How did the Treasure State wind up begging for jobs in N.D.?

[UPDATE: I turned off reader commenting for this story because for the past few days the comments have fallen to a new low, with virtually all of the comments being personal attacks and flaming. If one person does that, I can remove the comments or ban the user, but when everyone starts to do it, I have no choice but to shut off commenting. I will restore commenting in 24 hours. After that I will start to ban accounts of commenters who continue to use attacks on their fellow commenters. If you get banned, you can reach me at the Inter Lake to convince me you are willing to follow the rules of the site. -FM]

Every year, come Jan. 1, we look ahead and look behind — trying to make sense out of real life — that muddle in the middle which we alternately call “the best of all possible worlds” and “another fine mess.”

Part of this balancing act is making a deal with yourself that no matter how bad the next year turns out, it can’t possibly be as bad as the last one.

But sadly, that isn’t always true. Regardless how much of Candide’s optimism we embrace, we sometimes are left only with the practical summation of Oliver Hardy’s heaving sigh and signature line: “Here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into.”

This applies to the big picture as well. No matter how much we protest that we are going to learn from the past, or turn over a new leaf, we more often keep repeating the mistakes of the past — tempered only by that painful optimism of Candide’s tutor, Pangloss, that “all is for the best” no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary — earthquakes, disease, wars and all.

As we all sit through a presidential election campaign in the coming year, we will have many opportunities to listen to one side proclaim that “all is for the best” while the other side declares that the very same “all” is just a “nice mess.” It would be funny were it not so predictable.

I’ll have more to say in coming weeks about presidential politics, of course, especially about some of the parallels between 2012 and 1912. As the president himself pointed out, there is much to be considered in the relation between Teddy Roosevelt’s progressive campaign of 1912 and the Obama platform of today.

But in the meantime, another story from 100 years ago has caught my attention, and makes me think more specifically about the past and future of my home state of Montana.

In doing some historical research related to the Inter Lake’s recent series on the oil boom in North Dakota, I came across a New Year’s editorial from 100 years ago that seems almost taunting in its optimism about Montana’s economic future.

The article from the Anaconda Standard of Jan. 4, 1912, was entitled “An Inviting Outlook” and it commented on Gov. Edwin Lee Norris’s “New Year greeting” that had appeared in the paper on New Year’s Day.

Although the governor was particularly optimistic about the prospect for growth in agricultural development, the Standard — serving mineral rich Anaconda — made reference to the fact that “Governor Norris referred to the gratifying outlook with respect to the mineral industry and to agricultural interests.” 

Indeed the governor had said, “The increased price of copper insures a larger output and higher profits,” surely good news in the Butte and Anaconda region where the Copper Kings had held sway. And considering the significance of the mining and extractive industries in Montana, it is not surprising that the Anaconda Standard should further note:

“At the outset Montana came into fame as a mineral region. In that respect the state has enduring wealth; the testimony of the experts in the metal world is that, after all, Butte is the greatest and best and richest of the copper centers.”

Yep, at that time, the world must have looked like Montana’s oyster — and not a Rocky Mountain oyster either, but the real kind, imported from the East Coast or from Seattle in one of those newfangled refrigerator cars on the transcontinental railway. We WERE rich, and showy about it too!

Montana’s vibrant economy at that time probably justified the great optimism of Norris and the Standard, based as it was on the reasonable belief that “The Treasure State” would always be ready to dig a bit deeper to ensure prosperity — to find the pearl in the oyster, so to speak.

This was certainly true in the short term, and no one could fault the governor for his statement that, “If present prospects are realized, the year 1912 will witness the largest appropriation and use of the soil in the history of the state,” but where the governor fell awkwardly flat was in adding that “permanent development will go forward as never before.” 

This is where that glowing editorial from 100 years ago seems almost like a slap in the face to modern Montanans, as does the confidence of Gov. Norris when he declared:

“The people of Montana have every reason to feel hopeful and to look forward with confidence to receiving the largest measure of prosperity that will be enjoyed by any state in the Union.”

Ahem... not so fast!

It turns out that somewhere along the way, Montana did something peculiar — rather than capitalizing on its pearl (the vast natural resources that are buried beneath it), Montana built a fence around it and said “this oyster is not for sale.” So much for “permanent development”!

Permanent? Not hardly. Because Montana is now under the sway not of industrialists with their jobs and payrolls and pipelines, but of environmentalists with their regulations and restrictions and pipe dreams.

Of course, I recognize that many Montanans feel pretty proud of themselves for putting the brakes on mineral exploration and extraction. It’s understandable that people want to protect the natural beauty of our state, but there is also something awe-inspiring about the vast Berkeley pit in Butte where billions of dollars in wealth and thousands of jobs were created over the course of nearly 30 years through open pit mining operations.

In any case, we’ve learned an awful lot about healthy and environmentally sound methods of mineral extraction since the Berkeley pit was opened in 1955. And the opportunity to bring high-paying jobs back to the Montana middle class such as were so familiar in the eras of big timber and big mining should provide considerable incentive to the state to begin looking for opportunities to not only mine, but drill baby drill!

Consider that oil boom in the Williston Basin of North Dakota that has lured so many citizens of Montana to “go east” in search of prosperity. It may be messy, but it’s the kind of “fine mess” that makes you think that maybe all really is for the best when you have the right attitude.

North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, at just a little over 3 percent. It is also one of the few states with a budget surplus in these economic hard times. That’s because the state realized more than $700 million in oil taxes in 2010, and also benefited greatly from more than $1 billion in sales and purchases made by the oil industry, both in the form of boosting local economies and tax revenues. Also, don’t forget the fact that oil jobs are high-paying jobs, and individual families are benefiting tremendously as a result.

So should we just be glad for North Dakota’s good fortune, and happy that it is close enough for some Montanans to be able to find work over there? Maybe so, but maybe not.

You see, if you look at a map of the Bakken Formation or the Williston Oil Basin, you will see that vast portions of those mineral rich developments cross over into Montana. Why, then, has Montana been so slow to benefit from the same kind of oil boom that has made North Dakota the talk of the nation?

At most, a couple dozen oil rigs are actively drilling in Montana at this point while several hundred are working in North Dakota. It would appear that at least one of the reasons for the discrepancy is because North Dakota welcomes oil and mineral development while Montana has done everything but put up a “Not Welcome” sign at the border.

Although Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer has touted energy development for years, Montana’s environmentalists wield an enormous sway on the political scene and have worked time and again to put up roadblocks to mineral development.

So don’t be fooled, the oil boom in Montana is really a “let’s piggyback on North Dakota’s oil” boom. It is mostly about Montana entrepreneurs figuring out how to make buck from North Dakota’s extractive industries rather than about productively exploiting the minerals in our own back yard.

As we enter the new year, therefore, I think we in Montana need to make a conscious decision to honor our heritage as the Treasure State and follow the program outlined by our honorable governor 100 years ago to see “permanent development [of our resources] go forward as never before.”

Let’s crack that oyster, and toast the new year with a pearl.