis A. Simpson was a Director in June 2011. The report you continue to reference was only the initial study and not the final report, which shows sampling still taking place while he was a Director. I don't see how you can refute that or think it is libelous. Wikipedia is not meant for PR campaigns, and due to your direct ties with the company, you are not supposed to be editing or contributing to the article whatsoever. I requested the third party opinion to stop your edits. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, the 3O board is not the place to get someone to stop editing due to a COI; we have the COI noticeboard for that. "3O" doesn't mean third-party opinion, it just means "third opinion" for a pure content dispute. Writ Keeper (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we first deal with the harassment issue, so we can nip that in the bud, please? Our policy on outing suggests that it should be avoided, but gives leeway when considering a potential conflict of interest, once an individual has identified themselves. Laurabauer has identified herself to the extend that she has used her name as her Wikipedia username; however, the IP user has presented what appears to be additional personal information (the accuracy of this information has still not been attested to). Laurabauer, you are entitled to as much privacy as you wish to have on Wikipedia - could I suggest you use this opportunity to disclose any information you wish to disclose and withhold what you would like to remain private? That should help clear up the COI problems. Though technically what the IP user did was in contravention of policy, I believe that he did it in good faith and was prompted to do so by the nature of Laura's edits and name. It was probably misjudged, but not harassment.

As for the content, thanks to the IP user for providing those sources. I shall take a look through them and add what I think notable to the article page. If you wish to contribute, please do, but do ensure that you strictly adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the sources and added what I think is notable in what I hope is a neutral tone. As I'm not familiar with that company, there may well be notable events which I have missed. If that is the case, please feel free to add them to the article, provided they are referenced and written with a neutral point of view. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the repeated links to personal information about me via LinkedIn and my title was inappropriate. I was not hiding my identity, but I do not wish my personal information and work history to be linked to from Wikipedia. I am considering changing my username to avoid putting myself at risk. In an attempt to be transparent, too much of my personal information was being linked to statements that I feel are untrue. I do not know the intention of the user, but I accept his statement that it was not his intention to cross a line and reveal more information about me than I had intended on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurabauer (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved your comment to below mine so that it does not interrupt what I was writing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern completely and agree that searching for your personal details and publishing them in that way did, as I said before, demonstrate a poor lack of judgement. As you are aware, conflict interest is an issue on this article - it would be helpful if you could let us know what links you have with the company. Of course, do not reveal anything you do not wish to; knowing where you stand will help us to improve the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your question, I do work for Chesapeake Energy Corporation. My objective for watching this page is to ensure it doesn't become a place for people to make false statements about the company. I also provide factual data that's included in Chesapeake's Annual Report or in an investor presentation. Before I visited this site, information was very old and not accurate. I understand that posts need to be from a neutral perspective and fact based. --Laura Bauer 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The logic in the Controversies posting is flawed. Please read my argument as to why this entry does not constitute a controversy. Unfortunately this spill occurred on the anniversary of the BP spill (which was a huge controversy) and is why I believe it received any coverage at all as there were NO injuries or adverse effects of this water spill. The date of the incident provided a strong news angle for Forbes and Huffington Post, which is why I believe it got any attention at all.

The first statement, “On April 19, 2011, the company lost control of a natural gas well in the Marcellus shale which was being fracture stimulated. This caused a large spill of salt water and chemicals from the well, into the surrounding countryside. The suspected cause was a cracked well casing.” This is a true incident that happened in Bradford County. I definitely don’t think it qualifies as a controversy. There was an accident, it was addressed and no one was hurt.

The second statement, “A report released by three Democrats in the United States House of Representatives said that millions of gallons of harmful chemicals and carcinogens has been injected into fracture stimulating wells.” The source is a Huffington Post article about the blowout and references a report that questions the safety of hydraulic fracturing, but there’s not any conclusive research or data. There’s also not a direct link to Chesapeake in the report, which DOES disclose its fracking chemicals at hydraulicfracturing.com and fracfocus.org. This is painting the entire industry with one paintbrush and isn’t an appropriate source for this entry.

The third statement, “By April 22, the leak had been stemmed.” Is in reference to the first sentence and all it is saying is the accident was resolved. The article continues to question the fracking issue, which I do not think belongs on Chesapeake’s page. It belongs on Hydraulic Fracturing or another entry, if anywhere.

The fourth sentence, “On May 2, the state of Maryland announced its intention to sue the company for violation Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act.” I don’t think an intention to sue is news worthy. There are many people intending to sue large corporations, and I don’t feel that this merits a controversy. I only think this should be included IF this goes to court.

Any incident, large or small, is unacceptable for Chesapeake. But I’m not requesting removing it from the Wikipedia site as an attempt to hide anything, but rather to put things in context. The reason it garnered such media attention is that a mirror incident of the BP spill, which occurred on the same day a year earlier. The BIG difference is that Chesapeake’s incident was contained within days and has no lasting damage. I don’t think that’s reason enough to include it on Chesapeake’s Wiki page.

What started this dispute was me stating that the SAIC report was independent. That issue, and the fact that SAIC is a VERY well respected company and to think a board member would influence the scientific findings is ridiculous to me, aside, the report states: None of the nearby private water wells was impacted by the event. There was minor impact to the land. There was minimal, temporary impact to a small tributary and Towanda Creek.

This issue is resolved and over. That’s why I don’t think it belongs here in any form.

Also, as fracking is a confusing issue for many. A report conducted by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania that came out yesterday affirms the safety of fracturing and drinking water: http://www.rural.palegislature.us/documents/reports/Marcellus_and_drinking_water_2011_rev.pdf. This DOES NOT belong on Chesapeake’s site, but it shows that research is being done to validate the safety of hydraulic fracturing, which is the issue I believe the user is really concerned about.

Please advise or share your insights as to whether or not you think this still constitutes a Controversy that would be included in an encyclopedia. I appreciate your guidance. --Laura Bauer 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurabauer (talk • contribs)

Not to be (too) flippant, but the War of 1812 is also resolved and over, and it has its own article. Wikipedia isn't about *current* issues, it's about *notable* issues. If a specific incident gained significant, independent third-party coverage, it generally warrants a mention on Wikipedia, regardless of that incident's effects. Any discussion of removal of content should center on the reliability, independence, significance, etc. of the sources, not whether the incident was resolved or whether it was harmful to people. I think the article is reasonable as it stands (or at least, that section of it). I would add that, just because it's labeled "Controversy" doesn't mean Chesapeake was in the wrong; it just means there was controversy about it, and the report to Congress seems like enough to warrant the term. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Writ Keeper. I don't think the War of 1812 analogy holds up very well, but that said, the "controversy" section is in general compliance with the way Wikipedia is run. If you work at Chesapeake, it's likely going to irritate you any time you see the section, but that goes for just about any article remotely related to a political issue -- in this case, energy and environmentalism. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not concerned with fracking. I am only concerned with misinformation. The findings in the report are unreliable and your company is using them to make it seem like a non-issue, just like you are trying to do the same. Had a truly independent study been done and found the same thing, then there wouldn't be a controversy. The impacts of the blowout may not be known for years to come. Also, if you research, SAIC has a great deal of controversy, fraud, and unethical practices surrounding itself, so I wouldn't necessarily consider them VERY well respected. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone is too antagonistic. "...[Y]our company is using them to make it seem like a non-issue, just like you are..." is quite accusatory and assumes bad faith with respect to the motives of others. Sentences like, "The impacts of the blowout may not be known for years to come," also appear to be more in line with political advocacy than with dealing with the facts as they are currently known. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not try to maintain any type of tone in my typing and believe you are reading into it too much by picking and choosing sentences. My whole argument is that NO FACTS are currently known about the impacts of the incident, other than a reported unknown number of dead amphibians in a nearby pond (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/harrisburg_politics/Chesapeake-resumes-fracking-in-PA-after-blow-out.html). I do not support politics, nor have any political motive, as I believe the United States does not truly practice a democracy, so practicing or believing in politics is pointless IMO. You have admitted ties to the company yourself, so I believe your arguments against me are biased anyway. I have no interest in Chesapeake Energy other than reporting the truth for all to know. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be avoided according to SAIC's own Code of Business Conduct of the Board of Directors (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDg5OTB8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1). It's a fact that Louis A. Simpson is currently a Director for both companies and was before the date of the final report and sampling. Because of that fact, the issue is truly not resolved or over as everything being cited in the report is unreliable. There was a lot of recent flooding in the area, so the impacts truly may not be known for years. That flooding has reportedly hurt the Chesapeake Bay, so I'd imagine the spill would have migrated all the way to there as well and no testing was done in that area to my knowledge. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text is a cold medium. When you type things here, you should consider its impact on the reader. When you again make a statement like "You have admitted ties to the company yourself, so I believe your arguments against me are biased anyway," you are being inflammatory. If you see specific edits that I have made that you feel were not proper, those edits should be addressed. Generally speaking, a user's critiques should be limited to edits and not the editors themselves. I would point to the fact that I am the person who originally brought up the problem with laurabauer editing the article. I'm actually trying to do you a small favor. If you build a reputation as an editor solely focused on being antagonistic on the Chesapeake Energy article, it'll become difficult for you to move forward editing Wikipedia without enduring more skepticism each time you edit. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel my opinion is inflammatory, and I pre-apologize for any future negative or angry emotions my text may bring you. I was not making critiques based on the editor. I was making them based on facts and the information posted. Her edits repeatedly stated that Louis A. Simpson was not a Director during the time of the study and report. She based that off the date of an initial report. One of the final reports is dated July 13, 2011 (http://www.chk.com/News/Articles/Documents/Final_Water_Well_Redacted.pdf) and another August 30, 2011 (http://www.chk.com/News/Articles/Documents/ATGAS_Initial_Site_Characterization_Report_Final_08292011.pdf). Both also show samples being taken during the time he was a Director. Further, she continued to edit and state the report as being independent even after it was made known that there was a clear conflict of interest by having SAIC perform the study and report when Chesapeake has a Director working for both companies. Everything I have posted was backed up by reliable references, other than the e-mail, which has their very own Director of Media Relations stating it was not an independent report. She also edited out the mentioning of toxic and hazardous chemicals even though they were mentioned in several existing references related directly to the content in question (http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2011/050211.html) (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-energy-pennsylvania-lawsuit-idUSTRE7437OR20110504) (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/22/us-chesapeake-blowout-idUSTRE73K5OH20110422). I would imagine that she is acting under official capacity for the company since she is making edits during what would be normal business hours. Based on the edits alone, the company is creating an appearance that they considered the spill to be minimal and that the chemicals involved were completely harmless. As much as the company would like to turn back time, they can't, and they have to deal with the facts. I would hope that all Wikipedia edits endure great skepticism. Everything I did was based on facts to report the truth. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this is our problem with your discussion style: you are assuming that she is acting on her company's behalf, which is not necessarily true. Most of my own edits are during normal business hours, yet my edits do not represent anyone but myself, officially or otherwise. You claim that her edits are the company's attempts to whitewash its history, but you don't know that to be true. Your assumptions in that regard are not based on her edits. Granted, she has a self-admitted COI, and her edits have generally been supportive of the company, and so we must be vigilant about slanted editing (and have indeed advised her to step aside for that reason). BUT, she appears to be staying within the bounds of neutrality in her edits. Her recent edits, in large part, have been quite reasonable, addressing real issues with the sources supporting the text of the article. She hasn't removed anything that's gained consensus on this page. In short, her edits seem to stand up to the scrutiny they certainly deserve to receive as potential COI edits. Until she makes edits that clearly reflect her COI, we should not assume that her intentions are nefarious.
That said, I do think her most recent edit (removing the words toxic, hazardous) was probably on the reckless side of bold, and so, I'd like to politely suggest we discuss any substantive (i.e. not copyediting) additions to that section before adding to the main article (not just from LauraBauer, but any of us). To that end, I'm going to make a new subsection; the indent colons are getting pretty ridiculous here. Note, of course, that my suggestion is in no way binding; do whatever you think is best. I just think it would be better to talk these things over; it'll reduce the amount of tension in the air and give us a chance to collaboratively determine what's best for the article without the possibility of turning this into a slow edit war. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I thought that was the whole point of starting the discussion - to discuss and agree upon edits before making them. If she is using company resources and getting paid, then that assumption would most likely be correct. Regardless, it is the perception that she has created, not just for myself, but for anyone who reads this. Had she remained anonymous, that perception could have been avoided, but I don't care to discuss it further. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Huffington Post article that referencees the three House Democrats report as the report is totally out of context for this incident. The report is in reference to wells fracked from 2006-09 and this incident occurred in 2011. There's also no tie to Chesapeake in the article, so I don't see how it applies to the statement. --Laura Bauer 12:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurabauer (talk • contribs)

Actually it is not out of context and there is a tie to Chesapeake because the ATGAS well was using some of the same carcinogenic chemicals identified in the report, such as 2-Butoxyethanol(http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php?file_id=20823499857988740385&t=2082349985798874038505591). You were asked to refrain from editing. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 209, in this case, I agree with Laura; the section she removed clearly implied that the congressmen's report addressed the Chesapeake incident specifically, which, after reading it, it did not. Her removal of that sentence was totally appropriate. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that, while it's strongly recommended that she refrain from editing, nobody has actually asked her to stop to my knowledge, and if she can continue to make edits that are fair and neutral (as this most recent edit was), she is not prohibited from doing so. She has admitted her COI, so her edits will stand to greater scrutiny. I would add, it seems like you (209) have a bit of an axe to grind; please keep the discussion on the content, not the contributor. Don't dismiss what she says purely because she said it; analyze it on its own merits first and foremost.
As an aside, I'd like to apologize to all involved for saying the section seemed acceptable without actually inspecting the sources myself. I've fixed a duplicated URL in the references for that section, as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did analyze it, and based on the chemicals listed in disclosure for the well, it directly coincides with what the report was about. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I saw you removed the edit I made. I had to upload to tinyupload because the document can not be linked directly. It is from the source LauraBauer mentioned. You can find the same content here by searching Pennsylvania and Bradford County: https://www.hydraulicfracturingdisclosure.org/fracfocusfind/Default.aspx The same chemicals are also disclosed in the report: http://www.chk.com/News/Articles/Documents/ATGAS_Initial_Site_Characterization_Report_Final_08292011.pdf 209.74.45.21 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you posted that source in good faith, but I'm sure you appreciate the need for verifiability and reliability of our sources on Wikipedia, especially on a subject that has undergone some debate. A self-upload site such as tinyupload.com is dubious as a source; even if the document appears to be genuine, we can't tell if it actually is given the information in the article. We can't expect readers to have to find a url in the talk page of an article, then search for a document in said url, then compare that document to the one cited to be sure the source is genuine.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the chemicals that Chesapeake uses in fracking are not unique to them; they are used in most applications of it. Thus, information like this belongs on the fracking page itself. This is especially true of the Congressional report; it does not specifically discuss this Chesapeake incident (and indeed, it would be impossible for it to do so), so it either belongs on the fracking page, as it is general information about fracking, or on the pages of the specific incidents it references; either way, it doesn't belong here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are wrong as some companies consider their fluids proprietary. I was not trying to post information about fracking in general, but information about the specific toxic chemicals that were released directly with this specific spill. That chemical list is for the exact specific well that had the blowout, so I believe it to be relevant information as it deals directly with the well and the incident being mentioned. I will try to analyze their HTTP request to provide a direct download, but may not be able to if they check a referrer.209.74.45.21 (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a way to link directly to it, then I'd agree that it would be good information to have, as it's specific to the incident. My removal was based on the questionable source, and if you can fix that, then it should be fine to have in the article. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'll be able to. If I can create a script that does a POST request to their script which serves the PDF, would that be suitable? It would still be served from their server, but through a third party script that only makes the request. There are also what I believe to be copies and drafts of the chemical list for the well in question hosted on these sites: http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-05/177396660-24152558.PDF & http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Chesapeake_frackingfluid_disclosure.pdf & http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/chesapeake-hydrofracking-disclosure The site fracfocus.org has direct ties to Chesapeake Energy and other gas companies, as it is run by Brothers & Company (http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/fracfocus.org), who has created pro-drilling commercials for Chesapeake Energy (http://www.broco.com/). Once you add up all of this information, you see there is a great deal of controversy surrounding this incident and the industry as a whole. Due to fracfocus.org's ties with the industry, I believe they purposefully prevent direct links to their reports in hopes to prevent dissemination and create a false sense of industry accountability. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I go to bed and I miss a long discussion. To summarise my views on a long discussion... I think Laura's removal of the Congressional report was reasonable, as it wasn't specifically related to Chesapeake. I do, however, believe that the incident itself should be included in the article, as it received substantial coverage, demonstrated by the sources provided. As Writ Keeper said, a tinyupload reference is by no means reliable - if a reliable version of the source can be found, that would be appropriate, provided it comes from a reliable publisher. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit looks good, with a reliable source. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with putting the chemical names in the entry, we voluntarily disclose our chemicals on fracfocus.org, but the adjectives “hazardous and toxic” is subjective. The linked report does not include an analysis of toxicity. In fact the first chemical mentioned is described on Wikipedia as, "a relatively nonvolatile, inexpensive solvent with modest surfactant properties." The linked Forbes article refers to the spill as “Thousands of gallons of salt water, likely mixed with minute quantities of chemicals used in the controversial but long-established fracking process.” There’s no sourcing for these descriptors and I will be removing as they are not supported and not neutral. --Laura Bauer 20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurabauer (talk • contribs)

I disagree. Even the Wikipedia entries state that it can cause tumors, lead to hypotension, metabolic acidosis, hemolysis, pulmonary edema and coma. Methanol also has a high toxicity in humans. The original Democrat report which was edited out, states similar. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
209, we can't really use Wikipedia as a reliable source; I think Laura has a valid complaint. If the issue is the hazardousness of the chemicals released, we need to find a source that asserts this. If there is one directly linked to the spill, that would be ideal. However, it seems to me that any source which notes those two chemicals as hazardous would be ok (unless this specific spill is different enough to require the source to be directly related). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 08:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references that mention toxic and hazardous directly related to the spill as well as OSHA's list of hazardous chemicals. Some of the other references already used mention the terms as well. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that seems sufficient. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section discussion

I think the use of "toxic, hazardous" is a bit overstated. While methanol is pretty dangerous, the other chemical doesn't appear to be exceptionally so, and the two adjectives make it seem pretty dire. Perhaps we can compromise and just say "hazardous?" Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me 209.74.45.21 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to controversy about shale gas being a Ponzi Scheme? There has been some national news about Chesapeake Energy overstating natural gas reserves as well as underpaying or not paying royalties to lease owners(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?pagewanted=all) & (http://www.chk.com/news/articles/pages/news_2011062702.aspx). Class action lawsuits like this one are starting to popup (http://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/Coffey%20v%20Chesapeake.pdf). According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we have roughly 100 years of natural gas left (undiscovered and proven reserves) based on 2010 usage/demand, which is currently considered low (http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=natural_gas_reserves).

Addition about largest PA DEP fine ever? I think this is significant and relevant as Chesapeake Energy was fined over $1 million for contaminating the water supplies of 16 families. This was the largest fine the PA DEP has ever issued to an oil and gas company. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/chesapeake-energy-gas-drilling-pa-fine_n_863509.html) & (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/05/corbetts_dep_slaps_chesapeake.html). Although the company has agreed to settle the matter, it hasn’t admitted that it caused the contamination. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fine is reasonable to include. My initial reaction to the Ponzi scheme story is to not include it, especially since it's not a Ponzi scheme, but I'll have to look at the sources more in-depth before I form a final opinion about that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to my attention that the cause of the Atgas blowout was not caused by a cracked casing as newspapers earlier reported, but from a failed seal assembly in the wellhead. The best source I have is the ATGAS Initial Site Characterization Report, which details the incident, "The well control incident began shortly after 11:00 pm on April 19, 2011 following the apparent failure of a wellhead valve flange connection." In full disclosure, I want to explain this here since some contributors do not consider this report independent. I'm not making that statement here, I'm just referencing the cause of the incident. If someone has a better source or would like to discuss, please discuss it here. Thank you. Creativejuice (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am revising the first sentence under “Chesapeake - Encana's Alleged Collusion” as it suggests there is a connection between the CEO’s resignation and the investigation. There’s no source that supports this claim. I will change it to read, “In January 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice probed whether Encana Corp., Canada's largest natural gas company, had ‘illegally colluded with Chesapeake Energy Corp to lower the price of Michigan exploration lands.’ ” Creativejuice (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of According to...

So, after giving the article an initial copyediting passthrough, I removed to instances of the formulation "According to x,(citation) so and so happened" in favor of "so and so happened(citation)". I was hesitant to make this change, as both instances noted that the source used was one published by Chesapeake itself; I figured that the citation is enough evidence for that, but in light of the COI/neutrality issues in this article, I would like to get a second opinion on this edit. Thanks, Writ Keeper (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits look good, Writ Keeper. The "according to" was superfluous and in danger of using weasel words. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CEO Borrowing Practices

In full disclosure, I work for Chesapeake’s Communications Department, and I understand that my edits will be held to a higher scrutiny. My objective is not to promote the company on this page, but protect it against posts that do not comply with Wikipedia’s purpose as an online encyclopedia. The changes made are indicated here and are according to Wikipedia rules.

Change “revealed” to “stated.” WP:NPOV This was not a revelation as this information has been publically available for several years and published in the company’s proxy. Reuters simply chose to write about it now.

Removed “for an unusual corporate perk.” WP:NPOV: This is an editorial comment on the writer’s interpretation of this perk. Needs validation before describing as an “unusual corporate perk.”

Removed “The revelation of these loan practices caused. ” This statement violates the WP:NOR requirement in that it is an assumption/speculation that this article caused the stock to fall. By removing this phrase, the reader can draw his or her own conclusions. Also included the dramatic change in natural gas pricing from April 3-18, which also could affect CHK’s stock.

Added sentence pointing to company’s rebuttal to make it balanced and indicate that there is an opposing viewpoint, WP: Balance. Creativejuice (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the company rebuttal, however, I removed the highly speculative statements regarding the price of natural gas a possible main cause for sudden one day stock price decline as natural gas has been low for a while now and didn't just fall steeply on that very day to justify such a decline. Even it did, it would still be speculation. I reworded the sentence to state that the price declined on the day the Reuters article was published without stating that the article was the reason for it or including any speculation on the part that gas prices played. So now it is just the vanilla fact that the stock fell on the day the article was published and nothing more. TheLou75 (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a COI tag to this page as it looks like Chesapeake’s above Communications Department under the handle Creativejuice has made substantial edits to this article for a while now. And many of these edits has been to scrub anything deemed negative about the company out or to re-word in a misleading way. I would encourage editors to look through this editor's edits. Once I get some more free time, I will do so myself. 144.126.147.227 (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it looks like another editor who has made substantial edits to this article may also be working for Chesapeake's Communication Department. There's a string of edits from August 2011 to October 2011 which match the same pattern of the self confirmed employee of Chesapeake's communications dept. 144.126.147.227 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy battles & Carl Icahn?

Where is all the stuff that took place last years with Icahn and the proxy battles and all that which has essentially forced the CEO out in addition to his being forced to step down from the chairmanship of the company and be replaced by the former chairman of ConocoPhillips? Shouldn't that be included here? There must be 1,000 newspaper articles on it... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His exit is noted at the end of the history section, but you can expand it if you feel it is not given its due weight. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chesapeake_Energy