Energy
A Wealth-Creating Way of Reducing Global CO2 Emissions
From the C2C Journal
By Gwyn Morgan
It is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s contention there’s no “business case” for exporting Canada’s abundant, inexpensively produced natural gas as LNG. But Canadians might do well to politely decline management consulting advice from a former substitute drama teacher who was born into wealth and has never had to meet a payroll, balance a budget or make a sale. Bluntly stated, someone who has shown no evidence of being able to run the proverbial lemonade stand. And one whose real agenda, the evidence shows, is to strangle the nation’s most productive and wealth-generating industry. With the first LNG ship finally expected to dock at Kitimat, B.C. over the next year and load Canada’s first-ever LNG export cargo, Gwyn Morgan lays out the business and environmental cases for ramping up our LNG exports – and having them count towards Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Pierre Poilievre’s Axe the (carbon) Tax campaign is a spectacular success. But the Conservative Party of Canada needs its own plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Paradoxically, it’s a fossil fuel that provides much of the answer.
Canada’s rich endowment of natural gas resources offers an immense opportunity to reduce global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions while also helping to rescue the Liberal-government-ravaged Canadian economy by exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) to China, Japan, South Korea and the other coal-dependent Asia-Pacific countries. Switching from coal to natural gas for producing electricity and generating heat for buildings and industrial processes can typically reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent for the same unit of output, while all-but eliminating the toxic compounds and lung-clogging particulates emitted from burning coal that shorten the lives of millions living in smog-stricken Asian cities.
More natural gas is urgently needed, since countries throughout Asia – especially China and India – are currently adding even more coal-burning power plants to meet rapidly growing electricity demand. The benefits of fuel-switching are not speculation, but a proven result: the United States’ pronounced switch starting in the mid-2000s from coal to natural gas for electricity materially reduced that country’s CO2 emissions (see accompanying graph), nearly equalling the entire European Union’s emissions cuts, as I wrote about in this previous column.
A study by respected consulting firm Wood Mackenzie, released in late 2022, determined the following:
- “Canada is well-positioned geographically…Western Canadian LNG is much closer to Asia relative to US Gulf Coast LNG, which needs to be shipped through the Panama Canal to get to Asia”;
- “LNG from Canada would be cost-competitive for northeast Asian importers…due to its relatively low shipping and liquefaction costs”;
- “LNG from Canada has lower emissions intensity than LNG coming from many other global LNG exporters”;
- “Asia will not be able to produce enough natural gas domestically to meet its escalating demand, therefore Canadian LNG is a compelling alternative: With its high environmental standards and stewardship, Canada would be a great partner to fill the LNG demand gap in Asia”; and
- “If Canada aggressively ramps up its LNG exports…the emissions displaced from Canadian LNG would total 5.5 [gigatons of CO2 equivalent] from 2022 to 2050 or 181 [megatons of CO2 equivalent] on average per year, which is equivalent to removing all Canadian cars from the road.”
These impressive benefits – not to mention the opportunity to create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs in our country and provide long-term returns to investors, among them millions of pension-dependent retirees – were recognized long ago by the energy industry, Western provincial premiers and former prime minister Stephen Harper. And for a time it indeed seemed that Canada was on the cusp of an LNG boom. By 2010, there were more than 20 LNG projects in the works in B.C., representing hundreds of billions in total investment. These included Exxon Mobil’s $25-billion West Coast Canada project, Chinese-owned CNOOC’s $36-billion Aurora project, Malaysian firm Petronas’s $36 billion Pacific NorthWest project, and the Shell-led $43 billion LNG Canada project at Kitimat.
Aside from the jobs created and the wealth generated for the participating companies, B.C.’s annual natural gas royalties are forecast to double. Benefits for First Nations include significant employment and business opportunities, such as HaiSea Marine’s 50 percent interest in a $500 million contract.
But through a decade of trying to navigate Canada’s increasingly obstructive and Byzantine regulatory process, project proponents dropped out one by one. Today LNG Canada is the only one of those major projects left standing. (Two much smaller LNG projects, Woodfibre LNG in Howe Sound at Squamish, and Cedar LNG just a few kilometres from the LNG Canada project, are also proceeding, and one other large project proposed by the Nisga’a First Nation is making regulatory progress.) LNG Canada succeeded only because South African project leader Andy Calitz, backed by the enthusiasm of the Haisla Nation which saw the immense potential to create a self-sustaining, wealth-generating economy for its people, refused to give up.
After five years of construction, the LNG Canada liquefaction facility and loading terminal are nearing completion, with the first LNG ship scheduled to sail to China in 2025 (possibly even this year). The Kitimat plant itself is just one component of Canada’s first LNG export project. TC Energy Corp.’s (formerly TransCanada Pipelines) $15 billion, recently completed Coastal GasLink pipeline will carry the required natural gas from the northeastern B.C. gas fields to the Kitimat terminal. And additional billions of dollars have been invested in drilling natural gas wells, proving up the immense reserves needed to feed the LNG facility for decades to come, and constructing field production systems.
The economic benefits are myriad. Aside from the jobs created and the wealth generated for the participating companies, B.C.’s annual natural gas royalties are forecast to double from $700 million in 2024 to $1.4 billion in 2027. Benefits for First Nations include significant employment and business opportunities, such as HaiSea Marine’s 50 percent interest in a $500 million contract.
And that’s just LNG Canada’s Phase 1, which will produce 14 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of LNG, or approximately 1.8 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day. With that one project coming on-stream, about 10 percent of Canada’s total natural gas production will be exported to international markets, earning premium prices. Construction of Phase 2 is scheduled to begin in 2026 and will double the facility’s output, with first delivery scheduled for 2032. A report from Canada Action estimates that completion of both phases will reduce CO2 emissions in Asian countries as much as would removing 18 million cars from Canadian roads. That is a far more efficient and realistic way of reducing emissions than the Trudeau government’s current scheme to force everyone into electric vehicles within a decade.
A major barrier for LNG project sponsors has been Canadian regulators’ fixation on a project’s domestic emissions – which come mainly from producing the energy needed to operate the liquefaction and storage process and loading facility. These emissions are miniscule compared to the enormous emissions reductions when natural gas is used instead of coal in consuming countries. But in their zeal to force Canada to “net zero” emissions, government authorities initially tried to veto LNG Canada generating its electricity and compression power using some of the natural gas that will be already piped to the site, insisting instead upon hydroelectric power. This seriously delayed the project due to the need for B.C. Hydro to first build a new dam to supply the required power, along with a new, $3 billion transmission line that has not even begun its environmental review process.
Regulators finally waived their objection so the project could be finished, and it will initially use natural gas for power. But the same objection is now being raised with respect to another major LNG venture proposed in the same region. The Ksi Lisims LNG project would utilize a floating liquefaction and loading facility docked at lands owned by the Nisga’a First Nation north of Prince Rupert. Its natural gas would be supplied through an already-approved but never-built pipeline planned for one of the cancelled LNG projects. The $10 billion venture would have approximately two-thirds the capacity of LNG Canada Phase 1. The facility would be powered by hydroelectricity.
Ksi Lisims sounds like a great addition to Canada’s modest LNG lineup, one that British Columbians should applaud. Instead, the proponents have been assailed by objections over the greenhouse gas emissions from the facility and the natural gas production process, and concurrently the B.C. Wilderness Committee is calling on the province’s NDP government to veto any further LNG development. None of these zealots acknowledge the vastly greater reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that will be achieved as consuming countries switch to natural gas.
Prior to the December 2018 UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland, Canada’s Conservative Party urged leaders of their nation’s delegation to propose that the use of imported natural gas to displace coal and thereby reduce emissions in one country should count towards the exporting country’s emissions reduction targets. But this made far too much sense for our Prime Minister and his team of anti-fossil-fuel eco-zealots. A new federal government that encourages LNG projects might well see a return of those other big sponsors that were driven off.
And that brings us back to Pierre Poilievre and the need for a Conservative alternative to Trudeau’s carbon tax. LNG export would be not only vastly superior in reducing emissions, it would also create tens of billions of dollars in economic benefits for a beleaguered Canadian private sector. It is beyond high time. A Macdonald-Laurier Institute report, Estimating the True Size of Government in Canada, concludes that Canada’s private sector has shrunk to just 36 percent of the nation’s GDP. That’s right – Canada’s public sector now represents nearly two-thirds of the Canadian economy, if one includes in that measure the vast amounts governments spend on tax credits and other tax-related expenditures, plus the economic impacts of regulating the pricing or outputs of private industries. This is appalling.
Even more incomprehensible is a research report from the Harvard Kennedy School noting that “Communist” China’s private sector generates “approximately 60% of China’s GDP, 70% of its innovative capacity, 80% of urban employment and 90% of new jobs.” By those measures, the private sector in ostensibly free and democratic Canada, with its allegedly market-based economy, has been reduced to barely half the relative size of the private sector in authoritarian China.
It is clear that for Canada, getting out of the way of privately-driven growth in LNG exports would be a vastly superior environmental alternative to Trudeau’s economically destructive and politically divisive carbon tax, while also helping to reverse the decline of what was once a proud, thriving nation into an indebted, unproductive, government-dominated basket case.
Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.
Alberta
The Conventional Energy Sector and Pipelines Will Feature Prominently in Alberta’s Referendum Debate
From Energy Now
By Jim Warren
Like it or not, the supporters of conventional energy production in the West, even those who bleed maple syrup, will be best served by a substantial leave vote. A poor showing on the part of the leave camp would weaken the bargaining power of the producing provinces and the conventional energy sector in their dealings with Ottawa.
The political dust-up between the leavers and the stayers is about to commence.
The petition calling for an Alberta referendum on separation will get the required signatures. And, the Moe government in Saskatchewan may yet decide to do something similar.
And, there is a good chance the federal Liberals and their allies in the environmental movement will launch an anti-separation/anti-oil campaign in response. The Liberals need merely to reinvigorate the flag waving campaign they ran during the federal election. All that needs to change for that tactic to work is the name of the boogeyman—from Donald Trump to alienated Westerners. Government subsidized environmental organizations will help do the rest.
This will present something of a dilemma for some supporters of the conventional energy and pipeline sectors. Should they lay low, stay quiet and perhaps avoid becoming part of the controversy? Alternatively, should they face reality and admit oil and pipelines will feature prominently in the debate whether they like it or not. The federal assault on oil, gas and pipelines is after all one of the principal motivations inspiring many who wish to separate.
And, whether we like it or not, the supporters of conventional energy production in the West, even those who bleed maple syrup, will be best served by a substantial leave vote. A poor showing on the part of the leave camp would weaken the bargaining power of the producing provinces and the conventional energy sector in their dealings with Ottawa. This is one of the immutable laws of the negotiating universe. A union that gets only 20% of its members voting in favour of strike action knows it is impotent should management call its bluff.
This is not to say the leave side will need a majority vote to produce a win for the energy sector—a large minority could do nicely. The Parti Québécois’ goal of “sovereignty association” in the 1980 Quebec referendum was supported by just 40.4% of those who voted. Yet, it nevertheless added leverage to Quebec’s extortionate demands on Ottawa and the rest of Canada. Although, after the separatists garnered 49.4% of the vote in the 1995 referendum (aka Canada’s near death experience), Quebec did even better.
True, the two producing provinces on the prairies lack the electoral power of Quebec. In combination with Ontario, Quebec has been integral to Liberal success in federal elections for decades. The power of the West lies in its ability to generate a large share of Canada’s export revenues. That’s mainly why Quebec is able to count on $14 billion in annual equalization welfare. Threatening separation turns the economic importance of the West into a political weapon.
We can expect a highly divisive referendum debate–potentially far more fractious than the federal election campaign. Signals coming out of Ottawa suggest federal-provincial negotiations over conventional energy and emissions policy are about to take a nasty turn. We could be facing a perfect storm of disunity with Westerners bashing Ottawa while Ottawa denounces separatists and resumes its assault on oil, gas and pipelines.
Chances for lowering the political temperature don’t look good. The prime minister has been distancing himself from his initial pre-election pro pipeline position. Early in the election campaign Mark Carney said he would employ the emergency powers of the federal government to get new export pipelines running from the prairies to tidewater. The next week he told reporters Quebec would have the power to veto the approval of any pipeline crossing its territory. On May 14, Carney presented reporters with a word salad that seemed to be saying he would include evaluation of the potential for new pipelines along with other energy policy ideas being discussed. And, if a consensus favouring pipelines emerged, one might be built.
This is not comforting. These statements cannot all be correct at the same time. At least two, if not all three, of them, are disingenuous.
Exactly who will be included in the consensus building discussions is unclear. Will they involve meetings with the premiers of the provinces that generate huge export revenues for Canada. Will they be restricted to the emissions reduction zealots who dominate the cabinet and the Liberal caucus? Or, is it something Carney will work out at Davos when the World Economic Forum next convenes?
The Liberals and their media allies put a lot of stock in the polls once they showed the Liberals in the lead during the election campaign. They briefly acknowledged election period polling that showed 74% of Canadians support the construction of new export pipeline including 60% of Quebecers. But reporting on the growing popularity of pipelines ended after about a week when Carney’s unqualified support for a pipeline to the Atlantic coast evaporated.
Furthermore, the popular vote totals from the federal election demonstrate that Canadians’ support for the Conservatives and the Liberals was divided fairly evenly, 41.3% for the Conservatives and 43.8% for the Liberals. A slim 2.5 percentage point spread. It seems reasonable to assume many Conservative supporters outside of the prairies shared Pierre Poilievre’s strong and consistent support for conventional energy production and pipelines. The fact people in the producing provinces are not alone in seeing the wisdom of new export pipelines strengthens our position.
If the thumping the voters of Alberta and Saskatchewan gave the Liberals in the April 28 election didn’t convince the government its energy and pipelines policies have caused a national unity crisis, maybe a high vote in favour of separation will. Many people will figure this out and will vote strategically to ensure the leave side wins a respectable portion of the vote. Who would want to try to negotiate a good deal for the producing provinces and the conventional energy sector following a weak performance by the leave camp? The Liberals will claim that a big win for the stay camp shows that Albertans are happy with the status quo.
The anti-pipeline misinformation campaign is already underway. Steven Guilbeault was already at it last week. According to Guilbeault, since the Trans Mountain pipeline is not operating at full capacity we obviously don’t need any more pipelines.
Guilbeault knows full well the pipeline is running under full capacity. The reason being the residual fall-out from the $38 billion in cost overruns the government chalked up, which was in turn due to its own regulatory morass and system pains associated with issues like the poor design features built into the Burnaby terminal. The government expects oil producers to pay exorbitant shipping rates designed to rapidly recoup the embarrassing cost overruns. Producers are not prepared to lose money bailing out the government. Guilbeault also knows most producers making use of the Trans Mountain today had negotiated much lower rates with the pipeline prior to its completion.
We can expect the flow of this kind of misinformation to become a gusher in the days ahead.
One hopes there will be adults in charge of both the leave and stay camps. The cause of Western separation can be expected to attract enthusiasts from the fringes of the political spectrum. There will be crackpots and mean-spirited people cheering for both sides. Unfortunately, we need to prepare for the fact the mainstream media will focus on any loosely hinged eccentrics they can find who support separation. Radical environmentalists and climate change alarmists will be treated like selfless planet saving prophets.
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
In a recent interview with CTV, Prime Minister Mark Carney said he may eliminate Bill C-69, which imposes uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects, and eliminate the cap on oil and gas emissions, so energy projects can “move forward.” Of course, actions speak louder than words and Canadians will have to wait and see what the Carney government will actually do. But one thing’s for certain—reform is needed now.
Last year, when the Trudeau government proposed to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector, it insisted this was essential for fighting climate change and building a strong thriving economy. However, a recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) suggests this policy—which would require oil and gas producers to reduce their emissions by 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030—could lead to significant job losses, reduced production in the sector, and more broadly, less prosperity for Canadians.
The PBO’s findings add to mounting evidence indicating that the emissions cap will harm Canada’s already struggling economy while yielding virtually no measurable environmental benefits.
Oil and gas form the backbone of Canada’s economy and trade. As the country’s main export, the sector contributed nearly $8 billion in income taxes to federal and provincial governments while adding $74.3 billion to the overall economy in 2024. More importantly, the oil and gas sector provides employment for more than 140,000 Canadian families, offering well above-average salaries.
Several studies have assessed the potential impact of the proposed GHG cap. While estimates vary, they all reach the same conclusion: the cap will force the industry to cut oil and gas production and, in turn, negatively affect the entire economy.
The PBO projects that, under the proposed cap, Canadian firms will be required to cut oil and gas production by 4.9 per cent between 2030 and 2032, compared to what production levels would have been without the policy. As a result, an estimated 54,000 fulltime jobs would be lost, and by 2032 Canada’s economy (measured by inflation-adjusted GDP) will be 0.39 per cent smaller than it otherwise would have been.
There’s also a recent report by Deloitte, which found the cap will reduce oil production by 626,000 barrels per day by 2030 and lead to a decline in oil and gas production of 10 per cent and 12 per cent, respectively. Overall, the country will experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of the value of the entire economy (GDP), translating into the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues.
Similarly, a study by the Conference Board of Canada and presented by the Government of Alberta, suggests that the cap’s negative effect would ripple across the economy, resulting in the loss of 151,000 jobs by 2030. Between 2030 and 2040, Canada’s GDP losses could total up to $1 trillion, resulting in the loss of up to $151 billion in revenues for the federal government.
Finally, a recent study found that capping oil and gas emissions would result in significant economic loss without generating measurable environmental benefits. Specifically, even if Canada were to shut down its entire energy industry by 2030—thus removing all GHG emissions from the sector—the resulting global reduction in emissions would be a mere four-tenths of one per cent, a figure too small to impact the Earth’s climate.
The available evidence indicates that the proposed GHG cap could come at a high economic cost while delivering limited environmental benefits.
Julio Mejía
Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Breaking: Explosive FBI Warning—CCP, Iran, and Mex-Cartels Partnering in Canada to Move Fentanyl and Terrorists Into U.S.
Trump Reacts To James Comey’s ‘8647’ Post
The proof is in. Housing is more unaffordable than ever
US Grocery prices plunge as inflation hits four-year low
-
espionage9 hours agoCanada’s Missing Intelligence Command: Convoy Review Takes on New Relevance After FBI Warnings
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoLiberals edge closer to majority as judicial recount flips another Ontario seat
-
Addictions1 day agoNews For Those Who Think Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree
-
Alberta1 day agoCanmore attempting to tax its way out of housing crisis
-
Business1 day agoThe Oracle of Omaha Calls it a Career
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s cabinet likely means more of the same on energy and climate
-
Alberta1 day agoBoreal forests could hold the key to achieving Canada’s climate goals
-
COVID-1919 hours agoWill Chris Barber be jailed for peacefully protesting? Court to decide soon