Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

The history of liquefied natural gas in Canada is littered with multibillion-dollar schemes that churn through years of development but eventually founder when backers realize a project’s economics don’t add up.

Recent examples are big and small.

In March, Chevron abandoned plans for Kitimat LNG in northwestern British Columbia. In July, Pieridae, a Calgary startup, said cost pressures forced it to shelve an LNG proposal in Nova Scotia.

Story continues below advertisement

Failing to attract billions of dollars from investors to build an LNG plant is typical, in Canada and elsewhere. The projects are complicated, the global market is intensely competitive and the outlook for future demand is modest.

In some ways, the story of Énergie Saguenay, a proposed $9-billion export plant north of Quebec City that would have shipped Alberta gas overseas, is the same. Backed by GNL Québec, another startup, it was struggling to drum up capital.

What’s different is, on July 21, the Quebec government rejected the plan.

The project, Quebec’s Environment Minister said at a press conference in Saguenay, “has more disadvantages than advantages.”

The political-regulatory rejection – rather than the quiet end of a plan because of a lack of money – highlights the environmental negatives of LNG.

The oil industry often touts Canada’s natural gas exports as good for the environment, on the theory they will displace coal burned for electricity in other countries. Royal Dutch Shell claimed this in 2018, when it undertook construction of Canada’s only LNG plant, in northwestern B.C., saying the project “will be critical as the world transitions to a lower carbon energy system.”

What oil and gas companies do not say is whether LNG exports simply perpetuate the burning of fossil fuels and slow the necessary jump to renewable energy, as urged by the International Energy Agency.

Story continues below advertisement

The thesis also ignores major shifts in the international market. In July, Japan said it aims to more than double its use of renewable energy in power generation, to 38 per cent, by 2030. The target is far higher than Japan’s previous 2030 goal of 22 per cent.

GNL Québec made the same claims as Shell. It said Énergie Saguenay would help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, as its gas displaced coal.

Quebec’s environmental review did not come to the same conclusion. In March, the review found that the project’s benefits would not outweigh the negatives. It also questioned whether the claim of Canadian gas displacing coal elsewhere was real.

What is certain is Canadian GHG emissions would have shot higher had the project proceeded. The review said it would produce 7.9 megatonnes of annual emissions, from the drilling, the pipeline to move the gas and the plant to export it. This rivals the emissions from a large oil sands mine and bitumen upgrader.

Over all, Énergie Saguenay would have increased Canada’s total emissions by 1.1 per cent – the opposite direction of where they need to go. (The review estimated further annual emissions, beyond Canada’s borders, of 37.6 megatonnes from shipping the gas and burning it overseas.)

The regulatory rejection sharpens focus on tough decisions that will face Canada, and the world, in the years ahead.

Story continues below advertisement

Canada has for years benefited from its oil and gas industry. The sector’s contribution to economic growth has slowed since the mid-2010s oil price crash, but the business of fossil fuels – the source of many thousands of well-paid jobs – has been good for Canada’s bottom line.

To say no to potential money on the table comes with a cost. But to say yes, as the review in Quebec showed, also comes with a considerable cost. These are not easy decisions. But given the worsening spectre of climate heating – and the call from the IEA to stop investing in new oil and gas production – it is becoming more difficult for fossil fuels to win the argument based on economic growth potential alone.

Oil and gas greatly increased Canada’s wealth over the past two decades. LNG has been touted by industry and some governments as another windfall to come, one that could even help reduce global emissions. But the veracity of that promise, and the ever-increasing risks brought by climate heating, are rapidly changing the calculus.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies