Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

Canada’s LNG, The Cleanest in the World – Resource Works

Published

1 year ago

8 minute read

Karen Ogen is the CEO of the First Nations LNG Alliance

From Resource Works – See More Stories from Resources Works Here

President Biden’s halt on new U.S. LNG projects offers Canada a chance to showcase its commitment to producing exceptionally clean LNG, highlighting innovative approaches to environmental sustainability and economic growth in the industry.

President Joe Biden’s freeze on approvals of new U.S. LNG-for-export projects has generated new hope for expansion of Canada’s LNG capacity and exports to follow.

From 2015 to 2022, the U.S. experienced an astronomical rise in LNG exports, soaring by an unprecedented 14,000%. Not a single Canadian LNG export project crossed the finish line to completion during this period, a stagnation that speaks volumes about the challenges faced by the industry north of the border. The explosive American growth showcased the country’s aggressive expansion into global energy markets, capitalizing on its abundant shale gas reserves and streamlined regulatory processes.

The Canadian sector’s slower progress, stymied by stringent environmental regulations and the complexities of developing export infrastructure in landlocked regions, starkly diverged from the American approach, which for years proceeded with minimal environmental considerations. If the U.S. LNG industry feels like it has handed lemons with Biden’s new climate test, for Canada it’s a chance to make lemonade.

Thanks to its careful approach, the Canadian LNG sector can now rightly show it is going to be exporting the cleanest LNG in the world when it finally does get the first shipment to market very soon.

Look at some numbers:

  • LNG Canada is projected to operate with an emissions intensity of 0.15 percent of carbon dioxide emissions per tonne of LNG produced, less than half the global industry average of 0.35 per cent per tonne.
  • The Cedar LNG project proposed by the Haisla Nation 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.
  • And Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity of just 0.04 percent of CO2 per tonne of LNG produced — and that’s less than one sixth of the global industry average.

Woodfibre LNG will also be a net-zero facility by 2027 – 23 years ahead of government net-zero regulation. Woodfibre will also be net zero during construction – a unique commitment for construction projects in Canada.

Ksi Lisims LNG, proposed by the Nisga’a Nation in B.C., promises to be operating with net-zero emissions within three years of the project’s first shipment. And Cedar LNG’s plans call for emissions to be near zero by 2030.

Woodfibre LNG points out: “We are the first e-drive LNG facility in Canada. This means our liquefaction process will be powered by renewable hydroelectricity, which is 14 times less emitting than a conventional liquefaction process powered by gas.”

Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG also plan to be all-electric, but that means B.C. Hydro will have to step up to provide the power and to transmit it to the two floating LNG production plants.

LNG Canada’s Phase One plant (which expects to go into production in 2025, but perhaps even late this year) will have to generate a portion of its cooling power by burning LNG. It would be happy to use 100% electricity, but there simply isn’t enough available. LNG Canada would certainly hope for all-electric drives for a Phase Two expansion, which is under consideration.

(Although the Site C dam will add to B.C. Hydro’s power supply in 2025, the province will still be short of electricity by 2030. So B.C. Hydro will soon put out a call for more “clean or renewable energy” from new resources. Hydro will also have to build new transmission lines or upgrade current ones, to get the power to where it is needed; and that includes LNG plants and mines.)

One reason why our emissions will be lower is our cooler climate. That means we use less energy in the process to chill natural gas to the required -161.5°C than do LNG plants on the warmer U.S. Gulf Coast or Mexican coast.

Canadian LNG companies and their natural-gas suppliers have also been working steadily to reduce emissions from wells, pipelines, and processing facilities.

Meanwhile, various studies have found that using LNG from B.C. to replace coal at Asian power-generating stations would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by anywhere from 35 per cent to 55 percent.

And on top of all this, B.C. LNG has another advantage over U.S. LNG: The shipping distance from B.C. to prime Asian buyers is about 10 days compared to 20 days for shipments from U.S. Gulf Coast LNG plants. That can mean a reduction of 50-60% in emissions from the ships carrying the LNG.

“The distance between Canada and the key market is a huge advantage, where we are the same distance to Asia as Australia,” says Racim Gribaa of Global LNG Consulting Inc.

There is, too, another key reason why Canadian governments should look favourably on LNG exports: the benefits to Indigenous peoples who partner in, are involved in, or work for the projects.

As CEO Karen Ogen of the First Nations LNG Alliance puts it: “It’ll help boost our Canadian economy, it’ll help B.C.’s economy, and most specifically it will help the Indigenous people and our economy.

“If we’re the most disadvantaged population living in poverty, then this should help our people get out of poverty.”

And so, she adds: “Everyone wins if Canada can get into the game.”

Meanwhile, the forced pause south of the border might offer a moment of reflection for the industry, potentially providing Canada with an opportunity to reassess its own approach and perhaps find a middle ground that promotes both environmental sustainability and the economic viability of LNG exports.

Before Post

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Alberta / 44 mins ago

Province introducing “Patient-Focused Funding Model” to fund acute care in Alberta

Business / 1 hour ago

Trump threatens additional 50% tariffs on China, urges ‘patience’

2025 Federal Election / 2 hours ago

Poilievre to invest in recovery, cut off federal funding for opioids and defund drug dens

Business

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Published on April 6, 2025

By

Offshore drilling rig Development Driller III at the Deepwater Horizon site May, 2010.  Petty Officer 3rd Class Patrick Kelley, U.S. Coast Guard photo

From The Center Square

By 

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

A $744 million jury verdict in Louisiana is at the center of a coordinated legal effort to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to ameliorate the erosion of land in Louisiana, offset climate change and more.

Proponents say the payments are overdue, but critics say the lawsuits will hike energy costs for all Americans and are wrongly supplanting the state and federal regulatory framework already in place.

In the Louisiana case in question, Plaquemines Parish sued Chevron alleging that oil exploration off the coast decades ago led to the erosion of Louisiana’s coastline.

A jury ruled Friday that Chevron must pay $744 million in damages.

The Louisiana case is just one of dozens of environmental cases around the country that could have a dramatic – and costly – impact on American energy consumers.

While each environmental case has its own legal nuances and differing arguments, the lawsuits are usually backed by one of a handful of the same law firms that have partnered with local and state governments. In Louisiana, attorney John Carmouche has led the charge.

“If somebody causes harm, fix it,” Carmouche said to open his arguments.

Environmental arguments of this nature have struggled to succeed in federal courts, but they hope for better luck in state courts, as the Louisiana case was.

Those damages for exploration come as President Donald Trump is urging greater domestic oil production in the U.S. to help lower energy costs for Americans.

Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, told The Center Square that the Louisiana case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Chevron is expected to appeal.

“So the issue at play here is a question about coastal erosion, about legal liability and about the proper role of the courts versus state government or federal government in enforcing regulation and statute,” Erspamer said.

Another question in the case is whether companies can be held accountable for actions they carried out before regulations were passed restricting them.

“There are now well more than 40 different lawsuits targeting over 200 different companies,” Erspamer said.

The funds would purportedly be used for coastal restoration and a kind of environmental credit system, though critics say safeguards are not in place to make sure the money would actually be used as stated.

While coastal erosion cases appear restricted to Louisiana, similar cases have popped up around the U.S. in the last 10 to 15 years.

Following a similar pattern, local and state governments have partnered with law firms to sue oil producers for large sums to help offset what they say are the effects of climate change, as The Center Square previously reported.

For instance, in Pennsylvania, Bucks County sued a handful of energy companies, calling for large abatement payments to offset the effects of climate change.

“There are all kinds of problems with traceability, causation and allocability,” George Mason University Professor Donald Kochan told The Center Square, pointing out the difficulty of proving specific companies are to blame when emissions occur all over the globe, with China emitting far more than the U.S.

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

Those cases are in earlier stages and face more significant legal hurdles because of questions about whether plaintiffs can justify the cases on federal common law because it is difficult to prove than any one individual has been substantively and directly harmed by climate change.

On top of that, plaintiffs must also prove that emissions released by the particular oil companies are responsible for the damage done, which is complicated by the fact that emissions all over the world affect the environment, the majority of which originate outside the U.S.

“It’s not that far afield from the same kinds of lawsuits we’ve seen in California and New York and other places that more are on the emissions and global warming side rather than the sort of dredging and exploration side,” Erspamer said.

But environmental companies argue that oil companies must fork out huge settlements to pay for environmental repairs.

For now, the Louisiana ruling is a shot across the bow in the legal war against energy companies in the U.S.

Whether the appeal is successful or other lawsuits have the same impact remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on April 6, 2025

By

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

Trending

X