Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: And the pumps kept on.

This past weekend, the week after I posted this
Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: And the pumps kept on.: And following on this: Lex Anteinternet: And the pumps kept on. : Saudi production has reached 10,000,000 bbl per day, near (or perha...
the Tribune made the topic of a possible oil collapse its Sunday feature.  I was out of town, so I didn't read it in depth, although I tried to on my app for that.  The Tribune did a nice job, in one article, of listing all the prior collapses, which is something I've written about here in the past (again, you heard it here first) but which the Tribune, having full time staff et all, did a nice job on. They listed the prior ups and downs as follows: 
The Star-Tribune compiled a brief timeline of oil in Wyoming from the first sale to its current situation.
  • 1863: “The first recorded oil sale in Wyoming, however, happened along the Oregon Trail when, in 1863, enterprising entrepreneurs sold oil as a lubricant to wagon train travelers. The oil came from Oil Mountain Springs, some 20 miles west of present-day Casper. ” -- Phil Roberts on wyohistory.org.
  • 1883: Mike Murphy drills the first oil well in Wyoming south of Lander at Dallas Dome.
  • Fall 1888: Casper’s first well is drilled 3 miles northwest of town.
  • 1895: Pennsylvania Oil Company builds the first refinery in Casper.
  • April 5, 1889: “The town was swarming with oil men. Something will evidently be doing soon.” – The Casper Tribune
  • 1910: Franco-Wyoming Oil Co. is created. Construction on a refinery begins a year later.
  • 1911: The Midwest Oil Co. begins construction of another refinery in Casper.
  • 1914: Standard Oil moves into Casper, buying land to build a refinery.
  • 1916 to 1917: "During the latter part of 1916 and for nine months in 1917 Casper experienced a wonderful oil boom,” according to a 1990 Gillette News Record article citing a historian.
  • 1916: The Big Muddy Oil Field is discovered near Glenrock on a land grant section randomly chosen by a government surveyor for the University of Wyoming. Royalties from the oil field in the 1920s are used to build Half Acre, the current gymnasium, and the library, now the Aven Nelson Building. The building comes amid a statewide depression. 
  • June 17, 1921: A fire erupts at the Midwest Refinery Tank Farm in Casper, in what is widely considered one of the major disasters of the time.
  • 1923: “The Producers and Refiners Company (PARCO) built a refinery and a complete town for its employees on the Union Pacific line in Carbon County. When the firm went into bankruptcy in the early 1930s, oilman Harry Sinclair bought the town on April 12, 1934, and renamed it ‘Sinclair’.” -- Phil Roberts on wyohistory.org.
  • 1925: “It was 1925, the peak of the Salt Creek oil boom in Casper. ‘Smoke of prosperity hangs over Casper Refineries,’ said the headline in the 1926 annual ‘industrial edition’ of the Casper Tribune-Herald.” More than 23,200 people lived in Casper and Natrona County, beating Cheyenne and Laramie County by about 5,000 people. Some people predicted Natrona County’s population would reach 40,000 within a year. – “Boom overshadowed gloom in ‘25” by Irving Garbutt.
  • Late 1920s: Crude oil prices peak in 1920 at $3 for a 42-gallon barrel before sinking to as low as 19 cents in 1931.
  • 1940s: World War II boosts Wyoming oil production.
  • 1946: Major oil companies move regional headquarters to Casper, which is, once again, coined “Oil Capital of the Rocky Mountains.”
  • 1947: “Casper listed 55 oil field service, supply, and trucking companies. In 1953, this list showed 196 such firms. Stanolind Oil Company, with division and district headquarters in Casper, had 70 employees in 1947. In 1953, the company employed 316 people. Ohio Oil Company had increased from 104 employees to 167. The total number of companies and individuals listed as engaged in oil production and exploration increased from 27 in 1947 to 81 in 1953.” – “Casper, Wyoming, Oil Center of the Rockies” September 1954 edition of Out West Magazine.
  • 1950s: Most small towns in Wyoming have their own refineries, including ones in Cody, Thermopolis, Torrington and Lusk.
  • Late 1960s: Oil production continues to be strong, but Wyoming’s overall economy is in a period of “malaise,” said Phil Roberts. “By the end of the ‘60s, we were flat broke.”
“In 1968, Gov. Stan Hathaway discovered that Wyoming had the grand sum of $80 in the general fund. 'That scared the hell out of me,' said Hathaway. 'I had to do something.'” -- Sam Western, “Pushed Off the Mountain, Sold Down the River: Wyoming’s Search for Its Soul.”
  • 1969: Wyoming creates a severance tax to build state coffers.
  • 1973: Arab oil embargo. Prices skyrocket to $40 a barrel. Gas prices nearly double.
  • 1982: World price of energy crashes.
  • Early 1980s: Headquarters of major companies, including Chevron and Exxon, move from Casper to Denver and then many to Houston or Tulsa, Oklahoma. Most small refineries, operating off of even slimmer margins, close.
  • 1991: Amoco Refinery closes in Casper. “Had they stayed, they would have had to weather, how many years before it turned around? As a business decision, it was something they had to do looking down the road. But on the other hand, with the changing energy economy by the end of the 20th century, it would have been pretty profitable for them to stay in business.” – Phil Roberts
  • Early 2000s: Enhanced oil recovery breathes new life into the Salt Creek Field. Horizontal drilling unlocks previously hard-to-tap shale reserves.
  • Late 2014: Slow international growth and a rising tide of production from OPEC creates a slump in oil prices from $107 a barrel to below $50 a barrel in 2015.
* Historical information from Phil Roberts, a Wyoming historian and professor at the University of Wyoming, or the Western History Center at Casper College.
Casper Star Tribune and Phil Robertson.  Again, really nice job!

Points go to the Tribune for running such an article, but I can't help but note how much this feels like 1983 all over again.  I still have friends and colleagues outside of the oil industry who are trying to convince themselves it won't be that bad.  At the same time, as I have a lot of oil industry contacts, I can see what's occurring.  Lots of men I knew who were employed in the oil industry now are not. A good friend of mine in the financial world tells me that Texas expects 100,000 lost jobs in this sector this year.  Texas has a population of 24,000,000 of course, basically rivaling the population of Canada, so that may not be devastating to its economy, but a decline in this sector here, where this is the single largest industry, is going to have a major impact.  It simply will.

Not that there aren't opposing indicators people can point to, and do.  Things are still being built, businesses are still going in.

Just like last time.

Writing is five percent inspiration. The rest is brute force. « M J Wright

Writing is five percent inspiration. The rest is brute force. « M J Wright

Friday, March 27, 2015

Today In Wyoming's History: March 26

Today In Wyoming's History: March 26: 1895  University of Wyoming Alumni Association founded.

Amazing to think that it's that old, or that it was founded so soon after the University was established.

Unsolicited Career Advice No. 5. How do you become a rancher?



Well, if you aren't rich, or born into it, I"m not too sure you can, at least in the ranch example.

I hate to say that, but this is a question that I've also been asked, which stands quite a part from the "should I go to law school question".  I suppose on the occasional instances in which I get asked this, its because we have cattle and ought to know.

Just here recently I ran a series of posts due to it being National Agriculture Week. And I've run quite a few posts on farming and ranching, and even agrarianism, in the past.  Anyone who has looked at these and seen any career type comments I've made there knows that I'm pretty pessimistic about people who aren't born into agriculture getting into it, although some do manage to do it. One thing about the law that's sure, you don't have to be born into it in order to get into it (and a lot of people born into it, but not all, don't go into it).

All agriculture, it should be noted, is local.  People very often fail to realize that.  Practices that are common 200 miles away might not be where you are, and for that matter, they might even work in your locality.  So it's perfectly possible that a person might be able to walk right on to a farm in some other locality, while they'd never be able to do that in another.  So, Caveat Lector.

Anyhow, at one time, the dream of owning a farm or ranch, and by that I mean a real operation, not 20 acres near a big city which you call a farm or ranch, was a common one.  It's so much a part of the American mentality that, in spite of the fact that agriculturalist are often dismissed as "hicks", it still makes up a common theme in stories, particularly B grade romantic ones.  In the old film Splendor In The Grass the main male protagonist, whose father has big hopes for his career, ends up disappointing the family and becoming a farmer, which we take to be the better (and more American) choice.  In zillions of "Lifetime" type movies, people inherit a ranch in trouble, which they then rescue, or move to a relatives rustic ranch, where they become involved in its operation after an initial desire to avoid it.  A stock background in film is that a person's parents or grandparents have a farm or ranch somewhere.  And a fairly significant number of people obviously aspire to farm or ranch.

But how realistic is it?

Not very, at least by my observation.

I've written on it before, but land prices are perhaps the major reason why.  They've simply gone out of sight, due in no small part to the land's value for subdivision or for the rich to buy essentially as a playground.  And there's no region of the United States that I'm aware of that is immune from it.

Some regions, of course, are particularly influenced by this. The West, which ironically retains the romantic image of being "wide open", is pretty much closed for new agricultural entrants.  This trend has been going on for some time, and at some point in the 1950s or early 1960s this became basically true, although there was still a little room to get in as late as the early 1980s.  No longer.  Ranches here now sell for such values that only the very wealthy or the those who are already possessed of large amounts of land they can leverage can get in.

Well, so what?  That's just the way it is, right?  After all, that's what happens to agricultural and in every free society, absent government intervention (which is another topic entirely, and which isn't going to happen). And, if you subscribe to the views advanced in the article written by George F. Will and reported here yesterday, it's all for everyone's good.

And I've read that thesis with this sort of thing before.  The classic one is that the automobile manufacture puts the wagon maker out of business, but the auto maker makes more jobs, and the displaced wagon maker goes on to get a cubicle job for higher wages where he can buy Starbucks every day. Great, eh?

Or, more precisely, sure this means that fewer people are in agriculture, but with economies of scale, this keeps food cheap and that's good for everyone. People who would have been farmers can compete for jobs with those who own the land, or they can go into town and become podiatrists where they'll generate even more money, and their kids will become neurosurgeons and make even more.  More and more money will result.

Well, maybe, but that's if that matters, and the evidence is that at some point, it doesn't.

Poverty matters, that's for sure. But there's no good evidence that after some point affluence does.  Indeed, it doesn't seem to. And at that point, having closed off certain opportunities and occupations matters a lot.  

This is particularly true when occupations that are close to the land are closed off.  As a species, we have next to no experience with that condition, as up until recently the majority of human beings lived close to the land.  Even those who didn't live on the land, often lived and worked close to those who did.  Now this is rapidly becoming no longer true, but people still crave it at an elemental level.

And there are open questions about what sort of society this will be, for people.

Which digresses.

So, "how can I become a farmer or rancher"?  I don't know.  You might be able to become a farm manager a ranch manager for a landowner.  I know several young men who have done that.  It's a career path that doesn't offer a lot of wealth, but perhaps that doesn't matter, and it probably shouldn't.  Over time, the men I've known who have done that (and they've all been men, fwiw) have married and had families, so certainly a normal life is possible. As for owning a place of your own, well, maybe or maybe not.  Probably not, at least if what you hope for is a working ranch.  But if that's your heart's desire, it might not matter what anyone tells you anyway, as it'll probably remain close to your heart.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Old Picture of the Day: President Roosevelt

Old Picture of the Day: President Roosevelt: Today we feature a picture of Roosevelt looking presidential. The picture was taken during the last part of his presidency.  I like th...

Old Picture of the Day: Roosevelt in Knickers

Old Picture of the Day: Roosevelt in Knickers: It is not just every man that has the self confidence to wear Knickers. I would say Roosevelt was one man who could pull it off. The b...

Old Picture of the Day: Teddy Roosevelt in Earlier Days

Old Picture of the Day: Teddy Roosevelt in Earlier Days: This is  a picture of Teddy Roosevelt in days before he was famous as a military man or president. He is posed here as a hunter. He rea...

Old Picture of the Day: TR

Old Picture of the Day: TR: Today we have another picture of Teddy Roosevelt during his Military Years. The picture was taken in 1898. Also, we have another quote ...

Old Picture of the Day: Teddy Roosevelt

Old Picture of the Day: Teddy Roosevelt: This is another military portrait of Teddy Roosevelt from back in his Rough Rider days. Also, another of my favorite quotes from Teddy...

Old Picture of the Day: Colonel Roosevelt

Old Picture of the Day: Colonel Roosevelt: Welcome to Teddy Roosevelt Week! We will be looking at pictures of one of my favorite presidents. Roosevelt was genuinely a larger tha...

Closing our eyes

A long time ago I write this essay here, which at one time was one of the most popular ones on this site:
Lex Anteinternet: Peculiarized violence and American society. Looki...: Because of the horrific senseless tragedy in Newton Connecticut, every pundit and commentator in the US is writing on the topic of what cau...
That essay came in the wake of a tragic mass killing and it looked at root causes, at a time during which a lot of public commentary was focused on proposed efforts that would not address them.

I mention that now, as we've just had yet another example of a senseless mass killing of a type we've seen several of in recent years, but we don't seem to see much proposed in the way of doing something about it.  That is, the co-pilot of the Germanwings plane that crashed into the Alps this week turns out to be mass murderer.

This isn't the first time in recent years where a commercial pilot has chosen to kill himself and all of his passengers.  It's totally inexcusable on every level.  A question remains about this, that being, why is so much attention focused on controlling implements for which the legislative control of which will not have a demonstrative effect, while there hasn't been any outcry about whom is allowed to pilot hundreds in the sky?

Yes, I know there's commercial licenses, but even on the simple applicable standards level, it would appear that around the globe various pilots simply don't measure up to the American standard. They should, and there's no reason that a universal, very high, standard can't apply to all commercial air carrier pilots.  But beyond that, perhaps the time has come to place these men and women through some sort of psychological battery every six months.  It won't catch them all, but it might catch some who are getting dicey, or even just sloppy.  And maybe the time has come for a third pilot to be in the cabin, just in case. These are big complicated planes and there's been a lot of accidents, which might be reason enough, and might help to keep something like this from reoccuring.  

Lex Anteinternet: The Distrubing Thesis of Capital in the Twenty Fir...

Almost a year ago I was writing about Thomas Piketty's disturbing thesis in this entry:
Lex Anteinternet: The Distrubing Thesis of Capital in the Twenty Fir...: I haven't read it yet, but I've been reading a lot about Thomas Piketty's new book, Capital In The Twenty First Century. The b...
This morning, in reading my local newspaper, George F. Will reviews a new book with a counterveiling thesis, that being John Tanny's new  "cheerful, mind-opening book, “Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You About Economics.".  Will's article is boldy entitled "How income inequality benefits us all".

Will characterizes Tanny's book which I also haven't read, as boldy presentign a new thesis, but it what it apparently does is bodly defend an old one, that being that Adam Smith was right and we need not worry about jobs being exported overseas.  The book apparently expertly cites numerous examples, with the basis nature of them being that when jobs like making Iphones go overseas, the price lowers so much that in real terms all of our incomes rise.  The book isn't limited to that type of analysis, however, and also, apaprently, defends monopolies.

This is obviously quite the opposite of Piketty, whom I still haven't read, but it strikes me that in some odd ways they may both be correct and incorrect at the same time.  Will's Tanny is correct, that buying at Wall Mart or from monopolies, and from companies that manufacture in the cheapest possible fashion, means less of our income goes into purchases, but it also can't be denied, as Piketty demonstrates, that the wealth that's generated gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, who are by extension more and more powerful. 

The overarching thing, however, is that Will's cheerful defense ignores something, which Froma Harrop has been exploring in her recent articles. Nobody wants to be poor, but at some point an economy that serves only to produce wealth and do so efficiently is really soulless and concentrates people into jobs that they might not really like.  In other words, what if some people, indeed a lot of people, are just flat out happier working as a machinist on the factory floor, rather than in some clerk job in the cubicle forest?