|
January 2000
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Houston Branch
Oil
and the Houston Economy Today
This edition of Houston
Business marks our 81st issue and the beginning
of our 11th year of publication. Throughout the
past decade of publishing this newsletter, we
have looked at Houston from many perspectives,
almost always in short, bite-sized essays. The
relationship between oil and the local economy
has been a recurring theme in many of these articles
and is often poorly understood even by those of
us who live here. This article is an attempt to
summarize what we have learned about Houston,
oil and oil's effect on the local economy. We
have freely used information from past articles
with the goal of making a more coherent statement
here than the shorter pieces can make standing
alone.
-Bill Gilmer |
|
In early 1987, Houston began a rapid
and decisive climb back from the oil bust. In the nearly 13
years since that turnaround, the city has added 680,000 jobs,
a 49 percent expansion. Many of these new jobs were drawn
from health care, aerospace and an array of companies outside
the oil business. But, to the surprise of all, the often-battered
oil industry played an important role in Houston's economic
recovery. It also helped shape the new Houston economy that
emerged in the 1990s.
Houston has become the centerpiece of
a reinvigorated and profitable American oil industry. Although
still highly cyclical, today's U.S. oil exploration and production
industry is financially healthy, technology-driven and increasingly
focused on international operations. Further, the seemingly
mundane business of processing oil-turning it into gasoline
or plastics-has brought tens of thousands of new jobs to Houston's
chemical, construction and engineering industries. Oil still
counts in Houston, directly and indirectly supporting over
half the city's 2 million jobs, and it remains a key factor
in the city's business cycle as well.
This article looks at the role of oil
and natural gas in Houston today, particularly at how this
commodity-driven industry affects local economic conditions.
On the one hand, it is impossible to ignore the very large
role oil continues to play in Houston. On the other hand,
the memory of Houston's devastated economy in the 1980s perpetuates
distrust of oil-a fear that relying on oil will lead to another
massive downturn. Now, well over a decade after the oil bust
ended, industrial diversification still moves to the top of
the agenda when the local economy is discussed.
As we look at the relative stability
of the 1990s, we can point to diversification of the city's
economic base, to better balance between upstream and downstream
oil, and to the stabilizing effects of the consolidation into
Houston of large, new headquarters facilities. But the key
difference between the 1980s and 1990s is probably simple
to define: an absence of speculative excesses. A leaner, smarter
oil industry is unlikely to again suffer the kind of setback
it experienced in the 1980s. Without the excesses that drove
the industry-and ultimately drove the local economy-in the
1980s, Houston seems safe from a repeat disaster.
Boom, Bust and Recovery
In early 1982, it seemed Houston
had solved the riddle of the American business cycle-and the
secret was an economy based on oil. While the United States
slipped in and out of eight recessions after World War II,
Houston enjoyed 40 years of uninterrupted growth that quadrupled
the city's population from 627,000 in 1940 to 2.7 million
in 1980.
Houston's economic success formula seemed
infallible at the time. An oil price spike had taken place
shortly before nearly every post-War recession in the United
States, with the oil shocks sharing in the blame for these
broad economic contractions. The explanation for the oil price
spikes differed from one recession to the next: the Texas
Railroad Commission, refinery strikes, war in the Middle East
or the OPEC cartel. But in Houston, the bottom line remained
the same with each recession: higher energy prices gave the
city's oil-driven economy a timely boost and carried it through
the downturn. As recession passed, U.S. demand would strengthen
for crude oil and refined products and keep Houston growing
with the rest of the country.
The boom years of the 1970s and early
1980s seemed at the time to be just one more chapter in Houston's
history of economic success. But in retrospect, the city's
fabulous growth during these years was based on overheated
oil and real estate markets that left it poised for a fall.
By 1982, it was apparent that the world was not on the verge
of running out of oil, that non-OPEC oil supplies were growing
faster than expected and that OPEC was losing its grip on
$40 per barrel oil. As prices plunged between 1982 and 1986,
reaching a low near $10 per barrel in 1985, the Houston economy
plummeted as well.
During five years of economic collapse
between March 1982 and March 1987, Houston lost 212,000 jobs,
or 13.4 percent of its total employment. Jobs tied directly
to the oil extraction industry accounted for 113,000 lost
jobs, with 61.3 percent of these losses in oil and gas production
and services and the rest in associated oil field machinery.
The oil bust spread to the city's real estate market, where
the value of office buildings, shopping centers, apartments
and single-family homes collapsed. A wave of failures and
mergers devastated the Texas banking system, including many
of Houston's largest banks.
The positive part of the story was yet
to come, however. All the jobs lost to the oil bust returned
to the city by May 1990, only three years after Houston's
economy hit bottom. Where did these 70,000 new jobs per year
come from? They came from many sources: from a strong U.S.
and global economy working as a backdrop to Houston's own
growth; from rapidly expanding medical and health care employment;
from the decision to build an American space station and expand
Houston's Johnson Space Center; from stabilization of the
U.S. oil extraction industry and its consolidation into Houston;
and from a construction boom in Houston's giant petrochemical
and refining complex.
Houston's useful lessons from the oil
bust itself were scarce, beyond the opportunity to see firsthand
the financial and human wreckage left in the wake of a boom
built on inflation and unbridled speculation. In contrast,
the lessons from Houston's economic recovery yield insight
into the city's true economic strengths-its resilience, diversity
and complexity-and how a healthier and profitable oil industry
has provided a firm foundation for the city's future growth
and diversification.
More Than Oil?
The most important jobs in any
city are those in its economic base. These are jobs associated
with the sale of goods and services to other towns, cities
or nations. Houston's exports to other regions (such as refined
oil, chemicals, oil services) pay for imports from other cities
(autos from Detroit, movies from Hollywood). They also pay
for local activities, such as laundries, grocery stores and
TV repair. Economists estimate that 50 percent or more of
Houston's economic base is still tied to the oil industry,
and the remainder is now widely divided among other industries.
[1]
The non-oil part of Houston's economy
contains two focal points that were critical to Houston's
recovery from the oil bust: the Texas Medical Center and the
Johnson Space Center. In 1997 the vast Texas Medical Center
employed 49,000 people, and its annual operating budget of
$4.1 billion coordinated health care, education and research
in more than 30 affiliated institutions. Some 18,500 students
were enrolled on its campuses, and member institutions spent
over $425 million on research activities. Spending for new
construction at the Texas Medical Center is currently programmed
at $740 million over the next two years, bringing online 3.1
million square feet of new space. Health care employment throughout
the Houston metro area has risen by 39,000 since 1987.
Similarly crucial to Houston's economic
turnaround was the 1984 Reagan administration decision to
build an American space station. Houston's Johnson Space Center
is headquarters for U.S. manned space flight, with its chief
role that of managing the space shuttle program. By the early
1990s, the American space station had become an international
effort, but the Johnson Space Center's designation as the
host laboratory brought an additional $189 million in new
funding and 4,400 new jobs to Houston. By 1995, these jobs
were an integral part of the space center's 3,300 workers,
along with the 11,000 local aerospace workers supported directly
by NASA contracts.
Also on the nonpetroleum side of Houston's
economy are the 13,000 Houston-based employees of Compaq Computer
Corp., whose headquarters and operations are centered in Houston.
A number of the largest U.S. environmental and waste management
companies are headquartered in Houston (Browning-Ferris Industries,
Waste Management) to tap the city's reservoir of engineering
talent. Likewise, companies as large and diverse as American
General Life Insurance ($10.3 billion in annual revenue),
Continental Airlines ($8 billion) and food distributor Sysco
($15.3 billion) call Houston home. [2]
Stability and Profits Upstream
On the other side of the oil bust,
Houston has again emerged as the dominant American center
for oil and natural gas exploration, drilling, production
and marketing. This upstream industry scrambled for survival
as its U.S. employment fell by half during the oil bust, and
through the following decade it struggled with overcapacity,
low energy prices and a wrenching effort to do the bulk of
its business overseas. What has emerged in recent years is
an American oil industry focused on productivity and profits,
driven by new technology and competing formidably in international
markets.
Houston's dominance of the American
oil industry shows up in more than 56,000 upstream jobs. As
Table 1 shows, this is nearly four times the oil employment
of Dallas, its nearest competitor. Houston dominates in the
headquarters and producer sectors, where the industry's key
decisions are made. As overall industry employment shrank
by 27.3 percent after 1987, Houston was the only city to gain
upstream oil jobs.
Why does the industry flock to Houston?
Partly because of the decline of U.S. domestic oil fields,
as the onshore United States is increasingly seen as drilled
out. A producer or service operator that in the past operated
in a single basin now finds fewer opportunities. To keep the
company viable or make it grow, it must find work elsewhere.
Cities such as Houston, Dallas and New Orleans-with long-standing
ties to services and producers operating in many regions-offer
a better central point from which to organize work in multiple
basins.
The industry's consolidation into Houston
was driven partly by recent advances in technology that have
brought substantial cost savings. Important new tools, such
as three-dimensional seismic, coiled tubing and measurement-while-drilling,
have lowered costs, reduced the risk of each prospect and
broadened the range of exploration opportunities open to the
industry. Houston sits at the forefront of this technology;
companies locate there so they can plug into cutting-edge
activity and be part of the industry's knowledge loop. Among
the companies operating research and development laboratories
in Houston are Exxon, Shell, Texaco, Chevron, Pennzoil, Baker
Hughes and Schlumberger. To adequately participate or even
monitor this research, a company needs to be in Houston to
attend meetings for the technical small talk and gossip and
to keep an eye on competitors' products.
Houston's sheer size as a center for
oil activity means its labor force offers potential employers
a wide range of skilled employees from whom to choose. These
employees, in turn, like Houston because they have a choice
of employers. Similarly, specialized oil industry suppliers
and investment bankers choose Houston because most of their
customers are already there. Consolidation is cumulative-a
self-fulfilling process of centralizing all the important
pieces of the oil industry in one place. The same principles,
of course, are what draw moviemakers to Hollywood, financial
service providers to New York and automakers to Detroit.
Refining and Petrochemicals
When oil is mentioned-and indeed
when Houston is mentioned-it is exploration and drilling that
first come to mind. However, Houston is also a key center for
research, technology and operation of downstream oil. This is
the more routine business of processing oil in refineries and
petrochemical plants, turning crude oil and natural gas liquids
into final products. A refinery produces energy products, such
as gasoline, kerosene or jet fuel, while the petrochemical plant
turns oil and natural gas liquids into intermediate products,
such as ethylene or propylene, that ultimately become one of
thousands of plastic or synthetic rubber products, such as pipes,
packaging, synthetic fibers or auto parts.
Houston stands at the center of the
Texas and Louisiana refining and petrochemical complex, the
largest such complex in the world and the dominant industrial
feature of Texas and Louisiana coastal cities. Refineries
and chemical plants sprawl for 52 miles along the Houston
Ship Channel, from Houston to the smaller nearby cities of
Pasadena, Deer Park and La Marque. Dozens more plants lie
just to the north and south of the Ship Channel entrance on
Galveston Bay-at Freeport, Mont Belvieu, Baytown and Texas
City. The scene is repeated at city after city on the Gulf
of Mexico, from ports at New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Lake
Charles in Louisiana to Beaumont, Port Arthur, Houston, Brazoria,
Victoria and Corpus Christi.
The Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast is
home to 38 refineries that process 5.8 million barrels of
crude oil per day and comprise 37.9 percent of U.S. refining
capacity. Ten refineries in the immediate Houston area process
2.1 million barrels per day. These companies include industry
giants such as Amoco's Texas City plant, Exxon's Baytown refinery
and Shell's sophisticated Deer Park facility. Another million
barrels per day are processed in four refineries in the nearby
cities of Beaumont and Port Arthur. [3]
With 354 chemical facilities, the Houston
metropolitan area is the major U.S. producer of commodity
petrochemicals such as benzene, ethylene, propylene and xylene.
Ethylene is the largest petrochemical building block in terms
of volume; it is often found in packaging products such as
milk cartons and plastic bags. A recent survey of large ethylene
plants found 31 of the 37 U.S. plants located on the Texas
and Louisiana Gulf Coast. Together, these facilities produce
23.6 million pounds per year, accounting for 92.2 percent
of U.S. capacity and 26 percent of global capacity. The immediate
Houston vicinity is home to 13 major ethylene plants, or 48.5
percent of U.S. capacity. [4] Across all classes of commodity
petrochemicals, Houston averages 45 percent of U.S. capacity.
Direct employment in refining, chemicals
and plastics in Houston totals about 50,000, but these jobs
only begin to describe the economic impact of this downstream
complex. For example, in 1998 the port of Houston ranked eighth
in the world in total tonnage handled and first among U.S.
ports in foreign tonnage. Houston's port can best be viewed
as an essential part of the regional downstream oil industry.
Of the port's 107.8 million tons of foreign shipments, 77.2
percent moved through the petrochemical complex as crude oil,
oil products, organic chemicals, polymers, plastics and fertilizers.
Other related downstream infrastructure includes air separation
plants, storage terminals, salt domes and transportation facilities.
Several thousand miles of privately operated pipelines, known
as the Spaghetti Bowl, shuttle dozens of products among 200
different chemical plants and refineries.
Perhaps the largest indirect impact
of refining and petrochemicals comes through construction.
New capacity needs for expansion, growing infrastructure,
environmental controls and plant maintenance give rise to
ongoing construction. Over the past 25 years, the 11 port
cities on the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast have averaged
construction employment 40 percent higher than their inland
counterparts in these same states. This is after we account
for differences in population and growth rates, meaning that
the downstream oil industry is probably largely responsible
for the higher Gulf Coast construction activity. [5]
Petrochemical construction has been
a springboard for many Houston-based companies to develop
an important role in international construction. Houston is
home to almost all the nation's international construction
companies that have or seek a niche in continuous process
industrial plants for oil refining, chemicals and fertilizers.
These construction skills, learned and still practiced by
companies on the Houston Ship Channel, are now applied around
the world. Table 2 lists the nine largest engineering operations
in Houston, with their numbers of engineers and employees.
Bechtel, Fluor Daniel and Jacobs Engineering lead a contingent
of California-based companies with a large Houston presence.
Downstream oil, especially petrochemicals,
played a key role in Houston's recovery from the oil bust.
Unlike in the upstream oil industry, high oil and natural
gas prices are a liability, raising the cost of basic feedstock
and the price of final products. During the boom years of
the 1970s and early 1980s, many U.S. petrochemical plants
were closed permanently or to await lower oil and natural
gas feedstock prices to improve plant economics. Then, in
the mid-1980s, energy feedstock prices fell through the floor.
Tight chemical capacity and a global economic boom combined
with low energy prices to create huge industry profits. The
result was massive global expansion of the petrochemical industry,
and in 1990 alone $10.8 billion was spent for new or expanded
chemical facilities on the Texas Gulf Coast.
Figure 1 shows new petrochemical project
announcements in Texas and Louisiana in the late 1980s and
1990s. This expansion sharply increased Houston's construction
employment; spurred local manufacturing of compressors, valves
and instruments; and enabled Houston-based engineering companies
to share in tens of billions of dollars in domestic and international
construction projects.
Oil and the Local Business Cycle
The discussion above suggests that
the role of oil in Houston in the 1990s differs from that
in the 1980s. First, there is a better balance between the
upstream and downstream oil sectors. The improved balance
stems in part from the decline of oil production and oil services
caused by the speculative excesses of the 1980s and a return
to lower, sustainable long-run upstream employment levels.
And it derives from the revival of downstream operations spurred
by the end of the inflated oil prices.
The presence of both upstream and downstream
oil business in Houston provides stability that other oil
cities such as Midland, Tulsa and Lafayette cannot count on.
[6] High oil and natural gas prices excite producers and spur
activity upstream. Conversely, high oil prices increase the
cost of doing business downstream; they eat into profits,
reduce cash flow and discourage investment and capital spending.
Low oil prices have the opposite effect, dampening upstream
activity but stimulating downstream business.
The combination of upstream and downstream
operations worked for decades to shelter and to balance the
profits of integrated oil companies. We can think of Houston
as the Exxon or Shell of oil cities, with employment and income
balanced in much the same way large oil companies maintain
profits through periods of high and low oil prices. Midland
and Tulsa, in contrast, are independent producers, depending
mostly on the upstream.
Second, the consolidation of oil producer
and headquarters operations into the city offers more short-term
stability. In the hierarchy of layoff decisions made in response
to falling oil prices, producing regions such as the Permian
Basin or the Mid-Continent fields (and thus cities such a
Midland and Tulsa) will feel the pinch of unemployment first.
In contrast, headquarters and research facilities stand relatively
protected. These overhead operations are vulnerable to contraction
as consolidation occurs within the industry, but the reductions
are the result of longer term trends rather than short-run,
oil-price-driven decisions. And in the long-run consolidation
process, Houston has held on to its operations far better
than competitor cities.
But as we consider Houston's vulnerability
to an oil downturn, and particularly if we compare the 1980s
to the 1990s, the biggest difference has been the oil industry's
view of itself. In the 1980s, the oil industry saw itself
as draining the last of a globally limited resource, the price
of which would continue rising for decades. The cost of finding
oil mattered less than the simple fact of finding a scarce
deposit. Profits were so large they generated a bulletproof
mentality.
That part of the oil industry that survived
into the 1990s quickly recognized it was in a commodity-driven
business, part of the boom-and-bust cycle that inevitably
drives such markets. Survivors understood cost saving, and
they learned to use technology and consolidation to cut unnecessary
fat. In the short term, companies had to be able to quickly
ratchet their size upward and downward, relying on temporary
employees and outsourcing. Hiring was done reluctantly, and
layoffs became routine.
The oil industry of the 1980s was too
fat and too self-satisfied to see even the potential for a
downfall, making the ultimate descent of huge proportions.
The industry that survived into the 1990s was lean and perpetually
braced for the worst as it responded to every nuance of oil
markets. Houston's vulnerability to substantial decline in
the 1980s was based on a bubble in world oil markets rather
than a fundamental flaw in the local economy. Houston's vulnerability
to oil markets was greatly reduced after the bubble burst.
Houston and Oil in the 1990s
The 1990s have seen two significant
downturns in the local oil industry. The first came in 1991–92,
when oil prices fell sharply following the Persian Gulf War.
Concurrently, a very warm winter briefly pushed down the price
of natural gas to near $1 per thousand cubic feet, less than
half the price needed to provide an incentive to drill. By
the first quarter of 1992, the cumulative drop in the domestic
rig count over the prior year was 31.8 percent. By the fourth
quarter, the decline in local oil and natural gas extraction
had reached 7 percent over the prior year.
The most recent downturn, in 1998–99,
was a product of the Asian financial crisis and part of the
general decline in global commodity prices that followed.
By first quarter 1999, the domestic rig count reached a four-quarter
decline of 43.1 percent, and two quarters later Houston oil
producer and oil service employment hit a year-long decline
of 12.1 percent. Figure 2 summarizes four-quarter percent
changes in the domestic rig count and in Houston oil service
and producer employment, computed from 1976 to the present.
So how does a downturn in domestic oil
extraction (here measured by the rig count) affect Houston
oil extraction employment? Table 3 summarizes some of the
largest and most significant changes in the domestic rig count
and in Houston producer and oil service employment. In the
1980s, for example, the biggest decline in the domestic rig
count measured over a four-quarter period came in third quarter
1986, with a 62.7 percent decline. One quarter later, Houston
registered its biggest four-quarter fall in oil extraction
jobs, 23.6 percent. As a summary statistic of how the rig
count affects oil jobs, we can compute an implied elasticity
of 0.376, defined as the percent change in Houston oil jobs
for a 1 percent change in the domestic rig count.
We can perform similar calculations
for the two 1990s downturns. The result is a decline in the
elasticity of Houston oil service and producer jobs from 0.376
in 1986 to 0.22 in 1991–92 to 0.281 in 1998–99.
In other words, thanks to consolidation, technology and a
more conservative management approach, Houston oil jobs in
the 1990s are 25 percent to 33 percent less responsive to
movements in the domestic rig count than in the 1980s.
The lower half of Table 3 shows the
same calculations, but for increases in Houston oil and gas
employment in response to rig count increases. By late 1981,
for example, oil extraction jobs were rising at a 26.5 percent
annual rate in response to 1980 annual rig count changes that
ran as high as 42.3 percent. The implied elasticity is 0.626.
In the 1990s, Houston oil companies were not nearly so anxious
to hire; a 1 percent increase in the rig count led to job
increases of 0.264 in 1990–91 and 0.281 percent in 1997–98.
The lack of symmetry in the 1981 and 1986 elasticities may
simply reflect the overheated oil market of the 1980s and
companies' overwillingness to jump into new exploration projects.
The upside elasticities in the 1990s, however, are similar
to those computed for the downside in the top of Table 3,
with job growth showing less fluctuation in response to rig
count.
Another Approach
When we make more sophisticated
estimates of these elasticities, isolating oil market changes
from simultaneous movements in other factors such as the U.S.
economy or the trade-weighted value of the dollar, the bottom-line
results remain remarkably similar to the back-of-the-envelope
calculations in Table 3. The new estimates also show a change
in Houston oil employment of about 0.4 percent for each percentage
point change in the domestic rig count in the 1980s, with
a significant decline of about one-third in this response
in the 1990s.
To get these estimates, we assume that
Houston's mining (oil services and producers) and manufacturing
employment is determined by three major factors: the domestic
rig count, the strength of the U.S. economy as reflected by
the unemployment rate, and the real trade-weighted value of
the dollar. All variables are quarterly from 1975 to 1999,
seasonally adjusted, with current and four lagged values included
for the rig count and the U.S. economy, and current and six
lagged values included for the value of the dollar. Also included
is a trend term to pick up other long-term developments, a
dummy variable that divides the period into pre-1987 and post-1987,
and a variable to test if the role of oil in Houston is different
before and after 1987. [7]
Table 4 summarizes the results, showing
the four- to six-quarter employment response to a change in
one of the causal variables. An increase in the U.S. unemployment
rate increases mining employment in Houston, a result of the
countercyclical historical relationship discussed above between
oil and the U.S. economy. The estimated elasticity between
oil and the U.S. economy is 0.135. For Houston manufacturing,
the relationship is such that an improvement in the U.S. economy
(a decline in the unemployment rate) adds local jobs, both
in total manufacturing and for durable goods.
An increase in the trade-weighted value
of the dollar has a large negative impact on Houston mining
and manufacturing. This is particularly true in manufacturing,
where a strong dollar makes U.S. manufactured goods more difficult
to sell in foreign markets.
Finally, the estimated elasticities
for local mining and manufacturing employment in response
to a change in the rig count are 0.43, 0.32 and 0.49 for pre-1987
mining, manufacturing and durable goods, respectively. The
figures fall after 1987 to 0.29, 0.2 and 0.32. For mining,
the figures are broadly similar to the estimates in Table
3, in both the overall magnitude and the extent of the decline
after 1987. The estimates in Table 4 also indicate that the
differences before and after 1987 are highly statistically
significant, with swings in Houston oil jobs becoming much
smoother relative to rig count changes after 1987. [8] After
1987, oil markets affect Houston's oil industry much differently.
The Broader Economy
How does change in oil extraction
employment affect the broader Houston economy? Is a shift
in oil-related employment now less meaningful to sectors such
as construction, retail trade and services? Estimates of these
relationships, shown in Table 5, tell us that oil extraction
is still the dominant force in Houston. Oil's impact on the
local economy has changed over time, but the effects of this
change remain small and subtle.
To relate oil to other sectors of the
local economy, the oil measure we choose is the sum of oil
and gas mining plus manufacturing employment. Along with oil,
local economic sectors are assumed to respond to changes in
the national economy, represented once more by the U.S. unemployment
rate. Diversification away from oil might be indicated by
a bigger impact of the U.S. economy on Houston. The estimates
are made before and after 1987, using current and four lagged
values of both variables.
We estimate the effect of oil on employment
in five sectors: construction; transportation, communications
and public utilities (TCPU); retail trade; wholesale trade;
and a combination of finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE),
personal and business services. The coefficients shown in
Table 5 are the elasticity of each sector's employment with
respect to mining and manufacturing jobs or to the U.S. unemployment
rate.
While the coefficients suggest that
some structural change has occurred in Houston, the change
has not been dramatic. For example, the coefficients measuring
the influence of local mining and manufacturing jobs were
quite large and highly significant in every sector before
1987. Although the coefficients are somewhat smaller after
1987 (TCPU being the exception), the only decline in the value
of a coefficient that was statistically significant was in
retail trade. Outside of retail trade, we are left only with
the suggestion that a structural shift away from oil might
be under way, but we have little firm evidence.
According to Table 5, TCPU and wholesale
trade employment were subject to significant influence by
the U.S. economy prior to 1987. This influence persisted after
1987, but did not grow. The very large FIRE and services sector
is the only industry to develop sensitivity to U.S. economic
conditions after 1987, a sensitivity that did not previously
exist. Again, it is at the margin that we see structural change
under way, with the influence of the U.S. economy developing
slowly.
Adding It Up
Figure 3 adds up all sectors and
shows total employment in Houston from 1976 through November
1999. The job losses of the oil bust, following the 1982 peak,
are the only significant declines on the chart. Neither of this
decade's oil downturns actually caused overall job losses. In
1991–92, job growth stopped for a significant period;
the downturn in oil was sufficient to halt the powerful recovery.
In 1990, local job growth reached 6 percent, the best in this
decade for Houston; but by 1992, problems in the oil patch reduced
local job growth to zero.
We also see a brief pause in local job
growth in 1999. Revised job growth figures now show Houston
employment grew only 0.9 percent in the first 11 months, after
a first quarter of no job growth at all. Again, rapid growth
came to an abrupt halt, but with no overall job losses for
all of 1999.
How do we explain the contrast between
the 1980s and the 1990s, as shown in Figure 3, in how a setback
in oil markets affects Houston? The oil industry has significantly
changed the way it hires and fires in the 1990s, with fluctuations
in local oil employment in response to a change in drilling
activity reduced by perhaps one-third. As previously stated,
this is the product of industry consolidation, new technology
and better management.
Also, at the margin, we see modest structural
change in the way oil affects other, secondary sectors in
the city. There is evidence that the role of oil is moderately
diminished and the role of the U.S. economy is slowly growing.
But oil still counts here, and the basic transmission mechanism
running from oil shock to local economic shock remains firmly
in place.
Why, then, do we find in the 1980s the
loss of 200,000 local jobs and in the 1990s, a simple pause
in economic growth? We have to return to the psychology of
the times and to the speculative fever that formerly gripped
the oil industry. It was a fever that spread to the local
economy as well. If you could not run a drilling rig, one
shortcut to oil riches was to invest in Houston real estate.
The domino effect moved from oil to real estate, from real
estate to local banks and from banks to local businesses as
credit was cut off.
If this reasoning is right-if we can
look at the oil bust as a one-time event-it is fundamentally
good news for Houston. The city has diligently pursued industrial
diversification as an economic goal, although success in this
effort remains hard to identify in the aggregate numbers.
Indeed, our figures indicate that the biggest changes in the
influence of oil in Houston have come from within the oil
industry itself.
Perhaps Houston's biggest problem in
the 1980s was not the structure of the local economy but the
perverse nature and magnitude of the oil boom itself. In the
1990s, Houston twice experienced economic setbacks due to
serious problems in world oil markets but never suffered significant
overall job losses. The main economic lesson for Houston from
the 1990s is that oil has been largely tamed. Oil still counts,
and oil can still hurt us or help us. But we can stop looking
over our shoulder waiting for the oil bust to return.
 |
| Notes
- For example, in July 1998 the University of
Houston's Center for Public Policy, in its DATABook
Houston, set the figure at 51.7 percent.
Various rule-of-thumb calculations suggest this
is a conservative estimate. See, for example,
"Diversification of Houston Industry," Houston
Business, October 1991.
- Houston Business Journal, 2000
Book of Lists.
- Data are from Oil and Gas Journal,
December 21, 1998, pp. 85–91.
- Data are from Oil and Gas Journal,
March 23, 1999, p. 61.
- The February, April and May 1994 issues of
Houston Business discuss the history,
role and economic impacts of the downstream
industries on the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast
.
- The other significant oil city that shares
this combination is New Orleans.
- These equations have been used and better
described in several past issues of Houston
Business. See, for example, "Houston and
the National Business Cycle," July 1993, or
"The Dollar Exchange Rate and the Houston Economy,"
September 1997.
- It can also be said that Houston jobs have
smoothed out relative to oil price swings. If
real oil prices are used in place of the domestic
rig count, the results are very similar.
|
 |
Oil Rebound
Drives Houston's 2002 Outlook
The equations and
estimated elasticities used in this article
to explore the evolving role of oil in
Houston's economy can also be used to
forecast jobs
for the coming year. Such a forecast provides
another illustration of how potent oil
remains
in the local economy. The accompanying
table shows our estimates of private employment
in Houston in 1999 and 2000 by industry
sector. The difference in overall performance
between 1999 and 2000-0.4 percent growth
versus 3.9 percent-is largely attributable
to the ongoing rebound in oil markets.
As final data for
the first two quarters of 1999 have become
available, they have shown sharp downward
revisions for Houston. Although the U.S.
economy ran at very high levels in 1999
and global markets stabilized, the turnaround
in oil markets came too late to salvage
a good year of job growth in Houston. Our
best estimate for overall local job growth
remains in the 0 to 1 percent range.
The dramatic improvement
in the outlook for 2000 is primarily because
the current improved oil outlook is beginning
to create jobs in Houston. Our forecast
for 2000, as reflected in the table, assumes
a modest slowdown in the U.S. economy but
with continued tight labor markets. We assume
the trade–weighted exchange rate for
the dollar will be stable at current levels
throughout the year and, in response to
higher oil and natural gas prices, the domestic
rig count will rise to an average of 825
in the first quarter and remain there throughout
the year.
The result of these
assumptions, which are close to the conditions
at which we ended 1999, is a dramatic improvement
in the local economy in 2000. Instead of
the 7,500 jobs added in 1999, the increase
in private employment should be nearly 70,000,
or 3.9 percent. Big gains in oil and gas
mining and durable manufacturing lead the
expansion, although construction slows sharply
in a lagged response to the slow growth
of 1999.
Remember the assumptions:
good U.S. economic performance, a stable
exchange rate and strong oil markets. Of
these, the chief threat to the scenario,
both in risk and impact on Houston, is a
setback in oil markets. If the scenario
materializes, however, it will be a replay
of the excellent backdrop that brought Houston
strong job growth in 1997–98. |
|
|
Houston
Beige Book
January 2000
Revised Texas and Houston employment
data indicate a much weaker 1999 than previously announced.
The Texas Workforce Commission will not release its benchmark
revisions for nonagricultural employment until February,
but
it now appears that for the period from December 1998 through
November 1999, statewide employment may be revised downward
from 2.2 percent to 1.7 percent. The downward revision in
Houston's data-from 2.3 percent to only 0.9 percent-should
be among the largest of the Texas metro areas. These historical
revisions fall in line with expectations of slower growth
following the Asian economic crisis and an oil price collapse.
But any weakness now seems to be well behind us, as current
fundamentals and future prospects for Houston look very
strong.
Retail Sales
The holiday season started slowly
but gained steam after Thanksgiving. Many retailers-especially
discounters-recorded excellent percentage gains over 1998
sales. But weak apparel sales hurt many other stores, as unseasonably
warm weather left winter clothing on the shelves. Retailers
will need to advertise heavily and offer bargain prices to
move the inventory before spring.
Oil Services and Machinery
The oil services sector reported
steady production gains and indications that the industry
in the United States and Canada is hiring again. Product prices
have not improved significantly, except for modest increases
in day rates for offshore rigs and required few resources-shallow,
onshore, domestic and vertical. There are now signs that the
quality of domestic work has begun to improve, especially
the depth of wells, and that prospects for international work
look more promising.
Refining and Petrochemicals
Rising crude oil prices in November
and December were not passed through to customers, and refining
margins remain poor. Gasoline demand was weaker than normal
for the holidays, perhaps because of limited travel over the
Y2K weekend; supplies were more than ample, as distributors
had made significant efforts to ensure storage tanks were
full. Refinery capacity utilization held steady through the
New Year but may weaken in the weeks ahead with high inventories
and the prospect of continued poor refining margins.
A series of chemical price increases
last fall raised hopes that petrochemicals had turned the
corner and that profit margins might begin to rebuild after
large increases in oil and natural gas feedstock prices. However,
rising feedstock costs in November and December wiped out
all the profit gains, and expectations for the coming year
are again bleak. Profit margins for ethylene, propylene and
styrene are all below where they were at this time last year.
Chemical construction activity along the Gulf Coast remains
weak as companies defer maintenance to reduce costs. New project
announcements plummeted in 1999.
Financial Institutions
January loan activity was slow,
partly a normal response to the season, but higher interest
rates are also thought to be playing a role. December mortgage
activity remained strong, driven mostly by expectations of
higher interest rates. Commercial lending slowed because of
the higher rates and because of reduced space needs in Houston
in a period of slower growth. Deposits rose due to higher
interest rates, year-end bonuses and the return of Y2K cash
hoards to banks. No respondents reported significant Y2K-related
problems.
| About Houston
Business
For more information or
copies of this publication, contact Bill Gilmer
at (713) 652-1546 or bill.gilmer@dal.frb.org,
or write to Bill Gilmer, Houston Branch, Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, P.O. Box 2578, Houston,
Texas 77252. This publication is available on
the Internet at www.dallasfed.org.
The views expressed are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the positions of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
or the Federal Reserve System. |
|
|