Petroleum County

Here are the most recent, authoritative demographics for Petroleum County, Montana.

Population size

• 496 residents (2020 Census, April 1)
• 522 residents (2023 population estimate, U.S. Census Bureau Vintage 2023)

Age

• Median age: approximately 58 years (ACS 2019–2023 5-year)
• Age distribution: under 18 ~16–18%; 18–64 ~50–53%; 65+ ~31–34% (ACS 2019–2023 5-year)

Gender

• Male ~54–56%
• Female ~44–46% (ACS 2019–2023 5-year)

Racial/ethnic composition (2020 Census; race alone, unless noted)

• White: ~93–95%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~3–4%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: each ~0–1%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2–3%

Households and housing

• Households: roughly 250–260 (ACS 2019–2023 5-year; 2020 Census)
• Average household size: ~2.0
• Family households: roughly 60–65% of all households; nonfamily ~35–40%
• Housing units: ~330–360; majority owner-occupied (ACS 2019–2023 5-year; 2020 Census Demographic Profile)

Notes

• Figures reflect very small-population county estimates; ACS margins of error are relatively large, but the ranges above capture the central estimates.
• Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Census (Redistricting File, Demographic Profile), 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, and Vintage 2023 Population Estimates.

Petroleum County, MT snapshot

• Population and density: 496 residents (2020 Census) across ~1,655 sq mi—about 0.3 residents per sq mi; the least populous county in Montana and among the most sparsely populated.
• Estimated email users: ≈370 residents (75% of population). Derived from rural internet adoption (83%) and near-universal email use among internet users (~90%) from recent national research.
• Age distribution of email users (est.):
  • 13–17: 12% (45 users)
  • 18–34: 19% (70)
  • 35–64: 51% (190)
  • 65+: 18% (65)
• Gender split (est.): ~50% male, ~50% female, mirroring the county’s overall population balance.

Digital access and connectivity insights

• Broadband availability is constrained by very low density and long distances; many households rely on fixed wireless or satellite, with limited or no cable infrastructure.
• Mobile coverage is strongest near Winnett/US‑200 and weakens in outlying areas, leading to a notable share of smartphone‑only internet users.
• While state and federal rural broadband programs are improving service, 100/20 Mbps availability remains patchy outside the population center, which can limit large attachments, multi-account management, and always-on syncing for some users.

Mobile phone usage in Petroleum County, Montana — 2024 snapshot

Context and scale

• Population baseline: 496 residents (2020 Census). The county is the least populous in Montana and highly rural, with settlement concentrated around the county seat (Winnett) and large ranchlands elsewhere.

User estimates (2024)

• Active mobile lines: approximately 420–560 lines (roughly 85–113 per 100 residents). This is below or at best comparable to statewide ratios when adjusted for multi‑device lines, reflecting sparse coverage outside the main corridor and fewer IoT/business lines than in Montana’s urban areas.
• Smartphone users: approximately 320–380 people (about 65–77% of residents). This is materially lower than Montana’s urbanized counties, where adult smartphone adoption aligns more closely with national norms.
• Primary use mix: a higher share of voice/SMS-centric users than the state average, with lower average monthly mobile data consumption per line due to coverage gaps and heavier home/office Wi‑Fi offload.
• Plan types and devices: greater reliance on prepaid and budget plans, more basic/older smartphones in active use, and longer device replacement cycles than the state overall.

Demographic factors shaping usage

• Age: an older population profile than the Montana average elevates the share of residents using basic phones or entry‑level smartphones and reduces app/video‑heavy usage.
• Occupation and mobility: agriculture and ranching dominate; long travel distances and outdoor worksites increase reliance on reliable voice, text, and offline-capable apps. External antennas/boosters are more common than in urban counties.
• Income and cost sensitivity: lower median household incomes than statewide norms contribute to prepaid adoption, conservative data allowances, and slower upgrades.

Digital infrastructure points

• Coverage footprint: usable cellular coverage is concentrated around Winnett and along MT‑200. Large areas of the county’s outlying ranchlands experience weak or no signal, especially in coulees and low-lying terrain.
• Radio access technology: LTE is the dominant mobile broadband layer. 5G availability is minimal to effectively absent countywide, in contrast to Montana’s population centers where 5G is now standard.
• Carriers: Verizon and AT&T provide the most dependable footprints in and around the corridor; T‑Mobile presence is limited, with reliance on roaming in places. Households commonly select the single carrier that works at their residence rather than juggling multiple providers.
• Backhaul and capacity: many rural sites are microwave‑backhauled; capacity and peak speeds vary widely by site load and weather, contributing to inconsistent data performance relative to statewide urban averages.
• Public safety: Land‑mobile (VHF) remains primary for first responders. FirstNet (AT&T) priority access is available where AT&T’s signal exists, but overall public‑safety cellular dependence is constrained by the same coverage gaps residents face.
• Alternatives and offload: fixed wireless and satellite (for homes and ranch operations) are important complements. Community anchors (school, county offices, library) serve as Wi‑Fi hubs and offload points.

Trends that differ from Montana statewide

• Network evolution: slower 5G rollout and fewer mid‑band capacity layers; investment focuses on keeping/expanding basic coverage rather than high throughput.
• Device and plan mix: lower smartphone penetration, higher share of voice‑centric and prepaid plans, and longer device lifecycles than in larger Montana counties.
• Usage behavior: more conservative mobile data use, heavier reliance on Wi‑Fi/satellite at home and work, and persistent dependence on voice/SMS for coordination across long distances.
• Single‑carrier dependency: households and businesses often rely on one workable carrier instead of multi‑carrier redundancy common in cities.
• Access aids: above‑average use of signal boosters and high‑gain antennas to make marginal coverage usable, a pattern far less common in Montana’s metros.

Bottom line Petroleum County’s mobile landscape prioritizes basic, reliable coverage for voice/SMS along key corridors over high‑capacity data service, resulting in fewer smartphone users, lower mobile data usage, and minimal 5G compared with Montana’s urban counties. The combination of an older, widely dispersed population and sparse infrastructure keeps mobile adoption and performance below state‑level norms, with fixed wireless and satellite filling essential connectivity gaps.

Petroleum County, MT — Social Media Snapshot (2025)

County context (definitive stats)

• Population: 496 (U.S. Census, 2020). Extremely rural and older-skewing; men modestly outnumber women.

Modeled social media penetration (adults)

• Any social media: ~70–75% of adults
• Daily users (of any platform): ~55–60% of adults Note: Modeled from Pew Research Center social media adoption for U.S. adults (2024) with rural/older adjustments; Petroleum County’s small, older population depresses youth-centric app share.

Most-used platforms (estimated share of adults; ranked)

• YouTube: ~72–78%
• Facebook: ~65–72%
• Instagram: ~22–28%
• Pinterest: ~20–28% (skews female)
• TikTok: ~18–24% (younger cohorts)
• Snapchat: ~12–18% (teens/20s)
• WhatsApp: ~10–15%
• X (Twitter): ~10–14% (news/sports)
• Reddit: ~8–12% (younger/male)
• LinkedIn: ~8–12% (small professional base)
• Nextdoor: <5% (coverage sparse)

Age-group usage patterns (localized from national/rural patterns)

• Teens/18–24: Heavy on Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok; light Facebook posting but present for events and family.
• 25–44: Facebook + Messenger and YouTube dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok growing but utilitarian use (DIY, recipes).
• 45–64: Facebook Groups, Marketplace, Messenger; YouTube for how‑to, ag, mechanics; Pinterest for projects.
• 65+: Facebook for community/news and family; YouTube for tutorials and church/meetings; minimal Instagram/TikTok.

Gender breakdown (behavioral)

• Men: Higher YouTube, Reddit, X; Facebook use consistent but more observe than post.
• Women: Higher Facebook engagement (Groups, community), Pinterest; active in local events, school/sports updates, buy‑sell groups.

Behavioral trends on the ground

• Facebook as the town square: Groups for community alerts, school sports, church, rodeo/fair info, and Marketplace; Messenger functions as a default chat app.
• YouTube is utilitarian: Ag/ranching how‑to, equipment repair, hunting/outdoors, and long‑form local meetings; watch time over subscriber counts.
• Low-post, high-consumption culture: Lurking and resharing > original content creation; photo albums and short clips outperform long reads.
• Event- and weather-driven spikes: Storms, road closures, wildfire season, and school schedules drive sharp, short engagement peaks.
• Youth split: Snapchat/Instagram for messaging and stories; TikTok for entertainment and trends; cross-posts to Reels extend reach.
• Timing: Early morning and evening peaks; weekends see Marketplace and event planning activity.
• Trust dynamics: Known local voices, schools, churches, EMS, county offices, and 4-H/FFA pages carry outsized credibility; minimal “influencer” presence.
• Connectivity realities: Mobile-first consumption; keep videos short/lightweight and include captions; photo + short text posts are the safest default.

Practical targeting and content tips

• Focus platforms: Facebook + Messenger and YouTube; add Instagram for under-40s and TikTok only if video cadence is sustainable.
• Formats that work: Short how‑to clips, before/after photos, event flyers, weather/road updates, quick surveys, and community shout-outs.
• Targeting: Hyperlocal radius around Winnett and key road corridors; interests in ag, outdoors, high school sports, 4-H/FFA.
• Cadence: 2–4 posts/week on Facebook; 1–2 YouTube uploads/month; cross-post short verticals to Reels.

Methodology and sources

• Demographics: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (Petroleum County population).
• Platform adoption: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use (2024) and rural/age differentials (prior Pew waves). Local shares are modeled by applying age/rural adjustments to an older, sparsely populated county profile.