FracFocus Trade Secrets in North Dakota

Summary: Trade secrets in FracFocus, an instrument of transparency, explicitly conceal the identity of chemicals. This masking has long been controversial. Open-FF found 77,300 trade secrets in North Dakota records. These records spanned all years and 89.3% of published disclosures. About 620,000,000 pounds of trade secret chemicals have been reported. In this post, we summarize the broad patterns of trade secret use in North Dakota between 2014 and early 2025. We also illustrate the types of trade secrets patterns in the state with local examples. This post is part of a series reporting on “holes” in FracFocus.¹

FracFocus is a public online database that provides information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) across the United States. While intended to promote transparency, a significant portion of the disclosed chemical information is often withheld as “trade secrets.” This practice has been a subject of debate, balancing industry’s need to protect proprietary formulas with the public’s right to know about substances injected underground.

Broad Patterns in North Dakota

Quantity of chemicals masked as trade secrets:

620,000,000 pounds

Frequency of Claims: How common are trade secret claims in North Dakota?

Across all valid North Dakota chemical records, 16.3% are marked as trade secrets. Trade secret claims appear in 89.3 % of all disclosures.

And the breakdown of the frequency of trade secrets within North Dakota disclosures is: 

Compared to Other States: How does the trade secret use in North Dakota compare to other fracking states?

North Dakota has one of the highest rates of trade secrets in FracFocus. Only Utah and New Mexico are slightly higher.

---

Examples of Trade Secret Use in North Dakota

We summarize specific examples to highlight the various ways the trade secret designation is applied. Here are some typical scenarios we observed:

Large Percentage of Records as Trade Secrets

In some disclosures, a substantial proportion, sometimes even the majority, of the listed ingredients are marked as trade secrets. This leaves the public with very little information about the chemical composition of the fracturing fluid used in that specific well.

Example: Consider the well operated by Kraken Operating LLC in Mc Kenzie County. (Click on images to open map and disclosure.)

In this disclosure, 53% of ingredients are listed as trade secrets. For many of these chemicals, the name given seems to be a legitimate chemical name. However, FracFocus instructs us to give primacy to the CASNumber. Even if the name is correct and specific, the “Proprietary” label makes the identity unclear – the opposite of transparency. The list of trade secrets for that fracking job are:

TradeName	IngredientName	CASNumber	mass (pounds)
Other Chemical(s)	polymer	Proprietary	24,100
Other Chemical(s)	distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light	Proprietary	14,300
Other Chemical(s)	paraffinic oils	Proprietary	5,800
Other Chemical(s)	polyoxyethylene monooleate	Proprietary	1,810
Other Chemical(s)	ammonium chloride	Proprietary	1,060
Other Chemical(s)	bhmt phosphonate	Proprietary	935
Other Chemical(s)	propietary ingredient	Proprietary	935
Other Chemical(s)	sorbitan oleate	Proprietary	750
Other Chemical(s)	poly(oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxy-,ether with d-glucitol (2:1), tetra-(9z)-9-octadecenoate	Proprietary	524
Other Chemical(s)	12-hydroxystearic acid-polyethylene glycol copolymer	Proprietary	524
Other Chemical(s)	alkyl aryl sulfonic acid salt	Proprietary	452
Other Chemical(s)	sodium hydrogensulphite	Proprietary	452
Other Chemical(s)	alcohols, c12-14-secondary, ethoxylated	Proprietary	380
Other Chemical(s)	alkyl sulfonic acid	Proprietary	298
Other Chemical(s)	isopropanol	Proprietary	154
Other Chemical(s)	ammonium acrylate	Proprietary	71
Other Chemical(s)	acrylamide	Proprietary	71
Other Chemical(s)	diethylene triaminepentaacetic acid, pentasodiumsalt	Proprietary	41
Other Chemical(s)	potassium acetate	Proprietary	20
Other Chemical(s)	dioxane	Proprietary	1
Other Chemical(s)	polyethyleneglycol	Proprietary	1
Other Chemical(s)	ethylene oxide	Proprietary	1

Individual Trade Secret Records That Are High Mass

Occasionally, a single ingredient marked as a trade secret represents a significant mass or percentage of the total fluid volume reported in a disclosure. This means a large component of the fracturing fluid’s composition is entirely unknown.

Example: Consider the well operated by WPX Energy in Dunn County.

In this well, two trade secret entries are reported, each with a mass of 586,000 pounds, representing a significant portion of the total fluid volume. The chemical identity of these large-mass materials is withheld.

North Dakota has 640 trade secret records with masses over 100,000 pounds.

Systems Approach Disclosures with Trade Secret Records

FracFocus disclosures are often published in the “systems approach” format that decouples product names from chemical identity. FracFocus claims that this practice “decreases the use of trade secrets in disclosures, thereby improving public transparency.” Analyses by Trickey et al. and Underhill et al. disprove that claim across the FracFocus data. Instead, we often find system approach disclosures with multiple trade secret claims – because there is nothing to compel companies to include the chemical identity.

Example: Consider the well operated by Marathon Oil in Mountrail County.

The disclosure for that well utilizes a systems approach format but still conceals the identity of 34 chemicals, which means 81% of ingredients are listed as trade secrets. The table below lists those records with their quantity.

IngredientName	CASNumber	mass (pounds)
inorganic sulfate	Proprietary	2,010
aliphatic amine polymer	Proprietary	1,480
polyactide resin	Proprietary	567
polyacrylamide sufonic acid salt derivative	Proprietary	157
nitrogen compound	Proprietary	94
non-crystalline silica	Proprietary	23
inorganic salt	Proprietary	23
sodium salt of aliphatic amine acid	Proprietary	7
inorganic sulfate	Proprietary	7
aliphatic alcohol	Proprietary	7
organosilicon compound	Proprietary	7
phyllosilicate mineral	Proprietary	7
silicone oil	Proprietary	7
dodecyl phosphate potassium salt	Proprietary	7
ethylene glycol-polyethylene glycol-terephthalic acid copolymer	Proprietary	7
organosilicon compound	Proprietary	7
brominated diol	Proprietary	7
acyrlic amide (impurity)	Proprietary	7
organosilicon compound	Proprietary	7
fumed silica	Proprietary	7
polyethylene-polypropylene glycol methyl ether oleate	Proprietary	7
missing trade secret family name	Proprietary	7
reaction products with silica	Proprietary	7
salt of aliphatic acid	Proprietary	7
inorganic oxoacid	Proprietary	7
ethoxylated alcohol	Proprietary	7
urea derivative	Proprietary	unknown
alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride	Proprietary	unknown
petroleum distillates	Proprietary	unknown
glycol	Proprietary	unknown
proprietary amide	Proprietary	unknown
alcohols, c12-15, ethoxylated	Proprietary	unknown
organic acid salt	Proprietary	unknown
proprietary surfactant	Proprietary	unknown

Trade Secret Records Without Any Hints About Material Type

While it is sometimes claimed that operators must supply coarse categories for trade secrets, the data tell a different story. Some trade secret entries provide no descriptive information, such as a functional category (such as “friction reducer,” “surfactant”) or chemical group (“ethoxylated alcohol”), about the material. This makes it impossible to even guess the potential role or nature of the withheld substance.

Examples: The following table lists some of the reported IngredientNames for North Dakota’s trade secrets that are also reported without informative values for “Purpose”.

IngredientName	count
proprietary	2450
trade secret	744
proprietary component	628
proprietary ingredient	214
no hazardous ingredients	91
proprietary blend	75
trade secret ingredient	73
non-hazardous ingredients	18
contains no hazardous substances in concentrations above cut-off values according to the competent authority	10
other components below reportable levels	9
non-hazardous	4
mixture	3

Implications for North Dakota

The patterns and examples of trade secret usage in North Dakota’s FracFocus data highlight the limitations of the database in providing
chemical transparency. While trade secret protection is a legal right when formalized, its extensive use in fracking disclosures raises questions for regulators, researchers, and the public regarding potential environmental and health impacts. Understanding how and where trade secrets are used is a crucial step in evaluating the effectiveness of public disclosure requirements in the state.

Colorado’s recent law requiring enhanced disclosure in a way that still protects intellectual property may serve as a model to improve overall transparency.

References

Trickey, Kevin, Nicholas Hadjimichael, and Prachi Sanghavi. “Public Reporting of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals in the USA, 2011–18: A before and after Comparison of Reporting Formats.” The Lancet Planetary Health 4, no. 5 (May 1, 2020): e178–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30076-0.

Underhill, Vivian, Gary Allison, Holden Huntzinger, Cole Mason, Abigail Noreck, Emi Suyama, Lourdes Vera, and Sara Wylie. “Increases in Trade Secret Designations in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids and Their Potential Implications for Environmental Health and Water Quality.” Journal of Environmental Management 351 (February 1, 2024): 119611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119611.

---

Title image credit: Becky Mansfield (modified by author)

1. Map images ©OpenStreetMap; Disclosure tables screenshot from FracFocus PDFs. ↩︎