Oil rig counts in the Eagle Ford Shale region began to rise after bottoming in 2016, and are expected to continue rising steadily in 2017.

 

SAN ANTONIO, (June 21, 2017) – Commissioned by the South Texas Energy and Economic Roundtable (STEER), The University of Texas at San Antonio’s (UTSA) Center for Community and Business Research (CCBR) completed the latest Eagle Ford Shale (EFS) study in June. The study titled, “Economic Impact of the Eagle Ford Shale, Business Opportunities and the New Normal” provides new trend data and updated economic impact analysis across 2014, 2015 and, 2016.

Dr. Thomas Tunstall, senior research director for CCBR, which is hosted at UTSA’s Institute for Economic Development, led the study with his team of researchers. “Our report indicates that the decrease in economic impact bottomed out in 2016 and appears to have turned the corner. Oil prices in 2017 are higher and rig counts have risen from their lows last year,” Tunstall said.

After several years of unprecedented growth, the Eagle Ford Shale experienced a sharp decline in oil prices. The decline may have negatively impacted businesses and jobs in the area, however the current scenario offers more job opportunities in the region when compared to past decades of declining population and jobs in several counties in the shale area.

Gross output from Eagle Ford activity across the 21 county area jumped from $87 billion in 2013 to $123 billion in 2014. In the years since the peak occurred in 2014, gross output from Eagle Ford activity fell to $80 billion in 2015, and again in 2016 to $50 billion. And, while jobs supported by the Eagle Ford also peaked in 2014 at 191,153, up from 154,984 in 2013, by 2016, the number of jobs supported had fallen to 108,213.

“Although we experienced a decrease in jobs and economic impact in 2015 and 2016, we continue to see that the oil and gas industry is essential to the livelihood of South Texas. With more than 100,000 jobs and $55 billion in economic output last year, the results of the UTSA study further illustrates the importance of the oil and gas industry to South Texans. The industry in South Texas brought much needed infrastructure along with a sustainable source of income to the area. Sustained growth will further benefit the region through an increased tax base along with increased job and educational opportunities,” said Omar Garcia, president and CEO of STEER.

Since August 2014, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil price dropped from more than $100 per barrel to $43.4 by March 2015, and by February 2016 it was close to $26.2 per barrel. Since then however, the price has recovered and by January 2017 it had reached $53.0 per barrel, signaling important opportunities for future growth as the price more than doubled in less than one year.

Additionally, a variety of industry sectors have also grown in the Eagle Ford area; many, but not all, are directly or indirectly associated with oil and gas activity. In 2015, U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico topped one trillion cubic feet annually – a new record. And, in 2016, U.S. natural gas production reached an annual record of 28 trillion cubic feet.

The Study provides analysis for the 21-county study area as a whole, both the Eagle Ford Shale 15-county core area as a whole (Atascosa, Bee, DeWitt, Dimmit, Frio, Gonzales, Karnes, La Salle, Lavaca, Live Oak, McMullen, Maverick, Webb, Wilson, and Zavala) and the six adjacent counties as a whole (Bexar, Jim Wells, Nueces, San Patricio, Victoria, and Uvalde). The second phase of the Study includes breakouts for all 21 counties individually and compares inter-industry relationships from 2010-2015. The comparison of different multipliers demonstrates how employment and production have been affected in the area.

UTSA and STEER representatives plan on traveling to Eagle Ford cities in late June to discuss the results of the 2017 Eagle Ford Shale Economic Impact Study with community leaders and the general public. The tour follows the Eagle Ford Consortium Inc.’s (EFCI) annual conference, which focused on the ongoing activity of the Eagle Ford and was hosted at UTSA’s downtown campus from June 7-8.

“The Eagle Ford Shale play became a boon to the South Texas economy, and provided an opportunity to boost local infrastructure. Our region is well positioned for a successful future as local area production picks back up. South Texas has become an export leader in the energy products realm. We are committed to continued sustainable growth,” said John LaRue, Port Corpus Christi executive director.

Access the Full Study: “Economic Impact of the Eagle Ford Shale, Business Opportunities and the New Normal” at bit.ly/EFS_Report2017

---

Center for Community and Business Research: ccbr.iedtexas.org

Institute for Economic Development: iedtexas.org

About the UTSA Institute for Economic Development
The UTSA Institute for Economic Development is dedicated to growing businesses, creating jobs and fostering economic development. Focused on building the economy one business at a time, the Institute consists of 10 centers and programs that provide professional business advising, technical training, research and strategic planning for entrepreneurs, business owners and community leaders. These programs serve Greater San Antonio, the Texas-Mexico border area as well as regional, national and international stakeholders. Together with the federal, state and local governments, and private businesses, the UTSA Institute for Economic Development fosters economic and community development in support of UTSA’s community engagement mission. In 2016, the Institute generated direct regional economic impact of 7,517 jobs, started 591 new businesses, $447 million in new financing, $78 million in new tax revenue and exceeded $1.4 billion in new sales, exports and contracts.

For more information, contact
Jennilee Garza, Senior Communications Coordinator
Institute for Economic Development
Phone: 210-458-2958
jennilee.garza@utsa.edu

The Office of the Governor contracted with CCBR to investigate the economic impact of Texas businesses with fewer than 100 employees and to identify factors that contribute to their success or failure. In order to achieve this goal, a multi-prong approach was taken that includes:

• Economic analyses estimating the impacts of small business based on region, industry and size
• Exploring and analyzing issues of small business ownership, birth and death rates of small businesses and their impacts on job creation and destruction
• Examining processes associated with export opportunities for small businesses in Texas, as well as providing input from a sample of city managers and economic development directors
• Compiling a summary of relevant literature identifying potential indicators that may impact small business activity

 

Key Takeaways

• In 2012, small firms, defined by the Small Business Administration as those with fewer than 500 employees, represented 98.6% of Texas employers. A more useful definition may be SBF100 firms (those employing less than 100 workers) by putting more emphasis on the most entre preneurial sector of the economy.
• In 2012, SBF100 firms hired roughly 3 million workers and had an estimated total economic impact of $844 billion in gross output.
• Of these firms, the construction ($68.8 billion), professional-scientific & technical services ($68.1 billion), retail trade ($62.4 billion) and health & social services ($53.6 billion) sectors had the most impact.
• SBF 100 firms in 2012 generated $13.866 billion in state revenue and $14.965 billion in federal revenue.
• Studies have shown that SBF 100 firms provided experience and on-the-job training to a broader segment of the population, on average, than larger firms do.
• Studies have also shown that children of small business owners are more likely to start small businesses of their own.
• A growing portion of the workforce, known as “giggers”, have found autonomy and increased income by putting their higher skillsets to work in multiple temporary work assignments. This portion is projected to rise, placing growing importance on the need to understand the issues associated with it.
• Recent studies have shown that job creation does not depend on firm size, but rather on firm age. In other words, newer small firms likely create more jobs (on their way to becoming large firms) than older small firms.
• Rural areas in Texas, as well as the entire US, are transitioning from an agricultural and manufacturing-dominated economy to a more sustainable and diverse urban-rural interdependence model.
• Cities with a higher concentration of creative class workers are more resilient in turbulent economic times, but studies point to the lack of focus on negative impacts this has on low-income workers dealing with higher costs of living.
• Small business development is greatly discouraged by the lack of capital, assets, information, and proper management.

 

---

Download the Full Report at: http://bit.ly/TXsmallbizimpact2016

Download the Executive Summary at: http://bit.ly/TXsmallbizimpact16_execsum

---

The University of Texas at San Antonio’s Institute for Economic Development, the Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, the Asociación de Empresarios Mexicanos, and the Woodrow Wilson Center are set to release a preliminary report to gauge the growth and the effects that the oil and natural gas industry will have for residents and decision makers in Mexico.

The report contains a general overview on the Energy Reform, an economic background on oil and natural gas (especially trade between US and México) a state level profile, infrastructure and educational certificates specific to oil and natural gas education. The core study area concentrates on the economic impact on the following Mexican states: Coahuila, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas and Veracruz.

“Opportunities for unconventional or shale oil and gas productions in Mexico are in the earliest stages of development. Due to its close proximity to major shale field development in South and West Texas, Mexico is particularly well positioned to take advantage of unconventional extraction techniques,” said Thomas Tunstall, research director at the UTSA Institute for Economic Development.

After being elected in 2012, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto worked with other ruling parties to create a “Pact for Mexico” which included 11 important reforms, one of which was energy. The initial proposed reforms focused on removing hydrocarbons from the sectors controlled directly by the government. Thus opening up oil and gas fields through exploration and production contracts with the Mexican government, as well the granting of permits for the development of a robust and well-integrated hydrocarbons infrastructure.

México sits atop an estimated 545 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of shale natural gas reserves, and additional trillions of cubic feet of conventional reserves. The bulk of México’s shale prospects appear to lie in the north and northeastern sections of the country, where infrastructure is often largely undeveloped. This means that in order to tap the country’s bounty of shale oil and gas, infrastructure such as roads, housing, rail, pipeline and many others will have to be built out first. The ability to develop a suitably skilled workforce will be key to long-term success. Security issues must also be addressed.

The second part of the report introduces a preliminary Business Roadmap, A Guide for the Operator, which briefly describes the necessary steps a prospective operator in the upstream activity in Mexico will have to comply with in order to expand or initiate operations in Mexico.

——————————
Download the full preliminary report at : http://bit.ly/Mexico-OilGas-Prelim

Descargue el informe preliminar completo en : http://bit.ly/Mexico-OilGas-Prelim-ESP 
——————————

The University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic Development released a study today showing that three State grants to support natural gas programs generated $128 million in economic impact, generated $79.1 million in gross state product and supported 927 full-time jobs in 2014. The three grants, totaling $52.9 million, generated that impact by supporting the construction of new natural gas fueling stations and the adoption of natural gas vehicles.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) administered the three grants: the Clean Transportation Triangle (CTT), the Alternative Fueling Facilities Program (AFFP) and the Texas Natural Gas Vehicle Program (TNGVP).

The CTT and AFFP encourage the building of natural gas fueling infrastructure to connect Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin, and Houston – an area known as the Texas Triangle – and to support fleets and other drivers of alternative fuel vehicles. The Texas Triangle comprises 60,000 square miles and is home to more than 70 percent of the state’s residents.

The Texas Natural Gas Vehicle Program (TNGVP) enables companies that own or operate heavy/medium duty motor vehicles to repower those vehicles with a natural gas engine, or replace those vehicles with natural gas vehicles.

The CTT and AFFP grants totaled nearly $21 million and supported 54 natural gas station applicants from 2012 to 2014. The TNGVP grants, $32 million, supported 618 natural gas vehicle purchases and four vehicle conversations for 50 applicants from 2012 to 2014.

“Our research shows that public investment in natural gas fueling stations and the vehicles they support are positively and significantly impacting the Texas economy by providing jobs and improving air quality for the state,” said Tom Tunstall, director of research at the UTSA Institute of Economic Development.

UTSA’s research also found that, in 2013, the three TCEQ grants generated $30.2 million in economic output, $14.7 in gross state product and 132 full-time jobs.

Rep. Isaac quote: “We all want to keep our economy strong and our air clean, and this study shows how the Texas Clean Transportation Triangle helps us do exactly that,” Isaac said. “That’s why I filed HB 652 to block efforts of transferring state revenue away from the fund that supports the Triangle. We have a broad coalition, including Sierra Club, Texas Chemical Council, America’s Natural Gas Alliance, Texas Association of Business, and the City of Austin, among others, which shows that this is an issue that transcends party lines.”

State monies provided by the incentive grants contributed approximately 25 percent of the total of private sector investment in facilities spending, and provided a highly beneficial and positive economic impact for Texas related to jobs, environmental sustainability, energy independence, and the strength of Texas industry and its citizens.

UTSA economists predict that the impact of the three grants will skyrocket in 2018, generating:

• $484 million in total economic output
• $302 million gross state product, and
• 3,076 full-time jobs

Newly released data from the Texas Railroad Commission shows that natural gas vehicles (NGVs) are the most popular alternative fuel vehicles in the state, with more than 7,000 NGVs currently in operation. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline or diesel fuels because of its lower carbon content.

“Natural gas is generating big benefits for Texas,” said Texas Railroad Commissioner David Porter. “By investing in programs like the Texas Clean Transportation Triangle and my Natural Gas Initiative to get more natural gas vehicles on Texas roads, we’re supporting Texas jobs and keeping our economy strong. This study is a great reminder that when we use more Texas-produced natural gas to make vehicle fleets cleaner, we all benefit.”

The UTSA Institute for Economic Development is dedicated to creating jobs, growing businesses and fostering economic development. Its 12 centers and programs provide professional business advising, technical training, research and strategic planning to entrepreneurs, business owners and community leaders.

Other institute research reports include Economic Impact of Oil and Gas Activities in the West Texas Energy Consortium Region (December 2013), Economic Impact of the Eagle Ford Shale (March 2013), Eagle Ford Shale Economic Impact and Workforce Analysis (October 2012) and other studies.

Economic Impacts of Natural Gas Fueling Station Infrastructure and Vehicle Conversions in the Texas Clean Transportation Triangle was prepared by the Center for Community and Business Research at the UTSA Institute for Economic Development. The research was supported with funding from America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA).

——————————

View the full report: CLICK HERE.

View the report’s executive summary: CLICK HERE

——————————

 

The production of oil and natural gas in the Eagle Ford Shale generated more than $87 billion in total economic output for the state last year, according to a study released today by The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) Institute for Economic Development. UTSA researchers also concluded that shale activity supported almost 155,000 full-time equivalent jobs and provided more than $4.4 billion to local and state governments in 2013.

UTSA projects that by 2023 the region will support more than 196,000 jobs and generate more than $137 billion for Texas. These new numbers exceed what was projected in previous studies due to the attraction of new manufacturing projects associated with natural gas and additional processing, refining and port facilities. The economic output of the region is forecast to continue solid growth long-term, considering current trends of stable energy prices and industry innovation.

The study, UTSA’s fourth, examined the economic impact of the Eagle Ford Shale on the 21 counties directly and indirectly involved in production. The 15 core counties where activity is most prevalent are Atascosa, Bee, DeWitt, Dimmit, Frio, Gonzales, Karnes, La Salle, Lavaca, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Webb, Wilson and Zavala. The six neighboring counties where significant activity not including extraction is occurring are Bexar, Jim Wells, Nueces, San Patricio, Uvalde and Victoria.

To date, oil and condensate production in the Eagle Ford Shale has grown from 581 barrels per day in 2008 to more than 1.5 million barrels per day as of August 2014, continuing to exceed expectations and attracting more capital investments than any shale field in the United States. That economic growth is making community sustainability a more achievable goal.

“The immense economic development is providing the wherewithal to address needs that are important to both industry and communities,” said Robert McKinley, UTSA associate vice president of economic development. “Investments in infrastructure – roads, water, wastewater, education, medical facilities and other things – are the key foundational components needed to ensure the long-term viability of many rural communities in the region.

“The ongoing activity presents South Texas community leaders with a rare opportunity to ensure the long-term viability of their cities, towns and counties,” said Thomas Tunstall, research director of the UTSA Institute for Economic Development.

“With the enormous growth in our energy sectors, in particular the Eagle Ford Shale play, comes a multitude of challenging opportunities,” said State Senator Carlos Uresti. “State policy makers, business leaders and other stakeholders rely on the best research available from our higher education community, such as UTSA, in order to tackle these challenges and ensure our state takes full advantage of this vital opportunity.”

UTSA is conducting additional projects to support stakeholders in the Eagle Ford region. Notably, the Center for Urban and Regional Planning in the UTSA College of Architecture, Construction and Planning regularly consults with communities across South Texas on planning, design, environmental, housing and development issues. Likewise, the UTSA College of Public Policy and Institute of Economic Development are collaborating to develop and strengthen municipal governments in the Eagle Ford Shale and West Texas regions.

——————————

Download the full report here

Download the report appendix here

——————————

Development of oil and natural gas in a 16-county region of West Texas added more than $14.5 billion in total economic impact during 2012, according to a study released today by the Center for Community and Business Research in The University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic Development. In addition, the region supported 21,450 full-time jobs for workers in oil and gas, drilling, support operations, pipeline construction, refineries and petrochemicals.

Highlights of the UTSA study concluded that in 2012 the region generated:

• $1 billion in salaries and benefits paid to workers
• $6.2 billion in gross regional product (value added)
• $472 million in state revenue, including $187.4 million in severance taxes
• $447 million in local government revenue

The UTSA Center for Community and Business Research was contracted by the West Texas Energy Consortium (WTxEC) to estimate the economic impact of the oil and gas industry on certain counties in the Consortium’s area during 2012, and create a forecast for the year 2022. The Consortium’s area consists of the Concho Valley, West Central Texas and Permian Basin regions.

The region has a long history of oil and gas activity and, in recent years, has been affected not only by renewed attention in vertical wells but also new techniques, such as horizontal drilling coupled with hydraulic fracture stimulation. The study estimates that close to 854 vertical wells and 57 horizontal wells (including 12 directional wells) were completed in 2012.

“This baseline study is intended to help communities in West Texas plan and prepare for the prospect for increased oil and gas production in the area down the line. For many counties, activity is clearly in the early stages,” said Thomas Tunstall, research director at the UTSA Institute for Economic Development and principal investigator for the study.

While taking into consideration low and high-price scenarios, the impact in 2022 could vary widely. But UTSA estimates growth in full-time jobs supported by the oil and gas industry could potentially increase by 42.2 percent from 2012-2022. This study estimates a scenario where low oil prices in the future could produce an output as low as $7.6 billion, and where high oil prices could see enormous growth, as high as $34.3 billion. The ranges of these figures are broad due to high variability in the prices of oil and gas, the challenges of forecasting future oil and gas activities, changes in the number of wells per rig, and changes in productivity per well.

The 16-county area researched encompassed various shales including the Cline Shale, a 70 mile-wide by 140 mile-long formation that stretches along 14 counties in West Texas. The formation produces natural gas, condensate, oil, and natural gas liquids, with margins more favorable than other shale plays.

The Center for Community and Business Research in the UTSA Institute for Economic Development conducts primary research on community and business development in South Texas and the border region. In addition to the study released today, the Center has published

——————————

Download the full report here.

Center for Community and Business Research Institute for Economic Development University of Texas at San Antonio

• Region L and the Need for Population Projection Analysis
• Study Points
• General Information about the Population Projection Study
• Graphics
• Static and Dynamic Maps
• About the Center for Community & Business Research

Click Here for the Region L Population Projection Executive Summary

Click Here for the Region L Population Projection Study

Click Here for the Region L Population Projection Appendix

Click Here for the Region L Population Projection PowerPoint

Click here for the Region L Population Projection Dynamic Maps based on Labor Force

Click here for the Region L Population Projection Dynamic Maps based on School Enrollment

Click Here for the Region L website: www.RegionLTexas.org

Summary Article prepared by Dr. S. Roberts, Research Economist, Center for Community and Business Research

Maps prepared by Hisham Eid, GIS Specialist, Center for Community and Business Research

The South Central Texas Region L Water District consists of 21 counties that include Atascosa, Bexar, Caldwell, Calhoun, Comal, DeWitt, Dimmit, Frio, Goliad, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Hays (southern half), Karnes, Kendall, La Salle, Medina, Refugio, Uvalde, Victoria, Wilson and Zavala. These counties are outlined in the map below.

Map of Region L Water User Groups and Eagle Ford Shale Well locations; source: CCBR GISThe Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), of which Region L is a member, asks each region to perform residential water usage planning for the counties and water user groups (WUG) in their district as part of an overall statewide planning and reporting system. Planning documents utilize population projections calculated under the auspices of the State Demographer of Texas and the Texas State Data Center. Documents and information pertaining to water planning and related factors and processes are available at the level of each region and from the Texas Water Development Board. One of the factors involved in planning is the identification of population numbers and another is the projection of population for the planning period. Water usage demands for the future are assessed from the projected population numbers. Activities such as water supply development and treatment, usage, and other management processes require an understanding of who, where, why, and from what, water resources are acquired and used. Identified residential populations play a large part toward this understanding.

With the Austin corridor to the north, Houston shipping and trade area to the east, coastal areas to the south east, and border with Mexico to the south west, Region L reflects a large portion of the state with opportunities for development. Following the immense growth of the Dallas-Fort Worth region, and despite the economic downturn that has gripped the nation over the past few years, Region L has the potential to become the next gateway to expansion of transportation, financial, resource , employment and industrial growth for Texas, spurred by massive investment in Eagle Ford Shale.

• Discussing the parameters of population projections and their implications;
• Illustrating how the information in the study can be used for Region L report use;
• Discussion on methodology information to help Region L members understand choices and judgments related to population projection data, analysis and inferences;
• Identifying adjustment criteria and documentation for the review process and supplying information for those criteria and documentation factors;
• Providing evidence and support for possible requests concerning population recounts from the U.S. Census;
• Providing support for significant and substantial rate differences in population changes in Region L, along with circumstantial activities and processes that may be affecting population change;
• Providing support for various scenario choices provided by the State Demographer’s population projections;
• Discussing methodology related to the State Demographer population projections that may render them a second choice or not appropriate, rather than a first choice for Region L situations;*
• Discussing methodology related to the data collection and analysis used in this study;
• Discussing data sources that can be instituted and followed up at local levels to record and track data related to population changes for future use;
• Discussion on how to read and assess results and comparisons for informed use of the study in current and future comparative analysis.

The study discusses basic demographic theory as well as various methodologies used for population transition phases in general and for this region, and offers a range of population projection statistics and graphics for comparison by Region L members.

The Texas State Data Center’s Office of the State Demographer has posted three population projection scenarios, calculated with a standard B/D/M formula called a “cohort component” method. This method uses birth (B), death (D) and in- out- migration (M) rates to project a population over time. Inmigration and outmigration refers to movement of members of a population into or out of a specific area. Birth rates may reflect fertility age and numbers of births, while mortality can reflect longevity, disease and access to life-supporting resources. The formulas reflect life patterns of fertility, mortality and movement activities by location over time that can result in change or lack of change pre or post transition, growth, stagnation or decline of population rates across long periods of time. Three scenarios are calculated by the State Demographer’s Office: 0.0, which reflects a normal or stable projection scenario of the B/D/M formula, 0.5, which reflects a conservative projection scenario, and 1.0, which reflects an aggressive projection scenario. It is important to understand that the “conservative” and “aggressive” scenarios may result in counterintuitive projection targets. If a county has a historic trend of losing population over time, a conservative scenario may show a projection with less population loss; while a county with a historic trend of high growth population over time may show slower population gain with a conservative scenario, for example. The aggressive scenario, likewise, for a county that has experienced loss over time may show less population projected in 40 years than currently exists, which is highly unlikely; while a county that has experienced rapid growth may show extremely high population projected in 40 years, which may not be realistic.

In addition to the B/D/M formula, other methods for projecting populations are possible. These use a characteristic of a segment of a population with a multiplier. Triangulation of several calculations is recommended, as many times data may not be available or reflective of a local situation. This study has analyzed the Eagle Ford Shale (EFS) context, 2010 U.S. Census data, three additional alternative data sets (labor force: EMP, school enrollment: SE, and housing-unit-related: HU-BP), calculated additional stepwise-autoregressive population projections from those alternative data sets using calculated persons per household multipliers (PHH) related to those alternative data sets. It also investigated the assumptions and methodology of the B/D/M formula and U.S. Census enumeration (methods information is available at the State Data Center and U.S. Census websites). In all, the study looked at and compared six population projections: three from the Texas State Data Center (TSDC) and three from alternative data; and three different methodologies: the U.S. Census enumeration method, the B/D/M population formula method, and the results from the stepwise-autoregressive method. By using different methods to develop population projections, this study has given planners a set of cross-validated projections for a more robust picture of future water needs concerning residential population of the area.

Data utilized by the Center for Community and Business Research (CCBR) for this study is publicly available and was acquired through internet, printed format, and freedom of information (FOI) requests where necessary. In order to reflect recognized methodology and take into account known issues in demographic assessments, citations from the State Demographer, U.S. Census methodology, and other researchers specializing in population projection and extraction industry impacts were used in the study.

The CCBR respects and honors the population projections published by the Office of the State Demographer and sought counsel from the State Demographer in the preparation of this study. Likewise, the CCBR has sought to make the process as transparent as possible for understanding and to enable replication, where desired, by those who will use this study for policy-making purposes.

It is important to note that the B/D/M formula is not faulty, and the other data-set analysis is not “better”, but due to associations with U.S. Census counts, different number ranges are to be expected. What this report shows is that there are several counties in Region L that have evidence to support a request for population recounts from the U.S. Census and to support asking for and justifying alternative population data in review documents that will be submitted to the TWDB for the 2013 planning cycle.

Significant and substantial rate differences are seen by the findings in this report, which are justifiable reasons for population number adjustment, according to TWDB documentation. This report has also identified areas where local governance may be helpful in tracking changes through tracking systems and records accessibility so that future need of substantiating numbers can be more efficient and available to planners. Water is just one aspect of the impacts being felt by Region L counties in relation to the Eagle Ford Shale activities. As the extraction industry continues to impact the area, streamlined and improved information for planning will be paramount.

The graph below shows the Historic population counts as reported by the U.S. Census, 1990-2010. Bexar County is not included so that the relative rates for the other Region L counties can be seen.

Graph of Historic Population Numbers Region LTwo sets of projections were made from alternate data sets for each Region L county. One projection set was based the historic population figures going back to 1990 for Labor Force, and to 2000 for School Enrollment. As the Eagle Ford Shale activities began in 2008, marking a change period, a second projection set was based on the event period from 2008. This is important as in the stepwise autoregressive method used with historic data, a sudden difference in population, labor force, or school enrollment is seen by the statistical program as an anomaly that needs to be smoothed back to a “norm”. The resulting confidence interval for the projection can be very wide, and hence may be less reliable, as that range for the target population projection at the end of the projection period (a number 40 years into the future) is very wide. By using an event period, the stepwise autoregressive method sees a sudden difference in population, labor force or school enrollment as part of a trend, rather than an anomaly to be smoothed out. The resulting confidence interval for the projection can be narrower, and hence more reliable. It is very important, especially when looking at projections of the “future” to compare and also to think about realistic situations each county faces in light of practicality and possibility.

The table below compiles and lists the 2050 projection numbers from the State Demographer scenarios, the historic and event projections for employment and school enrollment, and the housing statistic projections. Cells in color reflect results from alternative data. Cells in yellow show values that are lower than those of the group of scenarios; those in green show values that are not different and fall within the State Demographer scenario group range for 2050 population; the red cells show values that are substantially higher than those of the scenario group.

able of Comparison of all population projections: Three State Scenarios and Five Alternative Data SetsA bar chart below shows the differences between school enrollment (SE) and population (POP) numbers for the event period of 2008-2013. A normal pattern would show a relative alignment between SE and POP; however we see some large differences in percent change for reported numbers between the two types of data.

Chart of “Percent Change” between 2008-2012 School Enrollment and Census Population
When looking at the EMP-, SE- and HU-based forecast graphs and charts, sudden rate changes can be seen as a bubble, or as a wide variation between two charted data types. For example, downward SE in percent change would be expected if there was a much larger influx of single or family-less people moving into that area. EFS workers fit that description. The bar chart below shows differences between Labor Force and Population Counts.

Chart of Bars showing difference in rates of change between Employment and Population, 2008-2012
The study has included graphs such as the one below of the State Demographer Scenarios that are based off of the B/D/M cohort component formula, the normal scenario “0” as blue, the conservative scenario “.5” as red and the aggressive scenario “1” as green.

Chart of State Demographer Population Projection Scenarios, 2010-2050
Forecast output showing projection and confidence intervals for each alternative data set for each county is also included in the report appendix, showing historic and event graphics for comparison of confidence intervals and target ranges. An example is shown below.

Graph of Frio Forecast Based on Historic EMP
It is important to note that the population projections used by this study for comparison are the 2010-2050 scenario sets that were available at the instigation of this study, and not the updated recently released versions that have been average-trended out to 2060 or 2070 from the State Demographer’s 2050 projection scenario rates, not based from the B/D/M formula used for the 2010 to 2050 time period. However, the same comparison principles discussed for the original TSDC sets and this study’s sets hold and can be used when comparing this study’s results with other newer sets.

Static and Dynamic Maps

Region L Population Change Maps for Pre- and Post- Eagle Ford Shale activity event periods, based on U.S. Census data

In the following static and dynamic maps, the percent change for the historical or event periods are shown. That is, from a base number in the starting year to the change number in the ending year, the percent of change has been calculated and mapped by color. Loss is shown by range of one color and gain by range of another color. Comparing the maps can help in understanding differences in data sources as well as base periods used.

These two maps illustrate historic change and the changes from 2008-2012, during the Eagle Ford Shale event period. This illustrates the reversal of out-migration in several of the Region L counties, and an influx of population to the Region L area. Yellow is percent change decrease, purple is percent change increase.

Map of Region L Population Change of the Historic Period 2000-2008; source: CCBR GIS

Map of Region L Population Change of the Event Period 2008-2012; source: CCBR GIS

Findings: Mapped percent change differences between Census-Counted Population and Labor Force-Based Population, 2000-2012

De Witt, Dimmit, Goliad, Gonzales, La Salle, Refugio, and Victoria Counties all saw substantial differences in population projection target numbers based on employment for the historical period versus the State Demographer projection scenarios. Bexar, Calhoun, De Witt, Dimmit, Frio, Goliad, Gonzales, Karnes, La Salle, Refugio, Uvalde, Victoria, and Zavala Counties all saw substantial differences in population projection target numbers based employment for the event period versus the State Demographer projection scenarios.

Differences are very apparent in the map below, which shows the difference between population increase and employment increase. Purple shows more population officially counted than employment reported and green shows more employment reported than population officially counted. Dimmit, at the darkest green shows a vast difference in the percentage of the number of people reported working than of the number of officially counted population. Comal, on the other hand, shows a vast difference in the percentage of the number of officially counted population than of the number of people reported working. Bexar, Wilson, Guadalupe and Gonzales show reported employment and officially counted population with little percent differences, which would be expected if there was alignment between reported employment and officially counted population. Vivid color change points to the need for recount and a review of population data for that county.

Map of Percent Change Population versus Employment; source: CCBR GIS

Dynamic Percent Change Map: Annual Differences between Population and Labor Force 2000-2012

Findings: Mapped percent change differences between Census-Counted Population and School Enrollment-Based Population, 2000-2012

The findings for population projections, based on School Enrollment relative to the event period, are of substantially higher differences for De Witt, Gonzales and Victoria counties.

Differences are very apparent in the map below, which shows the difference between population increase and school enrollment increase. Purple shows more population officially counted than school enrollment reported and green shows more school enrollment reported than population officially counted. Gonzales, at the darkest green shows a vast difference in the percentage of the number of children reported in public school than of the number of officially counted population. Kendall, on the other hand, shows a vast difference in the percentage of the number of officially counted population than of the number of children reported in public school. Bexar shows reported school enrollment and officially counted population with little percent differences, which would be expected if there was alignment between reported school enrollment and officially counted population. Vivid color change points to the need for recount and a review of population data for that county.

Map of Percent Change Population versus School Enrollment; source: CCBR GIS

Dynamic Percent Change Map: Annual Differences between Population and School Enrollment 2000-2012

About the Center for Community & Business Research

The Center for Community and Business Research (CCBR) is one of ten centers within the University of Texas at San Antonio’s Institute for Economic Development. Each center is specifically designed to address different economic, community, and small to medium sized business development needs. CCBR conducts regional evaluation, assessment, and long-term applied research on issues related to community and business development.

CCBR serves the needs of economic development agencies, workforce development boards, businesses, associations, city, state and federal governments and other community stakeholders in search of information to make better informed decisions.

CCBR develops, conducts, and reports on research projects that shed light on how organizations, communities, or the economy work. This is done through the use of various techniques including, but not limited to:

• Economic impact analyses
• Feasibility studies
• Surveys of business and community organizations
• Community Development studies
• Transportation studies
• EB-5 Regional Center studies
• Analysis of secondary data
• Report writing and presentation

For more information about CCBR or the Institute for Economic Development, please contact (210) 458-2020.

The mission of the Institute for Economic Development is to provide ongoing consulting, training, technical, research and information services in tandem with University-based assets and resources and other state, federal and local agencies, to facilitate economic, community and business development throughout South Texas and the Border Region.

Working together to build the economy one business at a time.

Ongoing research at The University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic Development is serving as the preeminent resource to state and local officials in forecasting the evolving economic impact of the Eagle Ford Shale. The Eagle Ford Shale is a 50 mile-wide by 400 mile-long formation that runs from South Texas to the east. The formation produces natural gas, condensate, oil, and natural gas liquids, with margins more favorable than other shale plays.

In its most recent study, released this week, UTSA forecasted that development of oil and natural gas in the Eagle Ford Shale added more than $61 billion in total economic impact across a 20-county region in Central and South Texas during 2012. Additionally, it supported 116,000 jobs. In 2011, UTSA reported the region generated $25 billion in economic impact and supported 117,000 jobs. The study projects that the region will support 127,000 jobs and produce an economic impact of $89 billion for Texas in 2022.

This month’s study is the fifth examining the Eagle Ford Shale over the past year alone, making UTSA the leading source of information about the growth and impact of the South Texas region.

“The research conducted at UTSA provides us with valuable information, findings and recommendations related to the Eagle Ford Shale and its impact on Texas’ economy,” said Senator Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo. “This research is a wonderful resource not only for state policymakers and business leaders, but also for all stakeholders who are working to create sustainable communities throughout the shale region. Equally important, it underscores the critical role of the higher education community in public service and economic development.”

The UTSA Institute for Economic Development is dedicated to creating jobs, growing businesses and fostering economic development. Its 12 centers and programs provide professional business advising, technical training, research and strategic planning for entrepreneurs, business owners and community leaders. Programs serve San Antonio and the Texas-Mexico border area as well as regional, national and international stakeholders. Together with federal, state and local governments, and private businesses, the IED fosters economic and community development in support of UTSA’s community engagement mission.

“One of the key indicators of a Tier One university is its contribution to society,” said UTSA President Ricardo Romo. “The Institute for Economic Development has taken a leading role in assessing the impact of the Eagle Ford Shale. Its work is another example of UTSA’s commitment to become a top-tier research institution.”

In October 2012, the institute published Eagle Ford Shale Impact for Counties with Active Drilling and its Workforce Analysis for the Eagle Ford Shale. The pair of studies examined economic indicators resulting from the Eagle Ford oil and gas play.

In July 2012, the institute released its Strategic Housing Analysis in partnership with the UTSA College of Architecture and UTSA Center for Urban and Regional Planning Research. The study addressed the region’s need for affordable housing to create sustainable communities in South Texas. It also advised communities to create permanent housing, mixed-use housing, and temporary, mobile and rental units.

It is our hope that this research helps state and local officials make informed decisions as the economic growth of this region continues to expand,” said Bob McKinley, UTSA associate vice president for economic development.

By Christi FishEFS Economic Impact
Associate Director of Media Relations
University of Texas at San Antonio

Download the 2013 Economic Impact of the Eagle Ford Shale: CLICK HERE

Download the 2013 Economic Impact of the Eagle Ford Shale – Appendix: CLICK HERE