The sudden, newfound support for LNG projects in Canada is truly remarkable.

What’s all this? Green-leaning governments, federal and provincial, suddenly speaking in favour of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and other resource development?

It began with British Columbia Premier David Eby telling Bloomberg News that he’s optimistic that LNG Canada’s LNG-for-export plant at Kitimat, BC can be expanded in a way that satisfies its investors but without supercharging the province’s emissions.

This came as LNG Canada was reported continuing to look into possible Phase Two expansion. Such expansion would double the plant’s output of LNG to 14 million tonnes a year.

Industry reports say LNG Canada has been discussing with prime contractors their potential availability down the road. A key, though, is whether and how B.C. can provide enough electrical power.

The LNG Canada plant now is going through a pre-production testing program, and has finished welding on its first “train” (production line). LNG Canada is expected to go into full operation in mid-2025. And Malaysia’s Petronas (a 25% partner) has added three new LNG carriers to its fleet, to gear up for LNG Canada’s launch.

The Eby story noted that he has also thrown his support behind other projects — including hydrogen production and an electric-vehicle battery recycling plant — to create jobs and keep B.C.’s economy growing at a challenging time.

Then came Ottawa’s minister of innovation, science and industry, François-Philippe Champagne, who visited the Haisla Nation in B.C. to support its Cedar LNG project with partner Pembina Pipeline Corp.

Champagne declared: “This is the kind of project we want to see, where there are all the elements supporting attracting investments in British Columbia.”

His government news release said: “This project presents an exciting opportunity for Canada, as it is expected to commercialize one of the lowest-carbon-intensity liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities in the world and represents the largest Indigenous-majority-owned infrastructure project in Canada.”

Champagne went on to tell The Terrace Standard that “We are in active conversations with Pembina and Haisla First Nations. We are saying today that we will support the project, but discussions are still ongoing.’

There had already been reports that Export Development Canada is set to lend Cedar LNG $400-$500 million.

And then came federal minister Jonathan Wilkinson, announcing to the national Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference in Calgary that Ottawa “will get clean growth projects built faster” by streamlining regulatory processes and moving to “make good approvals faster.”
Wilkinson has long talked, too, of streamlining and speeding up approval processes for resource projects in general, especially for mining for critical minerals. “(We’re) looking at how do we optimise the regulatory and permanent processes so you can take what is a 12- to 15-year process and bring it down to maybe five.”

The Canada Energy Regulator now is inviting input on its plans to improve the efficiency and predictability of project reviews.

All this as Deloitte Canada consultants reported that “the natural gas sector is poised for significant growth, driven by ongoing LNG projects and rising demand for gas-fired electricity generation in Canada.”

And energy giant BP said that under its two new energy ‘scenarios’, world demand for LNG in 2030 grows by 30-40% above 2022 levels, then increases by more than 25% over the subsequent 20 years.

Wilkinson earned pats on the back from some provincial ministers at the Calgary conference, but Alberta’s minister of energy and minerals, Brian Jean, aired concerns over how Ottawa’s new “greenwashing” law would impact the oil and gas sector.

Under it, companies (and individuals) must prove the truth of their public statements on climate benefits of their products or programs, or face potential millions in fines. But the ground rules for this legislation have not yet been announced.

(Jean was not alone. Other critics included CEO Karen Ogen of the First Nations LNG Alliance, who said the new law “could be used as one more tool to discourage resource companies that might seek Indigenous partnerships, and to obstruct Indigenous investment in energy projects, and frustrate Indigenous benefits from resource projects.”)

Wilkinson replied that the Competition Bureau needs to provide information so people understand how the rules apply and what is actionable.

“I think once that is done, this will be, perhaps, a bit of a different conversation. I would expect that the guidance will be something like folks simply have to have a good faith basis to believe what they’re saying. And assuming that is true, I think the sector probably will calm down.”

No pats on the back for Ottawa, though, from the mining industry or the oil-and-gas sector.

Aiming to combat China’s efforts to corner the market in critical minerals, Canada is making it harder for foreign firms to take over big Canadian mining companies. Major mining shares quickly dropped in value.

And Heather Exner-Pirot of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and special advisor to the Business Council of Canada, says: “We produced less critical minerals last year than we did in 2019. We’re producing less copper, less nickel, less platinum, less cobalt, all these things. And the investment has not picked up; in real dollars it’s almost half of what it was in 2013 . . . and the regulatory system is still a huge barrier to that development.”

On top of that, the petroleum sector has long protested that federal moves to limit oil and gas emissions will, in practice, limit production.

While governments signalled support for LNG, supporters of natural-resource development quickly sent clear messages to governments of all levels.

Calgary-based Canada Action, for one, reminded governments that the oil and gas sector is projected to generate more than in $1.1 trillion in revenue to governments from 2000 through 2032. And that the oil and gas sector supports nearly 500,000 direct and indirect jobs across the country.

Then the industry-supporting Fraser Institute pointed out that business investment in Canada’s extractive sector (mining, quarrying, and oil and gas) has declined substantially since 2014.

“In fact, adjusted for inflation, business investment in the oil and gas sector has declined 52.1 per cent since 2014, falling from $46.6 billion in 2014 to $22.3 billion in 2022. In percentage terms the decline in non-conventional oil extraction was even larger at 71.2 percent, falling from $37.3 billion in 2014 to $10.7 billion in 2022. . . .

“One of the major challenges facing Canadian prosperity are regulatory barriers, particularly in the oil and gas sector.”

Over to government, then, to reduce those barriers.

Following the recent positive moves listed above from two levels of government, there’s an obvious question: Would there happen to be federal and provincial elections in the offing?

Yes: B.C. will hold its next general election on or before October 19. And the feds go to the polls for an election on or before October 20.

Stand by for more promises.

Related Topics:#BCPremierDavidEby #CanadaLNG #LNGCanada #ResourceWorks LiquefiedNaturalGas PembinaPipelineCorp.

Up Next

Electric vehicles facing uphill climb

Don't Miss

New $1 billion pipeline deal spreads Indigenous ownership through Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan

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

Google Dumps EU’s Anti-“Disinformation” Code, Defying Digital Services Act

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

Trump Admin Deals Fatal Blow To Massive Refugee Flights

National / 3 hours ago

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh reaffirms he will vote non-confidence against Liberal gov’t at earliest chance

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.