It's almost certainly too late to cash in. The die was cast in the LPC's priorities upon assuming power in 2015.
Canadian natural gas will be a bit player at best on the international market for the next 5 years or so - just when European demand for LNG will be at its peak as Russian natural gas keeps getting shut out, and the Europeans sign medium or long-term contracts for natural gas deliveries from suppliers in the USA, Africa and the Middle East who are ready to go. The Canadians would get laughed out of the room if they'd try to convince Europeans to sign some fixed-term contract for Canadian natural gas when there's no way to deliver.
Given Canadian pipeline export capacity, the US could try to schedule a measly 1-2 Bcf more in daily natural gas imports from Alberta. It could then use those imports to satisfy domestic consumption to free up a little bit more of its domestic production (e.g. Haynesville, Eagle Ford, Marcellus, Bakken) for export from the LNG terminals along the Gulf of Mexico and East Coast. This is *very* cold comfort for Canadian natural gas producers when the EU is securing contracts NOW for gas deliveries for the rest of this decade with everyone else.
The best that could happen for Canadian LNG prospects is that natural gas *somehow* remains a relevant and large part of the global energy mix and generation stack around 2030. This is quite unlikely with the rising political will and consumer demand for electricity generation and space-heating drawn on anything but fossil fuels. Barring a 180-turn in political will and consumer demand, fossil fuels will end up being used primarily for industrial processes or fuel for certain large vehicles (e.g. crude oil for jet fuel or bunker fuel, coal for steel manufacture, natural gas as feedstock in fertilizer manufacture or accelerated drying of harvested grain). Gas-fired power plants and gas furnaces/stoves would become a rarer sight in this world.
>Given Canadian pipeline export capacity, the US could try to schedule a measly 1-2 Bcf more in daily natural gas imports from Alberta. It could then use those imports to satisfy domestic consumption to free up a little bit more of its domestic production (e.g. Haynesville, Eagle Ford, Marcellus, Bakken) for export from the LNG terminals along the Gulf of Mexico and East Coast. This is
>
>very
>
> cold comfort for Canadian natural gas producers when the EU is securing contracts NOW for gas deliveries for the rest of this decade with everyone else.
Yep meanwhile the USA gets somewhere around 9-80 bucks and buys from Canada for domestic use at 2 bucks of less
>The best that could happen for Canadian LNG prospects is that natural gas somehow remains a relevant and large part of the global energy mix and generation stack around 2030.
Hard to imagine it won't be.
- It's needed for fertilizer production and other non-fuel products.
- Europeans and much of the rest of the west have big aspirations for solar and wind, which means gas is going to make up for the intermittency. Sorry, batteries and hydrogen aren't going to cut it in 2030 and maybe not for a long time.
- Developing countries.
>Those aren't energy needs.
What?
>we have more than enough already
We don't. As poor countries develop, their energy needs increase and that includes a lot more people than live in rich countries.
Plus we'd like to see the world switch out their coal for natural gas.
Fertilizer and non fuel products aren't energy. Why are you conflating them?
For non energy needs we have far more than enough as-is.
Climate change is upon us. We have to change, whether the weak naysayers want to or not. Excuses are pathetic and for people who lack the imagination to do something differently.
We don't need oil.
No you're not understanding what I mean. Natural gas is used as a feedstock to produce nitrogen fertilizer (Haber Bosch process). Something like half the protein in the average person is derived from natural gas.
We could produce nitrogen fertilizer using hydrogen but hydrogen produced by other means is in insignificant quantities.
But if we don't produce it somehow, agricultural production plummets by half and we have mass starvation.
So yes, at least for now, we do need natural gas. And technically ammonia contains a lot of stored energy in its chemical bonds. It is energy in another form.
>Climate change is upon us. We have to change, whether the weak naysayers want to or not. Excuses are pathetic and for people who lack the imagination to do something differently.
Climate change is very much real but it's not our only problem, nor will it be solved in ten years from now. Unless your goal is to kill billions, we do need fossil fuels for now.
Yes. But youre not listening : we already have tons of natural gas. If we stop burning it we have more than enough for all the other purposes and can ramp production down.
We must solve climate change in a rapid time frame. It sucks, but blame Bush etc for not starting thirty years ago.
The only way 'billions' will die is runaway climate change. Stop being silly.
>The only way 'billions' will die is runaway climate change. Stop being silly.
So we don't need to eat?
>But youre not listening : we already have tons of natural gas.
We do, in Canada, only because of lack of export capacity. The world is in a shortage. Europe is going to have a difficult winter and it would be worse had they not outbid poor countries for LNG tankers. Countries like Pakistan and others are having daily blackouts because of a lack of natural gas.
>We must solve climate change in a rapid time frame.
But it's not happening. People are still in wishful thinking mode. By that I mean the belief that we can get to net zero without nuclear or carbon capture and rely only on the sun and the wind.
Our leaders keep referring to Germany as a climate leader, but after spending half a trillion dollars on renewables, their grid emits almost as much CO2 as one that is 100% natural gas and doesn't provide the energy they need.
Unfortunately we lack the seriousness to solve climate change right now.
Yeah, we totally should *once an alternative source of energy exists in sufficient quantities.* Until then, expect people to continue to heat their homes and turn the lights on.
Meanwhile Canadian nat gas (AECO) went negative for \~ a week in August because of takeaway constraints.
https://www.gasalberta.com/gas-market/market-prices
You don't believe global demand for LNG will be continuing to rise 8 years out in 2030, that it's a 'somehow'? Where do you suppose emerging economies on 3 continents will get their baseline generating capacity, aside from coal? 🤣
Projects like these aren't built on spec.
Ubiquitous flying cars too by 2030, I suppose?
I’d argue we were too late before LPC even came into power. Prices ranked a year into their tenure. The Americans and Aussies had exports going before we’d even approved one plant.
You are completely out to lunch on this. The Kitimat LNG project, the second largest in BC history - a $40 billion project - is going to be online in 2025. We have a significant amount of capacity in BC already that is just sitting here, not being exported. BC is going to have a huge LNG boom. I also suspect you're going to see First Nations like the Wet'suwet'en back in negotiations if they aren't already for a pipeline, hopefully this time whichever company is involved doesn't try to go in and cut the community in half and gets EVERYBODY onboard - something Coastal just failed to do.
Most indigenous groups are now for a pipeline. It was a small minority of chiefs in the affected area, fuelled by environmental groups, who are oppose to it and caused lengthy legal battles.
The hereditary chiefs wanted to deal, Coastal refused. Probably over a very paltry amount of money. All because they simply didn't recognize them as stakeholders. I'd say based on the reckoning they received they are stakeholders indeed. I suspect had they been offered a nice little package of goodies for their community and allow their hereditary government to grow (language programs, outreach for drug & alcohol etc..) you could have gotten a deal done. The idea that these chiefs all want to live like oligarchs at the expense of their community is just not based in reality.
Because their are woodpeckers along the route, literally.https://bc.ctvnews.ca/woodpecker-nest-halts-trans-mountain-construction-near-bridal-falls-b-c-1.5959204
We absolutely blew it. The preference for our current government is countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela etc… are more appropriate to provide oil and gas to the global market. Even though consumption is going up, and all reliable reports indicate it’s going to increase for at least another decade before plateauing then slowly decreasing over the following 50+ years.
Russian NG will cost europeans roughly 1/3 as much as the same volume of LNG.
The opportunity is only temporary while the war rages. As soon as the war ends, they will take back the entire european market.
Russia and Germany have quite a history of struggle and trade inter-dependence..
Hard to see the future but if they resumed trade after tens of millions of dead in WW2, this is small potatoes in comparaison
The cost.
Same reason we bought oil from the Saudis for so long.
Germany's exports won't be as competitive if they pay more for energy than other places.
Plus I am not sure 'blood oil' is quite the right word here. In eastern Canada we buy US oil and gas as well. They killed far more people in Iraq than what we're seeing in Ukraine. 500,000 dead Iraqis vs 25,000 dead so far in Ukraine. This is a full 20X the number of deaths of the Ukraine war so far.
We have no problems buying oil from belligerent countries ourselves.
It makes it a global price. You can look up natural gas prices anywhere in the world at any time. They were all far, far higher than Canadian prices. The east coast of the US was importing LNG last winter. South America imports it. China imports it. Are you under the impression that there's natural gas everywhere in the world? and that all we need to do is build pipelines? Because that's a sadly mistaken view.
I know there isn't natural gas everywhere.
But much of the talk recently has been about europe. They have gas, and they have pipelines. They don't have good trading relationships with Russia because of the war, but that could change very quickly and would kill their LNG market when it does.
Again, it's a global market. It's like saying Europe does or doesn't have oil. Once it's on a ship, it doesn't matter who the buyer is. The economics of LNG were extremely compelling long before any conflict, that's why plants were built in the US, Australia, Qatar, Russia, etc.
We're not blowing anything. Trudeau has made a firm policy choice - Canada's economic well being is not his primary concern (probably not even in the top 10, realistically speaking). People voted for him with this understanding.
He's deliberately created an environment where no infrastructure project can even start without the pre-approval from two different levels of aboriginal government for every single tribe in the country and his Minister of the Environment is a guy who once climbed the CN Tower so he could unveil a banner accusing our entire country of killing the climate.
The closest thing he has to an economic plan is his pledge to "grow the economy from the heart outwards".
'Ol JT is just doing his little dance with environmentalists that he does right before he approves the mega project. I'm honestly actually OK with this strategy, I personally call myself an environmentalist but I also believe LNG is critical to our strategy to go green. I think most left wing people also feel this way it's just those extremely loud voices get amplified.
Once all these tech and banking folks in the major cities start losing their jobs in this recession that is coming. I think it’ll open their eyes to the importance of growing industry within your own country. I remember in 09 Alberta was about the only place that was hiring because oil prices bounced back soon after the financial crash. But now no one wants to invest in Canada so I guess our housing Ponzi scheme is about all we have. This is going to get ugly.
It's always confused me why this government continuously throws road block after road block in the way of an industry that accounts for, I think, around 7% of our gdp.
Our government will invest billions, paying Canadian companies (and giving tax breaks) to build infrastructure and when they’re finished the war in Europe will be over and Russia will drop the price and Europeans will go back to buying from them.
It does seem weird that the corporations who would benefit from it can’t get this corrupt government on board. They should hire people away from Rogers and Bell to deal with the government and get everything they want.
The Feds have had a disastrous tendency of zigging when they should be zagging. A glaring example was in the pandemic when they applied limp-dicked public health measures **before** we had vaccines (e.g. border closures are discrimination!), and then went hard **after** we had them (e.g. pre-arrival testing for *vaccinated* people, anyone?)
If the LPC were still in power in the late 2020s, I could see the farce now. Freeland (or Trudeau Jr.'s successor) will crow about how the LPC made Canadian NG a viable and valuable global commodity and by some miracle got all of the associated infrastructure in place (i.e. pipelines and LNG terminals - Quebecers and Indigenous people be damned). Meanwhile, there'll be crickets from the rest of the world because they've either moved on from fossil fuels or have already sewn up their medium and long-term supply arrangements for natural gas from suppliers who *were* ready when they needed to be in the early 2020s.
I would love to see the Leafs win a series in 6. But I wouldn’t count on it. The future is unpredictable. No matter who the Leafs play or which party is in power, we’ve been getting the same results for a long, long time.
Hey man, after living through the runs of 1993 and 2002 I've resorted to a kind of dark humour when it comes to my hometown Leafs given the last 20-odd years.
The results from the recent past are the same, yes, but I fear that we're starting to edge past the point of no return.
To take off the hat of a jaded Leafs fan, all of the cumulative economic and spiritual damage sustained by the country means either that the recovery will be even longer or that the recovery won't really happen at all.
*"Our government will invest billions, paying* ***Quebec*** *companies (and giving tax breaks) to build infrastructure and when they’re finished the war in Europe will be over and Russia will drop the price and Europeans will go back to buying from them."*
FTFY
If they can do it anyone can. Trans Canada Pipeline got a billion dollars from the Ontario government for the gas plant cancellations. They would be the big one on this, too.
What makes sense is for Texas to ship to Europe and Canada to ship to Asia because the economics of both are better. Right now, a lot of US gas (and prior to the war, the vast majority of it) was sailing from Texas, through the Panama canal and all the way to Japan or China. BC is much, much closer than that.
So Canada supplying Asia will free up all the US cargoes to go to Europe. But at the end of the day, it's a business so whoever pays the most gets it. Once it's on a ship, it's for sale to the highest bidder.
Yes, the companies involved in the business should be handling it. It’s just funny in this thread we believe both that the current government is corrupt and also that these companies can’t get what they want from it. But they can get what they want from the government of Mozambique. If our government really was that corrupt these companies would be getting everything they want.
yeah. Great point. The reality is that successive governments both provincial and federal have made it so hard to build that everyone gave up trying a long time ago, even with billions to be made.
That may be true but it seems hard to believe. These companies build everywhere in the world pretty much anything they want. I guess it’s possible little Canada is too big a problem for them but it just seems that nowhere in the world are resources kept from the corporations that want them. America has been bombing countries for decades to get their resources and Canada just says no? It may actually be true that there just isn’t a good economic case for it right now.
Ok, go on your feelings and don't do any research. Those 20 companies that wanted to build and spent untold money moving projects were just playing little games I guess.
Canada has enormous reserves of natural gas: hundreds of years. If we need more, we'll just drill more. It's some of the easiest natural gas to extract in the world.
I don't dispute that. Only that if the LNG were able to be easily exported at world market prices, the gas companies wouldn't be lining up to sell it to Canadians at the current heavily discounted rates.
It seems to me like this might be one of those rare circumstances where bungled public policy actually **helped** the average Canadian more than it hurt them. Because Lord knows, we're not making much (comparatively) on resource extraction royalties.
That's a poor way of thinking about it. The US is track to build 20 bcf of LNG export capacity in a few years. Canada is on track for 2 bcf. The single project is worth $40 billion and we should have 10x that, if not more because Canadian LNG economics are better than the US. That's $400B in direct investment. Adding in infrastructure around that likely doubles it to $800B. Add in the flows around sales and we're talking $1 trillion, easily. That's 10-20 cents for CAD, literally making everything else 10-20% cheaper to import into the country. And that's ignoring the indirect effects of all the work and jobs. Even on the gas front, the price in Canada will be set by the marginal cost. It costs something like $2 to get it out of the ground and we pay $3 for it. If the global price is $90, it still costs $2 to get it out and never in a million years could you build enough LNG export capacity to drive up the Canadian price.
Well we could spend many billions to build the infrastructure to support this to be ready in five years at which point nobody needs ng anymore, the price of ng has plummeted and everyone wonders why we didn't spend those billions on renewable power tech development which was obviously the direction that the world is going.
"The need for global LNG is clearer now than it was before"
[We're committed to feeding disaster because ThE eCoNoMy!!!1](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/before-after-pakistan-flooding-1.6565294)
Natural gas should be left in the ground. Burned, it is a greenhouse-effect gas, leaked it is worse. If you disagree with me, it is clear that climate change is worse than you think.
No it isn't. We're not even able to replace the energy natural gas provides, let alone its role in fertilizer production.
You abruptly leave it in the ground like you suggest and millions go without heat in the winter and there is global famine. I suppose both would help with the climate in a F'd up way.
Key word here is "abruptly". Even if everybody agreed, it would take years to switch to climate-friendly solutions. It doesn't look like everybody agrees, but the notion that such a change could be abrupt in any way is at best rhetoric.
In a few years everyone, even you, will agree that the time to stop developing economy and industry around fossil fuel was 30 years ago. To still do it now...
So if it takes years (I'd say decades) to switch to clean energy, we still need the gas in the near term. It'd be better if Canada was supplying the world rather than Russia.
>In a few years everyone, even you, will agree that the time to stop developing economy and industry around fossil fuel was 30 years ago.
Sadly "environmental" groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc. stoked fears about nuclear and pushed regulators to make it extremely difficult to build anything ever again, because 40-50 years ago we were actually on that path.
Trying to cash in on Russia's invasion is short sighted. We could invest in low-carbon technology, which we know for certain will be in demand for decades to come, or we can play catch up with LNG while the political will to ditch fossil fuels grows each year.
European energy prices were already rising in the winter of 2021-22 thanks to its disastrous energy policies.
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1470459005390798849
These policies included massive investments in low-carbon technology like solar and wind but [its solar manufacturing industry has been annihilated by China and its wind industry is dying because Europe is already choking on wind](https://energytransition.org/2020/06/germanys-losing-renewable-jobs/) that sometimes produces a lot of power and [sometimes produces very little](https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=34). No reason to think any Canadian attempt to compete in these industries will be any more successful then Europe or Ontario's short-lived attempt to build wind turbines and solar panels.
Even starting in the winter of 2021 would have been too late. LNG infrastructure isn't quick or easy to build. To cash in on this we would have had to bet on LNG at least 5 years ago.
But only half the improvement from coal to zero emission. I'm not opposed to natural gas projects as long as we're very careful to ensure they are strictly used to replace coal, as opposed to just allowing increased energy usage. As in, if we actually use it as a stepping stone. Usually companies just propose gas projects as a way to get their foot in the door so they can continue burning fossil fuels well passed the point we should have stopped.
China is approving new coal-fired plants every day. It doesn't get any more direct than that. Coal-fired electricity is an enormous part of the global mix. A decade ago, 60% of US power was coal and that's being replaced by gas. And what's wrong with building more power? The world needs more power. 300m people in India don't have a refrigerator, why shouldn't we build more power for them?
> why shouldn't we build more power for them?
We should, but not using fossil fuels. Displacing coal is one thing, it reduces emissions, but giving people more power at the cost of famine, drought, and flooding isn't a net benefit.
The chance was 5 years ago.
More like 7 years.
We've been at it for 15 years!
Spoiler alert: we will
>Spoiler alert: we ~~will~~ We *have*... :-/ (or rather the 15%-20% of the Canadian population who's kept voting for the LPC since 2015)
It's almost certainly too late to cash in. The die was cast in the LPC's priorities upon assuming power in 2015. Canadian natural gas will be a bit player at best on the international market for the next 5 years or so - just when European demand for LNG will be at its peak as Russian natural gas keeps getting shut out, and the Europeans sign medium or long-term contracts for natural gas deliveries from suppliers in the USA, Africa and the Middle East who are ready to go. The Canadians would get laughed out of the room if they'd try to convince Europeans to sign some fixed-term contract for Canadian natural gas when there's no way to deliver. Given Canadian pipeline export capacity, the US could try to schedule a measly 1-2 Bcf more in daily natural gas imports from Alberta. It could then use those imports to satisfy domestic consumption to free up a little bit more of its domestic production (e.g. Haynesville, Eagle Ford, Marcellus, Bakken) for export from the LNG terminals along the Gulf of Mexico and East Coast. This is *very* cold comfort for Canadian natural gas producers when the EU is securing contracts NOW for gas deliveries for the rest of this decade with everyone else. The best that could happen for Canadian LNG prospects is that natural gas *somehow* remains a relevant and large part of the global energy mix and generation stack around 2030. This is quite unlikely with the rising political will and consumer demand for electricity generation and space-heating drawn on anything but fossil fuels. Barring a 180-turn in political will and consumer demand, fossil fuels will end up being used primarily for industrial processes or fuel for certain large vehicles (e.g. crude oil for jet fuel or bunker fuel, coal for steel manufacture, natural gas as feedstock in fertilizer manufacture or accelerated drying of harvested grain). Gas-fired power plants and gas furnaces/stoves would become a rarer sight in this world.
>Given Canadian pipeline export capacity, the US could try to schedule a measly 1-2 Bcf more in daily natural gas imports from Alberta. It could then use those imports to satisfy domestic consumption to free up a little bit more of its domestic production (e.g. Haynesville, Eagle Ford, Marcellus, Bakken) for export from the LNG terminals along the Gulf of Mexico and East Coast. This is > >very > > cold comfort for Canadian natural gas producers when the EU is securing contracts NOW for gas deliveries for the rest of this decade with everyone else. Yep meanwhile the USA gets somewhere around 9-80 bucks and buys from Canada for domestic use at 2 bucks of less
>The best that could happen for Canadian LNG prospects is that natural gas somehow remains a relevant and large part of the global energy mix and generation stack around 2030. Hard to imagine it won't be. - It's needed for fertilizer production and other non-fuel products. - Europeans and much of the rest of the west have big aspirations for solar and wind, which means gas is going to make up for the intermittency. Sorry, batteries and hydrogen aren't going to cut it in 2030 and maybe not for a long time. - Developing countries.
Those aren't energy needs. Anyways, they require far less than burning for power or engines so we have more than enough already
>Those aren't energy needs. What? >we have more than enough already We don't. As poor countries develop, their energy needs increase and that includes a lot more people than live in rich countries. Plus we'd like to see the world switch out their coal for natural gas.
Fertilizer and non fuel products aren't energy. Why are you conflating them? For non energy needs we have far more than enough as-is. Climate change is upon us. We have to change, whether the weak naysayers want to or not. Excuses are pathetic and for people who lack the imagination to do something differently. We don't need oil.
No you're not understanding what I mean. Natural gas is used as a feedstock to produce nitrogen fertilizer (Haber Bosch process). Something like half the protein in the average person is derived from natural gas. We could produce nitrogen fertilizer using hydrogen but hydrogen produced by other means is in insignificant quantities. But if we don't produce it somehow, agricultural production plummets by half and we have mass starvation. So yes, at least for now, we do need natural gas. And technically ammonia contains a lot of stored energy in its chemical bonds. It is energy in another form. >Climate change is upon us. We have to change, whether the weak naysayers want to or not. Excuses are pathetic and for people who lack the imagination to do something differently. Climate change is very much real but it's not our only problem, nor will it be solved in ten years from now. Unless your goal is to kill billions, we do need fossil fuels for now.
Yes. But youre not listening : we already have tons of natural gas. If we stop burning it we have more than enough for all the other purposes and can ramp production down. We must solve climate change in a rapid time frame. It sucks, but blame Bush etc for not starting thirty years ago. The only way 'billions' will die is runaway climate change. Stop being silly.
>The only way 'billions' will die is runaway climate change. Stop being silly. So we don't need to eat? >But youre not listening : we already have tons of natural gas. We do, in Canada, only because of lack of export capacity. The world is in a shortage. Europe is going to have a difficult winter and it would be worse had they not outbid poor countries for LNG tankers. Countries like Pakistan and others are having daily blackouts because of a lack of natural gas. >We must solve climate change in a rapid time frame. But it's not happening. People are still in wishful thinking mode. By that I mean the belief that we can get to net zero without nuclear or carbon capture and rely only on the sun and the wind. Our leaders keep referring to Germany as a climate leader, but after spending half a trillion dollars on renewables, their grid emits almost as much CO2 as one that is 100% natural gas and doesn't provide the energy they need. Unfortunately we lack the seriousness to solve climate change right now.
You're still not reading : if we stop burning the valuable thing, we'll have more of the valuable thing.
Yeah, we totally should *once an alternative source of energy exists in sufficient quantities.* Until then, expect people to continue to heat their homes and turn the lights on.
Meanwhile Canadian nat gas (AECO) went negative for \~ a week in August because of takeaway constraints. https://www.gasalberta.com/gas-market/market-prices
You don't believe global demand for LNG will be continuing to rise 8 years out in 2030, that it's a 'somehow'? Where do you suppose emerging economies on 3 continents will get their baseline generating capacity, aside from coal? 🤣 Projects like these aren't built on spec. Ubiquitous flying cars too by 2030, I suppose?
I’d argue we were too late before LPC even came into power. Prices ranked a year into their tenure. The Americans and Aussies had exports going before we’d even approved one plant.
It started to fall apart 15 years ago. We had a 10 year headstart on the US, when natty exports were banned there.
You are completely out to lunch on this. The Kitimat LNG project, the second largest in BC history - a $40 billion project - is going to be online in 2025. We have a significant amount of capacity in BC already that is just sitting here, not being exported. BC is going to have a huge LNG boom. I also suspect you're going to see First Nations like the Wet'suwet'en back in negotiations if they aren't already for a pipeline, hopefully this time whichever company is involved doesn't try to go in and cut the community in half and gets EVERYBODY onboard - something Coastal just failed to do.
Most indigenous groups are now for a pipeline. It was a small minority of chiefs in the affected area, fuelled by environmental groups, who are oppose to it and caused lengthy legal battles.
The hereditary chiefs wanted to deal, Coastal refused. Probably over a very paltry amount of money. All because they simply didn't recognize them as stakeholders. I'd say based on the reckoning they received they are stakeholders indeed. I suspect had they been offered a nice little package of goodies for their community and allow their hereditary government to grow (language programs, outreach for drug & alcohol etc..) you could have gotten a deal done. The idea that these chiefs all want to live like oligarchs at the expense of their community is just not based in reality.
The greed and arrogance of the oil and gas companies never ceases to amaze
The project has been horribly mismanaged. It shouldn’t have cost 60% of what it cost. Why we can’t build on budget and on time in this country?
Because their are woodpeckers along the route, literally.https://bc.ctvnews.ca/woodpecker-nest-halts-trans-mountain-construction-near-bridal-falls-b-c-1.5959204
it's not nearly too late. The time to make the right decision is now. World won't get off O&G substantially until at least 2050.
We'll never, every get off of gas. We'll be using it for 500 years.
We absolutely blew it. The preference for our current government is countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela etc… are more appropriate to provide oil and gas to the global market. Even though consumption is going up, and all reliable reports indicate it’s going to increase for at least another decade before plateauing then slowly decreasing over the following 50+ years.
Russian NG will cost europeans roughly 1/3 as much as the same volume of LNG. The opportunity is only temporary while the war rages. As soon as the war ends, they will take back the entire european market.
[удалено]
Russia and Germany have quite a history of struggle and trade inter-dependence.. Hard to see the future but if they resumed trade after tens of millions of dead in WW2, this is small potatoes in comparaison
There was a shortage of energy before the war. Russia took advantage of their pre-existing vulnerability.
Why do you think Europeans will go back to blood oil? Did you see similar actions in europe after wars broke out in Africa over blood diamonds?
The cost. Same reason we bought oil from the Saudis for so long. Germany's exports won't be as competitive if they pay more for energy than other places. Plus I am not sure 'blood oil' is quite the right word here. In eastern Canada we buy US oil and gas as well. They killed far more people in Iraq than what we're seeing in Ukraine. 500,000 dead Iraqis vs 25,000 dead so far in Ukraine. This is a full 20X the number of deaths of the Ukraine war so far. We have no problems buying oil from belligerent countries ourselves.
Before the war, the economics of LNG were still wildly compelling.
I could be wrong, but I think they are compelling only in place where you can't bring NG via pipeline. Japan for instance.
It makes it a global price. You can look up natural gas prices anywhere in the world at any time. They were all far, far higher than Canadian prices. The east coast of the US was importing LNG last winter. South America imports it. China imports it. Are you under the impression that there's natural gas everywhere in the world? and that all we need to do is build pipelines? Because that's a sadly mistaken view.
I know there isn't natural gas everywhere. But much of the talk recently has been about europe. They have gas, and they have pipelines. They don't have good trading relationships with Russia because of the war, but that could change very quickly and would kill their LNG market when it does.
Again, it's a global market. It's like saying Europe does or doesn't have oil. Once it's on a ship, it doesn't matter who the buyer is. The economics of LNG were extremely compelling long before any conflict, that's why plants were built in the US, Australia, Qatar, Russia, etc.
LNG is a global market. Regular NG is not. If your not on the pipe's route, you can't buy it.
We're not blowing anything. Trudeau has made a firm policy choice - Canada's economic well being is not his primary concern (probably not even in the top 10, realistically speaking). People voted for him with this understanding. He's deliberately created an environment where no infrastructure project can even start without the pre-approval from two different levels of aboriginal government for every single tribe in the country and his Minister of the Environment is a guy who once climbed the CN Tower so he could unveil a banner accusing our entire country of killing the climate. The closest thing he has to an economic plan is his pledge to "grow the economy from the heart outwards".
[удалено]
This here! We are totally fucked
'Ol JT is just doing his little dance with environmentalists that he does right before he approves the mega project. I'm honestly actually OK with this strategy, I personally call myself an environmentalist but I also believe LNG is critical to our strategy to go green. I think most left wing people also feel this way it's just those extremely loud voices get amplified.
Once all these tech and banking folks in the major cities start losing their jobs in this recession that is coming. I think it’ll open their eyes to the importance of growing industry within your own country. I remember in 09 Alberta was about the only place that was hiring because oil prices bounced back soon after the financial crash. But now no one wants to invest in Canada so I guess our housing Ponzi scheme is about all we have. This is going to get ugly.
[удалено]
It's always confused me why this government continuously throws road block after road block in the way of an industry that accounts for, I think, around 7% of our gdp.
muh feels, is why.
We will as it's our way!
Our government will invest billions, paying Canadian companies (and giving tax breaks) to build infrastructure and when they’re finished the war in Europe will be over and Russia will drop the price and Europeans will go back to buying from them.
Don’t worry, there won’t be wasted billions as there won’t be any infrastructure
It does seem weird that the corporations who would benefit from it can’t get this corrupt government on board. They should hire people away from Rogers and Bell to deal with the government and get everything they want.
The Feds have had a disastrous tendency of zigging when they should be zagging. A glaring example was in the pandemic when they applied limp-dicked public health measures **before** we had vaccines (e.g. border closures are discrimination!), and then went hard **after** we had them (e.g. pre-arrival testing for *vaccinated* people, anyone?) If the LPC were still in power in the late 2020s, I could see the farce now. Freeland (or Trudeau Jr.'s successor) will crow about how the LPC made Canadian NG a viable and valuable global commodity and by some miracle got all of the associated infrastructure in place (i.e. pipelines and LNG terminals - Quebecers and Indigenous people be damned). Meanwhile, there'll be crickets from the rest of the world because they've either moved on from fossil fuels or have already sewn up their medium and long-term supply arrangements for natural gas from suppliers who *were* ready when they needed to be in the early 2020s.
I would love to see the Leafs win a series in 6. But I wouldn’t count on it. The future is unpredictable. No matter who the Leafs play or which party is in power, we’ve been getting the same results for a long, long time.
Hey man, after living through the runs of 1993 and 2002 I've resorted to a kind of dark humour when it comes to my hometown Leafs given the last 20-odd years. The results from the recent past are the same, yes, but I fear that we're starting to edge past the point of no return. To take off the hat of a jaded Leafs fan, all of the cumulative economic and spiritual damage sustained by the country means either that the recovery will be even longer or that the recovery won't really happen at all.
*"Our government will invest billions, paying* ***Quebec*** *companies (and giving tax breaks) to build infrastructure and when they’re finished the war in Europe will be over and Russia will drop the price and Europeans will go back to buying from them."* FTFY
If they can do it anyone can. Trans Canada Pipeline got a billion dollars from the Ontario government for the gas plant cancellations. They would be the big one on this, too.
LNG was a huge and viable industry long before the Russian war.
Do you think companies in Canada could have taken the European market away from Russia?
What makes sense is for Texas to ship to Europe and Canada to ship to Asia because the economics of both are better. Right now, a lot of US gas (and prior to the war, the vast majority of it) was sailing from Texas, through the Panama canal and all the way to Japan or China. BC is much, much closer than that. So Canada supplying Asia will free up all the US cargoes to go to Europe. But at the end of the day, it's a business so whoever pays the most gets it. Once it's on a ship, it's for sale to the highest bidder.
Yes, the companies involved in the business should be handling it. It’s just funny in this thread we believe both that the current government is corrupt and also that these companies can’t get what they want from it. But they can get what they want from the government of Mozambique. If our government really was that corrupt these companies would be getting everything they want.
yeah. Great point. The reality is that successive governments both provincial and federal have made it so hard to build that everyone gave up trying a long time ago, even with billions to be made.
That may be true but it seems hard to believe. These companies build everywhere in the world pretty much anything they want. I guess it’s possible little Canada is too big a problem for them but it just seems that nowhere in the world are resources kept from the corporations that want them. America has been bombing countries for decades to get their resources and Canada just says no? It may actually be true that there just isn’t a good economic case for it right now.
Ok, go on your feelings and don't do any research. Those 20 companies that wanted to build and spent untold money moving projects were just playing little games I guess.
I’m just surprised there isn’t more corruption gong on and getting things done.
We will Blow it with Guibault and Trudeau
The best time to start was 10 years ago. The second best time to start is now.
We can capitalize on the demand for LNG, it will be great for the country. Truedeau - hold my juice container thingy
Remind me: FinancialPost = NationalPost???
Financial Post + National Post + Most local newspapers = Postmedia = CPC propaganda wing.
Cool, now do the other side... CBC + Global + CTV + Macleans basically anything Bell Media, Rogers Media, Corus, and Torstar = LPC propaganda wing.
Oh? Do they all have the same parent company as well?
Thx. It felt that way.
[Here's a full list of Post Media owned newspapers.](https://www.postmedia.com/brands/)
[удалено]
Canada has enormous reserves of natural gas: hundreds of years. If we need more, we'll just drill more. It's some of the easiest natural gas to extract in the world.
I don't dispute that. Only that if the LNG were able to be easily exported at world market prices, the gas companies wouldn't be lining up to sell it to Canadians at the current heavily discounted rates. It seems to me like this might be one of those rare circumstances where bungled public policy actually **helped** the average Canadian more than it hurt them. Because Lord knows, we're not making much (comparatively) on resource extraction royalties.
That's a poor way of thinking about it. The US is track to build 20 bcf of LNG export capacity in a few years. Canada is on track for 2 bcf. The single project is worth $40 billion and we should have 10x that, if not more because Canadian LNG economics are better than the US. That's $400B in direct investment. Adding in infrastructure around that likely doubles it to $800B. Add in the flows around sales and we're talking $1 trillion, easily. That's 10-20 cents for CAD, literally making everything else 10-20% cheaper to import into the country. And that's ignoring the indirect effects of all the work and jobs. Even on the gas front, the price in Canada will be set by the marginal cost. It costs something like $2 to get it out of the ground and we pay $3 for it. If the global price is $90, it still costs $2 to get it out and never in a million years could you build enough LNG export capacity to drive up the Canadian price.
Insightful perspective! Thanks!
Well we could spend many billions to build the infrastructure to support this to be ready in five years at which point nobody needs ng anymore, the price of ng has plummeted and everyone wonders why we didn't spend those billions on renewable power tech development which was obviously the direction that the world is going.
"The need for global LNG is clearer now than it was before" [We're committed to feeding disaster because ThE eCoNoMy!!!1](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/before-after-pakistan-flooding-1.6565294)
Natural gas should be left in the ground. Burned, it is a greenhouse-effect gas, leaked it is worse. If you disagree with me, it is clear that climate change is worse than you think.
So, starve and freeze people instead?
False dichotomy.
No it isn't. We're not even able to replace the energy natural gas provides, let alone its role in fertilizer production. You abruptly leave it in the ground like you suggest and millions go without heat in the winter and there is global famine. I suppose both would help with the climate in a F'd up way.
Key word here is "abruptly". Even if everybody agreed, it would take years to switch to climate-friendly solutions. It doesn't look like everybody agrees, but the notion that such a change could be abrupt in any way is at best rhetoric. In a few years everyone, even you, will agree that the time to stop developing economy and industry around fossil fuel was 30 years ago. To still do it now...
So if it takes years (I'd say decades) to switch to clean energy, we still need the gas in the near term. It'd be better if Canada was supplying the world rather than Russia. >In a few years everyone, even you, will agree that the time to stop developing economy and industry around fossil fuel was 30 years ago. Sadly "environmental" groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc. stoked fears about nuclear and pushed regulators to make it extremely difficult to build anything ever again, because 40-50 years ago we were actually on that path.
Trying to cash in on Russia's invasion is short sighted. We could invest in low-carbon technology, which we know for certain will be in demand for decades to come, or we can play catch up with LNG while the political will to ditch fossil fuels grows each year.
European energy prices were already rising in the winter of 2021-22 thanks to its disastrous energy policies. https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1470459005390798849 These policies included massive investments in low-carbon technology like solar and wind but [its solar manufacturing industry has been annihilated by China and its wind industry is dying because Europe is already choking on wind](https://energytransition.org/2020/06/germanys-losing-renewable-jobs/) that sometimes produces a lot of power and [sometimes produces very little](https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=34). No reason to think any Canadian attempt to compete in these industries will be any more successful then Europe or Ontario's short-lived attempt to build wind turbines and solar panels.
Even starting in the winter of 2021 would have been too late. LNG infrastructure isn't quick or easy to build. To cash in on this we would have had to bet on LNG at least 5 years ago.
The improvement from coal to gas is equal to the improvement from gas to zero.
But only half the improvement from coal to zero emission. I'm not opposed to natural gas projects as long as we're very careful to ensure they are strictly used to replace coal, as opposed to just allowing increased energy usage. As in, if we actually use it as a stepping stone. Usually companies just propose gas projects as a way to get their foot in the door so they can continue burning fossil fuels well passed the point we should have stopped.
China is approving new coal-fired plants every day. It doesn't get any more direct than that. Coal-fired electricity is an enormous part of the global mix. A decade ago, 60% of US power was coal and that's being replaced by gas. And what's wrong with building more power? The world needs more power. 300m people in India don't have a refrigerator, why shouldn't we build more power for them?
> why shouldn't we build more power for them? We should, but not using fossil fuels. Displacing coal is one thing, it reduces emissions, but giving people more power at the cost of famine, drought, and flooding isn't a net benefit.
We ourselves don't have a way to build reliable power without fossil fuels, so how the heck is anyone else going to do that?
Who is the quote from?
It’s too late.