Nav Background

Economic Impact of the Oil and Gas Activities in the West Texas Energy Consortium Region

The West Texas Energy Consortium (“Consortium” or WTxEC) is an open forum for coordination and information sharing, organized by the Workforce Solutions Boards in Concho Valley, West Central Texas, and Permian Basin Regions. The WTxEC has contracted with the Center for Community and Business Research at The University of Texas at San Antonio’s Institute for Economic Development to estimate the economic impacts of the oil and gas industry on certain counties in the Consortium in the year 2012, and to create a forecast for the year 2022.

Download the full reports here:

DOWNLOAD HERE – Executive Summary WTxEC Region: Ten County-Level Impacts of Oil and Gas

DOWNLOAD HERE – Economic Impact of Oil and Gas Activities in the West Texas Energy Consortium Region – Phase 2

DOWNLOAD HERE – Economic Impact of Oil and Gas Activities in the West Texas Energy Consortium Region – Phase 1

South Central Texas Region L Population Projection Study

South Central Texas Region L Population Projection Study

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

Summary Article Navigation
  • 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

Region L and the Need for Population Projection Analysis

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.

02-pic-region-l-map

Map of Region L Water User Groups and Eagle Ford Shale Well locations; source: CCBR GIS
The 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.

This study seeks to be informative by:
  • 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.

General Information about the Population Projection Study

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.

Graphics

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.

03-pic-pop-graph-region-l-cntys

Graph of Historic Population Numbers Region L
Two 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.

Table of population projection comparisons

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.

04-pic-table-pop-proj

able of Comparison of all population projections: Three State Scenarios and Five Alternative Data Sets
A 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.

05-pic-chart-se-pcnt-chng

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.

06-pic-chart-lf-pcnt-chng

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.

07-pic-chart-stdmg-scens

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.

08-pic-graph-forecast

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.

09-pic-map-hist-pop

Map of Region L Population Change of the Historic Period 2000-2008; source: CCBR GIS
10-pic-map-event-pop

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.

11-pic-map-pop-v-emp

Map of Percent Change Population versus Employment; source: CCBR GIS
pop-vs-lf-change

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.

12-pic-map-pop-v-se

Map of Percent Change Population versus School Enrollment; source: CCBR GIS
pop-vs-lf-change (1)

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.

UTSA providing integral research on growing impact of Eagle Ford Shale

UTSA providing integral research on growing impact of Eagle Ford Shale

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

Eagle Ford Shale Economic Impact and Workforce Analysis

Eagle Ford Shale Economic Impact and Workforce Analysis

Economic Impact for Counties with Active Drilling

The Center for Community and Business Research at The University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic Development (UTSA) performed an economic study of 14 counties in the Eagle Ford Shale area that portrays a detailed image of the challenges and opportunities emerging from drilling and production activities in South Texas. In 2011, the companies operating in the region had significant impacts in the 14-county area and in the surrounding counties.

These impacts translated into:

  • More than $19.2 billion in output
  • Approximately $10.5 billion in gross regional product
  • $211 million in local government revenues
  • $312 million in state revenues
  • 38,000 full-time jobs
  • The study projects that by the year 2021, the Eagle Ford Shale could produce close to $62.2 billion in output and up to $34 billion in gross regional products.

Workforce Analysis for the Eagle Ford Shale

The Center for Community and Business Research at The University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic Development (UTSA) performed a workforce analysis for the 20 counties within Texas directly and indirectly involved in the development of the hydrocarbon producing formation known as the Eagle Ford Shale (EFS). Each of these counties have witnessed an increased supply of EFS-related jobs within certain industries and requiring specific job training.

Direct, indirect and induced economic impacts were examined for each of the counties in the 20-county region to determine workforce impact. Direct impacts primarily consist of the actual production and employment by firms operating directly in the EFS. Indirect impacts include the operational and personnel expenditure made by suppliers, or inter-industry transactions spurred by the direct economic activity. Induced impacts include income flows created when workers spend money on various goods such as food, housing, and other products or services in the counties the counties under analysis.

The development of the Eagle Ford Shale has distinct phases, during which individual industries will experience varying levels of labor demand and evolving types of labor demanded. Thus, education and training requirements for workers will need to remain flexible enough to accommodate the vacillating needs of industry. For example, during the exploration phase counties will see a rise in the need for occupations dealing with mineral leasing, site construction/management, drilling rig support, and material transport. As companies shift into the production and processing phase of operations, they require a workforce composed of business management, administrative support and the processing of gas, oil and condensates occupations.

Eagle Ford Shale Housing Report

Eagle Ford Shale Housing Report

Affordability is Eagle Ford Shale’s Most Prominent Housing Need

UTSA PROJECTS POPULATION OF SIX WESTERN COUNTIES WILL GROW TO 86,297 BY 2025

Young families with school-aged children will continue to account for a significant portion of newcomers to six Eagle Ford Shale counties, according to a study released today by the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) Institute for Economic Development. Researchers Azza Kamal and Richard Tangum in the UTSA College of Architecture and Center for Urban and Regional Planning Research completed the Eagle Ford Shale Strategic Housing Analysis, which examines the state of housing in Dimmit, Frio, La Salle, Maverick, Webb and Zavala Counties.

Download the study at http://bit.ly/EFS-Housing.

“The Eagle Ford Shale oil and gas play is one of the most significant oil and gas finds in Texas history, and it has attracted an influx of transient and permanent workers from across Texas and the nation,” said Gilbert Gonzalez, SBDC director. “As we look 10 to 15 years into the future, it is clear that housing stock, public service, infrastructure and public utilities will need to be improved and expanded to accommodate the influx of new residents.”

The study concludes:

  • From 2000 to 2010, the population in the six-county region grew by 65,958 people, and housing grew by 21,805 units.
  • The housing occupancy rate hovered around 89 percent in 2000 and 2010, suggesting that the population and housing growth in the six-county region increased proportionally.
  • The median household income in the six-county region, which ranges from $21,707 to $36,684, is sharply lower than the median income in Texas and the nation. (U.S. Census 2010)
  • Housing units in the area need to include a flexible design approach that can adapt to changes in demographics after the extraction activities of oil and gas has ended.
  • Vacant housing units in all shale counties need to be further analyzed because they offer strong potential if resources can be allocated for rehabilitation and home-repair programs.

UTSA researchers suggest that new permanent housing in the shale region should include a combination of detached single-family units and attached multi-family units. Mixed-use development is highly desired in the large communities. Moreover, the optimal placement for new residential developments is within 15.5 miles driving distance to work sites in the six-county region studied. Strategic locations for new developments include Carrizo Springs (Dimmit County), Crystal City (Zavala County), Dilley and Pearsall (Frio County), Cotulla (La Salle County) and Laredo (Webb County).

The study also says affordable temporary, mobile and rental housing units are needed to accommodate the region’s newcomers. Approximately 77.5 percent of the hotels studied were 90 percent booked by people planning to stay for 30 or more days. Researchers found this trend causes an economic burden for those communities because those long-term guests are not required to pay the Hotel Occupancy Tax.

“Affordability and sustainability of housing solutions are the most important lessons uncovered by this study,” said Kamal, the study’s principal investigator. “Policy leaders need to keep housing prices at rates that are affordable for local residents and the newcomers to maintain a positive quality of life for everyone living in the shale region.”

The Eagle Ford Shale is a 50 mile-wide by 400 mile-long formation that runs from the southern portion of Texas to the east. The formation produces natural gas, condensate, oil, and natural gas liquids, with margins more favorable than other shale plays. Last year, the 20-county region generated more than $25 billion in revenue for South Texas, according to a study released in May 2012 by the Center for Community and Business Research at the UTSA Institute for Economic Development.

Written by Christi Fish
Associate Director of Media Relations, The University of Texas at San Antonio

Eagle Ford Shale Generated More Than $25 Billion in Revenue for South Texas in 2011

Eagle Ford Shale Generated More Than $25 Billion in Revenue for South Texas in 2011

UTSA PROJECTS THE SHALE TO CREATE 117,000 JOBS BY 2021 (Download the full study)

Development of oil and natural gas in the Eagle Ford Shale contributed $25 billion in total economic output to the region in 2011, according to a study released today by the Center for Community and Business Research at The University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic Development (UTSA).

“The Eagle Ford Shale has proven to be one of the most important economic engines in the state,” said Dr. Thomas Tunstall, director of the UTSA Center for Community & Business Research, and the study’s principal investigator. “In 2011 alone, the play generated over $25 billion in revenue, supported 47,000 full-time jobs in the area, and provided $257 million in local government revenue.”

The study also concluded that in 2011 shale development:

    • Paid $3.1 billion in salaries and benefits to workers;
    • Provided more than $12.6 billion in gross regional product;
    • Added more than $358 million in state revenues, including $120.4 million in severance taxes;
    • And spurred a triple-digit sales tax revenue increase in various local counties.

“We view the Eagle Ford activity as an economic opportunity of a lifetime,” said Mario Hernandez, president of the San Antonio Economic Development Foundation. “The key goal is the increase in investment and jobs. And if the communities will partner with the private companies that are creating these jobs, it can be a win-win for everybody.”

The increased revenue from the Eagle Ford Shale is rebuilding local communities. New schools and new hospitals are being built, and new training programs have been launched to maximize hiring from the local workforce. The study projects the creation of approximately 117,000 full-time jobs by 2021.

“The residents and local leadership of South Texas have taken a proactive and collaborative approach to this new economic opportunity, which we hope demonstrates how communities can embrace, invest and manage this new influx of revenues to ensure long-term regional prosperity,” said Leodoro Martinez, executive director for the Middle Rio Grande Development Council and Chairman of the Eagle Ford Consortium.

“Through the Eagle Ford Consortium, Eagle Ford Task Force and other community-industry collaborations, Eagle Ford leaders and residents are working together to develop training programs, enhance local employment opportunities, and forge solutions to community issues that maximize the benefits and manage the effects from increased development activity.”

The Eagle Ford Shale is a 50 mile-wide by 400 mile-long formation that runs from the southern portion of Texas to the east. The formation produces natural gas, condensate, oil, and natural gas liquids, with margins more favorable than other shale plays. The study assessed the economic impact of the Eagle Ford Shale on the 14 counties currently producing oil and natural gas from the formation, as well as the six surrounding counties indirectly involved in its development.

Boeing San Antonio Impact Report

Boeing San Antonio Impact Report

The Boeing Company in San Antonio continues to be a major contributor to the Texas economy with a $415.5 million total economic impact in 2009 when the new commercial activities are added, according to a new study released today by the University of Texas at San Antonio’s Center for Community and Business Research.

Download full report here

Download executive summary here

San Antonio Missions Impact Report

San Antonio Missions Impact Report

The missions of San Antonio play an important part in defining the city’s culture. Their presence also helps drive the city’s hospitality and tourism industry. In 2009, over 1.7 million people visited Missions Concepción, San José, San Juan, and Espada in San Antonio. Collectively, these missions and associated features—including acequias (irrigation canals), labores (farm lands), dam and aqueduct, and the single remaining rancho (mission ranch) —comprise the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. In 2009, park visitors, along with staffing, construction and maintenance activities, and other aspects of park operations, contributed nearly $98.8 million to the local economy and sustained 1,116 jobs in the region.

Download the Report here.

Economic Impact of the Eagle Ford Shale – 2011

Economic Impact of the Eagle Ford Shale – 2011

In less than three years of development, the Eagle Ford Shale already accounts for over six percent of the Gross Regional Product for the 24-countySouth Texas area it encompasses, according to a study released today by the Center for Community and Business Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic Development.

“The Eagle Ford Shale may be one of the largest onshore natural gas and oil discoveries in the past half century,” said Dominique Halaby, the center’s director. “In 2010 alone, this newest of the Texas shale plays generated close to $2.9 billion in revenue, supported approximately 12,600 full-time jobs in the area, and provided nearly $47.6 million in local government revenue.”

Download the Report

US CAIP

CCBR, in conjunction with the Rural Business Program has been selected by the North American Development Bank’s U.S. Community Adjustment and Investment Program to develop strategies for assisting community’s negatively impacted by foreign trade.