FracFocus disclosures published between April 3, 2026 and May 4, 2026
Author Archives: gwallison
New fracking chemical disclosures: April 2026
FracFocus disclosures published between March 8th and April 3, 2026
New fracking chemical disclosures: March 2026
FracFocus disclosures published between February 6 and March 8, 2026
New fracking chemical disclosures: February 2026
FracFocus disclosures published between January 6 and February 6, 2026
New fracking chemical disclosures: January 2026
FracFocus disclosures published between December 1, 2025 and January 6, 2026
Bayswater Exploration – 460600: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
This article analyzes chemical disclosures from the Bayswater Exploration well pad “Dehaan South,” highlighting discrepancies between FracFocus and the ECMC database.
New fracking chemical disclosures: December 2025
FracFocus disclosures published between November 05, 2025 and December 1, 2025
Bonanza Creek – 471040: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
This post analyzes chemical disclosure data for Bonanza Creek Energy’s well pad, comparing the FracFocus system with Colorado’s ECMC database. It reveals both systems report the same fracking events, but ECMC lacks some required disclosures, including five missing chemicals. This highlights compliance gaps in accordance with Colorado’s law.
Extraction 451214: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
We compare chemical disclosures from FracFocus with Colorado’s ECMC database for a hydraulic fracturing job operated by Extraction Oil & Gas in Weld County. The study finds an unexpected anomaly: 5 chemicals appear only in the FracFocus disclosure.
Extraction – 483031: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
This analysis highlights differences between Colorado’s new ECMC database and FracFocus for an Extraction Oil and Gas well pad.
Laramie – 391336: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The well pad in this comparison is anomalous with only two products and no proppant. Even then, the ECMC and FracFocus disclosures are different.
Comparing Product Lists in FracFocus and ECMC disclosures
Comparing the product lists from one source to two separate disclosures instruments uncovers inconsistencies that undermine both instruments.
Laramie Energy – 455725: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The post compares Colorado’s new ECMC database to FracFocus, revealing significant data gaps in chemical disclosures for fracking.
Bison VI – 466299: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The comparison of two fracking chemical databases reveals that FracFocus is incomplete, missing 15 chemicals.
Verdad Resources – 474767: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The analysis reveals unexpected gaps in chemical disclosures between FracFocus and Colorado’s ECMC database, contradicting expectations of increased transparency.
Verdad Resources – 468727: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The comparison of two fracking chemical databases reveals that FracFocus is incomplete, missing 15 chemicals.
New fracking chemical disclosures: November 2025
FracFocus disclosures published between October 7, 2025 and November 5, 2025
Crestone Peak – 487289: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The analysis compares fracking disclosures for Crestone’s “Invicta Pad 3-65 28,” revealing FracFocus data gaps and ECMC’s more comprehensive chemical reporting.
Noble Energy – 459220: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The analysis reveals discrepancies in chemical disclosures between FracFocus and ECMC’s database, identifying previously unlisted chemicals.
Noble Energy – Galeton: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
We examine the chemical disclosures of the site of the Galeton catastrophic blowout. The ECMC disclosures appear to be incomplete.
Kerr McGee – 481939: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The post analyzes chemical disclosures from the Kerr McGee “Paul Nelson 25-29HZ” well pad, highlighting significant gaps in FracFocus data compared to Colorado’s ECMC database.
Kerr McGee – 485208: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The comparison of two fracking chemical databases reveals that FracFocus is incomplete, missing 17 chemicals, including hazardous ones that ECMC disclosed.
PDC Energy – 461939: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The analysis reveals unexpected gaps in chemical disclosures between FracFocus and Colorado’s ECMC database, contradicting expectations of increased transparency.
PDC Energy – 460107: FracFocus to ECMC comparison
The comparison reveals ECMC’s transparency over FracFocus, disclosing 42 additional chemicals and highlighting compliance gaps in chemical reporting.
Colorado’s New Rules vs. FracFocus: What a Difference Data Makes
Comparisons of Colorado’s new chemical disclosure system for fracking to FracFocus should reveal previously hidden chemical information.