Colorado oil and gas wells can’t fund their own cleanup. Taxpayers may foot the bill | A Carbon Tracker report shows the cost to safely shut down low-producing wells is $3bn more than what they earn

sem , 1 day ago

“Too big to fail” == “Too big to care”.

They know that they can’t be held responsible so they literally don’t care about the consequences of their actions

Hobbes , 1 day ago

Um, seriously fuck that.

robocall , 2 days ago

If these companies can’t afford to pay for insurance to cover their asses, then they’re a failed business that shouldn’t be allowed to operate.

Diplomjodler3 , 2 days ago

Why pay for insurance if you can just buy some politicians? They’re pretty cheap.

Corvidae , 2 days ago

Ultimately, the Carbon Tracker analysts conclude, policymakers must decide between developing new, rigorous alternatives, or sending the bill to taxpayers by default. That will likely involve compelling resource-rich firms to start setting aside savings from their profits now.

Workers have taxes withheld from their paychecks. Seems fair a similar mechanism should exist for oil profits to fund orphaned-well cleanups. But – we really need to transition away from fossil fuel entirely! Does this create a motive for the government to insure a company or two are profitable enough to subsidize all the poorer companies cleanup costs, therefore motivating increased use of fossil fuels?

stoy , 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

I have thought about this for a while now, before any natural resource can be exploited the following needs to be done:

1. An environmental restoration fund needs to be set up qith an initial payment and an aditional 2% of the value of the resource exploited anually throughout the life time of the facility, this money of controlled by the government and used to fund environmental restoration once the the facility is closed.
2. 10% of the annual value of the resource extracted will go to the local government, and be spent on upkeep and quallity of life for the local citizes, 10% of the annual value of the resource extraxted will go to the country government.

In total that is 22% so the company gets to keep 78%, seems resonable to me.

Burstar , 2 days ago

It’s not even that they “can’t” fund their own cleanup. The put down a cleaning deposit before operations begin and just walk away when the cleanup costs more than they originally put down.

I’d say they give the finger while walking but they need their hands to count their profits

Delta_V , 2 days ago

Maybe cleanup costs should be baked into the price of a building permit…

catloaf , 2 days ago

Yes. If your work requires environmental cleanup, you should be required to post bond to cover it.

ironhydroxide , 2 days ago

From what I understand often they do. And often the bond isn’t anywhere close to the actual costs.

sunzu , 2 days ago

So in practice they don't!

ikidd , 1 day ago

IDK about Texas, but in Alberta there’s an Orphan Well fund that every company contributes to as part of their royalties that covers expected cleanup. And that’s only bankrupt companies, if a solvent company shuts down a well, they pay to restore the land or the province does it and sues them for it.

BigMacHole , 2 days ago

I’m MUCH Happier with my Tax Dollars going to these companies first to Drill the Wells and then to Clean the Wells. It’s a MUCH better use of Tax Dollars then Feeding STARVING AMERICAN CHILDREN!

YaDownWitCPP , 2 days ago

Have you ever seen an American child? 'Cause they thicc.

_haha_oh_wow_ , 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

These are the same companies who got massive tax payer funded subsidies: So much for The Free Market I guess.

friend_of_satan , 2 days ago

Privatized profits and socialized losses are such bullshit.

_haha_oh_wow_ , 2 days ago

They sure are, it’s almost like the free market is a made up fantasy that does not exist today (if it ever existed at all).

sunzu , 2 days ago

Its free market when a corpo fucks you...

That's about it