Economy
On low natural gas prices: Frontier Centre for Public Policy

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Terry Etam
To say that “natural gas is a dying commodity” takes either some world-class mental dishonesty, disturbingly blind faith in policy over reality, or some kind of “clouds hate me” philosophical stance on life.
Is there any critical industrial material as bizarre as natural gas?
The stuff holds almost zero interest for the general public, for the same reason no one is interested in the sound of a washing machine. Both boring. Both ubiquitous. Natural gas isn’t even sold on Amazon. But forty-six percent of American homes use natural gas for heat, and surely more in Canada.
But consider the storm below the surface. Traders love it, because it is one of the most volatile commodities in existence, and volatility means trading profits. The volatility, at the slightest provocation, is almost unbelievable at times. The weather pattern shifts for three weeks out over a portion of the US and boom – the entire forward 18 months of prices can collapse or soar.
In the bigger picture though, natural gas today in North America trades at close to the same price it did a quarter century ago – not inflation adjusted, just the same old nominal dollar value, which is astonishing since global gas demand has increased by 60 percent in that time.
Natural gas is a critical fuel for much of the world, and usage is growing, particularly the relatively new field of LNG. According to the Global Gas Infrastructure Tracker website, which doesn’t even like the stuff, there are a total of 2,449 significant pipeline projects underway in the world for a total of 1.2 million kilometers (and that’s the big pipe, not the little straws that go to your house). There are 238 LNG import terminals and 189 export trains in development globally. One hundred and thirty countries either have natural gas systems or are constructing them.
Traders, consumers and businesses love the stuff even if they don’t say it often enough, while others loathe it because it is a ‘fossil fuel’. Natural gas is caught in an existential war whereby said opponents will do everything in their power to just make it go away (they really think they can). The Toronto Globe and Mail, “Canada’s news paper” (note to self: develop ethnocentric balloon head emoji, make millions), recently ran a pricelessly ludicrous opinion piece entitled ‘Natural gas is a dying commodity, and Canada needs to stop supporting it’. The article was written by one of those think tanks (International Institute for Sustainable Development) that produces nothing but ideological amplification, safely distanced from people that actually do stuff, and a mountain of impressive T4 income tax slips (latest fiscal year personnel/consultant expense: $33 million). There is no surprise that their team of political scientists would attack natural gas; their latest financials show that the Government of Canada granted them $40 million, a third of which is from climate activist/federal minister Guilbeault’s office. There’ll be no biting that little hand.
Many climate leadership icons of the world, the US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan… pretty much anyone that can, is building natural gas (LNG or non) infrastructure as fast as they can. Germany, home to the world’s most advanced green energy demolition derby, built an LNG import terminal in an astounding 5 months. Many that want to import LNG but weren’t able to last year because Europe hoovered up every molecule on the market are simply doing what it takes to attain energy security, and that can mean, lord tunderin’, coal. Pakistan is the most notable example – the country plans to quadruple coal fired power output and move away from gas only because it could not obtain it: “A shortage of natural gas, which accounts for over a third of the country’s power output, plunged large areas into hours of darkness last year.” The country’s energy minister went on, “We have some of the world’s most efficient regasified LNG-based power plants. But we don’t have the gas to run them.”
For those fortunate enough to line up LNG supplies, the ante is normally a 15-20 year contract.
To say that “natural gas is a dying commodity” takes either some world-class mental dishonesty, disturbingly blind faith in policy over reality, or some kind of “clouds hate me” philosophical stance on life.
Beyond the silly messaging looking to undermine natural gas though are some very powerful undercurrents that are shaping the world in ways most don’t consider, but they should.
Thanks to the shale revolution in the US and Canada, native natural gas production exploded onto a scene that couldn’t handle the excess, leading to persistently low prices. North America is turning into an LNG export powerhouse, but until that export capacity outpaces productive capability, natural gas prices in North America look set to remain far below global prices.
It is worth remembering how significant this scenario is for North America. Cheap natural gas is an industrial godsend, enabling many strata of industries and enterprises that simply would not exist without. In May of 2022, the head of the Western Equipment Dealers Association, said that the previous winter’s high natural gas prices were unsustainable for businesses that had to heat 30-40,000 square-foot shops. The 2021-22 winter of which he was discontented saw Henry Hub prices average $4.56/mmbtu – about a third of global prices, and a fraction of what the world was to face later that year.
The same article pointed out how the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, a trade group whose members include smelters, plastics and paper-goods makers, wanted the US to stop permitting new LNG export terminals because “The manufacturing sector cannot invest and create jobs without assurances that our natural gas and electricity prices will not be imperiled by excessive LNG exports.”
Those guys aren’t crazy. The US gas market is balanced on a knife edge. A change in next month’s forecast can create havoc in forward prices even up to several years out.
The rise of LNG is making things even more unstable. The Freeport LNG terminal had an 8 month outage due to an accident, removing 2 bcf/d of demand from the market (in a 100 bcf/d market); this single event caused a storage surplus in the US that has depressed natural gas prices ever since. All else being equal, the US natural gas storage scene would be in a deficit to the five year average as opposed to today’s surplus if Freeport had not gone down, and both spot and futures prices would most likely be significantly higher. The Freeport outage probably knocked US natural gas prices down by at least $1/mmbtu for a period of 8 months, and actually probably much more. But even at that level, in a 100 bcf/d market, where 1 bcf is equal to 1 million mmbtus, the cost savings to US consumers totaled $100 million per day. (Of course, had the price stayed higher, we might have seen far more drilling, which may have caused a collapse as well, just a bit further down the road.)
That $100 million per day cost saving came out of the hide of North American natural gas producers selling into that market, and you’d think they wouldn’t like that one little bit. And they don’t. But gas producers have their own realities and game plans which don’t generally involve sacrificing any of their sales for the good of all other producers, as economically sensible as that strategy may be.
US producers find themselves in an odd situation. Every one of the large producers knows that they could cut production by 5 percent and double their profits; the market is that tightly balanced. Doing so would single handedly drive up NG prices substantially – just observe how the gas market goes ape over a change in weather forecast.
But driving up prices, even if it is in their own self interest, will mean a spike in production, because at sustained $4 US gas, the market becomes flooded. EQT president Toby Rice, the largest US gas producer (EQT, not Toby), says at a sustained $4/mmbtu natural gas price, the US could export 60 bcf/d of natural gas. Keep in mind that $4 gas is a fraction, anywhere from a third to ten percent of global LNG prices.
Mr. Rice may very well be correct, but glosses over the reality of natural gas prices: we will never see a sensible sustained price like $4, even though we may average it – we will see 2 and 8 and 3 and 9 and so on and so on.
On top of this, solution gas from oil plays like Permian is providing massive amounts of gas in itself. The Permian, primarily an oil field, produces more solution gas than the entire country of Canada. Permian solution gas, if a stand alone country, would be one of the world’s top five largest producers.
So who cares? Well, you all do. We all do. The goofballs that wrote the Globe & Mail article do, though they either won’t admit it or simply refuse to understand.
Natural gas is the bedrock of most economies, and cheap natural gas is a special elixir to North America. It is absolutely crucial to the level of industrial activity we enjoy. There is no substitute for the clean burning capability of the stuff. Wander into a typical big box store or more crucially try to wander into an industrial building that you won’t be allowed to because it is unsafe… drive around an industrial park and look at all the magnificent industrial activity that gives us the life we live. Now imagine those being heated by wood stoves. Or solar panels in dead of winter. Geothermal? Sure, if you plan on drilling into the earth’s mantle. And if you live on an appropriate acreage. And have enough money. I guess there’s always coal.
And that sums up a lot of the world’s population’s situation: If countries aren’t building LNG, it’s likely because they are building coal, as in the countries that Europe outbid for LNG last winter in a shocking me-first display of hydrocarbon-swilling (accompanied by fossil-fuel-subsidizing self-loathing?) hypocrisy.
There are storm clouds on the horizon. The drilling efficiency that these companies boast about relentlessly in IR presentations and every 90 days in conference calls consists to a large degree on drilling longer horizontal wells. Do the math on that one. Reservoirs are finite in size. If you increase the length of wells by another mile or two, you’re just draining the reservoir faster. One day we will see true sweet spot exhaustion, which is not a laughing matter when one considers that three fields – Appalachia, Haynesville and Permian – account for more than 70 percent of US gas production, and about a fifth of global production.
But for now, North America reigns supreme with respect to the world’s most coveted heating and industrial fuel. The US, Canada and Mexico remain more or less isolated from global natural gas prices for now, which brings incalculable benefits to North American businesses and citizens, a benefit that shouldn’t be taken for granted.
Terry Etam is a columnist with the BOE Report, a leading energy industry newsletter based in Calgary. He is the author of The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity. You can watch his Policy on the Frontier session from May 5, 2022 here.
Canadian Energy Centre
Emissions cap will end Canada’s energy superpower dream

From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
Study finds legislation’s massive cost outweighs any environmental benefit
The negative economic impact of Canada’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap will be much larger than previously projected, warns a study by the Center for North American Prosperity and Security (CNAPS).
The report concluded that the cost of the emissions cap far exceeds any benefit from emissions reduction within Canada, and it could push global emissions higher instead of lower.
Based on findings this March by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), CNAPS pegs the cost of the cap to be up to $289,000 per tonne of reduced emissions.
That’s more than 3,600 times the cost of the $80-per-tonne federal carbon tax eliminated this spring.
The proposed cap has already chilled investment as Canada’s policymakers look to “nation-building” projects to strengthen the economy, said lead author Heather Exner-Pirot.
“Why would any proponent invest in Canada with this hanging over it? That’s why no other country is talking about an emissions cap on its energy sector,” said Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
Federal policy has also stifled discussion of these issues, she said. Two of the CNAPS study’s co-authors withdrew their names based on legal advice related to the government’s controversial “anti-greenwashing” legislation.
“Legitimate debate should not be stifled in Canada on this or any government policy,” said Exner-Pirot.
“Canadians deserve open public dialogue, especially on policies of this economic magnitude.”
Carbon leakage
To better understand the impact of the cap, CNAPS researchers expanded the PBO’s estimates to reflect impacts beyond Canada’s borders.
“The problem is something called carbon leakage. We know that while some regions have reduced their emissions, other jurisdictions have increased their emissions,” said Exner-Pirot.
“Western Europe, for example, has de-industrialized but emissions in China are [going up like] a hockey stick, so all it’s done is move factories and plants from Europe to China along with the emissions.”
Similarly, the Canadian oil and gas production cut by the cap will be replaced in global markets by other producers, she said. There is no reason to assume capping oil and gas emissions in Canada will affect global demand.
The federal budget office assumed the legislation would reduce emissions by 7.1 million tonnes. CNAPS researchers applied that exclusively to Canada’s oil sands.
Here’s the catch: on average, oil sands crude is only about 1 to 3 percent more carbon-intensive than the average crude oil used globally (with some facilities emitting less than the global average).
So, instead of the cap reducing world emissions by 7.1 million tonnes, the real cut would be only 1 to 3 percent of that total, or about 71,000 to 213,000 tonnes worldwide.
In that case, using the PBO’s estimate of a $20.5 billion cost for the cap in 2032, the price of carbon is equivalent to $96,000 to $289,000 per tonne.
Economic pain with no environmental gain
Exner-Pirot said doing the same math with Canada’s “conventional” or non-oil sands production makes the situation “absurd.”
That’s because Canadian conventional oil and natural gas have lower emissions intensity than global averages. So reducing that production would actually increase global emissions, resulting in an infinite price per tonne of carbon.
“This proposal creates economic pain with no environmental gain,” said Samantha Dagres, spokesperson for the Montreal Economic Institute.
“By capping emissions here, you are signalling to investors that Canada isn’t interested in investment. Production will move to jurisdictions with poorer environmental standards as well as bad records on human rights.”
There’s growing awareness about the importance of the energy sector to Canada’s prosperity, she said.
“The public has shown a real appetite for Canada to become an energy superpower. That’s why a June poll found 73 per cent of Canadians, including 59 per cent in Quebec, support pipelines.”
Industries need Canadian energy
Dennis Darby, CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME), warns the cap threatens Canada’s broader economic interests due to its outsized impact beyond the energy sector.
“Our industries run on Canadian energy. Canada should not unnecessarily hamstring itself relative to our competitors in the rest of the world,” said Darby.
CME represents firms responsible for over 80 per cent of Canada’s manufacturing output and 90 per cent of its exports.
Rather than the cap legislation, the Ottawa-based organization wants the federal government to offer incentives for sectors to reduce their emissions.
“We strongly believe in the carrot approach and see the market pushing our members to get cleaner,” said Darby.
Business
Carney engaging in Orwellian doublethink with federal budget rhetoric

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss
In George Orwell’s classic 1984, he describes a dystopian world dominated by “doublethink”—instances whereby people hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously while accepting them both. In recent comments about the upcoming October federal budget, Prime Minister Carney unfortunately offered a prime example of doublethink in action.
During a press conference, Carney was critical of his predecessor’s mismanagement of federal finances, specifically unsustainable increases in spending year after year, and stated his 2025 budget will instead focus on “both austerity and investments.” This should strike Canadians as an obvious contradiction. Austerity involves lowering government spending while investing refers to the exact opposite.
Such doublethink may make for good political rhetoric, but it only muddies the waters on the actual direction of fiscal policy in Ottawa. The government can either cut overall spending to try to get a handle on federal finances and reduce the role of Ottawa in the economy, or it can increase spending (but call it “investment”) to continue the spending policies of the Trudeau government. It can’t do both. It must pick a lane when it comes to mutually exclusive policies.
Despite the smoke and mirrors on display during his press junket, the prime minister appears poised to be a bigger spender and borrower than Trudeau. Late last year, the Trudeau government indicated it planned to grow program spending from $504.1 billion in 2025/26 to $547.8 billion by 2028/29.
After becoming the Liberal Party leader earlier this year, Carney delivered a party platform that pledged to increase spending to roughly $533.3 billion this year, well above what the Trudeau government planned last fall, and then to $566.4 billion by 2028/29. Following the election, he then announced plans to significantly increase military spending.
While the prime minister has touted a plan to find “ambitious savings” in the operating budget through a so-called “comprehensive expenditure review,” his government is excluding more than half of all federal spending including transfers to individuals such as Old Age Security and transfers to the provinces for health care and other social programs. Even with the savings anticipated following the review, the Carney government will likely not reduce overall spending but rather simply slow the pace of annual spending increases.
Moreover, the Liberal Party platform shows the government expects to borrow $224.8 billion—$93.4 billion more than Trudeau planned to borrow. And that’s before the new military spending. That’s not austerity—even if Prime Minister Carney truly believes it to be.
Actual austerity would require a decrease in year-over-year expenses, smaller deficits than what the Trudeau government planned, and a path back to a true balanced budget in a reasonable timeframe. Instead, Carney will almost certainly hike overall spending each year, raise the deficits compared to his predecessor, and could even fall short of his tepid goal of balancing the operating budget within three years (which would still involve tens of billions more borrowed in a separate capital budget).
While budgets normally provide clarity on a government’s spending, taxing, and borrowing expect more doublethink from the October budget that will tout the government’s austerity measures while increasing spending and borrowing via “investments.”
-
Censorship Industrial Complex22 hours ago
Freedom of speech under threat on university campuses in Canada
-
Alberta17 hours ago
Ottawa’s destructive federal energy policies and Premier Danielle Smith’s three part solution
-
Business22 hours ago
Carney engaging in Orwellian doublethink with federal budget rhetoric
-
Alberta22 hours ago
Is Alberta getting ripped off by Ottawa? The numbers say yes
-
Energy22 hours ago
Canada’s LNG breakthrough must be just the beginning
-
Business23 hours ago
Court’s ‘Aboriginal title’ ruling further damages B.C.’s investment climate
-
Business23 hours ago
Manitoba Must Act Now To Develop Its Northern Ports
-
Agriculture16 hours ago
In the USA, Food Trumps Green Energy, Wind And Solar