NS and NB should stop squabbling and think big – An AIMS Oil & Gas Perspective, “Canada First” Puts Canada Last - AIMS presentation to the National Energy Board, Brian Lee Crowley in the Globe on why MSAs are worth a look and why poor quality social programmes breed dependency.
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are currently butting heads before the National Energy Board over whether offshore natural gas will be sold in the US or consumed in Canada. But bigger than the benefits of consuming gas, or selling it on to US consumers, is the benefit that comes from expanding the supply of offshore gas. By some estimates, the offshore industry has spent less than $2-billion in exploration development and infrastructure construction to date. But if we get a few breaks and the potential reserves offshore turn out to be real, the spending can reach as much as $50-billion. That’s economic activity too large to be contained by just one province in our small region; it will have powerful spill-over effects into New Brunswick and PEI, as well as into northern New England and eastern Quebec. But it is precisely this impressive potential growth that is threatened if the oil and gas industry becomes convinced that they will not have full access to the US market for the gas the
Concerns about dry wells and rising political risk were voiced during the Atlantic Gas Symposium in Halifax last week. So far, EnCana, formerly PanCanadian, has drilled three dry holes offshore. In an interview published in the Halifax Sunday Herald, AIMS President Brian Lee Crowley argues that while three dry holes won't likely spur the industry to leave, it will be important to have good news soon. At around $70-million per hole, it is expensive to drill here, as opposed to Alberta and other oil and gas palys competing for exploration dollars. Even while questions surrounding long-term natural gas supplies in the offshore exist, an even more menacing threat may be New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord’s “Canada First” Policy. “It’s making companies nervous” said Dr Crowley, backed by representatives from the oil & gas industry, and could hurt the future of offshore activity in our region. Publication: CHH, July 21, 2002
After two decades, Albertans have not forgotten the many people who lost their homes, their businesses and their dreams as a result of the National Energy Program. The rationale and rhetoric of the old National Energy Program are being echoed on the East Coast today. In a case currently before the National Energy Board, New Brunswick is asking that all future exports of Nova Scotia's natural gas be allowed to reach markets in the United States only "after Canadian needs have been assessed and met." In this Globe piece, Premier John Hamm explains why New Brunswick’s actions place the entire industry in jeopardy and he turns to AIMS to provide a clear, concise account of what would happen if New Brunswick’s policies applied to other industries and what will happen if New Brunswick is successful before the NEB – tremendous damage to Canada as an exporter and to its reputation as a place to invest.
In an attempt to reserve any new discoveries of offshore natural gas for Canadians, New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord wants the National Energy Board to only allow the exporting of natural gas to the US, the gas’s chief market, after Canadian needs have been assessed and met. Premier Lord feels oil companies are refusing to sell enough gas to Canadians, and as a result the economic development of some areas, such as northern New Brunswick and eastern Quebec, is being hurt. In this recent CBC Commentary, AIMS President Brian Lee Crowley says “Premier Lord, it just ain’t so”. Gas companies have already made substantial supplies available locally, but are now suffering because so few people have signed up – preferring to stick to more traditional forms of fuel.
Competition or protection? Although oil and gas production off the East Coast is booming, Atlantic Canadians fear that our resource will be sold off and we will have far too little to show for it. Dr. Thomas Tucker, AIMS Fellow in Natural Resource Policy, emphasizes how government policy designed to ensure this region gets its “fair share” of economic activity generated by the offshore, often has the opposite effect. The debate about how to maximize our O&G related activity really comes down to a basic question: Should we be given a major share of economic benefits that the oil and gas industry can produce without earning them? The way we answer that question will shape the oil and gas industry on the East Coast for years to come, and Tucker’s article invites us to choose wisely, understanding the long term nature of the O&G industry, and the proper benchmarks for measuring this region’s success in getting maximum benefit from our resources. Publication: ABM, June/July 2002
According to former AIMS Director of Communications, Peter Fenwick, the gasoline price regulation scheme now before the Newfoundland House of Assembly is far worse than the disease it is supposed to cure. Here is an extract from his article: "Given the historic opposition of the government to imposing gas regulation it is clear that this is a smoke screen designed to curry political favour, and to obscure the role taxes play in keeping oil prices high. The legislation is designed to reduce criticism rather than oil prices. When [Minister] Matthews introduced the bill he said 'So, on the basis of the lack of confidence... by the people of the Province, and on the basis of the... representations that all of us have had from the general public,... it is appropriate to bring in a petroleum products regulatory regime...'" "Nowhere does he say that it is a good idea."
Natural Gas in Atlantic Canada has already brought many hundreds of millions of dollars to our economy with new supplies, technology, and investment into the region. Unfortunately, New Brunswick is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game — rules on which a lot of this investment was based, — and introduce regulatory barriers to companies wishing to export to consumers in New England. AIMS President, Brian Lee Crowley suggests in his regular column that the whim of politicians trying to win votes by artificially driving up supply and lowering gas costs could be scaring away potential investors, restricting access to vital U.S. markets, and once again blindsiding the offshore industry with their short-sighted vision of the offshore’s future. Publication: CHH & MTT May 8 2002
In his latest newspaper column, AIMS President Brian Lee Crowley, looks at the high expectations of taxpayers, workers and businesses as they anxiously await the huge benefits they expect to see flow from natural gas off our shores. He argues that they have been disappointed both because they don't understand what to look for, and because they have unrealistic expectations of what can be accomplished in the very short time the industry has existed here. Expecting immediate and infinite returns from gas is not the way to ensure success, argues Crowley, instead we must have reasonable expectations of the resource, and infinite expectations of ourselves. Publication: CHH & MTT, April 24, 2002
In the glow of victory in the offshore boundary line dispute with Nova Scotia, few people are asking what exactly has Newfoundland won. In this commentary, AIMS’ voice on Newfoundland and Labrador, Peter Fenwick, points out that oil has not been the fiscal saviour that was promised to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Population decline has continued unabated, and the government’s bottom line sinks deeper into red ink with every passing year. This commentary provides a more complete perspective on the failed promise of oil wealth for Newfoundland and Labrador and offers a glimpse at how to reverse this situation.