“When I think of liquefied natural gas, I am thinking of cleaner energy worldwide,” said Stastia West, president of Shell Canada, at the Calgary energy fair at the beginning of the month.
Shell and four Asian companies are Partners of LNG Canada in Kitimate, British Columbia. This is the first installation to export Canadian gas across the Pacific in an ultra-finished liquid condition using specialized tankers.
A handful of other projects are under construction or development on the coast of British Columbia.
Danielle Smith, the Prime Minister of Alberta, told the energy show that Canadian oil and gas exports could constitute an “antidote” in current geopolitical chaos.
“And this is accompanied by an additional advantage: the reduction of global emissions. By transporting more natural gas, we can also help countries abandon more polluting fuels, such as coal, “she said.
Ms. Smith cited a recent study by the Fraser Institute according to which, if Canada doubled its natural gas production, exported the additional offer to Asia and replaced coal there, this would lead to a reduction in annual emissions that could reach 630 million tonnes per year.
“This represents nearly 90 % of total Canada greenhouse gas emissions each year,” she said.
The authors of the Study of the Fraser Institute, published in May, believe that Canada’s ability to reduce its emissions elsewhere should be taken into account in its climate policy.
“It is important to recognize that GHG emissions are global and are not limited by borders,” write Elmira Aliakbari and Julio Mejía.
“Instead of focusing on reducing GHG national emissions in Canada by implementing various policies that hinder economic growth, governments must focus on reducing GHGs worldwide and helping the country reduce its emissions worldwide by developing its exports of liquefied natural gas,” they add.
For some experts, the painting is darker.
According to Kent Fellows, assistant professor of economics at the University of Calgary’s university school, most credible estimates suggest that, if the liquefied natural gas should actually replace coal abroad, there would result a certain reduction in emissions.
But the extent of these discounts is questionable.
“Will all our natural gas exports replace coal?” Absolutely not. Will part of them replace coal? Probably, but it is really difficult to know exactly what this figure is, “he said.
According to Mr. Fellows, there is a good chance that Canadian supplies will supplement other sources of gas from Russia, Eurasia and the Middle East, which would reduce emissions. He added that Canadian gas could actually be worse from the point of view of emissions, depending on the evolution of the competing offer. Liquefied natural gas consumes more energy than transport by gas pipeline, as gas must be liquefied and transported by boat.
In China, all types of energy are requested. Thus, instead of replacing coal, liquefied natural gas would probably simply be added to the current offer, believes Mr. Fellows.
“Everyone who thinks it is one or the other are wrong,” he said.
An Investors for Paris Compliance’s main analyst, which aims to oblige Canadian businesses listed on the stock market to keep their carbonutrality promises, doubts that a country like India understands the economic interest of replacing coal produced in the country with imported gas from Canada.
“Even at the lowest price, gas is still more expensive. It would take a massive system of subsidies to developing countries so that they replace their coal with a fuel which is not even proven that it is much more ecological, “said Michael Sambasivam.
Even in this case, “it is not as if they could simply press a switch and use it,” he added.
“There are a lot of infrastructure to build to receive liquefied natural gas and to use it. It is necessary to build import terminals, it is necessary to redevelop the electricity production terminals. ”
According to Mr. Sambasivam, liquefied natural gas is in direct competition with renewable energies.
If there have been discounts of emission abroad following the transition from coal to gas, Mr. Sambasivam does not see why a Canadian company should be awarded it.
“The two parties will want to claim emission discounts. You cannot claim these double savings, “he said.
Indeed, industry players have long protested against environmental studies that take into account emissions related to the production and combustion of oil and gas transported by a gas pipeline, claiming that only negligible emissions linked to the exploitation of the infrastructure itself should be taken into account.
Devyani Singh, researcher at Stand.earth and candidate of the Greens in the elections of last year in British Columbia, said that the arguments according to which the liquefied natural gas is a green fuel are weakened by the effects on the climate of production, liquefaction and shipping of gas.
One of the main components of natural gas is methane, a greenhouse gas approximately 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a period of 20 years, according to the intergovernmental group of experts on climate evolution (IPCC).
The methane which escapes from tanks, gas pipelines and wells is a major problem that industry, governments and environmental defense groups are trying to solve.
“Have we really taken into account all the leaks along the entire gas pipeline?” Have we taken into account the sub-declaration of methane emissions in British Columbia and Canada? ”
Even if liquefied natural gas has an advantage on coal, considering it as a “transition” fuel at this stage is a problem, according to Ms. Singh.
“Transition fuel time is over. Let’s be honest: we are in a climate crisis where the time of transition fuel has been over for more than a decade. ”
