The Fraser Institute has just released a report on a North American continental energy strategy, authoured in part by former Premier Ralph Klein.
It calls for a “long-term continental strategic framework which would support further integration of North American energy markets.” Seek a potential for “convergence of energy commodity markets” that would result in lower consumer prices and easier switching between energy commodities. Klein and Co. argue that more convergence of the North American energy market would be a “signal to international investors” that we are already “…a stable policy environment with less risk than competing world regions….” Policy certainty in the energy sector is said to be a key for project investors who have to plan out in terms of decades.
They see the framework for going forward is NAFTA and the report acknowledges this. However every US Presidential candidate still in the race form both parties are pretty protectionist and some are seemingly downright hostile to NAFTA, including Obama. The Fraser Institute paper says it will “…offer policy recommendations that could facilitate change to the Agreement (NAFTA) in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of a continental energy strategy.”
This language makes me nervous as a Canadian and an Albertan - and a free trader. This report at first blush is a manifesto to use the Security and Prosperity Partnership of March 2005 as a vehicle to sell out our raw bitumen to the US markets and not to require the upgrading benefits to come to Albertans.
It calls for a “long-term continental strategic framework which would support further integration of North American energy markets.” Seek a potential for “convergence of energy commodity markets” that would result in lower consumer prices and easier switching between energy commodities. Klein and Co. argue that more convergence of the North American energy market would be a “signal to international investors” that we are already “…a stable policy environment with less risk than competing world regions….” Policy certainty in the energy sector is said to be a key for project investors who have to plan out in terms of decades.
They see the framework for going forward is NAFTA and the report acknowledges this. However every US Presidential candidate still in the race form both parties are pretty protectionist and some are seemingly downright hostile to NAFTA, including Obama. The Fraser Institute paper says it will “…offer policy recommendations that could facilitate change to the Agreement (NAFTA) in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of a continental energy strategy.”
This language makes me nervous as a Canadian and an Albertan - and a free trader. This report at first blush is a manifesto to use the Security and Prosperity Partnership of March 2005 as a vehicle to sell out our raw bitumen to the US markets and not to require the upgrading benefits to come to Albertans.
Here is a paraphrase of a very interesting and somewhat disturbing quote from the report:
"Since the signing of NAFTA in December 1992, the North American energy sector has developed, in general, under the assumption of open and free markets in the three countries, and the energy sector has been shaped by the existing regulatory framework with respect to intra-continental trade, investment, and manufacturing. As the times have changed, the need for new legislation concerning North America's energy framework has increased. NAFTA's open-ended position on the the regulatory frameworks affecting energy, which essentially allows each country to do what it will, leaves much to be desired with respect to increasing the integration of North American energy policy, markets and transportation systems. [emphasis added] For example, North America needs an implementation plan for streamlining regulations pertaining to cross-boarder energy flows. Also, energy policies in Mexico, Canada and the United States must be reviewed in relation to the changes being made in environmental policy and in other related policies, and the three countries need ot strive for cohesive approaches to market, pricing, and environmental issuses."
I have to finish reading this Fraser Institute Report and I hope I have cause for more optimism for Alberta and Canada’s independent energy resource future than what I have digested so far. I can't understand what Canada, and ALberta, should be in a mad dash to an unrestricted integration of North American based energy markets with a limited role of government to protect the interests of Albertans, the owners of the resources.
I have to finish reading this Fraser Institute Report and I hope I have cause for more optimism for Alberta and Canada’s independent energy resource future than what I have digested so far. I can't understand what Canada, and ALberta, should be in a mad dash to an unrestricted integration of North American based energy markets with a limited role of government to protect the interests of Albertans, the owners of the resources.
I think we need to assure the Americans of continental energy supply but on terms and conditions and at a pace of development Alberta can absorb. A secure continental energy supply makes sense but not on an exclusive access basis to the oil sands. We need to attract more foreign investment and markest for synthetic crude outside of North America. And the upgrading has to happen in Alberta.
The value added aspects of oil sands development have to benefit future generations. It is not progress for Alberta and Canada to continue to be drawers of water, hewers of wood and now also add in "merely miners of bitumen." So far this report makes me nervous but I have not read it all yet. I think every Albertan better study and understand what is being proposed here.
I wonder whether these comments would be made if the report was not written by the Fraser Institute. Have you ever had anything good to day about their research?
ReplyDeleteKen:
ReplyDeleteOther than Kim Tryancity of CBC, do you know which other media representatives are asking questions at the leader's debate on Feb. 21?
Thanks,
Jim
I have not finished reading the entire 59 page report...just the front end. When I finish reading it on the weekend I expect to have lots of good to say about Alberta providing secure and reliable continental energy supply but as owners of the resource.
ReplyDeleteWe Albertans have to act as owners and negotiate deals for sale of our ALBERTA BASED UPGRADED energy sources and not only be selling our raw bitumen to foreign interests.
We also have to be aware of the implications for us of a new US regime with a new President that appears to be anti-NAFTA. That will be the case no matter who wins the Presidency in November...Billary, Obama or McCain.
I agree with your anti-NAFTA comments to a large extent. The remaining U.S. presidential candidates with any chance of winning (Obama, Clinton, McCain) have not gone to any lengths to reassure trading partners of their commitment to NAFTA. Obama and Clinton in particular have used various words like "renegotiate", "reevaluate" etc. that set my teeth on edge, as it is code for protectionism. Even McCain hasn't been very reassuring, although Republicans have been more amenable to it in the past. Oddly, the first (last?)Clinton President was a free-trader... but harder economic times make it easier to turtle back into a protectionist shell.
ReplyDeleteThe Alberta oil sands are a geo-political issue on a world-wide scale...not just continentally - which is very immiediate and critically important to all NAFTA parties.
ReplyDeleteLouogheed said to expect an emerging rough row to hoe with the Feds on environment-natural resources conflict. The Fraser Institute report foreshadows a very tough time emerging on negotiating US relations on how to get a workable and fair deal on secure, reliable continental energy supply using the oil sands development as the base.
We need our best and brightest AND WISEST in political leadership roles in Canada and Alberta going forward into this storm.
Be careful how you vote Alberta.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKen, what do you think of this quote from the Post story on this:
ReplyDelete"Maybe if they'd been a little nicer to Ralph and his people, maybe they would have asked to delay" the report, suggests one of Klein's former advisors. "But after all this, why should they?"
Sven - I find the comment disappointing.
ReplyDeleteKen, there was a certain party that, while governing Alberta for the last few decades, dashed headlong into rapid deregulation and market ideology. I'm wondering if that was the right move, considering what NAFTA could mean for the future of Alberta and Canada. I'd have to say this is the root of my mistrust for the PC party.
ReplyDeleteWhether Ed, Ted, Dave or Preston leads the PCs, I do not trust this party to lead Alberta.
Stelmach and Hancock are not market ideologists but they are free enterprisers. If the marketplace could solve every problem, some entrepreneur would be on it.
ReplyDeleteMarkets are human devices - just as governments are...but they are very different devices for very difference purposes.
Ken, if I understand NAFTA correctly, the chief concern is the deregulation and market experimentation that has been seen in 90's-00's era Alberta. The precise danger is the fact that NAFTA makes it impossible to "undo" a lot of these experiments.......provisions make it to the distinct advantage of some large American companies.
ReplyDeleteThe best (and scariest) book I've read on this is "Too Close For Comfort" - follow this link for a description.
http://tinyurl.com/2aq3o6