Energy
Canada wallows on LNG sidelines, paralyzed by Ottawa’s onerous regulatory system
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Mitsotakis said Greece has built a major facility outside the city of Alexandroupolis to process incoming LNG tankers. He said Greece will pump LNG to the rest of Europe and needs more at home as the country abandons coal.
When it comes to fossil fuels, the world wants what Canada’s got. The problem is, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doesn’t care.
Fresh proof came with the recent visit of Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the first Greek leader to come to Canada in more than 40 years.
According to the office of the Prime Minister Trudeau, Mitsotakis was simply here to march in Montreal’s Greek Independence Day Parade, discuss “shared interests” and cut the ribbon as Greece purchased Canadian-made firefighting planes.
But, during an interview with CTV, Mitsotakis said his country would “of course” like to start importing Canadian liquified natural gas (LNG).
“We are a big entry point for LNG, not just for the Greek market, but also for the Balkans, for Eastern Europe. Theoretically, we could even supply Ukraine,” said Mitsotakis.
“In principle, yes, we are very interested in obtaining LNG at competitive prices.”
Mitsotakis said Greece has built a major facility outside the city of Alexandroupolis to process incoming LNG tankers. He said Greece will pump LNG to the rest of Europe and needs more at home as the country abandons coal.
Much of Europe’s energy has traditionally come from Russia or Middle Eastern autocracies. More than a decade ago, author Ezra Levant made the case for Canada’s “Ethical Oil” as a better alternative. Canada’s status as a democratic state that respects human rights and extracts oil with a minimal environmental footprint is as good as it gets. Mitsotakis, a Harvard-educated investment banker, understands that quite readily today.
“Canada is a country (for) which we share so many values,” said Mitsotakis. “I think we see eye-to-eye on many of the challenges that we face.”
Still, there was no mention of energy exports in Trudeau’s public comments regarding Mitsotakis, nor in official government communications about the visit.
Mitsotakis can take little consolation that his treatment is not unusual, as true as that may be. In the past 18 months, both the Japanese prime minister and the German chancellor returned home without official assurances that Ottawa was eager to offer bulk quantities of Canadian LNG.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida came to Canada in January, 2023 making no secret of his “high expectations” to reach an LNG export agreement with Canada.
In August 2022, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz came to Canada hoping to reach an LNG deal. “Canada is our partner of choice,” Scholz said at the time.
Somehow, Trudeau said at a press conference with the German leader that there was no “business case” for LNG exports to Europe. Instead, he took the chancellor to an empty field in Newfoundland that was the chosen site for a future Canadian facility to export carbon-neutral hydrogen.
That will help Germany a little, but not nearly enough. The country turned to Qatar and signed a 15-year LNG export deal.
Canada is currently the world’s fifth largest producer of natural gas. But, as is the case with oil, facilities to sell it overseas are very limited. Canada has no LNG export facilities currently operating. Any LNG exports to Europe would have to go through a US export terminal.
Kitimat, BC will open a major export facility in early 2025, but plans to build an LNG pipeline to ports on the East Coast have fallen apart due to high costs.
On Monday, Alberta Energy Minister Brian Jean said “onerous” regulatory procedures were more to blame.
“With massive natural gas reserves, Canada can no longer wait on the LNG sidelines, burdened by an onerous regulatory system. Our allies and trading partners need us. We must have more LNG export facilities approved and built,” Jean said in a statement.
Jean is right. Canada has scuttled one opportunity after another during the Trudeau era, first by smothering pipeline development in onerous regulations. The Northern Gateway pipeline was the only one the nation banned, citing environmental concerns off the coast of northern B.C., despite the fact that 50 tankers passed the same waters every day with exports from Alaska.
Other proposals, such as the Energy East pipeline, were held up in red tape until its proponents decided the project wasn’t worth it. A 30,000-page application went for not, as did the hope that refineries in the Maritimes could refine Canadian products instead of those from the Middle East.
The trans mountain pipeline was also bound up until the government bought it, after which its progress still went painfully slowly. Years late and six times over-budget at a cost of $34 billion, the “long delayed” pipeline is finally ready for crude deliveries.
Bill C-69, dubbed by former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney as the “No More Pipelines Act”, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada last fall. The development is welcome but cannot restore lost time.
Canada remains poorly positioned to capitalize on another historic opportunity–the European thirst for oil as it tries to distance itself from Russia. Unfortunately, this problem seems more convenient to Ottawa than not. The Canadian government seems more interested in having zero carbon emissions even if that means zero economy. Too bad that makes zero sense.
Lee Harding is a Research Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Energy
75 per cent of Canadians support the construction of new pipelines to the East Coast and British Columbia
-
71 per cent of Canadians find the approval process too long.
-
67 per cent of Quebecers support the Marinvest Energy natural gas project.
“While there has always been a clear majority of Canadians supporting the development of new pipelines, it seems that the trade dispute has helped firm up this support,” says Gabriel Giguère, senior policy analyst at the MEI. “From coast to coast, Canadians appreciate the importance of the energy industry to our prosperity.”
Three-quarters of Canadians support constructing new pipelines to ports in Eastern Canada or British Columbia in order to diversify our export markets for oil and gas.
This proportion is 14 percentage points higher than it was last year, with the “strongly agree” category accounting for almost all of the increase.
For its part, Marinvest Energy’s natural gas pipeline and liquefaction plant project, in Quebec’s North Shore region, is supported by 67 per cent of Quebecers polled, who see it as a way to reduce European dependence on Russian natural gas.
Moreover, 54 per cent of Quebecers now say they support the development of the province’s own oil resources. This represents a six-point increase over last year.
“This year again, we see that this preconceived notion according to which Quebecers oppose energy development is false,” says Mr. Giguère. “Quebecers’ increased support for pipeline projects should signal to politicians that there is social acceptability, whatever certain lobby groups might think.”
It is also the case that seven in ten Canadians (71 per cent) think the approval process for major projects, including environmental assessments, is too long and should be reformed. In Quebec, 63 per cent are of this opinion.
The federal Bill C-5 and Quebec Bill 5 seem to respond to these concerns by trying to accelerate the approval of certain large projects selected by governments.
In July, the MEI recommended a revision of the assessment process in order to make it swift by default instead of creating a way to bypass it as Bill C-5 and Bill 5 do.
“Canadians understand that the burdensome assessment process undermines our prosperity and the creation of good, well-paid jobs,” says Mr. Giguère. “While the recent bills to accelerate projects of national interest are a step in the right direction, it would be better simply to reform the assessment process so that it works, rather than creating a workaround.”
A sample of 1,159 Canadians aged 18 and older were surveyed between November 27 and December 2, 2025. The results are accurate to within ± 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Business
Geopolitics no longer drives oil prices the way it used to
This article supplied by Troy Media.
Oil markets are shrugging off war and sanctions, a sign that oversupply now matters more than disruption
Oil producers hoping geopolitics would lift prices are running into a harsh reality. Markets are brushing off wars and sanctions as traders focus instead on expectations of a deep and persistent oil glut.
That shift was evident last week. Despite several geopolitical developments that would once have pushed prices higher, including the U.S. seizure of a Venezuelan crude tanker and fresh Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, oil markets barely reacted, with prices ending the week lower.
Brent crude settled Friday at US$61.12 a barrel and U.S. West Texas Intermediate at US$57.44, capping a weekly drop of more than four per cent.
Instead of responding to disruption headlines, markets were reacting to a different risk. Bearish sentiment, rather than geopolitics, continued to dominate as expectations of a “2026 glut” took centre stage.
At the heart of that outlook is a growing supply overhang. The oil market is grappling with whether sanctioned Russian and Iranian cargoes should still be counted as supply. That uncertainty helps explain why prices have been slow to react to a glut that is already forming on the water, said Carol Ryan, writing for The Wall Street Journal.
The scale of that buildup is significant. There are 1.4 billion barrels of oil “on the water,” 24 per cent higher than the average for this time of year between 2016 and 2024, according to oil analytics firm Vortexa. These figures capture shipments still in transit or cargoes that have yet to find a buyer, a clear sign that supply is running ahead of immediate demand.
Official forecasts have reinforced that view. Last week, the International Energy Agency trimmed its projected 2026 surplus to 3.84 million barrels per day, down from 4.09 million barrels per day projected previously. Even so, the IEA still sees a large oversupply relative to global demand.
Demand growth offers little relief. The IEA expects growth of 830 kb/d (thousand barrels per day) in 2025 and 860 kb/d in 2026, with petrochemical feedstocks accounting for a larger share of incremental demand. That pace remains modest against the volume of supply coming to market.
OPEC, however, has offered a different assessment. In its latest report, the group pointed to a near balance, forecasting demand for OPEC+ crude averaging about 43 million barrels per day in 2026, roughly in line with what it produced in November.
Reflecting that confidence. OPEC+ kept policy steady late in November, pausing planned output hikes for the first quarter of 2026 while more than three million barrels per day of cuts remain in place. Those measures are supportive in theory, but markets have shown little sign of being persuaded.
Recent geopolitical events underline that scepticism. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, including reported hits on facilities such as the Slavneft-YANOS refinery in Yaroslavl, again failed to lift prices. Russia-Ukraine headlines pulled prices down more than strikes lifted them, according to media reports, suggesting traders were more attuned to “peace deal” risk than to supply disruption.
Washington’s move against Venezuelan crude shipments offered another test. The U.S. seizure of a Venezuelan tanker, the first formal seizure under the 2019 sanctions framework, had a muted price impact, writes Marcin Frackiewicz of Oilprice.com.
Venezuela’s exports fell sharply in the days that followed, but markets remained largely unmoved. One explanation is that Venezuela’s output is no longer large enough to tighten global balances the way it once did, and that abundant global supply has reduced the geopolitical premium.
Taken together, the signal is hard to miss. Oil producers, including in Canada, face a reality check in a market that no longer rewards headlines, only discipline and demand.
Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta’s new diagnostic policy appears to meet standard for Canada Health Act compliance
-
Health2 days agoRFK Jr reversing Biden-era policies on gender transition care for minors
-
Business1 day agoGeopolitics no longer drives oil prices the way it used to
-
Business1 day agoArgentina’s Milei delivers results free-market critics said wouldn’t work
-
Business1 day agoDeadlocked Jury Zeroes In on Alleged US$40 Million PPE Fraud in Linda Sun PRC Influence Case
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoCanadian university censors free speech advocate who spoke out against Indigenous ‘mass grave’ hoax
-
Daily Caller2 days agoEx-FDA Commissioners Against Higher Vaccine Standards Took $6 Million From COVID Vaccine Makers
-
COVID-192 days agoFreedom Convoy protester appeals after judge dismissed challenge to frozen bank accounts




