A Casper district judge will soon decide whether Wyoming’s top oil and gas regulator was too quick to keep information about hydraulic fracturing a secret.

Judge Catherine Wilking said Tuesday she’ll rule on a controversial case pitting several landowner and environmental groups against the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission within the next two months.

The case centers on whether the commission was justified in granting several trade secret exemptions to companies that employ hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” in Wyoming. Fracking is an oil and gas production technique in which companies pump water, chemicals and sand into a well in order to create breaks and free oil and gas.

Attorneys representing landowners and environmental groups argued Tuesday trade secret exemptions granted by the commission were “arbitrary and capricious” and should require more justification. Attorneys for the commission and Halliburton – an active fracking company in the state that joined the suit — argued the opposite, saying that there’s a process for the commission to decide when ingredients should be confidential, and that process is being followed.

Wyoming in 2010 became the first state to mandate disclosure of components used in fracking fluid. Several groups, including the Powder River Basin Resource Council and the Wyoming Outdoor Council, requested access to lists of ingredients used by various companies in the state, but the commission denied access to some on the basis that they were trade secrets protected by law — an exemption allowed under the WOGCC regulations.

Timothy Preso, an attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental law firm based in Bozeman, Mont., argued Tuesday that components of hydraulic fracturing should not be subject to the trade secrets exemptions. Preso said revealing single ingredients wouldn’t harm fracking companies’ competitive edges, because a list of ingredients does not constitute a formula.

Preso said listing fracking fluid components publicly would help landowners establish baseline data on their groundwater quality, which would be critical should a water contamination occur.

Eric Easton, assistant attorney general and counsel for the commission, said that the purpose of the rule is to provide commission staff with a list of which chemicals are being used in fracking. He added that the oil and gas supervisor has the expertise to know which chemicals should be available to the public and which, if disclosed, would harm a company’s competitive edge.

An attorney for Halliburton also offered arguments Tuesday, saying among other things that his company has come up with several fracking substances which they consider to be proprietary and confidential.

“We are in a competitive business,” Steve Leifer said. “Halliburton prides itself on having the most effective and efficient frack fluids.”

Leifer compared Halliburton’s fracking fluid formula to a recipe for food, saying that although a list of ingredients doesn’t easily lead to a formula, giving away some key ingredients could damage the company’s edge on the competition. Leifer added he would be supportive of disclosing vague descriptions or generic names of components, as long as it doesn’t give away proprietary rights.

Wilking said Tuesday she will issue a judgment on the case within 60 days.

The landowner and environmental groups said in a joint release Tuesday that their case is important.

“We appreciate Wyoming’s leadership in making more of this information available,” they said. “But without a complete list of fracking chemicals, it’s much more difficult for residents to determine whether their drinking water has been contaminated by oil and gas development.”

Reach energy reporter Adam Voge at 307-266-0561.

, or at adam.voge@trib.com. Read his blog at http://trib.com/news/opinion/blogs/boom or follow him on Twitter @vogeCST.

(5) comments

N3crix
N3crix

....leaves big humongous sized bag of $100 bills here on the porch for you sir! Thanks!

Pops

Fracking is frack'n wrong.

Robotoad

"Trade secrets"? Really?? We promise not to sell the info to anyone, trust us.

pdjmoo
pdjmoo

When corporate profits and non-disclosure issues override the public good and public health - we have a real problem. ..."has the expertise to know which chemicals should be available to the public and which, if disclosed, would harm a company’s competitive edge" And whose land are they fracking and making a fortune on.... public land. If the oil and gas industry, with all the billions now invested in the natural gas rush are to be permited, there must be strict regulations, oversight and full disclosure as to the chemicals that are impacting our environment. Otherwise they make a bundle, move on and leave superfund sites for tax payers to clean up. They should also be held to a trust fund prior to any drilling to compensate for any damage they create.
Why the oil and gas industry need to be reined in before it is too late
FRACKING OURSELVES INTO OBLIVION http://sco.lt/8mKlIP

amh

Fracking has been around for many years. Homeowners even use part of the concept on their water wells. However, fracking needs to be regulated.

If I have a spillage of chemicals into a body of surface water (even contained waters not used for drinking) I have to report it to the DEQ.

If I decide to inject haz waste via deep well injection (injection chemicals in rock formations that do not supply drinking water), there are regs & disclosure that I must follow.

Then why don't these drilling companies have to disclose what they are injecting? It is the exact same concept as deep well injection of haz waste.

The main reason is without knowing what they are injecting, there is no economically feasible way for the general public to test their wells PRIOR to the fracking (this is called a baseline, so after the fracking the wells can be retested to check if the fracking polluted the wells). Sure the public could test for EVERY chemical compound prior to fracking & again after the fracking, but that is cost prohibitive. However it makes more sense to test for what is being injected.

We aren't asking for the exact recipe. We are just asking for the ingredients. No different than when Pepsi puts their ingredients on the side of a soda can. I can't exactly rip off Pepsi's recipe by their ingredients list. Why are these drilling companies so uptight about listing their ingredients?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.