Connect with us

Energy

The environmental case for Canadian LNG

Published

2 months ago

9 minute read

From Resource Works 

By Nelson Bennett

Canada’s new prime minister has made some encouraging pronouncements recently about making Canada an energy superpower – a pledge repeated by King Charles in Tuesday’s throne speech.

Canada’s new prime minister has made some encouraging pronouncements recently about making Canada an energy superpower — a pledge repeated by King Charles in Tuesday’s throne speech.

Mark Carney, through the King, made the clarion call to make Canada “the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

But how can Canada increase oil and gas production and exports while adhering to its green ambitions of net zero by 2050?

Two reports out last week — one from the Fraser Institute, the other from the Pembina Institute — help make a case for the net environmental benefits of a Canadian LNG export industry.

The Fraser Institute’s Exporting Canadian LNG to the World cites three B.C.-specific GHG life cycle models of coal-to-gas switching to conclude that, if LNG exports from B.C. replaced coal power in China, greenhouse gas emissions there could be reduced 34% to 62%.

If Canada were to double its current natural gas production and export it to Asia, “global GHG emissions could be reduced by up to 630 million tonnes annually,” the report asserts.

Canada’s total GHG emissions in 2023 was 694 million tonnes, according to Environment Canada. So, according to the Fraser Institute’s math, the equivalent of Canada’s total GHG emissions could be almost entirely erased, simply by exporting LNG to China to displace coal.

There’s a couple of flies in this ointment, which I’ll get to shortly, but the argument that there would be net environmental benefits to Canadian LNG exports still holds up, I think.

Coal accounts for about 45% of global emissions from fuel combustion, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Switching from coal to natural gas in thermal power generation can result in a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But natural gas isn’t just a cleaner fuel, it’s also a critical feed stock — for which there is no real substitute — for an array of industrial and  petrochemical processes, including fertilizer production. Like it or not, there will be a demand for natural gas for decades to come, and Canada is demonstrating that it can produce it with much lower emissions intensity than almost anyone else.

That natural gas can reduce emissions when it displaces coal is not theoretical — there’s proof. In the U.S., a 32% decrease in CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2019 in the power sector was attributed largely to coal-to-gas fuel switching, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

“Lower CO2 emissions have largely been a result of a shift from coal to natural gas in the electricity generation mix,” the EIA concludes.

Now for the flies in the ointment.

First, while there could indeed be sizable global emissions reductions if Canadian LNG displaced coal power in China, India and other parts of Asia, we couldn’t claim those reductions under the current Paris Agreement model.

(Nota bene: Donald Trump is once again withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, and the U.S. — now the world’s biggest LNG exporter — has no compunction over gobbling up as much LNG market share as it can.)

Canada and China are both signatories to the Paris Agreement. Each country produces its own climate action plans — nationally determined contributions — and can only count emissions reductions within its own national borders.

We can’t claim Chinese emissions reductions for our own, even if it were the result of Canadian LNG imports.

There has been talk of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) that would allow Canada to be credited for emissions reduced in China from coal displacement through LNG. I don’t know why China, having achieved emissions reductions through coal-to-gas fuel switching, would surrender those reductions to Canada.

Achieving some win-win ITMO agreement would take some fancy bargaining, and perhaps Mark Carney is up to this task. He knows a thing or two about these sorts of things, having served as the UN’s special envoy on climate action and finance.

But even if ITMOs are not possible for Canadian LNG exports, there are still compelling economic and environmental arguments for Canada to act on its strengths — abundant resources, high demand for those resources, and comparatively high environmental standards.

Anti-fossil fuel activists will, of course, continue to trot out the canard that LNG is as bad, if not worse, than coal, because of the methane associated with upstream natural gas production.

It’s true that methane is the Achilles heel of natural gas and LNG. Because of its high global warming potential, even small amounts of methane — leakage rates of 2% or more — can begin to negate natural gas’s lower CO2 intensity.

Fortunately, methane leakage can be addressed through better plumbing, best practices, regulations, and better monitoring, and as the Pembina Institute points out, B.C.’s natural gas sector has leading the way here.

According to the BC Energy Regulator, measurements completed in 2021 estimate the methane intensity of B.C. natural gas production at just 0.38% to 0.48%, which is well below the 1.1% to 1.8% ceiling set for methane intensity in oil and gas production.

The result of this work on methane abatement is that B.C. has met its methane reduction targets for oil and gas two years ahead of schedule, according to the Pembina Institute.

Between 2014 and 2023, B.C. natural gas production grew 67 per cent, while methane emissions from oil and gas production fell by 51 per cent, the Pembina Institute notes in its report, Raising the Bar.

“B.C.’s success offers yet more evidence that methane emissions can be tackled without impeding the oil and gas industry’s operations,” Amanda Bryant, senior analyst for Pembina Institute, says in a press release accompanying the report.

“If anything, given the number of countries now considering new import standards that will privilege low-emissions energy products, stringent methane regulations – backed by transparent, best-in-class measurement data – are going to be key in bolstering the global competitiveness of our oil and gas sector.”

It must be added that, in addition to lower methane intensities, natural gas and LNG produced in B.C. also has lower CO2 intensities, thanks to electrification of the upstream and of some of the planned LNG plants. China, India, Japan, South Korea and other Asia Pacific nations will continue to buy natural gas and LNG from someone for years to come.

Shouldn’t that someone be Canada?

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 12 mins ago

Biden autopen scandal: Did unelected aides commit fraud during his final days in office?

Business / 1 hour ago

Conservatives demand probe into Liberal vaccine injury program’s $50m mismanagement

Business / 4 hours ago

Canada must address its birth tourism problem

Energy

Activists using the courts in attempt to hijack energy policy

Published on July 14, 2025

By

2016 image provided by Misti Leon, left, sits with her mom, Juliana Leon. Misti Leon is suing several oil and gas companies in one of the first wrongful-death claims in the U.S. seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in the changing climate.

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Isaac

They twist yesterday’s weather into tomorrow’s crisis, peddle apocalyptic forecasts that fizzle, and swap “global warming” for “climate change” whenever the narrative demands. They sound the alarm on a so-called climate emergency — again and again.

Now, the Left has plunged to a new low: weaponizing the courts with a lawsuit in Washington State that marks a brazen, desperate escalation. This isn’t just legal maneuvering—it’s the exploitation of personal tragedy in service of an unpopular anti-energy climate crusade.

Consider the case at the center of a new legal circus: Juliana Leon, 65, tragically died of hyperthermia during a 100-mile drive in a car with broken air conditioning, as a brutal heat wave pushed temperatures to 108 degrees Fahrenheit.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

The lawsuit leaps from this heartbreaking event to a sweeping claim: that a single hot day is the direct result of global warming.

The lawsuit preposterously links a very specific hot weather event to theorized global warming. Buckle up—their logic is about to take a wild ride.

Some activist scientists have further speculated that what may be a gradual long-term trend of slight warming thought to be both cyclical and natural, might be possibly exacerbated by the release of greenhouse gases. Some of these releases are the result of volcanic activity while some comes from human activities, including the burning of oil, natural gas and coal.

Grabbing onto that last, unproven thread, the plaintiffs have zeroed in on a handful of energy giants—BP, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Phillips 66, Shell, and the Olympic Pipe Company—accusing them of causing Leon’s death. Apparently, these few companies are to blame for the entire planet’s climate, while other oil giants, coal companies, and the billions of consumers who actually use these fuels get a free pass.

Meanwhile, “climate journalists” in the legacy media have ignored key details that will surely surface in court. Leon made her journey in a car with no air conditioning, despite forecasts warning of dangerous heat. She was returning from a doctor’s visit, having just been cleared to eat solid food after recent bariatric surgery.

But let’s be clear: this lawsuit isn’t about truth, justice, or even common sense. It’s lawfare, plain and simple.

Environmental extremists are using the courts to hijack national energy policy, aiming to force through a radical agenda they could never pass in Congress. A courtroom win would mean higher energy prices for everyone, the potential bankruptcy of energy companies, or their takeover by the so-called green industrial complex. For the trial lawyers, these cases are gold mines, with contingency fees that could reach hundreds of millions.

This particular lawsuit was reportedly pitched to Leon’s daughter by the left-leaning Center for Climate Integrity, a group bankrolled by billionaire British national Christopher Hohn through his Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and by the Rockefeller Foundation. It’s yet another meritless claim in the endless list of climate lawsuits that are increasingly being tossed out of courts across the country.

Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania judge threw out a climate nuisance suit against oil producers brought by Bucks County, citing lack of jurisdiction. In New York, Supreme Court Justice Anar Patel dismissed a massive climate lawsuit by New York City, pointing out the city couldn’t claim both public awareness and deception by oil companies in the same breath.

But the Washington State case goes even further, threatening to set a dangerous precedent: if it moves forward, energy companies could face limitless liability for any weather-related injury. Worse, it would give unwarranted credibility to the idea — floated by a leftwing activist before the U.S. Senate — that energy executives could be prosecuted for homicide, a notion that Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz rightly called “moonbeam, wacky theory.”

The courts must keep rejecting these absurd lawfare stunts. More importantly, America’s energy policy should be set by Congress—elected and accountable—not by a single judge in a municipal courtroom.

Jason Isaac is the founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

 

Continue Reading

Alberta

Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says

Published on July 14, 2025

By

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Cody Ciona

‘Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests’

Billions of investment in new data centres is still expected in Alberta despite the province’s electric system operator placing a temporary limit on new large-load grid connections, said Carson Kearl, lead data centre analyst for Enverus Intelligence Research.

Kearl cited NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s estimate from earlier this year that building a one-gigawatt data centre costs between US$60 billion and US$80 billion.

That implies the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)’s 1.2 gigawatt temporary limit would still allow for up to C$130 billion of investment.

“It’s got the potential to be extremely impactful to the Alberta power sector and economy,” Kearl said.

Importantly, data centre operators can potentially get around the temporary limit by ‘bringing their own power’ rather than drawing electricity from the existing grid.

In Alberta’s deregulated electricity market – the only one in Canada – large energy consumers like data centres can build the power supply they need by entering project agreements directly with electricity producers.

According to the AESO, there are 30 proposed data centre projects across the province.

The total requested power load for these projects is more than 16 gigawatts, roughly four gigawatts more than Alberta’s demand record in January 2024 during a severe cold snap.

For comparison, Edmonton’s load is around 1.4 gigawatts, the AESO said.

“Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests,” CEO Aaron Engen said in a statement.

“Because connecting all large loads seeking access would impair grid reliability, we established a limit that preserves system integrity while enabling timely data centre development in Alberta.”

As data centre projects come to the province, so do jobs and other economic benefits.

“You have all of the construction staff associated; electricians, engineers, plumbers, and HVAC people for all the cooling tech that are continuously working on a multi-year time horizon. In the construction phase there’s a lot of spend, and that is just generally good for the ecosystem,” said Kearl.

Investment in local power infrastructure also has long-term job implications for maintenance and upgrades, he said.

“Alberta is a really exciting place when it comes to building data centers,” said Beacon AI CEO Josh Schertzer on a recent ARC Energy Ideas podcast.

“It has really great access to natural gas, it does have some excess grid capacity that can be used in the short term, it’s got a great workforce, and it’s very business-friendly.”

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.

Continue Reading

Trending

X