Energy
A Wealth-Creating Way of Reducing Global CO2 Emissions
From the C2C Journal
By Gwyn Morgan
It is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s contention there’s no “business case” for exporting Canada’s abundant, inexpensively produced natural gas as LNG. But Canadians might do well to politely decline management consulting advice from a former substitute drama teacher who was born into wealth and has never had to meet a payroll, balance a budget or make a sale. Bluntly stated, someone who has shown no evidence of being able to run the proverbial lemonade stand. And one whose real agenda, the evidence shows, is to strangle the nation’s most productive and wealth-generating industry. With the first LNG ship finally expected to dock at Kitimat, B.C. over the next year and load Canada’s first-ever LNG export cargo, Gwyn Morgan lays out the business and environmental cases for ramping up our LNG exports – and having them count towards Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Pierre Poilievre’s Axe the (carbon) Tax campaign is a spectacular success. But the Conservative Party of Canada needs its own plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Paradoxically, it’s a fossil fuel that provides much of the answer.
Canada’s rich endowment of natural gas resources offers an immense opportunity to reduce global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions while also helping to rescue the Liberal-government-ravaged Canadian economy by exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) to China, Japan, South Korea and the other coal-dependent Asia-Pacific countries. Switching from coal to natural gas for producing electricity and generating heat for buildings and industrial processes can typically reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent for the same unit of output, while all-but eliminating the toxic compounds and lung-clogging particulates emitted from burning coal that shorten the lives of millions living in smog-stricken Asian cities.
More natural gas is urgently needed, since countries throughout Asia – especially China and India – are currently adding even more coal-burning power plants to meet rapidly growing electricity demand. The benefits of fuel-switching are not speculation, but a proven result: the United States’ pronounced switch starting in the mid-2000s from coal to natural gas for electricity materially reduced that country’s CO2 emissions (see accompanying graph), nearly equalling the entire European Union’s emissions cuts, as I wrote about in this previous column.
A study by respected consulting firm Wood Mackenzie, released in late 2022, determined the following:
- “Canada is well-positioned geographically…Western Canadian LNG is much closer to Asia relative to US Gulf Coast LNG, which needs to be shipped through the Panama Canal to get to Asia”;
- “LNG from Canada would be cost-competitive for northeast Asian importers…due to its relatively low shipping and liquefaction costs”;
- “LNG from Canada has lower emissions intensity than LNG coming from many other global LNG exporters”;
- “Asia will not be able to produce enough natural gas domestically to meet its escalating demand, therefore Canadian LNG is a compelling alternative: With its high environmental standards and stewardship, Canada would be a great partner to fill the LNG demand gap in Asia”; and
- “If Canada aggressively ramps up its LNG exports…the emissions displaced from Canadian LNG would total 5.5 [gigatons of CO2 equivalent] from 2022 to 2050 or 181 [megatons of CO2 equivalent] on average per year, which is equivalent to removing all Canadian cars from the road.”
These impressive benefits – not to mention the opportunity to create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs in our country and provide long-term returns to investors, among them millions of pension-dependent retirees – were recognized long ago by the energy industry, Western provincial premiers and former prime minister Stephen Harper. And for a time it indeed seemed that Canada was on the cusp of an LNG boom. By 2010, there were more than 20 LNG projects in the works in B.C., representing hundreds of billions in total investment. These included Exxon Mobil’s $25-billion West Coast Canada project, Chinese-owned CNOOC’s $36-billion Aurora project, Malaysian firm Petronas’s $36 billion Pacific NorthWest project, and the Shell-led $43 billion LNG Canada project at Kitimat.
Aside from the jobs created and the wealth generated for the participating companies, B.C.’s annual natural gas royalties are forecast to double. Benefits for First Nations include significant employment and business opportunities, such as HaiSea Marine’s 50 percent interest in a $500 million contract.
But through a decade of trying to navigate Canada’s increasingly obstructive and Byzantine regulatory process, project proponents dropped out one by one. Today LNG Canada is the only one of those major projects left standing. (Two much smaller LNG projects, Woodfibre LNG in Howe Sound at Squamish, and Cedar LNG just a few kilometres from the LNG Canada project, are also proceeding, and one other large project proposed by the Nisga’a First Nation is making regulatory progress.) LNG Canada succeeded only because South African project leader Andy Calitz, backed by the enthusiasm of the Haisla Nation which saw the immense potential to create a self-sustaining, wealth-generating economy for its people, refused to give up.
After five years of construction, the LNG Canada liquefaction facility and loading terminal are nearing completion, with the first LNG ship scheduled to sail to China in 2025 (possibly even this year). The Kitimat plant itself is just one component of Canada’s first LNG export project. TC Energy Corp.’s (formerly TransCanada Pipelines) $15 billion, recently completed Coastal GasLink pipeline will carry the required natural gas from the northeastern B.C. gas fields to the Kitimat terminal. And additional billions of dollars have been invested in drilling natural gas wells, proving up the immense reserves needed to feed the LNG facility for decades to come, and constructing field production systems.
The economic benefits are myriad. Aside from the jobs created and the wealth generated for the participating companies, B.C.’s annual natural gas royalties are forecast to double from $700 million in 2024 to $1.4 billion in 2027. Benefits for First Nations include significant employment and business opportunities, such as HaiSea Marine’s 50 percent interest in a $500 million contract.
And that’s just LNG Canada’s Phase 1, which will produce 14 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of LNG, or approximately 1.8 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day. With that one project coming on-stream, about 10 percent of Canada’s total natural gas production will be exported to international markets, earning premium prices. Construction of Phase 2 is scheduled to begin in 2026 and will double the facility’s output, with first delivery scheduled for 2032. A report from Canada Action estimates that completion of both phases will reduce CO2 emissions in Asian countries as much as would removing 18 million cars from Canadian roads. That is a far more efficient and realistic way of reducing emissions than the Trudeau government’s current scheme to force everyone into electric vehicles within a decade.
A major barrier for LNG project sponsors has been Canadian regulators’ fixation on a project’s domestic emissions – which come mainly from producing the energy needed to operate the liquefaction and storage process and loading facility. These emissions are miniscule compared to the enormous emissions reductions when natural gas is used instead of coal in consuming countries. But in their zeal to force Canada to “net zero” emissions, government authorities initially tried to veto LNG Canada generating its electricity and compression power using some of the natural gas that will be already piped to the site, insisting instead upon hydroelectric power. This seriously delayed the project due to the need for B.C. Hydro to first build a new dam to supply the required power, along with a new, $3 billion transmission line that has not even begun its environmental review process.
Regulators finally waived their objection so the project could be finished, and it will initially use natural gas for power. But the same objection is now being raised with respect to another major LNG venture proposed in the same region. The Ksi Lisims LNG project would utilize a floating liquefaction and loading facility docked at lands owned by the Nisga’a First Nation north of Prince Rupert. Its natural gas would be supplied through an already-approved but never-built pipeline planned for one of the cancelled LNG projects. The $10 billion venture would have approximately two-thirds the capacity of LNG Canada Phase 1. The facility would be powered by hydroelectricity.
Ksi Lisims sounds like a great addition to Canada’s modest LNG lineup, one that British Columbians should applaud. Instead, the proponents have been assailed by objections over the greenhouse gas emissions from the facility and the natural gas production process, and concurrently the B.C. Wilderness Committee is calling on the province’s NDP government to veto any further LNG development. None of these zealots acknowledge the vastly greater reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that will be achieved as consuming countries switch to natural gas.
Prior to the December 2018 UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland, Canada’s Conservative Party urged leaders of their nation’s delegation to propose that the use of imported natural gas to displace coal and thereby reduce emissions in one country should count towards the exporting country’s emissions reduction targets. But this made far too much sense for our Prime Minister and his team of anti-fossil-fuel eco-zealots. A new federal government that encourages LNG projects might well see a return of those other big sponsors that were driven off.
And that brings us back to Pierre Poilievre and the need for a Conservative alternative to Trudeau’s carbon tax. LNG export would be not only vastly superior in reducing emissions, it would also create tens of billions of dollars in economic benefits for a beleaguered Canadian private sector. It is beyond high time. A Macdonald-Laurier Institute report, Estimating the True Size of Government in Canada, concludes that Canada’s private sector has shrunk to just 36 percent of the nation’s GDP. That’s right – Canada’s public sector now represents nearly two-thirds of the Canadian economy, if one includes in that measure the vast amounts governments spend on tax credits and other tax-related expenditures, plus the economic impacts of regulating the pricing or outputs of private industries. This is appalling.
Even more incomprehensible is a research report from the Harvard Kennedy School noting that “Communist” China’s private sector generates “approximately 60% of China’s GDP, 70% of its innovative capacity, 80% of urban employment and 90% of new jobs.” By those measures, the private sector in ostensibly free and democratic Canada, with its allegedly market-based economy, has been reduced to barely half the relative size of the private sector in authoritarian China.
It is clear that for Canada, getting out of the way of privately-driven growth in LNG exports would be a vastly superior environmental alternative to Trudeau’s economically destructive and politically divisive carbon tax, while also helping to reverse the decline of what was once a proud, thriving nation into an indebted, unproductive, government-dominated basket case.
Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.
From the Fraser Institute
When federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault recently criticized Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre for hosting a fundraiser that included an oil company executive, he raised an interesting question. How should our politicians—of all parties—engage with Canada’s natural resource sector and the industry leaders that drive our natural resource economy?
Consider a recent report by the Chamber of Commerce, entitled Canada’s Natural Wealth, which notes that Canada’s natural resources sector contributed $464 billion to Canada’s economy (measured by real GDP) and supported 3 million jobs in 2023. That represented 21 per cent of the national economy and 15 per cent of employment.
Within the natural resources sector, mining, oil and gas, and pipeline transmission represent 45 per cent of all GDP impact from the sector. Oil and gas production accounted for $71 billion in GDP in 2023. If you throw in the support sector for oil and gas production, and for manufacturing petroleum and coal products, that number reaches nearly $100 billion in GDP.
Shouldn’t any responsible leader want to regularly consult with industry leaders in the natural resource sector to determine how they can facilitate expansion of the sector’s contribution to Canada’s economy?
The Chamber also notes that the natural resource sector is a massive contributor to Canada’s balance of trade, reporting that last year the “sector generated $377 billion in exports, accounting for nearly 50% of Canada’s merchandise exports, and a $228 billion trade surplus (that is, exports over imports) —critical for offsetting trade deficits (more imports than exports) in other sectors.”
Again, shouldn’t all government leaders want to work with industry leaders to promote even more natural resource trade and exports?
The natural resource sector also accounts for one out of every seven jobs in Canada’s economy, and the wages offered in the natural resource sector are higher than the national average—annual wages in the sector were $25,000 above the national average in 2023. And workers in the sector are about 2.5 times more productive, meaning they contribute more to the economy compared to workers in other industries.
One more time—shouldn’t all of Canada’s political leaders, regardless of political stripe, want to work with natural resource producers to create more high-paying jobs for more Canadians?
Finally, the Chamber of Commerce report suggests that some environmental policies require swift reform. Proliferating regulations have made investing in Canada a “riskier and more costly proposition.” The report notes that carbon pricing, Clean Fuel Regulations, proposed Clean Electricity Regulations, proposed federal emissions cap and proposed methane regulations all deter investment in Canada. Which means less economic opportunity for many Canadian workers.
With so much of Canada’s economic prosperity at stake, it’s not improper—as Guilbeault and others suggest—for any politician to meet with and seek political support from Canada’s natural resource industry leaders. Indeed, to not meet with and listen to these leaders would be an act of economic recklessness and constitute imprudent leadership of the worst kind.
Author:
A nuclear power plant
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Google has made big news in the energy space over the past week, and all of it conflicts with the Harris-Biden goals of a glorious future powered entirely by windmills, solar arrays and presumably some combination of Unicorn fur and fairy dust.
Last week, the Washington Post ran a major story detailing the fact that Nebraska’s Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) will be forced to keep two coal-fired power generation units running for years longer than previously planned to accommodate the electricity needs of new data centers being built in the area by Google and Meta. Originally scheduled to be shuttered at the end of 2023, the units will now remain active through 2026, and local residents and activists expressed skepticism they will be shut down even then.
“A promise was made, and then they broke it,” the Post quotes local resident Cheryl Weston as saying. “The tech companies bear responsibility for this. The coal plant is still open because they need all this energy to grow.”
Well, yes, they do. Given the way supposed deadlines and promises related to this government-forced energy transition have been consistently extended and broken, Weston’s skepticism seems well-grounded.
By now, most everyone is aware of the enormous new demand the proliferation of data centers is placing on the U.S. regional power grids. The new demand from Big Tech is being added to an electric system already strained by huge demands from crypto mining, EV charging and general population growth and economic expansion.
This demand growth threatens to overwhelm the ability of power companies to build new electric generating capacity rapidly enough to keep up. This is especially true for companies operating in areas that restrict such new generating capacity to be “green,” i.e. intermittent wind and solar.
In the Washington Post’s story, the OPPD attributes the need to keep the coal units running on the slow development of anticipated new wind and solar capacity. But that avoids the reality that these data centers and other big power demand hogs require reliable generation, 24 hours a day, 7 days every week. The limitations of intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar, even when combined with current backup battery tech, leaves companies like Google and Meta demanding more reliable, consistent generation.
This reality is not limited to the Omaha area. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Google and parent company Alphabet are also backing a new company engaged in the development of a new generation of modular nuclear reactors as a means of securing its future electricity supplies. In a deal with nuclear startup Kairos Power, Google commits to buying power from seven Kairos reactors when they go live in the coming years.
“The end goal here is 24/7, carbon-free energy,” Google/Alphabet senior director for energy and climate Michael Terrell said. “We feel like in order to meet goals around round-the-clock clean energy, you’re going to need to have technologies that complement wind and solar and lithium-ion storage.”
These developments involving Google and Meta come on the heels of other recent stories detailing efforts by tech giants to secure their future power needs. In early October, Constellation Energy announced it will reactivate its Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania to feed the power needs of nearby data centers under development by Microsoft. Constellation announced a similar deal in July to power data centers owned by Amazon from other nuclear facilities it operates.
The securing of their own power supplies could well become a requirement for big tech companies in some regions, as regulators and grid managers become increasingly concerned about their potential to drain regional grids of needed capacity to keep the lights on for everyone else. Bloomberg recently reported on comments by Thomas Gleeson, Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Texas, warning data center developers they should plan to provide at least part of their own power needs if they wish to connect to the grid in a timely fashion.
What it all means is that demand for reliable, 24/7 power supplied by nuclear, natural gas and even coal is going to continue rising for the foreseeable future. The glorious energy transition will just have to wait for reality.
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.
Judge slams Trudeau, media for false claims about deaths, ‘secret burials’ at residential schools
Oil and gas companies are once again the top performers on the TSX. Why do people still listen to the divestment movement?
Federal mismanagement to blame for Canada’s immigration backlash
Did the CBC prove in 1962 that no children are buried at Kamloops?
-
Alberta2 days agoClean energy think tank says Alberta has the resources to lead Canada in carbon capture and storage
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta piloting test to supply industry with fuel derived from worn-out tires
-
Also Interesting2 days agoE-Gaming Revolution: The Convergence of Virtual Entertainment and Traditional Sports
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoJudges to decide if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can sue Biden administration for colluding with social media companies to censor free speech
-
Economy2 days agoFederal government’s recent fiscal record includes unprecedented levels of spending and debt
-
Also Interesting2 days agoLeading Canadian casino review sites
-
Addictions1 day agoPierre Poilievre endorses involuntary treatment for children, inmates severely addicted to drugs
-
espionage2 days agoBreaking: Trudeau Admits Missing At Least Five Crucial Reports Or Memos Intended For Him to Authorize Defensive Briefs to MPs