Energy
It’s time to get excited about the great Canadian LNG opportunity

By Stewart Muir
Canada has a rare window to join the big leagues of LNG exporters—Qatar, Australia, and the United States are not waiting around, and neither should we.
I sometimes catch myself staring out over the waters of British Columbia’s coastline — so calm, so vast, so brimming with unspoken opportunity — and I can’t help but wonder how anyone could fail to notice the promise that Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) represents for our nation’s future. This country sits atop some of the largest gas reserves on Earth, and we have two coasts eager to connect our product to global markets.
I’m a quietly enthusiastic type by nature, and I don’t often indulge in the “I-told-you-so” routine, but whenever I encounter someone who just hasn’t cottoned on to the excitement around LNG, I feel compelled to stage a gentle intervention.
In my day-to-day role as CEO of Resource Works, I work with communities from Fort St. John to Kitimat, and beyond. Let me assure you, if you want to see Canadians at work, proud of their craft, and eyeing a brighter future, you’ll find them along the pipeline routes and port terminals that are part of our budding LNG industry. And they’re just as commonly found in Vancouver, Victoria and the other cities, just harder to spot with no blue coveralls.
I’ve been following the natural gas story in British Columbia for more than a quarter of a century, going back to my days in the media field. As an editor at The Vancouver Sun, I created the paper’s first-ever energy beat after we noticed something big was stirring in the North East gas fields. It turned out to be an industry animated by regulatory innovation, rich geology, ambitious investors, and some of the most capable people you’ll ever meet.
When talk of LNG exports began to stir in 2011, I dove in with both feet. Over the past 15 years, I’ve followed the LNG file across Canada, around the world, and deep into the heart of British Columbia.
Along the way, I’ve met First Nations chiefs who proudly showed me the schools and businesses they built through new partnerships. I’ve also sat down with those who remain skeptical and had honest, sometimes searching conversations. I’ve learned something from all of them. This is an industry that, at its best, brings people together to solve problems, create opportunity, and build a future worth caring about.
Why am I still so enthused after all these years? LNG is not a flash in the pan, for starters. Through cyclical ups and downs—natural phenomena in any commodity game—international forecasts consistently show that LNG demand won’t be evaporating tomorrow or, quite likely, for several tomorrows yet. The International Energy Agency, the Canada Energy Regulator, and even the U.S. Energy Information Administration all point to steady growth in global LNG trade.
On top of that, if you follow the money, you’ll see billions of dollars flowing into new regasification terminals and record orders for LNG carriers. I may be old-fashioned, but I’ve always found that when so many investors plunk down their capital in one place, it’s seldom a fluke. The world has more than 700 LNG ships plying the seas these days, and hundreds more under construction. That’s not a small bit of confidence.
And let’s talk local: from where I sit, Canada’s jobs outlook tied to LNG looks like a real tonic for communities seeking new opportunities. Construction alone can employ entire regions. Then come the careers that last decades—plant operators, engineers, port and shipping managers, the works. It’s the sort of diversified prosperity that a resource economy yearns for.
We’ve even seen First Nations communities take equity stakes in major LNG projects, forging new partnerships that benefit everyone involved. That’s the model of inclusive economic development that Canadians like to talk about. It’s called walking the walk.
Those voices of skepticism — bless their hearts — sometimes say, “But what about price volatility? The commodity cycles? Are we sure this is sustainable?” Truthfully, no commodity is immune to upswings and downswings. But open a newspaper — digitally or in paper form, your choice— and you’ll find that countries all over the world are expanding their LNG-import infrastructure. Many of them, especially in Asia and Europe, see Canada as a steady, well-regulated, and (importantly) speedy supplier.
Yes, “speedy” might be an odd descriptor for us easygoing Canadians, but let’s not overlook that a West Coast port is only about eight or nine sailing days from major Asian markets, versus more than 20 from the U.S. Gulf Coast. You’d think we’d have lines of ships lined up right now, just for that advantage.
There’s another subtlety that some folks overlook. Right now, much of our gas still flows to the United States, often at discounted prices, only to be converted into LNG down there and sold globally at a premium. If that doesn’t make you shake your head in wonder, I’m not sure what will. Canadians have every reason to want to keep some of that up-chain value right here at home, funneling more of that revenue into local jobs and public coffers. That’s exactly the sort of well-to-customer supply chain we’re poised to build.
And if you’re still not impressed, consider the big jolt to GDP whenever a massive energy project crosses the finish line. Look no further than the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion: once it was substantially complete last year, the national GDP got a measurable jolt. It’s extremely rare that a single anything shows up that way. Now, with the first shipment of Canadian LNG preparing to leave Kitimat in the coming weeks, we can expect a repeat performance. It’s the real economic equivalent of an encore, if you will. And who doesn’t love an encore that boosts paycheques and government revenues?
Canadians may be known worldwide for politeness and hockey, but let’s not forget that boldness is also in our national DNA. Building a robust LNG sector that ties Western and Eastern Canada to major global markets is about as bold an economic strategy as we could pursue right now. Some might call it visionary, others might say it’s just common sense in a world that still demands substantial amounts of energy. Either way, Canada has a rare window to join the big leagues of LNG exporters—Qatar, Australia, and the United States are not waiting around, and neither should we.
At the end of the day, seeing Canadians capture more of the value from our natural resources rather than shipping it across the border at a discount is, for me, both pragmatic and patriotic. It’s the kind of deal that makes you wonder why anyone would hesitate. Perhaps that hesitation is just a bump in the road of public discourse—something we can gently, politely, and persistently overcome.
I, for one, am excited for the first shipment of LNG out of Canada’s West Coast, due any week now. A top executive with the project once whispered to me that the maiden cargo would be worth $100 million, but lately I’m hearing a single shipload is now probably worth double that.
So yes, I’m looking forward to the day when it’s not just a handful of tankers leaving our ports, but a regular fleet serving global customers. It will lift up the whole country, just as it has contributed to America’s tearaway economy in recent years and elevated Qatar from desert outpost to World Cup host nation.
Soon, maybe all the doubters will have recognized the obvious — and joined the rest of us on the bandwagon with front-row seats to Canada’s LNG future. Sure, I’m biased, but only because the facts keep reinforcing that this sector is poised to do a world of good for Canadians from coast to coast.
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.