Anti-LNG activists have decided that they now actually care for LNG investors after years of calling to divest

Qatar is building or chartering 104 LNG carriers, and plans to double its LNG output by the end of 2030. It would then produce 142 million megatonnes of LNG a year — more than 20 times the 7 million from the LNG Canada plant.

Strange to see activists opposed to LNG development in Canada publicly worrying about whether such projects are economically viable for investors.

One group has been arguing “the reality is that in the coming years the world may no longer need BC.’s LNG” and that could mean “the risk of future stranded assets.” Of course, they aren’t at all concerned about investors; they’re just desperately throwing every brick they can think of in organized and well-funded political campaigns to influence government.

Meanwhile, two of their prime targets proceed with their government-approved plans: LNG Canada moves steadily toward overseas exports in 2025, and Woodfibre LNG is moving toward construction, and shipping pre-sold exports in 2027. BC has also approved Fortis BC’s planned marine LNG terminal on the Fraser, which would provide LNG as fuel for visiting ships, and could also handle export cargoes from an expanded FortisBC plant in Delta.

And First Nations are working on the Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG project, and the Nisga’a Nation’s proposed Ksi Lisims LNG operation. Odd how the activists refrain from criticizing the First Nations Peoples who want to export LNG to help their communities thrive .

And, somehow, the activists’ messages fail to impress LNG developers in the U.S., Australia, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, and Qatar. For context, Qatar is building or chartering 104 LNG carriers, and plans to double its LNG output by the end of 2030. It would then produce 142 million megatonnes of LNG a year — more than 20 times the 7 million from the LNG Canada plant.

The critics’ climate issues and concerns are indeed legitimate, no argument. World emissions hit a record high in 2023, the International Energy Agency reports. Emissions in advanced economies fell to a 50-year low, but rose in China and India.

China in 2023 accounted for 35 percent of global carbon-dioxide emissions. The U.S. stood at 12.5 percent and India at 7.7 percent. While China has indeed made much progress on renewables, it and India continue to burn more and more coal.

Why Canadian groups think they can solve world issues by focussing on relatively modest LNG proposals in Canada is beyond us.

Our Canadian LNG will be environmentally cleaner than LNG from many rival suppliers. And buyers can use it to generate more of their electricity, replacing coal-powered generation that produces far more emissions. That’s an environmental plus.

LNG Canada will have an emissions intensity of 0.15 percent of carbon dioxide per tonne of LNG produced, less than half the global industry average of 0.35 percent per tonne, and 35 percent lower than the best-performing facility.

Woodfibre LNG will be the world’s first net-zero LNG export facility — 23 years ahead of government net-zero goals. Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity of just 0.04 percent — and that’s less than one sixth of the global industry average.

The Haisla’s Cedar LNG project will have an emissions intensity of just 0.08 percent of CO2 per tonne of LNG. That’s less than a third of the global average. Its plans call for emissions to be near zero by 2030.

And the Nisga’a Ksi Lisims project promises to be operating with net-zero emissions within three years of the project’s first shipment.

Our LNG has another advantage over U.S. LNG: The shipping distance from BC to prime Asian buyers is about 10 days compared to 20 days from U.S. Gulf Coast LNG plants. That means 50-60 percent lower emissions from the ships carrying the LNG.

Canada produces only 1.5 percent of world greenhouse-gas emissions. As Canada’s independent parliamentary budget officer reported in 2022: “Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change.”

Thus the First Nations LNG Alliance points out: “You could shut the entire country down — no energy, no industry, no jobs, no transportation, no heat, no light — and that reduction of 1.5 percent of emissions could be wiped out by new energy development and new emissions in other countries in a matter of some months or perhaps a few years.”

And so the Alliance says: “So we have government punishing taxpayers, First Nations and industry by putting on blinkers when it comes to LNG. Ottawa views Canada as a geographical silo in which we must meet our emissions targets, regardless of what others do.

“It’s long past time, indeed, to act locally — but think globally.”

Related Topics:#CanadaLNG #CedarLNG #FirstNationsLNGAlliance #KsiLisimsLNG #LNGCanada #ResourceWorks.com #WoodfibreLNG feature

Up Next

Reflections on Earth Day

Don't Miss

Canada’s advantage as the world’s demand for plastic continues to grow

Todayville

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

Trump Moves To Reverse Biden’s Green New Deal Agenda — With A Special Focus On Wind

illegal immigration / 14 mins ago

Trump directs feds to target cartels that threaten homeland security

Business / 1 hour ago

Debunking the myth of the ‘new economy’

Daily Caller

Trump Moves To Reverse Biden’s Green New Deal Agenda — With A Special Focus On Wind

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Shares of big Danish offshore wind developer Orsted dropped by 17% Monday, the same day President Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 47^th president of the United States. The two events are not merely coincidental with one another.

To be sure, Orsted’s loss of market cap was caused by several factors, including both the general slowing of the offshore wind business, and Orsted’s own announcement that it will incur a $1.69 billion impairment charge related to its Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York. Company CEO Mads Nipper attributed the charge to delays and cost increases and said the project completion date is now delayed to the second half of 2027.

But there can be little doubt that the raft of energy-related executive orders signed by Trump also contributed to the drop in Orsted’s stock price. As part of a Day 1 agenda consisting of a reported 196 executive orders, the new president took dead aim at reversing the Biden Green New Deal agenda in general, with a special focus on wind power projects on federal lands and waters.

In addition to general orders declaring a national energy emergency and pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords (for a second time), Trump signed a separate order titled, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” That long-winded title (pardon the pun) is quite descriptive of what the order is designed to accomplish.

Section 1 of this order withdraws “from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331.” Somewhat ironically, this is the same OCSLA cited in early January by former President Joe Biden when he set 625 million acres of federal offshore waters off limits to oil and gas leasing and drilling into perpetuity.

As with Biden’s LNG permitting pause, the fourth paragraph of Section 1 in Trump’s order states that “Nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas.” However, the same paragraph goes on to subject those existing leases to review by the secretary of the Interior, who is charged with conducting “a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases, identifying any legal bases for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.”

Observant readers will know that the parameters of this order as it relates to offshore wind are essentially the same as a proposal I suggested in a previous piece here on Jan. 1. So, obviously, it receives the Blackmon Seal of Approval.

But we should also note that Trump goes even further, extending this freeze to onshore wind projects as well. While the rationale for the freeze in offshore leasing and permitting cites factors unique to the offshore like harm to marine mammals, ocean currents and the marine fishing industry, the rationale supporting the onshore freeze cites “environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills and deliver a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, with their findings and recommended authorities to require the removal of such windmills.”

This gets at concerns long held by me and many others that neither the federal government nor any state government has seen fit to require the proper, complete tear down and safe disposal of these massive wind turbines, blades, towers and foundations once they outlive their useful lives. In most jurisdictions, wind operators are free to just abandon the projects and leave the equipment to dilapidate and rot.

The dirty secret of the wind industry, whether onshore or offshore, is that it is not sustainable without consistent new injections of more and more subsidies, along with the tacit refusal by governments to properly regulate its operations. Trump and his team understand this reality and should be applauded for taking real action to address it.

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.

Business

Debunking the myth of the ‘new economy’

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

Where the money comes from isn’t hard to see – if you look at the facts

In British Columbia, the economy is sometimes discussed through the lens of a “new economy” focused on urbanization, high-tech innovation, and creative industries. However, this perspective frequently overlooks the foundational role that the province’s natural resource industries play in generating the income that fuels public services, infrastructure, and daily life.

The Economic Reality

British Columbia’s economy is highly urbanized, with 85% of the population living in urban areas as of the 2021 Census, concentrated primarily in the Lower Mainland and the Capital Regional District.
These metropolitan regions contribute significantly to economic activity, particularly in population-serving sectors like retail, healthcare, and education. However, much of the province’s income—what we call the “first dollar”—originates in the non-metropolitan resource regions.

Natural resources remain the backbone of British Columbia’s economy. Industries such as forestry, mining, energy, and agriculture generate export revenue that flows into the provincial economy, supporting urban and rural communities alike. These sectors are not only vital for direct employment but also underpin metropolitan economic activities through the export income they generate.

They also pay taxes, fees, royalties, and more to governments, thus supporting public services and programs.

Exports: The Tap Filling the Economic Bathtub

The analogy of a bathtub aptly describes the provincial economy:

Exports are the water entering the tub, representing income from goods and services sold outside the province.
Imports are the water draining out, as money leaves the province to purchase external goods and services.
The population-serving sector circulates water within the tub, but it depends entirely on the level of water maintained by exports.

In British Columbia, international exports have historically played a critical role. In 2022, the province exported $56 billion worth of goods internationally, led by forestry products, energy, and minerals. While metropolitan areas may handle the logistics and administration of these exports, the resources themselves—and the wealth they generate—are predominantly extracted and processed in rural and resource-rich regions.

Metropolitan Contributions and Limitations

Although metropolitan regions like Vancouver and Victoria are often seen as economic powerhouses, they are not self-sustaining engines of growth. These cities rely heavily on income generated by resource exports, which enable the public services and infrastructure that support urban living. Without the wealth generated in resource regions, the urban economy would struggle to maintain its standard of living.

For instance, while tech and creative industries are growing in prominence, they remain a smaller fraction of the provincial economy compared to traditional resource industries. The resource sectors accounted for nearly 9% of provincial GDP in 2022, while the tech sector contributed approximately 7%.

Moreover, resource exports are critical for maintaining a positive trade balance, ensuring that the “economic bathtub” remains full.

A Call for Balanced Economic Policy

Policymakers and urban leaders must recognize the disproportionate contribution of British Columbia’s resource regions to the provincial economy. While urban areas drive innovation and service-based activities, these rely on the income generated by resource exports. Efforts to increase taxation or regulatory burdens on resource industries risk undermining the very foundation of provincial prosperity.

Furthermore, metropolitan regions should actively support resource-based industries through partnerships, infrastructure development, and advocacy. A balanced economic strategy—rooted in both urban and resource region contributions—is essential to ensure long-term sustainability and equitable growth across British Columbia.

At least B.C. Premier David Eby has begun to promise that “a new responsible, sustainable development of natural resources will be a core focus of our government,” and has told resource leaders that “Our government will work with you to eliminate unnecessary red tape and bureaucratic processes.” Those leaders await the results.

Conclusion

British Columbia’s prosperity is deeply interconnected, with urban centres and resource regions playing complementary roles. However, the evidence is clear: the resource sectors, particularly in the northern half of the province, remain the primary engines of economic growth. Acknowledging and supporting these industries is not only fair but also critical to sustaining the provincial economy and the public services that benefit all British Columbians.