By KASHMIRA GANDER 
NEWSWEEK

Levels of methane—the second biggest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide—have spiked in the atmosphere in the past decade. And a study says fracking in North America could be partly to blame.

The gas is linked to climate change, as well as ground-level ozone levels that can harm agriculture. It can also trigger a range of health problems, including chest pains, as well as reducing lung function and worsening conditions such as bronchitis, emphysema and asthma.

In the last half of the 20th, century levels of methane in the atmosphere rose. They then plateaued, and spiking in 2008. Robert W. Howarth of Cornell University, who published a study in the journal Biogeosciences, investigated fracking as a potential culprit.

Hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, is the process of extracting gas and oil from shale sedimentary rock using pressurized liquid. The method is controversial and has been linked to contaminated drinking water in the U.S, methane gas escaping from wells into the atmosphere and earthquakes.

First performed in 1949, the fracking industry has boomed in the past decade or so. Between 2005 and 2015, global rates of fracking went from producing 31 billion cubic meters per year to 435 billion, according to Howarth. Of this, 89 percent occurred in the U.S., and 10 percent in Canada. The U.S Department of Energy forecasts production will spike to 1500 billion cubic meters per year by 2040.

For the new study, Howarth looked at existing research on the levels of certain carbon isotopes of atmospheric methane to find a potential source, and created an equation to investigate the link.

Methane is a compound made up of carbon and hydrogen. While methane released in the late 20th century was enriched with the carbon isotope 13C, Howarth highlights methane released in recent years features lower levels. That's because the methane in shale gas has depleted levels of the isotope when compared with conventional natural gas or fossil fuels such as coal, he explained.

This leads Howarth to conclude: "The commercialization of shale gas and oil in the 21st century has dramatically increased global methane emissions."

If trends of releasing methane continue, he said, this will "significantly increase global warming and undercut efforts" to meet the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to keep post-industrial revolution global temperatures below 2 C.

Howarth urged those involved in the energy industries to "move as quickly as possible away from natural gas, reducing both carbon dioxide and methane emissions."

The good news, argued Howarth, is that climate reacts quicker to methane than carbon dioxide, meaning cutting emissions of the gas emissions "could provide an opportunity to immediately slow the rate of global warming."

This could help the commitment of the Paris Agreement be met.

Howarth said in a statement: "This recent increase in methane is massive. It's globally significant. It's contributed to some of the increase in global warming we've seen and shale gas is a major player."

"If we can stop pouring methane into the atmosphere, it will dissipate. It goes away pretty quickly, compared to carbon dioxide. It's the low-hanging fruit to slow global warming."

Researchers not involved in the study welcomed Howarth's efforts, but pointed out some limitations. 

Grant Allen, professor of atmospheric physics at the U.K.'s University of Manchester, commented: "A wide range of different methane fluxes from different source types (e.g. fossil fuels, agriculture, wildfires and wetlands) can all simultaneously explain the observed trend in methane (and carbon isotopes of methane) within the limits of uncertainty in our knowledge of their carbon-isotopic fingerprints and estimates of total methane emitted from each source type.

"Other work has also proposed a role for changing chemical sinks of methane in the atmosphere. The jury is still out on the relative importance of all of these sources in explaining methane's rise."

Allen continued: "However, this paper makes a very important point—some sources of methane are within our gift to control, other (natural sources) are not as easily targeted. Controlling emissions from fracking, and fossil fuels in general, represents a potential policy quick fix to stemming the rise of methane still further."

Quentin Fisher, professor of petroleum geoengineering at the U.K.'s University of Leeds, said he was "deeply skeptical" about the study.

"The results are extremely sensitive to highly questionable assumptions regarding the isotopic composition of methane found in shale. The arguments made by previous studies that increase in methane in the atmosphere is from biogenic sources, such as release from wetlands and agriculture or burning of biomass, seem far more convincing."

"It's also the case that the study itself admits that even if the increased methane concentrations were from shale that they are not a direct result of the hydraulic fracturing process," he argued.
​
"For example, the USA has an aging gas transportation network, which results in significant methane leakages."

More than 130 amendments to C-69 are on table — most requested by energy groupsBy Mia Rabson 
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Environment advocates say Canadian senators are bowing to pressure from the energy industry to gut new environmental-assessment legislation and they fear the Liberal government is going to do the same.

Bill C-69 is meant to be an effort to improve the way major energy and transportation projects are evaluated for their environmental impact, making the assessments more stringent so they're less likely to be challenged in court.

The Liberals, who introduced it, say lax assessments are why so few big projects, and no new oil pipelines, have been approved in Canada in years — they've been tied up in challenges.

The Conservatives, backed by provincial politicians such as Alberta's Premier Jason Kenney, say the process laid out in Bill C-69 would keep important projects from getting past the assessment stage.

More than 130 amendments are on the table at a Senate committee that could dramatically alter much of the bill, including moves to reduce cabinet discretion to intervene in the assessment process, to make it harder for anyone to challenge a project approval — or denial — in court, and to change how climate-change impacts are considered.

Many of the amendments are word-for-word what was asked for by energy lobby groups, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Kenney warned the Senate committee on May 2 that if the amendments suggested by Alberta's former NDP government, as well as those coming from the energy industry, were not adopted as a whole, it would stoke fires of Alberta separation result in a constitutional challenge on the grounds that the law intrudes on provincial rights.

'Running amok'Ecojustice lawyer Joshua Ginsberg says Bill C-69 as originally written struck a delicate balance on the need for Canada to build major new energy and transportation projects without harming the environment or contributing further to climate change.

"Now it's going to swing way over to the industry side," he said.

"The oil and gas industry is running amok in a Senate process and that is scary because they are only one stakeholder."

Oil-industry advocates launched a full-court press on the Senate, sending more than 50,000 letters and emails to individual senators, as well as publishing senators' phone numbers and flooding them with calls.

Environment advocates also made a strong push to support the bill, but Ginsberg said very few of the proposed amendments are the suggestions made by his side.

A spokeswoman for the Conservatives in the Senate said last week the amendments from the Conservatives were "based on" evidence and proposals from municipalities, provincial governments, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the Mining Association of Canada.

• Ottawa will exempt some oilsands projects from environmental assessments — if Alberta keeps its emissions cap

• Senators propose sweeping rewrite of controversial environmental assessment bill

A CAPP official declined comment on the amendments process and the concerns raised by environment groups Monday, saying the organization was still reviewing the many proposed changes.

Any changes have to be accepted first by the committee, then the Senate as a whole and finally the government before being incorporated into the bill. Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has said she is open to amendments to the bill but won't say what changes she will accept until the bill has finished its journey in the Senate.

Julia Levin, the climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence, said she thinks there has been a shift in language from the government.

On Friday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Edmonton, where he said he is open to making changes to the bill recommended by a "broad range of voices," including business, Indigenous Peoples and community groups.

But he said repeatedly in that news conference that the existing system doesn't allow big projects to get built and he wants to overcome that obstacle while still protecting the interests of the environment and Indigenous communities.

Levin and Ginsberg both say if the Senate tries to rework the whole bill, the government would be better off to let it die and try again after this fall's election.

"With these amendments, it won't be better than what we have now," said Levin.

She thinks the Senate's major surgery is really a poorly disguised attempt to kill the bill by delaying its passage.

If the bill doesn't get passed before the election, it will die. There are just five sitting weeks left this spring for that to happen.

THE CANADIAN PRESS

The CEO of Enbridge Inc. says it’s “critical” to Canada’s energy future that substantive changes are made to proposed federal legislation to revamp how big resource projects win federal approval.

Speaking after his company’s annual shareholders’ meeting in Calgary, Al Monaco says there are three or four major problem areas in Bill C-69 that must be addressed.

His comments come as the Senate considers amendments to the bill that would repeal the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and retire the National Energy Board, leaving the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Energy Regulator as authorities responsible for assessments of the environmental, health, social and economic impacts of designated projects.

READ MORE: Senate committee examining amendments to Bill C-69

Earlier in the day, following a speech at a solar conference in Calgary, Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi said it’s vital that the bill be passed as soon as possible because it replaces a broken system that is preventing projects from being built.

But critics including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have demanded changes designed to prevent public policy debates from being part of project assessments, restrict application interveners to those directly affected by the project or with expertise, set firm timelines and limit government ministers’ discretionary powers.

Monaco says he applauds the aggressive stance of Alberta’s newly elected United Conservative Premier Jason Kenney in support of energy projects.

READ MORE: Jason Kenney calls environment assessment bill a threat to national unity

​“I think it’s great news that people are going to take the extra effort to ensure that people really understand the role that energy plays and what it does for our quality of life,” he said.

Enbridge pipelines handle about 62 per cent of Canada’s exports of crude oil into the U.S. and move about 18 per cent of all natural gas consumed in the U.S.

READ MORE: ​https://globalnews.ca/news/5256427/bill-c-69-changes-canada-energy-enbridge-ceo/

Jesse Snyder
National Post

OTTAWA — Senators have agreed to discard a hard deadline on the passage of Bill C-69, according to a document obtained by the National Post, easing the pressure to complete the sweeping energy reforms before spring.

After a flurry of closed-door meetings Thursday, Conservative and Independent senators came to an agreement to reverse parts of a motion tabled one day earlier by Sen. Peter Harder, the Liberal government’s Senate representative, which would have fast-tracked 11 bills that are currently in the upper house. The deal between Conservative and Independent senators will eliminate proposed deadlines on three controversial pieces of legislation, including Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the moratorium on oil tanker traffic in northern B.C. waters.

The agreement comes as the Senate energy committee prepares to tour the country to hear from witnesses on Bill C-69, which proposes to overhaul the review process for major energy projects like pipelines and hydro dams. The legislation has become a focal point for many in the Western provinces concerned it could deter future investment in the oil and gas sector.

Some senators have said they are open to amending the bill, which industry groups argue is lacking in detail and therefore leaves the project review process open to interpretation. Last August, Ottawa purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion as a way to ensure construction of the project, which had languished in part because of Canada’s complicated regulatory review process.

Harder tabled a motion Wednesday which would have imposed a tight deadline of May 30 for the Senate to pass Bill C-69, a full month before the upper house’s final scheduled sitting day before summer break, June 28. It also proposed a June 6 deadline for the oil tanker moratorium bill and a May 30 deadline for Bill C-68, the counterpart to Bill C-69 that focuses on ocean protections.

Conservative senators delayed a vote on the motion Wednesday, then in private meetings Thursday pushed for an agreement to remove some of the deadlines.

Still, the agreement maintains a firm timeline on when various committees need to report back to the Senate, imposing short timeframes in which senators can propose amendments.

The energy committee studying Bill C-69 will need to report back to the Senate by May 9, just weeks after senators complete their cross-Canada tour, according to the updated schedule seen by the Post. Senators on the transport committee, who are studying Bill C-48, will need to report back by May 16.

The tighter deadlines come as the end of the spring session nears, a fall election looms and a swath of legislation is lagging in the Senate. Thirteen bills are currently under review int he upper house, as well as roughly 10 more bills yet to be passed to the Senate from the House of Commons.

Some senators have accused the Conservatives of delaying bills for political purposes, causing some legislation to stall for as much as a year. Bill C-55, which updates various marine protections, has languished in the Senate since April 2018. The updated schedule now proposes to bass the bill by May 2.

Conservative senators, for their part, voiced loud objections to the motion on Wednesday, saying the government was looking to stifle debate on critical pieces of legislation.

“It’s not about the dates that are being proposed, it’s about the restriction,” Conservative Sen. Judith Seidman said Thursday morning, before the agreement was signed. “It’s constricting debate on the issues through this mass, widespread motion.”

In a statement Wednesday Conservative Sen. Larry Smith called Harder’s motion to assign deadlines to a bundle of 11 bills “unprecedented,” and said it “shuts down the abilities of senators to review and question government legislation.”

Independent Sen. Doug Black told the Post Wednesday that senators might have to work long hours in order to review and potentially amend the legislation before the May 9 deadline. Black, who represents Alberta, is not on the energy committee but has been an outspoken critic of the bill in its current form and plans to travel with other senators to hear from witnesses.
​
“It’s really tight, there’s no doubt about that,” he said. “But I believe that if we continue to work as hard as we’re working, we’re likely to achieve that timeline.”

To see a visual representation of LNG projects in B.C. as of April 2019, view current export facilities and pipelines map (PDF, 1MB).

Source:
B.C. Government
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/natural-gas-oil/lng/lng-projects

John Paul Tasker
CBC News 

The federal Liberal government's controversial overhaul of environmental assessment legislation has united virtually every major natural resources industry association in opposition — and they're asking the Senate committee studying Bill C-69 to make some fixes to avoid threatening the viability of key sectors of the economy.

Amid the barrage of criticism, the government itself has recognized it may have to agree to some tweaks to get the legislation — expected to be one of the last major pieces of the Liberal agenda to pass before the fall election — through the Red Chamber.

Speaking last week at an event for Canada's mining companies — one of the few sectors that has offered support for the elimination of some federal and provincial regulatory duplication in Bill C-69 — Trudeau thanked miners for their "measured" approach to the legislation.

"Quite frankly, [a] number of thoughtful submissions and amendments to that, to improve it, [came] from this industry," Trudeau said.

Since the Senate began its study of Bill C-69 last month, however, industry representatives from the oil and gas, hydro, nuclear and uranium sectors have appeared before the energy committee with a long list of suggested amendments. Rather than a few tweaks, these industries are proposing major rewrites.

While the government has presented the legislation as a way to streamline and improve what many consider to be a poor approvals process introduced by the former Harper government, critics maintain that replacing a bad system with another problematic one will not solve persistent problems. To that end, a number of Conservative and Independent senators have said they will push for amendments.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) said the federal Liberal government's impact assessment changes could inadvertently cripple sectors already grappling with low commodity prices and constrained pipeline capacity.

The lack of a "project list" in the legislation — a definitive account of the types of projects that would be subjected to federal impact assessments — has industry associations anxious about the risk of regulatory creep. They fear Ottawa might apply its process to projects that, to date, have operated largely under provincial jurisdiction, such as the "in situ" projects in Alberta's oilsands.

Nova Scotia Power also wants to see the project list restricted to "major, large-scale projects of national significance." As written, the bill gives the environment minister almost total discretion to put a project on the list for what could be more rigorous scrutiny by federal regulators.

"Canada has lost and will continue to lose investment and jobs if we do not have a system with clear rules, clear timelines and decisions that stick. Our livelihoods of Canadian families and communities are at stake," said Tim McMillan, president of CAPP.

The government has said project list details will be published in the regulations, which will be released publicly only after the legislation passes through Parliament. It also has signalled "in situ" projects could be left off the list, despite pressure from environmentalists.

In fact, West Coast Environmental Law, a leading green advocacy group, has said the bill is "not a gift to environmentalists" since it does not offer many of the safeguards they sought. It argues the bill simply "follows the footprints of its predecessor laws, with the exception of some changes to add clarity and accountability."

The Canadian Nuclear Association has said that while the legislation may be an attempt to streamline the rules, it's creating uncertainty. "Capital is fluid and investors do not like uncertainty. This uncertainty is magnified by the legislative regime being proposed because it is missing a key element, and that is the project list," John Barrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said at a recent Senate meeting.

Petroleum producers are particularly concerned about just how much leeway the legislation gives the environment minister to perpetually stall or cancel a project — even after it has successfully gone through the assessment process.

The bill's supporters say ministerial authority must be preserved and C-69, if it's passed, would at least compel the minister to say publicly why the government is making a change to a project's timeline.

"We welcome the Senate taking a serious look at this legislation, and we have consistently said that we are open to amendments put forward by the Senate, should they strengthen and improve the bill," Sabrina Kim, a spokesperson for Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, said in a statement to CBC News.

Kim said the Liberal government has been working on the legislation since the last election, calling it a product of extensive consultation with both industry groups and environmentalists.

"Canadians deserve the strongest bill possible to protect our environment, honour Indigenous rights and partnerships, and ensure good projects go ahead in a timely fashion. This will create the certainty that investors need and well-paying jobs for Canadians. It is critical to rebuild trust in how we review major projects, and this legislation is an opportunity to get this right," Kim said.

But CAPP, which represents most of the big companies in Alberta's oilpatch, is also concerned about the addition of a new pre-assessment process. The government has said this will help companies avoid the sort of legal pitfalls that have undermined the Trans Mountain expansion, while CAPP maintains it simply formalizes a process that most companies already follow as a matter of good business practice.

By tacking up to 180 days onto the process, project proponents fear C-69 will lead to longer, not shorter, timelines for project approval. The Canadian Hydropower Association has said it already takes 8 to 12 years to build a hydro project in this country and the new regime will make it "more challenging to manage and more complex."

Industry associations have reserved their harshest criticism for changes to the "public participation" component of the approvals process.

Ottawa has eliminated the "standing test" that applies to deciding who can appear before the regulator weighing project approval. The federal Liberal government has said it believes this will make the process more democratic and participatory.

Right now, only people who are directly affected — local communities or nearby Indigenous groups, for example — or those with expert information are allowed to have their say. The new law would open the process up to virtually anyone who wants to appear.

The industry associations worry the relatively lax rules will subject project hearings to unreasonable interference by activists and protracted legal actions over who can speak. They say the regulator should have the discretion to decide who participates.

"What we have seen is activists, groups, many of the American-funded activists have taken a very deliberate approach at targeting Canada, first and foremost, and our institutions," McMillan said.

"Tim Hortons talk is rarely about the National Energy Board, but certainly those groups have used social media very effectively and have lobbied governments voraciously to get changes that make it more difficult for Canada to attract investment."

Frank Saunders, the vice-president of regulatory affairs at Ontario's Bruce Power, said C-69 needs at least some basic criteria for deciding who can appear.

"I don't care how far away they come from, as long as they are talking about the project versus some esoteric view on nuclear energy. There are people who believe you shouldn't be doing that, and they want to come and argue. They have a right to argue it, but that's not the forum," he said.

By PETER MAZEREEUW      
Bill C-69, a bugaboo for conservative politicians and a target for environmentalists, is in for a long, rough ride in the Senate.

CTVNews.ca's Josh Dehaas, with files from CTV's Kevin Gallagher in Ottawa and Melanie Nagy in Vancouver 

Protesters delayed a speech by the prime minister in Ottawa and blocked traffic in Toronto and Vancouver on Tuesday, after RCMP moved in on an Indigenous blockade to enforce an injunction that would allow a pipeline to proceed in northern British Columbia.

The rallies came one day after RCMP arrested 14 people at the blockade site southwest of Houston, B.C., where members of the Gidimt'en clan of Wet'suwet'en First Nation are trying to stop construction of Coastal GasLink’s pipeline from going ahead.

RCMP were expected to dismantle another camp nearby on Tuesday. Police have blocked members of the public including the media from accessing that camp, saying that the “temporary exclusion zone” is required for “privacy and safety.”

They said in a written statement on Monday that police “facilitated a meeting between hereditary chiefs and (Coastal GasLink) in the hopes that this could be resolved without police involvement,” but “it was determined that the matter could not be resolved.”

The pipeline would bring natural gas from near Dawson Creek to a port on the coast in Kitimat, where it would then be liquefied before being exported. It’s part of a $40-billion project that was approved by the federal and provincial governments in October. Elected chiefs have given their support, but some hereditary chiefs have not.

Chief: ‘Where’s our Indigenous rights?’

One of those hereditary chiefs, John Ridsdale, told CTV News Channel on Tuesday that he is opposed to the project on his traditional territory because it his “responsibility to look after the land.”
“We need clean water, clean air, clean land,” he said.

“This is how we teach our children for the future to look after this,” he added.

Ridsdale said that the chiefs are “hurt” by actions of Coastal GasLink, and he accused the RCMP of being “puppets (of) industry and a government that won’t stand up for Indigenous rights.”

Ridsdale said that a 72-year-old woman was among those arrested. She was released but the 13 other people arrested were taken to Prince George, he said.

“We didn’t expect such an extreme action,” he added. “We did expect some to show up but the forces that they used, the amazing numbers that they used, the tactics that they used, were actually something we did not expect as peaceful people.”

The chief thanked the hundreds of people who showed up at rallies to ask Canada to demand that the RCMP cease enforcing the court order.

“Where’s our human rights? Where’s our Indigenous rights?” he said. “They always talk about reconciliation,” he went on. “If yesterday was any form of what reconciliation looks like in the governments’ eyes, I don’t want any part of it.”

Bellegarde: ‘Honour the rights and title’

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde also criticized the enforcement action, saying in a written statement that “reconciliation will not be achieved through force.”

“Real consensus will be built when the parties, with very different views, come together in a meaningful and productive dialogue,” his statement goes on.

“If this was really about the 'rule of law' then governments would be honouring the rights and title of First Nations in their traditional territories, which are recognized by Canada's own courts,” Bellegarde added.

One of Tuesday’s largest protests began on Parliament Hill and proceeded through downtown Ottawa. A meeting between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a number of First Nations negotiators unrelated to the protest was delayed after demonstrators pushed their way into the building.

In Toronto, hundreds of protesters rallied in front of city hall before marching through the streets blocking traffic. Some held banners with skulls drawn on them and the words “no pipelines.”

In Vancouver, police were forced to shut down roads as hundreds marched through the city’s downtown chanting, drumming and carrying placards.

There were also rallies in support of the Indigenous blockaders in Edmonton, Montreal, Prince George, B.C., and North Bay, Ont.

One man at the North Bay protest told CTV Northern Ontario demonstrators want “peace and dialogue” and want politicians to demand that the RCMP “not move in and forcibly remove sovereign people from their own land.”

Protests in support of oil and gas

Meanwhile, a different kind of protest was held in Regina, where oil and gas industry workers who are facing the prospect of layoffs want to see more pipelines proceed.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe attended the rally, which he said was about defending the “quality of life” that Canadians enjoy thanks to natural resources development.

“You are here today because you care about our resource sector, you care about our province and you care about our nation,” Moe told the cheering crowd.

The Regina rally was organized by Canada Action, a group that has now held dozens of rallies in support of pipelines. Canada Action argues that the Coastal GasLink pipeline will help to reduce carbon emissions by allowing developing Asian countries to transition power production from coal to cleaner natural gas.

In Calgary, members of Canada Action showed up to counter a protest in support of the blockade. They shouted “build that pipe, build that pipe” and demanded the Trudeau government scrap Bill C-69, which they say would make pipeline approvals more difficult.

Sean Alexander was one of them. “People in Calgary, people in the energy sector ... are tired of sitting back and listening to this small minority get a voice over ours,” he told CTV Calgary.

The ministers in charge of Indigenous affairs both turned down a request from CTV Power Play to offer their views on the RCMP’s enforcement.

Cullen: ‘Time for Trudeau to engage’

NDP MP Nathan Cullen, who represents the northern B.C. riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, told Power Play that he tried to visit protesters on Monday but was blocked by RCMP.

“We have a clash here between the traditional Indigenous government which has existed for thousands of years and the laws and the governance in Canada,” Cullen said. “Mr. Trudeau has promised to recognize those two things. That’s what reconciliation means, I think,” he added.

Cullen said that aboriginal “rights and title” must be recognized in this case and that the federal government needs to “get involved in a meaningful way.”

“The prime minister was skiing in B.C. last week in Whistler. He’s going to be here tomorrow, we believe, in Kamloops,” Cullen added. “It’s time for him to engage.”
​
The 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline would supply natural gas for the LNG Canada project, which is a joint venture between Shell, PETRONAS, PetroChina, Mitsubishi Corporation and KOGAS.

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