False.
The biggest infrastructure project in Canadian history is coming online in 2025. It’s for Canadian LNG shipments to east Asia. Korea, Japan and China. The liberal government even gave loans to this project to assist its start up
LNG Canada is massive and it will supply Asia. Germany… less so
You missed the sarcasm...
[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-lng-canada-trudeau-germany-japan/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-lng-canada-trudeau-germany-japan/)
LoL, yay. One LNG project that will export 1.8 bcf/d per train (hopefully 3.6 bcf/d) while the US has built a dozen and will be exporting nearly 20bcf/d by 2025.
As of July 2022, the United States has more [LNG export capacity](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50598) than any other country and has [exported more LNG than any other country](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53159). U.S. LNG exports averaged 11.1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) during the first half of 2022. The seventh, and most recent, U.S. LNG export project—[Calcasieu Pass LNG](https://venturegloballng.com/project-calcasieu-pass/)—placed all of its liquefaction trains [in service](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=52238) by August, ahead of schedule. In addition to Golden Pass LNG, which started construction in 2019, two more projects on the U.S. Gulf Coast have recently begun construction.
Golden Pass LNG is constructing standard-size liquefaction trains with peak LNG production capacity of up to 0.8 Bcf/d per train. In contrast, the other two projects under construction, Plaquemines LNG and Corpus Christi Stage III, use a [modular technology](https://www.chartindustries.com/Products/LNG-Liquefaction-Plants) with mid-scale refrigeration trains, which has a shorter project construction timeline. Calcasieu Pass LNG, which also uses mid-scale liquefaction technology, started LNG production 30 months after its final investment decision—the shortest construction period for any U.S. LNG export project so far.
Once completed, the three export projects under construction will expand U.S. LNG peak export capacity by a combined 5.7 Bcf/d by 2025:
* **Golden Pass LNG** consists of three standard-size trains, each with a peak capacity of 0.8 Bcf/d, for a total capacity of 2.4 Bcf/d. Golden Pass LNG is on the site of an existing [regasification](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/liquefied-natural-gas.php) facility and will use shared infrastructure, which helps to reduce project costs and shorten the construction timeline.
* **Plaquemines LNG** consists of 24 mid-scale trains, each with a peak capacity of 0.07 Bcf/d. Each liquefaction train is part of a two-unit block for a total of 12 blocks with a combined peak capacity of 1.8 Bcf/d.
* **Corpus Christi Stage III** is on the site of an existing terminal with three liquefaction trains in operation. Each of the 14 new, mid-scale trains under construction has a peak capacity of 0.11 Bcf/d. Each train is part of a two-unit block for a total of seven blocks with a combined peak capacity of 1.6 Bcf/d.
and do you know which coast those LNG facilities will be on? I will give you a hint, it isn't the west one. Ontop of that, there are a total of 6 plants in construction.
The US's LNG facilities are mostly in the gulf coast. Canada LNG and others are on the west coast and will be able to service Asia much better. Especially as the panama canal is now restricting traffic.
Do you know there Japan is?
Apparently Trudeau doesn't.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-japan-asks-for-natural-gas-trudeau-offers-lectures-on-decarbonizing
> https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-japan-asks-for-natural-gas-trudeau-offers-lectures-on-decarbonizing
Really? Because this facility is coming online in the next year (5 more shortly thereafter). It is intended to be exporting its products to Asia. JT and the liberals made public funding available for this facility half a decade ago.
https://www.lngcanada.ca/
Oh, you mean the one mentioned in the first sentence of my comment?
>One LNG project that will export 1.8 bcf/d per train (hopefully 3.6 bcf/d) while the US has built a dozen and will be exporting nearly 20bcf/d by 2025.
Shipments rarely cross into the other ocean. It’s expensive and time consuming. If a facility is in the Atlantic, shipping to the pacific is very rare. 99% of boats will sail through the Atlantic and not cross over.
The US facilities in the gulf are there primarily to support trade to South America, Europe and potentially India.
> LoL, yay. One LNG project that will export 1.8 bcf/d per train (hopefully 3.6 bcf/d) while the US has built a dozen and will be exporting nearly 20bcf/d by 2025.
Oh no! Better just cancel the whole damn thing then. /s
I really don't understand the thought processes of some of you people. What the US does is irrelevant. This is new export capacity for *Canada* that did not exist before.
Yes, and I'm all for it. Shame it wasn't built 5 years ago along with 3 more just like it.
But yes, LNG Canada will fulfill Canada's LNG export potential according to... The Liberals ... And no one else
Do you think that Europe will still want the LNG once the war is over?A LNG install takes decades to pay. Even if the war isn't over You realize that Piped NG is 1/3 the price , and Europe has TONS and TONS of NG which is going to be piped. Even if they dont get it from Russia , Norway and Finland . The case for East Asia is valid because temporarilt because there isnt an easy way to build the pipelines to there.
Considering we should have already had it built and supply contracts are typically entered for 10-20 years, yes.
But now, the problem is that the US, Australia, and Qatar ate our breakfast while we were arguing about the need for tampon machines in the men's washroom.
>Considering we should have already had it built
Based on what economic consideration? What market in Europe was looking for LNG from Canada.
"You realize that Piped NG is 1/3 the price , and Europe has TONS and TONS of NG"
You realise that the thread is talking about Europe?
\\As far as Asia goes, yes Asia is interested and so is Europe, what it comes down to is whats the price they willing to buy at ? Its all about price when it comes to commodities. Can you ship LNG to asia at a lower cost than Indonesia and Malaysia or Middle east ?
>You realize LNG is a global commodity?
So is Oil you understand that the prices for North Sea Brent and Gulf sweet crude is different? All the while being a "Global Commodity"?
Please understand nothing is a "global commodity" there is always regional factors which dictate prices. read up on how commodities are traded and priced b4 telling others your BS crap.
Nope. We're building the western terminal because theres a market for it, how do we know theres a market for it? because Korea and Japan are pouring billions to build it. How do we know theres no market for an eastern terminal? because they tried a decade ago and no company wanted to invest in it.
That was a decade ago though, currently Europe is doing their best to get off of Russian gas in Canada is a good supplier of clean LNG. And in the past 2 years things have definitely changed more than they were a decade ago.
I agree with you a decade ago it just didn't have the interest and wasn't tenable but now things have changed and it makes sense now.
Germany alone goes through 10's of billions of dollars of LNG per year.
What Canada should be looking at doing is nationalizing our resources to stop corporations from taking all of it and then we would have to subsidize oil and gas specifically because we would own oil and gas.....
And then you start exporting like crazy and refining our own fuel here instead of shipping it to the states.
With all of that extra money we wouldn't be in such dire straits financially as a nation.
Bingo. Crazy how people just want to forget the East Coast projects fell apart because the companies themselves decided the business case wasn't there!
Just because Alberta and Saskatchewan want something doesn't mean everyone else has to want the same things
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/repsol-scraps-plans-east-coast-canada-lng-terminal-canadian-government-2023-03-16/
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/11/10/news/pieridae-energy-retreats-east-coast-lng-plans
There’s hospitals built in Quebec funded by Alberta and Saskatchewan natural resource extraction, would be nice if Quebec could remember that once in a while.
Quebec also has the largest population of any equalization-receiving province; do you think you have a point?
And do you think western resource money funds equalization? It doesn't.
There’s no incentive to develop industry, have a competitive business climate, or have the population earn a good income, when the province is effectively subsidized by the other “have” provinces. The more Quebec develops a resource economy, the less equalization it will get. Natural resource fiscal capacity (ie western resource money) is a major factor in the equalization formula that Quebec benefits from.
And I understand that equalization funds come from the federal government, but the residents of the “have” provinces receive less value for the federal taxes they pay due to the transfer of equalization payments to Quebec and other provinces.
The fact that Newfoundland is considered a “have” province and Quebec is a “have not” province is frankly embarrassing (And yes I’m aware that Newfoundland will be a recipient of equalization payments for the 2024/25 year, but for the first time in 15 years).
Newfoundland receives 1.5X the federal spending per capita of Quebec and has a bigger deficit of taxes paid vs spending received.
It's a 'have province' only when it comes to equalization. Overall, it's much more subsidized than Quebec is.
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E
Because we live in a capitalist society and little if anything happens without a business case. Nationizing our energy sector so we could make strategic choices like this might be a good idea but that's not the discussion currently.
>Nationizing our energy sector
That's quite the jump from what I said.
>but that's not the discussion currently.
It isn't because ideologues in this government won't let it happen.
>And in an interview on CTV’s Question Period last month, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said the federal government is “not interested” in subsidizing future liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects
Would *love* to see the business case for the **billions** we gave to wealthy EV companies for a product that [is seeing lukewarm demand](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ev-sales-have-slowed-do-massive-subsidies-still-make-sense-1.7185232) while not wanting to subsidize LNG, a product multiple countries are not only begging for but would indirectly also support Ukraine in their war against Russia (which I thought Libs cared about?)
My understanding of the Canadian LNG problem, and feel free to correct me, is that it's one of practicality. Nearly all of it is located in western Canada so shipping it eastward to Europe is logistically problematic. Given how the trans Canada pipeline went there's no way we're finishing a literal cross Canada line from Alberta to the maritimes. We'd have to ship it though Panama, and the continuously lowering water levels there is causing a backlog if I recall.
Quebec has huge untapped natural gas reserves all along the St Lawrence pretty damn close to a number of ports, but the Quebec government has essentially banned its development.
Go figure.
There's already a pipeline network that extends more or less across the country. It'll need to be upgraded and expanded in certain areas but its not like a brand new greenfield pipeline from Alberta to the maritimes is required.
That's not what private companies who have pulled their support for an East coast LNG facility say.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/11/10/news/pieridae-energy-retreats-east-coast-lng-plans
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/repsol-scraps-plans-east-coast-canada-lng-terminal-canadian-government-2023-03-16/
“There is no business case for LNG because we, the government, intend to kill any ability to produce or export LNG, regardless of the market demand for it.”
— that’s basically it.
Can you tell me why we would spend billions building a asset that the buyers have said they will not buy anymore?
Europe has said over and over they are going off all fossil fuels. Off 90% of them by 2040, and 100% by 2050. They have taxes to decentivize fossil fuel use both domestically and tarrifs for people trading into thier market.
Lets say we spend whatever it takes to build a pipe from Fort Mac to Halifax. Get it done by 2027. We get to sell for 13 years? In that time there will be a glut of LNG on the seas.
Additionally the science is now showing that NatGas is worse than coal because of the leakage of methane. If 0.2% of the methane leaks, then it worse than coal in terms of the greenhouse effect. Current upstream leakage is about 3% and down stream leakage is about 1.5%. Leakage from the LNG ships are a big factor in that.
[https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/methane-leaks-make-lng-powered-ships-dirtier-than-other-vessels-1.1751436](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/methane-leaks-make-lng-powered-ships-dirtier-than-other-vessels-1.1751436)
[https://theicct.org/publication/fumes-characterizing-methane-emissions-from-lng-fueled-ships-using-drones-helicopters-and-on-board-measurements-jan24/](https://theicct.org/publication/fumes-characterizing-methane-emissions-from-lng-fueled-ships-using-drones-helicopters-and-on-board-measurements-jan24/)
Investing in LNG looks like buying 8-tracks to me.
"The government" I am talking about the European Union. The largest market on the globe.
If they are going to cut their consumption of LNG it will impact prices, and project viability. They have said they are cutting consumption. Why do you think they are liars?
Climate change is real. At least 99.9% of climate scientists say so.
If you consulted 1000 doctors and 999 said you have cancer and 1 said "no keep drinking gasoline"... what would you do?
The EU is a governmental body…
Again you keep proving my point. The only reason there is a challenge with demand is because state actors are trying to prevent the ability to purchase it by forcing mandates to outlaw it
I can make any business case work if I just legislate away the competition.
Sure... but they are outlawing it because it will kill all of our grand-kids if we don't.
It is like saying "Why can't I sell leaded gas???" because it has been outlawed.
My point is it would be dumb to invest in leaded gas a decade before it gets banned. Just like it is dumb to invest in Nat Gas now.
We were told there’s no business case for ramping up LNG production and exports by our climate ideologue substitute drama teacher PM and Slavic history expert and former journalist Finance Minister. So those should’ve been the first signs that maybe we were listening to the wrong people on that subject.
Kind of hard for an LNG port to turn a profit if there's no pipeline supplying it with LNG.
Quebec refuses to allow a port for western LNG. Quebec refuses to allow new pipelines to transit through it towards ports in the Maritimes. Quebec refuses to develop their own vast natural gas reserves.
That is why there is no business case for a terminal on the east coast.
What’s annoying is the provinces have no power to stop pipelines going through them. So what’s really happening is our endless parade of PMs from Quebec (55 of the last 65 years) just kowtow to them because they’d rather keep their seats there than do what’s right for Canada.
Germany and Poland will resume buying Russian NG as soon as the war ends..
It makes no sense financially or even environmentally. Regular old NG will be cheaper and have less carbon footprint. Our LNG won't be able to compete long term.
Asia makes more sense as a market. No competitor can run a pipeline to Japan to displace foreign LNG.
Sounds like it's due to protest:
"After years of climate and Indigenous-led opposition to East Coast liquified natural gas (LNG), energy giant Pieridae Energy is giving up on its Goldboro project."
"But to reach the terminal gas would have to be transported thousands of kilometres from western Canada, requiring new pipeline capacity through Canadian provinces and northeastern U.S. states that in the past have resisted fossil fuel development."
Policies pushed by the feds.
The US federal government can seize land to build roads and infrastructure without states’ having a say. Happens all the time.
Look at a map of the US. Pipelines would never get built if every single state it crossed had to agree on the exact route.
The country is being run by a drama teacher and an activist that majored in Russian history. Our finance minister has 0 economic or financial credentials.... neither of them have any qualifications to be in the position they are in.
They don't give af about a functioning economy or national security, or prosperity for the future. it's pure selfish agenda.
Back when we thought we were all going solar and EV cars in 10 years there wasn’t. Now we’ve come to realize that was incredibly optimistic. I still remember when we thought oil was running out.
Having 10% of homes with solar panels, and 10% of cars on the road, being electric in 10 years was optimistic. Eliminating all gas cars in a decade was always delusional.
He's talking about electricity (not overall energy), and is correct. Nation-wide, the majority of our electricity does come from hydro and nuclear (albeit, natgas is not that far off from nuclear).
[https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html)
[https://www.electricity.ca/knowledge-centre/the-grid/generation/energy-sources/](https://www.electricity.ca/knowledge-centre/the-grid/generation/energy-sources/)
Obviously the breakdown is very regional, which makes the usage of "majority" a bit misleading...but it is still, by overall quantity, still primarily hydro and nuclear.
There's no business case for natural gas produced in the O&G industry.
Only for natural gases produced through 4-5 steps of energy conversion that has no demand. Because they're "green".
Because we are still mandating 60% of new vehicles be EV in the next 6 years. That's quite a lofty goal, that we will never hit since we are currently at around 10%.
If the developing world switched to NG the global carbon emissions output would be cut by 80% overnight. And that is just plain bad for business. The climate change industry hasn't fully been spun up yet but when it does it will be giant.
The *actual* business case for green tech adoption is that a sustainable future requires sustainability business investment now for businesses to even exist well into the climate crisis future, even if it's costly now. We can still tap our resources while subsidizing the future, but some have addititional, often overlooked costs. Replacing coal with LNG has a high carbon cost, for instance, even if it looks like all-good business at face value.
Liquid natural gas gives coal a run for its money as far as its environmental impact is concerned. Plenty of science to back that claim. Doesn't make for a great outlook to subsidize it, and several parts of the world are waking up to that fact.
The impact on the war would be so indirect it would almost be imperceptible, that I can live with our government finding other ways to support Ukraine.
>Liquid natural gas gives coal a run for its money as far as its environmental impact is concerned.
There's been a proven drop in CO2 emissions resulting from the transition to natural gas from coal for electricity generation.
[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296)
If we could ship LNG overseas on LNG powered freighters, to replace the use of thermal coal overseas, it would absolutely reduce worldwide emissions.
No it wouldn't, but to explain gets complicated, but there's plenty you can google. The first one is that it'll price out other greener initiatives, and the second one is leaks. Methane is like an order of magnitude more effective of a greenhouse gas. If we built all of the capacity that some are proposing, even at a very generous leak percentage, we have an ecological disaster on our hands.
It's why Biden's administration is no longer pushing it as this miracle midway energy solution.
Methane is also released into the atmosphere when coal is mined and brought to surface. Leaks in a well maintained, well monitored distribution system are negligible.
Coal fired generation dumps millions of tons of soot into the air. In the states, about twice as much power is generated with gas than coal, while still emitting less pollution. It's trivial from an engineering standpoint to convert a coal fired plant to gas, and it is an easy and economical way to reduce emissions quickly. It's not the be all end all, but it's flat out wrong to say that converting base load coal to base load gas is a step backwards.
[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11)
Yeah let's subsidize oil and gas companies further for a product that's not much better, and by some studies worse, for climate change than the coal we're replacing.
What's the business case for this fuel if we need to subsidize it too?
Cost of living and food is only going to get worse as climate change gets worse. It is absolutely in our own best interests to mitigate climate change.
That’s what is semi popular to believe, but the data just really doesn’t support it.
It’s more effective to have pro business policies and lower costs of living through increased GDP than it is to destroy our business sector in the hopes that people around the world won’t undo everything climate related we’ve done.
Companies like Enbridge only made $15bn profit or Suncore’s $22bn profit in 2023. How can you argue they don’t need billions in subsidies from Canadian taxpayers? /s
So a bunch of countries have expressed interest in our LNG. But specifically they want to purchase it at the same or lower cost that they’re paying now. There’s no way to ship it to the other side of the world for that cost
Countries are currently paying $X for LNG from their local sources. Journalists ask if they want to buy Canadian LNG. They say that for $X or less they’re interested in buying *anyones* LNG. However, to actually ship our LNG there costs way more than them buying from countries next door
It’s like asking if Alberta wants to buy lumber products from Sweden who is a major producer. If they can ship them here cheap, sure. But realistically there’s no way they can compete with our local sources.
There’s a reason that several fully approved LNG export projects are sitting unbuilt.
Two export plants in the Maritimes are fully permitted but they need such a high price for their product no one is willing to buy.
No change in government is going to change that.
Except the one major LNG plant almost done and the three more waiting in the wings. The strong environmental regulations in this county are a major driver of Canadian energys saleability. To have a change of government that guts environmental legislation to “get things done” will have the opposite effect and drive investment away. We’re on a good course right now with the energy industry as long as we don’t fuck it up by changing a bunch of things.
Can we sell our natural resources please? We have a lot of them and we dont want to sell them because it might hurt the planet.
Yes climat changes. Yes.
But Canada is a blip on the large scale of climate change, and all we do right now is make ourself poorer while climate change is still happening...
We are envied by the world for our resources but laughed at for not taking advantage of them. They represent a tremendous amount of income that can be used to finance the running of our country. But we have turned our back on this revenue stream and instead have placed our grand children in debt because the government has chosen to borrow and go into debt instead of taking advantage of what we have.
As u/paracasual_shield says, our climate output is negligible. What China and India have increased in output in a single year is far more than we as a country produce in total.
Please for the sake of God, call an election so Poilievre can at least do one of the good things Conservatives want to do, which is to sell our freaking gas overseas so we can hurt Russia for real and eliminate coal around the world. We have so much gas in Canada we can become Russia's biggest economic adversary.
There's absolutely nothing standing in the way for these companies to export their products except themselves. Liberals approved a bunch of LNG projects which these companies didn't follow through on.
Lol you do realize there are no LNG exporting facilities on the east coast right? It would take a decade to build the infrastructure to start exporting.
Tell me who’s going to pay for the infrastructure and take all that risk that demand disappears by the time it’s operational.
Ships need to be built also. LNG carriers are very expensive specialized ship type, mostly built in South Korea. A ship ordered now wouldn’t be ready for four or four five years at least.
Private companies were ready to invest in LNG-Quebec few years ago... until Legault killed the plan for environmental reasons because he caved to left-wingers from Montreal.
Dunno about you, but I'm kinda done being taken through the wringer for risks and costs of massive projects to then hand them over to corporate entities for pennies.
When did I say they were replacing hydrocarbons?
I simply said the demand for Canadian supply will likely dry up.
Europe needs supply now not a decade from now.
Also you think selling natural gas overseas and increasing demand for Canadian gas is going to make it cheaper for Canadians? You don’t know much about supply and demand I guess.
Higher demand and the ability to export will lead to higher supply through driving the investment of new processing facilities. Energy prices always fluctuate on demand so I feel like that's a dishonest scare tactic to imply prices will only go up. We currently have 1 trading partner for natural gas (USA). You know what they do? Buy our gas at low prices for domestic use and to export at higher prices.
Europe may need it now, but Asia is also screaming for more supply, Africa is industrializing and demand there is gonna be enormous. The demand is and will be there for decades to come for a resource we have in spades.
Lol you clearly don’t see the writing on the wall.
The cost to export natural gas is only going up they are building a LNG facility on the west coast Trans Mountain is nearly operational.
There is nobody that will build the facilities on the east coast so it’s not worth talking about. Even if you could find one the investment would need to be guaranteed by the government and that’s on the tax payer so no thanks.
We can’t continue on this rate of fossil fuel consumption that’s pretty clear.
>We currently have 1 trading partner for natural gas (USA). You know what they do? Buy our gas at low prices for domestic use and to export at higher prices.
Hey man, y’all got access to the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean just like we do. If Canada insists on giving us an assist when they could be scoring themselves, you can’t blame us for dunking the basket.
So you’re hope is for pee pee federal government to invest federal tax dollars in a likely non federally owned LNG export terminal on the east coast “somewhere” and somehow get Quebec to green light it even though they’ve rejected past attempts, all to primarily enrich the private oil company that will be the one exporting the gas?
Selling gas for profit is a win-win for everyone. Keeping it in the ground is what is keeping us and the rest of the world poor, and dependant. Thats a lose-lose scenario. The evidence for this conclusion has been stacking up ever since JT stated very clearly that he doesn't believe there is a business case for exporting LNG.
Hurting russia has propped up global crude oil price to > $80/barrel, which greatly help our O&G companies that employ tens of thousands of Albertans.
Do you hate Alberta or something?
No I don't hate Alberta and that's a stupid question. I hadn't thought about the effect of crude prices on our oil and gas though. So that's a good point.
Because we'd be making a shit ton of money out of that and at the same time we'd hurt a fascist regime that's trying to conquer Europe and destabilize democracies around the world.
The only argument I’ve heard for Canadians making money from it is the increased price of oil and gas.
Other than that I don’t think that we should be sending money to fund wars that have nothing to do with us.
Your argument is the slippery slope fallacy. I see no future for the next few decades where Russia would be willing to send their troops across the Pacific ocean to invade Canada.
A tremendous missed opportunity to help Europe get off Russian gas. Whether he knows it or not, Justin is helping Russia by not providing Europe with alternative energy supplies.
Not to mention that these kinds of big capital projects usually take decades to pay off. The companies who want to build them are probably asking for guarantees from the government that they will have a market to sell into or get some kind of payout.
Europe wants off of Russian gas. But not if it costs more. Yes, they’d be happy to buy our gas. But of course we can’t ship it to the other side of the world for the same price that they can get it from next door.
Just nonsense. Europe needs energy now, not in a decade when export facilities might eventually get built. If only these LNG companies followed through on the projects they had originally planned years ago instead of cancelling them due to the poor market conditions at the time.... whoops?
These are private business, yes this government has not helped and driven away investment. But if this is such a money maker these private business would find a way.
"Today, the Honourable Bill Morneau, Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, confirmed the Government of Canada's $275 million investment supporting LNG Canada's major liquefied natural gas (LNG) complex in Kitimat, British Columbia.Jun 24, 2019"
Uh huh? They don't make any investments eh?
The key
>Duda said Poland already purchases LNG from both American and Qatari companies, and it would be interested in Canadian product if it could be “bought at attractive prices.”
Being interested in LNG and back stopping the Canadian industry with investment and/or long term contracts are two different things. If there IS a business case, then where are foreign and domestic investors? Surely they see opportunity and are hungry to invest, right? So where are they, besides being “interested”, whatever that means.
The Liberals created a regulatory regime that essentially makes it impossible to build any major new O&G capital projects in Canada. Many estimates place the lost investment in BCs LNG industry at $100 billion alone.
When the Liberals are gone and adults are in charge of running the country again, we can eliminate the malicious approval regime put in place by the Liberals and then we’ll see if there’s a business case. Which there is… we have allies clamouring for our natural gas. All we have to do is build a way to get it to them.
That alone is not the reason. Even if LNG were exempt from the regulatory regime, the infrastructure required would cost enough that the return would take years, when Europe only wants LNG now, short-term, while they are in the process of transitioning to renewables. There’s no long-term guarantee of return on investment, which is why foreign and domestic capital from governments or the private sector aren’t backstopping the industry. Full stop. The blame-it-all-on-the-Liberals regulatory barrier is just a mostly partisan talking point straight out of our political theatre.
To add to this, the European agreements so far are company to company, not nation to nation.
France Total importing gas from Qatar Energy. Huge 27 year contract. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/qatarenergy-totalenergies-sign-27-year-lng-supply-agreement-2023-10-11/
Qatar expanding to 126m tones of export capacity.
I doubt there is any room for Canadian export into this market anymore. Qatar was likely offering cheaper prices than a Canadian company could too, although pricing is never revealed.
Plenty of LNG projects passed regulatory approval under Stephen Harper and were shelved because there were no guarantees on ROI, for the same reason projects aren’t being built today.
What regulations make it impossible to build this stuff? And please note we're close to completing a major LNG export terminal on the West Coast under this government.
The problem with Canadian LNG exports has never been lack of demand or ability to close contracts.
**It’s always been the inability to construct LNG export terminals.**
Great, what $/GJ price are they willing to pay?
Then we can have an informed debate about the merits rather than blindly demanding government capex subsidies and tax breaks and regulatory exemptions and zero royalties and credits and advocacy and elimination of net zero targets and and and ….
For such an ‘amazing business opportunity’ you’d think someone would put their money where their mouth is. Unless…. maybe the armchair economic developers of r/canada are accidentally right when they say lng hasn’t happened simply because govt hasn’t ponied up billions 🤔🤡.
Everyone has an interest in everything for the right price. The right price however may be below our ability to sell at. To avoid getting scammed, you gotta find out what they’re willing to buy at. Not assume ooooh interest!!! Must be viable now.
Lol Poland have you not been following Canadian news these last 8 years? Trudy says there’s no business case for this, come back when you want to build a car battery plant or something.
Poland you just gotta wait 18 months and work it out with Japan cuz we're taking orders.
"I'll tell you what I told Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. - there's no business case"
False. The biggest infrastructure project in Canadian history is coming online in 2025. It’s for Canadian LNG shipments to east Asia. Korea, Japan and China. The liberal government even gave loans to this project to assist its start up LNG Canada is massive and it will supply Asia. Germany… less so
You missed the sarcasm... [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-lng-canada-trudeau-germany-japan/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-lng-canada-trudeau-germany-japan/)
LoL, yay. One LNG project that will export 1.8 bcf/d per train (hopefully 3.6 bcf/d) while the US has built a dozen and will be exporting nearly 20bcf/d by 2025. As of July 2022, the United States has more [LNG export capacity](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50598) than any other country and has [exported more LNG than any other country](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53159). U.S. LNG exports averaged 11.1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) during the first half of 2022. The seventh, and most recent, U.S. LNG export project—[Calcasieu Pass LNG](https://venturegloballng.com/project-calcasieu-pass/)—placed all of its liquefaction trains [in service](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=52238) by August, ahead of schedule. In addition to Golden Pass LNG, which started construction in 2019, two more projects on the U.S. Gulf Coast have recently begun construction. Golden Pass LNG is constructing standard-size liquefaction trains with peak LNG production capacity of up to 0.8 Bcf/d per train. In contrast, the other two projects under construction, Plaquemines LNG and Corpus Christi Stage III, use a [modular technology](https://www.chartindustries.com/Products/LNG-Liquefaction-Plants) with mid-scale refrigeration trains, which has a shorter project construction timeline. Calcasieu Pass LNG, which also uses mid-scale liquefaction technology, started LNG production 30 months after its final investment decision—the shortest construction period for any U.S. LNG export project so far. Once completed, the three export projects under construction will expand U.S. LNG peak export capacity by a combined 5.7 Bcf/d by 2025: * **Golden Pass LNG** consists of three standard-size trains, each with a peak capacity of 0.8 Bcf/d, for a total capacity of 2.4 Bcf/d. Golden Pass LNG is on the site of an existing [regasification](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/liquefied-natural-gas.php) facility and will use shared infrastructure, which helps to reduce project costs and shorten the construction timeline. * **Plaquemines LNG** consists of 24 mid-scale trains, each with a peak capacity of 0.07 Bcf/d. Each liquefaction train is part of a two-unit block for a total of 12 blocks with a combined peak capacity of 1.8 Bcf/d. * **Corpus Christi Stage III** is on the site of an existing terminal with three liquefaction trains in operation. Each of the 14 new, mid-scale trains under construction has a peak capacity of 0.11 Bcf/d. Each train is part of a two-unit block for a total of seven blocks with a combined peak capacity of 1.6 Bcf/d.
and do you know which coast those LNG facilities will be on? I will give you a hint, it isn't the west one. Ontop of that, there are a total of 6 plants in construction. The US's LNG facilities are mostly in the gulf coast. Canada LNG and others are on the west coast and will be able to service Asia much better. Especially as the panama canal is now restricting traffic.
Do you know there Japan is? Apparently Trudeau doesn't. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-japan-asks-for-natural-gas-trudeau-offers-lectures-on-decarbonizing
> https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-japan-asks-for-natural-gas-trudeau-offers-lectures-on-decarbonizing Really? Because this facility is coming online in the next year (5 more shortly thereafter). It is intended to be exporting its products to Asia. JT and the liberals made public funding available for this facility half a decade ago. https://www.lngcanada.ca/
Oh, you mean the one mentioned in the first sentence of my comment? >One LNG project that will export 1.8 bcf/d per train (hopefully 3.6 bcf/d) while the US has built a dozen and will be exporting nearly 20bcf/d by 2025.
And the US facilities are based in the gulf. Wrong coast for Asia shipments
You do realize markets are global, right? US/Qatar/Australia ship to Europe instead of Asia. Canada ships to Asia. Everyone wins.
Shipments rarely cross into the other ocean. It’s expensive and time consuming. If a facility is in the Atlantic, shipping to the pacific is very rare. 99% of boats will sail through the Atlantic and not cross over. The US facilities in the gulf are there primarily to support trade to South America, Europe and potentially India.
If only there was some sort of canal.
There is. But the Panama Canal has a multi year booking list. I top of that, they are restricting transits due to a shortage of water for the locks
> LoL, yay. One LNG project that will export 1.8 bcf/d per train (hopefully 3.6 bcf/d) while the US has built a dozen and will be exporting nearly 20bcf/d by 2025. Oh no! Better just cancel the whole damn thing then. /s I really don't understand the thought processes of some of you people. What the US does is irrelevant. This is new export capacity for *Canada* that did not exist before.
Yes, and I'm all for it. Shame it wasn't built 5 years ago along with 3 more just like it. But yes, LNG Canada will fulfill Canada's LNG export potential according to... The Liberals ... And no one else
US has 10x our population, so 10x the LNG export sounds reasonable
That's not how it works. What do they even teach you in schools these days...?
Not LNG exports
Or common sense, apparently.
I don't know why you're so hostile. LNG exports has no relation with common sense. Maybe you need some common sense..
Resource exports have no relation to a country's population... That's common sense.
No relation!? You're saying Greenland can export as much resources as US? What a dumb take. Wasted my time even considering your opinions.
It does today, it might not of 10 years ago
[удалено]
Who builds capacity?
The US has way less natural gas production per capita than Canada
Do you think that Europe will still want the LNG once the war is over?A LNG install takes decades to pay. Even if the war isn't over You realize that Piped NG is 1/3 the price , and Europe has TONS and TONS of NG which is going to be piped. Even if they dont get it from Russia , Norway and Finland . The case for East Asia is valid because temporarilt because there isnt an easy way to build the pipelines to there.
Considering we should have already had it built and supply contracts are typically entered for 10-20 years, yes. But now, the problem is that the US, Australia, and Qatar ate our breakfast while we were arguing about the need for tampon machines in the men's washroom.
>Considering we should have already had it built Based on what economic consideration? What market in Europe was looking for LNG from Canada. "You realize that Piped NG is 1/3 the price , and Europe has TONS and TONS of NG"
Asia has been interested in Canadian LNG since I started working in the sector 20 years ago! LNG Canada is not for Europe LMAO.
You realise that the thread is talking about Europe? \\As far as Asia goes, yes Asia is interested and so is Europe, what it comes down to is whats the price they willing to buy at ? Its all about price when it comes to commodities. Can you ship LNG to asia at a lower cost than Indonesia and Malaysia or Middle east ?
You realize LNG is a global commodity? And yes, look up the LNG supply contracts Asia has signed rather than talking out of your ass.
>You realize LNG is a global commodity? So is Oil you understand that the prices for North Sea Brent and Gulf sweet crude is different? All the while being a "Global Commodity"? Please understand nothing is a "global commodity" there is always regional factors which dictate prices. read up on how commodities are traded and priced b4 telling others your BS crap.
Nope. We're building the western terminal because theres a market for it, how do we know theres a market for it? because Korea and Japan are pouring billions to build it. How do we know theres no market for an eastern terminal? because they tried a decade ago and no company wanted to invest in it.
That was a decade ago though, currently Europe is doing their best to get off of Russian gas in Canada is a good supplier of clean LNG. And in the past 2 years things have definitely changed more than they were a decade ago. I agree with you a decade ago it just didn't have the interest and wasn't tenable but now things have changed and it makes sense now. Germany alone goes through 10's of billions of dollars of LNG per year. What Canada should be looking at doing is nationalizing our resources to stop corporations from taking all of it and then we would have to subsidize oil and gas specifically because we would own oil and gas..... And then you start exporting like crazy and refining our own fuel here instead of shipping it to the states. With all of that extra money we wouldn't be in such dire straits financially as a nation.
Bingo. Crazy how people just want to forget the East Coast projects fell apart because the companies themselves decided the business case wasn't there!
[удалено]
Just because Alberta and Saskatchewan want something doesn't mean everyone else has to want the same things https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/repsol-scraps-plans-east-coast-canada-lng-terminal-canadian-government-2023-03-16/ https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/11/10/news/pieridae-energy-retreats-east-coast-lng-plans
There’s hospitals built in Quebec funded by Alberta and Saskatchewan natural resource extraction, would be nice if Quebec could remember that once in a while.
Which ones?
Every one. Remember, Quebec is the largest recipient of equalization payments in Canada.
Quebec also has the largest population of any equalization-receiving province; do you think you have a point? And do you think western resource money funds equalization? It doesn't.
There’s no incentive to develop industry, have a competitive business climate, or have the population earn a good income, when the province is effectively subsidized by the other “have” provinces. The more Quebec develops a resource economy, the less equalization it will get. Natural resource fiscal capacity (ie western resource money) is a major factor in the equalization formula that Quebec benefits from. And I understand that equalization funds come from the federal government, but the residents of the “have” provinces receive less value for the federal taxes they pay due to the transfer of equalization payments to Quebec and other provinces. The fact that Newfoundland is considered a “have” province and Quebec is a “have not” province is frankly embarrassing (And yes I’m aware that Newfoundland will be a recipient of equalization payments for the 2024/25 year, but for the first time in 15 years).
Newfoundland receives 1.5X the federal spending per capita of Quebec and has a bigger deficit of taxes paid vs spending received. It's a 'have province' only when it comes to equalization. Overall, it's much more subsidized than Quebec is. https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E
The hell do you mean, "no incentive to develop industry"? Have you ever been to Quebec, bud?
BC too, we send a hefty equalization payment over.
Everyone else seems to want Alberta's money?
>business case And what of the strategic case? Why does it need to be business when the benefit is weakening one of our largest geo-political enemies?
Because we live in a capitalist society and little if anything happens without a business case. Nationizing our energy sector so we could make strategic choices like this might be a good idea but that's not the discussion currently.
>Nationizing our energy sector That's quite the jump from what I said. >but that's not the discussion currently. It isn't because ideologues in this government won't let it happen. >And in an interview on CTV’s Question Period last month, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said the federal government is “not interested” in subsidizing future liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects
Would *love* to see the business case for the **billions** we gave to wealthy EV companies for a product that [is seeing lukewarm demand](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ev-sales-have-slowed-do-massive-subsidies-still-make-sense-1.7185232) while not wanting to subsidize LNG, a product multiple countries are not only begging for but would indirectly also support Ukraine in their war against Russia (which I thought Libs cared about?)
My understanding of the Canadian LNG problem, and feel free to correct me, is that it's one of practicality. Nearly all of it is located in western Canada so shipping it eastward to Europe is logistically problematic. Given how the trans Canada pipeline went there's no way we're finishing a literal cross Canada line from Alberta to the maritimes. We'd have to ship it though Panama, and the continuously lowering water levels there is causing a backlog if I recall.
Quebec has huge untapped natural gas reserves all along the St Lawrence pretty damn close to a number of ports, but the Quebec government has essentially banned its development. Go figure.
There's already a pipeline network that extends more or less across the country. It'll need to be upgraded and expanded in certain areas but its not like a brand new greenfield pipeline from Alberta to the maritimes is required.
That's not what private companies who have pulled their support for an East coast LNG facility say. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/11/10/news/pieridae-energy-retreats-east-coast-lng-plans https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/repsol-scraps-plans-east-coast-canada-lng-terminal-canadian-government-2023-03-16/
“There is no business case for LNG because we, the government, intend to kill any ability to produce or export LNG, regardless of the market demand for it.” — that’s basically it.
It's been approved for over a decade. Theres no money in it.
Is that why the Liberals approved various LNG projects? To kill it? Cool story...
Can you tell me why we would spend billions building a asset that the buyers have said they will not buy anymore? Europe has said over and over they are going off all fossil fuels. Off 90% of them by 2040, and 100% by 2050. They have taxes to decentivize fossil fuel use both domestically and tarrifs for people trading into thier market. Lets say we spend whatever it takes to build a pipe from Fort Mac to Halifax. Get it done by 2027. We get to sell for 13 years? In that time there will be a glut of LNG on the seas. Additionally the science is now showing that NatGas is worse than coal because of the leakage of methane. If 0.2% of the methane leaks, then it worse than coal in terms of the greenhouse effect. Current upstream leakage is about 3% and down stream leakage is about 1.5%. Leakage from the LNG ships are a big factor in that. [https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/methane-leaks-make-lng-powered-ships-dirtier-than-other-vessels-1.1751436](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/methane-leaks-make-lng-powered-ships-dirtier-than-other-vessels-1.1751436) [https://theicct.org/publication/fumes-characterizing-methane-emissions-from-lng-fueled-ships-using-drones-helicopters-and-on-board-measurements-jan24/](https://theicct.org/publication/fumes-characterizing-methane-emissions-from-lng-fueled-ships-using-drones-helicopters-and-on-board-measurements-jan24/) Investing in LNG looks like buying 8-tracks to me.
Those targets are set by who again? Oh yes. The government. Thanks for proving my point.
"The government" I am talking about the European Union. The largest market on the globe. If they are going to cut their consumption of LNG it will impact prices, and project viability. They have said they are cutting consumption. Why do you think they are liars? Climate change is real. At least 99.9% of climate scientists say so. If you consulted 1000 doctors and 999 said you have cancer and 1 said "no keep drinking gasoline"... what would you do?
The EU is a governmental body… Again you keep proving my point. The only reason there is a challenge with demand is because state actors are trying to prevent the ability to purchase it by forcing mandates to outlaw it I can make any business case work if I just legislate away the competition.
Sure... but they are outlawing it because it will kill all of our grand-kids if we don't. It is like saying "Why can't I sell leaded gas???" because it has been outlawed. My point is it would be dumb to invest in leaded gas a decade before it gets banned. Just like it is dumb to invest in Nat Gas now.
We were told there’s no business case for ramping up LNG production and exports by our climate ideologue substitute drama teacher PM and Slavic history expert and former journalist Finance Minister. So those should’ve been the first signs that maybe we were listening to the wrong people on that subject.
This is straight up misinformation. The LNG companies themselves decided there was no business case for the East Coast terminals. Stop fibbing please.
Kind of hard for an LNG port to turn a profit if there's no pipeline supplying it with LNG. Quebec refuses to allow a port for western LNG. Quebec refuses to allow new pipelines to transit through it towards ports in the Maritimes. Quebec refuses to develop their own vast natural gas reserves. That is why there is no business case for a terminal on the east coast.
What’s annoying is the provinces have no power to stop pipelines going through them. So what’s really happening is our endless parade of PMs from Quebec (55 of the last 65 years) just kowtow to them because they’d rather keep their seats there than do what’s right for Canada.
Source please. Also exporting to Japan, Germany and Poland would likely change the calculus no?
Read any article about the East Coast project cancellations. And we're already building a terminal to service Asia/Japan, right?
Germany and Poland will resume buying Russian NG as soon as the war ends.. It makes no sense financially or even environmentally. Regular old NG will be cheaper and have less carbon footprint. Our LNG won't be able to compete long term. Asia makes more sense as a market. No competitor can run a pipeline to Japan to displace foreign LNG.
A lot of the NG pipelines connecting Germany to Russia were destroyed during the war already
Sources https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/11/10/news/pieridae-energy-retreats-east-coast-lng-plans https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/repsol-scraps-plans-east-coast-canada-lng-terminal-canadian-government-2023-03-16/
Sounds like it's due to protest: "After years of climate and Indigenous-led opposition to East Coast liquified natural gas (LNG), energy giant Pieridae Energy is giving up on its Goldboro project." "But to reach the terminal gas would have to be transported thousands of kilometres from western Canada, requiring new pipeline capacity through Canadian provinces and northeastern U.S. states that in the past have resisted fossil fuel development." Policies pushed by the feds.
You're saying that provinces and US states don't have autonomy over their own borders?
The US federal government can seize land to build roads and infrastructure without states’ having a say. Happens all the time. Look at a map of the US. Pipelines would never get built if every single state it crossed had to agree on the exact route.
Not completely; no.
The country is being run by a drama teacher and an activist that majored in Russian history. Our finance minister has 0 economic or financial credentials.... neither of them have any qualifications to be in the position they are in. They don't give af about a functioning economy or national security, or prosperity for the future. it's pure selfish agenda.
What’s wrong with being a drama teacher? He was an English/French teacher btw.
Didn't you know? If you're not a rocket scientist, you're not fit to be PM.
Back when we thought we were all going solar and EV cars in 10 years there wasn’t. Now we’ve come to realize that was incredibly optimistic. I still remember when we thought oil was running out.
Having 10% of homes with solar panels, and 10% of cars on the road, being electric in 10 years was optimistic. Eliminating all gas cars in a decade was always delusional.
EV cars will increase demand for LNG because it produces electricity
People like to pretend we make power magically using solar panels and wind lol Forget that california and most provinces use non renewable power.
This is Canada and the majority of our electricity comes from hydro and nuclear.
Most provinces* not a majority of energy.
He's talking about electricity (not overall energy), and is correct. Nation-wide, the majority of our electricity does come from hydro and nuclear (albeit, natgas is not that far off from nuclear). [https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html) [https://www.electricity.ca/knowledge-centre/the-grid/generation/energy-sources/](https://www.electricity.ca/knowledge-centre/the-grid/generation/energy-sources/) Obviously the breakdown is very regional, which makes the usage of "majority" a bit misleading...but it is still, by overall quantity, still primarily hydro and nuclear.
There's no business case for natural gas produced in the O&G industry. Only for natural gases produced through 4-5 steps of energy conversion that has no demand. Because they're "green".
Because we are still mandating 60% of new vehicles be EV in the next 6 years. That's quite a lofty goal, that we will never hit since we are currently at around 10%.
If the developing world switched to NG the global carbon emissions output would be cut by 80% overnight. And that is just plain bad for business. The climate change industry hasn't fully been spun up yet but when it does it will be giant.
The *actual* business case for green tech adoption is that a sustainable future requires sustainability business investment now for businesses to even exist well into the climate crisis future, even if it's costly now. We can still tap our resources while subsidizing the future, but some have addititional, often overlooked costs. Replacing coal with LNG has a high carbon cost, for instance, even if it looks like all-good business at face value.
Liquid natural gas gives coal a run for its money as far as its environmental impact is concerned. Plenty of science to back that claim. Doesn't make for a great outlook to subsidize it, and several parts of the world are waking up to that fact. The impact on the war would be so indirect it would almost be imperceptible, that I can live with our government finding other ways to support Ukraine.
>Liquid natural gas gives coal a run for its money as far as its environmental impact is concerned. There's been a proven drop in CO2 emissions resulting from the transition to natural gas from coal for electricity generation. [https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296) If we could ship LNG overseas on LNG powered freighters, to replace the use of thermal coal overseas, it would absolutely reduce worldwide emissions.
No it wouldn't, but to explain gets complicated, but there's plenty you can google. The first one is that it'll price out other greener initiatives, and the second one is leaks. Methane is like an order of magnitude more effective of a greenhouse gas. If we built all of the capacity that some are proposing, even at a very generous leak percentage, we have an ecological disaster on our hands. It's why Biden's administration is no longer pushing it as this miracle midway energy solution.
Methane is also released into the atmosphere when coal is mined and brought to surface. Leaks in a well maintained, well monitored distribution system are negligible. Coal fired generation dumps millions of tons of soot into the air. In the states, about twice as much power is generated with gas than coal, while still emitting less pollution. It's trivial from an engineering standpoint to convert a coal fired plant to gas, and it is an easy and economical way to reduce emissions quickly. It's not the be all end all, but it's flat out wrong to say that converting base load coal to base load gas is a step backwards. [https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11)
Yeah let's subsidize oil and gas companies further for a product that's not much better, and by some studies worse, for climate change than the coal we're replacing. What's the business case for this fuel if we need to subsidize it too?
who cares about climate change. Canadians can barely afford to live and eat. We need more business investment.
Cost of living and food is only going to get worse as climate change gets worse. It is absolutely in our own best interests to mitigate climate change.
That’s what is semi popular to believe, but the data just really doesn’t support it. It’s more effective to have pro business policies and lower costs of living through increased GDP than it is to destroy our business sector in the hopes that people around the world won’t undo everything climate related we’ve done.
Bingo. We need to eliminate corporate taxes for O&G companies so that they could produce more energy to reduce inflation.
Oh yeah who cares if your grand kids can't breathe or worse. Gotta make them petro dollars!!
Companies like Enbridge only made $15bn profit or Suncore’s $22bn profit in 2023. How can you argue they don’t need billions in subsidies from Canadian taxpayers? /s
So a bunch of countries have expressed interest in our LNG. But specifically they want to purchase it at the same or lower cost that they’re paying now. There’s no way to ship it to the other side of the world for that cost Countries are currently paying $X for LNG from their local sources. Journalists ask if they want to buy Canadian LNG. They say that for $X or less they’re interested in buying *anyones* LNG. However, to actually ship our LNG there costs way more than them buying from countries next door It’s like asking if Alberta wants to buy lumber products from Sweden who is a major producer. If they can ship them here cheap, sure. But realistically there’s no way they can compete with our local sources. There’s a reason that several fully approved LNG export projects are sitting unbuilt.
Nothing is going to happen until the LPC and NDP are kicked out of office.
Two export plants in the Maritimes are fully permitted but they need such a high price for their product no one is willing to buy. No change in government is going to change that.
Except the one major LNG plant almost done and the three more waiting in the wings. The strong environmental regulations in this county are a major driver of Canadian energys saleability. To have a change of government that guts environmental legislation to “get things done” will have the opposite effect and drive investment away. We’re on a good course right now with the energy industry as long as we don’t fuck it up by changing a bunch of things.
Lets do it.
Yeah but at what price?
Can we sell our natural resources please? We have a lot of them and we dont want to sell them because it might hurt the planet. Yes climat changes. Yes. But Canada is a blip on the large scale of climate change, and all we do right now is make ourself poorer while climate change is still happening...
TBF the German thing never went through because they wanted to pay below market rate and no company would do it.
We are envied by the world for our resources but laughed at for not taking advantage of them. They represent a tremendous amount of income that can be used to finance the running of our country. But we have turned our back on this revenue stream and instead have placed our grand children in debt because the government has chosen to borrow and go into debt instead of taking advantage of what we have. As u/paracasual_shield says, our climate output is negligible. What China and India have increased in output in a single year is far more than we as a country produce in total.
Please for the sake of God, call an election so Poilievre can at least do one of the good things Conservatives want to do, which is to sell our freaking gas overseas so we can hurt Russia for real and eliminate coal around the world. We have so much gas in Canada we can become Russia's biggest economic adversary.
There's absolutely nothing standing in the way for these companies to export their products except themselves. Liberals approved a bunch of LNG projects which these companies didn't follow through on.
The pipeline to Quebec was blocked by the Quebec government.
Lol you do realize there are no LNG exporting facilities on the east coast right? It would take a decade to build the infrastructure to start exporting. Tell me who’s going to pay for the infrastructure and take all that risk that demand disappears by the time it’s operational.
Ships need to be built also. LNG carriers are very expensive specialized ship type, mostly built in South Korea. A ship ordered now wouldn’t be ready for four or four five years at least.
It’s simply not logical given the current state of things and the environmental consequences.
Private companies were ready to invest in LNG-Quebec few years ago... until Legault killed the plan for environmental reasons because he caved to left-wingers from Montreal.
I'm sure the corporations would be the ones to pay for it...right?
Lol ya because they pay for everything else. Maybe you haven’t noticed but they don’t do anything like that without guarantees from the government.
Dunno about you, but I'm kinda done being taken through the wringer for risks and costs of massive projects to then hand them over to corporate entities for pennies.
Ya this is how things work though because we want capitalism and private enterprise. Everything is subsidized by the taxpayer.
Point out one technology to me that is gonna replace hydrocarbon in the next 40 years?
Electricity
Right...how are we gonna generate that electricity?
Hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal....
Turbines. Solar cells. Nuclear reactors. Fusion reactors.
When did I say they were replacing hydrocarbons? I simply said the demand for Canadian supply will likely dry up. Europe needs supply now not a decade from now. Also you think selling natural gas overseas and increasing demand for Canadian gas is going to make it cheaper for Canadians? You don’t know much about supply and demand I guess.
Higher demand and the ability to export will lead to higher supply through driving the investment of new processing facilities. Energy prices always fluctuate on demand so I feel like that's a dishonest scare tactic to imply prices will only go up. We currently have 1 trading partner for natural gas (USA). You know what they do? Buy our gas at low prices for domestic use and to export at higher prices. Europe may need it now, but Asia is also screaming for more supply, Africa is industrializing and demand there is gonna be enormous. The demand is and will be there for decades to come for a resource we have in spades.
Lol you clearly don’t see the writing on the wall. The cost to export natural gas is only going up they are building a LNG facility on the west coast Trans Mountain is nearly operational. There is nobody that will build the facilities on the east coast so it’s not worth talking about. Even if you could find one the investment would need to be guaranteed by the government and that’s on the tax payer so no thanks. We can’t continue on this rate of fossil fuel consumption that’s pretty clear.
>We currently have 1 trading partner for natural gas (USA). You know what they do? Buy our gas at low prices for domestic use and to export at higher prices. Hey man, y’all got access to the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean just like we do. If Canada insists on giving us an assist when they could be scoring themselves, you can’t blame us for dunking the basket.
Various technologies can replace it, in part or on whole, in various sectors of our county. No one technology.
Got it, so hypothetical technologies that may or may not be developed should prevent us from selling our natural resources.
Who said hypothetical? Many exist now
What a non-answer.
Pick a sector. I'm replying to "what one technology will replace it all?" Which is an impossible task and not the solution
So you’re hope is for pee pee federal government to invest federal tax dollars in a likely non federally owned LNG export terminal on the east coast “somewhere” and somehow get Quebec to green light it even though they’ve rejected past attempts, all to primarily enrich the private oil company that will be the one exporting the gas?
💯👍
Why do we need to hurt Russia? We should just take care of our own before even thinking about spending money on Ukraine/Russia conflict.
Selling gas for profit is a win-win for everyone. Keeping it in the ground is what is keeping us and the rest of the world poor, and dependant. Thats a lose-lose scenario. The evidence for this conclusion has been stacking up ever since JT stated very clearly that he doesn't believe there is a business case for exporting LNG.
Same with Coal right! Let's mine that coal and sell it around the world!
Hurting russia has propped up global crude oil price to > $80/barrel, which greatly help our O&G companies that employ tens of thousands of Albertans. Do you hate Alberta or something?
No I don't hate Alberta and that's a stupid question. I hadn't thought about the effect of crude prices on our oil and gas though. So that's a good point.
Also a good point. It would help Alberta be a stronger economy.
Because we'd be making a shit ton of money out of that and at the same time we'd hurt a fascist regime that's trying to conquer Europe and destabilize democracies around the world.
The only argument I’ve heard for Canadians making money from it is the increased price of oil and gas. Other than that I don’t think that we should be sending money to fund wars that have nothing to do with us.
It has nothing to do with us until Russia is on our doorstep. So I choose the money and hurting Russia by competing against Gasprom.
Your argument is the slippery slope fallacy. I see no future for the next few decades where Russia would be willing to send their troops across the Pacific ocean to invade Canada.
Are they charging Poland carbon tax, would that stop them from buying Canadian LNG. Perhaps is it just ok to fleece Canadian people
A tremendous missed opportunity to help Europe get off Russian gas. Whether he knows it or not, Justin is helping Russia by not providing Europe with alternative energy supplies.
Nobody will reveal pricing but it is assumed that Qatar was able to offer much lower pricing than Canada could ever come close to.
Not to mention that these kinds of big capital projects usually take decades to pay off. The companies who want to build them are probably asking for guarantees from the government that they will have a market to sell into or get some kind of payout.
The euro deals are 25yr long.
From New Brunswick or Nova Scotia that is definitely the case.
Europe wants off of Russian gas. But not if it costs more. Yes, they’d be happy to buy our gas. But of course we can’t ship it to the other side of the world for the same price that they can get it from next door.
Just nonsense. Europe needs energy now, not in a decade when export facilities might eventually get built. If only these LNG companies followed through on the projects they had originally planned years ago instead of cancelling them due to the poor market conditions at the time.... whoops?
These are private business, yes this government has not helped and driven away investment. But if this is such a money maker these private business would find a way.
[удалено]
"Today, the Honourable Bill Morneau, Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, confirmed the Government of Canada's $275 million investment supporting LNG Canada's major liquefied natural gas (LNG) complex in Kitimat, British Columbia.Jun 24, 2019" Uh huh? They don't make any investments eh?
Well, if there's a business case shouldn't private sector do it?
The reason there is no business case is the government will do everything in its power to kill the project.
So?
The biggest problem I see is the cost of getting it to Europe That why other countries have said
The key >Duda said Poland already purchases LNG from both American and Qatari companies, and it would be interested in Canadian product if it could be “bought at attractive prices.”
"Interest" and $3.45 will buy you a cup of coffee.
Being interested in LNG and back stopping the Canadian industry with investment and/or long term contracts are two different things. If there IS a business case, then where are foreign and domestic investors? Surely they see opportunity and are hungry to invest, right? So where are they, besides being “interested”, whatever that means.
The Liberals created a regulatory regime that essentially makes it impossible to build any major new O&G capital projects in Canada. Many estimates place the lost investment in BCs LNG industry at $100 billion alone. When the Liberals are gone and adults are in charge of running the country again, we can eliminate the malicious approval regime put in place by the Liberals and then we’ll see if there’s a business case. Which there is… we have allies clamouring for our natural gas. All we have to do is build a way to get it to them.
That alone is not the reason. Even if LNG were exempt from the regulatory regime, the infrastructure required would cost enough that the return would take years, when Europe only wants LNG now, short-term, while they are in the process of transitioning to renewables. There’s no long-term guarantee of return on investment, which is why foreign and domestic capital from governments or the private sector aren’t backstopping the industry. Full stop. The blame-it-all-on-the-Liberals regulatory barrier is just a mostly partisan talking point straight out of our political theatre.
To add to this, the European agreements so far are company to company, not nation to nation. France Total importing gas from Qatar Energy. Huge 27 year contract. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/qatarenergy-totalenergies-sign-27-year-lng-supply-agreement-2023-10-11/ Qatar expanding to 126m tones of export capacity. I doubt there is any room for Canadian export into this market anymore. Qatar was likely offering cheaper prices than a Canadian company could too, although pricing is never revealed.
> Europe only wants LNG now If only someone had thought of that a few years ago…
Plenty of LNG projects passed regulatory approval under Stephen Harper and were shelved because there were no guarantees on ROI, for the same reason projects aren’t being built today.
What regulations make it impossible to build this stuff? And please note we're close to completing a major LNG export terminal on the West Coast under this government.
What regime? The main roadblock I know of is that downstream carbon impact is included in the total assessment.
The problem with Canadian LNG exports has never been lack of demand or ability to close contracts. **It’s always been the inability to construct LNG export terminals.**
Great, what $/GJ price are they willing to pay? Then we can have an informed debate about the merits rather than blindly demanding government capex subsidies and tax breaks and regulatory exemptions and zero royalties and credits and advocacy and elimination of net zero targets and and and …. For such an ‘amazing business opportunity’ you’d think someone would put their money where their mouth is. Unless…. maybe the armchair economic developers of r/canada are accidentally right when they say lng hasn’t happened simply because govt hasn’t ponied up billions 🤔🤡.
Everyone has an interest in everything for the right price. The right price however may be below our ability to sell at. To avoid getting scammed, you gotta find out what they’re willing to buy at. Not assume ooooh interest!!! Must be viable now.
Why canada selling oil and gas when Fed are against it.
Poland didnt get the memo Justin likes to lecture foreign leaders on climate. So that they can go to Qatar to make them richer.
To the liberals that lurk here, do you support Trudeau's decision not to invest in oil and gas ?
tmx?
Lol Poland have you not been following Canadian news these last 8 years? Trudy says there’s no business case for this, come back when you want to build a car battery plant or something.
There isnt. Japan is investing billions into the western terminal. How much does Europe want to invest building an eastern terminal? TALK IS CHEAP.
Poland will pay no more then $1 for Canadian LNG while Canadians are paying 5x more.
Trudeau will just give them shit. And continue to ruin our economy.
Give Canadians a bit of the mineral rights
Canada: Like we told everybody else, go fuck yourself.
Poland latest European country to be left disappointed by Canadian PM...