Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Time Series Analysis of Energy Production and Associated Landscape Fragmentation in the Eagle Ford Shale Play

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Spatio-temporal trends in infrastructure footprints, energy production, and landscape alteration were assessed for the Eagle Ford Shale of Texas. The period of analysis was over four 2-year periods (2006–2014). Analyses used high-resolution imagery, as well as pipeline data to map EF infrastructure. Landscape conditions from 2006 were used as baseline. Results indicate that infrastructure footprints varied from 94.5 km2 in 2008 to 225.0 km2 in 2014. By 2014, decreased land-use intensities (ratio of land alteration to energy production) were noted play-wide. Core-area alteration by period was highest (3331.6 km2) in 2008 at the onset of play development, and increased from 582.3 to 3913.9 km2 by 2014, though substantial revegetation of localized core areas was observed throughout the study (i.e., alteration improved in some areas and worsened in others). Land-use intensity in the eastern portion of the play was consistently lower than that in the western portion, while core alteration remained relatively constant east to west. Land alteration from pipeline construction was ~65 km2 for all time periods, except in 2010 when alteration was recorded at 47 km2. Percent of total alteration from well-pad construction increased from 27.3% in 2008 to 71.5% in 2014. The average number of wells per pad across all 27 counties increased from 1.15 to 1.7. This study presents a framework for mapping landscape alteration from oil and gas infrastructure development. However, the framework could be applied to other energy development programs, such as wind or solar fields, or any other regional infrastructure development program.

Graphical abstract

Landscape alteration caused by hydrocarbon pipeline installation in Val Verde County, Texas

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahams LS, Griffin WM, Matthews HS (2015) Assessment of policies to reduce core forest fragmentation from Marcellus shale development in Pennsylvania. Ecol Indic 52:153–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G et al. (2003) The application of “least-cost” modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allred BW, Smith WK, Twidwell D et al. (2015) Ecosystem services lost to oil and gas in North America. Science 348:401–402. doi:10.1126/science.aaa4785

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Antoniuk T, Manuel K, Sutherland M, Bowen JT (2009) In situ oil sands footprint monitoring project. Prepared by the ALCES Group for Alberta Environment, Land Monitoring Team, Edmonton, p 125

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts M (2009) Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritisation. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (Eds) Chapter 14: Pages 185-195 in Spatial conservation prioritisation: Quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogard H, Davis S (2014) Grassland songbirds exhibit variable responses to the proximity and density of natural gas wells. J Wildl Manage 78:471–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo A, Hellerstein D, Nickerson C, Myers C (2006) Balancing the multiple objectives of conservation programs. USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C. p 58

  • Copeland HE, Doherty KE, Naugle DE et al. (2009) Mapping oil and gas development potential in the US Intermountain West and estimating impacts to species. PLoS ONE 4:e7400. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diffendorfer JE, Compton RW (2014) Land cover and topography affect the land transformation caused by wind facilities. PLoS ONE 9:e88914. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drohan PJ, Brittingham M, Bishop J, Yoder K (2012) Early trends in landcover change and forest fragmentation due to shale-gas development in Pennsylvania: a potential outcome for the Northcentral Appalachians. Environ Manage 49:1061–1075. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9841-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot LF, Treuer-Kuehn A, Blodgett CF, et al. (2009a–2014a) Ecological systems of Texas: 391 mapped types. Phase 1–6, 10-meter resolution geodatabase, interpretive guides, and technical type descriptions. Texas Parks & Wildlife Department and Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/gis/data/downloads#EMS-T

  • Elliot LF, Treuer-Kuehn A, Blodgett CF, et al. (2009b–2014b) Ecological systems of Texas: 391 mapped types. System cross-walked table–simplified. http://tpwd.texas.gov/gis/programs/landscape-ecology/supporting-documents/system-cross-walked-table-simplified/view

  • Entrekin S, Evans-White M, Johnson B, Hagenbuch E (2011) Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Front Ecol Environ 9:503–511. doi:10.1890/110053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng D, Hu Y, Tung C (2015) Study on vegetation recovery of gas fields in Sichuan Province, China. Nat Environ Pollut Technol 14:101–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink CM, Drohan PJ (2015) Dynamic soil property change in response to reclamation following northern Appalachian natural gas infrastructure development. Soil Sci Soc Am J 79:146–154. doi:10.2136/sssaj2014.10.0397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr Anal 24:189–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Great Sand Hills Scientific Advisory Committee (2007) Great Sand Hills Regional Environmental Study, Saskatchewan, Canada p 233

  • Hentz TF, Ambrose WA, Smith DC (2014) Eaglebine play of the southwestern East Texas basin: stratigraphic and depositional framework of the Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian—Turonian) Woodbine and Eagle Ford groups. AAPG Bull 98:2551–2580. doi:10.1306/07071413232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell CA, Dijak WD, Thompson FR (2006) Landscape context and selection for forest edge by breeding Brown-headed Cowbirds. Landsc Ecol 22:273–284. doi:10.1007/s10980-006-9022-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IHS, Information Handling Services (2016), Inc., https://www.ihs.com/products/oil-gas-tools-enerdeq-browser.html. Accessed 21 May 2016

  • International Energy Agency (2016) World Energy Outlook. Paris, France

  • Jenks GF (1967) The data model concept in statistical mapping. International yearbook of cartography 7:186–190

  • Johnson N (2010) Pennsylvania energy impacts assessment. Report 1. The Nature Conservancy, Harrisburg, PA. http://www.nature.org/media/pa/tnc_energy_analysis.pdf

  • Jones NF, Pejchar L, Kiesecker JM (2015) The energy footprint: how oil, natural gas, and wind energy affect land for biodiversity and the flow of ecosystem services. BioScience 65:290–301. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovich JE, Ennen JR (2011) Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the Desert Southwest, United States. BioScience 61:982–992. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin R, Baihly J, Malpani R et al. (2011) Understanding production form Eagle Ford-Austin Chalk system. Soc Pet Eng 145117:28

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Fargione J, Kiesecker J et al. (2009) Energy sprawl or energy efficiency: climate policy impacts on natural habitat for the United States of America. PLoS ONE 4:e6802. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0335:CEOEAT]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milt AW, Gagnolet TD, Armsworth PR (2016a) Synergies and tradeoffs among environmental impacts under conservation planning of shale gas surface infrastructure. Environ Manage 57:21–30. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0592-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milt AW, Gagnolet TD, Armsworth PR (2016b) The costs of avoiding environmental impacts from shale-gas surface infrastructure. Conserv Biol 30:1151–1158. doi:10.1111/cobi.12766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran MD, Taylor NT, Mullins TF, Sardar SS, McClung MR (2017) Land-use and ecosystem services costs of unconventional US oil and gas development. Front Ecol Environ 15(5):237–242. doi:10.1002/fee.1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasen LC, Novle BF, Johnstone (2011) Environmental effects of oil and gas lease sites in a grassland ecosystem. J. Env. Manage 92:195–204. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAIP/USDA-NAIP (2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014) U.S. Department of Agriculture Aerial Photography Field Office. Acquired August 20, 2015, from Aerial Photography Field Office

  • Nicot J-P, Scanlon BR (2012) Water use for shale-gas production in Texas, U.S. Environ Sci Technol 46:3580–3586. doi:10.1021/es204602t

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF, Cooperrider A (1994) Saving nature’s legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM, Griffith GE (2014) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: evolution of a hierarchical spatial framework. Environ Manage 54:1249–1266. doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0364-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parke N (2012) The Texas oil and gas industry vs. the dunes sagebrush lizard: how the Texas habitat conservation plan saved more than just a lizard. Tex Environ Law J 43:71–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333:1289–1291. doi:10.1126/science.1208742

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pierre JP, Abolt CJ, Young MH (2015) Impacts from above-ground activities in the Eagle Ford Shale play on landscapes and hydrologic flows, La Salle County, Texas. Environ Manage 1–14. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0492-2

  • Pitman JC, Hagen CA, Robel RJ et al. (2005) Location and success of lesser prairie-chicken nests in relation to vegetation and human disturbance. J Wildl Manag 69:1259–1269. doi:10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[1259:LASOLP]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston T (2015) Presence and abundance of non-native plant species associated with recent energy development in the Williston Basin. Env Monit Assess 187:200. doi:10.1007/s10661-015-4408-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRISM Climate Group at Oregon State University (2012) Average annual precipitation in the State of Texas, for climatological period 1961–1990. http://prism.oregonstate.edu. Accessed 7 July 2012

  • RRC: The Railroad Commission of Texas (2014) Pipelines (Shapefile GIS dataset derived from RRC T-4 Permit [“Application for Permit to Operate a Pipeline in Texas”] applications to facilitate regulatory functions of the Pipeline Safety Section of the RRC). Received 28 August 2014

  • RRC: The Railroad Commission of Texas (2016). Railroad Commission Texas mission statement. http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/. Accessed 3 Jun 2016

  • Sawyer H, Nielson RM, Lindzey F, McDonald LL (2006) Winter habitat selection of mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field. J Wildl Manag 70:396–403. doi:10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[396:WHSOMD]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J et al. (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:8349–8356. doi:10.1073/pnas.1210595110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon BR, Reedy RC, Nicot J-P (2014a) Comparison of water use for hydraulic fracturing for unconventional oil and gas versus conventional oil. Environ Sci Technol. doi:10.1021/es502506v

  • Scanlon BR, Reedy RC, Nicot J-P (2014b) Will water scarcity in semiarid regions limit hydraulic fracturing of shale plays? Environ Res Letters 9:124011. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schadt S, Knauer F, Kaczensky P et al. (2002) Rule-based assessment of suitable habitat and patch connectivity for the Eurasian lynx. Ecol Appl 12:1469–1483. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1469:RBAOSH]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slonecker ET, Milheim LE (2015) Landscape disturbance from unconventional and conventional oil and gas development in the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania, USA. Environments 2:200–220. doi:10.3390/environments2020200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soille P, Vogt P (2009) Morphological segmentation of binary patterns. Pattern Recognit Lett 30:456–459. doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2008.10.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen T, Mcloughlin PD, Hervieux D et al. (2008) Determining sustainable levels of cumulative effects for boreal caribou. J Wildl Manage 72:900–905. doi:10.2193/2007-079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Texas Natural Resources Information System (2016) Urbanized areas in Texas. https://tnris.org/data-catalog/entry/urban-areas/

  • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (2012a) Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012–2016: South Texas plains handbook. Connally W (ed), Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. Austin, Texas

  • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (2012b) Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012–2016: East Central Texas Plains Handbook. Connally W (ed), Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. Austin, Texas

  • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (2012c) Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012–2016: Texas Blackland Prairies Handbook. Connally W (ed), Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. Austin, Texas

  • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (2012d) Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012–2016: Western Gulf Coastal Plain Handbook. Connally W (ed), Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. Austin, Texas

  • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (2012e) Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012–2016: Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes Handbook. Connally W (ed), Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. Austin, Texas

  • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (2016) Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD). http://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/txndd/. Accessed 1 November 2016

  • Thompson SJ, Johnson DH, Niemuth ND, Ribic CA (2015) Avoidance of unconventional oil wells and roads exacerbates habitat loss for grassland birds in the North American Great Plains. Biol Conserv 192:82–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne JH, Huber PR, Girvetz EH, Quinn J, McCoy MC (2009) Integration of regional mitigation assessment and conservation planning. Ecol and Society 14(1):47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoutsos T, Frantzeskaki N, Gekas V (2005) Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies. Energy Policy 33:289–296. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00241-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TXDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) (2015) TXDOT Roadways 2014. http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/roadway-inventory.html. Accessed 31 March 2016

  • TXDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) (2016) TXDOT Roadways 2015. https://tnris.org/data-download/#!/statewide. Accessed 31 March 2016

  • Unger D, Hung I, Farrish KW, et al. (2015) Quantifying land cover change due to petroleum exploration and production in the Haynesville Shale region using remote sensing. Faculty publications, Nacogdoches, TX. Paper 43. doi:10.4018/ijagr.2015040101.

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017) Drilling productivity report. http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/dpr-full.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2017

  • Vogt P, Riitters KH, Estreguil C et al. (2007) Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landsc Ecol 22:171–177. doi:10.1007/s10980-006-9013-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1999) The diversity of life. W. W. Norton & Company, New York City, NY

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was made available by the JPMorgan Chase Foundation. We appreciate the support of the Railroad Commission of Texas, which provided data on locations of pipelines. Publication was authorized by the Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon Paul Pierre.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pierre, J.P., Young, M.H., Wolaver, B.D. et al. Time Series Analysis of Energy Production and Associated Landscape Fragmentation in the Eagle Ford Shale Play. Environmental Management 60, 852–866 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0925-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0925-1

Keywords

Navigation