What about Texas?
Texas isn't as strongly on the same policy track as many red states, and it also has a strong oil industry as a big input into it's economy. Though I think they have been looking forward and trying to diversify more recently.
I think Texas' situation is too unique. They're effectively a petrostate right now. Now, they seem to be doing the right thing with things like the PSF and PUF, so I'd say that their approach, like their politics, is deeply purple, and it's not a terrible approach. But it's very specific, and not necessarily a model that other states can use.
Conveniently ignoring the fact that California is ALSO a petrostate.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/03/the...
In March of 2017, California produced 14,907,000 barrels of crude oil. Texas produced 102,443,000. That's 7x more. Play that against the fact that Texas' GDP is 2/3rd of California's. Oil has a massive impact in Texas that it simply doesn't have in California.
It is very easy to validate this. Look at the price of oil. It has taken a massive beating over the last years.
Oil Price History: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DCOILWTICO/
If the state is truly a petrostate, it will clearly be reflected in its GDP.
California: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CARGSP
Texas: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TXNGSP
North Dakota: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NDNGSP
Alaska: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AKNGSP
Note the massive drop in oil prices after 2014. Alaska's GDP drops around roughly the same period.
Now let's compare this to ACTUAL petrostates.
Saudi Arabia: https://tradingeconomics.com/saudi-arabia/gdp
Columbia: https://tradingeconomics.com/colombia/gdp
Brazil: https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/gdp
Norway: https://tradingeconomics.com/norway/gdp
Mexico: https://tradingeconomics.com/mexico/gdp
Kuwait: https://tradingeconomics.com/kuwait/gdp
Russia [1]: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp
Iran [1]: https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp
[1] Sanctions
See the shortfall in GDP, that is a PETROSTATE.
In March of 2017, California produced 14,907,000 barrels of crude oil. Texas produced 102,443,000. That's 7x more. Play that against the fact that Texas' GDP is 2/3rd of California's. Oil has a massive impact in Texas that it simply doesn't have in California.
This is not a good measurement to determine the exposure of the industry to overall economy. It just shows the amount the barrels that can produce. The reason why there is a massive increase in production is due to shale (fracking). The cost of producing oil through fracking is a lot higher than pumping it out of the ground. Because they still have to sell it at market prices, the margin is a lot less for these producers. To compensate for this, these producers have to frack more out of the ground to stay afloat.
Shale Exposed
Texas Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
North Dakota Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
Non-Shale Exposed
Alaska Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
California Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
No, it's not literally a petro-state. I stand by my point that it is not a reproducible model for other states.