Source: Natural Resources Canada, Government of Canada
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/natural-gas/5683

Canadian LNG Projects
​
Context

Much has changed in the North American liquefied natural gas (LNG) market in the past decade. Throughout the early to mid-2000’s, concerns over decreasing conventional supplies of domestic natural gas led to bullish predictions about future LNG demand in North America, resulting in an investment boom to build new LNG import facilities.

Around 2008, dramatic changes in the North American natural gas market began, driven by  surging U.S. unconventional natural gas production (mostly from shale gas). This changed the outlook for LNG imports. Natural gas production increased, North American prices fell significantly, and the expected need for imported LNG collapsed. In fact, LNG exports began to be contemplated.

As unconventional gas production increases, the U.S. is becoming increasingly self-sufficient with respect to natural gas. Pipeline exports from Canada to the U.S. are decreasing. With ample unconventional resources, industry has shifted its focus from importing LNG into North America to exporting LNG from North America.  The export of LNG could facilitate Canadian natural gas production growth and result in significant investment, jobs and economic growth.

Canadian LNG ProjectsEighteen LNG export facilities have been proposed in Canada – 13 in British Columbia, 2 in Quebec and 3 in Nova Scotia – with a total proposed export capacity of 216 Million tons per annum (mtpa) of LNG (approximately 29 Billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas).

Since 2011, 24 LNG projects have been issued long-term export licenses. Canada’s only operational LNG terminal (an import terminal) is Canaport LNG’s regasification import terminal located in Saint John, New Brunswick.

According to a Conference Board of Canada study, which estimates the potential contributions LNG exports may make to the Canadian economy, an LNG export industry equivalent to 30 mtpa in British Columbia could add roughly $7.4 billion to Canada’s annual economy over the next 30 years, and raise national employment by an annual average of 65,000 jobs. The Government of Canada is working closely with British Columbia, other provinces and industry partners to create conditions to support the development of an LNG industry in Canada.

EXISTING IMPORT TERMINAL

Canaport LNG: Saint John, New Brunswick

CANADIAN LNG IMPORT AND PROPOSED EXPORT FACILITIES

13 West Coast (British Columbia) Export Terminals
Kitimat LNG
LNG Canada
Cedar LNG Project
Orca LNG25 Years
New Times Energy
Kitsault Energy Project
Stewart LNG Export Project
Triton LNG (On Hold)
Woodfibre LNG
WesPac LNG Marine Terminal
Discovery LNG
Steelhead LNG: Kwispaa LNG

5 East Coast Export Terminals
Goldboro LNG
Bear Head LNG
A C LNG
Energie Saguenay
Stolt LNGaz

Canadian Government Position
The Minister of Natural Resources Canada has stated “The Canadian Government is taking steps to grow the Canadian economy, create good jobs and opportunities for Canadians, while protecting our environment for future generations. As the Prime Minister has emphasized, in the 21st century we must get our resources to market sustainably and responsibly. For all natural resource projects, the government is working closely with provinces and territories, Indigenous peoples, and other interested parties to ensure that the highest standards of public and environmental safety are being met, while creating new export opportunities for Canada’s natural resources.”

Regulations and Permitting
While the ongoing operation of LNG terminals generally falls under provincial regulation, most LNG terminal proposals require both federal and provincial environmental assessments and permits. 

Most of the proposed LNG facilities require new pipelines or the expansion of existing pipelines.  Intra-provincial pipelines are provincially regulated, while pipelines that cross a provincial or international border are federally regulated.  For more information on pipelines, please see Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Concerning Federally-Regulated Petroleum Pipelines in Canada.

A permit from the National Energy Board (NEB), Canada’s federal energy regulator, is required to export LNG from Canada. The NEB reviews export licence applications to ensure that the proposed volume of gas to be exported is surplus to Canadian requirements. Since 2011, 24 LNG projects have been issued long-term export licenses ranging between 20-40 years. More information on export licences is available on the NEB's website.

LNG Facilities and Safety Regulations
LNG facilities are classified as industrial sites and must meet all federal, provincial and municipal standards, codes and safety regulations. These regulations are constantly updated to ensure that the health, safety and security of the environment and Canadian public are protected. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has a specific standard for LNG production, storage and handling (CSA Standard CAN/CSA Z276-01). This standard establishes essential requirements for the design, installation and safe operation of LNG facilities.

Useful Links
These websites provide useful background information on LNG and LNG regulatory processes in Canada.

• Generation Energy
• National Energy Board
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
• Major Projects Management Office
• BC Oil and Gas Commission
• LNG Projects in British Columbia
• BC LNG Alliance
• BC LNG First Nations Alliance

READ MORE: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/natural-gas/5683

LARRY MACDOUGAL/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Speakers at another pro-pipeline rally in Alberta continued their attacks on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Saturday, saying if leaders in Ottawa don’t hear their message now, they will when a planned convoy arrives there in 2019.

Chad Miller with the group Oilfield Dads told the crowd gathered in Rocky Mountain House that the province is suffering its “worst recession turned depression” in a generation owing to weakened oil prices, exacerbated by a lack of pipeline capacity.

“Even those that put away for the rainy days and then some have had to use their savings, and more, to try to weather this never-ending hard times scenario,” Mr. Miller said.

Numerous rallies and truck convoys have been held across Alberta and Saskatchewan in recent weeks to protest against federal actions that critics say will make building pipelines more difficult. Those include Bill C-69 to revamp the National Energy Board and Bill C-48, which would ban oil tanker traffic on British Columbia’s northern coast.

A convoy in Medicine Hat, Alta., last weekend attracted 650 vehicles, according to police, and groups are planning one in February that will travel from Western Canada to Ottawa.

“Today, I say to Ottawa, can you hear us yet?” Mr. Miller asked the crowd during Saturday’s rally.

“Don’t worry, you’ll see us in February when we convoy to Ottawa!”

A truck convoy was also held Saturday in Lloydminster, which straddles the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary.

Earlier this month, the federal government announced it would spend $1.6-billion to help energy companies struggling because of plunging oil prices.

But Jason Nixon, who represents Rocky Mountain House in the provincial legislature, said what Alberta really wants is pipelines.

​“Trudeau, we don’t want your money. We want you to get out of the way,” Mr. Nixon said to the crowd in Rocky Mountain House.

The groups Rally 4 Resources and Canada Action say in a Facebook event post that the convoy to Ottawa is intended to end Feb. 20 on Parliament Hill. The post says letters voicing support for the industry, as well as individual and family photos, will be delivered to the Senate.

The page stresses that the event is not connected to the yellow vest campaign, which also advocates for pipelines but is associated with opposition to Canada signing the United Nations migration pact.

“To be clear, we take issue with bad policies put forward by Justin Trudeau’s government, but we do not favour any political party. This movement is about supporting our families,” the Facebook post states.

Calgary Herald
By LICIA CORBELLA

On Wednesday afternoon, federal Bill C-69 passed second reading in the Senate by a vote of 56-29.
The response from the Alberta government on this troubling news?

Crickets. Deafening silence. Inaction on an epic scale.

Officially called the Impact Assessment Act, many people in the energy industry prefer to call it Justin Trudeau’s “No More Pipelines Law”. Deron Bilous, Alberta’s economic development and trade minister, said Bill C-69 will “doom our energy sector.”

Premier Rachel Notley’s NDP government argues it has done plenty to object to Bill C-69.

The facts state otherwise.

In August of 2017, Alberta Environment Minister Shannon Phillips and Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd wrote their federal counterparts a four-page letter initially raising concerns about what was then called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It’s not a bad letter but lacks any sense of urgency or alarm.

On Feb. 8, Bill C-69 was tabled in the House of Commons and by March 19 it passed second reading and headed to the House of Commons’ environment committee. Ten days later, United Conservative Party Leader Jason Kenney sent a letter to Notley suggesting that the entire legislature unite against Bill C-69. She never responded.

Eventually, Kenney put forward a motion condemning Bill C-69 in the Edmonton legislature. Notley’s government voted against the motion.

From March 22 to May 22, the environment committee held 14 meetings in Ottawa. It was during this time that Chris Bloomer, president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, told the committee: “It is difficult to imagine that a new major pipeline could be built under the Impact Assessment Act, much less attract energy investment to Canada.”

The committee had 150 briefs submitted and 117 witnesses appeared. Even though Alberta has the most to lose from this bill, no one from the Alberta government bothered to testify. Not even a brief was submitted before the committee.

This missed opportunity is inexcusable and a gross dereliction of duty considering the significant effect this legislation will have on Alberta if passed.

On May 29, the bill cleared the committee and headed back to the House. Two days later, Alberta sent a letter to three federal ministers, stating: “Alberta also requests that these timelines accommodate government-to-government dialogue and we need to see a plan by June 30, 2018, on how this will occur.”

There’s no evidence of any dialogue occurring. In fact, on June 20, Bill C-69 passed third reading in the House and headed to the Senate. Surely, by now, Notley should have gone nuclear on Bill C-69.

Instead, Notley’s government sent a technical brief to the feds. Then, silence about this disastrous bill from the Alberta government ensued for many months.

On Aug. 15, at the annual Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference in Iqaluit, the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario protested Bill C-69. McCuaig-Boyd, however, did not publicly raise any objections about Bill C-69 when she had a national audience.

In early September, Alberta business leaders associated with a group called Suits and Boots launched a public campaign to fight Bill C-69.

Finally, on Sept. 25, possibly because of Suits and Boots’ action and resulting media coverage, Notley announced that she would send Phillips and McCuaig-Boyd to Ottawa to lobby the Senate for changes.

On Oct. 9, the Alberta government sent a technical document to the feds about the bill and, on the same day, Notley sent Trudeau the most strongly worded letter to date about the bill.

On Oct. 24, Phillips met with about 100 senators to discuss Bill C-69. Waiting so late into the process is obviously highly risky.

And Notley’s government is claiming it’s done a good job on this file?

“Unlike Jason Kenney,” Mike McKinnon, a spokesman for the energy minister, wrote Thursday, “we are out there every day fighting for things that matter to Albertans like getting the Trans Mountain pipeline built and fixing Bill C-69. We still intend to formally go before the Senate committee to deliver that message.”

There is so much wrong with the above statement. But it gets worse.

“This is too important to get wrong,” continued McKinnon. “We’ve seen what happens when this process fails with the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision and we saw it happen when the Harper-Kenney Conservatives made a complete mess of pipeline approvals with Northern Gateway. As the Premier said on Nov. 28, this is one of the biggest public policy failures of the last generation. It is unforgivable.”

Talk about misplaced blame. Northern Gateway was vetoed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Notley never objected to that devastating act.

In fact, she was in favour of killing Northern Gateway. On April 24, 2015, during an editorial board meeting with the Herald, Notley said she was opposed to Northern Gateway:

“I think Gateway is not the right decision. I think there’s just too much environmental sensitivity there. And I think there’s genuine concerns by the Indigenous communities . . . . And so, I don’t think it’s a particularly good use of our time,” said Notley.

Now, she and her spokespeople are trying to lay the blame on the Harper government that approved it? It’s galling.

As Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers president and CEO Tim McMillan said Thursday: “Bill C-69, as it’s currently written, will devastate not just Alberta’s energy industry but industry across Canada.”

Notley and her government have completely mishandled Bill C-69.
​
In this case, silence is deadly

Canadian Press
Joan Bryden

OTTAWA — Conservative senators are being accused of deliberately stalling Liberal government legislation to keep it in the public eye for political benefit.

That's particularly true of Bill C-69, new rules for environmental assessments of energy projects, which has drawn the wrath of Alberta, Saskatchewan and other provincial governments that fear it will scare off investment in projects like pipelines by setting up too many regulatory hurdles.

"This is a bill that could generate a lot of political attention and it is in the interests of some senators to use the bill as political hay," Sen. Yuen Pau Woo, leader of the Independent Senators' Group, said in an interview.

The argument over getting bills through the Senate broke into the open in the red chamber Thursday, just hours before MPs and senators ended their last sitting in Parliament's iconic Centre Block for at least 10 years. Both chambers were slated to resume work on Jan. 28, housed in temporary new quarters while Centre Block undergoes a massive restoration.

But senators agreed Thursday to delay until Feb. 19 the move into their new home in Ottawa's old railway station, giving workers time to fix a ceiling gap that was causing "disruptive noise levels" so bad that they would affect the Senate's operations, including plans to provide for the first time live broadcasts of Senate proceedings. Senate staff didn't detect the design problem until they started running practice sessions to prepare for senators' arrival.

While the full Senate won't sit until Feb. 19, senators unanimously approved a motion that Senate committees should resume work on Jan. 28, as originally planned. But Woo said Conservative senators seem intent on ensuring that committee work is also put off for three more weeks.

Senate committees can't begin studying bills until their three-member steering committees recommend a schedule for hearings and propose a witness list. But Independent senators complain that Conservative steering committee members are suddenly saying they're too busy to meet, making it impossible to set the agendas for the committees.

Accusations 'total hogwash': Tory leader in senateWoo claims their objective is twofold: to drag out controversy over contentious bills and to enable Conservative senators to claim the bills that eventually pass are flawed because there wasn't enough time to thoroughly examine them.

"To the extent that any given government bill can be used as a partisan talking point, it is in the interests of the Opposition to drag out the conversation for as long as possible — not only to have messaging around the bill but to also give the impression that there wasn't enough time to properly review the bill," he said.

Sen. Larry Smith, the Conservative leader in the upper house, dismissed that accusation.

"We don't give commands that people can't go to meetings. That's total hogwash. That is what I call partisanship," Smith said in an interview.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau indicated at last week's first ministers meeting that he's counting on the Senate to propose some amendments to Bill C-69, which had been stalled at second reading in the upper house thanks to procedural manoeuvres by Tory senators. Senators voted Wednesday to send the bill to their energy and environment committee for detailed examination.

On Thursday, the committee's chair, Independent Sen. Rosa Galvez, complained in the chamber that she's been unable to get the Conservative member of the steering committee to show up for a meeting. In the past, she said steering committees have met by phone or email, but Conservatives are now insisting on meeting in person.

Conservative Sen. Don Plett retorted that all three members of a steering committee must be present for it to meet and accused Galvez of not wanting to follow rules she doesn't like. He also accused her of proposing a one-sided witness list. He acknowledged that Conservatives are opposed to the bill but insisted they want to hear from both sides of the debate.
Galvez in turn said she found Plett's tone "extremely aggressive."

Independent Sen. Paula Simons, a recently appointed Alberta senator, said she's been hearing from hundreds of Albertans who are "begging" for the committee to begin its examination of the bill as soon as possible. She noted that all three members of the steering committee were in the chamber as she spoke.

"Would it not be possible for the sake of the thousands of Albertans who are terribly concerned about C-69 for you to find some way for the steering committee to meet so that we could serve the people of Alberta and Canada and get to this bill?"

Smith said later the problem is that some inexperienced, Independent senators don't understand the rules of the Senate.

"What we want to make sure is that chairs of committees make sure that they assemble their steering committees before taking action or gathering data or information without the input of the steering committee. It's more of an organizational issue."
​
Asked if he anticipates that Senate committees will get back to work on Jan. 28, Smith said: "That's up to each of the chairs to be able to mobilize their people."

GlobalNews
By Adam Toy

An Alberta senator is pulling back the curtain on why Canada’s Senate voted to return Bill C-69 — a bill to overhaul the energy project review process — to committee for amendments during the bill’s second reading.

“I did not vote to pass this legislation,” Sen. Paula Simons told Rob Breakenridge on 770 CHQR. “I would not vote in favour of C-69 as written, and I’ve said that literally from the first day I got here.

“I voted in a procedural motion to send the bill to committee because it’s at committee that bills get scrutinized, revised and amended, and that’s what needs to happen to Bill C-69.”

Simons said that during her brief time as a senator, she has heard concerns about the bill from people both for and against proposed large-scale energy projects like the Trans Mountain expansion.

“A lot of people on every side feel that there is a lack of clarity in the wording of the bill about what projects go on the project list for evaluation, about how we balance economic impacts versus social and environmental impacts and about the power of the minister to step in and trump whatever non-partisan, apolitical regulatory process is supposed to be. And I’m hearing that across the board,” Simons said.

Despite strong objections from Canada’s energy industries — including oil and gas — Simons said none of the industry groups she’s heard from want the bill to be killed during the legislative process.

“I’m also hearing from major industry groups — from CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers), from CEPA (Canadian Energy Pipeline Association), from Husky, from Imperial, from Suncor — that they don’t want the bill killed outright because they say to go back to the drawing board will just create more confusion and uncertainty for investors,” Simons continued.

“Industry representatives have said to me that they don’t want to spike the whole thing and start over because that will just create years more of uncertainty. They’re asking for amendments.”
READ MORE: Alberta environment minister says federal energy bill C-69 inadequate in current form

Early in her tenure as senator, the former journalist noted that there were no Albertans on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
“I thought that was a huge problem,” she said.

A self-avowed non-partisan, Simons joined the committee to represent her fellow Albertans alongside another recently named Alberta politician, Sen. Patti LaBoucane-Benson.

“It’s an all-party committee. There’s one Liberal on the committee and six Conservatives, and everybody else is either Independent or what they call ‘unaffiliated,’” explained Simons.

“This is not a rubber-stamp committee. This is a legitimate standing committee that is going to hold public hearings. Today at our meeting, we discussed holding some of those public hearings in Alberta so people can actually see what we do. This is not a kangaroo court.”

Simons also says now is the time for Albertans of all political stripes to stand together to make sure Bill C-69 benefits not only Alberta’s oil and gas sector but other large-scale energy projects in the future.

“We need to be united as Albertans in saying: ‘This is not good legislation, and not just for Alberta’s oil industry. It’s problematic legislation for all kinds of major developments, whether that’s hydro dams, whether that’s tidal power, whether that’s offshore wind.
​
“This is too important for us to play petty, partisan politics with. We need a regulatory regime that protects our environment, that honours our Indigenous treaty obligations and that creates investor confidence so we can have good projects with international capital and with the sensible development of not just oil and gas — all across our industry sectors.”

By BOB WEBER
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Half the country’s chinook salmon populations are endangered and most of the rest are in decline, according to a science committee that monitors the health of wildlife populations.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada reported Monday that of Canada’s 16 chinook populations, eight are endangered, four are threatened and one is considered of special concern.

Only one, located in British Columbia’s Thompson River, is considered stable. The condition of two populations is unknown.

Endangered is the committee’s most serious ranking, suggesting the population is in danger of being wiped out.

“There are some where there is thought to be fewer than 200 fish still remaining,” said committee member and Simon Fraser University fisheries biologist John Neilson.

“At that level, there would be concern about those stocks. That’s why we’re sounding the alarm.”

Chinook salmon are both a major fishery in British Columbia and central to the lives and culture of Indigenous people. Neilson said the new assessment is the most comprehensive the committee has ever done on the fish.

“From other studies and general knowledge on the state of salmon in B.C., there’s a lot of concern,” Neilson said. “These are populations that are at the high end of needing some attention.”

Scientists believe the problem occurs during the part of their lives the salmon spend in the ocean.

Some believe growing numbers of seals and sea lions, which feed on the fish, are behind the declines. Others say the warming and acidifying ocean is starting to affect the food web the salmon depend on.

“It’s a complex story,” said Neilson.

It’s time the federal government use its power to protect the fish and its habitat, he added.
“Our suggestion is that government act quickly.”

The Species At Risk Act allows the federal government to issue emergency protection orders which allow Ottawa to control activity in critical habitat normally governed by the provinces.
The federal government has used the power twice before for the western chorus frog and the sage grouse.

Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said she hadn’t yet seen the assessment but would follow up on its concerns.

“We understand that it is critically important to protect and conserve our native wildlife. We need to fulfill our obligations under the Species At Risk Act.”

She said some measures have already been taken to protect and rebuild chinook salmon stocks.
The committee also released assessments of two other species.

It recommended no change be applied to polar bears, now considered to be a species of special concern.

It also looked at the black ash tree, a common urban tree in civic parks in Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa. It found that over the last 20 years, an invasive species called the emerald ash borer has killed about two billion ash trees in the Great Lakes Region.
​
The black ash is now considered threatened, the committee found.