"Back-of-the envelope it doesn't look like a strikingly profitable proposal"
I think this requires more than a look at the bottom line of the gas companies. You've got to include the heath risks and quality of life from the prospective of the residents of the state.
If a gas power plant is more environmentally friendly than flared stacks (I have no idea if it is) then it would be amazing just to break even on this deal because you're profit is the health of the citizens.
Continuing this thought, the gas companies are theoretically losing $200 million a year by not doing anything. That means, if a gas plant is more environmentally friendly, they don't even have to break even on the deal. The gas companies can lose ~$200 million a year on a project like this, have the same financial outcome and still come out ahead environmentally.
Edit: My math was off. I was figuring that they were spending ~$220/year, which they are not. That means my last statement is incorrect though I still feel that losing money on a more environmentally safe solution could be worth it.
"If a gas power plant is more environmentally friendly than flared stacks (I have no idea if it is) then it would be amazing just to break even on this deal because you're profit is the health of the citizens."
If I were proposing this deal, I would approach the State of North Dakota and surrounding localities with a request for tax incentives, etc. to increase the probability of the project going through on precisely those grounds.
I think this requires more than a look at the bottom line of the gas companies. You've got to include the heath risks and quality of life from the prospective of the residents of the state.
If a gas power plant is more environmentally friendly than flared stacks (I have no idea if it is) then it would be amazing just to break even on this deal because you're profit is the health of the citizens.
Continuing this thought, the gas companies are theoretically losing $200 million a year by not doing anything. That means, if a gas plant is more environmentally friendly, they don't even have to break even on the deal. The gas companies can lose ~$200 million a year on a project like this, have the same financial outcome and still come out ahead environmentally.
Edit: My math was off. I was figuring that they were spending ~$220/year, which they are not. That means my last statement is incorrect though I still feel that losing money on a more environmentally safe solution could be worth it.