That is a very good question.
The report from the International Energy Agency was what I referenced. It made a fair bit of headlines in the fall of 2012 when it suggested that the U.S. would be energy self-sufficient by I think 2035.
Its projection was based on an overall system of energy that looked at coal, wood pellets, renewables, crude oil, hydroelectricity, and natural gas so that overall, net, the United States would be self-sufficient and would actually export more energy than it imported.
But the individual commodities were quite differentiated, so in the projection the IEA had even suggested, there was I think a lot of misquoting of that particular fact in the media. A number of stories suggested that since they would be self-sufficient, Canada wouldn't have a market in the future to sell our energy products to the United States.
In fact, when you dig deeper and you look at the numbers and you look at the details, the market for Canadian crude, for example, would continue I think to the tune of about 3.7 million barrels, even by the projection of 2035. The electricity trade would continue at even greater rates than it is today. On the flip side, however, the United States would be exporting more coal, for example, and using less coal. So there were a number of changes in terms of which energy products, some of which Canada does today sell to the United States, but in general the products that we sell other than natural gas would continue to have a fairly high degree of demand.
Natural gas was the only exception. It's projected that by about 2020, the United States would be a net exporter of natural gas. Today we export all of our natural gas exports to the United States. I think it's still close to eight billion cubic feet a day, hence the very strong push for considering liquefied natural gas or alternate uses of natural gas in the Canadian domestic marketplace.