Like a boomerang that we thought we had gotten rid of, the debate surrounding the LNG Quebec megaproject is coming back through the election campaign.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
Éric Duhaime is in favor of the construction of this natural gas liquefaction complex in Saguenay. The Conservative leader even wants to make it the famous “question of the ballot box”.
François Legault denies wanting to relaunch the project. But Radio-Canada has revealed that its Minister of the Economy, Pierre Fitzgibbon, is discussing it behind the scenes1. Finance Minister Eric Girard also gave an interview this summer suggesting that the project could be reconsidered under certain conditions.2.
That this file is back in the news is not surprising. Since Quebec closed the door to GNL Quebec, a little over a year ago, the global geopolitical situation has completely changed.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has disrupted natural gas supplies in Europe, and not just a little. Vladimir Putin’s country supplied 40% of the gas consumed on the continent. Europeans will therefore be deprived of 155 billion cubic meters of gas every year. It is enormous.
Experts warn that energy shortages and high energy prices in Europe could strain household budgets, close factories and weaken public finances for years. Germany, the industrial engine of Europe, is particularly affected.
Faced with this very serious situation, Canada and Quebec have a duty to ask themselves what they can do to help Europe.
This includes taking a fresh look at GNL Québec, in light of the new context.
Attention. Above all, that does not mean authorizing the project in a hurry. Our editorial team has already spoken out against GNL Quebec and could very well stay on this position after another evaluation.
But the issues are complex and cannot be analyzed on the corner of the table. In response to the gas crisis, European countries have resumed burning coal, an energy that is much more polluting than natural gas. And they seek to obtain supplies from gas producers whose liquefaction plants do not run on hydroelectricity. Could natural gas from GNL Québec sustainably replace more polluting energy sources?
18 months ago, the BAPE ruled that this was not the case. There’s no heresy in making sure that this conclusion—and others in his report—remains valid in today’s reorganizing marketplace.
Above all, the promoters of GNL Québec will have to demonstrate that investors believe in the project and that customers are ready to make a long-term commitment to buy gas from the Saguenay.
It is far from obvious. GNL Québec would not export a drop of gas for at best four or five years. Europeans, actively committed to reducing their gas consumption and finding other sources of energy, will they have solved their problems by then? Analysts disagree on how long the upheavals will last.
If customers and investors are indeed there for GNL Québec, we can imagine a scenario where the project would be resubmitted to the BAPE.
All the pitfalls identified in the last report should then be re-examined. Could the war and its impacts change public opinion and bring about social acceptability? It is not impossible.
The question of the disturbance of beluga habitat remains unresolved. But it is really that of long-term GHG emissions that would be decisive.
The IPCC warns us of the danger of erecting new fossil fuel facilities that would operate for decades and “lock in” emissions.
This argument is crucial. The only way around it would be to show that GNL Quebec would indeed reduce global emissions over its entire lifetime.
The bar is therefore high. But the world has changed and a possible new version of the project deserves to be re-examined with the same critical eye as the previous one.
In the meantime, there is something else Canada can do for Europe. Yvan Cliche, energy researcher at CERIUM, points out that natural gas liquefaction projects are more advanced in British Columbia than in the east of the country. By accelerating these initiatives, Canada could export natural gas to Asia, easing global pressures and indirectly helping Europe.
Hydrogen would be another way to bring relief to the Old Continent. But even there, the export infrastructures have to be built. The transformation of electricity into hydrogen and the transport of the latter also entail colossal losses.
Helping our European allies will therefore not be easy for Canada. This does not prevent us from turning over all the stones in an attempt to do so. After all, it is resisting Vladimir Putin that is in question here.