Talk:Range Resources

Lede

"Texas-based natural gas company mainly engaged in the fracking and well drilling of shale gas contained in the Marcellus Formation in the Eastern United States. The company was first to devise techniques for extracting gas from the Marcellus Shale, through the use of test wells in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Because much of the Marcellus Shale lies under rural but significantly-populated areas, the company routinely purchases leases from small homeowners for the rights to drill on their land. They have over $1 billion USD invested in southwestern Pennsylvania, [3] while it also has operations in the Southwestern United States."

Range is not a fracking or well drilling company. They are merely the producer. They do actually own or have their own employees working in the field, they subcontract all that work out, kind of like a General Contractor that would build a home. which is why I, and everyone else categorizes them as a "Independent natural gas exploration and production company"

They are dominantly invested in the Marcellus but they are actively drilling and producing gas all over Southwestern US and Virginia. I think we should highlight that right off the bat - "..operating in the Appalachian and Southwestern regions of the United States"--MelvinWillis (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To make an appallingly uncharitable analogy, Al Capone might argue that "I never killed anyone, I always sub-contracted that out to paid thugs. I'm in the liquor distribution business!" But the fact that Range Resources would be interested in distancing itself from the on-the-ground results of its work is suggestive. While it might be useful to clarify that the company is not directly in the drilling or mining business per-se, it would be dishonest to leave "fracking" out of the description of the company's activities, don't you think? What you wrote is true in itself, but as an encyclopedic narrative it lies by omission - it just doesn't tell the full story. causa sui (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead sentence should be a brief, accurate, and NPOV definition of the subject. The current opening words of the article are imprecise. Range is an independent (as opposed to vertically integrated major) oil and gas exploration and production (as opposed to an oil and gas pipeline company, or a gas utility) company. This is no more than the standard terminology (see NY Times definition of the company in the infobox - hardly a source biased toward Range). Perhaps a fair secoond sentence might be something like: "Range is best known for its lead role in applying hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") techniques to produce gas from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, which has generated considerable controversy." That way, we have an accurate description, and do not duck the controversy. Plazak (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

From what you're saying it seems like we're thinking along the same lines. Why don't you try something out per WP:BRD? causa sui (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this. Its primary activity is fracking, from which it carries out gas extraction. Let's not whitewash what it does. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. It's most controversial activity is fracking, which is mentioned prominantly in the second sentence of the lead. It's primary activity, which is sourced in the infobox to the NY Times website (why do you think that the NY Times engaged in a "whitewash" of Range?), is "oil and gas exploration and production". Plazak (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I dunno. We mention fracking in the very next sentence. I dunno if I could call that "whitewashing". causa sui (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

New Fracking

New Fracking? There is no clear explanation or citation for that quote. I would suggest to remove that unless you can cite that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.179.81.54 (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is no citation, nor do you ever hear that phrase used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelvinWillis (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Record

Is this really an environmental record section? This is a media blitz section.

• At no point in the Forbes article does it talk about "paranoia" against fracking will effect Range Resources"
• The editor confused and combined multiple articles in the second paragraph.

You cite Eliza Griswold and Sarah Koenig's accusations but not the Department of Environmental Protections findings. I think those are absolutely vital to the full balanced story. I suggest the following additions.

"Relating to the Amwell twp resident - The DEP extensively tested the landowners water, and found that her water was not contaminated. The DEP sent Ms. Beth Voyles this letter Certified Letter that reads "Finally, you raised concerns that your water supply might be contaminated by glycols. There is no credible evidence of the contamination of your water supply by ethylene, di-ethylene, or tri-ethylene glycol. … [N]either the sample analyses performed by Summit Environmental Technologies Inc. … nor Test America’s analyses … showed any evidence of glycol in your water supply....We have concluded our investigation and have determined that there is no evidence to substantiate the complaint. … In summary, DEP has determined that Range has not contaminated your water supply.”

Relating to the Amwell twp resident animal kill - Ms. Voyles own veterinarian disputed her claim that Range Resources harmed her animals. "On November 10, 2010, you voluntarily supplied Range Resources with lab results from both your dog and horse veterinarians. Upon review of these results, Range contacted the canine and equine veterinarians. … [I]t was stated by the veterinarian that the test results were inconclusive for anti-freeze [ethylene glycol] poising. … The veterinarian indicated that the horse had toxicity of the liver, which he felt was not related to [ethylene glycol] poising.”

• Voluntary Chemical Disclosure

If this is truly an environmental record section I think we should note that Range was the first company to voluntarily disclose the chemicals used in fracking.

"Range Resources, said it will display the list on its website, giving regulators and landowners an account of the hazardous chemicals injected into each well.

Last month, Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection made public a list of more than 80 chemicals used by the drilling industry. But the Range list, first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday night, goes a step further because it includes the volume, concentration and purpose of the chemicals." --MelvinWillis (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can back up your additions with citations to verifiable sources WP:Verifiability, by all means include these things. Plazak (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The DEP is allegedly negligent towards regulation of the industry (NPR and NYT have talked about this); 3 senior officials at the DEP left recently to join the gas industry. However, PR stuff should be allowed if it's sourced. I believe it is --- it just needs an MOS cleanup. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

References

My Range Resources

The last paragraph is one man's cheap shot at a company. It offers nothing to the discussion at hand and the editorial itself isn't even about Range or Gas, it just so happens he mentions the ad campaign at the tail end of his rant. I suggest we remove this for the sake it literally brings the page down. It makes it look like we are just bashing this company. Which I don't think any of us are one way or the other. --MelvinWillis (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done causa sui (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's about public reaction to a campaign -- similar to quoting reviewers at RottenTomatoes. I wasn't aware that the source had to talk predominantly about the article's topic to qualify as a source. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

EOG and Chief

The incidents you cite, even though are valid and occurred, did not involve Range Resources. You did not cite where you found this information and I know this is not a valid claim. Range is an independent operator and has never worked with EOG or Chief on an interest or partner based facet. --User:MelvinWillis —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

The EOG incident could be more clearly cited in the article. The source is here. However, the language we used was a copyright violation, so I removed it. causa sui (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but it does not say anywhere that Range was associated in any way with those wells. Just that other companies that do the same thing Ranges does had these issues "In June a Marcellus well being drilled by EOG Resources suffered a blowout that took a day to control, while another in West Virginia, drilled by Chief Oil & Gas, exploded in a fire that burned for three days and injured seven workers. Pennsylvania temporarily banned EOG from drilling and fracking."

You're right, the source didn't say that. Another good reason to take the text out. It has been removed. causa sui (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that is good to post this stuff, it is accurate and properly cited. It is not false and is true about the company. This wiki cite must be balanced. Also note, I am "newer" to wiki and bare with me for any mistakes I make. --User:MelvinWillis —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

We'd definitely like to make a neutral presentation in the article. However, it is important that you do not edit war. If you can make a clear statement that you are committed to talk page discussion it would be easier for us to move forward on this. Thanks. causa sui (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

The previous revision was pretty much a press release by the company. This revision is pretty much an attack page. Maybe some content from the previous revision could be merged with the critical content here to make a more encyclopedic article. causa sui (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly an attack page when all the sourced content is from the New York Times and NPR, both of which have prize-winning journalists, very neutral when compared with the likes of the companies' defenders, the poorly-reputed New York Post. But yes, I was considering starting a requests for undeletion, as well. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is with the weight. As a stub, the percentage of critical content is excessive, especially when we don't cover the basics information about the company. causa sui (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we determine weightage by sourcing. That is the weightage of the article should reflect the weightage given by credible sources. As it stands, most journalists discuss fracking in a fairly critical manner — people are free to add sources from the NYT (which is fairly objective) et al that discuss good things about the company if they find it. In contrast, corporate press releases (which are self-published, peer-reviewed sources) are hardly credible-sources. As I see it, the article is quite neutral and the POV tag should be removed. It might be in need of expansion. The article is no more an attack page compared to our pages on Union Carbide or Standard Oil, besides some need for expansion and narrative to flesh out the details. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well now it looks like we have wholesale restoration of the previously deleted press release. I've restored the tags for the opposite reasons. causa sui (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request that we block what seems to be an overt corporate propagandist. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wildblue68. DeltaQuad was the clerk; he declined to approve the case for checkuser but blocked most of the accounts as quacking sock/meat puppets. Now that both you and I are watching the article it should be easier to keep the PR team out of the article, so long as we are also fair in our handling of the content. causa sui (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT article

This is a good cite [1].

However, the article seems to make an effort to balance the environmental concerns against the economic stimulation the gas drilling has created in rural Pennsylvania. Maybe some mention of that is merited in the article as well. causa sui (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

citation clarification

I removed the citeneeded after "had "recent deals primed at $14,000 an acre" because the citation for that is found in the next paragraph (the Forbes paragraph). This also applies to the citeneeded put after "from gas and fracking fluids" -- that can be found in the Forbes citation also. The Sharon Wilson citeneeded is found in the CNBC link. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that over-citing is a bad thing, but I think it might be a good idea to have at least one citation per paragraph... unless there is precedent against that somewhere? --causa sui (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not if it's the exact same reference. That's ugly. The same reference should never be cited twice in a row, unless there's a different reference in the same order. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wholly agree with causa sui. A reader who wants to check a fact has to know the source. To place a citation in the previous or following paragraph makes the search too difficult for the fact-checking reader. Plazak (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Then just put in the relevant citation that should be there instead of antagonising with templates. It's obvious where the source is from. Consider the $14k statement -- the paragraph it is in is exceedingly short and it's immediately followed by a well-sourced paragraph that contains the citation that proves that statement. Would it be difficult for the reader to realise that the statement comes from Forbes? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think so, yes. It wasn't clear to me, anyway. An elegant solution might be to conjoin the two paragraphs. As I said on my talk page, I wouldn't view {{fact}} as "antagonizing". I'm only trying to help point out where the citations could be more clear. causa sui (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Italics

I think we may be unintentionally edit warring over italics. Why are we italicizing some quotations and not others? causa sui (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Contrast mainly, and aesthetics. I don't mean to emphasise certain points over the others; if there's a quotation in a blocky paragraph, I italicise it to make the reader realise there's a quote in there, so it's not read like a fact. It's primarily transformative quotes (which are not italicised) versus direct quotes (which are). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. WP:MOS says we shouldn't do this, and I agree. Hopefully it's not too big a deal to you. causa sui (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Range Resources has no significant oil portfolio

Even its slogan says "my natural gas company". Where are its significant oil holdings? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

australia

So this company has no relation to range resources in australia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.128.146 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it ? Both companies seem diferent, except their name.
Range Resources Limited ("Range" or "the Company") is both an ASX-listed (ASX: RRS) and AIM-listed (AIM: RRL) exploration and production Company (Vertical and Horizontal Drilling), with its principal activities directed towards finding and delineating hydrocarbons in Puntland, Somalia; the Republic of Georgia, onshore Texas([source ; vidéo ; Range Resources Ltd. and report 2013 ; The director "Peter Landau" also has other functions, see also Controversial names...
--Lamiot (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Gag order on children

The Hallowich case certainly deserves coverage in the article, but properly belongs in the "Environmental record" section, under "Washington County, Pennsylvania. This brief paragraph should not be in its own "== =="-level section in the article. Plazak (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Plazak. I think I could agree that the article would be better formatted if such a short paragraph didn't get its own "== ==" section in the article. However, the Hallowich case is notable not so much for the allegations of environmental damage, but for the terms of the settlement itself — that's why it seems to me that the the section on "environmental record" is the wrong place to put it.

It looks like Range Resources has been involved in a number of noteworthy legal disputes that are not primarily about allegations of environmental damage. I think it makes sense to create a section for "Other notable legal disputes" and put the Hallowich paragraph there, alongside other issues that have not yet made it into the article. Thoughts on this, or suggestions for alternate wordings for the section title? Anotherpioneer (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the area, the title heading is clearly POV. Arzel (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain why you believe this? Is there something factually incorrect about the heading, or do you believe that it is not the most noteworthy aspect of the case? Perhaps it would be more productive if you suggested an alternative. Anotherpioneer (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I realize that you think that this is the most noteworthy aspect, but WP does not deal in sensationalistic writing. If you cannot edit in a neutral tone than I suggest you don't edit at all. Currently there are two editors that disagree with you, you need to provide some better reasoning why this heading is appropriate for that section. Arzel (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The terms of the settlement have been the central issue addressed in every published source I've read. Can you point me to an alternate source that says different? Or could you please suggest an alternate wording, or reply to my questions above? I don't think I am understanding why you feel the way you do, so some more specific guidance would be very helpful. Thank you! Anotherpioneer (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with having a catch-all Litigation section. It would be better to put the royalty disputes in their own section. The Hallowich case still logically belongs in Environmental issues under "Washington County, Pennsylvania". Plazak (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Plazak, I understand where you're coming from, and I think we can at the very least agree that many settlements should go under the "environmental record" section. The Hallowich case has attracted attention not because of the environmental allegations, but because of the terms of the settlement itself. This is reflected in the cited sources. Although the case has its origins in an environmental dispute, the settlement terms are not themselves a part of Range Resource's environmental record. For almost any other environmental settlement I think things would be different and I would agree with you, but the nature of this one is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherpioneer (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

COI editing

This article has been the subject of conflict-of-interest editing by a representative of the company. A New York Times reporter is interested in these and other events. Please get in touch with me if you have observed COI/sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting/astroturfing-type activity on this or other articles. --ConcernedCitizen80 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)