Fracking: Errors In Reporting, Anomalies, Testing? -- August 12, 2020

We now have two interesting situations. 

In the first case, posted some time ago, FracFocus suggesting no sand was used in fracking these two wells (which I highly doubt):

• #34601, $34602 -- no sand in these two fracks?

And now, three wells in which the water by mass was only 60%. Normally, water by mass ranges from 88% to 92%:

• 35600, SI/NC, Enerplus, Alto 149-94-33C-28H-TF, Eagle Nest, t--; cum 124K 6/20; did not shut down; however, only 24 days in 6/20; a 28K month; from Fracfocus: 5.6 million gallons of water, moderate (almost small) frack; fourteen days to frack; water: 59.99% by mass; if that's accurate, that's remarkable; generally, water by mass runs 87% to 92%;
• 35599, SI/NC, Enerplus, Haze 149-94-33C-28H-TF, Eagle Nest, t--; cum 141K 6/20; did not shut down; 29 days in 6/20; a 34K month; from Fracfocus: 8.3 million gallons of water, moderately large frack; fourteen days to frack; water: 60.57% by mass; if that's accurate, that's remarkable; generally, water by mass runs 87% to 92%;
• 35598, SI/NC, Enerplus, Vapor 149-94-33C-28H-TF, Eagle Nest, t--; cum 93K 6/20; did not shut down, but only 10 days in 6/20; a 33K month; from Fracfocus: 8.5 million gallons of water, moderately large frack; fourteen days to frack; water: 60.66% by mass; if that's accurate, that's remarkable; generally, water by mass runs 87% to 92%;