Connect with us

Canadian Energy Centre

Analyst says LNG Canada likely to start exports before year-end

Published

5 minute read

Welders with JGC-Fluor following completion of the final weld on the first production train at the LNG Canada project, in Kitimat, B.C. in July 2024. Since construction began in 2018, upwards of 380 pipe welders have worked on the LNG Canada project. Photo courtesy JGC-Fluor

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Canada’s first liquefied natural gas export terminal ‘on the cusp’ of its testing phase

Momentum is building for the long-awaited start-up of Canada’s first liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project.

Shipments from the LNG Canada terminal at Kitimat, B.C. may now start earlier than expected, later this year rather than mid-2025, according to Martin King, Canadian energy specialist with Houston-based RBN Energy.

“LNG Canada appears to be on the cusp of its testing phase and is likely to be exporting some cargoes of LNG before the end of this year,” King wrote recently.

He made the prediction after a senior executive with Shell, the project’s lead owner, said it could deliver its first cargo earlier than previously planned, in the wake of two key milestones.

Fluor reported in July it had completed the final weld on the first production train while Petronas, which holds a 25 per cent stake in LNG Canada, announced it would add three LNG vessels to its North American fleet, doubling its size.

A longtime industry insider sees the $18 billion LNG Canada terminal as a game changer.

“This is decades in the making. Canada has been trying to get its LNG business up and running since the 1970s but it has been sidetracked for one reason or another,” says Calgary-based consultant Racim Gribaa, who has worked in the industry for more than 25 years.

“This project is perfectly placed to take advantage of an awesome opportunity given the demand for LNG worldwide is growing exponentially.”

Map courtesy RBN Energy

The project, which will use the Coastal GasLink pipeline, completed in November 2023, to bring gas from northeastern British Columbia to the Kitimat terminal for processing and shipping, will have capacity to produce up to 14 million tonnes per year in its first phase.

While that’s a fraction of the 404 million tonnes of global demand in 2023, Gribaa says Asian buyers view LNG Canada as secure supplier in part due to its geography.

“The closest point to Asia is Canada’s west coast, so you have the shortest shipping route, which makes for optimal transportation costs. The traders and LNG industry see it as valuable for that reason,” says Gribaa, who previously worked in LNG trade in Qatar, one of the world’s largest exporters.

And the project is coming online at a time when worldwide demand is surging.

“The worldwide demand has effectively doubled every decade since 1990, when it was 50 MPTA. We are now closing in on 500 MPTA and that is accelerating,” Gribaa says.

“The world will need 10 LNG Canadas in 10 years and 100 more LNG Canadas in the next 30 years.”

The project has plans for a second phase that would double production to 28 million tonnes per year. Based on demand, Gribaa says “the question isn’t if it will go forward, it’s when the consortium will announce the expansion.”

World LNG demand growth will be particularly strong in Asia, where Shell’s four LNG Canada partners – Petronas (25 per cent), PetroChina (15 per cent), Mitsubishi (15 per cent) and Korea Gas Corporation (five per cent) – are headquartered.

“Each of these markets has historical demand for LNG and that demand will continue to grow in the coming decades,” he says, adding that LNG in Asia can be used for power generation and heavy industry, and to reduce air pollution from coal-fired power.

Overall, generating electricity in China with LNG from Canada rather than coal could reduce emissions by up to 62 per cent, according to a 2020 study published in the Journal for Cleaner Production.

A 2022 study by Wood Mackenzie found that growing Canada’s LNG industry could reduce net emissions in Asia by 188 million tonnes per year through 2050.

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

Alberta

REPORT: Alberta municipalities hit with $37 million carbon tax tab in 2023

Published on

Grande Prairie. Getty Images photo

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Laura Mitchell

Federal cash grab driving costs for local governments, driving up property taxes

New data shows the painful economic impact of the federal carbon tax on municipalities.

Municipalities in Alberta paid out more than $37 million in federal carbon taxes in 2023, based on a recent survey commissioned by Alberta Municipal Affairs, with data provided to the Canadian Energy Centre.

About $760,000 of that came from the City of Grande Prairie. In a statement, Mayor Jackie Clayton said if the carbon tax were removed, City property taxes could be reduced by 0.6 per cent, providing direct financial relief to residents and businesses in Grande Prairie.”

Conducted in October, the survey asked municipal districts, towns and cities in Alberta to disclose the amount of carbon tax paid out for the heating and electrifying of municipal assets and fuel for fleet vehicles.

With these funds, Alberta municipalities could have hired 7,789 high school students at $15 per hour last year with the amount paid to Ottawa.

The cost on municipalities includes:

Lloydminster: $422,248

Calgary: $1,230,300 (estimate)

Medicine Hat: $876,237

Lethbridge: $1,398,000 (estimate)

Grande Prairie: $757,562

Crowsnest Pass: $71,100

Red Deer: $1,495,945

Bonnyville: $19,484

Hinton: $66,829

Several municipalities also noted substantial indirect costs from the carbon tax, including higher rates from vendors that serve the municipality – like gravel truck drivers and road repair providers – passing increased fuel prices onto local governments.

The rising price for materials and goods like traffic lights, steel, lumber and cement, due to higher transportation costs are also hitting the bottom line for local governments.

The City of Grande Prairie paid out $89 million in goods and services in 2023, and the indirect costs of the carbon tax have had an inflationary impact on those expenses” in addition to the direct costs of the tax.

In her press conference announcing Alberta’s challenge to the federal carbon tax on Oct. 29, 2024, Premier Danielle Smith addressed the pressures the carbon tax places on municipal bottom lines.

In 2023 alone, the City of Calgary could have hired an additional 112 police officers or firefighters for the amount they sent to Ottawa for the carbon tax,” she said.

In a statement issued on Oct. 7, 2024, Ontario Conservative MP Ryan Williams, shadow minister for international trade, said this issue is nationwide.

In Belleville, Ontario, the impact of the carbon tax is particularly notable. The city faces an extra $410,000 annually in costs – a burden that directly translates to an increase of 0.37 per cent on residents’ property tax bills.”

There is no rebate yet provided on retail carbon pricing for towns, cities and counties.

In October, the council in Belleville passed a motion asking the federal government to return in full all carbon taxes paid by municipalities in Canada.

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

Continue Reading

Canadian Energy Centre

Ignoring the global picture and making Canadians poorer: Energy and economic leaders on Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

The federal government’s draft rules to cap emissions – and by credible analysis, production – from Canada’s oil and gas sector will make Canadians poorer, won’t reduce world emissions, and are a “slap in the face” to Indigenous communities.

That’s the view of several leaders in energy and the economy calling out the negative consequences of Ottawa’s new regulations, which were announced on November 4.

Here’s a selection of what they have to say.

Goldy Hyder, CEO, Business Council of Canada

“At a time when Canada’s economy is stalling, imposing an oil and gas emissions cap will only make Canadians poorer. Strong climate action requires a strong economy. This cap will leave us with neither.”

Deborah Yedlin, CEO, Calgary Chamber of Commerce

“Canada would stand as the only country in the world to move forward with a self-imposed emissions cap.

“Given that our economic growth numbers have been underwhelming–and our per-person productivity lags that of the United States by $20,000, one would expect the government to be more focused on supporting sectors that are critical to economic growth rather than passing legislation that will compromise investment and hamper our growth prospects.

“…If the Canadian government wants to reduce emissions, it should follow the private sector’s lead – and strong track record – and withdraw the emissions cap.”

Stephen Buffalo, CEO, Indian Resources Council of Canada

“Over the past four decades, Canadian governments urged and promoted Indigenous peoples to engage in the natural resource economy. We were anxious to break our dependence on government and, even more, to exercise our treaty and Indigenous rights to build our own economies. We jumped in with far more enthusiasm and commitment than most Canadians appreciate.

“And now, in a bid to make Canada look ecologically virtuous on the world stage, the Liberal government imposed further restrictions on the oil and gas sector. This is happening as Indigenous engagement, employment and equity investment are growing and at a time when our communities have had their first taste of real and sustainable prosperity since the newcomers killed off all the buffalo. Thanks for nothing.”

Trevor Tombe, professor of economics, University of Calgary School of Public Policy

“[The emissions cap] is a wedge issue that’s going to be especially popular in Quebec. And I don’t think the [federal government’s] thinking goes much further than that.”

Kendall Dilling, president, Pathways Alliance

A decrease in Canadian production has no impact on global demand – meaning another country’s oil will simply fill the void and the intended impact of the emissions cap is negated at a global level.

“An emissions cap gives industry less – not more – of the certainty needed to make long-term investments that create jobs, economic growth and tax revenues for all levels of government. It simply makes Canada less competitive.”

Michael Belenkie, CEO, Advantage Energy

“Canada’s emissions profile is not unusual. What’s unusual about Canada and our emissions is we seem to be the only exporting nation of the world that is willing to self-immolate. All we’re doing is we’re shutting ourselves down at our own expense and watching global emissions increase.”

Kevin Krausert, CEO and co-founder, Avatar Innovations

“The emissions cap risks delaying – if not derailing – a whole suite of emissions-reduction technology projects. The reason is simple: it has added yet another layer of uncertainty and complexity on already skinny investment decisions by weakening the most effective mechanism Canada has in place.

“…After nearly 15 years of experimenting in a complicated regulatory system, we’ve finally landed on one of the most globally effective and fungible carbon markets in the world in Alberta, called TIER.

“What the federal emissions cap has done is introduce uncertainty about the future of TIER. That’s because the cap has its own newly created cap-and-trade system. It takes TIER’s 15 years of experience and market knowledge and either duplicates functioning markets or creates a whole new market that may take another 15 years to get right.”

Dennis Darby, CEO, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters

“The federal government’s announcement of a cap and trade on oil and gas emissions threatens Canada’s energy trade, economic interests, and national unity.

Adam Legge, president, Business Council of Alberta

“The oil and gas emissions cap is a discriminatory and divisive policy proposal—the epitome of bad public policy. It will likely cap Canadian prosperity—billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs lost for no benefit, and the burden will be borne largely in one region and one sector.”

Lisa Baiton, CEO, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

“The result would be lower production, lower exports, fewer jobs, lower GDP and lower revenues to governments to fund critical infrastructure and social programs on which Canadians rely.”

Statement, Canadian Association of Energy Contractors

“The Trudeau government does not care about Canadian blue-collar, middle-class energy workers who rely on the industry to support their families. It does not care about small, medium and Indigenous energy service businesses that operate in rural and remote communities across Western Canada. And it certainly does not care about supporting our allies who are desperate for oil and gas from sources other than regimes such as Russia or Iran.”

Peter Tertzakian, executive director, ARC Energy Research Institute

“Focusing on a single sector while ignoring others is problematic because each tonne of emissions has the same impact on climate change, regardless of its source. It makes little sense to impose potentially higher economic burdens on one economic sector when you could reduce emissions elsewhere at a lower cost.”

Shannon Joseph, chair, Energy for a Secure Future

“Canada continues to pursue its climate policy in a vacuum, ignoring the big picture of global emissions. This places at risk our international interests, tens of thousands of good paying jobs and important progress on reconciliation.”

Adam Sweet, director for Western Canada, Clean Prosperity

“Layering on a new cap-and-trade system for oil and gas producers adds uncertainty and regulatory complexity that risks undermining investment in emissions reductions just as we’re getting close to landing significant new decarbonization projects here in Alberta.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X