time series analysis of energy production and associated ...10.1007/s00267-017-0925... · pierre et...

Pierre et al. — Time Series Analysis of Energy Production and Associated Landscape Fragmentation in the Eagle Ford Shale Play

1

Supplemental Figures and Tables

Time Series Analysis of Energy Production and Associated Landscape

Fragmentation in the Eagle Ford Shale Play

Jon Paul Pierre1,†, Michael H. Young1, Brad D. Wolaver1, John R. Andrews1, and Caroline L.

Breton1

1Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, Texas 78758, USA

mailto:[email protected]


2

Supplemental Figures


3

Fig. S1. Omernik ecoregions in study area (Omernik and Griffith, 2014).


4

Fig. S2. Approach used to identify landscape alteration from oil and gas infrastructure development.

Acquired NAIP for each time

series

Sorted wells to correlate with NAIP acquisition

dates

Classified NAIP Image

for each time step

Spatially correlated wells with

bare-ground areas only

Extracted areas

identified as well pads

Calculated well-pad and

created maps


5

Fig. S3. Percentage of county area altered by well-pad infrastructure. (a) 2008, (b) 2010, (c)

2012, and (d) 2014. Data sorted by quantiles.


6

Fig. S4. A comparison of landscape alteration between west and east for each period by each

type of alteration. Values above bars indicate landscape alteration areas (km2).

18

50

68

25

36

6168

47

115109

49

158

8

1826

13 11

2432

17

49 52

15

67

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Pads2008

Pipes2008

TotalO&G2008

Pads2010

Pipes2010

TotalO&G2010

Pads2012

Pipes2012

TotalO&G2012

Pads2014

Pipes2014

TotalO&G2014

Landscape A

ltera

tion (

km

2)

West East


7

Fig. S5. Intersection of O&G infrastructure development with previous-period core areas (left

vertical axis). Black line represents total alteration (right vertical axis). Note that axes have

different scales.

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2008 2010 2012 2014

Tota

l A

ltera

tion (

km

2)

Pad a

nd/o

r P

ipelin

e O

verlap (

km

2)

Time Period

Pad Overlap with PreviousCore

Pipeline Overlap withPrevious Core

Total alteration


8

Fig. S6. Changes in core areas compared to previous period. Dark orange indicates core-area loss

compared to previous periods; pale yellow represents core-area recovery compared to previous

periods. (a) 2008, (b) 2010, (c) 2012, and (d) 2014. Data sorted by quantiles.


9

Fig. S7. Comparison of cumulative core-area revegetation and alteration, as of 2014 period, for

eastern and western portions of study area.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Core revegetation since 2008 Core alteration since 2006

Co

re A

rea R

ev

eg

eta

tio

n o

r A

ltera

tio

n (

km

2) West East


10

Fig. S8. Percent of county area altered by infrastructure development (pads and pipelines). (a)

2008, (b) 2010, (c) 2012, and (d) 2014. Note that color scale is not linear. Data sorted by

quantiles.


11

Fig. S9. Comparison of land use per unit of energy produced for eastern and western portions of

study area.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2008 2010 2012 2014

Lan

d-u

se i

nte

nsit

y (

km

2/m

mB

OE

)

West East


12

Fig. S10. Percent of vegetation types altered in each period.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

NL

EG

Fore

st

CD

Mix

ed

Fore

st

CD

Fo

rest

Gra

ssla

nd

BLE

G F

ore

st

EG

Sh

rub

Barre

n

CD

Shru

b

Ma

rsh

Ro

w C

rops

Gra

ss F

arm

Urb

an H

igh

Urb

an L

ow

Ope

n W

ate

rP

erc

en

t V

eg

eta

tio

n T

yp

e A

ltere

d 2008 2010 2012 2014


13

Fig. S11. Percent of modeled land-cover types altered in eastern portion of study area.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NL

EG

Fore

st

CD

Mix

ed

Fore

st

CD

Fo

rest

Gra

ssla

nd

BLE

G F

ore

st

EG

Sh

rub

Barre

n

CD

Shru

b

Ma

rsh

Ro

w C

rops

Gra

ss F

arm

Urb

an H

igh

Urb

an L

ow

Ope

n W

ate

r

Perc

en

t V

eg

eta

tio

n T

yp

e A

lte

red 2008 2010 2012 2014


14

Fig. S12. Percent of modeled land-cover types altered in western portion of study area.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NL

EG

Fore

st

CD

Mix

ed

Fore

st

CD

Fo

rest

Gra

ssla

nd

BLE

G F

ore

st

EG

Sh

rub

Barre

n

CD

Shru

b

Ma

rsh

Ro

w C

rops

Gra

ss F

arm

Urb

an H

igh

Urb

an L

ow

Ope

n W

ate

r

Perc

en

t V

eg

eta

tio

n T

yp

e A

ltere

d

2008 2010 2012 2014


15

Fig. S13. Percent (1 ×102) of vegetation types removed in Southern Texas Plains ecoregion.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

NL

EG

Fore

st

CD

Mix

ed

Fore

st

CD

Fo

rest

Gra

ssla

nd

BLE

G F

ore

st

EG

Sh

rub

CD

Shru

b

Wood

land

Ma

rsh

Sw

am

p

Barre

n

Ro

w C

rops

Gra

ss F

arm

Urb

an H

igh

Urb

an L

ow

Ope

n W

ate

r

Perc

en

t (1×

102)

Veg

eta

tio

n T

yp

es A

ltere

d

2008 2010 2012 2014


16

Fig. S14 New drilling permits issued for each period for western and eastern portions of study

area. Numeric labels indicate percent increase or decrease for 2010–14.

-51%

304%

59%

-52%

211%

73%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2008 2010 2012 2014

New

drilli

ng p

erm

its issued

West East


17

Supplemental Tables


18

Table S1. 2008 unsupervised image-classification results and values used as altered landscape.

County

2008

Classes

Specified

2008

Classes

Returned

2008

Classes

Used as

Altered Special Notes

Atascosa 100 100 100 Bastrop 100 99 99 Bee 100 99 98–99 Brazos 100 75 75 Burleson 100 97 97 DeWitt 100 96 96 Dimmit 100 100 99–100 Fayette 100 100 95–100 Frio 100 100 95–100 Gonzales 100 95 95 Grimes 100 100 99–100 Karnes 100 95 92–95 La Salle 100 100 95–100 Lavaca 100 100 99–100 Lee 100 93 93 Leon 100 100 99–100 Live Oak 100 100 99–100 Madison 100 100 97–100 Maverick 100 100 95–100 McMullen 100 98 92–99 value 86 missing

Milam 100 98 98 Robertson 100 94 94 Walker 100 100 99–100 Washington 100 100 95–100 Webb V1 100 100 94–100 Webb V2 100 98 90–99 value 95 missing

Wilson 100 92 92 Zavala 100 100 90–100


19


County

2010

Classes

Specified

2010

Classes

Returned

2010

Classes

Used as


Atascosa 100 100 100 Bastrop 100 100 100 Bee 100 100 100 Brazos 100 100 100 Burleson 100 100 100 DeWitt 100 100 100 Dimmit 100 100 99–100 Fayette 100 100 100 Frio 100 100 95–100 Gonzales 100 100 100 Grimes 100 100 100 Karnes 100 100 100 La Salle 100 100 96–100 Lavaca 100 100 100 Lee 100 98 98 Leon 100 100 100 Live Oak 100 100 99–100 Madison 100 100 100 Maverick 100 100 95–100 McMullen 100 100 96–100 Milam 100 100 100 Robertson 100 100 100 Walker 100 100 93–100 Washington 100 100 100 Webb V1 100 100 97–100 Wilson 100 100 100 Zavala 100 100 98–100


20


County

2012

Classes

Specified

2012

Classes

Returned

2012

Classes

Used as


Atascosa 100 100 99–100 Bastrop 100 92 92 Bee 100 95 95–96 value 52 missing

Brazos 100 98 98 Burleson 100 100 100 DeWitt 100 89 89 Dimmit 100 100 97–100 Fayette 100 99 99 Frio 100 100 99–100 Gonzales 100 88 88 Grimes 100 100 100 Karnes 100 95 95 La Salle 100 98 98–99 value 4 missing

Lavaca 100 95 96 value 8 missing

Lee 100 90 91 value 90 missing

Leon 100 98 99 value 93 missing

Live Oak 100 100 100 Madison 100 100 100 Maverick 100 100 99–100 McMullen 100 100 99–100 Milam 100 100 100 Robertson 100 98 99 value 92 missing

Walker 100 100 100 Washington 100 98 99 value 15 missing

Webb V1 100 100 100 Wilson 100 89 89 Zavala 100 100 100


21


County

2014

Classes

Specified

2014

Classes

Returned

2014

Classes

Used as


Atascosa 100 100 100 Bastrop 100 97 97 Bee 100 98 98 Brazos 100 91 91 Burleson 100 91 92 value 90 missing

DeWitt 100 98 98 Dimmit 100 98 99 value 85 missing

Fayette 100 97 98 value 96 missing

Frio 100 100 98–100 Gonzales 100 94 94 Grimes 100 100 100 Karnes 100 95 93–95 La Salle 100 100 98–100 Lavaca 100 100 100 Lee 100 94 94 Leon 300 268 269 value 268 missing

Live Oak 100 100 100 Madison 100 100 99–100 Maverick 100 98 96–99 value 5 missing

McMullen 100 100 99–100 Milam 100 95 95 Robertson 100 96 96 Walker 100 98 99 value 97 missing

Washington 100 95 95 Webb V1 100 100 99–100 Wilson 100 98 98 Zavala 100 100 100


22

Table S5. Baseline modeled land cover for 27-county study area.

Baseline Modeled

Land Cover Percent

Barren 2.01

BLEG Forest 5.67

CD Forest 21.34

CD Mixed Forest 5.66

CD Shrub 19.15

EG Shrub 13.02

Grass Farm 0.04

Grassland 17.11

Marsh 0.83

NLEG Forest 1.50

Open Water 1.07

Row Crops 4.51

Swamp 0.03

Urban High 1.78

Urban Low 6.26

Woodland 0.00

Note: BLEG = broadleaf evergreen, CD = cold deciduous, EG = evergreen, NLEG = needle-leaf

evergreen.


23

Table S6. Oil and gas wells drilled by county.

County 2008 2010 2012 2014 Total

Atascosa 53 55 273 647 1,028

Bastrop 39 6 13 12 70

Bee 258 97 106 99 560

Brazos 44 28 36 285 393

Burleson 28 25 33 177 263

DeWitt 202 80 477 982 1,741

Dimmit 296 132 1,173 1,824 3,425

Fayette 41 14 44 130 229

Frio 65 31 207 279 582

Gonzales 13 44 520 890 1,467

Grimes 32 17 38 69 156

Karnes 74 124 952 1,543 2,693

La Salle 260 145 965 1,695 3,065

Lavaca 311 41 75 270 697

Lee 28 18 18 107 171

Leon 249 93 122 140 604

Live Oak 161 92 269 490 1,012

Madison 240 149 646 1,254 2,289

Maverick 26 33 76 305 440

McMullen 413 110 59 44 626

Milam 50 157 646 475 1,328

Robertson 495 164 147 64 870

Walker 16 5 6 27 54

Washington 15 7 8 33 63

Webb 1,107 524 965 1,096 3,692

Wilson 8 13 117 129 267

Zavala 63 24 167 292 546

Total 4,587 2,228 8,158 13,358 28,331


24

Table S7. Number of new well pads constructed per period by county.

County 2008 2010 2012 2014

Atascosa 13 56 243 453

Bastrop 22 31 37 42

Bee 167 219 348 334

Brazos 33 65 92 226

Burleson 25 47 75 162

DeWitt 126 196 521 807

Dimmit 186 291 854 1,149

Fayette 20 37 65 116

Frio 47 71 219 361

Gonzales 5 36 387 776

Grimes 11 45 77 119

Karnes 60 110 763 1,363

La Salle 215 316 837 1,539

Lavaca 223 252 224 393

Lee 14 28 54 98

Leon 121 280 375 470

Live Oak 100 167 396 598

Madison 14 41 107 292

Maverick 337 504 567 611

McMullen 188 292 690 1,118

Milam 10 35 300 404

Robertson 372 543 635 673

Walker 6 15 12 37

Washington 13 12 21 40

Webb 1,020 1,468 1,687 2,384

Wilson 0 7 81 160

Zavala 56 53 163 286

Total 3,404 5,217 9,830 15,011


25

Table S8. Cumulative landscape alteration from well pads (total km2 per county).

County 2008 2010 2012 2014

Atascosa 0.1 0.4 3.1 5.5

Bastrop 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Bee 1.3 1.0 2.0 1.5

Brazos 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.4

Burleson 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.5

DeWitt 0.9 1.6 7.3 11.3

Dimmit 1.1 1.8 11.5 11.8

Fayette 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.2

Frio 0.2 0.4 2.2 4.0

Gonzales 0.0 0.3 5.7 7.5

Grimes 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.1

Karnes 0.6 1.0 10.4 21.8

La Salle 1.3 2.1 10.8 21.7

Lavaca 1.5 1.1 1.2 2.7

Lee 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.9

Leon 0.5 1.9 2.1 2.7

Live Oak 0.7 1.1 4.9 7.6

Madison 0.0 0.3 1.1 3.6

Maverick 1.6 3.4 3.3 4.5

McMullen 1.3 2.3 9.0 15.2

Milam 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.6

Robertson 2.6 4.9 4.7 4.5

Walker 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4

Washington 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Webb 11.0 12.7 13.7 21.9

Wilson 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.7

Zavala 0.4 0.2 1.8 2.7

Total 25.8 38.3 99.9 160.8


26

Table S9. Cumulative landscape alteration from pipelines (total km2 per county).

County 2008 2010 2012 2014

Atascosa 0.7 0.4 2.2 0.9

Bastrop 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Bee 1.3 0.5 2.8 2.0

Brazos 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.8

Burleson 1.5 1.0 2.0 0.8

DeWitt 0.6 0.7 1.6 1.8

Dimmit 2.2 2.4 10.1 3.2

Fayette 0.8 1.1 1.5 0.7

Frio 2.9 1.5 1.5 2.0

Gonzales 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.6

Grimes 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.4

Karnes 6.5 0.7 2.4 7.5

La Salle 3.7 4.1 6.0 7.7

Lavaca 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.0

Lee 1.5 0.6 2.6 0.7

Leon 2.2 0.8 0.5 0.8

Live Oak 1.5 1.3 3.8 2.1

Madison 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.6

Maverick 1.4 1.8 1.5 2.0

McMullen 3.9 2.3 5.8 4.4

Milam 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1

Robertson 0.9 1.5 1.1 1.2

Walker 0.7 1.7 0.2 0.1

Washington 2.4 0.3 0.8 0.3

Webb 27.3 20.4 12.5 20.7

Wilson 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5

Zavala 2.1 0.8 1.1 1.0

Total 68.7 47.1 64.6 64.2


27

Table S10. Number of wells per pad by county.

County 2006–08 2008–10 2010–12 2012–14

Atascosa 1.08 1.07 1.33 1.81

Bastrop 1.18 1.32 1.32 1.48

Bee 1.09 1.12 1.16 1.16

Brazos 1.61 1.57 1.67 1.99

Burleson 2.24 2.02 2.55 2.14

DeWitt 1.13 1.19 1.31 1.89

Dimmit 1.22 1.33 1.83 2.57

Fayette 1.3 1.41 1.49 1.97

Frio 1.06 1.14 1.29 1.6

Gonzales 1.2 1.08 1.41 1.83

Grimes 1 1.58 1.53 1.61

Karnes 1.12 1.22 1.4 1.95

La Salle 1.05 1.09 1.39 1.86

Lavaca 1.1 1.13 1.19 1.46

Lee 1.43 1.46 1.59 1.69

Leon 1.09 1.19 1.25 1.3

Live Oak 1.16 1.14 1.17 1.51

Madison 1.07 1.32 1.31 1.54

Maverick 1.18 1.17 1.18 1.23

McMullen 1.04 1.06 1.38 1.87

Milam 1.1 1.43 1.84 2

Robertson 1.1 1.14 1.22 1.24

Walker 1 1.2 1.83 1.38

Washington 1.23 1.5 1.52 1.4

Webb 1.06 1.07 1.26 1.44

Wilson 0 1.71 1.33 1.38

Zavala 1.27 1.64 1.47 1.77

time series analysis of energy production and associated ...10.1007/s00267-017-0925... · pierre et...

Documents