Connect with us

Canadian Energy Centre

Business leaders blast Ottawa’s ‘unnecessary and unacceptable’ oil and gas emissions cap

Published

5 minute read

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

The federal government is proceeding with its plans to cap emissions from the oil and gas industry in a move business leaders say will ultimately hurt Indigenous communities and everyday Canadians.  

The Business Council of Canada called the cap part of a “full-on charge against the oil and gas sector.”

The government announced on December 7 that it will implement measures to cap oil and gas emissions in 2030 at 35 to 38 percent below 2019 levels. A similar cap has not been announced for any other industry. 

“It all seems punitive and short-sighted,” wrote Business Council of Canada vice-president Michael Gullo and Theo Argitis, managing director of Compass Rose Group.  

A cap on production 

They don’t put much stock into the government’s claims that the cap is not intended to limit Canada’s oil and gas production. 

“That’s semantics. To work, a cap would ultimately need to be severe enough to curtail production if needed, and that would have significant economic consequences,” Gullo and Argitis said, warning of a “direct and immediate” loss of income for Canada’s economy. 

“There would be significant indirect costs as well, incurred by every household and business across the nation because Canada relies on income generated by oil and gas companies—totaling $270 billion in 2022 alone—to support social programs like health care, education, and infrastructure,” they wrote. 

Already on the path to net zero 

On the world’s current trajectory, oil and gas will still account for 46 per cent of world energy needs in 2050, down only moderately from 51 per cent in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency.  

Industry leaders argue that Canada’s oil and gas producers are already on the path to net zero emissions without the need for the cap. 

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s latest report to the United Nations, emissions from so-called “conventional” (non-oil sands) production declined to 26 megatonnes in 2021, from 34 megatonnes in 2019.     

Producers in Alberta have already reduced total methane emissions by 45 per cent compared to 2014, hitting the target three years ahead of schedule 

Oil sands emissions did not increase last year despite production growth, and total emissions are expected to start going down before 2025, according to S&P Global.  

“Imposing an emissions cap on Canada’s oil and gas producers, who are already achieving significant emissions reductions as shown in the federal government’s own data, is unnecessary and unacceptable,” the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada said in a statement 

A cap on Indigenous opportunity 

The Indigenous Resource Network (IRN) – which advocates for Indigenous participation in resource projects – said the cap would be “devastating” for Indigenous communities.  

“A pathway to self-determination is being achieved through the ownership of oil and gas projects and involvement in the sector,” said IRN executive director John Desjarlais.  

“This would result in a cap on Indigenous opportunity in the oil and gas sector.” 

Desjarlais said the IRN is seeking an exemption from the cap for Indigenous communities who are engaged in oil and gas development.  

He said the proposed cap directly contradicts the government’s promises on reconciliation and its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.  

Counterapproach to the United States 

The approach of capping emissions runs counter to the incentive-based approach being pursued in the United States, the Canadian Association of Energy Contractors (CAOEC) said in a statement. 

“There, the Inflation Reduction Act has attracted capital and accelerated low-carbon technology and innovation in the energy sector at the expense of Canadian businesses and workers,” the CAOEC said.

Ottawa has yet to finalize announced investment tax credits to support clean technologies like hydrogen production and carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), the Business Council of Canada noted.  

“We have engaged the federal government in good faith over the past two years and have asked them to partner with us to accelerate the deployment of carbon abatement technology. As of today, we have received no support from this government,” said CAOEC president Mark Scholz. 

“Stop working against us and start working with us.” 

Final regulations on the proposed emissions cap are expected in 2025.  

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canadian Energy Centre

North America LNG project cost competitiveness

Published on

Construction workers look on at the FortisBC Tilbury LNG expansion project in Delta, B.C., Monday, Nov. 16, 2015. CP Images photo

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Ven Venkatachalam

Lower costs for natural gas, shipping and liquefaction give Canada an edge in the emerging global LNG market

Worldwide concerns about energy security have put a renewed focus on the international liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. The global demand for LNG is expected to increase over the next few decades.

Global demand growth will be driven primarily by Asian markets where the need for LNG is expected to increase from 277 million tonnes (MT) in 2025 to 509 MT by 2050 (see Figure 1). By 2050 the demand for LNG in Europe will be 83 MT and in Africa 20 MT. In South America too, demand will increase – from 13 MT in 2025 to 31 MT in 2050.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy, Gas and LNG Markets Solution.

In North America (Canada, Mexico, and United States) a number of LNG projects that are either under construction or in the planning stages will benefit from the rise in global LNG demand.

North American LNG production is expected to grow from 112 MT in 2025 to over 255 MT by 2050 (see Figure 2). In Canada, the LNG projects under construction or in the planning stages include LNG Canada Phases 1 & 2, Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG, the Tilbury LNG expansion, and Ksi Lisims LNG. Canada’s LNG production is expected to grow from just 2 MT in 2025 to over 43 MT by 2050. In the United States production is projected to increase from 108 MT in 2025 to 210 MT in 2050.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy, Gas and LNG Markets Solution.

This CEC Fact Sheet uses Rystad Energy’s Gas and LNG Markets Solution¹ to benchmark the cost competitiveness of LNG projects that are under construction and proposed in Canada compared to other LNG projects under construction and planned elsewhere in North America. (Note that the content of this report does not represent the views of Rystad Energy.)

The LNG cost competitiveness benchmarking analysis used the following performance metrics:

  • LNG plant free-on-board (FOB) cost break-even;
  • Total LNG plant cost (for delivery into Asia and Europe).

The objective of this LNG cost competitiveness benchmarking is to compare the competitiveness of Canadian LNG projects against those of major competitors in the United States and Mexico. The selection of other North American LNG facilities for the benchmark comparison with Canadian LNG projects (LNG Canada, the Tilbury LNG Expansion, Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG, and Ksi Lisims LNG) is based on the rationale that virtually all Canadian LNG plants are under construction or in the planning stage and that they compare well with other North American LNG plants that are also under construction or are being planned between 2023 and 2050. Further, to assess the cost competitiveness of the various LNG projects more accurately, we chose only North American LNG facilities with sufficient economic data to enable such a comparison. We compared the cost competitiveness of LNG coming from these other North American projects with LNG coming from Canada that is intended to be delivered to markets in Asia and Europe.


1. Rystad Energy is an independent energy research company providing data, analytics, and consultancy services to clients around the globe. Its Gas and LNG Markets Solution provides an overview of LNG markets worldwide. The Solution covers the entire value chain associated with gas and LNG production, country and sector-level demand, and LNG trade flows, infrastructure, economics, costs, and contracts through 2050. It allows for the evaluation of the entire LNG market infrastructure, including future planned projects, as well as the benchmarking of costs for LNG projects (Rystad Energy, 2024).

Comparison of LNG project FOB cost break-even (full cycle)

Figure 3 provides a comparison of the free-on-board (FOB) cost break-even for LNG facilities under construction or being planned in North America. FOB break-even costs include upstream and midstream costs for LNG excluding transportation costs (shipping) as seen from the current year. Break-even prices assume a discount rate of 10 percent and represent the point at which the net present value for an LNG project over a 20- to 30-year period becomes positive, including the payment of capital and operating costs, inclusive of taxes.

Among the selected group of North American LNG projects are Canadian LNG projects with an FOB break-even at the lower end of the range (US$7.18 per thousand cubic feet (kcf)) to those at the higher end (US$8.64 per thousand cubic feet (kcf)).

LNG projects in the United States tend to settle in the middle of the pack, with FOB break-even between US$6.44 per kcf and US$8.37 per kcf.

Mexico LNG projects have the widest variation in costs among the selected group of projects, ranging from US$6.94 per kcf to US$9.44 per kcf (see Figure 3).

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy, Gas and LNG Markets Solution.

Total costs by project for LNG delivery to Asia and Europe

The total cost by LNG plant includes FOB cost break-even, transportation costs, and the regasification tariff. Figure 4 compares total project costs for LNG destined for Asia from selected North American LNG facilities.

Canadian LNG projects are very cost competitive, and those with Asia as their intended market tend to cluster at the lower end of the scale. The costs vary by project, but range between US$8.10 per kcf and US$9.56 per kcf, making Canadian LNG projects among the lowest cost projects in North America.

The costs for Mexico’s LNG projects with Asia as the intended destination for their product tend to cluster in the middle of the pack. Costs among U.S. LNG facilities that plan to send their product to Asia tend to sit at the higher end of the scale, at between US$8.90 and US$10.80 per kcf.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy, Gas and LNG Markets Solution.

Figure 5 compares total project costs for LNG to be delivered to Europe from select North American LNG facilities.

Costs from U.S. LNG facilities show the widest variation for this market at between US$7.48 per kcf and US$9.42 per kcf, but the majority of U.S. LNG facilities tend to cluster at the lower end of the cost scale, between US$7.48 per kcf and US$8.61 per kcf (see Figure 5).

Canadian projects that intend to deliver LNG to Europe show a variety of costs that tend to cluster at the middle to higher end of the spectrum, ranging from US$9.60 per kcf to and US$11.06 per kcf.

The costs of Mexico’s projects that are aimed at delivering LNG to Europe tend to cluster in the middle of the spectrum (US$9.11 per kcf to US$10.61 per kcf).

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy, Gas and LNG Markets Solution.

Conclusion

LNG markets are complex. Each project is unique and presents its own challenges. The future of Canadian LNG projects depends upon the overall demand and supply in the global LNG market. As the demand for LNG increases in the next decades, the world will be searching for energy security.

The lower liquefaction and shipping costs coupled with the lower cost of the natural gas itself in Western Canada translate into lower prices for Canadian LNG, particularly that destined for Asian markets. Those advantages will help make Canadian LNG very competitive and attractive to markets worldwide.

 

Continue Reading

Alberta

Canada’s advantage as the world’s demand for plastic continues to grow

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

‘The demand for plastics reflects how essential they are in our lives’

From the clothes on your back to the containers for household products to the pipes and insulation in your home, plastics are interwoven into the fabric of day-to-day life for most Canadians.

And that reliance is projected to grow both in Canada and around the world in the next three decades

The Global Plastics Outlook, published by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), forecasts the use of plastics globally will nearly triple by 2060, driven by economic and population growth.  

The use of plastics is projected to double in OECD countries like Canada, the United States and European nations, but the largest increases will take place in Asia and Africa. 

“The demand for plastics reflects how essential they are in our lives, whether it is packaging, textiles, building materials or medical equipment,” says Christa Seaman, vice-president, plastics with the Chemical Industry Association of Canada (CIAC), which represents Canada’s plastics producers.  

She says as countries look to meet climate and sustainability goals, demand for plastic will grow. 

“Plastics in the market today demonstrate their value to our society. Plastics are used to make critical components for solar panels and wind turbines. But they also can play a role in reducing weight in transportation or in ensuring goods that are transported have less weight in their packaging or in their products.” 

Canada produces about $35 billion worth of plastic resin and plastic products per year, or over five per cent of Canadian manufacturing sales, according to a 2019 report published by the federal government.  

Seaman says Canadian plastic producers have competitive advantages that position them to grow as demand rises at home and abroad. In Alberta, a key opportunity is the abundant supply of natural gas used to make plastic resin.  

“As industry and consumer expectations shift for production to reduce emissions, Canada, and particularly Alberta, are extremely well placed to meet increased demand thanks to its supply of low-carbon feedstock. Going forward, production with less emissions is going to be important for companies,” Seaman says.  

“You can see that with Dow Chemical’s decision to spend $8.8 billion on a net zero facility in Alberta.” 

While modern life would not be possible without plastics, the CIAC says there needs to be better post-use management of plastic products including advanced recycling, or a so-called “circular economy” where plastics are seen as a resource or feedstock for new products, not a waste. 

Some companies have already started making significant investments to generate recyclable plastics.  

For example, Inter Pipeline Ltd.’s $4.3 billion Heartland Petrochemical Complex near Edmonton started operating in 2023. It produces a recyclable plastic called polypropylene from propane, with 65 per cent lower emissions than the global average thanks to the facility’s integrated design. 

Achieving a circular economy – where 90 per cent of post-consumer plastic waste is diverted or recycled – would benefit Canada’s economy, according to the CIAC.  

Deloitte study, commissioned by Environment & Climate Change Canada, estimated diverting or reusing 90 per cent of post-consumer plastic waste by 2030 will save $500 million annually while creating 42,000 direct and indirect jobs. It would also cut Canada’s annual CO2 emissions by 1.8 megatonnes.  

Right now, about 85 per cent of plastics end up in Canada’s landfills. To reach the 90 per cent diversion rate, Seaman says Canada must improve its infrastructure to collect and process the plastic waste currently being landfilled. 

But she also says the industry rather than municipalities need to take responsibility for recycling plastic waste.  

“This concept is referred to as extended producer responsibility. Municipalities have the responsibility for managing recycling within a waste management system. Given the competing costs and priorities, they don’t have the incentive to invest into recycling infrastructure when landfill space was the most cost-effective solution for them,” she says.  

“Putting that responsibility on the producers who put the products on the market makes the most sense…The industry is adapting, and we hope government policy will recognize this opportunity for Canada to meet our climate goals while growing our economy.” 

Continue Reading

Trending

X