# Texas District Analysis: Regulatory Transparency and Enforcement in the Oil & Gas Industry A research project examining how transparency disclosure reforms affect enforcement behavior in the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC), with a focus on district-level heterogeneity across 13 RRC regulatory districts from 2015–2025. ## Research Overview **Core question**: Does making well-level violation data publicly searchable change how quickly the RRC acts on violations? The January 2019 RRC policy change — making well violation data publicly searchable — serves as the exogenous policy shock. The analysis tests whether and how this disclosure reform altered enforcement timing and compliance outcomes across districts, with particular attention to offshore-regulating districts (02, 03, 04) and structural moderators like basin composition, enforcement capacity, and environmental justice dimensions. **Key findings:** - No immediate post-2019 level shift in enforcement timing (coef=0.1514, p=0.33) - Significant post-2019 trend acceleration: enforcement speed improves gradually over time (coef=−0.3603, p=0.001) - Offshore-regulating districts show differential post-policy response (coef=0.3819, p<0.001), strongest in 2023–2024 - Basin composition is the clearest structural correlate of district-level heterogeneity ## Data All raw data originates from the Texas Railroad Commission and supplementary government sources: | Source | Description | Size | |--------|-------------|------| | Texas RRC | ~3.6M inspection records (pipe-delimited) | 424 MB | | Texas RRC | ~368K violation records (pipe-delimited) | 66 MB | | U.S. Census | Poverty rates and demographics by census tract | — | | USDA RUCA (2020) | Rural-Urban Commuting Area classifications | 25 MB | | USEIA | Shale basin and play shapefiles | — | | Texas county shapefiles | County boundaries for spatial visualization | — | Data covers approximately 1.01 million wells, 1.87 million inspections, and 191K violations within the 2015–2025 study window. **Note**: Raw data files are large (several hundred MB each) and are excluded from version control via `.gitignore`. The data pipeline is fully documented in the `rebuild/` notebooks. ## Repository Structure ``` texas-district-analysis/ ├── analysis/ │ ├── well_analyzer.py # Core analysis engine (PostgreSQL → metrics) │ ├── updated_district_level_analysis_2015-2025_offshore_controls.ipynb # Main analysis notebook │ ├── draft.md # Manuscript draft │ ├── draft_appendix.md # Technical appendix with model specifications │ ├── *.png # Figures (event study, district maps, etc.) │ └── archive/ # Earlier notebook versions and alternate specs ├── data/ │ ├── INSPECTIONS.txt # Raw inspection records (pipe-delimited) │ ├── VIOLATIONS.txt # Raw violation records (pipe-delimited) │ ├── RUCA-codes-2020-tract.csv # RUCA classification by census tract │ ├── district_by_county.csv # District–county crosswalk │ └── {oil_gas_basin,shale_play,texas_county,texmex}_shape/ # ESRI shapefiles ├── rebuild/ │ ├── rrc_api_data.ipynb # Step 1: Fetch and process RRC API data │ ├── create_violations_inspections.ipynb # Step 2: Build cleaned inspection/violation files │ ├── add_census_data.ipynb # Step 3: Link census demographics │ ├── add_shape_layers.ipynb # Step 4: Spatial feature engineering │ ├── well_shape.ipynb # Step 5: Well geometry and shapefile creation │ └── well-api-manual.pdf # RRC API technical documentation ├── papers/ # Manuscript versions (DOCX + PDF) ├── analysis_output.json # Pre-computed summary statistics └── requirements.txt # Python dependencies ``` ## Analysis Pipeline ``` Raw RRC Data (API) ↓ rebuild/rrc_api_data.ipynb Cleaned Inspections & Violations CSVs ↓ rebuild/create_violations_inspections.ipynb Link Census Demographics ↓ rebuild/add_census_data.ipynb Add Geographic Layers ↓ rebuild/add_shape_layers.ipynb PostgreSQL Data Warehouse ↓ analysis/well_analyzer.py District-Year Panel ↓ analysis/updated_district_level_analysis_2015-2025_offshore_controls.ipynb Econometric Models → Figures → Manuscript ``` ### Econometric Models | Model | Description | |-------|-------------| | 1 | Interrupted time-series (all districts pooled) | | 2 | District-specific post-policy fixed effects | | 3 | Offshore jurisdiction moderator (districts 02/03/04) | | 4 | Spatial autocorrelation diagnostics (Moran's I, 5,000 permutations) | | 5 | Structural moderators: capacity, baseline compliance, EJ, geology, rurality, border proximity | ## Setup ### Prerequisites - Python 3.9+ - PostgreSQL (with PostGIS for spatial queries) - The `well_analyzer.py` module reads database credentials from environment variables ### Install dependencies ```bash pip install -r requirements.txt ``` ### Database configuration Set the following environment variables before running analysis: ```bash export PGHOST=localhost export PGPORT=5432 export PGUSER=your_user export PGPASSWORD=your_password export PGDATABASE=texas_data ``` ### Run the data pipeline Execute the notebooks in `rebuild/` in order (steps 1–5) to populate the PostgreSQL database, then open `analysis/updated_district_level_analysis_2015-2025_offshore_controls.ipynb` for the main analysis. ## Key Statistics (2015–2025) - **1,878,764** inspections across **420,185** unique wells - Overall compliance rate: **89.9%** (up from 88.4% in 2015 to 92.9% in 2024) - **193,338** violations across **81,670** unique wells - Mean days from violation discovery to enforcement action: **127** (median: 14) - Compliance on re-inspection: **57.2%** - District compliance range: 81.2% (District 09) to 94.4% (District 8A) ## Dependencies ``` pandas numpy sqlalchemy psycopg2 scipy statsmodels matplotlib seaborn geopandas shapely libpysal esda ```