Canada is now among the top 10 countries with natural gas reserves. It’s time to take advantage of that
Canadians are starting to understand the Americans ate our breakfast, lunch and dinner when it comes to selling liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the global market while simultaneously undermining our national security.
They are finally waking up to the importance of the urgent request by oil and gas CEOs to all federal party leaders calling for the removal of legislation and regulation impeding and capping the development of our resources.
The LNG story in the United States is one of unprecedented growth, according to a recent Atlantic Council report by Daniel Yergin and Madeline Jowdy. Ten years ago, the U.S. did not export a single tonne of LNG. Today, U.S. exports account for 25 per cent of the global market and have contributed US$400 billion to its gross domestic product (GDP) over the past decade.
The U.S. is now the world’s largest LNG supplier, edging out Qatar and Australia, and according to Yergin and Jowdy, its export market is on track to contribute US$1.3 trillion to U.S. GDP by 2040 and create an average of 500,000 jobs annually.
Last week, Alberta announced a sixfold increase in its proven natural gas reserves to 130 trillion cubic feet (tcf). The new figures push Canada into the top 10 countries with natural gas reserves.
Unfortunately, notwithstanding this vast resource, Canada didn’t even make it to the LNG party and the Americans have been laughing all the way to the bank at Canada’s expense. Our decade-long anti-pipeline and natural resource agenda has cost us dearly and Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are a stake to the heart.
As the world grapples with global warming, natural gas is the perfect transition fuel. It generates half the CO2 emissions of coal, provides needed grid backup for intermittent renewable wind and solar power, and it is relatively easy to commission.
Canada has extensive natural gas reserves, but these reserves are less valuable if we can’t get them to offshore markets where countries will pay a premium for energy generation. Canadian gas is abundant, but, given our smaller market, typically trades at a discount to U.S. gas and a massive discount to European and Asian markets.
The capital-intensive nature of LNG facilities requires long-term supply contracts. Generally, 20-year supply contracts with creditworthy counterparties are required to secure the financing required to build gas infrastructure and liquefaction plants.
For example, as part of a larger strategic deal, Houston-based LNG company NextDecade Corp. signed a 20-year offtake agreement to supply 5.4 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) to French multinational TotalEnergies SE.
As the market grows and matures, the spot market is gaining share, but term contracts continue to represent most of the market. This is a problem for Canada as it tries to break into the market, as much of current and future demand is already committed.
More than half the current LNG market demand, or 225 mtpa, is under contract until 2040, according to Shell PLC’s LNG outlook report for 2024. A further 100 mtpa is contracted to 2045. Shell recently revised its LNG market growth forecast upward to 700 mtpa by 2040 and it estimates the LNG supply currently in operation or under construction already accounts for about 525 mtpa, or almost 75 per cent of the estimated market in 2040.
Even if Canada secured 100 per cent of the available market share (impossible), this represents a fraction of the 130 trillion cubic feet of reserves in Alberta and an infinitesimal amount of Canada’s natural gas reserve.
If Canada wants to sell its LNG to the global market, it needs to be at the starting line now. Canada has seven LNG export projects in various stages of development. They are all in British Columbia. The capacity of these export plants is 50 mtpa and the capital cost is estimated to be $110 billion.
After significant delays and cost overruns, our first export facility, LNG Canada’s 14 mtpa Phase 1 in Kitimat, is set to ship its first cargo to Asia later this year. Phase 2, representing a further 14 mtpa, is still awaiting a final investment decision. The Cedar LNG, Ksi Lisims LNG and Woodfibre LNG projects are licensed, at various stages of development and represent a further 17 mtpa.
Canada’s LNG exports today are a drop in the bucket compared to both our potential and the 88 mtpa exported by the U.S. in 2024. We have one project completed and, if history repeats itself and Canada doesn’t get its act together, the runway for the remaining licensed projects will be long, painful and costly.
Financing large capital projects requires predictability with respect to timing and cost. This is also a problem for Canada. As the oil and gas CEOs have pointed out, LNG market players have lost trust in Canada as an investible jurisdiction for these projects.
In the face of Trump’s trade war, Canadians have become pipeline evangelists. Wishful thinking and political talking points won’t be enough if we repeat our decade of own goals on this file. We have literally left billions on the table.
Governments should fast-track all licensed projects, limit special interest distractions and provide the required muscle and financial support to get these projects up and running as soon as possible.
From Churchill, Man., to Quebec to the Maritimes to British Columbia, we should be making plans for LNG terminals and the required pipeline infrastructure to get this valuable and clean resource to market. And Canadians should pray we haven’t totally missed the market.
Susan McArthur is a former venture capital investor, investment banker and current corporate director. She has previously served on a chemical logistics and oil service board.
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.
Remember Aduhelm? It was Biogen’s $56,000/year Alzheimer’s drug that didn’t even work.
Worse, it caused brain swelling, brain bleeding, and sudden falls in patients—and the FDA approved it anyway.
But the truth is, you don’t need deep pockets to treat Alzheimer’s. You just need to look at what Big Pharma can’t monetize.
This report exposes the real causes behind Alzheimer’s—and the cheap treatment options you should explore instead.
The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
Exposing the Great Amyloid Scam and the cures they buried for billions…
Modern medicine is addicted to the biochemical model of disease because it creates a pipeline for expensive, patentable drugs, and it often leaves patients and their families in the dark, rather than empowered and in control.
It’s not about finding root causes. It’s about finding something you can bill for.
That’s why the industry has spent decades treating Alzheimer’s like a “chemical imbalance” in the brain caused by amyloid plaques—even though hundreds of trials targeting amyloid have failed.
The more the theory collapsed, the harder the system doubled down. Just like cholesterol and heart disease, the medical machine kept pushing the failed model long after it broke.
The amyloid hypothesis was unstoppable. Billions poured in. Researchers who questioned it were pushed to the margins.
Critics called it “amyloid mafia” because no alternative view got funded or even considered.
Meanwhile, real scientists were finding deeper drivers of Alzheimer’s. Things like chronic inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, and mitochondrial collapse.
But these discoveries never gained traction because they didn’t lead to blockbuster drugs.
The entire field locked onto a theory that would never cure the disease but could generate infinite research dollars.
By 2006, the amyloid hypothesis was in trouble. The failed trials and contradictory evidence began piling up and could no longer be ignored. So the medical establishment pivoted instead of admitting any error.
They claimed the real problem was a toxic oligomer called Aβ*56.
An article in Nature declared that they found the smoking gun. It became one of the most cited Alzheimer’s studies ever. The authors became stars. Pharma reinvested billions chasing a new chemical villain.
The field was saved! But there was no truth here, just a convenient new molecule used to justify research funding.
The entire foundation of modern Alzheimer’s research rested on one “blockbuster discovery.” But what if the discovery never existed?
It was a scandal of epic proportions.
A neuroscientist reviewing experimental drug data in 2021 noticed suspicious Western blots. When he looked a little deeper, he found multiple Alzheimer’s papers filled with manipulated images, all traced back to the same author of the famous 2006 study.
So he kept digging. And what he uncovered was stunning!
At least 20 fraudulent papers tied to this researcher, 10 directly involving the molecule the entire amyloid theory now depended on.
The field’s “master proof” was built on completely fabricated data.
Let that sink in.
The NIH was informed in early 2022. And guess what?
They did nothing about it.
Actually, they did worse than nothing—they gave the suspect researcher a $764,792 grant a few months later.
It wasn’t until 2024 that the paper was finally retracted, and even then the authors insisted the fraud didn’t change their conclusions.
Billions of dollars and two decades of research fueled by manipulated images—and the establishment still defended the theory today.
What a joke.
Why are they protecting a disproven model? Why would they continue to push a hypothesis built on doctored data?
Because amyloid research is worth hundreds of billions of dollars—across drugs, trials, funding, and Medicare reimbursements. Seven million Alzheimer’s patients represent an enormous revenue stream.
And with no cure, they’re set to increase customers as people age.
If the amyloid theory collapses, so does the entire financial architecture tied to it. So the system pushes forward—regardless of fraud, failure, or human cost.
And the average person continues to trust this system.
BigPharma eventually produced monoclonal antibodies that cleared amyloid from the brain. The FDA called it a breakthrough. The investors celebrated. News headlines said there was hope.
Except there was a problem. A big problem. Removing amyloid didn’t actually help anyone.
The first drug, Aduhelm, didn’t improve cognition. At all.
In fact, an FDA advisory panel voted 10–0 against approval, calling it a disaster.
But the FDA approved it anyway. Three advisors resigned in protest, calling it the worst drug decision in modern history!
Why was it so bad?Just take a look at these side effects:
Up to 41% of patients experienced serious brain complications.
And it costs a sickening $56,000 per year.
Congress actually launched an investigation. But the FDA still greenlit it—and even quietly approved the next two monoclonals, despite similarly weak results and similarly high risk.
Because it’s not about a cure.
The new drugs caused brain bleeding… but that wasn’t even the most disturbing part.
They still caused massive brain swelling and bleeding, just at slightly lower percentages.
And their “benefits” were so tiny—slowing decline by a fraction of a point on a scale where patients need 1–2 points for them and their families to notice anything.
Despite aggressive marketing and FDA cheerleading, the market ultimately rejected these drugs. Aduhelm earned only $5 million before it was pulled. The replacements sold modestly but never lived up to the hype.
Why? Because people quickly realized they didn’t work. Hopeful families didn’t see any improvement. Doctors didn’t either. The risks outweighed the rewards, and thankfully people started to notice.
And yet the system keeps pushing the same model—even as evidence mounts that amyloid might be protective, not harmful.
You read that right. Amyloid may actually be protective.
One of the few successful Alzheimer’s protocols, RECODE, treats amyloid as the brain’s attempt to shield itself from metabolic and inflammatory damage. So removing it may worsen the underlying disease.
This helps explain why amyloid-clearing drugs cause so much harm.
They very well may be ripping off the brain’s band-aids while exposing and ignoring the deeper wounds.
Therapies that do help (and don’t cost an arm and a leg) remain completely ignored.
A trial using MCTs from coconut oil showed 80% of patients improved or stabilized over six months of use. That’s better than any amyloid drug in existence.
Patients around the world have reported similar benefits simply from adding coconut oil to their routine! No side effects. No brain bleeds. And of course, no $30,000 price tag.
The Alzheimer’s story is really a story about American medicine. We don’t have a cure not because the disease is too complex, but because the system isn’t designed to cureanything.
It’s designed to manage your symptoms while profiting off of them.
Until we move away from profit-first frameworks and toward root-cause medicine, we’ll continue to lose the war on chronic disease.
Thankfully, we’re closer now than ever before to making this necessary shift.
If you or someone you love is facing cognitive decline, this report is essential reading. It explains the entire collapse of the amyloid model, the fraud no one wants to talk about, the real mechanisms behind Alzheimer’s, and the natural therapies that actually help.
This thread barely scratches the surface—the full article is one of the most important things you’ll ever read about Alzheimer’s.
Parents should take precaution this holiday season when it comes to artificial intelligence toys after researchers for the new Trouble in Toyland report found safety concerns.
Illinois Public Interest Research Group Campaign Associate Ellen Hengesbach said some of the toys armed with AI raised red flags ranging from toys that talk in-depth about sexually explicit topics to acting dismayed when the child disengages.
“What they look like are basically stuffed animals or toy robots that have a chatbot like Chat GPT embedded in them and can have conversations with children,” Hengesbach told The Center Square.
The U.S. PIRG Education Fund report also points out that at least three toys have limited to no parental controls and have the capacity to record your child’s voice and collect other sensitive data via facial recognition.
“All three were willing to tell us where to find potentially dangerous objects in the house, such as plastic bags, matches, or knives,” she said. “It seems like dystopian science fiction decades ago is now reality.”
In the face of all the changing landscape and rising concerns, Hengesbach is calling for immediate action.
“The two main things that we’d like to see are more oversight in general and more research so we can see exactly how these toys interact with kids, really just identify what the harms might be and have a lot more transparency from companies around how are these toys designed,” she said. “What are they capable of and what the potential risks or harms might be. I just really want us to take this opportunity to really think through what we’re doing instead of rushing a toy to market.”
As for the here and now, Hengesbach stressed parents would be wise to be thoughtful about their purchases.
“We just have a big open question of what are the long-term impacts of these products on young kids, especially when it comes to their social development,” she said. “The fact is that we just really won’t know what the long-term impacts of AI friends and companion toys might be until the first generation playing with them grows up. For now, I think it’s just really important that parents understand that these AI toys are out there; they’re very new and they’re basically unregulated.”
Since the release of the report, Hengesbach said one AI toymaker temporarily suspended sales of all their products to conduct a safety audit.
This year’s 40th Trouble in Toyland report also focuses on toys that contain toxins, counterfeit toys that haven’t been tested for safety, recalled toys and toys that contain button cell batteries or high-powered magnets, both of which can be deadly if swallowed.
