Energy
Canadian Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is the Cleaner Fuel Alternative that Asian Markets Want and Need – CPW
Trans Mountain LNG Terminal Expansion
From EnergyNow Media
A woman in rural China gets ready to make dinner. She starts with food prep, then reaches for her fuel source to begin cooking.
Her options: likely wood or coal.
As she cooks, she is probably not aware that nearly half a million people in China who cook with wood or coal have an increased risk of major eye diseases that lead to blindness.
This was detailed in a University of Oxford study that also showed nearly half of the world’s population (that’s 3.8 billion people) is exposed to household air pollution from cooking with “dirty” solid fuels like wood or coal.
Even if she knew all this, what other choice would she have? Everyone has to prepare food for their family.
Poor air quality and its effect on human health is a significant cost to consider when using coal, but there are others as well, such as greenhouse gas emissions.
When burned for energy, coal releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If you shift from thinking about the individual cooking at home to large-scale coal burning for electricity generation, the problem becomes a major environmental concern — and a significant contributing factor to climate change.
How big is the problem?
Coal power plants produce 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other single source, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
This issue is important to us because that woman cooking at home could be any one of us. The difference is, we have options. With energy demand continuing to grow, the IEA reports that many countries feel they have little choice but to continue generating power with coal.
Furthermore, Canada Powered by Women research (which captures the opinions of 24% of all women in Canada) shows that the vast majority (84%) personally care about tackling climate change through global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction.
So, what exactly is the solution to this problem? It’s choice.
The solution for regions of the world that don’t have access to different types of energy is to provide alternatives to what they have today. One choice can, and should, be Canadian liquified natural gas (LNG).
(Assuming, that is, Canadian suppliers are supported enough by regulatory environments to produce and export this resource. More on this later…)
Many parts of the world — particularly Asia — want to replace coal with cleaner energy like LNG. Foreign markets such as Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and China are interested in turning to Canada as their source, over countries with less-than-stellar environmental and human rights records (not to mention uncertain political structures).
“We have incredible volumes of lower-carbon gas in B.C., and it represents an important new source of energy,” says Teresa Waddington, vice president, corporate relations at LNG Canada. “Canada is politically stable in an increasingly energy security-conscious world. We have good infrastructure and good systems in place to make sure that we are able to produce very, very reliably.”
It’s not just industry players who are on board with exporting our energy resources to foreign markets, either.
The majority of Canadian women we asked consider it important to supply ethical and responsibly produced oil, as well as LNG, internationally.
Canada is primed to take its cleaner energy options to the world — we just need the ability to get it to market.
Canadian LNG: The Same Energy for Half the Emissions
Markets around the world are interested in LNG over coal for good reason. It has half the emissions of coal for the same output of energy.
But in some Asian countries, coal-burning plants are being built at a lightning-fast pace because populations and manufacturers need rapid access to energy, Reuters reports.
“If we can displace current and future energy electricity generation and power generation with LNG, we’re taking a massive step forward,” Waddington says.
Beyond being a cleaner molecule, Canadian LNG is particularly attractive because it’s produced ethically and safely, thanks in part to strict industry regulations.
“We have the lowest methane emissions leakage anywhere in the globe,” Waddington notes.
And this is in part because Canada has highly stringent requirements for managing methane leakage — which can lead to greenhouse gas emissions and is a common concern about this kind of fuel.
“If you look across the spectrum of environment, social, governance (ESG), Canadian LNG is made with human rights at the forefront,” says Waddington.
With Support, Canada Can Lead the Global LNG Opportunity
Canada has the potential to pull ahead as a global leader in the production and export of clean energy to foreign markets — a move that would play an important role in reducing global emissions, facilitating a prosperous Canada economy and providing for those in need at home and abroad.
But that will only happen if governments offer LNG projects the support they need in the form of utility infrastructure investments and clear and fast permitting, Waddington says.
As an example, partnerships with local hydro providers to power LNG facilities is one way provincial governments can lower the carbon intensity of processing and exporting the fuel, she says.
Then of course, there’s also the potential of government incentives that inspire more investment in LNG facilities, as well as in technologies that support the production of an ever-cleaner natural gas molecule.
With technology and innovation in Canada advancing all the time, Waddington is optimistic about the opportunity ahead.
“We’re going to see Canada continue to emerge as world-leading in some of the ways that we can [reduce emissions] — as long as we keep up this momentum, supported by government.”
About Canada Powered by Women
Uniting Women Through Bold Conversations
Canada Powered by Women represents Canadian women who believe sound energy policies are vital for the continuing economic prosperity of our country. We’re driven by the unshakable belief that a better world is possible and we can make it happen… together. Visit our website HERE for more information and JOIN OUR COMMUNITY.
Alberta
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Discusses Moving Energy Forward at the Global Energy Show in Calgary
From Energy Now
At the energy conference in Calgary, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pressed the case for building infrastructure to move provincial products to international markets, via a transportation and energy corridor to British Columbia.
“The anchor tenant for this corridor must be a 42-inch pipeline, moving one million incremental barrels of oil to those global markets. And we can’t stop there,” she told the audience.
The premier reiterated her support for new pipelines north to Grays Bay in Nunavut, east to Churchill, Man., and potentially a new version of Energy East.
The discussion comes as Prime Minister Mark Carney and his government are assembling a list of major projects of national interest to fast-track for approval.
Carney has also pledged to establish a major project review office that would issue decisions within two years, instead of five.
Alberta
Punishing Alberta Oil Production: The Divisive Effect of Policies For Carney’s “Decarbonized Oil”
From Energy Now
By Ron Wallace
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate.
Following meetings in Saskatoon in early June between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canadian provincial and territorial leaders, the federal government expressed renewed interest in the completion of new oil pipelines to reduce reliance on oil exports to the USA while providing better access to foreign markets. However Carney, while suggesting that there is “real potential” for such projects nonetheless qualified that support as being limited to projects that would “decarbonize” Canadian oil, apparently those that would employ carbon capture technologies. While the meeting did not result in a final list of potential projects, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said that this approach would constitute a “grand bargain” whereby new pipelines to increase oil exports could help fund decarbonization efforts. But is that true and what are the implications for the Albertan and Canadian economies?
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate. Many would consider that Canadians, especially Albertans, should be wary of these largely undefined announcements in which Ottawa proposes solely to determine projects that are “in the national interest.”
The federal government has tabled legislation designed to address these challenges with Bill C-5: An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act and the Building Canada Act (the One Canadian Economy Act). Rather than replacing controversial, and challenged, legislation like the Impact Assessment Act, the Carney government proposes to add more legislation designed to accelerate and streamline regulatory approvals for energy and infrastructure projects. However, only those projects that Ottawa designates as being in the national interest would be approved. While clearer, shorter regulatory timelines and the restoration of the Major Projects Office are also proposed, Bill C-5 is to be superimposed over a crippling regulatory base.
It remains to be seen if this attempt will restore a much-diminished Canadian Can-Do spirit for economic development by encouraging much-needed, indeed essential interprovincial teamwork across shared jurisdictions. While the Act’s proposed single approval process could provide for expedited review timelines, a complex web of regulatory processes will remain in place requiring much enhanced interagency and interprovincial coordination. Given Canada’s much-diminished record for regulatory and policy clarity will this legislation be enough to persuade the corporate and international capital community to consider Canada as a prime investment destination?
As with all complex matters the devil always lurks in the details. Notably, these federal initiatives arrive at a time when the Carney government is facing ever-more pressing geopolitical, energy security and economic concerns. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that Canada’s economy will grow by a dismal one per cent in 2025 and 1.1 per cent in 2026 – this at a time when the global economy is predicted to grow by 2.9 per cent.
It should come as no surprise that Carney’s recent musing about the “real potential” for decarbonized oil pipelines have sparked debate. The undefined term “decarbonized”, is clearly aimed directly at western Canadian oil production as part of Ottawa’s broader strategy to achieve national emissions commitments using costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects whose economic viability at scale has been questioned. What might this mean for western Canadian oil producers?
The Alberta Oil sands presently account for about 58% of Canada’s total oil output. Data from December 2023 show Alberta producing a record 4.53 million barrels per day (MMb/d) as major oil export pipelines including Trans Mountain, Keystone and the Enbridge Mainline operate at high levels of capacity. Meanwhile, in 2023 eastern Canada imported on average about 490,000 barrels of crude oil per day (bpd) at a cost estimated at CAD $19.5 billion. These seaborne shipments to major refineries (like New Brunswick’s Irving Refinery in Saint John) rely on imported oil by tanker with crude oil deliveries to New Brunswick averaging around 263,000 barrels per day. In 2023 the estimated total cost to Canada for imported crude oil was $19.5 billion with oil imports arriving from the United States (72.4%), Nigeria (12.9%), and Saudi Arabia (10.7%). Since 1988, marine terminals along the St. Lawrence have seen imports of foreign oil valued at more than $228 billion while the Irving Oil refinery imported $136 billion from 1988 to 2020.
What are the policy and cost implication of Carney’s call for the “decarbonization” of western Canadian produced, oil? It implies that western Canadian “decarbonized” oil would have to be produced and transported to competitive world markets under a material regulatory and financial burden. Meanwhile, eastern Canadian refiners would be allowed to import oil from the USA and offshore jurisdictions free from any comparable regulatory burdens. This policy would penalize, and makes less competitive, Canadian producers while rewarding offshore sources. A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the One Canadian Economy Act moot and create two market realities in Canada – one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.
Ron Wallace is a former Member of the National Energy Board.
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles after violent attacks on ICE agents
LA Mayor Karen Bass Makes New Demands Of Trump At Monday Night Press Conference
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
