Reply Evidence of Roland Priddle Prepared on Behalf of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Revised as of August 2012 Attachment 3 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence Reply Evidence of Roland Priddle prepared on behalf of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines _________________________________________________________________________________ In Respect of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project: National Energy Board Hearing Order OH‐4‐2011 July 2012 Revised as of August 2012 Attachment 3 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence Table of Contents Introduction .....................................................................................................................................3 1 Need for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project .............................................................3 1.1 ENGP provides efficient access to high‐netback Asian Markets and is in the tradition of Canadian oil pipeline expansions........................................................4 1.1.1 Efficient access..........................................................................................4 1.1.2 The tradition of Canadian crude oil pipeline expansions .........................4 1.2 ENGP creates the intangible benefit of market diversification..............................5 1.2.1 Export trade diversification is in the national and sectoral interest ........5 1.2.2 But Canadian crude oil markets are strikingly concentrated ...................6 1.2.3 Historically, lack of interest in crude oil market diversification has been rational......................................................................................................6 1.2.4 Now, diversified markets are needed for Canadian crude oil ..................7 1.2.5 But Canada cannot “just go ahead” and diversify her crude oil markets to include Northeast Asia .........................................................................8 1.2.6 ENGP provides that needed geographical crude oil market diversification ...........................................................................................8 1.2.7 Diversification is now an urgent consideration ........................................9 1.3 Equally urgent is the need for new pipeline infrastructure..................................10 1.4 ENGP presents the Joint Review Panel (JRP) with an historic decision‐taking challenge and opportunity...................................................................................11 2 The Eastern Canada market as an alternative to the ENGP .............................................12 2.1 The eastern Canada market.................................................................................13 2.2 Accessing western Canadian crude oil.................................................................13 2.3 If an opportunity exists or develops to provide crude oil transportation east of Montreal, investors will respond .........................................................................13 2.4 Loss of upgrading jobs .........................................................................................13 2.5 Allowing market forces to work...........................................................................14 3 Should the JRP examine pipeline options before making a decision on the ENGP? ........14 3.1 Established policy and commercial practice is to allow market forces to determine the geographical disposition of Canadian crude oil and this has been consistently reflected in regulatory decisions......................................................14 Reply Evidence of Roland Priddle Page 1 Revised as of August 2012 Attachment 3 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence 3.1.1 Established policy ...................................................................................14 3.1.2 Commercial Practice ...............................................................................15 3.1.3 Regulatory decision‐taking .....................................................................16 3.2 The implications of established policy, commercial and regulatory practice for the JRP’s decision‐taking in OH‐4‐2011 ...............................................................17 4 Canada’s long‐established oil‐supply logistics do not impair security .............................18 5 Regional costs and benefits ..............................................................................................19 6 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................21 List of Acronyms AFL Alberta Federation of Labour B.C. British Columbia b/d barrels daily CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CEP Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada CERI Canadian Energy Research Institute CFN Coastal First Nations CPA Canadian Petroleum Association CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity EIA Energy Information Administration (of the U.S.) ENGP Enbridge Northern Gateway Project IEA International Energy Agency IRPP Institute for Research in Public Policy JRP Joint Review Panel MM Million NEB National Energy Board OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries U.S. United States of America ULCC Ultra Large Crude Carrier VLCC Very Large Crude Carrier WCSB Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin Reply Evidence of Roland Priddle Page 2 Revised as of August 2012 Attachment 3 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence Introduction This Reply Evidence is structured to address the evidence submitted by certain intervenors and positions taken in oral statements regarding the following matters: 1. The need for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (ENGP) is challenged; 2. The Eastern Canada market is a preferable alternative to ENGP; 3. The Joint Review Panel (JRP) should examine “pipeline options” before taking a decision on ENGP; 4. The export of oil via ENGP impairs security of oil supply for Eastern Canada and results in lost upgrading job opportunities; and 5. Regional costs and benefits. 1 Need for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Summary position of intervenors: ENGP is not needed nor is it in the public interest.1 ENGP is predicated on unreasonable rates of expansion of oil sands production.2 The argument of diversifying markets for Canadian oil with the Northern Gateway Pipeline is moot. 3 The pipeline supply and demand analyses indicate that there will be sufficient pipeline capacity to accommodate Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) forecast oil transportation needs until after 2020.4 The fact that current and planned export pipeline capacity is sufficient to handle existing and under construction oil sands projects without the Northern Gateway Pipeline. 5 Summary position of this Reply Evidence: the ENGP is needed in the public interest because it provides efficient access to high‐netback Asian markets, creates the intangible benefit of market diversification and will help ensure that critically important pipeline infrastructure will be adequate to the longer‐term needs of WCSB oil producers. Failure to provide such infrastructure will be enormously costly for the industry and the country. Together, these considerations present the Joint Review Panel with an historic decision‐taking challenge and opportunity. The issue of “need” for ENGP is dealt with elsewhere in the Applicant’s Reply Evidence: by Muse Stancil in the report Update of Market Prospects and Benefits Analysis for the Northern Gateway Project, July 2012, at pages 38‐45 under the caption Canadian Crude Oil Export Pipeline Utilization, and by Wright Mansell Research Ltd., in the report Public Interest Benefits of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project: Update and Reply Evidence, July 10, 2012, at page 74 under the caption “Need” for the NGP and elsewhere in that report. Reply Evidence of Roland Priddle Page 3 Revised as of August 2012 Attachment 3 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence 1.1 ENGP provides efficient access to high‐netback Asian Markets and is in the tradition of Canadian oil pipeline expansions 1.1.1 Efficient access ENGP offers a unique combination of: substantial initial volume; expansion without looping; large‐vessel loading capability; shortest sea route; and largest market. Thus: The initial design capacity is 83,000 m3/525,000 barrels daily; If the market eventually required additional capacity, then subject to further regulatory application and public review, the single line of pipe fully powered would have a capacity of 135,000 m3/850,000 barrels daily, which could be achieved without any significant additional land disturbance; The tanker loading facilities can handle vessels up to Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) sizes; The round‐trip steaming time from Kitimat to Northeast Asia destinations is about three days less than from the Port of Vancouver, resulting in useful savings in ship‐chartering and bunkering costs; ENGP plus tanker transportation efficiently accesses markets in four major oil import jurisdictions (China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) which together represent the world’s second‐largest refinery market, and in volume terms the fastest growing one; and The opportunities for shippers using ENGP are not limited to Northeast Asia: tanker‐ borne shipments could readily access refinery markets in Southeast Asia, India and California, whenever pricing conditions and other inducements are present. The filed evidence shows that the Northeast Asia market reached via ENGP offers western Canadian producers higher delivered prices, with smaller transportation costs to deduct, than does the United States (U.S.) Gulf Coast