Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Why Canada should get carbon credits for LNG exports

Published

5 months ago

6 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Jerome Gessaroli

Generating carbon credits from LNG exports is potentially a cost-effective way to reduce GHGs globally while helping to meet our carbon reduction goals

It stands to reason that Canada should get carbon credits for replacing dirty coal-fired energy sources in Asia with our cleaner natural gas, preventing the release of many megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. But as the issue currently stands, we won’t.

However, there’s hope for reason.

A recent paper I wrote for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute sheds light on the confusion surrounding this matter. Based on the 2015 Paris Agreement, specifically Article 6, and the subsequently developed guidelines for the sharing of carbon reduction credits, liquid natural gas exports should be eligible to generate such credits for Canada — just not in a way envisioned by provincial leaders.

Former B.C. premier Christy Clark and successive premiers have argued since 2013 that LNG exports alone should be counted toward carbon credits for Canada and its provinces. Researchers estimate that if Asian countries replace coal with natural gas in their power plants, emissions would fall by 34 to 62 per cent.

However, each time this argument resurfaces, it faces criticism from various quarters.

The confusion over sharing carbon credits arises from the disconnect between the idea’s simplicity and its complex implementation.

Carbon credit eligibility is based on the principle that only emission reduction projects that would not have proceeded without access to carbon credits meet a so-called “additionality” criterion. While there are other criteria, the additionality criterion is the heart of credits sharing regime.

A straightforward LNG export contract with an Asian utility that substitutes gas for coal would probably not be eligible to generate any carbon credits for the Canadian side. While the deal does lower GHG emissions, those reductions are not “additional” and the deal would go ahead with or without the availability of emissions credits.

However, there is another scenario that would likely qualify to receive carbon credits. In this scenario, in addition to selling LNG, the Canadian company helps the Asian utility convert its coal-fuelled plant to a natural gas plant. In this case, the utility’s motivation is to avoid prematurely shuttering its power plant and losing its investment due to stricter emission standards.

On the Canadian side, support may involve providing technical services, financing or other assistance. While more costly for Canada, those extra expenses could be more than offset by the value of carbon credits transferred by the Asian side. Canada would win by accruing revenue from the sale of LNG, providing additional Canadian-based services, and receiving valuable carbon credits to help meet our emissions targets. This deal is “additional” – its feasibility is contingent on its eligibility for carbon credits.

Critics warn that selling LNG abroad will “lock in” fossil fuel use and delay the transition to renewables. The reality is that the average age of Asian coal-fuelled power plants is only 13 years (with a lifespan of up to 40 years) and that over 1,000 new coal plants have been announced, permitted or are currently under construction.

These are the facts, whether we like them or not. This reminds me of the quote often attributed to John Maynard Keynes, “As the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” What we can do is assist in switching some of these plants from burning coal to LNG, which will substantially reduce GHG emissions over the short and medium term; not to mention help energy workers keep their jobs.

Critics also assert that producing LNG in British Columbia creates emissions which could prevent the province from meeting its own emission reduction targets. Yet studies estimate that using just over half of LNG Canada’s annual Phase 1 production capacity to replace coal could reduce international GHG emissions by 14 to 34 Mt while increasing yearly emissions in B.C. by less than two megatonnes.

Creating the infrastructure to transfer carbon credits under the Paris Agreement is a complex and relatively new endeavour. Earning carbon credits is also a non-trivial task. It will require the federal government to initiate bilateral agreements and negotiate common policies and practices with any partnering country for calculating, verifying, allocating and transferring credits. Alberta and B.C. are already co-operating.

Generating carbon credits from LNG exports is potentially a cost-effective way to reduce GHGs globally while helping to meet our carbon reduction goals.

Jerome Gessaroli is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and leads The Sound Economic Policy Project at the British Columbia Institute of Technology

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
Environment / 1 hour ago

Scientific Report Pours Cold Water On Major Talking Point Of Climate Activists

COVID-19 / 2 hours ago

COVID Is Over — But Did We Learn Anything From It?

conflict / 3 hours ago

‘Got Played’: Israel Reportedly Suspicious Biden Admin Had Backroom Talks With Mediators Over Ceasefire Deal

Alberta

Game changer: Trans Mountain pipeline expansion complete and starting to flow Canada’s oil to the world

Published on May 6, 2024

By

Workers complete the “golden weld” of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on April 11, 2024 in the Fraser Valley between Hope and Chilliwack, B.C. The project saw mechanical completion on April 30, 2024. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

‘We’re going to be moving into a market where buyers are going to be competing to buy Canadian oil’

It is a game changer for Canada that will have ripple effects around the world.  

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is now complete. And for the first time, global customers can access large volumes of Canadian oil, with the benefits flowing to Canada’s economy and Indigenous communities.  

“We’re going to be moving into a market where buyers are going to be competing to buy Canadian oil,” BMO Capital Markets director Randy Ollenberger said recently, adding this is expected to result in a better price for Canadian oil relative to other global benchmarks. 

The long-awaited expansion nearly triples capacity on the Trans Mountain system from Edmonton to the West Coast to approximately 890,000 barrels per day. Customers for the first shipments include refiners in China,  California and India, according to media reports.  

Shippers include all six members of the Pathways Alliance, a group of companies representing 95 per cent of oil sands production that together plan to reduce emissions from operations by 22 megatonnes by 2030 on the way to net zero by 2050.  

The first tanker shipment from Trans Mountain’s expanded Westridge Marine Terminal is expected later in May.

Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

 The new capacity on the Trans Mountain system comes as demand for Canadian oil from markets outside the United States is on the rise.  

According to the Canada Energy Regulator, exports to destinations beyond the U.S. have averaged a record 267,000 barrels per day so far this year, up from about 130,000 barrels per day in 2020 and 33,000 barrels per day in 2017. 

“Oil demand globally continues to go up,” said Phil Skolnick, New York-based oil market analyst with Eight Capital.  

“Both India and China are looking to add millions of barrels a day of refining capacity through 2030.” 

In India, refining demand will increase mainly for so-called medium and heavy oil like what is produced in Canada, he said. 

“That’s where TMX is the opportunity for Canada, because that’s the route to get to India.”  

Led by India and China, oil demand in the Asia-Pacific region is projected to increase from 36 million barrels per day in 2022 to 52 million barrels per day in 2050, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

More oil coming from Canada will shake up markets for similar world oil streams including from Russia, Ecuador, and Iraq, according to analysts with Rystad Energy and Argus Media. 

Expanded exports are expected to improve pricing for Canadian heavy oil, which “have been depressed for many years” in part due to pipeline shortages, according to TD Economics.  

Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

 In recent years, the price for oil benchmark Western Canadian Select (WCS) has hovered between $18-$20 lower than West Texas Intermediate (WTI) “to reflect these hurdles,” analyst Marc Ercolao wrote in March.  

“That spread should narrow as a result of the Trans Mountain completion,” he wrote. 

“Looking forward, WCS prices could conservatively close the spread by $3–4/barrel later this year, which will incentivize production and support industry profitability.”  

Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Office has said that an increase of US$5 per barrel for Canadian heavy oil would add $6 billion to Canada’s economy over the course of one year. 

The Trans Mountain Expansion will leave a lasting economic legacy, according to an impact assessment conducted by Ernst & Young in March 2023.  

In addition to $4.9 billion in contracts with Indigenous businesses during construction, the project leaves behind more than $650 million in benefit agreements and $1.2 billion in skills training with Indigenous communities.   

Ernst & Young found that between 2024 and 2043, the expanded Trans Mountain system will pay $3.7 billion in wages, generate $9.2 billion in GDP, and pay $2.8 billion in government taxes. 

Continue Reading

Energy

Market Realities Are Throwing Wrench In Biden’s Green Energy Dreams

Published on May 4, 2024

By

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By DAVID BLACKMON

 

For two years now, I and others have been pointing out the reality that there is no real “energy transition” happening around the world. Two new items of information came to light this week that irrevocably prove the point.

It is true that governments across the western world appear to be working to bankrupt their countries by pouring trillions of debt-funded dollars, Euros and British pounds into central planning efforts to subsidize renewables and electric vehicles into existence. That reality cannot be denied. The trouble is that no amount of debt money can turn the markets and the markets aren’t cooperating.

Despite all the government largesse that has spurred major additions of wind and solar generation capacity, those weather-reliant energy sources can’t even keep up with the pace of rising demand for electricity. As a result, the markets dictated that the world consumed record levels of coal, natural gas, oil and even wood during 2023. Yes, we are still burning vast amounts of wood for electricity, despite an alleged “transition” from wood to coal which began 500 years ago.

That is reality, dictated by the markets.

Two new bits of data came to light this week that pound the final nails into the coffin of the narrative around the energy transition. A report in the Financial Times, citing data compiled by Grid Strategies, reveals that the buildout of new high-voltage transmission lines in the United States slowed to a trickle in 2023, with just 55.5 additional miles installed. That collapse comes despite the Biden government’s recognition that a massive expansion of this type of transmission lines must happen to accommodate the demands of any true “transition” to renewables.

The Financial Times quotes a 2023 assessment by the Department of Energy that found that “regional transmission must more than double and interregional transmission must grow more than fivefold by 2035 to meet decarbonization targets.” DOE admits such a pace would add more than 50,000 miles of new transmission in just 11 years, which is almost 1,000 times the pace of adds during 2023. Yikes.

A crucial aspect of that DOE study to understand is that it was conducted before we began to understand the true magnitude of additional power demands that will result from the explosive growth of AI technology just now starting to come to full bloom. It was just this past January, at the WEF Forum in Davos, where OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told the audience he believes generation capacity on the grid will have to double over the next decade just to fill the AI demands alone. That is what is needed in addition to the rising demands for EV charging, industrial growth, population growth and economic growth.

The second piece of compelling data arising this week comes from a Bloomberg story headlined, “Data Centers Now Need a Reactor’s Worth of Power, Dominion Says.” The key thing to understand about this story is that the piece is only referencing the needs of planned new data centers being built in Northern Virginia to feed AI development in that tiny sliver of the United States.

This key excerpt from the story says it all: “Over the past five years, Dominion has connected 94 data centers that, together, consume about four gigawatts of electricity, Blue said. That means that just two or three of the data center campuses now being planned could require as much electricity as all the centers Dominion hooked up since about 2019.”

That is not just rapid growth, it is exponential growth in power demand from a single developing technology.

Demand growth needs such as this aren’t going to be filled by unpredictable, unreliable, weather-dependent generation like windmills and solar arrays. And let’s face it: The United States is not going to be able to continue expanding renewables without finding some way to create a massive expansion of transmission. Why build the generation if you can’t move the electricity?

What it all means is that all the grand Biden Green New Deal plans to shut down America’s remaining coal fleet and much of its natural gas generation fleet are going to have to wait, because the market will not allow them. That’s reality, and reality does not care about anyone’s green transition dreams.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Continue Reading

Trending

X