View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

business
•
review

june 1965

FEDERA IL RESERVE
BANK Of DALLAS
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)

contents

southwestern natural
gas production . . . ...... . ...................

3

residential construction
in the southwest ................ ···········

7

district highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

11

"'atul-al gas
production
The marketed production of natural gas from
the wells of the major producing states of the
SOuthwest - Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas - has grown impressively
since World War II, with all four of the states
recording sizable gains in output. Natural gas
?roduction expanded at an especially rapid rate
In the immediate postwar years, as interstate
pipeline systems were developed to carry the
relatively cheap fuel from the southwestern
states to nearly every other state in the Nation.
The growth of natural gas consumption in the
POstwar years has changed the fuel from a nuisance by-product of crude oil production into
a comparatively scarce resource commanding
a progressively higher price. Although proved
recoverable reserves of natural gas in the SouthWest have trended upward throughout the postWar period, the effective life of these reserves
has been cut virtually in half by a still sharper
Uptrend in production.
. Marketed natural gas production, which conSiSts of gas sold or consumed by producers,
advanced in the Southwest after 1946 at the
average annual rate of 8.8 percent to reach
a total volume of 12.8 trillion cubic feet in
1964 and a wellhead value of approximately
$1.9 billion. This strong upward climb was
paced by Louisiana and New Mexico, each of
which significantly increased its share of the
SOuthwestern total. However, the rank order
among the four states was not changed during
~he 18-year period as Texas remained the lead~ng producer, followed by Louisiana, Oklaoma, and New Mexico.

This overall growth of natural gas output
between 1946 and 1964 reflects two periods
with somewhat different rates of expansion.
The first period, from 1946 through 1951 , was
marked by an especially fast pace of advance
in natural gas production, one which was related to the extension of interstate pipelines
into new marketing areas for natural gas of
southwestern origin. The second period, from
1951 through 1964, was characterized by a
more moderate but sustainable rate of growth
of output, mirroring the effective servicing of
marketing areas already penetrated by natural
gas distributors.
In 1946, when the marketed production of
natural gas in the southwestern states was 2.8
trillion cubic feet, shipments to other regions,
mainly to nearby southern and midwestern
states, equaled 28 percent of output volume
- a much smaller proportion than was later
to develop. Thus, in 1946 the Southwest was
not only the Nation's leading natural gas producer but also its major consumer.
Although all of the major metropolitan areas
of the Southwest enjoyed natural gas service
in this first of the postwar years, the combined residential and commercial usage of the
fuel was a relatively minor part of overall
southwestern consumption - in fact, only
about 8 percent of the total. Most of the
natural gas was burned as a fuel or used as a
raw material input by the region's industries.
Not surprisingly, the largest industrial usage
of natural gas in the Southwest during 1946
occurred in the area's oil and gas fields, where

business review / june 1965

3

the fuel was used to power drilling rigs, pumps,
and compressors and to provide process heat
at gasoline recovery and cycling plants. The
second largest industrial consumer of natural
gas during 1946 was the carbon black industry,
which burned 460 billion cubic feet of gas in
a controlled atmosphere to produce 1.1 billion
pounds of carbon. Of the Nation's 60 carbon
black plants in operation that year, 56 were
located near gas fields in the four states. Other
important industrial consumers of gas included
petroleum refineries, chemical plants, central
generating stations, and cement factories.
Despite the sizable industrial consumption
of natural gas in the Southwest, the region
was possessed with a virtual surfeit of the fuel
in 1946, when proved recoverable reserves
equaled a 45-year supply. It was fairly common practice at the time to flare dissolved and
associated gases released in the process of
crude oil production. Recycling plants, which
stripped natural gas of its liquid hydrocarbon
content, frequently vented the dry gas into the
atmosphere. Seldom was exploratory drilling
directed toward finding natural gas. Crude oil
was the goal of the wildcatter in the Southwest
- and not surprisingly so, when it is conMARKETED NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION

14

10

6

2.
19~2.

1946

• Loulllano.N,. "ulco,Oklahomo,ond Tuoa.

4

The favorable price spread between natural
gas, on the one hand, and coal and oil, on
the other, offered a rather strong incentive for
investment in interstate transmission facilities
to move the gas from an area of oversupply
into regions of relative scarcity.
In the thirties, the major supply areas of
southwestern gas for interstate shipment were
the east Texas-northern Louisiana fields which
furnished gas to nearby southern stat~s, and
the Panhandle-Hugoton fields, which supplied
the upper midwestern states, including such
cities as Kansas City, Chicago, and Detroit.
Immediately after World War II, the two largediameter pipelines constructed during the war
to carry crude oil from east Texas to the eastern seaboard were converted to natural gas
transmission systems, thereby providing a flow
of the fuel to the Appalachian and northeastern markets. Additional interstate lines were
constructed to tap the vast reserves found along
the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coasts, with shipments directed, also, to eastern markets.
Pipelines feeding out of the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles were extended into more of
the midwestern states. Furthermore, service to
existing midwestern markets was improved by
installing larger-diameter pipe capable of taking
higher operating pressures. The Permian Basin
area of west Texas and southeastern New Mexico - as well as the related San Juan Basin in
northwestern New Mexico-was tied with
pipelines to the burgeoning California market,
which could no longer be supplied adequately
with local gas resources.

TRILI.IONS OF
CUBIC FEET

SOURCE: U,S. Bur.au

sidered that the average wellhead price of gas
was an estimated 5.3 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.
Had crude oil been priced in 1946 on a comparable energy unit basis, it would have sold
for about 30 cents per barrel, instead of $1.41.

or Min ...

19~8

1964

This expanding web of interstate gas transmission lines was reflected in sharply increased
marketed production from southwestern fields .

In each of the years from 1947 through 1949,
production in the Southwest expanded rapidly.
However, the really sharp rises occurred in
1950 and 1951, when gas production in the
Southwest spurted 17 percent and 22 percent,
respectively. As a result, the marketed production of gas in the Southwest in 1951 was double
the 1946 volume, and the proportion shipped
interstate in the same period rose from 28 percent to 46 percent of marketed production.
Whereas natural gas production in the four
SOuthwestern states advanced at the average
annual rate of 15.2 percent in the 1946-51
period, the growth rate thereafter averaged a
more modest 6.4 percent. Between 1951 and
~964, the pacesetting lift to production contmued to be the interstate shipment of gas to
consuming areas outside of the Southwest, a
development that was reflected in progressively
higher ratios of interstate transmission of natUral gas to southwestern marketed production.
In 1963, 58 percent of natural gas output in
the four southwestern states was shipped out
of the area for storage or consumption .
DUring the 1951-64 period, the growth of
demand for natural gas outside of the SouthWest was paced by increased consumption by
commercial establishments, such as retail stores,
?ffice buildings, and hotels. Commercial service
~s essentially a space~heating market, and it was
In the space-heating market that gas competed
mOst effectively with both coal and fuel oil.
Residential demand for gas during the 13-year
s~an also trended upward rather strongly, as
did industrial consumption, which received a
~t~~~g boost from greater usage by electric
tIhtIes. Of the three classes of service, industrial demand is by far the largest, totaling someWhat more than combined commercial and
re'd .
SI entIal consumption.
f The growth of demand for natural gas in the
ou~ Southwestern states during the 1951-64
penod was led upward by expanded residential
USe of the fuel, partly reflecting the rapid urban-

Over 80 percent of the natural gas produced in the Southwest during 1964 came
from wells in Texas and Louisiana . ..

NEW MEXICO

50. 6~

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

SQUR CE :U,S, Bureou

or Mi n..,

ization of the region. Since before World War
II, all of the major metropolitan areas in the
Southwest have been serviced by gas; as a
consequence, increased population in such areas
has been quickly translated into larger gas sales.
However, residential consumption of natural
gas in the Southwest since 1951 has grown
much less sharply than in the rest of the Nation
because gas already had replaced other fuels
in the region. The fact that there has been less
energy source conversion in the Southwest than
in much of the rest of the Nation has also accounted for the relatively restrained rate of
growth of commercial usage of natural gas in
the four-state area.
Industrial demand for natural gas in the
Southwest during the 1951-64 period grew at
about one-half the rate recorded for the rest
of the Nation. This slower rate of expansion
essentially mirrors the changes in the usage
of natural gas by mining industries and carbon
black manufacturers in the Southwest. The oil
and gas producers in the area account for approximately one-third of the Southwest's industrial demand for natural gas, while producers
in the rest of the Nation consume only about 7
percent. The rate of gain in field usage of gas
was relatively modest in the 1951-64 period.

business review / june 1965

5

Furthermore, the demand for gas by carbon
black manufacturers trended downward rather
sharply during the 13-year span, and most of
the loss occurred in Texas. For all other industrial uses combined, the expansion of natural
gas consumption in the four southwestern states
was moderately above the pace exhibited by the
rest of the Nation, with the difference largely
accounted for by increased usage of gas by
petroleum refineries.

proved reserves to marketed production of natural gas was quite sharp in the 1946-51 period,
when production was expanding at a particularly rapid rate. But, even during the subsequent years of more moderate rates of demand
growth, the expansion of reserves generally fell
behind the advance in output. Consequently,
exploratory drilling directed toward the discovery of promising new gas fields has assumed
increasing importance.

The volume of natural gas reserves in the
southwestern states has evidenced a marked
uptrend throughout the postwar years and
reached 234 trillion cubic feet at the end of
1964, reflecting a gain of 87 percent over the
level of proved recoverable reserves recorded
in 1946. Of the known southwestern reserves
in 1964, one-half were located in Texas, onethird in Louisiana, and the remainder in Oklahoma and New Mexico.

The uptrend in the marketed production of
natural gas of southwestern origin is likely to
continue for a number of years, although it is
doubtful that recent rates of growth will be
exceeded. On the demand side, the substitution of gas for other fuels may continue, but
the easy markets have already been won. The
price advantage of gas is slowly disappearing,
as coal and oil prices are easing and gas prices
are trending upward. When viewed more or
less as a by-product, natural gas could be contracted for at 5.3 cents per 1,000 cubic
feet at the wellhead. The current wellhead price
for new reserve commitments is somewhat in
excess of 20 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.
Moreover, there are few states for natural gas
to penetrate. The only states without natural
gas service are Maine, Vermont, and Hawaii.

Despite the significant increase in reserves
since World War II, the growth of natural gas
consumption has been outstripping new discoveries. As a result, the effective life of reserves
in the Southwest fell from 45 years in 1946 to
18 years in 1964. The decline in the ratio of
NATURAL GAS RESERVES
FOUR SOUTHWEST ERN STAT ES*
TRILLIONS OF

CUBIC FEET

(14.60 p.•. l. a., atGO·F)

YEARS

240

56

200

40

160

1946

1
952

• Loui.l ona,New Mexlco,Oklahomo ,an d Tuo •.
SOURCE: Am.rlc on Gal Auoelol/on,

6

On the supply side, new reserves in the
Southwest are harder and more costly to locate.
Except for offshore Texas and Louisiana, the
shallow pay zones have been largely explored.
It is common practice now for drillers to push
their bits below the 10,000-foot level. In 1964,
for example, a gas well in western Texas entered commercial service with a production zone
lying below 20,000 feet. The high cost of such
wells exerts upward pressure upon wellhead
prices. It is apparent that natural gas is, to a
progressive degree, taking on the characteristics of a relatively scarce resource commanding
a higher price.
C. NEILL
General Economist

WELDON

,·esidentia'
constructio,,,
in the southwest
Residential building in the Southwest has
been especially vigorous for several years. Such
bUilding has accounted for slightly more t~an
40 percent of the total value of all constructlOn
Contracts in the southwestern states of Arizona,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
during recent years. In addition, the value of
residential construction contracts has been
about twice the value of new capital expenditures by manufacturing industries in the region.
The following article will highlight some of
the important developments affecting southWestern residential construction.

building permits showed a larger relative decline than did the value of residential contracts.

New residential construction, in terms of
both the total number of units and the total
value of contracts, in the five southwestern
states posted a strong advance during 1961-63,
eased in the second half of 1964, and continued
~eak in early 1965. The previous e~pansi?n
In the number and value of new houslDg uruts
in the five states began in 1956 and ended in
1959.

During the 1960-64 period, the number of
new housing units per 1,000 population averaged 6.4 units in the five southwestern states,
compared with 5.8 units for the Nation as a
whole. The value of residential contracts was
$102,000 per 1,000 persons, while the national
average was only $97,000.

DUring the recent upturn in residential
Construction, the value of such contracts
reached approximately $2.2 billion in 1963 to
total well above 1959, the peak year in the
previous expansion. Further, the value of contracts in 1964 was only $9 million below the
preceding year's level but was 42 percent
above the previous low point evident in 1960.
:'-lthough the number of housing units authorIZed from 1960 to 1963 rose steadily, the percentage gain was less than half of that registered
for the value of construction contracts. Between
1963 and 1964, the number of residential

Because of the significant population differences among the various states and between
the five southwestern states and the Nation,
the number of permits and the value of residential contracts were computed on a per
capita basis to facilitate comparisons. As
shown in the accompanying charts, the levels
of per capita residential units and per capita
contract values for the five states have consistently remained above those registered for the
Nation since 1957.

Although per capita residential construction
activity in the Southwest has averaged above
that in the Nation, there have been considerable differences in the levels of performance
among the individual states. During the 196064 period, Arizona and Texas were in the
forefront with respect to the numbers of new
housing units constructed per 1,000 population, with averages of 13.3 units and 6.8 units,
respectively. The per capita numbers of new
residential units in Louisiana, New Mexico,
and Oklahoma were somewhat lower.
In terms of the value of residential construction, Arizona again led the other southwestern

business review / june 1965

7

states with a contract value of $155,000 per
1,000 population. The values of contracts in
New Mexico and Texas were considerably
below Arizona's high per capita figure but were
above the values in Louisiana and Oklahoma.
The averaging process masks some of the
significant trends in residential building that
have occurred within the individual states.
Despite the very high per capita measures of
residential construction posted by Arizona for
the 1960-64 period as a whole, both the number of new units and the value of contracts per
capita have been trending downward rather
sharply since 1959. In contrast, these measures
of construction activity have moved consistently upward in Louisiana from their 1960
lows. In the other southwestern states, both
the number of housing units and the contract
value trended upward until they eased in 1964.

The cost increases of residential units during
this period reflected two forces: (1) advances
in the cost of single-family dwelling units and
(2) a compensating shift toward lower unitcost apartment units which was insufficient to
offset higher single-unit housing costs. The construction cost has averaged from 10 to 15 percent less per square foot for apartments than
for single-family dwelling units, and the average
apartment is estimated to be only about 65
percent as large as the new single-unit houses
being constructed. The factors involved in the
progressive upturn in the average cost of singlefamily residential units relate to higher site and
construction costs, including costs for extras
and other housing features.

The generally rising values of housing units,
only partly offset by the declining number of
units, have resulted in an advance in the per
capita outlays for new dwellings in the southwestern states. Per capita dwelling unit costs in
each of the five states rose during the 1960-64
period.

Information is not available pertaining to the
unit costs of all types of single-family units.
However, data on FHA-guaranteed loans for
new homes, as covered under section 203 (b)
of the National Housing Act, may give some
insight into the changes in unit costs. For the
five southwestern states, the appraised value of
new low- to middle-income single-family houSing covered by FHA mortgages increased frolll
$13,900 in 1960 to $15,300 in 1963 (the latest
year for which annual data are available), re-

NUMBER OF NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS
PER 1,000 POPULATION

VALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
CONTRACTS PER 1,000 POPULATION

~~IT S
;':

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--"1

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

120

FIVE
SOUTHWESTERN
STATES

100

eo
4

19~6

19~e

'JOURCES: U.S. Aureou 01 tht Cen.u • .

U,S, O.porlmont of Commerct.

8

1960

1962

1964

60 ~-L-_~_-L_-L_~_~~_.~--'
19~6
19~e
1960
1962
196 4
SOUR CES : F.W, DodO' Corporation.
U.S.8urlouollh.CtnIUI .

NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER 1,000 POPULATION
(Dollar values in thousands)

Year

1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964

Number

11.9
13.9
17.7
19 .1
15.9
13.7
13.4
14.3
9.3

NEW MEXICO

LOU ISIANA

AR IZONA
Dollar
va lue

Number

Dollar
va lue

137
148
188
210
182
163
163
141
124

3.9
3.7
4 .9
5.1
3.3
3.5
3.6
4.3
4 .4

63
76
78
81
63
67
81
101
121

Number

5.4
5.9
10.1
8.6
5.0
4.5
5.2
6.5
5.0

67
74
148
139
88
83
101
135
111

TEXAS

OKLAHOMA
Number

Dollar
value

Number

Dollar
value

2.9
2.3
3.4
4.1
3.4
3.6
4 .5
5.2
4.9

Do llar
value

51
60
80
89
72
77
88
116
118

5.5
5.8
8 .0
7.7
5.5
6.3
7.7
7.8
6.7

74
78
97
103
86
97
103
117
109

SOURCES: F. W. Dodge Corporation.
U. S. Bureau of the Census.
U. S. Department of Commerce.

°

~ecting a gain of about 1 percent. This advance

Included a 27-percent increase in the price of
the site which reached a level of $2,300 in
1963. Cost increases over the 1960-63 period
for the various states ranged from 7 percent in
Oklahoma to 20 percent in New Mexico. However, because of the large volume of home
construction taking place in Texas and Oklahoma, states where cost increases have been
relatively modest, average unit costs in the
SOuthwest have been held down.
Contributing to the rise in unit values has
been a continuous upgrading in housing. In
1960, almost 70 percent of the new homes in
the five states had 11h or 2 bathrooms; and , by
1963, this figure had climbed to nearly 79 per~ent. However, the . main changes in mediumInCome housing have been qualitative improvements involving shifts from frame structures
to brick or stone ones and the increasing volume of extras that appear in the kitchen , such
as bUilt-in ranges and garbage disposals. In
addition, the average size of new homes in
the five states has increased about 5 percent.

growth in apartments
. Bad it not been for the rising importance of
a.partment structures in the residential construcho n scene of the Southwest, per capita costs
~~b~esidential units would probably have ex. Ited more marked advances. For example,
In Texas, which accounted for about 60 per-

cent of all new residential units constructed in
the five states during 1964, apartments represented 43 percent of the total, compared with
only 13 percent in 1960. This proportional
advance in apartment construction has been
more spectacular than in the Nation, where
apartments accounted for 29 percent of all new
residential units built in 1964.
The phenomenon of apartment living has
not been limited to just metropolitan areas. 1
All urban areas in Texas have been experiencing a boom in apartment construction. This
activity has extended into the non metropolitan
cities (those with populations of 10,000 to
50,000) and the even smaller urban communities. In these areas with populations of 50,000
or less, apartment construction was the basis
for an expansion in local construction activity
during 1964, despite a downturn in such construction in the metropolitan areas in the second half of 1964. However, much of the growth
in apartment building in the smaller communities has come from project housing let under
private contracts.
Apartment construction in the nonmetropolitan areas of the State during the peak year
of 1963 accounted for 19 percent of all new
1 These areas, referred to as standard metropolitan
statistical areas, have populations of over 50,000 and
meet the commuter pattern requirements defined by
the Bureau of the Budget.

business review / june 1965

9

housing units constructed. In the metropolitan
areas, however, over one-half of all new residential units constructed were apartments.
The per capita income of southwestern residents since 1960 has increased relative to the
average value of new FHA-insured homes.
Thus, the marked expansion in apartment construction in the Southwest probably stems from
forces other than the rising costs of single-unit
residences. Although the rapid advance in site
costs may have stimulated apartment construction, it is possible that the time and energy
involved in commuting to places of work represent important costs that many urban dwellers
are attempting to overcome. The accessibility of
high-rise apartment buildings to downtown
areas, shopping districts, or recreational districts
and the growth of garden-type apartments located near expressways have furnished an alternative to less advantageously located singlefamily housing for urban dwellers. The desire
for conveniently located housing in the Southwest may have been accentuated by a continuation of the concentration of population in
standard metropolitan statistical areas, which
accounted for about 60 percent of the region's
population in 1960.
Demographic factors undoubtedly have been
major influences affecting apartment construction. By the early sixties, the surge in births
following World War II began to make its impact. The immediate post-World War II baby
crop is approaching young adulthood. Rising
numbers of these young adults are now entering
the labor force and reaching marriageable age
and are providing an important market for apartment units for both single persons and young
married couples. A part of the rise in apartment
construction may have been in anticipation of
the increasing swell of these individuals. Although the marriage rate in the Southwest in
1960 had slackened from a decade earlier, the
marriage rate in 1963 - a year of especially
vigorous apartment construction - was 10.0

10

per 1,000 population and still remained above
the 8.8 rate for the Nation.
Young married couples, in particular, may
prefer apartment living until such time as sufficient savings are accumulated to meet down
payments and other financing requirements for
purchasing and furnishing a house or until the
space requirements and other considerations
of a growing family are not satisfied by apartment accommodations. Furthermore, many
older couples and surviving spouses formerly
occupying single-family residences have been
attracted to apartment living because of the
effort and expense involved in maintaining
homes acquired when space needs were greater.
Thus, many individuals at either end of the
family cycle find apartments desirable alternatives to single-family dwellings. Another recent
aspect of apartment construction has been the
provision of units, such as luxury apartments,
catering to specific income groups.

conclusion
Important changes have taken place in the
five southwestern states from 1960 to the present in the characteristics of residential construction, changes that have led to a continuing
increase in the per capita unit cost of residential
housing in the five states. Reflected in these
changes are an upgrading in the quality of
residential single-dwelling units in the southwestern states and a shift toward apartment
living.
These developments in the Southwest are
similar to those taking place all over the Nation.
Despite recent weaknesses in residential CoOstruction in the Southwest, increased urbanization, high marriage rates, and a rapidly e~­
panding popUlation in the 20-30 age grouP
suggest a continued growth of residential coOstruction activity.
CARL W. HALil
Industrial Economist

dist,-ict highlights
The seasonally adjusted index of industrial
producfion in Texas advanced 0.8 percent in
April to post a level of 131.8 percent of the
1957-59 base. The April advance strongly reflected a 2.9-percent gain in mining activi~y
Over the previous month; virtually all of thIS
gain was the result of an increase in seasonally
adjusted crude oil production. Activity in the
manufacturing sector of the Texas economy
eased fractionally. Manufacturing industries
Which showed some strength were fabricated
metals, tvansportation equipment, petroleum
refining, and food and kindred products.
A comparison of Texas industrial production
in April with the same month in 1964 shows a
year-to-year gain of 4.7 percent for the total
index. Manufacturing output posted an advance
of 6.5 percent, with particular strength evident
in fabricated metals, primary metals, and machinery in the durable goods sector. In the
nondurable goods sector, chemicals, apparel,
and printing and publishing registere? the
largest percentage increases over April last
year.
Nonagricultural . employment in the five
SOuthwestern states during April posted a 1.0percent advance over March. The advance reflected an expansion in manufacturing employment, as well as broadly based gains in nonmanufacturing employment. The strongest
ShOWing in the month-to-month increase was
made by the important trade and service categories of the nonmanufacturing sector.
Compared with April 1964, nonagricultural
~age and salary employment in the five states
In April registered a 4.6-percent increase, reflecting widespread employment advances in
both the manufacturing and the nonmanufacturing sectors of the southwestern economy.

The construction industry posted a 10.4-percent gain over April last year - the largest
year-to-year gain shown by any of the employment categories.
After adjustment for the influence of seasonal factors, including the change in Easter
dates from year to year, department store sales
in the District established a new high for April.
The adjusted index for the month rose to 129
percent of the 1957-59 average, reflecting an
increase of 8 percent over March of this year.
During the first 4 months of 1965, department
store sales were 3 percent higher than in the
same period in 1964.
New automobile registrations in four major
market areas in Texas declined 2 percent during April from the previous month but were
up 12 percent from a year earlier. Registrations
in the San Antonio area paced those in the
Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston areas by
showing a 26-percent increase over Apri11964.
Daily average crude oil production in the
Eleventh District declined an estimated 2.6
percent in May from the prior month and was
only fractionally above a year ago. The decline
from April reflected both reduced allowables
in Texas and Louisiana and the spread of buyer
prorationing to a number of areas in the District. The weakness in crude oil markets in the
Southwest was evident in early May from announced price reductions in fields located in
Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Although selective, the lower field postings ranged from 5
cents to 15 cents per barrel. Crude oil allowabIes for the month of June are currently scheduled to remain unchanged in Louisiana and
to advance in Texas to 28.1 percent of maximum permissible production from the May
rate of 27.2 percent.

business review / june 1965

n

Soil moisture in the District is generally
the best in several years. Some areas have had
excessive rain, however, and crops have been
damaged by soil erosion or flooding. Plantings
of spring crops are virtually complete, and
early-seeded crops in the southern areas of the
District have made good growth. Pasture and
range grasses have responded to better moisture
conditions, and grazing has improved. Livestock are in good condition, and farmers and
ranchers in most areas are assured of adequate
stock water in the months ahead. Livestock
prices are the most favorable in over a year.
According to a recent U. S. Department of
Agriculture release, cotton production in the
District states in 1964 is placed at 6.1 million
bales (500 pounds gross weight). Thus, output
last year was 7 percent below 1963. The combined value of cotton lint and seed in the
Southwest in 1964 amounted to $976 million,
or 15 percent less than in the preceding year.
Cash receipts from farm marketings in the
District states during January-March 1965
amounted to $873.5 million, or 5 percent below
the corresponding 1964 quarter. Receipts from
crops were down 7 percent, and those from

new
membe.·
bu"'~s

12

livestock and livestock products showed a 3percent decrease.
The value of construction contracts in the
five southwestern states during the first quarter
of 1965 totaled almost $1.3 billion, which is 1
percent more than in the last quarter of 1964
and about 4 percent above the January-March
period last year. The moderate strength that
developed in contract construction in the five
states during the first quarter was in nonresidential building and in nonbuilding construction. The high levels of investment of commercial and industrial establishments, as well as
outlays for utilities and public works, pushed
contracts for nonresidential and nonbuilding
construction to their highest first-quarter values
- $420 million and $361 million, respectively
- since 1961.
Residential building continues to be the weak
spot in the construction picture for the five
states, with contracts in this sector registering
a cumulative total of about $505 million for the
first 3 months of 1965. Although reflecting an
8-percent gain over the fourth quarter of last
year, these contracts were 13 percent below the
comparable period of 1964.

The National Bank of Commerce of Brownsville, Brownsville, Texas, a newly
organized institution located in the territory served by the San Antonio Branch
of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business May 10, 1965, as a
member of the Federal Reserve System. The new member bank has capital of
$200,000, surplus of $200,000, and undivided profits of $100,000. The officers
are: Frank D. Yturria, Chairman of the Board ; Elliott B. Roberts, Jr., President;
James L. Mayer, Executive Vice President; Howard K. Cummins, Vice President; Dr. J. C. George, Vice President; Muriel W. Darley, Cashier; and Barry
B. Putegnat, Assistant Cashier.
The Northeast National Bank, San Antonio, Texas, a newly organized ,institution located in the territory served by the San Antonio Branch of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business May 14, 1965, as a member of the
Federal Reserve System. The new member bank has capital of $200,000, surplus
of $200,000, and undivided profits of $100,000. The officers are: C. E. Cheever,
Chairman of the Board; Paul D. Aschbacher, President; Charles E. Cheever, Jr.,
Vice President; John E. Gwyn, Vice President; and James O. Soat, Cashier.

STAlilSlllCAL SUPPLEMENT
to the

BUSINESS REVIEW

June 1965

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS

CNDITJON STATISTIC'S OF WEEKLY REPORTING
MEMBER BANKS IN LEADING CITIES

RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District

Elevenlh Federal Reserve District
(Averag es of daily Agures. In thousands of dollars)
(In thousands of dollars)

=-

May 26,
1965

Apr. 28,
1965

May 27,
1964

4,712,225
82,938
4,795,163

4,305,668
75,438
4,381,106

2,200,848
60,392

1,998,454
54,046

274
44,821

13,494
40,412

12,274
65,536

2,418
298,447

2,380
291,812

2,469
270,957

128,345
272,264
180,391
8,522
395,691
1,208,365
2,062,348

122,917
268,993
182,624
8,267
393,792
1,209,232
2,089,523

112,187
264,925
160,851
2,283
362,553
1,074,571
2,063,084

Total U. S. Gove r;!.'i1e nt securities ..•••••••.••• 1,265,538

1,302,202
118,999

1,350,694
114,772
52

Item
ASSETS

Net loans .....•••.•••••.•••••••••.•••.••••. 4,679,366
Valuation reserves •••.••• ••• •••.•••.•••••...•
82,792

Gross loans •••. ••••.•.•.•••... ••• . •••••. ••• 4,762,158
Commercial and industrial loans ••••..•..•• •. • 2,161,329
61,291
Agricultural loans ••••• ••• ••••• •• •••••••••••
loans to brokers and dealers for

purchasing or carrying:
U. S. Government securities ••••••..••••••••
Other securities ••..•.••..•••.••. . •••.•••
Other loons for purchasing or carrying:
U. S. Government securities ••••••.•••••.•••
Other secur ities •••••••...•••••.•••.•••••
loans to nonbank flnancial institutions:

Sales flnance, personal finance, etc .••••..•••
Olher ••••..•••..•••..•..••...• . .. . .••.
loans to domestic commercial banks ••• • .•••••.
loans to foreig n banks ••.••••..•••.••..••.•
Real estate loans ••.•••....•••.••.•••.••..•
Other loans • • .•••••.•••.•••• • ••.••. . •••••
Total investments ••••••••••••.••..•• • ••.•••••

Treasury blll,

.......................
of indebtedness ••••.•••

Treasury cer •. .1 J '
.:j bonds maturing :
Treasury noto ~
Within 1 yc .:J,' • •• . •••.•.•••.••.•••.•••

1 to 5 years • ••.••••••..•••••••.• • ••••
Afler 5 years .........................
Other securities •••••••••••••••.••••••.••••
Cash items in process of collection ••••.••.••.•••
Balances with banks in the United States •••.•••.•
Balances with banks in foreign countries ••••• • • ••
Currency and coin •••.•••••.•••.•••.•••••••••
Reserves with federal Reserve Bank •••••••••.•••
Other assets ••••••••••••••••• • ••••.•••.•••••

84,473

°

240,184
556,860
384,021
796,810
673,415
462,982
3,441
69,195
519,622
316,525

4 we eks ended
May 5, 1965

Item

5 weeks ended
Apr. 7, 1965

5 weeks ended

614,774
570,825
43,949
609,191
5,583
21,691
-16,108

611,656
570,083
41,573
606,786
4,870
31,430
-26,560

583,776
543,209
40,567
579,896
3,880
21,383
-17,503

583,540
445,969
137,571
549,215
34,325
1,385
32,940

581,961
448,835
133,126
546,670
35,291
1,317
33,974

561,765
437,139
124,626
525,436
36,329
2,809
33,520

1,198,314
1,016,794
181,520
1,158,406
39,908
23,076
16,832

1,193,617
1,018,918
174,699
1,153,456
40,16 1
32,747
7,4 14

1,145,541
980,348
165,193
1,105,332
40,209
24, 192
16,0 17

May 6,196:'-

RESERVE CITY 8ANKS
Total rese rve s he ld •.•.•.....•.
With federal Reserve Bank ....
Currency and coin .. • ••. •••• .
Re quire d reserves •........••••
Excess reserve s •• .•..• •.... ...
Borrowings ... ••... ••...•.•.. •
free reserves •.••...•....•••..

COUNTRY 8ANKS

°

178,446
618,534
386,223
787,321
723,891
457,059
3,719
69,613
487,281
304,361

Total reserves held .•.••....•..
With federal Res erve Bonk ....
Currency and coin .........•.
Required reserves .•........•..
Excess reserves •.••.......••..
Borrowings •...•••.. ....••....
free reserves •......••........

ALL MEM8ER 8ANKS
Total reserves he ld . . •..•.•....
With federal Reserve Bank ....
Curre ncy and coin .....••.•. .
Required reserves ••••..•.•....
Excess reserves •. • •.. •• . . . •••.
Borrowings ... •.....•.••..•.••
free reserves ...•••...••....••

118,846
749,188
367,836
712,390
614,611
485,770
3,523
63,706
472,315
249,889

GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh FeC:eral Reserve District
(Averages of daily figures . In millions of dollars)
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS

-=

TIME DEPOSITS

8,847,672

-

Talal

Reserve
city banks

Counlry
banks

Tolal

Reserve
city bonks

CountrY

Dale

TOTAL ASSETS •••••••••••••••••••••.••• 8,786,894

1963; April ••.•. •
1964, April ••....

8,284
8,422
8,683
8,852
9,042
8,582
8,278
8,697

4,016
3,975
4,120
4,213
4,271
4,006
4,049
4,158

4,268
4,447
4,563
4,639
4,771
4,576
4,229
4,539

3,836
4,483
4,655
4,713
4,881
4,984
4,894
5,097

1,886
2,214
2,269
2,288
2,399
2,438
2,462
2,479

1,950
2,269
2,386
2,425
2,482
2,546
2,432
2,618

8,258,566

lIA81l1TI.. , :.:'10 CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Total deposits • ••• . .••.•••..•••••.•••••••••. 7,623,367

7,723,047

7,274,867

TOlal deman d d oposils • • ..••..•..••..•••..• 4,757,442
"ships, and corporations •••• 3,147,177
Individuals, pr

4,789,696
3,211,539

4,631,329
3,109,464

foreign gove '
central bal . .';;.

U. S. Govern .. ~

~s
.j

and official institutions,
international institutions ••

........... ............

4,039
231,480

352,010
States and poll •. ...:21 subdivisions ••••..••..••
Banks in the United States, including
944,514
mutual savings banks •••..••..••••.. • •••
18,965
Banks In foreign countries •.••••••.•••.•••.
59,257
Certifled and officers' checks, etc .••• • .•.• ••
Total time and savings deposits •••.•••• •• .••• 2,865,925
Individuals, partnerships, and corporations
Savings deposits ••••••••••••.••..•..•• 1,291,394
Other time deposits ••. • . •• . ••.••.. ••.•• 1,221,655
foreign governments and official institutions,
500
ce ntral banks, and international institutions ••
3,544
U. S. Government, including postal savings •••
335,238
States and political subdivisions • .••••.•..• •
Banks in the United States, including
10,154
mutual savings banks •••••••••••••••••••
3,440
Banks in foreign countries •••••••• ••• . •• •.•
Bills payable, rediscounts, etc .••••••.• • .•••••.•
237,685
All other liabilities .• •...•. .••..••.••.••..•.. •
175,405
750,437
Capital accounts ••••••••.•••••.•••.•••••••••
TOTAL LIA81l1TIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS 8,786,894

2,465
183,485
327,796

2,549
187,965
288,314

979,742
16,120
68,549
2,933,351

960,127
15,573
67,337
2,643,538

1,284,586
1,249,951

1,143,742
1,122,091

500
3,594
381,767

500
3,899
364,525

10,513
2,440
202,856
174,184
747,585

6,881
1,900
117,448
155,906
710,345

Novem b er . •
Decemb er ..

1965, January . .•

8,847,672

February .. .
March .•. •.

April ......

Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(In millions of dollars)
Apr. 28,
1965

Mar.31,
1965

loans and discounts •• . ••..• • ...••...••••
U. S. Government obligations ••..•.•••••.•
Other securities .•.. ..• .•• •.•••• . ••• ...•
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank . ••.••••
Ca sh in vault e •• . ••• ••..• • ..••••••.... •
Balances with banks in th e United States ••••
Balances with banks in foreign countries e ....
Cash items in process of collection • • •.••..•
Other a sse tse •••..•......•.•........•..

7,940
2,541
1,639
853
207
1,007
6
804
466

7,827
2,583
1,604
910
194
1,109
5
843
452

15,463

15,527

De mand deposits of banks •..••.. • .•..• • •
Other demand deposits ••••• • •••.••..••••
Tim e d e posits ••..••.••••••..••..••••.••

1,207
7,393
5,123

1,333
7,407
5,088

Total d e posits .•••..•.•••.••. • •••..••
Borrowings e ........... . .. • ...••• . ... . .
Other liabiJitiese • ...••.• ..•.... • •..••..
Total capital accounts e •...••..•• . •..••..

13,723
204
218
1,318

13,828
216
195
1,288

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe .••......•••...•••...•

15,463

15,527

Item

Item

May 26,
1965

April 28,
1965

Total gold certiflcate reserves •••••.••..•••••
Discounts for member banks •. .•. •• .•• •• ..••
Other discounts and advances •••.. • .•••.•. •
U. S . Government securities .•.••..••••..••..
Total earning asse ts ••••..•..••..•••••.••••
Member bank reserve deposits •••••••.••.• • .
federal Reserve notes in actual circulation •••••

337,580
5,135
812
1,630,821
1,636,768
890,108
1,083,753

327,471
2,210
870
1,617,212
1,620,292
853,322
1,079,324

May 27,
1964
533,010
13,159

°

1,327,941
1,341,100
820,961
971,689

==-

Apr. 29,
196~

ASSETS

LIABILITIES AN 0 CAPITAL ACCOUNTS

(In Ihousands of dollars)

-

CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS

TOTAL ASSETse .....................

8,258,5~

CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS

e -

2

banks

Estimated.

7,067
2,617
1,509
847
191
974
4,
708
395

-

~
=1 150
7'0 18

-

b0 8

12,67 6
176
231
1,229

~

=::::::---

BANK DEB ITS, END-Of-MONTH DEPOSITS , AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amounts in thousands, seasonal ly adiusted)

====================================================================
DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'
DEMAND DEPOSITS'

Percen t change

-

(Annual-rate

Standard metropolitan

Annual rote
of turnover

April 1965 from

April
1965

March
1965

April
1964

4 months,
1965 from
1964

statistical area

basis)

tRIZONA: Tucson • ••.••• . •••..••• • ..••• •• •..•• ••••• •
OUISIANA: Monroe ................. . ...... .. ......
N
Shreveport ..... . ....... .................
T EW MEXICO: Roswell ' •. • •••.. •• ••...•.•..• • •• ..• .•
EXAS: Abilene .. .. .. . ........ . . .. ..................

4, 133,124
1,79B,332
4,636,020
555,696
1,717,848
3,804,504
3,733,476
4,742,556
1,258,080
3,408,552
302,976
59,275,152
4,675,392
12,251,364
1,984,260
52,361,448
497, 136
3,492,336
1,753,992
1,052,5BO
789, 144
10,050,600
867,804
1,398,000
1,895,124
1,801,572

4
7
-5
-9
2
-5
-11
7
-1
5
1
1
-1
-3
5
2
7
7
-4
-6
-4
-3
1
-8
6
- 10

32
4
- 11
13
0
-2
10
6
17
10
25
5
4
12
12
9
2
8
3
3
8
-5
4
5
1

0

13

14

AmariI/o . . .....• . •.............. . ...........

Austin ... •. . .. .... .. ......... . .... .. ...... . .
Beaumont-Port Art hur ............•.........•..
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito ••......... .. ...

Corpus Christl .............................. ..
Corsicana 2 •

••• • • • ••••••••• • •••• ••• • •• •••• • ••

~at~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :

Fort Worth ........... . ..... . ................
Galveston-Texes City . .. . ...... . ..•.. ...... ...
Houston • ••••• • •..••••..• • ••..•.....• •• .••••

~j~j.~~.

iexarkana (Texas·Arkansas} ••••.. •• ....•.• . • .. •

~~ift~: ~~il;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

--

o
T tal_26 centers .. ... ..............................

~

f¢6~

March
1965

April
1964

$ 159,767
72, 162
195,980
32,985
88,279
138,454
170,985
194,899
54,308
14 1,898
25,924
1,543,562
195,620
480,B02
81,594
1,798,784
27,830
145,369
11 3,754
60,455
52,651
46 1,339
47,637
80,680
102,200
11 2,714

4
24
5
-8
9
9
6
10
6
B
16
24
6
7
4
12
10
0
8
6
4
10
-5
11
10
6

$ 184,237,068

April 30,
1965

25.B
25.B
23.6
17.3
19.5
27.7
21.5
23.6
23.4
21.6
11.6
38.2
23 .9
25.6
22.8
29.2
17.9
24.1
15.2
17.9
15.2
21.6
17.6
17.3
18.6
16.0

24.3
23.8
24.8
19.3
18.8
29.4
24.9
22.0
24.1
20.8
11.5
37.8
24. 1
26.4
21.6
29.2
16.7
23.2
15.4
18.6
16.1
22.0
17.3
19.0
17.6
18.0

24.4
20.5
22.1
16.7
17.6
27.6
21.6
21.8
22.9
22.7
10.9
31.3
20.7
24.7
20.5
29.1
17.2
24.0
16.2
17.0
15.6
20.8
19.3
18.2
19.6
15.4

27.9

27.9

25.8

---$6,5BO,632

Deposi ts of Individua ls, partnerships, a nd corpora tion s and of sta tes a nd po litica l subdivisions.

Caunty basis.

DEPARTMENT STORE SAL
ES
(Percentage chango in retai l val ue)

INDEXES Of DEPARTME NT STO RE SAL
ES
Elevent h Federa l Reserve District
(Daily average sa les, 1957-59

April 1965 from

= 100 )

~~====================================

Seasonally
Unad justed
~
Date
adjusted
1964: Ap-: I .---=---------~-:---------:I;-;:3---~;I

m

~~~

m

~ove~b~;

1~~

: : :::::::::::::
1965 . • Cember.............. ..
. ~abuary.. .. .... .. .......

129
13 1

~.. :::::::::::: : :::::

129

M::ch~ry................

March
1965

Area

April
1964

20
13
17
16
21
13
24
25
25

13
15
' 15
15
17
14
10
12
8

Total Eleventh District. • •• . .• . •
Corpus Christi .. .. . ... ... . . . . .
Dallas ... .. . ..... . . .. .......
EI Paso ••• ••• ••• •• • •• • • •••• •
Houston • . ••••••.... . •.••.••
San Antonio .. . ...••• • ....• . .
Shreveport, la .• • .. .. .. .. .. . •
Waco .•...... . .•.. . . . .... ..
O ther cities . ..• . . . ... • . •••••

102

.4 months,
1965 from
1964
3
4
5

3
9
2
1
0
0

127

NONAGRICULTURAL EM PL
OYME NT
f ive Southwestern States 1

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIO N
(Seasona ll y adjusted Indexes, 1957·59

= 100)

~~=================================
April
February
~and type of index

April
1965p

March
1965

1965r

1964r

131.8
154 .2
150.0
157.2
102.5

130.8
154.5
151.2
156.8
99.6

130.5
152.9
150.8
154.5
101.1

125.9
144.8
139.5
148.6
101.0

140.8
142.5
144 .8
139.7
112.5
157.5

140.5
142.3
144.7
139.2
112.2
156.5

139.2
140.8
142.7
138.4
111.8
156.5

130.5
131.4
131.6
131.1
109.9
147.5

Percent change

Typ o of employment

tEXIIS

Toto l industrial
d
.
Manufactur' pro uctlon . .. •.••.
Durab le Ing ... . ... •• ......

N d ............ .. .. ..
Mini~n urable ........•..•••.
UNitED g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To
STATES
tal industrial
d
'
Manufacturin pro uctlon . . . .... .

Durable

g •. . • • ••.• . . •• ••

Mi~~ndura'b'l~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

~:::::::::::::::::::
~
Sou Revised.
-

Preliminary

RCES:

.

~oard

of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ederal Reserve Bank of Da llas.

Apr. 1965 from

Number of persons

Tota l nonagricultural
wage and sa lary workers . .
Manufacturing •....•..•..
Nonmanufacturing •.. . .. . .
Mining ... .•..•. ... ••.
Construction . ..... . ....
Tran sportation and

public utilities •• •••..•
Trade •..•.•••..• . .. . •
Finance . ••............
Service •.... . ..... . . . .
Government ...........

April
1965p

March

1965

April
1964r

5,068,700
887,000
4,181,700
235,500
346,700

5,0 18,900
878,600
4,140,300
235,200
343,600

391,100
1,207,900
255,800
742,500
1,002,200

39 1,000
1,186,400
253,300
730,600
1,000,200

-----March April
1965

1964

4,848,000
850,900
3,997,100
23 1,300
3)4,100

1.0
1.0
1.0
.1
.9

4.6
4.2
4.6
1.8
10.4

387,300
1,152,200
246,500
705,800
959,900

.0
1.8
1.0
1.6
.2

1.0
4.8
3.8
5.2
4.4

Arizona, louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
p Prelimi nary .
r Revised.

1

SOURCE : State emp loyment age ncies.

3

VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

WINTER WHEAT PRODUCTION

(In millions of dolla rs )

(In thousands of bushels)

Resi dential building . . . .. ..
Nonresi dential building . ...

Nonbuilding construction . . .

UNITED STATES ••... •••• •• •
Resid ential building . . .. . . .
Nonre sid ential building . .. .

Nonb uild ing construction . • .
1

Averag e

indicate d

449
192
136
121
4,209
1,877
1,379
953

477
194
148
136
4,770
2, 139
1,546
1,086

1965

401
198
120
83
4,365r
2,006
1,426r
933

1,755
698
565
492
15,276
6,571
5,128
3,577

1964
1,639
777
480
382
15,079r
6,786
4,906r
3,387

Area

May 1

1964

1959-63

Arizona •.•.. • ...... • ... . .. .

Area and typ e

FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES' •.. ••• , •..• . •• • •

April
1964

-=

1965,

January-April

March
1965

April
1965

New Mexico ..... . .. . . .. .... .
O klahoma • • • . . . . • •• • .••.• ..
Texas . . ... .. . .. ... . . . . . .. . .

1,296
1,378
2,970
125,606
62,760

1,6 17
1,650
2,772
96,623
61,848

1,6 11
952
4,907
93,838
61,04 1

Tota l• •. •.. . • •..•. .• ... .••

194,010

164,510

162,349

LouIsiana • • . ... . ••. .. •..•. ••

~~~~~~--------~---------------------------------SOURCE , U. S. Departmont of Agric ulture.

Arizona, loui siana , Ne w Mexico, Ok lahoma , and Texas.
Rev ised .

r-

NOTE . - Dotails may not add to totals because of rounding .
SOURCE , F. W . Dodg e Corporation .
CASH RE CEIPTS FRO M FARM MARKET INGS
(Dollar amo unts In t housands)

==========================================================:=~
January-March

BU ILD ING PERM ITS

Percent

1965

Area

VALUATION (Dolla r amo unts in thousands)
Percent change

April 1965
NUM8ER

from

Mar.
1965

Apr.
1964

4 months,
1965 from
1964

7,838

-59

-44

1,268

6,086

-15

-51

4,919
12,199
16,424
7,971
10,808
62,264
21,696
16,678
1,557
99,603
17,135
5,380
3,943
2,847
20,146
7,474
4,707

71
70
-21
23
12
36
59
27
-2
-8
13
13
- 33
407
19
-47
62

18
-39
- 42
78
20
-28
43
6
-64
- 14
43
6
85
454
31
-48
11

4
-27
-37
47
-2 1
37
-2
-48
- 15
-4
5
68
20
- 15
12
21

$92,984

$329,675

9

-12

- 12

1965

April
1965

799

2,6 19

$ 1,658

330

1,231

91
203
343
303
389
2,406
434
808
153
2,364
248
137
193
125
1,265
227
132

324
643
1,233
1,040
1,502
7,655
1,694
2,487
350
8.D25
875
401
574
477
4,447
853
532

Tota l-19 cities • • 10,950

36,962

AR IZONA
Tucson •• . •. .. .
Shreve port •• ..

TEXAS
Ab ilene .•••.. •
Ama rillo . .. .. .
Austin . . . . .•. .
Beaumont .. . ..
Corpus Christi ..

Dallas • • • • . • . •
EI Paso • •• ..••
Fo rt Worth ••..
Galveston .. • • .
Houston .. . . . .

Lubbock •.• • . •
Midland .. • • . •
Ode ssa ..••.. .
Port Arthur • . . .
San Antonio • . .
Waco .•. • .. ··

Wichita Falls • •

---------------------~--------------------------------_5
Arizona. • • • . • • . . . . • . . . . . . . .
$ 106,494
$ 111,760
Louisia na. • . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . • •
78,633
82,353
-5

New Mexico. .. . . • . . • . • . • • . . .
Oklahoma . • . • . . • . . . . • . • . • . .
Texas.. . ..... .. . . .. . . . . ... .

34,466
119,444
534,445

- 13

Total •• • . • . .. .. . .... • •••..

---$ 873,482

39,566
130,456
551,376

$8,101,009

$ 915,5 11
$8,14 1,270

-5

United States .. . . . . .. . . .. . .

_8
-3

-9

1,584
2,962
4,064
1,603
3,171
21,103
6,196
4,351
454
25,899
5,345
1,137
1,087
1,790
6,549
1,233
1,530

.. mos .

LOUISIANA

decreOs.

-30

April
1965

Area

1964

.( mos •

1965
$

_1

------------------------------------------------ -SOU RCE , U. S. Deportmont of Agriculture.

CO TTON A CREA G E, PRODUCTIO N , A ND V A LUE O F PRODU CT iON
(In thou sa nds)

11

Acreage ha rvested

==

Bales produce d l

Value of lint and secd

Area

1964

1963

1964

1963

1964

Arizona ••• .. . • .
louisiana • ••.•• .
New Mexico . .. •.
Texas ... . . •. . . .

375
520
188
575
5,675

387
519
190
590
5,850

799
590
257
287
4,122

839
68 1
27 1
336
4,417

$ 134,267
98,766
49,462
43,108
650,866

Total • • • .. ••••
United States ••

7,333
14,060

7,536
14,2 12

6,055
15, 180

6,544
15,334

O klahoma •.• • ••

- --$ 976,469
$2,546, 113

1 500 pou nds gross weigh t.
SOU RC E, U. S. Deportment of Agriculturo.

----

1963

----

$ 154,842

124,80~

53,08
57,3 36
761,428

-

$ 1, 151. 497
$2,783,866

----

NATIONAL PETROLEU M ACTIVITY IN DI CATORS
(Sea sonally adiu sted indoxes, 1957·59

= 100)

DA ILY AV ERAG E PRODU CTI O N O F CRUD E O IL
(I n th ousa nds of barrels)

Indicator

CRUDE OIL RUNS TO REFINERY
STILLS (Daily average) . • •.. • • .••. • • . .
DEMAND (Dally averag e)
Gasolin e •• • . •. ..• . . .. · · ·· ·· ·· · · ··· .
Kerosene . .. ... .. .. . ... ... ..... .. . .
Distillate fu el oil •. . .. . ... .... . . . .. . ..

Residual fue l oil • • • . •• .. . .. • . . •. . .. . •
Four reflned products . ... . . .. . .. . . .

STOCKS (End of month)
Ga solin e • .. • . ..... ... · · · · ··· · ·· ·· · .
Ke rosene . • . . .. .. .. .. . . ... . . ... .. . .

Distillate fuel oil •• • • ..•.... •• . • .••.• .
Resi dua l fuel oil .. .. .. ... . . . . .... .. . .
Four refln ed products . . • . .. . . . .... .
p -

r -

Pre limina ry.
Rev ise d.

SOURCES , Ameri can Petrol e um Institute.

April
1965p

March
1965p

April
1964

115

114

113

======================================~

Percent ~hang~

Area

118
253
124
106
122

114
176
122
103
116

116
193
124
105
119

123
150
104
70
11 1

116
159
110
68r
110r

109
139
120
70
109

elEVENTH DISTRICT. • • •• •••
Texas ••.• •.•• •• . . . . . .. .

Gulf Coast • . . •. • • ... • .
West Texas .. .. .. . . . ..

East Texas (proper) • • • ••
Panhandle •• . •• . • • •• ••
Rest of State • ••• ..• •••
Southeastern New M exi co • •
Northern louisiana •• • .. . . .

OUTSIDE elEVENTH DISTRICT
UNITED STATES • •.• .•••••.•
p -

Ap ril
1965 p

March
1965p

Ap ril
1964

March
1965

April

3,254 .6
2,763.1
524 .3
1,228.3
111.2
103.2
796.0
309.9
181.7
4,598.0
7,852 .6

3,266.3
2,774 .9
528.5
1,230.8
113.1
103.2
799.3
309.8
181.7
4,606.5
7,872.8

3,200.4
2,755.2
534.5
1,234.3
124.0
107.5
754.9
283.7
161.5
4,570.8
7,771.2

-0.4
- .4
- .8
-.2
-1.7
.0
- .4
.0
.0
-.2
-.3

1.7
.3
_1 .9
_ .5
_10. 3
_4.0
5.4
9.2
12.5
.6
1.0

Preliminary.

SO URCES. American Petroleum Institute.

U. S. Bureau of Min es .

4

U . S. Bureau of M ines .

Fede ral Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Federal Reserve Bonk of Da ll as.

1~

.-/