Economy
The Cost to Western Canada if Steven Guilbeault Copies Biden’s Assault on LNG
From EnergyNow.ca
By Jim Warren
” if all of the gas exported by Canada to the US from 2014 to 2021, the years encompassing the price depression, had instead been exported to Europe at average European prices, Canadian natural gas revenues would have been US $100.7 billion higher “
What would it cost western Canada’s natural gas producers if the federal government does to them what it did to tidewater export opportunities for petroleum?
This question became topical last week when the Biden Democrats announced they would block construction of new LNG export facilities in the US. It makes sense to get a handle on the size of revenues at stake if future development of LNG export capacity in Canada is similarly at risk. Indeed, it seems quite reasonable to worry that Steven Guilbeault will take inspiration from the Biden decision and try to do something similarly silly in Canada.
Getting pipelines to tidewater is something Canada’s petroleum industry has been counting on to improve export revenues. This was a particularly urgent hope during the eight-year oil price depression that lasted from Fall 2014 until early Winter 2022. It was, and still is, assumed exporting Canadian diluted bitumen (dilbit) into new non-US markets will allow producers to avoid the costly differential charges assessed by American buyers and refiners.
What if scenarios floated during the eight-year price slump showed that had the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain pipelines been completed, Canadian producers could have earned billions in additional revenues. Estimates of lost revenues ranged from a Fraser Institute estimate of $15.8 billion for 2018 alone to my own low-ball estimate for losses of $7 billion to $9 billion for that same year. Numerous back of the napkin “what if” calculations for lost revenues produced in coffee shops across the prairies helped fuel frustration and anger at federal government environmental policies intended to limit global warming by cancelling pipelines.
Fast forward to 2024 and we can see that similar conditions apply to western Canada’s natural gas sector. The US is virtually the sole export market for Canadian natural gas. Looking back at the period from 2010-2019 we find that the prices paid by US importers for Canadian natural gas were less than half what Europeans were paying. The price spread became exponentially wider beginning in 2016. It peaked in 2022 when the European price was six times higher than the US price. The European gas price will be five times higher than US prices for 2024.
All else being equal, if all of the gas exported by Canada to the US from 2014 to 2021, the years encompassing the price depression, had instead been exported to Europe at average European prices, Canadian natural gas revenues would have been US $100.7 billion higher than what they actually were.
Of course “all else” is far from being equal. The $100.7 billion figure does not account for the cost of converting natural gas to LNG or the added costs of ocean transportation. In addition, the estimate assumes enough Canadian pipelines and tidewater terminals could be built to accommodate all of the gas currently flowing to the US.
The yawning chasm between US and EU prices today is of course largely the result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022. EU sanctions aimed at Russian energy exports and the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines has put Europe firmly on track for developing new sources of natural gas.
Notwithstanding the bland platitudes and unreachable targets emanating from the most recent COP conference in the UAE, there are policy makers in many countries who recognize the important role natural gas can play in reducing global GHG emissions. For example, in December 2021 the European Commission made changes to its GHG emissions law. It now allows both nuclear energy and natural gas to be considered suitable transition fuels during the period while renewable options become more viable.
Lately, there has been a popular backlash in Europe and the UK over excessively zealous green transition initiatives. It turns out a lot of people are unwilling to accept additional increases to their cost of living even when told it is necessary to “save the planet.” People won’t stand for a prohibitively expensive green transition. And they never will be willing to freeze in the dark; especially when an acceptable option like natural gas is available.
Biden’s bizarre decision to block the expansion of US LNG export facilities was probably not motivated by a desperate desire or useful effort to curb GHG emissions. It is more likely a ham-handed attempt to staunch the Democrats’ loss of support among the young and the woke. Regardless of Biden’s motivation, we might reasonably worry that Canada’s environment minister will want to copy him. You might think the collapse in support for Canada’s Liberals and common sense would militate against the imposition of any additional half-baked environmental policy. But when has common sense ever intervened in the creation of environmentally virtuous policy on the part of the Liberals in Ottawa?
I have provided my data sources and relevant tables below
Hypothetical question: What if the exports to the US had been exported to Europe?
Source: derived by the author from the sources and data provided below
Natural gas prices for the US and Europe 2022 to 2024 in US$ per million British thermal units (BTUs) 2023 and 2024 figures are forecasts.*
Source: derived from Statist: Natual gas commodity prices in Europe and the United States from 1980 to 2022 with forecasts for 2023 and 2024.
https://www-statista-com.libproxy.uregina.ca/statistics/252791/natural-gas-prices/
Canadian natural gas exports in billion cubic metres (all to US)
Source: Statista. Natural gas exports by pipeline from Canada from 2010 to 2021 (in billion cubic metres).
https://www-statista-com.libproxy.uregina.ca/statistics/567703/natural-gas-exports-from-canada/
Natural gas prices for the US and Europe 2010 to 2024 in US$ per million British thermal units (BTUs) 2023 and 2024 figures are forecasts.*
Source: Statista: Natural gas commodity prices in Europe and the United States from 1980 to 2022 with forecasts for 2023 and 2024.
https://www-statista-com.libproxy.uregina.ca/statistics/252791/natural-gas-prices/
From Heartland Daily News
By Paul Mueller
The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework allows a small group of corporate executives, financiers, government officials, and other elites, the ESG “puppeteers,” to force everyone to serve their interests. The policies they want to impose on society — renewable energy mandates, DEI programs, restricting emissions, or costly regulatory and compliance disclosures — increase everyone’s cost of living. But the puppeteers do not worry about that since they stand to gain financially from the “climate transition.”
Consider Mark Carney. After a successful career on Wall Street, he was a governor at two different central banks. Now he serves as the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance for the United Nations, which means it is his job to persuade, cajole, or bully large financial institutions to sign onto the net-zero agenda.
But Carney also has a position at one of the biggest investment firms pushing the energy transition agenda: Brookfield Asset Management. He has little reason to be concerned about the unintended consequences of his climate agenda, such as higher energy and food prices. Nor will he feel the burden his agenda imposes on hundreds of millions of people around the world.
And he is certainly not the only one. Al Gore, John Kerry, Klaus Schwab, Larry Fink, and thousands of other leaders on ESG and climate activism will weather higher prices just fine. There would be little to object to if these folks merely invested their own resources, and the resources of voluntary investors, in their climate agenda projects. But instead, they use other people’s resources, usually without their knowledge or consent, to advance their personal goals.
Even worse, they regularly use government coercion to push their agenda, which — incidentally? — redounds to their economic benefit. Brookfield Asset Management, where Mark Carney runs his own $5 billion climate fund, invests in renewable energy and climate transition projects, the demand for which is largely driven by government mandates.
For example, the National Conference of State Legislatures has long advocated “Renewable Portfolio Standards” that require state utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. The Clean Energy States Alliance tracks which states have committed to moving to 100 percent renewable energy, currently 23 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. And then there are thousands of “State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency.”
Behemoth hedge fund and asset manager BlackRock announced that it is acquiring a large infrastructure company, as a chance to participate in climate transition and benefit its clients financially. BlackRock leadership expects government-fueled demand for their projects, and billions of taxpayer dollars to fund the infrastructure necessary for the “climate transition.”
CEO Larry Fink has admitted, “We believe the expansion of both physical and digital infrastructure will continue to accelerate, as governments prioritize self-sufficiency and security through increased domestic industrial capacity, energy independence, and onshoring or near-shoring of critical sectors. Policymakers are only just beginning to implement once-in-a-generation financial incentives for new infrastructure technologies and projects.” [Emphasis added.]
Carney, Fink, and other climate financiers are not capitalists. They are corporatists who think the government should direct private industry. They want to work with government officials to benefit themselves and hamstring their competition. Capitalists engage in private voluntary association and exchange. They compete with other capitalists in the marketplace for consumer dollars. Success or failure falls squarely on their shoulders and the shoulders of their investors. They are subject to the desires of consumers and are rewarded for making their customers’ lives better.
Corporatists, on the other hand, are like puppeteers. Their donations influence government officials, and, in return, their funding comes out of coerced tax dollars, not voluntary exchange. Their success arises not from improving customers’ lives, but from manipulating the system. They put on a show of creating value rather than really creating value for people. In corporatism, the “public” goals of corporations matter more than the wellbeing of citizens.
But the corporatist ESG advocates are facing serious backlash too. The Texas Permanent School Fund withdrew $8.5 billion from Blackrock last week. They join almost a dozen state pensions that have withdrawn money from Blackrock management over the past few years. And last week Alabama passed legislation defunding public DEI programs. They follow in the footsteps of Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Utah, Tennessee, and others.
State attorneys general have been applying significant pressure on companies that signed on to the “net zero” pledges championed by Carney, Fink, and other ESG advocates. JPMorgan and State Street both withdrew from Climate Action 100+ in February. Major insurance companies started withdrawing from the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance in 2023.
Still, most Americans either don’t know much about ESG and its potential negative consequences on their lives or, worse, actually favour letting ESG distort the market. This must change. It’s time the ESG puppeteers found out that the “puppets” have ideas, goals, and plans of their own. Investors, taxpayers, and voters should not be manipulated and used to climate activists’ ends.
They must keep pulling back on the strings or, better yet, cut them altogether.
Paul Mueller is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. He received his PhD in economics from George Mason University. Previously, Dr. Mueller taught at The King’s College in New York City.
Originally posted at the American Institute for Economic Research, reposted with permission.
From the Fraser Institute
Evidence continues to accrue that many of these “investments,” which are ultimately of course taxpayer funded, are risky ventures indeed.
Even as the much-vaunted electric vehicle (EV) transition slams into stiff headwinds, the Trudeau government and Ontario’s Ford government will pour another $5 billion in subsidies into Honda, which plans to build an EV battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario.
This comes on top of a long list of other such “investments” including $15 billion for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution, $13 billion for Volkswagen (with a real cost to Ottawa of $16.3 billion, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer), a combined $4.24 billion (federal/Quebec split) to Northvolt, a Swedish battery maker, and a combined $644 million (federal/Quebec split) to Ford Motor Company to build a cathode manufacturing plant in Quebec.
All this government subsidizing is of course meant to help remake the automobile, with the Trudeau government mandating that 100 per cent of new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in Canada be zero-emission by 2035. But evidence continues to accrue that many of these “investments,” which are ultimately of course taxpayer funded, are risky ventures indeed.
As the Wall Street Journal notes, Tesla, the biggest EV maker in the United States, has seen its share prices plummet (down 41 per cent this year) as the company struggles to sell its vehicles at the pace of previous years when first-adopters jumped into the EV market. Some would-be EV makers or users are postponing their own EV investments. Ford has killed it’s electric F-150 pickup truck, Hertz is dumping one-third of its fleet of EV rental vehicles, and Swedish EV company Polestar dropped 15 per cent of its global work force while Tesla is cutting 10 per cent of its global staff.
And in the U.S., a much larger potential market for EVs, a recent Gallup poll shows a market turning frosty. The percentage of Americans polled by Gallup who said they’re seriously considering buying an EV has been declining from 12 per cent in 2023 to 9 per cent in 2024. Even more troubling for would-be EV sellers is that only 35 per cent of poll respondents in 2024 said they “might consider” buying an EV in the future. That number is down from 43 per cent in 2023.
Overall, according to Gallup, “less than half of adults, 44 per cent, now say they are either seriously considering or might consider buying an EV in the future, down from 55 per cent in 2023, while the proportion not intending to buy one has increased from 41 per cent to 48 per cent.” In other words, in a future where government wants sellers to only sell EVs, almost half the U.S. public doesn’t want to buy one.
And yet, Canada’s governments are hitting the gas pedal on EVs, putting the hard-earned capital of Canadian taxpayers at significant risk. A smart government would have its finger in the wind and would slow down when faced with road bumps. It might even reset its GPS and change the course of its 2035 EV mandate for vehicles few motorists want to buy.
Author:
Medical Elites’ Disgrace Over Ivermectin
Getting Real About Justin’s Real Estate Economy. It Won’t Last
Parent and gender dysphoria groups granted intervenor status in New Brunswick school policy case
Electric vehicle mandates mean misery all around
Official Temperature Data Aren’t ‘Data’ and Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict Freedom
Elon Musk skewers Trudeau gov’t Online Harms bill as ‘insane’ for targeting speech retroactively
‘It Makes No Sense’: Experts Puzzled By Biden Admin’s Claim That Rafah Invasion Wouldn’t Help Israel Defeat Hamas
-
Alberta1 day agoPharmacist-led clinics improve access to health care: Lessons from Alberta
-
Alberta23 hours ago30 million contraband cigarettes valued at $25 million dollars seized in Alberta
-
COVID-193 hours agoCOVID Lab Leak: Over four later, EcoHealth Alliance funding is finally suspended
-
Alberta2 days agoProvince announces next step to revamped health care system
-
Censorship Industrial Complex13 hours agoJim Jordan Exposes Biden’s Censorship-Industrial Complex
-
Automotive1 day ago
Governments in Canada accelerate EV ‘investments’ as automakers reverse course
-
Alberta2 days agoRed Deer Hospital Lottery – Second Chance Early Bird Prize!!!
-
armed forces2 days agoTrudeau government has spent $10 million promoting DEI in the military as recruitment flounders