tv Canadian Officials Testify on U.S.- Canada Energy Mineral Partnerships CSPAN May 24, 2022 2:05am-4:14am EDT
all of our guests. we are so delighted to have you all know want to thank you again for the gracious hospitality that was shown to me when i visited with you all and the weather was all canadian. [laughs] i also enjoy that, we will get started, today i want to welcome our friends from canada to continue the committees very important conversation about how we pursue two critical goals. ensuring energy security and addressing climate change. these two goals are not mutually exclusive and it is imperative that we address both. we all agree that putin has used russia's oil and gas resources and a weapon to inflict terrible pain on the
ukrainian people and on your up. other energy rich autocracies are taking note. we will be folds to think they wouldn't use similar playbooks by leveraging china's control over global mineral supply chance. putin is bringing the free world closer than ever setting a stage around a new alliance around energy and climate. that should start in north america so i'm excited to hear today about how we can strengthen the energy and minerals partnership when the united states and canada. candidate is our largest energy trading partner, they have a strong climate goals and they share our democratic values. this is why i recently traveled to alberta at the invitation of premier kenney. i spent two days getting a better understanding of our energy, minerals, and manufacturing partnerships through meetings with representatives from alberta, saskatchewan, and the northwest territories. the federal government and tribal industry partners.
canadians in share a deep history and we share the largest land border on worth. we fought side by side into world wars and some of the uranium used by the manhattan project was mined in canada's northwest territories and refined in ontario. we have cultivated a strong manufacturing partnership, particularly in the automotive industry. with canada being our biggest export market for vehicles today. cars assembled in canada continue to contain, on average, more than 50% of u.s. value and parts. today, we also trade over 58 heroin hours of electricity, two point 84 billion barrels of petroleum products and six cubic feet of natural gas each year. in fact, energy alone represents 120 billion dollars of the annual trade between our countries. across all sectors of the u.s. and canada trade, more than two billion dollars daily. that is a two billion dollars daily. there is no better symbol of
our energy relationships in our interconnected, which is seamless and enter growth for the reliable electricity, citizens, and industries in both of our countries depend on it. and, we are here for each other during these times of need. electricity workers from both the u.s. and canada regularly crossed the border and extreme weather events to help get the power back on. that is when mother nature calls. canada has wrapped up all exports to the u.s. to offset russian crude and member of our committees led legislation to cut off the energy forces fuel in putin's war machine. we know that a number of u.s. refineries are running on heavy crude and canadian heavy crude runs an alternative to sources like venezuela, which we have sanctioned due to the anti democratic actions. canada is also a leading supplier of uranium, and critical minerals to the u.s.. including those used in advanced batteries such as cobalt, graphite, and nickel.
the u.s. canada energy partnership is strong but not without its challenges. i have not been shy and expressing my frustration with the biden administration canceled the keystone xl pipeline. in light of putin's war in ukraine and the global energy price surge, i think a lot of us which that project had moved forward today. but, to be clear, i am not holding the hearing to relitigate the past. we are here to advance a stronger and cleaner u.s. canada energy partnership for the future. our allies and trading partners in europe are begging for north american oil and gas to offset the reliance on russia. there is no region, whatsoever, we should not be able to fill that void. and do it cleaner than the alternatives. that is because american oil and gas is cleaner than what is produced in russia. and, certainly in a round of those will. we can do better, learn from our canadian neighbors and all of us working together. on average, canada produces oil
with 37% lower methane emissions than the u.s.. that is also technology we can use. and, the canadian federal government has set even more aggressive methane reduction targets. that is what i mean by climate and security not being racially exclusive. when placing a product has had the benefit of reducing the emissions profile of the energy europe needs today. i also strongly believe that we need to be taking security into account as we invest in climate solutions, according to the international energy agency stationary and electric vehicle batteries will account for about half of the mineral demand growth from clean energy technologies of the next 20 years. unfortunately, china controls 80% of the world's battery material processing. 60% of the world -- production, and 80% of the world and on production. as well as 75% of the listening ion battery slow production. they have cornered the market and we have allowed to happen.
it makes no sense for us to so heavily invest in electrical as a climate solution when it means really increasing our reliance on china. right now we are not simultaneously increasing our mining, our processing, and recycling capacity at the same rate in the united states. the canadians are ahead of us uncritical mineral reset refining and processing, and we have much to learn from them about how they are able to responsibly permit these activities and timeless the blue our timelines out of the water. i believe there is much we can collaborate in canada to create a powerful north american maternal supply chain instead of increasing china's geopolitical leverage. i am sure our canadian friends are happy to export minerals to us, but let me be clear, the united states also needs to contribute our part to the north american minerals alliance. so, i'm very interested in discussing how we can create an integrated network for raw materials to move across our borders, for processing and
manufacturing in both of our countries. during this time in the u.s., canada, our allies, and friends were threatened by dictators threatening energy and by the intense political station of climate issues, we must work together to chart a responsible path forward that will ensure security, and unlock prosperity for all of our nations. we are the superpower of the world, and blessed with abundant energy and mineral resources. we cannot just sit back and let other countries fill the void, finding ourselves in a more dire situation years ahead, we must be leaning into the responsible production of all energy sources. we are going to need a strengthening of strategic partnerships, building a north american angie alliance is the right thing to do, and with that i'm going to turn to the ranking member for his opening the marks. >> thank you, mister chairman, for holding this hearing, thank you to the witnesses for being here, i especially want to recognize premier jason kenney of alberta for joining us.
thank you for being with us here today at mr. premier. alberta has much in common with our home state of wyoming, rolling prairies, sunny mountain ranges, and an economy built on energy production. we both have an abundance of oil, natural gas, coal, and wind resources. we both appreciate the high paying jobs that come from energy development, and we are both hurt by president biden's war on energy. in 2003 canada's estimated recover-able reserves of oil jumped about 175 billion barrels thanks to albertan oil sands, a few years later in the united states a similar bouncy was discovered. the application of advanced technologies like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling launched an energy revolution. it had profound and positive impact on our nations economy and standing in the world, these developments in the united states and canada shifted the world's energy center of gravity from the middle east and russia to north america.
it is important that we strengthen the energy and resource partnership between the united states and canada, but joe biden's policies are placing it all at risk. the biden administration made the united states an unreliable partner to canada, by killing the keystone xl pipeline. not satisfied just harming canadian energy, the president went on and his appointees are doing everything possible to discourage american energy production. we are now less likely to support our friends in north america, and around the world. we are less able to provide for ourselves. premier kenney and i agree that this needs to change. we also need to expand our partnership with canada beyond energy to critical minerals. this committee has held several hearings, this is congress on mining. demand for minerals worldwide is skyrocketing. some suggest we import minerals from canada as an alternative to mining it here at home. i strongly disagree. there is simply no way to meet u.s. and global demand for
minerals without opening new minds in the united states. our nation's federal permitting process is number one problem with production of minerals, it takes ten years on average to permit a mine in the united states. it took us less time to get to the moon. in canada could take as little as two years for similar permits, we should learn from canada's best practices. our electricity grids are physically tied with canada's, there are dozens of interconnections. electrons know no borders, our countries face similar risks for blackouts, even as we help each other keep the lights on. electricity must be reliable and affordable. people suffer, and sometimes die, otherwise. electricity policy in both countries could use a dose of reality. the united states and canada cannot rely on the sun, wind, and wishful thinking alone. although canada has a different energy mix for its electric
grid, it makes the most of it's affordable, reliable, and abundant natural resources. the united states must do the same, we should learn from canada's permitting success with hydro power and nuclear energy. north american energy is a tremendous geopolitical asset, that means we need a small strong energy and mineral partnership with canada. that requires being strong ourselves by ramping up energy and mineral production here in the united states. thank you, mister chairman, i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you, senator, before we get started i want to do some housekeeping. major, i want to announce that the greek prime minister will be addressing a joint meeting of congress this morning at 10:35. i am going to be staying here for this hearing, so we are not going to be resisting, but any of the members who may want to attend that is understandable. i think it'll be much more interesting. [laughs] i am now going to turn to our witnesses and introduce them. we have the honorable jason
kenney, premier of alberta, canada. we have the associate deputy minister of mines at the ministry of energy and natural resources. and we have the chief executive officer of electricity canada. we also have joining us virtually the honorable jonathan wilkinson. canada's minister of natural resources. i do understand that the minister has to leave at noon to attend a cabinet meeting. we will be cognizant of your timing there, hopefully we get our questions to you quickly. with that, we are going to open up with premier kenney with his opening remarks. >> thank you so much, chairman manchin, and see you members of the committee. thank you, especially, for having join us in alberta i'm sorry we did not offer good weather. >> i thought it was okay. >> senators, if you remember one thing from today's hearing i hope it will be this.
the province of alberta's, by far, the largest source of u.s. energy imports, u.s. energy security depends on alberta. and, alberta can be a huge part of the solution to american energy inflation and the cost of living crisis. some bears, last year over 60% of u.s. coyle and gas imports came from alberta. that is 60 not 16. the u.s. energy administration reports that last year at the united states reported 2.2 barrels of crude oil, 1.4 billion of that, or 62%, came from canada. virtually all of that from alberta. let's put that in perspective, last year 13% of u.s. oil imports came from those countries and only 6% from saudi arabia. alberta supplies the u.s. with ten times more oil than saudi arabia, and five times more than all of opec. the same is sure for natural
gas, last year my province shipped a 4.8 billion feet of gas per day to the u.s.. that is a 65% of your gas imports, i am glad to say that alberta is home to the world's third largest proven and probable oil reserves. about 180 billion boils worth and one of the world's largest reserves of natural gas. the province of alberta owns those resources and has the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction to do that. after your country has spent hundreds of billion dollars defending security and the persian golf area, it turns out the solution to the challenges of energy security is your closest friend and ally. vladimir putin's brutal invasion of ukraine has driven the danger of allowing dictators to dominate global meninges markets and weaponize oil wells, using it to spread violence, and stability, and terrorism around the world. that is why we were so taken aback when president biden vetoed the keystone xl pipeline.
it would have safely delivered 130,000 barrels a day of responsibly produced canadian under xi to the u.s., more than displacing the 670,000 barrels a day that you all bought from putin's russia last year. we were also perplexed with the administration's response to sky high gas prices was to plead with opec to produce and sell more oil, while working to lift sanctions on dictatorships like iran and venezuela. white house officials have reportedly discussed a presidential visit to saudi arabia to press for more production of their oil and their exports to the u.s.. oil that is used to by cluster bombs dropped on yemeni civilians. well, senators, calgary is a lot closer to washington than they are. and, you do not need the u.s. navy's fifth fleet to patrol the great lakes. to quote the former montana governor, where do not have to send the national guard into
alberta. chairman mansion, we truly appreciate your recent visit to alberta to see firsthand the amazing progress that is being made to reduce emissions and improve the environmental performance of canada's oil sands. also to see the deep partnership between the energy producers and our indigenous people, and to discuss the development of a north american energy alliance, we invite other members of this committee to visit alberta and see for yourself, judge for yourself, draw your own conclusions about whether alberta is a preferable solution as a source of imports to opec. between current unused capacity in the north american pipeline system, and the prospect of pipeline optimization, plus the scheduled completion of the trans mountain expansion pipeline to canada's west coast next year, alberta will be able to increase our crude exports to the u.s. by upwards of 1 million barrels a day over the next couple of years. helping to reduce prices at the pump, but, with political will
from washington we could also get another major major pipeline bill that would forever allow the united states to free itself from imports from hostile regimes. mister chairman, weather is a welder as a way, the government of alberta is keen to work with you and friends in the united states to get another major pipeline built, to achieve the dream of north american energy independence and security. at the same time, we must work together to maintain current supply, and that is why i called on the united states government it to join canada in demanding that the government of michigan respect the 1977 kennedy u.s. pipeline transit trading by abandoning her efforts to decommission the five line that has safely delivered over 600,000 barrels of canadian entry to the u.s. for six decades. her plans do this would only worsen the energy crisis that the worst possible time, we must work on both sides of the
border to remove regulatory barriers to production of shipment. senators, replacing this is not a threat to the environment, we take seriously the need to cut emissions out address climate change. alberta's oil and gas producers and pipeline companies have some of the world's highest esg rankings. alberta was the first place in north america to implement carbon pricing. for massive investments in clean tech we have reduced the footprint of an average barrel of alberta oil by 36% since the year 2000. two below the global average for heavy oil, our oil sands producers are committed to achieving that zero greenhouse gas emissions in their operations by 2050, in part through a big expression of our world leading carbon capture utilization and storage infrastructure. we are on track to reduce methane emissions by at least 45%, we are leaning canada right now and renewable energy investments, and we are set to become a global hub and the production of net zero and low
emitting hydrogen. so, thank you mister chairman, i look forward to your questions and ongoing collaboration on developing a north american energy alliance. >> thank you, premier kenney, now we are going to go to natalie camden. >> chairman manchin, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to share quebec's mining practices and present how we can grow our relationship. canada and the u.s. are a longtime friends, partners, and allies. during world war ii the u.s. built aluminum smelters to the ally war effort, today quebec supplies around 60% of the north american aluminum. and, thanks to our energy that is 99.8% renewable, it is the greenest in the world. this shared story is now more important than ever, new national security threats
demands similar cooperation. for defense purposes, canadian products are considered domestic and our trade is further deepened through the u.s. and the cia. quebec stands ready to partner with the united states to address weaknesses in our supply chain. how can we help? first, we have the minerals the u.s. needs and we are business ready, quebec soil contains 46 of the 50 minerals deemed critical and strategic by the u.s. gfs, including lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite. all required for batteries. the critical minerals action plan, the first in canada, sets priorities from exploration to recycling. quebec is recognized as a sixth most attractive mining jurisdiction in the world. we have 22 minds in operation. three b in -- and 33 mining projects.
second, the transition to evs and renewable energy is increasing mineral demand. to meet this challenge, quebec has developed a strategy to build a highly efficient north american battery supply chain from mine too well. it is already taking shape. recently, b a s f announced a major facility less than 100 miles from vermont and maine. see the things developed in quebec will power gm's next factory in michigan, as well as facilities in ohio and tennessee. the gm plan is approved, together we can create jobs on both sides of the border. for ev manufacturing in north america to be globally competitive, it needs to be truly north american, like in
the u.s. mining products in quebec require numerous permits and authorizations. we have streamlined these processes while increasing social acceptability, and transparency. through government reforms and they knew permit coordination office, we got administrative for now it is cut by over 30%. cutting red tape generated substantial savings for industry, without, of course, weakening our environmental stewardship. the industry knows that social acceptability and sustainable development are paramount in quebec. companies are adapting globally recognized and sustainability certifications and standards. and, sustainable development and sustainable economic returns. quebec's power provide stable electricity prices for
consumers, mining in quebec, or a household in new england. quebec is also home to many indigenous communities, we have concluded minor tradings with the pre-, the inuit, and the nascar party that offer companies the predictability. in addition to that and our consultation process we promote dialogue amongst indigenous communities, mining companies, and government, at the earliest stage. i want to close by stressing the urgent need to deepen and expand our collaboration. the situation in ukraine show energy and resources vulnerabilities and many allied countries. on battery, mineral, and energy issues the message is the same. the u.s. must diversify its sources, and quebec is here to help me. working to gather can and sure
our competitiveness, security, and the environment for generations to come. quebec is just an hour and a half flight from washington, we invite you to come visit anytime, and perhaps we will have nice weather, perhaps. thank you very much and i look forward to hearing your questions. >> thank you, deputy minister, now we are going to go to mr. brantley. >> good morning, chairman, ranking members, and members of the senate committee on energy and natural resources, thank you for the opportunity to speak about the mutually beneficial electricity relationship between canada and the u.s.. and, how it bolsters shared goals for clean energy,'s energy securities, reliability's, affordability, and our economies. with electricity canada we are the voice of the canadian electricity distract, our
members we distribute across canada and the u.s. every day. the integrated u.s. canada electricity system is critical to the positive north american ngo relationship, this relationship is recognized by the united states, mexico canada agreement providing for tariff rate treatment of energy trade between our countries. as both countries seek to achieve clean energy goals and ensure energy security, this partnership offers opportunities to increase the availability and development of reliable and affordable clean energy. canadians in americans share a highly integrated electricity grid, connected by over 35 transmission lines. some 30 states engaging electricity trade with canada each year. canadian and u.s. electricity companies own and invest in assets on both sides of the border, they work in unity of effort to keep the grid secure and reliable in the face of energy transformation, new
security threats, and more extreme weather. canada has a low carbon electricity grid, and abundance of reliable, affordable, and dispatch-able power. and, for the clean resource development opportunities. more than 80% of electricity produced in canada is not admitting today, predominantly it is possible for the power. and, trade is not one way, u.s. exports electricity to canada. tangible benefits of electors a trade and integration for america include enhanced reliability and resilience through operational official c and supply diversity. enhanced affordability through official price signals and larger markets, greater emissions reductions, and, support for developing new renewables and clean energy technologies, increased cross border transmission infrastructure can enable
further to a trade and its benefits, they second installment of the department of energy's review stressed that, and i quote, additional cross border infrastructure with canada has been predicted to lead to lower overall system cost in u.s. border regions, and, it could enhance reliability, a backstop variable, renewable energy development, and enable overall emissions of u.s. power -- consumption. as such, predictable regulatory regimes for development are important, as in canada that the u.s. has ambitious clean energy and climate goals at the federal and state level. to transition to net zero, both countries will need every megawatt of non emitting a generation, as such, canadian on emitting imports should constitute as clean energy under any climate or clean energy regime.
electricity trading and integration are important tools for bolstering our liable and supplying energy development. for example, the champ lane express would provide clean energy from canada to new york, building off energy from electricity. canadian hydropower can help bring u.s. intermittent resources online by serving as backs up energy to solar and wind. a recent example is the great northern transmission line connecting manitoba hydro power with wind, furthermore, our power can act as a battery. a recent mit paper found that canadian hydro power can be particularly effective as a compliment it for the playing more land and looked solar in the northeast. there was also cooperation on electricity technology leadership, for example, ontario power generation and the tennessee valley authority
announced plans to work together on enhanced nuclear technology. capital power is also working on carbon capture initiatives to support near zero emitting natural gas power generation, and to convert captured carbon into carbon and tubes. the u.s., canada electricity. canadians and americans work together to address security risks, and follow mandatory north american electricity standards. canadian companies provide assistance, crossing the border to help electricity companies restore power to customers in the aftermath of major weather disasters. in conclusion, canada is a reliable and trusted partner, this has served millions of americans for over 100 years, in the context of climate change and growing cyber and physical threats to the grid, the u.s., canada relationship is more important than ever
thank you. >> -- [inaudible] minister wilkinson, it's your turn. >> thank, you mister chairman. thank you to ranking member barrasso for the opportunity to speak with the committee about the interconnected double threat to the national security interests of both of our nations, energy security and climate change. i appear here to share canada's perspective on this urgent matter with our neighbor, our closest ally and our largest trading partner. in my role as our country's minister of natural resources. i was, as well, until about six months ago, canada's minister of environment and climate change. let me begin just with a brief word about ukraine. it's brutal, illegal invasion launched by president putin against the people of ukraine represents a violation of international law and an unjustified attack on peaceful people. canada's support to the
ukrainian people is unshakable. to date, we have supplied ukraine consequential humanitarian, military and other support, and we are committed to continuing to do so. the international energy agency defines energy security as the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price. there are some, in both of our countries, who suggest that, given the current urgency of the energy security issue, we must set aside concern that actions relating to climate change. this position is neither thoughtful nor tenable. domestic energy insecurity and climate action are increasingly and inextricably tied together. as canada works to help our european allies at this time of crisis, we are concurrently cutting gas and oil emissions, including through methane regulations, and establishing clean fuel and electricity standards to achieve our ambitious 2030 climate target. if we look to the present situation in europe, western european countries are working vigorously to secure predictable energy supplies and the context of an increasingly
belligerent and irrational russia. in the short-term, europe is focused on replacing russian energy imports from those from other countries, while aggressively accelerating a transition towards renewables and hydrogen in the medium term. as the president of the european commission stated recently, and i quote, it is our switch to renewables that hydrogen that will make us truly independent. in this context, recent decisions by the united states and canada to expand hydrocarbon exports to our european friends, to displace russian oil and gas for the short term, are entirely appropriate. particularly, since these actions are being taken very much within the context of our respective climate change plans. however, it is a shift to domestically produce renewable energy and the hydrogen supplied by stable countries like canada that will provide true energy security and national security to europe and to both of our countries. a clean energy transition will deliver energy sustainability
in a sustainable future, enabling democratic countries to wean themselves from dictators who use energy. it will stable economies and create jobs, and it will respond to the urgent code red for humanity, which is how the inter governmental panel on climate change characterizes the climate crisis. which presently confronts us. given the challenging nature of current geopolitics, the need to be focused on energy security has never been greater. security that can be driven through a canada u.s. energy collaboration and through joint action on climate change. let us commit our countries to the for the development of a north american energy powerhouse, one that will facilitate energy security while helping to advance our shared journey down a path to net zero. canada and the u.s. already have deeply interconnected energy systems. in fact, nearly 60% of u.s. oil imports by 93% of electricity imports come from canada. all of this close to a network of existing pipelines, very much including line five, and
cross border electricity lines. going, forward there will be a continuing relationship between our countries in the areas of oil and gas, even in the international agencies net zero there will be a need beyond 2050 for about a quarter of oil production and half of current gas production. for use in non-combustion applications, such as petrochemicals, lubricants, solvents, waxes and hydrogen. clearly, countries that focus on producing hydrocarbons with ultra low production admissions are likely to be the last producers standing. in the context of the low carbon energy transition, the opportunities for canada u.s. collaboration and mutual benefit are enormous. for example, critical minerals, all the way from mines to processing to manufacturing to recycling. hydrogen, to fuel our trucks, planes, trains, industries and even our homes. production of renewable energy in transmission of clean energy across our borders, nuclear technology, including small modular reactors, carbon removal technologies and, in
the research, development and scaling of a wide range of clean technologies. as we partner in these areas, we need to be clear eyed ensuring that, in moving away from independence on autocratic hydrocarbon producing countries, we do, not inadvertently, end up with similar dependence on other autocratic countries in areas such as critical mayor neural's. i was in washington last week to advance these very conversations, because they're critical to the future of our economies and our planet. and it is committed to working with you to enhance north american energy security, to fight climate change it to create jobs and economic opportunity for the citizens of both of our great countries. thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. >> thank you, minister. before we start our questioning, i'd be remiss if i didn't ask all of you to introduce your staff that has traveled with you. we want to welcome all of them. but if you want to take time and, premier kenney, if you want to start? . i >> think, senator.
i'm joined by albert's at history of energy, savage, minister of parks, nixon, and james richard. >> thank you for being here. >> i am not traveling with people from quebec, but i'm supporting by the quebec's office in washington, d.c.. led by mr. jean francois old, abigail hunter and justin marvelous. >> welcome to all of you. mr. bradley? >> my local support is andrew shaw, andrew? >> and minister wilkinson, do you have anybody here that you want to introduce? >> yeah, my deputy chief of staff, kyle herrera, i think is there. i'm not sure if ambassador helmet is there as well, but she has certainly been supporting us through this exercise. >> again, welcome to all our
neighbors. we appreciate your making effort to be here today. with that, we'll start with our questioning. i want to start with, to both of premier kenney and minister wilkinson, this is for both of you all. we all know that the demand with covid-19 and also with putin's war on ukraine, the strain that's put on all of us with north american energy, it's going to be needed for years to come to offset that. we understand that. so, i would ask either one of you, both of you, to answer this. have you been in contact with our administration here or your counterpart, minister wilkinson or premier kenney? other than us, speaking to you from the legislative branch, from the executive branch. anybody speaking to you all, concerning increasing oil, natural gas, the things that we're going to need to help our allies? you can start with yourself, and i'll go to mr. -- >> thank, you senator.
the answer, i don't have a counterpart in the u.s. government, as i am the leader of a sub national government. but yesterday i did have meetings with officials at the u.s. state department, that we initiated. i will say, we found it passing strange that, following the invasion of ukraine, there were clear efforts by the administration to reach out to opec, saudi arabia, venezuela and iran. but we have no record of any effort by the administration to reach out to alberta. which, like i said, provide 62% of u.s. oil imports. >> mr. wilkinson, did you all have any conversations or did anyone reach out to your counterparts, from the u.s.? >> yes, thank, you senator. yes, we have had ongoing conversations with the administration. certainly, i've spoken with secretary granholm anytime since the invasion of ukraine, i was at the white house last week having similar conversations. as you know, we have had a
number of in-person meetings to discuss how to address this. i think you and i actually met in paris, at the international energy agency, when secretary granholm was there. the focus very, much in terms of increasing production, was our announcement of 300,000 additional barrels a day, which we worked with premier kenney and the industry on. it was partly the product of those conversations. because, of course, the off take to get it to the gulf has to come from the united states. and we continue to talk about issues like lng exports, for example. >> have you all increased your production? for the u.s., for us to be able to help our allies around the world? >> i'll say, yes. last year was a record year for production and exports. we had, i think in december, 4.1 6 million barrels a day. but, senator, we frankly don't agree with the 200,000 peril estimate just offered by minister wilkinson. we have about 300,000 barrels
of unused, per daily, and use capacity in the north american pipeline system, which we expect to fill this year through increase production. once that is filled, the economics will probably work for additional shipment by rail, which could be upwards of an additional 200,000 barrels per day. in addition, if midstream companies get serious about it, and if regulators approve it, we could see a series of technical improvements through pipeline optimization at line reversals over the next year or so. that could add upwards of another 400,000 barrels a day of potential capacity. and then, finally, in queue for 2023 and q one -- >> this would also reduce the american reliance on opec or saudi -- >> i would certainly hope that american refineries, i know, would prefer to buy locally. because they get ours on a
discount, since we are currently largely landlocked. we are priced takers. i do know that gulf refineries are very keen to get more access to our heavy supply. >> minister, do you have anything to say on that, minister wilkinson? >> i think, as premier kenney said, the focus in the short term has been on looking at ways to, essentially, utilize existing pipeline capacity. that's where the 300,000 barrels, or burial equivalence, come from. it was a product, obviously, of work we did with the pipeline companies, the oil sector. and, certainly, that is part of the contribution that canada makes in the same way that america's made a contribution, and the brazilians have, to make sure that we are addressing the concerns associated with displacing russian oil and gas. >> let me go to the enbridge five pipeline that we talked about, going under the great lakes. with that, we're concerned as i'm sure you would understand about the safety of that.
if i had no problems but, with the lines age and all that. do y'all have recommendations of how you could secure that and make it safer? that way, less of a danger that people might be concerned about? from both of you all. yes? >> okay, senator. first of all, and bridge has proposed spending upwards of $750 million on this new, high tech, extremely safe subterranean pipeline. to replace the pipeline that operated safely across the streets of macaron for six decades, delivering 530,000 barrels a day of light sweet to refineries and ohio, pennsylvania, as well as ontario and quebec. with the governors trying to do is decommission the current pipeline without the replacement. so, that would struggle much of the energy source for the upper midwest. we appreciate that the government of canada has filed a complaint under the 1977 pipeline transit treaty, and
i'll handed over to minister wilkinson to talk about that. >> minister? >> yeah, i would say the proponent has indicated a willingness to do whatever needs to be done to address the environmental concerns. certainly, the pipe under the streets of mcconnell is a key element of that. we think they've gone above and beyond what is required here, but we are obviously looking to find a resolution that is going to work for all sides. certainly, we have invoked the treaty, which is a treaty between canada and the united states which relates to the free flow of pipelines and the products within pipelines. we look for a way to resolve this. this is an important pipeline, not just for canada, but ohio, michigan, pennsylvania get products from this pipeline. has that pipeline ever had a legal problem? >> not to my knowledge, not anything significant. >> for its six decades, correct? and they're willing to encapsulate that in a tunnel so it would never be a danger to
the great lakes? >> that is right, summer, i believe what needs to be proceeded more quickly is a regulation of the federal regulatory approvals of that. to stop the operation whichever is energy security for the upper midwest. no doubt about that. >> without that we will go to the next senator. >> premier kennedy, hopefully we can get yes or no on some of these, did killing the keystone xl pipeline make it more difficult and expensive to move canadian oil to u.s. refineries? >> yes. >> so, now canadian oil that would have a travel by pipe would have to move by train, truck, is that more a lesson financially friendly? >> bless. >> has killing the pipeline further exasperated the supply chain issues between our two countries? >> yes. >> is it fair to say the
president biden's a decision to kill the pipeline increased costs, he and added the environmental burden. >> i think that is a reasonable conclusion. >> you noted in your testimony that it would be able to move 880,000 barrels a day which is significantly more than the 670,000 them way were imported in cancun from russia in 2021. if keystone had been built would we have been able to replace the russian oil? >> yes, and they had contracts. >> you noted in your testimony that president biden has pleaded with opec and russia has increased oil outputs and decreased outputs from venezuela and iran. at the same time, they continue to block and needed to move them across alberta and the u.s. including in my home state of wyoming. i was just going to point out
today's wall street journal, today, tuesday may 17th, biden's dance with the dictator. state, the biden administration's sanctioned dance with the dictator, and they are of course talking about venezuela's strongman. dance with a dictator is taking place even as it acts at every turn to restrict u.s. oil and production. does biden's policy make any sense for the people of the united states or of canada? >> it is for you to work out what makes sense for the people of the united states, senator. i will say this, we find it inexplicable that the government of the united states has been more focused on encouraging additional opec productions and canadian production. >> i understand the provinces, rather than a federal canadian government, takes the need on permitting many energy projects, there are differences and how we do things. provinces own and manage
natural resources within the borders, the staff behind are shaking their head yes across the board. the province is largely owned and have the authority, and wyoming in other western states the federal government owns and manages nearly 70% of the minerals within our state borders. this makes for a very inefficient system, could you explain to all of us how provinces rather than a federal government make better managers of natural resources. >> that is a great question, senator, we have found the new discovery found in alberta undeveloped new technical expertise, as well as policy expertise in oil and gas production. i think it is fitting that our constitution gives exclusive authority to the provinces over the regulation of the production of natural resources. i want to thank the government
of canada for having recognized that and assigned what we called equivalency agreements over issues like the greenhouse gas emissions, industrials, as well as methane. we are on the ground, we have the technical expertise much more so than the bureaucrats in ottawa would have. >> i texted with the former prime minister stephen harper and responded back to tell him you are here. he said kenny was a very strong, one of my best ministers. thank you very much for being here. mr. bradley, roughly 60% of canada's electricity comes from hydro power, another 20% from nuclear power, canada appears to be making the most of its god given natural energy resources. the united states is blessed with major natural gas amounts, coal, renewable sources as well, do you believe in an all of the above energy strategy that capitalizes on abundant, reliable, and affordable natural resources to keep the lights on? >> senator, thank you for that
question. yes, in canada are electricity in the context of our expectations with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we've continued advocate for an all of the above approach for all types of non emitting electricity in the future. >> thank you, now we have senator king. >> thank you very much for being here, canada is a neighbor of maine, which is the only one that borders only one other state borders to provinces. i have always considered my foreign policy experience based on the fact that i can see canada from maine. sorry, i could not resist. premier kenney, picking up on some questions, methane is the low hanging fruit of climate change, it is the most potent greenhouse gas, eight times
more than co2. i know in your testimony you have lowered it significantly, how did you do that? was it regulatory? was it a fee? a carbon free? what brought out about? that is an important discussion for us in the states. >> through the regulatory approach, with the application of technology that has been developed in the alberta industry over years, we are the first sub national jurisdiction in north america to commit to methane reduction targets to produce methane by 45% below the 2014 baseline. to do that by 2025. >> did you impose? did you tell industry you cannot emit more than this and have a vigorous inspection regime? >> yes, there is a target, there is a rigorous inspection regime. we have seen some incredibly innovative technology developed in our province, which makes a good distance difference and is
now being marketed in the united states. we would be happy to share that expertise. >> thank you, i would appreciate if you could follow up and have your staff give us a monograph on your methane policies, this is something that is very important to us. minister wilkinson, again, not for today because we have such limited time but since you have your staff give us your background on how you streamlined the process. my position has always been i want the most timely, streamlined, and effective environmental process with the strongest environmental safeguards. i think that is your standard. how do you do in canada and white permitted a minor operation that we need. perhaps you can have your staff supply us on how your permitting process works.
we can compare with ours which is very rude goldberg. that would be very helpful. >> miss camden, we went through a difficult process in maine with the connection from hydro quebec to boston. what trip that up more than anything else was a section of 56 miles through virgin forest in northern maine, and that was the sort of focus of a lot of the controversy. could hydro quebec and the proponents of that proposal think about burying that section of line, rather than a strip of clear cutting through the forest? is that something that is under examination? that might relieve a lot of the controversy surrounding that project. >> thank you, senator, for your question. but, this is not in my area of
expertise in my portfolio. i will make sure that the quebec's office follows up with your staff on an answer on this question. however, if you want, i can share with you the practices that we had put in place in quebec regarding the streamlining of our processes. regarding issue permitting. >> i would very much to see that, thank you. >> thank you, so, there is a strong commitment from our government to reduce the administrative burden. each department within the government has to provide a three-year plan with different measures. regulatory measures or legal measures. >> i do not want to cut you off but apparently i only have 36 seconds. i want to get one question to mr. bradley before i leave. i have always been fascinated by the concept that you
articulated that needs to be further developed. that is, the canadian hydro being the battery for new england. norway's the battery for denmark right now. and, as we move into offshore wind we could have an excess of energy during certain periods of the day, which we could send north. you could store the water during those periods and then send us the dispatch-able hydro. you mentioned this, do you see this as something that is a feasible option for us? >> thank you for the question, senator, not only do i see it as a feasible option i think this is going to be how we optimize the system in the future. it will not just be the northwest, it will be interagency all across north america. we do it on a smaller scale already today, i mentioned that the electricity flow is two ways between canada and the united states. often that flow from the united states into canada must run facilities in the united states overnight and are looking for markets. they are today essentially
being stored in reservoirs. >> big concern on the development of renewables is intermittency, an intermittency is solved by a base load response. we are all talking about batteries, mining, lithium, cobalt, nickel. we have a gigantic battery already in place in canada. for 20 years i've thought this is a way to offset the intermittency, i hope that is something we can work on to the extent you are aware of data on that concept and how it could be implemented, please let me know. >> we sure will, we have always thought of our reservoirs as giant batteries. >> denmark and norway are doing this as we speech, this is not an unprecedented idea. thank you, thank you mister chairman. >> senator lee? >> thank you, mister chairman, premier kenney it is great to how you with us. over the last few years the environmental social governance has gone from something almost
no one knew about, no one had ever heard of just a couple of years ago to something that is imposing a sweeping set of obligations in companies. not imposed by government by by financial regulators, markets, and by institutions around the world with some government regulators stepping in and starting to embrace these and make them part of your regulatory portfolio. the number one goal of our movement, or at least a primary motivating goal seems to be to ensure divestment from fossil fuels in any and every way possible. i would imagine that the esg that works that we are seeing has made energy development more risky and expensive and canada, as it has in the united states. what impact are you seeing from
esg specifically on alberta's energy sector? >> significant impacts, senator, it is one of our primary concerns because the there has been an accurate implication of production on the oil sands a particular. nearly 180 billion barrels on the reserves. difficulty accessing reassurance. it is a lot of it based on a misconception about the missions profile of canadian heavy oil and bitumen. here is the peculiar thing saudi arabia, iraq, the uae, canada, the united states, and
libya. besides the back of united states and canada the other companies are not subject to esg criteria because they are run by their governments. a financial markets strangle the publicly traded transparent governments in north america, all this will do will shift production to some of the world's worst regimes and their state owned enterprises, that are not suspect to market conditions. >> so, could that mean they could be producing oil west really shoddy environmental standards? >> well, they are. i think the invasion of ukraine highlights the need for at least a second best in esg security. it is bizarre to us that we had european bank saying they're going to pull out of the canadian oil sands, while they participated in the ipo for saudi aramco -- >> continue. >> continued to finance oil in
vladimir putin's russia, and are not held to account for financing dictator oil that fuels violence around the world. >> funny how that works. now, i assume these things translate, also, to higher gasoline prices for consumers in canada? >> yes, sir. >> now, the biden administration has been calling in the united states on u.s. oil and gas companies, calling on them to boost production. he's doing that well, simultaneously, stalling or, in some cases, killing energy infrastructure projects. pressuring companies to divest from fossil fuels and setting impossible to meet, never to be satisfied emissions defenders to power companies. have canadian energy company has been hesitant or unable to deploy capital, as a result of some of these american energy policies imposed by the biden
administration? >> well, i would say yes. because the cancellation of keystone excel, for example, has, look, there were canadian upstream producers who had committed to 800,000 barrels per, day they are prepared to make the big investments to produce that sell it to you. obviously, they have taken that out of their capital plans. >> now, on his very first day of office, president biden began his war on north american energy. he began it by killing the keystone xl pipeline. his response to record high gasoline prices that are really causing american consumers to suffer has been to beg venezuela and begged saudi arabia to ramp up their production. what message do those actions send to our canadian allies, including to alberta? >> the message we find, all i can say is an explicable. i was in houston, as sierra
week, talking about how we could get -- look, if we really work together we can get you a couple million more barrels a day of canadian energy. when i was in houston, i read that the presidents advisers were suggesting he should go to riyadh to ask the saudis to generate more. we have a hard time understanding that. >> as do we, as do we. thank you for helping us to understand that. thank, you mister chairman. >> senator hickenlooper? >> just like that. >> almost missed it. >> first of all, thank you all for being here, i'm looking up at the screen as well. appreciate you coming down. i was the mayor of denver, which is as close to a cousin of calgary as we can probably get, have had several trips to alberta and actually all across canada. i'm probably the loudest supporter you'll get from what should be the brotherhood and sisterhood of canadians and
americans. one of my best experiences growing up was taking the cross canada train with two puppies that were in baggage, so we'd have to get off at each stop and walk all the puppies through these beautiful towns across western montana. it was an experience of a lifetime. let me ask you each question, to start. ultimately, if the world is going to meet its climate targets, we have to figure out how to decouple the cost of producing energy from the cost of admitting. i know you all talked about this a little bit. canada, as you've demonstrated, is one of the most ambitious nations on carbon pricing. your price is set, if i remember right, to get to $170 by 2030, which is very aggressive. i think it's $150 now. can you explain for us that pricing of carbon, had that enables her goals for both energy production and reducing emissions? do you follow what i'm asking?
>> yes, senator, i think that's probably better directed to minister wilkinson in ottawa, as that is federal policy. >> sure, i'm happy to talk about that. putting a price on carbon pollution, and let's be clear, carbon's pollution. it is the cause of climate change. is an important part of ensuring that that is actually taken into account, in the context of everything that businesses and individuals do in terms of choices. it drives choices that are lower carbon, and it incentivizes innovation on a go forward basis. it is one part of a much broader climate plan. i would tell you that canada has, perhaps, the most detailed climate plan that exists on the planet in terms of how we will go better cheating or targets. but an important part of that is pricing of carbon pollution and i will tell, you 99 and a half economists out of 100 will tell you it's the most efficient and effective way to do it. >> great, thank you. mr. bradley, let me ask, china is building an energy empire
build on chief, renewable resources, enabled by their build out of inter regional transmission. building a really massive grid. since 2014, they've added 216 gigawatts of inter regional transmission capacity, while we in the united states have added three gigawatts. can you speak to how better integrating our grids, via transmission, can enable the u.s. and canada to leverage our complimentary resource strengths to compete with china's clean energy growth strategy? i heard the earlier conversations about the cross border transmission, which i think is very, very important. they're continuing to do more wind, more solar. and part of it is just this grid. >> thank you for the question, senator. our trajectory has been very different in canada than in china, we are not building coal,
we're facing coal out. transmission plays an absolutely critical role to be able to enable more intermittent sources of electricity. both within canada, within the united states and cross border. it is going to be a critical component for us, to be able to further expand that non-emitting power. we are going to need more transmission if we're going to bring more intermittent power online. >> great, thank you. miss camden, the hydrogen production goals. again, ambitious, admirable, i think something we in the united states are equally enthusiastic about. most of canada's hydrogen is currently produce via steam methane reform-ing, without the accessory carbon capture. one of the main challenges we face here is that makes clean hydrogen much more expensive to produce, at least for now.
how do you plan to ensure that, as you scale up hydrogen production, that it moves toward clean hydrogen and affordable manner? >> thank you for your question, senator. i hydropower enables green hydrogen. and we are working right now in quebec on a strategy for hydrogen. unfortunately, it will be released in a few weeks, so i cannot talk about it. and it's not even in my portfolio, so we will make sure that you get the answer from our quebec office in d.c.. >> great, all right. thank you, all restrain myself on the questions on cobalt and lithium. i'll put those and writing to you, so that we can get the answers in the future. i yield back my time, mister chair. >> thank you. and senator marshall? >> thank you again, chairman. sometimes the solutions to our problems are in our backyard. thank you for the folks, all of your staff, for making the trip
down here in person as well as appearing online. i'm of course from kansas and have a little oil patch there, even some of the oil that was supposed to be coming down the keystone pipeline, our refineries had prepared some special instrumentation to accept that oil. so, these types of decisions continue to impact all of us in many, many ways. i think i want to start, just a second, with premier kenney, if you don't mind. you mentioned the improve carbon footprint, the decrease 36% per barrel of alberta oil and methane emissions down, divided by 40%. we are admirable, we admire that. what are you doing that makes this all work? >> technology. as senator manchin said, we are only going to get as far as tech will take us and reducing remission's emissions. with respect to reducing the emissions intensity for their ola bittermann, it's true that
extracting bittermann's energy intensive. it requires a huge amount of steam to separate the oil from the sand. increasingly, companies are switching to things like solvents instead of steam. changing their energy source from using pet coke to natural gas. other efficiencies, across the board. they are exploring, with, us the possibility of small modular reactors as a future zero meeting source of energy for extraction. and, as i say, a lot of locally developed technology that has helped us exceed our goals in meth introduction. >> thanks for sharing. that i've always said that innovation will solve a problem, not federal government, not taxation as well. i want to talk to minister camden, just for a second, about potash. a large amount of the world's potash made in belarus and russia, probably some 20 to 30% of the world's exports of those
fertilizers go through the black sea. the united states, on the other hand, depends very much on potash from canada. for many reasons, evidently, we can't minute here. i don't know it's different, but seems like our american companies have given up on mining. right now, of course, the chinese are buying lots of your potash as well. in my american farmers are short changed. are there any solutions out there? what are you doing to gear up pot ash, what does the tide table look like? is there any way we can prioritize american farmers, your good ally, over this pot ash? >> thank you senator, for your question. unfortunately, we don't have potash and quebec, not at all. so, i may differ this question -- >> i'll spread the questions out. >> i'm happy to take it, happy to take it. >> sure, go ahead. >> so, potash is certainly one, and i think this relates to the
broader issue on critical minerals, uranium, nickel, cobalt. neither of which the united states has in abundance. so, we are certainly focused, as we have discussed from an energy security perspective, and a broader food security perspective as a release potash, to try to ensure that we are going to be able to respond to the needs that the united states and western europe are going to have as we look to display sources from russia. and there is a process going on, most of the potash's in a province called saskatchewan, where i grew up. we are looking to augment the production, there is actually a large new mine coming on stream in the next two years. so, that is a conversation that is ongoing. >> okay. premier, anything to add? >> my neighboring province of saskatchewan, they have the largest potash reserves in the world. they also have the second largest uranium reserves. >> i guess i just want to make a point here, that you don't flip a switch and double your production. is it going to take months or a
year or two to make that happen? >> jonathan? >> the initial augmentation is actually ongoing right now, it will be done, i think, within certainly a year. but the new mind that is coming on stream, it's probably 2 to 3 years out. but, certainly, we are going to see significant increases over the next little while. which will help to ensure that we can wean ourselves off of russian sources. >> thank you so much, everybody. chairman, i yield back. >> thank, you senator. senator cortez masto? >> think, you chair. welcome dollar witnesses today. let me just talk a little bit about the environmental review process. at a recent hearing this committee had on mineral security, i discussed with a witness what we can be doing to improve our environmental review processes and identify conflicts earlier in the process. including ways to avoid litigation, rather opposition, before a process has resources and money.
they raise canada's environmental impact assessment, the social being the optimal component. that helps identifying resolves social license to operate issues and other potential conflicts much earlier in the process, when compared to our own and byron mental impact process statements. by the, way out from nevada, over 80% of the land is owned by the federal government, so we have an important relationship that we have to constantly engage at the federal level. i guess, my question to the panelists, maybe minister wilkinson or deputy minister camden, we'll start with you. can anyone on the panel elaborate on any differences between our permitting systems and where canada may have more success in successfully citing and permitting projects on your public lands? minister wilkinson, maybe we'll start with you. >> sure. so, a couple things. for mining in particular, some of the permitting and regulatory processes are at the
provincial level and summer federal. most of the crown land in canada is actually the responsibility of the provinces. but i absolutely agree with you that, what we have tried to focus on with respect to environmental assessment, it's having those conversations very early. identifying the critical issues that are going to have to be addressed, whether that impacts on water, impacts on species at risk or indigenous concerns. which are very very important part of our process in canada. trying to ensure that we're isolating the big issues early on and working to try to address, so so that you're not five years into a process when you run into the wall. where there are significant concerns that haven't been addressed. those are things that, while there are different views on environmental assessment processes within the canadian federation, i think we would all agree that having those conversations very early on is extremely important to expediting the process. >> anyone else? >> -- yeah, i would add that, like
minister wilkinson said, we do have environmental, robust assessment review. we have an independent review board. and usually, i would say, that when the environmental studies are submitted to the government or the board, for analysis, it takes between 48 to 60 months before getting the authorization from the government. and during that time we have public hearings. all the studies are made public, as well as all of the questions sent to the mining companies and the answers given by the companies. they are all made public, so it helps people and local communities and indigenous communities to learn more about what are the issues and concerns. and, in that way, it helps for social acceptability to. >> has the analysis of the
environmental and social impact assessment added to the timeframe it takes to get permitting? >> no, the 48 to 60 months it's, at the moment, -- it's at the moment you submit your environmental study. and then, we have the analysis phase and then we have public hearings. then, after the public hearings, sometimes, often, the recommendation will go change the projects, to improve the projects. and then, the government will approve the project. >> and at that time you have all that stakeholders get to weigh in as well, correct? >> yeah, but all that information is public at that time. >> right. thank you very much. mister chair, i yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you, it now we have senator langford. >> thank you, senator manchin. let me continue on that same
conversation that senator cortez masto was talking, about the permitting process. the 48 to 60 months there, you're talking 45 years to be able to go through that process. we have multiple of our mining projects that may take ten, 15 years to be able to go through the permitting. the question that comes up with all of our mining projects is, is there a deadline where a decision has to be made and the decision is done? because, in the united states, you may go through the permitting process and, at the end of it, there is a lawsuit by some outside group and that they filed suit and then there is the lawsuit process and then it goes through dnipro evaluation again because it's expired. that's a continual process. one of the things that seemed to be missing on our processes that there's not a deadline when the decision has been made and the decision's ban. you have a point, when you get to that 48 to 60 months you mentioned before, where the decision is made and everyone has been heard that it's done whether it's going to happen or not happen? >> there is no timeline, but there is a strong commitment by
all stakeholders to let people know what's of information is required in their application. we have many guidelines, we help mining companies to prepare their studies and there is no real litigation matter in quebec. after approving mining projects. >> so, it's not allowed at that point? >> it's not allowed, would you precise your question? >> the litigations not allowed, once the provinces made the decision then the decision is made? >> it's possible, but it's not just happening. it's not just happening. >> mr. o'keefe, and they want to comment on that at all? >> look, the idea of certainty around timelines is really important. and, to be honest with, you we also need to ensure that we are
better aligning state level, provincial level and federal systems and were actually in the process of launching a process to try and align permitting and regulatory processes more professionally. because we have to get mines built more quickly. as we think florida the challenges of critical minerals. but, in terms of the process, there is a deadline. and once a decision is taken, yes, you can launch a lawsuit around issues around procedural fairness, for example. but, by a large, you are at a point where progress simply will move ahead. >> okay. we don't have that advantage at this point. we stretch things out for decades, the process. and we need to build more minds here as well, but we can't seem to be able to get through the permitting process to be able to get it done. premier kenney, thanks for being here as well, for all of you. president biden's first foreign policy decision that he made, january the 20th of 2021, was to say the united states is not going to purchase more oil from canada, we're going to purchase more oil from russia.
and then, he then pressed on that to say, actually, we're not going to purchase more oil from canada were going to purchase from russia and opec. that has proven to be a problem, obviously, for the united states. we need to purchase more from canada in the days ahead and have the consistency of that. you outlined that there is a process that you are currently walking through, to be able to increase the capacity for existing pipelines and then to increase the capacity, you're saying, up to 1 million barrels a day of increase that could come from canada based on what's happening right now. walk me through that process right now. >> sure. right, now in the american pipeline network, there is about 300,000 barrels of unused capacity that we could fill. and we anticipate that most of that will be filled. >> what's prevented you from feeling that now? >> nothing is happening. it's happening. secondly, there would need to be a bunch of technical changes of the network to increase our export capacity, throughout the midstream companies call pipeline optimization.
some line of versailles, an introduction of drag reduction agents and other technical changes. they estimate, collectively, the myth streamers that this could add up to 400,000 barrels of eager. finally, by q one of 2024, the trans mountain pipeline expansion which is owned by the government of canada should be operational, adding upwards of 600,000 barrels that will largely be taken by tanker from vancouver to west coast u.s. refineries on washington in california. >> okay, that's because we didn't have a pipeline through the middle of the country, we're having to drive tankers around the edge. >> both of those projects could've gone ahead. it's not an either or. but the veto of keystone excel reduces our ability to ship 800,000 barrels a day. >> okay, can i ask one more follow-up question on this? i'm bumping up against time. >> go right ahead. >> the price of a gallon or a leader, however indeterminate from province to province, the price of a gallon of gasoline in canada is more than it is in the united states.
what's the difference there? why is the price higher in canada? >> we nominate it in leaders, but generally higher taxes on the canadian side. >> okay. where does that breakdown? is that federal, provincial? and then you have the carbon tax mixed in. >> there is fuel excise taxes, there is a federal consumption tax and that there's carbon taxes. in alberta, we have expanded our tax because of inflation. >> one of the carbon tax level there per liter? >> $50 per ton, which comes out to, i think, 13 cents a leader. >> okay, thank you. >> senator murkowski? >> mister chairman, thank you. ranking member barrasso, thank you. thank you for having this hearing, thank you for inviting our friends and neighbors from canada. i absolutely concur with senator marshall when he says sometimes our solutions are right in our backyard. look to your neighbors first and, for some strange reason,
we have not done that. as we have looked to our energy needs with this administration. premier kenney, you said you are having a hard time understanding the biden administration's approach on this. know that there are many of us who are also having a hard time understanding where and why the administration has taken the approach that they have. there's a lot of kinship between alaska and canada right now, we feel like we have been shunted off to the corner as well and our opportunity to provide for americas domestic production has been effectively derailed by this administration. whether it's the actions within the npr a, the recent actions with regards to lease sailing and cook inlet or the opportunity that we have within our coastal plain areas. so, we are, also, having a hard
time understanding the direction from this administration. but i have to ask the question, because we saw the response from president biden after russia took that first step into ukraine. and the effort was not to come to canada, as our partner, but to call on venezuela, to call on iran for increase production, to turn to opec. is there something different in the product, and oil itself, the crude itself, something in venezuelan or iranian oil that american or canadian oil doesn't have? is it cleaner? what would give them that advantage over what we might be able to do here in the united states or in canada, is there anything? >> thank you, senator. i think the best competitor
between our oil would be with venezuela, because both are largely heavy oil reservoir as. we are no at or below the carbon footprint for alberta heavy versus venezuelan heavy. so there's no environmental advantage. i would add that the venezuelans, this is a state owned enterprise in a kleptocracy with zero transparency and zero real commitment to north american style energy standards. whereas we are dealing with world class, publicly traded companies that rank in the top vessel of esg performance for energy producers. in canada, with incredibly ambitious environmental and emissions targets. so, i think we probably end up, in a comparable sense, penalizing ourselves. because we are so self, critical we are so transparent, i don't think we really know with the emissions profile's of energy being produced in venezuela and iran, is my point. >> well, i would agree. and again, alaska shares many
of those same attributes in terms of how we are able to produce in a way that not only minimizes footprint but, in terms of reduced emissions, methane emissions, we are heads and shoulders above not only other countries but many states as well. but, again, it's absolutely incomprehensible why we would not seek those options and avenues that are cleaner. help not only our respective states but, again, this north american energy alliance. which, to me, it's just common sense. you have highlighted two things that the administration has taken that of harm to the ability of canadian crude to reach our refineries. clearly, keystone. and you also have mentioned this and bridge line five, which i hope the administration
is taking heed to your words here. you've talked about optimization. what more can this administration do? we already know what they've done to limit our ability to have better relationships, better partnerships on this energy alliance. but what could they do today? walk to the side ministration do today to help improve this energy relationship between our two nations? >> well, one would be to join canada in opposing the governor's efforts to decommission line five. secondly, working with midstream companies on accelerating approval for the pipeline optimization projects that are likely coming forward. third, apply the principle we heard earlier about from quebec, about the application of the title three of the defense production act to the development of critical minerals and canada. why not treat canadian oil and gas the same way? >> those are good recommendations. canada is one of the few
countries that is considered a domestic source under our defense production act, under title three. so, that is something that is an area of opportunity that i think we need to push this administration to look to. mr. bradley, nobody has really asked you many questions this morning. but as i was listening to your testimony about this great opportunity for electricity and sharing, i was reminded of the discussion that we had many years ago about this green pipeline that would run from alaska island communities, with our hydro power, connecting with bc is wind and moving it down to california. it was a pipe dream at the time, people told us we are crazy. obviously, it hasn't happened but i think about the great opportunity is that we have between our two countries. for these shared resources. and, mister chairman, i don't think there has been a more important and more timely
hearing about what we can be doing right now from an energy security perspective then this cooperation, and a true north american energy alliance. so, my suggestion would be that we have an opportunity to take this committee to alberta for a little bit of a field hearing and see for ourselves. because i think we could learn a lot. >> senator murkowski, you and i, i went to visit. you and i went up to alaska and when i left you i went right down to alberta and talk to all our friends there. i was on a bipartisan way, we are both very embarrassed that our country did not turn to ourselves. alaska was not asked. our producers in america were not asked. our friends in canada were not asked to step up production, help us, help the rest of the world and keep us independent. who were trying to do is a common sense approach. west virginia's are asking the same questions that you're asking in alberta and all over canada, the same as you're asking in alaska. that was the reason i thought
it was imperative that we invite our friends down, to show the interconnecting that we depend on each other. and we, can basically, do an awful lot and make north american energy not only energy independent, but we can help our allies around the world. g7, all of, them we can bring all our friendly countries in. that's what we're trying to do and use all the best technologies. you will do some things that we think are very very good, and we do things that we think we can be helpful and together we can truly move forward. but i'm happy about this to. with, that we're going to go to senator daines. in about five minutes, i'm so sorry senator hoeven. he made it before 4:30, i was so proud of you. but senator daines beat you. that's a little inside joke here that we have. >> he's a neighbor state, so. >> okay, okay. >> we love north dakota, we love alberta too. the great neighbors. premier kennedy, great to see you here again. as you know, montana and alberta have long work together, we have strong economic ties. we share firefighting resources,
our electric grids are intertwined. two of our national parks connect, to form the crown of the continent. the partnership between mountain and alberta, as well as the united states and canada, creates, jobs provides energy and food security. and it increases the economic prosperity of both of our countries. unfortunately, in one stroke of a pin, president biden, hours after being sworn, in hours after talking about uniting america, then divided it when he damaged and undermined that partnership we had, when he canceled the keystone xl pipeline. premier, you know better than most what the keystone xl pipeline meant for jobs, revenues and energy security. i've been spending time with leaders and eastern europe, vladimir putin has eastern europe and europe over a barrel right now because of their dependencies on russian oil and gas. that is why alberta filed a
suit against the united states, seeking 1.3 billion dollars in damages. let me just read a line from that filing. the biden administration's decision to revoke the keystone xl pipeline, and i quote, resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, cause systemic harm to the american, canadian and alberta economies. and diminished the highly integrated north american energy system, upon which future north american prosperity will continue to rely. we just saw gas price hit an all-time record. my montana farmers and ranchers are driving up now and seeing diesel at nearly six bucks a gallon. that line from that lawsuit, i, think sums it all up. as you point in your testimony, when gas and energy prices hit record heights, families are struggling. instead of calling on u.s. and canadian producers, president biden went to opec, venezuela and iran. it's like a babylon be parity,
by's reality from this administration. energy security is national security and we should be increasing north american production, not going to foreign adversaries. premier kenney, do you worry that the biden administration's arbitrary decision to kill the keystone xl pipeline -- and i say arbitrary, because i don't see any sense from an environmental viewpoint, economic viewpoint. the most carbon friendly way to transport a liquid. it kills thousands of jobs. could that possibly lead to further decisions to kill trans pour pipelines? by the, way there is heavy operating with gas pipelines in the u.s. and canada as we wake up today. 31 transfer oil, 39 natural gas. could this lead to further decisions that connect alberta and canada to the united states? and what can we do to continue to strengthen the montana alberta energy partnership? >> thank you very much, senator. good to see you again. the answer is yes, i'm concerned it creates a very
problematic precedent to retroactively veto a project that has been approved. the border crossing of the k exile had been built between saskatchewan and montana, with the government of alberta as a co-owner. so, you have a foreign government investing in a project, making an investment predicated on the certainty of the u.s. regulatory process, clearly in the mutual economic interest of both countries, being retroactively vetoed. frankly, when i then looked at the political pressure coming from governor whitmer to shut down line five, which hurt state depends on for a major energy source. wondering, is it possible if u.s. administration, with the flick of a pan, will shut down a six decade old, safely operating pipeline? it's creating a serious problem of investor confidence. you are right, the u.s. state department, under former secretary clinton, concluded not once but twice, through exhaustive studies, that kxl would have had a lower emissions profile than the
alternative, which is increasingly shipping by rail. i would point out the most of the major u.s. unions supported this. steel workers, teamsters, building trades and others. now, it's done and dusted. kxl is behind us. but i hope the invasion of ukraine and the imperative of energy security causes a fundamental rethink about these issues and washington. >> well, i hope it wakes up the woke. because of that dangerous ideology and people are suffering because of what this administration is doing, keeping it in the grounded shutting off fossil fuels. it's a huge concern, as we've heard from many on this committee. premier kenney, by failing to mere the aggressive steps that alberta has taken to increase its streamline timber harvest, of the biden administration has also failed to be a partner to alberta and pursuing climate objectives. over the past few decades, montana has become a carbon source instead of a carbon sink. a healthy forest absorbs carbon a burning forest emits carbon. for, years lack of management has had negative impact on wildlife habitat, ecosystems,
watersheds, rural economies and public safety. but, now we're seeing even broader impacts on the housing market with the price of lumber. during the height of the pandemic, the price of lumber more than tripled. and even now, the volatile lumber market is increasing the average family home price by nearly $20,000. despite, this montana lumber production has actually decreased by 11%, and we just had another mill close last december. when i was growing up in montana, we had over 30 active sawmills. we're now down to what i can count on one hand and one finger. this is not due to lack of supply, montana has nearly 9 million acres in need of treatment and their annual harvest is nearly half of what the eight study found. let me cut to the question here, mr. premier. how does this compare to the forestry permitting process in alberta? and would you agree commercial timber harvest is often the best tool to accomplish our environmental objectives? because we're going to see, it takes over five years to finish in he i.s..
-- >> 100 percent. fortunately, under our constitution provinces also regulate forestry production. we've seen, actually, the exact opposite of your experience. a 30% increase in harvesting since 2011, a six billion dollar increase in investment in our forestry. last year was the best year in terms of volume of fiber and revenue for the industry. i'm glad the province regulates, this because we have, within our province, a large federal park called jasper. where the forests have been absolutely destroyed by pine beetle, because there is no responsible harvesting policy. so, i think those vindicates local regulation of forestry. >> and we're seeing that in montana, i'll close here, mister chairman. but our state lands, under our governor, we're seeing increased harvest. federal lands, that's the problem. seems like a similar problem in canada. mr. premier, thank you.
>> thank. you know, senator hoeven. >> thank you, chairman. in 2015, the chairman and i cosponsored legislation, senate bill one. to approve the keystone xl pipeline. the senate passed, it was vetoed by president obama. had it not, been it would today be bring 830,000 barrels a day from canada to the united states, which obviously would be of great help. the likelihood is would have been expanded, well over 1 million barrels a day versus trying to get it from some adversary. be that somebody in opec or venezuela or somewhere else. so, how do we go forward now as partners? i'm going to talk about another fantastic partnership we have, the coda gasification company north dakota. takes coal, converts into natural gas, we capture the co2 and sends it to the weyburn oil
fields in saskatchewan. , there it's put on hold for torture or recovery. that's been operating successfully for well over a decade. when a great partnership. how do we go forward, premier, and build on these partnerships now? looking, at i've given you an example of one, that obviously, should be in place, keystone excel. and another one that is in place and operating very effectively, providing coal for electricity but also synthetic natural gas. also producing more l through the tertiary or recovery, great partnership between our two nations. together, we have incredible resources. how do we cut through some of these regulatory decisions that have impeded our ability to produce more energy with the greatest technology and the best environmental stewardship? how do we cut through and get that message to people in both countries, so we can get more of these things done?
>> thank you, senator. great question. i won't pretend that canada where alberta has an optimal system for regulation, regulatory certainty to the contrary. we've had huge regulatory delays and uncertainty, particularly around pipelines. but, with respect to production and permitting, that's primarily controlled by the provincial governments on oil and gas in canada. and we have reduced, by 20%, the regulatory burden for permitting. and we have accelerated by about 60%, the speed of permitting. for conventional oil and gas projects. so, i would just add, in canada, one aspect of regulatory delays is often associated with the need of the government, the crown, to consult adequately with indigenous people, what we call our first nations. a key part of that is involving them in a beneficial way in the
industry, and resource development. i think we're developing a very good model when alberta, of indigenous participation. including equity co-ownership of major resource projects. so that they feel fully like they are participants and resorts development. >> so, what do you see in canada, today, in terms of your resource development are working with the united states? are you still committed to producing energy, not only for your own country, but bringing it to the united states? so that, together, as north america, we are truly energy sufficient? or are you dissuaded from doing that? what kinds of things should we, in congress, due to try to build that relationship and promote more partnering in energy development for the good of both nations? >> thank, you senator. i think the predicate of your question is this concept of a north american energy alliance. i think it's manifestly in the interest about the american and the canadian people to develop
that policy framework. as i mentioned earlier, the administration regards the production of canadian critical minerals as, for all intents and purposes, american critical minerals. under title three of the defense production act. i think a similar policy approach should be taken to oil and gas and other energy resources. for starters, stop efforts to shut down current infrastructure like line five going through michigan. secondly, accelerate regulatory approval of pipeline optimization projects, so that we can ship you more. thirdly, let's work together to see, can we bring back something like another major pipeline between alberta and the united states? it may require governments participating in the risking that, because capital markets, the private sector, as been spooked by that veto. i don't think you're going to have a pipeline company coming to market with a ten billion dollar plus project with so
much political and regulatory uncertainty. i think we, as governments, need to be more forward-leaning to de-risk projects like that. >> right, which takes both the provincial and state government and our federal governments to work with us to do it. right? >> yes, sir. >> yeah. thanks to all of, you appreciate. it chairman, i yield. >> thank, you senator. we're going to do the second round real quick. auto writer minister wilkinson, if i may. sir, i understand a little bit what's going on and i want all of you to understand. i want my administration, i want my government, to understand how important it is for this relationship and how much more we can both do. we all have a responsibility to the climate, we all have responsibility to the energy that we needed understanding with the world's appetite is. so that we can do a better, cleaner than any place in the world. hydrogen, i know, mr. wilkerson, you come from a hydrogen background and you understand that i, also, and very much
interested in hydrogen and how we promote more of it in america. we've been promoting evs, i think that the detriment of making ourselves totally reliant and held hostage by foreign supply chains. that is why i think our relationship in energy and critical minerals are so important. i also believe that, as we move forward in america, we're going to start requiring that all the pipelines we do our dual purpose. that there pop properly coated and using the proper steel components to be able to carry both gas and, as we transition -- so, if you could tell me what you're doing in your government, how you're looking at hydrogen. and an area such as alberta, saskatchewan, some of your larger energy producing areas of the country how that can be supported and how that could be helpful. thank you senator. i agree with everything you've said. and i think it's going to be extremely important as we move
forward on a whole range of different. >> we don't have to supplant any foreign supply change we can do. it >> absolutely, and both canada and the united states are well-placed to be producers of large quantity. in canada we can go both directions which is what quebec would normally do, the other is producing low carbon hydrogen, which is alberta and saskatchewan. we see canada as an emerging hydrogen vehicle for the world and certainly for western europe. bc working with the united states ensuring that we're building up transportation corridors and linking up hydrogen hubs that we are developing as a way for us to accelerate progress on this. and i totally agree with you that any infrastructure that we are thinking about going forward, that needs to be hydrogen capable. we are looking right now is trying to enable liquid natural gas, exports from eastern
canada to europe. and it will have to be -- capable. so we can ensure we're moving through this transition and we're not ending up with stranded assets. so this is an enormous opportunity for north america, and something we can work on together. >> and if i may ask, all three of you, what is the thing that we need to do most with the cooperation of our two countries, and the impediments that you're running into. we understand that you are permitting processes are two years, ours go as long as ten. because our court actions. we're trying to get that down to make sure we can compete and do on a timely fashion. but all for a few, if you could see the greatest obstacle and the critical factor that we could work on, that you want us in the united states to pay attention to that could be helpful for this relationship to continue to flourish, because we need each other very badly. >> but in our own backyard,
we've cut -- by about 20%. >> the biggest obstacle you have in regards to working with the u.s. government, or you're going into us markets our markets and it's going into, or is there any impediments to this trade that you can think of? >> look, i hate to come back to it yet again, but if we sent to message that the government of the united states does not want substantially more canadian energy, and this has i think impeded investor confidence. you're not going to get a midstream company coming to market to risk that again. to risk that capital gain. so i think we need a message from the administration about regulatory certainty. >> thank you chairman. i would add to that that for the mining sector, we are
already having discussions with people from the administration, from the united states, and a month ago i was in washington with colleagues in quebec. and we had meetings with the d.o.e., the d.o.d., the department of the interior as well as the department of commerce. and we are looking at different ways of having greater collaboration. and it would be cool investing, it would be uptake agreements. but we need to have transparent data with all of the stakeholders. >> thank you senator. and i will go a bit of a different direction. i think the greatest challenge that we face both in canada and the united states is our government and your administration are both committed to a net zero -- by 2035. to be able to achieve that, it is going to take a significant
effort. certainly in canada. and we are now getting a better sense of what the government's vision is for the pathway to 2035. but it needs to be done in a manner that is coordinated between canada and the united states. >> the largest world polluters are looking at 2050. that's what they thought. and even then they don't think they can make it at 2050. you are going to 2035 because you think it's achievable, or is it a lofty goal to feel to go for? >> we are looking at a net zero economy by 2030, and -- the commitment from both our prime minister and president biden for 2035. so this is on the immediacy of 2035 first, and we want to ensure that that is done in a coordinated fashion given the nature of our electricity systems. then looking at 2050, but 2050
target is going to require at least in canada, 2 to 3 times more -- electricity than we produce today. so that is a significant lift. it will only be achieved if we do it in a coordinated and collaborative fashion between canada and the u.s.. >> senator, if i can to say a word. i completely agree that there needs to be a much more strategic approach to north american energy and that certainly very much includes the energy sources and the associated -- that will be required. that includes hydrogen, critical minerals, etc. it certainly includes technology. carbon capture the nuclear technology. and small reactors. i think one of things we have to do, i think there's complete alignment between the biden administration and what we are aiming to do in that regard. but i think one of the things that we have to collectively do is ensure that we don't allow irritants to get in the way of the kind of cooperation we need. so the tax credit, for example,
that would've had huge implications for the canadian manufacturing industry, because the way it was structured. and there's no point in going backwards here in terms of energy security. that would be a step backwards. the same thing for american tariffs on solar panels, it was intended to go against china. it ended up boomerang on canada. so we need to be strategic and thoughtful about how we partner and the way it's going to be good for both countries and allow us to advance and for climate change, and security. >> yes. >> thank you, and follow up on something mr. bradley just talked about, you talk about the commitment by president biden and prime minister trudeau, and what i see is an aggressive goal for north america. because by the year 2035, an hour in 2022, 13 years from now, the two leaders want to eliminate all natural gas and all coal as sources of
electricity. in the united states, 61% of our electricity comes from natural gas and coal. so premier kenney, are you sure that such aggressive goals will not create a liability problem, for people? >> yes we agree about the urgency of reducing emissions. and that's why alberta would have shifted away from thermal coal. which was five years ago. our major source of electricity generation. so there are huge investments in coal to gas conversions. but we don't have hydro, we don't have nuclear and obviously it takes a long time for development here. so if the federal government requires us to move away from natural gas, without any alternative, we won't have a reliable electricity grid which will be devastating to our economy. so we want to have ambitious emission reduction goals, it
has to be realistic. and natural gas will be part of our future. and i completely agree with mr. wilkinson. and that requires natural gas and other feats. >> -- >> the first day in office president biden killed the keystone project. and then also he's linked russia to germany, i've been outspoken on my ideology to that. and the president oppose the wrong pipeline. >> i would argue yes senator. >> then we talked about this joint partnership between president biden and prime minister trudeau when they came out with their roadmap last year, together they stated it is a shared interest of the united states and canada to revitalize and expand our historical alliance and steadfast friendship. they also pledged to recognize the important economic and energy security benefits of the
buy lateral energy and its infrastructure. so i believe that since president biden took office, he is not been a good energy partner or a good partner to canada. so what is your assessment of that and how can we improve this partnership? >> i had mentioned some ideas, for starters, first do no harm. and i do not understand why the administration of the united states, which is pleading with opec to ship more, is taking a neutral position about an effort to shut down the shipment of over half 1 million barrels a day of canadian energy to the upper midwest. now we appreciate that we are the government of canada and the governing government of united states are currently in negotiations about resolving this treaty dispute. but i don't think they should have to be negotiations. i think the government of the united states should make it clear that it is contrary to the natural interest of this country to close on that
project for starters, and i think a strategic decision to treat canadian energy as though it were american energy. really enter into a true alliance. and that would send a hugely important signal to our companies, our upstream companies that are midstream companies. that there will be a future market here. that you are not hostile to canadian energy. as i said, if we are serious about this. we could achieve within five years, the complete elimination of north american imports of opec energy. and that would be demonstrably good for the world. environment and global security. >> thank you mister chairman. >> thank you. >> i would just like to add my appreciation for your attendance and participation today. but also just how much i support the vision of the north american energy and all of the above. and recognizing that are
guiding light does have to be that the climate is changing, much more rapidly than any of us would want. we are seeing you know a larger percent of our landscape that is increasingly hostile to habitation. and the production of food. and it's going to take a long time to you know we have, to find effective ways to get carbon out of the air. but i think that some of the benefits that we could have my working together and you've all pointed this out today, we are just stepping on our own greatest opportunity. i think that the import of solar panels to canada, i mean who is that mr. wilkinson who mentioned that? we are going to that issue right now. the commerce department again is looking at the providence of solar panels. and it could put our solar industry on its back. for an extended period of time.
for what's real point? i mean i understand the arguments on both sides, i'm not saying that i should say for real point, but i understand the point. i don't think it's relevant in terms of trying to deal with a massive problem like climate. which is why all of you are clearly doing. so hopefully this hearing is a foundation that allows us to go forward and to really begin looking at what an alliance would look like in a more pragmatic way. and i agree with all of you, that's got to work on the state level and a local levels as well. but it will never succeed without the cooperation and the orchestration of the federal government involved. so i would hope that we can all work with mexico as well. they could be a very active and powerful partner. on a lot of these issues. solar panels included. so i have no further questions, just admiration and appreciation. >> thank you senator. >> let me say to all of you, i appreciate so much for you
being here and we've been looking forward to it for so much time. and it's been so helpful. and what i would say, i think the world is looking to north america right now. and that includes all of us working together. but i do see the problem, i've said this before, my administration with all the goodwill and intent that they have, and all of our concerns that we have a responsibility to this beautiful planet that we've been able to occupy. to do the best we can. but with that, i've said this you know it's called a global climate. it's not called a canadian climate, or united states climate, it's called global. and we have done more in unanimously the last two decades, probably to clean up using the fossils that we're using in a cleaner fashion. and when i watch china, they keep talking about china, china has 3000 cool plants and they're building 400 more. they are not taking their foot off the pedal at all.
india had 500 up to 800 and they want to build 100 more. united states is going down. you all have basically gone down. everybody is trying to be responsible. you take the developing nations of the world and the leaders of the world, such as a sinew, and you take us out of the fossil industry before we have the replacement that the rest of the world can move into, and god help us. god help the climate. because the rest of them are not going to do what we do. they will not do what we have done in a free democracy that we all live in. leave done it. because it's the right thing to do but taking us out of the industry before we have a replacement, and all i've said is united states of america should go down two paths. we should basically make sure that we have reliable secured energy, for a period of time with his transition, as we are investing in the technology. you cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner climate. you can innovate your way to it,
allen those crisscross and you give me as much of what i'm getting out of the fossil now, and something it's reliable unaffordable, and when you can get me back based on this reliable power whenever i want, from the new technology that we are designing and developing, that is when the market takes over. it's not us making government decisions. it will be the market that makes those decisions. we have everybody afraid, if we do this and we build this great alliance in north america we will become so good insufficient at what we're doing that it will be basically prolonging us using fossil when people want us not to. and i only said that i can speak from my position, and one vote as a senator, that i will not vote to support the european model. of what they're dealing with today. i think we can do it better.
that's why i came to canada, to see if you could join us and our north american alliance. and maybe we can get mexico, a senator hickenlooper said, i want to do it. but we have the ability, and i am scared to death that xi jinping is watching what putin did with energy and that's what he would do with the critical minerals for a computer chips, the catholics and animals on the processing. right now, i think both of our countries are dependent on what's coming from russia and the energy endeavor for us to be able to transition. i don't want to transition and be totally relied on foreign supply chains, that's just me. and minister wilkinson, that's why i said energy -- i mean, hydrogen is something we can do. so, i have looked at that very astutely and it is very encouraging that there's so much more that needs to be done. but again, i can say that i don't think we can do it without each other and i think we need each other. i appreciate very much, we want to break down these, barriers we want to make common sense decisions. we don't want to take away and shoot ourselves anymore than we
already have. and i think we can heal the wounds that we have. i just appreciate it, and i hope you have a safe journey back home. we look for to visit you soon. and, with that. let me just say, members will have until the close of his list tomorrow to submit additional questions for the record if they weren't able to submit today. i appreciate this climate partnership that we've been able to speak about and also i want to thank you again, and this committee will stand adjourned. [inaudible]