Given the poor track record and high cost of carbon capture and storage in the oil and gas sector to date, governments should think twice about their support for this technology.
Absolutely. In much the same way that public private partnerships are a giveaway to private interests. Current day government looks to save a few dollars by outsourcing development to a private interest. However, thanks to inflation the money saved is worth less every year, while the actual, real world things which are now owned by some rich asshole are not subject to that same depreciation, and probably even appreciates over time.
I dunno. It depends. Many articles out there seem to suggest otherwise.
If it’s nationalized, the people get to have a say in how it’s managed. Plus, if the country engages itself in reaching climate goals, they are in control of the industry and can act accordingly.
I have no idea what would have happened if it had been built by a private entity, but I suspect the developers would have run out of money at some point. Currently, it sounds like there’s a pretty good chance taxpayers will pick up the bill.
That’s sort of the point: the private entity that started Trans Mountain had to bail because they ran out of money and investors. Governments have much deeper pockets, and are motivated to complete projects regardless of the cost.
I can see that there could be conflicts of interests, but at the same time if the country engages itself in objectives to reduce greenhouse gasses and find alternatives, then they have to actually do it. Companies don’t.
We should look at other countries like Norway to see how it’s going on there.
Canada’s oil industry should’ve been nationalized like hydro Québec.
We would’ve kept the profits and would’ve been responsible for the environmental impact.
Instead we have away our resources and perennial profits and are paying for the expenses.
Absolutely. In much the same way that public private partnerships are a giveaway to private interests. Current day government looks to save a few dollars by outsourcing development to a private interest. However, thanks to inflation the money saved is worth less every year, while the actual, real world things which are now owned by some rich asshole are not subject to that same depreciation, and probably even appreciates over time.
That would have created an even larger conflict of interest for the fed/prov governments.
Would it be worse than what we have now? I dunno.
I dunno. It depends. Many articles out there seem to suggest otherwise.
If it’s nationalized, the people get to have a say in how it’s managed. Plus, if the country engages itself in reaching climate goals, they are in control of the industry and can act accordingly.
Trans Mountain ballooned from a $6 billion project to a $30 billion project after it was bought by the feds.
I have no idea what would have happened if it had been built by a private entity, but I suspect the developers would have run out of money at some point. Currently, it sounds like there’s a pretty good chance taxpayers will pick up the bill.
I don’t think that’s a very good example. Wasn’t this project started way before the feds acquired it?
That’s sort of the point: the private entity that started Trans Mountain had to bail because they ran out of money and investors. Governments have much deeper pockets, and are motivated to complete projects regardless of the cost.
Ok so that’s a pretty bad example then.
I can see that there could be conflicts of interests, but at the same time if the country engages itself in objectives to reduce greenhouse gasses and find alternatives, then they have to actually do it. Companies don’t.
We should look at other countries like Norway to see how it’s going on there.
Yeah, Norway is one of the world’s top oil producers, but also the leader in EV adoption by far.