Have Lawmakers Turned Their Backs on Keystone XL?

 

WASHINGTON D.C. — On breaking news that a congressional conference report for the transportation bill will not include a provision forcing the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Leader Harry Reid seem ready to push a major, multi-billion dollar transportation and infrastructure bill through both chambers just in time to meet a deadline this weekend. But nowhere in the package is a provision to finalize approval for the most important infrastructure project currently blocked by the Obama administration — the Keystone XL pipeline. The American people deserve decent roads, and they need the fuel for their cars to drive on those roads. Coupling Keystone XL with the highway bill makes good sense for our economy and our energy future.

“Already, the Obama administration delays have cost the United States more than $15 billion dollars — money that apparently Senator Reid would rather send to overseas oil cartels rather than our closest North American trade ally. Members who support a transportation bill that doesn’t force the Obama adminstration’s hand to approve — once and for all — the TransCanada permit application are taking a Keystone cop-out.”

In the Pipeline: 6/22/12

And you shall know the truth.  And the truth shall set you free.  At least that is what my friend John says.




We offer this without comment.  Except to say that in every instance subsidies are corrupting.  You know, like the Food Stamp bill just passed by the Senate. 
The Hill (6/21/12) Reports: Low natural-gas prices mean that it’s economical to power heavy trucks with the fuel even without federal incentives, according to a new report that finds up-front investment costs for the vehicles could be recovered in three years.

I’m willing to bet the response from the bad guys is going to be to attack the professors who did the study.  Anyone want that action? The Colorado Observer (6/7/12) Reports: Wherever WildEarth Guardians goes, the economy suffers, according to a newly released report… The study, “Economic Impact of WildEarth Guardians Litigation on Local Communities,” found that household income drops by an average of $2,503 in communities where the non-profit group WildEarth Guardians is active in litigating environmental issues.

You know who didn’t sign this letter?  That’s right, the taxpayers who are being robbed so corporate farms can be paid off by their pals in Congress. Agriculture Energy Coalition (4/5/12) Reports: “We recognize the fiscal challenges facing your committees as a new Farm Bill is drafted this year. However, for all of the reasons noted above, we urge you to ensure the vital Energy Title programs are re-authorized and afforded significant mandatory funding over the life of the legislation.  Helping to grow the economy in these relatively inexpensive, but transformative ways will help ease the fiscal challenge in the years ahead while also addressing other critical national challenges.”

We hope you don’t retire.  It will be fun watching you explain your comments to voters during an election campaign. Politico (6/21/12) Reports: Rockefeller flatly denied to him that his vote Wednesday against an effort to derail Obama administration rule targeting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and his floor speech should be taken as a sign he won’t run in 2014.

Usually we don’t run press releases, but the egregiousness of DOE’s “Beyond Solyndra” is too much to ignore.  Apparently, Nobel prizes are not won for honesty or integrity. Energy and Commerce (6/21/12) Reports:In an astonishing piece of propaganda entitled “Beyond Solyndra,” the Obama administration today points to an electric car company whose loan has been suspended as an example to validate their massive federal efforts. Unfortunately, the sad reality is even when you get “Beyond Solyndra,” the Obama Department of Energy’s risky investments are still littered with failure…

Climate Regulations Raise Gas Prices

 

A new study put out by the Western States Petroleum Association concludes that California’s statewide cap-and-trade plan, known as AB32, would raise gasoline prices and shut down refineries. The study, performed by the Boston Consulting Group, affirms basic economics by realizing that government regulations will raise the cost of business and necessarily impact retail prices and jobs. This is a welcome dose of common sense in a sea of rhetoric arguing that climate change regulations will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help the economy at the same time, a claim that is simple nonsense.

An article in the SFGate summarizes the report’s main findings:

California regulations designed to fight global warming could force half of the state’s refineries to close, trigger fuel shortages and add $2.70 per gallon to the cost of gasoline…

The study…argues that California’s upcoming cap-and-trade system to cut carbon dioxide emissions could wreak havoc with fuel supplies as early as 2015. So could the state’s low carbon fuel standard, a policy requiring refiners to lower the carbon intensity of the fuel they sell in California.

…[A]s many as seven California refineries would no longer be profitable, said Brad VanTassel, senior partner of the Boston Consulting Group.

Should they close, the state could lose between 28,000 and 51,000 jobs, with the losses occurring not just at the refineries but at businesses frequented by refinery workers. California also could lose $3.1 billion to $3.4 billion in tax revenue.

Although different approaches would yield different numerical estimates, the basic logic of the study is quite straightforward: By forcing refineries to produce a different type of gasoline for California motorists from what the market would naturally provide, the regulations embedded in AB32 raise refinery costs. This will make it less profitable to stay in the industry, leading refiners to either scale back operations or even (in the extreme) to shut down altogether and leave the California market. The reduced supply of refined gasoline, in turn, leads to higher pump prices for California motorists.

These points shouldn’t be controversial. Even many environmental economists, who endorse cap-and-trade programs as a way to mitigate climate change, acknowledge that there is a tradeoff involved. They recognize the obvious point that when the government levies more regulations on business, the economy suffers.

Even though these observations are intuitive, many proponents of AB32 and other government intervention into the energy sector try to have their cake and eat it too. They claim that a low-carbon fuel standard, and strict limits on the total emissions of greenhouse gases (i.e. cap-and-trade), will force businesses to invest in new technologies and thereby create “green jobs.”

Yet this logic is absurd. If it were really profitable and “good for the economy” to make such investments, it wouldn’t take government coercion. Indeed, if the logic of these arguments were actually correct, then the government wouldn’t need to restrict itself to climate change regulations. It could, for example, mandate that businesses every month put on a different color coat of paint over their buildings. Then we could create thousands of jobs for the painters and the firms that supply them, which we could call red, blue, purple, and orange jobs.

The new Boston Consulting Group’s study on AB32 affirms the obvious: More government regulations on business will lead to higher prices and job destruction. Citizens need to be aware of the tradeoffs when considering government interventions in energy markets.

Contact Your Congressman to Support the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act

 

Click here to Take Action and write your Congressman.

America is blessed with abundant and affordable energy resources, and we need to increase energy production to grow our economy and create more jobs. Unnecessary red tape, inefficient permitting processes and lack of access to federal lands have made American energy production more expensive for consumers and businesses, especially on federal lands and waters.  In fact, the Congressional Research Service reported that 96% of the increase in U.S. oil production since 2007 has come from non-federal lands.  And this should be no surprise, since less than 3% of federal lands are even leased for energy production.

The government needs to get out of the way, and while not perfect, this bill is a good place to start. Some of the language in the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act focuses too much on federal planning and merely delays the implementation of regulations instead of eliminating them.  Nonetheless, it is an important step in the right direction as it would increase energy supply and create good paying American jobs.

In places like North Dakota, energy production is booming on state and private lands helping to substantially reduce unemployment and increase revenue for the state’s budget. By opening more federal lands to energy development, streamlining permitting processes and making the EPA study the impacts of its regulations, Americans in all fifty states will be able to enjoy the benefits of more energy production and a stronger economy.

The regulatory process for energy production on federal lands does not resemble a sensible cost-benefit approach. It lacks certainty, transparency, and is mired in bureaucratic red tape. The EPA, for example, is on a destructive path that is making it impossible for energy developers and manufacturers to continue to operate in the United States. This measure will require the EPA to do its job and study the costs and benefits of regulations and – more importantly – report the results to the American public before they are imposed.

Technology and free markets have been the driving forces behind our ability to develop resources in ways that are safe for the environment and that benefit the American people. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act will help unleash the collective energy of our businesses and natural resources, breathing life back into the economy and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Please follow this link to contact your Congressman and pledge your support for H.R. 4480, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.

'The Fracking Miracle'

 

WASHINGTON DC — The Institute for Energy Research, in a joint venture with The Heritage Foundation, released today a video telling the story of economic freedom, energy abundance, and job creation that are happening in North Dakota’s oil-rich Bakken shale formation. “A Fracking Miracle” provides first-person narratives of lives transformed, record employment, and economies bolstered by sensible state regulation, private land ownership, and safe drilling technologies.

“North Dakota is one of the nation’s most remarkable success stories — where free markets and American entrepreneurship are working together to create an economic miracle. The rising tide of robust energy development made possible by sensible regulation and private land ownership is truly lifting all boats — from farmers who were facing bankruptcy to unemployed machinists who are back catching up on their bills,” IER President Thomas Pyle noted.

“From all across the country, people are moving to North Dakota to find work and get a new start on life. Yet Washington is trying to limit hydraulic fracturing and stop the economic boom in North Dakota and other energy-rich parts of the country. From the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Interior, regulators are working overtime to close the pages on these success stories. ‘The Fracking Miracle’ explains why these regulators must be stopped to secure America’s private sector job creation, economic prosperity, and energy future.”

To view “The Fracking Miracle,” click below.

To read The Heritage Foundation’s Foundry Blog on the video’s production, click here.

To read the facts about North Dakota’s energy boom, click here and here.

American Energy Alliance Releases 'Phantom Fuels' Video

 

WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance released a video today exposing the failure of renewable energy mandates that raise the cost of producing and consuming transportation fuels in the United States. The “Phantom Fuels”video tells the story of cellulosic biofuel, a plant-based fuel source that is not commercially available despite federal law requiring refiners to blend 8.65 million gallons of it this year. Failure to blend the non-existent biofuel cost refiners $6.8 million dollars last year in fines assessed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Last week, American-based companies were forced to file a lawsuit in federal court seeking relief from the EPA’s rogue penalties.

“Cellulosic biofuel is the latest poster child of government gone bad. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently penalizing refiners because they are not blending an imaginary product. Congress has been complicit in the scheme, and both Republicans and Democrats are to blame,” noted AEA President Thomas Pyle.

“Renewable mandates like the cellulosic biofuel requirements eventually defraud American consumers, who are forced to pay higher energy prices to fund the political experiments of crony capitalists. These ‘phantom fuels’ are but another example of the kind of policies that have marked the Obama-Solyndra era.”

To view AEA’s “Phantom Fuels” video, click below.

Steven Chu Thinks He’s Smarter Than You

 

When he’s not busy picking “winners” like Solyndra, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has time to engage in original, peer-reviewed research. In a forthcoming paper, Chu and his co-authors argue that federal mandates for energy efficiency actually don’t increase prices for consumers, because the extra hoops force the producers to learn how to innovate. As usual, Chu’s views are at complete odds with basic economics.

In a June 14 article for E&E titled “For energy efficiency, Chu’s law is on the way,” Paul Voosen reports:

Energy Secretary Steven Chu is nearing publication on a pet research project that he has led with a small band of physicists….

The project…began with refrigerators. For decades, the government has placed minimum energy standards on household appliances like fridges, once a notorious power hog. The expectation has been that, while purchase prices might temporarily bump up, electricity savings would balance that expense down the road.

It seems a reasonable assumption….The thing is, historical data don’t show it to be true. There is no bump, he said.

“You really can have your cake and eat it, too,” Chu said. “You get higher performance. You get lower cost. And you’re saving tons of money. And by tons of money, I mean the cost of ownership going down threefold, fourfold. [It’s] really dramatic.”

The article goes on to explain that Chu and his co-authors believe that there is a “learning curve,” and that forcing producers down the energy-efficiency path will make them figure out ways to achieve the mandated goals at lower costs than people initially would have experienced. Since there is apparently no downside to slapping on new mandates for energy efficiency—hey, prices apparently don’t zoom upwards!—there are apparently a bunch of free lunches out there, waiting for the wise Energy Secretary to shove down our eager throats.

Whenever someone from the government tells you he’s going to force businesses to do something, and yet there will be no downside—we should be very suspicious. In this particular case, there are critics of the study, saying it relies on dubious data and methods.

But let’s concede all that. Suppose Chu et al. are right, and after the government slaps on a new efficiency mandate, that the price of the good doesn’t rise sharply. Can we conclude that the mandate is a pure boon to consumers?

This would be very odd if it were true. Again we have to ask: If the businesses in question really were capable of supplying the more desirable product, at the same price, then why didn’t competition lead them to this result already? Can it really be that Steve Chu and other government official know the appliance, automobile, insulation, and other industries better than the shareholders and managers who earn their living in them?

Part of the answer is that a product has many dimensions, only one of which is price. If the government imposes a new mandate, improving quality in one dimension (such as energy efficiency), then something has to give. It may not necessarily be on price, but it could be in other areas.

For example, consider CAFE standards on vehicles. When the government forces manufacturers to produce cars and trucks that have higher fuel economy than would occur in a free market, it distorts the mix of attributes that consumers would voluntarily choose. It forces the vehicles to get better fuel economy at the expense of other attributes, also desired by consumers.

Yes, CAFE standards have made cars more expensive than they otherwise would be, but they also have made cars lighter and therefore more vulnerable in crashes. One study estimates that for every mile per gallon in fuel efficiency attributable to CAFE, there are 7,700 additional traffic fatalities.

It’s not just CAFE and automobiles, the federal energy efficiency standards for washing machines might save money, but it lowers the quality of the washing machines. Sam Kazman reports in the WSJ:

In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were “excellent” and five were “very good.” By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were “fair” or “poor.” [In May 2011] came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as “often mediocre or worse.”

The problem is not that washing machine engineers forgot how to clean clothes since 1996, but the federal government is forcing washing machine manufacturers to make their machines more energy efficient and that is coming at the expense of cleaning clothes.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu is an incredibly smart man. But his field is physics, and unfortunately his success in that area has given him the hubris to override the voluntary decisions of producers and consumers in energy markets. Federal mandates do come with a price tag, and these costs don’t show up exclusively on the actual price tags.

Bird Deaths: Environmentalists Target Energy Instead of Real Killers

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal carried a prominent article about accidental bird deaths caused by communications towers. According to the article, a whopping 6.8 million birds are accidentally killed by flying into these towers (the article did not specify if bird suicides were included or not). These 6.8 million birds are usually attacked – apparently without provocation – by these aggressive and belligerent towers under the cover of darkness by their illuminated red lights.

As previously mentioned, 6.8 million birds are killed by these towers, yet that is only a tiny fraction of the 2.38 BILLION accidental bird deaths a year. Bird deaths by communication towers account for a minuscule 0.286% of accidental bird deaths a year. If you add up all the bird deaths from airplanes, wind turbines, communications towers, automobiles, pesticides, hunters, and power lines, it still doesn’t even come close to the most notorious, “accidental” bird killers, cats and buildings (and windows), which kill a combined 2 billion birds annually.

Conservationists and biologists are calling for the lights on these communications towers to be turned off at night to halt the ornithocide. The conservationists and biologists are also quick to point out the potential saved energy costs by turning off these lights.

That environmental activists are perennially hostile to energy development due to the wildlife impacts on birds, lizards, toads, and all other species of airborne and earthbound critters appears more ridiculous given today’s revelation by the Wall Street Journal.

Cats and windows (even energy efficient windows recently installed as part of the President’s stimulus package) are the unmatched killers of nature’s aviators. One wonders when the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council will soon crank up efforts to oppose the American Association of Cat Fanciers, or the Associated Builders and Contractors’ Union, each of which is apparently complicit in a billion bird murders every year. In fact, they might want to step up efforts to increase the criminal penalties for cat hoarders while they’re at it.

 

NRDC Misleads on Keystone

 

A recent report by the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) makes the case that Americans should reject the Keystone XL pipeline because its construction would raise gasoline prices in the U.S. The NRDC report is based on absurd economic arguments and distorted analysis from another research group. Most ironic of all, NRDC has been a strong advocate of a government cap on carbon dioxide emissions, with the express purpose of raising the cost of fossil fuel energy. It’s therefore strange for them to be warning that Keystone would raise gasoline prices.

The following excerpt summarizes NRDC’s recent claims about Keystone raising U.S. gasoline prices:

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would divert oil from the Midwest to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Midwestern refineries produce more gasoline per barrel than refineries in any other region in the United States. That gasoline is then sold to U.S. consumers. In contrast, refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas produce as much diesel as possible, much of which is exported internationally. By taking oil from midwestern gasoline refineries to Gulf Coast diesel refineries, Keystone XL will decrease the amount of gasoline available to American consumers.

Meanwhile the Keystone XL pipeline will increase the price that gasoline producing refineries in the Midwest pay for crude oil. TransCanada, the company sponsoring the pipeline, pitched the pipeline to Canadian regulators as a way of increasing the price of crude in the United States. Right now, Midwestern refineries are buying crude oil at a discount—a deep discount. This allows them to produce products more cheaply than they would otherwise be able to. Building Keystone XL would change that. If TransCanada’s analysis is accurate, under current market conditions, Keystone XL would add $20 to $40 to the cost of a barrel of Canadian crude—increasing the cost of oil in the United States by tens of billions of dollars. [Bold added.]

On the face of it, this analysis is absurd. The development of Canadian oil sands—and building pipelines to bring the new product to market—will lower worldwide crude prices. Now the NRDC study is alleging that Keystone will cause the United States market (in particular the Midwest refineries) to pay $20 to $40 more for a barrel of crude.

The idea here is that currently the Midwestern refineries, given their proximity to the Canada oil sands, are enjoying the benefits of the glut of Canadian production, and so they receive a discount on their crude compared to the prices that other buyers around the world have to pay. Before continuing, stop to consider what that means: Because Midwestern refineries are lucky to be located next to booming Canadian oil sands development, they get very cheap crude oil. We’re glad NRDC acknowledges that part of the issue.

However, the apparent problem is that from the perspective of Canadian exporters, they would rather be able to sell a barrel for (say) $75 to a Gulf Coast refiner, rather than at a discounted price of (say) $55 to a Midwestern refiner. The Keystone pipeline would allow them to physically do this, i.e. to efficiently move their product to where demand is the highest. This is the logic behind NRDC’s claim that building Keystone would raise crude prices in the Midwest.

Yet the argument is nonsense. Suppose the NRDC gets its way, and the U.S. government forbids construction of Keystone. Do we really think the Canadians are going to be content, selling their excess oil production at a steep discount to Midwestern refiners? Of course not. There are other refineries on planet earth besides those in the United States, and eventually the Canadians will figure out a different way to get their products into the hands of the highest bidders. For example, the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline would move Canadian crude from Alberta due west to a port in British Columbia, where it can be shipped to Asian markets. If NRDC thinks Canadians will be content to forever sell their crude at a steep discount to Midwestern refiners, they clearly don’t understand the worldwide oil market.

Beyond the basic error in the analysis, the NRDC paper distorts the actual position of TransCanada. The citation in the NRDC paper for these claims no longer works (i.e. the URL listed in their endnotes doesn’t lead to a working webpage), and thus far a telephone call to NRDC for clarification has not been answered. However, IHS Purvin & Gertz, the research group supplying the analysis for TransCanada on this issue, has released an official rebuttal in the form of a FAQ to the claims put out by NRDC and others. Here is Purvin & Gertz’s side of the story:

Q.      What did IHS Purvin & Gertz conclude regarding the impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline on heavy crude prices in Canada?

A.              We concluded that Keystone XL could increase the price that Canadian producers receive for heavy crude by $3 per barrel in 2013. This increase in heavy crude price was estimated to provide total benefits to Western Canadian producers in 2013 of between $1.8 and $3.4 billion.

In other words, there were many other factors involved in the analysis that TransCanada relied upon, and instead of NRDC’s claim of $20 – $40 per barrel, the actual number (at least according to the FAQ issued by the people who were being cited) was more like a $3 difference.

The global oil market is interconnected, and large price discrepancies cannot last long, absent government restrictions. Even so, temporary bottlenecks can develop in particular areas, leading to temporary price differentials. A Department of Energy analysis of the Keystone pipeline goes into some detail on these issues, and why the crude price spread currently exists across U.S. regions.  Ironically, the DOE analysis projects that building the Keystone pipeline would reduce U.S. gasoline prices on average.

If the goal is to lower energy prices and ease the pain at the pump, governments should remove obstacles to the development of both conventional and unconventional natural resource deposits. Greater global crude production, other things equal, obviously leads to lower worldwide crude prices. As far as regional pricing differences, the United States government cannot prevent Canadians from doing the obvious thing of selling their crude to the highest bidder on the world market. The U.S. government can, however, ensure that the “shovel ready” pipeline construction jobs, as well as refining jobs, go to Canadian workers rather than U.S. ones, by blocking Keystone.

We Can Learn from Canada

 

The United States should start taking lessons from Canada regarding oil development and its relationship to a pro-growth regulatory and tax structure. Canadian production of oil sands in northern Alberta is expected to reach 4.1 million barrels a day by 2020, up from last year’s production level of 1.6 million barrels per day. This area in Canada is the world’s third largest crude oil resource.[i] Unlike the United States, Canada’s budget treats its energy resources as assets that should be used for the public good.

Equally important, unlike the United States, the Canadians understand that the regulatory review process is too convoluted, too long, and too expensive.  The United States is headed in exactly the opposite direction. Their latest budget proposes firm review time lines and the removal of multiple reviews by the national and provincial governments. Canada’s Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, has a catch phrase—“one project, one review.[ii]

Canada’s Government Direction

Canada’s provincial governments, led by Alberta in the 1990s, cut taxes, slimmed government and created a stable investment climate in order to encourage energy development. Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario followed. In 2006, when the Harper government took control of the nation, Canada started to cut national taxes, trim government employment and secure free-trade agreements. Its corporate tax rate dropped to 15 percent, which compares to the U.S. rate of 35 percent.

The government has pledged to balance the budget by 2015 without raising taxes. That compares with four consecutive years of U.S. deficits of $1.3 trillion. Canada’s federal debt as a share of GDP is falling while that of the United States is rising, heading toward 70 percent. Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty explained that policies to “raise taxes, increase government spending, and shun new trading opportunities” would “kill jobs, impose crushing deficits, and cripple our economy.”

Canada’s Oil and Pipeline Development

One of the largest positive forces driving Canada’s economy is oil production and a recent oil production forecast from an analyst at CIBC World Markets captures show just how much oil production could increase. This latest forecast of Alberta oil sands production of 4.1 million barrels per day by 2020 is higher than the forecast made by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) that expected a more modest increase of 1.4 million barrels per day, reaching a total of 3 million barrels per day by 2020. But, just using the CAPP forecast, industry and government analysts expect Canadian oil production to bump up against current pipeline capacity by 2015 or 2016.

Thus, three  proposed pipelines, TransCanada Corp’s Keystone XL pipeline to Texas, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline to the Pacific Coast, and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Project are needed to transport the crude to buyers. Due to opposition to pipeline construction from environmental organizations, the national government is revamping legislation on environmental assessments for major energy projects.  The government has concluded that existing laws have granted too much power to delay needed infrastructure by groups simply opposed to energy production.

Besides the Northern Gateway project, Enbridge is planning to spend C$3.2 billion ($3.15 billion) on pipeline expansions, mostly to get oil from Alberta and North Dakota to refineries in the U.S. Midwest and in Eastern Canada. East coast refineries are currently fed by foreign oil , which are more expensive than U.S. benchmark prices. According to Stephen Wuori, the head of Enbridge’s liquids pipeline business, “Refineries in Ontario and Quebec are paying premiums of $20 per barrel or more to obtain crude oil from the foreign sources they are currently largely dependent on. Access to Canadian and U.S. Bakken production will help level the playing field for these refineries, protecting their long term viability and safeguarding jobs.” The expansions are expected to be completed in 2014.[iii]

Currently the United States is Canada’s largest export market for oil and Canada is America’s largest single source of imported oil. However, because President Obama “delayed’ the Keystone XL pipeline decision despite three years of study and subsequently found that the pipeline was not in the national interest, Canada has decided to ship more oil to China and other Asian countries. It intends to press forward with a pipeline to Asia.

A May 3 poll conducted on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce found that the vast majority of Canadians believe they need to broaden their  markets beyond the United States and that developing Alberta’s oil sands is more positive than negative.  Three-quarters of those surveyed agree it is important for Canada to build the infrastructure needed to reduce its dependency on the United States for hydrocarbon exports.[iv]  It is clear that the president’s decisions to postpone and reject the Keystone XL permit have had a profound impact on the way Canadians view the United States.

According to Canadian Prime Minister Harper, the United States under President Obama has become too unreliable an energy partner; leaving no doubt who will be to blame for rising prices in the United States in the years to come. Harper indicated that until now the United States had been receiving oil at a discounted price from Canada, but that would end. In the future the United States will have to pay full price – no more breaks. Harper said, “Look, the very fact that a ‘no’ could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets.”[v]

Policy and Data on U.S. Oil Development

The United States government is operating in sharp contrast to the Canadian government with more taxes, more regulation, and more red tape on energy industries.

According to a report by the Energy Information Administration, using Interior Department statistics, oil production on U.S. public lands is down 14 percent from last fiscal year, an outcome largely due to the moratorium and permitting delays that the Obama Administration put into effect after the oil spill accident in the Gulf of Mexico.[vi] Recently, the Obama Administration moved even further backward when it produced its draft offshore leasing plan for 2012-2017. It removed from leasing the offshore areas that President Bush and Congress had opened to drilling in 2008 when oil and gasoline prices hit a record high.[vii]  The effect of the 5 year plan is that through 2017, U.S. policy will be no different than if the moratorium was never lifted.

Delays are rampant under the Obama Administration. According to Garret Graves, director of coastal activities for the state of Louisiana, “There have been intentional efforts to slow down new production by slowing the permit approval process.”  For example, operators submit plans to the government before they can apply for permits, a process that used to take 50 days but now takes, on average, 212.[viii]

In the Western states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, the U.S. Interior Department reduced the available lands for oil shale production by 75 percent. Further, the administration is promoting new environmental requirements that will negatively affect oil production on parcels already leased. And while the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System is moving less than a third of the oil it was built to move, which is currently produced on private and state lands, the Obama Administration is not opening Federal lands in Alaska to oil development that would sustain the life of the pipeline and provide domestic oil to the lower 48 states.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, President Obama’s debacle with the Keystone XL pipeline has left a bad feeling in Canada and the country is moving forward with plans to develop Asian markets for their oil sands that will just lead the United States further away from a stable oil environment in the future. While Canada is moving toward less regulation and debt reduction, the United States is doing just the opposite. Canada believes less regulation, less taxes, and less debt will boost its economy, while the United States is doing just the opposite with little progress towards a better economy.



[i]      Reuters, Canada oil sands output beating projections, May 17, 2012,http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/canada-oilsands-forecast-idUSL1E8GHGSI20120517

[iii]   Wall Street Journal, Canada’s Enbridge to Expand Oil Pipelines, May 16, 2012,http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303360504577408892726239780.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[iv]     Bloomberg, Enbridge CEO to Tap Canadian Oil Sands Support for Gateway Pipeline, May 9, 2012,http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-09/enbridge-ceo-to-tap-canadian-oil-sands-support-for-gateway-pipe.html

[v]     National Center for Policy Analysis, Canadian PM Is Clear: Blame Obama for Higher Gas Prices, April 5, 2012,http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/canadian-pm-is-clear-blame-obama-for-higher-gas-prices/

[vi]    Energy Information Administration, Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 through FY 2011, March 2012, http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/federallands/pdf/eia-federallandsales.pdf

[vii]   Institute for Energy Research, Obama’s Offshore Plan: One Giant Leap backwards, May 8, 2012, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/05/08/obamas-offshore-plan-one-giant-leap-backwards/

[viii]    L.A. Times, A political debate plays out among Louisiana oil rigs, May 20, 2012,http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-energy-politics-20120521,0,3763298.story