Summary: Trade secrets in FracFocus, an instrument of transparency, explicitly conceal the identity of chemicals. This masking has long been controversial. Open-FF found 12,300 trade secrets in West Virginia records. These records spanned all years and 76.3% of published disclosures. About 92,300,000 pounds of trade secret chemicals have been reported. In this post, we summarize the broad patterns of trade secret use in West Virginia 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 the subject of debate of how to balance industry’s need to protect proprietary formulas with the public’s right to know about substances injected underground.
Background
- The analysis on this page used FracFocus data download on April 20, 2025.
- Labeling of trade secrets is not standardized in the FracFocus data. Open-FF curates the data to make examining all trade secrets possible. See the documentation.
Broad Patterns in West Virginia
Quantity of chemicals masked as trade secrets:
92,300,000 pounds
Frequency of Claims: How common are trade secret claims in West Virginia?
Across all valid West Virginia chemical records, 14.8% are marked as trade secrets. Trade secret claims appear in 76.3 % of all disclosures.
And the breakdown of the frequency of trade secrets within West Virginia disclosures is:
Compared to Other States: How does the trade secret use in West Virginia compare to other fracking states?
West Virginia’s frequency of disclosures with trade secrets ranks roughly in the middle of the 14 major fracking states in FracFocus.
Examples of Trade Secret Use in West Virginia
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 Chesapeake Operating, Inc. in Marshall County. (Click on images to open map and disclosure.)
In this disclosure, 48% of ingredients are listed as trade secrets. The list of trade secrets for that fracking job are:
| TradeName | IngredientName | CASNumber | mass (pounds) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PTLAI161, PTLBW112, PTLFR200, PTLGL240, PTLSI372 | proprietary surfactant | TRADE SECRET | 163,000 |
| PTLAI161, PTLBW112, PTLFR200, PTLGL240, PTLSI372 | proprietary clay | TRADE SECRET | 163,000 |
| PTLAI161, PTLBW112, PTLFR200, PTLGL240, PTLSI372 | proprietary vinyl copolymer | TRADE SECRET | 44,200 |
| PTLAI161, PTLBW112, PTLFR200, PTLGL240, PTLSI372 | proprietary aliphatic alcohol | TRADE SECRET | 41,600 |
| PTLAI161, PTLBW112, PTLFR200, PTLGL240, PTLSI372 | proprietary oxyalkylated fatty acid derivative | TRADE SECRET | 41,600 |
| PTLAI161, PTLBW112, PTLFR200, PTLGL240, PTLSI372 | proprietary substituted fatty acid ester | TRADE SECRET | 41,600 |
| PTLAI161, PTLBW112, PTLFR200, PTLGL240, PTLSI372 | proprietary polycarboxylic acid polymer | TRADE SECRET | 14,400 |
| PTLCA102 | proprietary alkyl alcohol | TRADE SECRET | 14,100 |
| PTLFR200 | proprietary aliphatic hydrocarbon | TRADE SECRET | 12,400 |
| PTLCA102 | proprietary inorganic salt | TRADE SECRET | 7,050 |
| PTLFR200 | proprietary oxyalkylated alcohol | TRADE SECRET | 2,070 |
| PTLAI161, PTLBW112, PTLFR200, PTLGL240, PTLSI372 | proprietary fatty amino adduct | TRADE SECRET | 430 |
| PTLAI161 | proprietary fatty alcohol ethoxylate | TRADE SECRET | 378 |
| PTLAI161 | proprietary aromatic aldehyde | TRADE SECRET | 128 |
| PTLAI161 | proprietary ethoxylated alcohol blend | TRADE SECRET | 128 |
| PTLAI161 | proprietary alkyl amine surfactant | TRADE SECRET | 60 |
| PTLAI161, PTLBW112, PTLFR200, PTLGL240, PTLSI372 | proprietary oxyalkylated alcohol | TRADE SECRET | 15 |
| PTLAI161, PTLBW112, PTLFR200, PTLGL240, PTLSI372 | proprietary polyether | TRADE SECRET | 15 |
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 Southwestern Energy in Ohio County.
In this well, a single trade secret entry is reported with a mass of 171,000 pounds, representing a significant portion of the total fluid volume. The chemical identity of this large-mass material is withheld.
West Virginia has 67 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 Antero Resources Corporation in Tyler County.
The disclosure for that well utilizes a systems approach format but still conceals the identity of 22 chemicals, which means 47% of ingredients are listed as trade secrets. The table below lists those records with their quantity.
| IngredientName | CASNumber | mass (pounds) |
|---|---|---|
| complex amine compound | Proprietary | 40,600 |
| complex amine compound | Proprietary | 25,300 |
| surfactant | Proprietary | 3,380 |
| surfactant | Proprietary | 2,110 |
| ethoxylated alcohols | Proprietary | 706 |
| organic chloride compound | Proprietary | 676 |
| alkoxylated polyhydric alcohol | Proprietary | 676 |
| alkoxylated polyhydric alcohol | Proprietary | 422 |
| ethoxylated alcohols | Proprietary | 422 |
| organic chlrodie compound | Proprietary | 422 |
| complex alcohol | Proprietary | 354 |
| modified thiourea polymer | Proprietary | 178 |
| oxylated phenolic resin | Proprietary | 79 |
| organic salt #1 | Proprietary | 42 |
| alcohol ethoxylates | Proprietary | 29 |
| quaternary ammonium compounds | Proprietary | 29 |
| nitrated acetate salt | Proprietary | 6 |
| organic salt #1 | Proprietary | 6 |
| organic salt #2 | Proprietary | 6 |
| nitrated acetate salt | Proprietary | 4 |
| organic salt #2 | Proprietary | 4 |
| organic salt #3 | Proprietary | 4 |
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 West Virginia’s trade secrets that are also reported without informative values for “Purpose”.
Search:
| IngredientName | count |
|---|---|
| proprietary | 827 |
| non-hazardous substances | 417 |
| proprietary ingredient | 178 |
| trade secret | 88 |
| proprietary material | 81 |
| proprietary component | 19 |
| contains no hazardous substances in concentrations above cut-off values according to the competent authority | 15 |
| proprietary blend | 13 |
| no hazardous ingredients | 7 |
| other components below reportable levels | 6 |
| undisclosed | 1 |
Implications for West Virginia
The patterns and examples of trade secret usage in West Virginia’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)
- Map images ©OpenStreetMap; Disclosure tables screenshot from FracFocus PDFs. ↩︎