ND Oil Boom Fuels Airport Boom: New Records Are Set Every Month With September Gains of 60-90%
BISMARCK (AP) - "Airports in western North Dakota's booming oil patch are setting new passenger boarding records nearly every month and need tens of millions of dollars to invest in terminals, parking and runway upgrades, the state's aeronautics commissioner said.
Dickinson, Williston and Minot airports have set airline boarding records nearly each month for the past three years, said Larry Taborsky. "The airports are full and getting to the extreme point. Bigger runways are needed to support bigger planes and more facilities are needed for passengers," he said.
Dickinson boarded 89 percent more passengers in September than it did in September 2010, and Williston saw an 87 percent jump. "Williston is way beyond capacity and parking lots are now spilling out on to the grass," Taborsky said. "Dickinson is the same way."
The year-on-year September jump at Minot's airport was slightly lower, at 61 percent, but it experienced the biggest increase in actual passengers boarded, 5,087 more, among the state's eight commercial and regional airports."
24 Comments:
Mark, you seem very optimistic about the economy generally. Freight is up. Exports are up. Corporate profits are up. Consumption is up. Those things are all true, but the fact that these income gains only go to the wealthy few (let's call them the top 1% for the sake of argument, though that may not precisely be the proportion) means the economy is still in crisis.
We can export more with productivity gains. But who benefits from those gains? If it's only the super wealthy then the economy might be great for them. But is it great for the other 99%? If I own the factory and technology allows me to buy a machine that makes the product and I can lay off 10 people and my total costs go down, that's great for me. But it's not so great for the 10 without a job.
Can those 10 go work in another area? The reality is there may not be enough job openings for them.
I understand that making more with less is a good thing generally. But notice what has happened. The same products are being made. But the beneficiary is now only the owner. On net things are better. We're making more with less effort. But the way we've allocated the goods produced has shifted towards wealth and ownership. This is creating problems.
The post highlighted the airport boom in western ND. You don't think that a regional airport boom creates hundreds or thousands of middle-class jobs in North Dakota? Think about airline reservation agents, baggage handlers, flight attendants, airplane mechanics, airplane pilots, taxi drivers, bartenders, waitresses, cashiers, etc. Those gains from domestic oil production are not just going to the top 1%, they are going to everybody from cashiers on up the pay scale. The ND oil boom is creating wealth and jobs for everybody.
Jon,
Mark has it right. Your parasite friends in OWS should take their layabout asses to N Dakota if they really want a job. But they don't, they want to dig into somebody else's pocket.
Jon, what do you think the "wealthy few" do with the money they make? Do you think they lock it in a vault in the basement and roll around in it, like Scrooge McDuck?
No, they spend or invest it. When they spend it, they help middle class folks out - you probably can understand that. But even when they invest it they help out "regular" people since investment often leads to jobs.
You might be thinking, maybe they put it in the bank. What do you think banks do with the money people put in savings and checking accounts? I bet you think they put it in a big vault and roll around in it like the aforementioned fictional duck. No, they invest it. So you see, when the "wealthy few" create wealth (they don't take it, by the way), they spend it and invest it, which helps the middle and lower "classes".
Don't raise my bosses' taxes!
There are isolated pockets of good news for the economy, but the thrust of your blog seems to reflect the view that things are looking up generally. Freight is up, consumption is up, profits are up and ND is experiencing an oil boom. All true. But isn't it also true that the economy right now is quite bleak? I can't recall a recent blog post from you that reflects the grim overall realities. A person reading this blog might be perplexed at Occupy Wall St.
"A person reading this blog might be perplexed at Occupy Wall St."
Not perplexed. Amused.
Marko, sometimes they spend it, sometimes they don't. Apple Computer is sitting on like $76 billion in cash. They're not going to deplete the money through hiring. Why would they? They have what they think they need to meet demand and that's it. They're done. And why should they do anything else? Are they going to just hire people so they can have a salary when the work is not required to meet demand?
Polls of business owners reveal the reasons they don't hire. It's not fear of regulations or taxes. Demand is too low. They have the resources they need to meet the present demand. So as production advancements make more and more of the workers obsolete they'll just cut those workers. And those workers will not find jobs because other employers are in the same boat.
If you look at the employment population ratio you'll find that it's right near the same level it was at the very worst part of the recession. And when you consider that older employees are not retiring because their nest eggs have been depleted you realize that this ratio should be going up even if the unemployment rate remained unchanged. The reason is because old workers stay on and new workers are entering the work force. The fact that this rate stays low shows that the real unemployment rate is higher than we realize, because new workers that can't find jobs that are just out of college or high school are not counted as unemployed. Things are really grim right now. Mark seems optimistic because of some localized improvement. I think that's misguided.
Paul, I think you should ask yourself if you are missing something. Why are they there? According to Mark this economy is great. If the economy is so great why do they have it in their heads that things are not great? Maybe there's a reason. Maybe you should try and understand it. People don't go out of their way to protest, get arrested, and get beaten when they don't have reasons. People don't sacrifice in this way without cause. Is the economy really doing great, as Mark suggests, and these people don't know it? Why don't they know it? You would think they would know whether or not they are suffering.
It's the same story with terrorism. The right wing can't seem to walk in another person's shoes. Why would these people sacrifice their lives to blow up the towers. The right wing says "Oh, they hate freedom, they are crazy, they are psychos." You can't walk in their shoes and think about what they might be thinking? They tell us why they do it. Our country starved hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq with an embargo. Our country occupies their countries and controls their government. You can't walk in their shoes for a minute and consider how you might feel if those conditions were imposed on you?
I'm not suffering under student loan debt without a job, so I'm lucky, but I can at least understand what it would be like to walk in those shoes. It's not amusing to me.
Jon,
"Why are they there?"
To get laid. Find weed. Rail against Jews. Pretend they are doing something useful with their pathetic lives.
"You can't walk in their shoes for a minute and consider how you might feel if those conditions were imposed on you?"
First I'll walk a mile in the shoes of the persecuted Christians, Jews, and other minorities(if they're even allowed to reside) in those countries we "oppress."
Why are they there? -- Jon
It seems that they want a revolution:
"We're communists" [applause]
"Ultimately the bourgeoisie will not go without violent means"
"We're revolutionary socialists"
Go ahead, make my day.
Che,
Not all of them are communists. Some are just bored, bratty trust funders.
To get laid. Find weed. Rail against Jews. Pretend they are doing something useful with their pathetic lives.
Really it sounds so much like talk about terrorism. Acknowledging any legitimate grievances is too difficult for some people. Looking in the mirror is not easy. So we convince ourselves of childish, absurd reasons.
David Cross had comments your mindset here.
"Acknowledging any legitimate grievances is too difficult for some people."
There's nothing coherent about the "grievances" of this rifraff.
"Looking in the mirror is not easy."
Wait, I am the problem?
"David Cross had comments your mindset here."
Noted foreign policy experts like David Cross think this under-informed rant is actually the sophisticated view. Get back to me when he has something funny to say about Al Qaeda's intellectual lineage going back to Saayid Qutb.
Not sophisticated, eh? Well it happens that the lead specialist responsible for tracking bin Laden at the CIA, Michael Scheuer, says precisely what Cross does. Also Bush was told by the National Intelligence Council prior to the invasion that if he invades he should expect an increase in terrorist action and support for political Islam. The theory is that people that see their families blown up don't like it. The NIC was very much right, which goes to show how much Bush and company really cared about reducing the threat of terrorism.
Is the "He hates our freedom" view the sophisticated view? Who from the CIA shares that view?
If you're interested in a documentary about Qutb and his relationship to the neoconservatives, watch "The Power of Nightmares." It's at Google video.
Jon,
Well it happens that the lead specialist responsible for tracking bin Laden at the CIA, Michael Scheuer, says precisely what Cross does.
This would be the same Michael "the Jews run everything" Scheur? He and the OWS filth are like peas in a pod, I guess.
"Also Bush was told by the National Intelligence Council prior to the invasion that if he invades he should expect an increase in terrorist action and support for political Islam.
You mean the savages might fight back for awhile? I wonder if bin Laden's experts gave him the same kind of information before he slaughtered 3000 innocent people.
"..which goes to show how much Bush and company really cared about reducing the threat of terrorism."
I've got a mountain of dead terrorists that says otherwise. You're support, on the other hand, for terrorist leaders like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez doesn't give me any reason to give your views any weight.
"Is the "He hates our freedom" view the sophisticated view?"
Yeah. I don't disagree that bin Laden wanted all the Jews driven from Israel, and the US out of Saudi Arabia. (And so what? Why should we care what a mass murderer wants?) But he also demanded we "reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest." Also, stop "stealing" their oil. And sign the Kyoto treaty. Also, become Muslims.
Or die.
Your foreign policy expert David Cross left that part out of his act.
"Who from the CIA shares that view"
Anyone who, to paraphrase your foreign policy expert David Cross, listened to what bin Laden "fucking said."
"If you're interested in a documentary about Qutb and his relationship to the neoconservatives, watch "The Power of Nightmares." It's at Google video."
Yeah, I'll get right on that after I watch "Zeitgeist" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
Jon: "I understand that making more with less is a good thing generally. But notice what has happened. The same products are being made. But the beneficiary is now only the owner."
Don't those who buy the products get any benefit from them?
"On net things are better. We're making more with less effort. But the way we've allocated the goods produced has shifted towards wealth and ownership. This is creating problems."
Who, exactly, is "we", and how are "we" allocating the goods produced? Aren't goods allocated to those who buy them?
If there's a point you're trying to make here, it's sure not clear what it is.
All I can get from your comment, is that you, like Obama, hate ATMs, and perhaps machines in general.
There are some good stories about rising US Mid-continent production, but it needs to be kept in perspective. It's a safe assumption that at least 90% of all Bakken oil wells currently producing will probably be plugged and abandoned, or down to 10 BOPD or less, by the year 2020.
And US crude oil production in 2010 was 5.5 mbpd. The average through September, 2011 was 5.6 mbpd, versus a 1970 peak of 9.6 mbpd (EIA).
In effect, we are seeing a race between slowly rising US crude oil production and a declining supply of Global Net Exports of oil (GNE) and Available Net Exports (ANE). ANE = GNE less Chindia's net imports.
The following chart shows actual data for 2002 to 2010 and extrapolations to 2020. The top line curve is production by the top 33 net oil exporters. The second line is GNE. The third line is ANE.
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/ASPO_Charts.jpg
The top shaded area is top 33 consumption. The second shaded area is Chindia's net imports. The third shaded area represents ANE.
If we simply extrapolate the 2005 to 2010 data, ANE would be down to about 21 mbpd in 2020, versus 40 mbpd in 2005. In other words, for every two barrels of oil that non-Chindia importers net imported in 2005, they would have to make do with one barrel in 2020.
The US has shown a sizable decline in net oil imports since 2005, but close to 75% of the decline has been a decline in consumption, primarily in response to rising oil prices, with about 25% due to rising US production. In other words, the primary trend we are seeing is that the US is being outbid by developing countries for access to a declining supply of Global Net Exports.
Incidentally, to copy and paste the following graphic, copy from below the link:
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/ASPO_Charts.jpg
This would be the same Michael "the Jews run everything" Scheur?
You'll have to tell me. I've never heard of him saying anything like that and I doubt he did.
You mean the savages might fight back for awhile?
No.
I wonder if bin Laden's experts gave him the same kind of information before he slaughtered 3000 innocent people.
If they were smart they did. That's exactly what happened. That's probably why so many of the clerics, like Anwar Al Alwaki, as well as people that were regarded as more radical, condemned the attacks. That's probably why Iran did as well and the people held a candle light vigil on behalf of the victims in Tehran. That good will could have been harnessed, but as the NIC pointed out this would all be squandered if we blundered into a variety of invasions against people that had done nothing to us. So Awlaki goes from being the cleric the White House invites to come speak to hated enemy that must be assassinated with no due process. The invasions and mass of corpses turned him from an opponent of OBL style terrorism to a supporter.
I've got a mountain of dead terrorists that says otherwise.
The pool of Muslims hostile to the US has literally grown by hundreds of millions. The torture regime has literally led to the death of thousands of Americans according to lead Iraqi interrogators. They say that our abuses are the #1 recruitment tool.
Why should we care what a mass murderer wants?
Thinking people that want to solve problems attempt to understand the causes even when you are looking for the cause of murders. Suppose a man murders is wife because she cheated on him. "No need to consider what she did that may have motivated the violence. Why worry about what a murderer thinks?" It's worth considering and realizing that if you cheat on your spouse you'll make her mad. Some of these mad spouses become violent. That's worth knowing. If we starve kids, bomb civilians, and try to sustain puppet governments some of the people subjected to that become violent in response. For you that makes them "savages" in your mind. Interesting that this is the same word used to dehumanize Native Americans. I'm probably wasting my time with you.
Jon,
"I've never heard of him saying anything like that and I doubt he did."
He sure did, he likes to label Israel a "cancer" and complains about the "U.S. citizen Israel-firsters." Hint. Hint. Sure sounds like your OWS buddies.
"That good will could have been harnessed.."
I love how you take Iran's crocodile tears at face value, and mix the peoples' sentiment with their barbaric leaders. The mullahs have been at war with the US for 30 yrs. The 9/11 commission even found evidence of Iran's complicity in the attacks.
"So Awlaki goes from being the cleric the White House invites to come speak.."
Yeah, stupid mistake to invite him in the first place. Al-Awlaki was being watched by counterterrorism investigators since at least the mid-1990′s and had numerous run-ins with the law going back to his college days. Officials also found he was involved with the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist involved in the 1993 bombing attack of the World Trade Center. We also know he was an Imam at 2 different mosques where he connected with at least 4 of the 9/11 hijackers. The 9/11 Commission found this all very, uh, suspicious.
And now you know the rest of the story. Doesn't quite fit in with your little morality tale, does it?
"The pool of Muslims hostile to the US has literally grown by hundreds of millions."
Oh well, perhaps the persecuted Jews, Christians, Kurds,Bahai, and other minorities who reside in Muslim lands will get a break for awhile.
Naah.
"Thinking people that want to solve problems attempt to understand the causes even when you are looking for the cause of murders."
And so your answer is, what? Let the Jews be slaughtered in the streets? What about the rest of bin Laden's demands? Why do you "thinking people" and your foreign policy guru David Cross stop at bin Laden's demands that you agree with?
"For you that makes them "savages" in your mind."
Aww, look at the big heart in the little communist. Yes, the people who flew planes full of people into buildings full of people were indeed savages. Now I'll leave you to concentrate on your empathy for Mohammed Atta.
Don't those who buy the products get any benefit from them?
What I mean is good are produced and people receive a monetary benefit from them. That is they are exchanged for money. It used to be that 11 people derived that benefit, and now only 1 does.
That should be a good thing. It is better to make more with less. But now who gets that monetary benefit? Only 1 person. The 10 get nothing. If they can move into other areas of work, then fine. We've just increased productivity. But if they can't, as now, then you create serious inequality. That's not good even for the rich man.
Who, exactly, is "we", and how are "we" allocating the goods produced? Aren't goods allocated to those who buy them?
As before I'm using "we" in reference to the 11 people. 1 owner and 10 workers.
All I can get from your comment, is that you, like Obama, hate ATMs, and perhaps machines in general.
I don't. I like them. But I recognize the social impacts. It's fine to make them obsolete, but in a world where they have no other means of making a living we have to consider the social costs.
Jon: "I don't. I like them. But I recognize the social impacts. It's fine to make them obsolete, but in a world where they have no other means of making a living we have to consider the social costs."
Your narrow view is hurting your ability to see the bigger, brighter picture. Creative destruction isn't a recent phenomenon. Improvements in productivity have been going on since people first used stone tools. You are seeing only the destruction and not the creation.
What happened to all those whalers put out of work by J. D. Rockefeller? How about the millions in the horse powered transportation industries? what about all those farmers who are no longer needed to grow our food?
In every instance you could lament the loss of some jobs due to improved technology. So what?
Where, in fact, are those tellers who were put out of work by ATMs? We don't see them standing on the sidewalk wondering what to do next. They may now have better, higher paying jobs in a larger banking sector.
During a recession it's easy to blame high unemployment on any number of things, including technology, but keep in mind that other than during recessions, unemployment since WWII has been in a pretty narrow range around 5%, which is considered full employment. Why aren't obsoleted workers piling up in unemployment offices?
Jon
And just as importantly, what do you think you or I have done to keep them from piling up?
Answer: Not a damn thing. They have managed their own lives without our help.
Post a Comment
<< Home