WASHINGTON, D.C. — Canadian and American leaders have long promoted the concept of North American energy dominance, aiming to create one of the world’s most integrated energy markets with cross-border pipelines and power grids. However, recent political shifts have complicated this vision. Left-leaning politicians in both countries have sought to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and accelerate the transition to clean energy. The political landscape shifted again with Donald Trump's return, as he views the push for renewable energy as premature and detrimental. Trump is now focusing on renewing U.S. investments in oil and gas.

In Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney is taking a different approach. He has moved away from Justin Trudeau’s cautious stance on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, advocating for a more diversified energy strategy. This includes critical minerals, clean energy, nuclear, hydro resources, and ambitious LNG export plans for both the East and West Coasts. "Our government is in the process of releasing half a trillion dollars of investment in energy infrastructure, port infrastructure," Carney stated during a recent visit to Europe. He highlighted projects such as enhancements to the Port of Montreal and the development of a new port in Churchill, Manitoba, which he believes will unlock significant LNG opportunities.

These initiatives on the East Coast complement ongoing projects on the West Coast. Carney has expressed his goal of making Canada an "energy superpower," a vision he shared with Trump at the G7 summit in June. As Europe seeks to diversify its energy sources and reduce dependence on Russian imports, Canada’s LNG ambitions are gaining traction. The pressing question is whether Canada can establish its export capabilities quickly enough to meet European demand and potentially challenge U.S. energy dominance.

Currently, the U.S. operates eight LNG terminals, primarily located on the Gulf Coast, exporting to Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Trump has plans for additional terminals, including one in Alaska, which would be the first major LNG export hub on the U.S. West Coast if developed successfully. In contrast, Canada has only one operational large-scale LNG terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia, which began operations earlier this year. Several more terminals are under construction on the West Coast, and there are proposals for a floating liquefaction and export facility.

Canadian LNG exports from the West Coast could compete with U.S. Gulf Coast exports, as they offer shorter and more direct shipping routes to Asian markets. However, the development of eastern projects has been slower due to the concentration of natural gas supplies in British Columbia and Alberta, along with a lack of coast-to-coast pipelines. Plans are underway for a $15 billion facility off Newfoundland’s coast by Fermeuse Energy, which would include a nearly 400-kilometer pipeline. Additionally, discussions are ongoing for a potential LNG export terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick, which may involve a pipeline to Quebec. Carney has also suggested upgrading the Port of Churchill, Canada’s only Arctic deepwater port, for LNG exports.

European leaders are optimistic about the potential for Canadian LNG exports, especially as they phase out Russian oil, gas, and nuclear energy imports by the end of 2027. Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, noted, "Europe would like some redundancy. Right now, they have to depend on the United States. If you’re a European country, you would like to have diversity of supply."

For Europe, sourcing LNG from Canada instead of the U.S. Gulf Coast could result in faster shipments and potentially lower emissions. Dulles Wang, director for Wood Mackenzie’s Americas gas and LNG research team, pointed out that Canada’s stricter upstream regulations around flaring could make its LNG exports more appealing. However, Canadian LNG projects face significant challenges. Exner-Pirot cautioned that while Arctic LNG shipping is currently popular, it may not be practical due to seasonal port limitations and the high costs of ice-breaking capabilities.

Other eastern projects also encounter hurdles, including gas supply issues, local opposition, and expensive construction costs. Experts have noted that previous proposals to transport natural gas from the West faced political and environmental resistance in Quebec. Newer offshore reserve ideas require costly underwater pipelines, which have not been fully de-risked.

Additionally, while some LNG projects have support from First Nations in Manitoba, they face opposition from Indigenous groups in other eastern regions. Even if all political and funding challenges are resolved, the harsh Canadian winters could delay project timelines, with estimates suggesting build times of seven to ten years—more than double that of projects in the southern U.S.

This lag could hinder Canada’s ability to attract European interest, especially as European policymakers aim for a swift transition to clean energy. Concerns about long-term contracts with North American LNG suppliers have also emerged, as many European leaders remain skeptical about their ability to transition to low-carbon fuel sources.

While Wood Mackenzie predicts a significant increase in global natural gas demand by 2050, other analysts warn that expanding LNG export capacity could lead to a supply glut before 2030, making long-term investments risky.

Exner-Pirot believes that Trump may not view Carney’s Arctic LNG ambitions as a threat, stating, "The amount you’d be able to move out of there would be so minimal." However, competition for investment in East Coast LNG projects could pose a challenge. "We’re competing with the United States for investment," she explained.

As Canadian LNG projects begin to compete with established U.S. and Russian exporters for Asian markets, concerns are rising in Washington. Trump may target Canadian LNG ambitions in ongoing trade negotiations, as any gain for Canada could be perceived as a loss for the U.S. Despite this, some analysts argue that expanded Canadian LNG capabilities could enhance energy security for both North America and its allies in Europe and Asia.