The Wyoming Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the ruling of a Casper judge who found that ingredients used in fracking fluids are exempt from public disclosure.

The justices' unanimous decision was contrary to the argument of state regulators, who contended such ingredients qualified as so-called "trade secrets" and were not subject to public information requests under the Wyoming Public Records Act.

The Supreme Court stopped short of deciding the question of whether or not the components used in fracking fluids qualify as trade secrets, a designation intended to prevent the public disclosure of companies' valuable technology to competing firms.

It left that question to be resolved by the district court. The justices directed the lower court to reconsider environmentalists' public disclosure requests and determine on a case-by-case basis whether the ingredients sought deserve privacy protections.

The decision was applauded by the environmentalists and landowners who brought the case. They said the public has the right to know what substances are being used to frack oil and gas wells.

"If fracking operators don’t want to reveal what chemicals they use, they will have to prove that the chemicals are trade secrets, which means they shouldn’t be able to capriciously keep secrets from the public about dangerous chemicals," said Katherine O’Brien, the plaintiff's attorney.

In 2010, Wyoming became the first state in the country to require oil and gas companies to disclose the ingredients used in fracking fluids to state regulators.

But the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which is charged with regulating the industry, denied requests from environmentalists and landowners' groups to publicly disclose the components used in the fluids, arguing they were trade secrets.

Natrona County District Court Judge Catherine Wilking sided with the state after the Wyoming Outdoor Council and Powder River Basin Resource Council challenged the commission's ruling. The two groups appealed to the Supreme Court.

The high court's opinion reversed Wilking's decision. Wyoming's public records law requires state agencies to explain why a request for information is denied. The oil and gas commission did not do that, meaning the district court did not have enough information to decide whether the commission's ruling was right or wrong, the justices wrote.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to Natrona County, saying the lower court could allow the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their requests or dismiss the case altogether, which would enable the groups to bring a new suit.

"We think it sends a clear message to the oil and gas commission that these trade secret exemptions should be narrowly tailored and infrequently used," said Shannon Anderson, an organizer at the Powder River Basin Resource Council and one of the plaintiffs in the case. "We don’t want the formulas, the concentrations and amounts, but we do think the public has the right to know the chemicals used."

The decision is especially notable, as the court defined a trade secret under the state's public records law for the first time, Anderson said. The justices ultimately relied on the federal definition of the term, which applies a narrower meaning and fewer exemptions to public records law than what was sought by state attorneys.

"I think that is a big decision," Anderson said.

Lisa McGee, program director at the Wyoming Outdoor Council, noted the ruling was preliminary. The district court will ultimately decide if a list of fracking fluids should be disclosed to the public. But the high court's ruling was nonetheless welcome, she said.

"The practical implication of the decision is that the Wyoming Supreme Court values transparency and the Public Records Act," McGee said. "It found there should be a very narrow trade secret definition and err on the side of disclosure."

Gov. Matt Mead, who supported Wilking's original decision last year, said the state would wait for the outcome of the district court case.

"I believe our first-in-the-nation disclosure requirements are well-done, as evidenced by the fact that several states followed Wyoming’s lead in this area," the governor said in a statement. "A value of having state rules is that we can be nimble to make changes to the rules or to their implementation if such action is deemed necessary."

Grant Black, supervisor of the oil and gas commission, noted that he was new to the issue, having only begun in his position last year.

But he echoed Mead's comments, saying the commission would study the district court's final decision to see if it needs to amend the disclosure rule  to comply with the judge's ruling. 

"It is just an important issue," Black said. 

Halliburton, an oil field services company that intervened on behalf of the state, did not return requests for comment. 

Reach energy reporter Benjamin Storrow at 307-266-0535 or Follow him on Twitter @bstorrow

(8) comments


Protecting "Trade Secrets" and "Proprietary Formulas" have been the way that the chemical industry in this country has attempted fairly successfully to protect themselves from damage claims for years and years. I know because I spent 3 years working in the Call Center that the major producers put together to subvert Congressional mandates on HazMat clear back in the 1980's. CHEMTREC. I was the first woman ever to be hired to work there as a response coordinator..

There are laws on the books that require them to cleanup and be responsible for spills, leaks fires and exposures AND to provide that proprietary information to Doctors, emergency response personnel and to the PUBLIC if harm has occurred. They HAVE to tell - no matter how hard they wriggle.

I'm liking our Wyoming Supreme Court here lately :)


Another loss Mead. The x- us attorney doesn't seem to be doing very well with the Wsc.


He's decided to run again. Is there a way to get him impeached and prevent that ? I'm serious. The Machine will kick him in - Chris Christie (R-NJ) came out FOR him just yesterday - if we don't kick him out.

No Health Care, No environmental protections & NO SCIENCE Mead. No Weed Mead.

Wagons HO! Matt's Gotta GO!

Sub puppy

It's an OIL & GAS well. Who cares what they pump. It gets comes back to surface with production anyways. When was the last time someone asked the city what chemical are in our drinking water or what chemicals, bacteria are used to process waste water?


I care. Many people ask what is in our water, myself included when I see orange stalagmites growing in my bathroom. And the city does publish a annual report. Why do you think water filters and bottled water sells so well?? Anyone who drinks water, bathes or eats needs to know what we are intaking. So why are oil companies exempt?? Seems to me they are hiding some nasty stuff. Congratulations to Wyoming to be the first to stand up to big oil.


Sub puppy...very good question...when's the last time people cared about our water the cities are putting poison in...fluoride etc,etc,these greenies are not really worried about the water...they are trying to run up the cost of energy...probably funded by Saudi oil...when's the last time one of these greenie groups filed a law suit to get Fluoride out of our water...


rawhide, brilliant analysis but devoid of any factual basis. what planet do you live on?
maybe you could get james o' keefe to infiltrate and do a film exposing the great and powerful Wyoming Outdoor Council's collusion with OPEC to raise the price of energy.

Kool Kat

I'm disappointed that we can't have "dirty water - polluted air - while throwing grandma over a cliff". Now for reality's sakes, the report above "says", its case by case on what chemical fracking fluid is protected from what is not for disclosure.
Therefore, Oil and Gas Regulators through our Legislature will determine the laws for such a ruling, as the bench can not do that. As Sean Hannity might say, "I like dirty air and unclean water to drink as we throw grandma off the bridge", just as the Obamaites declare anyone not liberal/socialist to be.
And to those of you that drive your cars using gasoline and riding on tires and using antifreeze to power your cars and keep you warm in the cold. How terrible are the oil companies for producing such comforts for all of us.
And for all of you whom heat your home with natural gas and cooking stoves. How dare those nasty oil companies spend $millions on exploring, developing and delivering natural gas for your benefit. They are so evil.

But I say, thanks - this winter was cold and you offer fuel, antifreeze and home heating product that has helped me make it through this winter, thus far. You paid taxes for my roads, streets and schools to educate, among many vastly-under-reported taxes-for-public-benefit we never hear of, but see our Legislature spend.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
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.