New report casts doubt on potential revival of Quebec LNG project
Reviving a liquefied natural gas export project in Quebec's Saguenay region would be costly and likely unprofitable, a shareholder advocacy group says, as economic threats from the U.S. rekindle interest across the country in new pipelines.
Demand for LNG in Europe dropped by 18 per cent between 2022 and 2024, and Canadian exports would have a hard time competing in Asian markets, says advocacy group Investors for Paris Compliance.
'Investing in infrastructure that will be very expensive and likely won't be profitable will weaken our economy rather than strengthen it,' Renaud Gignac, an economist and senior adviser for the group, said in an interview.
In a report published Thursday, Gignac notes LNG production is expected to grow by 40 per cent from 2024 to 2028, driven by projects in the United States and Qatar, and demand is not expected to keep pace.
Story continues below advertisement
'This is significant,' Gignac said …. What this means is that the profitability of any new project is compromised because we risk seeing downward pressure on prices.'
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
A project to transport natural gas from Western Canada to an export terminal in Quebec's Saguenay region was cancelled in 2021 due to environmental risks and public opposition. But Quebec Premier François Legault has recently opened the door to pipeline development in the province, saying Quebecers recognize the importance of reducing the country's dependence on energy exports to the U.S.
The advocacy group says inflation could balloon the project's price tag to more than $33 billion, and public money would likely be required.
'These are considerable investments that mobilize public capital and labour as well,' said Gignac, a climate policy analyst. 'When you direct resources to this type of project, you make choices, and we believe there are options that could be more profitable in the long term, for both public and private investors.'
U.S. President Donald Trump's threats to impose punishing tariffs on Canadian exports have ignited public debate on the utility of a trans-Canadian pipeline to ship oil or gas overseas. Prime Minister Mark Carney and Quebec's Legault are among those who've chimed in on re-evaluating pipeline projects.
'As initial panic subsides following the Trump administration's tariff threats, a calmer analysis of the East Coast LNG projects show that they carry significant risks for potential investors and taxpayers,' says the report.
Story continues below advertisement
The analysis did not address the potential revival of an west-east oil pipeline project like Energy East, abandoned by TransCanada in 2017, which would have crossed through Quebec to New Brunswick. But Gignac says the conclusions of such an analysis would be similar.
'There is an imminent forecast of peak demand,' he said.
Gignac considers reviving pipeline projects to be 'a false solution' to making the Canadian economy more resilient.
The group said there are better ways to stimulate the Canadian economy, including integrating provincial electricity grids and mining critical minerals, which are key for the electrification of transportation and will be needed elsewhere in energy transition.
His group's support for mining, however, puts the association at odds with some environmentalists. 'Mining is certainly not without environmental impact,' Gignac said. 'So we will also have to look at the most responsible ways to extract these minerals and bring them to market.'
The report also identifies the federal government's plans to build a high-speed train linking Quebec City, Montreal, and Toronto as a promising project.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Calgary Herald
15 minutes ago
- Calgary Herald
Chris Selley: Earth to Liberals — First Nations are not an anti-development monolith
Article content Sean Fraser — the federal Liberals' supposed master communicator who did a bad job as immigration minister, and then a bad job as housing minister, and then said he wasn't running again to spend time with his family, and then opportunistically changed his mind and was rewarded with the justice and attorney general portfolio — laid his first dog's egg of the Mark Carney era this week. Article content Article content Fraser said Indigenous groups don't have a 'complete veto' over natural-resource projects or any other government decisions — but that wasn't the turd in question, because it was absolutely true. Article content Article content The turd came later, apparently after getting his ears boxed by Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse: Fraser disavowed his entirely truthful statement. Article content 'I think even accepting the premise of the question that was put to me (about a 'veto') really made people feel like there may be an attempt by the government to work unilaterally, not in partnership (with First Nations),' Fraser told reporters in a public apology. Article content 'Despite innocent intentions, I think my comments actually caused hurt and potentially eroded a very precarious trust that has been built up over many years to respect the rights of Indigenous people in this country,' he said. Article content Article content Coming up on 500 years since Jacques Cartier first set foot here and named it Canada, and 150-plus years after the Crown concluded the first treaties with First Nations, and with President Donald Trump suddenly bringing our crippling dependence on the United States into very sharp focus, if we can't even speak the plain truth to each other in plain language, we might be in even bigger trouble than we realized. Article content Article content But I think we can speak the plain truth to each other in plain language, so long as we rightly marginalize fringe and unreasonable voices. While apologizing for speaking the truth, Fraser also accurately pointed to 'a frankly dangerous trope that paints a false picture of Indigenous peoples as being anti-development.' Article content The 2021 Census recorded 1.8 million Indigenous Canadians — five per cent of the Canadian population, give or take. No one would ascribe monolithic opinions like 'supports/doesn't support resource development' to any other ethnic five per cent of the Canadian population. Yet most Canadian media reliably frame these issues as 'First Nations versus the colonialist menace.'
Calgary Herald
16 minutes ago
- Calgary Herald
'Buy Canadian': Here are 6 of the best homegrown condiment brands
Article content Article content In 2020, as people across Canada found themselves managing three meals a day within four walls, Jannine Rane and Anush Sachdeva were also in the throes of the 'what's for dinner' dilemma. Article content 'We really were just trying to figure out a way where we could have that variety, which is the reality of how most people eat today. (It's) based on wanting a mix of cultures, wanting that convenience, but then also the reality of what's in the fridge at 6:23 on a Tuesday,' says Rane, co-founder and CEO of Zing Pantry Shortcuts in Toronto. Article content The average Canadian knows seven recipes, she adds, which is in stark contrast to our growing appetite for global flavours. According to Canadian Grocer, Korean, Japanese, Filipino and Thai cuisines are driving 24 per cent growth in the multicultural food category. Article content 'How we want to eat and how we eat — there was no real overlap there. So that was the pain point. How do we eat what we want without having to spend hours in the kitchen? And the inspiration was really restaurants,' says Rane. 'How does a restaurant get a plate of dinner from the kitchen to your table in 20 minutes? The secret sauce is the secret sauce, quite literally.' Article content Article content Rane and Sachdeva co-founded Zing with their friend Kiran Singh, a chef, to bottle sauces that brought flavour 'without compromising on quality or health. And doing it in a way that is also an homage to Canada and reflects the communities we live in.' Article content Over the past five years, they've partnered with Canadian chefs and food creators to develop a range of condiments, including Vincent Ng's Mala Savoury Chili Salt, Pay Chen's Sacha-ish Chili Miso Condiment and Christine Flynn's Buzz Hot Honey. Article content They make their products in a Mississauga facility and manage all aspects of the business in-house. Rane says that Zing built its business with independent grocers, small boutiques and coffee shops willing to take a chance on something new. It's now available at more than 700 retailers nationwide, including Metro, Whole Foods Market and Fortinos. Article content Article content Zing's top seller is one of its original products, Hakka-ish Chili Crisp. It's been so popular that there's now a Garlic Chili Crunch version. In 2020, Zing was one of a handful of companies in Canada making chili crisp. People often asked Rane what it was — but no longer, which she sees as evidence of how much more frequently people seek out these flavours. Article content According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, chili sauces, such as chili crisp, are seeing the greatest growth in the 'cooking and table sauce' segment, the largest sauce category. Article content Many people have advised Zing to move its operations to the United States, but Rane has resisted each time. She says running a Canadian small business in a consolidated industry and an uncertain economy isn't easy, but her absolute belief in their work keeps her going. Article content 'We took a leap of faith,' says Rane. 'There was no one doing what we were doing at the time. We're that example for folks that are starting now. So, I hope it's the beginning of a wave of more Canadians being excited and proud of what we have to offer and just doing it — because I think we can and should.'
Global News
2 hours ago
- Global News
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Story continues below advertisement Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. He federalized part of California's National Guard under what is known as Title 10 authority, which places him, not the governor, atop the chain of command, according to Newsom's office. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. Story continues below advertisement But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. Story continues below advertisement George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Story continues below advertisement Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'
