Texas: errors by duplication

Summary: FracFocus disclosures that contain unintentional duplication of records distort the quantity of the chemicals used. Open-FF1 found that Texas had 11,132 such disclosures by 335 different operators. On average, these duplicates inflated chemical mass in disclosures by 72,000 pounds.

Background on duplication errors

The national disclosure instrument,ย FracFocus, documents the fracking chemicals that have been used in over 220,000 fracking jobs in the US since 2011. This extensive data set is especially important because it is one of the few resources available to the public about fracking chemicals. As such, FracFocus should be central to analyses and debates about fracking patterns and impacts. However, poor data integrity can undermine the usefulness of this resource.

The Open-FF project is trying to make errors in FracFocus more visible to stakeholders. Our aim is to alert users of FracFocus data to weaknesses and to encourage operators to correct problems and prevent future errors.

We recently summarized an odd problem in a large number of FracFocus disclosures. Many disclosures have duplicate records, that is, two single lines share identical values in many identifying columns. Because such records can be confused with legitimate records, users of the data are confronted with significant ambiguity. If they are errors, these records distort the quantity of chemical usage.

We’ve found evidence that these duplicates are unintentional. They have also gone largely uncorrected, some for over 8 years. As we’ve noted, because our project is based only on publicly available data, we cannot be certain that the duplicates are not legitimate; only feedback from the companies can clarify this issue.

The scope of Texas’s duplication issue

As of this date, Texas has 107,283 disclosures in FracFocus. We have detected duplication issues in 10.4% of those disclosures. The following figure illustrates Texas’s pattern over time.

Bar chart showing the yearly portion of disclosures in the state that have detected duplicate records

The following table summarizes the long list of operating companies with affected disclosures in Texas. Although over 300 companies operating in Texas have are affected, we show only those with at least 20 disclosures. To see examples of the duplication, follow “Link to Report” for summaries of specific companies.

Operatordetected number
of disclosures
in Texas
link to
Open-FF
report
Pioneer Natural Resources2483link to report
Blackbeard Operating657
CrownQuest Operating, LLC523link to report
SM Energy442link to report
WPX Energy404
XTO Energy/ExxonMobil326link to report
Scout Energy Partners310
Ovintiv USA Inc.307
COG Operating LLC271link to report
Apache Corporation250link to report
Surge Operating, LLC231link to report
Shell Oil Company affiliate230
Marathon Oil177link to report
DE3 Operating LLC165link to report
Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation163link to report
Callon Petroleum Operating Company159link to report
Rockcliff Energy Operating151
Devon Energy Production Company L. P.141
SEM Operating Company, LLC140
HighPeak Energy Holdings, LLC.123link to report
Triple Crown Resources96link to report
Repsol O&G, LLC.89link to report
Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.88
Centennial Resource Production, LLC83link to report
Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd.80link to report
RKI Exploration & Production79link to report
Henry Resources LLC70link to report
Permian Resources Operating, LLC67link to report
Occidental Oil and Gas67
Discovery Natural Resources LLC66link to report
Endeavor Natural Gas, LP64
Energen Resources Corporation63
FOUR CORNERS PETROLEUM60
Hibernia Resources, LLC59link to report
Verdun Oil Company58link to report
Diamondback E&P LLC57
Magnolia Oil & Gas LLC56
Jagged Peak Energy55
SN Operating, LLC53
Sheridan Production Company, LLC52
WildHorse Resources LLC52
Valence Operating Company46
Black Swan Oil & Gas46
Rose City Resources46
Vencer Energy, LLC45
Laredo Petroleum, Inc.44
Vital Energy43
DE IV Operating LLC43
Ensign Operating LLC42
BPX Operating Company40
TEP Barnett USA, LLC40
Civitas Permian Operating, LLC39
GulfTex Energy, LLC37
Bayswater Exploration & Production, LLC36
Cabot Oil & Gas Corp34link to report
Firebird Energy32
MEWBOURNE OIL COMPANY32
R. Lacy Services, LTD30
Parsley Energy Operations, LLC27
Hadaway Consulting and Engineering, LLC25
Buffco Production,Inc24
EP Energy24link to report
Hannathon Petroleum, LLC23
Petrobal Omega 1, LLC22
Arrow S Energy Operating, LLC21
Stronghold Energy II Operating LLC21
Panther Energy Co. II, LLC21
Elevation Resources, LLC21
Steward Energy II, LLC20
Recoil Resources Operating Inc.20
Continental Resources, Inc20link to report

As of this date, many companies continue to publish disclosures with duplications.

What it means to have duplicate records in Texas disclosures

At the center of this issue is the core purpose of FracFocus: to provide an accurate picture of a critical part of fracking operations to all stakeholders. Where that accuracy is undermined, stakeholder trust will be undermined. To be sure, errors in such an instrument are inevitable and expected. But because of that, there must be some form of quality assurance or auditing to correct problems discovered after publication. So, when visible errors that touch so many disclosures (about 20,000 across all states) and so many companies (more than 500) remain uncorrected for many years, users of FracFocus data may reasonably assume that review of data is poor.

Following the progression of this issue

This report is based on a snapshot of the FracFocus data (Oct. 8, 2024). The number of disclosures with duplicates will likely change as operators add more disclosures and correct mistaken ones.

To see the most updated status of Texas’s disclosures with duplicate records and a comparison to a baseline snapshot, visit this link.

Duplicate records in Open-FF data sets

Users of FracFocus data via of Open-FF data sets can remove duplicates by using a standard data set. However, because we only have access to publicly available FracFocus data, we can’t be sure that the records we flag are truly mistakes. In some cases, our detection process may be flagging legitimate records. We leave it to the users of our data sets to weigh the costs and benefits of keeping vs. removing these records. In our experience, it is safest to remove the duplicates.


Title image credit: Becky Mansfield (modified by author)


  1. This work is part ofย an effortย atย The Open-FF Projectย to improve the quality and accessibility of the FracFocus data. โ†ฉ๏ธŽ

Published by gwallison

I am a data analyst and programmer. I am interested in making "public" data more accessible.

Leave a Reply