Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by entropicdrifter 83 days ago
Why would they do that when they already paid for a corrupt new regime to do it for them?
1 comments

Slight tangent:

The US is a net oil exporter. If fossil fuel companies were so influential, wouldn't we expect them to be in favour of less fossil fuel production elsewhere?

Instead the what seems to be influential is the average Joe who's complaining about the price at the pump.

US fossil fuel companies also make money from projects outside US. They explore, build the infrastructure, and operate oil fields for other countries.
Indeed.

All the blather about Canadian "trade surplus" is actually oil.

US companies owning that infra sell that oil under market price, to their US corp divisions. The CEO, upper execs are usually American, and so their large salaries, and all corporate profits all flow to the US parent corp.

Canada of course sees some taxes per barrel of oil, and local employment, but when you remove all this, Canada has a massive trade deficit with the US

Of course for this US calls Canada trade unfair.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

Maybe. But it's not obvious that they would benefit from cheap petrol.
In that case, we should definitely reserve judgement on the weird payment stipulations then. The oil industry probably hates that the government is doing this, and we shouldn't cast aspersions on them.
Not maybe, they do. And noone wants their product so expensive that people starts looking for alternatives.
At a guess, they're probably happy to encourage continued reliance on petroleum, whilst the rest of the world is switching over to renewable energy.
> in favour of less fossil fuel production elsewhere?

Another slight tangent: the street of Hormuz being closed has them covered nicely there currently.

Yes, that _would_ be evidence in favour of oil interests having influence in the government.

But that's also an unusual situation; and the US administration is also lifting sanctions on Russian oil at the same time.