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

Elon Musk, DOGE officials reveal ‘astonishing’ government waste, fraud in viral interview

2025 Federal Election / 1 hour ago

Donald Trump suggests Mark Carney will win Canadian election, touts ‘productive call’ with leader

Health / 2 hours ago

Arkansas approves ivermectin for purchase without prescription

Energy

Poll: Majority says energy independence more important than fighting climate change

Published on March 27, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Dan McCaleb

A majority of Americans say it is more important for the U.S. to establish energy independence than to fight climate change, according to new polling.

The poll from Napolitan News Service of 1,000 registered voters shows that 57% of voters say making America energy independent is more important than fighting climate change, while 39% feel the opposite and 4% are unsure.

Those surveyed also were asked: Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, or keeping the price of cars low enough for families to afford them?

Half of voters (50%) said keeping the price of cars low was more important to them than reducing emissions, while 43% said emissions reductions were more important than the price of buying a car.

When asked, “Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions or reducing the cost and improving the reliability of electricity and gas for American families?”, 59% said reducing the cost and increasing the reliability was more important compared to 35% who said reducing emissions was more important.

The survey was conducted online by pollster Scott Rasmussen on March 18-19. Field work was conducted by RMG Research. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points

Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at [email protected].

Dan McCaleb

Executive Editor

Energy

Energy, climate, and economics — A smarter path for Canada

Published on March 27, 2025

Todayville

By Resource Works senior fellow Jerome Gessaroli

Canada has set ambitious climate goals, aiming to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent by 2030, and to hit net-zero emissions by 2050.

Now a senior fellow at Resource Works, Jerome Gessaroli, argues that Canada is over-focusing internally on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, when we should “look at cooperating with developing countries to jointly reduce emissions.”

He continues: “And we do that in a way that helps ourselves. It helps meet our own goals. That’s through Article 6 of the Paris Accord, allowing countries to share emission reduction credits from jointly developed projects.”

Reduction on a global scale

Article 6, says Gessaroli, means this: “We can work towards meeting our own emission goals, and can help developing countries meet theirs. We can do it in a way that’s much more efficient. We get a lot more bang for our buck than if we are trying to just do it domestically on our own.”

The point is that, in the end, emissions are reduced on a global scale — as he stressed in a five-part series that he wrote for Resource Works last November.

And in a study for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (where he is a senior fellow) he wrote: “The benefits could be large. Canada could reduce emissions by 50 per cent more if it carried out methane reduction projects both internationally and domestically, rather than solely in Canada.”

But is Ottawa interested?

Gessaroli says the federal government expressed interest in Article 6 in 2019 — but has not moved since then.

“They barely looked at it. Since this requires government-to-government coordination, it needs Ottawa’s initiative. But there doesn’t seem to be too much interest, too much appetite in that.”

All Ottawa has said so far is: “Going forward, Canada will explore these and other similar options to strengthen international co-operation and generate incentives for further emission reductions.”

Gessaroli on Resource Works

Gessaroli has been working with Resource Works since he first spoke with our Stewart Muir, following a letter that Muir wrote in The Vancouver Sun in 2022: ‘Gas has key role to play in meeting 1.5C climate targets.’

Gessaroli saw in Resource Works advocacy for responsible resource development “for the people, the citizens of BC, in an environmentally responsible manner and in a manner that’s efficient, driven by the private sector.”

And: “Resource Works supports responsible resource development, not uncritical expansion. We have these resources. We should develop them, but in a way that benefits society, respects nature, respects the local peoples, and so that wide elements of society can benefit from that resource development.”

Gessaroli on electric vehicles

Gessaroli hit a shared interest with Resource Works in a 2024 paper for its Energy Futures Institute, critiquing BC’s plan to require that all new vehicles sold in the province must be electric zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035.

For one thing, he wrote, BC would need to spend $1.8 billion to provide electric charging points for the vehicles. And billions more would be required to provide expanded power generation and transmission systems.

“The Government of BC should adjust or rescind its mandated targets for new minimum zero-emission vehicle sales.”

And on ZEV subsidies

Stewart Muir and Barry Penner, chair of the Energy Futures Institute, wrote a guest column last October in Business in Vancouver. They cited Gessaroli’s paper above, and noted: “According to Gessaroli, meeting BC’s ZEV targets will require an additional 2,700 gigawatt hours of electricity by 2030, and 9,700 gigawatt hours by 2040—almost equal to the output of two Site C dams.”

Gessaroli has also looked at the subsidies BC offers (up to $4,000) to people who buy an electric vehicle.

“The subsidies do help. They do incentivize people to buy EVs. But it’s a very costly way to reduce carbon emissions, anywhere upwards of $600, $700, even $800 a tonne to eliminate one tonne of carbon.

“When you look at the social cost of carbon, the government uses a figure around $170 a tonne. That’s the damage done from every tonne of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. So we’re paying $800 to remove one tonne of carbon when that same tonne of carbon does damage of about $170. That doesn’t sound like a very cost-effective way of getting rid of carbon, does it?”

Gessaroli on Donald Trump’s policies

Gessaroli says tariffs on imports are not the only benefit that Donald Trump plans for U.S. industry that will hurt Canada.

“He also wants to reduce tax rates, 15% for US manufacturers, and allow full deductibility for equipment purchases. You reduce regulations and red tape on companies while lowering their tax rates. They’re already competitive to begin with. Well, they’re going to be even more competitive, more innovative.”

For Canada, he says: “Get rid of the government heavy hand of overtaxing and enforcing inefficient and ineffective regulations. Get rid of all of that. Encourage competition in the marketplace. And over time, we’d find Canadians can be quite innovative and quite competitive in our own right. And we can hold our own. We can be better off.

“And there’d be more tax revenues being generated by the government. With the tax revenue, you can build the roads, build the hospitals, improve the healthcare system, things like that.

“But without this type of vibrant economic type activity, you’re going to get the stagnation we’re seeing right now.”

About Jerome Gessaroli

Gessaroli leads the Sound Economic Policy Project at the B.C. Institute of Technology. He is the lead Canadian co-author of Financial Management: Theory and Practice, a widely used textbook. His writing has appeared in many Canadian newspapers.

Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, highlights Gessaroli’s impact: “Jerome brings a level of economic and policy analysis that cuts through the noise. His research doesn’t just challenge assumptions—it provides a roadmap for smarter, more effective climate and energy policies.

“Canada needs more thinkers like him, who focus on pragmatic solutions that benefit both the environment and the economy.”

Gessaroli and Karen, his wife of 34 years, live in Vancouver and enjoy cruising to unwind. In his downtime, Gessaroli reads about market ethics and political economy — which he calls his idea of relaxation.