Last week, the Globe and Mail reported that Enbridge plans to file next month for a permit from the National Energy Board (NEB) to build an oil pipeline to the West Coast. According Enbridge chief executive Pat Daniel, the NEB process is expected to take about two years and Alberta bitumen could begin flowing to Pacific Rim markets by 2015. Mr. Daniel also said refiners in Asia have expressed interest in receiving these Canadian secure energy resources.
You’d be hard-press to find a U.S. policymaker that would disagree with the fact that we need to lessen our dependence on fuel from the Middle East. Here at Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), we agree believe that we need to use every bit of energy we have more wisely, and at the same time, responsibly increase access to our most stable and affordable forms of energy.
Some elected leaders, however, are mistakenly advocating policies that would force the U.S. to accepting stable, North American fuels from Canada and Mexico – which help more well over 20 percent of our daily demands.
Haven’t heard of this well-intended (perhaps) yet terribly misguided proposal? It’s called a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Unfortunately, proponents of LCFS policies aren’t telling the American public that this dangerous scheme – which targets fuel sources that are more energy-intensive to producer, transport, refine and deliver to market – will result in higher prices at the pump for U.S. consumers, and a deeper, more dangerous dependence on some of the most unstable and unfriendly regions of the world to keep our economy fueled.
California was the first state to mandate an LCFS. Other states are also trying to enact similar polices. And in Congress, proposals that would place a one-size-fits-all LCFS across the entire nation are also being considered. As we mentioned earlier, other nations – many of whom the U.S. competes with directly – recognize these LCFS efforts as a major and strategic window of economic opportunity to secure Canadian energy resources that would have been otherwise directed to American consumers.
In fact, the Financial Post recently reported this under the headline “China’s clout draws oil sands IPO:”
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd., which snapped up more than a million acres of oil-sands leases between May 2007 and October 2008, is ready to launch a steam-assisted gravity-drainage pilot project. The Calgary company is looking to raise hundreds of millions of dollars on Hong Kong’s stock exchange, a first for a Canadian energy company that highlights just how anxious Asian investors are to grab a slice of the oil sands.
China has already shown fierce interest in Canada’s energy. Sinopec Corp., an oil company controlled by the Chinese government, struck a deal April 12 to buy a 9.03% stake in Syncrude Canada Ltd. for $4.56-billion. The deal is subject to regulatory approval, and could prove a test of Canada’s will to cede a significant amount of oil production to China. Sinopec also controls 50% of the Northern Lights oil sands project, with its partner Total SA, the France energy giant, owning the rest.
Last year, PetroChina International Investment Co., another state-controlled outfit, bought a 60% stake in two of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.’s projects for $1.9-billion. A third government company, CNOOC Ltd., owns 16% of MEG Energy Ltd., a private oil sands player. Meanwhile, also last year state-owned Korea National Oil Co. purchased all of Harvest Energy Trust in a deal worth $4.1-billion.
Like many American consumers, CEA is concerned that China’s insatiable appetite for stable energy resources to continue to aggressively grow its economy, coupled with the consideration of job-killing LCFS proposals in the U.S., could send a troubling message to our strongest and most important trading partner to the north.
