Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

It’s Time for Canadians to Challenge the American Domination of the LNG Space

Published

9 months ago

7 minute read

From EnergyNow.Ca

By Susan McArthur

Canada is now among the top 10 countries with natural gas reserves. It’s time to take advantage of that

Canadians are starting to understand the Americans ate our breakfast, lunch and dinner when it comes to selling liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the global market while simultaneously undermining our national security.

They are finally waking up to the importance of the urgent request by oil and gas CEOs to all federal party leaders calling for the removal of legislation and regulation impeding and capping the development of our resources.

The LNG story in the United States is one of unprecedented growth, according to a recent Atlantic Council report by Daniel Yergin and Madeline Jowdy. Ten years ago, the U.S. did not export a single tonne of LNG. Today, U.S. exports account for 25 per cent of the global market and have contributed US$400 billion to its gross domestic product (GDP) over the past decade.

The U.S. is now the world’s largest LNG supplier, edging out Qatar and Australia, and according to Yergin and Jowdy, its export market is on track to contribute US$1.3 trillion to U.S. GDP by 2040 and create an average of 500,000 jobs annually.

Last week, Alberta announced a sixfold increase in its proven natural gas reserves to 130 trillion cubic feet (tcf). The new figures push Canada into the top 10 countries with natural gas reserves.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding this vast resource, Canada didn’t even make it to the LNG party and the Americans have been laughing all the way to the bank at Canada’s expense. Our decade-long anti-pipeline and natural resource agenda has cost us dearly and Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are a stake to the heart.

As the world grapples with global warming, natural gas is the perfect transition fuel. It generates half the CO2 emissions of coal, provides needed grid backup for intermittent renewable wind and solar power, and it is relatively easy to commission.

Canada has extensive natural gas reserves, but these reserves are less valuable if we can’t get them to offshore markets where countries will pay a premium for energy generation. Canadian gas is abundant, but, given our smaller market, typically trades at a discount to U.S. gas and a massive discount to European and Asian markets.

The capital-intensive nature of LNG facilities requires long-term supply contracts. Generally, 20-year supply contracts with creditworthy counterparties are required to secure the financing required to build gas infrastructure and liquefaction plants.

For example, as part of a larger strategic deal, Houston-based LNG company NextDecade Corp. signed a 20-year offtake agreement to supply 5.4 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) to French multinational TotalEnergies SE.

As the market grows and matures, the spot market is gaining share, but term contracts continue to represent most of the market. This is a problem for Canada as it tries to break into the market, as much of current and future demand is already committed.

More than half the current LNG market demand, or 225 mtpa, is under contract until 2040, according to Shell PLC’s LNG outlook report for 2024. A further 100 mtpa is contracted to 2045. Shell recently revised its LNG market growth forecast upward to 700 mtpa by 2040 and it estimates the LNG supply currently in operation or under construction already accounts for about 525 mtpa, or almost 75 per cent of the estimated market in 2040.

Even if Canada secured 100 per cent of the available market share (impossible), this represents a fraction of the 130 trillion cubic feet of reserves in Alberta and an infinitesimal amount of Canada’s natural gas reserve.

If Canada wants to sell its LNG to the global market, it needs to be at the starting line now. Canada has seven LNG export projects in various stages of development. They are all in British Columbia. The capacity of these export plants is 50 mtpa and the capital cost is estimated to be $110 billion.

After significant delays and cost overruns, our first export facility, LNG Canada’s 14 mtpa Phase 1 in Kitimat, is set to ship its first cargo to Asia later this year. Phase 2, representing a further 14 mtpa, is still awaiting a final investment decision. The Cedar LNG, Ksi Lisims LNG and Woodfibre LNG projects are licensed, at various stages of development and represent a further 17 mtpa.

Canada’s LNG exports today are a drop in the bucket compared to both our potential and the 88 mtpa exported by the U.S. in 2024. We have one project completed and, if history repeats itself and Canada doesn’t get its act together, the runway for the remaining licensed projects will be long, painful and costly.

Financing large capital projects requires predictability with respect to timing and cost. This is also a problem for Canada. As the oil and gas CEOs have pointed out, LNG market players have lost trust in Canada as an investible jurisdiction for these projects.

In the face of Trump’s trade war, Canadians have become pipeline evangelists. Wishful thinking and political talking points won’t be enough if we repeat our decade of own goals on this file. We have literally left billions on the table.

Governments should fast-track all licensed projects, limit special interest distractions and provide the required muscle and financial support to get these projects up and running as soon as possible.

From Churchill, Man., to Quebec to the Maritimes to British Columbia, we should be making plans for LNG terminals and the required pipeline infrastructure to get this valuable and clean resource to market. And Canadians should pray we haven’t totally missed the market.

Susan McArthur is a former venture capital investor, investment banker and current corporate director. She has previously served on a chemical logistics and oil service board.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Energy / 7 hours ago

Canadians will soon be versed in massive West Coast LPG mega-project

Daily Caller / 7 hours ago

Tom Homan Predicts Deportation Of Most Third World Migrants Over Risks From Screening Docs

Artificial Intelligence / 8 hours ago

‘Trouble in Toyland’ report sounds alarm on AI toys

Artificial Intelligence

‘Trouble in Toyland’ report sounds alarm on AI toys

Published on November 30, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By Glenn Minnis

Parents should take precaution this holiday season when it comes to artificial intelligence toys after researchers for the new Trouble in Toyland report found safety concerns.

Illinois Public Interest Research Group Campaign Associate Ellen Hengesbach said some of the toys armed with AI raised red flags ranging from toys that talk in-depth about sexually explicit topics to acting dismayed when the child disengages.

“What they look like are basically stuffed animals or toy robots that have a chatbot like Chat GPT embedded in them and can have conversations with children,” Hengesbach told The Center Square.

The U.S. PIRG Education Fund report also points out that at least three toys have limited to no parental controls and have the capacity to record your child’s voice and collect other sensitive data via facial recognition.

“All three were willing to tell us where to find potentially dangerous objects in the house, such as plastic bags, matches, or knives,” she said. “It seems like dystopian science fiction decades ago is now reality.”

In the face of all the changing landscape and rising concerns, Hengesbach is calling for immediate action.

“The two main things that we’d like to see are more oversight in general and more research so we can see exactly how these toys interact with kids, really just identify what the harms might be and have a lot more transparency from companies around how are these toys designed,” she said. “What are they capable of and what the potential risks or harms might be. I just really want us to take this opportunity to really think through what we’re doing instead of rushing a toy to market.”

As for the here and now, Hengesbach stressed parents would be wise to be thoughtful about their purchases.

“We just have a big open question of what are the long-term impacts of these products on young kids, especially when it comes to their social development,” she said. “The fact is that we just really won’t know what the long-term impacts of AI friends and companion toys might be until the first generation playing with them grows up. For now, I think it’s just really important that parents understand that these AI toys are out there; they’re very new and they’re basically unregulated.”

Since the release of the report, Hengesbach said one AI toymaker temporarily suspended sales of all their products to conduct a safety audit.

This year’s 40th Trouble in Toyland report also focuses on toys that contain toxins, counterfeit toys that haven’t been tested for safety, recalled toys and toys that contain button cell batteries or high-powered magnets, both of which can be deadly if swallowed.

Continue Reading

Business

Canadians love Nordic-style social programs as long as someone else pays for them

Published on November 28, 2025

By

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Pat Murphy

Generous social programs come with trade-offs. Pretending otherwise is political fiction

Nordic societies fund their own benefits through taxes and cost-sharing. Canadians expect someone to foot the bill

Like Donald Trump, one of my favourite words starts with the letter “T.” But where Trump likes the word “tariff,” my choice is “trade-off.” Virtually everything in life is a trade-off, and we’d all be much better off if we instinctively understood that.

Think about it.

If you yield to the immediate pleasure of spending all your money on whatever catches your fancy, you’ll wind up broke. If you regularly enjoy drinking to excess, be prepared to pay the unpleasant price of hangovers and maybe worse. If you don’t bother to acquire some marketable skill or credential, don’t be surprised if your employment prospects are limited. If you succumb to the allure of fooling around, you may well lose your marriage. And so on.

Failing to understand trade-offs also extends into political life. Take, for instance, the current fashion for anti-capitalist democratic socialism. Pushed to explain their vision, proponents will often make reference to the Nordic countries. But they exhibit little or no understanding of how these societies actually work.

As American economist Deirdre Nansen McCloskey notes, “Sweden is pretty much as ‘capitalistic’ as is the United States. If ‘socialism’ means government ownership of the means of production, which is the classic definition, Sweden never qualified.” The central planning/government ownership model isn’t the Swedish way.

What the Nordics do have, however, is a robust social safety net. And it’s useful to look at how they pay for it.

J.P. Morgan’s Michael Cembalest is a man who knows his way around data. He puts it this way: “Copy the Nordic model if you like, but understand that it entails a lot of capitalism and pro-business policies, a lot of taxation on middle-class spending and wages, minimal reliance on corporate taxation and plenty of co-pays and deductibles in its health care system.”

For instance, take the kind of taxes that are often derided as undesirably regressive—sales taxes, social security taxes and payroll taxes. In Sweden, they account for a whopping 27 per cent of gross domestic product. And some 15 per cent of health expenditures are out of pocket.

Charles Lane—formerly with the Washington Post, now with The Free Press—is another who pulls no punches: “Nordic countries are generous, but they are not stupid. They understand there is no such thing as ‘free’ health care, and that requiring patients to have at least some skin in the game, in the form of cost-sharing, helps contain costs.”

In effect, Nordic societies have made an internal bargain. Ordinary people are prepared to fork over large chunks of their own money in return for a comprehensive social safety net. They’re not expecting the good stuff to come to them without a personal cost.

Scandinavians obviously understand the concept of trade-offs, a dimension that seems to be absent from much of the North American discussion. Instead of Nordic-style pragmatism, spending ideas on this side of the Atlantic are floated on the premise of having someone else pay. And the electorally prized middle class is to be protected at all costs.

In the aftermath of Zohran Mamdami’s New York City win, journalist Kevin Williamson had a sobering reality check: “Class warfare isn’t how they roll in Scandinavia. Oslo is a terrific place to be a billionaire—Copenhagen and Stockholm, too … what’s radically different about the Scandinavians is not how they tax the very high-income but how they tax the middle.”

Taxation propensities aside, Nordic societies are different from the United States and Canada.

Denmark, for instance, is very much a “high-trust” society, defined as a place “where interpersonal trust is relatively high and ethical values are strongly shared.” It’s often been said that it works the way it does because it’s full of Danes, which is broadly true—albeit less so than it was 40 years ago.

Denmark, though, has no interest in multiculturalism as we’ve come to know it. Although governed from the centre-left, there’s no state-sponsored focus on systemic discrimination or diversity representation. Instead, the emphasis is on social cohesion and conformity. If you want to create a society like Denmark, it helps to understand the dynamics that make it work.

Reality intrudes on all sorts of other issues. For example, there’s the way in which public discourse is disfigured on the question of climate change and the need to pursue aggressive net-zero policies.

Asked in the abstract, people are generally favourable, which is then touted as evidence of strong public support. But when subsequently asked how much they’re personally prepared to pay to accomplish these ambitious goals, the answer is often little or nothing.

If there’s one maxim we should be taught from childhood, it’s this: there are no panaceas, only trade-offs.

Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff’s eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical – well, perhaps a little bit.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X