1

West Texas Energy Consortium Region: Ten
County-Level Economic Impacts of Oil and
Gas Activities
Center for Community and Business Research at The University of Texas at San Antonio’s Institute for
Economic Development
2























Acknowledgements
This report was performed by the University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic
Development’s Center for Community of Business Research. The project was supported with funding
from the West Texas Energy Consortium. Any finding, conclusions or opinion are those of the authors
and not necessarily those reflected by The University of Texas at San Antonio or the West Texas Energy
Consortium.

Javier Oyakawa, M.A., M.Sc., Lead Investigator

Thomas Tunstall, PhD, Principal Investigator

Research Assistants: Gina Conti, Hector Torres, Ricardo Avalos, Jason Hernandez, Binbin Wang, John
Rodriguez, Neeraj Ravi, Feihua Teng, and Christina Valerino.

Hisham Eid, GIS specialist
3

Contents
1. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 8
3. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 17
The West Texas Energy Consortium and the Severance Tax ................................................................. 17
4. Fisher County .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Overview of Fisher County ....................................................................................................................... 20
Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries ........................................................................................ 21
Population Growth Comparison ............................................................................................................... 22
Job Growth Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 23
Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison ............................................................ 24
Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment ......................................................... 25
Population Projections ............................................................................................................................. 27
Total Employment Forecast for Fisher County in 2014-2022 .................................................................. 28
Educational Attainment ............................................................................................................................ 29
Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax........................................................................................................ 30
Employment Changes .............................................................................................................................. 31
Commuting Patterns ................................................................................................................................ 32
Economic Impacts in 2012 ....................................................................................................................... 33
Economic Impacts in 2022 ....................................................................................................................... 34
5. Glasscock County ................................................................................................................................... 35
Overview of Glasscock County ................................................................................................................ 35
Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries ........................................................................................ 36
Population Growth Comparison ............................................................................................................... 37
Job Growth Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 38
Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison ............................................................ 39
Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment ......................................................... 40
Population Projections ............................................................................................................................. 42
Total Employment Forecast for Glasscock County in 2014-2022 ............................................................ 43
Educational Attainment ............................................................................................................................ 44
Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax........................................................................................................ 45
County Budgets ........................................................................................................................................ 46
Employment Changes .............................................................................................................................. 47
4

Commuting Patterns ................................................................................................................................ 48
Economic Impacts in 2012 ....................................................................................................................... 49
Economic Impacts in 2022 ....................................................................................................................... 50
6. Howard County ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Overview of Howard County .................................................................................................................... 51
Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries ........................................................................................ 52
Population Growth Comparison ............................................................................................................... 53
Job Growth Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 54
Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison ............................................................ 55
Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment ......................................................... 56
Population Projections ............................................................................................................................. 58
Total Employment Forecast for Howard County in 2014-2022 ................................................................ 59
Building Permits ....................................................................................................................................... 60
Educational Attainment ............................................................................................................................ 61
Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax........................................................................................................ 62
County Budgets ........................................................................................................................................ 63
Employment Changes .............................................................................................................................. 64
Commuting Patterns ................................................................................................................................ 65
Economic Impacts in 2012 ....................................................................................................................... 66
Economic Impacts in 2022 ....................................................................................................................... 67
7. Irion County ............................................................................................................................................. 68
Overview of Irion County .......................................................................................................................... 68
Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries ........................................................................................ 69
Population Growth Comparison ............................................................................................................... 70
Job Growth Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 71
Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison ............................................................ 72
Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment ......................................................... 73
Population Projections ............................................................................................................................. 75
Total Employment Forecast for Irion County in 2014-2022 ..................................................................... 76
Educational Attainment ............................................................................................................................ 77
Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax........................................................................................................ 78
County Budgets ........................................................................................................................................ 79
Employment Changes .............................................................................................................................. 80
Commuting Patterns ................................................................................................................................ 81
Economic Impacts in 2012 ....................................................................................................................... 82
5

Economic Impacts in 2022 ....................................................................................................................... 83
8. Martin County .......................................................................................................................................... 84
Overview of Martin County ....................................................................................................................... 84
Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries ........................................................................................ 85
Population Growth Comparison ............................................................................................................... 86
Job Growth Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 87
Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison ............................................................ 88
Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment ......................................................... 89
Population Projections ............................................................................................................................. 91
Total Employment Forecast for Martin County in 2014-2022 .................................................................. 92
Building Permits ....................................................................................................................................... 93
Educational Attainment ............................................................................................................................ 94
Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax........................................................................................................ 95
Employment Changes .............................................................................................................................. 96
Commuting Patterns ................................................................................................................................ 97
Economic Impacts in 2012 ....................................................................................................................... 98
Economic Impacts in 2022 ....................................................................................................................... 99
9. Mitchell County ...................................................................................................................................... 100
Overview of Mitchell County ................................................................................................................... 100
Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries ...................................................................................... 101
Population Growth Comparison ............................................................................................................. 102
Job Growth Comparison ........................................................................................................................ 103
Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison .......................................................... 104
Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment ....................................................... 105
Population Projections ........................................................................................................................... 107
Total Employment Forecast for Mitchell County in 2014-2022 .............................................................. 108
Building Permits ..................................................................................................................................... 109
Educational Attainment .......................................................................................................................... 110
Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax...................................................................................................... 111
Employment Changes ............................................................................................................................ 112
Commuting Patterns .............................................................................................................................. 113
Economic Impacts in 2012 ..................................................................................................................... 114
Economic Impacts in 2022 ..................................................................................................................... 115
10. Nolan County ......................................................................................................................................... 116
Overview of Nolan County ..................................................................................................................... 116
6

Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries ...................................................................................... 117
Population Growth Comparison ............................................................................................................. 118
Job Growth Comparison ........................................................................................................................ 119
Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison .......................................................... 120
Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment ....................................................... 121
Population Projections ........................................................................................................................... 123
Total Employment Forecast for Nolan County in 2014-2022 ................................................................. 124
Building Permits ..................................................................................................................................... 125
Educational Attainment .......................................................................................................................... 126
Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax...................................................................................................... 127
County Budgets ...................................................................................................................................... 128
Employment Changes ............................................................................................................................ 129
Commuting Patterns .............................................................................................................................. 130
Economic Impacts in 2012 ..................................................................................................................... 131
Economic Impacts in 2022 ..................................................................................................................... 132
11. Reagan County ..................................................................................................................................... 133
Overview of Reagan County .................................................................................................................. 133
Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries ...................................................................................... 134
Population Growth Comparison ............................................................................................................. 135
Job Growth Comparison ........................................................................................................................ 136
Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison .......................................................... 137
Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment ....................................................... 138
Population Projections ........................................................................................................................... 140
Total Employment Forecast for Reagan County in 2014-2022 .............................................................. 141
Building Permits ..................................................................................................................................... 142
Educational Attainment .......................................................................................................................... 143
Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax...................................................................................................... 144
County Budgets ...................................................................................................................................... 145
Employment Changes ............................................................................................................................ 146
Commuting Patterns .............................................................................................................................. 147
Economic Impacts in 2012 ..................................................................................................................... 148
Economic Impacts in 2022 ..................................................................................................................... 149
12. Scurry County ........................................................................................................................................ 150
Overview of Scurry County .................................................................................................................... 150
Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries ...................................................................................... 151
7

Population Growth Comparison ............................................................................................................. 152
Job Growth Comparison ........................................................................................................................ 153
Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison .......................................................... 154
Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment ....................................................... 155
Population Projections ........................................................................................................................... 157
Total Employment Forecast for Scurry County in 2014-2022 ................................................................ 158
Building Permits ..................................................................................................................................... 159
Educational Attainment .......................................................................................................................... 160
Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax...................................................................................................... 161
County Budgets ...................................................................................................................................... 162
Employment Changes ............................................................................................................................ 163
Commuting Patterns .............................................................................................................................. 164
Economic Impacts in 2012 ..................................................................................................................... 165
Economic Impacts in 2022 ..................................................................................................................... 166
13. Sterling County ...................................................................................................................................... 167
Overview of Sterling County ................................................................................................................... 167
Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries ...................................................................................... 168
Population Growth Comparison ............................................................................................................. 169
Job Growth Comparison ........................................................................................................................ 170
Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison .......................................................... 171
Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment ....................................................... 172
Population Projections ........................................................................................................................... 174
Total Employment Forecast for Sterling County in 2014-2022 .............................................................. 175
Educational Attainment .......................................................................................................................... 176
Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax...................................................................................................... 177
Employment Changes ............................................................................................................................ 178
Commuting Patterns .............................................................................................................................. 179
Economic Impacts in 2012 ..................................................................................................................... 180
Economic Impacts in 2022 ..................................................................................................................... 181
14. Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 182
Appendix A: County Budgets and Road Expenditures .......................................................................... 182
Appendix B: West Texas Consortium Hotel Occupancy Data ............................................................... 183
15. References ............................................................................................................................................ 186

8

Executive Summary
The oil and gas industry in the core 10-county area of the WTxEC in 2012 had an impact close to $14.5
billion, supported nearly 21,450 full-time jobs, paid $1 billion in wages and salaries, generated almost
$472 million in state revenues — including $187 million in severance taxes — added approximately $6.2
billion in gross regional product, and contributed nearly $447 million in local governments revenues.
By 2022, those impacts will grow to $20.5 billion in output, supporting 30,500 full-time jobs, paying $1.8
billion in wages and salaries, generating $701 million in state revenues — including $334 million in
severance taxes — creating close to $9.4 billion in gross regional product, and contributing about $664
million in local government revenues.


Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA. http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.

Taking into consideration low- and high-price scenarios, the impacts in 2022 could vary widely. This
study estimates scenarios where low prices of oil in the future could produce an output as low as $7.6
billion, and where high prices of oil could see enormous growth, as high as $34.3 billion. The ranges of
these figures are broad due to high variability in the prices of oil and gas, the challenges of forecasting
future oil and gas activities, changes in the number of wells per rig, and changes in productivity per well.
9


Low
Estimate Moderate Estimate
High
Estimate
Output $7,589 $20,524 $34,295
Employment 11,822 30,540 49,690
Payroll $714 $1,865 $3,047
Gross Regional Product $3,371 $9,434 $16,224
Estimated Local Government Revenues $226 $664 $1,190
Estimated State Revenue, incl. severance taxes
$238 $701 $1,257
* 2012 dollars
Estimated Impacts for West Texas Energy Consortium
at the Regional Level 2022 in millions of dollars *
Total Impact Three Scenarios
Source: IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011.
10



The effects across different counties are diverse. For 2012, in terms of output, the most affected
counties are Howard ($4.2 billion), Martin ($2.8 billion), and Scurry ($1.9 billion). For 2022, Howard
appears in first place ($4.4 billion), Reagan in second place ($4.3 billion), and Irion in third place ($3.2
billion). Fisher and Sterling counties appear to be affected the least among the 14 counties with $2.9
billion and $2.7 billion in 2012 and 2022, respectively.


















Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
Total Output Impacts
County 2012 Total
Output Impact, in
millions of $
County 2022 Total
Output Impact,
in millions of $
Howard
$4,238.9

Howard
$4,461.0
Martin $2,863.2

Reagan $4,359.9
Scurry $1,903.4

Irion $3,238.9
Reagan $1,771.5

Martin $2,666.7
Glasscock $1,468.7

Glasscock $1,871.2
Irion $856.7

Nolan $1,484.7
Mitchell $727.0

Mitchell $1,080.8
Nolan $556.8

Scurry $564.6
Sterling $178.9

Fisher $384.9
Fisher $176.3

Sterling $383.2
11

Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
In terms of employment, the most impacted counties in 2012 are Martin (4,610 full-time jobs), Scurry
(2,966 full-time jobs), and Howard (2,808 full-time jobs). For 2022, the three most impacted counties are
Reagan (5,131 full-time jobs), Irion (4,586 full-time jobs), and Martin (4,002 full-time jobs). Similar to the
output impacts, Sterling appears among the least impacted with 275 and 637 full-time jobs in 2012 and
2022, respectively. Something similar occurs to Fisher.



Total Employment Impacts
County
2012 Total
Full-Time
Employment



County

2022 Total
Full-Time
Employment
Martin
4,610

Reagan
5,131
Scurry 2,966

Irion 4,586
Howard 2,808

Martin 4,002
Reagan 2,600 Nolan 3,714
Glasscock 1,657 Howard 2,783
Nolan 1,640 Glasscock 1,884
Mitchell 1,348 Mitchell 1,810
Irion 1,247 Scurry 1,208
Fisher 394 Sterling 637
Sterling 275 Fisher 590
12

Between the fourth quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter of 2012, for the aggregate of all 10 counties,
employment increased by 737 jobs, a 2.20 percent increase. For the 10 counties, the highest growth rate
corresponds to other services (8.80 percent increase); followed by the natural resources & mining sector
(8.00 percent increase), and the manufacturing sector (7.80 percent increase).


Employment Changes in 10-County Region
2011 4
th
Quarter to 2012 4
th
Quarter
Industry
Employment 2011
4
th
Quarter
Employment 2012
4
th
Quarter
Employment
Change
Percent Growth,
2011-2012
Other Services 894 973 79 8.80%
Natural Resources &
Mining
4,910 5,304 394 8.00%
Manufacturing 2,029 2,187 158 7.80%
Leisure & Hospitality
Group
2,693 2,884 191 7.10%
Construction 2,213 2,338 125 5.60%
Education & Health
Services
9,219 9,333 114 1.20%
Trade, Transport. &
Utilities
6,904 6,855 -49 -0.70%
Financial Activities Group 1,048 1,018 -30 -2.80%
Information 232 224 -8 -3.40%
Public Administration 2,474 2,319 -155 -6.30%
Professional Business &
Other Services
1,105 1,023 -82 -7.40%
Total, All Industries 33,721 34,458 737 2.20%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

Employment changes by the Texas Workforce Commission are based on establishments paying
employment insurance and do not include the self-employed. These statistics do not include the number
of workers living in hotels, RV parks, and man camps, among other lodging facilities.
1



1
These differences are discussed in Javier Oyakawa AFrameworkfortheStudyandForecastofLaborForce,
Employment,Population,Migration,andCommuteChangesintheEagleFordShale. Paper presented at the 44
th

Annual Conference of the Urban Affairs Association. March 19-22, 2014, San Antonio, Texas.
13

Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
The gross county product (GCP) impacts provide a better picture of the benefits obtained from oil and
gas activities because these values include only “earnings and surplus, and do not double count them as
might happen with the output numbers. For 2012, in terms of GCP, the most impacted counties are
Martin ($1.3 billion), Howard ($1.1 billion), and Scurry ($985 million). For 2022, Reagan ranks first ($2.1
billion) Irion is second place ($1.5 billion), and Martin takes the third place ($1.3 billion).













Total Gross County Product Impacts
County
2012 Total
Gross
County Product
Impact, in
millions of $



County
2022 Total
Gross
County Product
Impact, in
millions of $
Martin
$1,388.1

Reagan
$2,134.0
Howard $1,154.0

Irion $1,524.7
Scurry $985.0

Martin $1,385.3
Reagan $817.9

Howard $1,191.8
Glasscock $686.4

Glasscock $934.2
Irion $385.0

Nolan $757.9
Mitchell $343.4

Mitchell $557.0
Nolan $249.3

Scurry $296.9
Sterling $87.2

Fisher $198.1
Fisher $77.5

Sterling $186.2
14

The estimated state revenue provides a better picture of the economic benefits that the state of Texas
gathered in 2012.This state revenue was then broken down by the amount gathered by each respective
county. For 2012, the counties with the highest estimated state revenue are Martin ($116 million),
Scurry ($85 million), and Glasscock ($61 million). Based on the predictions and calculations, the counties
with the highest estimated state revenue for 2022 are Reagan ($157 million), Irion ($117 million) and
Martin ($115 million).

Estimated State Revenue 2012 and 2022
County
Estimated
State
Revenue
2012, in
millions of $

County
Estimated
State
Revenue
2022, in
millions $
Martin $115.7 Reagan
$157.0
Scurry $85.1
Irion $117.3
Glasscock $61.8
Martin $114.9
Reagan $61.3
Glasscock $81.5
Howard $54.6
Nolan $58.0
Irion $31.6
Howard $52.6
Mitchell $28.7
Mitchell $48.3
Nolan $15.8
Scurry $22.1
Sterling $6.7
Fisher $17.1
Fisher $5.8
Sterling $12.6
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

15

The estimated local revenue provides a better picture of the economic benefits that each individual
county locally acquired throughout 2012. For 2012, the counties with the highest estimated local
revenue are Martin ($110 million), Scurry ($80 million), and Glasscock ($58 million). Based on
predictions and calculations, the counties with the highest estimated local revenue for 2022 are Reagan
($149 million), Irion ($111 million), and Martin ($109 million).
Estimated Local Revenues 2012 and 2022
County
Estimated Local
Revenues
2012, in
millions of $

County
Estimated
Local
Revenue
2022, in
millions of $
Martin
$109.5
Reagan $148.6
Scurry $80.4

Irion $111.3
Glasscock $58.3

Martin $108.9
Reagan $58.0

Glasscock $77.1
Howard $51.8

Nolan $55.0
Irion $29.9

Howard $50.0
Mitchell $27.1

Mitchell $45.5
Nolan $15.1

Scurry $21.0
Sterling $6.3

Fisher $16.2
Fisher $5.5

Sterling $12.0
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
16

Another indicator of the benefits from the West Texas oil and gas production is the amount of sales
taxes that these counties generate, divided into four quarters, between 2002 and 2012. The 10-county
area’s total sales subject to state sales tax had an increase of $340.0 million by the end this time span.
The following graph shows the original values in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed
values represent a four-quarter average.

Source: Texas Comptroller office, historic sales tax data.











17

Introduction
The West Texas Energy Consortium is an open forum for coordination and information sharing,
organized by the Workforce Solutions Boards in the Concho Valley, West Central Texas, and Permian
Basin regions. This is the second phase of a study that the WTxEC contracted with the Center for
Community and Business Research at The University of Texas at San Antonio’s Institute for Economic
Development to estimate the specific economic impacts of the oil and gas industry on each of the
following ten counties: Fisher, Glasscock, Howard, Irion, Martin, Mitchell, Nolan, Reagan, Scurry, and
Sterling.

The West Texas Energy Consortium and the Severance Tax
The West Texas Consortium is a 10-county region with active drilling. These counties include: Fisher,
Glasscock, Howard, Irion, Martin, Mitchell, Nolan, Reagan, Scurry, and Sterling. The following tables
detail the severance tax revenue for the ten counties in the consortium. The data was taken from the
Texas Comptroller’s Office and focuses on crude oil and natural gas tax revenue for the year 2012, as
well as the percent change from 2011 to 2012.

Table 0-1
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

18

Table 0-2

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts


Reagan County had the highest revenue of the severance tax for crude oil in 2012, a staggering $23.6
million. Martin and Glasscock Counties had over $17 million, with Irion earning $12.8 million. Howard
County comes in fifth with a gross revenue for 2012 of $8.4 million. Glasscock County has the highest
percent change in crude oil revenue with an 80.7 percent increase from 2011 to 2012. Irion County saw
a 60.7 percent increase in severance tax revenue. The state of Texas as a whole saw a 44.3 percent
increase. Both Sterling and Howard County suffered a negative change in crude oil revenue from 2011
to 2012 with Howard losing the most at 9.1 percent.
Table 0-3
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
19

Table 0-4

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts


The severance tax revenue for natural gas was the largest in Martin County totaling $79 million.
Glasscock came in second with $51.6 million. Reagan County, which had the highest revenue for crude
oil, was third in natural gas at just over $37.2 million. Scurry and Howard County round out the top five
with $27.1 and $22.9 million, respectively. Glasscock, similar to crude oil percent change, has the
highest percent change for natural gas tax revenue change with 77.6 percent. Scurry is a close second
with a 74.3 percent change. Both Glasscock and Scurry are well above the Texas percent change for
natural gas totaling 13.2 percent increase. Fisher, Sterling, and Mitchel County all suffered a negative
change in natural gas revenue with the last six counties all losing more than 10 percent.
20

Fisher County
Overview of Fisher County
Fisher County lies on TX-180, north of I-20. There are only three cities in Fisher County. Roby is the
county seat, with a population of 643. Rotan and Hamlin are the other two cities, with half of Hamlin
lying in Jones County. It was named after Samuel Rhoads Fisher, a signer of the Texas Declaration of
Independence. Fisher County is one of 30

prohibition, or entirely dry, counties in the state of Texas.
Figure 1-1

Source: Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA.
http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.


21

Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries
Fisher County has a population of 3,914 in 2011. The per capita personal income is $34,088 for 2011.
The top three employments by industry are farm employment, state and local government, and retail
trade; with government and government enterprises being the top industry by earnings.

Table 1-1
Fisher County
Population 3,914
Per Capita Personal Income 34,088
Total Employment 987

 Farm Employment
Employment by Industry (Top 3)  State and Local Government

 Retail Trade

 Government and
Government Enterprises
Earnings by Industry (Top 3)  Farms Earnings

 Other Services, Except Public
Administration
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Accounts

22


Population Growth Comparison
Fisher County’s population growth falls behind the rate of Texas and the study area, according to the
U.S. Census Bureau. By 2012, the population of Texas and the WTxEC study area has increased by 22.2
percent and 2.7 percent, while the population of Fisher County has decreased by 9.7 percent when
compared to 2001.

Figure 1-2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

23


Job Growth Comparison
Employment in Fisher County decreased 9.8 percent in the twelve-year study period. Fisher County’s
employment rate has not been consistent with the WTxEC study region or state, which have grown
respectively by 14.7 percent and 11.3 percent when compared to 2001.

Figure 1-3

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

24


Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison
Employment in the natural resources and mining super sector increased 51.2 percent for the state of
Texas and 74.5 percent for the study area in the period between 2001 and 2012. In Fisher County, the
employment for the super-sector was not stable, peaking at 35.1 percent in 2005, decreasing to 13.0
percent in 2011, and decreasing 3.9 percent in 2012 when compared to 2001. The decline in
employment for the sector has followed the same trend as total employment, but has shown a higher
degree of turbulence.
Figure 1-4

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

25


Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment
Location quotients are useful in determining the significance of a particular job sector in the local
economy. This is determined by calculating the ratio of a particular job sector with total jobs in the local
economy, then comparing that to the same ratio for the state level. A location quotient greater than 1.0
denotes a sector that has greater importance to the local economy than that for the state. A location
quotient less than 1.0 signifies that the sector is less important to the local economy when compared to
the state.
Both Fisher County and the study area report a location quotient greater than 1.0 from 2001-2012. The
natural resource and mining super sector has a greater significance in the Fisher County than in study
area from 2002 to 2006.

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012



Figure 1-5
26

Table 1-6
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012



27

Population Projections
The following table projects Fisher County’s population from 2000-2050. The projections are divided by
ethnicity. Each category contains the percent change. Fisher County is projected by the year 2050 to see
an overall decrease in population of 12.7 percent, a 34.4 percent decrease in Anglo population, a 5.9
percent increase in Black population, and a 59.7 percent increase in the Hispanic population.
Table 1-2
Population Projections
Year Total Change Anglo Change Black Change Hispanic Change Other Change
2000
4,344 - 3,271 - 118 - 928 - 27 -
2005
4,249 -2.2% 3,116 -4.7% 117 -0.8% 989 6.6% 27 0%
2010
3,974 -8.5% 2,797 -14.5% 124 5.1% 999 7.7% 54 100.0%
2015
3,984 -8.3% 2,731 -16.5% 130 10.2% 1,069 15.2% 54 100.0%
2020
4,001 -7.9% 2,656 -18.8% 135 14.4% 1,156 24.6% 54 100.0%
2025
4,005 -7.8% 2,583 -21.0% 137 16.1% 1,233 32.9% 52 92.6%
2030
3,984 -8.3% 2,484 -24.1% 138 16.9% 1,310 41.2% 52 92.6%
2035
3,949 -9.1% 2,383 -27.1% 134 13.6% 1,380 48.7% 52 92.6%
2040
3,883 -10.6% 2,295 -29.8% 133 12.7% 1,405 51.4% 50 85.2%
2045
3,841 -11.6% 2,224 -32.0% 130 10.2% 1,440 55.2% 47 74.1%
2050
3,794 -12.7% 2,146 -34.4% 125 5.9% 1,482 59.7% 41 51.9%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission as computed in 2012 by The Office of the State Demographer for the State of Texas

28

Table 1-3
Total Employment Forecast for Fisher County in 2014-2022
In order to estimate the Total Employment Forecast we used percentages of the super sectors for each
county using the forecasts for the corresponding Workforce Development Area (WDA) starting with the
base year (2014) and forecasting every year in between through 2022 (2020 figure provided by TWC).
For the period 2020-2022, it was assumed the same growth rate from previous years.













Year Total Employment Forecast
2014 936
2015 948
2016 961
2017 974
2018 987
2019 1000
2020 1013
2021 1026
2022 1040
Source: CCBR elaboration with Texas Workforce
Commission’s forecasts for Workforce Development
Areas (WDAs) 2010-2020

29


Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. In Fisher
County, 82.9 percent of its population has at least a high school diploma, and only 15.9 percent have
completed their bachelor’s degree.
Table 1-4
Educational Attainment
Type of School Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent
Nursery school or preschool 52 5% Less than 9th grade 232 8%
Kindergarten 49 5% 9th-12th grade, no diploma 246 9%
Elementary (grades 1-8) 496 51% High school diploma or equiv. 1,147 41%
High School (grades 9-12) 308 32% Some college, no degree 571 20%
College or graduate school 70 7% Associate degree 157 6%
Total 975 Bachelor's degree 333 12%
Graduate or professional degree 112 4%
Percent with high school diploma 82.9% Total 2,797
Percent with Bachelor's degree 15.9%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
30


Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax
Fisher County’s total sales subject to state sales tax were 1.3 million in the first quarter of 2010 with an
increase to 2.5 million by the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 96 percent. Below is a 10-year
historical graph for Fisher County of the amount of total sales subject to state sales tax. The original
values are in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed values represent a four-quarter sales
average.

Figure 1-7
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

31


Employment Changes
Between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2012, for Fisher County, there was a 2.6
percent change in employment for all industries. Employment growth for the state of Texas for the same
period was 3.26 percent. The industry with the highest growth was Natural Resources and Mining with a
72.9 percent increase, and the industry with the highest negative growth in employment was
Construction, with a -53.8 percent change.

Table 1-5
Employment Changes by Sector
Industry Sector 2011 Q4 2012 Q4
Employment
Change
Percent
Change
Natural Resources and Mining 74 128 54 72.9%
Leisure and Hospitality 33 39 6 18.2%
Public Administration 77 83 6 7.8%
Prof., Business, and Other Services 35 37 2 5.7%
Total, All Industries 800 821 21 2.6%
Trade, Transportation, Utilities 161 156 -5 -3.0%
Financial Activities 56 54 -2 -3.0%
Education and Health Services 298 281 -17 -5.7%
Other Services 27 25 -2 -7.0%
Construction 39 18 -21 -53.8%
Manufacturing n/a n/a n/a n/a
Information n/a n/a n/a n/a
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
32

Commuting Patterns
Using the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic (LEHD) mapping programing, the commuting
patterns of residents and employees of the 10-county region shows where residents work and the
employees live. The commuting patterns for Fisher County can be seen below. When compared to the
other nine counties, Fisher County had the second highest percentage, at 69 percent, of employees who
live within one of the 10-counties with active drilling. They had the fourth highest percentage of
residents who work within the 10-county area.
There are 716 people employed in Fisher County. Of the total, 215 work in Scurry and live within one of
the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 501 workers are employed in Fisher County
but live outside the 10-county study area.

Table 1-6
Commuting Patterns for Employees
Number Percentage
Live in 10-county area
215 30.1%
Live outside 10-county area
501 69.9%
Total 716 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map


There are 1,431 workers who live in Fisher County. Of this total, 686 work within the 10-county study
area. The remaining 745 workers live in Fisher County but work outside the 10-county study area.

Table 1-7
Commuting Patterns for Residents
Number Percentage
Work in 10-county area
686 47.9%
Work outside 10-county area
745 52.1%
Total 1,431 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map








33

Economic Impacts in 2012
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the oil and gas industry on Fisher County in 2012.
The rows contain the estimated economic impact for 2012 in regards to the oil and gas industry. During
this period, the total output $176 million, a total of $77 million gross county product, and a total of 394
full-time employment.
The total estimated state revenue was $5 million, and an estimated severance tax of $1 million, with a
total amount of royalties of $16 million, and a total of $6 million lease payments. The drilling and
completion expenditures represented $60 million; followed by oil and gas production with $82 million.

Estimated Impacts in Fisher, 2012


Table 1-8

Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $142,586,917 $23,282,178 $10,528,336 $176,397,432
Gross County Product $60,908,752 $10,381,581 $6,240,719 $77,531,052
Employment Full-Time
137 187 70 394
Payroll
$10,781,696 $3,380,275 $1,134,293 $15,296,264

Estimated State Revenue $5,839,608
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Fisher, 2012
Table 1-9
Severance Tax $1,972,909
Royalties $16,517,383
Lease Payments $6,580,070
Drilling and completion $60,000,000
Oil and gas production $82,586,916
1. Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3 database 2011
34

Economic Impacts in 2022
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Fisher County. In 2022, it is
estimated that a total of 590 Fisher County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under analysis, in
addition to $384 million in output as well as over $198 million gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue is $17 million, and the total severance tax is $9.9 million with a total
of $81 million in royalties and a total of $3 million in lease payments. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $34 million; followed by oil and gas production with $405 million.
Estimated Impacts in Fisher, 2022
Table 1-10
Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $331,136,128 $34,267,210 $19,541,409 $384,944,747
Gross County Product $169,648,577 $16,888,716 $11,583,810 $198,121,103
Employment Full-Time 202 259 130 590
Payroll
$23,678,839 $6,009,710 $2,102,966 $31,791,515


Estimated State Revenue
$17,173,710
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011


Estimated Expenditures Fisher, 2022
Table 1-11
Severance Tax $9,988,373.11
Royalties $81,052,314
Lease Payments $3,915,811
Drilling and completion $34,925,022
Oil and gas production $405,261,569
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011



35

Glasscock County
Overview of Glasscock County
The following graphs and charts show population growth, total employment, the natural resource and
mining employment, and the relationship among Glasscock County, the study area, and the state of
Texas. Glasscock County is named after George Washington Glasscock, an early settler of the Austin
area. Glasscock County is located on US Highway 87, and it’s only town is Garden City, which has a
population of just 334.
Figure 2-1

Source: Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA.
http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.








36

Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries
Glasscock County had a total population of just 1,251. The per capita personal income was $32,256. The
top three industry are farm employment, state and local government, and forestry, fishing, and related
activities; with government and government enterprises being the top industry by earnings.

Table 2-1
Glasscock County
Population 1,251
Per capita Personal Income 32,256
Total Employment 436
 Farm Employment
Employment by Industry (Top 3)  State and Local Government

 Forestry, Fishing, and Related
Activates

 Government and Government
Enterprises
Earnings by Industry (Top 3)

 Forestry, Fishing, and Related
Activities
 Mining
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Accounts

37


Population Growth Comparison
Glasscock County’s population growth falls behind the state of Texas and the WTxEC study area.
Compared to the 22.2 percent increase of Texas, the study area only increased 2.7 percent during the
last twelve years, while Glasscock County decreased 6.8 percent when comparing 2001 and 2012.
Glasscock County’s population has not been consistent with the region or the state.

Figure 2-2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

38


Job Growth Comparison
Employment growth for Glasscock County during the study period is erratic, but has shown a major
upswing since 2009. Glasscock County reached the same 14.7 percent rate as the state of Texas in 2012,
outpacing the WTxEC study area’s 11.3 percent job growth when compared to 2001.

Figure 2-3

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

39


Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison
Employment in the natural resources and mining super-sector increased 51.2 percent in Texas and 74.5
percent for the WTxEC study area between 2001 and 2012. Glasscock County’s employment growth
within the sector has increased to a more modest 22.9 percent between 2001 and 2012.

Figure 2-4

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
40


Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment
Location quotients are useful in determining the significance of a particular job sector in the local
economy. This is determined by calculating the ratio of a particular job sector with total jobs in the local
economy, then comparing that to the same ratio for the state level. A location quotient greater than 1.0
denotes a sector that has greater importance to the local economy than that for the state. A location
quotient less than 1.0 signifies that the sector is less important to the local economy when compared to
the state.
Both Glasscock County and the study area report a location quotient greater than 1.0 from 2001 to
2012. The natural resource and mining super sector has a much greater significance in Glasscock County
than in the state of Texas or even the rest of the study area.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
Figure 2-5

41


Chart 2-6

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
42

Population Projections

The following table projects Glasscock County’s population from 2000-2050. The projections are divided
by ethnicity, with a category for Anglo, Black, and Hispanic. Each category contains the percent change.
Glasscock County is projected by the year 2050 to see a 26.8 percent decrease in Anglo population, a
100 percent increase in Black population, and a 51 percent increase in the Hispanic population.
Table 2-2
Population Projections
Year Total Change Anglo Change Black Change Hispanic Change Other Change
2000
1,406 - 978 - 7 - 420 - 1 -
2005
1,473 4.8% 1,009 3.2% 7 0.0% 456 8.6% 1 0.0%
2010
1,226 -12.8% 825 -15.6% 15 114.3% 378 10.0% 8 700.0%
2015
1,280 -9.0% 848 -13.3% 15 114.3% 409 -2.6% 8 700.0%
2020
1,341 -4.6% 873 -10.7% 15 114.3% 445 6.0% 8 700.0%
2025
1,391 -1.1% 888 -9.2% 15 114.3% 480 14.3% 8 700.0%
2030
1,429 1.6% 885 -9.5% 15 114.3% 521 24.0% 8 700.0%
2035
1,441 2.5% 860 -12.1% 15 114.3% 558 32.9% 8 700.0%
2040
1,421 1.1% 816 -16.6% 15 114.3% 583 38.8% 7 600.0%
2045
1,392 -1.0% 762 -22.1% 14 100.0% 609 45.0% 7 600.0%
2050
1,371 -2.5% 716 -26.8% 14 100.0% 634 51.0% 7 600.0%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission as computed in 2012 by The Office of the State Demographer for the State of Texas



43

Table 2-3

Source: CCBR elaboration with Texas Workforce
Commission’s forecasts for Workforce Development
Areas (WDAs) 2010-2020

Total Employment Forecast for Glasscock County in 2014-2022
In order to estimate the Total Employment Forecast we used percentages of the super sectors for each
county using the forecasts for the corresponding Workforce Development Area (WDA) starting with the
base year (2014) and forecasting every year in between through 2022 (2020 figure provided by TWC).
For the period 2020-2022, it was assumed the same growth rate from previous years.
Year Total Employment Forecast
2014 416
2015 428
2016 440
2017 453
2018 466
2019 480
2020 494
2021 508
2022 523

44


Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. In
Glasscock County, 83.2 percent of its population has at least a high school diploma, and 20 percent have
completed their bachelor’s degree.
Table 2-4
Educational Attainment
Type of School Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent
Nursery school or preschool 12 3.6% Less than 9th grade 72 9.7%
Kindergarten 12 3.6% 9th-12th grade, no diploma 53 7.1%
Elementary (grades 1-8) 158 47.7% High school diploma or equiv. 173 23.2%
High School (grades 9-12) 113 34.1% Some college, no degree 247 33.1%
College or graduate school 36 10.9% Associate degree 52 7.0%
Total 331 Bachelor's degree 116 15.5%
Graduate or professional degree 33 4.4%
Percent with high school diploma 83.2% Total 746
Percent with Bachelor's degree 20.0%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s County Narrative Profile from the Socrates database

45


Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax
Glasscock County’s total sales subject to state sales tax were 5.3 million in the first quarter of 2010 with
an increase to 2.2 million by the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 330 percent. Below is a 10-year
historical graph for Glasscock County of the amount of total sales subject to state sales tax. The original
values are in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed values represent a four-quarter sales
average.

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Figure 2-7
46


County Budgets
The following graph shows the revenues and expenditures for Glasscock County. Their revenues have
steadily risen from under $3.5 million in 2009 to over $7.3 million in 2013, while increasing their net
surplus.
Figure 2-8
Source: Glasscock Reporting Budget Fund
47


Employment Changes
Between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2012 there was an 8.1 percent change in
employment for all industries. Employment growth for the state of Texas for the same period was 3.26
percent. The industry with the highest growth was trade, transportation and utilities with a 9.3 percent
increase, and the industry with the highest negative growth in employment was Construction, with a
15.8 percent decrease.
Table 2-5
Employment Changes by Sector
Industry Sector 2011 Q4 2012 Q4
Employment
Change
Percent
Change
Trade, Transport., and Utilities 43 47 4 9.3%
Natural Resources and Mining 210 229 19 9.0%
Total, All Industries 321 347 26 8.1%
Public Administration 49 50 1 2.0%
Construction 19 16 -3 -15.8%
Manufacturing n/a n/a n/a n/a
Information n/a n/a n/a n/a
Financial Activities n/a n/a n/a n/a
Prof., Business, and Other Services n/a 5 n/a n/a
Education and Health Services n/a n/a n/a n/a
Leisure and Hospitality n/a n/a n/a n/a
Other Services n/a n/a n/a n/a
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
48


Commuting Patterns
Using the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic (LEHD) mapping program, the commuting patterns
of residents and employees of the 10-county region shows where residents work and the employees
live. The commuting patterns for Glasscock County can be seen below. When compared to the other
nine counties, Glasscock County had the third lowest percentage, at 40 percent, of employees who live
within one of the 10-counties with active drilling. However, they had the second highest percentage of
residents who work within the 10-county area.
There are 249 people employed in Glasscock County. Of this total, 150 work in Glasscock County and live
within one of the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 99 workers are employed in
Glasscock County but live outside the 10-county study area.
Table 2-6
Commuting Patterns for Employees
Number Percentage
Live in 10-county area
150 60.2%
Live outside 10-county area
99 39.8%
Total 249 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau’s On the Map

There are 480 workers who live in Glasscock County. Of the total, 118 work in Glasscock and live within
the 10-county study area. The remaining 362 workers are employed in Glasscock County but live outside
the 10-county study area.

Table 2-7
Commuting Patterns for Residents
Number Percentage
Work in 10-county area
118 24.6%
Work outside 10-county area
362 75.4%
Total 480 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau’s On the Map











49

Economic Impacts in 2012
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale oil and gas industry on Glasscock County.
In 2012, it is estimated that a total of 1,657 Glasscock County jobs were supported by the 10-county
area under analysis, in addition to $1.4 million in output as well as over $686 million gross county
product.
The total estimated state revenue was $61 million, total severance tax $27 million, an estimated lease
payments of $28 million and $222 million in royalties. The drilling and completion expenditures
represented $276 million; followed by oil and gas production with $1.1 million, and pipeline
construction activity with $9 million.
Estimated Impacts in Glasscock 2012


Table 2-8

Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $1,395,709,629 $50,259,020 $22,801,749 $1,468,770,398
Gross County Product $656,586,417 $16,835,812 $12,991,805 $686,414,034
Employment Full-Time
1,069 455 133 1,657
Payroll
$80,406,832 $11,901,887 $2,040,628 $94,349,346


Estimated State Revenue
$61,821,808
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Glasscock 2012
Table 2-9
Severance Tax

$27,061,044
Royalties

$222,028,407
Lease Payments

$28,952,307
Drilling and completion

$276,257,253
Oil and gas production

$1,110,142,037
Pipeline Construction

$9,310,340
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
50

Economic Impacts in 2022
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the oil and gas industry on Glasscock County. In
2022, it is estimated that a total of 1,884 Glasscock County jobs were supported by the 10-county area
under analysis, in addition to $1.9 million in output as well as over $934 million gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $81 million, total severance tax $49 million and an estimated
lease payments of $23 million; with an estimate of $405 million in royalties. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $298 million; while oil and gas production accounted for $2 million and a
refinery production of $3.5 million, and pipeline construction activity with $9 million.
Estimated Impacts in Glasscock 2022
Table 2-10
Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $1,780,982,912 $56,365,633 $33,862,244 $1,871,210,789
Gross County Product $894,290,370 $20,575,864 $19,401,815 $934,268,048
Employment Full-Time 1,172 512 199 1,884
Payroll
$133,067,851 $14,726,626 $3,072,251 $150,866,729


Estimated State Revenue
$81,544,909
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011


Estimated Expenditures Glasscock 2022
Table 2-11
Severance Tax

$49,533,384.25
Royalties

$405,771,731
Lease Payments

$22,727,635
Drilling and completion

$298,062,957
Oil and gas production

$2,028,858,656
Refinery Production

$3,555,538,000
Pipeline Construction

$9,310,340
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
51

Howard County
Overview of Howard County
The following graphs and charts show population growth, total employment, the super sector natural
resource and mining (NRM) employment, and the relationship between Howard County, the study area,
and the state of Texas. Howard County is located along Interstate 20 and US Highway 87. The County
was named after Volney E. Howard, a U.S. Congressman from Texas. Big Spring is the county’s seat, with
a population 27,282. Other smaller cities include Sand Springs, Coahoma, and Forsan, each with under
1,000 residents.
Figure 3-1

Source: Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA.
http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.
52


Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries
Howard County had a population of 35,122. The per capita personal income was $37,181. The top three
industry are state and local government, retail trade, and mining; with government and government
enterprises being the top industry by earnings.
Table 3-1
Howard County
Population 35,122
Per capita Personal Income 31,781
Total Employment 12,935
 State and Local Government
Employment by Industry (Top 3)  Retail Trade
 Mining

 Government and Government
Enterprises
Earnings by Industry (Top 3)

 Mining
 Manufacturing
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Accounts
53


Population Growth Comparison
The population of Howard County has grown by 6.4 percent during the past twelve years. This
population growth is consistently higher than the 2.7 percent average of the WTxEC study area, but both
percentages are lower than the 22.2 percent average for the state of Texas.

Figure 3-2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
54


Job Growth Comparison
Employment grew in Howard County at a 3.4 percent lower rate than in the state of Texas over the
twelve-year study period. The employment growth percentages for the state of Texas, Howard County,
and the WTxEC study area followed a similar pattern.

Figure 3-3

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
55


Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison
Howard County’s employment in the natural resources and mining sector grew by 76.4 percent over the
twelve-year study period, which is higher than the WTxEC’s study area growth of 74.5 percent and the
state of Texas’s 51.2 percent in the same sector between 2001 and 2012. Development within the oil
and gas industry is definitely the driver of growth in Howard County, as the growth in jobs in the sector
outpaces total job growth.
Figure 3-4

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
56

Figure 3-5

Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment
Location quotients are useful in determining the significance of a particular job sector in the local
economy. This is determined by calculating the ratio of a particular job sector from the local economy
with total jobs in the local economy, then comparing that to the same ratio for the state. A location
quotient greater than 1.0 denotes a sector that has greater importance to the local economy than that
for the state. A location quotient less than 1.0 signifies that the sector is less important to the local
economy when compared to the state.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012





57

Both Howard County and the study area report a location quotient greater than 1.0 between 2001 and
2012. The natural resource and mining super sector has a greater significance in the study area than in
Howard County, and its importance has grown over the years.

Figure 3-6

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012











58

Population Projections
Population projections are an estimate of a future population. The following table projects Howard
County’s population from 2000-2050. The projections are divided by ethnicity, with a category for Anglo,
Black, and Hispanic. Each category contains the percent change. Howard County is projected by the year
2050 to see an increase in total population by 17.4 percent, a 12.5 percent decrease in Anglo
population, a 42.9 percent increase in Black population, and a 54.4 percent increase in the Hispanic
population.
Table 3-2
Population Projections
Year Total Change Anglo Change Black Change Hispanic Change Other Change
2000
33,627 - 19,327 - 1357 - 12597 - 346 -
2005
34,365 2.2% 18,922 -2.1% 1456 7.3% 13622 8.1% 365 5.5%
2010
35,012 4.1% 18,801 -2.7% 2079 53.2% 13255 5.2% 877 153.5%
2015
36,274 7.9% 18,946 -2.0% 2193 61.6% 14,197 12.7% 938 171.1%
2020
37,310 11.0% 18,937 -2.0% 2288 68.6% 15,095 19.8% 990 186.1%
2025
38,237 13.7% 18,838 -2.5% 2328 71.6% 16,024 27.2% 1047 202.6%
2030
38,936 15.8% 18,573 -3.9% 2326 71.4% 16,941 34.5% 1096 216.8%
2035
39,395 17.2% 18,240 -5.6% 2281 68.1% 17,733 40.8% 1141 229.8%
2040
39,603 17.8% 17,843 -7.7% 2193 61.6% 18,392 46.0% 1175 239.6%
2045
39,563 17.7% 17,366 -10.1% 2078 53.1% 18,941 50.4% 1178 240.5%
2050
39,475 17.4% 16,902 -12.5% 1939 42.9% 19,454 54.4% 1180 241.0%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission as computed in 2012 by The Office of the State Demographer for the State of Texas



59

Table
Table 3-3
Total Employment Forecast for Howard County in 2014-2022
In order to estimate the Total Employment Forecast we used percentages of the super sectors for each
county using the forecasts for the corresponding Workforce Development Area (WDA) starting with the
base year (2014) and forecasting every year in between through 2022 (2020 figure provided by TWC).
For the period 2020-2022, it was assumed the same growth rate from previous years.

Year Total Employment Forecast
2014 13265
2015 13582
2016 13909
2017 14242
2018 14586
2019 14937
2020 15296
2021 15572
2022 15898
Source: CCBR elaboration with Texas Workforce
Commission’s forecasts for Workforce Development Areas
(WDAs) 2010-2020

60


Building Permits
Howard County saw a large increase in single family building permits the last three years, rising from two
in 2009, to fifteen in 2012.
Table 3-4
Single Family Building Permits
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Units 15 3 0 3 0 2 2 16 10 2 2 5 15
Source: Texas A&M Real Estate Center






61


Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. In
Howard County, 72.2 percent of its population has at least a high school diploma, and only 10.8 percent
have completed their bachelor’s degree.
Table 3-5
Educational Attainment
Type of School Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent
Nursery school or preschool 384 4.9% Less than 9th grade 2,698 11.4%
Kindergarten 385 4.9% 9th-12th grade, no diploma 3,881 16.4%
Elementary (grades 1-8) 3,390 43.1% High school diploma or equiv. 6,721 28.4%
High School (grades 9-12) 2,127 27.0% Some college, no degree 5,963 25.2%
College or graduate school 1,579 20.1% Associate degree 1,846 7.8%
Total 7,865 Bachelor's degree 1,727 7.3%
Graduate or professional degree 828 3.5%
Percent with high school diploma 72.2% Total 23,664
Percent with Bachelor's degree 10.8%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s County Narrative Profile from the Socrates database
62

Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax
Howard County’s total sales subject to sales tax were $64,744,093 in the first quarter of 2010 with an
increase to $110,074,460 by the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 70 percent. Below is a 10 year
historical graph for Howard County of the amount of total sales subject to sales tax. The original values
are in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed values represent a four-quarter sales
average.
Figure 3-7
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
63


County Budgets
The following graph shows the revenues and expenditures for Howard County. Their revenues have held
steady around $11 million, until they increased 2011.
Figure 3-8
Source: Howard County, Texas 2009-2013 Budgets


64

Employment Changes
Between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2012, for Howard County, there was a 3.1
percent change in employment for all industries. The employment growth for the state of Texas for the
same period was 3.26 percent. The industry with the highest growth was manufacturing with a 15.7
percent increase.
Table 3-6
Employment Changes by Sector
Industry Sector 2011 Q4 2012 Q4
Employment
Change
Percent
Change
Manufacturing 959 1,110 151 15.7%
Prof., Business, and Other Services 284 321 37 13.0%
Leisure and Hospitality 1,107 1,206 99 9.9%
Total, All Industries 12,392 12,780 388 3.1%
Construction 841 863 22 2.6%
Education and Health Services 4,596 4,716 120 2.6%
Public Administration 643 626 -17 2.6%
Trade, Transport, and Utilities 2,167 220 42 1.9%
Natural Resources and Mining 946 950 4 0.4%
Other Services 317 315 -2 -0.6%
Information 98 94 -4 -4.0%
Financial Activities 434 370 -64 -14.7%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

65


Commuting Patterns
Using LEHD mapping, the commuting patterns of residents and employees of the 10-county region
shows where residents work and the employees live. The commuting patterns for Howard County can
be seen below. When compared to the other nine counties, Howard County had the third highest
percentage, at 32 percent, of employees who live within one of the 10-counties with active drilling. They
also had the third highest percentage of residents who work within the 10-county area.
There are 10,683 people employed in Howard County. A total of 7,265 work in Howard and live within
one of the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 3,418 workers are employed in Howard
County but live outside the 10-county study area.
Table 3-7
Commuting Patterns for Employees
Number Percentage
Live in 10-county area
7,265 68%
Live outside 10-county area
3,418 32%
Total 10,683 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map

There are 12,418 workers who live in Howard County. A total 7,402 work in Howard and live within the
10-county study area. The remaining 5,016 workers are employed in Howard County but live outside the
10-county study area.
Table 3-8
Commuting Patterns for Residents
Number Percentage
Work in 10-county area
7,402 60%
Work outside 10-county area
5,016 40%
Total 12,418 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map












66

Economic Impacts in 2012
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Howard County. In 2012, it is
estimated that a total of 2,808 Howard County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under
analysis, in addition to $4.2 million in output and more than $1.5 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $54 million, total severance tax $17 million, a total of $148
million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $15 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $138 million; followed by oil and gas production with $744 million, and
pipeline construction activity with $9 million.
Estimated Impacts in Howard 2012

Table 3-9

Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $3,543,275,901 $598,510,145 $97,197,229 $4,238,983,274
Gross County Product $912,082,419 $185,886,274 $56,128,805 $1,154,097,498
Employment Full-Time
827 1,350 631 2,808
Payroll
$88,277,830 $55,237,978 $20,380,558 $163,896,367


Estimated State Revenue
$54,663,733
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Howard 2012
Table 3-10
Severance Tax $17,722,708
Royalties $148,950,866
Lease Payments $15,134,161
Drilling and completion $138,000,000
Oil and gas production $744,754,328
Refinery Production

$2,660,521,500
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
67

Economic Impacts in 2022
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Howard County. In 2022, it is
estimated that a total of 2,783 Howard County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under
analysis, in addition to $4.5 million in output and more than $1.2 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $52 million, total severance tax $22 million, a total of $186
million on royalties and an estimated lease payments of $9 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $80 million; followed by oil and gas production with $932 million.

Estimated Impacts in Howard 2022
Table 3-11

Economic
Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $3,672,311,610 $681,214,954 $107,534,671 $4,461,061,235
Gross County Product $925,823,833 $204,736,419 $61,327,884 $1,191,888,136
Employment Full-Time 720 1,377 686 2,783
Payroll
$100,642,574 $57,774,039 $22,201,279 $180,617,893


Estimated State Revenue
$52,675,758
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Howard 2022
Table 3-12
Severance Tax $22,973,258.14
Royalties $186,420,322
Lease Payments $9,006,366
Drilling and completion $80,327,551
Oil and gas production

$932,101,609
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
68

Irion County
Overview of Irion County
The following graphs and charts show population growth, total employment, natural resource and
mining employment, and the relationship between Irion County, the study area, and the state of Texas.
Irion County is located on the Edwards Plateau in the state of Texas. It is part of the San Angelo
Metropolitan Statistical Area. The county is named for Robert Anderson Irion, a secretary of state of the
Republic of Texas. Its county seat is Mertzon, and is the only major town in the county.
Figure 4-1

Source: Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA.
http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.

69

Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries
Irion County has a population of 1,620. The per capita personal income is relatively high, at $54,975. The
top three employments by industry are farm employment, state and local government, and mining; with
mining being the top industry by earnings.
Table 4-1
Irion County
Population 1,620
Per capita Personal Income 54,975
Total Employment 639
 Mining
Employment by Industry (Top 3)  Farm Employment
 State and Local Government

 Mining
Earnings by Industry (Top 3)

 Government and Government
Enterprises
 Farm Earnings
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Accounts

70


Population Growth Comparison
Irion County’s population has decreased 6.0 percent when compared to 2001. This rate is much lower
than the 2.7 percent increase in the WTxEC study area and 22.2 percent increase in the state of Texas.

Figure 4-2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau


71

Job Growth Comparison
Irion County’s Job growth in the two periods between 2005 and 2008, and 2010 and 2012 far outpaces
the similar employment patterns of the WTxEC study area and the state of Texas. The overall job growth
in Irion County over the twelve-year study period is 45.4 percent, much higher than rates in the WTxEC
study area and the state of Texas.

Figure 4-3

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012



72

Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison
Employment in Irion County increased to 370.0 percent during the twelve year period. Irion County’s
employment of natural resources and mining has been growing at a frenetic pace, almost tripling the
growth for the region and state.
Figure 4-4

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
73

Figure 4-5

Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment
Location quotients are useful in determining the significance of a particular job sector in the local
economy. This is determined by calculating the ratio of a particular job sector from the local economy
with total jobs in the local economy, then comparing that to the same ratio for the state. A location
quotient greater than 1.0 denotes a sector that has greater importance to the local economy than that
for the state. A location quotient less than 1.0 signifies that the sector is less important to the local
economy when compared to the state.
Both Irion County and the study area report a location quotient greater than 1.0 from 2001-2012. The
natural resource and mining super sector has a much greater significance in the Irion County than in
study area. Moreover, the importance of super sector in Irion County became more and more significant
during the latter part of the decade.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
74


Chart 4-6

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
75

Population Projections
Population projections are an estimate of a future population. The following table projects Irion
County’s population from 2000-2050. The projections are divided by ethnicity, with a category for Anglo,
Black, and Hispanic. Each category contains the percent change. Irion County is projected by the year
2050 to see an overall decrease in population of 17.6 percent, a 32.5 percent decrease in Anglo
population, a 125 percent increase in Black population, and a 22.2 percent increase in the Hispanic
population.
Table 4-2
Irion County Population Projections
Year Total Change Anglo Change Black Change Hispanic Change Other Change
2000
1,771 - 1,325 - 4 - 436 - 6 -
2005
1,797 1.5% 1,338 1.0% 4 0.0% 449 3.0% 6 0.0%
2010
1,599 -9.7% 1,153 -13.0% 11 175.0% 307 -6.7% 28 366.7%
2015
1,645 -7.1% 1,174 -11.4% 11 175.0% 432 -0.9% 28 366.7%
2020
1,684 -4.9% 1,185 -10.6% 11 175.0% 460 5.5% 28 366.7%
2025
1,708 -3.6% 1,185 -10.6% 11 175.0% 485 11.2% 27 350.0%
2030
1,702 -3.9% 1,157 -12.7% 11 175.0% 507 16.3% 27 350.0%
2035
1,658 -6.4% 1,100 -17.0% 11 175.0% 520 19.3% 27 350.0%
2040
1,599 -9.7% 1,037 -21.7% 9 125.0% 526 20.6% 27 350.0%
2045
1,529 -13.7% 966 -27.1% 9 125.0% 528 21.1% 26 333.3%
2050
1,460 -17.6% 894 -32.5% 9 125.0% 533 22.2% 24 300.0%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission as computed in 2012 by The Office of the State Demographer for the State of Texas



76

Table 4-3
Total Employment Forecast for Irion County in 2014-2022
In order to estimate the Total Employment Forecast we used percentages of the super sectors for each
county using the forecasts for the corresponding Workforce Development Area (WDA) starting with the
base year (2014) and forecasting every year in between through 2022 (2020 figure provided by TWC).
For the period 2020-2022, it was assumed the same growth rate from previous years.










Source: CCBR elaboration with Texas Workforce Commission’s
forecasts For Workforce Development Areas (WDAs) 2010-2020
Year Total Employment Forecast
2014 569
2015 577
2016 586
2017 595
2018 604
2019 614
2020 623
2021 633
2022 642
77


Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. In Irion
County, 81 percent of its population has at least a high school diploma, and only 10.9 percent have
completed their bachelor’s degree.
Table 4-4
Educational Attainment
Type of School Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent
Nursery school or preschool 31 9.6% Less than 9th grade 71 6.3%
Kindergarten 33 10.2% 9th-12th grade, no diploma 144 12.7%
Elementary (grades 1-8) 180 55.6% High school diploma or equiv. 468 41.3%
High School (grades 9-12) 42 13% Some college, no degree 252 22.3%
College or graduate school 38 11.7% Associate degree 74 6.5%
Total 324 Bachelor's degree 101 8.9%
Graduate or professional degree 22 1.9%
Percent with high school diploma 81.0% Total 1,132
Percent with Bachelor's degree 10.0%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s County Narrative Profile from the Socrates database

78


Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax
Irion County’s total sales subject to sales tax were $1,908,888 in the first quarter of 2010 with an
increase to $10,878,385 by the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 470 percent. Below is a 10 year
historical graph for Irion County of the amount of total sales subject to sales tax. The original values are
in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed values represent a four-quarter sales average.

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts












Figure 4-7
79


County Budgets
The following graph shows the revenues and expenditures for Irion County. Their revenues have been
marginally higher than expenditures for the last three years, with a decline in 2011, and an upswing in
2012. Currently, their expenditures sit at $3.5 million and their revenues at just over $3.6 million.

Source: Irion County, Texas 2009-2013 Budgets



Figure 4-8
80


Employment Changes
Between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2012, for Irion County, there was an 18.4
percent increase in employment for all industries. The employment growth for the state of Texas for the
same period was 3.26 percent. The industry with the highest growth was construction with an increase
of 171 percent, and the industry with the highest negative growth in employment was other services,
with a 61.5 percent decrease.
Table 4-5
Employment Changes by Sector
Industry Sector 2011 Q4 2012 Q4
Employment
Change
Percent
Change
Construction 31 84 53 171.0%
Prof., Business, and Other Services 17 23 6 35.3%
Total, All Industries 451 534 83 18.4%
Trade, Transport, and Utilities 55 64 9 16.4%
Natural Resources and Mining 292 315 23 -7.9%
Public Administration 43 43 0 0.0%
Other Services 13 5 -8 61.5%
Manufacturing n/a n/a n/a n/a
Information n/a n/a n/a n/a
Financial Services Group n/a n/a n/a n/a
Education and Health Services n/a n/a n/a n/a
Leisure and Hospitality Group n/a n/a n/a n/a
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
81


Commuting Patterns
Using LEHD mapping, the commuting patterns of residents and employees of the 10-county region
shows where residents work and the employees live. The commuting patterns for Irion County can be
seen below. When compared to the other 9 counties, Irion County had a 73 percent, of employees who
live within one of the 10-counties with active drilling. They also had the second lowest percentage of
residents who work within the 10-county area.
There are 422 people employed in Irion County. A total of 114 people work in Irion and live within one
of the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 308 workers are employed in Irion County
but live outside the 10-county study area.
Table 4-6
Commuting Patterns for Employees
Number Percentage
Live in 10-county area
114 27.0%
Live outside 10-county area
308 73.0%
Total 422 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau’s On the Map

There are 507 workers who live in Irion County. A total 116 work in Irion and live within one of the 10-
county study area. The remaining 391 workers are employed in Irion County but live outside the 10-
county study area.

Table 4-7
Commuting Patterns for Residents
Number Percentage
Work in 10-county area
116 22.9%
Work outside 10-county area
391 77.1%
Total 507 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau’s On the Map












82

Economic Impacts in 2012
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Irion County. In 2012, it is
estimated that a total of 1,247 Irion County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under analysis,
in addition to $856 million in output and more than $385 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $31 million, total severance tax $13 million, with a total of $105
million and an estimated lease payments of $17 million. The drilling and completion expenditures
represented $241 million; followed by oil and gas production with $529 million.
Estimated Impacts in Irion, 2012

Table 4-8

Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $770,821,141 $70,762,740 $15,151,022 $856,734,904
Gross County Product $350,226,992 $25,852,280 $8,958,832 $385,038,103
Employment Full-Time
610 545 92 1,247
Payroll
$50,083,983 $10,168,109 $2,052,200 $62,304,292


Estimate State Revenue
$31,643,474
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Irion, 2012
Table 4-9
Severance Tax $13,128,889
Royalties $105,838,375
Lease Payments $17,985,524
Drilling and completion $241,629,266
Oil and gas production

$529,191,875
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
83

Economic Impacts in 2022
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Irion County. In 2022, it is
estimated that a total of 4,586 Irion County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under analysis,
in addition to $3.2 million in output and more than $1.5 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $117 million, total severance tax $62 million, a total of $532
million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $45 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $1 million; followed by oil and gas production with $2.6 million.

Estimated Impacts in Irion, 2022
Table 4-10
Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $2,957,003,752 $217,217,348 $64,697,861 $3,238,918,961
Gross County Product $1,400,006,497 $86,046,043 $38,682,620 $1,524,735,160
Employment Full-Time 2,204 1,983 399 4,586
Payroll
$247,634,769 $36,659,136 $8,893,192 $293,187,097


Estiamed State Revenue
$117,342,938
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Irion, 2022
Table 4-11
Severance Tax $62,670,322.84
Royalties $532,772,810
Lease Payments $45,524,295
Drilling and completion $1,009,949,841
Oil and gas production

$2,663,864,048
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
84

Martin County
Overview of Martin County
The following graphs and charts show population growth, total employment, the super sector natural
resource and mining employment, and the relationship between Martin County, the study area, and the
state of Texas. Martin County is located along Interstate 20. The largest city and the county seat is
Stanton, with a population of 2,492. A portion of Midland, Texas extends into Martin County. The county
is named for Wylie Martin, an early settler. Martin County is one of 30 prohibition, or entirely dry,
counties in the state of Texas.
Figure 5-1

Source: Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA.
http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.
85

Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries
Martin County has a population of 4,934. The per capita personal income is $32,061. The top three
employments by industry are farm employment, state and local government, and construction; with
government and government enterprises being the top industry by earnings.
Table 5-1
Martin County
Population 4,934
Per capita Personal Income 32,061
Total Employment 1,549
 Farm Employment
Employment by Industry (Top 3)  State and Local Government
 Construction

 Government and Government
Enterprises
Earnings by Industry (Top 3)

 Construction
 Transportation and
Warehousing
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Accounts

86


Population Growth Comparison
The State of Texas has experienced a population growth that outpaces those of Martin County and the
study area according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Martin County’s population rate increased 6.8 percent,
compared to the 22.2 percent increase of Texas and 2.7 percent growth in the WTxEC study area. Martin
County overtook the growth rate for the region in 2009.

Figure 5-2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

87


Job Growth Comparison
Martin County’s total employment has been growing at a very high pace since 2009, with a growth of
26.7 percent over the past twelve years. During the same time period job growth rate in the state of
Texas grew 14.7 percent and in the WTxEC study area by 11.3 percent.

Figure 5-3

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
88


Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison
Martin County’s jobs in the natural resources and mining super sector increased by 9.7 percent during
the past twelve years, although at a sporadic pace. The natural resources and mining sector growth rate
was 51.2 percent for the state of Texas and 74.5 percent in the WTxEC study area between 2001 and
2012.
Figure 5-4

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
89


Figure 5-5

Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment
Location quotients are useful in determining the significance of a particular job sector in the local
economy. This is determined by calculating the ratio of a particular job sector from the local economy
with total jobs in the local economy, then comparing that to the same ratio for the state. A location
quotient greater than 1.0 denotes a sector that has greater importance to the local economy than that
for the state. A location quotient less than 1.0 signifies that the sector is less important to the local
economy when compared to the state.
Both Martin County and the study area report a location quotient greater than 1.0 from 2001-2012. The
natural resource and mining super sector had greater significance in the Martin County than in the study
area until 2011.

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
90


Figure 5-6

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
91

Population Projections
Population projections are an estimate of a future population. The following table projects Martin
County’s population from 2000-2050. The projections are divided by ethnicity, with a category for Anglo,
Black, and Hispanic. Each category contains the percent change. Martin County is projected by the year
2050 to see an overall increase in population of 41.9 percent, an 8.7 percent increase in Anglo
population, a 6.1 percent increase in Black population, and an 88.8 percent increase in the Hispanic
population.
Table 5-2
Population Projections
Year Total Change Anglo Change Black Change Hispanic Change Other Change
2000
4,746 - 2,723 - 82 - 1,925 - 16 -
2005
4,988 5.1% 2,765 1.5% 86 4.9% 2,121 10.2% 16 0.0%
2010
4,799 1.1% 2,578 -5.3% 67 -18.3% 2,086 8.4% 68 325.0%
2015
5,096 7.4% 2,663 -2.2% 72 -12.2% 2,293 19.1% 68 325.0%
2020
5,433 14.5% 2,767 1.6% 75 -8.5% 2,524 31.1% 67 318.8%
2025
5,748 21.1% 2,841 4.3% 82 0.0% 2,758 43.3% 67 318.8%
2030
5,986 26.1% 2,873 5.5% 87 6.1% 2,958 53.7% 68 325.0%
2035
6,181 30.2% 2,868 5.3% 88 7.3% 3,158 64.1% 67 318.8%
2040
6,382 34.5% 2,875 5.6% 92 12.2% 3,351 74.1% 64 300.0%
2045
6,553 38.1% 2,915 7.1% 93 13.4% 3,485 81.0% 60 275.0%
2050
6,735 41.9% 2,959 8.7% 87 6.1% 3,635 88.8% 54 237.5%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission as computed in 2012 by The Office of the State Demographer for the State of Texas

92

Table 5-3

Total Employment Forecast for Martin County in 2014-2022
In order to estimate the Total Employment Forecast we used percentages of the super sectors for each
county using the forecasts for the corresponding Workforce Development Area (WDA) starting with the
base year (2014) and forecasting every year in between through 2022 (2020 figure provided by TWC).
For the period 2020-2022, it was assumed the same growth rate from previous years.

Year Total Employment Forecast
2014 1469
2015 1502
2016 1536
2017 1570
2018 1605
2019 1642
2020 1679
2021 1716
2022 1755
Source: CCBR elaboration with Texas Workforce Commission’s
Forecasts for Workforce Development Areas (WDAs) 2010-2020


93


Building Permits
Martin County saw an increase of single family building permits from two to four in the last decade.
Table 5-4
Single Family Building Permits
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Units 1 8 1 0 3 10 0 0 0 1 9 2 4
Source: Texas A&M Real Estate Center
94


Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. In Martin
County, 72.2 percent of its population has at least a high school diploma, and only 12.2 percent have
completed their bachelor’s degree.
Table 5-5
County Educational Attainment
Type of School Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent
Nursery school or preschool 59 4.8% Less than 9th grade 496 17.4%
Kindergarten 15 1.2% 9th-12th grade, no diploma 296 10.4%
Elementary (grades 1-8) 527 43.1% High school diploma or equiv. 1.026 36%
High School (grades 9-12) 384 31.4% Some college, no degree 533 18.7%
College or graduate school 237 19.4% Associate degree 151 5.3%
Total 1,222 Bachelor's degree 245 8.6%
Graduate or professional degree 103 3.6%
Percent with high school diploma 72.2% Total 2,849
Percent with Bachelor's degree 12.2%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s County Narrative Profile from the Socrates database
95


Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax
Martin County’s total sales subject to sales tax were $6,125,028 in the first quarter of 2010 with an
increase to $9,522,136 by the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 32 percent. Below is a 10 year
historical graph for Fisher County of the amount of total sales subject to sales tax. The original values are
in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed values represent a four-quarter sales average.

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Figure 5-7
96


Employment Changes
Between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2012, for Martin County, there was an
increase of 11.4 percent in employment for all industries. The employment growth for the state of Texas
for the same period was 3.26 percent. The industry with the highest growth was the leisure and
hospitality group with a 33.8 percent increase. No industries saw a negative employment change.
Table 5-6
Employment Changes by Sector
Industry Sector 2011 Q4 2012 Q4
Employment
Change
Percent
Change
Leisure and Hospitality Group 71 95 24 33.8%
Financial Activities Group 37 47 10 27.0%
Trade, Transport, and Utilities 342 423 81 23.7%
Natural Resources and Mining 189 219 30 15.9%
Total, All Industries 1,417 1,578 161 11.4%
Prof., Business, and Other Services 27 29 2 7.4%
Construction 230 246 16 7.0%
Other Services 31 33 2 6.5%
Public Administration 86 90 4 4.7%
Education and Health Services 404 396 -8 2.0%
Manufacturing n/a n/a n/a n/a
Information n/a n/a n/a n/a
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
97


Commuting Patterns
Using LEHD mapping, the commuting patterns of residents and employees of the 10-county region
shows where residents work and the employees live. The commuting patterns for Martin County can be
seen below. When compared to the other 9 counties, Martin County ranked eighth, at 52 percent, of
employees who live within one of the 10-counties with active drilling. They had the lowest percentage of
residents who work within the 10-county area.
There are 157 people employed in Martin County. A total 75 people work in Martin and live within one
of the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 82 workers are employed in Martin County
but live outside the 10-county study area.
Table 5-7
Commuting Patterns for Employees
Number Percentage
Live in 10-county area
75 47.8%
Live outside 10-county area
82 52.2%
Total 157 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau’s On the Map

There are 1,979 workers who live in Martin County. A total of 258 work in Martin and live within one of
the 10-county study area. The remaining 1,721 workers are employed in Martin County but live outside
the 10-county study area.
Table 5-8
Commuting Patterns for Residents
Number Percentage
Work in 10-county area
258 13.0%
Work outside 10-county area
1,721 87.0%
Total 1,979 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau’s On the Map











98

Economic Impacts in 2012
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Martin County. In 2012, it is
estimated that a total of 4,610 Martin County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under
analysis, in addition to $2.8 million in output and more than $1.3 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $115 million, total severance tax $48 million, with a total of
$405 million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $28 million. The drilling and
completion expenditures represented $416 million; followed by oil and gas production with $2
million, and pipeline construction activity with $37 million.

Estimated Impacts in Martin, 2012


Table 5-9

Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $2,481,578,880 $270,545,303 $111,093,590 $2,863,217,774
Gross County Product $1,178,763,719 $143,747,394 $65,635,772 $1,388,146,885
Employment Full-Time
1,923 1,871 816 4,610
Payroll
$142,249,058 $80,455,643 $17,895,437 $240,600,139


Estimated State Revenue
$115,739,565
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Martin, 2012
Table 5-10
Severance Tax $48,100,161
Royalties $405,667,506
Lease Payments $45,621,818
Drilling and completion $416,000,000
Oil and gas production $2,028,337,530
Pipeline Construction

$37,241,360
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
99

Economic Impacts in 2022
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Martin County. In 2022, it is
estimated that a total of 4,002 Martin County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under
analysis, in addition to $2.7 million in output and more than $1.4 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $114 million, total severance tax $69 million, with a total of $561
in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $27 million. The drilling and completion expenditures
represented $242 million; followed by oil and gas production with $2.8 million.
Estimated Impacts in Martin, 2022
Table 5-11
Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $2,295,877,155 $249,158,612 $121,698,32 $2,666,734,091
Gross County Product $1,176,256,822 $136,870,598 $72,234,896 $1,385,362,316
Employment Full-Time 1,407 1,700 895 4,002
Payroll
$164,173,451 $79,403,545 $19,549,138 $263,126,134


Estimated State Revenue
$114,984,176
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Martin, 2022
Table 5-12
Severance Tax $69,252,720.20
Royalties $561,962,709
Lease Payments $27,149,626
Drilling and completion $242,146,819
Oil and gas production

$2,809,813,547
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
100

Mitchell County
Overview of Mitchell County
The following graphs and charts show population growth, total employment, the super sector natural
resource and mining employment, and the relationship between Mitchell County, the study area, and
the state of Texas. Mitchell County is located along Interstate 20 and State Highway 163. Its seat and
only major city is Colorado City, with a population of 4,146. Other towns include Loraine, Lake Colorado,
and Westbrook. The county is named after Asa and Eli Mitchell, two early settlers and soldiers in the
Texas Revolution.
Figure 6-1

Source: Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA.
http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.
101

Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries
Mitchell County has a population of 9,426. The per capita personal income is $25,002. The top three
employments by industry are, state and local government, farm employment and mining; with
government and government enterprises being the top industry by earnings.
Table 6-1
Mitchell County
Population 9,426
Per Capita Personal Income 25,002
Total Employment 2,615
 State and Local Government
Employment by Industry (Top 3)  Farm Employment
 Mining

 Government and Government Enterprises
Earnings by Industry (Top 3)

 Mining
 Transportation and Warehousing
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Accounts

102


Population Growth Comparison
Mitchell County’s population has declined by 2.5 percent over the past twelve years according to the
U.S. Census Bureau. The state of Texas has experienced a population growth that outpaces that of
Mitchell County and the study area. Compared to the 22.2 percent increase in Texas, the study area only
increased 2.7 percent during the last decade.
Figure 6-2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

103

Job Growth Comparison
Mitchell County’s employment decreased by 3.4 percent during the period between 2001 and 2012. The
state of Texas and the study area’s employment grew almost at the same pace, increasing by 14.7
percent and 11.3 percent.
Figure 6-3

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
104

Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison
Employment in the natural resource and mining super sector increased by 73.5 percent in Mitchell
County and a similar 74.5 percent in the WTxEC study between 2001 and 2012. Both these sector job
growth rates topped the average for the state of Texas’s 51.2 percent rate.

Figure 6-4

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
105


Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment
Location quotients are useful in determining the significance of a particular job sector in the local
economy. This is determined by calculating the ratio of a particular job sector from the local economy
with total jobs in the local economy, then comparing that to the same ratio for the state. A location
quotient greater than 1.0 denotes a sector that has greater importance to the local economy than that
for the state. A location quotient less than 1.0 signifies that the sector is less important to the local
economy when compared to the state.
Both Mitchell County and the study area report a location quotient greater than 1.0 between 2001 and
2012. The natural resource and mining super sector has a much greater significance in the study area
than in Mitchell County.


Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
Figure 6-5
106


Chart 6-6

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
107

Population Projections
Population projections are an estimate of a future population. The following table projects Mitchell
County’s population from 2000-2050. The projections are divided by ethnicity, with a category for Anglo,
Black, and Hispanic. Each category contains the percent change. Mitchell County is projected by the year
2050 to see an overall increase in population of 7.8 percent, a 17.3 percent decrease in Anglo
population, a 27.5 percent decrease in Black population, and a 65.7 percent increase in the Hispanic
population.
Table 6-2
Population Projections
Year Total Change Anglo Change Black Change Hispanic Change Other Change
2000
9,698 - 5,372 - 1,240 - 3,009 - 77 -
2005
9,768 0.7% 5,232 -2.6% 1,245 0.4% 3,214 6.8% 77 0.0%
2010
9,403 -3.0% 4,753 -11.5% 1,043 -15.9% 3,481 15.7% 126 63.6%
2015
9,604 -1.0% 4,753 -11.6% 1,040 -16.1% 3,686 22.5% 131 70.1%
2020
9,779 0.8% 4,747 -12.3% 1,017 -18.0% 3,915 30.1% 137 77.9%
2025
9,962 2.7% 4,710 -13.2% 1,006 -18.9% 4,153 38.0% 141 83.1%
2030
10,094 4.1% 4,662 -13.9% 993 -19.9% 4,334 44.0% 144 87.0%
2035
10,219 5.4% 4,623 -14.6% 980 -21.0% 4,507 49.8% 146 89.6%
2040
10,312 6.3% 4,542 -15.5% 957 -22.8% 4,670 55.2% 143 85.7%
2045
10,366 6.9% 4,478 -16.6% 928 -25.2% 4,820 60.2% 140 81.8%
2050
10,459 7.8% 4,440 -17.3% 899 -27.5% 4,985 65.7% 135 75.3%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission as computed in 2012 by The Office of the State Demographer for the State of Texas

108

Table 6-3
Total Employment Forecast for Mitchell County in 2014-2022
In order to estimate the Total Employment Forecast we used percentages of the super sectors for each
county using the forecasts for the corresponding Workforce Development Area (WDA) starting with the
base year (2014) and forecasting every year in between through 2022 (2020 figure provided by TWC).
For the period 2020-2022, it was assumed the same growth rate from previous years.

Year Total Employment Forecast
2014 2566
2015 2607
2016 2650
2017 2695
2018 2739
2019 2784
2020 2830
2021 2869
2022 2912
Source: CCBR elaboration with Texas Workforce Commission’s
Forecasts for Workforce Development Areas (WDAs) 2010-2020
109

Table 6-4
Building Permits
Mitchell County saw a large increase of single family building permits, from zero to four in the last
decade.

Single Family Building Permits
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
Source: Texas A&M Real Estate Center
110


Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. In
Mitchell County, 76.2 percent of its population has at least a high school diploma, and only 8.4 percent
have completed their bachelor’s degree.
Table 6-5
Educational Attainment
Type of School Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent
Nursery school or preschool 105 4.5% Less than 9th grade 513 7.9%
Kindergarten 48 2.1% 9th-12th grade, no diploma 1,033 15.9%
Elementary (grades 1-8) 861 37.1% High school diploma or equiv. 2,130 32.8%
High School (grades 9-12) 735 31.7% Some college, no degree 1,903 29.3%
College or graduate school 571 24.6% Associate degree 370 5.7%
Total 2,320 Bachelor's degree 403 6.2%
Graduate or professional degree 143 2.2%
Percent with high school diploma 76.2% Total 6,495
Percent with Bachelor's degree 8.4%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s County Narrative Profile from the Socrates database
111


Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax
Mitchell County’s total sales subject to sales tax were $7,752,310 in the first quarter of 2010 with an
increase to $11,745,414 by the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 96 percent. Below is a 10 year
historical graph for Mitchell County of the amount of total sales subject to sales tax. The original values
are in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed values represent a four-quarter sales
average.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Figure 6-7
112


Employment Changes
Between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2012, Mitchell County experienced a 5.2
percent decrease in employment for all industries. The employment growth for the state of Texas for
the same period was 3.26 percent. The industry with the highest growth was Natural Resources and
Mining with a 38.1 percent increase, and the industry with the highest negative growth in employment
was Construction, with a -63.8 percent change.
Table 6-6
Employment Changes by Sector
Industry Sector 2011 Q4 2012 Q4
Employment
Change
Percent
Change
Natural Resources and Mining 231 319 88 38.1%
Prof., Business, and Other Services 41 32 -9 22.0%
Leisure and Hospitality Group 142 153 11 7.7%
Information 17 18 1 5.9%
Other Services 18 19 1 5.6%
Education and Health Services 656 682 26 3.9%
Manufacturing 42 42 0 0.0%
Financial Activities Group 54 54 0 0.0%
Total, All Industries 2,420 2,295 -125 5.2%
Trade, Transport, and Utilities 433 384 -49 -11.3%
Public Administration 634 537 -97 -15.3
Construction 152 55 -97 -63.8
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

113


Commuting Patterns
Using LEHD mapping, the commuting patterns of residents and employees of the 10-county region
shows where residents work and the employees live. The commuting patterns for Mitchell County can
be seen below. When compared to the other 9 counties, Mitchell County had the highest percentage, at
21.3 percent, of employees who live within one of the 10-counties with active drilling. They had the fifth
highest percentage of residents who work within the 10-county area.
There are 1,623 people employed in Mitchell County. A total of 1,278 people work in Mitchell and live
within one of the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 345 workers are employed in
Mitchell County but live outside the 10-county study area.
Table 6-7
Commuting Patterns for Employees
Number Percentage
Live in 10-county area
1,278 78.7%
Live outside 10-county area
345 21.3%
Total 1,623 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau’s On the Map

There are 2,912 workers who live in Mitchell County. A total of 1,451 work in within one of the 10-
county study area. The remaining 1,461 workers are employed in Mitchell County but live outside the
10-county study area.
Table 6-8
Commuting Patterns for Residents
Number Percentage
Work in 10-county area
1,451 49.8%
Work outside 10-county area
1,461 50.2%
Total 2,912 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau’s On the Map






114

Economic Impacts in 2012
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Mitchell County. In 2012, it is
estimated that a total of 1,348 Mitchell County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under
analysis, in addition to $727 million in output and more than $343 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $28 million, total severance tax $8 million, with a total of $77
million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $16 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $150 million; followed by oil and gas production with $385 million.
Estimated Impacts in Mitchell, 2012


Table 6-9

Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $535,580,797 $158,967,588 $32,520,509 $727,068,894
Gross County Product $243,441,491 $80,836,530 $19,219,877 $343,497,898
Employment Full-Time
439 665 244 1,348
Payroll
$33,820,429 $23,179,189 $5,734,862 $62,734,481


Estimated State Revenue
$28,792,324
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Mitchell, 2012
Table 6-10
Severance Tax

$8,880,678
Royalties

$77,072,313
Lease Payments

$16,450,175
Drilling and completion

$150,000,000
Oil and gas production

$385,361,567
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
115

Economic Impacts in 2022
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Mitchell County. In 2022, it is
estimated that a total of 1,810 Mitchell County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under
analysis, in addition to $1.1 million in output and more than $557 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $48 million, total severance tax $24 million, with a total of $202
million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $9 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $87 million; followed by oil and gas production with $1 million.
Estimated Impacts in Mitchell, 2022
Table 6-11
Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $827,840,320 $200,693,401 $52,350,24 $1,080,883,968
Gross County Product $424,121,319 $102,012,596 $30,904,19 $557,038,109
Employment Full-Time 511 906 392 1,810
Payroll
$59,197,124 $30,792,170 $9,211,737 $99,201,031


Estimated State Revenue
$48,360,245
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Mitchell, 2022
Table 6-12
Severance Tax $24,970,932.76
Royalties $202,630,785
Lease Payments $9,789,529
Drilling and completion $87,312,555
Oil and gas production

$1,013,153,923
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
116

Nolan County
Overview of Nolan County
One of the counties comprising of the West Texas Energy Consortium (WTxEC) area is Nolan County,
which is located in the center of the WTxEC area. The following graphs and charts show population
growth, total employment, the super sector natural resource and mining (NRM) employment, and the
relationship among Nolan County, WTxEC area and the state of Texas. Nolan County lies along Interstate
20 and State Highway 84. The major city and seat is Sweetwater, with a population of 10,906. The only
other town is Roscoe. Nolan County has established itself as a center wind power generation. Nolan
County has established itself as a center for wind power generation. The county is named after Philip
Nolan, one of the first American traders to visit Texas.
Figure 7-1

Source: Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA.
http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.
117

Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries
Nolan County has a population of 15,269. The per capita personal income is $32,914. The top three
employments by industry are state and local government, retail trade, and manufacturing; with
government and government enterprises being the top industry by earnings.
Table 7-1
Nolan County
Population 15,269
Per Capita Personal Income 32,914
Total Employment 6,576
 State and Local Government
Employment by Industry (Top 3)  Retail Trade
 Manufacturing

 Government and Government Enterprises
Earnings by Industry (Top 3)

 Manufacturing
 Retail Trade
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Accounts
118


Population Growth Comparison
Population in Nolan County has decreased 3.7 percent during the twelve years between 2001 and 2012.
Population growth in the WTxEC area is positive at 2.7 percent, but is far outpaced by the 22.2 percent
growth rate of the state of Texas.
Figure 7-2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

119


Job Growth Comparison
Total employment grew by 5.7 percent in Nolan County and 14.7 percent for the state of Texas between
2001 and 2012. Employment grew by 11.3 percent in the study area during this same period. The
employment growth for Nolan County has been decreasing for the last two years.

Figure 7-3

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
120


Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison
Employment in the natural resources and mining super sector increased by 51.2 percent for the state of
Texas, and 74.5 percent for the study area between 2001 and 2012. In Nolan County, the employment
for the super sector grew by 26.0 percent in that same period. Nolan County has followed a similar
pattern as the rest of the region and state, however currently has the lowest growth rate among the
three areas.
Figure 7-4

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
121


Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment
Location quotients are useful in determining the significance of a particular job sector in the local
economy. This is determined by calculating the ratio of a particular job sector from the local economy
with total jobs in the local economy, then comparing that to the same ratio for the state. A location
quotient greater than 1.0 denotes a sector that has greater importance to the local economy than that
for the state. A location quotient less than 1.0 signifies that the sector is less important to the local
economy when compared to the state.
Both Nolan County and the study area report a location quotient greater than 1.0 between 2001 and
2012. The natural resource and mining super sector has a much greater significance in the study area
than that in Nolan County.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages


Figure 7-5
122

Chart 7-6

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
123

Population Projections
Population projections are an estimate of a future population. The following table projects Nolan
County’s population from 2000-2050. The projections are divided by ethnicity, with a category for Anglo,
Black, and Hispanic. Each category contains the percent change. Nolan County is projected by the year
2050 to see an overall increase in population of 16 percent, a 21.3 percent decrease in Anglo population,
an 11.4 percent decrease in Black population, and an increase of 102.6 percent in the Hispanic
population.
Table 7-2
Population Projections
Year Total Change Anglo Change Black Change Hispanic Change Other Change
2000
15,802 - 10,531 - 766 - 4,431 - 74 -
2005
16,265 2.9% 10,498 -0.3% 802 4.7% 4,891 10.4% 74 0.0%
2010
15,216 -3.7% 9,191 -12.7% 666 -13.1% 5,103 15.2% 256 245.9%
2015
15,646 -1.0% 9,129 -13.3% 686 -10.4% 5,563 25.5% 268 262.2%
2020
16,134 2.1% 9,101 -13.6% 721 -5.9% 6,029 36.1% 283 282.4%
2025
16,604 5.1% 9,036 -14.2% 751 -2.0% 6,512 47.0% 305 312.2%
2030
17,039 7.8% 8,921 -15.3% 769 0.4% 7,019 58.4% 330 345.9%
2035
17,374 9.9% 8,774 -16.7% 751 -2.0% 7,499 69.2% 350 373.0%
2040
17,657 11.7% 8,600 -18.3% 732 -4.4% 7,965 79.8% 360 386.5%
2045
17,958 13.6% 8,440 -19.9% 702 -8.4% 8,449 90.7% 367 395.9%
2050
17,325 16.0% 8,291 -21.3% 679 -11.4% 8,978 102.6% 377 409.5%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission as computed in 2012 by The Office of the State Demographer for the State of Texas

124

Table 7-3
Total Employment Forecast for Nolan County in 2014-2022
In order to estimate the Total Employment Forecast we used percentages of the super sectors for each
county using the forecasts for the corresponding Workforce Development Area (WDA) starting with the
base year (2014) and forecasting every year in between through 2022 (2020 figure provided by TWC).
For the period 2020-2022, it was assumed the same growth rate from previous years.










Source: CCBR elaboration with Texas Workforce Commission’s
Forecasts for Workforce Development Areas (WDAs) 2010-2020

Year Total Employment Forecast
2014 6372
2015 6462
2016 6552
2017 6645
2018 6738
2019 6837
2020 3934
2021 7015
2022 7107
125

Table 7-4
Building Permits
Nolan County had only one single family building permit in 2012.

Single Family Building Permits
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Units 2 5 4 2 3 4 1 0 3 1 1 0 1
Source: Texas A&M Real Estate Center
126


Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. In Nolan
County, 77.4 percent of its population has at least a high school diploma, and only 15 percent have
completed their bachelor’s degree.
Table 7-5
County Educational Attainment
Type of School Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent
Nursery school or preschool 256 6.8% Less than 9th grade 1,279 12.9%
Kindergarten 184 4.9% 9th-12th grade, no diploma 961 9.7%
Elementary (grades 1-8) 1,650 44% High school diploma or equiv. 3,350 33.8%
High School (grades 9-12) 984 26.2% Some college, no degree 2,062 20.8%
College or graduate school 679 18.1% Associate degree 773 7.8%
Total 3,753 Bachelor's degree 1,100 11.1%
Graduate or professional degree 387 3.9%
Percent with high school diploma 77.4% Total 9,912
Percent with Bachelor's degree 15.0%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s County Narrative Profile from the Socrates database
127


Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax
Nolan County’s total sales subject to sales tax were $30,989,926 in the first quarter of 2010 with an
increase to $38,651,388 by the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 24 percent. Below is a 10 year
historical graph for Nolan County of the amount of total sales subject to sales tax. The original values are
in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed values represent a four-quarter sales average.

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Figure 7-7
128


County Budgets
The following graph shows the revenues and expenditures for Nolan County. In 2009, their expenditures
were higher than revenue, however in the last year; revenues have increased and left a net surplus.
Their 2012 revenue was just over $7.7 million compared to their expenditures at $7.26 million.
Figure 7-8

Source: Nolan County, Texas 2009-2013 Budgets

129


Employment Changes
Between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2012, for Nolan County, there was a 2.5
percent decrease in employment for all industries. The employment growth for the state of Texas for
the same period was 3.26 percent. The industry with the highest growth was construction with a 39.4
percent increase, and the industry with the highest negative growth in employment was professional,
business and other services, with a -43.7 percent change.
Table 7-6
Employment Changes by Sector
Industry Sector 2011 Q4 2012 Q4
Employment
Change
Percent
Change
Construction 246 343 97 39.4%
Other Services 186 215 29 15.6%
Natural Resources and Mining 329 377 48 14.6%
Financial Activities Group 181 190 9 5.0%
Leisure and Hospitality Group 653 684 31 4.7%
Public Administration 243 239 -4 -1.6%
Total, All Industries 6,183 6,028 -155 -2.5%
Education and Health Services 1,646 1,599 -47 2.9%
Manufacturing 900 873 -27 -3.0%
Information 51 49 -2 -3.9%
Trade, Transportation, and
Utilities 1,350 1,235 -115 -8.5%
Prof., Business, and Other
Services 398 224 -174 -43.7%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
130


Commuting Patterns
Using LEHD mapping, the commuting patterns of residents and employees of the 10-county region
shows where residents work and the employees live. The commuting patterns for Nolan County can be
seen below. When compared to the other 9 counties, Nolan County had the fifth highest percentage, at
35.4 percent, of employees who live within one of the 10-counties with active drilling. They had the sixth
highest percentage of residents who work within the 10-county area.
There are 5,915 people employed in Nolan County. A total of 3,820 work in Nolan and live within one of
the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 2,095 workers are employed in Nolan County
but live outside the 10-county study area.
Table 7-7
Commuting Patterns for Employees
Number Percentage
Live in 10-county area
3,820 64.6%
Live outside 10-county area
2,095 35.4%
Total 5,915 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau’s On the Map

There are 7,503 workers who live in Nolan County. A total of 3,563 work In Nolan and live within the 10-
county study area. The remaining 3,940 workers are employed in Nolan County but live outside the 10-
county study area.
Table 7-8
Commuting Patterns for Residents
Number Percentage
Work in 10-county area
3,563 47.5%
Work outside 10-county area
3,940 52.5%
Total 7,503 100.0%
Source: US Census Bureau’s On the Map






131

Economic Impacts in 2012
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Nolan County. In 2012, it is
estimated that a total of 1,640 Nolan County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under analysis,
in addition to $556 million in output and more than 249 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $15 million, total severance tax $27 million, with a total of $33
million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $19 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $214 million; followed by oil and gas production with $166 million.

Estimated Impacts in Nolan, 2012


Table 7-9

Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $380,906,917 $131,981,624 $43,940,065 $556,828,607
Gross County Product $154,659,932 $68,340,396 $26,337,613 $249,337,941
Employment Full-Time
410 863 368 1,640
Payroll
$33,178,182 $24,384,572 $8,596,727 $66,159,481


Estimated State Revenue
$15,874,971
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Nolan, 2012
Table 7-10
Severance Tax $3,925,316
Royalties $33,209,881
Lease Payments $19,082,203
Drilling and completion $214,857,508
Oil and gas production

$166,049,405
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
132

Economic Impacts in 2022
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Nolan County. In 2022, it is
estimated that a total of 3,714 Nolan County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under analysis,
in addition to 1.5 million in output and more than $757 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $58 million, total severance tax $27 million, and a total of $246
million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $13 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $188 million; followed by oil and gas production with $1.2 million.
Estimated Impacts in Nolan, 2022
Table 7-11
Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $1,087,981,103 $294,090,348 $102,698,666 $1,484,770,118
Gross County Product $545,299,051 $150,908,157 $61,723,344 $757,930,553
Employment Full-Time 714 2,140 860 3,714
Payroll
$81,608,266 $60,110,320 $20,153,709 $161,872,295


Estimated State Revenue
$58,077,909
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
Estimated Expenditures in Nolan, 2022
Table 7-12
Severance Tax

$30,025,744.23
Royalties

$246,198,793
Lease Payments

$13,977,013
Drilling and completion

$188,231,131
Oil and gas production

$1,230,993,967
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
133

Reagan County
Overview of Reagan County
The following graphs and charts show population growth, total employment, the super sector natural
resource and mining employment, and the relationship between Reagan County, the study area, and the
state of Texas. Reagan County lies on U.S. Highway 67 and State Highway 137. The county seat is Big
Lake, with a population of 2,885. The three other towns are Best, Stiles, and Texon. The County was
named in honor of John Henninger Reagan, a U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, and the first chairman of
the Railroad Commission of Texas.
Figure 8-1

Source: Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA.
http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.
134

Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries
Reagan County has a population of 3,390. The per capita personal income is $37,180. The top three
employments by industry are transportation and warehousing, mining, state and local government; with
transportation and warehousing also being the top industry by earnings.
Table 8-1
Reagan County
Population
3,390
Per Capita Personal Income
37,180
Total Employment
2,258
 Transportation and Warehousing
Employment by Industry (Top 3)  Mining
 State and Local Government

 Transportation and Warehousing
Earnings by Industry (Top 3)

 Mining
 Government and Government Enterprises
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Accounts
135


Population Growth Comparison
Reagan County’s population increased by 7.6 percent between 2001 and 2012 according to the U.S
Census Bureau. This rate was higher than the 2.7 percent growth rate in the population of WTxEC study
area, but lower than the 22.2 percent population growth in Texas.

Figure 8-2
Source: U.S. Census Bureau








136

Job Growth Comparison
Employment in Reagan County increased by 85 percent between 2001 and 2012, outpacing the 14.7
percent growth rate of Texas and the 11.3 percent growth rate of the WTxEC study area during the same
period. Employment growth in Reagan County has been increasing steadily since the economic crash of
2008.

Figure 8-3
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

137

Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison
Employment in the natural resource and mining sector has increased by 78.6 percent in Reagan County
between 2001 and 2012. The WTxEC study area’s 74.5 percent growth and the state of Texas’s 51.2
percent growth in the sector have followed a similar pattern. Reagan County currently has the highest
natural resource and mining employment growth rate in the WTxEC study area.

Figure 8-4

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

138

Figure 8-5
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment
Location quotients are useful in determining the significance of a particular job sector in the local
economy. This is determined by calculating the ratio of a particular job sector from the local economy
with total jobs in the local economy, then comparing that to the same ratio for the state. A location
quotient greater than 1.0 denotes a sector that has greater importance to the local economy than that
for the state. A location quotient less than 1.0 signifies that the sector is less important to the local
economy when compared to the state.
Both Reagan County and the study area report a location quotient greater than 1.0 between 2001 and
2012. The natural resource and mining super sector has a much greater significance in Reagan County
than that in the study area.


139


Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012













Chart 8-6
140


Population Projections
Population projections are an estimate of a future population. The following table projects Reagan
County’s population from 2000-2050. The projections are divided by ethnicity, with a category for Anglo,
Black, and Hispanic. Each category contains the percent change. Reagan County is projected by the year
2050 to see an overall increase in population of 44.7 percent, a 37.1 percent decrease in Anglo
population, a 58.4 percent decrease in Black population, and an increase of 128.4 percent in the
Hispanic population.
Table 8-2
Population Projections
Year Total Change Anglo Change Black Change Hispanic Change Other Change
2000
3,326 - 1,558 - 101 - 1,646 - 21 -
2005
3,532 6.2% 1,581 1.5% 105 4.0% 1,825 10.9% 21 0%
2010
3,367 1.2% 1,219 -21.8% 65 -35.6% 2,051 24.6% 32 52.4%
2015
3,595 8.1% 1,257 -19.3% 64 -36.6% 2,242 36.2% 32 52.4%
2020
3,853 15.8% 1,289 -17.3% 63 -37.6% 2,469 50.0% 32 52.4%
2025
4,109 23.5% 1,290 -17.2% 61 -39.6% 2,726 65.6% 32 52.4%
2030
4,303 29.4% 1,253 -19.6% 60 -40.6% 2,959 79.8% 31 47.6%
2035
4,444 33.6% 1,179 -24.3% 57 -43.6% 3,177 93.0% 31 47.6%
2040
4,571 37.4% 1,107 -28.9% 55 -45.5% 3,378 105.2% 31 47.6%
2045
4,656 40.0% 1,030 -33.9% 51 -49.5% 3,544 115.3% 31 47.6%
2050
4,812 44.7% 980 -37.1% 42 -58.4% 3,760 128.4% 30 42.9%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission as computed in 2012 by The Office of the State Demographer for the State of Texas


141

Total Employment Forecast for Reagan County in 2014-2022
In order to estimate the Total Employment Forecast we used percentages of the super sectors for each
county using the forecasts for the corresponding Workforce Development Area (WDA) starting with the
base year (2014) and forecasting every year in between through 2022 (2020 figure provided by TWC).
For the period 2020-2022, it was assumed the same growth rate from previous years.








Source: CCBR elaboration with Texas Workforce Commission’s
Forecasts for Workforce Development Areas (WDAs) 2010-2020















Year Total Employment Forecast
2014 2107
2015 2152
2016 2200
2017 2249
2018 2295
2019 2346
2020 2398
2021 2438
2022 2484
Chart 8-3
142

Building Permits
Reagan County has seen a fluctuation in the number of building permits in the last decade.
Table 8-4
Single Family Building Permits
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Units 3 3 4 4 1 3 3 3 5 3 0 4 2
Source: Texas A&M Real Estate Center
143


Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. In
Reagan County, only 65 percent of its population has at least a high school diploma, and only 9.8
percent have completed their bachelor’s degree.
Table 8-5
Educational Attainment
Type of School Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent
Nursery school or preschool 44 5.2% Less than 9th grade 410 20.7%
Kindergarten 11 1.3% 9th-12th grade, no diploma 283 14.3%
Elementary (grades 1-8) 524 62.0% High school diploma or equiv. 701 35.4%
High School (grades 9-12) 235 27.8% Some college, no degree 337 17.0%
College or graduate school 31 3.7% Associate degree 55 2.8%
Total 845 Bachelor's degree 109 5.5%
Graduate or professional degree 85 4.3%
Percent with high school diploma 65.0% Total 1,981
Percent with Bachelor's degree 9.8%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s County Narrative Profile from the Socrates database

144

Figure 8-7

Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax
Reagan County’s total sales subject to sales tax were $14,265,846 in the first quarter of 2010 with an
increase to $30,312,067 by the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 112 percent. Below is a 10 year
historical graph for Reagan County of the amount of total sales subject to sales tax. The original values
are in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed values represent a four-quarter sales
average.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

145


County Budgets
The following graph shows the revenues and expenditures for Reagan County. Their revenues soared in
2010, and their expenditures dropped in 2012, leaving a large net surplus for 2013. The expenditures for
2013 were $5.8 million, while amassing revenues of over $9.5 million.
Source: Reagan County, Texas 2009-2013 Budgets

Figure 8-8
146


Employment Changes
Between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2012, for Reagan County, there was a
negative 0.3 percent change in employment for all industries. The change in employment for the state of
Texas for the same period was 3.26 percent. The industry with the highest growth was the financial
activities group with an increase of 32 percent, followed by natural resources and mining, with an
increase of 24 percent.
Table 8-6
Employment Changes by Sector
Industry Sector 2011 Q4 2012 Q4
Employment
Change
Percent
Change
Financial Activities Group 25 33 8 32.0%
Natural Resources and Mining 535 663 128 24.0%
Trade, Transportation, and
Utilities 959 826 133 13.9%
Leisure and Hospitality Group 69 78 9 13.0%
Construction 109 114 5 4.6%
Public Administration 80 77 -3 3.8%
Other Services 34 35 1 2.9%
Total, All Industries 2,111 2,104 -7 -0.3%
Education and Health Services 276 257 -19 -6.9%
Prof., Business, and Other
Services 24 21 -3 -12.5%
Manufacturing n/a n/a n/a n/a
Information n/a n/a n/a n/a
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012



147

Table 8-8

Commuting Patterns
Using LEHD mapping, the commuting patterns of residents and employees of the 10-county region
shows where residents work and the employees live. The commuting patterns for Reagan County can be
seen below. When compared to the other 9 counties, Reagan County was eighth in percentage of
employees who live within one of the 10-counties, at only 64.6 percent. They also had only the seventh
highest percentage of residents who work within the 10-county area.
There are 1,969 people employed in Reagan County. A total of 697 people work in Reagan and live
within one of the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 1,272 workers are employed in
Reagan County but live outside the 10-county study area.
Table 8-7
Commuting Patterns for Employees
Number Percentage
Live in 10-county area
697 35.4%
Live outside 10-county area
1,272 64.6%
Total 1,969 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map

There are 1,337 workers who live in Reagan County. A total of 589 work in Reagan and live within one of
the 10-county study area. The remaining 748 workers are employed in Reagan County but live outside
the 10-county study area.

Commuting Patterns for Residents
Number Percentage
Work in 10-county area
589 44.0%
Work outside 10-county area
748 56.0%
Total 1,337 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map






148

Economic Impacts in 2012
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Reagan County. In 2012, it is
estimated that a total of 2,600 Reagan County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under
analysis, in addition to $1.7 million in output and more than $817 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $61 million, total severance tax $27 million, with a total of $221
royalties and an estimated lease payments of $41 million. The drilling and completion expenditures
represented $447 million; followed by oil and gas production with $1.1 million, and pipeline
construction activity with $59 million.
Estimated Impacts in Reagan, 2012


Table 8-9

Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $1,614,016,036 $122,817,580 $34,753,824 $1,771,587,440
Gross County Product $733,465,353 $63,919,786 $20,588,250 $817,973,390
Employment Full-Time
1,628 773 199 2,600
Payroll
$117,191,179 $28,737,978 $5,397,612 $151,326,769


Estimated State Revenue
$61,339,986
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011


Estimated Expenditures in Reagan, 2012








Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
Severance Tax $27,435,931
Royalties $221,324,197
Lease Payments $41,015,769
Drilling and completion $447,543,515
Oil and gas production $1,106,620,987
Pipeline Construction

$59,851,530
Table 8-10
149

Economic Impacts in 2022
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Reagan County. In 2022, it is
estimated that a total of 5,131 Reagan County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under
analysis, in addition to $4.4 million in output and more than $2.1 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $157 million, total severance tax $27 million, with a total of $800
in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $57 million. The drilling and completion expenditures
represented $1 million; followed by oil and gas production with $4 million.

Estimated Impacts in Reagan, 2022
Table 8-11
Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Gross County Product $1,944,497,501 $135,975,805 $53,573,849 $2,134,047,156
Output $4,007,985,552 $261,630,182 $90,338,414 $4,359,954,148
Employment Full-Time 2,836 1,777 518 5,131
Payroll
$320,883,734 $66,307,933 $14,043,229 $401,234,896


Estimated State Revenue
$157,061,481
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Reagan, 2022
Table 8-12
Severance Tax

$95,768,114.52
Royalties

$800,075,391
Lease Payments

$57,396,946
Drilling and completion

$1,084,056,464
Oil and gas production $4,000,376,957
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
150

Scurry County
Overview of Scurry County
The following graphs and charts show population growth, total employment, the natural resource and
mining employment, and the relationship between Scurry County, the study area, and the state of
Texas. Scurry County lies on U.S. Highways 84 and 180. Snyder is the only major city and the county seat
with a population of 11,202. The only other town is Hermleigh, with only 345 residents.
Figure 9-1

Source: Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA.
http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.
151

Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries
Scurry County has a population of 16,919. The per capita personal income is $37,970. The top three
employments by industry are mining, state and local government, and retail trade; with mining also
being the top industry by earnings.
Table 9-1
Scurry County
Population
16,919
Per Capita Personal Income
37,970
Total Employment
7,372
 Mining
Employment by Industry (Top 3)  State and Local Government
 Retail Trade

 Mining
Earnings by Industry (Top 3)

 Government and Government Enterprises
 Construction
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Accounts

152


Population Growth Comparison
Scurry County’s population increased 8.1 percent between 2001 and 2012 according to the U.S. Census
Bureau. While population has grown at a higher rate on average in the state of Texas at 22 percent,
Scurry County’s population growth remained higher than the WTxEC study area’s 2.7 percent growth
average in all 12 years of the study period.
Figure 9-2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

153


Job Growth Comparison
Employment increased 29.9 percent in Scurry County between 2001 and 2012. Scurry County’s total
employment has grown at a higher pace than the WTxEC region or state, and has been on a constant
increase since 2009. Unlike Scurry County, the state of Texas and the study area’s employment grew
almost at the same pace, increasing by 14.7 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively, between 2001 and
2012.
Figure 9-3

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
154


Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison
Job growth in the natural resources and mining super sector grew by 97.8 percent in Scurry County,
surpassing the 74.5 percent growth rate in the study area and the 51.2 percent Texas state average in
the super sector. Scurry County’s employment of natural resources and mining has been growing at an
extremely high rate since 2009.
Figure 9-4

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
155

Figure 9-5

Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment
Location quotients are useful in determining the significance of a particular job sector in the local
economy. This is determined by calculating the ratio of a particular job sector from the local economy
with total jobs in the local economy, then comparing that to the same ratio for the state. A location
quotient greater than 1.0 denotes a sector that has greater importance to the local economy than that
for the state. A location quotient less than 1.0 signifies that the sector is less important to the local
economy when compared to the state.
Both Scurry County and the the area report a location quotient greater than 1.0 between 2001 and
2012. The natural resource and mining super sector has a much greater significance in Scurry County
than that in the study area.

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012


156



Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

Chart 9-6
157

Population Projections
Population projections are an estimate of a future population. The following table projects Scurry
County’s population from 2000-2050. The projections are divided by ethnicity, with a category for Anglo,
Black, and Hispanic. Each category contains the percent change. Scurry County is projected by the year
2050 to see an overall increase in population of 42.5 percent, a 15.7 percent decrease in Anglo
population, a 30.7 percent decrease in Black population, and an increase of 194.3 percent in the
Hispanic population.
Table 9-2
Population Projections
Year Total Change Anglo Change Black Change Hispanic Change Other Change
2000
16,361 - 10,723 - 1,005 - 4,544 - 89 -
2005
16,713 2.2% 10,561 -1.5% 1,022 1.7% 5,041 10.9% 89 0%
2010
16,921 3.4% 9,773 -8.9% 764 -24.0% 6,149 35.3% 235 164.0%
2015
17,654 7.9% 9,752 -9.1% 796 -20.8% 6,856 50.9% 250 180.9%
2020
18,430 12.6% 9,716 -9.4% 812 -19.2% 7,634 68.0% 268 201.1%
2025
19,201 17.5% 9,652 -10.0% 801 -20.3% 8,456 86.1% 292 228.1%
2030
19,999 22.2% 9,546 -11.0% 798 -20.6% 9,332 105.4% 323 262.9%
2035
20,779 27.0% 9,394 -12.4% 789 -21.5% 10,243 125.4% 353 296.6%
2040
21,557 31.8% 9,229 -13.9% 766 -23.8% 11,198 146.4% 364 309.0%
2045
22,392 36.9% 9,043 -15.7% 733 -27.1% 12,238 169.3% 378 324.7%
2050
23,311 42.5% 8,856 -17.4% 696 -30.7% 13,373 194.3% 386 333.7%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission as computed in 2012 by The Office of the State Demographer for the State of Texas

158

Table 9-3
Total Employment Forecast for Scurry County in 2014-2022
In order to estimate the Total Employment Forecast we used percentages of the super sectors for each
county using the forecasts for the corresponding Workforce Development Area (WDA) starting with the
base year (2014) and forecasting every year in between through 2022 (2020 figure provided by TWC).
For the period 2020-2022, it was assumed the same growth rate from previous years.

Year Total Employment Forecast
2014 6902
2015 7029
2016 7160
2017 7291
2018 7425
2019 7561
2020 7702
2021 7813
2022 7942
Source: CCBR elaboration with Texas Workforce Commission’s
Forecasts for Workforce Development Areas (WDAs) 2010-2020
159

Building Permits
Scurry County saw a huge increase in building permits in the last decade. The number of single family
building permits rose from three to fifty, while the number of building permits for 2-4 family units
increased from zero to 34 in 2010, and stands at 40 in 2012.

Table 9-4
Single Family Building Permits
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Units 8 1 2 1 4 7 10 4 8 3 50 49 51
Source: Texas A&M Real Estate Center

Table 9-5
2-4 Family Building Permits
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 40 40
Source: Texas A&M Real Estate Center
160


Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. In Scurry
County, 73.8 percent of its population has at least a high school diploma, and only 15.8 percent have
completed their bachelor’s degree.
Table 9-6
Educational Attainment
Type of School Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent
Nursery school or preschool 281 6.6% Less than 9th grade 1,209 11.1%
Kindergarten 157 3.7% 9th-12th grade, no diploma 1,634 15.0%
Elementary (grades 1-8) 1,793 42% High school diploma or equiv. 2,920 26.8%
High School (grades 9-12) 1,138 26.7% Some college, no degree 2,691 24.7%
College or graduate school 897 21.0% Associate degree 708 6.5%
Total 4,266 Bachelor's degree 1,199 11.0%
Graduate or professional degree 523 4.8%
Percent with high school diploma 73.8% Total 10,986
Percent with Bachelor's degree 15.8%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s County Narrative Profile from the Socrates database
161

Figure 9-7

Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax
Scurry County’s total sales subject to sales tax were $145,296,851 in the first quarter of 2010 with an
increase to $229,741,809 by the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 58 percent. Below is a 10 year
historical graph for Scurry County of the amount of total sales subject to sales tax. The original values
are in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed values represent a four-quarter sales
average.

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

162


County Budgets
The following graph shows the revenues and expenditures for Scurry County. Their revenues and
expenditures have been virtually even for the last three years, steadily increasing at the same rate.
As of 2013, their revenues match expenditures at $10.7 million.
Source: Scurry County, Texas 2009-2013 Budgets

Figure 9-8
163


Employment Changes
Between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2012, for Scurry County, there was a 14
percent increase in employment for all industries. The change in employment for the state of Texas for
the same period was 3.26 percent. The industry with the highest growth was natural resources and
mining with an increase of 38.5 percent, followed by manufacturing, with an increase of 26.6 percent.
The financial activities group saw the biggest loss in employment with a 9.2 percentage decrease.
Table 9-7
Employment Changes by Sector
Industry Sector 2011 Q4 2012 Q4
Employment
Change
Percent
Change
Natural Resources and Mining 1,940 2,687 747 38.5%
Manufacturing 128 162 34 26.6%
Other Services 243 301 58 24.0%
Prof., Business, and Other
Services 266 321 55 20.7%
Total, All Industries 7,191 8,200 1,008 14.0%
Trade, Transportation, and
Utilities 1,329 1,426 97 7.3%
Education and Health Services 1,241 1,300 59 4.8%
Information 66 63 3 4.5%
Construction 514 534 20 3.9%
Leisure and Hospitality Group 618 629 11 1.8%
Public Administration 585 540 -45 -7.7%
Financial Activities Group 261 237 -24 -9.2%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

164

Table 9-9

Commuting Patterns
Using LEHD mapping, the commuting patterns of residents and employees of the 10-county region
shows where residents work and the employees live. The commuting patterns for Scurry County can be
seen below. When compared to the other 9 counties, Scurry County had the fourth highest percentage,
at 34.5 percent, of employees who live within one of the 10-counties with active drilling. They had the
highest percentage of residents who work within the 10-county area.
There are 6,015 people employed in Scurry County. Of the total of, 3,940 work in Scurry and live within
one of the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 2,075 workers are employed in Scurry
County but live outside the 10-county study area.
Table 9-8
Commuting Patterns for Employees
Number Percentage
Live in 10-county area
3,940 65.5%
Live outside 10-county area
2,075 34.5%
Total 6,015 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map

There are 5,380 workers who live in Scurry County. Of this total, of 3,586 work within the 10-county
study area. The remaining 1,794 workers live in Scurry County but work outside the 10-county study
area.

Commuting Patterns for Residents
Number Percentage
Work in 10-county area
3,586 66.7%
Work outside 10-county area
1,794 33.3%
Total 5,380 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map






165

Economic Impacts in 2012
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Scurry County. In 2012, it is
estimated that a total of 2,966 Scurry County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under analysis,
in addition to $1.9 million in output and more than $985 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $85 million, total severance tax $27 million, with a total of $300
million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $6 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $82 million; followed by oil and gas production with $1.5 million.
Estimated Impacts in Scurry, 2012


Table 9-10

Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $1,585,605,890 $236,526,238 $81,318,030 $1,903,450,159
Gross County Product $792,331,220 $141,032,026 $51,655,999 $985,019,245
Employment Full-Time
873 1,495 598 2,966
Payroll
$67,856,345 $78,461,248 $19,027,118 $165,344,711


Estimated State Revenue
$85,148,048
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Scurry, 2012
Table 9-11
Severance Tax $35,987,361
Royalties $300,635,428
Lease Payments $6,799,406
Drilling and completion $82,428,754
Oil and gas production

$1,503,177,141
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
166

Economic Impacts in 2022
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Scurry County. In 2022, it is
estimated that a total of 1,208 Scurry County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under analysis,
in addition to $564 million in output and more than $296 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $22 million, total severance tax $10 million, with a total of $89
million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $5 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $79 million; followed by oil and gas production with $79 million.

Estimated Impacts in Scurry, 2022
Table 9-12

Economic
Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $406,017,164 $114,511,855 $44,144,703 $564,673,722
Gross County Product $201,962,651 $66,845,577 $28,150,986 $296,959,213
Employment Full-Time 271 617 321 1,208
Payroll $30,937,943 $36,617,156 $10,924,724 $78,479,824

Estimated State
Revenue
$22,105,166
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Scurry, 2022
Table 9-13
Severance Tax $10,851,049.99
Royalties $89,327,599
Lease Payments $5,356,919
Drilling and completion $79,563,473
Oil and gas production

$446,637,996
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
167

Sterling County
Overview of Sterling County
The following graphs and charts show population growth, total employment, natural resource and
mining employment, and the relationship between Sterling County, the study area, and the state of
Texas. Sterling County is located along U.S. Highway 87. The only town and county seat is Sterling City,
with a population of 888. The county is named after W.S. Sterling, an early settler in the area. Sterling
County is one of 30

prohibition, or entirely dry, counties in the state of Texas.
Figure 10-1

Source: Selected GIS software provided by Caliper Corporation; Newton, MA.
http://www.caliper.com/ Center for Community and Business Research.
168

Per Capita Income, Population, and Industries
Sterling County has a population of 1,158. The per capita personal income is $35,840. The top three
employments by industry are mining, state and local government, and farm employment; with mining
also being the top industry by earnings.
Table 10-1
Sterling County
Population 1,158
Per Capita Personal Income
35,840
Total Employment
526
 Mining
Employment by Industry (Top 3)  State and Local Government
 Farm Employment

 Mining
Earnings by Industry (Top 3)

 Government and Government Enterprises
 Farm Earnings
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Accounts
169

Population Growth Comparison
Population has decreased in Sterling County by 11.2 percent during the past twelve years. Population in
the WTxEC study area by 2.7 percent and increased in the state of Texas by 22.2 percent during this
same time.
Figure 10-2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau









170

Job Growth Comparison
Total employment in Sterling County grew by 20.7 percent between 2001 and 2012, although at an
erratic pace. Employment growth in the WTxEC study area and the state of Texas have stayed consistent
to relative to one another, increasing by 11.3 percent and 14.7 percent.

Figure 10-3

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
171


Natural Resource and Mining Employment Growth Comparison
Employment in the natural resource and mining super sector increased by 35.1 percent in Sterling
County between 2001 and 2012. Growth in the sector has increased by 51.2 percent in the state of
Texas and 74.5 percent in the WTxEC study area over the same period. Sterling County has followed a
similar pattern as the rest of the region and state, but currently has the lowest growth rate in the sector.

Figure 10-4

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
172

Figure 10-5


Location Quotients for Natural Resource and Mining Employment
Location quotients are useful in determining the significance of a particular job sector in the local
economy. This is determined by calculating the ratio of a particular job sector from the local economy
with total jobs in the local economy, then comparing that to the same ratio for the state. A location
quotient greater than 1.0 denotes a sector that has greater importance to the local economy than that
for the state. A location quotient less than 1.0 signifies that the sector is less important to the local
economy when compared to the state.
Both Sterling County and the sutudy area report a location quotient greater than 1.0 between 2001 and
2012. The natural resource and mining super sector has a much greater significance in Sterling County
than that in the study area.

Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012

173



Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012













Chart 10-6

174

Population Projections
Population projections are an estimate of a future population. The following table projects Sterling
County’s population from 2000-2050. The projections are divided by ethnicity, with a category for Anglo,
Black, and Hispanic. Each category contains the percent change. Sterling County is projected by the year
2050 to see an overall decrease in population of 11.4 percent, a 35 percent decrease in Anglo
population, a 1,100 percent increase in Black population, and a 32.2 percent increase in the Hispanic
population.

Table 10-2
Population Projections
Year Total Change Anglo Change Black Change Hispanic Change Other Change
2000
1,393 - 956 - 1 - 432 - 4 -
2005
1,430 2.7% 964 0.8% 1 0.0% 461 6.7% 4 0.0%
2010
1,143 -17.9% 733 -23.3% 13 1200.0% 365 -15.5% 32 700.0%
2015
1,189 -14.6% 756 -20.9% 13 1200.0% 388 -10.2% 32 700.0%
2020
1,215 -12.8% 755 -21.0% 13 1200.0% 415 -3.9% 32 700.0%
2025
1,240 -11.0% 755 -21.0% 12 1100.0% 442 2.3% 31 675.0%
2030 1,260 -9.5% 747 -21.9% 12 1100.0% 470 8.8% 31 675.0%
2035
1,278 -8.3% 734 -23.2% 12 1100.0% 500 15.7% 32 700.0%
2040
1,275 -8.5% 704 -26.4% 12 1100.0% 528 22.2% 31 675.0%
2045
1,249 -10.3% 656 -31.4% 12 1100.0% 551 27.5% 30 650.0%
2050
1,234 -11.4% 621 -35.0% 12 11000.% 571 32.2% 30 650.0%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission as computed in 2012 by The Office of the State Demographer for the State of Texas



175

Table 10-3
Total Employment Forecast for Sterling County in 2014-2022
In order to estimate the Total Employment Forecast we used percentages of the super sectors for each
county using the forecasts for the corresponding Workforce Development Area (WDA) starting with the
base year (2014) and forecasting every year in between through 2022 (2020 figure provided by TWC).
For the period 2020-2022, it was assumed the same growth rate from previous years.

Year Total Employment Forecast
2014 546
2015 554
2016 562
2017 571
2018 580
2019 588
2020 597
2021 606
2022 615
Source: CCBR elaboration with Texas Workforce Commission’s
Forecasts for Workforce Development Areas (WDAs) 2010-2020

176


Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. In
Sterling County, 72 percent of its population has at least a high school diploma, and 18 percent have
completed their bachelor’s degree.

Table 10-4
Educational Attainment
Type of School Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent
Nursery school or preschool 6 2.5% Less than 9th grade 108 13.6%
Kindergarten 4 1.7% 9th-12th grade, no diploma 115 14.4%
Elementary (grades 1-8) 160 67.5% High school diploma or equiv. 261 32.8%
High School (grades 9-12) 61 25.7% Some college, no degree 149 18.7%
College or graduate school 6 2.5% Associate degree 20 2.5%
Total 237 Bachelor's degree 104 13.1%
Graduate or professional degree 39 4.9%
Percent with high school diploma 72.0% Total 796
Percent with Bachelor's degree 18.0%
Source: Texas Workforce Commission’s County Narrative Profile from the Socrates database

177

Figure 10-7

Amounts Subject to State Sales Tax
Sterling County’s total sales subject to sales tax were $1,295,571 in the first quarter of 2010 with an
increase to $3,080,708 by the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 137 percent. Below is a 10 year
historical graph for Sterling County of the amount of total sales subject to sales tax. The original values
are in blue and the smoothed values in red. The smoothed values represent a t four-quarter sales
average.

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

178


Employment Changes
Between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2012, for Sterling County, there was a
29.7 percent change in employment for all industries. This change is almost ten times the employment
growth for the state of Texas, which for the same period was 3.26 percent. The industry with the highest
growth was Construction with an increase of 103 percent, followed by trade, transport and utilities, with
an increase of 30.8 percent.

Table 10-5
Employment Changes by Sector
Industry Sector 2011 Q4 2012 Q4
Employment
Change
Percent
Change
Construction 32 65 33 103.0%
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 65 85 20 30.8%
Total, All Industries 435 564 129 29.7%
Natural Resources and Mining 164 210 46 28.0%
Education and Health Services 102 102 0 0.0%
Other Services 25 25 0 0.0%
Public Administration 34 34 0 0.0%
Prof., Business, and Other Services 13 10 -3 -23.1%
Manufacturing n/a n/a n/a n/a
Information n/a n/a n/a n/a
Financial Activities Group n/a 33 n/a n/a
Leisure and Hospitality Group n/a n/a n/a n/a
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data, from 2001 to 2012
179


Commuting Patterns
Using LEHD mapping, the commuting patterns of residents and employees of the 10-county region
shows where residents work and the employees live. The commuting patterns for Sterling County can be
seen below. When compared to the other 9 counties, Sterling County had the second highest
percentage, at 67.8 percent, of employees who live within one of the 10-counties with active drilling.
They had the fourth highest percentage of residents who work within the 10-county area.
There are 403 people employed in Sterling County. A total of 138 people work in Sterling and live within
one of the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 265 workers are employed in Sterling
County but live outside the 10-county study area.
Table 10-6
Commuting Patterns for Employees
Number Percentage
Live in 10-county area
138 34.2%
Live outside 10-county area
265 67.8%
Total 403 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map

There are 463 people employed in Sterling County. A total of 150 work in Sterling and live within one of
the 10-counties that are part of the study. The remaining 463 workers are employed in Sterling County
but live outside the 10-county study area.
Table 10-7
Commuting Patterns for Residents
Number Percentage
Work in 10-county area
150 24.5%
Work outside 10-county area
463 75.5%
Total 613 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map






180

Economic Impacts in 2012
The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Sterling County. In 2012, it is
estimated that a total of 275 Sterling County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under analysis,
in addition to $178 million in output and more than $87 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $6 million, total severance tax $3 million, with a total of $24
million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $2 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $28 million; followed by oil and gas production with $123 million.

Estimated Impacts in Sterling, 2012


Table 10-8

Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $152,025,329 $21,541,875 $5,364,261 $178,931,465
Gross State Product $72,415,199 $11,447,410 $3,399,443 $87,262,051
Employment Full-Time
103 138 33 275
Payroll
$8,231,845 $3,389,209 $618,558 $12,239,612


Estimated State Revenue
$6,742,537
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Sterling, 2012
Table 10-9
Severance Tax

$3,260,652
Royalties

$24,770,765
Lease Payments

$2,193,357
Drilling and completion

$28,171,502
Oil and gas production

$123,853,827
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
181

Economic Impacts in 2022

The following table shows the estimated impacts of the shale activity on Sterling County. In 2022, it is
estimated that a total of 637 Sterling County jobs were supported by the 10-county area under analysis,
in addition to $383 million in output and more than $186 million in gross county product.
The total estimated state revenue was $12 million, total severance tax $7.1 million, with a total of $59
million in royalties and an estimated lease payments of $4 million. The drilling and completion
expenditures represented $107 million; followed by oil and gas production with $298 million.
Estimated Impacts in Sterling, 2022
Table 10-10
Economic Impacts
Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output $326,368,008 $43,944,809 $12,936,602 $383,249,419
Gross County Product $155,107,484 $22,973,319 $8,179,714 $186,260,517
Employment Full-Time 242 314 81 637
Payroll $27,146,911 $6,757,082 $1,490,626 $35,394,618

Estimated State
Revenue
$12,667,673
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011

Estimated Expenditures in Sterling, 2022
Table 10-11
Severance Tax

$7,052,486.09
Royalties

$59,778,471
Lease Payments

$4,970,647
Drilling and completion

$107,903,581
Oil and gas production

$298,892,357
Source: CCBR Estimations using IMPLAN software version 3, database 2011
182

Appendices
Appendix A: County Budgets and Road Expenditures
Road Infrastructure Expenditures in Active Counties of the West Texas Energy Consortium
Fisher County’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget of $5.1 million with $2.4 million allocated on Roads and Bridges
expenditures. Over 50.4 percent of the Roads and Bridges account is reserved for Capital Outlay (Unit
Cost). Of the total expenditures for the Road and Bridges Fund, $2.0 million is paid through revenue.
Approximately, 60.5 percent ($1.2 million) of the revenue is comprised of Loan Income with 25.4
percent ($517,137.96) coming from Ad Valorem Taxes and 12.3 percent ($251,046.84) from Motor
Vehicle Registration.
Scurry County expends $3.2 million of its 2013 budget on the Roads and Bridges Fund, accounting for
29.0 percent of the total FY 2013 budget ($10.7 million). Three line items comprise of 69.9 percent of
the account: Capital Outlay ($780,000; 24.6 percent); Precinct Payroll ($698,718; 22.05 percent); and
Road Materials and Construction ($735,000; 23.2 percent). The FY 2013 Road and Bridge Fund
adequately finances the expenditure account. The majority of the fund originates from Ad Valorem
taxes, which accounts for $2.2 million or 71.0 percent. The budget also has $400,000 from revenue
ledger entitled Road and Bridge Fund (12.6 percent). With the inclusion of the Sale of Assets ($300,000;
9.5 percent), these three comprise 93.1 percent of the total General Fund for Road and Bridges.
Howard County’s FY 2013 Budget estimates an overall revenue stream of $10.9 million but lists
expenditures totaling $11.8 million for a deficit of $912,985. Road and Bridge Fund expenditures
account for $3.5 million of the budget with Paving/Sealcoating ($1.3 million; 37.7 percent), Salaries
($650,473; 18.37 percent), Auto Operation Charges ($600,000; 17.0 percent), and Road Edge Repairs
($400,000; 11.3 percent) accounting for 84.35 percent of ledger costs. The county estimates $2.8
million for collection for their Road and Bridge Fund. Almost three-quarters of the Road and Bridge
Fund revenues come from current tax collections ($2.0 million; 74.7 percent) with another $400,000 or
14.2 percent is derived from Motor Vehicle Licenses and Permits.
Nolan County passed a budget for FY 2013 listing $7.3 million in expenditures and $7.7 million in
revenues. The county has a Road expenditure account totaling $1.8 million. The top 3 expenditures in
the account are Salaries ($595,178.20; 33.12 percent), Road Materials ($540,000; 30.05 percent), and
Health Insurance ($119,646; 6.66 percent). Nolan County has a revenue stream of $1.6 million for
roads. Almost 98 percent of road revenue comes from Ad Valorem Tax ($1.0 million; 65.0 percent),
Auto Licenses fees ($400,000; 24.8 percent), and County Road & Bridges Fees ($130,000; 8.1 percent).
Nolan Count’s accounting leaves a deficit of $185,240.70 in the account.
183

Appendix B: West Texas Consortium Hotel Occupancy Data
The hotel occupancy rate measures the percentage of hotel rooms that are rented on an annual basis.
From a year-to-year basis, there were several counties that had a significant increase the rate of
occupancy in the WTxEC area.
From 2009 to 2010, Reagan County had the only sizable increase in occupancy of ten percent. However,
from 2010 to 2011, Martin County had a thirty-five percent increase. In that same year, Mitchell
County’s hotel occupancy rate increased 21.8 percent, Howard County’s 19.2percent, and Nolan
County’s saw a 16.4 percent spike in occupancy. Most recently, from 2011-2012, we saw Howard County
again, with a sixteen percent increase, Mitchell County at 15.3 percent, and Reagan County had a 12.8
percent spike in occupancy.
When comparing these numbers to the overall state occupancy percentages, the only similarity is the
decline virtually across the board from 2008-2009, presumably due to the economic collapse. Brown,
Coleman, Martin, Nolan, Runnels and Taylor Counties had a decrease in hotel occupancy, however, all of
the decreases were minute, with the largest being Runnels County at 2.4 percent.
The County with the largest production of oil is Martin County, with 20,518,157 BBL being produced in
2012. This also happens to be the County that had just 1,553 hotel rooms sold in 2010, and saw those
numbers skyrocket to 18,655 the very next year. Reagan County’s large increase from 2011-2012 could
be a result of it being the leading casinghead producer with 47,338,826 MCF in 2012.


184

When breaking down the hotel revenue data from the ten counties located within the West Texas
Consortium, 2010-2011 panned out to be a very lucrative year. There was a vast increase of 1,416
percent in Martin County. Reagan County saw a 32, 67, and 82 percent increase in hotel revenue from
2010 to 2012, indicating a steady increase, as opposed to the boom we saw of Martin County. After a
forty-seven percent drop off in 2009, Nolan County saw a boom in hotel revenue in 2010. This financial
boom was to the tune of 191 percent, marking a good recovery for the county.
Despite the rapid increase in hotel revenue in Martin, Reagan, Nolan, and Mitchell counties, 2012 saw
Runnels and Coleman counties with a 30 and 22 percent decrease in revenue respectively. However,
these were the only two counties to record any significant decrease in total revenue.
The increase in hotel occupancy in 2011 for Martin County matches the increase in total revenue,
making Martin County the recipient of the largest boom in hotel occupancy and revenue in 2010-2011.
Runnels and Coleman County saw a decrease in both categories as well, with those two counties
anchoring the eastern edge of the West Texas consortium geographic area.
Total Revenue ($000’s)
COUNTY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Brown 4,269 4,573 5,557 6,058 5,908 6,785 6,148 6,335 7,061 7,126
Coke 38 56
Coleman 495 619 722 772 834 855 760 755 1,075 843
Fisher 31
Glasscock 90
Howard 3,727 4,363 4,899 6,219 7,822 12,125 7,520 7,902 12,386 19,876
Irion
Martin 85 1,289 2,012
Mitchell 389 435 448 493 725 1,024 597 514 903 1,287
Nolan 3,587 3,863 4,272 4,974 7,242 8,425 6,105 3,207 9,351 9,724
Reagan 261 207 292 377 445 594 422 557 931 1,695
Runnels 185 211 234 276 284 305 342 430 410 289
Scurry 2,198 2,035 2,564 2,901 3,602 4,200 4,323 4,625 5,627 6,686
Sterling
Taylor 23,118 25,249 29,358 32,759 35,465 38,612 35,489 35,867 45,813 42,764
Tom Green 15,216 15,229 16,844 18,494 21,075 24,567 23,601 22,336 27,544 39,279
STATE TOTALS 4,375,626 4,725,485 5,434,106 6,134,584 6,672,696 7,246,736 6,143,232 6,537,826 7,374,653 8,124,187

When taking a look at the last set of statistics, we get the raw data of hotel rooms sold by year. The
Counties that saw increases or decreases were relative to the data from total revenue. 2010 saw Coke
County with the only significant increase at 61 percent. Following the same pattern as total revenue,
2011 saw Martin County with an astronomical boom in rooms sold with a 1,101 percent increase.
Mitchell County came in a distant second with a seventy-seven percent increase. Yet again, Runnels and
Coleman Counties saw a decrease in 2012, with a 38 and 22 percent drop, respectively
Overall, we see that Martin, Mitchell, Howard, and Reagan Counties are the Counties which are noting
consistent increases in hotel occupancy, revenue, and rooms sold for the 2009-2012 timeframe. These
four Counties all happen to be next to each other, in a horizontal line with Martin anchoring the west,
and Nolan County at the east. As for the Counties that saw a consistent negative change in the three
185

categories of hotel data, Runnels and Coleman were the victims, showing a decrease in the southeast
side of the Consortium.
Hotel Room Nights Sold by Year
COUNTY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Brown 93,165 94,936 102,888 107,869 104,779 116,509 109,887 106,118 113,275 113,518
Coke 732 1,177
Coleman 13,756 15,673 17,136 17,250 17,918 19,151 18,692 18,407 21,807 16,907
Fisher 765
Glasscock 684
Howard 93,252 97,400 101,889 125,259 136,552 169,256 125,828 128,649 187,860 244,285
Irion
Martin 1,553 18,655 20,907
Mitchell 12,258 13,789 13,481 13,981 19,541 20,865 10,970 10,858 19,235 23,465
Nolan 92,803 92,961 91,845 94,950 119,892 130,162 102,990 105,825 142,937 142,160
Reagan 7,053 5,722 7,620 8,851 9,872 12,460 9,863 11,760 14,510 20,075
Runnels 4,870 5,531 5,849 6,779 6,798 6,980 8,683 11,308 10,256 6,389
Scurry 48,312 44,372 50,767 52,360 60,875 62,124 66,730 73,181 85,638 92,645
Sterling
Taylor 435,985 454,974 490,064 513,996 526,968 542,663 495,603 504,233 602,590 572,717
Tom Green 298,111 301,680 325,264 343,763 365,488 378,026 370,371 355,566 425,784 523,394
STATE TOTALS 63,584,386 67,112,436 73,076,342 75,784,578 77,903,066 80,439,232 72,961,296 78,359,379 85,394,899 90,662,097


186

References
Adame, J. (2012, January 24). Plastic pipe manufacturing plant first to occupy Snyder industrial
park. AbileneReporter-News. Available at http://www.reporternews.com/news/
2012/jan/23/plastic-pipe-manufacturing-plant-first-to-occupy/?print=1

Blackmon, D. (2013, August 8). Texas oil and gas numbers fly off the charts. Forbes. Available
at http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/08/07/texas-oil-and-gas-numbers-fly-off-
the-charts/

Center for Urban and Regional Planning Research. (2012). Strategichousinganalysis:
SustainablechoicesforthegrowingdemandforhousingintheEagleFordShaleareaofSouth
Texas. Available at ccbr.iedtexas.org/index.php/Download-document/54-UTSA-Eagle-Ford-Shale-
Housing-Report-July-2012.html

Cline, M.E., White, S., Murdock, S., Moon, Z., & Farmer, F. (2008). Socioeconomicimpactsof
manufacturinginselectedArkansasandTexascommunities. Technical Document #2, Institute for
Demographic and Socioeconomic Research at The University of Texas at San Antonio. Available at
http://cbr.iedtexas.org

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Offensesknowntothepolice [Data table]. Retrieved
from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2005

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Full-timelawenforcementemployees,bystateby
metropolitanandnonmetropolitancounties,2005 [Data table]. Available at
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2005

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Offensesknowntolawenforcement,bystateby
metropolitanandnonmetropolitancounties,2008 [Data table]. Available at
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2008

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Full-timelawenforcementemployees,bystateby
metropolitanandnonmetropolitancounties,2008 [Data table]. Available at
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2008

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Offensesknowntolawenforcement,bystateby
metropolitanandnonmetropolitancounties,2011 [Data table]. Available at
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-
known-to-law-enforcement/standard-links/county-agency

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Full-timelawenforcementemployees,bystateby
metropolitanandnonmetropolitancounties,2011 [Data table]. Available at
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/police-
employee-data

187

Gilmer, R.W., & Kerr, E. (2010). Natural gas from shale: Texas revolution goes global.
SouthwestEconomy, (Q3), 10-13. Available at
http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/swe/2010/swe1003c.pdf

Gilmer, R.W., Hernandez, R., & Phillips, K.R. (2012). Oil boom in Eagle Ford Shale brings new
wealth to South Texas. SouthwestEconomy, (Q2), 3-7. Available at
http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/swe/2012/swe1202.pdf

Gilmer, R.W., & Thompson, J.B. (2012). Shale oil exploration Permian Basin booms as new
techniques resurrect old sites. SouthwestEconomy, (Q2), 15, Available at
http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/swe/2012/swe1202d.pdf

Hart Energy. (2013). Permian tight oil play. NorthAmericanShaleQuarterly, (Q2). Available
from http://nasq.hartenergy.com/Shales/Permian/2013-Q2/

Halaby, D., Oyakawa, J., Shayne, C., Keairns, C., & Dutton, A. (2011). EconomicimpactoftheEagle
FordShale. Available at ccbr.iedtexas.org/index.php/Download-document/47-Economic-Impact-
of-the-Eagle-Ford-Shale.html

Jescke, J. (2012, December 15). Oil boom reaches boil. SanAngeloStandard-Times. Retrieved
from http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2012/dec/15/oil-boils-the-economy-in-big-lake/

Jeschke, J. (2013, June 27). Big Lake's aim: 'Grow in right way' - residents meet to talk about oil
boom concerns. SanAngeloStandard-Times.

Kay, D. (2011). TheeconomicimpactofMarcellusShalegasdrillingwhathavewelearned?
Whatarethelimitations?Department of Development Sociology at Cornell Working Paper.
Available at http://www.greenchoices.cornell.edu/downloads/development/
shale/marcellus/Economic_Impact.pdf

Kinnaman, T.C. (2011). The economic impact of shale gas extraction: A review of existing
studies. EcologicalEconomics,70(7), 1243-1249

Leistritz, F.L, & Maki, K.C. (1981). Socioeconomiceffectsoflarge-scaleresourcedevelopment
projectsinruralareas:ThecaseofMcLeanCounty,NorthDakota. Agricultural Economics Report
No. 151.

Leistritz, L.F., Ransom-Nelson, W., Rathge, R.W., Coon, R.C., Chase. R.A., Hertsgaard, T.A.,
Murdock, S.H.,…Yang, P.S. (1982). NorthDakotaeconomic-demographicassessmentmodel
(NEDAM).Agricultural Economics Report #151.

Mangalonzo, J. (2013, March 20). Scurry County unveils first lodge-type housing for Cline
Shale workers. AbileneReporterNews. Available at http://www.reporternews.com/news/
2013/mar/20/scurry-county-unveils-first-lodge-type-housing/?partner=RSS
188


Mangalonzo, J. (2013, March 26). Hotel tax exemption hurts Cline Shale communities. Abilene
Reporter-News. Available at http://www.reporternews.com/news/2013/mar/26/hotel-tax-
exemption-hurts-cline-shale/?partner=RSS

Mangalonzo, J. (2013, June 12). Housing project breaks ground in Sweetwater to ease oil-field
worker crunch. SweetwaterReporter. Available at http://www.reporternews.com/news/
2013/jun/12/housing-project-breaks-ground-in-sweetwater-to/?partner=RSS

Mangalonzo, J. (2013, July 6) More new homes being built in Abilene. SweetwaterReporter.
Available at http://www.reporternews.com/news/2013/jul/06/new-home-construction-in-
abilene-sees-uptick/

Nowlin, S. (2013, July 30). Texas now has nearly 48 percent of the country’s oil and gas rigs.
SanAntonioBusinessJournal. Available at http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog
/2013/07/texas-now-has-nearly-48-percent-of-the.html

Office of Policy Development and Research. (2012). New oil and gas drilling technologies bring
significant changes and challenges to housing markets. U.S.HousingMarketConditions, (Q2).

Oyakawa, J. (2008). Humancapitalinmanufacturing:ComparisonsamongtheU.S.,Texas,
Arkansas,andthreeTexancommunities.Technical Document #1, Institute Economic
Development at The University of Texas at San Antonio. Available at http://ccbr.iedtexas.org

Oyakawa, J. (2014, March 22). AFrameworkfortheStudyandForecastofLaborForce,Employment,
Population,Migration,andCommuteChangesintheEagleFordShale. Paper presented at the
44
th
Annual Conference of the Urban Affairs Association. March 19-22, 2014, San Antonio, Texas.

Oyakawa, J., Eid, H., Castillo, J., Tomes, E., Wald, S., Sanchez, I, Rivera, R., Morua, D., Tunstall, T. (2012).
EagleFordShaleeconomicimpactforcountieswithactivedrilling. Available at
ccbr.iedtexas.org/index.php/Download-document/57-Eagle-Ford-Shale-Economic-Impact-for-
Counties-with-Active-Drilling-Full-Report.html

Oyakawa, J., Eid, H., Castillo, J., Tomes, E., Wald, S., Sanchez, I, Rivera, R., Morua, D., Tunstall, T. (2012).
WorkforceanalysisfortheEagleFordShale. Available at ccbr.iedtexas.org/index.php/Download-
document/55-Workforce-Analysis-for-the-Eagle-Ford-Shale-Final-Full-Report.html

Platts Price Group/Oil Division. (2012). Newcrudes,newmarkets. Available at
http://www.platts.com/industry-solution-papers/special-reports

Platts Price Group/Oil Division. (2013). Newcrudes,newmarkets. Available at
http://www.platts.com/industry-solution-papers/special-reports

Reagan, S. (2013, August 2). Howard College breaking ground for expansion. BigSpring
189

Herald. Available at http://www.bigspringherald.com/content/howard-college-breaking-ground-
san-angelo-expansion

Serrano, B. (2012, December 13). Business park booming with current property sales.
SweetwaterReporter. Available at http://www.sweetwaterreporter.com/content/business-park-
booming-current-property-sales

Serrano, B. (2013, April 11). City, Taylor Electric establish agreement. SweetwaterReporter.
Available at http://www.sweetwaterreporter.com/content/city-taylor-electric-establish-
agreement

Severance tax. (n.d.). In Merriam-Websteronline. Available athttp://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/severance percent20tax

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. (2013). Hoteloccupancytax. Available at
http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/hotel/

Texas Department of State Health Services. (2013). Countysupplyanddistributiontables-
registerednurses [Data]. Available at http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/hprc/RN-lnk.shtm

Texas Education Agency. (2013). Reports&data [Data]. Available at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index.aspx?id=2147495413&menu_id=680&menu_id2=797&cid=214
7483656

Texas Health and Human Services Commission. (2013). TexasTANFandSNAPenrollment
statistics [Data]. Available at http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/research/TANF_FS.asp

Texas Industry Profiles. (2013). IndustrialprofilesCNP [Data table]. Available at
http://socrates.cdr.state.tx.us/CNP/index.asp

Texas Tourism. (2013). Hotelroomsrevenuesbyyear [Data table]. Available at
http://www.travel.state.tx.us/getattachment/085608a8-493a-420e-9001-
88f58a2b452d/HOTELS-10-YEAR-REVENUES.aspx

Texas Tourism. (2013). Hoteloccupancybyyear[Data table].Available at
http://www.travel.state.tx.us/getattachment/6a7137a9-19a3-487f-9577-7ab7fa147877/TEXAS-
10-YR-OCCUPANCY-CITY-CNTY-MSA.aspx

Texas Tourism. (2013). Hotelroomnightssoldbyyear [Data table]. Available at
http://www.travel.state.tx.us/getattachment/0f86e0f0-8f65-484e-b879-51116197670a/TEXAS-
10-YR-ROOMNITES-CITY-CNTY-MSA.aspx

Theodori, G. (2009). Paradoxical perceptions of problems associated with unconventional
190

natural gas development. SouthernRuralSociology, 24(3), 97-117. Available at
https://www.bucknell.edu/script/environmentalcenter/marcellus/default.aspx?articleid=1IGBAH
DMJIDVYLPEMAYHYH8VB

Theodori, G. (2012). Public perception of the natural gas industry: data from the Barnett Shale.
Energy Sources, PartB:Economics,Planning,andPolicy, 7(3), 275-281. Available at
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15567240903030562#.UjCiu9JJN8E

Thomas, M.W. (2013, August 6). Domestic oil booms helps to shrink U.S. trade deficit. San
AntonioBusinessJournal. Available at http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/ morning-
edition/2013/08/domestic-oil-boom-helps-to-shrink-us.html

Thompson, J. (2012). Booming shale gas production drives Texas petrochemical surge.
SouthwestEconomy, (Q4), 16-19. Available at
http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/swe/2012/swe1204h.pdf

Tunstall, T. (2012). ImpactoftheEagleFordShaleonSouthTexas [PDF document].

Tunstall, T., Oyakawa, J., Roberts, S., R., Eid, H., Abalos, R., Wang, T., Calderon, E., Melara, K. (2013).
EconomicimpactoftheEagleFordShale. Available at ccbr.iedtexas.org/index.php/ Download-
document/60-EFS-Economic-Impact-2013.html


Tunstall, T., Oyakawa, J., Eid, H., Abalos, R., Wang, T., Calderon, E., & Melara, K. (2013).
EconomicimpactoftheEagleFordShaleappendix. Available at ccbr.iedtexas.org
/index.php/Download-document/61-EFS-Economic-Impact-Appendix-2013.html

Tunstall, T. (2013, August 5). Texas ghost towns & implications for Eagle Ford Shale counties
[Web log]. Available at http://eaglefordshale.com/blog/texas-ghost-towns-implications-for-eagle-
ford-shale-counties/

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2013). Interactivedata,regional
data [Data table]. Available from http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=
70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=1#reqid =70&step=1&isuri=1

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Dataaccesstools [Data]. Available
at http://www.census.gov/main/www/access.html

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2012). New oil and gas drilling
technologies bring significant changes and challenges to housing markets. NationalHousing
MarketSummary, (Q2), 5-16. Available at http://www.huduser.org/portal/ushmc/home.html

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Quarterlycensusofemployment
&wages [Data table]. Available at http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=en
191


U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2013). Internationalenergystatistics [Data].
Available at http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm

Wynveen, B. (2011). A thematic analysis of local respondents’ perceptions of Barnett Shale
energy development. JournalofRuralSocialSciences,26(1), 8-31. Available at
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/srsa/pages/Articles/JRSS%202011%2026%201%208-31.pdf

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful