The sudden, newfound support for LNG projects in Canada is truly remarkable.

What’s all this? Green-leaning governments, federal and provincial, suddenly speaking in favour of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and other resource development?

It began with British Columbia Premier David Eby telling Bloomberg News that he’s optimistic that LNG Canada’s LNG-for-export plant at Kitimat, BC can be expanded in a way that satisfies its investors but without supercharging the province’s emissions.

This came as LNG Canada was reported continuing to look into possible Phase Two expansion. Such expansion would double the plant’s output of LNG to 14 million tonnes a year.

Industry reports say LNG Canada has been discussing with prime contractors their potential availability down the road. A key, though, is whether and how B.C. can provide enough electrical power.

The LNG Canada plant now is going through a pre-production testing program, and has finished welding on its first “train” (production line). LNG Canada is expected to go into full operation in mid-2025. And Malaysia’s Petronas (a 25% partner) has added three new LNG carriers to its fleet, to gear up for LNG Canada’s launch.

The Eby story noted that he has also thrown his support behind other projects — including hydrogen production and an electric-vehicle battery recycling plant — to create jobs and keep B.C.’s economy growing at a challenging time.

Then came Ottawa’s minister of innovation, science and industry, François-Philippe Champagne, who visited the Haisla Nation in B.C. to support its Cedar LNG project with partner Pembina Pipeline Corp.

Champagne declared: “This is the kind of project we want to see, where there are all the elements supporting attracting investments in British Columbia.”

His government news release said: “This project presents an exciting opportunity for Canada, as it is expected to commercialize one of the lowest-carbon-intensity liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities in the world and represents the largest Indigenous-majority-owned infrastructure project in Canada.”

Champagne went on to tell The Terrace Standard that “We are in active conversations with Pembina and Haisla First Nations. We are saying today that we will support the project, but discussions are still ongoing.’

There had already been reports that Export Development Canada is set to lend Cedar LNG $400-$500 million.

And then came federal minister Jonathan Wilkinson, announcing to the national Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference in Calgary that Ottawa “will get clean growth projects built faster” by streamlining regulatory processes and moving to “make good approvals faster.”
Wilkinson has long talked, too, of streamlining and speeding up approval processes for resource projects in general, especially for mining for critical minerals. “(We’re) looking at how do we optimise the regulatory and permanent processes so you can take what is a 12- to 15-year process and bring it down to maybe five.”

The Canada Energy Regulator now is inviting input on its plans to improve the efficiency and predictability of project reviews.

All this as Deloitte Canada consultants reported that “the natural gas sector is poised for significant growth, driven by ongoing LNG projects and rising demand for gas-fired electricity generation in Canada.”

And energy giant BP said that under its two new energy ‘scenarios’, world demand for LNG in 2030 grows by 30-40% above 2022 levels, then increases by more than 25% over the subsequent 20 years.

Wilkinson earned pats on the back from some provincial ministers at the Calgary conference, but Alberta’s minister of energy and minerals, Brian Jean, aired concerns over how Ottawa’s new “greenwashing” law would impact the oil and gas sector.

Under it, companies (and individuals) must prove the truth of their public statements on climate benefits of their products or programs, or face potential millions in fines. But the ground rules for this legislation have not yet been announced.

(Jean was not alone. Other critics included CEO Karen Ogen of the First Nations LNG Alliance, who said the new law “could be used as one more tool to discourage resource companies that might seek Indigenous partnerships, and to obstruct Indigenous investment in energy projects, and frustrate Indigenous benefits from resource projects.”)

Wilkinson replied that the Competition Bureau needs to provide information so people understand how the rules apply and what is actionable.

“I think once that is done, this will be, perhaps, a bit of a different conversation. I would expect that the guidance will be something like folks simply have to have a good faith basis to believe what they’re saying. And assuming that is true, I think the sector probably will calm down.”

No pats on the back for Ottawa, though, from the mining industry or the oil-and-gas sector.

Aiming to combat China’s efforts to corner the market in critical minerals, Canada is making it harder for foreign firms to take over big Canadian mining companies. Major mining shares quickly dropped in value.

And Heather Exner-Pirot of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and special advisor to the Business Council of Canada, says: “We produced less critical minerals last year than we did in 2019. We’re producing less copper, less nickel, less platinum, less cobalt, all these things. And the investment has not picked up; in real dollars it’s almost half of what it was in 2013 . . . and the regulatory system is still a huge barrier to that development.”

On top of that, the petroleum sector has long protested that federal moves to limit oil and gas emissions will, in practice, limit production.

While governments signalled support for LNG, supporters of natural-resource development quickly sent clear messages to governments of all levels.

Calgary-based Canada Action, for one, reminded governments that the oil and gas sector is projected to generate more than in $1.1 trillion in revenue to governments from 2000 through 2032. And that the oil and gas sector supports nearly 500,000 direct and indirect jobs across the country.

Then the industry-supporting Fraser Institute pointed out that business investment in Canada’s extractive sector (mining, quarrying, and oil and gas) has declined substantially since 2014.

“In fact, adjusted for inflation, business investment in the oil and gas sector has declined 52.1 per cent since 2014, falling from $46.6 billion in 2014 to $22.3 billion in 2022. In percentage terms the decline in non-conventional oil extraction was even larger at 71.2 percent, falling from $37.3 billion in 2014 to $10.7 billion in 2022. . . .

“One of the major challenges facing Canadian prosperity are regulatory barriers, particularly in the oil and gas sector.”

Over to government, then, to reduce those barriers.

Following the recent positive moves listed above from two levels of government, there’s an obvious question: Would there happen to be federal and provincial elections in the offing?

Yes: B.C. will hold its next general election on or before October 19. And the feds go to the polls for an election on or before October 20.

Stand by for more promises.

Related Topics:#BCPremierDavidEby #CanadaLNG #LNGCanada #ResourceWorks LiquefiedNaturalGas PembinaPipelineCorp.

Up Next

Electric vehicles facing uphill climb

Don't Miss

New $1 billion pipeline deal spreads Indigenous ownership through Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan

Todayville

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

Globally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history

Addictions / 19 hours ago

Coffee, Nicotine, and the Politics of Acceptable Addiction

Business / 21 hours ago

Federal funds FROZEN after massive fraud uncovered: Trump cuts off Minnesota child care money

Alberta

The Canadian Energy Centre’s biggest stories of 2025

Published on December 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Canada’s energy landscape changed significantly in 2025, with mounting U.S. economic pressures reinforcing the central role oil and gas can play in safeguarding the country’s independence.

Here are the Canadian Energy Centre’s top five most-viewed stories of the year.

5. Alberta’s massive oil and gas reserves keep growing – here’s why

The Northern Lights, aurora borealis, make an appearance over pumpjacks near Cremona, Alta., Thursday, Oct. 10, 2024. CP Images photo

Analysis commissioned this spring by the Alberta Energy Regulator increased the province’s natural gas reserves by more than 400 per cent, bumping Canada into the global top 10.

Even with record production, Alberta’s oil reserves – already fourth in the world – also increased by seven billion barrels.

According to McDaniel & Associates, which conducted the report, these reserves are likely to become increasingly important as global demand continues to rise and there is limited production growth from other sources, including the United States.

4. Canada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work

Photo courtesy Coastal GasLink

Canada could be on the cusp of a “golden age” for building major energy projects, said Kevin O’Donnell, executive director of the Mississauga, Ont.-based Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada.

That eagerness is shared by the Edmonton-based Progressive Contractors Association of Canada (PCA), which launched a “Let’s Get Building” advocacy campaign urging all Canadian politicians to focus on getting major projects built.

“The sooner these nation-building projects get underway, the sooner Canadians reap the rewards through new trading partnerships, good jobs and a more stable economy,” said PCA chief executive Paul de Jong.

3. New Canadian oil and gas pipelines a $38 billion missed opportunity, says Montreal Economic Institute

Steel pipe in storage for the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2022. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

In March, a report by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) underscored the economic opportunity of Canada building new pipeline export capacity.

MEI found that if the proposed Energy East and Gazoduq/GNL Quebec projects had been built, Canada would have been able to export $38 billion worth of oil and gas to non-U.S. destinations in 2024.

“We would be able to have more prosperity for Canada, more revenue for governments because they collect royalties that go to government programs,” said MEI senior policy analyst Gabriel Giguère.

“I believe everybody’s winning with these kinds of infrastructure projects.”

2. Keyera ‘Canadianizes’ natural gas liquids with $5.15 billion acquisition

Keyera Corp.’s natural gas liquids facilities in Fort Saskatchewan, Alta. Photo courtesy Keyera Corp.

In June, Keyera Corp. announced a $5.15 billion deal to acquire the majority of Plains American Pipelines LLP’s Canadian natural gas liquids (NGL) business, creating a cross-Canada NGL corridor that includes a storage hub in Sarnia, Ontario.

The acquisition will connect NGLs from the growing Montney and Duvernay plays in Alberta and B.C. to markets in central Canada and the eastern U.S. seaboard.

“Having a Canadian source for natural gas would be our preference,” said Sarnia mayor Mike Bradley.

“We see Keyera’s acquisition as strengthening our region as an energy hub.”

1. Explained: Why Canadian oil is so important to the United States

Enbridge’s Cheecham Terminal near Fort McMurray, Alberta is a key oil storage hub that moves light and heavy crude along the Enbridge network. Photo courtesy Enbridge

The United States has become the world’s largest oil producer, but its reliance on oil imports from Canada has never been higher.

Many refineries in the United States are specifically designed to process heavy oil, primarily in the U.S. Midwest and U.S. Gulf Coast.

According to the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, the top five U.S. refineries running the most Alberta crude are:

Marathon Petroleum, Robinson, Illinois (100% Alberta crude)
Exxon Mobil, Joliet, Illinois (96% Alberta crude)
CHS Inc., Laurel, Montana (95% Alberta crude)
Phillips 66, Billings, Montana (92% Alberta crude)
Citgo, Lemont, Illinois (78% Alberta crude)

Energy

Rulings could affect energy prices everywhere: Climate activists v. the energy industry in 2026

Published on December 29, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Andrew Rice

Anti-oil and gas advocates across the country have pursued litigation in recent years attempting to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for decades of financial damages the advocates claim were caused by climate change.

Several cases have been dismissed while others advanced through court systems, with some being considered before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2026. Critics of the litigation call it “woke lawfare” and an attempt to force progressive political policies via the judicial system.

Critics also argue the lawsuits threaten U.S. energy independence and, depending on outcomes, will have sweeping impacts on every American.

Here are some of those cases.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

On Jan. 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, vs. Chevron USA Inc. The case questions to what extent a state court can litigate against an oil company for its production of oil even if it obtained federal permits to produce the oil.

The litigation challenges activities of the oil companies dating back to World War II in some cases. Chevron argued the lawsuit was flawed, claiming that the activities in question were permitted, legal, and often conducted under federal direction – particularly those tied to national security during World War II.

A Plaquemines Parish jury in April ordered Chevron to pay $744 million in damages for its role in the degradation of the state’s coastal wetlands. Environmental activists celebrated the verdict. It was the first of 42 lawsuits filed since 2013 by parishes across coastal Louisiana to go to trial.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department stepped in on Chevron’s side, urging the Supreme Court to move the case from state court to federal court.

Business groups and energy advocates warned the verdict will drive jobs and investment out of Louisiana. The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry called the decision “shortsighted,” saying it would “brand Louisiana as a state that will extort the most recognizable companies on earth for billions of dollars, decades later.”

O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance for Consumers, told the Center Square the case seeks to score large settlements from the energy industry and stop oil production.

“The case arises from a broader campaign of woke lawfare in which activists and municipal governments seek to use courtrooms to determine what companies are allowed to produce and what consumers can buy,” Skinner said.

Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder

The nation’s highest court is still deciding whether it will hear arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder; a case to decide whether state and local governments can use nuisance laws to sue energy companies for activities that may cause climate change.

The case, originating in Colorado, centers around a City of Boulder and Boulder County lawsuit in state court against Suncor Energy claiming it misled the public in its activities that the local governments claim led to climate change effects.

Lawyers for Suncor Energy argue that allowing a case like this one to play out goes against protections in the Clean Air Act that prevent lawsuits from occurring against emitters from across state lines.

“Public nuisance can’t be used for global problems. It can be used for local problems,” Skinner told The Center Square. “That’s what it’s supposed to be used for.”

However, Skinner said many organizations that are pursuing climate change litigation are seeking to bankrupt energy companies with large monetary settlements. He said litigants will likely attempt to drain energy companies of their resources and use the funds to advocate certain ideological causes.

“These are highly ideological dark-money-funded, multi-faceted legal campaigns to bankrupt an entire industry and confiscate it for ideological reasons,” Skinner said.

City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco

Similarly, in 2020, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco was one of the first examples of public nuisance lawsuits pursued in a state court. The city and county of Honolulu filed a lawsuit in 2020 accusing oil and gas companies, including Sunoco, Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and Shell, of misleading the public for decades about the dangers of climate change induced by burning fossil fuels.

The companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case, but the court, without ruling on the merits, declined to do so in January.

While the case is based in Hawaii, Skinner said litigants there hope it will have far-reaching effects across the country.

“They’re not trying to stop behavior just in those states,” Skinner said. ”The thing that really freaks me out is how people in regular, everyday, real America are going to potentially be affected.”

The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

Going a step further than Boulder and Honolulu, California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a complaint against ExxonMobil in 2024 for what he says are its contributions to “the deluge of plastic pollution” affecting the state.

Exxon countersued, alleging “Bonta and the US Proxies – the former for political gain and the latter pawns for the Foreign Interests – have engaged in a deliberate smear campaign against ExxonMobil, falsely claiming that ExxonMobil’s effective and innovative advanced recycling technology is a ‘false promise’ and ‘not based on truth.,” American Tort Reform Foundation reported.

One of the foreign interests is IEJF, an Australian nonprofit that’s connected to an Australian mining conmpany “that competes with ExxonMobil in the low carbon solutions and energy transition markets, ATRF reported.

Skinner said the litigants in this case are attempting to significantly reduce plastic use throughout the state of California and potentially beyond.

“That’ll make your average person’s life dramatically harder, and it’ll make a lot of things a lot more expensive, and it’ll make having kids, like, brutal,” Skinner said.

Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Aside from monetary settlements, petitioners in this case also are seeking wrongful death claims against energy companies for their contributions to climate change. The case stems from a woman in Washington state who said her mother died from heat-related illness due to the exacerbated effects of climate change.

She is suing energy companies for their alleged creation of conditions over a period of decades that led to increased temperatures on the day her mother died.

Skinner told The Center Square this case is one of the more blatant examples of ideology affecting the way a litigant pursues cases.

“I think they care because a death is worth a lot of money,” Skinner said. “The climate homicide cases are one of the more far-fetched legal theories I’ve ever seen, because you’re leveling this incredibly staggering charge.”

Climate cases will continue to move through the court system, with one to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2026.

Skinner is urging the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts to rule in favor of energy companies across the country.

“We want the energy companies to win, not because they are perfect actors, but because the alternative is that our lives are governed day in and day out by woke trial lawyers, woke [nongovernmental organizations] and local governments,” Skinner said.