IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Hydraulic fracturing chemicals reporting: Analysis of available data and recommendations for policymakers

Listed author(s):
  • Konschnik, Katherine
  • Dayalu, Archana
Registered author(s):

    Twenty-eight states require disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals. Twenty-three states direct reporting to FracFocus; additionally, companies in other states use this registry. FracFocus contains the most comprehensive dataset on fracturing chemicals but faces data quality and transparency criticisms. In response, FracFocus announced upgrades, and since May 2015, publishes aggregated data. We used Linux and R version 3.2.0 to clean and analyze 96,449 forms submitted between March 9, 2011 and April 13, 2015 for accuracy, completeness, and timeliness. We characterize data, and compare results to state law and industry practice, to suggest how to induce more accurate and complete disclosures. We find that rates of withheld chemical information have increased since 2013, and appear unaffected by different legal requirements. However, when companies report fracturing chemicals without attribution to the specific products in the fracturing fluid (a “systems approach” to reporting), withholding rates drop four-fold. State deadlines shortened reporting timelines, but compliance rates are low absent indication states will enforce. Automatic field population and prompts in FracFocus can reduce data error, while enforcement signals, education, and harmonized requirements may boost compliance and enhance disclosure. Systems reporting should occur, with states retaining authority to request product-specific ingredient lists.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Policy.

    Volume (Year): 88 (2016)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 504-514

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:88:y:2016:i:c:p:504-514
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.002
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:88:y:2016:i:c:p:504-514. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.