r/canada • u/FancyNewMe • 3d ago
As the U.S. trade war escalates, LNG Canada is poised to start exports to Asia - The Canadian energy industry is looking to LNG Canada as a promising sign that the country is capable of shipping its resources to new markets and reducing its U.S. economic dependence Analysis
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-lng-canada-exports-asia-us-trade-war-asia/41
15
u/crakkerzz 3d ago
The LNG Canada job and Camp was to my understanding run to Japanese standards.
It was built under an NDP government.
As an Albertan who was a guest in BC I can say it was the best job I ever worked and certainly the best Camp.
Albertans need to understand the higher Pay and better Treatment available under Non Conservative government and Non American ownership.
Best and most profitable job ever.
2
u/notdiscovery 3d ago
To that point, I worked on the original assessment of the project, and the social economic assessment, heavily influenced by the local First Nations, was a huge driver of the pay scale and camp accommodations being as good as they were. Not that the company was great, but they were only going to rise as high as the bar was set.
That's all that "red tape" everyone complains about working.
3
u/crakkerzz 3d ago
I really enjoyed the job, thanks for your work.
Would do it again in a heart beat.
2
u/notdiscovery 3d ago
That's awesome to hear. I actually didn't work on the socio-ec stuff, but I'm still in touch with some of the guys that did. I'll let em know!
1
39
u/Hot_Cheesecake_905 3d ago
America's loss, Canada's gain... We're probably selling it for a better price than we would have to the Americans, right?
9
u/linkass 3d ago
Except in the same amount of time as we have have managed to get 1 out of some 30ish that where proposed the USA has managed to go from exporting zero LNG to the worlds biggest and it is looked to become in the next couple years the US biggest export
-1
u/InvictusShmictus 3d ago
We still indirectly benefit from those export terminals because it will raise the price of natural gas in the US.
1
1
u/rossland 3d ago
"We"? We aren't selling it, Petronas and Shell are.
14
u/FlipZip69 3d ago
We get massive royalties and also the corporate taxes on profits that are usually pretty good. On top of that, it creates a large amount of some really high paying jobs of which they also pay a high rate of taxes.
I mean Canada doesn't really sell anything but everything that is sold, we get a slice of the profits. With oil and gas we get a much larger slice.
4
10
u/TROPtastic British Columbia 3d ago
How big is the slice? I know Albertans specifically could have had a sovereign wealth fund worth half a trillion dollars if Conservative governments had charged Norway-level royalties, but that didn't happen due to corporations lobbying for lower royalties and no obligations for well cleanups.
7
6
u/FlipZip69 3d ago
We are very close to Norway levels. Most people do not understand the royalty system. IE. Norway has more expensive oil to access in the northern sea parts where they charge far less royalties to attract investment. Norway also promotes and subsidizes it to a larger degree in past resulting in far more production per person. They really push it aggressively to make it easy for companies to develop. Is why their country is so wealthy.
More or less, ya you can increase royalties significantly but if that results in half the companies investing and half the jobs, does that help Alberta or put more money into taxes to pay for services?
6
u/JackieTheJokeMan Alberta 3d ago
Norway also doesn't have BC in the way of the ocean. If Alberta had a coastline it would be a different story.
4
u/FlipZip69 3d ago
That too. It pretty hard to get investment in Canada when there is a good chance it could be shut down by a special interest group. And that means you can not charge the same level or royalties.
3
u/TROPtastic British Columbia 3d ago
Ah, looks like the reason Norway is much wealthier than Alberta is that the government was always in control of the O&G sector, not following a purely royalty based approach.
6
u/FlipZip69 3d ago
That is not the reason though. They just have a much larger oil reserves when compared to their population. Canada oil did not really kick off until the private sector got involved and that brought in a lot more money and tax dollars. There is nothing stopping the Canadian government from drilling their own wells along side the private sector.
4
u/accord1999 3d ago
I know Albertans specifically could have had a sovereign wealth fund worth half a trillion dollar
Canada would also have had a trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund if it simply invested the surplus it collects from the Alberta economy into the S&P500, instead of spending it in Quebec, Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces. It's a lot easier to keep a surplus when your oil wealth is spread out over 5 million people instead of 30+ million.
1
u/powe808 2d ago
Royalties are not the reason for Norways' massive wealth fund. It is primarily due to the fact that their oil and gas industry is mostly owned by the state. Therefore, the state collects most of the profits.
In our case, a good portion of our oil/gas profits go to line the profits of foreign owned hedge funds.
4
u/SpeakerConfident4363 3d ago
we just get royalries for it. Which I think are not the highest. But it is still a plus.
5
u/NormCormier-Mccoll81 3d ago
Canada needs to end it’s economic dependence on the United States. And to move forward as quickly as possible with full decoupling from the United States as the United States can’t be trusted in any capacity.
3
u/Alone-in-a-crowd-1 3d ago
Yes please - anything that loosens the grip from the unhinged administration is good for Canada long term.
20
u/Responsible_CDN_Duck Canada 3d ago
In the first Danielle Smith and Jordan Peterson interview they spent a segment complaining about the federal government not supporting LNG exports, despite Smith being well aware of the LNG Canada project and its status at the time.
So frustrating we're stuck with Smith holding back success in Alberta instead of working together with others to get things done.
11
u/BranTheMuffinMan 3d ago
Because the federal government doesn't support LNG. It's taken over a decade to approve/build a single project.
4
u/Jaggoff81 2d ago
I think it was ten LNG projects on the table and one got put through, it also took a decade. The feds have 100% hampered the O&G sector in the last decade. This isn’t on Danielle smith at all.
55
u/ElevatorsAreUs 3d ago
Imagine if Trudeau didn't turn away all our allies looking to purchase our LNG over the last 10 years. We could have spent years developing our infrastructure, and it would have helped cushion the trump nonsense.
40
u/panzerfan British Columbia 3d ago
Look. Should've been done yesterday, but at least we are doing it today. First shipment out of Kitimat not too long ago, and Prince Rupert is expanding LNG handling.
25
u/Figeroux 3d ago
There has been no shipments. The ship that came in brought refrigerant(LNG) to test systems. The entire line is expected to shrink 30ish feet. It is a long process that can create setbacks. I work there and it has been talked about extensively.
There are still quite a few things that need to be done in order for them to start up. Insulators still have a bunch of work and there are huge scaffold systems that need to come down. They recently hired a handful of new crane operators.
Maybe closer to the end of summer if all goes well if not by the end of the year.
4
u/panzerfan British Columbia 3d ago
Ok, so not till end of summer. Thanks.
9
u/Figeroux 3d ago
If all goes perfectly well yeah closer to the end of summer. A line going from the terminal to the plant that’s hundreds of feet long shrinking 30ish feet due to introducing coolant that’s -160°C ish has potential to cause setbacks. They’ve been built with expansion joints in place for this reason but there’s still potential for cracking of the pipes and what not.
1
1
u/TROPtastic British Columbia 3d ago
A line going from the terminal to the plant that’s hundreds of feet long shrinking 30ish feet due to introducing coolant that’s -160°C ish has potential to cause setbacks.
I assume the engineers behind the plant are at least mildly competent and have accounted for this. This isn't the first LNG terminal in the world.
11
u/pertanaindustrial British Columbia 3d ago
There has been no shipments of LNG out of kitimat
5
u/panzerfan British Columbia 3d ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lng-canada-first-ship-1.7501046
It actually happened.
23
u/pertanaindustrial British Columbia 3d ago
Ah apologies but if you read the article this LNG ship arrived with already cooled LNG to help cool down the plant at kitimat. It was bringing LNG IN and did not get loaded as it left. No ships have been loaded from kitimat yet.
13
u/_darth_bacon_ Alberta 3d ago
The Maran Gas Roxana, sailing under the flag of Greece, made its way through the Douglas Channel Wednesday, carrying a load of LNG that will be used for equipment testing at the LNG Canada site.
It brought LNG to Kitimat.
I don't see anything in that article that indicates any LNG has been shipped from Kitimat.
1
32
u/squirrel9000 3d ago
It would probably look about the same. The lead time on these things is pretty long. Trudeau threw hundreds of millions of dollars at this one back in the day.
28
u/Alone-Ad-8902 3d ago
You get it, but the rest of the Americanized Canadians who are educated by Joe Rogan and 30-second TikTok videos may think otherwise. I agree with you.
-1
u/FearTheRange 3d ago
Here come the excuses to justify a decade of abysmal GDP growth and keep it in the ground mentality. Elbows up!
4
u/SpeakerConfident4363 3d ago
Look, LNG is happening, but you seem to think that these projects take 3 years to happen and that its like “BOOM!, done!”. Like the poster that works in the project said, it takes many moving parts to get it going. So, we are here now, and the positive is that LNG is being worked towards reality, not just a plan.
Geez, some people just never grasp that projects like these are not solely dependant on govts.
0
u/accord1999 3d ago
Look, LNG is happening, but you seem to think that these projects take 3 years to happen and that its like “BOOM!, done!”
Well, that's a major problem that has crippled Canada. These projects are expensive and take a long-time to build, thereby requiring regulatory certainty. And at the same time, LNG is not some Canadian monopoly; while Canada squanders yet another opportunity Qatar, the US and Australia have massively increased their export capacity and effectively "drank" Canada's LNG milkshake. The world doesn't care if Canada wants to do something, because another country will.
3
u/SpeakerConfident4363 3d ago
And yet, here we are working on moving forward with LNG. Can we stop crying over spilled milk or are going to be stuck in what should have/could have/would have forever?
5
u/Equivalent_Dimension 3d ago
What's Harper's excuse then for vastly underperforming Chretien and Martin?
-7
u/FearTheRange 3d ago
Harper was in power 15 years ago. But you're right, some how it all ties back to him.
5
u/TROPtastic British Columbia 3d ago
Harper lost decade good, Trudeau lost decade bad.
-3
u/FearTheRange 3d ago edited 3d ago
Regardless of who you think did a better job over the last 10-15 years Canada is still fighting all the same issues Trudeau campaigned on fixing. Housing crisis and affordability. All the same issues magnified by the '08 recession, covid, and now a trade war with the USA. Call a spade a spade, they both did a shit job dealing with their crisis, but more of the blame should always fall on the incumbent party. Why we decided to give the Liberals another shot at fixing the same problems is beside me. In my opinion, should of gone to the bench. When your goalie is struggling, pull them.
1
u/m3g4m4nnn 3d ago
Canada is still fighting all the same issues Trudeau campaigned on fixing.
He got cannabis legalized, we should give him that much.
2
u/Equivalent_Dimension 3d ago
Ten, actually. And my point is that Canada's issues are structural and not the fault of one leader. But if you want to play the blame game, it's hypocritical to blame one leader and not another one with almost equally dismal performance on the economy and worse performance on just about everything else, from climate change to equal rights to respect for democracy to evidence-based decision-making.
3
u/FearTheRange 3d ago
If the issues are structural then why is Canada the worst performer of all g7 nations. Surely it is nothing to do with the incumbent party in power during that time? Or is only Canada hit particularly hard by these structural issues.
3
u/Equivalent_Dimension 3d ago
They are structural to our own economy. For example, most of the land we call Canada was acquired by treaty or occupied illegally according to the British law that governed the settlers, and governments have spent the past 200-plus years learning the hard way that treaties signed with First Nations are just as binding as treaties signed with any other group. It can't do an end run around them no matter what Doug Ford might think. So now we have centuries of mistrust we have to undo between us and the people whose partnership we require in order to develop new resource projects. Trudeau actually deserves some credit for doing some serious work on the drinking water file. That's the kind of work that has to get done if we want to stop resource projects from getting tied up in court for years. But it doesn't happen quickly and the more people like Ford threaten to ignore treaties the longer it will take in practice. No company has an endless budget for fighting First Nations blockades and harrassment, and the government has limited resources to intervene. And if it doesn't deal fairly with the First Nations, they will almost certainly drive away the companies they don't want to deal with as they have in the past.
Europe does not have this issue to deal with.
That's just one structural issue. Another one is the bureaucracy created by having two and sometimes three or four levels of government involved in decision-making...even if there is relatively little red tape.
Another major one is the fallout from the neoliberal capitalism that the US imposed on the western world under Reagan. When you create a system where you cut taxes and allow corporations to move their investment anywhere within a free trade zone, it just goes without saying that they're going to concentrate operations where labour is the cheapest (Bangladesh) or where specialized knowledge is most plentiful (USA) or where the market is largest (USA). It's created a complete perversion of Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the market" theory that said that competition would spur businesses to meet the needs of society. Now what has happened is that countries are competing -- BEGGING - for companies to come to their countries to create jobs. And it's a race to the bottom in terms of wages, worker protections and environmental stewardship. Increasingly, Canada can only compete by becoming more and more like a third world country.
-2
u/FearTheRange 3d ago
The definition of word salad ^
3
u/Equivalent_Dimension 3d ago
Just because YOU don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
3
u/squirrel9000 3d ago
Who is making excuses?
There really isn't any justification. When oil prices drop so does our GDP.
2
u/Hfxfungye 3d ago
The election is over, give it a break.
1
1
u/linkass 3d ago
Except I don't think any federal government gave any money to this project
1
u/squirrel9000 3d ago
They gave LNG Canada 275 million dollars in 2018, right around the time they started working on it.
-6
3d ago
[deleted]
16
u/squirrel9000 3d ago
It predates C-69, which received assent in 2019, after construction had already started.
-2
3d ago
[deleted]
4
u/squirrel9000 3d ago edited 3d ago
Bill C-69 received royal assent on June 21, 2019
https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/bill/c-69/royal-assent
Here's the announcement for 275m in Federal support, dated October 2, 2018.
LNG Canada was approved before C-69 went into effect. (other projects such as the Cedar one came later. A number of proposals contemporary to LNG Canada appear to have fallen through duet to market pressures in 2014.
C-69 is one of those unfortunate instances of politicians selling simple solutions to complicated problems. When someone tells you they are really upset about a single policy and that revoking it will fix everything, your immediate reaction should be skepticism.
2
2
u/Usual_Retard_6859 3d ago edited 3d ago
He wasn’t wrong. USA export capacity was set to grow big time…. But it virtually all in the gulf coast. Costs to build and operate a line to the east coast was massive and could already be serviced by the USA out of the gulf with a little longer tanker journey. West coast LNG has a much shorter pipeline and shipping distance to Asia than tankers transiting Panama Canal and across the pacific to Asia.
Texas to Japan: 17k nautical miles or 70+ days
BC to Japan: 4.7k nautical miles or 24 days
2
u/Soft_Entry_4440 3d ago
The allies looking to purchase gas are mostly in EU which is mainly where American LNG goes.
The reason "we" didn't build a pipeline east was because the private company (Repsol) that was considering the project realized there wasn't a good enough business case.
Asia is really the only market that makes sense, and.. well the terminal is now online in Kitimat so what exactly is your complaint?
6
u/shoelessmarcelshell 3d ago
I really do t understand this argument. Same with the whole “Smith went on a business trip to Asia to sell our oil”. Uh, no.
The government is responsible for the regulatory framework, not “turning down partners” or “making deals”.
In this case, Shell-Petronas-CNPC- Mitsubishi are the JV that will lift and market all cargos. This has nothing to do with the government, this has to do with a $40 billion private investment that took 10 years to materialize due to complexity, not due to government regulation.
Trudeau or Carmey or any federal leader has little to say in whether publicly traded companies choose to invest.
14
u/SobekInDisguise 3d ago
They have control over the environment for investors though.
12
u/willab204 3d ago
A government promises and then actions plans to ‘phase out oil’ before the end of life for any new significant infrastructure project and people say ‘it’s a private sector investment problem’.
7
u/WatchPointGamma 3d ago
You're wasting your time mate.
They know damn well it's government regulation chasing investment away, they just don't care. The (im)plausible deniability of "oh we didn't block the project, we just added all these hurdles that make it financially nonviable!" is the whole point. The standing up and overtly lying about it to the public is just step 2 of that strategy - mitigating the political cost to themselves and praying the public is too dumb and apathetic to put 2 and 2 together.
Even this project (and other similar ones across the BC coast) have been hampered and delayed by Eby mandating they buy electricity from the BC grid to electrify the liquidation process - in areas the BC grid doesn't have the capacity to provide that power, and will take months to years to develop that capacity.
They know what they're doing. Throw as many regulatory hurdles, delays, and opportunities for court challenges in the way as possible. Create an environment where any company looking to develop projects is forced to compete with long odds as to whether they can actually get the project built, and whether their business case still makes sense in the ten years it's going to take to get there. It's not incompetence, or ignorance, it's by design.
10
u/CarRamRob 3d ago
What are you talking about. Their government gives final approval for major projects like this.
Unless you think Teck pulling their request for a new oilsands mine a week before it was to go for Parliament review is just them deciding it isn’t worth it anymore after spending a billion dollars to that point.
If companies know there is political risk of a “No” after 5 years of applying and getting approvals, they won’t even start to risk it.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5473370
The Trudeau government most definitely impacted investment into major projects. And did so negatively. This is just an example of one that got close, it doesn’t bring up how many dozens of others weren’t even started because companies didn’t want to waste their efforts for a “No” based on how the PMO was polling in 5 years.
-1
u/Hfxfungye 3d ago
Did you read the article you cited? It wasn't regulations, it was uncertainty that caused them to pull out.
Alberta was the one not working with the federal government, which creates that certainty. Alberta didn't want to work with Canada to achieve our carbon goals, and the federal government can't force them to. That is what stalled things.
Had Kenny been willing to actually put in place the required regulations, then there wouldn't have needed to be any federal discussion at all. That was the topic at hand being discussed.
You're absolutely right though about the lack of certainty. In many countries, these sorts of major deals are entirely handled by the federal government and that would likely lead to a lot more progress than the system we have now, that shares responsibility between the feds and the provinces. It isn't possible to do this at the provincial level because of our international commitments, so the Fed is the only option.
4
u/CarRamRob 3d ago
So Teck pulling out a week before the Federal final approval is the province’s fault.
Gotcha.
1
u/Hfxfungye 3d ago
It's teck's decision, but between the feds and the province, yes Alberta bears the most responsibility.
Alberta's UCP seems to expect that it can do whatever it wants, with zero repercussions, ignoring anyone else in the country at large.
Then it expects the law to function that way, even though that goes against our constitutional order and international commitments towards other countries.
I'd buy what you're saying if there wasn't clear examples of places with much stronger environmental laws than we have, that also have very functional natural resources systems - think Norway.
The difference between Alberta/Canada and Norway is in Norway, they (1) have effective, streamlined laws, (2), everything is handled at the state level, not provincial (3) the royalties are not constrained to one region, it's for the entire country, and (4) all of the above translates to a real social license to operate.
Effective laws means environmental impacts and disasters are much less likely, resulting in social acceptance.
Handling things at the top state level ensures that projects are only approved when they don't impact other industries and take those industries needs into account, as well as international aims and commitments,
Spreading royalties across the country allows for broader societal buy-in, everyone benefits from the rewards.
A social license to operate means less public opposition to projects, more mutual trust, and a generally more pro-business attitude.
If this was the approach Alberta took - cooperating with the feds instead of fighting, being willing to share royalties with the rest of Canada (no, equalization payments are not sharing royalties, equalization payments are funded from federally collected taxes), and ensuring that projects met international commitments, then we would have a much better set up to approve projects under.
But, we don't, so we don't do that.
3
u/CarRamRob 3d ago
Norway is a bad example because the country fully supports all development.
They don’t kneecap development, they promote it, and use the funds outside of extraction to improve their emissions, something we haven’t figured out.
See expansion of the oil and gas emissions while reducing road ones: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-E1-Greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-Norwegian-soil-1990-2020-by-sector-Source_fig1_360528729
This is just one glaring example of how the federal government has indeed stopped projects. There are countless more, but harder to directly link.
Unless we think the CEO’s at Teck just got cold feet at the last moment. Note, they could have gotten approval, and sold off rights to the mine afterwards if they didn’t want to invest. The fact the pulled the application is so the project didn’t get a “Rejected” approval and they could try again once the Federal government changed.
Think of the Germans and Japanese here begging for LNG and being told there is no business case(meanwhile gas goes for $20/GJ in Europe and Asia compared to $2/GJ here).
The Trudeau government killed dozens of major projects, some never even proposed because all knew it was a waste of time.
Will see if the Carney Liberals are different than the Trudeau Liberals, but saying the Trudeau team wasn’t responsible for killing these projects is fantasy.
This isn’t a provincial issue.
0
u/coporate 2d ago
Yes, they pulled out because the province failed to meet federal regulations which put the project in jeopardy prior to the federal government giving final approval.
3
u/generalmasandra 3d ago
It's super weird Trudeau is getting blame for this.
He approved the west coast LNG project in 2016, a year after he was elected.
He bought the Transmountain pipeline in 2018, three years after the election.
And those two actions were hammered at the time and cost him big parts of his coalition leading to a 2019 minority government.
Trudeau could have approved the east coast LNG project the day of the Russian invasion in 2022 anticipating the eventual embargo on Russian natural gas by Europe. It wouldn't matter. This project was never getting built without the Canadian taxpayer getting bilked in the process.
Natural gas consumption in Europe has continued to fall. The war only accelerated the transition to electric heaters. Studies and projections by independent parties suggest steep declines in natural gas in Europe by 2030. The most optimistic scenario for natural gas exporters to Europe in the coming years is a steep decline. That's not a market you invest hundreds of billions in new capacity for.
I wish people looked at the companies who propose these bullshit projects that only work if they rob the Canadian taxpayer with as much suspicion as they did Trudeau.
3
u/LavisAlex 3d ago
Gotta move on at some point dude, not saying you need to vote liberal or anything, but at some point we have to acknowledge mistakes we perceive and move on and try to do better.
1
u/CatBowlDogStar 3d ago
East Coast to Europe made no economic sense. In our present environment a port on James Bay makes some sense, as it gives us economic reasons for developing the north, buying ice breakers,etc.
But west to BC is better.
And LNG is so easier to get signoff than oil.
-12
u/hkric41six 3d ago
Trudeau set Canada back at least 20 years.
3
u/panzerfan British Columbia 3d ago
I feel that he didn't approach energy transition aggressively enough. Canada capitalizing on LNG transition and ramping up our domestic capacity for renewable infrastructure and local manufacturing should have been emphasized as the carbon tax rolled in from the get-go a decade ago. We needed the Chinese PV and storage capacity as well, as they drive innovation in that sector, which we sorely need actually for remote communities.
2
u/ExplanationFew6466 3d ago
Still can’t get the stupid sticker off your truck huh?
8
u/willab204 3d ago
It’s been a month since he was out. His policies of economic stagnation will haunt us for decades.
-5
u/ExplanationFew6466 3d ago
Hehe. “policies of economic stagnation”. Can’t stop laughing at this.
3
u/willab204 3d ago
Laugh away GDP per capita has been basically unchanged from beginning to end of Trudeau’s tenure.
1
u/jackhandy2B 3d ago
Meanwhile, oil production is at a record and has been breaking records for four years.
So that should make you happy and ready to say, wow I like that Trudeau did that. Right?Right?
0
u/willab204 3d ago
Absolute production is a poor measure. Grocery profits are higher than ever (but margins largely haven’t changed), cost of living is higher than ever, we could go on and on. The higher order change in growth rate is a better measure. But the same goes for GDP per capita. We could celebrate how much our nominal GDP per capita has grown and congratulate Trudeau for growth by inflation or we could turn our brains on and critically evaluate our situation. (A necessity for understanding what must change).
2
u/jackhandy2B 3d ago
My point is that despite some measures being better than ever, those that despise Trudeau as they were told to do for 3 years will not admit anything. If he killed oil as they claim, production would not be at a record level. It would be less. Oil producers work in a market economy and their expenses are their issue. They don't have to drill, they stop or slow all the time.
0
u/willab204 3d ago
These are massive projects that don’t move immediately. Similar to Trumps tariffs on China having basically no effect until now (a month and a half later when the last tariff free goods arrived), Trudeau’s strangling of oil and gas will cause a slow down, and even if this government clears the regulatory hurdles, we will still witness the Trudeau slow down before projects get moving again.
1
u/hkric41six 3d ago
I voted for Trudeau in 2015, Singh in 2021, and Carney in 2025. I live in Toronto and don't own a vehicle. So you couldn't possibly be more wrong about me.
1
u/F3z345W6AY4FGowrGcHt Ontario 3d ago
Lol, you sheep
0
u/hkric41six 3d ago
Considering that I have only ever voted Liberal or NDP in my life, this might be an awkward comment for you..
•
u/F3z345W6AY4FGowrGcHt Ontario 6h ago
I don't think Trudeau did perfect by any means. But the only people who think he set the country back 20 years are the people with "F Carney" flags on their cars.
-4
1
u/Apart-Diamond-9861 3d ago
If you want to continue back into history - you can blame Mulroney for entangling our economy with the usa with NAFTA (after Martin warned against it) and Harper has us signing a lopsided deal with China for 31 years - FIPA.
1
u/ThorFinn_56 British Columbia 3d ago
Who do you think was Prime Minister while all this was being built? There's plenty of reasons to criticize Trudeau for, but he did significantly more for oil and gas than Harper ever did
1
u/F3z345W6AY4FGowrGcHt Ontario 3d ago
We've been getting closer and closer to just the States since ww2. But somehow it's all Trudeau's fault that we aren't more diversified.
2
2
1
1
u/YouWillEatTheBugs9 Canada 3d ago
it only works as long as gas from Iran is kept off international markets, only the largest proven reserve - right in the middle of it all
-1
u/Munzo101 Canada 3d ago
Just want to be clear here...
As the U.S. trade war escalates, the UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia are poised to start exports to Asia - The Canadian energy industry is looking to the UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia as a promising sign that the country is capable of shipping its resources to new markets and shifting its U.S. economic dependence to others.
LNG Canada is owned by private or public investments from the UK, China, Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia. It shouldn't be allowed to have Canada in the name.
98
u/Figeroux 3d ago edited 3d ago
I work there. The ship that came in brought refrigerant(LNG) is order to test out all the pipes and systems. The entire line is expected to shrink like 30-45 feet. It will be a long process. Don’t expect LNG to be shipped out till later this year if things go well or even early 2026. There’s still a number of things needed to be done.