Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Data from the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry 1.0


oEPA

EPA/601/R-14/003 I March 2015 I www.epa.gov/hfstudy

United States
Environmental Protection
Agency

Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid
Data from the FracFocus Chemical
Disclosure Registry 1.0

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

[This page intentionally left blank.]

ii

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Data
from the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry 1.0

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC

March 2015
EPA/601/R-14/003

iii

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Disclaimer

This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy
and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Preferred Citation: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid
Data from the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry 1.0. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/601/R-14/003.

iv

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table of Contents

Disclaimer	iv

Table of Contents	v

List of Tables	vii

List of Figures	ix

Preface	x

Authors and Contributors	xi

Acknowledgements	xi

List of Acronyms	xii

Executive Summary	1

1.	Introduction	6

1.1.	Objective	6

1.2.	Background	6

2.	Methodology for Data Extraction and Analysis	8

2.1.	Database Development	8

2.1.1.	Source Data	8

2.1.2.	Data Conversion and Extraction	9

2.1.3.	Parsing Success	10

2.2.	Data Standardization and Quality Assurance	12

2.2.1.	Quality Assurance of Locational Data	13

2.2.2.	Addition of Geologic Information	14

2.2.3.	Quality Assurance of Ingredients	15

2.3.	Analyses	19

2.3.1.	Specific Criteria for Analyses	19

2.3.2.	Calculations	25

3.	Results	27

3.1.	Additive Ingredients	32

3.1.1.	Reported Frequency and Fluid Concentrations of Additive Ingredients	33

3.1.2.	Additive Purposes	39

3.1.3.	Comparing Variability of Additive Ingredients in Selected Counties	39

3.2.	Base Fluids	42

3.2.1.	Use of Non-Aqueous Fluids in Base Fluids	43

3.2.2.	Cumulative Total Water Volumes	46

v

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

3.2.3.	Total Water Volumes per Disclosure	49

3.2.4.	Comparing Variability of Total Water Volumes in Selected Counties	51

3.2.5.	Water Sources	54

3.3. Proppants	60

4. Conclusions	62

References	67

Glossary	71

Appendix A. Shale Basin Map	76

Appendix B. Chemical Families for Ingredients Listed as Confidential Business Information	77

Appendix C. Histograms of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Concentrations for Most Frequently Reported
Additive Ingredients	92

Appendix D. List of Operators	112

Appendix E. Reporting Regulations for States with Data in the Project Database	129

Appendix F. Additive Purposes	132

Appendix G. Most Frequently Reported Additive Ingredients for Five Selected Counties	134

Appendix H. Total Water Volumes by County	142

vi

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

List of Tables

Table ES-1. State-specific information on the number of unique disclosures with a fracture date
between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; total water volumes reported per
disclosure; and the number of unique additive ingredients reported per disclosure 3

Table ES-2. Most frequently reported additive ingredients in disclosures associated with oil wells

and in disclosures associated with gas wells 4

Table 1. Number of parsed, partially parsed, and unparsed disclosures, summarized by state 11

Table 2. Number and percentage of disclosures that had data successfully parsed from the

well header and ingredients tables and that met the primary QA criteria 13

Table 3. Examples of ingredient name standardization 16

Table 4. Additive ingredients reported as confidential business information (CBI), summarized

by state 18

Table 5. Filters, QA criteria, disclosures, and ingredient records associated with analyses

presented in this report 21

Table 6. Number and percentage of unique disclosures in the project database with a fracture

date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013 29

Table 7. Number of unique additive ingredients per disclosure, summarized by state 34

Table 8. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in oil disclosures, ranked by

frequency of occurrence 35

Table 9. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in gas disclosures, ranked by

frequency of occurrence 36

Table 10. Frequently reported additive ingredients and commonly listed purposes for additives

that contain the ingredients 40

Table 11. Counties selected to illustrate diversity in additive ingredients at small scales 41

Table 12. Comparison of 20 most frequently reported additive ingredients among selected

counties 42

Table 13. Non-aqueous ingredients reported in base fluids 44

Table 14. Use of non-aqueous ingredients in base fluids, summarized by state 45

Table 15. Total water volumes, summarized by state 48

Table 16. Total water volumes for selected counties in approximately the 90th percentile of

disclosures 53

Table 17. Number of disclosures having terms suggestive of water sources, summarized

by state 55

Table 18. Median maximum fluid concentrations of water by source, summarized by state 58

vii

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 19. Ten most frequently reported proppant ingredients, ranked by frequency

of occurrence	61

Table B-l. Chemical families for CBI ingredient records	78

Table B-2. Most frequently reported chemical families among CBI ingredients and their most

commonly listed purposes	91

Table D-l. Disclosures per state, summarized by well operator	112

Table E-l. Reporting regulations for states with data in the project database	129

Table F-l. Number of disclosures, summarized by additive purpose categories	132

Table G-l. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in Andrews County, Texas,

ranked by frequency of occurrence	134

Table G-2. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in Bradford County,

Pennsylvania, ranked by frequency of occurrence	135

Table G-3. Twenty-one most frequently reported additive ingredients in Dunn County, North

Dakota, ranked by frequency of occurrence	136

Table G-4. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in Garfield County, Colorado,

ranked by frequency of occurrence	138

Table G-5. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in Kern County, California,

ranked by frequency of occurrence	140

Table H-l. Total water volumes, summarized by county	142

viii

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

List of Figures

Figure 1. Example FracFocus 1.0 disclosure	9

Figure 2. Geographic distribution of disclosures in the project database	27

Figure 3. Geographic distribution of disclosures by production type	30

Figure 4. Distribution of fracture dates in the project database	31

Figure 5. Cumulative total water volumes, summarized by county	47

Figure 6. Median total water volumes per disclosure, summarized by county	50

Figure 7.	Variability in reported total water volumes per disclosure, as measured by the

difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles	51

Figure A-l. Shale basins map	76

ix

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Preface

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a Study of the Potential Impacts of
Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources. The study is based upon an extensive
review of the literature; results from EPA research projects; and technical input from state, industry, and
non-governmental organizations, as well as the public and other stakeholders. A series of technical
roundtables and in-depth technical workshops were held to help address specific research questions
and to inform the work of the study.

In Fiscal Year 2010, Congress urged the EPA to examine the relationship between hydraulic fracturing
and drinking water resources in the United States. The EPA's Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of
Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources was reviewed by the agency's Science Advisory Board
(SAB) and issued in 2011. The Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water
Resources: Progress Report, detailing the EPA's research approaches and next steps, was released in late
2012 and followed by a consultation with individual experts convened under the auspices of the SAB.

This report, Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Data from the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry
1.0, is the product of one of the research projects conducted as part of the EPA's study. It has
undergone independent, external peer review, which was conducted through the Eastern Research
Group, Inc. All peer review comments were considered in the report's development. The report has also
been reviewed in accordance with agency policy and approved for publication.

The EPA is writing a state-of-the-science assessment that integrates a broad review of existing literature,
results from peer-reviewed EPA research products (including this report), and information gathered
through stakeholder engagement efforts to answer the fundamental research questions posed for each
stage of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle:

•	Water Acquisition: What are the possible impacts of large volume water withdrawals from
ground and surface waters on drinking water resources?

•	Chemical Mixing: What are the possible impacts of surface spills on or near well pads of
hydraulic fracturing fluids on drinking water resources?

•	Well Injection: What are the possible impacts of the injection and fracturing process on drinking
water resources?

•	Flowback and Produced Water: What are the possible impacts of surface spills on or near well
pads of flowback and produced water on drinking water resources?

•	Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal: What are the possible impacts of inadequate
treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewaters on drinking water resources?

The state-of-the-science assessment is not a human health or an exposure assessment, nor is it designed
to evaluate policy options or best management practices. As a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment,
the draft assessment report will undergo public comment and a meaningful and timely peer review by
the SAB to ensure all information is high quality.

x

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Authors and Contributors

Susan Burden, US EPA
Jill Dean, US EPA

Jonathan Koplos, The Cadmus Group, Inc., under contract EP-C-08-015

Claudia Meza-Cuadra, Student Services Contractor for the US EPA under contract EP-13-H-000054
Alison Singer, Student Services Contractor for the US EPA under contract EP-13-H-000474
Mary Ellen Tuccillo, The Cadmus Group, Inc., under contract EP-C-08-015

Acknowledgements

The EPA would like to acknowledge the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission for providing data and information for this report. Assistance was provided by The
Cadmus Group, Inc., under contract EP-C-08-015. The contractors' role did not include establishing
agency policy.

xi

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

List of Acronyms

API

American Petroleum Institute

CASRN

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number

CBI

Confidential Business Information

CSV

Comma-Separated Values

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GIS

Geographic Information System

GWPC

Ground Water Protection Council

IOGCC

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission

MSDS

Material Safety Data Sheet

PDF

Portable Document Format

QA

Quality Assurance

SEAB

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board

TVD

True Vertical Depth

XML

Extensible Markup Language

xii

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Executive Summary

Hydraulic fracturing has enabled oil and gas production to expand into areas of the United States
where production was once considered impractical. As production has increased, so have public
concerns about hydraulic fracturing and its potential effects on drinking water and the
environment. In response to public interest in the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids, the
Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
(IOGCC) developed the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry (subsequently referred to as
"FracFocus"). FracFocus is a publicly accessible website (www.fracfocus.org) where oil and gas
production well operators can disclose information about the ingredients used in hydraulic
fracturing fluids at individual wells. Although FracFocus was designed for local users, it provides an
opportunity to study the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids nationwide.

This report analyzes data from more than 39,000 FracFocus disclosures provided to the U.S.
Environmental Agency (EPA) by the GWPC in March 2013. Each disclosure contained data for an
individual oil and gas production well. Data on the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids were
extracted from the disclosures and summarized to address the following research questions from
the EPA's Plan the Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources:

•	What are the identities and quantities of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, and
how might this composition vary at a given site and across the country?

•	How much water is used in hydraulic fracturing operations, and what are the sources of
this water?

Data from this study will supplement information obtained from the published literature and other
sources being considered by the EPA in the preparation of the agency's assessment of the potential
impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources.

Disclosures analyzed for this report were submitted to FracFocus by well operators using the
FracFocus 1.0 format1 Data in the disclosures were extracted from individual portable document
format (PDF) files and compiled in a project database.2 Information on fracture date, operator, well
identification and location, production type, true vertical depth, and the total water volume used for
hydraulic fracturing were successfully extracted from 38,530 disclosures. Hydraulic fracturing fluid
composition data were extracted for 37,017 disclosures. Hydraulic fracturing fluid composition
data included trade names of additives, the purpose associated with each additive, and the identity
[i.e., chemical name and Chemical Abstracts Services Registry Number (CASRN)] and maximum
concentration of each ingredient in an additive and in the overall hydraulic fracturing fluid. The
content of the project database was influenced by the data conversion process (i.e., extracting data

1	FracFocus 2.0 became the exclusive disclosure mechanism in June 2013, which is past the timeframe of this study
(January 2011 to February 2013]. More information on the FracFocus 1.0 and FracFocus 2.0 formats may be found in the
FracFocus 2.0 Operator Training materials available at http://fracfocus.org/node/331. In early 2015, the GWPC and the
IOGCC announced new features for FracFocus 3.0. More information on FracFocus 3.0 is available at
http://www.fracfocus.org/major-improvements-fracfocus-announced.

2	The project database and the accompanying Data Management and Quality Assessment Report are available at
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/published-scientific-papers. The Data Management and Quality Assessment Report
describes the structure of the database, data fields, and quality assessment of the data.

1

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

from PDFs into the project database) as well as the completeness and accuracy of data in the
original PDF disclosures. Reviews of data quality were conducted on the project database prior to
data analysis to ensure that the results of the analyses reflected the data contained in the PDF
disclosures, while identifying obviously invalid or incorrect data to exclude from analyses.

Analyses were conducted on unique (i.e., non-duplicate) disclosures with a fracture date between
January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013, that met appropriate quality assurance criteria for a given
analysis. The disclosures identified well locations in 406 counties in 20 states and were reported by
428 well operators. True vertical depths ranged from approximately 2,900 feet to nearly 13,000
feet (5 th to 95th percentile), with a median of just over 8,100 feet. Generally, well locations
represented by the disclosures were clustered in the northeast (mainly in and around
Pennsylvania), the west central portion of the country (from North Dakota and Wyoming through
Texas and Louisiana), and in California. Summary statistics performed on the entire dataset reflect
a greater contribution of data from states that are better represented in the project database than
others—partly due to the locations of oil- and gas-bearing reservoirs, different state reporting
requirements,3 and the success in extracting data from individual PDF disclosures.

State-specific data on the number of unique disclosures with a fracture date in the study time
period and summary statistics on total water volumes and additive ingredients per disclosure are
reported in Table ES-1. Ingredients reported in the disclosures were generally categorized in
analyses as either additive ingredients, base fluids, or proppants depending upon entries in the
trade name, purpose, and comments fields as well as the reported maximum ingredient
concentration in the hydraulic fracturing fluid. Additive ingredients included ingredients reported
for trade names (i.e., additives) that had purposes other than base fluid or proppant The project
database contains 692 unique ingredients reported for additives, base fluids, and proppants.
Operators designated 11% of all ingredient records as confidential business information. One or
more ingredients were claimed confidential in more than 70% of disclosures.

As shown in Table ES-1, the median number of additive ingredients per disclosure for the entire
dataset was 14, with a range of 4 to 28 (5th to 95th percentile). The most commonly reported
additive ingredients were methanol, hydrochloric acid, and hydrotreated light petroleum distillates
(reported in 71%, 65%, and 65% of disclosures, respectively). Table ES-2 shows the occurrence and
median value of reported maximum concentrations in hydraulic fracturing fluid4 for the most
frequently reported additive ingredients in disclosures associated with oil wells and in disclosures
associated with gas wells. Among the entire data set, the sum of the maximum hydraulic fracturing
fluid concentration for all additive ingredients reported in a disclosure was less than 1% by mass in
approximately 80% of disclosures, and the median maximum hydraulic fracturing fluid
concentration was 0.43% by mass. Among proppants, quartz was the most common material

3	During the period of time studied in this report, six of the 20 states with data in the project database began requiring
operators to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids to FracFocus, three states started requiring disclosure
to either FracFocus or the state, and five states required or began requiring disclosure to the state.

4	Well operators reported the maximum concentration of an ingredient in the additive and in the hydraulic fracturing
fluid. Therefore, the median concentration values presented in this report represent the median value of the reported
maximum concentrations or the "median maximum concentration."

2

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

reported (present in at least 98% of disclosures that identified proppants), with a median
maximum hydraulic fracturing fluid concentration of 10% by mass.

Base fluids described in the disclosures included water, water with non-aqueous constituents (i.e.,
gases or hydrocarbons), and hydrocarbons only. More than 93% of the disclosures analyzed in the
study are inferred to use water as a base fluid,5 with a median maximum concentration of 88% by
mass in hydraulic fracturing fluids. As shown in Table ES-1, the median total water volume per

Table ES-1. State-specific information on the number of unique disclosures with a fracture date between January
1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; total water volumes reported per disclosure; and the number of unique additive
ingredients reported per disclosure.

State

Number of
disclosures*

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)*

Number of additive ingredients
per disclosure§

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Alabama

55

37,691

23,602

51,651

10

10

10

Alaska

37

88,448

36,437

435,638

15

13

16

Arkansas

1,450

5,277,890

2,681,465

7,484,091

10

6

21

California

718

77,154

18,684

356,453

19

10

23

Colorado

4,938

463,659

103,906

4,327,068

13

5

23

Kansas

136

1,421,591

9,866

2,448,300

14

8

17

Louisiana

1,038

5,148,696

277,540

8,942,170

15

1

29

Michigan

15

33,306

15,722

15,127,125

19

10

29

Mississippi

4

9,173,624

4,322,108

12,701,054

14

11

23

Montana

213

1,469,839

216,578

3,197,594

16

9

38

New Mexico

1,162

172,452

22,130

2,851,323

21

7

31

North Dakota

2,254

2,019,513

557,740

3,685,402

15

4

33

Ohio

148

3,887,499

2,526,398

7,442,826

17

8

38

Oklahoma

1,909

2,578,947

114,870

8,288,041

12

5

30

Pennsylvania

2,483

4,184,936

1,092,739

7,475,493

10

4

18

Texas

18,075

1,413,287

26,006

7,407,116

15

4

30

Utah

1,429

303,424

35,070

1,056,654

17

7

23

Virginia

90

33,474

13,322

96,684

9

7

12

West Virginia

277

5,012,238

2,500,529

7,889,759

12

7

22

Wyoming

1,457

306,246

5,503

3,110,272

10

5

24

State Uncertain*

162

2,770,090

80,067

6,945,958

15

5

27

Entire Dataset

38,050

1,508,724

29,526

7,196,702

14

4

28

* See Table 6 for notes on quality assurance criteria.
f See Table 15 for notes on quality assurance criteria.
§ See Table 7 for notes on quality assurance criteria.

* State location did not pass state locational quality assurance criteria (Section 2.2.1).

3

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

disclosure was approximately 1.5 million gallons, with a range of nearly 30,000 gallons to
approximately 7.2 million gallons (5th to 95th percentile). Non-aqueous constituents (i.e., nitrogen,
carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons) were reported as base fluids or in combination with water as a
base fluid in fewer than 3% of disclosures. Twenty-nine percent of disclosures in the project
database included information related to water sources. Some of these terms indicated a condition
of water quality, such as "fresh," rather than a specific identification of the source of the water (e.g.,
ground water, surface water). The most commonly reported source of water used for base fluid was
"fresh" (68% of disclosures with water source information).

Table ES-2. Most frequently reported additive ingredients in disclosures associated with oil wells and in disclosures
associated with gas wells.

Oil Production Type

Gas Production Type

EPA-
standardized
chemical name*

Number (%)
of disclosures

Median
concentration
in hydraulic
fracturing fluid
(% by mass)

EPA-
standardized
chemical name*

Number (%)
of disclosures

Median
concentration
in hydraulic
fracturing fluid
(% by mass)

Methanol

12,484 (72%)

0.022

Hydrochloric
acid

12,351 (73%)

0.078

Distillates,
petroleum,
hydrotreated
light+

10,566 (61%)

0.087

Methanol

12,269 (72%)

0.0020

Peroxydisulfuric
acid,

diammonium
salt

10,350 (60%)

0.0076

Distillates,
petroleum,
hydrotreated
light+

11,897 (70%)

0.017

Ethylene glycol

10,307 (59%)

0.023

Isopropanol

8,008 (47%)

0.0016

Hydrochloric
acid

10,029 (58%)

0.29

Waterf

7,998 (47%)

0.18

Guar gum

9,110 (52%)

0.17

Ethanolf

6,325 (37%)

0.0023

Sodium
hydroxide

8,609 (50%)

0.010

Propargyl
alcohol

5,811 (34%)

0.000070

Quartzf

8,577 (49%)

0.0041

Glutaraldehyde

5,635 (33%)

0.0084

Water'

8,538 (49%)

1.0

Ethylene glycol

5,493 (32%)

0.0061

Isopropanol

8,031 (46%)

0.0063

Citric acid

4,832 (28%)

0.0017

Potassium
hydroxide'

7,206 (41%)

0.013

Sodium
hydroxide

4,656 (27%)

0.0036

Glutaraldehyde

5,927 (34%)

0.0065

Peroxydisulfuric
acid,

diammonium
salt

4,618 (27%)

0.0045

* See Section 2.2.3 for a description of the standardization process.

f Chemical has a non-normal distribution and the median may not represent the central tendency of the dataset as well as
the median of a normally distributed dataset.

Note: Analysis considered 34,675 disclosures and 676,376 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria,
including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1,
2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and concentrations between 0 and 100%. Disclosures that did not meet quality
assurance criteria (3,855 disclosures) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

4

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Data extracted from disclosures submitted by oil and gas well operators to FracFocus 1.0 showed
that hydraulic fracturing fluids used between January 2011 and February 2013 generally contained
water as a base fluid, quartz as proppant, and various additive ingredients. Three additive
ingredients (methanol, hydrochloric acid, and hydrotreated light petroleum distillates) were
individually reported in more than 65% of oil and gas disclosures, although 692 unique ingredients
were identified. The project database and the summary statistics presented in this report provide
useful insights into the chemical composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids and water volumes used
for hydraulic fracturing, which are important factors to consider when assessing potential impacts
to drinking water resources from hydraulic fracturing.

5

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

1. Introduction

1.1.	Objective

The objective of this study was to analyze data contained in the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure
Registry 1.0 to address the following research questions from the EPA's Plan to Study the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources (2011):

•	What are the identities and quantities of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, and
how might this composition vary at a given site and across the country?

•	How much water is used in hydraulic fracturing operations, and what are the sources of
this water?

FracFocus (www.fracfocus.org) is a national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry developed by
the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
(IOGCC). Oil and gas production well operators disclose to FracFocus the composition of hydraulic
fracturing fluids used at individual oil and gas production wells across the United States.

Disclosures (i.e., the information submitted for a single well) evaluated in this report had fracture
dates between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013, and were uploaded by operators to
FracFocus prior to March 1, 2013. Data extracted from the disclosures included fracture date,
operator, well identification and location, production type (i.e., oil or gas), true vertical depth, total
water volume, and hydraulic fracturing fluid composition. Hydraulic fracturing fluid composition
data include trade names of additives, the purpose associated with each additive, and the identity
[i.e., chemical name and Chemical Abstracts Services Registry Number (CASRN)] and maximum
concentration of each ingredient in an additive and in the overall hydraulic fracturing fluid.
Chemical and water use in hydraulic fracturing fluids was summarized, with some context provided
by a limited literature review. Data from this study will supplement information obtained from the
published literature and other sources being considered by the EPA in the preparation of the
agency's assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking
water resources.

1.2.	Background

Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used to enable or enhance both conventional and
unconventional production of oil and gas from hydrocarbon-containing rock formations. The
practice involves the injection of fluids under pressures great enough to fracture the formation.
Fractures resulting from the process are held open using proppants, which allows oil and gas to
flow from within the rock to the production well. Hydraulic fracturing fluids are composed of a base
fluid, proppants, and additives. An additive is added to the hydraulic fracturing fluid to change the
fluid's properties (e.g., viscosity, pH) and can be a single chemical or a mixture of chemicals. The
choice of additives in fracturing fluids is influenced by many factors, including the geology of the
target rock formation to be hydraulically fractured, the pressure and temperature conditions in the
target formation, operator preference, and potential interactions between chemicals in the
fracturing fluid (NYSDEC, 2011; Rahim etal., 2013). Although hydraulic fracturing has been used to
increase hydrocarbon production since the 1940s (GWPC and IOGCC, 2014), recent applications of

6

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

hydraulic fracturing with directional drilling techniques have expanded domestic production of oil
and gas into formations where production was impractical at one time.

In the late 2000s, the public became increasingly interested in understanding the chemical
composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids. The GWPC and the IOGCC responded to the public's
interest by developing a national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry, FracFocus. Oil and gas well
operators began to voluntarily upload information on the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids
used at individual production wells to FracFocus 1.0 in April 2Oil.6 At that time, each disclosure
included information about the well (e.g., operator name, well identification and location, total
water volume, production type) and hydraulic fracturing fluid composition. Hydraulic fracturing
fluid composition information included the identity and concentration of ingredients used as base
fluids, proppants, and additives. The public could search FracFocus 1.0 for disclosures in their local
area, and search results were provided in the form of an individual portable document format
(PDF) file for a specific well. In late 2012, the GWPC and the IOGCC launched FracFocus 2.0, which
has expanded search parameters for the public and mechanisms, such as dropdown menus and
automatic formatting, for certain fields to improve consistency and completeness of reporting by
operators. FracFocus 2.0 became the exclusive submission method in June 2013. In early 2015, the
GWPC and the IOGCC announced additional updates to FracFocus that include providing public
extraction of data in a machine readable format and verification of CASRNs.7

Although FracFocus was designed to meet local informational needs, the large number of entries in
the registry provides insights into the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids at county, state,
regional, and national scales. To perform the analyses discussed in this report, the GWPC provided
the EPA with more than 39,000 FracFocus 1.0 disclosures in PDF format that were submitted by
operators before March 1, 2013. The EPA converted the data into a database (termed the "project
database" in this report), which is a tool the public, researchers, and state resource managers may
use to facilitate analyses of the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids.8

This study was conducted using disclosures with fracture dates between January 1, 2011, and
February 28, 2013. Although some disclosures in the project database have fracture dates before
January 1, 2011, that date was chosen as a starting point for the study time period because of the
agreement between GWPC and participating operators to disclose information for wells fractured
after the later of the two following dates: January 1, 2011, or the date the company agreed to
participate (GWPC and IOGCC, 2014). The EPA chose February 28, 2013, as the endpointfor the

6	Operators could upload information for wells hydraulically fractured after January 1,2011. Disclosures in FracFocus are
assumed to include only chemical and water use information for hydraulic fracturing and not matrix treatments, which
avoid fracturing the production formation. Matrix treatments are designed to counteract decreasing permeability
resulting from formation damage near the wellbore by introducing acid, solvent, or chemicals into the formation
(Schlumberger, 2014].

7	More information on FracFocus 3.0 is available at http://www.fracfocus.org/major-improvements-fracfocus-
announced.

8	The project database and the accompanying Data Management and Quality Assessment Report (US EPA, 2015] are
available at http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/published-scientific-papers. The Data Management and Quality Assessment
Report describes the structure of the database, data fields, and quality assessment of the data.

7

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

study period because it was the last full day that operators could have uploaded files prior to the
GWPC collecting the disclosures to send to the EPA.

During the timeframe of this study, six of the 20 states with data in the project database began
requiring operators to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids to FracFocus
(Colorado, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah).9 Three other states started
requiring disclosure to either FracFocus or the state (Louisiana, Montana, and Ohio), and five states
required or began requiring disclosure to the state (Arkansas, Michigan, New Mexico, West Virginia,
and Wyoming). Alabama, Alaska, California, Kansas, Mississippi, and Virginia did not have reporting
requirements during the period of time studied in this report.

Extensive data quality reviews of the information in the project database were conducted. The data
were otherwise analyzed "as is" to ensure that the results represent the information disclosed by
operators as closely as possible. Because operators can update disclosures in FracFocus after the
original submission, the project database may not match the current data in FracFocus.

2. Methodology for Data Extraction and Analysis

This section describes the FracFocus source data and summarizes the methodologies used to
extract the data for inclusion in the project database and to analyze the data for presentation in this
report It also describes the data management and quality assurance (QA) procedures used to
ensure that the project database and results from analyses conducted using the project database
represent data contained in the original PDF disclosures as accurately as possible.

Data extraction and QA methods used in this study are also described in the QA project plan (The
Cadmus Group, Inc., 2013). The accompanying Data Management and Quality Assessment Report (US
EPA, 2015) provides additional detail on methodology for extracting and analyzing data, including
specifics about database parameters.

2.1. Database Development
2.1.1. Source Data

The source data provided by the GWPC were a bulk archive of 39,136 disclosures in PDF format
that were submitted by well operators to the FracFocus 1.0 website prior to March 1, 2013. Each
disclosure was initially submitted by the well operator to FracFocus in the form of a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet and contained information on one production well that was hydraulically fractured
with a single fracture date. Each Excel spreadsheet was then converted into a PDF file by the
FracFocus website.

The PDF disclosures given to the EPA were created using FracFocus 1.0. Although FracFocus 2.0
became an option for submitting information in late 2012, it was not the exclusive disclosure
mechanism until June 2013. Because all disclosures in the project database have information on
production type and because disclosures created using FracFocus 2.0 do not contain this

9 Between February 5,2011, and April 13,2012, Pennsylvania required reporting to the state. As of April 14,2012,
Pennsylvania required reporting to both the state and FracFocus.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

information, all disclosures used to create the project database are assumed to have been generated
using FracFocus 1.0.

Each FracFocus 1.0 disclosure contains two tables of information, referred to as the "well header
table" and the "ingredients table" in this report The well header table (outlined in blue in Figure 1)
contains information about the well itself, including: fracture date, location, operator name, well
name and number, American Petroleum Institute (API) well number, production type, true vertical
depth (TVD), and the total water volume used for hydraulic fracturing. The ingredients table
(outlined in red in Figure 1) provides information about the composition of the hydraulic fracturing
fluid. Trade names of additives, the purpose associated with each additive, and the identity and
maximum concentration of each ingredient in an additive and in the overall hydraulic fracturing
fluid are listed in the ingredients table.

2.1.2. Data Conversion and Extraction

To extract data from the disclosures, the original 39,136 PDF files were converted to Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 2003 spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 2003 XML) files using Adobe Acrobat
Pro X (Adobe Systems Incorporated, 2011). The XML files were converted to comma-separated
values (CSV) files using a script developed in Python 2.7 (Python Software Foundation, 2012); the
scriptused the Beautiful Soup 4 library (Richardson, 2013) to read the XML files. The script parses
and sorts the XML data into CSV files. Parsing of the data resulted in two CSV files: one file with data
from the well header table and the other file with data from the ingredients table. The project
database (Microsoft Access 2013; Microsoft Corporation, 2012) into which the CSV files were
incorporated, therefore, has two primary tables: one for well header data and one for ingredient

Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Product Component Information Disclosure

Well Header Table

Fracture Date:

1/10/2011

State:

Texas

County:

Greer

API Number:

99-123-45678

Operator Name:

Company ABC

Well Name and Number:

Well XYZ

Longitude:

-34.611274

Latitude:

27 035098

Long/Lat Projection:

NAD27

Production Type

Oil

True Vertical Depth (TVD):

14.637

Total Water Volume (aal):

3 1 07 561

Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition:

Ingredients Table

Trade Name

Supplier

Purpose

Ingredients

Chemical Abstract
Service Number (CAS
#)

Maximum
Ingredient
Concentration in
Additive (by
mass)**

Maximum
Ingredient
Concentration in
HF Fluid (by
mass)"

Comments

Water

Company A

Carrier/Base Fluid

Water

7732-18-5

100.00

84 09743



















Sand



Proppant

Crystalline Silica

14808-60-7

100.00

12.32189



















Hydrochlonc Acid

Company B

Acid

Hydrogen Chloride

7647-01-0

40.00

1.09518



















Aceticplex 50

Company B

Petrochemical industry: Oil
Well Acidizing, Iron

Acetic Acid

64-19-7

50.00

0.01187



















Plexgel 907L-EB

Company C

Viscoslfier for water

Distillate, petroleum, hydrotreated light

64742-47-8

60.00

0.21713









Propylene Pentamer

15220-87-8

60 00

0.21713









G-11 to C-14 n-alkanes, mixed

Mixture

60 00

0.21713



















Plexaid 430

Company A

Gel stabilizer

Sodium Thiosulfatc

7772-98-7

30.00

0.02214



















Buffer 12

Company D

pH buffer

Potassium Hydroxide

1310-58-3

2300

004030



















Plexgel Breaker HT

Company B

Encapsulated Oxidizing gel
breaker

Ammonium Persulfate

7727-54-0

90 00

0 00144



















Plexcide 24L

Company B

Biocide

Tetrahydro-3. 5-Dimethyl-2H-1,3.
5-Thiad iazine-2-Thione

533-74-4

2400

0.01131









Sodium Hydroxide

1310-73-2

4.00

0.00189



















Greenhib 677

Company C

Oilfield Scale Inhibitor

Salt of Phosphono-methvlated Diamine

NA

25.00

0.01172



Figure 1. Example FracFocus 1.0 disclosure.

9

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

data. The two-table structure was chosen because an individual disclosure only has one set of well
header values, but can have a variety of ingredients.

The well header and ingredients tables in the project database are linked by a constructed unique
identification field. The field was necessary, because combinations of API well number and fracture
date were found to not be unique in the dataset and, therefore, could not serve as unique
identifiers. Two hundred twenty-eight disclosures were observed to have been updated at times
ranging from the same day as the original submission to as late as 588 days after the original
submission. In cases where there are duplicate disclosures with the same API well number and
fracture date, the most recent file (based on file modified date of the PDF) was deemed the
authoritative disclosure.10 Duplicate disclosures occurred, in part, because well operators
occasionally submitted an initial disclosure with preliminary data and later submitted a final
disclosure with revised or updated data for the same well/hydraulic fracturing event, but could not
then remove the initial disclosure.11

2.1.3. Parsing Success

Parsing is defined as converting information from the PDF disclosures into data tables in the project
database. Success in parsing depends upon how effectively the software identifies symbols in
specific positions on the PDF files and categorizes them into the appropriate data fields in the
project database.

Data from more than 98% (38,530 of 39,136) of the original PDF disclosures were parsed and are
included in the project database. No data from 606 PDF files could be extracted during the parsing
process, and, therefore, none of the data from these disclosures are present in the project
database.12 Well header data were parsed from all of the 38,530 PDF files included in the project
database, and ingredient data were also parsed from 37,017 PDF files (96% of disclosures in the
project database). Difficulties in extracting all data from an individual PDF disclosure arose because
the creation of the CSV files from XML files is highly sensitive to the original file formatting. Most
disclosures were prepared in a consistent format that enabled relatively straightforward parsing of
data. However, some disclosures were uploaded to the FracFocus 1.0 website using templates that
had been modified by well operators, with columns or rows added or removed, or other formatting
changes. The modified templates could sometimes cause the parsing script to skip disclosures or
portions of disclosures. The effect of excluding data that failed to parse is that, based on percentage,
some states (e.g., Colorado, North Dakota, and Utah) with partially parsed or unparsed disclosures
are not as fully represented in the project database as they are in the PDF disclosures received from
the GWPC. The numbers of fully parsed, partially parsed, and unparsed data by state are presented
in Table 1.

10 The date of file modification was available to this project because it was associated with the PDF files given to the EPA
by the GWPC. The file modified date cannot be determined from the PDF disclosures available for public download on the
FracFocus website.

11 FracFocus 2.0 allows operators to remove preliminary disclosures in such cases.

12 The 606 disclosures accounted for 1.5% of all the disclosures given to the EPA by the GWPC. Data from the 606
disclosures corresponded to a small amount of data compared to the entire project database. Manual entry of the data
was not performed.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Additional parsing difficulties were identified during initial analyses of the project database that
resulted in unusual query results. Targeted comparisons of the project database to the original
PDFs files were performed to investigate the cause of unusual query results.13 The targeted

Table 1. Number of parsed, partially parsed, and unparsed disclosures, summarized by state.

State

Number of
disclosu res

Completely parsed

Partially parsed
(well header only)

Unparsed

Alabama

55

55

0

0

Alaska

37

37

0

0

Arkansas

1,462

1,461

1

0

California

754

727

16

11

Colorado

5,207

4,755

314

138

Kansas

139

134

3

2

Louisiana

1,058

1,035

8

15

Michigan

16

14

1

1

Mississippi

6

4

0

2

Montana

222

206

8

8

New Mexico

1,181

1,144

26

11

North Dakota

2,378

2,092

176

110

Ohio

156

147

1

8

Oklahoma

1,950

1,861

70

19

Pennsylvania

2,573

2,541

23

9

Texas

18,388

17,502

692

194

Utah

1,495

1,348

90

57

Virginia

90

90

0

0

West Virginia

295

280

4

11

Wyoming

1,503

1,426

67

10

State Uncertain*

171

158

13

0

Entire Dataset

39,136

37,017

1,513

606

* State location did not pass state locational quality assurance criteria (Section 2.2.1).

Note: Analysis considered all disclosures (39,136).

13 If the results of an analysis indicated one or a few specific disclosures included problematic or unusual data, such as a
particularly high water volume in a dataset with low volumes, the data were confirmed with the original PDF file(s]. For
unusual entries in a few tens of disclosures, approximately one PDF disclosure out of every 10 to 15 containing the
unusual data was compared to the project database. For problems more frequently encountered (e.g., problematic data in
multiple fields or fields with multiple entries], two dozen disclosures from seven states were selected and the original
PDF files, the XML files, and the resulting database entries were compared. Comparisons to the original PDF files were
also conducted for some database entries that were not believed to be outliers, but were otherwise noteworthy. For
example, in compiling data on non-aqueous base fluid ingredients, the original PDFs for all disclosures that used
hydrocarbon-based fracturing fluids without water were compared to the project database to verify that data from the
disclosures were accurately parsed into the project database.

11

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

comparisons found problematic entries in the project database, such as disclosures with invalid
entries in multiple fields, multiple entries in the trade name or purpose fields, infeasible data in the
concentration fields (i.e., letters instead of numbers), and unusually high or low water volumes.
Comparisons to the original PDF files indicated that problematic entries in the database likely
resulted from atypical reporting styles, including modified data templates that interfered with
parsing, and possible data entry errors. The types and causes of problematic entries in the project
database were not quantified, and the large number of ingredient records made individual
correction of these errors infeasible. Instead, problematic entries in the project database were
managed through the use of QA filters that were designed to identify data elements that could not
be used for analyses (Sections 2.2 and 2.3). No changes were made to the project database as a
result of comparisons to the original PDF files, in keeping with the approach of presenting the data
as reported in the FracFocus 1.0 disclosures to the greatest degree possible. In summary, the large
number of disclosures in the project database and the use of QA filters in analyses ensured that the
results reflect the data in the PDF disclosures as accurately as possible.

2.2. Data Standardization and Quality Assurance

An assessment of data quality ensured that results of the analyses reflected the data contained in
disclosures, while identifying obviously invalid or incorrect data to exclude from analyses. Data that
were parsed and incorporated in the project database must first pass two primary QA criteria to be
included in analyses: the combination of fracture date and API well number for each disclosure
must be unique (i.e., no duplicates), and the fracture date must occur between January 1, 2011, and
February 28, 2013.14 While duplicate disclosures from the same fracturing event (i.e., same API well
number and same fracture date) were excluded from analyses, more than one disclosure for a given
well was included if the fracture dates on the disclosures differed. As described in Section 2.1.1, 228
wells had more than one disclosure with the same fracture date, and the PDF file with the most
recently modified date was considered to be the authoritative version.

Table 2 lists the numbers of disclosures that were successfully parsed and the met primary QA
criteria. It shows that 38,050 disclosures (99% of the 38,530 disclosures in the project database)
met the two primary criteria and were candidates for analyses that rely on well header data (e.g.,
analyses of well locations and water volumes). The number of disclosures with parsed well header
and ingredients data that metthe two primary criteria was 36,544 (95% of the disclosures in the
database). These disclosures were candidates for analyses of additive ingredients, water sources,
and proppants

To help identify invalid and extreme data and prepare for data analysis, the fields in the database
were subject to further QA review (beyond establishment of the two primary criteria of unique
status and date range). Data values in the project database may be invalid, erroneous, extreme, or
missing either due to information entered into the original FracFocus 1.0 template or to the parsing
process that was used to create the project database. The QA process checks for internal
consistency among locational data, sets simple criteria for invalid data (e.g., incorrectly non-
numeric entries in fields such as total water volume, fluid concentrations, and CASRNs), and
identifies extreme outliers. The QA process cannot, and was not intended to, determine the

14 Two hundred fifty-one disclosures were excluded because the fracture date did not meet the date criterion.

12

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 2. Number and percentage of disclosures that had data successfully parsed from the well header and
ingredients tables and that met the primary QA criteria.

Well header
parsed

Ingredient
table parsed

Primary QA criteria

Number of
disclosu res

Percentage of
disclosu res

Unique
disclosures*

Fracture date
within study
timeframe*

39,136

100.0%

Yes

38,530

98.5%

Yes

38,301

97.9%

Yes

38,050

97.2%

Yes

37,017

94.6%

Yes

36,793

94.0%

Yes

36,544

93.4%

* Unique combination of fracture date and API well number (i.e., no duplicates).
f January 1, 2011 through February 28, 2013.

accuracy of the original data as entered by operators. Upon review, certain data fields were
subjected to simple standardizations by correcting for capitalization, hyphens, and slashes; spelling;
units; punctuation; and synonymous entries.

The project database includes two presentations of the data extracted from the PDF disclosures to
enable straightforward review of all changes and streamlined tracing of disclosures back to the
source data. The first presentation is the data as originally parsed without any formatting
corrections, or standardizations. The second version contains data after formatting, corrections,
and standardization were performed and also includes QA fields that indicate whether data in
certain fields meet QA criteria. The use of QA fields allows the data to remain unaltered (aside from
the standardizations and corrections described below), but permits specific entries to be excluded
from an analysis (or properly accounted for) if they do not meet QA criteria. This approach results
in different numbers of disclosures being suitable for different types of analyses, and it serves to
maximize the number of disclosures that can be analyzed by not being more restrictive than
needed.

2.2.1. Quality Assurance of Locational Data

Well locational data in the well header table were subject to QA review to facilitate reliable
comparisons of hydraulic fracturing fluid composition among states and counties. Well locations
were validated by comparing the three types of locational data reported by operators: latitude and
longitude, state and county, and state and county information encoded in the API well number.
Because the three locational sources were easily available and comparable, the location was
determined to have met QA criteria if all three types of locational data agreed.15 The QA review was
performed separately for state and county information. If a disclosure did not meet locational

15 Well locations in Alaska were not subject to county-level locational QA criteria, because the five-digit API well numbers
in Alaska are not organized by counties. The coordinates for all disclosures from Alaska fall within the boundaries of the
North Slope borough, which is shown on maps in this report.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

criteria, it was either excluded from analyses that required locational information or was included
in a category that indicated the uncertainty in location. For example, tables that provide data by
state include a row for "State Uncertain," which includes disclosures with inconsistency among the
three types of state locational information. For maps showing data by county, data were excluded
from analyses if the disclosures had inconsistent county locational information. A hatched pattern
in the map legend represents counties where all disclosures failed the county locational QA review.
Disclosures for which state and county locational data did not meet the QA criteria were excluded
from analyses that focused on specific counties (Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.4).

Several steps were conducted to perform the locational QA. The state and county locations derived
from the API well number; the state and county assigned using latitude and longitude; and the
operator reported state and county locations were compared to one another in Microsoft Excel,
resulting in six evaluations of locational accuracy. First, the leading five digits from the API well
number were converted to state and county names using lookup tables from the Society of
Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts (2010). Second, the states and counties (US Census Bureau,

2011) that intersect the coordinates reported in the latitude and longitude fields ofthe well header
were determined in a geographic information system (GIS) using ESRI ArcGIS 10.1 software (ESRI,

2012) after transforming all coordinates to the North American Datum 83 geographic coordinate
system. The states and counties that correspond to the transformed latitude and longitude fields
were joined using the ArcGIS 10.1 Spatial Join geoprocessing tool, and the resulting attribute table
was exported to Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, 2002). The comparisons ignored
variations in capitalization, spaces, and hyphens. The QA fields were used in the project database to
indicate whether the three locational data fields agreed, allowing the user to select only the data
with appropriate QA criteria for any given analysis.

Among the 38,050 disclosures meeting the two primary QA criteria, the state and county entries for
the three locational fields agreed in 36,306 disclosures (95% of 38,050). One hundred sixty-two
disclosures (0.43% of 38,050) failed to pass state locational QA criteria, and 1,744 disclosures
(4.6% of 38,050) did not pass county and state locational QA criteria. State locational data that met
QA criteria were available to pair with ingredients data for 36,395 disclosures (96% of 38,050
disclosures). For 34,880 disclosures (92% of 38,050 disclosures), ingredients data were parsed and
both state and county locational data met QA criteria.

2.2.2. Addition of Geologic Information

To offer basic geologic context for the location of a disclosure, hydrocarbon basins (US EIA, 2007,
2011a, b; USGS, 1995) are shown on several figures in this report16 The hydrocarbon basin and
play names were added to the project database to allow analysis at a basin or play level. The
assignment of basin and play names to each disclosure is based solely on co-location of the
disclosure coordinates with the basin shapefile using ArcGIS 10.1, without further verification by
either the state or operator. Basins and plays were joined to each disclosure's latitude and
longitude coordinates in the project database using the Spatial Join geoprocessing tool in ArcGIS

16 Figures 2,3, 5,6, and 7 display hydrocarbon basins in addition to data from the project database. Appendix A includes a
map of shale basins in the contiguous United States.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

10.1. If a disclosure was located within the boundaries of two shale plays (i.e., in an area with
stacked plays), both names were indicated in the project database field (e.g., Marcellus/Utica).

The hydrocarbon basin and play datasets are used for general reference purposes with the
understanding that the boundaries are approximate and that production may not be occurring from
the co-located play.17 The shale basin boundaries are particularly useful because they capture the
general extent of many major sedimentary basins in the contiguous United States and indicate
regions with active resource extraction. Geologic basins include all the individual formations within
the basin and provide a more confident, albeit general, geologic context to disclosures.

2.2.3. Quality Assurance of Ingredients

Ingredient names and CASRNs are entered by operators in the ingredients table. The names can
include a wide range of variations for a given ingredient, including synonyms, misspellings,
different punctuations and formatting, and different alpha-numeric spacing. To identify ingredients
used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, entries of both names and CASRNs were verified and
standardized.18 The CASRNs were determined valid for analyses after being verified with the
Chemical Abstracts Service (2014); ingredient records with invalid CASRNs were excluded from
most analyses.19 Note that this approach assumed that the CASRN entered into the database is
correct The project database contains a total of 692 valid and unique CASRNs for ingredients
reported in disclosures that met the primary QA criteria.

Ingredient names for verified CASRNs were standardized using a list of unique chemical names
paired with CASRNs developed by the EPA. This standardization was needed because of the above-
noted range of presentations of ingredient names. Table 3 shows examples of variations in
ingredient names as entered by operators and the standardized chemical name assigned by the
EPA; this standardization facilitated analyses of ingredients. Because the ingredient names were
standardized, the names found in the report and the project database may differ from the names
reported by operators in the original PDF disclosures.

The EPA used standardized chemical names from Appendix A in the agency's Study of the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report (2012) for the EPA-
standardized chemical names used in the project database and in this report.20 Chemical name and
structure quality control methods were used to standardize chemical names for CASRNs found in

17 Shale plays assigned to the disclosures in the project database using GIS shapefiles were compared to corresponding
information from the commercial database Drillinglnfo (2011] to evaluate the accuracy of the GIS method. Drillinglnfo
records were matched with 7,153 disclosures in the project database using the API well number. Assignment of shale
plays to disclosures in the project database using GIS agreed with the play reported to Drillinglnfo in 83% (5,929 of 7,153
disclosures] of the disclosure locations (US EPA, 2015].

18 A CASRN and chemical name combination identify a chemical substance, which can be a single chemical (e.g.,
hydrochloric acid] or a mixture of chemicals (e.g., hydrotreated light petroleum distillates].

19 Analyses of additive ingredients, proppants, and non-aqueous base fluid constituents required valid CASRNs. The valid
CASRN QA criteria was not used for the analysis of water sources, because operators entered "water" or another term in
the trade name field and did not always enter a chemical name or CASRN.

20 Table A-l in the Progress Report.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 3. Examples of ingredient name standardization.

Operator-Reported
CASRN

Examples of Operator-Reported
Ingredient Names

EPA-Standardized Chemical Name

7647-01-0

Hydrogen chloride
Hydrochloric acid
HCI

Hydrogen Chloride Solution
Hydroogen Chloride

Hydrochloric acid

7647-14-5

Sodium chloride
Sodium chloide
Sodium chlorite

Sodium chloride

64742-47-8

Distillates

Distillates (petroleum)

Distillates petro

Distillates petroleum, hydrotreated

Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light

77-92-9

Citric Acid Anhydrous
Citric Acid Solution
Citric Acid

Citric acid

107-21-1

Ethylene Glycol
Ethyene Glycol
Ethylene Dlyco
Ehtylene Glycol

Ethylene glycol

14808-60-7

Quartz

Crystalline silica
Silicon dioxide
Crystalline silica quartz

Quartz

the project database but not included in Appendix A of the Progress Report.21 The same methods
were used in the development of Appendix A of the Progress Report and ensure correct chemical
names and CASRNs.

In applying the EPA-standardized chemical list to the ingredient records in the project database,
standardized chemical names were assigned to 787,522 ingredient records (65% of 1,218,003
records) from the 36,544 unique, fully parsed disclosures that met the date criterion. Because the
CASRNs for the remaining 35% (430,481 records) of ingredient records were invalid, they could
not be assigned a standardized chemical name and were excluded from analyses of additive
ingredients.

Fields were established in the project database to indicate whether each ingredient record met QA
criteria for the CASRN, additive concentration, and fracturing fluid concentration fields. Individual

21 In the majority of cases, valid CASRNs and the associated ingredient names in the project database were paired
correctly for a given CASRN. If an ingredient name (whether specific or non-specific] did not match the CASRN reported
by the operator, the CASRN was added to a chemical name standardization list and assigned a correct chemical name. The
chemical standardization list consists of CASRNs paired with appropriate chemical names and was used to standardize
chemical names in the project database based on the CASRNs reported by operators. This process was undertaken
because numerous synonyms and misspellings for a given chemical were present in the original data. Standardized,
specific chemical names were identified using the EPA's Distributed Structure-Searchable Database Network (US EPA,
2013], the EPA's Substance Registry Services database (US EPA, 2014a], and the U.S. National Library of Medicine ChemID
database (US NLM, 2014]. Additional information on chemical name and structure quality control methods can be found
at http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/ChemicalInfQAProcedures.html.

16

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

concentrations (reported as maximum concentrations) of ingredients in additives and in hydraulic
fracturing fluid were considered valid and included in appropriate analyses if they had a value
between 0% and 100%. In this way, non-numeric entries and implausibly high numeric values (e.g.,
typographical errors from operators, invalid entries due to parsing difficulties) were excluded from
summary statistics. Ingredient records that did not meet the 0% to 100% criterion for the additive
and fracturing fluid concentration fields were excluded from analyses for which median and
percentile calculations were performed. A total of 295 disclosures (0.81% of 36,544 disclosures)
had no valid entries in either the additive or fracturing fluid concentration field for any of their
ingredient records. Invalid entries for both concentration fields were found for 271,312 individual
ingredient records (22% of 1,218,003 ingredient records).22 (Some disclosures had a mix of
ingredients with valid and invalid concentrations. Thus, the 271,312 ingredients were spread out
over more than the 295 disclosures.)

Lack of a valid CASRN and ingredient concentration data in the proper field may have been due to
several factors. Operators sometimes did not list CASRN entries for ingredients.23 Fields for
concentration data were sometimes left blank. Also, operators may have made data entry errors or
information from the original PDFs may have been assigned to the wrong fields due to the parsing
difficulties related to modified formats.

Confidential Business Information. Operators can specify ingredients as confidential business
information (CBI; also referred to as trade secret or proprietary) when submitting disclosures to
FracFocus. As a result, the identity of a specific chemical may not be known for the analyses
conducted in this report Operators indicated CBI ingredients using 239 terms in the CASRN and
chemical name fields that clearly indicate that the ingredients are considered a trade secret
Omission of the chemical name or CASRN from a CBI record disqualified that record for additive
ingredient analyses. The CBI ingredient records in the project database were reviewed to assess the
frequency at which operators claimed CBI status and the extent to which disclosures available for
summary analyses would be reduced by the exclusion of CBI ingredient records. More than 70% of
disclosures contained at least one ingredient identified as CBI, as shown in Table 4. Of the 25,796
disclosures that contained CBI ingredients (excluding duplicates and those that did not meet the
date criterion), the average number of CBI ingredients per disclosure was five. The total number of
ingredient records claimed as CBI or a related term was 129,311, or 11% of all ingredient records
that were completely parsed from disclosures that met the primary QA criteria. Arthur et al. (2014)
reported a similar proportion of CBI records in their study of FracFocus data (13% of ingredients;
approximately 200,000 records). Although these ingredients are reported as proprietary,
information on the general chemical class is frequently provided; related information is
summarized in Appendix B.

Atypical Formatting. Atypical formatting of ingredient and trade name information on disclosures
also caused information to fail QA criteria and be excluded from analyses. Data were entered in
some disclosures so that trade names and purposes were decoupled from ingredient names,

22 Disclosures containing these ingredient records meet the primary QA criteria.

23 The FracFocus 2.0 submission system prohibits operators or their registered agents from entering an ingredient
without a CASRN and issues a warning if the CASRN is not properly formatted or has the incorrect number of digits.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 4. Additive ingredients reported as confidential business information (CBI), summarized by state.

State

Number of disclosures with
parsed ingredients table

Percent of disclosures with at least
one reported CBI ingredient

Alabama

Alaska

100%

Arkansas

1,449

78%

California

704

80%

Colorado

4,624

57%

Kansas

133

60%

Louisiana

1,030

60%

Michigan

79%

Mississippi

100%

Montana

205

68%

New Mexico

1,136

89%

North Dakota

2,078

64%

Ohio

147

86%

Oklahoma

1,839

68%

Pennsylvania

2,463

48%

Texas

17,384

76%

Utah

1,339

91%

Virginia

24%

West Virginia

273

40%

Wyoming

1,391

75%

State Uncertain*

149

82%

Entire Dataset

36,544

71%

* State location did not pass state locational quality assurance criteria.

Note: Analysis considered 36,544 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including:
completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; and fracture date between
January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria (1,986) or
other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

CASRNs, and maximum concentrations. Such reporting styles allow the operator to disclose
chemicals while protecting proprietary information. The decoupling of related information
occurred in one of three ways:

• An operator entered all trade names into a single cell in the template and all purposes into
another cell.

• An operator entered trade names and purposes in a set of rows without ingredient
information and entered ingredient names, CASRNs, and maximum concentrations in a
series of rows below all of the trade names and purposes. This strategy is proposed by the

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) as appropriate for operators to fully disclose
chemicals and remain protective of business interests (SEAB, 2014).

• An operator entered some ingredients in a section separate from other ingredients, which
resulted in ingredients being included in unintended, incorrect fields when parsed. An
example would be non-hazardous ingredients not found on Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDS) that operators disclosed to FracFocus. The non-MSDS ingredients were entered in
a separate section than ingredients found on an MSDS. The disclosures typically included a
red cell with explanatory text separating the two areas of the ingredients table. The text in
the red separator itself could be incorporated into the ingredient name or CASRN fields
incorrectly when parsed.

These entry options rendered it difficult to match ingredients with purposes and trade names and
may have resulted in invalid entries in the trade name, supplier, ingredient name, or CASRN fields.
Ingredient records that met the critical QA criteria (valid CASRN, valid maximum concentrations)
were incorporated into basic analyses of ingredient occurrence even if their associated trade name
and purpose fields had problematic entries (because those two fields are not relevant to all
analyses.) Quantifying the number of ingredient records and disclosures affected by the data entry
formats would require a comprehensive comparison of the original PDFs to the project database,
which was infeasible given the large numbers of ingredient records and disclosures.

2.3. Analyses

Analyses were conducted to study disclosure locations and ingredients used in hydraulic fracturing
fluids on regional, state, and national scales. Summary information was also compiled to allow a
comparison among five counties with extensive hydraulic fracturing activities, as indicated by the
number of disclosures in the project database.

Analyses of the project database were designed to ensure that the results presented in this report
represent the data contained in the original PDF disclosures, while identifying obviously invalid or
incorrect data to exclude from analyses. For these reasons, results of the analyses represent only
the data found in the project database, and an extrapolation of the results to the entirety of
hydraulically fractured oil and gas production wells in the United States was not conducted.

2.3.1. Specific Criteria for Analyses

For each analysis, information was extracted from the project database by designing a query that
included specific QA criteria to address limitations in the project database. As noted in Section 2.2,
the following primary QA criteria were applied to all analyses: a unique combination of fracture
date and API well number and a fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013
(Table 1; 38,050 disclosures met these two criteria). The search criteria described below were used
in queries to help target specific types of information (e.g., use of search terms or selection of
certain types of purposes or ingredients). Table 5 identifies search filters and QA criteria used for
figures and tables presented in this report, along with the resulting numbers of disclosures and
ingredient records included in each analysis.

Specific Criteria and Approaches for Additive Ingredient Analyses. Analyses of the occurrence or
concentrations of additive ingredients included ingredient records from trade names with purposes

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

other than those associated with base fluids or proppants. Ingredient records for these analyses
were required to have valid maximum concentrations (between 0% and 100%) and valid CASRNs
(Section 2.2.3). The above QA criteria were met by 676,376 ingredient records (row for Table 7 in
Table 5).

Specific Criteria and Approaches for Base Fluid Analyses. Disclosures were included in analyses of
total water volumes if the entry in the total water volume field in the well header table (Figure 1)
was less than or equal to 50 million gallons.24 Two hundred fifty-five disclosures did not meet the
volume criterion and were excluded from relevant analyses: 11 disclosures exceeded 50 million
gallons; water volume was not reported for 165 disclosures; and for 79 disclosures, the water
volume was ambiguous as parsed.

Water as a base fluid was identified by querying the trade name and comments fields for a suite of
terms and with the criterion of a maximum hydraulic fracturing fluid concentration greater than or
equal to 1% by mass. The threshold of 1% distinguished water as a base fluid from water listed as
an additive ingredient The cutoff of 1% was chosen after considering the median and 95th
percentile maximum fluid concentrations of frequently reported additive ingredients as well as the
median maximum fluid concentration of all additive ingredients per disclosure.25 Because operators
often left the purpose field blank when listing water as a base fluid, the purpose field was not used
for this analysis. The analyses of base fluids included 36,046 unique disclosures with fracture dates
in the study time period and used ingredient records with maximum fluid concentrations greater
than 1% by mass (Table 5; rows for Tables 17 and 18).

To compile information on water sources, the project database was queried for the use of source
water descriptors in the trade name and comments fields. Although not explicitly required by
FracFocus, some operators included terminology in their submissions that indicated the source of
water used for the base fluid (e.g., "fresh," "surface water"). Operators most commonly listed source
water information as a trade name or in the comments field and usually included estimates of the
maximum concentration of water type in the hydraulic fracturing fluid.

To identify base fluid ingredients that were used either to enhance water-based fluid systems or as
an alternative to water-based systems, the project database was queried for non-aqueous
ingredients with base fluid-related terms in the purpose field. Preliminary queries indicated that
non-aqueous constituents such as gases and hydrocarbons were identified by purpose (whereas
water used as a base fluid is often not listed with a purpose). Furthermore, some constituents were
identified with more than one purpose even when above the 1% threshold (e.g., petroleum

24 The criterion of 50 million gallons or less for the reported total water volume was chosen based on the identification of
extreme values in the distribution of the data and after speaking with Mike Nickolaus of the GWPC regarding the extreme
values compared to ranges of known water use. Eleven disclosures indicated water volumes in excess of 50 million
gallons per disclosure, with the largest total water volume reported as greater than 100 million gallons. Typical per well
water volumes reported by Clark et al. (2013], Jiang et al. (2014], and Nicot and Scanlon (2012], are well below the 50
million gallon per disclosure threshold.

25 Well operators reported the maximum concentration of an ingredient in the additive and in the hydraulic fracturing
fluid. Therefore, the median and 5th and 95th percentile concentration values presented in this report represent those
values of the reported maximum concentrations.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 5. Filters, QA criteria, disclosures, and ingredient records associated with analyses presented in this report. "N/A" indicates not applicable.

WELL HEADER CRITERIA

INGREDIENT TABLE CRITERIA

TOTAL COUNTS

Figure or Table

Well header parsed

Unique disclosure

Fracture date within
study timeframe

Valid water volume

Location filter state

Location filter county

Production type

Ingredient table parsed

Valid CASRN

Valid additive & fluid
concentrations

Purpose: Proppant

Purpose: Base fluid

Valid purpose

Ingredient type

Disclosures

Ingredients

Figure 2. Geographic distribution of disclosures in
the project database

Yes

37,888

N/A

Figure 3. Geographic distribution of disclosures by
production type

Yes

37,888

N/A

Figure 4. Distribution of fracture dates in the
project database

Yes

37,888

N/A

Figure 5. Cumulative total water use, summarized
by county

Yes

37,888

N/A

Figure 6. Median total water volumes per
disclosure, summarized by county

Yes

37,888

N/A

Figure 7. Variability in reported total water volumes

per disclosure, as measured by the difference

Yes

37,888

N/A

between the 5th and 95th percentiles

Table 4. Additive ingredients reported as

confidential business information (CBI),

Yes

CBI

36,544

N/A

summarized by state

Table 6. Number and percentage of unique

disclosures in the project database with a fracture
date between January 1, 2011, and February 28,

Yes

38,050

N/A

2013

Table 7. Number of unique additive ingredients per
disclosure, summarized by state

Yes

Additives

34,675

676,376

Table 8. Twenty most frequently reported additive

ingredients in oil disclosures, ranked by frequency

Yes

Additives

17,640

385,013

of occurrence

Table continued on next page

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015



WELL HEADER CRITERIA

INGREDIENT TABLE CRITERIA

TOTAL COUNTS

Figure or Table

Well header parsed

Unique disclosure

Fracture date within
study timeframe

Valid water volume

Location filter state

Location filter county

Production type

Ingredient table parsed

Valid CASRN

Valid additive & fluid
concentrations

Purpose: Proppant

Purpose: Base fluid

Valid purpose

Ingredient type

Disclosures

Ingredients

Table 9. Twenty most frequently reported additive

































ingredients in gas disclosures, ranked by frequency

Yes

Yes

Yes







Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes







Additives

17,035

291,363

of occurrence

































Table 10. Frequently reported additive ingredients

































and commonly listed purposes for additives that

Yes

Yes

Yes









Yes

Yes

Yes







Additives

34,675

676,376

contain the ingredients

































Table 11. Counties selected to illustrate diversity in
additive ingredients at small scales

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

















4,066

N/A

Table 12. Comparison of 20 most frequently

































reported additive ingredients among selected

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

Yes







Additives

3,622

61,502

counties

































Table 13. Non-aqueous ingredients reported in base
fluids

Yes

Yes

Yes









Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes



Base Fluids

34,675

676,376

Table 14. Use of non-aqueous ingredients in base
fluids, summarized by state

Yes

Yes

Yes









Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes



Base Fluids

34,675

676,376

Table 15. Total water volumes, summarized by state

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes





















37,796

N/A

Table 16. Total water volumes for selected counties

































in approximately the 90th percentile of

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes





















37,796

N/A

disclosures

































Table 17. Number of disclosures having terms

































suggestive of water sources, summarized

Yes

Yes

Yes









Yes



Yes







Base Fluids

36,046

925,972*

by state

































Table 18. Median maximum fluid concentrations of
water by source, summarized by state

Yes

Yes

Yes









Yes



Yes







Base Fluids

36,046

925,972*

Table continued on next page

22

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015



WELL HEADER CRITERIA

INGREDIENT TABLE CRITERIA

TOTAL COUNTS

Figure or Table

Well header parsed

Unique disclosure

Fracture date within
study timeframe

Valid water volume

Location filter state

Location filter county

Production type

Ingredient table parsed

Valid CASRN

Valid additive & fluid
concentrations

Purpose: Proppant

Purpose: Base fluid

Valid purpose

Ingredient type

Disclosures

Ingredients

Table 19. Ten most frequently reported proppant

































ingredients, ranked by frequency

Yes

Yes

Yes









Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes





Proppants

34,675

676,376

of occurrence

































Table B-l. Chemical families for CBI ingredient
records

Yes

Yes

Yes









Yes











CBI

36,544

N/A

Table B-2. Most frequently reported chemical

































families among CBI ingredients and their most

Yes

Yes

Yes









Yes











CBI

36,544

N/A

commonly listed purposes

































Appendix C. Histograms of hydraulic fracturing fluid

































concentrations for most frequently reported

Yes

Yes

Yes







Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes







Additives

34,675

676,376

additive ingredients

































Table D-l. Disclosures per state, summarized by
well operator

Yes

Yes

Yes























38,050

N/A

Table E-l. Reporting regulations for states with data
in the project database

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes



















37,888

N/A

Table F-l. Number of disclosures, summarized by
additive purpose categories

Yes

Yes

Yes









Yes











Additives/
CBI

36,544

1,218,003

Table G-l. Twenty most frequently reported

































additive ingredients in Andrews County, Texas,

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

Yes







Additives

1,088

20,716

ranked by frequency of occurrence

































Table G-2. Twenty most frequently reported

































additive ingredients in Bradford County,

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

Yes







Additives

510

6,002

Pennsylvania, ranked by frequency of occurrence

































Table G-3. Twenty-one most frequently reported

































additive ingredients in Dunn County, North Dakota,

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

Yes







Additives

311

6,450

ranked by frequency of occurrence

































Table continued on next page

23

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015



WELL HEADER CRITERIA

INGREDIENT TABLE CRITERIA

TOTAL COUNTS

Figure or Table

Well header parsed

Unique disclosure

Fracture date within
study timeframe

Valid water volume

Location filter state

Location filter county

Production type

Ingredient table parsed

Valid CASRN

Valid additive & fluid
concentrations

Purpose: Proppant

Purpose: Base fluid

Valid purpose

Ingredient type

Disclosures

Ingredients

Table G-4. Twenty most frequently reported

































additive ingredients in Garfield County, Colorado,

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

Yes







Additives

1,166

17,337

ranked by frequency of occurrence

































Table G-5. Twenty most frequently reported

































additive ingredients in Kern County, California,

Yes

Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes



Yes

Yes

Yes







Additives

547

10,997

ranked by frequency of occurrence

































Table H-l. Total water volumes, summarized by
county

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes





















37,796

N/A

* Valid maximum concentration in additive criteria not used for this analysis.

24

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

distillates are listed as a gelling agent as well as a carrier ingredient). It was, therefore, considered
reasonable to use the purpose field for this analysis. Purpose terms that were used to identify these
ingredients included variations on: base fluid, fracturing fluid, gas, carrier, foamer or foaming agent,
energizer or energizing agent, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. As with water base fluids, a maximum
fluid concentration of 1% was chosen as the minimum limit to identify non-aqueous ingredients as
base fluids. The analyses of non-aqueous base fluids included 34,675 unique disclosures and used
ingredient records with maximum fluid concentrations greater than 1% by mass, and valid CASRN
and concentrations (Table 5; rows for Tables 13 and 14).

Description of Figure and Table Footnotes. Footnotes were developed to provide transparency about
how data were used for each analysis, because the number of disclosures and ingredient records for
individual analyses varied depending on the QA criteria used. The use of QA criteria in the analyses
is described in footnotes associated with each figure and table throughout Section 3. The
descriptions and numbers in the footnotes do not reflect other analysis-specific choices that were
made, such as screening for certain purposes or specific concentrations (e.g. purpose of base fluid,
concentration >1% by mass). Such decisions are described in the text in this section and in other
appropriate sections.

2.3.2. Calculations

The approach to calculations of summary statistics was chosen to support an understandable
synopsis of the analysis results, while minimizing the effects of limitations associated with the
project database. In addition to the parsing problems discussed above, invalid values in the
database also exist due to blank fields in disclosures, possible data entry errors, or non-reporting of
CBI. These issues are particularly problematic for data in the ingredients table. In many cases,
invalid entries were easily excluded during analysis by use of the previously described QA fields
(e.g., when alphabetic characters occur in numeric fields, such as concentration or CASRN fields). In
other cases, however, anomalous numbers that still meet QA criteria are seen in the concentration
fields (e.g., a maximum fluid concentration of 100% by mass in a field for an ingredient observed to
be used in small quantities in other disclosures).

Anomalous data that meet QA criteria, while small in number, tend to disproportionately affect
summary statistics by artificially inflating or decreasing the maximum, minimum, or mean. As an
example, sodium hydroxide was frequently reported in disclosures (38% of 34,675 disclosures that
met the primary QA requirements). The median maximum concentration of sodium hydroxide in
hydraulic fracturing fluid is 0.0092% by mass, but the mean maximum fluid concentration is
several orders of magnitude greater (0.10%). The mean is influenced by a maximum concentration
(100%) that is orders of magnitude greater than the 95th percentile (0.077%). The maximum
concentrations, at times, represent extreme values that may be included in the project database due
to parsing problems or errors in operator data entry.

To minimize the effects of anomalously high and low concentration values on the summary
statistics, the median was used to represent the central tendency of the dataset, and the 5 th and
95th percentiles were used to represent the range. Data at the extreme ends of ranges (below the
5th and above the 95th percentiles) remain in the project database. Calculations such as average or
variance were not performed on the data. The median and the 5th and 95th percentiles were

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

calculated using the default method in the statistical program R (R Core Team, 2013). Tables and
figures state the number of disclosures (i.e., frequency of reporting) to give additional context to the
data.

To assess the accuracy of the median as a measure of central tendency and to examine the
distributions of maximum additive ingredient concentrations in hydraulic fracturing fluids,
histograms were prepared for the twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients (Appendix
C). The histogram shapes vary, with some appearing log-normal and others with a more irregular
pattern or a roughly bimodal distribution.26 The variety in distributions indicates that, for some
additive ingredients, the median is a more reliable indicator of central tendency than for others.
Irregular or bimodal distributions may result from use of an additive ingredient in more than one
additive type (necessitating different amounts) or from variable additive needs depending upon
factors such as subsurface geochemistry or different operational practices.

If an additive ingredient was listed in more than one additive in a disclosure, the individual
maximum fluid concentrations were summed to estimate the total maximum fluid concentration for
that additive ingredient in the disclosure.27 The median and percentile maximum concentrations in
hydraulic fracturing fluids were calculated from these summed values. Because the concentrations
of each additive ingredient are the maximum possible concentrations, the resulting statistics on
hydraulic fracturing fluid concentrations can be considered upper limits. Also, because maximum
concentrations were reported (and in some cases operators appeared to have entered additive
concentrations or other values in the fracturing fluid concentration field), the cumulative maximum
fluid concentrations of an ingredient across all additives in a disclosure sum to greater than 100%
by mass in some disclosures.

Frequency of reporting for ingredients at the disclosure level was calculated by summing the
number of disclosures that reported a specific ingredient. Frequency of reporting at the ingredient
record level was calculated by summing the number of individual ingredient records for a specific
ingredient. Percentages presented in the tables were calculated based upon the total number of
disclosures or ingredient records that met the QA criteria for a given analysis and other, query-
specific criteria.

For analyses of total water volumes, cumulative volumes were calculated by adding the total water
volume reported in the well header table for all disclosures in a chosen unit area. Total water
volumes were also summarized on a per-disclosure basis by calculating the median and 5th and
95th percentiles among all disclosures for an area of interest (i.e., state, county, entire dataset).
Median per-disclosure water volumes for a given area reflect the central tendency of the dataset,
and 5th and 95th percentiles provide information on the range of the dataset

26	The most frequently reported additive ingredients with non-normal distributions include: 2-butoxyethanol,
hydrotreated light petroleum distillates, ethanol, naphthalene, potassium hydroxide, quartz, and heavy aromatic
petroleum solvent naphtha.

27	Fluid concentrations for individual ingredient records must meet the initial QA criteria of maximum fluid concentration
by mass between 0% and 100% prior to inclusion in the analysis.

26

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

3. Results

The project database includes data extracted from 38,530 disclosures in 20 states that were
uploaded to FracFocus before March 1, 2Q13.28 Operators identified 19,908 disclosures as oil-
producing wells and 18,622 as gas-producing wells.29 Analyses included well locational data, total
water volumes, and production type for 38,050 disclosures that metprimary QA criteria (19,769 oil
wells and 18,281 gas wells). Ingredient data were considered for 36,544 disclosures that met
primary QA criteria (Table 1).

Operators provided locational information for the wells represented in the disclosures. This
information enabled comparisons among hydraulic fracturing fluid composition in different regions
of the country on a state or county basis. Figure 2 shows the geographic distribution of well

Disclosures per county (# of
counties)

1,001 -3,016(3)

| 501 -1,000(14)

| 101 - 500 (62)

11 -100(137)

1-10(191)

No disclosures (2,687)

Unconfirmed locations (47)

I Shale basins (US EIA, 2011a)

Note Stele basins are these sedimentary aasins associated with ail and gas shale
pi are (US EIA, 2011a). Pie snale Dasins were Included in the figure in order to
offer bas;c geologic context fcf the location of a disclosure; well cudosures likely
represent mere oil and gas producing formations than only shale forrrstons.
Analyse considered 37.888 FracFocus disclosures thai me; selected quality
assurance criteria - unique combination of fracture date and API Number; fracture
date within tne date range January 1,2011, through February 28.2013; and with
confirmed state location Discosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria
were excluded from analysis {642).

Note: Shale basins are those sedimentary basins associated with oil and gas shale plays (US EIA, 2011a), The shale basins offer
basic geologic context for the location of a disclosure; disclosures likely represent more oil and gas producing formations than
only shale formations. Analysis considered 37,888 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: unique
combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and with
confirmed state location. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria were excluded from analysis (642).

Figure 2, Geographic distribution of disclosures in the project database.

2S Nine hydraulic fracturing service companies reported that they hydraulically fractured nearly 25,000 wells in 30 states
between approximately September 2009 and September 2010 (US EPA, 2012). Assuming that hydraulic fracturing
continued to occur in the 30 states through March 2013, this suggests that disclosures uploaded to FracFocus and
analyzed for this study may not encompass all hydraulic fracturing activity that occurred between 2011 and 2013.

Appendix D identifies the operators that submitted disclosures and the states where their wells are located.

27

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

locations as reported in the project database. Generally, the locations of wells represented in the
disclosures are clustered in the northeast (mainly in and around Pennsylvania), the west central
portion of the country (from North Dakota and Wyoming through Texas and Louisiana), and in
California.

Many counties are represented in the project database, but a large number of counties have few
disclosures in the database. The project database indicates well locations in 406 counties, with a
range of 1 to 3,016 disclosures per county. Approximately 50% of counties represented in the
project database have less than 13 disclosures, and 26% of the counties have only one or two
disclosures.

Counties with particularly large numbers of disclosures are in California, Colorado, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania, and Texas. This distribution is generally consistent with areas of the country that
have experienced the greatest growth in oil and gas production since the late 2000's—namely, the
Bakken (North Dakota and Montana), the Eagle Ford (Texas), the Haynesville (Texas, Louisiana, and
Arkansas), the Marcellus (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, New York, and Maryland), the
Niobrara (Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas), the Permian Basin (Texas and New Mexico),
and the Utica (Ohio). These basins and formations accounted for nearly 95% of growth in domestic
oil production and virtually all of the growth in domestic natural gas production during 2011 and
2012 (US EI A, 2014).

The geographic distribution of disclosures should be considered when interpreting results of
analyses presented in this report, because certain parts of the country are more heavily
represented than others, as shown in Table 6. For example, 48% of all disclosures in the project
database are located in Texas. Arthur et al. (2014) also noted that almost half the disclosures in
FracFocus are from Texas. Therefore, the disclosure data associated with Texas influence summary
analyses of the entire project database toward hydraulic fracturing practices in Texas.

Because operators provided information on production type in FracFocus 1.0, it is possible to use
production type to add additional context to the data in the project database. Figure 3 identifies the
production type by county as a proportion of disclosures. Although production in many counties
was predominantly (>80%) oil or gas, some counties had a mix of oil- and gas-reporting
disclosures. Disclosures in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia indicated predominantly gas
production (>80%), whereas disclosures in North Dakota, WestTexas, and northern Wyoming
showed predominantly oil production. Disclosures from many states indicated the presence of both
oil and gas production wells.

Influence of State Reporting Requirements. By February 2013, six of the 20 states with data in the
project database had implemented regulations that required well operators to disclose chemicals
used in hydraulic fracturing fluids to FracFocus: Colorado, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Texas, and Utah.30 Three additional states (Louisiana, Montana, and Ohio) required disclosure to

30 Between February 5,2011, and April 13,2012, Pennsylvania required reporting to the state. As of April 14,2012,
Pennsylvania required reporting to both the state and FracFocus.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 6. Number and percentage of unique disclosures in the project database with a fracture date between
January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013.

State

Number of disclosures

Percentage of disclosures

Texas

18,075

48%

Colorado

4,938

13%

Pennsylvania

2,483

6.5%

North Dakota

2,254

5.9%

Oklahoma

1,909

5.0%

Wyoming

1,457

3.8%

Arkansas

1,450

3.8%

Utah

1,429

3.8%

New Mexico

1,162

3.1%

Louisiana

1,038

2.7%

California

718

1.9%

West Virginia

277

0.73%

Montana

213

0.56%

Ohio

148

0.39%

Kansas

136

0.36%

Virginia

90

0.24%

Alabama

55

0.14%

Alaska

37

0.097%

Michigan

15

0.039%

Mississippi

4

0.011%

State Uncertain*

162

0.43%

Entire Dataset

38,050

100%

* State location did not pass state locational quality assurance criteria.

Note: 480 disclosures that did not meet primary quality assurance criteria were excluded from analysis.

either FracFocus or the state, and five states (Arkansas, Michigan, New Mexico, West Virginia, and
Wyoming) required reporting to the state.31 Reporting requirements for the six states with
mandatory reporting to FracFocus became effective during the time period studied in this report.
The changing nature of reporting requirements may have influenced both the number and
geographic distribution of disclosures in the project database.

Figure 4 shows the distribution of fracture dates in the project database and indicates whether the
disclosure was mandatory or voluntary. Mandatory disclosures are defined, in this report, as

31 Appendix E describes reporting requirements for the 20 states discussed in this study.

29

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Fraction of disclosures by
production type (# of
counties)

| 60-80% gas (23)
| 40-60% gas (24)
60-80% oil (24)
| >80% oil (143)
No disclosures (2,687)
Unconfirmed locations (47)
~ Shale basins (US EIA, 2011a)

Note Sha!s basins are (hose sedimentary basins associated with oil and gas shale
plays (US EIA, 2011a). The snale basins wets Included In the figure in order to
offer, basic geologic context far the location cf a disclosure, well disclosures likely
represent mere oil and gas producing formations than only shale formatons.
Analysis considered 37,888 FracFocus disclosures that me; selected quality
assurance criteria - unique combination of fracture da© and API Number; fracture
date within tie date range January 1, 2011, through February 28.2013, and v/ith
confirmed state location Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria
were excluded from analysis {642 disclosures}.

Note: Shale basins are those sedimentary basins associated with oil and gas shale plays (US EIA, 2011a). The shale basins offer
basic geologic context for the location of a disclosure; disclosures likely represent more oil and gas producing formations than
only shale formations. Analysis considered 37,888 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: unique
combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and with
confirmed state location. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria were excluded from analysis (642 disclosures).

Figure 3. Geographic distribution of disclosures by production type.

disclosures that occurred in one of the six states with mandatory reporting to FracFocus and had a
fracture date after the state's regulatory effective date.32 Voluntary disclosures included disclosures
that fell into one of the following categories: disclosures from states with no reporting
requirements, states with reporting requirements that did not mandate reporting to FracFocus (i.e.,
states requiring disclosure to the state and states requiring disclosure to either the state or
FracFocus), or disclosures that had a fracture date prior to a state's regulatory effective date for
mandatory reporting to FracFocus. Data presented in Figure 4 suggest that, overall, the number of
disclosures in the project database increased when mandatory reporting requirements to
FracFocus were in place.33 The observed increase in the number of disclosures in the project

3- For five of the six states with mandatoiy reporting requirements to FracFocus, reporting is required for hydraulic
fracturing operations on or after the regulatory effective date. For Texas, the reporting requirements apply to hydraulic
fracturing operations conducted at wells with drilling permits issued on or after the regulatory effective date.

31 There is typically a delay of one to three months between the fracture date and the date of required disclosure
reporting in states with mandatory reporting to FracFocus (Appendix E). The reporting delay may have led to artificially
low reporting rates for the months toward the end of the analysis (late 2012 and early 2013).

30

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

2,500

Texas Colorado Utah Oklahoma

¦ Voluntary North Dakota

¦ Mandatory Fracture Date PennsY|vania

Note: Analysis considered 37,888 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: unique combination of
fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and with confirmed state
location. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria were excluded from analysis (642). During the timeframe of
this study, six states mandated reporting to FracFocus: Colorado, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah.
Vertical lines in the figure indicate when mandatory reporting to FracFocus became effective. Voluntary disclosures included
disclosures that fell into one of the following categories: disclosures from states with no reporting requirements, states with
reporting requirements that did not mandate reporting to FracFocus (i.e., states requiring disclosure to the state and states
requiring disclosure to either the state or FracFocus), or disclosures that had a fracture date prior to a state's regulatory
effective date for mandatory reporting to FracFocus. A list of state disclosure requirements is provided in Appendix E.

Figure 4. Distribution of fracture dates in the project database.

database is largely driven by disclosures in Texas, which has the largest percentage of disclosures
in the project database. In Texas, the number of disclosures per day increased by 89% after the
regulatory effective date for mandatory reporting to FracFocus.34 A similar trend was found for
North Dakota, which had an 84% increase in disclosures per day after the regulatory effective date.
Opposite trends were observed for Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Utah: the number of
disclosures per day for these states decreased after the regulatory effective date for mandatory
reporting to FracFocus.35

34 The number of disclosures per day was calculated for the time periods before and after a state's disclosure requirement
became effective. The number of disclosures with a fracture date between January 1,2011, and a state's effective date (i.e.,
before regulations] was divided by the number of days in that period. The number of disclosures between the effective
date and February 28,2013, (i.e., after regulations] was similarly divided by the number of days in that time period.

35 The number of disclosures per day decreased by 37% in Colorado, 19% in Oklahoma, 13% in Pennsylvania, and 21% in
Utah. In Oklahoma, the regulatory effective date for mandatory disclosures to FracFocus was January 1,2013, which was
two months prior to the end of the time period of the study. This may account for the decrease in the number of
disclosures observed for Oklahoma, because well operators had 60 days to report to FracFocus.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Changes in the number of disclosures reported to FracFocus per day or per month may be due to a
variety of factors, including fluctuations in the number of wells hydraulically fractured and shifts in
state reporting requirements as new regulations were adopted. Available information indicates that
the percentage of wells within a state reporting data to FracFocus increases when states have
mandatory reporting requirements to FracFocus. This may or may not relate to the increases and
decreases in disclosures per day discussed above, depending on other factors that can influence the
number of wells hydraulically fracturing, including the price of oil and gas. Hansen et al. (2013)
compared the number of disclosures in FracFocus from Pennsylvania to the number of wells that
started drilling in the same year and found that the percentage of wells reporting to FracFocus
increased from 59% in 2011 to 85% in 2012, which coincides with mandatory reporting
requirements to FracFocus implemented by Pennsylvania in April 2012. A similar observation was
made by the Railroad Commission of Texas, which reported that, prior to the passage of reporting
regulations in Texas, well operators were voluntarily uploading data to FracFocus for about half of
all wells undergoing hydraulic fracturing in Texas (Railroad Commission of Texas, 2015).

The observations from Hansen et al. (2013) and the Railroad Commission of Texas (2015) suggest
that the project database is likely incomplete, because the majority of the states with data in the
project database (14 out of 20) did not have mandatory reporting requirements to FracFocus
during the study timeframe.36 For the six states that implemented mandatory reporting
requirements to FracFocus during the time period studied in this report, the earliest regulatory
effective date was February 1, 2012 (Texas), and the latest date was January 1, 2013 (Oklahoma).
Because the majority of disclosures in the project database (58%) were reported in states without
mandatory reporting requirements to FracFocus or had fracture dates prior to regulatory effective
dates for mandatory reporting to FracFocus, the project database cannot be assumed to be
complete.

3.1. Additive Ingredients

The project database contains 692 unique ingredients reported for base fluids, proppants, and
additives in hydraulic fracturing fluids.37 Of these, 598 ingredients are associated with valid
maximum fluid and additive concentrations (individual record values between 0% and 100%).
Similarly large numbers of chemicals associated with hydraulic fracturing have been estimated
elsewhere. In a survey of 14 leading oil and gas service companies, Waxman et al. (2011) found that
the additives used contained 750 chemicals. Colborn etal. (2011) used information from MSDS for
additives used in the natural gas industry to compile an estimate of 632 chemicals used during
drilling and hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells.

This section primarily summarizes ingredients reported in hydraulic fracturing fluid additives that
have purposes other than base fluid or proppant, but also includes ingredients identified as non-

36 Eight of the 14 states had or implemented reporting requirements during the study's timeframe that either required
reporting to the state or allowed reporting to the state or FracFocus. Six states had no reporting requirements during the
study's timeframe.

37 Unique ingredients are defined by valid CASRN and chemical name.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

aqueous base fluids (Section 3.2.1) and resin coatings for proppants.38 Analyses focused primarily
on the ingredients in additives rather than the additives (i.e., the trade name field) because
chemical information is more useful to assess toxicity, exposure, and therefore potential impacts on
drinking water resources. Additives may be single-ingredient additives, as suggested by additive
concentrations of 100%, or they may contain several ingredients. Additives are added to a
hydraulic fracturing fluid to change the fluid's properties. For example, some additives in the
fracturing fluid help manage viscosity for delivery of proppant into the fractures, while other
additives serve to minimize damage to the formation or maximize flow of oil or gas from the
formation to the well (Gupta and Valko, 2007). Additives chosen for hydraulic fracturing fluids can
vary significantly based on factors such as geologic conditions, well design, and operator or service
company preferences (Arthur et al., 2014; GWPC and ALL Consulting, 2009; Waxman etal., 2011).

The median number of unique additive ingredients per disclosure was 14 and, summarized by
state, ranged from nine in Virginia to 21 in New Mexico. Table 7 shows the median number of
unique additive ingredients per disclosure for the 20 states identified in the project database. The
median number of additive ingredients per disclosure was 16 for oil disclosures and 12 for gas
disclosures (not shown in Table 7). The range of additive ingredients per disclosure, however, was
four to 28 (5th to 95th percentile) for the entire dataset Apparent differences between oil and gas
disclosures may not be statistically significant

3.1.1. Reported Frequency and Fluid Concentrations of Additive Ingredients

The 20 most frequently reported additive ingredients were analyzed separately for oil and gas
disclosures in the project database. Tables 8 and 9 list the most frequently reported chemicals for
hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas disclosures, respectively, with median and 5th and 95th
percentiles for maximum hydraulic fracturing fluid concentrations reported.39 Median as well as 5th
and 95th percentiles for the maximum concentrations of the chemicals in their respective additives
are also included in Tables 8 and 9.40 Maximum ingredient concentrations (in hydraulic fracturing
fluids and additives) are reported as mass percents in Tables 8 and 9 to be consistent with
concentrations reported by operators to FracFocus 1.0 (Figure 1), although volumes may be more
useful for understanding potential impacts on drinking water resources from releases of hydraulic
fracturing fluids or additives.41 Both maximum additive concentrations and fluid concentrations for
each additive ingredient may be important to consider when assessing potential impacts on

38	Resin coatings are added to proppants and enhance the ability of proppants to keep fractures open; resin coatings do
not function as proppants themselves.

39	If an additive ingredient appeared more than once in a disclosure (e.g., the same solvent used in multiple additives],
then the maximum fluid concentrations were added. For example, methanol may be an ingredient in two additives on a
disclosure with maximum fluid concentrations of 0.1% and 0.05% by mass, respectively. The maximum fluid
concentration of methanol for this disclosure would be the sum of 0.1% and 0.05%>, which is 0.15% by mass.

40	Maximum concentrations of ingredients in additives reflect the concentration for each individual ingredient record, not
the sum of the reported concentrations.

41	Mass percents could be converted to volumes by assuming a density for total water volumes reported in the well header
table (Figure 1].

33

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 7. Number of unique additive ingredients per disclosure, summarized by state.

State

Number of disclosures

Number of additive ingredients
per disclosure

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Alabama

55

10

10

10

Alaska

20

15

13

16

Arkansas

1,337

10

6

21

California

585

19

10

23

Colorado

4,561

13

5

23

Kansas

97

14

8

17

Louisiana

1,026

15

1

29

Michigan

14

19

10

29

Mississippi

4

14

11

23

Montana

193

16

9

38

New Mexico

1,115

21

7

31

North Dakota

1,989

15

4

33

Ohio

146

17

8

38

Oklahoma

1,810

12

5

30

Pennsylvania

2,419

10

4

18

Texas

16,405

15

4

30

Utah

1,253

17

7

23

Virginia

79

9

7

12

West Virginia

239

12

7

22

Wyoming

1,198

10

5

24

State Uncertain*

130

15

5

27

Entire Dataset

34,675

14

4

28

* State location did not pass state locational quality assurance criteria.

Note: Analysis considered 34,675 disclosures and 676,376 ingredient records that met selected quality
assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well
number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and valid
concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria (3,855 disclosures) or other,
query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

drinking water resources from hydraulic fracturing, because an accidental release of a relatively
small volume of a concentrated additive being stored on a well pad may have different potential
impacts than a release of a greater volume of hydraulic fracturing fluid with more dilute additive
ingredient concentrations.

Additive ingredients listed in Tables 8 and 9 were generally present in hydraulic fracturing fluids in
low concentrations. The medians of the maximum fluid concentrations of the frequently reported

34

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 8. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in oil disclosures, ranked by frequency of occurrence.

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in
hydraulic fracturing fluid (% by mass)

Maximum concentration in
additive (% by mass)

Number (%)
of disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Methanol

67-56-1

12,484 (72%)

0.022

0.00064

0.16

26,482 (7.7%)

30

0.39

100

Distillates,
petroleum,
hydrotreated light*

64742-47-8

10,566 (61%)

0.087

0.00073

0.39

15,995 (4.6%)

40

0.60

70

Peroxydisulfuric acid,
diammonium salt

7727-54-0

10,350 (60%)

0.0076

0.00028

0.067

12,723 (3.7%)

100

0.10

100

Ethylene glycol

107-21-1

10,307 (59%)

0.023

0.00086

0.098

12,281 (3.5%)

30

0.50

60

Hydrochloric acid

7647-01-0

10,029 (58%)

0.29

0.013

1.8

11,817 (3.4%)

15

2.9

50

Guar gum

9000-30-0

9,110 (52%)

0.17

0.027

0.43

9,316 (2.7%)

50

1.6

100

Sodium hydroxide

1310-73-2

8,609 (50%)

0.010

0.000050

0.075

10,300 (3.0%)

10

0.025

45

Quartz*f

14808-60-7

8,577 (49%)

0.0041

0.000040

12

12,636 (3.7%)

2.0

0.020

93

Water*'

7732-18-5

8,538 (49%)

1.0

0.0050

9.1

23,340 (6.7%)

67

15

97

Isopropanol

67-63-0

8,031 (46%)

0.0063

0.000070

0.22

11,975 (3.5%)

15

0.17

100

Potassium
hydroxide*

1310-58-3

7,206 (41%)

0.013

0.000010

0.052

8,050 (2.3%)

15

0.15

50

Glutaraldehyde

111-30-8

5,927 (34%)

0.0065

0.00027

0.020

6,211 (1.8%)

15

0.030

50

Propargyl alcohol

107-19-7

5,599 (32%)

0.00022

0.000030

0.0030

6,129 (1.8%)

5.0

0.0029

10

Acetic acid

64-19-7

4,623 (27%)

0.0047

0.000000§

0.047

5,552 (1.6%)

30

0.82

100

2-Butoxyethanol*

111-76-2

4,022 (23%)

0.0053

0.000000§

0.17

5,096 (1.5%)

10

0.25

100

Solvent naphtha,
petroleum, heavy
arom.*

64742-94-5

3,821 (22%)

0.0060

0.000000§

0.038

4,129 (1.2%)

5.0

0.00

35

Sodium chloride*

7647-14-5

3,692 (21%)

0.0071

0.000000§

0.27

4,445 (1.3%)

25

0.0040

100

Ethanol*

64-17-5

3,536 (20%)

0.026

0.000020

0.16

4,178(1.2%)

45

1.0

60

Citric acid

77-92-9

3,310 (19%)

0.0047

0.00016

0.024

3,491 (1.0%)

60

7.0

100

Phenolic resin

9003-35-4

3,109 (18%)

0.13

0.019

2.0

3,238 (0.94%)

5.0

0.94

20

* Chemical has a non-normal distribution and the median may not represent the central tendency of the dataset as well as the median of a normally distributed dataset.
f See the text for a discussion of why water and quartz were included in the table.

§ Concentration is less than a millionth of a percentage by mass.

Note: Analysis considered 17,640 disclosures and 385,013 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination
of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet
quality assurance criteria (2,268 disclosures) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

35

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 9. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in gas disclosures, ranked by frequency of occurrence.

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in
hydraulic fracturing fluid (% by mass)

Maximum concentration in
additive (% by mass)

Number (%)
of disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Hydrochloric acid

7647-01-0

12,351 (73%)

0.078

0.0063

0.67

13,754 (5.3%)

15

2.7

60

Methanol

67-56-1

12,269 (72%)

0.0020

0.000040

0.053

19,074 (7.3%)

30

0.50

90

Distillates,
petroleum,
hydrotreated light*

64742-47-8

11,897 (70%)

0.017

0.0021

0.27

14,289 (5.5%)

30

3.1

70

Isopropanol

67-63-0

8,008 (47%)

0.0016

0.000010

0.051

10,326 (3.9%)

30

2.5

60

Water**

7732-18-5

7,998 (47%)

0.18

0.000090

91

17,690 (6.8%)

63

5

100

Ethanol*

64-17-5

6,325 (37%)

0.0023

0.00012

0.090

7,062 (2.7%)

5.0

1.0

60

Propargyl alcohol

107-19-7

5,811 (34%)

0.000070

0.000010

0.0016

5,963 (2.3%)

10

0.0037

40

Glutaraldehyde

111-30-8

5,635 (33%)

0.0084

0.00091

0.023

5,827 (2.2%)

30

0.18

60

Ethylene glycol

107-21-1

5,493 (32%)

0.0061

0.000080

0.24

7,733 (3.0%)

35

1.0

100

Citric acid

77-92-9

4,832 (28%)

0.0017

0.000050

0.011

4,885 (1.9%)

60

30

100

Sodium hydroxide

1310-73-2

4,656 (27%)

0.0036

0.000020

0.088

5,642 (2.2%)

5.0

1.0

60

Peroxydisulfuric acid,
diammonium salt

7727-54-0

4,618 (27%)

0.0045

0.000050

0.045

6,402 (2.4%)

100

0.26

100

Quartz*f

14808-60-7

3,758 (22%)

0.0024

0.000030

11

4,729 (1.8%)

10

0.20

100

2,2-Dibromo-3-
nitrilopropionamide

10222-01-2

3,668 (22%)

0.0018

0.000070

0.022

3,728 (1.4%)

100

10

100

Sodium chloride*

7647-14-5

3,608 (21%)

0.0091

0.000000§

0.12

4,176 (1.6%)

30

1.0

40

Guar gum

9000-30-0

3,586 (21%)

0.10

0.00057

0.38

3,702 (1.4%)

60

1.6

100

Acetic acid

64-19-7

3,563 (21%)

0.0025

0.000000§

0.028

3,778 (1.4%)

50

5.0

90

2-Butoxyethanol*

111-76-2

3,325 (20%)

0.0035

0.000010

0.041

4,186 (1.6%)

10

3.0

40

Naphthalene*

91-20-3

3,294 (19%)

0.0012

0.0000027

0.0050

3,355 (1.3%)

5.0

0.0071

5.0

Solvent naphtha,
petroleum, heavy
arom.*

64742-94-5

3,287 (19%)

0.0044

0.000030

0.030

3,750 (1.4%)

30

0.026

30

* Chemical has a non-normal distribution and the median may not represent the central tendency of the dataset as well as the median of a normally distributed dataset.
f See the text for a discussion of why water and quartz were included in the table.

§ Concentration is less than a millionth of a percentage by mass.

Note: Analysis considered 17,035 disclosures and 291,363 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination
of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet
quality assurance criteria (1,587) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

36

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

additive ingredients, except for water, were less than 0.3% by mass of the fracturing fluid, and the
95th percentiles for maximum fluid concentration did not exceed 2.0%, except for water and
quartz. The sum of the maximum fluid concentrations for all additive ingredients in a disclosure,
excluding proppant and base fluid ingredients, was less than 1% by mass in approximately 80% of
disclosures. The median value for this sum was 0.43% by mass. The additive ingredient
concentrations observed in the project database appear to be consistent with published estimates
that report that the total concentration of all additive ingredients constitutes approximately 1% to
2% or less of the fracturing fluid (GWPC and ALL Consulting, 2009; Lee et al., 2011).

Eighteen of the 20 most frequently reported additive ingredients were common to hydraulic
fracturing fluids used in both the oil and gas disclosures analyzed. In particular, methanol,
hydrochloric acid, and hydrotreated light petroleum distillates were among the additive ingredients
most frequently reported for both oil and gas disclosures in the project database. Among the entire
dataset, methanol was reported in 71% of disclosures (24,753 out of 34,675), hydrochloric acid in
65% (22,380 disclosures), and hydrotreated light petroleum distillates in 65% (22,463
disclosures). Methanol was associated with additives such as corrosion inhibitors and surfactants,
while reported purposes for additives that contain hydrochloric acid included serving as a scale
control agent, controlling iron, serving as a solvent, and a more general designation of "acid" or
"acidizing" (see Section 3.1.2 for further discussion). Hydrochloric acid is known to be commonly
used to clean the well perforations (Economides and Baumgartner, 2008).

Methanol, hydrochloric acid, and light petroleum distillates were each reported in 70% or more of
gas disclosures (Table 9). The next most frequently reported additive ingredient for gas disclosures
(isopropanol) was reported in less than 50% of gas disclosures. This suggests that methanol,
hydrochloric acid, and hydrotreated light petroleum distillates were consistently used in hydraulic
fracturing fluids for gas wells between January 2011 and February 2013. In contrast, additive
ingredients reported for oil disclosures did not show a similar pattern: seven additive ingredients
were each reported in 50% or more of oil disclosures, with only one additive ingredient (methanol)
reported in more than 70% of oil disclosures (Table 8).

Maximum fluid concentrations (medians, 5th and 95th percentiles) for the most frequently
reported additive ingredients appear to be greater in disclosures for oil wells than gas wells (Tables
8 and 9). For example, the median of the maximum fluid concentration for hydrochloric acid
reported for oil disclosures was 0.29% by mass, compared to 0.078% for gas disclosures. The range
of observed maximum fluid concentrations for hydrochloric acid was also an order of magnitude
larger in oil disclosures, 0.013% to 1.8% by mass (5th to 95th percentile), compared to gas
disclosures (0.0063% to 0.67% by mass). Similar to hydrochloric acid, reported maximum fluid
concentrations for methanol were an order of magnitude greater in oil disclosures, which ranged
from 0.00064% to 0.16% by mass (5th to 95th percentile), than in gas disclosures, which ranged
from 0.000040% to 0.053% by mass.

Water and Quartz as Additive Ingredients. Water was commonly reported as an ingredient in
additives as well as being listed as a base fluid. Quartz, the proppant ingredient most commonly
reported, was also reported as an ingredient in other additives. Both Tables 8 and 9 list water and
quartz among the 20 most frequently reported additive ingredients used in hydraulic fracturing

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

fluids. Water was reported as an additive ingredient in 49% of oil disclosures and 47% of gas
disclosures, and quartz was reported as an additive ingredient in 49% and 22% of oil and gas
disclosures, respectively.

The 95th percentile values observed for maximum fracturing fluid concentrations of water and
quartz as additive ingredients were larger than expected: 9.1% and 12% by mass in oil disclosures
and 91% and 11% by mass in gas disclosures, respectively (Tables 8 and 9). The larger values were
more reflective of maximum fluid concentrations associated with base fluids (Section 3.2) and
proppants (Section 3.3) and may have been included in the analyses of additive ingredients in oil
and gas disclosures due to mislabeled or unlabeled purposes in the project database or original PDF
disclosures.42 For example, 99 ingredient records with valid concentrations contained no purpose
information for quartz; of these, 75 had trade names that were readily identifiable as proppants.
Ultimately, the small number of disclosures with unidentified purposes was included to avoid any
assumptions that may have introduced bias in the results.

Diesel Fuels. To evaluate the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing fluids, the project database
was analyzed for any of the following CASRNs:43

• 68334-30-5: Fuels, diesel

• 68476-30-2: Fuel oil no. 2

• 68476-31-3: Fuel oil no. 4

• 68476-34-6: Fuels, diesel, no. 2

• 8008-20-6: Navy fuels JP-5; kerosene44

Three of the five CASRNs were identified in the project database: 68334-30-5, 68476-34-6, and
8008-20-6. The CASRNs were reported in 302 gas disclosures (1.7% of 17,594 gas disclosures with
parsed ingredients and valid CASRNs) and 40 oil disclosures (0.22% of 18,363 oil disclosures with
parsed ingredients and valid CASRNs).45 No disclosures reported use of more than one of these five
CASRNs.

The most frequently reported diesel fuel CASRN was 8008-20-6, with 281 disclosures, 270 of which
were for gas disclosures. Fifty-seven disclosures listed 68476-34-6, and four disclosures included
68334-30-5. The state with the largest number of disclosures listing a diesel fuel CASRN was
Arkansas, with 173 disclosures (primarily 8008-20-6), followed by New Mexico (54 disclosures),
Pennsylvania (43 disclosures), and Texas (30 disclosures).

42 The database filter applied to the data query excluded additive ingredients associated with base fluids and proppants or
their synonyms.

43 The five CASRNs were used to define diesel fuels in the Permitting Guidance for Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing
Activities Using Diesel Fuels: Underground Injection Control Program Guidance #84 (US EPA, 2014b].

44 Navy fuels JP-5 (CASRN 8008-20-6] is referred to as kerosene in the Permitting Guidance for Oil and Gas Hydraulic
Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuels: Underground Injection Control Program Guidance #84 (US EPA, 2014b].

45 An additional 20 disclosures (19 gas and 1 oil] that did not pass QA criteria reported two of the same three compounds.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

3.1.2. Additive Purposes

Operators generally reported purposes for each additive (i.e., trade name) listed on a disclosure
(Figure l).46 The purpose describes the function of the additive in the hydraulic fracturing fluid,
rather than the function of individual ingredients in the additive. In the project database, additive
purposes are assigned to each ingredient in the additive. Thus, regardless of whether a particular
ingredient serves as an active or inactive ingredient in an additive, its purpose as listed in the
database will be the same as that reported by the operator for the additive itself. Information
submitted to FracFocus neither indicates whether chemicals are active or inactive ingredients nor
the specific purpose a given ingredient serves in the additive.

The project database developed for this study indicated a median number of 10 additives per
disclosure. Commonly cited estimates of the numbers of additives used for hydraulic fracturing
suggest three to 12 such additives, serving a variety of purposes (GWPC and ALL Consulting, 2009).
The number of additives used depends upon the specifics of the well in addition to operator
practices (Carter etal., 2013).

Additive ingredients are often associated with multiple purposes in the project database, because
different additives may have similar ingredients. Table 10 provides a list of the most commonly
reported purposes for additives that contain the most frequently reported additive ingredients
listed in Tables 8 and 9.

Some additive types (as identified by purpose) were associated with large numbers of ingredients.
For example, in the general category of biocides, there were 197 unique ingredients (as identified
by CASRNs), and 309 trade names for biocide additives. Similarly, 177 ingredients and 277 trade
names were found in the project database for gelling agent and gel stabilizer additives. However,
because of parsing difficulties from variations in reporting styles, some additive purpose
assignments are likely to be erroneous. Therefore, the data are likely to represent overestimates of
the total numbers of chemicals associated with various purposes. Suspicious ingredient-purpose
associations generally occur in one or two ingredient records each; therefore, greater frequency of
reporting for a particular additive purpose and ingredient combination in the project database
allows for greater confidence that the results reflect actual associations. Nonetheless, the data
indicate that a number of additives are used for a given purpose and that many of these additives
contain several ingredients.

3.1.3. Comparing Variability of Additive Ingredients in Selected Counties

The summary of additive ingredients reported for the entire dataset provided in Tables 8 and 9
may be helpful in determining large-scale similarities across the country. Diversity in additive
ingredients observed in the project database, however, implies that smaller-scale aggregation of the

46 Appendix F contains a list of additive purpose categories identified from the project database and identifies the number
of disclosures containing additives for each purpose category.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 10. Frequently reported additive ingredients and commonly listed purposes for additives that contain the
ingredients.

EPA-standardized chemical name

CASRN

Purposes commonly associated with additives
containing the ingredients*

2,2-Dibromo-3-
nitrilopropionamide

10222-01-2

Biocide

2-Butoxyethanolf

111-76-2

Surfactant, corrosion inhibitor, non-emulsifier

Acetic acid

64-19-7

Buffer, iron control

Citric acid

77-92-9

Iron control

Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated lightf

64742-47-8

Friction reducer, gelling agent, crosslinker

Ethanol

64-17-5

Surfactant, biocide

Ethylene glycol

107-21-1

Crosslinker, scale inhibitor, corrosion inhibitor,
friction reducer

Gluta raldehyde

111-30-8

Biocide

Guar gum

9000-30-0

Gelling agent

Hydrochloric acid

7647-01-0

Acidizer, solvent, scale dissolver, perforation
breakdown

Isopropanol

67-63-0

Corrosion inhibitor, non-emulsifier, surfactant

Methanol

67-56-1

Corrosion inhibitor, surfactant, non-emulsifier, scale
inhibitor, biocide, crosslinker

Naphthalenef

91-20-3

Surfactant, non-emulsifier, corrosion inhibitor

Peroxydisulfuric acid,
diammonium salt

7727-54-0

Gel breaker

Phenolic resin

9003-35-4

Proppant (resin coating)

Potassium hydroxide*

1310-58-3

Crosslinker, buffer

Propargyl alcohol

107-19-7

Corrosion inhibitor

Quartzt§

14808-60-7

Breaker, gelling agent, scale inhibitor, crosslinker,
biocide, corrosion inhibitor, viscosifier

Sodium chloridef

7647-14-5

Breaker, friction reducer, scale inhibitor, clay
control, biocide

Sodium hydroxide

1310-73-2

Crosslinker, biocide, buffer, scale inhibitor

Solvent naphtha, petroleum,
heavy arom.f

64742-94-5

Surfactant, non-emulsifier, inhibitor, corrosion
inhibitor

Watert§

7732-18-5

Acid, biocide, clay control, scale inhibitor, iron
control, breaker, crosslinker, buffer, surfactant,
friction reducer

* Definitions of additive purposes are included in the Glossary.

f Chemical has a non-normal distribution and the median may not represent the central tendency of the dataset as well
as the median of a normally distributed dataset.

§ See Section 3.1.1 for a discussion of why water and quartz were included in the table.

Note: Analysis considered 34,675 disclosures and 676,376 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria,
including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January
1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance
criteria (3,855 disclosures) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

data may provide useful information on the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids at more local
scales (e.g., states and counties). Five counties were selected to illustrate diversity in additive
ingredients at small scales. Disclosures used in this analysis are from Andrews County, Texas;

40

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Bradford County, Pennsylvania; Dunn County, North Dakota; Garfield County, Colorado; and Kern
County, California (Table 11). The five counties displayed a range of geography, geology, and
production type, and the number of disclosures for each of these counties exceeded the 90th
percentile for the entire dataset (288 disclosures per county). The relatively large number of
disclosures per county illustrated the extent of oil and gas development in these areas during the
study time period, and allowed selection of a dataset large enough to increase confidence in the
results of the analysis.

Table 11. Counties selected to illustrate diversity in additive ingredients at small scales.

County, State

Sedimentary
basin*

Production
type

Number of
disclosu res

Number of
operators

Andrews County, Texas

Permian

98% oil

1,180

39

Bradford County,
Pennsylvania

Appalachian

100% gas

513

6

Dunn County, North Dakota

Williston

100% oil

334

18

Garfield County, Colorado

Uinta-Piceance

99% gas

1,362

9

Kern County, California

San Joaquin

100% oil

677

6

* Sedimentary basins associated with oil and gas shale plays (US EIA, 2011a).

Note: Analysis considered 4,066 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: unique
combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013;
with confirmed state location; and with confirmed county location. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance
criteria (142 disclosures) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

Generally, comparisons of additive ingredients across the five counties showed less similarity than
the comparison of additive ingredients between each county and the entire dataset. The 20 most
frequently reported additive ingredients for each county (Appendix G) were compared with the
other selected counties and with the entire dataset.47 The number of frequently reported additive
ingredients in common between datasets was expressed as a percentage of the total number of
frequently reported additive ingredients using the following equation:

Number of additive ingredients in common between County A and County B

Percentage of Similarity =	

Average number of additive ingredients in Counties A and B

The denominator for the above equation was 20 unless two additive ingredients were tied in rank
in one of the counties. The percentage of similarity in additive ingredients between pairs of
counties ranged from 15% to 65%, as shown in Table 12. Overlap with the twenty most frequently
reported additive ingredients for the entire dataset ranged from 35% to 85%. This suggests a
degree of variability as would be expected given factors such as production type, geology, and
operator preference. However, the 60% to 85% similarity with the entire dataset shown by four of
the counties (excluding Kern County) also suggests that certain additive ingredients were
commonly used in hydraulic fracturing fluids in disparate parts of the country. Similarity in additive
ingredients across counties is consistent with the notion that similar factors influence the
composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids. Similarity may also be influenced by economics and the
availability of additives at local or regional scales. Patterns in additive ingredients could be found

47 Some additive ingredients may overlap between two counties, but fall below the twenty most frequently reported
chemicals on a list.

41

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 12. Comparison of twenty most frequently reported chemicals among selected counties.

County, State

Percentage of similarity (%)

Andrews, TX*

Dunn, ND*

Kern, CA*

Bradford, PA+

Garfield, CO+

Andrews, TX*



49%

35%

65%

45%

Dunn, ND*

49%



39%

34%

39%

Kern, CA*

35%

39%



20%

15%

Bradford, PAf

65%

34%

20%



60%

Garfield, COf

45%

39%

15%

60%



Entire Dataset

85%

63%

35%

65%

60%

* >98% of disclosures in county specify oil production
f >99% of disclosures in county specify gas production

Note: Analysis considered 3,622 disclosures and 61,502 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance
criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date
between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; with confirmed state location; with confirmed county location;
valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria (586 disclosures) or
other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

by performing spatial analysis on formulations or selected additive ingredients of interest, although
these types of analyses were not conducted in this study. Among the five counties, Kern County was
notably less similar to the other counties and to the entire dataset than the other four counties.
Fewer disclosures from Kern County used surfactants than the other two oil-producing counties.
Disclosures from Kern County also showed less use of friction reducers and non-emulsifiers.

The percentage of similarity was found to be greater between the selected counties and their states
(73% to 95% similarity; data not shown) than between the selected counties and the entire dataset.
This suggests that additive ingredient information compiled at the state level may provide some
useful insights into the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids at the county level.

3.2. Base Fluids

Base fluids are the fluids into which additives and proppants are mixed to create the fracturing
fluid. More than 93% of disclosures in the project database appear to use water as a base fluid.48 49
The median maximum reported concentration of water in hydraulic fracturing fluid was 88% by
mass, with a range of 68% to 99% (5th and 95th percentile), suggesting its primary use as a base
fluid.50

48	In this report, the term "water use" refers to the volume of water used for a hydraulic fracturing job as reported by
operators in the total water volume field of the well header table of a FracFocus disclosure; it does not refer to
withdrawals from a water source. The determination of water used as a base fluid was based on disclosures that include
at least one water ingredient record with a maximum fluid concentration greater than or equal to 1% by mass (Section
2.3.1],

49	Disclosures that met criteria for unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between
January 1,2011, and February 28,2013; completely parsed; with a valid maximum fracturing fluid concentration greater
than or equal to 1% by mass; and having "water" as a term in the trade name or chemical name field.

50	The total mass of fracturing fluid includes the masses of base fluids, additives, and proppants. Therefore, a fracturing
fluid with 88% by mass of water would be composed of approximately 12% proppant and additive ingredients by mass.

42

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Data from the project database were compiled to assess volumes and sources of water used as base
fluids, as well as the frequency with which gases and hydrocarbons were used to either augment
water-based fracturing fluids or to provide non-aqueous alternative fracturing fluids.51

3.2.1. Use of Non-Aqueous Fluids in Base Fluids

Non-aqueous fluids, such as gases and hydrocarbons, were reported to be used alone or blended
with water to form a base fluid in 761 disclosures.52 More than 96% of these disclosures reported a
base fluid consisting of a blend of non-aqueous fluids and water. Table 13 describes the frequency
of reporting and maximum concentrations for non-aqueous base fluid ingredients, and Table 14
shows the numbers of disclosures that reported non-aqueous base fluid ingredients by state.53 Non-
aqueous base fluid ingredients were most frequently reported in disclosures from Colorado, New
Mexico, and Texas.

Liquid nitrogen and carbon dioxide were the most frequently observed non-aqueous ingredients
combined with water to form the base fluid. These gas-water blends are used by operators to
generate foams and energized fluids.54 Using gas in base fluids reduces water use and thus reduces
contact between water and the formation, making these fluid systems useful in water-sensitive
formations. Energized fracturing fluids also promote flowback by expanding when the well is
produced (Friehauf and Sharma, 2009; Gupta and Hlidek, 2010; Gupta et al., 1997).

Liquid nitrogen was reported in 643 (84%) of the disclosures identifying non-aqueous fluid
ingredients, with a median maximum fluid concentration of 16% by mass (Table 13). The greatest
reported use of liquid nitrogen was in New Mexico, with 296 disclosures (Table 14). Among the
disclosures that reported liquid nitrogen as a base fluid ingredient, 519 of the 643 were for gas-
producing wells and 124 were for oil-producing wells. The median maximum fluid concentration of
water in disclosures that reported liquid nitrogen in addition to water was 59% by mass. Among
disclosures that listed liquid nitrogen and water as base fluid ingredients, the median volume of
water reported was approximately 77,000 gallons.

Carbon dioxide was listed in 83 disclosures identifying non-aqueous base fluid ingredients (11%),
with a median maximum fluid concentration of 32% by mass (Table 13). Of the 83 disclosures that
listed carbon dioxide as a base fluid ingredient, 73 were for gas-producing wells. The greatest

51	The analysis does not account for brines formulated by the operator through the addition of salts (e.g., potassium
chloride or sodium chloride] to water.

52	2.2% of 34,675 unique disclosures that met the date criterion and that had parsed ingredients with valid CASRNs and
valid maximum concentrations. Disclosures reporting gas or hydrocarbon ingredients in their base fluids were identified
through the presence of terms determined to be synonymous with "base fluid" in the purpose field of an additive and
through the presence in the ingredient field of certain chemical names identified through preliminary queries. Based on a
preliminary analysis, ingredients that made up less than 1% by mass of the hydraulic fracturing fluid were excluded from
this analysis (Section 2.3.1]. To determine water use in these disclosures, all disclosures identifying the use of a non-
aqueous fluid were searched for the presence of "water" in the trade name field or in the chemical name field, specifying a
maximum fluid concentration greater than or equal to 1% by mass.

53	Because hydrocarbons were generally reported in combinations, one disclosure may be represented in more than one
row of Table 7, and values in the columns cannot be totaled.

54	Foams consist of gas volumes greater than 53% by volume (generally 65% to 80% gas]; energized fluids contain less
than 53%) gas by volume, with typical volumes about 20%> to 30%> gas (Gupta and Valko, 2007; Montgomery, 2013].

43

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 13. Non-aqueous ingredients reported in base fluids.

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in
hydraulic fracturing fluid (% by mass)

Maximum concentration in
additive (% by mass)

Number (%) of
disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Nitrogen, liquid

7727-37-9

643 (84%)

16

3.8

30

643 (80%)

100

25

100

Carbon dioxide

124-38-9

83 (11%)

32

11

46

83 (10%)

100

100

100

Petroleum distillates

8002-05-9

18 (2.4%)

46

29

67

18 (2.2%)

100

100

100

Propane

74-98-6

15 (2.0%)

63

1.6

79

16 (2.0%)

100

2.0

100

Isobutane

75-28-5

12 (1.6%)

29

8.0

52

13 (1.6%)

50

10

100

Butane

106-97-8

10 (1.3%)

2.2

1.5

59

11 (1.4%)

80

36

100

Hexane

110-54-3

4 (0.53%)

14

11

15

4 (0.50%)

20

18

20

Pentane

109-66-0

4 (0.53%)

9.8

5.8

14

4 (0.50%)

13

10

19

Butene

25167-67-3

3 (0.39%)

25

8.1

49

3 (0.37%)

65

34

65

1-Propene

115-07-1

2 (0.26%)

3.0

1.2

4.8

2 (0.25%)

5.0

5.0

5.0

2-Methylbutane

78-78-4

2 (0.26%)

16

14

18

2 (0.25%)

25

25

25

Benzene

71-43-2

2 (0.26%)

3.3

2.8

3.7

2 (0.25%)

5.0

5.0

5.0

Ethane

74-84-0

2 (0.26%)

2.3

1.6

3.1

3 (0.37%)

2.0

2.0

9.2

Ethylene

74-85-1

1(0.13%)

2.1

2.1

2.1

1 (0.12%)

10

10

10

Methane

74-82-8

1(0.13%)

2.1

2.1

2.1

1 (0.12%)

10

10

10

White mineral oil,
petroleum

8042-47-5

1(0.13%)

12

12

12

1 (0.12%)

100

100

100

Note: Analysis considered 34,675 disclosures and 676,376 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique
combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that
did not meet quality assurance criteria (3,855) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

44

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 14. Use of non-aqueous ingredients in base fluids, summarized by state.

EPA-standardized
chemical name

Number of disclosures

CO

LA

Ml

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WY

State
Uncertain*

Total

Nitrogen, liquid

150

2





296



15

5

146

18

4

6

1

643

Carbon dioxide

38



1

1

3

1

1



5

15



18



83

Petroleum distillates

















18









18

Propane

6















9









15

Isobutane

1















11









12

Butane

5















5









10

Hexane

















4









4

Pentane

















4









4

Butene

















3









3

1-Propene

















2









2

2-Methylbutane

















2









2

Benzene

















2









2

Ethane

















2









2

Ethylene

















1









1

Methane

















1









1

White mineral oil,
petroleum

















1









1

* State location did not pass state locational quality assurance criteria.

Note: Analysis considered 34,675 disclosures and 676,376 ingredients that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination
of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN, and valid chemical concentrations. Disclosures that
did not meet quality assurance criteria (3,855 disclosures) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

45

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

reported use of carbon dioxide was in Colorado, with 38 disclosures (Table 14). The median
maximum fluid concentration of water in disclosures that reported carbon dioxide in addition to
water was 61% by mass. Among disclosures that listed carbon dioxide and water as base fluid
ingredients, the median volume of water reported was approximately 40,000 gallons.

Hydrocarbons can be used with water to create emulsions to control fluid loss in low-permeability
gas-producing formations (Penny, 1982). Petroleum distillates and water were reported as the base
fluid in 17 disclosures located in Texas (median maximum fluid concentrations of 44% by mass for
petroleum distillates and 32% by mass for water). Among disclosures that listed petroleum
distillates and water as base fluid ingredients, the median volume of water reported was
approximately 11,000 gallons.

Although most hydraulic fracturing fluids described in the project database indicated water as all or
part of the base fluid, a small number of disclosures reported entirely non-aqueous bas fluids. Non-
aqueous base fluids, including those based on hydrocarbons or alcohols, may be used in water-
sensitive formations or in oil-wet formations (DeVine et al., 2003; Gupta et al., 1997; Rae and Di
Lullo, 1996). Hydrocarbon mixtures were reported as base fluids in 18 disclosures (2.4% of 761
disclosures that reported non-aqueous bas fluids); 12 disclosures were reported in Texas, and six
disclosures were reported in Colorado. Eleven disclosures in Texas reported oil production, and the
six disclosures in Colorado and one from Texas reported gas production. Among disclosures
reporting hydrocarbon mixtures as base fluids, propane was identified as the primary base fluid
ingredient in 10 disclosures, with a median maximum fluid concentration of 64% by mass.55 Other
disclosures reported other mixtures of the hydrocarbons listed in Table 13. The total water volume
field was blank on the 18 disclosures that reported only hydrocarbons as base fluids.

3.2.2. Cumulative Total Water Volumes

Data from the project database indicate that nearly 92 billion gallons of water were used for
hydraulic fracturing throughout the time period studied: 36 billion gallons in 2011, 52 billion
gallons in 2012, and 3.8 billion gallons in the first two months of 2013. Cumulative total water
volumes were calculated for each county with disclosures in the project database and are shown in
Figure 5.56 Counties with the greatest reported cumulative total water volumes are clustered in
areas of northeastern Pennsylvania, northern Colorado, western North Dakota, and parts of Texas.
Cumulative total water volumes should be considered lower limit estimates of water use for
hydraulic fracturing within a county, as the information in the project database from counties in a
state with voluntary reporting may be incomplete. The estimates of cumulative total water volumes
may be useful, when paired with local information on water availability and total water use, for
identifying areas of the country that may be vulnerable to water stress resulting from hydraulic
fracturing.

55 Butanes were also reported as base fluids in these 10 disclosures, with a median maximum fluid concentration of 3.4%
by mass. One disclosures also reported 1-propene, with a maximum fluid concentration of 4.8% by mass.

56 Appendix H lists cumulative total water volumes for each county as well as per-disclosure water volumes.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Cumulative water usage for
all disclosures, gallons (# of
counties)

Greater than 500 million
^¦(51)

| 100 million-500 million (64)

| 10 million-100 million (98)

1 million -10 million (101)

Less than or equal to 1
'	' million (91)

No disclosures (2,687)

Unconfirmed locations (47)

No volume reported in
disclosures (2)

~ Shale basins (US EIA, 2011a)

—	—3			likely

represent mere oil and gas producing formations than only shale formatons.
Analysis considered 37,888 FracFocus disclosures that me; selected quality
assurance criteria - unique combination c< fracture date and API Number; fracture
date within the range January 1, 2011, through February 28. 2013; and with
cciiiirmed state location Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria
were excluded from analysis {642)

Note: Shale basins are those sedimentary basins associated with oil and gas shale plays (US EIA. 2011a). The shale basins offer
basic geologic context for the location of a disclosure; well disclosures likely represent more oil and gas producing formations
than only shale formations. Analysis considered 37,888 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including:
unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and
with confirmed state location. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria were excluded from analysis (642).

Figure 5. Cumulative total water volumes, summarized by county.

Given the common use of water in hydraulic fracturing fluids, it is expected that the greatest
cumulative total water volumes would be found in counties with a large number of disclosures in
the project database (Figure 2).57 For example, nine of the 20 counties with the largest cumulative
total water volumes are also in counties with a large number of disclosures. Cumulative total water
volumes for these nine counties ranged from 1.3 billion gallons in Gonzales County (344
disclosures) to 3.9 billion gallons in Dimmit County (715 disclosures). For context, Appendix H,
shows that nearly half of the 406 counties represented in the project database have 10 or fewer
disclosures.

State-level cumulative total water volumes were typically greatest in states with a large number of
disclosures, as shown in Table 15. For example, Texas had both the greatest reported cumulative
total water volume (approximately 45 billion gallons) and the largest number of disclosures

51 The relationship between the number of disclosures and reported water volumes is shown further in Appendix H,
which presents, for each county, the number of unique disclosures meeting the date and water volume criteria, the
cumulative water use, and water volumes per disclosure (median, 5th and 95th percentiles].

47

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 15. Total water volumes, summarized by state.

State

Number of
disclosures

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure (gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Texas

17,934

44,580,000,000

1,413,287

26,006

7,407,116

Pennsylvania

2,467

10,600,000,000

4,184,936

1,092,739

7,475,493

Arkansas

1,444

7,500,000,000

5,277,890

2,681,465

7,484,091

Oklahoma

1,898

6,666,000,000

2,578,947

114,870

8,288,041

Colorado

4,924

6,652,000,000

463,659

103,906

4,327,068

Louisiana

1,031

5,408,000,000

5,148,696

277,540

8,942,170

North Dakota

2,235

4,789,000,000

2,019,513

557,740

3,685,402

West Virginia

277

1,394,000,000

5,012,238

2,500,529

7,889,759

Wyoming

1,449

1,109,000,000

306,246

5,503

3,110,272

New Mexico

1,159

787,700,000

172,452

22,130

2,851,323

Ohio

146

614,200,000

3,887,499

2,526,398

7,442,826

Utah

1,421

534,400,000

303,424

35,070

1,056,654

Montana

213

337,500,000

1,469,839

216,578

3,197,594

Kansas

134

145,200,000

1,421,591

9,866

2,448,300

California

718

94,440,000

77,154

18,684

356,453

Michigan

15

55,100,000

33,306

15,722

15,127,125

Mississippi

4

35,140,000

9,173,624

4,322,108

12,701,054

Alaska

37

13,150,000

88,448

36,437

435,638

Virginia

77

3,021,000

33,474

13,322

96,684

Alabama

55

2,065,000

37,691

23,602

51,651

State Uncertain*

158

488,100,000

2,770,090

80,067

6,945,958

Entire Dataset

37,796

91,810,000,000

1,508,724

29,526

7,196,702

* State location did not pass state locational quality assurance criteria.

Note: Analysis considered 37,796 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: unique combination
of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and criteria for

water volumes. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria were excluded from analysis (734).

(17,934; 47% of disclosures that met the analysis criteria). Pennsylvania had the third largest
number of disclosures (2,467; 6.5% of disclosures) and the second largest cumulative total water
volume (approximately 11 billion gallons). The cumulative total water volume was the smallest in
Alabama (approximately 2.1 million gallons, 55 disclosures).

Cumulative total water volumes for a few states (e.g., Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and
West Virginia) were larger than what might be expected based solely on the numbers of disclosures
included in the project database. This is consistent with relatively large volumes of water reported
per disclosure in these states, as reflected by median, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile values

48

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

(Table 15; see Section 3.2.3 for more discussion). The high per-disclosure total water volumes may
reflect well length, geologic characteristics, and operator practices in these areas.

3.2.3. Total Water Volumes per Disclosure

Some factors that influence water volumes used for hydraulic fracturing include formation type,
total measured depth of the well, length of the production interval of the well (which can be
horizontal), fracturing fluid properties, and the design of the fracturing job (Nicot and Scanlon,
2012). Hydraulic fracturing is sometimes referred to as low-volume or high-volume depending on
the relative amount of fluid used to fracture the target rock formation. Low-volume hydraulic
fracturing, typically conducted in vertical wells, can require between 20,000 and 80,000 gallons of
water or other fluid (NYSDEC, 1992). Hydraulic fracturing of a coalbed methane reservoir may
require 50,000 to 350,000 gallons per well (Holditch, 1993; Jeu etal., 1988; Palmer etal., 1991;
Palmer etal., 1993).

High-volume hydraulic fracturing for wells located in low permeability formations such as shales
can require millions of gallons of water (GWPC and ALL Consulting, 2009; Lee etal., 2011; Nicot and
Scanlon, 2012) and often include long horizontal well segments. Water volumes in the Marcellus
Shale, for example, have been reported to range from 3 to more than 5 million gallons per well
(Aminto and Olson, 2012). Vengosh etal. (2014) report that up to 13 million gallons of water is
needed per well for hydraulic fracturing of unconventional reservoirs. The New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (2011) estimates that a multi-stage fracturing
operation for a well with a 4,000-foot long lateral (the horizontal segment of the well) would
typically involve between 8 and 13 stages and use 300,000 to 600,000 gallons of water per stage,
for a total of 2.4 to 7.8 million gallons per well.

The project database provides a snapshot of total water volumes reported on a per-disclosure basis,
although interpretation is somewhat limited by lack of information on the total measured depth of
the well (which can be greater than the true vertical depth) and the length of the production
interval.58 Figure 6 shows the median total water volume per disclosure for each county in the
project database. The median total water volume per disclosure in the project database was
approximately 1.5 million gallons, with a range of reported total water volumes of nearly 30,000
gallons to almost 7.2 million gallons (5th to 95th percentile). The wide range likely reflects
hydraulic fracturing practices that include low-volume stimulation of vertical wells, high-volume
fracturing of horizontal wells in shales and tight sands, and fracturing in coalbed methane plays.

Gas disclosures reported a median total water volume of approximately 2.9 million gallons, and oil
disclosures reported a median total water volume of approximately 1.1 million gallons. Total water
volumes reported in gas disclosures ranged from approximately 91,000 gallons to approximately
7.8 million gallons (5th to 95th percentile). Total water volumes reported in oil disclosures ranged
from approximately 18,000 gallons to approximately 6.1 million (5th to 95th percentile).

58 FracFocus 1.0 disclosures do not indicate whether a well is vertical or horizontal or the length of the production
interval.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Median water usage per
disclosure for all disclosures,
gallons (# of counties)

| Greater than 5 million (59)

| 2 million - 5 million (114)

| 1 million - 2 million (43)

100,000-1 million (94)

Less than or equal to
	 100,000(95)

No disclosures (2,687)

Unconfirmed locations (47)

No volume reported in
disclosures (2)

~ Shale basins (US EIA, 2011a)

—	s,—3			likely

represent mere oil and gas producing formations than only shale formatons.
Analysis considered 37,888 FracFocus disclosures that me; selected quality
assurance criteria - unique combination of fracture da© and API Number; fracture
date within tie date range January 1, 2011, through February 28.2013, and with
confirmed state location Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria
were excluded from analysis {642)

Note: Shale basins are those sedimentary basins associated with oil and gas shale plays (US EIA, 2011a), The shale basins offer
basic geologic context for the location of a disclosure; well disclosures likely represent more oil and gas producing formations
than only shale formations. Analysis considered 37,888 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including:
unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and
with confirmed state location. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria were excluded from analysis (642).

Figure 6, Median total water volumes per disclosure, summarized by county.

Assessed geographically in Table 15, the median total water volume per disclosure was highest for
Mississippi (nearly 9.2 million gallons; 4 disclosures) and lowest for Michigan (approximately
33,000 gallons; 15 disclosures). However, Michigan also had the highest 95th percentile value of
any state (more than 15 million gallons), suggesting a wide range of water volumes used within that
state.

At the county level, median total water volumes per disclosure ranged from less than 5,000 gallons
to more than 14 million gallons (Appendix H). Counties that appeared to have relatively high
median per-disclosure total water volumes are clustered in a few parts of the country:

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio; parts ofTexas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana; and North Dakota
(Figure 6),

In assessing the range of total water volumes, it is important to consider the median in relation to
the 5th and 95th percentiles, which indicate variability in total water volumes reported in a
particular area. Within-state variability, as measured by the range (5th to 95th percentile) of total
water volumes reported per disclosures in the state, spans three orders of magnitude in some cases

50

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

(Table 15), suggesting a range of operating practices, well lengths, or target formation geologies in
an area. Figure 7 shows the geographic distribution of variability in total water volumes as
indicated by the difference between the 5th and 95 th percentiles. The figure shows areas of large
variability in total water volumes reported in parts of Colorado, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Variability of water usage:
95th minus 5th percentile of
water usage per disclosure,
gallons (# of counties)

| Greater than 5 million (68)

| 2 million - 5 million (106)

| 1 million-2 million (41)

100,000-1 million (68)

Less than or equal to
100.000(122)

No disclosures (2,687)

Unconfirmed locations (47)

No volume reported in
disclosures (2)

] Shale basins (US EIA, 2011a)

plays (US EIA, 2011a). Trie sflale basins were Included In the figure in order to
offer baste geologic ccntext for the location of a disclosure; well Disclosures Italy
represent m-sre oil and gas producing formations than only shaia formations.
Analysis considered 37.888 FracFocus disclosures thai me; selected quality
assurance criteria - unique combination cf fracture da;e and API Number; fracture
date within the date range January 1,2011, through February 28.2013; and with
confirmed state location Disclosures I hat did not meet quality assurance critena
were excluded from analysis (642).

Note: Shale basins are those sedimentary basins associated with oil and gas shale plays (US EIA, 2011a). The shale basins offer
basic geologic context for the location of a disclosure; well disclosures likely represent more oil and gas producing formations
than only shale formations. Analysis considered 37,888 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including:
unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and
with confirmed state location. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria were excluded from analysis (642).

Figure 7. Variability in reported total water volumes per disclosure, as measured by the difference between the
5th and 95th percentiles.

3.2.4. Comparing Variability of Total Water Volumes in Selected Counties

Variability in reported total water volumes was examined by selecting and summarizing data on
cumulative and per-disclosure total water volumes from several counties that represented a variety
of geographic settings and were anticipated to represent a variety of fracturing operations.59
Because cumulative total water volumes are strongly influenced by the number of wells in a
location (Section 3.2.2), counties with a similar number of disclosures were chosen to minimize one
factor contributing to variability in cumulative total water volumes. The counties chosen for
comparison had 254 to 331 disclosures per county (around the 90th percentile for number of

59 The comparisons of total water volumes do not attempt to differentiate between vertical and directional or horizontal
wells, because this information was not readily available in the FracFocus 1.0 disclosures.

51

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

disclosures per county) to increase the confidence and robustness in the observed results for both
cumulative and per-disclosure total water volumes. Table 16 summarizes total water volume
information from the disclosures for the selected counties.

Data from the selected counties indicated a large variability in total water volumes reported for
hydraulic fracturing. Cumulative total water volumes for the selected counties ranged from
approximately 9.8 million gallons to almost 1.8 billion gallons. Median per-disclosure total water
volumes ranged from 16,000 gallons to nearly 6.3 million gallons. The lowest and highest values for
median total water volumes were both within Texas (Milam and Wheeler counties, respectively).

Disclosures from counties in which gas production was predominant (>80% of disclosures)
appeared to have greater cumulative and median per-disclosure total water volumes than
disclosures from counties in which oil production was predominant (Table 16). Of the nine counties
in Table 16 with the greatest per-disclosure and cumulative total water volumes, seven were
predominantly gas-producing, and two had slightly more gas production than oil production
(between 60% and 80% of disclosures). The median total water volume for the nine counties was
1.7 to 3.1 times larger than the greatest median per-disclosure total water volume reported for a
predominantly oil-producing county (approximately 2.0 million gallons for Dunn County, North
Dakota).

Conversely, eight of the 10 counties in Table 16 with the lowest per-disclosure and cumulative total
water volumes were predominantly oil-producing. The data suggest that total water volumes were
generally lower in counties where oil production was predominant. The observed difference in total
water volume by production type may be due to a number of factors, including well depths, the
length of the fractured segment of the well, the formation types that are represented, and other
aspects of the fracturing design (Nicotand Scanlon, 2012).

The majority of the counties in Table 16 are located in Texas, providing an opportunity for within-
state comparisons of total water volumes. Texas, generally speaking, is a region with a mature oil
and gas industry, a variety of geologic settings, and both conventional and unconventional
production. Total water volumes for the counties in Texas appeared to vary, in part, according to
the predominant production type and geologic setting.60 For example, median per-disclosure total
water volumes in Denton, Wise, and Johnson counties (99% to 100% natural gas production),
located in the Fort Worth Basin in central Texas, ranged from approximately 1.8 to nearly 4.0
million gallons. This is two to four times greater than the median per-disclosure total water
volumes reported for disclosures in Howard and Irion counties (about 900,000 gallons each), which
were predominantly oil-producing and located in the Permian Basin in western Texas. However,
there is also considerable variability within the Permian Basin: median per-disclosure total water
volumes from disclosures in Mitchell and Gaines counties (approximately 30,000 and 79,000
gallons, respectively) ranged from 11 to almost 30 times lower than Howard and Irion counties.

60 The counties were grouped by geologic basin, and the EPA assumed that counties within the same basin may have
similar influences on operations due to comparable geology, geography, infrastructure, and policies.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 16. Total water volumes for selected counties in approximately the 90th percentile of disclosures.

State

County

Number of
disclosures

Percent oil
disclosures

Percent gas
disclosures

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure (gallons)

Median

5th percentile

95th percentile

Texas

Wheeler

283

35%

65%

1,774,000,000

6,292,608

879,360

12,398,544

Arkansas

White

309

0.00%

100%

1,749,000,000

5,782,854

3,655,427

7,416,763

Arkansas

Conway

302

0.00%

100%

1,596,000,000

5,266,774

2,919,365

7,957,921

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna

327

0.00%

100%

1,546,000,000

4,798,290

940,909

7,816,150

Arkansas

Cleburne

263

0.00%

100%

1,489,000,000

5,974,108

3,401,011

7,538,336

Texas

Johnson

289

0.00%

100%

1,191,000,000

3,969,422

1,754,012

7,202,405

Texas

Wise

291

0.34%

100%

1,157,000,000

3,875,046

918,692

7,969,196

Pennsylvania

Tioga

286

0.00%

100%

1,133,000,000

3,598,474

2,285,636

6,572,202

Texas

DeWitt

320

28%

72%

1,104,000,000

3,426,088

2,028,110

4,790,741

Texas

Irion

284

99%

0.70%

945,600,000

895,468

45,494

11,729,639

Texas

Denton

263

0.76%

99%

934,700,000

1,836,744

1,014,405

9,008,399

North Dakota

Dunn

331

100%

0.00%

630,100,000

2,017,621

409,803

3,361,183

Texas

Reeves

263

100%

0.38%

352,600,000

1,081,442

104,447

3,865,365

New Mexico

Lea

286

98%

1.7%

244,300,000

183,645

53,235

3,730,169

Texas

Howard

286

100%

0.00%

219,500,000

895,986

26,018

1,523,373

Wyoming

Sweetwater

321

1.6%

98%

84,850,000

229,974

79,090

435,011

Texas

Gaines

298

100%

0.00%

44,090,000

79,411

18,330

269,241

Texas

Mitchell

278

100%

0.36%

22,020,000

30,402

14,154

88,003

Texas

Milam

254

100%

0.00%

9,844,000

16,000

16,000

18,900

All 90th Percentile Counties

5,534

45%

55%

16,230,000,000

2,503,683

16,000

7,471,633

Entire Dataset

37,796

52%

48%

91,810,000,000

1,508,724

29,526

7,196,702

Note: Analysis considered 37,796 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date
between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and criteria for water volumes. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria were excluded from analysis (734
disclosures).

53

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

When comparing the ranges (5th to 95th percentile) of per-disclosure total water volumes reported
for each county, those reported in Mitchell, Gaines, and Milam counties (100% oil
disclosures) appeared to be smaller than those reported in Wheeler, Johnson, Wise, DeWitt, and
Denton counties (65% to 100% gas disclosures).

Within the Texas counties in Table 16, the range of total water volumes reported per disclosure (as
represented by the 5th and 95th percentiles) differed by as much as 11 million gallons, as observed
in Irion County, and as little as 2,900 gallons (Milam County). The large amount of variability in
some counties suggests that wells located within a relatively short surface distance of each other
used different volumes of water for hydraulic fracturing. Use of non-aqueous ingredients, such as
gases or hydrocarbons, in base fluids, which could decrease the total volume of water needed in
fracturing fluids, did not appear to contribute appreciably to the variability in counties in Texas;
liquid nitrogen was reported in 59 disclosures in Mitchell County and 10 disclosures in Howard
County.

A wide range of reported total water volumes within a county may be a result of hydraulic
fracturing in multiple formations within the county and the influence of specific formation
conditions on operations. The TVD of wells in Irion and Milam counties was assessed as an
indicator of the number of formations that may be hydraulically fractured in the area.61 A relatively
small range of depths might indicate that one formation was being developed for production,
whereas clusters of ranges or a broad range of depths might indicate concurrent development in
multiple formations in an area. The TVDs in Milam County disclosures were generally shallower
than Irion County disclosures, with 99% of disclosures in Milam County ranging from 650 to 998
feet (median 940 feet) below surface.62 In Irion County, TVDs were deeper and ranged (minimum to
maximum) from 3,766 to 9,184 feet (median 7,038 feet) below surface. The relatively narrow range
of TVDs reported in disclosures from Milam County, in combination with the relatively narrow
range of per-disclosure total water volumes reported in Table 16, suggest that a single formation is
represented by the disclosures for Milam County in the project database. Additional information on
producing formations in Milam County would be needed to verify this observation.

3.2.5. Water Sources

Although FracFocus 1.0 disclosures do not have a specific data field for identifying water sources,
some operators used terminology in their submissions that indicated the source or quality of water
used for base fluids. Twenty-nine percent of disclosures (10,301 of 36,046 disclosures) included
information related to water sources, though rates of reporting varied by state (Table 17). Some of
these terms indicated a condition of water quality, such as "fresh," rather than a specific
identification of the source of the water (e.g., ground water, surface water). Twenty-three different
source water-related terms and combinations of terms were identified in the project database,

61	A relationship between TVD and water volumes was not apparent for the entire dataset.

62	The range (minimum to maximum] of depths reported on the 254 disclosures from Milam County, Texas, were below
the 5th percentile of TVD values found in the project database. Two hundred ninety-eight disclosures in the project
database indicated a TVD less than 1,000 feet in depth. For the project database, the 5th percentile for TVD was 2,872 feet
below surface, the 95th percentile was 12,796 feet, and the median was 8,140 feet.

54

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 17. Number of disclosures having terms suggestive of water sources, summarized by state.

Reported water source

Number of disclosures

AK

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

WV

WY

State
Uncertain*

Total

Fresh

Fresh

6

45



1,042

33

489

6

2

18

503

142

40

914

118

3,020

60

46

543

18

7,045

Lease water





8



1

5







1





20



31

9







75

Surface



40



































40

Reused

Produced



8

8

10



















75











101

Produced/recycled

























31



5









36

Recycled



2



181



















1







143



327

Mixed/Other

Brine





3

4

6

15



1



3





2



42





3

1

80

Brine/fresh







3



3



1





1



3



13







1

25

Brine/lease water





























1









1

Brine/salt water







2































2

Flowback/salt water





























1









1

Fresh/lease water

























1



1









2

Fresh/nominal recycled







4



82

















2









88

Fresh/produced











1



























1

Fresh/produced/ recycled



42



















94

37

470

127



76





846

Fresh/recycled



261



25



















35





8

1



330

Fresh/salt water







2































2

Fresh/treated water





















1

















1

Nominal fresh/ recycled







224































224

Recycled/surface



907



































907

Salt water

2





18



14







2









63









99

Sea water

11





































11

Treated water







36



1













1



19









57

Table continued on next page

55

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Reported water source

Number of disclosures

AK

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

WV

WY

State
Uncertain*

Total

All water sources

Disclosures with water sources

19

1,305

19

1,551

40

610

6

4

18

509

144

134

1,009

699

3,325

69

130

690

20

10,301

Disclosures in entire dataset

37

1,409

704

4,622

100

1,029

14

4

201

2,073

1,136

147

1,832

2,458

17,056

1,279

273

1,388

139

36,046

Percentage that identify water
source

51%

93%

2.7%

34%

40%

59%

43%

100%

9.0%

25%

13%

91%

55%

28%

19%

5.4%

48%

50%

14%

29%

Water (source unspecified)

17

20

624

2,536

34

308

1

0

83

965

863

11

418

1,121

10,024

1,008

69

595

57

18,809

* State location did not pass state locational quality assurance criteria.

Note: Analysis considered 36,046 disclosures and 925,972 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination of
fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance
criteria (2,484) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

56

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

reflecting inconsistency and possible redundancy in terminology used. Operators often described
water using general terms, such as "fresh" or "brine," for which no standard definitions were
provided. Source water analyses are therefore limited to operator-reported terminology.

The term "fresh" was most often used to describe water used for base fluids and was listed as the
only term in 68% of disclosures with information on source water (7,045 of 10,301) across 17
states (Table 17). It is not known whether any of these disclosures used the term "fresh" to refer to
recycled fluids that was treated to achieve the quality of fresh water. Disclosures listing only the
term "fresh" were found in 99% of all disclosures reporting a source of water in North Dakota (503
of 509 disclosures) and 91% of those in Texas (3,020 of 3,325 disclosures). By contrast, the term
"fresh" was used exclusively in only 3% of disclosures reporting a water source in Arkansas (45 of
1,305). Differences observed among disclosures from different states are likely due, in part, to
variations in the rate of overall reporting of water sources and inconsistencies in terminology used.

After disclosures that reported only use of fresh water, mixtures of more than one source were
most commonly found in the project database. Twenty-four percent of disclosures (2,466 of 10,301
disclosures; Table 17) that identified a source of water used more than one term, with the most
common combination being "recycled" and "surface" (907 of 10,301 disclosures, all from Arkansas).

As shown in Table 18, when the term "fresh" was used in combination with other source water
types, fresh water tended to make up a larger proportion of the hydraulic fracturing fluid. For
instance, for disclosures in which the term "fresh" was used in combination with "recycled" or
"produced," the median maximum fluid concentration of "fresh" water in hydraulic fracturing fluid
ranged from 79% to 90% by mass. The median maximum fluid concentrations associated with
"recycled" or "produced" water, when used with "fresh" water, ranged from 4% to 90% by mass.

Given inconsistencies in the use of terms associated with recycling of water, the frequency of use of
recycled water was not clear from this analysis. Reporting of the terms "flowback," "recycled," or
"produced" in disclosures could indicate that recycling of flowback or produced water occurred.
Table 17 shows that the terms "flowback," "recycled," and "produced," either alone or in
combination with other water source terms, were included in 28% of disclosures containing water
source information (2,861 of 10,301 disclosures). Disclosures in several states indicated the use of
brine, which may also represent the use of flowback or produced water. Disclosures that contained
only the terms "recycled" or "produced" (either alone or together) occurred in Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming. For these states, the median maximum
fluid concentrations for "recycled" and "produced" were generally in excess of 70% by mass,
suggesting substantial use of some quantity of produced water in base fluids for some disclosures.

Of the disclosures that included information on water sources, the greatest number of disclosures
indicating the use of "recycled" or "produced" water, either alone or in combination with other
water sources, was found in disclosures from Arkansas (93% or 1,220 of 1,305 disclosures). Median
maximum fluid concentrations of "recycled" or "produced" water ranged from 10% to 93%
depending on whether these water sources were blended with other sources. These concentrations

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 18. Median maximum fluid concentrations of water by source, summarized by state.

Reported
water source

Number of disclosures

AK

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

WV

WY

State
Uncertain*

Entire
dataset

Fresh

Fresh

84

92



81

94

87

91

88

87

86

85

84

90

83

87

91

86

82

87

87

Lease water





77



95

89







84





94



86

40







86

Surface



92



































92

Reused

Produced



25

72

93



















86











85

Produced/
recycled

























94/94



90/90









94/94

Recycled



93



100



















54







93



98

Mixed

Brine





71

83

91

88



95



84





92



83





87

87

86

Brine/fresh







13/69



7/84



4/85





3/86



3/93



13/77







5/82

13/78

Brine/lease
water





























6/86









6/86

Brine/salt water







2/90































2/90

Flowback/salt
water





























27/27









27/27

Fresh/lease
water

























53/41



94/94









74/68

Fresh/nominal
recycled







81



88

















90









88

Fresh/produced











87/4



























87/4

Fresh/produced/
recycled



80/10/10



















76/8/8

85/2/2

71/15/15

85/3/3



77/8/8





76/10/10

Fresh/recycled



79/13



81/81



















90/90





90/90

84/84



81/16

Fresh/salt water







51/36































51/36

Fresh/treated
water





















81/81

















81/81

Table continued on next page

58

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Reported
water source

Number of disclosures

AK

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

WV

WY

State
Uncertain*

Entire
dataset

Nominal fresh/
recycled







100































100

Recycled/surface



29/62



































29/62

Salt water

100





91



87







81









94









92

Sea water

81





































81

Treated water







93



89













95



85









93

All water sources

Median (source
specified)

82

47

74

84

94

87

91

88

87

86

85

14

90

26

87

90

23

85

87

83

Median (source
unspecified)

99

91

78

91

92

90

92



87

86

80

89

92

88

88

89

90

80

87

88

* State location did not pass state locational quality assurance criteria.

Note: Analysis considered 36,046 disclosures and 925,972 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination of
fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance
criteria (2,484) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

59

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

suggest substantial use of recycled water during some hydraulic fracturing operations. Notable use
of recycled and produced water was also indicated in Pennsylvania (83% of disclosures with source
water terms), Ohio (70%), and West Virginia (65%), although the total numbers of disclosures
were much lower in Ohio and West Virginia than in Arkansas and Pennsylvania.

3,3. Proppants

Proppants, or materials that frequently functioned as proppants, were often reported in the
ingredients table. The proppant analyses in this section included 26,935 unique disclosures in the
project database with fracture dates between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013. Proppants
were identified through entries in the purpose field (i.e., an entry similar to proppant, sand, quartz,
or silica). The strategy of identifying proppants using the purpose field was conservative but
consistent with the study's approach of reporting data as closely as possible to the original PDF
disclosures. Because some operators listed proppant ingredients without providing an entry in the
purpose field, this analysis provides a lower limit on information regarding proppant use.63
Ingredients associated with resin coatings on proppants were excluded from this analysis and
instead included in the additive ingredient analyses described in Section 3.3.

The median maximum concentration of proppant ingredients in hydraulic fracturing fluids was
11% by mass, with a range of 2.4% to 24% by mass (5th to 95th percentile). Table 19 lists the
ingredients most frequently reported as proppants in the project database and shows the maximum
concentrations of the ingredients in hydraulic fracturing fluids and in additives. The 10 ingredients
in the table represent over 99% of disclosures that have ingredients with proppant-related
purposes in the project database.

Quartz was the most prevalent proppant ingredient reported and was identified in 98% of all
disclosures that identified proppants by purpose, with a median maximum fluid concentration of
10% by mass (Table 19). Silicate minerals, most notably quartz, are commonly used as proppants
due to their mechanical strength and availability in large quantities (Beckwith, 2011). Other
minerals identified as proppants in the project database include mullite, corundum, calcined
bauxite, bauxite, titanium dioxide, ferric oxide, and alumina, as well as other less frequently
reported minerals not present in Table 19. Proppants also have been manufactured from other
materials, including glass, fly ash, and metallurgical slags (Beckwith, 2011), which were not
observed in the project database.

For almost 90% of the disclosures represented in the proppant analysis, quartz was the only
ingredient listed. Other proppant ingredients were reported in many fewer disclosures than quartz,
and they had lower median maximum fluid concentrations (Table 19), indicating their usage in
mixtures that may be designed to achieve a certain strength or density, which suggests that they
may be part of proppant mixtures or may be incorporated into the proppant at different stages of a

63 A broader screening of multiple fields for proppant-related terms suggested the number of disclosures that included
information on proppant use likely exceeded 34,000. This analysis queried for unique disclosures that met the date
criterion with "sand" in the trade name, purpose, or comments fields; "prop" in the purpose field; or a chemical name of
"sand" or "quartz" with a valid maximum fluid concentration greater than 5% by mass.

60

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table 19. Ten most frequently reported proppant ingredients, ranked by frequency of occurrence.

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in
hydraulic fracturing fluid (% by mass)

Maximum concentration in
additive (% by mass)

Number (%) of
disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%) of
ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Quartz

14808-60-7

26,273 (98%)

10

2.4

24

40,337 (80%)

100

97

100

Mullite

1302-93-8

1,352 (5.0%)

3.4

0.000000*

12

1,592 (3.2%)

85

20

100

Cristobalite

14464-46-1

1,048 (3.9%)

0.80

0.000000*

3.9

1,201 (2.4%)

30

5.0

30

Silica, amorphous

7631-86-9

946 (3.5%)

1.1

0.000000*

3.9

1,048 (2.1%)

30

10

35

Ferric oxide

1309-37-1

867 (3.2%)

0.012

0.00038

0.66

1,406 (2.8%)

0.10

0.10

10

Alumina

1344-28-1

793 (2.9%)

0.14

0.050

16

1,347 (2.7%)

1.1

0.80

100

Titanium dioxide

13463-67-7

711 (2.6%)

0.012

0.0042

0.44

1,244 (2.5%)

0.10

0.10

5.0

Corundum (Aluminum
oxide)

1302-74-5

668 (2.5%)

3.0

0.000000*

32

681 (1.4%)

60

35

90

Bauxite

1318-16-7

198 (0.74%)

3.4

0.52

12

218 (0.43%)

100

58

100

Calcined bauxite

66402-68-4

197 (0.73%)

2.8

0.022

20

210 (0.42%)

85

2.3

100

* Concentration is less than a millionth of a percentage by mass.

Note: Analysis considered 34,675 disclosures and 676,376 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique
combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that
did not meet quality assurance criteria (3,855) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

61

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

fracturing job. In 1,093 disclosures, quartz was reported with mullite (sometimes with other
proppant ingredients); mullite is an aluminosilicate material that is a significant component in
lightweight ceramic proppants (Brannon and Pearson, 2008). In 508 disclosures, quartz was
reported in combination with corundum and mullite; corundum offers the benefit of very high
strength and is a suitable component of proppant mixes for deep wells (Brannon and Pearson,
2008). In 301 disclosures, quartz was used with bauxite or calcined bauxite, either as the only two
materials or in combination with other proppant ingredients. Some proppant ingredients, such as
hematite, magnesium iron silicate, and rutile had median maximum fluid concentrations under 1%
by mass, suggesting their presence as minor constituents in sand mixtures.

Although ingredients associated with resin coatings were not included in the proppants analysis in
Table 19, information in the project database was analyzed to estimate the use of resin-coated
proppants. Disclosures with proppant-related purposes were further queried for indications of the
use of resin-coated proppants in the trade name, chemical name, purpose, and comments fields. The
fields were searched for use of the word "resin" or a common resin ingredient (e.g., phenolic resin,
methenamine, and epoxy resin). Entries in these fields showed that 11,452 disclosures indicated
the use of a resin-coated proppant (43% of the 26,935 disclosures containing ingredients with
proppant-related purposes).64 The largest numbers of disclosures including resin-coated proppants
were from Colorado (2,116) and Texas (5,824), where they represent 55% and 46%, respectively,
of the disclosures containing ingredients with proppant-related purposes in each state. Several
hundred disclosures with resin-coated proppants were also identified in Oklahoma (597
disclosures, 47% of 1,260 disclosures with proppants in that state), New Mexico (597 disclosures,
62% of 959 disclosures with proppants), and North Dakota (481 disclosures, 32% of 1,525
disclosures with proppants). These data are lower limits for resin-coated proppant use, because the
analysis was limited to disclosures that identified a proppant-related purpose for an ingredient
record.

4. Conclusions

The summary statistics presented in this report reflect the information included in the FracFocus
1.0 disclosures (i.e., records of hydraulic fracturing events at individual wells) submitted by well
operators for hydraulic fracturing conducted between January 2011 and February 2013. The
project database compiled from the disclosures and the accompanying Data Management and
Quality Assessment Report (US EPA, 2015) are available atwww2.epa.gov/
hfstudy/published-scientific-papers.

More than 39,000 PDF disclosures were provided to the EPA by the GWPC in March 2013.
Information on fracture date, well operator, well identification and location, production type, true
vertical depth, and total water volume were successfully extracted from 38,530 disclosures.
Hydraulic fracturing fluid composition data were extracted for 37,017 disclosures. Hydraulic
fracturing fluid composition data included trade names of additives, the purpose associated with
each additive, and the identity (i.e., chemical name and CASRN) and maximum concentration of

64 An additional 3,116 disclosures indicate the use of resin-coated proppants when disclosures are included for which the
operator did not indicated a purpose for the proppants are included in the analysis.

62

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

each ingredient in an additive and in the overall hydraulic fracturing fluid. Reviews of data quality
were conducted on the project database prior to data analysis to ensure that the results of the
analyses reflected the data contained in the PDF disclosures, while identifying obviously invalid or
incorrect data to exclude from analyses.

Analyses were conducted on unique (i.e., non-duplicate) disclosures with a fracture date between
January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013, that met appropriate quality assurance criteria for a given
analysis. The disclosures identified well locations in 406 counties in 20 states and were reported by
428 well operators. True vertical depths ranged from approximately 2,900 feet to nearly 13,000
feet (5th to 95th percentile), with a median of just over 8,100 feet. Generally, well locations
represented by the disclosures were clustered in the northeast (mainly in and around
Pennsylvania), the west central portion of the country (from North Dakota and Wyoming through
Texas and Louisiana), and in California. Summary statistics performed on the entire dataset reflect
a greater contribution of data from states that are better represented in the project database than
others—partly due to the locations of oil and gas-bearing reservoirs, different state reporting
requirements, and the success in extracting data from individual PDF disclosures.

Because of the large number of disclosures included in the project database (38,530 disclosures),
the extensive quality checks conducted on the data, and the design of the analyses, the summary
statistics presented in this report represent the central tendency of measures of chemical and water
use for the disclosures in the project database. Although caution is used in drawing broad national,
state, or local inferences in chemical or water use from the summary statistics presented in this
report, the data provide a valuable two-year snapshot of the composition of hydraulic fracturing
fluids.

Ingredients reported in the disclosures were categorized in analyses as either additive ingredients,
base fluid ingredients, or proppant ingredients depending upon entries in the trade name, purpose,
and comments fields as well as the reported maximum ingredient concentration in the hydraulic
fracturing fluid. Additive ingredients generally included chemicals reported for trade names that
had purposes other than base fluid or proppant The project database contains 692 unique
ingredients reported for additives, base fluids, and proppants. Hydraulic fracturing fluids were
generally found to contain 88% by mass water, 10% by mass quartz, and <1% by mass additive
ingredients (median maximum hydraulic fracturing fluid concentrations).

Additive Ingredients. The project database identified the additive ingredients most frequently
reported and their concentrations in both hydraulic fracturing fluids and additives. Although
chemicals claimed as CBI contributed to the incompleteness of the project database, a valid CASRN
was identified and a standardized chemical name was assigned to 65% of the over 1.2 million
ingredient records in the project database. The median number of unique additive ingredients per
disclosure was 14, with a range of 4 to 28 additive ingredients (5th to 95th percentile). Additive
ingredients found in more than half of all disclosures analyzed included methanol (in 71% of
disclosures), hydrochloric acid (65%), and hydrotreated light petroleum distillates (65%). The sum
of the maximum fluid concentration for all additive ingredients reported in a disclosure was less
than 1% by mass of the hydraulic fracturing fluid in approximately 80% of disclosures, and the
median maximum fluid concentration was 0.43% by mass. Operators designated 11% of all

63

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

ingredient records in the project database as CBI. At least one ingredient was claimed confidential
in over 70% of disclosures.

Some disclosures in this study reflected a reporting approach that decoupled trade names from
additive ingredient names and concentrations, which allowed operators to disclose chemicals while
protecting CBI. This approach is consistent with suggestions by the SEAB and referred to as the
"systems approach" to reporting (SEAB, 2011; 2014). The systems approach allowed additive
ingredients to be included in analyses for this project, while protecting the ingredients from being
connected to trade names. Additive ingredients were claimed as CBI by operators in a portion of the
disclosures reported used in this study that had formatting consistent with the systems approach.

Base Fluids. Base fluids described in the disclosures included water, water with non-aqueous
ingredients (e.g., gases or hydrocarbons), and hydrocarbons only. More than 93% of the disclosures
analyzed in the study were inferred to use water as a base fluid with a median maximum fluid
concentration of 88% by mass. Total water volumes reported per disclosure ranged from nearly
30,000 gallons to almost 7.2 million gallons (5th to 95th percentile), with a median total water
volume per disclosure of approximately 1.5 million gallons. Non-aqueous constituents (e.g.,
nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons) were reported as base fluids or in combination with
water as a base fluid in fewer than 3% of disclosures.

Operators reported the source (s) of water used for base fluids, as suggested by the SEAB (SEAB,
2011), in 29% of disclosures (10,301 of 36,046 disclosures), even though the FracFocus 1.0
disclosures did not have a specific data field for identifying water sources. The term "fresh" was the
most commonly reported water source, although this term may reflect a condition of water quality
rather than a source. It could not be determined from the disclosures whether the source of the
fresh water was ground water, some type of surface water body, produced water treated to "fresh"
quality standards, or purchased from a public water system.

A large proportion of disclosures in several states west of the Mississippi River reported fresh
water use in base fluids. More than 90% of disclosures that identified water sources in North
Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas reported fresh water as the only water source. In contrast, more than
70% of disclosures that identified water sources in Ohio and Pennsylvania identified some amount
of reused and associated types of water in base fluids. These data indicate that base fluids were
more likely to be made up of some reused or recycled water in several of the eastern states
compared to several western states in the project database.

Possible Differences between Oil and Gas Production. Data in the project database suggested some
differences in additive ingredients and total water volumes reported for disclosures associated with
oil wells and disclosures associated with gas wells. Oil disclosures reported a slightly larger number
of additive ingredients per disclosure and a greater maximum concentrations of some of the more
frequently reported additive ingredients (e.g., methanol and hydrochloric acid). Total water
volumes appeared to be greater for gas disclosures: The median per-disclosure total water volume
reported for gas disclosures was approximately 2.9 million gallons, while the median per-disclosure
total water volume reported for oil disclosures was approximately 1.1 million gallons (although the
range of water volumes per disclosure overlapped). Differences may reflect any of a number of

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

factors, including geologic properties of the formations being fractured, the well design (e.g.,
horizontal versus vertical wells), or operator practices.

Limitations to the Analyses. Conclusions drawn from the analyses presented in this report reflect
data included in the project database. The content of the project database was influenced by the
data conversion process (i.e., extracting data from PDFs into the project database) as well as the
completeness and accuracy of data in the original PDF disclosures.

As identified throughout this report, the completeness and accuracy of the data in the original PDF
disclosures may be affected by many factors, including state reporting requirements and ingredient
reporting practices. By February 2013, six of the 20 states with data in the project database had
implemented regulations that required well operators to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic
fracturing fluids to FracFocus: Colorado, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah.
Three additional states (Louisiana, Montana, and Ohio) required disclosure to either FracFocus or
the state, and five states (Arkansas, Michigan, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Wyoming) required
reporting to the state. Because the majority of disclosures in the project database (58%) were
reported in states without mandatory reporting requirements to FracFocus or had fracture dates
prior to regulatory effective dates for mandatory reporting to FracFocus, the project database
cannot be assumed to be complete.

Designations of CBI, reporting of invalid CASRNs and ingredient concentrations, and the
modification of FracFocus 1.0 disclosure templates by operators contributed to an incomplete
record of chemical use in the project database. Furthermore, parsing problems with the modified
templates generated erroneous ingredient records. Additionally, reporting inconsistencies in
additive purposes, chemical names, sources of water for base fluid, and identification of base fluid
or proppant in the purpose field prevented a stronger statistical evaluation or interpretation of
results in this project Despite the challenges to adapting a dataset originally created for local use
and single-PDF viewing to answer broader questions, the project database provided substantial
insight into water and chemical use for hydraulic fracturing.

FracFocus 2.0, developed in late 2012, provides features such as dropdown menus, warning and
error messages during submission, and automatic formatting of certain fields that can enhance the
quality and consistency of data submitted by operators.65 The FracFocus 2.0 infrastructure was also
updated to store data in XML format rather than PDF. In early 2015, the GWPC and the IOGCC
announced additional updates to FracFocus that include providing public extraction of data in a
machine readable format and verification of CASRNs.

Contribution of FracFocus to Scientific Studies. Understanding the chemical composition of hydraulic
fracturing fluids and the water volumes used for hydraulic fracturing is important for assessing or
minimizing potential drinking water impacts related to hydraulic fracturing and for planning to
avoid those potential impacts. The wide diversity of additive ingredients and total water volumes
reported in disclosures submitted to FracFocus 1.0 emphasizes the importance of analyzing
hydraulic fracturing practices at different scales (from local to state to regional) as well as by

65 Although FracFocus 2.0 became an option for submitting information in late 2012, it was not the exclusive disclosure
mechanism until June 2013.

65

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0	March 2015

production type. The project database and the summary statistics presented in this report could
serve as a general reference, as well as a local or regional resource, for a variety of stakeholders,
including tribal, state, and local governments; academic researchers; the oil and gas industry; non-
governmental organizations; and the public.

66

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

References

Adobe Systems Incorporated. 2011. Adobe AcrobatX Pro 10.

Aminto, A, and Olson, MS. 2012. Four-compartment partition model of hazardous components in
hydraulic fracturing fluid additives. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 7:16-21.

Arthur, JD, Layne, MA, Hochheiser, HW, and Arthur, R. 2014. Spatial and Statistical Analysis of
Hydraulic Fracturing Activities in US Shale Plays and the Effectiveness of the FracFocus Chemical
Disclosure System. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas,
February 4-6. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Beckwith, R. 2011. Proppants: Where in the World. Journal of Petroleum Technology April 2011:36-
41.

Brannon, H, and Pearson, C. 2008. Proppants and Fracture Conductivity. Chapter 8. Modern
Fracturing: Enhancing Natural Gas Production. Economides, M, and Martin, T, Editors. Energy
Tribune Publishing, Houston, Texas.

The Cadmus Group, Inc. 2013. Supplemental Programmatic Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Work Assignment 5-58, Including Amendment 1 Well File Review in Support of Study of Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, Part 3. Cadmus Group, Inc.,
Waltham, Massachusetts. 28 pages.

Carter, KE, Hakala, JA, and Hammack, RW. 2013. Hydraulic Fracturing and Organic Compounds -
Uses, Disposal and Challenges. SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 20-
22. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Chemical Abstracts Service. 2014. Check Digit Verification of CAS Registry Numbers. Available at
http://www.cas.org/content/chemical-substances/checkdig. Accessed April 21, 2014.

Clark, CE, Horner, RM, and Harto, CB. 2013. Life cycle water consumption for shale gas and
conventional natural gas. Environmental Science & Technology 47:11829-11836.

Colborn, T, Kwiatkowski, C, Ebhultz, K, and Bachran, M. 2011. Natural Gas Operations from a Public
Health Perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 17:1039-1056.

DeVine, C, Wood, W, Shekarchian, M, and Hunnicutt, B. 2003. New Environmentally Friendly Oil-
Based Stimulation Fluids. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
October 5-8. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Drillinglnfo, Inc. 2011. DI Desktop December 2011 download.

Esri, Inc. 2012. ArcGIS 10.1.

Friehauf, K, and Sharma, M. 2009. A New Compositional Model for Hydraulic Fracturing with
Energized Fluids. SPE Production & Operations 24:562-572.

Gupta, D, and Valko, P. 2007. Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage. Chapter 7. Modern
Fracturing: Enhancing Natural Gas Production. Economides, M, and Martin, T, Editors. Energy
Tribune Publishing, Houston, Texas.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Gupta, DVS, Pierce, RG, and Lift, ND. 1997. Non-Aqueous Gelled Alcohol Fracturing Fluid.
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, February 18-21. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.

Gupta, DVS, and Hlidek, BT. 2010. Frac-fluid Recycling and Water Conservation: A Case History. SPE
Production & Operations 25:65-69.

Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) and ALL Consulting. 2009. Modern Shale Gas
Development in the United States: A Primer. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 116 pages.

GWPC and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). 2014. FracFocus Chemical
Disclosure Registry: About Us. Available at http://fracfocus.org/welcome. Accessed August 21,

2014.

Hansen, E, Mulvaney, D, and Betcher, M. 2013. Water Resource Reporting and Water Footprint from
Marcellus Shale Development in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Earthworks Oil and Gas
Accountability Project, Durango, Colorado. 77 pages.

Holditch, S. 1993. Completion methods in coal-seam reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology
45:270-276.

Jeu, S, Logan, T, and Mcbane, R. 1988. Exploitation of Deeply Buried Coalbed Methane using
Different Hydraulic Fracturing Techniques in the Piceance Basin, Colorado, and San Juan Basin, New
Mexico. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, October 2-5. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.

Jiang, M, Hendrickson, CT, and VanBriesen, JM. 2014. Life cycle water consumption and wastewater
generation impacts of a Marcellus shale gas well. Environmental Science & Technology 48:1911-
1920.

Lee, DS, Herman, JD, Elsworth, D, Kim, HT, and Lee, HS. 2011. A critical evaluation of unconventional
gas recovery from the marcellus shale, northeastern United States. KS CE Journal of Civil
Engineering 15:679-687.

Microsoft Corporation. 2013. Excel 2013.

Microsoft Corporation. 2012. Access 2013.

Montgomery, C. 2013. Fracturing Fluid Components. Chapter 2. Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic
Fracturing. Bunger, A, Mclennan, J, and Jeffrey, R, Editors. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia.

Nicot, JP, and Scanlon, BR. 2012. Water use for Shale-gas production in Texas, U.S. Environmental
Science & Technology 46:3580-3586.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1992. Chapter 9: Drilling
Phase: Drilling, Casing & Completion Operations. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on
the Oil, Gas, and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. 52 pages.

NYSDEC. 2011. Preliminary Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement
on the Oil, Gas, and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Devleop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-
Permeability Gas Reservoirs. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany,
New York. 1,095 pages.

Palmer, I, Fryar, R, Tumino, K, and Puri, R. 1991. Water Fracs Outperform Gel Fracs in Coalbed Pilot.
Oil& Gas Journal 89:71-76.

Palmer, I, Lambert, S, and Spitler, J. 1993. Coalbed Methane Well completions and Stimulations.
Chapter 14. SG 38: Hydrocarbons from Coal. Law, B, and Rice, D, Editors. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Penny, G. 1982. Nondamaging Fluid Loss Additives for Use in Hydraulic Fracturing of Gas Wells. SPE
Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, March 24-25. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.

Python Software Foundation. 2012. Python 2.7.

R Core Team. 2013. The R Project for Statistical Computing 2.2.

Rae, P, and Di Lullo, G. 1996. Fracturing Fluids and Breaker Systems - A Review of the State-of-the-
Art SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, October 23-25. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Rahim, Z, Al-Anazi, H, and Al-Kanaan, A. 2013. Selecting Optimal Fracture Fluids, Breaker System,
and ProppantType for Successful Hydraulic Fracturing and Enhanced Gas Production - Case
Studies. Saudi Aramco Journal of Technology Spring 2013:22-29.

Railroad Commission of Texas. 2015. Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about-us/resource-center/faqs/oil-gas-faqs/faq-hydraulic-fracturing.
Accessed February 25, 2015.

Richardson, L. 2013. Beautiful Soup 4.

Schlumberger. 2014. Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary: Matrix Stimulation. Available at
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com. Accessed August 21, 2014.

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB). 2011. Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Ninety-Day
Report. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 42 pages.

SEAB. 2014. Task Force Report on FracFocus 2.0. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 24
pages.

Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts. 2010. API Standards Information. Available at
http://www.spwla.org/technical/api-codes. Accessed April 21, 2014.

US Census Bureau. 2011. Toplogically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing
(TIGER)/Line Shapefiles. Available at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2010/COUNTY/2010.
Accessed September 16, 2013.

US Energy Information Administration (US EIA). 2007. Data for the Coalbed Methane Panels. Oil-
and Gas-Related Maps, Geospatial Data, and Geospatial Software. Available at http://www.eia.gov/
pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/maps/maps.htm. Accessed April 18, 2014.

69

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

US EIA. 2011a. Data for the US Shale Plays Map. Oil- and Gas-Related Maps, Geospatial Data, and
Geospatial Software. Available at http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/
analysis_publications/maps/maps.htm. Accessed April 18, 2014.

US EIA. 2011b. Data for the Tight Gas Plays Map. Oil- and Gas-Related Maps, Geospatial Data, and
Geospatial Software. Available at http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/
analysis_publications/maps/maps.htm. Accessed April 18, 2014.

US EIA. 2014. Drilling Productivity Report for Key Tight Oil and Shale Gas Regions. August 2014. US
Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. 11 pages.

US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2011. Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of
Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. EPA 600/R-11/122. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 174 pages.

US EPA. 2012. Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources:
Progress Report. EPA 601/R-12/011. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 278
pages.

US EPA. 2013. Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) Database Network. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/index.html. Accessed April 21, 2014.

US EPA. 2014a. Substance Registry Services. Available at http://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/
registry/substreg/home/overview/home.do. Accessed April 21, 2014.

US EPA. 2014b. Permitting Guidance for Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities Using Diesel
Fuels: Underground Injection Control Program Guidance #84. EPA 816/R/14/001. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 48 pages.

US EPA. 2015. Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Data from the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure
Registry 1.0: Data Management and Quality Assessment Report EPA/601/R-14/006. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 42 pages.

US Geological Survey (USGS). 1995. Province Boundaries shapefile. National Oil and Gas
Assessment Available at https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/1995-national-oil-and-gas-assessment-
province-boundaries. Accessed April 18, 2014.

US National Library of Medicine (US NLM). 2014. ChemID Plus Advanced. Available at
http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus. Accessed April 21, 2014.

Vengosh, A, Jackson, RB, Warner, N, Darrah, TH, and Kondash, A. 2014. A Critical Review of the
Risks to Water Resources from Unconventional Shale Gas Development and Hydraulic Fracturing in
the United States. Environmental Science & Technology 15.

Waxman, H, Markey, E, and DeGette, D. 2011. Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing. US House of
Representatives. 32 pages.

70

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

An acid is a chemical that reduces the pH of an aqueous solution by
increasing the ratio of hydronium (H3O) ions to hydroxide (OH ) ions
in solution. In hydraulic fracturing, acids such as hydrochloric,
hydrofluoric, acetic, formic and fluoroboric are used alone or as
blends to achieve greater fracture penetration and to reduce clogging
of the pore spaces and fractures by dissolving minerals and clays.

Additive An ingredient or combination of ingredients that is added to a

hydraulic fracturing base fluid to serve a specific purpose. Additives
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a hydraulic fracturing job
by, for example, limiting the growth of bacteria and preventing
corrosion of the well casing. Additives and their purposes are defined
within the context of hydraulic fracturing, although some additives
may also be used for other activities than hydraulic fracturing. In this
report, an additive corresponds to the entry in the "trade name" field
of a disclosure.

Additive ingredient For the purpose of this report, generally the ingredients in additives

with purposes other than those associated with base fluids or
proppants, but also includes non-aqueous base fluid ingredients and
resin coatings for proppants.

API well number A unique identifying number assigned using a system developed by

the American Petroleum Institute (API). The system applies to oil and
gas wells drilled in the United States.

A base is a chemical that increases the pH of an aqueous solution by
increasing the ratio of hydroxide (OH ) ions to hydronium (HsO+) ions
in solution. In hydraulic fracturing, bases help control the pH of
fracturing fluids and optimize their performance.

The fluid into which additives and proppants are mixed to formulate
a hydraulic fracturing fluids.

A depression in the crust of the Earth formed by plate tectonic
activity. Sediments may accumulate in the basin after the depression
is created, or they may be deposited before tectonic activity forms the
basin.

An additive that can be used to control bacterial growth, which can
affect the viscosity of the fracturing fluid or reduce permeability in
the formation. Common problematic bacteria include sulfate-

Glossary

Acid

Base

Base fluid

Basin

Biocide

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

reducing bacteria, slime-forming bacteria, iron-oxidizing bacteria,
and bacteria that attack polymers in fracturing fluids.

Breaker Also referred to as a gel breaker, an additive used to reduce the

viscosity of a gelled fracturing fluid. This is accomplished by breaking
long-chain polymer molecules into shorter segments. Use of a breaker
facilitates flowback of the fluid after fracturing.

Buffer A buffer allows an aqueous solution to resist changes in pH. It

consists of water, a weak acid or weak base, and a salt of the weak
acid or weak base. Buffers are used to optimize performance of
fracturing fluids that use complex polymers or crosslinked gelling
agents.

CASRN Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN). A unique

numeric identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service for a
single substance. The substance can be composed of a single chemical
(e.g., methanol) or can be a mixture of chemicals (e.g., hydrotreated
light petroleum distillates).

CBI Confidential Business Information. Information that contains trade

secrets, commercial or financial information, or other information
that has been claimed as confidential by the submitter.

Clay control An additive used in hydraulic fracturing to prevent swelling and

migration of formation clays when water-based fluids are used.
Swelling and migration of clays can cause reduced permeability and
productivity by clogging pore spaces in the formation.

Conventional production Crude oil and natural gas that is produced by a well drilled into a

geologic formation in which the reservoir and fluid characteristics
permit oil and natural gas to readily flow to the wellbore.

Corrosion inhibitor An additive used to protect iron and steel equipment and wellbore

components from corrosive ingredients used in acid treatments.
These corrosive agents include various types of acids and hydrogen
sulfide.

Crosslinker An additive, typically a metallic salt, added to a linear gel base fluid to

create a more viscous gel. This enables a fracturing fluid to carry
more proppant Crosslinkers increase the viscosity of the linear gel
fluid by connecting polymer molecules in a three dimensional
structure. After fracturing, the viscosity is reduced by a breaker to
facilitate flowback of the fluid to the well.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

CSV

Disclosure

Flowback

Formation

Friction reducer

Comma-separated values (CSV). File format where tabular data are
presented as plain text with values separated by a special character,
commonly a comma (,).

As used in this report, a disclosure refers to all data submitted for a
specific oil and gas production well for a specific fracture date.

After the hydraulic fracturing procedure is completed and pressure is
released, the direction of fluid flow reverses, and fracturing fluids,
any fluids naturally found in the formation, and excess proppant flow
up through the wellbore to the surface. The fluids that return to the
surface are commonly referred to as flowback. Flowback also refers
to the process of allowing these fluids to flow from the well following
a treatment.

A continuous body of rock with distinctive properties and large
enough dimensions for mapping.

An additive used to reduce friction in the wellbore, allowing fluid to
move more quickly and efficiently.

Gelling agent

An additive used to increase fluid viscosity. Gels may be linear or
cross-linked. The greater viscosity serves several purposes, including
increasing the ability of the fluid to carry proppant and helping to
minimize fluid loss.

Geoprocessing tool

Tool available in ArcGIS that is used to analyze and process spatial
data.

Hydraulic fracturing
fluid

Iron control agent

A mixture of base fluid, additive ingredients, and proppants pumped
under high pressure into a well to create fractures in the target
formation and to carry proppant into the fractures.

An additive used to increase the solubility of iron, removing and
preventing the precipitation of iron-bearing additives such as iron
hydroxide and iron sulfide. This helps control rust, sludges, and scale
that can damage the formation.

Non-emulsifier	A chemical or mixture of chemicals used to prevent or minimize the

formation of emulsions. Emulsions may form from the interaction of
the fracturing fluid with hydrocarbons in the subsurface. A non-
emulsifier facilitates separation of oil or gas from the flowback.

Parsing	Process of analyzing a string of symbols to identify and separate

various components.

73

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

pH control

Play

Proppant

Reservoir

Scale inhibitor

An additive that either adjusts the pH of the fluid or buffers the pH
against change (buffer). Control of pH is needed for effective
performance of the fracturing fluid, including facilitating the
crosslinking of gels and use of breakers.

An area in which hydrocarbon accumulations occur. The
accumulations typically have similar geologic, geographic, and
temporal properties such as source rock, hydrocarbon type,
migration pathway, and trapping mechanism.

Solids of a particular size, shape, and material that are carried into
the fractures in a hydrocarbon formation by the hydraulic fracturing
fluid. Their purpose is to hold the fractures open after hydraulic
fracturing. In addition to naturally occurring sand, engineered
materials, such as resin-coated sand or high-strength ceramic
materials (e.g., sintered bauxite) may also be used.

Generally, a subsurface body of rock able to store fluids such as oil
and natural gas and allow the flow of fluids within the rock.

An additive used to control or prevent the formation of mineral scales
in the formation or the well tubing. Scale deposition can inhibit
hydrocarbon flow.

Stacked plays Multiple reservoirs located at different depths within a sedimentary

basin. Stacked plays may be accessed using a single vertical well or
multiple horizontal wells, and may be either conventional or
unconventional.

Surfactant A chemical with polar and non-polar regions that allow it to reduce

the surface tension at the interface between two liquids or between a
liquid and a solid. This property means that surfactants can be used
as emulsifiers, foaming agents, defoaming agents, and dispersants.

True vertical depth The vertical distance from a subsurface point in the well to a point at

(TVD) the surface, usually the rotary kelly bushing.

Unconventional Oil and natural gas that cannot be produced by the methods that are

production typically used for permeable sandstone and carbonate hydrocarbon

reservoirs. Reservoirs that require unconventional production have
porosities, permeabilities, or other properties that necessitate
techniques such as hydraulic fracturing to stimulate the flow of
hydrocarbons to a well. Unconventional production may occur in
hydrocarbon reservoirs including coalbeds, shales, and sandstones.

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Viscosifier

An additive used to increase the viscosity of a fluid. Viscosity is a fluid
property that indicates the fluid's resistance to flow.

Well operator

A company that owns and/or operates oil and gas wells.

Wellbore

The drilled hole in which the well is constructed including the
openhole or uncased portion of the well. The term "wellbore" is
independent of the materials that form the well such as casing and
tubing.

XML file

A file coded according to the Extensible Markup Language (XML) for
easy sharing of data and formatting.

References

Independent Petroleum Association of America. 2014. The Imperishable Permian Basin. Available
at http://oilindependents.org/the-imperishable-permian-basin/. Accessed June 4, 2014.

Schlumberger. 2014. Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary. Available at
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com. Accessed January 22, 2014.

Society of Petroleum Engineers. 2014. PetroWiki Glossary. Available at http://petrowiki.org/
Category:Glossary. Accessed January 22, 2014.

US Energy Information Administration. 2014. Glossary. Available at http://www.eia.gov/
tools/glossary/. Accessed April 28, 2014.

US Geological Survey. 2014. Geologic Glossary. Available at http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/
misc/glossarya.html. Accessed January 22, 2014.

75

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Appendix A. Shale Basin Map

Montana'
-Thrust
JCBeft I

Powder
River"-

Bighorn

Michigan

j I Greater"^
i'/ Green '

*		 River - .~i

f rl North!

Uinta-P!ceance\ Wk j

Appalachian

Denver I

Forest
City

Paradox:

^¦Cherokee-1
/Platform

^-.Ventura >
Angeles

Anadarko

Arkoma

-]——yValieyj

vhJ

.Ardmore,
Marietta'

lack
1 - Warrior

•Permian

_ i Shale basins (EIA, 2011)

Note: Shale basins are those sedimentary basins associated with oil and gas shale plays (US EIA, 2011a), The ElA-delineated
shale basins provide basic geologic context for the locations of disclosures in the project database. Disclosures also represent oil
and gas wells producing from tight sand plays and coalbed methane plays; maps of tight gas basins and coalbed methane basins
are available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The shale gas basins are presented here because they represent
many major sedimentary basins in the United States.

Figure A-l. Shale basins map (US EIA, 2011a).

76

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Appendix B. Chemical Families for Ingredients Listed as
Confidential Business Information

This appendix includes a tabulation of information provided by well operators on the chemical
families of the ingredients that were claimed to be confidential business information (CBI). We
evaluated 122,915 ingredient records (from disclosures with unique combinations of fracture date
and API well number and with a fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013)
that have a CBI synonym in the CASRN field and an entry in the chemical name field.1 An additional
696 ingredient records had a CBI entry in the CASRN field, but no information in the chemical name
field.

Ingredient records containing "CBI" or a synonym in the CASRN field were sorted into the
categories listed in the table below. Entries in the records were minimally standardized to correct
for misspellings and capitalization and to consolidate nearly identical entries. Those entries with
partially defined chemical information were tabulated to list the number and percentage of
disclosures associated with each of the standardized chemical families listed in Table B-l. The
partial definition provided enough description to narrow the scope of potential chemicals or
indicate a general chemical group.

Type of entry in the chemical name field

Percentage of
ingredient records

CBI synonym

9.6%

Partially defined chemical (enough description to narrow the list of
potential chemicals or indicate a general chemical group)

79%

Ingredient (specifically defined chemical) (e.g., hydrochloric acid,
ammonium chloride, amorphous silica)

2.1%

Purpose (entries provides information on purpose rather than
chemical family) (e.g., surfactant)

7.5%

Multiple entries (more than one chemical name in the field)

0.088%

Other (an entry that does not provide information on a specific
chemical or chemical grouping and does not fall into one of the other
categories)

1.3%

Total

100%

1 The 122,915 ingredient records are a subset of the 129,311 ingredient records identified as CBI ingredient records in
Section 2.2.3. The 129,311 ingredient records were identified by the presence of "CBI" or a synonym in either the CASRN
field or chemical name field. The 122,915 ingredient records have "CBI" or a synonym in the CASRN field and a non-null
entry in the chemical name field.

77

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table B-l. Chemical families for CBI ingredient records.

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Oxyalkylated alcohol

12

5,809

4.7%

Petroleum distillates

23

4,974

4.0%

Quaternary ammonium
compounds

27

4,461

3.6%

Aromatic aldehyde

9

2,227

1.8%

Polyoxyalkylenes

6

1,955

1.6%

Olefins

9

1,933

1.6%

Fatty acids

4

1,920

1.6%

Aliphatic acids

3

1,748

1.4%

Cured acrylic resin

9

1,701

1.4%

Polyglycol ester

4

1,697

1.4%

Polyol ester

3

1,695

1.4%

Aliphatic alcohols, ethoxylated
#1

3

1,627

1.3%

Vinyl copolymer

3

1,600

1.3%

Amino alkyl phosphonic acid

4

1,530

1.2%

Alcohol ethoxylate surfactants

6

1,528

1.2%

Aliphatic hydrocarbon

3

1,527

1.2%

Carbohydrate polymer

2

1,439

1.2%

Alkylene oxide block polymer

6

1,412

1.1%

Copolymer

2

1,390

1.1%

Organic amine resin salt

5

1,304

1.1%

Oxyalkylated alkyl alcohol

6

1,257

1.0%

Aliphatic polyol

2

1,073

0.87%

Phosphonate salt

6

1,044

0.85%

Organic sulfur compounds

8

1,029

0.84%

Oxyalkylated fatty acid

5

984

0.80%

Ethoxylated alcohol blend

2

971

0.79%

Polymer

9

968

0.79%

Quaternary amines

10

927

0.75%

Inorganic salt

7

917

0.75%

Alkoxylated amines

6

882

0.72%

Aliphatic alcohol glycol ether

3

876

0.71%

Haloalkyl heteropolycycle salt

8

858

0.70%

Ethoxylated alcohol

5

855

0.70%

Alcohols

6

841

0.68%

Borate salt

12

810

0.66%

Table continued on next page

78

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Amine salt

9

802

0.65%

Alcohol ethoxylate

9

794

0.65%

Polyquaternary amine

3

781

0.64%

Alcohol alkoxylate

5

766

0.62%

Aldehyde

7

754

0.61%

Organic phosphonate

5

747

0.61%

Inorganic chemical

3

737

0.60%

Polyelectrolyte

4

737

0.60%

n-olefins

5

711

0.58%

Oxyalkylated phenolic resin

8

708

0.58%

Guar gum derivative

6

696

0.57%

Branched alcohol oxyalkylate

1

653

0.53%

Cocoamido tertiary amine

2

607

0.49%

Sulfonate

7

568

0.46%

Cyclic alkanes

2

546

0.44%

Ethoxylated alcohols

4

493

0.40%

Ammonium salt

10

491

0.40%

Hydrocarbon

3

477

0.39%

Quaternary ammonium salt

8

463

0.38%

Glycol ether

4

458

0.37%

Amine phosphonate 1

2

424

0.34%

Carbohydrates

5

415

0.34%

Essential oils

3

414

0.34%

Alkyl phosphate ester

3

412

0.34%

Fatty acid amidoalkyl betaine

1

412

0.34%

Clay

6

406

0.33%

Sulfonated polystyrene

1

405

0.33%

Polyethoxylated alkanol (1)

1

404

0.33%

Polyethoxylated alkanol (2)

1

404

0.33%

Polyacrylamide copolymer

5

393

0.32%

Acrylamide

2

380

0.31%

Organophilic clays

7

369

0.30%

Substituted alcohol

2

369

0.30%

Ethoxylated nonylphenol

8

340

0.28%

Acid phosphate ester

2

337

0.27%

Alkyl alkoxylate

3

335

0.27%

Polyacrylate

7

329

0.27%

Ethoxylated fatty acid

4

327

0.27%

Table continued on next page

79

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Aliphatic alcohol

2

306

0.25%

Organic polyol

3

304

0.25%

Castor oil

3

303

0.25%

Fatty acid

1

303

0.25%

Fatty acid salt

1

303

0.25%

Polysaccharide blend

2

299

0.24%

Polysubstituted aromatic
hydrocarbon solvent

1

286

0.23%

Synthetic organic polymer

2

281

0.23%

Oxyalkylated alkanols

2

280

0.23%

Neutralized polymer

2

278

0.23%

Non-hazardous salts (Choline)

2

276

0.22%

Nonylphenol ethoxylate

6

275

0.22%

Ethoxylated alcohols 2

2

267

0.22%

Cationic water soluble polymer
emulsion

2

266

0.22%

Organic sulfonic acid salt

2

265

0.22%

Oxyalkylated polyamine

2

264

0.21%

Synthetic polymer

3

256

0.21%

Quaternary salt

2

252

0.21%

Anionic copolymer

2

248

0.20%

Polyglycol

1

245

0.20%

Anionic polyacrylamide

2

242

0.20%

Acrylamide modified polymer

3

241

0.20%

Neutralized polycarboxylic acid

2

234

0.19%

Fatty acids, tall oil

5

231

0.19%

Amine phosphonate 5

1

228

0.19%

Non-hazardous salts

5

226

0.18%

Amine derivative

2

220

0.18%

Hemicellulase enzyme
concentrate

1

219

0.18%

Secondary alcohol

4

218

0.18%

Mannanase enzymes

6

215

0.17%

Neutralized traceable polymer

1

214

0.17%

Cationic polyacrylamide
copolymer

8

209

0.17%

Enzyme

7

207

0.17%

Organic alcohol

1

199

0.16%

Proprietary methanol

1

199

0.16%

Table continued on next page

80

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical

Number of chemical
names with this

Number of CBI

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

family name

standardized family
name*

ingredient records

1,3-propanediol, 2-amino-
2(hm)-polymer

2

192

0.16%

Polyacrylamide polymer

1

192

0.16%

Polyoxyalkylenes surfactant

1

192

0.16%

Anionic polymer

4

185

0.15%

Inorganic base

2

177

0.14%

Ammonium alkyl ether sulfate

1

175

0.14%

Anionic polyacrylamide
copolymer

3

173

0.14%

Enzyme solution

1

170

0.14%

Amine phosphonate 5,
potassium salt

2

169

0.14%

Substituted alkylamine

1

162

0.13%

Olefin sulfonate

2

160

0.13%

Polyester

1

158

0.13%

Hexyl alcohol, ethyxylated

1

157

0.13%

Alkyl alcohol

1

152

0.12%

Hydrotreated light petroleum
distillate

4

146

0.12%

Acyclic hydrocarbons

4

145

0.12%

Oxylated alkanols

1

145

0.12%

Acrylate polymer

5

144

0.12%

Light aromatic hydrocarbon
solvent

1

144

0.12%

Acrylamide polymer

3

143

0.12%

Cellulase enzyme

3

143

0.12%

Phosphonic acid

3

140

0.11%

Alkanolamine/aldehyde
condensate

1

134

0.11%

Ethoxylated phenolic resin

1

128

0.10%

Amines

2

127

0.10%

Oxyalkylated alkylphenol

3

127

0.10%

Salt

4

127

0.10%

Modified carboxylic acid
polymer salt

2

123

0.10%

Sodium salt

3

122

0.10%

Acetylenic alcohol

2

121

0.10%

Complex alkylaryl polyo-ester

2

121

0.10%

Phosphoric acid ester

3

120

0.10%

Organic phosphonic acid salts

6

119

0.10%

Table continued on next page

81

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Unsulphonated matter

2

117

0.10%

Modified alkane

4

111

0.090%

Polyacrylamide

2

107

0.087%

Polymer blend

3

107

0.087%

Modified thiourea polymer

4

105

0.085%

Amines, coco alkyl, acetates

1

104

0.085%

Terpenes and terpenoids

4

100

0.081%

Acrylate copolymer, sodium salt

2

99

0.081%

Sodium polyphosphate

1

99

0.081%

Ammonium alkyl sulfate

1

98

0.080%

Silica organic polymer

2

96

0.078%

Phosphonate compound

1

95

0.077%

Borate suspension

1

94

0.076%

Alkenes

3

89

0.072%

Formic acid additive

1

88

0.072%

Aliphatic alcohols,
ethoxylated #2

2

82

0.067%

Epoxy resin

3

82

0.067%

Phosphate ester

5

78

0.063%

Phosphonic acid derivative

3

74

0.060%

Polycarboxylic acid polymer

1

74

0.060%

Poly phosphonate

1

71

0.058%

Organo phosphorous salt

3

69

0.056%

Nickel chelate catalyst

3

68

0.055%

Acrylate phosphonate
copolymer

1

67

0.055%

Neutralized organic acid

1

67

0.055%

Resin based nonionic inhibitor

1

67

0.055%

Sodium polycarboxylate

2

65

0.053%

Terpene

2

65

0.053%

Mannase enzymes

1

64

0.052%

Poly (acrylamide-co-acrylic acid)

1

64

0.052%

Inorganic mineral

3

62

0.050%

Alcoholic amine

2

59

0.048%

Anionic water soluble polymer

4

56

0.046%

Tallow soap

3

56

0.046%

Aliphatic copolymer

2

54

0.044%

Alkyl sulfate

1

54

0.044%

Table continued on next page

82

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Amine phosphonate salt

1

52

0.042%

Modified bentonite

5

52

0.042%

Alkene sulfonate

1

51

0.041%

Polyamine

1

51

0.041%

Polysaccharide



51

0.041%

Quaternary ammonium



51

0.041%

Sulfate

1

51

0.041%

Weak acid

1

51

0.041%

Acid

1

50

0.041%

Inner salt of alkyl amines



49

0.040%

Alcohol alkoxy sulfate

1

48

0.039%

Ethoxylated oil

1

48

0.039%

Organic acid salts

1

48

0.039%

Propylene glycol copolymer

1

47

0.038%

Zirconium complex



46

0.037%

Aromatic amine

1

45

0.037%

Hemicellulase

1

45

0.037%

Inorganic material

1

44

0.036%

Ethoxylated alcohol linear 2



42

0.034%

Cellulose

1

41

0.033%

Modified amine

1

41

0.033%

Oxalkylated fatty acid

1

41

0.033%

Acrylate copolymer

1

40

0.033%

Alkyl amine surfactant

4

39

0.032%

Inorganic borate

3

39

0.032%

Non-hazardous polymers

2

38

0.031%

Organic salt

5

37

0.030%

Ester solvents

1

36

0.029%

Cationic polymer

2

35

0.028%

Fatty acid amine salt mixture

6

35

0.028%

Polycationic organic polymer

4

35

0.028%

Synthetic resin fibers

1

34

0.028%

Amine phosphonate 7

2

33

0.027%

Iso-alkanes/n-alkanes

1

33

0.027%

Organic acid esters

2

33

0.027%

Oxoalkyl compounds

2

33

0.027%

Vegetable oil

2

33

0.027%

Alkylalcohol ethoxylated

1

32

0.026%

Table continued on next page

83

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Oxyalkalated alkyl alcohol (1)

1

32

0.026%

Isomeric aromatic ammonium
salt

1

31

0.025%

Nonylphenol

2

29

0.024%

Quaternized alkyl nitrogenated
compound

8

29

0.024%

Secondary alcohol ethoxylate

1

29

0.024%

Nonylphenol ethoxylate
surfactant

1

28

0.023%

Zirconium complexes (2)

1

27

0.022%

Cocamide based surfactant

1

25

0.020%

Alcohols, C12-16, ethoxylated

3

24

0.020%

Phosphorous compound

2

24

0.020%

Resin

4

23

0.019%

Resin compound

2

23

0.019%

Anionic inverse-emulsion
polymer

1

22

0.018%

Aromatic ketones mixture

2

22

0.018%

Dimer fatty acids

2

22

0.018%

Polymers derived from fatty
acids

1

22

0.018%

Stearates

1

21

0.017%

Aliphatic polymer

1

20

0.016%

Polyanionic Cellulose

2

20

0.016%

Tall oil acid diethanolamide

3

20

0.016%

Amine surfactant

1

19

0.015%

Complex alkylamine

4

19

0.015%

Distillates (petroleum),
hydrotreated light

1

19

0.015%

Amine phosphonate

2

18

0.015%

Complex fatty acid compound

3

18

0.015%

Fatty acid ester

1

18

0.015%

Polyethoxylated alcohol

2

18

0.015%

Siloxane

1

18

0.015%

Alkyl quaternary ammonium
chlorides

5

17

0.014%

Alkylated quaternary chloride

1

17

0.014%

Antimonate salt

1

17

0.014%

Cocoamido tertiary amine
additive

1

17

0.014%

Emulsion polymer

1

17

0.014%

Table continued on next page

84

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Ethoxylated amine

2

17

0.014%

Fused inorganics

1

17

0.014%

Organometallic salt

2

17

0.014%

Salt of phosphate ester

2

17

0.014%

Alcohol ethoxylate C-10/16 with
6.5 EO

1

16

0.013%

Ethoxylated alcohol linear 1

1

16

0.013%

Ethoxylated alcohol linear 3

1

16

0.013%

Fatty alkyl heteroclyclic amine
salt

2

16

0.013%

Organo clay

2

15

0.012%

Sodium salt of

phosphonodimethylated

diamine

3

15

0.012%

Oxyalkylated ammonium salt

1

14

0.011%

Polyethoxylated fatty amine salt

2

14

0.011%

Polyurethane resin

1

14

0.011%

Quaternary ammonium chloride

3

14

0.011%

Alkyl amine salts

2

13

0.011%

Ethoxylated decyl alcohol

1

13

0.011%

Alkaline salt

2

12

0.0098%

Chloride compound

1

12

0.0098%

Complex ester

1

12

0.0098%

Ester mixture

1

12

0.0098%

Ethoxylated surfactant

1

12

0.0098%

Glycol

4

12

0.0098%

Hydrocarbon solvent

1

12

0.0098%

Acrylic polymer

5

11

0.0089%

Amine phosphate 5

1

11

0.0089%

Amine phosphate 5, potassium
salt

1

11

0.0089%

Bis quaternary compond

1

11

0.0089%

Organic chloride

1

11

0.0089%

alpha-(4-nonylphenyl)-omega-
hydr oxy-, branched

2

10

0.0081%

Complex carbohydrate

3

10

0.0081%

Hydrotreated mineral oil

1

10

0.0081%

Propoxylated alcohol

1

10

0.0081%

Alcohols, C14-C15, ethoxylated

3

9

0.0073%

Amine sulfonate

2

9

0.0073%

Table continued on next page

85

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Ethylene/propylene oxide
polymer

2

9

0.0073%

Phosphonic acid salt

1

9

0.0073%

Phosphonium salt

2

9

0.0073%

Oxyalkylated polymer

1

8

0.0065%

Oxyalkylated resin

1

8

0.0065%

Polyoxyalkenes



8

0.0065%

Amino compounds

1

7

0.0057%

Carbonates

1

7

0.0057%

Carboxylic acid salt

1

7

0.0057%

Ether salt

1

7

0.0057%

Isobutyl ketone 1

1

7

0.0057%

Isobutyl ketone II

1

7

0.0057%

Isomeric aromatic ammonium

1

7

0.0057%

Modified polyacrylate

1

7

0.0057%

Phosphonate

1

7

0.0057%

Polylactide resin



7

0.0057%

Quaternary ammonium
compounds, dicoco
alkyldimethyl, chlorides - TS

1

7

0.0057%

Alkoxylated alcohol

1

6

0.0049%

Anionic polyacrylamide
emulsion in mineral oil

1

6

0.0049%

Aromatic alcohol glycol ether

1

6

0.0049%

Cationic polyamine

1

6

0.0049%

Cationic polyamine blend

1

6

0.0049%

Ethoxylated alkyl amines

1

6

0.0049%

Hydrotreated petroleum
distallate

1

6

0.0049%

Mineral oil

1

6

0.0049%

Organophosphonate

2

6

0.0049%

Oxyalkylated fatty acid
derivative

2

6

0.0049%

Phosphonate of a diamine,
sodium salt

1

6

0.0049%

Alkyl phosphonate

1

5

0.0041%

Alkyl thiol

1

5

0.0041%

Alkylarylpyridinium quaternary

1

5

0.0041%

Amino alcohols

1

5

0.0041%

Carboxylate salt

1

5

0.0041%

Table continued on next page

86

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Citrus rutaceae extract

2

5

0.0041%

Cured resin

1

5

0.0041%

Mixed alkyl phosphate ester
(mixture)

1

5

0.0041%

Naphthenic acid ethoxylate



5

0.0041%

Phosphonate, amine salt

1

5

0.0041%

Polyacrylate polymer

1

5

0.0041%

Polycarboxylate

1

5

0.0041%

2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid,

1

4

0.0033%

Alkanolamine



4

0.0033%

Alkylpyridinium quaternary

1

4

0.0033%

Alphiatic polyol

1

4

0.0033%

Amine phosphate

1

4

0.0033%

Amino methylene phosphonic
acid

1

4

0.0033%

Aromatic alcohol polyglycol
ether



4

0.0033%

Aromatic ammonium salt

1

4

0.0033%

Aromatic hydrocarbon



4

0.0033%

Ester salt

1

4

0.0033%

Ethoxylated alcohol linear 1,2
and 3

1

4

0.0033%

Fatty alcohol polyglycol ether
surfactant

1

4

0.0033%

Heavy aromatic petroleum
naphtha

1

4

0.0033%

Inorganic oxygen compound

1

4

0.0033%

Modified acrylamide copolymer



4

0.0033%

Oxylated alcohol



4

0.0033%

Polyether

1

4

0.0033%

Polyoxyalkylated ether



4

0.0033%

Aliphatic alcohol polyglycol
ether

1

3

0.0024%

Aliphatic amide derivative

1

3

0.0024%

Amide

1

3

0.0024%

Amine phosphonate 7,
ammonium salt

1

3

0.0024%

Amino phosphonate 5

1

3

0.0024%

Amino phosphonate 5,
potassium salt

1

3

0.0024%

Aromatic acid derivative

1

3

0.0024%

Table continued on next page

87

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Aromatic amine, TOFA salt

1

3

0.0024%

Condensed alkanolamine

1

3

0.0024%

Dicarbonous ethoxylate



3

0.0024%

Ether compound

1

3

0.0024%

Ethoxylated C12-15 alcohols

1

3

0.0024%

Imidazolium compound

1

3

0.0024%

Phosphate acid blend

1

3

0.0024%

Phosphoric acid salt

1

3

0.0024%

Phosphorous based chemical
blend

1

3

0.0024%

Ployacrylate/phosphonate acid
blend

1

3

0.0024%

Polyester castor

1

3

0.0024%

Quaternary compound

1

3

0.0024%

Silicate mineral



3

0.0024%

Sulfur compound

1

3

0.0024%

Alcohol amine

1

2

0.0016%

Aliphatic ester

1

2

0.0016%

Aliphatic synthetic polymer

1

2

0.0016%

Alkanes

1

2

0.0016%

Alkyl aryl amine sulfonate

1

2

0.0016%

Amines, coco alkyl, ethoxylated

1

2

0.0016%

Aminofunctional polymer

1

2

0.0016%

Carboxymethylhydroxypropyl
guar blend

1

2

0.0016%

Ester

1

2

0.0016%

Ethoxylated oleyl amine

1

2

0.0016%

Formaldehyde polymer

1

2

0.0016%

Hemicellulase enzyme



2

0.0016%

Liquid salt

1

2

0.0016%

Non-anionic surfactant

1

2

0.0016%

Organic amino silane



2

0.0016%

Organic polymer

1

2

0.0016%

Oxyalkylate polymer

1

2

0.0016%

Oxylated phenolic resin

1

2

0.0016%

Polycarboxylic acid

1

2

0.0016%

Polyoxyethylene derivative



2

0.0016%

Raffinates(Petroleum)

1

2

0.0016%

Salt of aliphatic acid

1

2

0.0016%

Table continued on next page

88

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Silicane derivative

2

2

0.0016%

Sodium xylene sulfonate

1

2

0.0016%

Terpenes and terpenoids, sweet
orange-oil

1

2

0.0016%

Terpolymer sodium salt

1

2

0.0016%

Acrylamide copolymer

1

1

0.00081%

Acrylic acid polymer

1

1

0.00081%

Alcohol amine salts

1

1

0.00081%

Alcohol ethoxylate distillate

1

1

0.00081%

Alcohol ethoxylates

1

1

0.00081%

Alkalines

1

1

0.00081%

Alkanolamine chelate of
zirconium

1

1

0.00081%

Alkanolamine chelate of
zirconium alkoxide

1

1

0.00081%

Alkenens, C15-C18

1

1

0.00081%

Alkkoxylated alkylphenol

1

1

0.00081%

Alkyl sulfonate

1

1

0.00081%

Alkyl sulfonate amine salts

1

1

0.00081%

Alkylamine halide salt

1

1

0.00081%

Alkylamine salts

1

1

0.00081%

Alkylammonium

1

1

0.00081%

Alkylbenzenesulfonic acid

1

1

0.00081%

Amine phosphate 1

1

1

0.00081%

Amphoteric alkyl amine

1

1

0.00081%

Aromatic polymer

1

1

0.00081%

Chloromethylnapthalene
quinoline quaternary amine

1

1

0.00081%

Citrus terpenes

1

1

0.00081%

Copolymer resin

1

1

0.00081%

Cycloparrafins

1

1

0.00081%

Derivative of acrylic acid
copolymer

1

1

0.00081%

Enzyme protein

1

1

0.00081%

Ethoxylated lauryl alcohol

1

1

0.00081%

Fatty amine quaternary

1

1

0.00081%

Guar - carbohydrate

1

1

0.00081%

Guar gum

1

1

0.00081%

Heavy aromatic petroleum

1

1

0.00081%

Hydrotreated light

1

1

0.00081%

Table continued on next page

89

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Standardized chemical
family name

Number of chemical

names with this
standardized family
name*

Number of CBI
ingredient records

CBI records as percent
of total CBI
ingredient records

Hydrotreated paraffinic solvent

1

1

0.00081%

Metal chloride

1

1

0.00081%

Methanol complex fatty-acid
compound

1

1

0.00081%

Modified acrylate polymer

1

1

0.00081%

Modified cycloaliphatic amine

1

1

0.00081%

m-olefins

1

1

0.00081%

Noionic fluorsurfactant

1

1

0.00081%

Non hazardous sodium
polyacrylate solution

1

1

0.00081%

Non-hazardous synthetic acid

1

1

0.00081%

Olefins oganic salt

1

1

0.00081%

Oranophilic clay

1

1

0.00081%

Organic acid zirconium salt

1

1

0.00081%

Organic amine

1

1

0.00081%

Organic phosphonate salts

1

1

0.00081%

Organophosphorous salt

1

1

0.00081%

Oxyalkylated fatty amine

1

1

0.00081%

Polacrylamide copolymer

1

1

0.00081%

Poly(dimethylaminoethyl
methacrylate dimethyl sulfate
quat)

1

1

0.00081%

Polyamine polymer

1

1

0.00081%

Polyolycol ester

1

1

0.00081%

Quarternary ammonium salt

1

1

0.00081%

Quaternary amine compounds

1

1

0.00081%

Quaternary heteropolycycle salt

1

1

0.00081%

Resin coated cellulose

1

1

0.00081%

Sodium carboxylate

1

1

0.00081%

Sodium salt of aliphatic amine
acid

1

1

0.00081%

Sodium salt

phosphonodimethylated

1

1

0.00081%

Surface base on cocamide

1

1

0.00081%

Zirconium salt solution

1

1

0.00081%

Zirconium/triethanolamine
complex

1

1

0.00081%

Total



97,610

79%

* Counts in this column represent the number of distinct combinations of chemical name and CASRN (for example, "borate

salts" with a CASRN of "CBI" and "borate salts" with a CASRN of "Confidential" are counted separately).

90

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table B-2. Most frequently reported chemical families among CBI ingredients and their most commonly listed
purposes.

Standardized chemical
family name

Most commonly listed purposes for additives containing the chemical

Alcohol ethoxylate
surfactants

Friction Reducers, Corrosion Inhibitors, Surfactants

Aliphatic acids

Corrosion Inhibitors

Aliphatic alcohols,
ethoxylated #1

Corrosion Inhibitors

Aliphatic hydrocarbon

Surfactants, Scale Control, Friction Reducers

Alkylene oxide block
polymer

Surfactants, Corrosion Inhibitors, Scale Control

Amino alkyl phosphonic acid

Scale Control

Aromatic aldehyde

Corrosion Inhibitors

Carbohydrate polymer

Gelling Agents and Gel Stabilizers

Copolymer

Surfactants, Scale Control, Solvents

Cured acrylic resin

Surfactants, Breakers and Breaker Catalysts, Scale Control

Fatty acids

Corrosion Inhibitors, Clean Perforations

Olefins

Corrosion Inhibitors, Iron Control Agents, Clean Perforations, Gelling Agents
and Gel Stabilizers

Organic amine resin salt

Corrosion Inhibitors

Oxyalkylated alcohol

Non-Emulsifiers, Surfactants, Friction Reducers, Scale Control

Petroleum distillates

Gelling Agents and Gel Stabilizers, Solvents, Friction Reducers, Crosslinkers and
Related Additives

Polyglycol ester

Surfactants, Scale Control, Solvents, Biocides

Polyol ester

Surfactants, Scale Control, Solvents, Biocides

Polyoxyalkylenes

Corrosion Inhibitors, Clean Perforations

Quaternary ammonium
compounds

Corrosion Inhibitors, Non-Emulsifiers, Surfactants

Vinyl copolymer

Surfactants, Scale Control, Solvents

Note: Analysis considered 36,544 disclosures and 1,218,003 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria,
including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; and fracture date between
January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria (1,986 disclosures) or
other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

91

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Appendix C. Histograms of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid
Concentrations for Most Frequently Reported Additive
Ingredients

The histograms in this appendix display the distributions of the median maximum hydraulic
fracturing fluid concentrations for the twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients. The
graphs were developed to supplement the data provided in Tables 8 and 9 by providing a visual
display data that can help in assessing how effectively the median indicates central tendency for
these additive ingredients. Graphs indicate the median for oil wells (graph heading "Oil"), gas wells
("Gas"), and oil plus gas wells ("All disclosures") for the entire project database and are displayed
with both a linear x-axis scale and a log normal x-axis scale.

The data for the histograms were based on the QA criteria used to produce Tables 8 and 9. The data
included in analyses came from unique disclosures (unique combination of fracture date and API
well number) with fracture dates between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013, successfully
parsed ingredients data, valid CASRNs for ingredient records, and valid additive and fluid
concentrations for ingredient records.

92

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

2-Butoxyethanol

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
of T eta I) on the X-Axis

:=-¦
o

a>

20DO -
2000 "
1000
0

MOO -

All disclosures































n

Gas

S" 2000

1000 -

o 4

























Oil

1200 -
800 "
400 -
0 -
1200 -
BOO -
400

0 -
1200 -
300 "
400 -
0 -

0.00 0.05 0.10
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

Log Scale on X-Axis
All disclosures

J

Gas

J

JL

Oil

_jf!

m

Legend

|j Median

1 e-0 5 0.01 10
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

93

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Acetic acid

Upper Limit (95th Percentile
of T eta I) on the X-Axis

All disclosures

2SOD -
2000 -
150 D "
1000 -
500 "
0 -

2500 "

o
c
aj

CT

OJ

1000 "
50 D

1000
500 "

j































Uln

Trh-f-h-,





Gas









































Oil

































i i





1000 -

:00 -

0 -

1000 -

500 -

0 -

1000 -

500 -

o -

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Sum of Fluid Concentration (%)

Log Scale on X-Axis
All disclosures

Gas

it

L

Oil

"Ln-fT

L

Legend

j Median

i	i	i

1e-04 0.1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

94

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Citric acid

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
of Total) on the X-Axi;

150 0 -
1000 -
500 "
0 -

1500-

o
c
oj

1000 -

CD

500 "
0 -

1500 "
1000 -
500 "
0 -

All disclosures























Gas



Hi I rTT-rr-i-^-^_

Oil



















"hrrflr

TTTTTThm i i i i»o—

Log Scale on X-Axis
All disclosures

1500 -

1000 -

500 -

0 -
1500 "

1303 "

iA

500 -

. JlJT

1000



Gas









. Tttt^	



Oil

























orlf





0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

1 e-04 0.01 1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration |%)

Legend

j Median

95

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light

Leg Scale on X-Axis
All disclosures

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
of Total) on the X-Axis

All disclosures

9000 -

4000 "
2000 -

0 -

6000 -

:=-¦
o

§ 4000 "

CJ

CD

Ll~ 2000 -

IrfTrrTfTTTTTTrRTTm—

3 35

II







r







"K—







€000

4000 -

2000 -

o -

Oil

"hrrT

rm-nTh-i^rwn

I	I	I

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Sum of Fluid Concentration ;%)

4000
3.000
2000
1000
0

4000
3000
2000
1000
0

4000
3000
2000
1000
0



-rffrff

6 as

-











-



tmL

Oil

-rfOflT

L

Legend

| Median

I	I

1e-04 0.01 1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%<

96

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Ethanol

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
of Total J on the X-Axis

All disclosures

Leg Scale cn X-Axis

:=-¦
o

aj

c

0.1

4000 "
30 OD "
2000 -
1000 -

o -!

5000 -
40 D O "
3000 "
2000 -
1000 -
0 -

































1 p n rlTT-w-rrl]

Tw-U-hJ

n n

Gas















































Oil





























































-

-T







1

1

1500 -
1000 -
5-00 "
0

1500 "

1000 -

5-00 "

0 -
1500 "

1000 -

500 -

0 -



All disclosures



























f

"L n







GfiS























A

f









Oil























_ j-n-rffTLr

"L— n_



Legend

j Median

0.000 0 0250.050 0.0750.100
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

1 e-04 0.1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

97

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Ethylene glycol

Upper Limit [EJE-th Percentile	Leg Scale on X-Axis

of Total) on the X-Axis

All disdesures

All disclosures

SO00 -
2000 -
1000 -
<0 -

:=-¦

c SOOO
a>

S" 2000

1000
0

sooo -

2000 -
1000 -



Gas







































Oil



TlTlTlTTT-ri i i i n-i»

SODO "
2000 -
1000 -
0 -

sooo -

2000 -

I	I	I	I	I

0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Sum of Fluid Concentration (%)

SOOO -
2000 "
1000 -
0 -

^rlff

LO_

03S













	 rr

rrfTff

1Hn

Oil

-n-ff

L

Legend

j Median

i	i	i

1e-04 0.1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

98

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Glutaraldehyde

Upper Limit {95th Percentile	Leg Scale en X-Axis

of T eta 11 on the X-Axis

All disclosures

All disclosures

750
EDO
250

:=-¦

o
!Z


99

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
of Total J on the X-Axis

Hydrochloric acid

Leg Scale on X-Axis



4000 "



3000 "



2000 -



1000 -



o -

:=-.



O

c

40 0 0 "

'X'



=1

c

3000 -

ai



u_

2000 -



1000 -



o -



4000 "



3000 -



2000 "



1000 -



o -

All disclosures

1























lllllTTTlTTTTT-rri

Gas







1

















iTh-w-^







Oil

_ IIt "|tttttttttt-i mini

40 3D
3000
2000
1000
0

All disclosures











































rrrf"









0 3S

























Oil





















	^ 11 n-d _

k.

Legend

j Median

0.0 0.5 1.0
Sum cf Fluid Concentration {%)

1e-04 0.1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

100

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Isopropanol

o

CT

OJ

Upper Limit (95th Percentile
of T eta I) on the X-Axis

All disclosures

8000 -

eooo -

4000 -
2000 "
0 -

SOOO -
6000"
4000 "
2000 "
0 -

SOOO -

eo o o -

4000 -
2000 -

~j i flni—

Gas

















"l~l	' HT-«





Oil

























~l	I	I

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Sum of Fluid Concentration (%)

2000 "
1500 "
1000 -
500 "
0 -
2000 "
1500 -
1000 -
500 "

o -I

2000 -
150 0 "
1000 -
500 "
0 -

Log Scale on X-Axis
All disclosures

J

M

rh „

Gas

h—n.

Oil



L

Legend

j Median

I

1 e-0 5 0.01 10
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

101

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Methanol

Upper Limit {35th Percentile	Leg Scale en X-Axis

of Total) on the X-Axis

2500
0

|T ~r::

CD

ID

E000 -

7500

500

0 -

All disdosures

1































03

5













































Oil































1"

1









All disdesures

3000

2000

1000

3000

2000

1000

3000

2000

1000

0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Sum cf Fluid Concentration ;%)

JT



L

Gas













In-, n

Oil

.~nil

L_

Legend

| Median

I	I

1 e-04 0.1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%<

102

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Naphthalene

Upper Limit {95th Percentile	Leg Scale on X-Axis

of Total) on the X-Axis

All disclosures

1500 "

1000 -

500

0 -

&, 1E0D-

CJ

c

OJ

cr 300 n

OJ



"lT T-w*-rdTfTl-ri^Ji

Gas

£00 ~

0 -

aJLlk

"l-i	r-i . . rfl-n-»-n

Oil

1500

1000 -

500

Lfl

JiQ rTTVi-rhJi-rrFjlln i i

1000 -

500 -

0 -

1000 -

500 -

0 -

1000 -

500 "

i	i

0.000 0.002 0.004
Sum of Fluid Concentration (%)

0 -

All disclosures

W

JL

Gas

QDri

Ll

Oil

fh-ri-rf

Legend

j Median

i	i

1 e-05 0.01 10
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

103

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Peroxydisulfuric acid, diammonium salt

Lc-g Scale cn X-Axis
All disdosuTESi

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
of T eta I) on the X-Axis

All disdcsurES

3000 -

2000 "

1000 -

0 -

3000 "

o
c.

aj

i- 2000 -

¦XI

1000 -

0 -

3000 -

2000 "

1000 -

0 -

1

Thi"l-rT-rn-r^-

Gas





















l"h~rm





Oil

1tw_

2000 -

1000 -

0 -

2000 -

1000 -

0 -

Z000 -

1000 -

0 -

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

-rrrrf



Sas













—ri-n-rft

Tn-i_ -





Oil



r

















—^-rrf

k

1





1e-04 0.01 1 100
Sum cf Fluid Concentration {%)

Legend

| Median

104

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
of T eta I) on the X-Axis

All disclosures

3000 " |
2000 "
1000 -

:=-¦
o



cr

OJ

0 -

3000 "

2000 -

1000 -

0 -

3000

2000 -

1000 -

0 -

"hrhfTTirmrhrfTfa

Gas





















Oil

TT-tt h^TtiTmriTTTi-,

rfL-n-r

Potassium hydroxide

Leg Seals en X-Axis
All disclosures

1500 "

1000 -
500 "

0 -

1500 "
1000 -
500 -
D "

1500 "
1000 -
500 "
0 -

Sas



















_rl~u-n-rffl

IftL

Oil

rfl-j-rf

Legend

| Median

0.00 0.02 0.04
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

1e-04 0.1 100
Sum cf Fluid Ccncentraticn {%)

105

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Propargyl alcohol

Upper Limit {95th Percentile	Leg Scale on X-Axis

of Total) on the X-Axis

All disdesures

All disclosures

4000

aooo

2000
1000
<0

4000

CJ
d

^ 3000

CT

aj

2000

4000



Gas



























Oil





















i i



2000 "
150 0 -
1000 -
500 "
0 -

2000 "
150 0 "
1000 -
500 "
0

J

2000 "
1500 "
1000 -
500 -
0 -

1— n

Gas

ItL	~_

Oil

-nd

0.000 0.001 0.002
Sum of Fluid Concentration (%)

Legend

j Median

i	i	i

1e-04 0.1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

106

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Quartz

Upper Limit {95th Percentile	Log Scale on X-Axis

of Total) on the X-Axis

:=-¦
o

aj

c

0.1

1 DODO -
7500 ~
500 0 "
2500 -

o-

10000-
7500 ¦
50 00"
2500-

o-

10000-
7500 "
5000 -
250 0 -

o-

A

II disclosures











































All disclosures

Gas





























































Oil

2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0 -

I	I	I	I

0 3 6 9 12
Sum of Fluid Concentration |%)

2000 "
1500 -
1000 -
500 "
0 -

Jj

"i n T

Ls 35









-rrrltj

ltl, rffli

Oil

A

J

i

1 e-0 5 0.01 10
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

Legend

j Median

107

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Sodium chloride

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
of Total) on the X-Axis

All disclosures

2.000 "

1000 -

0 -

:=-¦
o

gj 2000 -
u

CT

o>

LL" 1000"

2000 -

1000 -

TTTTtTT-^-i-i-i-i i i

Gas

Oil

1000 -
750 "
50 0 "
250 "
0 -
1000 -
750 "
50 0 "
250 -
0 -
1000 -
750 "
500 "
250 -
0 -

0.00 0.05 0.10
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

Log Scale on X-Axis
All disclosures

rwf

:h£!	Q_

Gas

[Km-rllf

Oil

-m-rjf

wuH.

1 e-04 0.1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

Legend

| Median

108

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
of Total J on the X-Axis

disclosures

:=-¦
o

aj

c

0.1

40 0 0 "
3000 "
2000 "
1000 -
0 -

Sodium hydroxide

Leg Scale on X-Axis
All disclosures

4000 -
3000 "

Gas































Oil



















T lmw.





2000 -

1000 -

0 -

2000 -

1000 -

0 -

2000 "

1000 -

0 -

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.08
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

1

n-rlTrf

tL

G as









rn-n-TT

lFIn

Oil

JU

Legend

j Median

le-04 0.1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

109

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Solvent naphtha, petroleum, heavy arom.

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
of T eta IJ on the X-Axis

All disclosures

G 3 s

>-
o

CT
0)

2000 -
oj 1 soo -
1000 -
500 "
0 -

2000 -
1 500 "
1000 -
500 -
0 -

Oil



"n-i-rlTT--^^-r-f~rrnTi-^	

1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0 -

1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0 -

1500 "
1000 -
500 -
0 -

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Sum at FI Li id Concentration |%)

Lc-g Sea I e on X-Axis
All disclosures

i-Hi

u

L

Gas

























JMf

n

Oil

,_n-rflrr

Legend

| Median

1e-04 0.1 100
Sum of Fluid Concentration !%)

110

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Water

Upper Limit {95th Percentile
cf T eta I) on th e X-A;xis

All disdosures

15000"

10000 "

5000"

o-

15000"

:=-¦
o

§ 10000-
cr

(D

5000"

o-

15000 "
10000 -
5000-

Sas

Oil

I	I	I	I

0 20 40 €0 SO

3000

2000

1000

3000
2000
1000
0

3000
2000
1000

Log Scale en X-Axis
All disdesures

juM

k

6 as

rJU^fkl

[L

Oil





CLIL

I	I	I

1e-04 0.1 100

Legend

| Median

Sum cf Fluid Concentration {%) Sum of Fluid Concentration {%)

111

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Appendix D. List of Operators

Table D-l. Disclosures per state, summarized by well operator (428 operators included in the project database).

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

**Unspecified**









8

2









3





2



19











34

3-M Energy Corporation































4











4

Abraxas Petroleum Corporation



















1

1









4







1



7

Aera Energy







447



































447

Alpha Shale Resources LP





























5













5

Alta Mesa Holdings































1











1

Amerada Hess Corporation























1



















1

Amexco LLC































1











1

Anadarko E & P Company LP





























1

4











5

Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC





























11

44











55

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation









1















7



171

621

654





101

1

1556

Anschutz Exploration Corporation



















3











3











6

Antero Resources









25



























20





45

Apache Corporation











1







2



278



112



1078









9

1480

Apollo Operating, LLC









15

































15

Approach Resources































22











22

Arabella Petroleum Company LLC































2











2

ARCO Permian























1



















1

Argent Energy (US) Holdings































1











1

Aruba Petroleum































23











23

Athlon Energy































99











99

Athlon Energy Operating































1











1

Athlon Fe Operating LLC































4











4

Atlantic Operating































7











7

Table continued on next page

112

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Atlas































2











2

Atlas Barnett LLC































5











5

Atlas Energy, L.P.





























25

2











27

Austin Exploration, Inc.









2

































2

Axia Energy LLC









2























11









13

Aztec Drilling and Operating































30











30

BASA Resources, Inc.































5











5

Bass Enterprises Production Company























7



















7

Bayswater Exploration and Production









43

































43

Baytex Energy USA LTD





















21





















21

BC Operating























1







46











47

Berry Oil Company































5











5

Berry Petroleum









2





















45

29









76

Best Petroleum Exploration































6











6

BHP Billiton Petroleum





138







111

















262









3

514

Big Star Oil & Gas LLC































19











19

Bill Barrett Corp









190























140





4

2

336

Bird Creek Resources Inc.























1



















1

Black Hills Exploration and Production























1



















1

Black Hills Plateau Production









1

































1

Black Raven Energy









19

































19

Blackbrush Oil and Gas































17











17

BLS Production































3











3

Bluestem Energy































16











16

Bluestone Natural Resources































8











8

BLXInc





























2













2

Boaz Energy LLC































1











1

Table continued on next page

113

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.









121

































121

BP America Production Company

17





















9



51



43







230



350

Brammer Engineering













1





























1

Breck Operating Corporation































3











3

Bridwell Oil Co.































6











6

Brigham



















9

102



















2

113

BTA Oil Producers























4







4











8

Burk Royalty Co., LTD































10











10

Burlington Resources Oil and Gas
Company





















8

12



1



51











72

Burnett Oil Co., Inc.





























4













4

BVX Operating Inc































5











5

Cabot Oil & Gas Corp



























14

155

44











213

Callon Petroleum Company































1











1

Canan Operating, Inc.































4











4

Cannon Oil and Gas









1

































1

Capstone Natural Resources, LLC























1







4











5

Carrizo Oil and Gas Inc.









30



















35

56











121

Cazar Energy, Inc.































1











1

Cd Consulting and Operating Company































1











1

Chaparral Energy



























10



6









2

18

Chesapeake Energy































1











1

Chesapeake Operating, Inc.





46



22

5

277







6

23

130

608

383

1414





114

61



3089

Chevron USA Inc.







21

72













62



5

102

492







9

1

764

Cheyenne Petroleum Company































22











22

Chief Oil & Gas





























88













88

Choice Exploration, Inc.































2











2

Cimarex Energy Company























70



60



46











176

Table continued on next page

114

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Cinco Resources































7







2



9

Cirque Resources LP



















3























3

Citation Oil and Gas





















2





45



35









1

83

Citrus Energy Corporation





























11













11

Clayton Williams Energy, Inc.























1







46









1

48

Clear Fork Inc































3











3

CML Exploration































8











8

Cobra Oil and Gas Corporation































24











24

Collins & Ware Inc































1











1

Compass































33











33

Comstock Oil & Gas













21

















71











92

Concho Operating Group























4







314











318

Condor Energy









1

































1

ConocoPhillips Company

17







3











60

227







346









2

655

CONSOL Energy Inc.

























1



91







10



1

103

Continental Resources, Inc









8









43

291





78



1









2

423

Corinthian Exploration Corp.





















5





















5

Corlena Oil Company































10











10

Crescent Energy

































19







2

21

Crimson Exploration Inc.































6











6

Crown Equipment Corporation































1











1

CrownQuest































128









1

129

David H. Arrington Oil and Gas































2











2

Delta C02, LLC































2











2

Delta Oil and Gas































29











29

Denali Oil and Gas































2











2

Denbury Resources





















25





















25

Table continued on next page

115

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Devon Energy Corporation































25











25

Devon Energy Production Company L. P.













9

3







128

5

199



1027

4





51

2

1428

Diamondback E&P LLC































21











21

Diamondback Energy































12











12

Diamondback Resources LLc









































1

1

Discovery Operating































6











6

DTE Gas Resources, LLC































35











35

Eagle Energy Acquisitions LP































11











11

Eagle Rock Energy































1











1

EagleRidge Energy, LLC































11











11

Edge Barnett Operating Company































1











1

EF Energy































6











6

EGL Resources, Inc.































9











9

El Paso E&P Company









13



63









30







89

27







9

231

Element Petroleum Operating, LLC































13











13

Elk Prod Uintah Lie

































1









1

Elm Ridge Exploration Company, LLC









3

































3

Empresa Energy LP































1











1

Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.









787

3

132

5

4





8







74







193



1206

Endeavor Energy Resources































94











94

Enduring Resources II, LLC































8











8

Energen Resources Corporation



55





1



8









21







804











889

Energy Corporation of America





























35







8





43

Enerplus





















24





















24

EnerQuest Operating LLC































1











1

Enervest Energy Partners LP































1











1

EnerVest, Ltd.









1













11







127









5

144

Table continued on next page

116

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Entek Energy, Ltd.









2

































2

EOG Resources, Inc.









37



17





13

158

33



53

87

1381

20





18

5

1822

Eor Operating Co























1



















1

EP Energy













7

















65

16







23

111

EP Energy E&P Company LP































3











3

EQT Production





























54







43





97

Equal Energy Us Inc



























3















3

Estancia Oil & Gas LLC































3











3

EV Energy Partners































14











14

EXCO Resources, Inc.













136















74

82











292

EXL Petroleum































10











10

Extex Operating Company































4











4

ExxonMobil







89

49

6















1



46











191

Fair Oil Limited































2











2

Fairway Resources



























1



1











2

Fairways Exploration and Production,
LLC































1











1

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd.































114











114

FIML Natural Resources, LLC































160











160

Finley Resources, Inc.































12

3







9

24

Fivestones Energy LLC































1











1

Foree Oil Company































4











4

Forest Oil Corporation





5







4













5



43









1

58

Forge Energy LLC































8











8

Franks Operating Company, LLC













1





























1

Front Range Oil & Gas









3

































3

G3 Operating, LLC.



















1

17



















4

22

GeoResources





















2





















2

Table continued on next page

117

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

GeoSouthern Energy Corporation































5











5

Getty Oil Company































2











2

GMX Resources Inc





















5





















5

Goodrich Petroleum Company, LLC













1

















24











25

Gordon Creek LLC

































8









8

Gosney & Sons Inc.









1

































1

Great Plains Operating LLC





























1

2











3

Great Western Oil and Gas Company









76

































76

Guinn Investments, Inc































1











1

Gulf Oil Corporation































3











3

Gunn Oil Company































2











2

Gunnison Energy Corporation









3































1

4

H&L Exploration Company































4











4

Hadaway Consulting and Engineering,
LLC































2











2

Halcon Resources













2

















43











45

Hannathon Petroleum LLC































6











6

Helis Oil & Gas Company, LLC





















9





















9

Henry Resources, LLC































78









2

80

Hess Corporation





















377

20

3





33









4

437

Hibernia Resources, LLC































5











5

HighMount Exploration & Production



























30



103











133

Hilcorp Energy Company





























1













1

Howell Petro. Corp.







































222



222

Hunt Oil Company





















17

1





11

50









2

81

Huntington Energy LLC































2











2

Indigo II Louisiana Operating, LLC













1





























1

Indigo Minerals













39

















1











40

Table continued on next page

118

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Ironwood Oil & Gas LLC































5











5

J CLEO THOMPSON































101











101

JAM EX INC































2











2

JDL Operating, LLC































1











1

Jetta Operating Company































4









3

7

Johnson And Ernst Operating Company































6











6

Jones Energy



























12



12











24

Juno Operating Company II, LLC































51











51

J-W Operating Company













28















1

5











34

K.P. Kauffman Company









18

































18

Kaler Energy Corporation































1











1

Keith F. Walker Oil and Gas Company



























2















2

KERR-MCGEE OIL & GAS ONSHORE LP









1250































1

1251

Keystone Petroleum LP































1











1

Killam Oil Co Ltd































4











4

Kinder Morgan































2











2

Kodiak Oil & Gas Corporation





















64





















64

Lakota Energy Ltd































2











2

Laredo Petroleum, Inc.



























13



296











309

Layline Petroleum LLC































20











20

LCS Production Company































16











16

Le Norman Operating LLC































16









2

18

LeClair Operating Co., Inc.































1











1

Legacy Reserves Operating LP































6











6

Legado Permian, LLC































13











13

Legend Natural Gas, LLC























1







48









1

50

Lewis Energy Group































78











78

Table continued on next page

119

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Lewis Operating Corporation































1











1

Liberty Resources LLC





















21





















21

Limestone Exploration II, LLC































1











1

Linn Energy, LLC



























3



112











115

Llewellin Operating Company































1











1

Louis Dreyfus Highbridge Energy



























1















1

Lowe Royalty Partners LP































1











1

LP Operating, LLC































2











2

M & A Oil Co Ltd































1











1

Magnet Oil































1











1

Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation































12









3

15

Marathon Oil









23









5

172





55



261







127

1

644

Mariner Energy Inc































1











1

Marlin Oil Corporation































2











2

Matador Production Company































14











14

McClure Oil Company































1











1

McElvain Energy Inc.









1













1



















2

MDS Energy Development LLC





























7













7

MDU Resources



















10

32









8











50

Medders Oil Company, Inc































1











1

Merit Energy Company































36











36

Meritage Energy Co.































2











2

Mesa Energy Partners, LLC









7

































7

Mestena Operating Ltd.































2











2

Mewbourne Oil Company



























13



52











65

Midenergy Operating LLC































4











4

Midland Oil And Gas, Inc.































4











4

Table continued on next page

120

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Mid-States Operating Company































5











5

Milagro Exploration, LLC



























1















1

Mitchell Energy and Development
Corporation























1



















1

Mohican Operating LLC































3











3

Molopo Energy Texas LLC































6











6

Momentum Oil & Gas LLC































1











1

Mountain V Oil & Gas





































7





7

Murphy Exploration and Production































113











113

MWS Producing Inc.































6











6

Navidad Resources, LLC































7











7

New Gulf Resources, LLC



























2



2











4

Newark E&P Operating, LLC































13











13

Newfield Exploration



















4

46





54



56

437









597

Newfield Production Company

































1









1

NFR Energy, LLC































8









1

9

NMR Energy































2











2

Noble Energy, Inc.









942



























20

4

1

967

NorthStar Operating Company































1











1

Oasis Petroleum



















33

69



















2

104

O'Brien Energy Company































1











1

Occidental Permian Ltd































7











7

Occidental Petroleum Corporation







93

184

37









66

65



1



655









6

1107

Ohio Valley Energy Systems Corp.

























1

















1

Omni Oil and Gas, Inc.































230











230

Opal Resources Operating Company































18











18

Osborn Heirs Company































1











1

Overland Resources LLC









3

































3

Table continued on next page

121

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

P 0 & G Operating LLC































5











5

Pacesetter Energy LLC































2











2

Paloma Resources































10











10

Parallel Petroleum, LLC































15











15

Parsley Energy Operations































84











84

Partee Drilling Company































4











4

Parten Operating Inc.































1











1

Patara Oil & Gas, LLC









6





















2

9









17

Patriot Resources, Inc.































31











31

PDC Energy









56





















17





11





84

Peak Powder River Resources LLC







































1



1

Peak Resources, LLC































4











4

Pecos Operating Company LLC































5











5

Penn Virginia Oil & Gas Corporation



























1



60









1

62

Pennsylvania General Energy





























62











2

64

PETEX































9











9

Petroglyph Operation Company

































23









23

Petrohawk Energy Corporation













8

















64









4

76

Petro-Hunt, LLC





















77



















2

79

Petroquest Energy, Inc.



























31



6









3

40

Piceance Energy LLC









2

































2

Piedra Resources, Ltd.































6











6

Pioneer Natural Resources

3







80

3



















1500











1586

Pitts Energy Company































5











5

Plains Exploration & Production
Company







2























167







2

1

172

Plantation Petroleum Company Inc.































5











5

Price Operating LLC































20











20

Table continued on next page

122

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

wv

WY

N/A

All

Primexx Energy Partners































7











7

Propel Energy, LLC































3











3

Prospect Energy LLC









6

































6

QEP Energy Company













38







11





18



3

4





119



193

Quantum Resources Management, LLC























3







26











29

Que star









5





























33



38

Quicksilver Resources, Inc.









4





















23











27

Range Operating New Mexico, Inc.























2



















2

Range Resources Corporation



























27

277

20



90





1

415

Red Willow Production Company









1





















2











3

Reliance Energy, Inc.































47









1

48

Renegade Oil and Gas









4

































4

Resolute Energy































26







6



32

Rex Energy

























1



41











3

45

Rice Drilling B, LLC





























7













7

Ricochet Energy































3











3

Rife Energy































1











1

Riley Exploration, LLC































3











3

RIM Operating, Inc.































1











1

RK Petroleum































8











8

RKI Exploration and Production































15









1

16

Robert Bayless Producer LLC























2



















2

Roff Operating Company































4











4

Roff Resources































2











2

Rosetta Resources, Inc.



















5











67











72

Rosewood Resources

































1









1

Royalty Land & Development
Corporation































1











1

Table continued on next page

123

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

RSP Permian, LLC































52











52

S.B. Street Operting Inc.































6











6

Sabine Oil & Gas































3











3

Sahara Operating Company































1











1

Samson Oil & Gas Ltd









6



10





4

62





14



60







45



201

Sandalwood Oil and Gas Exploration
and Production































1











1

SandRidge Energy











56











4



188



653









2

903

Santa Fe Energy Resources Inc.























1



















1

Schlachter Operating Corporation































3











3

Seaboard Oil Company































3











3

Seaboard Operating Company































3











3

Seneca Resources Corporation







7





















82













89

Sequel Energy, LLC





















2





















2

SG Interests Inc.









1

































1

Sharp Image Energy, Inc.































2











2

Shell Exploration & Production
Company











12

100















224

99







73



508

Silver Creek Oil & Gas, LLC































3











3

Sinclair Oil & Gas Company



















1

5





















6

Slawson Exploration Company, Inc.



















19

23





2



1









1

46

SM Energy



















2

58

10



20



162







9

2

263

Snyder Brothers, Inc.





























21













21

Southern Bay Operating, L.L.C.































9











9

Southwest Royalties, Inc.































21











21

Southwestern Energy





964



1



4















71

6











1046

Stanolind Operating































1











1

Statoil



















3

23





















26

Table continued on next page

124

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Steller Energy and Investment































5











5

Stephens and Johnson Operating
Company























4



1



7











12

Steward Energy, LLC































1











1

Stone Energy Corporation





































21





21

Stout Energy































2











2

Strat Land Exploration Company











3















5



9











17

Suemaur Exploration and Production
LLC































4











4

Summit Oil and Gas































2











2

Summit Petroleum































29











29

Sundance Energy









15

































15

Swift Energy Company































68









1

69

Sydson Energy, Inc































1











1

Synergy Resources Corporation









41

































41

Tacor Resources Inc.































3











3

Talisman Energy USA Inc.





























179

111









7

297

Tanos Exploration, LLC































3











3

TAQA North Ltd.



















20























20

Tecpetrol Operating LLC































16









1

17

Tekton Windsor Lie









3

































3

Telesis Operating Company































1











1

Tema Oil and Gas Company































1











1

Tenneco Inc.























1



















1

Texaco Inc.































12











12

Texakoma Operating































5











5

Texas Energy Operations, LLC































2











2

Texas International Operating, LLC































3











3

Table continued on next page

125

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Texas Royalty Corporation































2











2

Texland Petroleum, LP























1







21











22

Texon Oil Company































2











2

The Cumming Company































8











8

The Termo Company







1

































1

2

Thompson Engineering and Production
Company









2

































2

Three Rivers Operating Company































27











27

Thums Long Beach Co







2



































2

Timmerman









5

































5

Titan Operating, LLC































41











41

Trap Rock Oil, Ltd.































3











3

Treadstone Energy Partners LLC































9











9

Trey Resources Inc.































2











2

Triana Energy





























4













4

Triangle Petroleum Corporation





















14





















14

Tri-C Resources, LLC































3











3

Trilogy Resources LLC









7

































7

Trio Operating Company































4











4

Trivium Operating LLC































3











3

True Oil LLC





















2





















2

Tug Hill Operating











6































6

Ultra Resources









1



















6









144



151

Unit Petroleum



























6



36











42

US Enercorp Ltd































2











2

Vaalco Energy Inc.



















3























3

Valence Operating Company































20











20

Vanguard Permian LLC































1











1

Table continued on next page

126

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

Vantage Energy

































1









1

Vantage Energy Appalachia LLC





























4













4

Vantage Fort Worth Energy LLC































10











10

Venoco Inc.







20



































20

Veritas Energy, LLC































11











11

Vintage Production of California







36



































36

W&T Offshore































94









1

95

Walsh and Watts, Inc.































10











10

Walsh Petroleum































8











8

Walter Exploration Company































10











10

Wapiti Operating Lie































3











3

Ward Petroleum



























11















11

Warren American Oil Company































5











5

Wellstar Corporation









3

































3

WG Operating































9











9

Whiting Petroleum









19





7



24

208









175







1

1

435

William H. Lackey Oil & Gas































2











2

Williams Production









340













12





38

18











408

Willowbend Investments































4











4

Windsor Permian, LLC































8











8

Wolverine Gas & Oil Corporation

































1









1

Woodbine Acquisition, LLC































11











11

Woolsey Operating Company











2































2

WPX Energy









300











49







50

7











406

XTO Energy





297



60



20





5

66

98



150

62

1092

20



23

1

6

1900

Zavanna, LLC





















26





















26

Table continued on next page

127

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Operator

Number of disclosures

AK

AL

AR

CA

CO

KS

LA

Ml

MS

MT

ND

NM

OH

OK

PA

TX

UT

VA

WV

WY

N/A

All

ZaZa Energy Services































18











18

Zenergy Operating Company





















25



















1

26

Note: Analysis considered 38,050 disclosures and 428 operators that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: unique combination of fracture date and API well
number and fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria were excluded from analysis (480).

128

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Appendix E. Reporting Requirements for States with
Data in the Project Database

Table E-l presents information on reporting requirements for the 20 states with data in the project
database, as of February 28, 2013. Table E-l also shows the number of unique disclosures with
fracture dates between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013, for each state. Fourteen of 20
states with data in the project database enacted reporting requirements either before or during the
time period studied in this report Six of those states (Colorado, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah) mandated reporting to FracFocus. The other eight states required
reporting to the state or to either the state or FracFocus. Six of the 20 states with data in the project
database had no reporting requirements in effectprior to February 28, 2013.

Table E-l. Reporting regulations for states with data in the project database.

State

Regulatory
effective date

State regulation

Number of disclosures

Alabama

None

Alaska

None

State Rule B-19. Applicable to wells issued a

Arkansas

1/15/2011

new drilling permit on or after effective date.
Report to the state within 30 days of well
completion or recompletion.

1,450

California

None

718

State regulation Rule 205A. Applicable to all

hydraulic fracturing treatments performed on

or after effective date. Reporting must occur

Colorado

4/1/2012

within 60 days after the conclusion of
fracturing, or no later than 120 days after
commencement. Reporting is required to
FracFocus.

4,938

Kansas

None

136

State regulation LAC 43:XIX.118. Applicable to

all new wells issued an initial drilling permit

on or after effective date. Reporting to the

Louisiana

10/20/2011

state must occur within 20 days after the
conclusion of fracturing. Alternatively,
reporting may be made to FracFocus or any
other similar registry.

1,038

State Supervisor of Wells Instruction 1-2011.

Applicable to large water withdrawals

Michigan

6/22/2011

(average of 100,000 gallons per day over 30
day period) on or after effective date.
Reporting to the state must occur within 60
days after well completion.

Mississippi

None

Table continued on next page

129

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

Regulatory
effective date

State regulation

Number of disclosures





State regulation 36.22.1015. Applicable to all







treatments performed on or after effective



Montana

8/26/2011

date. Reporting to the state must occur upon
well completion or treatment. Alternatively,
reporting may be made to FracFocus.

213





State regulation NMAC 19.15.16.19.



New Mexico

2/15/2012

Applicable to all treatments on or after

1,162

effective date. Reporting to the state within
45 days after completion of well.





State regulation 43-02-03-27.1. Applicable to



North
Dakota



all treatments performed on or after



4/1/2012

effective date. Reporting to FracFocus must

2,254



occur within 60 days after the conclusion of
fracturing.







State regulation ORC 1509.10. Applicable to







hydraulic fracturing performed on or after







effective date. Reporting to the state must



Ohio

9/10/2012

occur within 60 days after the conclusion of
fracturing. Alternatively, reporting may be
made to FracFocus or other means
acceptable to the state.

148





State regulation OAC 165:10-3-10. Applicable







to horizontal wells hydraulically fractured on







or after effective dates. Reporting to



Oklahoma

1/1/2013

FracFocus (or to the state, which will post the

1,909

information to FracFocus) must occur within
60 days after the conclusion of fracturing.
Regulation effective for other wells that are
hydraulically fractured on January 1, 2014.





State statute 78.122. Applicable to wells





2/5/2011

completed on or after the effective date.
Reporting to the state must occur within 30
days after completion.







State statute 58.3222 and 3222.1. Applicable



Pennsylvania

4/14/2012

to hydraulic fracturing of unconventional
wells performed on or after effective date.
Reporting to FracFocus must occur within 60
days after conclusion of fracturing. Reporting
is also required to the state agency within 30
days after well completion.

2,483





State regulation 16 TAC 3.29. Applicable to







wells issued an initial drilling permit on or



Texas

2/1/2012

after effective date. Reporting to FracFocus

18,075

must occur within 30 days of well completion
or 90 days after drilling operation is
completed (whichever is earlier).

Table continued on next page

130

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

Regulatory
effective date

State regulation

Number of disclosures

State regulation R649-3-39. Applicable to

hydraulic fracturing performed on or after

Utah

11/1/2012

effective date. Reporting to FracFocus must
occur within 60 days after the conclusion of
fracturing.

1,429

Virginia

None

Emergency rule § 35-8. Applicable to

horizontal wells issued permits after effective

8/29/2011

date and which withdraw more than 210,000

gallons of water per month. Reporting to the
state is required within 90 days after well

West
Virginia

completion.

12/14/2011

WV Code §§ 22-6A-7. Applicable to horizontal
wells issued permits after effective date and
which disturb more than three acres of
surface or operations withdrawing more than
210,000 gallons of water per month.
Reporting to the state is required within 90
days after well completion.

277

State regulation Wyoming Code of Rules and

Regs. Chapter 3. Applicable to new drilling

Wyoming

8/17/2010

permits approved on or after effective date.
Reporting to the state prior to stimulation
and within 30 days after completion.

1,457

131

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Appendix F. Additive Purposes

Table F-l. Number of disclosures, summarized by additive purpose categories.

EPA-standardized additive purpose

Number of disclosures

Number of ingredient
records reported as CBI

Proppants

27,943

896

Biocides

27,057

3,339

Breakers and breaker catalysts

22,283

5,325

Friction reducers

18,935

6,618

Crosslinkers and related additives

18,353

7,137

Gelling agents and gel stabilizers

18,243

7,719

Acids

18,138

266

Corrosion inhibitors

17,824

21,519

Surfactants

17,778

21,581

Base fluid

16,112

486

Scale control

15,335

13,090

Iron control agents

13,472

1,071

Clay control

11,432

4,526

pH control

11,200

245

Non-emulsifiers

10,943

7,587

Other/Multiples

4,207

1,406

Solvents

4,115

2,551

Activators

2,652

1,031

Inhibitors

1,998

1,129

Resin curing agents

1,473

422

Clean perforations

1,373

955

Fluid foaming agents and energizers

1,262

147

Stabilizers

917

198

Viscosifiers

900

455

Reducing agent

796

4

Acid inhibitors

786

378

Fluid loss additives

604

139

Oxidizer

513

5

Emulsifiers

510

44

Oxygen scavengers

428

218

Antifoaming agents

351

349

Flow enhancers

247

91

Tracers

200

1,127

Sulfide scavengers

190

161

Sealers

136

70

Formation breakdown

87

0

Antisludge agents

57

4

Table continued on next page

132

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

EPA-standardized additive purpose

Number of disclosures

Number of ingredient
records reported as CBI

Antifreeze

45

0

Flowback control

44

64

Fluid diverters

3

3

Delaying agents

1

0

Proppant resin

1

1

Note: Analysis considered 36,544 disclosures and 1,218,003 ingredient records that met selected quality
assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; and
fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013. Disclosures not meeting quality assurance criteria
(1,986) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.

133

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Appendix G. Most Frequently Reported Additive Ingredients for Five Selected
Counties

Table G-l. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in Andrews County, Texas, ranked by frequency of occurrence.

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid
(% by mass)

Maximum concentration in additive
(% by mass)

Number (%) of
disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Methanol

67-56-1

885 (81%)

0.022

0.0014

0.11

1,570 (8.8%)

50

5.0

96

Peroxydisulfuric acid,
diammonium salt

7727-54-0

852 (78%)

0.010

0.0017

0.045

929 (5.2%)

100

60

100

Ethylene glycol

107-21-1

765 (70%)

0.030

0.0083

0.13

959 (5.4%)

40

10

69

Glutaraldehyde

111-30-8

724 (67%)

0.013

0.0033

0.020

724 (4.0%)

15

14

30

Sodium hydroxide

1310-73-2

563 (52%)

0.010

0.00013

0.028

606 (3.4%)

10

2.0

30

Potassium hydroxide

1310-58-3

544 (50%)

0.025

0.0015

0.057

554 (3.1%)

23

0.17

50

Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated light

64742-47-8

527 (48%)

0.23

0.0025

0.35

671 (3.8%)

55

21

70

Tetradecyl dimethyl
benzyl ammonium
chloride

139-08-2

521 (48%)

0.0046

0.0012

0.0062

521 (2.9%)

5.0

5.0

5.0

Hydrochloric acid

7647-01-0

457 (42%)

0.53

0.15

4.3

486 (2.7%)

20

4.3

60

Isopropanol

67-63-0

439 (40%)

0.014

0.00038

0.35

537 (3.0%)

30

0.60

100

Water

7732-18-5

417 (38%)

1.3

0.0017

14

815 (4.6%)

72

5.0

97

Guar gum

9000-30-0

407 (37%)

0.17

0.032

0.36

407 (2.3%)

50

1.1

100

Alcohols, C12-14-
secondary, ethoxylated

84133-50-6

391 (36%)

0.026

0.0021

0.053

395 (2.2%)

70

7.0

70

Quartz

14808-60-7

363 (33%)

0.0028

0.000070

8.8

415 (2.3%)

5.0

1.0

89

Polyethylene glycol

25322-68-3

331 (30%)

0.0018

0.00016

0.0045

334 (1.9%)

5.0

0.016

5.0

2-Butoxyethanol

111-76-2

304 (28%)

0.011

0.000068

0.33

334 (1.9%)

1.1

0.10

60

Propargyl alcohol

107-19-7

290 (27%)

0.00040

0.000070

0.0049

301 (1.7%)

5.0

0.0082

35

Sodium chloride

7647-14-5

260 (24%)

0.026

0.00026

0.29

291 (1.6%)

40

0.081

100

Citric acid

77-92-9

205 (19%)

0.0078

0.0012

0.028

230 (1.3%)

70

7.0

70

Acetic acid

64-19-7

198(18%)

0.0061

0.00000*

0.047

221 (1.2%)

50

5.0

100

* Concentration is less than a millionth of a percentage by mass.

Note: Analysis considered 1,088 disclosures and 20,716 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination of
fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; with confirmed state location; with confirmed county location; valid
CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria (132) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis. A total of 880
disclosures (77% of 1,147 disclosures that met quality assurance criteria) reported a total of 3,159 ingredient records (8.1% of 39,099 ingredient records) with information
indicating the data were confidential business information.

134

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table G-2. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, ranked by frequency of occurrence.

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid
(% by mass)

Maximum concentration in additive
(% by mass)

Number (%) of
disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Hydrochloric acid

7647-01-0

458 (93%)

0.061

0.0059

0.63

539 (9.9%)

15

1.0

20

Methanol

67-56-1

374 (76%)

0.001

0.000034

0.011

570(10%)

40

5.0

100

Propargyl alcohol

107-19-7

357 (73%)

0.000052

0.000000*

0.00078

364 (6.7%)

10

1.0

40

Water

7732-18-5

321 (66%)

0.30

0.039

100

582 (11%)

85

40

99

Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated light

64742-47-8

232 (47%)

0.016

0.010

0.033

250 (4.6%)

30

27

40

Glutaraldehyde

111-30-8

200 (41%)

0.0073

0.0013

0.030

229 (4.2%)

27

5.0

30

Citric acid

77-92-9

172 (35%)

0.00083

0.00011

0.0099

172 (3.1%)

50

30

60

2,2-Dibromo-3-
nitrilopropionamide

10222-01-2

144 (29%)

0.0046

0.0024

0.026

144 (2.6%)

10

10

100

2-Butoxyethanol

111-76-2

138 (28%)

0.000080

0.000030

0.0027

138 (2.5%)

15

5.0

40

Ethanol

64-17-5

135 (28%)

0.0015

0.00034

0.0018

135 (2.5%)

5.0

1.0

5.0

Isopropanol

67-63-0

135 (28%)

0.00042

0.000015

0.0039

140 (2.6%)

35

5.0

60

Quaternary ammonium
compounds, benzyl-
C12-16-alkyldimethyl,
chlorides

68424-85-1

130 (27%)

0.0026

0.0015

0.0041

143 (2.6%)

7.0

5.5

10

Sodium hydroxide

1310-73-2

126 (26%)

0.000030

0.000010

0.011

136 (2.5%)

1.0

1.0

100

Sodium erythorbate

6381-77-7

124 (25%)

0.00028

0.00013

0.0043

125 (2.3%)

100

100

100

Polyethylene glycol

25322-68-3

117 (24%)

0.023

0.0080

0.039

117 (2.1%)

70

60

70

Acetic acid

64-19-7

100 (20%)

0.0011

0.00017

0.0021

100 (1.8%)

50

50

60

Didecyl dimethyl
ammonium chloride

7173-51-5

98 (20%)

0.0026

0.0021

0.0032

98(1.8%)

8.0

8.0

10

Ethylene glycol

107-21-1

96 (20%)

0.0043

0.00025

0.018

132 (2.4%)

40

5.0

60

Ammonium chloride

12125-02-9

95 (19%)

0.0025

0.00070

0.0046

95 (1.7%)

5.0

1.5

10

Sodium sulfate

7757-82-6

86 (18%)

0.000040

0.000023

0.00010

86 (1.6%)

2.0

2.0

2.0

* Concentration is less than a millionth of a percentage by mass.

Note: Analysis considered 510 disclosures and 6,002 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination of
fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; with confirmed state location; with confirmed county location; valid
CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria (12) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis. A total of 180
disclosures (35% of 513 disclosures that met quality assurance criteria) reported a total of 448 ingredient records (3.6% of 12,590 ingredient records) with information
indicating the data were confidential business information.

135

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table G-3. Twenty-one most frequently reported additive ingredients in Dunn County, North Dakota, ranked by frequency of occurrence.

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid
(% by mass)

Maximum concentration in additive
(% by mass)

Number (%) of
disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Potassium hydroxide

1310-58-3

231 (75%)

0.022

0.000000*

0.051

235 (4.2%)

15

0.25

50

Guar gum

9000-30-0

213 (69%)

0.25

0.10

0.42

231 (4.1%)

60

1.6

100

Methanol

67-56-1

200 (65%)

0.025

0.0014

0.12

378 (6.8%)

30

0.36

100

Quartz

14808-60-7

185 (60%)

0.011

0.0000020

9.4

248 (4.4%)

5.0

0.20

69

Peroxydisulfuric acid,
diammonium salt

7727-54-0

184 (59%)

0.0037

0.000080

0.023

242 (4.3%)

100

0.016

100

Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated light

64742-47-8

176 (57%)

0.18

0.0037

0.43

238 (4.3%)

43

0.56

70

Solvent naphtha,
petroleum, heavy arom.

64742-94-5

136 (44%)

0.0047

0.000000*

0.025

137 (2.4%)

5.0

0.028

30

Water

7732-18-5

136 (44%)

0.022

0.017

87

211 (3.8%)

80

30

100

Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)
phosphonium sulfate

55566-30-8

127 (41%)

0.012

0.0021

0.016

130 (2.3%)

60

0.022

60

Sodium hydroxide

1310-73-2

106 (34%)

0.022

0.000000*

0.093

115 (2.1%)

30

0.17

60

Carbonic acid,
dipotassium salt

584-08-7

102 (33%)

0.069

0.022

0.19

105 (1.9%)

60

48

60

Naphthalene

91-20-3

101 (33%)

0.0014

0.000000*

0.0041

102 (1.8%)

5.0

0.0057

5.0

Formic acid, potassium
salt

590-29-4

100 (32%)

0.065

0.0084

0.12

100 (1.8%)

60

50

60

Diatomaceous earth,
calcined

91053-39-3

86 (28%)

0.024

0.0032

0.032

87 (1.6%)

100

100

100

Ethylene glycol

107-21-1

84 (27%)

0.037

0.0050

0.11

104 (1.9%)

30

0.70

100

Ethanol

64-17-5

78 (25%)

0.042

0.000000*

0.062

82 (1.5%)

60

30

60

Boric acid

10043-35-3

77 (25%)

0.0028

0.00065

0.025

78 (1.4%)

30

15

100

Tetramethylammonium
chloride

75-57-0

76 (25%)

0.047

0.030

0.11

76 (1.4%)

0.43

0.28

60

Isopropanol

67-63-0

74 (24%)

0.026

0.00021

0.049

84 (1.5%)

30

0.18

60

Table continued on next page

136

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid
(% by mass)

Maximum concentration in additive
(% by mass)

Number (%) of
disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Nonyl phenol
ethoxylate

9016-45-9

73 (24%)

0.0039

0.0034

0.0092

73 (1.3%)

10

8.8

10

White mineral oil,
petroleum*

8042-47-5

73 (24%)

0.049

0.012

0.076

73 (1.3%)

100

91

100

* Concentration is less than a millionth of a percentage by mass.

f White mineral oil, petroleum is included as a 21st chemical because it had the same number of disclosures as nonyl phenol ethoxylate.

Note: Analysis considered 311 disclosures and 6,450 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination of
fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; with confirmed state location; with confirmed county location; valid
CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria (35) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis. A total of 258
disclosures (80% of 323 disclosures that met quality assurance criteria) reported a total of 1,435 ingredient records (12% of 12,003 ingredient records) with information
indicating the data were confidential business information.

137

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table G-4. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in Garfield County, Colorado, ranked by frequency of occurrence.

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid
(% by mass)

Maximum ingredient concentration in additive
(% by mass)

Number (%) of
disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Ethanol

64-17-5

996 (86%)

0.025

0.00043

0.055

1,001 (6.4%)

60

5.0

60

Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated light

64742-47-8

932 (80%)

0.014

0.0059

0.022

934 (6.0%)

30

30

40

Methanol

67-56-1

830 (71%)

0.0045

0.0012

0.016

1,481 (9.5%)

30

5.0

70

Solvent naphtha,
petroleum, heavy
arom.

64742-94-5

770 (66%)

0.019

0.0010

0.027

1,101 (7.0%)

30

5.0

30

Sodium hypochlorite

7681-52-9

759 (65%)

0.023

0.0038

0.077

985 (6.3%)

30

13

100

Sodium hydroxide

1310-73-2

691 (59%)

0.0018

0.00096

0.0049

866 (5.5%)

2.0

2.0

5.0

Naphthalene

91-20-3

664 (57%)

0.0021

0.000030

0.0045

669 (4.3%)

5.0

1.0

5.0

Hydrochloric acid

7647-01-0

656 (56%)

0.037

0.010

0.078

659 (4.2%)

10

7.5

30

Sodium chloride

7647-14-5

651 (56%)

0.0059

0.000000*

0.55

677 (4.3%)

10

1.0

100

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

95-63-6

618 (53%)

0.00043

0.00027

0.00092

623 (4.0%)

1.0

1.0

1.0

Poly(oxy-l,2-
ethanediyl)-
nonylphenyl-hydroxy
(mixture)

127087-87-0

617 (53%)

0.0022

0.0012

0.0085

622 (4.0%)

5.0

5.0

10

Isopropanol

67-63-0

493 (42%)

0.034

0.00011

0.044

810 (5.2%)

30

5.0

60

Acetic acid

64-19-7

397 (34%)

0.0018

0.00076

0.0028

397 (2.5%)

60

60

60

1-Benzylquinolinium
chloride

15619-48-4

396 (34%)

0.000060

0.000028

0.000090

396 (2.5%)

10

10

10

Acetic anhydride

108-24-7

396 (34%)

0.0030

0.0013

0.0046

396 (2.5%)

100

100

100

Glutaraldehyde

111-30-8

393 (34%)

0.016

0.0066

0.016

393 (2.5%)

30

30

30

Didecyl dimethyl
ammonium chloride

7173-51-5

336 (29%)

0.0052

0.0026

0.0055

336 (2.1%)

10

10

10

Quaternary ammonium
compounds, benzyl-
C12-16-alkyldimethyl,
chlorides

68424-85-1

336 (29%)

0.0026

0.0013

0.0038

336 (2.1%)

5.0

5.0

7.0

Table continued on next page

138

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid
(% by mass)

Maximum ingredient concentration in additive
(% by mass)

Number (%) of
disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Ammonium chloride

12125-02-9

331 (28%)

0.0031

0.0010

0.0074

359 (2.3%)

7.0

0.017

10

Water

7732-18-5

293 (25%)

0.050

0.0012

0.22

303 (1.9%)

100

60

100

* Concentration is less than a millionth of a percentage by mass.

Note: Analysis considered 1,166 disclosures and 17,337 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination of
fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; with confirmed state location; with confirmed county location; valid
CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria (254) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis. A total of 516
disclosures (44% of 1,169 disclosures that met quality assurance criteria) reported a total of 1,493 ingredient records (6.1% of 24,505 ingredient records) with information
indicating the data were confidential business information.

139

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Table G-5. Twenty most frequently reported additive ingredients in Kern County, California, ranked by frequency of occurrence.

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid
(% by mass)

Maximum concentration in additive
(% by mass)

Number (%) of
disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Guar gum

9000-30-0

511 (93%)

0.18

0.11

0.34

513 (5.1%)

60

0.74

60

Quartz

14808-60-7

486 (89%)

0.013

0.000010

27

979 (9.8%)

1.0

1.0

94

Water

7732-18-5

452 (83%)

0.055

0.034

80

508 (5.1%)

97

60

100

Peroxydisulfuric acid,
diammonium salt

7727-54-0

451 (82%)

0.0062

0.0033

0.051

462 (4.6%)

100

0.15

100

Diatomaceous earth,
calcined

91053-39-3

388 (71%)

0.012

0.00060

0.030

580 (5.8%)

60

60

100

Sodium hydroxide

1310-73-2

388 (71%)

0.0099

0.0062

0.016

391 (3.9%)

10

5.0

30

Hemicellulase Enzyme
Concentrate

9025-56-3

363 (66%)

0.0015

0.0010

0.0046

363 (3.6%)

3.0

3.0

3.0

2-Methyl-3(2H)-
isothiazolone

2682-20-4

360 (66%)

0.00011

0.000030

0.00027

360 (3.6%)

5.0

5.0

5.0

5-Chloro-2-methyl-
3(2H)-isothiazolone

26172-55-4

360 (66%)

0.00023

0.000060

0.00055

360 (3.6%)

10

10

10

Cristobalite

14464-46-1

360 (66%)

0.000020

0.000010

0.000060

360 (3.6%)

1.0

1.0

1.0

Magnesium chloride

7786-30-3

360 (66%)

0.00011

0.000030

0.00027

360 (3.6%)

5.0

5.0

5.0

Magnesium nitrate

10377-60-3

360 (66%)

0.00023

0.000060

0.00054

360 (3.6%)

10

10

10

Boron sodium oxide

1330-43-4

352 (64%)

0.029

0.020

0.045

352 (3.5%)

30

10

30

Ethylene glycol

107-21-1

349 (64%)

0.029

0.014

0.045

349 (3.5%)

30

30

30

1,2-Ethanediaminium,
N, N'- bis[2-[bis(2-
hydroxyethyl)
methylammonio]
ethyl]- N,N'bis (2-
hydroxyethyl)-N,N'-
dimethyl-,tetrachloride

138879-94-4

339 (62%)

0.055

0.043

0.075

343 (3.4%)

60

60

60

Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated light

64742-47-8

316 (58%)

0.079

0.052

0.16

318 (3.2%)

30

30

30

l-Butoxy-2-propanol

5131-66-8

311 (57%)

0.013

0.0088

0.026

311 (3.1%)

5.0

5.0

5.0

Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated light
paraffinic

64742-55-8

310 (57%)

0.080

0.054

0.16

310 (3.1%)

30

30

30

Table continued on next page

140

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

EPA-standardized
chemical name

CASRN

Maximum concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid
(% by mass)

Maximum concentration in additive
(% by mass)

Number (%) of
disclosures

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Number (%)
of ingredient
records

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Isotridecanol,
ethoxylated

9043-30-5

308 (56%)

0.013

0.0090

0.026

308 (3.1%)

5.0

5.0

5.0

Phosphonic acid

13598-36-2

220 (40%)

0.00021

0.000090

0.00033

220 (2.2%)

1.0

1.0

1.0

Note: Analysis considered 547 disclosures and 10,997 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed; unique combination of
fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; with confirmed state location; with confirmed county location; valid
CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria (153) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis. A total of 523
disclosures (79% of 666 disclosures that met quality assurance criteria) reported a total of 767 ingredient records (3.9% of 19,854 ingredient records) with information
indicating the data were confidential business information.

141

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

Appendix H. Total Water Volumes by County

Table H-l. Total water volumes, summarized by county.

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Colorado

Weld

3,011

2,335,336,985

407,442

128,100

2,977,508

Colorado

Garfield

1,355

3,624,211,889

1,707,024

695,047

8,093,060

Texas

Andrews

1,171

518,991,576

91,697

29,631

1,429,964

Texas

County
Uncertain

1,049

2,441,366,185

1,306,225

25,241

6,868,724

Texas

Glasscock

935

1,241,568,473

981,372

569,677

2,662,435

Utah

Uintah

835

326,559,958

340,715

81,509

804,497

Texas

Martin

823

937,501,845

1,099,924

494,534

1,705,162

Texas

Ector

822

497,360,705

209,209

40,444

1,886,442

Texas

Upton

777

974,777,378

1,216,685

30,060

1,924,754

Texas

Tarrant

747

2,968,194,610

3,678,696

1,324,407

7,575,669

Texas

Dimmit

715

3,938,854,414

5,322,954

3,076,202

8,709,221

California

Kern

677

89,129,306

77,238

19,135

328,606

Texas

Karnes

595

2,254,998,809

3,514,377

2,148,427

6,484,902

Texas

La Salle

568

2,683,074,962

4,488,267

2,684,300

7,498,348

Texas

Midland

530

654,029,168

1,254,809

455,722

1,892,398

North Dakota

Mountrail

520

916,997,966

1,558,022

707,235

3,357,661

Pennsylvania

Bradford

513

2,168,115,265

4,350,571

213,158

7,181,555

Utah

Duchesne

501

183,472,997

129,079

18,228

1,297,842

North Dakota

McKenzie

483

1,241,789,756

2,433,648

784,762

4,216,218

Wyoming

Sublette

474

629,569,835

1,099,287

675,704

3,464,024

Louisiana

De Soto

457

2,233,883,199

4,796,568

2,851,654

7,677,568

Texas

Reagan

450

885,418,227

1,145,983

414,863

8,962,874

New Mexico

Eddy

442

475,792,263

566,934

60,256

3,590,099

Texas

Webb

439

2,294,331,122

4,983,952

1,228,471

11,178,023

North Dakota

Williams

430

1,163,067,734

2,390,827

907,390

5,878,448

Arkansas

Van Buren

401

1,816,523,710

4,341,724

2,455,755

7,247,129

Texas

McMullen

384

1,641,511,084

3,933,824

210,720

8,545,215

Texas

Montague

375

1,958,947,601

5,137,420

3,286,042

7,334,297

Pennsylvania

Lycoming

361

1,498,219,767

3,877,797

1,597,625

7,475,978

Texas

Ward

345

227,837,517

246,085

7,795

2,156,625

Texas

Gonzales

344

1,253,423,805

3,632,223

1,890,399

5,892,711

North Dakota

Dunn

331

630,097,859

2,017,621

409,803

3,361,183

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna

327

1,546,179,194

4,798,290

940,909

7,816,150

Wyoming

Sweetwater

321

84,850,331

229,974

79,090

435,011

Texas

DeWitt

320

1,104,210,329

3,426,088

2,028,110

4,790,741

Table continued on next page

142

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Arkansas

White

309

1,749,005,205

5,782,854

3,655,427

7,416,763

Arkansas

Conway

302

1,596,170,693

5,266,774

2,919,365

7,957,921

Texas

Gaines

298

44,087,004

79,411

18,330

269,241

Texas

Wise

291

1,157,129,977

3,875,046

918,692

7,969,196

Texas

Johnson

289

1,190,791,843

3,969,422

1,754,012

7,202,405

New Mexico

Lea

286

244,252,238

183,645

53,235

3,730,169

Pennsylvania

Tioga

286

1,132,668,079

3,598,474

2,285,636

6,572,202

Texas

Howard

286

219,523,127

895,986

26,018

1,523,373

Texas

Irion

284

945,564,352

895,468

45,494

11,729,639

Texas

Wheeler

283

1,773,621,591

6,292,608

879,360

12,398,544

Texas

Mitchell

278

22,018,458

30,402

14,154

88,003

Arkansas

Cleburne

263

1,489,329,655

5,974,108

3,401,011

7,538,336

Texas

Denton

263

934,748,202

1,836,744

1,014,405

9,008,399

Texas

Reeves

263

352,616,549

1,081,442

104,447

3,865,365

Texas

Milam

254

9,844,030

16,000

16,000

18,900

Texas

Crane

245

196,718,764

175,308

26,277

2,794,840

Wyoming

Natrona

226

3,663,585

5,648

5,032

7,685

Pennsylvania

Washington

223

867,457,663

3,358,519

2,553,790

7,031,557

Oklahoma

Alfalfa

199

385,043,193

1,865,304

1,266,922

2,923,830

Texas

Yoakum

190

16,252,142

65,966

26,097

138,354

New Mexico

San Juan

188

24,032,553

72,200

19,998

476,978

Texas

Live Oak

182

612,387,421

3,334,502

1,992,043

4,466,792

Texas

Cooke

178

930,155,506

5,361,300

1,791,556

7,915,538

Oklahoma

Roger Mills

177

490,227,227

2,488,248

662,273

4,991,475

New Mexico

Rio Arriba

174

33,138,782

114,732

24,531

452,176

Oklahoma

Woods

166

327,924,769

1,916,477

1,306,536

2,664,942

Oklahoma

Ellis

165

398,559,056

2,301,505

732,749

4,023,155

State
Uncertain

County
Uncertain

158

488,083,669

2,770,090

80,067

6,945,958

Oklahoma

Canadian

158

966,487,571

6,340,910

3,045,404

8,472,344

Pennsylvania

Greene

157

781,556,032

4,305,363

2,433,957

10,493,381

Texas

Loving

155

282,297,269

1,517,208

56,095

4,341,797

Louisiana

Red River

153

1,139,265,130

7,179,763

4,293,341

11,653,648

Colorado

Las Animas

146

15,768,503

95,974

20,424

260,255

Texas

Parker

144

554,945,907

3,665,336

1,340,232

7,112,669

Colorado

Rio Blanco

143

294,677,269

2,248,291

96,911

3,232,073

Texas

Panola

143

696,572,353

3,804,948

26,987

14,494,738

Texas

Atascosa

137

694,264,027

4,089,792

2,289,300

9,904,570

Texas

Hemphill

136

549,108,685

3,059,675

460,143

7,574,170

Table continued on next page

143

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

North Dakota

Divide

133

212,401,131

1,580,796

678,912

2,536,918

Louisiana

Sabine

129

790,459,623

6,424,656

3,557,957

9,120,145

North Dakota

County
Uncertain

126

274,188,475

1,986,598

376,173

3,555,922

Oklahoma

County
Uncertain

115

354,593,378

1,654,044

16,796

9,930,348

Texas

Freestone

113

108,863,226

784,482

151,016

2,485,651

Texas

Crockett

107

596,159,001

6,882,549

64,223

10,739,690

Arkansas

Faulkner

106

567,953,587

5,289,045

3,204,945

8,067,928

Oklahoma

Pittsburg

106

756,599,235

6,939,435

3,607,478

11,799,127

Montana

Richland

104

173,612,043

1,604,648

359,501

3,211,767

Wyoming

Converse

98

230,123,849

2,303,838

866,463

4,693,910

Oklahoma

Washita

95

215,800,796

2,510,928

320,170

3,201,844

Texas

Lipscomb

92

182,722,458

1,482,313

312,653

4,038,008

Oklahoma

Grant

89

165,254,145

1,792,535

1,490,734

2,219,473

Pennsylvania

Westmoreland

89

413,919,647

4,382,954

2,602,314

7,766,369

Texas

Nacogdoches

89

543,371,967

6,478,122

190,003

10,899,353

Wyoming

Fremont

85

56,372,038

273,651

13,706

1,875,955

Oklahoma

Dewey

82

331,068,664

3,774,240

790,768

6,455,102

Louisiana

Caddo

80

311,083,907

4,010,916

167,521

6,956,650

Oklahoma

Blaine

79

414,164,933

5,109,410

2,743,823

8,789,371

Ohio

Carroll

78

334,774,734

4,104,765

3,127,692

5,738,399

Texas

Robertson

75

92,251,731

739,196

148,897

3,382,029

Texas

Ochiltree

71

71,885,269

852,457

358,029

2,179,675

Texas

Schleicher

69

54,035,392

93,282

23,663

4,415,300

North Dakota

Burke

68

130,039,568

2,181,879

92,238

2,916,078

North Dakota

Stark

67

97,818,062

1,485,580

687,725

1,903,938

Louisiana

County
Uncertain

65

417,334,020

6,099,364

2,141,777

12,166,446

Pennsylvania

Fayette

65

243,844,255

3,614,704

1,982,122

5,899,561

Texas

Frio

61

256,406,734

4,248,636

1,424,183

6,901,482

Texas

Jack

61

36,154,895

414,918

25,200

2,594,283

Utah

Carbon

60

14,656,123

234,643

122,492

363,483

Oklahoma

Beckham

59

221,343,112

3,231,150

87,765

8,214,126

Pennsylvania

Wyoming

59

319,383,314

5,360,166

1,131,136

9,250,744

Louisiana

Bienville

56

217,714,155

4,514,531

86,517

6,986,721

Texas

Roberts

56

80,958,031

1,203,233

40,661

3,316,569

Wyoming

Park

56

1,802,669

28,412

15,488

41,300

Texas

Hidalgo

55

17,112,033

287,654

77,524

647,891

Table continued on next page

144

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Oklahoma

Grady

54

253,307,556

4,864,995

73,199

7,757,636

Pennsylvania

Butler

53

256,960,489

4,748,310

3,075,507

7,167,812

Texas

San Augustine

53

364,221,026

6,307,110

1,748,771

12,199,824

Texas

Crosby

51

2,808,045

58,296

36,905

78,430

Montana

Roosevelt

50

110,068,800

2,427,634

860,538

3,227,131

Pennsylvania

Clearfield

50

222,985,275

4,219,803

2,721,829

7,109,046

Texas

Zavala

50

273,942,903

6,147,960

3,163,445

7,218,131

Texas

Harrison

49

293,540,779

5,717,723

875,642

10,451,956

Oklahoma

Carter

48

340,585,434

8,224,986

37,298

8,983,229

Wyoming

Carbon

48

8,909,624

182,173

70,660

285,534

North Dakota

Billings

47

88,868,499

2,149,224

732,783

2,819,213

Texas

Hood

47

163,449,153

3,402,126

1,926,744

5,561,762

Pennsylvania

Armstrong

46

126,190,783

171,396

101,966

6,931,090

Texas

Wilson

46

174,790,616

3,822,813

1,434,854

5,635,023

West Virginia

Ohio

45

245,169,636

5,509,812

3,406,789

7,881,980

Pennsylvania

Clinton

44

188,730,732

4,257,620

2,798,770

5,723,557

Texas

Dawson

44

42,668,983

1,133,139

43,394

1,457,678

Louisiana

Bossier

42

220,225,439

5,269,992

92,427

8,328,128

Texas

Winkler

42

15,930,828

103,501

12,115

1,638,809

Wyoming

County
Uncertain

41

6,508,970

129,640

6,550

305,735

Colorado

Larimer

40

10,832,123

224,906

71,698

470,367

Colorado

La Plata

39

6,967,007

196,744

36,136

227,087

Texas

Madison

39

99,968,464

2,378,670

431,446

4,848,839

Texas

Stephens

39

5,270,482

71,484

6,002

214,294

Pennsylvania

Sullivan

38

140,540,343

4,009,971

943,893

5,851,066

Texas

Leon

38

112,445,340

2,709,214

165,049

7,517,538

Texas

Starr

37

10,683,140

255,412

58,081

531,802

Alaska

North Slope (the
borough of)

37

13,150,891

88,448

36,437

435,638

Texas

Borden

36

15,968,027

111,756

22,427

1,357,392

Virginia

Buchanan

36

1,267,707

33,243

20,559

52,605

West Virginia

Marshall

36

168,954,993

4,596,144

3,217,379

6,367,568

Alabama

Jefferson

35

1,157,495

33,335

22,668

40,846

Texas

Shelby

35

277,531,622

6,327,720

88,089

17,230,326

Texas

Sterling

35

86,577,074

345,374

160,584

10,062,476

Virginia

Dickenson

34

1,562,380

37,430

16,865

113,089

West Virginia

Doddridge

34

180,858,468

5,281,962

2,200,764

7,939,842

Texas

Culberson

32

83,961,631

2,515,323

40,181

5,496,785

Table continued on next page

145

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Montana

Sheridan

31

21,734,049

410,690

236,019

1,712,485

Oklahoma

Noble

31

67,438,727

2,166,133

854,988

3,423,273

West Virginia

Marion

31

140,220,776

4,718,028

2,231,481

6,620,712

Oklahoma

Coal

30

180,062,029

4,824,002

246,744

11,560,111

Texas

Kleberg

30

7,048,508

223,965

49,495

488,846

Texas

Medina

30

505,485

17,031

14,868

19,099

Texas

Pecos

30

16,588,529

139,020

61,410

1,960,109

Texas

Rusk

30

141,023,149

4,837,499

29,078

9,800,251

Kansas

Comanche

29

53,072,084

1,796,122

1,064,162

2,616,347

New Mexico

Colfax

29

1,470,173

38,640

1,054

113,820

Oklahoma

Marshall

29

221,714,808

8,006,838

5,420,209

9,310,417

Texas

Terry

29

14,987,507

173,754

30,441

3,220,820

West Virginia

Wetzel

29

156,461,105

5,288,881

3,922,061

7,170,799

Arkansas

Independence

28

160,687,548

5,588,037

4,208,795

7,447,169

Oklahoma

Beaver

28

58,081,436

2,328,146

109,363

2,960,234

Wyoming

Campbell

28

27,762,544

964,350

166,791

2,092,830

Texas

Lavaca

27

103,054,135

4,329,321

39,991

6,242,700

Texas

Scurry

27

6,853,945

41,118

19,265

493,856

Colorado

County
Uncertain

26

45,171,994

2,118,956

122,484

3,175,880

Texas

Stonewall

26

1,785,353

38,391

17,042

198,744

West Virginia

Brooke

26

109,537,029

4,222,596

3,128,344

5,722,616

Texas

Brooks

25

3,179,142

93,450

42,428

326,259

Texas

Wilbarger

25

345,979

14,791

4,368

21,216

Colorado

Broomfield

24

9,046,089

397,068

295,096

421,458

Colorado

Yuma

24

733,530

29,673

25,626

36,582

Colorado

Boulder

23

8,258,548

410,424

129,738

422,881

Kansas

Harper

23

36,664,604

1,839,936

47,855

2,551,977

Ohio

Columbiana

23

69,107,766

3,213,420

1,709,912

3,850,190

Pennsylvania

McKean

23

120,961,008

5,758,704

456,830

8,030,157

Texas

Hockley

23

6,058,250

27,578

19,971

274,995

Wyoming

Laramie

23

36,626,308

1,561,077

77,990

3,326,760

Oklahoma

Stephens

22

63,381,549

1,664,689

38,529

7,941,127

Pennsylvania

County
Uncertain

22

84,860,930

4,219,781

984,400

5,973,536

Texas

Wichita

22

305,152

11,290

2,564

25,568

Arkansas

County
Uncertain

21

114,187,387

5,816,748

3,386,662

6,923,322

New Mexico

Harding

21

219,163

6,048

4,662

8,694

Table continued on next page

146

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Alabama

Tuscaloosa

20

907,701

45,255

35,353

57,480

Texas

Limestone

20

21,484,098

645,913

163,792

3,583,703

Colorado

Mesa

19

244,114,104

14,542,836

444,333

22,609,230

North Dakota

Mclean

19

24,325,679

1,177,851

675,033

1,958,939

Oklahoma

Caddo

19

50,903,859

3,955,052

41,756

5,098,028

West Virginia

Taylor

19

105,771,236

5,849,046

3,646,583

7,669,007

Colorado

Adams

18

6,504,057

211,902

46,661

880,173

Louisiana

Beauregard

18

4,763,121

225,936

62,555

532,135

Oklahoma

Harper

17

17,614,411

1,266,798

23,226

1,713,123

West Virginia

Upshur

17

69,820,643

4,081,094

643,516

7,880,985

Ohio

Jefferson

16

66,343,492

4,257,225

2,942,478

5,471,193

Oklahoma

Kay

16

42,971,113

2,746,611

1,411,278

3,847,714

Pennsylvania

Beaver

16

64,700,812

3,677,835

309,456

8,591,746

Texas

Maverick

16

104,761,837

7,381,269

2,363,809

9,588,600

Texas

San Patricio

16

2,120,580

70,539

23,457

369,348

West Virginia

Harrison

16

98,359,628

5,923,491

4,334,106

8,748,747

California

Sutter

15

373,086

20,622

12,046

40,900

Colorado

Phillips

15

346,374

23,100

22,890

23,264

Pennsylvania

Centre

15

76,929,372

5,663,806

2,431,605

6,406,011

Texas

Cochran

15

5,959,787

316,176

20,152

827,270

Texas

Palo Pinto

15

20,579,492

620,510

139,033

3,155,617

Utah

County
Uncertain

15

9,138,125

772,448

79,276

1,134,760

Kansas

Barber

14

19,858,588

1,436,880

212,300

2,260,322

Kansas

Haskell

14

205,387

12,306

8,620

24,215

New Mexico

County
Uncertain

14

2,351,840

61,383

21,544

624,674

Oklahoma

Custer

14

38,094,335

2,510,865

1,119,405

4,325,305

Oklahoma

Pawnee

14

31,321,465

2,317,287

1,375,338

2,850,122

Pennsylvania

Elk

14

74,994,059

5,337,218

3,910,733

6,608,196

Texas

Oldham

14

2,752,335

195,751

99,457

338,459

Texas

Zapata

14

2,344,265

168,845

43,197

374,312

Kansas

County
Uncertain

13

7,730,168

104,971

12,029

2,031,354

Texas

Bee

13

39,984,197

3,413,242

1,278,998

4,225,536

Texas

Houston

13

23,865,860

1,743,168

599,830

3,109,102

Wyoming

Hot Springs

13

537,703

41,948

34,372

46,919

California

Ventura

12

3,597,475

350,642

48,682

518,445

Colorado

Moffat

12

29,096,450

138,711

22,841

13,201,470

Table continued on next page

147

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Montana

Glacier

12

10,241,652

950,581

46,805

1,589,657

Ohio

Harrison

12

50,031,353

4,058,040

3,447,473

5,102,299

Texas

Grayson

12

18,556,255

515,193

5,678

4,773,123

Kansas

Finney

11

4,835,816

13,188

10,059

2,333,068

Pennsylvania

Lawrence

11

53,944,488

4,144,434

2,668,953

10,003,861

Texas

Fayette

11

27,381,679

2,297,402

482,811

4,430,664

Texas

Hutchinson

11

630,263

55,772

40,469

79,461

Texas

Nolan

11

9,094,250

65,600

15,701

4,334,946

Wyoming

Lincoln

11

1,546,099

132,976

107,553

194,334

Arkansas

Logan

10

4,767,333

185,451

31,370

1,302,000

Oklahoma

Hughes

10

61,080,038

6,028,764

4,663,997

7,603,304

Oklahoma

Johnston

10

74,444,034

7,866,033

5,653,253

8,375,373

Pennsylvania

Indiana

10

32,371,373

3,323,237

1,051,461

5,060,509

Texas

Fisher

10

11,899,478

64,416

31,895

5,949,028

Texas

Hansford

10

5,769,487

85,920

9,824

2,437,602

Texas

Sutton

10

3,130,092

88,452

26,678

1,418,926

Oklahoma

Latimer

9

1,190,337

132,750

58,479

245,112

Pennsylvania

Allegheny

9

27,247,149

2,834,574

2,389,479

4,223,652

Pennsylvania

Potter

9

32,966,493

4,210,510

2,386,660

4,603,434

Texas

Sabine

9

62,217,624

6,447,042

5,435,480

9,144,929

Utah

San Juan

9

510,880

54,739

25,469

104,540

Wyoming

Uinta

9

1,172,285

137,313

103,664

153,696

Texas

Archer

8

308,847

21,653

1,000

119,221

Texas

Brazos

8

25,800,462

2,731,726

781,841

5,760,135

Texas

Coke

8

11,989,003

91,686

37,289

7,450,787

Texas

Gregg

8

18,754,840

2,230,473

186,877

4,466,825

Texas

Montgomery

8

471,869

58,611

45,614

75,174

California

County
Uncertain

7

808,494

106,176

70,897

168,278

Oklahoma

Garvin

7

34,777,900

4,801,914

3,734,442

6,484,745

Oklahoma

Kingfisher

7

26,868,858

3,046,680

1,871,734

6,396,409

Texas

Erath

7

1,682,982

270,186

101,039

329,339

Texas

Grimes

7

30,986,483

2,703,960

1,745,520

12,057,746

Virginia

Wise

7

190,722

29,946

9,043

39,421

West Virginia

Barbour

7

39,824,792

5,299,900

2,721,541

8,103,067

Colorado

Morgan

6

7,705,597

21,766

18,462

4,144,234

Colorado

San Miguel

6

570,386

88,618

24,107

179,672

Kansas

Morton

6

78,104

11,424

7,709

22,457

Louisiana

Natchitoches

6

25,340,370

4,163,259

1,517,208

6,944,319

Table continued on next page

148

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Louisiana

Webster

6

2,317,926

273,395

54,306

840,096

Montana

County
Uncertain

6

11,894,148

2,515,023

225,288

3,028,253

Montana

Rosebud

6

7,027,827

1,072,667

836,642

1,763,954

North Dakota

Golden Valley

6

9,148,766

1,514,858

1,123,363

1,980,707

Oklahoma

Bryan

6

20,568,752

2,242,258

122,955

8,047,494

Oklahoma

Logan

6

8,439,674

498,015

43,493

3,690,810

Oklahoma

Major

6

2,389,800

356,034

215,492

667,853

Texas

Newton

6

625,073

77,241

62,387

211,680

Texas

Orange

6

684,146

105,385

88,559

167,470

Wyoming

Big Horn

6

5,765,641

55,162

12,381

2,953,715

Wyoming

Goshen

6

11,555,075

2,000,185

285,903

3,526,013

Colorado

Jackson

5

1,915,902

326,830

61,733

663,932

North Dakota

Bottineau

5

479,974

97,744

83,732

108,279

Pennsylvania

Jefferson

5

27,574,346

5,302,920

4,801,747

6,469,091

Texas

Burleson

5

6,071,020

1,154,644

1,054,014

1,522,626

Texas

Haskell

5

169,100

32,394

7,115

60,191

Texas

Potter

5

855,385

176,538

123,606

210,865

Texas

Runnels

5

68,082

6,930

5,888

31,542

Texas

Washington

5

5,307,569

936,726

336,941

1,930,527

Michigan

Gladwin

4

2,157,052

360,827

14,730

1,313,607

Michigan

Kalkaska

4

47,996,702

10,511,866

6,250,906

19,829,679

Michigan

Missaukee

4

87,660

21,971

18,272

25,480

Oklahoma

Le Flore

4

513,318

128,066

98,134

158,894

Oklahoma

Oklahoma

4

2,317,560

463,008

462,126

859,589

Oklahoma

Payne

4

19,797,691

4,734,292

3,989,483

6,210,545

Oklahoma

Texas

4

149,766

22,302

7,256

88,822

Texas

Austin

4

4,159,098

1,163,621

147,045

1,759,120

Texas

Hardeman

4

716,148

215,661

60,175

246,626

Texas

Kent

4

899,295

19,326

10,983

726,362

Texas

Lynn

4

2,278,945

415,474

97,330

1,258,110

West Virginia

County
Uncertain

4

19,386,108

4,514,832

3,182,953

6,974,474

California

Colusa

3

61,614

15,162

13,612

31,227

California

Los Angeles

3

437,350

143,892

127,112

165,778

Colorado

Arapahoe

3

7,947,553

2,580,173

2,430,678

2,915,999

Colorado

Delta

3

1,071,931

490,320

109,451

512,063

Kansas

Clark

3

1,557,336

45,864

44,730

1,324,768

Kansas

Gray

3

6,518,606

2,227,926

1,882,288

2,424,909

Table continued on next page

149

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Kansas

Hodgeman

3

5,475,838

1,839,978

1,790,202

1,850,068

Louisiana

East Feliciana

3

7,323,225

3,087,995

536,804

3,892,502

Louisiana

Union

3

9,721,910

180,586

74,089

8,549,220

Mississippi

Amite

3

28,706,118

11,916,618

4,746,676

12,747,197

New Mexico

Chaves

3

5,558,331

1,772,439

1,406,084

2,355,707

Ohio

Guernsey

3

16,806,622

5,205,007

3,182,721

8,299,734

Oklahoma

Osage

3

7,680,204

2,847,348

1,476,002

3,443,038

Pennsylvania

Blair

3

11,814,180

3,628,968

3,551,365

4,541,120

Pennsylvania

Clarion

3

16,245,996

5,128,302

4,612,694

6,418,891

Pennsylvania

Forest

3

15,439,662

4,062,366

4,040,555

7,011,484

Pennsylvania

Somerset

3

11,510,817

2,978,576

2,710,144

5,564,588

Texas

Dallas

3

11,267,802

3,716,580

3,716,315

3,823,100

Texas

Garza

3

1,175,632

27,174

23,772

1,015,275

Texas

Kenedy

3

487,536

128,478

65,125

283,723

Texas

Nueces

3

2,001,377

141,690

104,748

1,597,309

Texas

Polk

3

388,072

115,786

115,113

153,102

Texas

Somervell

3

9,651,992

3,283,022

3,068,408

3,320,269

Texas

Van Zandt

3

275,610

93,626

88,362

94,149

Texas

Walker

3

6,757,968

1,766,352

621,163

4,224,562

West Virginia

Preston

3

16,839,606

5,566,722

5,552,471

5,706,469

Arkansas

Sebastian

2

1,257,652

628,826

194,392

1,063,260

Colorado

Fremont

2

1,178,755

589,378

63,886

1,114,869

Kansas

Grant

2

308,196

154,098

152,359

155,837

Kansas

Ness

2

3,291,918

1,645,959

1,304,682

1,987,236

Kansas

Seward

2

27,782

13,891

13,258

14,524

Kansas

Stanton

2

21,672

10,836

10,685

10,987

Louisiana

Calcasieu

2

140,231

70,116

40,572

99,659

Louisiana

Jackson

2

31,731

15,866

3,365

28,366

Louisiana

Lincoln

2

6,627,470

3,313,735

2,375,712

4,251,758

Montana

Daniels

2

1,280,951

640,476

403,146

877,805

Ohio

Noble

2

16,634,545

8,317,273

7,767,089

8,867,456

Ohio

Tuscarawas

2

13,470,465

6,735,233

5,553,163

7,917,302

Oklahoma

McClain

2

4,133,534

2,066,767

1,033,703

3,099,831

Pennsylvania

Cameron

2

13,246,674

6,623,337

5,046,907

8,199,767

Pennsylvania

Columbia

2

11,253,084

5,626,542

4,225,750

7,027,334

Pennsylvania

Venango

2

4,885,144

2,442,572

577,880

4,307,264

Pennsylvania

Warren

2

4,694,917

2,347,459

296,766

4,398,151

Texas

Ellis

2

8,320,032

4,160,016

3,673,341

4,646,691

Table continued on next page

150

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Texas

Hardin

2

245,322

122,661

95,993

149,329

Texas

Hartley

2

3,889,590

1,944,795

263,049

3,626,541

Texas

Jim Hogg

2

252,728

126,364

69,028

183,700

Texas

King

2

19,278

9,639

9,545

9,734

Texas

Lee

2

2,338,433

1,169,217

1,111,741

1,226,692

Texas

Marion

2

11,877,776

5,938,888

5,684,831

6,192,945

Texas

Smith

2

413,170

206,585

154,079

259,091

Texas

Terrell

2

221,625

110,813

103,115

118,510

Texas

Upshur

2

462,828

231,414

114,818

348,010

Texas

Waller

2

229,891

114,946

106,473

123,418

Texas

Wharton

2

90,173

45,087

35,202

54,971

Texas

Willacy

2

220,164

110,082

84,000

136,164

Texas

Wood

2

345,995

172,998

58,585

287,410

Texas

Young

2

136,836

68,418

11,605

125,231

West Virginia

Monongalia

2

13,665,036

6,832,518

6,545,503

7,119,533

West Virginia

Ritchie

2

12,994,464

6,497,232

5,775,554

7,218,910

West Virginia

Webster

2

4,504,584

2,252,292

2,246,017

2,258,567

Wyoming

Niobrara

2

194,418

97,209

92,012

102,407

Arkansas

Franklin

1

6,384

6,384

6,384

6,384

Arkansas

Yell

1

29,946

29,946

29,946

29,946

California

Glenn

1

31,752

31,752

31,752

31,752

Colorado

Dolores

1

107,969

107,969

107,969

107,969

Colorado

Elbert

1

39,215

39,215

39,215

39,215

Colorado

El Paso

1

55,019

55,019

55,019

55,019

Colorado

Routt

1

142,372

142,372

142,372

142,372

Kansas

Ford

1

1,797,019

1,797,019

1,797,019

1,797,019

Kansas

Kearny

1

18,942

18,942

18,942

18,942

Kansas

Lane

1

1,645,896

1,645,896

1,645,896

1,645,896

Kansas

Meade

1

20,286

20,286

20,286

20,286

Kansas

Sheridan

1

1,474,872

1,474,872

1,474,872

1,474,872

Kansas

Stevens

1

124,291

124,291

124,291

124,291

Kansas

Sumner

1

455,532

455,532

455,532

455,532

Louisiana

Allen

1

172,116

172,116

172,116

172,116

Louisiana

Caldwell

1

40,110

40,110

40,110

40,110

Louisiana

Claiborne

1

7,603,184

7,603,184

7,603,184

7,603,184

Louisiana

Rapides

1

3,388,095

3,388,095

3,388,095

3,388,095

Louisiana

Tangipahoa

1

3,823,858

3,823,858

3,823,858

3,823,858

Louisiana

West Feliciana

1

4,605,619

4,605,619

4,605,619

4,605,619

Table continued on next page

151

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Louisiana

Winn

1

2,150,872

2,150,872

2,150,872

2,150,872

Michigan

Cheboygan

1

33,306

33,306

33,306

33,306

Michigan

Ogemaw

1

20,701

20,701

20,701

20,701

Michigan

Roscommon

1

4,804,620

4,804,620

4,804,620

4,804,620

Mississippi

Wilkinson

1

6,430,629

6,430,629

6,430,629

6,430,629

Montana

Garfield

1

927,438

927,438

927,438

927,438

Montana

Musselshell

1

713,908

713,908

713,908

713,908

New Mexico

Roosevelt

1

79,212

79,212

79,212

79,212

New Mexico

Sandoval

1

792,616

792,616

792,616

792,616

Ohio

Ashland

1

2,932,422

2,932,422

2,932,422

2,932,422

Ohio

Belmont

1

3,778,068

3,778,068

3,778,068

3,778,068

Ohio

Coshocton

1

10,816,646

10,816,646

10,816,646

10,816,646

Ohio

Knox

1

2,204,454

2,204,454

2,204,454

2,204,454

Ohio

Medina

1

2,572,682

2,572,682

2,572,682

2,572,682

Ohio

Muskingum

1

10,170,198

10,170,198

10,170,198

10,170,198

Ohio

Portage

1

6,415,458

6,415,458

6,415,458

6,415,458

Ohio

Stark

1

4,752,384

4,752,384

4,752,384

4,752,384

Ohio

Summit

1

94,537

94,537

94,537

94,537

Ohio

Wayne

1

3,309,559

3,309,559

3,309,559

3,309,559

Oklahoma

Jefferson

1

4,620

4,620

4,620

4,620

Oklahoma

Kiowa

1

216,871

216,871

216,871

216,871

Oklahoma

Love

1

8,708,742

8,708,742

8,708,742

8,708,742

Oklahoma

Seminole

1

187,740

187,740

187,740

187,740

Pennsylvania

Crawford

1

4,803,563

4,803,563

4,803,563

4,803,563

Pennsylvania

Huntingdon

1

5,325,418

5,325,418

5,325,418

5,325,418

Texas

Angelina

1

1,542,275

1,542,275

1,542,275

1,542,275

Texas

Bosque

1

1,444,143

1,444,143

1,444,143

1,444,143

Texas

Cherokee

1

1,025,574

1,025,574

1,025,574

1,025,574

Texas

Clay

1

25,536

25,536

25,536

25,536

Texas

Colorado

1

104,244

104,244

104,244

104,244

Texas

Concho

1

29,946

29,946

29,946

29,946

Texas

Cottle

1

671,286

671,286

671,286

671,286

Texas

Edwards

1

91,350

91,350

91,350

91,350

Texas

Franklin

1

13,524

13,524

13,524

13,524

Texas

Goliad

1

44,226

44,226

44,226

44,226

Texas

Jefferson

1

77,291

77,291

77,291

77,291

Texas

Jones

1

56,667

56,667

56,667

56,667

Texas

Knox

1

17,178

17,178

17,178

17,178

Table continued on next page

152

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

State

County

Number of
disclosu res

Cumulative
total water
volume
(gallons)

Total water volume per disclosure
(gallons)

Median

5th
percentile

95th
percentile

Texas

Liberty

1

58,668

58,668

58,668

58,668

Texas

Menard

1

15,708

15,708

15,708

15,708

Texas

Moore

1

37,026

37,026

37,026

37,026

Texas

Navarro

1

9,606,805

9,606,805

9,606,805

9,606,805

Texas

Sherman

1

67,171

67,171

67,171

67,171

Texas

Tyler

1

216,174

216,174

216,174

216,174

Utah

Sevier

1

77,859

77,859

77,859

77,859

West Virginia

Hancock

1

2,420,124

2,420,124

2,420,124

2,420,124

West Virginia

Lewis

1

4,737,978

4,737,978

4,737,978

4,737,978

West Virginia

Pleasants

1

32,340

32,340

32,340

32,340

West Virginia

Tyler

1

4,168,710

4,168,710

4,168,710

4,168,710

Wyoming

Johnson

1

68,250

68,250

68,250

68,250

Wyoming

Washakie

1

2,146,866

2,146,866

2,146,866

2,146,866

Entire Dataset

37,796

91,805,425,640

1,508,724

29,526

7,196,702

Note: Analysis considered 37,796 disclosures that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: unique combination
of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; and criteria for
water volumes. Disclosures that did not meet these criteria were excluded from analysis (734).

153

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

[This page intentionally left blank.]

154

-------
Analysis of Data from FracFocus 1.0

March 2015

[This page intentionally left blank.]

155

-------
EPA/601 /R-14/003 I March 2015 I www.epa.gov/hfstudy

*>EPA

United States
Environmental Protection
Agency

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA

PERMIT NO. G-35

Office of Research and Development (8101R)

Washington, DC 20460

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use

$300

-------