Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

Canada badly misjudged the future of LNG

Published

6 minute read

 

Canada’s failure to push more strongly for LNG has put us in a weaker position, but there is time to recover

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba  announced a joint American-Japanese venture for the Alaska LNG Project. Once built, the $44 billion project will ship gas from northern Alaska through an 800-mile pipeline to a liquefaction facility in Nikiski for export.

It is another sign that Canada needs to step up its LNG industry.

For years, Canada has been indecisive about liquefied natural gas (LNG), while others seized the moment. Now, with global demand for LNG surging and allies like Germany, Poland, and Japan needing stable energy sources, Canada finds itself left behind, and forced to regret regulatory missteps, political foot-dragging, and underestimating LNG’s long-term value.

The warning signs have been there for years. In 2022, as Europe scrambled to replace Russian gas after the invasion of Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz personally came to Canada to request LNG exports. Instead of seizing the moment, only to be told there was no “strong business case” for Canadian LNG exports to Europe.

The same story followed with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in 2023 and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Polish President Andrzej Duda in 2024. Each time, Canada’s response was the same, with no commitment, no plan, and no urgency.

Meanwhile, others acted. The U.S. and Qatar ramped up their LNG exports, locking in long-term contracts with European and Asian buyers. Germany, despite its push for renewables, invested in floating LNG terminals, recognizing that natural gas would be essential for energy security. Canada, despite having some of the world’s largest natural gas reserves, failed to position itself as a global supplier.

Canada’s failure isn’t just about hesitation, it’s about active obstruction. The federal government’s Bill C-69, the so-called “no more pipelines” law, created an onerous and unpredictable regulatory process for major energy projects. The CleanBC plan made it clear that investment in the sector would face endless hurdles.

The results have been severe. Since 2015, Canada has seen $670 billion in cancelled resource projects, including multiple LNG terminals on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The Energy East pipeline, which could have supplied LNG facilities in New Brunswick and enabled exports to Europe, was cancelled due to regulatory delays. The proposed expansion of Repsol’s LNG terminal in Saint John faced the same fate. Investors, spooked by uncertainty and government hostility, took their money elsewhere.

While Canada dithered, the world moved. As Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, has written, LNG is not just a “bridge fuel”, it’s a destination fuel for much of the world. Despite heavy investment in renewables, countries like China are building coal-fired power plants because they lack secure, low-emissions alternatives.

If Canada had been exporting LNG between 2020 and 2022, it could have displaced an entire year’s worth of Canada’s domestic emissions in coal-dependent countries. Instead, Canada chose climate protectionism, prioritizing domestic emissions cuts over global impact.

The irony is that Canada’s hesitation to embrace LNG has hurt the climate more than it has helped. As coal consumption rises in Asia and Europe, emissions continue to soar, emissions that Canadian LNG could have displaced. A National Bank of Canada report found that transitioning India from coal to natural gas could cut four times more emissions than Canada’s total annual output, a massive missed opportunity.

Beyond environmental costs, the economic consequences are enormous. LNG projects in B.C. have been job engines, revitalizing communities once dependent on fishing, mining, and forestry. The Atlantic provinces, struggling economically, could have experienced the same boom had LNG infrastructure been developed there. Instead, they’ve been left behind.

There’s still time for Canada to change course, but it will require a complete reversal of policy. The federal government must:

  • Reform permitting and regulatory processes to make LNG projects viable and competitive.
  • Acknowledge LNG’s role in global emissions reduction and align climate policies with global realities.
  • Develop Atlantic LNG infrastructure to serve European markets, capitalizing on growing demand.

As Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel said at LNG2023, Canada’s allies have been “knocking on our door…to which we’ve said…no.” It’s time to stop saying no, to LNG, to economic growth, and to a cleaner energy future. If we don’t act now, we’ll be left behind forever.

Before Post

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

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on

The Audit David Clinton

Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution

Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.

You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.

So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.

According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.

But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:

  • Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
  • Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?

The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?

For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?

And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?

To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:

Equalization 2025-26 – Government of Canada

For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.

And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:

Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.

Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.

Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.

1

Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.

2

This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Banks

Wall Street Clings To Green Coercion As Trump Unleashes American Energy

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Isaac

The Trump administration’s recent move to revoke Biden-era restrictions on energy development in Alaska’s North Slope—especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)—is a long-overdue correction that prioritizes American prosperity and energy security. This regulatory reset rightly acknowledges what Alaska’s Native communities have long known: responsible energy development offers a path to economic empowerment and self-determination.

But while Washington’s red tape may be unraveling, a more insidious blockade remains firmly in place: Wall Street.

Despite the Trump administration’s restoration of rational permitting processes, major banks and insurance companies continue to collude in starving projects of the capital and risk management services they need. The left’s “debanking” strategy—originally a tactic to pressure gun makers and disfavored industries—is now being weaponized against American energy companies operating in ANWR and similar regions.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

This quiet embargo began years ago, when JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, declared in 2020 that it would no longer fund oil and gas development in the Arctic, including ANWR. Others quickly followed: Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup now all reject Arctic energy projects—effectively shutting down access to capital for an entire region.

Insurers have joined the pile-on. Swiss Re, AIG, and AXIS Capital all publicly stated they would no longer insure drilling in ANWR. In 2023, Chubb became the first U.S.-based insurer to formalize its Arctic ban.

These policies are not merely misguided—they are dangerous. They hand America’s energy future over to OPEC, China, and hostile regimes. They reduce competition, drive up prices, and kneecap the very domestic production that once made the U.S. energy independent.

This isn’t just a theoretical concern. I’ve experienced this discrimination firsthand.

In February 2025, The Hartford notified the American Energy Institute—an educational nonprofit I lead—that it would not renew our insurance policy. The reason? Not risk. Not claims. Not underwriting. The Hartford cited our Facebook page.

The reason for nonrenewal is we have learned from your Facebook page that your operations include Trade association involved in promoting social/political causes related to energy production. This is not an acceptable exposure under The Hartford’s Small Commercial business segment’s guidelines.”

That’s a direct quote from their nonrenewal notice.

Let’s be clear: The Hartford didn’t drop us for anything we did—they dropped us for what we believe. Our unacceptable “exposure” is telling the truth about the importance of affordable and reliable energy to modern life, and standing up to ESG orthodoxy. We are being punished not for risk, but for advocacy.

This is financial discrimination, pure and simple. What we’re seeing is the private-sector enforcement of political ideology through the strategic denial of access to financial services. It’s ESG—Environmental, Social, and Governance—gone full Orwell.

Banks, insurers, and asset managers may claim these decisions are about “climate risk,” but they rarely apply the same scrutiny to regimes like Venezuela or China, where environmental and human rights abuses are rampant. The issue is not risk. The issue is control.

By shutting out projects in ANWR, Wall Street ensures that even if federal regulators step back, their ESG-aligned agenda still moves forward—through corporate pressure, shareholder resolutions, and selective financial access. This is how ideology replaces democracy.

While the Trump administration deserves praise for removing federal barriers, the fight for energy freedom continues. Policymakers must hold financial institutions accountable for ideological discrimination and protect access to banking and insurance services for all lawful businesses.

Texas has already taken steps by divesting from anti-energy financial firms. Other states should follow, enforcing anti-discrimination laws and leveraging state contracts to ensure fair treatment.

But public pressure matters too. Americans need to know what’s happening behind the curtain of ESG. The green financial complex is not just virtue-signaling—it’s a form of economic coercion designed to override public policy and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The regulatory shackles may be coming off, but the private-sector blockade remains. As long as banks and insurers collude to deny access to capital and risk protection for projects in ANWR and beyond, America’s energy independence will remain under threat.

We need to call out this hypocrisy. We need to expose it. And we need to fight it—before we lose not just our energy freedom, but our economic prosperity.

The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

Continue Reading

Trending

X