4.7 Article

Evaluating British Columbia's economic policies for liquefied natural gas development

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 151, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111711

关键词

Energy policy; LNG; Resource development; Fiscal regime; Natural gas; Staple theory

资金

  1. Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada's Insight Grant Program [SSHRC - 435-2016-0170]
  2. Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada Graduate Scholarship- Master's

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global demand for LNG is increasing rapidly, leading to intense competition among countries with natural gas reserves. The government policies in British Columbia, Canada promoting the development of the LNG industry have been influenced by the resource sector's needs, resulting in benefits being overestimated and costs being underestimated without comprehensive evaluation.
Interest in developing liquefied natural gas (LNG) has recently increased with global demand rising at a higher rate than any other fossil fuel in the last ten years. While the increase in demand for LNG has created an opportunity for countries with natural gas stocks, there is a significant amount of competition among these producing countries. As a result, jurisdictions have been implementing policies and subsidies to enhance their competitiveness in the global LNG market. We investigate the impact of this phenomenon in one gas-rich region, British Columbia, Canada, where the provincial government has promoted the development of a large-scale LNG industry. Drawing from staple theory, we explore how government policy has been shaped by the needs of the resource sector to provide incentives for expansion without undertaking comprehensive evaluation of the costs and benefits. As a result, the benefits of the expansion are overestimated, while the costs are underestimated. Our analysis shows that a more comprehensive and transparent evaluation of resource development policies is necessary to avoid suboptimal policies and ensure that development is in the public interest.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据