Energy
Canadian Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is the Cleaner Fuel Alternative that Asian Markets Want and Need – CPW
Trans Mountain LNG Terminal Expansion
From EnergyNow Media
A woman in rural China gets ready to make dinner. She starts with food prep, then reaches for her fuel source to begin cooking.
Her options: likely wood or coal.
As she cooks, she is probably not aware that nearly half a million people in China who cook with wood or coal have an increased risk of major eye diseases that lead to blindness.
This was detailed in a University of Oxford study that also showed nearly half of the world’s population (that’s 3.8 billion people) is exposed to household air pollution from cooking with “dirty” solid fuels like wood or coal.
Even if she knew all this, what other choice would she have? Everyone has to prepare food for their family.
Poor air quality and its effect on human health is a significant cost to consider when using coal, but there are others as well, such as greenhouse gas emissions.
When burned for energy, coal releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If you shift from thinking about the individual cooking at home to large-scale coal burning for electricity generation, the problem becomes a major environmental concern — and a significant contributing factor to climate change.
How big is the problem?
Coal power plants produce 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other single source, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
This issue is important to us because that woman cooking at home could be any one of us. The difference is, we have options. With energy demand continuing to grow, the IEA reports that many countries feel they have little choice but to continue generating power with coal.
Furthermore, Canada Powered by Women research (which captures the opinions of 24% of all women in Canada) shows that the vast majority (84%) personally care about tackling climate change through global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction.
So, what exactly is the solution to this problem? It’s choice.
The solution for regions of the world that don’t have access to different types of energy is to provide alternatives to what they have today. One choice can, and should, be Canadian liquified natural gas (LNG).
(Assuming, that is, Canadian suppliers are supported enough by regulatory environments to produce and export this resource. More on this later…)
Many parts of the world — particularly Asia — want to replace coal with cleaner energy like LNG. Foreign markets such as Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and China are interested in turning to Canada as their source, over countries with less-than-stellar environmental and human rights records (not to mention uncertain political structures).
“We have incredible volumes of lower-carbon gas in B.C., and it represents an important new source of energy,” says Teresa Waddington, vice president, corporate relations at LNG Canada. “Canada is politically stable in an increasingly energy security-conscious world. We have good infrastructure and good systems in place to make sure that we are able to produce very, very reliably.”
It’s not just industry players who are on board with exporting our energy resources to foreign markets, either.
The majority of Canadian women we asked consider it important to supply ethical and responsibly produced oil, as well as LNG, internationally.
Canada is primed to take its cleaner energy options to the world — we just need the ability to get it to market.
Canadian LNG: The Same Energy for Half the Emissions
Markets around the world are interested in LNG over coal for good reason. It has half the emissions of coal for the same output of energy.
But in some Asian countries, coal-burning plants are being built at a lightning-fast pace because populations and manufacturers need rapid access to energy, Reuters reports.
“If we can displace current and future energy electricity generation and power generation with LNG, we’re taking a massive step forward,” Waddington says.
Beyond being a cleaner molecule, Canadian LNG is particularly attractive because it’s produced ethically and safely, thanks in part to strict industry regulations.
“We have the lowest methane emissions leakage anywhere in the globe,” Waddington notes.
And this is in part because Canada has highly stringent requirements for managing methane leakage — which can lead to greenhouse gas emissions and is a common concern about this kind of fuel.
“If you look across the spectrum of environment, social, governance (ESG), Canadian LNG is made with human rights at the forefront,” says Waddington.
With Support, Canada Can Lead the Global LNG Opportunity
Canada has the potential to pull ahead as a global leader in the production and export of clean energy to foreign markets — a move that would play an important role in reducing global emissions, facilitating a prosperous Canada economy and providing for those in need at home and abroad.
But that will only happen if governments offer LNG projects the support they need in the form of utility infrastructure investments and clear and fast permitting, Waddington says.
As an example, partnerships with local hydro providers to power LNG facilities is one way provincial governments can lower the carbon intensity of processing and exporting the fuel, she says.
Then of course, there’s also the potential of government incentives that inspire more investment in LNG facilities, as well as in technologies that support the production of an ever-cleaner natural gas molecule.
With technology and innovation in Canada advancing all the time, Waddington is optimistic about the opportunity ahead.
“We’re going to see Canada continue to emerge as world-leading in some of the ways that we can [reduce emissions] — as long as we keep up this momentum, supported by government.”
About Canada Powered by Women
Uniting Women Through Bold Conversations
Canada Powered by Women represents Canadian women who believe sound energy policies are vital for the continuing economic prosperity of our country. We’re driven by the unshakable belief that a better world is possible and we can make it happen… together. Visit our website HERE for more information and JOIN OUR COMMUNITY.
Alberta
Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap will hit Alberta with a wallop
From the Fraser Institute
Even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.
After considerable waiting, the Trudeau government released on Monday draft regulations to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers.
The proposed regulations would set a cap on GHG emissions equivalent to 35 per cent of the emissions produced in 2019 and create a GHG emissions “cap and trade” system to enable oil and gas producers (who cannot reduce emissions enough to avoid the cap) to buy credits from other producers able to meet the cap. Producers unable to meet the cap will also be able to obtain emission credits (of up to 20 per cent of their needed emission reductions) by investing in decarbonization programs or by buying emission “offsets” in Canada’s carbon markets.
According to the government, the cap will “cap pollution, drive innovation, and create jobs in the oil and gas industry.” But in reality, while the cap may well cap pollution and drive some innovation, according to several recent analyses it won’t create jobs in the oil and gas industry and will in fact kill many jobs.
For example, the Conference Board of Canada think-tank estimates that the cap would reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, kill up to 151,300 jobs across Canada by 2030, and national economic growth from 2023 to 2030 would slow from 15.3 per cent to 14.3 per cent.
Not surprisingly, Alberta would be hardest hit. According to the Board, from 2023 to 2030, the province’s economic growth would fall from an estimated 17.8 per cent to 13.3 per cent and employment growth would fall from 15.8 per cent to 13.6 per cent over the same period. Alberta government revenues from the sector would decline by 4.5 per cent in 2030 compared to a scenario without the cap. As a result, Alberta government revenues would be $4.5 billion lower in nominal terms in fiscal year 2030/31. And between 54,000 to 91,500 of Canada’s job losses would occur in Alberta.
Another study by Deloitte estimates that, due to the federal cap, Alberta will see 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario would lose more than 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec would lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.
Overall, according to Deloitte, Canada would experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of GDP, translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. (For context, Canada’s economic growth in 2023 was only 1.1 per cent.)
And what will Canadians get for all that economic pain?
In my study published last year by the Fraser Institute, I found that, even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.
Clearly, the Trudeau government’s new proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector will impose significant harms on Canada’s economy, Canadian workers and our quality of life—and hit Alberta with a wallop. And yet, as a measure intended to avert harmful climate change, it’s purely performative (like many of the government’s other GHG regulations) and will generate too little emission reductions to have any meaningful impact on the climate.
In a world of rational policy development, where the benefits of government regulations are supposed to exceed their costs, policymakers would never consider this proposed cap. The Trudeau government will submit the plan to Parliament, and if the cap becomes law, it will await some other future government to undo the damage inflicted on Canadians and their families.
Author:
Alberta
For second year in a row, Alberta oil and gas companies spend more than required on cleanup
From the Canadian Energy Center
By Grady Semmens$923 million spent cleaning up inactive wells, sites and pipelines in 2023
As a business owner, Ryan Smith values few things more than predictability when it comes to the oil and gas market and the demand for his company’s services.
That’s why knowing that next year in Alberta, the regulator requires at least $750 million worth of work cleaning up inactive oil and gas wells and other legacy energy infrastructure is tremendously helpful for the CEO of Calgary-based 360 Engineering & Environmental Consulting.
“Having a minimum spend in place for the province makes the market more predictable and consistent, which in turn helps our clients and our business plan for the future, which is a good thing,” says Smith, whose company has completed more than 5,000 site closure activities in Canada and internationally since 2015.
“Site closure has really emerged as a growth market over the last decade, especially in Western Canada where the regulatory systems for oil and gas are more advanced than anywhere else we are exposed to. It is an integral part of the energy lifecycle, and if it is done well it adds a lot of value to the industry.”
The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) introduced an industry-wide minimum “closure” spending requirement in 2022, part of Alberta’s Inventory Reduction Program to accelerate the remediation of inactive oil and gas wells, facilities and pipelines across the province.
The mandatory quota determines the minimum level of work a company must conduct primarily to decommission and reclaim a proportion of its inactive inventory.
Inactive wells are defined as those that have not been used for six months or a year, depending on what they are being used for. When a company decides that they will not reactivate an inactive well they decommission it through a process called abandonment.
A well is considered successfully abandoned after it is cleaned, plugged with cement, cut to a minimum of one meter below the surface and covered with a vented cap. After abandonment comes remediation and reclamation, where the land around the well is returned to the equivalent of its original state.
The first two years under the new rules saw Alberta’s energy industry significantly exceed the minimum closure requirements.
In 2022, companies spent more than $696 million, about 65 per cent more than the initial threshold of $422 million. The AER increased the minimum spend to $700 million in 2023, which producers surpassed by 22 per cent with total expenditures of $923 million.
The 2024 minimum remains at $700 million, while in July the regulator announced that the minimum spend for 2025 was raised to $750 million.
This closure work does not include remediation of oil sands mining sites, which is handled under the Mine Financial Security Program, nor does it include the closure of orphan wells (wells without a legal owner) managed by the industry-funded Orphan Well Association.
Gurpreet Lail, CEO of Enserva, an industry association representing energy service companies, suppliers and manufacturers, says there was an initial rush of closure work when the quotas were first put in place, but activity has since become more even as companies develop long-term closure plans.
“A lot of the low-lying fruit has been taken care of, so now companies are working on more complex closure files that take more time and more money,” Lail says.
Facility owners say that Alberta’s rules provide direction for planning closure and remediation work, which in the past may have been put on hold due to the ups and downs of the oil and gas market.
“When commodity prices are up, everyone is focused on drilling more wells and when prices are down, budgets are strained for doing work that doesn’t bring in revenue. Having a minimum spend makes sure closure work happens every year and ensures there is longer-term progress,” says Deborah Borthwick, asset retirement coordinator for Birchcliff Energy, an oil and natural gas producer focused in Alberta.
Over the last few years, Birchcliff has budgeted more than $3 million for annual facility closure work, far above its required minimum spend.
The company completed 11 well abandonments and decommissioned 23 facilities and pipelines in 2022, according to its latest environmental, social and governance report.
Borthwick says having the closure quota for 2025 already set has allowed it to plan ahead and line up the necessary service companies well in advance for next year’s remediation work.
-
Business2 days ago
Canada’s struggle against transnational crime & money laundering
-
Red Deer2 days ago
Chamber urges city council to look harder at cutting costs
-
espionage2 days ago
Scathing Report Reveals How Deadly Pathogens and Sensitive Research Walked Out the Door Under Justin Trudeau’s Watch
-
Health2 days ago
RFK Jr. talks fluoride, vaccines with MSNBC the day after Trump’s victory
-
Alberta1 day ago
For second year in a row, Alberta oil and gas companies spend more than required on cleanup
-
Economy1 day ago
Trudeau Government Capping the Canadian Economy (and Energy Industry) Just to Impress International Agencies
-
illegal immigration1 day ago
Even before taking office, Trump puts Mexico on spot — stop the caravans now
-
David Clinton1 day ago
Is Canada Abusing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?