OKC linked to Dallas.

[Kerry]

As you can see, in reality, when you account for the size difference, Texas' economy has nearly three times the impact on Oklahoma as vice versa.

That is the exact point I am making. The study said the opposite though. It says a 1% increase in the Oklahoma economy has a bigger impact on Texas than a 1% increase on the Texas economy has on Oklahoma.

The study indicates a hypothetical 1 percent increase in the Texas region's gross domestic product will likely result in a $56 million increase in Oklahoma output. And a hypothetical 1 percent increase in the Oklahoma region GDP will likely result in a $173.7 million increase in Texas output.

No way that is possible, as proved by the math you demonstrated. The study can't be correct.

[silvergrove]

I like to plan ahead, but that might be too far ahead. Cities need to build local rail first. Imagine if we built the interstate highway system before we built local roads. Sure there is a nice road from OKC to Tulsa but you can't go anywhere on either end.

The world has over a hundred year supply of oil even with increased demand. We won't run out of oil anytime soon and when we do we will probably have teleporter technology down pat, thus making HSR old technology.

Over a hundred year supply even with China and India in the mix? I want to see where you're getting this from!

[Platemaker]

The world has over a hundred year supply of oil even with increased demand. We won't run out of oil anytime soon and when we do we will probably have teleporter technology down pat, thus making HSR old technology.

...Baby Jesus.

[Kerry]

Over a hundred year supply even with China and India in the mix? I want to see where you're getting this from!

From stories like this.

The World Has Plenty of Oil - WSJ.com

As a matter of context, the globe has consumed only one out of a grand total of 12 to 16 trillion barrels underground.

...

When will peak oil arrive? This widely accepted tipping point -- 50% of ultimately recoverable resources consumed -- is largely a tribute to King Hubbert, a distinguished Shell geologist who predicted the peak oil point for the U.S. lower 48 states. While his timing was very good (he forecast 1968 versus 1970 in fact), he underestimated peak daily production (9.5 million barrels actual versus eight million estimated).

But modern extraction methods will undoubtedly stretch Hubbert's "50% assumption," which was based on Sputnik-era technologies. Even a modest shift -- to 55% of recoverable resources consumed -- will delay the onset by 20-25 years.

Where do reasonable assumptions surrounding peak oil lead us? My view, subjective and imprecise, points to a period between 2045 and 2067 as the most likely outcome.

12 to 16 trillion of reserves and we have used 1 trillion so far. I think we are OK for awhile. Even if we use it at 12X our current rate we have enough to last 100 more years. Your great great grandkids will be using oil.

[Platemaker]

I bet only a percentage of all that alleged oil is conventional crude oil. Limitations on production prevent the rest from becoming an effective substitute for conventional crude oil. These are high energy intensity projects that can never reach high volumes to offset significant losses from other sources.

Even still... one person can live 100 years. Why not modernize and urbanize so we can stretch that 100 years to 150....200?

"Let's leave our mess for someone else" What an awful mind-set.

[mmonroe]

What exactly is synthetic oil?

[mheaton76]

@mmonroe - it's the stuff they make from the Canadian tar sands in Alberta. Basically, as we run out of the easy-to-get, cheap-to-extract stuff, we're left with methods and resources that become more attractive as the price per barrel of oil increases. The stuff in the tar sands is actually more like a bitumen, and has to be enormously refined to become useful as fuel. It's doable - just expensive, and way more environmentally damaging than other sources.

For example, the oil we get from Saudi Arabia from the Gahawar field (their largest) gives us around 100 units of energy for every one that's spent to extract it. Synthetic oil is more around a 10 to one ratio - not nearly as good, obviously. I'd rather see us focus on natural gas from shale, personally and not mess with the tar sands.

[windowphobe]

Incidentally, Classen Circle is where you are if you continue east from Northwest Distressway past Classen Boulevard. And it's fairly comprehensible once you've gone through it, which I do five or six days a week.

[Larry OKC]

Incidentally, Classen Circle is where you are if you continue east from Northwest Distressway past Classen Boulevard. And it's fairly comprehensible once you've gone through it, which I do five or six days a week.

Could you post a map, I have tried folling the signs posted but can't seem to locate it. Thanks!

[windowphobe]

[Larry OKC]

Thanks for the map but I still don't see anything that approximates a Circle (as in "Classen Circle")

[Oil Capital]

That is the exact point I am making. The study said the opposite though. It says a 1% increase in the Oklahoma economy has a bigger impact on Texas than a 1% increase on the Texas economy has on Oklahoma.



No way that is possible, as proved by the math you demonstrated. The study can't be correct.

First paragraph: The study did not say the opposite. The study spoke in nominal dollar terms. Growth in the general economy, wherever it comes from, will produce more growth in pure dollar terms in a huge economy than in a small economy. That is what the study said. I translated it into percentage terms in an attempt to help you understand how it would happen.

Try this: The 1% growth in the Oklahoma economy, if evenly spread, will produce 1% growth in every city and hamlet in Oklahoma. But if you report it in dollar terms, guess what, that growth will produce millions of dollars in Oklahoma City, but only perhaps thousands of dollars in a town such as Guymon. Similar, although not quite identical, analysis.

Second paragraph: My math did not demonstrate any such thing. My math merely translated the same information into percentage growth rates. The nominal dollar growth that has you so confused is merely (in the case of analyzing the effects of 1% growth in Oklahoma) a function of applying the smaller percentage growth spurred in Texas to the VERY much larger Texas economy.

[Kerry]

Try this: The 1% growth in the Oklahoma economy, if evenly spread, will produce 1% growth in every city and hamlet in Oklahoma. But if you report it in dollar terms, guess what, that growth will produce millions of dollars in Oklahoma City, but only perhaps thousands of dollars in a town such as Guymon. Similar, although not quite identical, analysis.

OK - this is a good example but a bit more to the extreme so it will make it obvious. Let's say OKC sees a 1% increase in its GDP and from the 1% growth in OKC - Guymon see a $100 increase. However, if Guymon has 1% growth then, according to the study, OKC would see a $300 benefit. How can OKC get 3X the benefit from a 1% growth in Guymon (only thousands of dollars of GDP) versus what Guymon gets from 1% growth in OKC (billion in GDP).

The study has to be wrong. Oklaoma benefits more from being near Texas than Texas does from being near Oklahoma just like Guymon benefits more from OKC than OKC benefits from its proximity to Guymon.

This is what the study said:

1% increase in Texas GDP means a $56 million increase in Oklahoma production
1% increase in Oklahoma GDP means a $173.3 increase in Texas production

[Oil Capital]

OK - this is a good example but a bit more to the extreme so it will make it obvious. Let's say OKC sees a 1% increase in its GDP and from the 1% growth in OKC - Guymon see a $100 increase. However, if Guymon has 1% growth then, according to the study, OKC would see a $300 benefit. How can OKC get 3X the benefit from a 1% growth in Guymon (only thousands of dollars of GDP) versus what Guymon gets from 1% growth in OKC (billion in GDP).

The study has to be wrong. Oklaoma benefits more from being near Texas than Texas does from being near Oklahoma just like Guymon benefits more from OKC than OKC benefits from its proximity to Guymon.

This is what the study said:

1% increase in Texas GDP means a $56 million increase in Oklahoma production
1% increase in Oklahoma GDP means a $173.3 increase in Texas production

Your example is possible (although a town closer than Guymon would be more likely). You are still not grasping the difference caused by the relative size of the economies. If you spur a small economy, you get small results. If you spur a HUGE economy, even by a small amount, you get large results. It's just simple mathematics.

[soonerfan_in_okc]

what we have to offer is casinos...plenty of them. I am fine with north texans spending their hard earned money in my state any day lol

[gen70]

I know that many Texans are dumping tons of money in the casinos in Ok. (and I love it) but, what happens when Texans wise up and starts building casinos? I guess off-setting penalties on that one.

[Kerry]

If you spur a small economy, you get small results. If you spur a HUGE economy, even by a small amount, you get large results. It's just simple mathematics.

I can buy that argument.

[mugofbeer]

I know that many Texans are dumping tons of money in the casinos in Ok. (and I love it) but, what happens when Texans wise up and starts building casinos? I guess off-setting penalties on that one.

There was an article the other day about how the new casino in Durant and the one on I-35 just north of the Red River are pulling gamblers away from Shreveport. I've not seen the new Durant casino but its apparently pretty nice.

The fear is that Texas will seriously consider legalizing some sort of casino gaming. There was talk in the last legelative session there and the Chickasaw's bought Lone Star Horse Track in Grande Prairie with the vision of it being a full gaming casino before long.

What were the plans with the redevelopment of the Texoma Lodge? Was there to be any casino operation with that or was it strictly a family resort? I would think something on the shore of Texoma would go over in a big way.

[progressiveboy]

There was an article the other day about how the new casino in Durant and the one on I-35 just north of the Red River are pulling gamblers away from Shreveport. I've not seen the new Durant casino but its apparently pretty nice.

The fear is that Texas will seriously consider legalizing some sort of casino gaming. There was talk in the last legelative session there and the Chickasaw's bought Lone Star Horse Track in Grande Prairie with the vision of it being a full gaming casino before long.

What were the plans with the redevelopment of the Texoma Lodge? Was there to be any casino operation with that or was it strictly a family resort? I would think something on the shore of Texoma would go over in a big way.

The article appeared in the DMN Sunday edition. Some residents stated that they refuse to gamble in Oklahoma and still go to Shreveport to gamble because they offer "full service gambling". but others are catching on to Oklahoma because of the nice ammenities offered at Winstar and Choctaw with better hotel rates and other things to offer like spas and good restaurants. I bet Texas will eventually vote for gambling casinos and they will offer "full fledged" gambling including dice and roulette, not the 'waterdowned' version that Oklahoma offers.

[progressiveboy]

Here is the link:



Oklahoma casino may pull Texas gamblers away from Shreveport | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Dallas Business News

[adaniel]

I bet Texas will eventually vote for gambling casinos and they will offer "full fledged" gambling including dice and roulette, not the 'waterdowned' version that Oklahoma offers.

Not to get political, but...

Considering Rick "goodhair" Perry's beatdown of KBH last night and a clinching of frontrunner status of the governor's race, don't expect that to happen soon. He's already been on the record that Texas won't be expanding gambling beyond the lottery and horsetracks. Oh well, Oklahoma will gladly take the money.

No surprise that the Chickasaw Nation gave him $40,000 last election cycle and will probably support him again this one. They are smart enough to know what will happen once he vacates Austin.

Gubernatorial Candidates Report Contributions - cbs11tv.com

[Kerry]

Oh well, Oklahoma will gladly take the money.

How much money does the state get?

[Spartan]

Your example is possible (although a town closer than Guymon would be more likely).

Do you realize that Guymon's County borders Texas?

[mugofbeer]

Guymon is the county seat of T E X A S county, Oklahoma. There is no "Guymon" county.

[Spartan]

Ah thank you very much, further proving my point.