Evidence of meeting #13 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pipelines.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Shelley Milutinovic  Chief Economist, National Energy Board
Jim Fox  Vice-president, Integrated Energy Information and Analysis, National Energy Board
Gil McGowan  President, Alberta Federation of Labour
Richard Sendall  Chairperson, Senior Vice president of MEG Energy Corp., In Situ Oil Sands Alliance
Patricia Nelson  Vice-Chair, In Situ Oil Sands Alliance

May 30th, 2016 / 3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Good afternoon everybody. Welcome back to Ottawa. I'm glad everybody survived their constituency week and other activities they were involved in.

We have a busy day today, so I'm going to dispense with a lot of formalities and get right into it.

I'm going to welcome our first two speakers from the National Energy Board. I was going to start by trying to be humorous and suggest we had to cancel again because we have more votes, but given the number of times we've done that, it would probably not be in good taste.

Instead I'll just say thank you very much for being here today, and a big thank you for your patience and for being good enough to come back several times under the circumstances.

I would like to introduce Mr. Jim Fox, the vice-president of integrated energy information and analysis with NEB. He's in Calgary and he's with Shelley....

3:35 p.m.

Shelley Milutinovic Chief Economist, National Energy Board

Milutinovic.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Thank you.

She is the chief economist and is also in Calgary.

Thank you both for joining us. I'm going to open the floor to you. You have up to 10 minutes to do your presentation, and then we'll turn the floor over to questions. Thank you very much.

3:35 p.m.

Jim Fox Vice-president, Integrated Energy Information and Analysis, National Energy Board

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting us here today. Both Ms. Milutinovic and I are honoured to appear before the committee today to discuss the future of Canada's oil and gas sector.

We've provided the clerk with a few slides, and I'll make some brief comments on them.

The National Energy Board is an independent quasi-judicial regulator that was established in 1959. The board reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. Our main responsibilities are established in the National Energy Board Act. These include regulating the following: construction, operation, and abandonment of interprovincial and international pipelines that transport oil, natural gas, and other commodities as well as the associated pipeline tolls and tariffs; construction and operation of international power lines and any designated interprovincial power lines; and export of crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products and electricity. The board also monitors aspects of energy supply, demand, production, development, and trade. My slides will go through highlights of our recent projections of Canada's energy supply and demand.

The NEB's publication “Canada's Energy Future 2016” is a key reference point. It's the only publicly available long-term Canadian energy outlook covering every energy commodity for all provinces and territories. This study continues a very long tradition of energy outlook reporting by the NEB. We've been publishing this study regularly since 1967.

The analysis we do in the report is not a prediction of the future. It is a projection of what might occur based on a set of assumptions. We make three key assumptions in the report, which are important to set out right up front. First, any energy produced in Canada will find a market either in Canada or through export. Second, infrastructure will be available to move energy products to markets once they are produced. Third, only government policies that are either set out in law or near to being set out in law at the time the analysis is done are actually included in the publication.

With regard to total energy production, as you can imagine, Canada's energy future will be determined by the interaction of many forces. Prices, economic growth, policies and regulations, market access, and the development and use of new technologies will all play a significant role.

While recently there has been much debate around Canada's oil and gas reserves, one thing I think we can all agree on is that we have a lot of them. We have more than 170 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. That's third in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Most of those, of course, are in the northern Alberta oil sands. Every day, Canadian refineries process about 1.7 million barrels of oil.

On the natural gas side, Canada's total remaining marketable gas resource is 1,087 trillion cubic feet. That's enough natural gas to meet the country's needs for more than 300 years, based on current consumption levels.

There is an amazing amount of oil and gas resource in Canada, and the production and sale of it represents a significant part of the national economy. In all our cases, we see energy production growing significantly up to the end of our projection in 2040.

Our reference case projects that Canadian oil production will grow by 56% over 2014 levels to 6.1 million barrels per day by the year 2040; natural gas production will grow 22% to 17.9 billion cubic feet per day, with liquefied natural gas exports being a key driver of that growth. Electricity production will hold fairly steady, but coal-generating capacity will decline and natural gas-fired generating capacity will increase significantly.

These projections come with the significant challenge, of course, of producing that energy in an environmentally responsible manner.

On the third slide, we show levels of future oil and gas prices. The numbers in the study were finalized last August, and developments since that time, including some significant ones in carbon pricing, are not included in this analysis. We're currently working on an update, which will be ready for Canadians this fall.

In our reference case, Canadian energy demand will continue to increase by 0.7% each year through to 2040. We project significant growth in all major forms of renewable energy including hydro, solar, wind, and biomass. By 2040, we project that non-hydro renewable electricity generation capacity will account for 16% of Canada's total. That is on top of hydro, which will account for 51% of Canada's electricity generation capacity. Greenhouse gas intensity will diminish due to a higher demand for lower-intensity fuels such as natural gas as opposed to oil or coal.

I'd like to highlight three primary findings from the study that are particularly relevant to today's discussion.

The first finding is that levels of future oil and gas production are highly dependent on future prices, which are subject to considerable uncertainty. To examine this uncertainty, the board explored a high price case as well as a low price case to compare them to the baseline.

In our reference case, oil prices rise from just over $50 per barrel to $80 in 2020, and a bit over $100 in 2040. The high and low price cases are about $25 U.S. above and below that through the projection period.

For natural gas, the reference case Henry Hub price rises from just under $3 per million BTUs in 2015 to $3.85 in 2020, and $4.55 in 2040. The high and the low cases are about $1 above and below this level.

On slide 4 we show the total oil and gas production. As I said earlier, the reference case projects that total oil production will release 6.1 million barrels per day by 2040, which is 56% higher than 2014 levels.

Oil sands production will more than double by 2040 from 2.3 million barrels to 4.8 million. I'd like to point out at this stage that in the copy we provided to the committee there's a mistake on the line where we show that oil sands production would grow by 24%. That's incorrect, as it will more than double the 2.3 million barrels—and the 4.8 barrels is correct.

In our high price case, production is about 800,000 barrels per day higher in 2040, and in the low price case production is flat after 2020 at 4.8 million barrels a day.

Natural gas production in 2040 ranges from approximately where we are today, at 15 billion cubic feet per day, to 23.5 billion cubic a day in the high price case.

The second finding is that liquefied natural gas export is an important driver of Canadian natural gas production growth. The reference case assumes that LNG exports increase to 2.5 billion cubic feet a day by 2023. This is an assumption, as there's considerable uncertainty regarding the volume and timing of LNG exports from Canada.

We examined two cases around this uncertainty: a high LNG case and a no LNG case. In the high LNG case, we assume that LNG exports will grow to reach 6 billion cubic feet a day by 2030. In the no LNG case, we assume that no LNG exports will occur by 2040. In the high LNG case, total natural gas production reaches 22 billion cubic feet a day by 2040 compared to the reference case number of about 17.9 billion cubic feet a day. In the no LNG case, the total production is only 15 billion cubic feet per day in 2040.

On slide 6, we look at our third major finding of what would happen if none of the major proposed oil export pipelines were built. That would mean no Keystone XL. no Northern Gateway, no Trans Mountain expansion, and no Energy East. We refer to this as the constrained case. In this case, which is built on the reference case oil prices, Canadian crude oil production continues to grow, but delayed projects and reduced investment over the projection period reduce total Canadian crude oil production in 2040 by about 500,000 barrels, or about 8% compared to the reference case. In this case, much more crude will be moved by rail at about 1.2 million barrels a day in 2040.

That concludes my opening remarks.

We would be happy to answer any questions the committee has.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lemieux, you're going to start us off.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for their excellent presentation.

As you know, our committee is currently examining the relationship between the development of the oil and gas industry and sustainable development. In that context, on January 27, 2016, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced an interim approach designed to restore trust in environmental assessment. In this initiative, the government defined five broad principles, which are that no project proponent will be asked to return to the starting line if processes have already begun; decisions will be based on science; the views of the public and affected communities will be sought and considered; indigenous peoples will be meaningfully consulted; and direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions linked to these projects will be assessed.

In your opinion, Mr. Fox, how will these five principles increase the confidence of the public and of the communities concerned in your assessment procedures for large projects?

3:45 p.m.

Vice-president, Integrated Energy Information and Analysis, National Energy Board

Jim Fox

The interim measures announced by the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change are incremental to the National Energy Board's normal reviews of pipeline applications. The measures are ones that the ministers believe will increase confidence in the board's reviews or in the projects that are being reviewed by the board. I'm not sure I can really comment on how the ministers actually think this will change public opinion.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

What measures are you taking to increase the confidence of the public and of the communities concerned in environmental assessment processes?

3:45 p.m.

Vice-president, Integrated Energy Information and Analysis, National Energy Board

Jim Fox

The measures that the National Energy Board will take include reaching out and engaging Canadians in serious and meaningful ways, helping Canadians understand what the board's full life cycle of regulatory oversight looks like, including what we do in certain circumstances, and how we look at issues that Canadians are concerned about, such as emergency response, and the potential for oil pipelines to pollute waterways, or other concerns that Canadians have.

We've seen over the last two years that Canadians are increasingly interested in the kind of work the board does, interested in a way that they haven't been in the past. The board is undertaking to talk to people more, to help us understand what their concerns are and to help them understand what the board does, and what the board undertakes through the life cycle of a project to ensure that the projects are safe, that the environment is protected, that people's water is protected, and that people's communities are protected.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

What obstacles impede your ability to regulate large projects?

3:45 p.m.

Vice-president, Integrated Energy Information and Analysis, National Energy Board

Jim Fox

I'm not sure we actually see shortcomings in our capacity to regulate projects. The board receives an allocation of funds from Parliament and puts those to the challenges of pipeline regulation in an appropriate way. If we didn't think we had the sufficient resources to regulate in an appropriate way to keep pipelines safe, we would come back and ask for an additional allocation, but we don't think that's necessary at this point.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

We have heard a lot about the modernization of the National Energy Board. Could you explain some of the reforms implemented by your organization to address that?

3:45 p.m.

Vice-president, Integrated Energy Information and Analysis, National Energy Board

Jim Fox

We've taken a number of steps over the past two years to change the way that we regulate, to become more transparent, to reach out to Canadians, to engage them more, to find out what their concerns are, to find out how much they know about the National Energy Board, and to try to provide information to them that's useful. We've also undertaken very recently a reorganization that will allow us to better align the resources we do have with those priorities that we are pursuing so that we can both regulate in an excellent way and demonstrate to Canadians that we're regulating and providing excellent, world-class regulation of the pipelines we oversee.

We have a number of internal initiatives going on. We've opened up two regional offices, one in Vancouver and one in Montreal, and we're continuing to work a great deal on engaging Canadians directly to understand what their concerns are and to explain how the board approaches various problems that arise.

3:50 p.m.

Chief Economist, National Energy Board

Shelley Milutinovic

Maybe I could just add to what Jim has said with regard to some of the things we're doing around transparency.

On our website you can find out where things are at with respect to compliance on conditions, on facilities. You can see where spills occurred. Our inspection reports are online. We've required companies to put their emergency response manuals online. We're also improving our ability to make energy information available to Canadians. We're improving our internal systems. We're looking at data in a better way so that we can look at where there were incidents, look at that data, analyze it, and try to reduce future incidents.

It's a long list. I could go on, but that probably gives you the gist of it.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

I have a very long question, but I don't have much time left. I could begin to ask it, however.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

You have about 40 seconds.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

At this time, all of Canada's natural gas exports are going to the United States, mostly because Canada does not have the necessary infrastructure to liquefy natural gas.

What challenges will we have to overcome in order for Canada to develop an industry capable of exporting liquefied natural gas?

3:50 p.m.

Chief Economist, National Energy Board

Shelley Milutinovic

The challenges aren't just in Canada. It is also competition in the world. There are a number of countries—Australia, Russia, Malaysia—that are also looking to get those markets.

The markets have softened in the last couple of years. There is also a challenge around pricing. LNG markets used to be tied to oil prices. In the last few years, markets have been moving away from that, so prices have fallen considerably. That makes it more of a challenge to build new infrastructure in Canada to serve those markets with those prices.

Also, on the U.S. side, they are developing brownfield facilities, which are not new facilities. They can take their import facilities and convert them to export, which is less expensive, so they are another competitor to Canada.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal James Maloney

Thank you. We are going to have to move on now.

Mr. Barlow, go ahead.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Jim, it is really good to see you again. Thanks, both of you, for making the time. I know it has been a trying process to get you here, and I appreciate it very much. I know what your schedule is like and the work the National Energy Board has done, not just over the last few months but over the last few years, in terms of regulating our pipelines and energy sector, and I wanted to say thank you very much for the work you guys have done.

Some of the questions we have had here today so far have been about what you are not doing. I would like to focus on some of the things you are doing at the National Energy Board.

We have had many witnesses over the last few months testify that Canada has one of the strongest, if not the strongest, regulatory review processes in the world. Other countries and producers come to Canada to model their system on what we do here, and yet we were talking today about not having the respect or the buy-in, let's say, from provincial and national governments and politicians. I like one of the answers you gave. You don't see shortcomings in the review process and assessment reporting you are doing.

Is there anything we can do that we are not doing now that you feel will all of a sudden change the narrative so that some of the opponents to our national pipeline programs will all of a sudden change their mind? Are there things we are not doing that we could be doing?

3:50 p.m.

Vice-president, Integrated Energy Information and Analysis, National Energy Board

Jim Fox

I will say no, and maybe expand on that. I don't think we see things that are not being done.

The National Energy Board, like all energy regulators, is a creature of statute. Our responsibilities and our mandate are set out in the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. What we are mandated to do, and what we can do, is all set out there and is structured in law. The board is undertaking its assessments in the best way it knows, within its mandate and within its law.

If Parliament decides to change that law and add things to it or take things away, then we will faithfully execute that new amended National Energy Board Act in the best way we can.

I don't have a piece of advice to say, you should do this or shouldn't do that.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

In one of the slides, which I found very interesting, you talked about the constrained case and “What if pipeline projects do not proceed?” We would have to transport 1.2 million barrels of oil a day by rail. What is the National Energy Board's assessment of the safety differences between transporting oil by pipeline versus transporting it by rail or by truck?

3:55 p.m.

Vice-president, Integrated Energy Information and Analysis, National Energy Board

Jim Fox

I will give you our perspective, but unfortunately I am the wrong person to offer you facts and figures.

We believe that transporting oil by pipelines is the safest mode of transporting oil we have. When you transport oil by rail, often railcars go through municipalities, and if there are accidents, that oil is already above ground.

The safety record of the pipeline industry in Canada is very good, compared to other pipeline systems around the world, and we believe that transporting oil by pipeline is a better alternative than by rail. However, we don't regulate the rail industry.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Right. I am wondering whether you have done comparisons on the number of accidents. Maybe we can find that information another way—the number of spills, and potential rail accidents.

3:55 p.m.

Vice-president, Integrated Energy Information and Analysis, National Energy Board

Jim Fox

We haven't done comparisons ourselves, but we are aware of comparisons that others have done. They generally show that pipelines are safer than rail.