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.
Dan McTeague
Well, you’ve got to hand it to Mark Carney. Though he’s only just entered politics — after years of flirting with the idea, while serving on Team Trudeau behind-the-scenes — and despite the fact that he hasn’t been elected to anything yet, he’s become well versed in the ancient political art of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Like many men seeking high office before him, Carney is happy to say to whoever happens to be in front of him whatever he thinks they want to hear, even if it contradicts what he said to someone else the day before.
Of course, that isn’t so easy to pull off these days. Nowadays pretty much everything a politician says in public is going to pop up on the internet within hours. Which is why it’s been so easy to keep tabs on Carney’s policy flip-flopping.
For just the latest example, last week in Calgary Carney opened his pitch to a sceptical province by saying, “You don’t need to tell me what Alberta is like. I’m from Alberta!” He proclaimed that “Canada has a tremendous opportunity to be the world’s leading energy superpower,” and that “we must invest in our natural strengths and ensure our economic sovereignty!” He promised to “identify projects of national interest,” and fast-track them, while acknowledging that “any major energy project that comes from this great province is going to pass the boundaries of other provinces.”
The implication was that voting for a Carney-led Liberal government would mean a major course correction from the ‘Lost Decade” of Liberal governance, that oil and gas from Alberta should be harnessed to power Canada to prosperity, with pipeline projects (maybe a revived Energy East) spanning every province (presumably over the objections of the government of Quebec, these being projects in the “national interest” and all), and the construction of terminals — of the type for which Trudeau previously said there was no “business case” — enabling us to get Canadian Natural Gas onto tankers bound for Europe and Asia. What else could he have meant by ‘global energy superpower,’ ‘self-sufficiency,’ and the promise to invest in Alberta’s energy infrastructure?
But then Carney found himself being interviewed in Montreal, and his approach was quite different. After his interviewer poked some fun at Carney’s tendency to crib policy proposals from the Conservatives — “do you find Mr. Poilievre has good ideas?” — Carney was asked about his “energy superpower” comments, and he hedged, saying that Canada should work to develop its own resources “if there is social acceptability.” Asked about pipelines specifically, Carney said “We must choose a few projects, a few big projects. Not necessarily pipelines, but maybe pipelines, we’ll see.”
Now, if you think that all of this sounds strangely familiar, you’re not crazy. Carney has been doing this dance since he first stepped out from behind the curtain, saying one thing out west and another back east.
Speaking in B.C. in February he aped a Donald Trump line by saying he wanted Canada to “build, baby, build,” and promised to use “the emergency powers of the federal government to accelerate the major projects that we need in order to build this economy and take on the Americans,” clarifying to CBC that those major projects included pipelines. But then, in a French-language interview, he was asked if he planned to force Quebec to accept a pipeline, and he answered, “I would never impose [a pipeline] on Quebec.”
These examples should be enough to demonstrate that Mark Carney is a Con Man. But who, exactly, is his mark? Is he telling the truth in Quebec, where he’s looking to syphon off support from the Bloc Québécois? Or is he telling the truth in Alberta, where he’d love to snatch a few more urban ridings from the Conservatives?
The answer is that, actually, we’re all his mark. Carney doesn’t really care about Quebec’s sovereignty, or any contentious constitutional question like that. And he certainly has no desire to build pipelines and LNG terminals in order to turn Canada into a global energy superpower. A glance at his long career, as both a public and private sector Net-Zero activist, pressuring both individual corporations and national governments to adopt his environmentalist ideology, will tell you as much.
Once you accept that, you start to notice Carney’s sleight-of-hand on questions of energy and affordability. He’s taking credit for “Axing the Carbon Tax,” when in reality he merely zeroed out part of it, while doubling down on the other half. He’s set it up so that he can bring the Consumer Carbon Tax back whenever he likes, without a vote. Meanwhile, our economy will be slowly strangled by the Industrial Carbon Tax, and our everyday lives will get more expensive as businesses pass the cost down to us.
He remains committed to Bill C-69, the “No More Pipelines Act,” which the Supreme Court said overstepped the federal government’s constitutional authority, which itself shows that his mealy-mouthed talking points on pipelines and energy infrastructure don’t amount to a real commitment to anything. And he still supports the Trudeau government’s emissions caps, which target our Natural Resource Sector, the beating heart of Canada’s economy.
And of course he does, because long ago Mark Carney pledged allegiance to the destructive Net-Zero ideology, and it is that, more than anything else, which is the groundwork for how he will actually govern.
So, whatever you do, don’t buy the con. Mark Carney has spent an entire career, before the start of this campaign, telling us exactly who he is. Don’t let him pull the wool over your eyes now.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
Support Dan’s Work to Keep Canadian Energy Affordable!
Canadians for Affordable Energy is run by Dan McTeague, former MP and founder of Gas Wizard. We stand up and fight for more affordable energy.
2025 Federal Election
Mark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources
From Energy Now
At COP26, Mark Carney also said that he thinks “we have both far far too many fossil fuels in the world” and “as much as half of oil reserves, proven oil reserves need to stay in the ground” climate goals.
Mark Carney claims that he supports Canada’s oil and gas industry and wants to see Canada export more of our natural resources. But Carney is yet again lying.
If Carney was sincere, he would immediately commit to the full repeal of the Liberals’ C-69, the ‘No More Pipelines’ Act, C-48, the West Coast Tanker Ban, and the production cap. Instead he doubled down on capping Canadian energy production.
But it’s not just that, Mark Carney has a clear history of opposing Canadian energy and infrastructure projects in favour of his radical anti-energy ideology and his goal of shutting down Canadian energy production.
However, while deliberately fighting against Canadian energy, this high flying hypocrite was having his company, Brookfield Asset Management, invest in some of the largest global pipeline projects in Brazil and the United Arab Emirates.
When asked by Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre at an Industry Committee meeting, if he supported Justin Trudeau’s decision to veto the Northern Gateway pipeline, Mark Carney said “given both environmental and commercial reasons … I think it’s the right decision.”
Then, just six months later at COP26, Mark Carney also said that he thinks “we have both far far too many fossil fuels in the world” and “as much as half of oil reserves, proven oil reserves need to stay in the ground” climate goals.
If this wasn’t enough Mark Carney has now teamed up with Trudeau’s radical anti-energy ministers to finish off Canada’s energy sector, a goal that he has outlined while attending a World Economic Forum event in Davos.
Starting with the radical, self-proclaimed socialist, Steven Guilbeault, who’s history of anti-energy and infrastructure policies is all too familiar to Canadians.
Mark Carney has enabled Steven Guilbeault to do even more damage by promoting him to his Quebec Lieutenant, giving him three new ministerial responsibilities so he can continue his climate crusade against Canadian energy and infrastructure projects.
Canadians remember when Guilbeault said that “I disagree with the [Trans Mountain] pipeline” and that “Canada shouldn’t be investing in new infrastructure for fossil fuels.”
They also remember when he proudly proclaimed that “Our government has made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure.” All from a minister who shamed Canadians for owning cars.
Then there is the pipeline hating Jonathan Wilkinson, who Carney appointed as Canada’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Recently, Wilkinson wrote a scathing letter to Canada’s energy leaders for their opposition to the Carney-Trudeau Liberals production cap on Canadian oil and gas.
Despite Canadian industries being subject to unjustified tariffs from the United States, Jonathan Wilkinson recently told reporters that “Everybody’s sort of running around saying, ‘Oh my God, we need a new pipeline, we need a new pipeline.’ The question is, well, why do we need a new pipeline?”
Finally, there is Carney’s new Minister of Environment and Climate Change Terry Duguid. Duguid has doubled down on Mark Carney’s climate radicalism by stating that “a Mark Carney government will maintain the cap on emissions from the production of oil and gas”.
From 2015 to 2021 Carney-Trudeau environmental and anti-industry policies have cancelled over $176 billion in Canadian energy projects, with many more being cancelled afterwards. That means $176 billion worth of jobs and powerful paycheques have been blocked from Canadians so Mark Carney and his Ministers can impose their radical net zero ideology.
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
CHINESE ELECTION THREAT WARNING: Conservative Candidate Joe Tay Paused Public Campaign
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
CHINESE ELECTION THREAT WARNING: Conservative Candidate Joe Tay Paused Public Campaign
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Mark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources
-
International1 day agoPope Francis’ body on display at the Vatican until Friday
-
Business2 days agoHudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoCanada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work
-
2025 Federal Election16 hours agoFormer WEF insider accuses Mark Carney of using fear tactics to usher globalism into Canada
-
International2 days agoPope Francis’ funeral to take place Saturday