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
By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari
Canada’s most timely opportunity to lower overall global emissions is through expanded exports to regions that rely on higher-emitting fuel sources.
The COP30 climate conference in Brazil is winding down, after more than a week of discussions about environmental policy and climate change. Domestic oil and natural gas production is frequently seen as a fundamental obstacle to Canada’s climate goals. Yet the data shows that Canadian energy production is already among the world’s cleanest, generating lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per barrel-of-oil-equivalent produced, among major producing countries. Expanding the role of Canadian oil and gas in global markets can replace higher GHG-emitting alternatives around the world, driving down global GHG emissions.
Prime Minister Carney’s first budget highlights Canada’s “emissions advantage” in a chart on page 105 that compares the amount of GHG emissions released from producing oil and natural gas across 20 major producing countries. Compared to many other top-producing countries, Canada releases fewer GHG emissions per barrel of oil and gas produced when considering all phases of production (extraction, processing, transport, venting and flaring).
For oil production, Canada has an advantage over most major producers such as Venezuela, Libya, Iran, Algeria, Nigeria, China, Russia and Qatar. Canada’s emissions per barrel of oil produced are below the global average, making Canada among the lower emitting producers worldwide.
Similarly, Canada’s natural gas production has an emissions per barrel equivalent that is lower than the global average and is below major producers such as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Argentina, Malaysia, Australia, Algeria, Iran, Russia, India and the United States. The chart below reveals countrywide average GHG emissions per barrel of oil or natural gas produced in 2022.
Source: International Energy Agency (2023), The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions 2023, IEA, Paris, p. 69
Canada’s emissions advantage stems from years of technological innovations that require less energy to produce each barrel of oil along with improvements in detecting leaks. From 1990 to 2023, Canada’s total production of crude oil rose by 199 per cent, while emissions per barrel of oil produced declined by 8 per cent, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). In the oilsands, since 1990 emissions per barrel have fallen by nearly 40 per cent while emissions from natural gas production and processing have decreased by 23 per cent.
Canada has already implemented many of the most practical and straightforward methods for reducing carbon emissions during oil and gas production, like mitigation of methane emissions. These low-hanging fruits, the easiest and most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, have already been implemented. The remaining strategies to reduce GHG emissions for Canadian oil and gas production will be increasingly expensive and will take longer to implement. One such approach is carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), a technology which traps and stores carbon dioxide to prevent it from reaching the atmosphere. Major infrastructure projects like this offer potential but will be difficult, costly and resource intensive to implement.
Rather than focusing on increasingly expensive emission reductions at home, Canada’s most timely opportunity to lower overall global emissions is through expanded exports to regions that rely on higher-emitting fuel sources. Under a scenario of expanded Canadian production, countries that presently rely on oil and gas from higher-emitting producers can instead source energy from Canada, resulting in a net reduction in global emissions. Conversely, if Canada were to stagnate or even retreat from the world market for oil and gas, higher-emitting producers would increase exports to accommodate the gap, leading to higher overall emissions.
As Canada’s climate and energy policy continues to evolve, our attention should focus on global impact rather than solely on domestic emissions reductions. The highest environmental impact will come from enabling global consumption to shift towards lower-emitting Canadian sources.
Annika Segelhorst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
From Resource Works
By Tom Fletcher
Crude oil tankers have sailed and docked on the British Columbia coast for more than 70 years, with no spills
BC Premier David Eby staged a big media event on Nov. 6 to once again restate his opposition to an oil pipeline from Alberta to the Prince Rupert area.
The elaborate ceremony to sign a poster-sized document called the “North Coast Protection Declaration” was dutifully covered by provincial and national media, despite having no actual news content. It is not a response to Alberta’s plan to finance preliminary work on a new oil pipeline, Eby insisted. It’s to confirm the direction of growing the BC economy without, you know, any more oil pipelines.
The event at the opulent Vancouver Convention Centre West was timed to coincide with the annual BC Cabinet and First Nations Leaders Gathering, a diplomatic effort set up 10 years ago by former premier Christy Clark. This year’s event featured more than 1,300 delegates from 200 First Nations and every BC government ministry.
A high-profile event with little real news
The two-day gathering features 1,300 meetings, “plus plenary and discussion sessions on a variety of topics, including major projects, responding to racism, implementation of the Declaration Act, and more,” the premier’s office announced.
Everyone’s taxpayer-funded hotels and expense accounts alone are an impressive boost to the economy. Aside from an opening news conference and the declaration event at the end, the whole thing is closed to the public.
The protection declaration is a partnership between the BC government and the Coastal First Nations, Eby said. As I mentioned in my Oct. 15 commentary, Coastal First Nations sounds like a tribal council, but it isn’t. It’s an environmental group started in the late 1990s by the David Suzuki Foundation, with international eco-foundation funding over the years that led to the current name, Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative.
The evolution of the Coastal First Nations initiative
Their current project is the Great Bear Sea, funded by $200 million from the federal government, $60 million from BC, and $75 million from “philanthropic investors.” This is similar to the Great Bear Rainforest conservation project, backed by mostly US billionaire charity funds, that persuaded Justin Trudeau to turn the voluntary tanker exclusion zone into Canadian law.
Leadoff speaker in Vancouver was the current Coastal First Nations president, Heiltsuk Chief Marilyn Slett. She repeated a well-worn story about her remote Central Coast community of Bella Bella still struggling with the effects of an “oil spill” in 2016.
In fact, the 2016 event was the sinking of a tugboat that ran aground while pushing an empty fuel barge back down from Alaska to a refinery in Washington to be refilled. The “oil spill” was the diesel fuel powering the tugboat, which basic chemistry suggests would have evaporated long ago.
Fuel dependence on the remote BC coast
Remote coastal settlements are entirely dependent on fuel shipments, and Bella Bella is no different. It has no road or power grid connections, and the little seaside village is dominated by large fuel tanks that have to be refilled regularly by barge to keep the lights on.
Alaska North Slope crude has been shipped by tanker to Washington and beyond for more than 60 years. Yes, there’s a North Coast “exclusion zone” where US-bound tankers go west around Haida Gwaii rather than down the Inside Passage, but once the ships reach Vancouver Island, they sail inside right past Victoria to refineries at Cherry Point, March Point, and other US stops.
Through the tall windows of the Vancouver convention centre, you can watch Aframax crude tankers sail past under the Second Narrows and Lions Gate bridges, after loading diluted bitumen crude from the expanded Westridge Terminal in Burnaby. That is, of course, the west end of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which has operated since 1954 with no spills, including the branch line down to the Cherry Point complex.
There are many more crude tankers exiting Vancouver now that the TMX expansion is complete, but they aren’t filled all the way because the Second Narrows is too shallow to allow that. A dredging project is in the works to allow Aframax-sized tankers to fill up.
A global market for Alberta crude emerges
They enter and exit Burrard Inlet surrounded by tethered tugboats to prevent grounding, even if the tanker loses power in this brief stretch of a long voyage that now takes Alberta crude around the world. Since the TMX expansion, shipments that used to go mostly to California now are reaching Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong, and Singapore as well.
The US captive discount has shrunk, the tripled pipeline capacity is rapidly filling up, and pumping stations are being added. This is the very definition of Mark Carney’s nation-building projects to get Canada out of the red.
The idea that the North Coast can host fuel barges, LNG tankers, bunker-fired cruise ships, and freighters but can’t tolerate Canadian crude along with the US tankers is a silly urban myth.
Tom Fletcher has covered BC politics and business as a journalist since 1984. [email protected]. X: @tomfletcherbc
‘Modern-Day Escobar’: U.S. Says Former Canadian Olympian Ran Cocaine Pipeline with Cartel Protection and a Corrupt Toronto Lawyer
Alberta Offers Enormous Advantages for AI Data Centres
‘Holy Sh*t!’: Podcaster Aghast As Charlie Kirk’s Security Leader Reads Texts He Allegedly Sent University Police
Sylvan Lake football coach fired for opposing transgender ideology elected to town council
-
National2 days agoPsyop-Style Campaign That Delivered Mark Carney’s Win May Extend Into Floor-Crossing Gambits and Shape China–Canada–US–Mexico Relations
-
Energy20 hours ago
Expanding Canadian energy production could help lower global emissions
-
Great Reset1 day agoEXCLUSIVE: The Nova Scotia RCMP Veterans’ Association IS TARGETING VETERANS with Euthanasia
-
Daily Caller1 day agoSpreading Sedition? Media Defends Democrats Calling On Soldiers And Officers To Defy Chain Of Command
-
Business18 hours agoWill the Port of Churchill ever cease to be a dream?
-
Health2 days agoCDC’s Autism Reversal: Inside the Collapse of a 25‑Year Public Health Narrative
-
COVID-192 days agoCovid Cover-Ups: Excess Deaths, Vaccine Harms, and Coordinated Censorship
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoBurying Poilievre Is Job One In Carney’s Ottawa