Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

Panama Canal drying up woes could have benefited Canadian LNG – If only we had any

Published

6 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Zinchuk

There’s a disturbance in the force of global shipping, as if a major transit point started slipping away.

There’s a very serious problem occurring a few thousand miles to the south of us, one that Canada could have taken tremendous advantage of, if only we had built and completed some liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals by now.

The Panama Canal, one of the wonders of the modern world that utterly changed trade and geopolitics, is drying up.

The canal, which usually handles about 36 ships a day, has in recent days reduced that to 24. By Feb. 1, it is expected to fall to 18. And the largest ships who do transit the canal have to reduce their cargoes, lest they scrape bottom.

That’s because the canal uses fresh water, captured by dams and forming the massive Gatun Lake. That fresh water is collected from ample rains. Every single time a ship passes through the canal, water used to operate the locks is flushed into the ocean. While the greatly expanded third set of locks allows much, much larger ships to use the more than 100 year-old canal, they also use a lot of water despite an innovative water recovery system. And the Canal Authority says they’ve had the lowest rains in 73 years, since 1950.

So when you add up the additional, much larger locks, with a local drought, the canal is rapidly falling into crisis. And the world is starting to take notice.

As they should, since soon half of all ships that usually use the canal will be turned away.

No one depends on the canal more than the Americans. They built it, after all, for a reason. And one of the biggest is it allows for quick access for Gulf Coast ports to Pacific markets. This was a very real reason why building a half dozen large LNG terminals made so much sense (in addition to their proximity to gas production.)

Well, a lot of that just got thrown out the window. Cutting ship transit numbers by half means a dramatic curtailment of the ability of US LNG cargoes to access the Pacific markets. Their alternative is to add something like 8,000 miles going around South America’s Cape Horn, which absolutely no one wants to do due to the treacherous weather and seas.. Otherwise, they have to cross the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and Straits of Malacca to get to east Asia markets.

The net effect will be some cargoes from the Gulf Coast destined for Asia will have to go much, much further to deliver their product. That means fewer cargoes per ship per year. It’ll tighten up ship availability, and likely put pressure on LNG prices.

And if Canada had moved quicker on building out LNG terminals, particularly on the West Coast, we would be perfectly positioned to cash in on this situation. Not only is Kitimat, Prince Rupert and the like much, much closer to China and Japan, there’s no drying up Panama Canal to contend with, either.

Small wonder, then, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre chose on November 10 to post on his various social media channels, “Since Trudeau took office: 18 LNG terminals have been proposed. 0 have been completed.”

To be fair, LNG Canada, the largest proposal, is in the finishing stretch. In July they reported 85 per cent completion. In recent weeks, TC Energy reported the completion of the “golden weld” on the Coastal GasLink pipeline that will supply LNG Canada and presumably other facilities on the West Coast. Without pipeline, which was both massively delayed and overbudget, no small thanks to pipeline protesters, LNG Canada would be useless.

Other projects are finally gaining traction – Woodfibre LNG at Squamish on the south coast, and Ksi Lisims LNG right on the Alaska/BC border, and Cedar LNG, a floating LNG terminal adjacent to LNG Canada and served by Coastal GasLink.

Remember when the German chancellor came to Canada, seeking LNG, and was told by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau there was “no business case?” And then the Japanese prime minister was told something similar a few weeks later?

The Ukraine War has proven a business case for almost two years in the Atlantic basin. The Panama Canal reduction in service will soon prove it in the Pacific. What more do we need?

Canada should have built these projects years ago. We’d be securing markets and cashing in today.

No business case, indeed.

Brian Zinchuk is editor and owner of PipelineOnline.ca, and occasional contributor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He can be reached at [email protected].

Business

We need our own ‘DOGE’ in 2025 to unleash Canadian economy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Canada has a regulation problem. Our economy is over-regulated and the regulatory load is growing. To reverse this trend, we need a deregulation agenda that will cut unnecessary red tape and government bloat, to free up the Canadian economy.

According to the latest “Red Tape” report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, government regulations cost Canadian businesses a staggering $38.8 billion in 2020. Together, businesses spent 731 million hours on regulatory compliance—that’s equal to nearly 375,000 fulltime jobs. Canada’s smallest businesses bear a disproportionately high burden of the cost, paying up to five times more for regulatory compliance per-employee than larger businesses. The smallest businesses pay $7,023 per employee annually to comply with government regulation while larger businesses pay $1,237 per employee.

Of course, the Trudeau government has enacted a vast swath of new regulations on large sectors of Canada’s economy—particularly the energy sector—in a quest to make Canada a “net-zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter by 2050 (which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting emissions with activities such as planting trees).

For example, the government (via Bill C-69) introduced subjective criteria—including the “gender implications” of projects—into the evaluation process of energy projects. It established EV mandates requiring all new cars be electric vehicles by 2035. And the costs of the government’s new “Clean Electricity Regulations,” to purportedly reduce the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity, remain unknown, although provinces (including Alberta) that rely more on fossil fuels to generate electricity will surely be hardest hit.

Meanwhile in the United States, Donald Trump plans to put Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which will act as a presidential advisory commission (not an official government department) for the second Trump administration.

“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” the two wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal. “DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited.”

If Musk and Ramaswamy achieve these goals, the U.S. could leap far ahead of Canada in terms of regulatory efficiency, making Canada’s economy even less competitive than it is today.

That would be bad news for Canadians who are already falling behind. Between 2000 and 2023, Canada’s GDP per person (an indicator of incomes and living standards) lagged far behind the average among G7 countries. Business investment is also lagging. Between 2014 and 2021, business investment per worker (inflation-adjusted, excluding residential construction) in Canada decreased by $3,676 (to $14,687) while it increased by $3,418 (to $26,751) per worker in the U.S. And over-regulation is partly to blame.

For 2025, Canada needs a deregulatory agenda similar to DOGE that will allow Canadian workers and businesses to recover and thrive. And we know it can be done. During a deregulatory effort in British Columbia, which included a minister of deregulation appointed by the provincial government in 2001, there was a 37 per cent reduction in regulatory requirements in the province by 2004. The federal government should learn from B.C.’s success at slashing red tape, and reduce the burden of regulation across the entire Canadian economy.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

Trudeau’s Tariff Retaliation Plan: Alberta Says “No Thanks”

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

After years of neglect and exploitation, Alberta refuses to back Trudeau’s countermeasure plan against Trump’s tariffs, exposing the cracks in Canada’s so-called unity.

Let’s take a moment to appreciate Justin Trudeau’s brilliant strategy for handling Trump’s latest stunt: tariffs. Trump, in true Trump fashion, threatens to slap a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, because apparently, Canada is responsible for all of America’s problems—from border security to fentanyl. And Trudeau’s response? A $150 billion countermeasure plan that includes the possibility of crippling Alberta’s energy sector. Genius! Except one small problem: Alberta said, ‘No thanks.’

Why wasn’t Alberta there? Because Premier Danielle Smith isn’t an idiot. Trudeau’s plan includes export levies on Canadian oil, a move that would essentially tell Alberta to torch its own economy to help Trudeau look tough on Trump. Alberta exports $13.3 billion of energy to the U.S. every month, making it the lifeblood of this country’s economy. But sure, let’s just gamble that away because Trudeau needs a distraction from his sinking legacy.

But Alberta’s refusal isn’t just about this plan. It’s about years—years—of Ottawa treating Alberta like the black sheep of Confederation. Remember the Northern Gateway Pipeline? Trudeau killed it. Energy East? Dead, too. Those projects could’ve given Alberta access to global markets. Instead, Trudeau left the province landlocked, dependent on the U.S., and completely vulnerable to economic extortion like this. And now, after all that sabotage, he expects Alberta to ‘unite’ behind his plan? Please.

And don’t even get me started on Bill C-69. They call it the ‘Impact Assessment Act,’ but Albertans know it as the ‘No More Pipelines Bill.’ This masterpiece of legislation basically made it impossible to build anything that moves oil. And just to twist the knife, Trudeau slapped on a carbon tax—because nothing says ‘we care about your economy’ like making it more expensive to run it.

And then there’s Quebec. Oh, Quebec. The province that’s spent years wagging its finger at Alberta, calling its oil sands ‘dirty energy’ and blocking pipeline projects that could’ve helped the whole country. Meanwhile, Quebec gleefully cashes billions in equalization payments, heavily subsidized by Alberta’s oil wealth. That’s right—the same people who call Alberta the bad guy are more than happy to take their money. And now Trudeau wants Alberta to step up and take one for the team? Give me a break.

Danielle Smith saw this nonsense for what it is: exploitation. She flatly refused to sign onto any plan that includes export levies or energy restrictions. And you know what? Good for her. She said, ‘Federal officials are floating the idea of cutting off energy supply to the U.S. and imposing tariffs on Alberta energy. Until these threats cease, Alberta cannot support the federal government’s plan.’ Translation: Alberta is done being Ottawa’s doormat.

Let’s not forget why Alberta is even in this mess. For nine years, Trudeau’s government has treated Alberta like its personal piggy bank, siphoning billions through equalization payments while doing absolutely nothing—zero—to support its economy. When oil prices collapsed and families were struggling, what did Alberta get? Crickets. Trudeau was too busy virtue-signaling to his globalist pals to care. And now, with Trump threatening a 25% tariff that could cripple Alberta’s economy, Trudeau has the audacity to turn around and ask Alberta to make the ultimate sacrifice. You can’t make this stuff up.

And then Danielle Smith does what any rational leader would do—she heads to Mar-a-Lago to defend her province’s interests. And what does Trudeau’s cabinet do? They lose their minds, clutch their pearls, and call her ‘unpatriotic.’ Unpatriotic? Are you kidding me? This is coming from the same government that has spent nearly a decade treating Alberta like the annoying little sibling of Confederation—good enough to bankroll Quebec’s luxurious equalization payments, but not important enough to actually listen to. And now, after years of kicking Alberta to the curb, they expect Smith to roll over, play nice, and ‘work together’? Please.

Doug Ford says, ‘United we stand, divided we fall.’ Great soundbite, Doug. But unity doesn’t mean asking one province to carry the load while others reap the rewards. Quebec Premier François Legault says, ‘Nothing’s off the table.’ Of course not—Quebec isn’t paying the price. This isn’t unity; it’s a shakedown.

Here’s the reality: Alberta isn’t at the table because Ottawa hasn’t earned the right to ask them to be. You don’t treat a province like an ATM for nearly a decade and then expect them to roll over when you need a favor. Danielle Smith stood up and said, ‘Enough.’ And frankly, good for her.

So here’s the real question: how long does Ottawa think it can keep exploiting Alberta before the province decides it’s had enough? Because let me tell you, when Alberta’s done, it’s not just the energy sector that’s going to feel it—it’s the entire country.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X