What the Frack? Wyoming's Fracking Chemical Disclosure Law Loophole

I knew it had to be too good to be true; mention of the loophole was out there, but I just missed it.  

Much was made when Wyoming, not known for its hostility to the energy industry, passed a law  last September requiring companies to disclose the chemicals injected during their fracking operations.

Well, High Country News recently contained this gem in a story by Sierra Crane-Murdoch:

Chemical lists like this one weren't publicly available until September 2010, when Wyoming adopted an unprecedented rule requiring companies to publicly disclose them amid rising concern about fracking's potential health effects. But a loophole in the law still allows companies to hide recipes by applying for "trade secret status" -- something the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has granted for about 70 fracking products. The public may know more than before, but not quite enough to understand the full range of hazards.

I had wondered why Wyoming's energy companies did not put up more of a fight against this regulation. Now I know why, and it was not out of concern for the the public's welfare.

Alas, too good to be true, but better than before.

So did Wyoming expect a lot of exceptions? From a story last September in ProPublica:

Drillers retain the right to claim that certain details of the chemical mix are proprietary and should be kept confidential. It remains unclear to what extent industry will make this claim, but the commission’s supervisor, Tom Doll, expects those cases will be the exception.

Trade secret status for about 70 products? Exceptions? See today's quote.

“What we’ve explained to the operators and what we expect is each of these components, whatever is in that mix, will have to be disclosed,.” -- Tom Doll, WOGCC Supervisor

Comments

[B B Davis]

Since this time, the chemicals were released BUT still not all inclusive, so then Wyoming filed suit. See more http://www.squidoo.com/hydrofracking-and-updates

[nb'er]

The same is the case for the new "dislosure" regulation in Arkansas