The sudden, newfound support for LNG projects in Canada is truly remarkable.

What’s all this? Green-leaning governments, federal and provincial, suddenly speaking in favour of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and other resource development?

It began with British Columbia Premier David Eby telling Bloomberg News that he’s optimistic that LNG Canada’s LNG-for-export plant at Kitimat, BC can be expanded in a way that satisfies its investors but without supercharging the province’s emissions.

This came as LNG Canada was reported continuing to look into possible Phase Two expansion. Such expansion would double the plant’s output of LNG to 14 million tonnes a year.

Industry reports say LNG Canada has been discussing with prime contractors their potential availability down the road. A key, though, is whether and how B.C. can provide enough electrical power.

The LNG Canada plant now is going through a pre-production testing program, and has finished welding on its first “train” (production line). LNG Canada is expected to go into full operation in mid-2025. And Malaysia’s Petronas (a 25% partner) has added three new LNG carriers to its fleet, to gear up for LNG Canada’s launch.

The Eby story noted that he has also thrown his support behind other projects — including hydrogen production and an electric-vehicle battery recycling plant — to create jobs and keep B.C.’s economy growing at a challenging time.

Then came Ottawa’s minister of innovation, science and industry, François-Philippe Champagne, who visited the Haisla Nation in B.C. to support its Cedar LNG project with partner Pembina Pipeline Corp.

Champagne declared: “This is the kind of project we want to see, where there are all the elements supporting attracting investments in British Columbia.”

His government news release said: “This project presents an exciting opportunity for Canada, as it is expected to commercialize one of the lowest-carbon-intensity liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities in the world and represents the largest Indigenous-majority-owned infrastructure project in Canada.”

Champagne went on to tell The Terrace Standard that “We are in active conversations with Pembina and Haisla First Nations. We are saying today that we will support the project, but discussions are still ongoing.’

There had already been reports that Export Development Canada is set to lend Cedar LNG $400-$500 million.

And then came federal minister Jonathan Wilkinson, announcing to the national Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference in Calgary that Ottawa “will get clean growth projects built faster” by streamlining regulatory processes and moving to “make good approvals faster.”
Wilkinson has long talked, too, of streamlining and speeding up approval processes for resource projects in general, especially for mining for critical minerals. “(We’re) looking at how do we optimise the regulatory and permanent processes so you can take what is a 12- to 15-year process and bring it down to maybe five.”

The Canada Energy Regulator now is inviting input on its plans to improve the efficiency and predictability of project reviews.

All this as Deloitte Canada consultants reported that “the natural gas sector is poised for significant growth, driven by ongoing LNG projects and rising demand for gas-fired electricity generation in Canada.”

And energy giant BP said that under its two new energy ‘scenarios’, world demand for LNG in 2030 grows by 30-40% above 2022 levels, then increases by more than 25% over the subsequent 20 years.

Wilkinson earned pats on the back from some provincial ministers at the Calgary conference, but Alberta’s minister of energy and minerals, Brian Jean, aired concerns over how Ottawa’s new “greenwashing” law would impact the oil and gas sector.

Under it, companies (and individuals) must prove the truth of their public statements on climate benefits of their products or programs, or face potential millions in fines. But the ground rules for this legislation have not yet been announced.

(Jean was not alone. Other critics included CEO Karen Ogen of the First Nations LNG Alliance, who said the new law “could be used as one more tool to discourage resource companies that might seek Indigenous partnerships, and to obstruct Indigenous investment in energy projects, and frustrate Indigenous benefits from resource projects.”)

Wilkinson replied that the Competition Bureau needs to provide information so people understand how the rules apply and what is actionable.

“I think once that is done, this will be, perhaps, a bit of a different conversation. I would expect that the guidance will be something like folks simply have to have a good faith basis to believe what they’re saying. And assuming that is true, I think the sector probably will calm down.”

No pats on the back for Ottawa, though, from the mining industry or the oil-and-gas sector.

Aiming to combat China’s efforts to corner the market in critical minerals, Canada is making it harder for foreign firms to take over big Canadian mining companies. Major mining shares quickly dropped in value.

And Heather Exner-Pirot of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and special advisor to the Business Council of Canada, says: “We produced less critical minerals last year than we did in 2019. We’re producing less copper, less nickel, less platinum, less cobalt, all these things. And the investment has not picked up; in real dollars it’s almost half of what it was in 2013 . . . and the regulatory system is still a huge barrier to that development.”

On top of that, the petroleum sector has long protested that federal moves to limit oil and gas emissions will, in practice, limit production.

While governments signalled support for LNG, supporters of natural-resource development quickly sent clear messages to governments of all levels.

Calgary-based Canada Action, for one, reminded governments that the oil and gas sector is projected to generate more than in $1.1 trillion in revenue to governments from 2000 through 2032. And that the oil and gas sector supports nearly 500,000 direct and indirect jobs across the country.

Then the industry-supporting Fraser Institute pointed out that business investment in Canada’s extractive sector (mining, quarrying, and oil and gas) has declined substantially since 2014.

“In fact, adjusted for inflation, business investment in the oil and gas sector has declined 52.1 per cent since 2014, falling from $46.6 billion in 2014 to $22.3 billion in 2022. In percentage terms the decline in non-conventional oil extraction was even larger at 71.2 percent, falling from $37.3 billion in 2014 to $10.7 billion in 2022. . . .

“One of the major challenges facing Canadian prosperity are regulatory barriers, particularly in the oil and gas sector.”

Over to government, then, to reduce those barriers.

Following the recent positive moves listed above from two levels of government, there’s an obvious question: Would there happen to be federal and provincial elections in the offing?

Yes: B.C. will hold its next general election on or before October 19. And the feds go to the polls for an election on or before October 20.

Stand by for more promises.

Related Topics:#BCPremierDavidEby #CanadaLNG #LNGCanada #ResourceWorks LiquefiedNaturalGas PembinaPipelineCorp.

Up Next

Electric vehicles facing uphill climb

Don't Miss

New $1 billion pipeline deal spreads Indigenous ownership through Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan

Todayville

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

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Crime / 4 hours ago

U.S. seizes Cuba-bound ship with illicit Iranian oil history

COVID-19 / 4 hours ago

Trump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots

Daily Caller

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Published on December 10, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.

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!

Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.

Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Oh.

While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”

Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.

Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Alberta

The case for expanding Canada’s energy exports

Published on December 10, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

For Canada, the path to a stronger economy — and stronger global influence — runs through energy.

That’s the view of David Detomasi, a professor at the Smith School of Business at Queen’s University.

Detomasi, author of Profits and Power: Navigating the Politics and Geopolitics of Oil, argues that there is a moral case for developing Canada’s energy, both for Canadians and the world.

David Detomasi. Photo courtesy Smith School of Business, Queen’s University

CEC: What does being an energy superpower mean to you?

DD: It means Canada is strong enough to affect the system as a whole by its choices.

There is something really valuable about Canada’s — and Alberta’s — way of producing carbon energy that goes beyond just the monetary rewards.

CEC: You talk about the moral case for developing Canada’s energy. What do you mean?

DD: I think the default assumption in public rhetoric is that the environmental movement is the only voice speaking for the moral betterment of the world. That needs to be challenged.

That public rhetoric is that the act of cultivating a powerful, effective economic engine is somehow wrong or bad, and that efforts to create wealth are somehow morally tainted.

I think that’s dead wrong. Economic growth is morally good, and we should foster it.

Economic growth generates money, and you can’t do anything you want to do in social expenditures without that engine.

Economic growth is critical to doing all the other things we want to do as Canadians, like having a publicly funded health care system or providing transfer payments to less well-off provinces.

Over the last 10 years, many people in Canada came to equate moral leadership with getting off of oil and gas as quickly as possible. I think that is a mistake, and far too narrow.

Instead, I think moral leadership means you play that game, you play it well, and you do it in our interest, in the Canadian way.

We need a solid base of economic prosperity in this country first, and then we can help others.

CEC: Why is it important to expand Canada’s energy trade?

DD: Canada is, and has always been, a trading nation, because we’ve got a lot of geography and not that many people.

If we don’t trade what we have with the outside world, we aren’t going to be able to develop economically, because we don’t have the internal size and capacity.

Historically, most of that trade has been with the United States. Geography and history mean it will always be our primary trade partner.

But the United States clearly can be an unreliable partner. Free and open trade matters more to Canada than it does to the U.S. Indeed, a big chunk of the American people is skeptical of participating in a global trading system.

As the United States perhaps withdraws from the international trading and investment system, there’s room for Canada to reinforce it in places where we can use our resource advantages to build new, stronger relationships.

One of these is Europe, which still imports a lot of gas. We can also build positive relationships with the enormous emerging markets of China and India, both of whom want and will need enormous supplies of energy for many decades.

I would like to be able to offer partners the alternative option of buying Canadian energy so that they are less reliant on, say, Iranian or Russian energy.

Canada can also maybe eventually help the two billion people in the world currently without energy access.

CEC: What benefits could Canadians gain by becoming an energy superpower?

DD: The first and primary responsibility of our federal government is to look after Canada. At the end of the day, the goal is to improve Canada’s welfare and enhance its sovereignty.

More carbon energy development helps Canada. We have massive debt, an investment crisis and productivity problems that we’ve been talking about forever. Economic and job growth are weak.

Solving these will require profitable and productive industries. We don’t have so many economic strengths in this country that we can voluntarily ignore or constrain one of our biggest industries.

The economic benefits pay for things that make you stronger as a country.

They make you more resilient on the social welfare front and make increasing defence expenditures, which we sorely need, more affordable. It allows us to manage the debt that we’re running up, and supports deals for Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

CEC: Are there specific projects that you advocate for to make Canada an energy superpower?

DD: Canada’s energy needs egress, and getting it out to places other than the United States. That means more transport and port facilities to Canada’s coasts.

We also need domestic energy transport networks. People don’t know this, but a big chunk of Ontario’s oil supply runs through Michigan, posing a latent security risk to Ontario’s energy security.

We need to change the perception that pipelines are evil. There’s a spiderweb of them across the globe, and more are being built.

Building pipelines here, with Canadian technology and know-how, builds our competitiveness and enhances our sovereignty.

Economic growth enhances sovereignty and provides the resources to do other things. We should applaud and encourage it, and the carbon energy sector can lead the way.