Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

Why Canada should get carbon credits for LNG exports

Published

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.

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

Energy

Putin’s uranium export restrictions are a gift for Canada

Published on

From Resource Works

“The World Nuclear Association says Canada could now play a major role in meeting future world demand, as several key nations eye nuclear energy to meet growing demand for electrical power and for power production that does not use fossil fuels.”

Good to see Russian President Vladimir Putin proposing restrictions on Russian exports of uranium in retaliation for Western sanctions on Russian oil, gas, and LNG.

“Please take a look at some of the types of goods that we supply to the world market,” he told Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. “Maybe we should think about certain restrictions — uranium, titanium, nickel.”

Russia is the world’s sixth-largest uranium producer and has about 44% of global uranium enrichment capacity.

Canada, once the world’s largest uranium producer, is now the world’s second-largest producer of uranium, behind Kazakhstan. Canada accounts for roughly 13% of total global output, and Putin’s comment quickly increased the value of shares of our uranium producers.

The World Nuclear Association says Canada could now play a major role in meeting future world demand, as several key nations eye nuclear energy to meet growing demand for electrical power and for power production that does not use fossil fuels.

The Cigar Lake mine in Saskatchewan is one of the world’s richest in uranium. The McClean Lake mill, which processes it, is operated by a subsidiary of France’s Orano and sells 40% of its production to the French electric utility company, EDF.

Australia’s Paladin Energy moved in June to buy Canadian uranium explorer Fission Uranium for $1.14 billion. That purchase is now undergoing a national security review ordered by Ottawa.

Canada’s 34 “critical metals” and minerals have been taking up more of Ottawa’s interest, with the feds pushing their Critical Minerals Strategy and making it harder for foreign firms to acquire Canada’s biggest mining companies.

Now, Saskatchewan has vowed to compete with China in processing and production of rare earths and to become the prime North American source for metals used to make magnets for electric vehicles and wind turbines.

All this comes as one outlook says the global mining industry will require US$2.1 trillion in new investments by 2050 to meet the raw material demands of a net-zero-emissions world. The report says critical energy-transition metals, including aluminum, copper, and lithium, could face supply deficits this decade—some as early as this year.

In Canada, a new report from consultants EY says “capital is king” and is the top risk facing the mining industry this year, as tough financing and economic conditions make it more difficult to deliver the metals needed for the energy transition.

“We need about $1 trillion in investment to produce enough metals for the energy transition,” says Theo Yameogo, EY Americas and Canada mining and metals leader. “We haven’t seen that coming in. Now it’s the #1 (risk) because people are really worried. We’ve seen some M&A, but we haven’t seen direct investment in the mining sector.”

This points to the need for Canadian governments to simplify and speed up regulatory processes for new mines. It can take 12 to 15 years before a proposed mine can get through all the red tape from assorted governments and get into its first production. Jonathan Wilkinson, federal minister of energy and natural resources, announced in March that Canada would soon launch an Action Plan to speed up the mine-permitting process. But we still don’t see it.

Continue Reading

Alberta

“It’s Canada’s Time to Shine” – CNRL’s $6.5 Billion Chevron Deal Extends Oil Sands Buying Spree

Published on

From Energy Now

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.’s $6.5 billion acquisition from Chevron Corp. marks the latest in a string of deals that has helped make it the country’s largest oil producer and brought Alberta’s massive oil sands deposits almost entirely under local control.

CNRL has feasted on the oil sands assets of foreign energy producers over the past decade, snapping up stakes and operations from Devon Energy Corp. and Shell Plc as they shifted away from the higher-cost, higher-emissions oil sands business. Investors have applauded the strategy, which allows CNRL to boost output and make the operations more efficient.

That trend continued on Monday, with CNRL shares climbing more than 4% after the deal with Chevron raised its stake in a key oil sands mine and a connected upgrading facility, while also adding natural gas assets in the Duvernay formation.

“These assets build on the robustness of Canadian Natural’s assets,” said CNRL President Scott Stauth said on a conference call Monday. The deal boosts CNRL’s stake in the Athabasca oil sands project, which it first bought from Shell in 2017, to 90% from 70%.

The acquisition was largely expected and boosts CNRL’s oil and gas output by roughly 9%, adding the equivalent of 122,500 barrels of oil production per day.

“It’s just been a matter of time,” Eight Capital analyst Phil Skolnick said by phone, noting that CNRL had been seen as the logical buyer for Chevron’s oil sands business.

While CNRL also boosted its dividend by 7% on Monday, Desjardins analyst Chris MacCulloch  cautioned the company’s additional debt to finance the acquisition “may disappoint some investors” given it plans to temporarily slow capital returns.

Still, MacCulloch said the deal is positive overall for CNRL as it further consolidates assets in the region. “There’s no place like home,” he wrote in a note.

Chevron, for its part, is the latest in a long line of US and international oil producers — such as BP Plc, TotalEnergies SE and Equinor ASA — that have shifted away from the oil sands after spending billions to build facilities in the heavy-oil formation. That has left the oil sands largely in the control of Canadian firms including CNRL, Suncor Energy Inc. and Cenovus Energy Inc.

“There’s no remaining, obvious assets available,” Ninepoint Partners partner and senior portfolio manager Eric Nuttall said after Monday’s deal. Ninepoint owns 3.1 million shares in CNRL, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Many of those oil sands deals have been struck at prices that favor the Canadian buyers, which have consolidated land, reduced costs and boosted returns in recent years.

“It’s Canada’s time to shine,” Nuttall said, adding that he expects foreign investors will return to the country’s oil producers in the future.

Continue Reading

Trending

X