Carpe Diem

Some amazing facts about North Dakota: America’s ‘economic miracle state’

Some recent evidence explains why North Dakota continues to be America’s “economic miracle state“:

1. The BEA reported recently that North Dakota led the country last year with the highest growth in state personal income at 7.6% in 2013, almost three times the national average of 2.6%, and almost double the growth of second place Utah at 4%.

2. On a per-capita basis for personal income in 2013, North Dakota ranked second in the country at $57,084 behind first place Connecticut at $60,847. In 2012, the Peace Garden State ranked No. 6 in per-capita income, but over the last year the booming oil-rich state surpassed Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey to rise to the No. 2 spot in the country.

Compared to the national average of $44,543 in per capita income last year, the income of North Dakota residents was 28% higher. In contrast, just seven years ago in 2006, North Dakota ranked No. 40 in per capita personal income and was among the poorest one-fifth of US states, and the state’s per capita income was 14% below the national average.

fredgraph3. Building permits for single family homes in North Dakota surged to a new all-time record high of 549 in January and then reached another record high of 866 permits in February (see chart above). Compared to the 270 permits issued in February of last year, permits in the same month this year are more than 3 times higher at 866.

4. According to the Conference Board, there were almost twice as many advertised online job openings in North Dakota in January (20,800) than there were unemployed persons (10,530), suggesting that there’s now a labor shortage in the Peace Garden State. At the national level, it’s the exact opposite – there are about twice as many unemployed workers (10,236,000) as online advertised job vacancies (4,918,000).

5. The Census Bureau reported last week that three of the five fastest growing micro areas (cities with populations of 10,000 to 50,000) in the country between July 2012 and July 2013 were in North Dakota: Williston, ND was No. 1 at 10.7% growth in population, followed by No. 2 Dickinson, ND at 5% and No. 5 Minot at 3.7%.

6. The epicenter of the Bakken oil fields is Williston, ND (a city with a population of less than 50,000) and Delta Airlines now offers four non-stop, direct flights every day in each direction between Minneapolis-St. Paul and Williston, ND.

MP: The phenomenal economic rise of North Dakota, going from the poorest one-fifth of America’s states for per-capita income seven years ago to becoming the second wealthiest state in the country last year (and surpassing Maryland, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts) was the result of one factor: oceans of shale oil in the western part of the state that were only recently accessible because of revolutionary drilling technologies. The shale oil bonanza in the Peace Garden State has created a jobs boom with more openings than available unemployed workers, and a housing boom with a three-fold increase in permits over the last year. It continues to be America’s “economic miracle state.”  Thanks to shale oil, North Dakota’s future looks very, very bright and its status as the “economic miracle state” will continue for decades.

113 thoughts on “Some amazing facts about North Dakota: America’s ‘economic miracle state’

  1. Boy the communist in the White House is terrible for business. Just earlier today we saw that TX oil fields are producing record amounts of oil and making their owners tons of money.

    Betcha those guys are really sorry that this is a communist state, huh, just like conservatives have been saying.

    • repetitive ignorance is no less ignorant for being repeated robert.

      production on federal land is down. this is happening in spite of the the feds and despite their holding back production.

      but hey, why let the facts get in the way of your babbling?

      • oblamer’s role has been to slow drilling on federal (Native American) land. Can’t have a voting base like that participating in capitalism if He can keep them in poverty !

    • For someone who claims to be a scientist, he sure does a shitty job understanding the difference between correlation and causation.

      • No, merely pointing out that right wingers said OMFG!!!! Obama’s gonna destroy the oil industry because he hates America

        Another right wing theme shot to hell.

        • Who said he would “destroy” the oil industry? Names. Give us the data you’re always blathering is so important to you for analysis.

          Or STFU.

        • So when free markets yet again prove their worth it actually proves your point because Obama wasn’t as bad as some (unnamed) people thought after all?

          I’ve got to hand it to you Robert it takes a special type of person to soldier on the way you do. In the face of all evidence to the contrary, you always find a way to be “right”.

          • I’m merely leaving the dead cats on your doorstep. The right panicked hysterically, saying Obama would be the end of civilization with his socialism

            The fact the evidence proves you guys wrong is dismissed with lots of handwringing about what ‘might have been’.

          • Steve, it’s the Left’s MO.

            Look, he just did it again!

            They can never provide their evidence, and when somebody calls bull, they try all kinds of magic to get out of it.

            It doesn’t matter how often they contradict themselves (Like Bobby the other day contradicting himself 20 times within a single thread) or that their predictions have been completely blown (Like Zach yesterday claiming that Elrich prevented overpopulation).

            Point is, Bobby doesn’t understand how things work, so he claims victory and shouts like a lunatic hoping to create a smokescreen large enough no one can see though.

            But it doesn’t work. Never does.

          • Senator Imhofe and Rep Bachmann both say Obama’s gonna DESTROY AMERICA

            Oil production hits record highs….

            The right wing says ‘see! I told you!”

            Wow. What logic.

          • So proof that Obama is destroying the oil industry is that it’s producing record oil

            Golly. Conservatives really know their stuff!

          • Again, the right’s assertion that Obama would destroy domestic oil production was wrong.

            And that, to the right wing, proves they were right.

          • Robert, you are one in a million, please keep it up. We need debate.

            That said, it is a well known trick to try and paint your opposition as extreme while you occupy the moderate ground, both sides do it. I think the best we can do is listen to what the people were actually talking to are saying and make our minds up issue by issue.

            Thanks for the dead cat.

          • robert, i really have to ask:

            are you clinically insane?

            i mean, this is some of the worst illogic and mindless babble i have ever seen.

    • Does the oil production have anything to do with Obama? He cut new permits in the Gulf by 2/3rds stopped the keystone pipeline and greatly slowed down leases on federal lands. Federal oil production is declining rapidly.

      And for those private sector folks – he has encouraged the EPA to go after fracking, with false studies, and go after oil drillers by declaring new endangered species – like the sparrow (a bit of hyperbole there, but not much) Meanwhile wind farms are exempt from these EPA mandates.

      The oil boom is despite Obama, not because of him.

      • Uh, YOU GUYS said Obama was gonna destroy the oil industry. Imhofe and Bachmann both said it. Oil production is at record levels. What WOULD it take to convince you you’re wrong? Bringing back the dinosaurs and having Obama personally kill them to make oil?

        If RECORD oil production doesn’t convince you then NOTHING will

        Which is exactly my point. The right wing is immune to evidence.

        • Uh, YOU GUYS said Obama was gonna destroy the oil industry.

          Actually, you said that. We haven’t. Just like you said free markets are monopolies. Not us. You claim we said that, but there just isn;t any evidence to support this absurdity because it never happened.

          You must be Larry, because he would do the same thing. Claim someone made an absurd statement (like “minimum wage only causes unemployment”), link to something that does not support his claim, and then claim victory. But hey, if this is the best you can muster, then I’d say libertarianism is winning the intellectual war (word of advice, chum: if you have to make stuff up to support your case, it isn’t a position you should be supporting in the first place).

          Idiocy at its finest.

          Also, oil production is not at record levels. It is growing but remains 22.8% below the peak set in July 1971. I guess that’s another fact you got wrong.

          Man, you must be the shittiest scientist at AT&T.

          • Actually Imhofe did say Obama was gonna destroy the oil industry. He ain’t no liberal.

            Fox news and Obama’s war on fossil fuels

            http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/16/tom-borelli-obama-democrats-fossil-fuel-oil-spill-gulf/

            Forbes and Obama’s war on fossil fuels

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2014/03/04/fight-back-against-obamas-war-on-fossil-fuels/

            So the right is playing Pravda…Just deny you ever said ANYTHING that was wrong. No amount of evidence will satisfy…

            Obama’s ‘war on fossil fuels’ is producing exponential growth in oil production and that’s proof he’s a socialist

            Yeah it makes no sense but the right wing said it.

          • You’re making my case: misquote people, present irrelevant links, and then claim victory.

            I can keep this up all day. Hell, I don’t even need to comment. You’re providing all the evidence I need.

          • IOW you’re lying your way out.

            Yep. Thanks for proving my point. “Misquotes” from a VIDEO at CPAC? Misquotes from Breitbart?

            Are they liars, too?

            You don’t need to answer. That was rhetorical.

          • Fox news and Obama’s war on fossil fuels

            So what? He is conducting a war on fossil fuels. I guess you’re just too stupid to understand how that’s different from predicting he would “destroy the oil industry.”

          • And proof of the war on fossil fuels is you said so

            No matter what the evidence shows

            Uh, OK. Typical right wing way of arguing…

          • Ah, the ol’ Bait n Switch! You can’t prove your original claim, so now you try to subtly change it.

          • robert-

            my god.

            how can anyone be this stupid?

            declaring war on fossil fuels is not the same as winning that war.

            you seem to be trying to argue that because he declared war and mostly lost (despite doing very real damage) that he was really fighting for the other side and deserves credit for the oil boom.

            seriously, do you have some sort of severe cognitive issue?

            your rattle headed ramblings would be hilariously funny if you were not allowed to vote.

          • But…but…he’s a commie socialist dictator who was gonna suspend the constitution, grab our guns and destroy the oil industry!

            Well he better get started, don’t you think?

          • Well, morg, there is the answer to your question.

            A rather resounding “yes”, wouldn’t you say?

          • Dude’s amazing, isn’t he?

            a)He links two articles
            b)neither one say anything like what he claims
            c)announces the entire right-wing is responsible for his intentional misquotes of Michelle Bachmann and James Inhofe
            d)tosses the libertarians on this site into the right-wing
            e)does victory dance

            Again, this is apparently his version of the Scientific Method. In case anyone was wondering why AT&T usually makes the list of “most hated companies,” this sure does explain a lot.

          • The right pretends that, if you google ‘Obama’s war on fossil fuels’ you’ll get 0 hits.

            I dare them to try it.

            And it’s become a cult belief on the right that Obama is a socialist Muslim, a belief right up there with birtherism

            AND because of this cult belief, the right says oil production would drop and we’d be at the mercy of our enemies because Obama is out to destroy America.

            Now they’re saying “Fuggedaboudit”

            Uh, no.

          • jon-

            yup.

            that sure looked like a yes to me.

            you can almost hear the fizzling.

            honestly, i just cannot see the point in conversing with someone so deluded, dishonest, and incapable of basic logic.

            i mean, this guy makes larry look like sam harris.

          • The right’s argument is

            “we’re right by definition. We don’t need no stinkin’ data”.

            Well, this isn’t the Treasure of the Sierra Madres. Sorry. In god we trust. All others bring data.

            Which pretty much excludes the right wing.

          • The right pretends that, if you google ‘Obama’s war on fossil fuels’ you’ll get 0 hits.

            Heh. Why do you insist on making an ass of yourself? Many of us on this site state openly Obama is conducting a war on fossil fuels. That’s entirely different from what you claimed.

            Like your hero Obama, you’re just a liar.

            And not a clever one either.

          • And now the right is feigning surprise. First they said Obama was a socialist who would destroy the oil industry.

            When shown they were wrong by the DATA they simply deny everything.

            I wonder if Alzheimers can be declared the official disease of the right wing

          • robert-

            there seem to be 2 possible states of the world:

            1. you are simply not capable of basic rational thought

            2. you are a complete troll and just like being a dishonest wind up artist.

            you continually misframe, misrepresent, and twist arguments and then bellow about other providing no data, when, in fact, you are the one who has not.

            you have been shown, over and over, that oil production on federal land (which obama controls) has dropped despite one of the greatest oil booms in hisotry.

            this was a war on oil. he has opposed it an nearly every turn and continues to do so.

            then, you take the fact that, despite having done some real damage, he has not won this war as proof he did not wage it and try to pass that off as “facts”.

            this would be like my accusing you of causing a dog to maul a child when, in fact, you were trying to hold it back and were not able to.

            this is some very shoody thinking and dishonest debate on your part.

            just because someone “wages war” does not mean they win. what, did the japanese not wage war on the us because, hey, look, the us still holds hawaii?

            that is literally the argument you are making.

            so, seriously, is it that you are simply not capable of basic rationality or do you just like being annoying and disagreeable?

          • The fact we’re not drilling to the level desired by the right on federal lands while we’re STILL producing huge amounts of oil, again, simply shows the right wing values greed above all else.

            The right’s argument was that Obama’s socialism would make it impossible to increase oil production because of regulations.

            When shown they’re wrong, they simple recast their failed argument to handwave away the data. And that’s what right wingers do.

          • Funny to watch right wing lies. I never said free markets have monopolies. In fact I said it was mathematically possible to prove that monopolies are less efficient than free markets. But the right wing says our market is perfect. Monopolies like Comcast are beneficial, the right wing says

            Pathetic

          • oh.

            my.

            god.

            did you, robert, king of recasting and misframing arguments, just accuse someone else of doing it, while, at the same time, doing precisely what you criticize by hand waving about greed to try to hide the fact that obama has been against drilling and has done what he could to hamper the oil expansion on federal land?

            then, you make up this absurd argument about “impossible”, cite no data, quote no one, and pretend that this is somehow a widespread view? it’s not. you are jousting with straw men.

            i mean, you’re like a parody of yourself.

            it astounds me that you have not disappeared into a singularity of bullshit.

            you are precisely what you profess to abhor: a lying, zero data zealot who cannot defend his views, lies about the views of others, and accuses those who show him data of not having data while claiming to have it yourself yet never providing it.

            it’s endless lies interwoven with delusions and invalid jumps of logic.

            i’m still trying to figure out if you are a mental defective or a troll, but the evidence that you, in actuality, both seems to be mounting quite quickly.

            have you always been like this or were you recently kicked in the head by a mule or some such?

          • The right pretends if you google “Obama war on oil” you’ll get no hits

            Just ignore that Fox news article. The Breitbart article. The tens of thousands of articles in the right wing press which bays like rabid werewolves at ANYTHING they think affects the ability of the rich to plunder the country

            Go ahead. Google “Obama war on oil”. But the right doesn’t.

            The right’s whole argument is an example of Poe’s law…a group of thugs delusional about the persecution of the rich.

            Pathetic.

        • Imhofe and Bachmann both said it.

          False.

          The words “oil” and “destroy” appear nowhere in the article about Bachmann. So you’re proving yourself to be an incredibly stupid liar. But you have no shame, I’ll give you that. She does say he’s a socialist, which is true.

          The Inhofe article quotes him using the word “destroy” in regards to combat systems that were snuffed out by the community-organizer-in-chief. In regards to oil, he says, ““They have this war on fossil fuels,” Inhofe said. “He’s doing everything to kill domestic production of oil, natural gas and coal.”

          Which is true. He is doing everything he can to kill off domestic production of fossil fuels. He promised in ’08 he had a plan to bankrupt coal companies. He said he wanted electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket” under his cap-and-trade plan. Marque noted some of his offensives in his war against oil.

          What obviously isn’t true is your claim that Inhofe said he would “destroy the oil industry.” Obama doesn’t have that power, though he would grab it if he thought he could get away with it. But he is “doing everything he can.”

          Again, you’re a liar. You keep repeating nonsense completely unaware of how idiotic it makes you look.

          Man, never thought I’d say this, but I’m actually starting to miss Larry.

          • Ah. He’s a socialist. And proof of that is corporate profits are at a record high

            So the right wing argument is ‘don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve made up my mind’.

            And Imhofe claimed, as I proved, that Obama would destroy the oil industry. Now you’re backpedaling

            Would be nice if you beeped when you did that.

          • I will say this about Bobby: he is consistent.

            Unfortunately, consistency is only a virtue when you’re not a screw-up.

            Keep it up.

          • Ah. He’s a socialist. And proof of that is corporate profits are at a record high

            Naah, proof of that is circumstantial. He was a member of the socialist New Party. He was a community organizer. He taught Alinsky rules for radicals. He has numerous associations with socialists and outright communists.

            And Imhofe claimed, as I proved, that Obama would destroy the oil industry. Now you’re backpedaling

            No, he didn’t. Nowhere in your article is a direct quote from Inhofe that he would “destroy the oil industry.” You’re a liar.

            And you lied about Bachmann too. She doesn’t even mention oil in the article you linked.

            Worst “scientist” ever.

            You’re hilarious.

            Oh, and please tell us more about how IBM is a monopoly when you get a sec.

          • paul-

            well, he also wants to see socialized medicine and favors wealth redistribution even if it means a smaller overall pie (as he himself said). he incites class war, seeks to tax the wealthy at the expense of capital and jobs creation, and wants a higher minimum wage and to push for unions and defends them aggressively from things like school choice. he does not believe in the free market, nor want kids or workers or employers to be able to make their own choices.

            he has pushed aggressively for these ends. i would call that more that circumstantial evidence of being a socialist.

            walks like a duck, quacks like a duck , …

          • Hmmm…socialized medicine.

            Every single advanced country in the world has universal coverage

            Every single advanced country in the world has cheaper healthcare than we do. So all you’re doing is pointing out ANOTHER right wing failure.

            Wealth redistribution? The right wing engineered the TARP welfare bailout of the rich, one of the biggest welfare wealth redistribution programs in US history. And they complain about the middle class getting healthcare.

            And the US has no unions which is why the right keeps beating up on them…they’re a bogeyman.

            So go ahead. Tell us about how Tea Partier Rep Yoho said it would be unfair to cut subsidies for millionaires because ‘they’re used to the money’, while telling us about your view of redistribution.

          • Aww you’re adorable when you think you’re being smart.

            Unfortunately, you’re still wrong. Change the topic all you want, but you still live in a magical fantasy world.

            All we need is for him to shout OECD and he’s become Larry.

          • Every single advanced country in the world has universal coverage.

            Larry!!! It IS you!

          • oecd!

            oecd!

            robert discovers the joy of the “appeal to practice” fallacy.

            truly, his journey to the dark side is now complete.

        • Our point is that the oil industry is thriving because Obama has not been clever enough to shut it down. Every policy he has made in regards to energy has been to hinder oil production in some way. Federal oil is going down. He also has hindered keystone which is preventing ND from exporting oil at an even faster rate and is now developing plans to reign in the private sector with a surprise success by sicking the EPA on them.

          Inhoffe and the rest of GOPers are correct. Our output would be 10% higher if Obama did not hinder federal development.

      • Federal oil production is declining rapidly.

        Wrong. Another baseless statement. During the first 4 years of Obama, federal oil production averaged 648,000 b/d. During the last 4 years of Bush43, the average was 598,000 b/d. Oh, oil production has tripled on Indian lands since 2008.

        EIA

        • um, you do realize that when you shut off leases, it take a while to filter through into the output figures, right?

          federal production has dropped rapidly in recent years as this has taken hold.

          indian land is NOT federal land.

          that’s a non sequitor.

        • Yes. Knew a guy who went up there to take a truck driving job starting at $18.00 an hour, no experience needed. When he got there he found a better job making $25.00 an hour. He lasted all of 4 months before he couldn’t take the isolation and loneliness.

    • There aren’t labor shortages. Just labor shortages at the price offered, compared to the owners expected value received. Note that there is an expectation that lower priced labor will move in.

    • Benjamin,

      There will always be an enormous number of jobs available many of which won’t even be advertised because no one realistically expects anyone to do them at the prices they are willing to pay. For example if someone wanted to sort my recycling for $20 a month I’ve got a job for them; that’s what it’s worth to me, I won’t pay more and nobody will do it for that price.

      The price signal you are talking about is a specific number for a specific jobs; if (all else being equal) low value jobs were paying more than high value jobs the signal would be broken. If (again, all else being equal) pleasant popular jobs are paying more than unpleasant difficult jobs there would also be a problem. The price signal is the bottom line, it wraps up all the considerations people have when choosing their profession, including location, skills required, hours worked and intangibles like how good doing the job makes you feel about yourself.

      There are plenty of examples where you can say with certainty the price signal is wrong. For example if there is a waiting list for a job, as you find for many unionized positions, the pay is too high or work conditions too easy; also many protected professionals like doctors are generally paid to highly. Artificial barriers to entry prevent many willing participants joining these jobs markets.

      The job market is a great example of a system so complicated and so wrapped up in intangible difficult to measure human preferences that any committee deciding what a person should or shouldn’t be paid is certain to be wrong (and certain to be hijacked by special interests). The market finds the price, the market is simply people agreeing to exchange their time and effort for money. If people are willing to do a job for a certain price why would a third party know any better?

  2. Revolutionary drilling technologies probably wouldn’t have led to the jolly times in the Peace Garden State if gasoline was still 45 cents a gallon at the pump.

    • Are we talking inflation-adjusted or nominal?

      But, I mean, you are right. Fracking is an expensive method and oil does need to be above a certain price point for it to be profitable (I think it’s about $60 barrel).

      • It is a non sequitur. There wouldn’t be much fracking if gas were sold at 10 cents either. But then we would be so awash in cheap oil – fracking wouldn’t be necessary.

        Actually the price of oil has been going up relative to average inflation, but the swing isn’t that wild. Compared to the 1980′s it is about twice as much per bbl as it would have been with just inflation.

        • Right. Everything has a price point that makes it the better/worse option.

          Whale oil was the cheapest until kerosene came along.

  3. Re the job shortages it happens in every boom town as does housing shortages. If you go back to the boom time of Virgina City, Nv you see it, or if you go to Spindeltop in Tx in 1901-1903 you see this (all be with a lot more oil wasted now). The problem is even in the US it is hard to get people to move and of course ND does present pretty bad (if you don’t like real cold) weather.

  4. The right wing is now denying they said Obama was waging a ‘war on fossil fuels’. Except their own record shows they’re lying

    CPAC claims about Obama

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4DZ2Jrc6pM

    Forbes

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2014/03/04/fight-back-against-obamas-war-on-fossil-fuels/

    Breitbart

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/08/obamas-campaign-against-fossil-fuels-driving-energy-prices-higher

    So unless CPAC, Forbes and Breitbart aren’t conservative, the right has some explaining to do.

    • The right wing is now denying they said Obama was waging a ‘war on fossil fuels’.

      See? Another example!

      You misquote, present irrelevant links, then claim victory.

      I rest my case!

      One thing I think we have shown conclusively: the left cannot argue honestly.

    • It’s funny that you think an Obama failure is actually an Obama success. Obama is indeed against fossil fuels and made claims on multiple times to reduce fossil fuel use. That Obama is failing at this task doesn’t make the case that he actually is not against the use of fossil fuels.

      What we’re seeing is the impotence of this particular president (whose only real success is the passage of a law that is very unpopular and has been a complete disaster upon implementation; convincing people to do stupid things, like passing a stupid law, is a dubious “success”), and the impotence in general of a president to choose economic winners and losers.

      • The meme of the right was that Obama was a socialist dictator who would do whatever was necessary to destroy the fossil fuel industry.

        We can see the right wing completely correct. Oil production in the US is at an all time low, just as the right wing predicted. Another success!

        • The meme of the right was that Obama was a socialist dictator who would do whatever was necessary to destroy the fossil fuel industry.

          I have no doubt in my mind that you believe that.

          But you are fighting invisible phantoms that live only in your head.

        • Obama is a wannabe socialist dictator and has hence found out that despite a high level of effort on his part, the presidency is not a dictatorship.

          • The right, of course, said Obama would suspend the constitution, seize our guns and destroy the oil industry.

            And none of it happened. So which is more logical…Obama was a dictator…even though they can’t specify a SINGLE proof of this…OR

            Obama’s policies have resulted in the biggest oil boom in 40 years?

            The data speaks for itself.

          • Ya know, Ken, the sad part is I think Bobby here actually believes the fantasy he is constructing.

          • The right, of course, said Obama would suspend the constitution

            And yet, it was a democrat who suggested elections be suspended, so democrats could do what they want, without having to be inconvenienced with having to worry about, you know, citizens.

            seize our guns and destroy the oil industry…. And none of it happened.

            Wasn’t from lack of trying. The reality is that Obama and the left are completely out of the mainstream on these two issues, which is why they got their asses handed to them.

            Obama was a dictator

            Obama’s a wannabe dictator, not an actual dictator. This is why he constantly laments he’s not a dictator.

            Obama’s policies have resulted in the biggest oil boom in 40 years

            No. The oil boom happened despite Obama’s policies. Obama is simply a failure as a politicians. He’s simply inept at enacting legislation that has the intended effect.

            The data speaks for itself.

            They certainly do: Obama is a failure.

        • He actually was able to do a number on coal. Coal is about dead. Oil he has stopped on federal lands. For private fields they were caught off guard but are working with tje EPA to slow that as well with excessive regulation of fracking with false claims and by declaring animals in North Dakota endangered. He will be able to accomplish a slowdown by the end of his term. Once the prairie chicken, which has range from North Dakota to Texas is declared endangered – as planned – drilling will be hindered.

    • I gotta give you credit, Robert… you sure can take a beating without giving up. And the bullies around here sure do like to dish it out, often in a most ungentlemanly way.

      While the rest of the crew worries about parsing your words, I think your larger point has some validity. There is no question that the Conservative narrative is that the Obama administration is out to derail the fossil fuel industry–”and they may get away with it unless you vote Republican!” The reality is nothing less than a renaissance of domestic oil production and good times for North Dakota, despite the Obama administration’s efforts to the contrary.

      There IS a disconnect. That disconnect IS worth pondering.

      • I don’t mind the beating from the deranged knuckle walkers. What’s offensive is the way they keep running from their words, denying they ever said them

        In 20 years time we’ll be hearing about how conservatives were warning about climate change and the liberals were trying to censor the warnings…

      • dagbone-

        the reality is also that obama has deliberately tried to impede that renaissance.

        he has blocked drilling on federal land, pipelines, and gone after harmless emissions.

        your argument seems to be the equivalent of trying like hell to keep a rock from rolling down a hill, succeeding in only slowing it somewhat, and then trying to take credit for making it roll down.

        regarding robert, it’s easy to be thick skinned when one is that deeply delusional…

        • OR the fact could be he wisely made decisions that led to MASSIVE increases in oil production while preventing rampant environmental damage to the US.

          If YOUR view is the case, oil production should DROP. If MY view is the case, oil production should INCREASE.

          Golly. Wonder which the data supports…

          • “OR the fact could be he wisely made decisions that led to MASSIVE increases in oil production”

            So name one decision, liar.

          • “OR the fact could be he wisely made decisions that led to MASSIVE increases in oil production while preventing rampant environmental damage to the US.”

            Name one such wise decision Obama has made that lead to increased oil production, just one.

            We have named many Obama actions that have hurt the oil industry. Dr. Perry’s posts of the fracking success story is an example of the free market overcoming obstacles and delivering ecomonic growth. This is a success story of free market capitalism.

          • No you haven’t named any that ‘hurt’ the oil industry. If the oil industry was hurt we wouldn’t be producing the huge volume of oil we are.

            You’ve named actions you SAY hurt the industry. But the right wing thinks that ANYTHING preventing the rich from making money ‘hurts’ America. Which, of course, is one reason why the right is so ridiculous.

          • OR the fact could be he wisely made decisions that led to MASSIVE increases in oil production while preventing rampant environmental damage to the US.

            That may be, but you’ve not prevented any evidence to suggest that.

            If YOUR view is the case, oil production should DROP. If MY view is the case, oil production should INCREASE.

            Only if you grossly misunderstand your own theory, ours, and how math works. Which, seemingly, you do.

          • I know enough about math to know the difference between an INCREASE and a DECREASE. The right doesn’t

          • Golly. Wonder which the data supports…

            And here we are, back to the correlation = causation thing from the world’s shittiest scientist.

            Let me ask you a question, Bobby boy: Since Obama has been president, the National League has won three World Series and the American League has won just two. Is Obama responsible for the National League winning more championships, too?

          • Wow. A pseudo scientist pretends he knows what he’s talking about.

            The right claimed oil production would collapse BECAUSE Obama’s regulations would be the mechanism.

            NOW he’s invoking words he barely knows how to spell to deny Obama has ANY effect on oil production at all. This, after the right said he’d gut the industry.

            So what he’s really saying is Obama can’t have any effect on oil production in spite of the fact the right said he did.

            Talk about backpedaling.

          • Interacting with Robert Psychotic reminds me of Putin’s alleged(probably urban legend) quote about Obama:“Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon.
            The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and
            then struts around like it won the game.”

          • Wow. A pseudo scientist pretends he knows what he’s talking about.

            Correct. And his name is Robert Puharic.

            Still waiting on one example of how Obama ..” wisely made decisions that led to MASSIVE increases in oil production.”

            C’mon, should be easy. One specific.

          • The results speak for themselves

            As the article says, an exponential increase in oil production. TX would be the 10th largest oil producing country in the world if it were a separate country

            Those are hard facts. And they refute the right wing assertion about Obama.

          • Ya know, Paul, through Bobby’s comments, we really do see the godlike power the Left puts into the president. He is the Alpha and the Omega. All that goes well in the world is due to Him. All that goes bad is due to the Fallen ones.

          • The results speak for themselves

            And yet you can’t name a single reason Obama had anything to do with it. You’re an utter buffoon.

            Detroit declared bankruptcy on Obama’s watch. That must be all him, too. Right, Science Boy? The results speak for themselves.

          • “No you haven’t named any that ‘hurt’ the oil industry. If the oil industry was hurt we wouldn’t be producing the huge volume of oil we are.”

            how can anyone be this stupid?

            leases on federal land have plummeted.

            production on federal land is beginning to drop sharply despite a boom in other production.

            this is the part of oil obama can control.

            he is pressing the brake.

            the fact that it cannot overcome the forward force of the massive private and state engine does NOT mean he is helping.

            for a guy who claims to be a “scientist” you sure do not seem to understand how to sum vectors and apportion the effects of various forces.

            by your logic, friction helps a ball roll because, hey, look, it’s rolling! if friction slowed movement, it would not roll!

            no way you are really a scientist.

            this is 9th grade physics.

      • “Conservative narrative is that the Obama administration is out to derail the fossil fuel industry–”

        Do you deny that this is actually the case? If this isn’t the case please tell us anything that Obama has done to increase domestic oil production.

        • As someone here pointed out, oil production is at the highest level in 40 years.

          Thus the right wing narrative about Obama wanting to DECREASE production

          is wrong. The facts speak for themselves

      • But Obama did go out to destroy the hydrocarbon industry. Look at coal -almost dead. Look at federal lands down 15% since Obama has taken office – mostly because he has reduce drilling permits. Look at the actions of the EPA which is now trying desperately to find “endangered” species near oil areas.

        No disconnect at all. The free market is winning despite Obama’s obstruction.

        If a Bush like person were president now total oil production would be 10% higher.

          • Does that mean I’m right wing? I lied about Obama and now I’ve changed my story?

            According to you, you are right wing. So, it’s up to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>