Canadian Natural Gas

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Torture

The problem with LNG is that, yes, it can help in the short term, but it doesn't get us as far as we need to go to decarbonize. Building out LNG infrastructure can displace emissions from coal, but it also likely locks in a certain level of carbon emissions or you have stranded assets.





https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...blem-1.6480377


Abstract from the paper:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ac71ba

So if you have zero faith in society displacing coal or at least stopping building new coal then investment in LNG makes sense.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Torture

The problem with LNG is that, yes, it can help in the short term, but it doesn't get us as far as we need to go to decarbonize. Building out LNG infrastructure can displace emissions from coal, but it also likely locks in a certain level of carbon emissions or you have stranded assets.

The problem is only Canada believed in this. Qatar, Australia and USA all massively invested in LNG export infrastructure in the last 15 years and are now reaping the rewards; over a hundred billion dollars in revenue from a world hungry for NG.

And they continue to expand:

China's national oil majors are in advanced talks with Qatar to invest in the North Field East expansion of the world's largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) project and buy the fuel under long-term contracts, three people with knowledge of the matter said.

The North Field Expansion includes six LNG trains that will ramp up Qatar's liquefaction capacity from 77 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) to 126 mtpa by 2027, consolidating its status as the world's largest producer.

By comparison, the first phase of LNG Canada will only have a capacity of about 13 million tonnes per year.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ke-2022-06-17/

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The problem is only Canada believed in this. Qatar, Australia and USA all massively invested in LNG export infrastructure in the last 15 years and are now reaping the rewards; over a hundred billion dollars in revenue from a world hungry for NG.

And they continue to expand:


By comparison, the first phase of LNG Canada will only have a capacity of about 13 million tonnes per year.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ke-2022-06-17/

Yup.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by woob

Your optimism that the provinces would work together for their own greater good is admirable.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba are doing exactly this, with SaskPower importing up to 10% of the provinces needs from a jurisdiction that produces 100% renewable power.
Different geographic challenges for Alberta getting power from BC, but definitely something that can be done.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Well Ontario is shutting down a nuclear power plant in the next few and having to bring on a lot more natural gas in the near future. So buckos for us.

Are we allowed do do this? I was chatting with some in the know who chuckled about the squashing of energy east. According to him, the real reason energy east was squashed was being canada would potentially violate NATO rules by connecting the east and the west via pipelines because canada would potentially become energy self sufficient. Not because of whatever drivel reason they used.


Countries are not allowed to be energy self sufficient under NATO rules because if a war ever broke out, they could sustain the war longer and embargoes would be less effective of a tactic in the event of war. That's supposedly the real reason why Canada east imports oil vs uses Alberta oil sands.


I'm unsure of whether this is true, but the logic kinda makes sense and he does On occasion run across and deal with the legality stuff for energy project negotiations and regulations.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Are we allowed do do this? I was chatting with some in the know who chuckled about the squashing of energy east. According to him, the real reason energy east was squashed was being canada would potentially violate NATO rules by connecting the east and the west via pipelines because canada would potentially become energy self sufficient. Not because of whatever drivel reason they used.


Countries are not allowed to be energy self sufficient under NATO rules because if a war ever broke out, they could sustain the war longer and embargoes would be less effective of a tactic in the event of war. That's supposedly the real reason why Canada east imports oil vs uses Alberta oil sands.


I'm unsure of whether this is true, but the logic kinda makes sense and he does On occasion run across and deal with the legality stuff for energy project negotiations and regulations.

I dont think NATO has any rules designed to make its members less effective at fighting wars...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Are we allowed do do this? I was chatting with some in the know who chuckled about the squashing of energy east. According to him, the real reason energy east was squashed was being canada would potentially violate NATO rules by connecting the east and the west via pipelines because canada would potentially become energy self sufficient. Not because of whatever drivel reason they used.


Countries are not allowed to be energy self sufficient under NATO rules because if a war ever broke out, they could sustain the war longer and embargoes would be less effective of a tactic in the event of war. That's supposedly the real reason why Canada east imports oil vs uses Alberta oil sands.


I'm unsure of whether this is true, but the logic kinda makes sense and he does On occasion run across and deal with the legality stuff for energy project negotiations and regulations.

This sounds false when the more obvious answer of it’s cheaper to ship north south than east west exists

[chemgear]

I am sure we could have helped. But fire up those coal plants!

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/19/energ...ntl/index.html

Germany to fire up coal stations as Russia squeezes gas supply

Germany must reduce natural gas consumption and increase the burning of coal in order to help fill gas storage facilities for next winter, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck announced Sunday as the country moves away from reduced Russian gas supplies.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I am sure we could have helped. But fire up those coal plants!

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/19/energ...ntl/index.html

Germany to fire up coal stations as Russia squeezes gas supply

Germany must reduce natural gas consumption and increase the burning of coal in order to help fill gas storage facilities for next winter, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck announced Sunday as the country moves away from reduced Russian gas supplies.

The odds that any company/country was going to build out boatloads of infrastructure and just have unused production sitting there ready to go in the event of a war feels off to me.

Even if we built whatever you think we should have built - would any company just be sitting there ready to go in months to get a bunch of uncommitted LNG out to Germany? I assume they'd just produce what they could sell and would require tons of extra funding to be able to produce more to send to Germany.

[Azure]

Not clear enough for people yet? Canada would easily provide Europe with all the LNG they need, but instead they are not turning back to coal.

Great job Canada. Tell me again how much we care so much about the environment.

As for whatever Pete is talking about, worldwide demand is growing, so we'd have no problem selling everything we can produce.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not clear enough for people yet? Canada would easily provide Europe with all the LNG they need, but instead they are not turning back to coal.

Great job Canada. Tell me again how much we care so much about the environment.

As for whatever Pete is talking about, worldwide demand is growing, so we'd have no problem selling everything we can produce.

Was it regulatory challenges that killed the other two LNG plants or Investment decisions. I don’t remember anymore

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

Was it regulatory challenges that killed the other two LNG plants or Investment decisions. I don’t remember anymore

May be a combination of both? With the investment decisions influenced by seeing Qatar, Australia and recently the US getting their export terminals online, potentially only leaving modest crumbs for Canada.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The odds that any company/country was going to build out boatloads of infrastructure and just have unused production sitting there ready to go in the event of a war feels off to me.

Even if we built whatever you think we should have built - would any company just be sitting there ready to go in months to get a bunch of uncommitted LNG out to Germany? I assume they'd just produce what they could sell and would require tons of extra funding to be able to produce more to send to Germany.

The Americans seem to have some spare capacity. Though it could be that they are playing the Asian and European markets against one another for the best terms, Europe especially desperate for NG to stockpile for winter.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1539174314641072128

[Erick Estrada]

It's not like the US is selling BMW's to Canada's Mitsubishi's. We just can't get out of our own way. Over the last decade we have added one single LNG export facility (under construction in BC) while in the same time the US has built 7 with another 5 under construction.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not clear enough for people yet? Canada would easily provide Europe with all the LNG they need, but instead they are not turning back to coal.

Great job Canada. Tell me again how much we care so much about the environment.

As for whatever Pete is talking about, worldwide demand is growing, so we'd have no problem selling everything we can produce.

Yes - but isn't this similar to the oil situation now. We can sell whatever we can produce at sky high prices, but we didn't have endless production available to go in a situation like this and very few companies are willing to increase production right now. Would LNG be different? That we'd just have all this LNG ready to go when the demand suddenly appears?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Yes - but isn't this similar to the oil situation now. We can sell whatever we can produce at sky high prices, but we didn't have endless production available to go in a situation like this and very few companies are willing to increase production right now. Would LNG be different? That we'd just have all this LNG ready to go when the demand suddenly appears?

Can you blame them?

Build the facilities and the production increases will happily follow

[Monahammer]

We should definitely have more LNG facilities- but now it might truly be too late for that boat.

Instead, we should now focus on building export capacity for Ammonia. We also need buy in from the east coast. Our western coast infrastructure will only long term service the asian markets (Japan is the fastest on the uptake right now...) A terminal in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia would open us for easier European export but right now we are beholden to the gulf for exports to Europe.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's not like the US is selling BMW's to Canada's Mitsubishi's. We just can't get out of our own way. Over the last decade we have added one single LNG export facility (under construction in BC) while in the same time the US has built 7 with another 5 under construction.

We've been terrible about shooting ourselves in the foot with LNG but the US does have one major advantage over Canada when it comes to exporting to Europe. Their facilities are on the Gulf Coast and relatively close to the product. We would need to build a pipeline across the country and export facilities on the East Coast or Gulf of St Lawrence which would take major investment. (and political capital)

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Can you blame them?

Build the facilities and the production increases will happily follow

No - but doesn't it follow the same logic would apply to LNG and we'd be selling whatever we produced and wouldn't just gluts of it ready to go to send to Germany. Whatever we sent to Germany would come from something we had previously shipped to China or whoever was buying it before.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

We should definitely have more LNG facilities- but now it might truly be too late for that boat.

Instead, we should now focus on building export capacity for Ammonia. We also need buy in from the east coast. Our western coast infrastructure will only long term service the asian markets (Japan is the fastest on the uptake right now...) A terminal in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia would open us for easier European export but right now we are beholden to the gulf for exports to Europe.

What would we export? Eastern Canada already imports for it's needs from the US. So you'd be building a pipeline for gas to the east coast, and I'm not sure that makes much sense when the Asian markets are so big. I know there are challenges going west, but that's the best choice. If the NWT ever becomes viable, maybe an export terminal up there, or the oft-discussed Churchill terminal.



https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-an...d-ontario.html