Habitat Loss and Modification Due to Gas Development in the Fayetteville Shale
- 1k Downloads
Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have become major methods to extract new oil and gas deposits, many of which exist in shale formations in the temperate deciduous biome of the eastern United States. While these technologies have increased natural gas production to new highs, they can have substantial environmental effects. We measured the changes in land use within the maturing Fayetteville Shale gas development region in Arkansas between 2001/2002 and 2012. Our goal was to estimate the land use impact of these new technologies in natural gas drilling and predict future consequences for habitat loss and fragmentation. Loss of natural forest in the gas field was significantly higher compared to areas outside the gas field. The creation of edge habitat, roads, and developed areas was also greater in the gas field. The Fayetteville Shale gas field fully developed about 2 % of the natural habitat within the region and increased edge habitat by 1,067 linear km. Our data indicate that without shale gas activities, forest cover would have increased slightly and edge habitat would have decreased slightly, similar to patterns seen recently in many areas of the southern U.S. On average, individual gas wells fully developed about 2.5 ha of land and modified an additional 0.5 ha of natural forest. Considering the large number of wells drilled in other parts of the eastern U.S. and projections for new wells in the future, shale gas development will likely have substantial negative effects on forested habitats and the organisms that depend upon them.
KeywordsHydraulic fracturing Shale gas Land use Habitat degradation Edge effects Fayetteville Shale
We wish to that the Hendrix College Odyssey Program which provided support for this project. Thanks to L. Marshall and three anonymous reviewers for improving an earlier version of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
Our study complies with current U.S. laws. All appropriate approvals were obtained for the research. There were no animals utilized in this research.
- Alig RJ, Butler BJ (2004) Area changes for forest cover types in the United States, 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. General technical report PNW-GTR-613. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
- AOGC (2013) Arkansas oil and natural gas well map. Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, Little RockGoogle Scholar
- AOGC (2014) Online production and well database. Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, Little RockGoogle Scholar
- Arthur JD, Langhus B, Alleman D (2008) An overview of modern shale gas development in the United States. ALL Consulting, LLC, TulsaGoogle Scholar
- Baihly JD, Altman RM, Malpani R, Luo F (2010) Shale gas production decline trend comparison over time and basins. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, RichardsonGoogle Scholar
- Boyer C, Kieschnick J, Suarez-Rivera R, Lewis RE, Waters G (2006) Producing gas from its source. Oilfield Rev 18:36–49Google Scholar
- Browning J, Tinker SW, Ikonnikova S, Gülen G, Potter E, Fu Q, Smye K, Horvath S, Patzek T, Male F, Roberts F, Groate C (2014) Study develops Fayetteville Shale reserves, production forecast. Oil Gas J 112:64–72Google Scholar
- EIA (2011) Annual energy outlook. Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- EIA (2012) Annual energy outlook. Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- EIA (2013) Shale gas resources: an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United States. Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- EIA (2014) U.S. natural gas number of gas and gas condensate wells (number of elements). Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Glista DJ, DeVault TL, DeWoody JA (2008) Vertebrate road mortality predominantly impacts amphibians. Herpetol Conserv Biol 3:77–87Google Scholar
- Hughes JD (2013) Drill, baby, drill: can unconventional fuels usher in a new era of energy abundance?. Post Carbon Institute, Santa RosaGoogle Scholar
- Johnson N (2010) Pennsylvania energy impact assessment. The Nature Conservancy, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
- Karstensen KA (2010) Land cover change in the Boston Mountains, 1973-2000. USGS open-file report 2009–1281Google Scholar
- NABCI (North American Bird Conservation Initiative), U.S. Committee (2014) The State of the Birds 2014 report. Department of Interior, Washington, p 16Google Scholar
- Nelson PW (2005) The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson CityGoogle Scholar
- Robison HW, Allen RT (1995) Only in Arkansas: a study of the endemic plants and animals of the state. University of Arkansas Press, FayettevilleGoogle Scholar
- RRCT (2014) Oil and gas production data query. Railroad Commission of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
- Slonecker ET, Milheim LE, Roig-Silva CM, Malizia AR, Marr DA, Fisher GB (2012) Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Bradford and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010: U.S. geological survey open-file report 2012–1154, p 36Google Scholar
- Slonecker ET, Milheim LE, Roig-Silva CM, Malizia AR (2013) Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Allegheny and Susquehanna Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010: U.S. geological survey open-file report 2013–1025, p 34Google Scholar
- Sutton RP, Cox SA, Barree RD (2010) Shale gas plays: a performance perspective. In: Tight gas completions conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, RichardsonGoogle Scholar
- Woods AJ, Foti TL, Chapman SS, Omernik JM, Wise JA, Murray EO, Prior WL, Pagan JB Jr, Comstock JA, Radford M (2004) Ecoregions of Arkansas (map scale 1:1,000,000). United States Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar