An under-the-radar hearing on the way
shippers will contract volumes on Canada’s key crude oil export
pipeline began last month in what could turn out to be the most
important battle for control of Canadian oil resources.
The
more than a month-long hearing at the Canada Energy Regulator
(CER)—planned to end on June 25—is expected to end up with the regulator
determining how Canadian oil firms and U.S. refiners will pay to ship
crude on Enbridge’s Mainline system over the next decade. Mainline, with
the capacity to ship nearly 3 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil, is
Canada’s biggest transporter of oil, carrying crude from oil-rich
Alberta to markets in eastern Canada and the U.S. Midwest.
The
current pipeline contracting system expires on June 30, 2021.
Mainline’s operator Enbridge has been operating the pipeline for decades
under the so-called “common carrier” system, in which all of the huge
capacity has been available for short-term shipments of volumes that
shippers can change every month. This has given Canadian oil producers
the flexibility to contract short-term volumes without having to commit
to long-term obligations to ship crude on the pipeline.
Mainline Operator Enbridge Looks To Secure Long-Term Shipments
Now Enbridge wants to change that. Mainline’s operator seeks to convert
the contracting terms to ones where 90 percent of the available
capacity would be reserved for long-term access to its network. Canada
Energy Regulator’s Commission is set to decide, after the hearing ends
at end-June, whether the proposal is fair for all parties.
Enbridge’s
rationale for the new tolling framework is to ensure certainty for
shippers in the long term, it says. But it also has a purely business
reason to seek long-term firm contracts for Mainline—to reduce its
long-term volume risk, because competing pipelines already offer
shippers the ability to contract for firm service on a long-term basis.
The new proposed system will “provide Enbridge with the tools to compete
on a level playing field,” the company said in its proposal.
For example, the Trans Mountain expansion project already has contracts in place that commit the majority of its capacity to firm service on a long-term basis. In this case, if Enbridge continues as a “common carrier”, it could lose much more than the firm long-term contract pipelines where shippers pay for volumes anyway, regardless of how much they would actually ship one month or next.
While Enbridge’s application to convert Mainline to firm long-term contracting may be just protecting its business in the long term, it could mean that Canada may give control to its most important pipeline to U.S. refiners, which favor the proposed new contracting system, Samir Kayande, an independent energy business strategy consultant, writes in Financial Post.
CER Hearing “is about who effectively controls Canadian resources”
Since
refiners typically want low crude oil prices, if they are given their
way in the new contracting system, their bargaining power would grow, at
the expense of Canada’s exploration and production companies which
usually would like to see higher oil prices, Kayande argues.
“The toll hearing at the CER is about who effectively controls Canadian resources,” Kayande notes.
According to Enbridge’s evidence, companies that ship over 75 percent of the volumes on the Mainline have said the proposed terms and tolls are “fair, balanced, and productive.”
“Producers
have generally not shipped on the Mainline, with the exception of those
that hold capacity on connecting downstream pipelines. It could well be
that, if Mainline Contracting is approved, it is primarily parties with
refining interests and parties (including producers) that have
downstream pipeline capacity that will contract for service on the
Mainline,” Enbridge argues.
“But
this would not be a “redistribution of the pie”. This would be entirely
consistent with the current and past usage of the Mainline under the
100% uncommitted service structure,” the pipeline operator says.
Canadian Oil Producers Vs U.S. Refiners
However,
most Canadian oil producers, especially those without downstream
capacity in Canada and the United States, beg to differ.
The Explorers and Producers Association of Canada (EPAC), which includes 170 producers, said, “Ensuring that the crude oil and liquids produced and exported from Western Canada realize the highest possible market value is of critical importance to the citizens of the provinces that own the resource, to the oil producers of the WCSB and their investors, to the communities who depend on that investment and to the municipal, provincial and federal governments who rely on the taxes and royalties paid by the upstream oil and gas industry.”
“These
public interests also far outweigh the objectives of the small group of
mostly US based refining and allied interests that support the
Application, that seek to acquire control for the next two decades over
90% of the transportation capacity on the Mainline thus giving them
ability to lower the price that WCSB producers receive for their crude
oil,” EPAC noted.
The association also slammed Enbridge’s “fear of competing pipelines” as “self-serving and opportunistic.”
The Canadian Shippers Group, consisting of Canadian Natural Resources, MEG Energy Corp, Shell Canada, and Total E&P Canada, said
that “The Application is the result of an egregious attempt by Enbridge
to exert its market power to its own advantage, which would come to the
detriment of Canadian based producers, aggregators and refiners.”
Roland Priddle, the former chair and board member of the National Energy Board between 1986 and 1997, also slammed Enbridge’s proposal in his evidence on behalf of the Canadian Shippers Group.
“The
support that Enbridge has marshalled for the Application does not
represent the Canadian public interest: it is biased in favour of U.S.
refiners and against Canadian crude oil producing interests, which had
previously been the only or the dominant counterparty in settlement
negotiations,” Priddle said.
The ongoing hearing about the changes to Mainline’s operation has turned into a battle about who will control the future of Canadian oil and its prices.
Oilprice , by Tsvetana Paraskova, June