Howdy all,
this is my first post here.

Im getting my BS in Geology and one of my professors was talking about how OKC is going to be the next Houston because of the natural gas industry.What are ya'lls take on this?

Never been to OKC myself but I REALLY want to check out the new Devon tower!

I'm not sure OKC wants to be Houston but come up and check us out anyway. We're certainly on the upswing.

Edmond is the next Houston, imo.

Little Houston, I call it.

Howdy all,
this is my first post here.

Im getting my BS in Geology and one of my professors was talking about how OKC is going to be the next Houston because of the natural gas industry.What are ya'lls take on this?

Never been to OKC myself but I REALLY want to check out the new Devon tower!

Just assuming you are at UNT, correct me if I'm wrong.

Considering that NG closed at about $1.88 today, and there are many predictions that NG may even go below a $1 before the year is out, it may be bit too soon to call us Houston on the plains. Of course, should the United States ever figure out a way to export the stuff in liquefied form, OK will be the place to be. And that's not too far off. Today the feds actually signed off on a huge Liquified NG plant in Louisiana, but it will be at least 5 years before it gets going.

Maybe if Houston gave back all the companies originally from Oklahoma. Lol.

Maybe if Houston gave back all the companies originally from Oklahoma. Lol.

Exactly!

NorthTexan12:

:welcome55

Maybe if Houston gave back all the companies originally from Oklahoma. Lol.

Good one. It got me laughing on a grey day.

"What you talking about Willis?"

It is a beautiful day...blue skies...pleasant temps

I don't agree with the premise. I think we're "next Austin" or "next Charlotte" not Houston. We don't have 6-7 million in metro, and we have pretty high-control land use planning codes, we just prefer to use them to further the institutionalization and codification of homogenization rather than use them for good.

"What you talking about Willis?"

It is a beautiful day...blue skies...pleasant temps

Out here in Mississippi it's grey, rainy and chilly but I'm still having a great day. =)

I took the question to mean "next Houston" in terms of energy powerhouse, not to mean the type of urban layout or population, etc.

I think that's definitely possible if NG recovers (and it will eventually). As the other poster mentioned, we'll be able to start exporting LNG relatively soon and if our trucking industry converts to NG (a big IF) as quickly as many speculate and new electric plants basically being required to run on NG, then we'll see a price recovery. But that's a ways off I think. We need NG to be $5 or higher (preferably in the $8-10 range) to see large growth here. We may not hit that price range for 3 to 5 more years (on a very optimistic timeline).

I would not rule out "next Houston." If natural gas prices rise again to the levels of just a few years ago, OKC growth will explode. If anyone is successful in their efforts to promote new research into gas as a temporary replacement for oil, OKC growth will explode. OKC has the corporate and governmental infrastructure in place. If the market conditions return, OKC could easily grow by several million people over a 50 year period. Afterall, Houston was once the size that OKC. About 60 years ago, metro Houston was actually smaller than the metro OKC of today.

I would think Denver would eventually become the new "second" energy capital due to the large amount of energy companies there, near some of the biggest oil and gas reserves and being already a major city with a metro of over 3 million, international airport and high quality of life (much better than Houston). Not to say that OKC could very well become an even more important energy center in the central region where a lot of oil and gas drilling will be taking place. There is also Calgary which has become an energy capital for Canada (and the world) with the rise of the vast oil sands. I don't think there will be a rival to Houston anytime soon though...

Calgary is already pretty firmly entrenched as North America's 2nd energy capital. The interesting thing though is that while Calgary's built environment and international brand are exploding, the city's population is maintaining relatively stable (this is one reason Calgary is also the quality of life leader for Canada also).

Out here in Mississippi it's grey, rainy and chilly but I'm still having a great day. =)

That may be, but where was MikeOKC at when we talked about it being "grey"? LOL

Calgary is already pretty firmly entrenched as North America's 2nd energy capital. The interesting thing though is that while Calgary's built environment and international brand are exploding, the city's population is maintaining relatively stable (this is one reason Calgary is also the quality of life leader for Canada also).

Population maintaining relatively stable?

In February, "Statistics Canada released the first batch of numbers from the 2011 census . . . and the population of what the government agency refers to as the census metropolitan area of Calgary increased by 12.6 %" in five years! (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/02/08/calgary-census-growth-cp.html)
That growth rate would translate into 26.8 percent growth in a US decennial census period. That is faster growth than DFW or Atlanta and slightly faster than even Houston experienced in the last decade.

OKC the next Houston?
I would vote No.

Houston is too hot. And sticky.
Galveston is much better.

OKC the next Galveston?
Yes. (Without, of course, destructive Hurricanes)

Other than weather, bugs and humidity . . .
Yes.

I predict that Cushing, Oklahoma will soon be restored to it's former Glory.
(except for the periodic table of earthquakes and tornadoes)

And, if not Cushing . . . Then Ripley.

The upside of all that is the fact that the best BBQ in the Universe (except for North/SouthCarolina) can be found in the vicinity of The OKC Metro.
So don't believe the "whiners" who don't even live here =)

Edited to Add:
Houston is noted for a complete lack of understanding of anything outside of its borders.
Not a good thing. In general.
(Ref: Movie: Netflix Available: "Local Hero")

Population maintaining relatively stable?

In February, "Statistics Canada released the first batch of numbers from the 2011 census . . . and the population of what the government agency refers to as the census metropolitan area of Calgary increased by 12.6 %" in five years! (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/02/08/calgary-census-growth-cp.html)
That growth rate would translate into 26.8 percent growth in a US decennial census period. That is faster growth than DFW or Atlanta and slightly faster than even Houston experienced in the last decade.

Each of those U.S. cities you name added roughly 1 Calgary to their MSAs.

Each of those U.S. cities you name added roughly 1 Calgary to their MSAs.

Yes, indeed. But that doesn't change the facts regarding Calgary's population. Growing by 12.6% in five years is anything but "maintaining relatively stable".

Just for fun, here's another headline - this one regarding the City of Calgary population, which grew by 10.9% in 5 years: "Stampeding population: Calgary grows by leaps and bounds." (http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/stampeding+population+calgary+grows+by+leaps+and+b ounds/6442576433/story.html)

Calgary, Canada is OK.
Houston, TX/USA/Whole NotherCountry, SUX.
Put THAT in your bank and smoke it.

Yes, indeed. But that doesn't change the facts regarding Calgary's population. Growing by 12.6% in five years is anything but "maintaining relatively stable".

Just for fun, here's another headline - this one regarding the City of Calgary population, which grew by 10.9% in 5 years: "Stampeding population: Calgary grows by leaps and bounds." (http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/stampeding+population+calgary+grows+by+leaps+and+b ounds/6442576433/story.html)

I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to not roll my eyes at calling that a population "stampede" but it is certainly an uptick from growth that has historically mirrored OKC's.

What's funny is I now seem to vaguely recall you trolling me a year or two ago for claiming that Calgary is growing significantly. All things in perspective I guess...

I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to not roll my eyes at calling that a population "stampede" but it is certainly an uptick from growth that has historically mirrored OKC's.

What's funny is I now seem to vaguely recall you trolling me a year or two ago for claiming that Calgary is growing significantly. All things in perspective I guess...

Your memory is faulty. I have never argued against the concept that Calgary is growing significantly. What's funny is that you are now telling us that a year ago you claimed Calgary was growing significantly and now try to claim it is relatively stable. All things in perspective?

As far as this being an uptick from historical growth similar to OKC's, the "uptick" started some time ago. Their growth from 2001-2006 was 12.4%.

Here is a case in point example of you rushing in to find fault with someone's post. I didn't claim that the uptick mirrored OKC's. I claimed that Calgary's historic growth levels have mirrored OKC's, but with less out-migration.

You've posted that statistic twice already just two posts earlier, as well.

Here is a case in point example of you rushing in to find fault with someone's post. I didn't claim that the uptick mirrored OKC's. I claimed that Calgary's historic growth levels have mirrored OKC's, but with less out-migration.

You've posted that statistic twice already just two posts earlier, as well.

Here is a case in point of your failure to read posts before responding. I did not say anything about the "uptick" mirroring OKC's. You said that Calgary's growth has "historically mirrored OKC's". That is precisely what I referenced in my prior post. You claimed Calgary is now having an "uptick" from that historical growth pattern. I have no idea whether that is true, but I posted 2001-2006 growth numbers (which despite your misstatement had NOT previously been posted) showing that this "uptick" from historical growth patterns has been going on now for at least 10 years.

This whole conversation is a case in point of your propensity to make up stuff and throw it on the board, expecting no one to challenge it. Whether Calgary's growth has historically mirrored OKC's or not, the fact is, your initial claim that Calagary is "maintaining relatively stable" is just not true and there is no basis for such a statement.

Stop making stuff up, Spartan.

May I please take a moment to apologize for my unfounded generalization regarding Houston?
There are probably parts of Houston that are very nice.
I just haven't ever seen any of them.

Just ran across this article in The Tulsa World from last month on the very topic of oil capitals. Intersting.

Tulsa Considered No. 4 Oil Capital in US (http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20120304_49_E5 _CUTLIN890247&PrintComments=1)

I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to not roll my eyes at calling that a population "stampede" but it is certainly an uptick from growth that has historically mirrored OKC's.


Just another quick reality check here. A comparison of the growth of Calgary's metro population with that of OKC (Canada does its census on the '01 years rather than '00 years):



Calgary 1950s: 96.5% 1960s: 44.4% 1970s: 47.1% 1980s: 27.2% 1990s: 25.1% 2000s: 28.8%

OKC 1950s: 31.9% 1960s: 49.4% 1970s: 34.3% 1980s: 11.4% 1990s: 13% 2000s: 14.4%

If Calgary is mirroring OKC's population growth, it can only be by the use fun-house mirrors. ;-)

Stop making things up, Spartan.

Your memory is faulty. I have never argued against the concept that Calgary is growing significantly. What's funny is that you are now telling us that a year ago you claimed Calgary was growing significantly and now try to claim it is relatively stable. All things in perspective?

As far as this being an uptick from historical growth similar to OKC's, the "uptick" started some time ago. Their growth from 2001-2006 was 12.4%.Pesky facts

Suffice to say the main North American energy centers in Houston, Calgary and Denver are growing rapidly. That is also fueling the growth in OKC and to a lesser extent in Tulsa as well, though nowhere near the rate of the aforementioned cities.

Suffice to say the main North American energy centers in Houston, Calgary and Denver are growing rapidly. That is also fueling the growth in OKC and to a lesser extent in Tulsa as well, though nowhere near the rate of the aforementioned cities.

Not sure Denver is as much of any energy center as you seem to think. And its growth has been closer to OKC's rate of growth than to Calgary's and Houston's. (Metro Denver grew by 17% in the 2000-2010 period.)