Summary: This post compares fracking chemical disclosures for Laramie Energy’s “Bcu 14L” well pad, looking at data from both the legacy FracFocus system and Colorado’s new ECMC database. While the ECMC database reveals one chemical not found in FracFocus, the analysis concludes this well is anomalous due to the lack of proppant (confirmed in a state database). The extremely short chemical list suggests disclosures may be incomplete in both systems or a very atypical fracking process for these ten wells.
In our post, “Colorado’s New Rules vs. FracFocus: What a Difference Data Makes“, we outlined the major differences between the legacy FracFocus disclosure system and Colorado’s new, more comprehensive ECMC database. We hypothesized that comparing these two data sources for the same fracking job would reveal significant gaps in the public’s access to chemical information if limited solely to FracFocus.
Here, we examine the disclosures for one well pad, the “Bcu 14L” operated by Laramie Energy. This post is one in a series of deep dives into individual well pads. Another Laramie pad is analyzed elsewhere.
Wellpad details and disclosure links
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Operator name (in FracFocus): | Laramie Energy LLC |
| Operator name (in ECMC): | LARAMIE ENERGY LLC |
| Wellpad name (in ECMC): | Bcu 14L |
| Wellpad ID : | 391336 |
| County: | Mesa |
| Map to wellpad: | Google Map |
| Number of FracFocus wells: | 10 |
| Number of ECMC wells: | 10 |
ECMC disclosure link
FracFocus disclosures
| API Number (and link) | Fracking Start Date |
|---|---|
| 05077100260000 | 2025-05-16 |
| 05077100280000 | 2025-05-16 |
| 05077100290000 | 2025-05-21 |
| 05077100310000 | 2025-05-21 |
| 05077100340000 | 2025-05-21 |
| 05077100350000 | 2025-05-21 |
| 05077100360000 | 2025-05-21 |
| 05077100370000 | 2025-05-16 |
| 05077100380000 | 2025-05-16 |
| 05077106100000 | 2025-05-16 |
Is the Comparison Valid?
Before we analyze the chemicals, we need to confirm 1) that we are looking at the same fracking events in both datasets and 2) that the brand-named products are the same in both datasets.
Details of date comparisons
The figure below show the dates of record for each well in these disclosures. The “spud” date is the first date of drilling. Also shown are the “JobStartDate” for FracFocus disclosures and “Downhole commencement date” for the ECMC disclosures. We use these data to verify that the FracFocus and ECMC disclosures are reporting on the same fracking event.
The ECMC and FracFocus date align exactly.
Details of product comparisons
We compare the lists of product names to ensure that the fracking chemicals in the disclosures are indeed from the same fracking events.
In these disclosures only two additive products are reported and they match. Water is on the FracFocus list but not the ECMC list (which is typical in many ECMC disclosures).
We conclude that these product names are referring to the same fracking events, but we note that just two products is an unusually short list.
Validation summary:
Because the reported start dates and the product names for the operation align, we can confidently proceed with a direct comparison of the chemical lists disclosed in each system. The FracFocus chemical lists have been aggregated to match the pad-level reporting of the ECMC.
The Four Categories of Chemical Data
Our analysis sorts the reported chemical ingredients into four distinct categories. This framework helps us isolate exactly what new information the ECMC system provides and highlights holes in the ECMC disclosures.
Trade Secrets
Trade secrets are only allowed in FracFocus. Because the ECMC data must report all chemicals, we expect any trade secrets in FracFocus to have a corresponding entry in either the “ECMC-only” or the “shared” lists.
No trade secrets were reported.
Shared Chemicals
The baseline list of ingredients that are present in both the FracFocus and ECMC disclosures.
Details of shared chemicals
ECMC-Only Chemicals
These are ingredients that appear only in the new ECMC disclosure. These represent the new information, likely including previously unmasked trade secrets and other chemicals not required on a product’s Safety Data Sheet (SDS).
Details of ECMC-Only chemicals
FracFocus-Only Chemicals
These are ingredients that, counter to our hypothesis, might appear only in the FracFocus disclosure. Finding chemicals in this category would be a significant anomaly worth investigating.
Details of FracFocus-Only chemicals
Summary
| Category | Number of materials |
|---|---|
| Trade secrets | 0 |
| Shared | 4 |
| ECMC-only | 1 |
| FracFocus only | 2 |
It is hard to find a chemical list this short in all of FracFocus. This is an anomalous well pad, in that no sand is reported in FracFocus and the COGIS records confirm that no proppant was used (below and link ).
Related disclosures:
As of this date, one other Laramie well pad (481743) is similar to the disclosures summarized above: no proppant, no trade secrets, only 4 shared chemicals, and 1 ECMC_only chemical. However, the FracFocus_only list is longer (10 chemicals) and includes an additional product not reported on the ECMC disclosure. In both cases, such a short chemical lists suggests incomplete disclosures in both systems or an unusual fracking process.
Cover art by Becky Mansfield (modified by author)