U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–893PDF 2013

U.S. ENERGY SECURITY: ENHANCING

PARTNERSHIPS WITH MEXICO AND CANADA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 14, 2013

Serial No. 113–14

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

MATT SALMON, Arizona, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nebraska ............................................................................................................... 7

Duncan Wood, Ph.D., director, Mexico Institute, Wilson Center ........................ 13

Mr. Daniel R. Simmons, director of Regulatory and State Affairs, Institute 

for Energy Research ............................................................................................. 18

Mr. Kyle Isakower, vice president, Regulatory and Economic Policy, American 

Petroleum Institute .............................................................................................. 36

Michael A. Levi, Ph.D., senior fellow for energy and the environment, and, 

director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, Council 

on Foreign Relations ............................................................................................ 40

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Lee Terry: Prepared statement .................................................... 9

Duncan Wood, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................ 16

Mr. Daniel R. Simmons: Prepared statement ....................................................... 20

Mr. Kyle Isakower: Prepared statement ................................................................ 38

Michael A. Levi, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ......................................................... 42

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 62

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 63

The Honorable Matt Salmon, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere: 

Statement for the record from the Council of the Americas ............................. 64

(1)

U.S. ENERGY SECURITY: ENHANCING 

PARTNERSHIPS WITH MEXICO AND CANADA 

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30.m., in room 2172 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SALMON. This is the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, a subcommittee of the whole Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

The subcommittee will come to order. 

I will start by recognizing our distinguished chairman of the full 

committee, Ed Royce, who is here today. We are very honored and 

pleased to have him here. I would like to open the gallery for him 

to yield as much time as he may consume. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, let me begin by thanking Chairman Salmon, 

and I just want to mention that this hearing is very, very important for several reasons. But one of them certainly goes to the issue 

of national security. 

U.S. energy security has become part of national security. This 

also has been with our partnership here in this hemisphere with 

Canada and with Mexico. And I appreciate the leadership here on 

this critical issue at a very critical time. 

Energy security is the lynchpin for our economic growth. Jobs are 

being created in the energy industry here in the United States, and 

companies, both American and foreign, often prefer to manufacture 

in the U.S. because of our consistent and well-priced electrical 

power supply. 

But I will share with you, energy prices here are about 20 percent less than they are in Asia. This is one of the few areas where 

we are truly competitive. Unless we are careful, we could inverse 

that equation. Unless we are careful, that pipeline which we are 

discussing today could go west to Vancouver in order to take that 

petroleum to Asia. That would make manufacturing in Asia even 

more of a challenge for our competition here in the United States 

because it would inverse that equation and make energy cheaper 

in Asia than it is in the United States. 

When we reflect on this, I think we should think about the multiplier effect that dollars earned in the Northern Hemisphere that 

are spent in the Northern Hemisphere have in supporting additional jobs and adding to our tax base. Because the studies also 

2

show that, because of most of what Canada purchases, they don’t 

do a lot of manufacturing. Eighty-five percent of what we spend in 

Canada comes back to the United States in our economy. And so, 

as we consider purchasing this oil from Canada, rather than our 

reliance on the Middle East and Venezuela for oil, this is another 

consideration. 

This pipeline is 875 miles from Canada through Montana, South 

Dakota, and Nebraska. It is going to allow, if we can do it, delivery 

of 830,000 barrels per day of crude oil to American refineries. It is 

going to create jobs. And you have seen various estimates from a 

high of 200,000 to a low of 20,000. I think the best estimate is it 

is about 130,000 jobs that would be created, from the studies I 

have seen. 

But I am going to return to the argument that it is going to enhance our national security. All 24 of the majority members of the 

full House Foreign Affairs Committee wrote to the President last 

month, and here is the argument we made: By providing secure access to petroleum from Canada, we would reduce our reliance on 

energy imports from countries in the OPEC cartel. The U.S. would 

be less vulnerable to political and security-related disruptions of 

our energy supply. Further hesitation in approving Keystone XL 

would not only ensure higher economic costs, but enhance the fortunes of economic rivals, as Chinese state-owned oil companies and 

others race to secure permanent access to North American energy 

sources. 

The role of the State Department in the approval process is to 

determine that the border crossing and its resulting conditions 

would serve the national interest. The State Department’s Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Keystone Pipeline could not assert that there was an environmental reason to not 

approve the pipeline. 

Since there are clear economic and national security reasons to 

support Keystone, the only rational move for the administration to 

make is to go ahead and approve the pipeline. It is squarely in our 

national interest to do so. 

The State Department’s Draft Statement becomes final on April 

14th, and after that, the administration should be out of excuses 

to delay approving this pipeline. They must not come up with new 

excuses. 

The time, I think, Mr. Chairman, for approval is now. And I appreciate your yielding me the time. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I would like to recognize myself to speak and give myself as 

much time as I may consume. And then, afterwards, Mr. Sires, I 

want to recognize you. And then, we would like to hear from the 

Honorable Lee Terry. 

Good morning and welcome to this second hearing of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. During our first hearing 

we discussed the challenges that we face in the region, but there 

are also many opportunities that exist right here in our own backyard in the Western Hemisphere. 

Building on our first hearing, I want to take a closer look at 

some of these opportunities, and whether the administration, as a 

matter of policy, is making the most of those opportunities for the 

3

American people. I want to seize the momentum created by our 

first hearing to talk about our relationship with our neighbors directly to the south and directly to the north of us, Mexico and Canada. 

The U.S. already enjoys vibrant trading relationships with both 

Mexico and Canada. That said, we need to identify ways to complement those partnerships in the pursuit of energy security, as the 

chairman just referenced, jobs for the American people and enhanced regional democracy, prosperity, free markets, and peace. 

It is my intention that this subcommittee should be a voice in 

promoting and increasing trade as well as building on existing free 

trade agreements throughout our hemisphere. Free trade policies 

go beyond benefitting the American people by increasing access to 

a greater number of goods at lower prices. Free and open commerce 

with our neighbors helps foster economic development in poorer 

countries while reinforcing with our neighbors the value of freedom 

and the rule of law. I think that the most important thing that we 

export as a nation is our freedom and our ideals. 

For example, I have always believed that a safe and prosperous 

Mexico is in the United States’ national interest. We already have 

the vibrant commercial partnerships with Mexico and Canada. We 

have the world’s largest free trade area under NAFTA, made up of 

about one-third of the world’s total Gross Domestic Product. 

What I would like to see is an enhancement of that already-close 

relationship where we can expand on existing bilateral trade to 

achieve North American energy security and independence by making us less dependent on oil from the Middle East, from Venezuela, 

and other unpredictable, more unstable areas. This, in turn, will 

make our region more prosperous and more stable. 

To that end, I am very interested in taking a close look at the 

proposed Keystone XL pipeline project with Canada to determine 

why exactly the administration continues to stall on this project. As 

we know, Canada is already our largest supplier of oil and is the 

world’s fifth-largest petroleum producer. This project, once approved, would result in a true synergy toward energy security, a 

system to transport crude oil from Canada down to the Gulf Coast 

refineries equipped to refine the heavy crude. 

What’s more, approval of this pipeline will create jobs in the 

United States. With our domestic economy still struggling and 12 

million Americans still looking for work, it is, frankly, unconscionable that this project has been essentially stalled for over 4 years 

by the administration. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about why 

the administration continues to put off approval in light of the 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement put out by 

the State Department earlier this month that stated there would 

likely be no significant impact—I will repeat, no significant impact—to resources along the proposed route. 

In addition, we are eager to receive information on how swift approval of this project will benefit U.S. national interests as well as 

our bilateral relationship with Canada, or, concurrently, how continued delays may, in fact, strain that close relationship. 

I am eager to hear from the witnesses about the Trans-Boundary 

Hydrocarbons Agreement signed last year with Mexico and, again, 

4

determine why the administration continues to stall on sending 

this agreement to Congress for approval. I see many opportunities 

in Mexico. For example, if Pemex can achieve true reforms, open 

in a way to direct foreign investment in their nationalized energy 

sector, for the first time in history Mexico will prosper, and U.S. 

energy security will be enhanced by a more reliable and prolific 

source of oil from our closest neighbor to the south. 

In my opinion, approval of this agreement will pave the way for 

increased energy cooperation between our two countries and will 

create jobs and economic development both for the U.S. and the 

Mexico economies. I believe, with this first step, we will identify 

other opportunities for energy cooperation and growth with Mexico 

beyond hydrocarbons. 

I want to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Nebraska, Lee Terry, for testifying before us today. Lee has been a 

tireless advocate for moving the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, and it is a pleasure to have him here to provide his insights. 

I know he shares my frustration in the delays that the project 

has experienced at the hands of the administration. I look forward 

to working with him to try and find a solution that will ensure 

swift approval of this timely job-creating energy project. 

In addition, I welcome our other witnesses, all of whom are experts in the field of energy and our relationship with Mexico and 

Canada. I am looking forward to a truly productive hearing. I believe we can come together as Americans and find common ground 

in the value and the imperative of actively and seriously pursuing 

policies that will not only enhance our energy security, but also 

grow our partnerships with Canada and Mexico, so that we can 

complement each other’s efforts to solidify peace and prosperity 

into the future for our respective nations. 

Now I would like to recognize my colleague, Albio Sires, the 

ranking democratic member for his opening remarks. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. 

I believe our foreign policy toward the hemisphere has gone by 

the wayside for far too long. We are falling short of articulating a 

strategic policy for the region as a whole, especially in regards to 

energy policy in the hemisphere. Our lack of attention to our neighbors is disconcerting, especially since some of our neighbors are 

some of our strongest allies. 

This is particularly worrisome, given our energy dependence on 

nations outside our hemisphere. While oil production has increased 

in the U.S., it has not increased enough to overcome our need to 

import oil. In 2011, the United States imported four times the 

amount it exported, and presently we get about half of our oil and 

petroleum from the Western Hemisphere, half of which is from 

Canada. 

Canada is the single-largest foreign supplier of petroleum and 

natural gas to the United States. After Saudi Arabia and Mexico, 

it is the United States’ third-largest supplier of petroleum. Together, Canada and Mexico account for nearly all of U.S. natural 

gas exports. The combined volume of energy trade with Canada 

and Mexico totaled an estimated $125 billion in 2012. 

5

There is no doubt that maintaining and strengthening our energy 

relationship with Canada and Mexico is in the nation’s interest. I 

believe that the proposed Keystone pipeline and the Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement with Mexico are in the national interests of the United States. This is especially true in light of the declining foreign oil supplies from Mexico and Venezuela, and the 

fact that we import more than 60 percent of our energy needs. 

A pass on the Keystone project is not only a pass on Canada, our 

largest trading partner, but a pass on an achievable avenue to help 

meet our energy needs. A study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy highlighted the possibility that, if the pipeline is 

not constructed to serve U.S. Gulf refineries, then there exists the 

real possibility that market needs will divert Canadian supplies to 

Asia and probably China. Furthermore, the scale of the project will 

create jobs and increase investment during construction and provide added downward pressure on world oil prices due to additional 

supply. 

In regard to the Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement with 

Mexico, I am glad that we have progressed on a decade-long process to provide a legal framework to how we manage the resources 

along our maritime waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Mexico is a key 

component in the United States energy security framework. The 

United States is Mexico’s largest trading partner and largest foreign investor. Additionally, Mexico is the third-largest U.S. trading 

partner after Canada and China, and is the U.S.’s third-largest foreign supplier of petroleum. 

Mexico’s administration has committed itself to reverse its declining oil production and has opened the possibility to pursue joint 

private ventures with foreign firms in the exploration of its resources. I believe that we can work together in a constructive manner that mutually benefits both our country’s energy security and 

respects the constitutional sovereignty of Mexico resources. 

The U.S. does not live in isolation. Clearly, what happens in one 

part of the world has political and economic repercussions here at 

home. In that regard, global instability and uncertainty are key 

threats to our national security of the United States. This is particularly true in terms of energy security and to events in resourcerich countries. As a result, our dependence on oil from the Middle 

East is concerning. 

Additionally, the nations of the Western Hemisphere are not immune to political instability. The recent death of Hugo Chavez in 

Venezuela will have short- and long-term implications elsewhere in 

the region, particularly in regards to energy security. 

As long as we look to increase our energy ties within the hemisphere, it is important that we address some growing concerns in 

the energy sector throughout the region. Amongst current non-Canadian sources for fuel in the hemisphere, the prospect for growth 

in output are tenuous at best. The erratic actions of countries like 

Venezuela, Bolivia, and Equador, and now Argentina, whose expropriations and nationalizations of private industry have had farreaching destabilizing effects, are worrisome. 

In Mexico, the contraction of Cantarell Field and the many years 

of inadequate investment in the country’s national oil company 

have resulted in falling production rates. In Venezuela, Chavez was 

6

more interested in financing empty U.S. alliances than the state oil 

company, Petroleos de Venezuela. Years of mismanagement have 

pushed away foreign investment and led to declines in production. 

Similarly, in Bolivia, President Morales nationalized oil and gas 

in 2006 and gave foreign investors a take-it-or-leave-it option to 

comply. The same year, Equador’s President Correa revoked the 

contract of Occidental Petroleum, a U.S. company. And recently, in 

April 2012, Argentina’s President Kirchner moved to nationalize oil 

companies, expropriating 51 percent of the company controlled by 

Spain’s Rexel. 

Moreover, the region’s strained relationship and increasing pressures of anti-democratic actors such as Russia, Iran, and particularly China, whose self-interests are counter to the strategic concerns of the United States, should not be taken lightly. Economic, 

political, and energy-related crises occur every day. 

The dilemma for us as a nation is, what do we do today to mitigate the risk associated with securing our energy needs? We have 

a situation in the Middle East that is unsettling, and we have a 

situation where the upward pressure on the price of oil and, in 

turn, the price of gas is increasing sensitive to unpredictable global 

events. 

Before us we have a situation that we can remedy, some of this 

through the Keystone pipeline with Canada and progressing with 

the Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement with Mexico. 

I am sensitive to the environmental concerns associated with development of the Keystone project. Efforts to mitigate these issues 

have been outlined in the recently-released Environmental Impact 

Statement. Additionally, the conclusion that the approval or denial 

of any oil transport project will not impact the rate of extraction 

of the oil sands or affect the demands for heavy crude at U.S. refineries is considerable. 

Moreover, the economic benefits that will be derived from the 

project are significant. Nearly 118,000 jobs will be created and a 

projected $20 billion would be injected into our economy. 

No one single project or initiative is a cure-all for our energy or 

security needs, and no approval will satisfy everyone’s needs or alleviate every doubt. But we must continue to work with our neighbors to develop beneficial energy policies for the region. I am confident that these arrangements are good for Canada, good for Mexico, and, above all, good for the United States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much. 

I would like to now get on with our panels. First of all, I would 

like to introduce Congressman Lee Terry. He is a lifelong Nebraskan. Congressman Terry has worked continually to empower the 

people of his 2nd District. He has been a leader for Nebraska by 

advocating American energy security. And we thank you for that. 

Congressman Lee Terry currently serves on the Energy and 

Commerce Committee for the 113th Congress. He is serving as 

chairman of the Subcommittee of Commerce, Manufacturing, and 

Trade. This subcommittee casts a wide net over issues that affect 

every American every day. 

Congressman Terry, it is a delight to have you here today, and 

thanks for your leadership. We recognize you for your testimony. 

7

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Chairman Salmon and Ranking Member 

Sires. I appreciate your statement as well. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on U.S. energy security and 

our partnerships with Canada and Mexico. For over 2 years, my 

focus has been mostly on our northern neighbor and our need to 

connect the oil sands of Alberta with our refineries in the United 

States. Specifically, we have been waiting over 1,600 days for the 

U.S. State Department to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Despite the strong ties between the United States and Canada, the 

foot-dragging over a Keystone XL pipeline has irritated many Canadian leaders and sparked talks about sending output of Canadian oil sands to China. 

According to the U.S. State Department, ‘‘The United States and 

Canada share the world’s largest and most comprehensive trading 

relationship,’’ which supports millions of jobs in each country. Canada is the single-largest foreign supplier of energy to the United 

States. Recognition of the commercial viability of Canada’s oil 

sands has made it the world’s third-largest holder of oil reserves, 

after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and is the only non-OPEC member in the top five. 

Canada and the United States have one of the world’s largest investment relationships. The United States is Canada’s largest foreign investor, and Canada is the fifth-largest foreign investor in 

the United States. U.S. investment is primarily in Canada’s mining 

and smelting industries, petroleum, chemicals, and the manufacturer of machinery and transportation equipment; Canadian investment in the United States is concentrated in finance, insurance, 

manufacturing, banking, information, and retail trade, and other 

services. 

To me, this begs the question of why would we want to damage 

that relationship. The politicalization of the Keystone XL pipeline 

has done that. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Canadian 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that approval of the Keystone 

is ‘‘a no-brainer.’’ After the decision to delay the earlier decision, 

Harper told the AP, ‘‘This highlights why Canada must increase its 

effort to ensure it can supply its energy outside of the U.S. and into 

Asia, in particular.’’

Jack Mintz, the head of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary said, ‘‘The Keystone decision was a slap in the face 

to Canada, and it is making Canadians rethink the relationship.’’

Richard Waugh, Chief Executive Officer of the Bank of Nova Scotia, said, ‘‘The Keystone ruling shows that we need to diversify 

away from the U.S. to Asia.’’

The individuals objecting to the project based on the thought 

that, if you stop the pipeline, you stop oil sands development in 

Canada are both shortsighted and wrong. Case in point: Faith 

Birol, Chief Economist at the IEA, told Bloomberg, ‘‘I am sure that 

if the oil sands production is not used in the United States, they 

will be used in other countries.’’

Dave Pumphrey, deputy director of the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and 29-year veteran of the U.S. Department of Energy, sugVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:49 May 14, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\031413\79893 HFA PsN: SHIRL
8

gested that the rejection of the Keystone XL project last January 

introduced new uncertainties into our economic relationship with 

Canada. 

And how did we get there? In the last 6 years, there have been 

five applications to the State Department for a major U.S.-Canadian import pipeline. The State Department has approved three 

pipelines, denied one, and is reviewing another. The first one, the 

Southern Lights Pipeline, was approved in 14 months. The next 

two were approved in 23 and 27 months, respectively. And here we 

are, more than 65 months into the review of the Keystone XL pipeline, and we don’t have a commitment. We don’t have a timeline. 

The Draft Supplemental EIS issued March 1 by the U.S. State 

Department summary of impact stated that, ‘‘The analysis of potential impacts associated with the construction and normal operation of the proposed project suggests that there would be no significant impact to most resources along the proposed project route.’’

So, what have we done? We are in the midst of drafting and will 

introduce a bill that will give the power to Congress to deem the 

permit. 

Now, while the State Department is working through their process, I want to go on record by stating to this committee that I have 

zero confidence that the State Department will act in a timely fashion with regards to the DEIS issued on March 1st, 2013. 

So, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I appreciate this 

opportunity to testify in front of your committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Terry follows:]

9


79893a-1.eps

Statement of the Honorable Lee Terry 

Before the House Committee on Foreign AtJairs 

Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere 

lJ.S. Energy Security: Enhancing Partnerships with Mexico and Canada 

March 14,2013 

Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sires, thank you for allowing me to testify about 

u.S. Energy Security and our partnerships with Canada and Mexico. As many of you 

know, for over 2 years, my focus has been mostly on our northern neighbor and our need 

to connect the oil sands of Alberta with our refiners in the United States. Specifically, we 

have been waiting over 1600 days for the US State Department to approve the Keystone 

XL pipeline. Despite the strong ties between the United States and Canada, the foot 

dragging over the Keystone XL pipeline has irritated many Canadian leaders and sparked 

talk about sending output from Canadian oil sands to China. 

According to the US State Department: 

"The United States and Canada share the world's largest and most comprehensive trading 

relationship, which supports millions of jobs in each country. Canada is the single largest 

foreign supplier of energy to the United States. Recognition of the commercial viability 

of Canada's oil sands has made it the world's third largest holder of oil reserves after 

Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and is the only non-OPEC member in the top five. 

Canada and the United States have one of the world's largest investment relationships. 

The United States is Canada's largest foreign investor, and Canada is the fifth-largest 

foreign investor in the United States. U.S. investment is primarily in Canada's mining and 

smelting industries, petroleum, chemicals, the manufacture of machinery and 

transportation equipment, and finance. Canadian investment in the United States is 

concentrated in finance and insurance, manufacturing, banking, information and retail 

trade, and other servi ces." 

To me, this begs the question of why we would want to damage that relationship? The 

politicization of the Keystone XL pipeline decision has done that 

In an interview with Bloomberg news, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that 

the approval of Keystone is a "no-brainer". 

After the decision to delay the earlier decision - Harper told the AP: 

"This highlights why Canada must increase its efforts to ensure it can supply its energy 

outside the US. and into Asia in particular." 
10


79893a-2.eps

Jack Mintz, head of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary suggested 

"The Keystone decision was a slap in the face to Canada and it's making Canadians 

rethink the relationship." 

And Richard Waugh, chief executive officer of Bank of Nova Scotia said, 

"The Keystone ruling shows that we need to diversify away from the US. to Asia." 

Individuals objecting to the project based on the thought that, if you stop the pipeline, 

you stop oil sands development in Canada are both shortsighted and wrong. Case in 

point -

Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, told Bloomberg, 

"I am sure that if the oil sands production is not used in the United States, they will be 

used in other countries," 

David Pumphrey, deputy director of the energy and national security program at the 

Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a 29 year veteran of the 

US Department of Energy suggested that the rejection of the Keystone XL project last 

January introduced new uncertainties into our economic relationship with Canada. 

So, how did we get here? 

In the last six years, there have been five applications to the State Department for a maj or 

US.-Canadian import pipeline. The State Department has approved three pipelines, 

denied one and is reviewing another. The first one, the Southern Lights pipeline was 

approved in 14 months. The next two were approved in 23 and 27 months, respectively. 

And now here we are - more than 65 months into the review for the Keystone XL 

pipeline and we don't have a commitment for a timeline to come to a decision. 

The Draft Supplemental EIS issued March 1 by U S. State Department summary of 

impacts stated: 

"The analysis of potential impacts associated with the construction and normal operation 

of the proposed proj ect suggests that there would be no significant impact to most 

resources along the proposed Project route" 

So, last week, 1 released a bipartisan discussion draft with Chairman Upton and Whitfield 

along with Congressmen Matheson and Barrow to get the Keystone XL pipeline built. 

This bill will move through regular order and a legislative hearing will be noticed in the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee soon. 
11


79893a-3.eps

The purpose of the bill is simple: to build the pipeline, get Americans to work and 

strengthen our economic and energy security. 

This bill 

Declares that no Presidential Permit shall be required and 

Deems the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State 

on August 26, 20 II, to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act. This also takes 

into consideration the Nebraska re-route evaluated in the Final Evaluation Report 

by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in January 2013. 

Further it 

Includes a Judicial Review section that mirrors the language included in the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act that became law in 2004. 

Addresses the challenges under the Endangered Species Act over the American 

burying beetle. 

Grants a right-of-way and a temporary use permit across 42 miles ofBLM land in 

Montana. 

Grants necessary permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 

of the Rivers and Harbors Act for construction and operation of the pipeline and 

prohibits interference from EPA. This occurs no later than 90 days after an 

application is filed with the Army Corps of Engineers. It allows for the Secretary 

of the Army to set additional conditions and the discretion to waive procedures in 

order to comply with the deadline. If the Secretary does not act within the 90-day 

deadline, then the penuits shall be considered issued. 

Grants a special purpose permit under the :Migratory Bird Act. 

While I'm aware that the State Department is working through their process, I want to go 

on the record by stating to the committee that 1 have zero confidence the State 

Department will act in a timely fashion with regards to the DEIS issued on March 1, 

2013. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with all committees 

on this legislation to ensure that it eventually becomes law. 
12

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Terry, thank you very much for your testimony. 

We greatly appreciate it. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 7, the members of the subcommittee 

will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in 

the official hearing record. And without objection, the hearing 

record will remain open for 7 days to allow for statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject to the length 

of limitation in the rules. 

So, Mr. Terry, thank you very much. We greatly appreciate all 

your work and your wonderful testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that. 

Mr. SALMON. We will take time now to seat the next panel. 

Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

I would like to introduce our second distinguished panel of witnesses. 

The first is Dr. Duncan Wood. Dr. Wood is the director of the 

Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for 

Scholars. For 17 years, Dr. Wood was a professor and the director 

of International Relations Program at the Autonomous Institute of 

Technology in Mexico City. He has been a senior associate with the 

Simon Chair and the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic 

and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC. His research 

focuses on Mexican energy policy, including renewable energy, and 

North American relations. He studied in the UK and Canada, receiving his Ph.D. in political studies from Queens University, Canada, in 1996. 

The next distinguished member is Mr. Daniel Simmons. He is 

the director of Regulatory and State Affairs at the Institute of Energy Research. Before joining IER, Mr. Simmons served as the director of the Natural Resources Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Those of us that are former State 

legislators know ALEC well and we appreciate all the great work 

that body does. Prior to working for ALEC, Simmons was a research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. 

Previous to working at the Mercatus Center, Simmons served on 

the legislative staff for the Committee on Resources in the U.S. 

House of Representatives, where he handled endangered species 

and forestry issues. 

Glad you haven’t had to do any controversial stuff. That’s good. 

Simmons holds a B.A. in economics from Utah State University 

and a J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He is a 

member of the Virginia State Bar. 

And we appreciate you being here today. 

I am a graduate myself of BYU. So, nice to meet somebody that 

studied in Utah as well. 

Mr. Kyle Isakower, he serves as the vice president for Regulatory 

and Economic Policy at the American Petroleum Institute. He oversees API’s programs that review proposed environmental rules and 

advocate for reasonable regulations. Mr. Isakower possesses 27 

years of energy and environmental policy experience, including 

work in consulting and government positions. Mr. Isakower holds 

an M.S. in earth science from Adelphi University and a B.S. in biology/geology from the University of Rochester. 

Dr. Michael Levi—is it ‘‘Levee’’ or ‘‘Levie’’? I want to get it right. 

13

Mr. LEVI. Levi. 

Mr. SALMON. Levi. I apologize. 

Okay. Dr. Michael Levi is the David M. Rubinstein senior fellow 

for Energy and Environment at the Council on Foreign Relations 

(CFR) and the director of the CFR Program on Energy Security 

and Climate Change. Before joining CFR, Dr. Levi was a non-resident science fellow and a science technology fellow in foreign policy 

studies at Brookings Institution. Prior to that, he was director of 

the Federation of American Scientists’ Strategic Security Project. 

Dr. Levi holds a B.S. in mathematical physics from Queens University-Kingston and an M.A. in physics from Princeton University, 

where he studied string theory and cosmology. He holds a Ph.D. in 

war studies from the University of London, Kings College. 

Let me just explain briefly the lighting system. I am sure, with 

all your education, it won’t be difficult to figure it out, but I have 

to explain it anyway. Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, I am going to explain this system. 

You will each have 5 minutes to present your oral statement. 

When you begin, the light will turn green. When you have 1 

minute left, the light will turn yellow. And like my kids think, yellow means speed up; I think that is probably a good thing. Speed 

up at that time. And when your time has expired, the light will 

turn red. I ask you to conclude your testimony when the red light 

comes on. 

After our witnesses testify, all members here on the subcommittee will have 5 minutes each to ask questions. I urge my 

colleagues to stick to the 5-minute rule to ensure that all members 

get the opportunity to ask questions. 

Dr. Wood, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF DUNCAN WOOD, PH.D., DIRECTOR, MEXICO 

INSTITUTE, WILSON CENTER 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member 

Sires, members of the committee, it is a privilege to join you today. 

I really appreciate the invitation. 

I have been asked to talk to you all today about the opportunities 

for energy cooperation between Mexico and the United States. For 

the past 17 years, as the chairman said, I lived and worked in 

Mexico as a university professor. And for the past 6 years, I have 

worked intensively on policy research relating to Mexico’s energy 

sector. I have worked closely with the government, with Pemex, 

and with the private sector on multiple issues relating to the Mexican energy industry. Between 2007 and 2009, I ran the Red 

Mexicana de Meija, a group of leading Mexican energy experts who 

advocated for a more open and inclusive discussion of energy reform in the country. 

Last year I was fortunate enough to lead a group of experts 

which produced an influential report that lays out the guiding principles for the oil industry reform that is expected later this year 

under the Pena Nieto government. 

Looking ahead to the next 4 years of interaction between the governments of the U.S. and Mexico, there is potential for an enormously fruitful relationship in energy affairs. Much of this depends 

14

on two key factors: Political will and the internal changes that are 

underway in Mexico’s energy sector. 

In the past, political sensitivities concerning U.S. involvement in 

the Mexican hydrocarbons industry have limited the extent of collaboration in the oil and gas sectors. This continues to be a cause 

for concern in any U.S.-based discussion from either public or private sectors of Mexican energy policy and the potential for collaboration. But in recent years there has been a notable relaxation of 

sensitivity in this area. 

Partly in response to the perceived need for international assistance in resolving Mexico’s multiple energy challenges and partly as 

a result of a productive bilateral institutional relationship between 

Federal energy agencies, there is now a greater potential for engagement than at any time in the recent memory. 

I have identified three main areas in which bilateral energy cooperation holds great promise in the short- to medium-term. 

First, given the importance of the theme for both countries, there 

is great potential in developing collaboration through the TransBoundary Hydrocarbons Agreement signed in early 2012. 

Second, the two countries should work together toward the creation of a truly-integrated market for electric power at the regional 

level, and that should be a priority for both countries, with a special emphasis on the question of a more complete cross-border 

transmission network. 

Third, in the area of natural gas, where Mexico’s impressive potential for shale gas can only be realized after a significant reform 

of the sector to allow for greater private participation, U.S. firms 

have the opportunity to be leaders in the development of the resource, building on their experience in the Eagle Form Formation. 

In the meantime, major investments are needed in pipeline infrastructure, both to bring gas across the border from the United 

States into Mexico and within Mexico to bring the gas to the millions of potential customers who are currently without access to 

natural gas. 

Underlying all three of these areas are broader concerns about 

regional economic competitiveness and the consolidation of economic development in Mexico. The first of these concerns derives 

from the hugely important comparative advantage that the North 

American Economic Region has derived in recent years from lowcost energy, driven by the shale revolution. 

In order to maintain this comparative advantage and to ensure 

that the integrated manufacturing production platform in all three 

countries benefits from low-cost energy, the gains of recent years 

must be consolidated by fully developing Mexico’s energy resources. 

With regards to the second concern, economic development, a 

number of commentators, analysts, and political figures in Mexico 

have identified energy reform as a potential source for driving longterm economic growth and job creation, and the potential opportunities for foreign firms are considerable. 

While the United States cannot play an active role in driving the 

reform process itself, the implementation of any future reform will 

benefit from technical cooperation with the U.S. in areas such as 

pricing, regulation, and industry best practices. 

15

In the time that remains, I would like to focus my attention on 

the Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. While I understand 

that there have been delays in presenting the treaty for ratification 

and that last year’s electoral cycle was partly responsible for this, 

it is now important to focus on the implications and optimal timing 

of the ratification process. 

In terms of the implications, we should consider two points. 

First, that approving the treaty will create new levels of legal certainty for U.S. and Mexican firms operating in the Gulf border regions, encouraging them to engage in the risk-taking required to 

produce oil from deep waters. Second, the agreement has far-reaching implications in terms of regulatory cooperation between the two 

countries that is fundamentally necessary in the aftermath of the 

Macondo disaster and crucial for boosting Mexican standards. 

In terms of timing, I would argue that ratifying the agreement 

before the Mexican energy reform debate begins in earnest will encourage the process forward. However, a ratification that occurs 

during the reform process may be viewed in such a way in Mexico 

that it actually complicates the debate. 

I would be happy to elaborate on any of these or other points of 

interest in the bilateral energy relationship in the Q&A that follows. 

And once again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

be here today. I consider it a singular honor. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]

16


79893b-1.eps

Statement by Dr Duncan Wood 

Director of the Mexico Institute 

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives 

March 142013 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sires, members of the committee, it is a 

privilege to join you today. I appreciate the invitation. 

I have been asked to talk to you all today about the opportunities for energy cooperation between 

Mexico and the United States. For the past 17 years I lived and worked in Mexico as a university 

professor and for the past 6 years I have worked intensively on policy research relating to Mexico's 

energy sector. I have worked closely with the government, with Pemex and with the private sector on 

multiple issues relating to the Mexican energy industry, and between 2007-2009 I ran the Red Mexicana 

de Energia, a group of leading Mexican energy experts who advocated for a more open and inclusive 

discussion of energy reform in the country. Last year I was fortunate enough to lead a group of experts 

which produced an influential report that layout the guiding principles for the oil industry reform that is 

expected later this year under the Enrique Pena Nieto government. 

Looking ahead to the next four years of interaction between governments of Mexico and the United 

States, there is the potential for an enormously fruitful relationship in energy affairs. Much of this 

depends on two key factors, political will and the internal changes that are underway in Mexico's energy 

sector. In the past, political sensitivities concerning U.S. involvement in the Mexican hydrocarbons 

industry have limited the extent of collaboration in the oil and gas sectors. This continues to be a cause 

for concern in any U.S.-based discussion (from either the public or private sectors) of Mexican energy 

policy and the potential for collaboration, but in recent years there has been a relaxation of sensitivity in 

this area. Partly in response to the perceived need for international assistance in resolving Mexico's 

multiple energy challenges, and partly as a result of a productive bilateral institutional relationship 

between federal energy agencies, there is now a greater potential for engagement than at any time in 

recent memory. 

I have identified three main areas in which bilateral energy cooperation holds great promise in the short 

to medium-term. First, given the importance of the theme for both countries, there is great potential in 

the developing collaboration through the Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, signed in early 

2012. Second, the two countries should work towards the creation of a truly integrated market for 

electric power at the regional level should be priorities for the two countries, with a special emphasis on 

the question of a more complete cross-border transmission network. Third, in the area natural gas, 

where Mexico's impressive potential for shale gas can only be realized after a significant reform of the 

sector to allow for greater private participation, U.S. firms have the opportunity to be leaders in the 

development of the resource, building on their experience in the Eagle Ford formation. In the meantime, 

major investments are needed in pipeline infrastructure, both to bring gas across the border from the 
17


79893b-2.eps

United States into Mexico, and within Mexico to bring the gas to the millions of potential consumers 

who are currently without access to natural gas. 

Underlying all three of these areas are broader concerns about regional economic competitiveness and 

the consolidation of economic development in Mexico. The first of these concerns derives from the 

hugely important comparative advantage that the North American economic region has derived in 

recent years from low·cost energy, driven by the shale revolution. In order to maintain this comparative 

advantage, and to ensure that the integrated manufacturing production platform in all three countries 

benefits from the low-cost energy, the gains of recent years must be consolidated by fully developing 

Mexico's energy resources. With regards to the second concern, economic development, a number of 

commentators, analysts and political figures in Mexico have identified energy reform as a potential 

source for driving long-term economic growth and job creation, and the potential opportunities for 

foreign firms are considerable. While the United States cannot play an active role in driving the reform 

process, the implementation of any future reform will benefit from technical cooperation with the U.S. 

in areas such as pricing, regulation and industry best practices. 

In the time that remains I would like to focus my attention on the Transboundary Hydrocarbons 

Agreement. While I understand that there have been delays in presenting the treaty for ratification, and 

that last year's electoral cycle was partly responsible for this, it is now important to focus on the 

implications and optimal timing of the ratification process. In terms of the implications, we should 

consider two points: first that approving the treaty will create new levels of legal certainty for U.S. and 

Mexican firms operating in the Gulf border regions, encouraging them to engage in the risk-taking 

required to produce oil from deep waters; second, the agreement has far-reaching implications in terms 

of regulatory cooperation between the two countries that is fundamentally necessary in the aftermath 

of the Macondo disaster and crucial for boosting Mexican standards. In terms of timing, I would argue 

that ratifying the agreement before the Mexican energy reform debate begins in earnest will encourage 

the process forward; however, a ratification that occurs during the reform process may be viewed in 

such a way in Mexico that it complicates the debate. 

I would be happy to elaborate on any of these, or other points of interest in the bilateral energy 

relationship in the Q&A that follows and, once again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today: I consider it a singular honor. 
18

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much, Dr. Wood. 

Mr. Simmons? 

STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL R. SIMMONS, DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AND STATE AFFAIRS, INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH 

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sires, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to talk 

today about energy security and enhancing partnerships with Mexico and Canada. 

The United States, Canada, and Mexico are energy-rich countries. Total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion 

barrels. For comparison’s sake, the U.S. uses roughly 7 billion barrels of oil annually. Total recoverable North American natural gas 

is approximately 4.2 quadrillion cubic feet. That is 4200 trillion 

cubic feet. And the U.S. uses about 24 trillion cubic feet annually. 

And North America has about 500 billion short-tons of recoverable coal. The U.S. uses about 1 billion short-tons of coal annually. 

So, North America is not limited by our energy resources, but, instead, by access to those resources. Trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico only makes our nation stronger and raises our 

combined economic welfare. Canada and Mexico are not only America’s closest neighbors, but also very important trading partners 

and America’s closest energy allies. In 2011, Canada and Mexico 

were the largest sources of oil exports to the U.S., and Mexico is 

the largest recipient of U.S. gasoline exports. Mexico’s heavy oil 

production is falling, but that means more spare refining capacity 

in the Gulf Coast if Canadian oil can be transported to the Gulf 

Coast. 

The Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement and Keystone XL 

pipeline will work to tie our countries together and grow our economies. The Trans-Boundary Agreement could lead to oil and natural 

gas production of 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that was 

previously off-limits due to border issues. This production alone 

will not lead to a revolution in hydrocarbon production for the 

United States and Mexico, but more important than the oil and 

natural gas resources along the border is the potential for greater 

cooperation between Mexico and the United States. 

Mexico has long been a leading oil producer, but oil production 

in Mexico has fallen. Again, this is not because of a lack of resources. Mexico has an estimated 10.5 billion barrels of proven oil 

reserves. But that amount could double when unconventional and 

deepwater resources become proven reserves. 

The United States is a leader in accessing unconventional and 

deepwater resources, as seen by huge new oil discoveries in places 

like offshore Brazil that were made using technology developed in 

the U.S. Working together, we can increase Mexico’s oil production 

and reverse their oil production decline. This is especially true if 

U.S. hydraulic-fracturing technologies are used to access Mexico’s 

oil shale and gas resources. For example, one of America’s most 

prolific shale fields, the Eagle Ford, extends into Mexico from 

Texas, but all the activity so far is on the U.S. side of the border. 

The Obama administration successfully finalized negotiations on 

the Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, but now needs to 

19

follow through and submit the agreement to Congress for approval, 

hopefully quickly. 

Much has been said about the Keystone XL pipeline. The fundamental question under Executive Order 13337 is simple: Is the 

pipeline in the national interest? After 4 years of study, I believe 

it is clear that the pipeline, indeed, is in the national interest, just 

as all the trans-border energy pipelines are. 

More oil from Canada, instead of from overseas, seems to obviously be in our national interest. We actually benefit more financially from a barrel of oil from Canada than from any other foreign 

source. Canada is America’s largest trading partner and the largest 

source of oil imports. 

The Keystone XL will create thousands of jobs and oil supplies 

at a lower cost to Americans and improve our energy security. 

Lastly, the State Department studies have not shown that it would 

have a detrimental impact on the environment. It is clear the pipeline is in our national interest. 

There is much more that could be done to benefit our continent, 

which happens to sit on the largest sources of hydrocarbons in the 

world. Affordable, reliable, and secure energy is our common bond, 

and the U.S., Canada, and Mexico can all benefit from its development. 

The administration has been too slow on approving the Keystone 

XL and on submitting the Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement to Congress. Positive movement on these fronts would help 

other energy projects move forward, to the benefit of all of our people. 

Thank you for your time. I will gladly answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]

20


79893c-1.eps

iNSTITUTE FOR 

ENERGY RESEARCH 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN 

HEMISPHERE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HEARING ON U.S. ENERGY SECURITY: ENHANCING PARTNERSHIPS WITH 

MEXICO AND CANADA 

MARCH 14,2013 

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL R SIMMONS 

THE INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH 

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a non-profit organization that conducts 

intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government 

regulation of global energy markets. IER articulates free market positions that 

respect private property rights and promote efficient outcomes for energy 

consumers and producers. IER staff and scholars educate policymakers and the 

general public on the economic and environmental benefits of free market energy. 

The organization was founded in 1989 as a public foundation under Section 

SOl( c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Funding for the institute comes from taxdeductible contributions of individuals, foundations, and corporations. 

Introduction 

The United States, Canada, and Mexico are energy rich countries, especially when 

the combined oil, natural gas, and coal endowments are considered together. Total 

recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels. The total recoverable 

North American natural gas is approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic 

feet and North America has over 497 billion short tons of recoverable coal. For 

comparison's sake, the U.S. uses roughly 7 billion barrels of oil, 24 trillion cubic feet 

and 1 billion short tons of coal annually. North America is not limited by energy 

resources, but instead by access to these vast energy resources. Trade between the 

United States, Canada, and Mexico only makes our nations stronger and raises our 

combined economic welfare. 

Canada and Mexico are not only America's closest neighbors, but also very 

important trading partners and America's closest energy allies. Canada is America's 

1100 H Street NW . Suite 400 . Washington. DC 20005 . Phone 202.621.2950 . Fax 202.637.2420 

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org 
21


79893c-2.eps

largest trading partner and Mexico is America's third largest trading partner.1 ln 

2011, Canada and Mexico were the largest sources of oil exports to the United 

States 2 and Mexico is the largest recipient of U.S. gasoline exports. 3 Both Canada and 

Mexico import natural gas from the u.s. and export natural gas to the u.s. Because of 

their proximity to the United States, they are the largest recipients of U.S. natural 

gas exports.4 

The energy trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico is growing, 

especially for America's finished petroleum and natural gas exports. Mexico's heavy 

oil production is falling. but that means more spare refining capacity on the Gulf 

Coast if Canadian oil sands can be transported to the Gulf Coast. 

The energy and economic welfare ofthe United States, Mexico, and Canada are 

intertwined by our shared geography, geology, and peoples. The Transboundary 

Hydrocarbon Agreement and the Keystone XL pipeline will work to tie our countries 

together and grow our economies. North America does not lack energy resources, 

but what we do lack, at times, is the necessary political will that could lead to 

greater economic growth and prosperity. 

North American Energy Inventory 

North America has vast energy resources and more discoveries continue to be made. 

The United States alone has the world's largest combined oil, natural gas, and coal 

resources,s and both Canada and Mexico have large oil and natural gas resources. To 

better understand the North America's energy potential, The Institute for Energy 

Research compiled the North American Energy Inventory6 in which we catalogued 

the known oil, coal, and natural gas resources in Canada, the United States, and 

Mexico using government reports. In the report we found that: 

• North America is blessed with enough energy supplies to promote and 

sustain economic growth for many generations. The government's own 

reports detail this, and Congress was advised of our energy wealth when the 

Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress released a report 

showing that the United States' combined recoverable oil, natural gas, and 

coal endowment is the largest on Earth. 

• The amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States is more 

than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in 

portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined 

with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North 

America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels. 

• That is more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 

150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia 

has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves. For comparative 

purposes, the technically recoverable oil in North America could fuel the 

2 
22


79893c-3.eps

present needs in the United States of about seven billion barrels per year for 

around 250 years. 

• Moreover, it is important to note that that "reserves" estimates are 

constantly in flux. For example, in 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 

30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, we produced over 77 billion 

barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, we produced over 150 

percent of our proved reserves and still had over 20 billion barrels of oil 

reserves. 

• Restrictions in the form of federal bans and leasing combined with declining 

offerings of lease acreage mean only about 2.2 percent of America's offshore 

acreage is currently leased for production. 

• Proved reserves of natural gas in the United States and throughout North 

America are enormous, and the total amount of recoverable natural gas is 

even more impressive. The EIA estimates that the United States has 304.6 

trillion cubic feet of proved reserves of natural gas'? The total amount of 

natural gas that is recoverable in North America is approximately 4.2 

quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet. 

• Given that U.S. consumption is currently [as of December 2011] about 24 

trillion cubic feet per year, there is enough natural gas in North America to 

last the United States for over 175 years at current rates of consumption. 

• Total supplies of natural gas in North America dwarf those of other countries. 

The United States, Canada, and Mexico have more technically recoverable 

natural gas resources than the combined total proved natural gas reserves 

found in Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan. 

• With respect to total recoverable resources, however, North America's 

combined coal supplies are even more staggering. The United States, Canada, 

and Mexico have over 497 billion short tons of recoverable coal, or nearly 

three times as much as Russia, which has the world's second largest reserves. 

North America's recoverable coal resources are bigger than the five largest 

non-North American countries' reserves combined (Russia, China, Australia, 

India, Ukraine). 

• North American recoverable coal could provide enough electricity for the 

United States for about 500 years at current levels of consumption. 

• While the United States and North America contain enormous energy wealth, 

U.S. policies have increasingly made exploration, development, production 

and consumption of that energy more difficult. 

• Therefore, a scarcity of good policies, not a scarcity of energy, is responsible 

for U.S. energy insecurity. 

3 
23


79893c-4.eps

U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Production Trends 

The federal estate contains vast energy resources, but the federal government 

allows energy production on a very small percentage oftaxpayer-owned federal 

lands. The Interior Department has leased just 2 percent of federal offshore areas 

and less than 6 percent offederal onshore lands for oil and gas development.s This 

is particularly important because, while the entire U.S. including Alaska and Hawaii 

is 2.271 billion acres, the government owns mineral access to 2.4 billion acres 

because of the Outer Continental Shelf. 

Despite a large endowment of oil and natural gas resources on federal lands, which 

include offshore resources, oil and natural gas production is declining on federal 

lands in the United States. According to a recent report from the Congressional 

Research Service, from 2007 through 2012, oil production fell 4 percent and natural 

gas production fell 33 percent on federallands. 9 

The falling production on federal lands is in stark contrast to the dramatically 

increasing production on private and state lands. Over the same time period, oil 

production grew by 35 percent and natural gas production grew by 40 percent. 

-10% 

~20% 

-30% 

-40% 

PERCENT CHANGE IN U.S. OIL AND NATURAL GAS 

PRODUCTION 2007·2012 

FEDERAL vs. PRIVATE AND STATE LANDS 

-4% 

-33% 

PRIVATE AND STATE FEDERAL 

iii OIL III! NATURAL GAS 

4 
24


79893c-5.eps

The historic increase in oil and gas production from non-federal lands is the reason 

President Obama could say in his State ofthe Union address, "We produce more oil 

at home than we have in 15 years." We produce more natural gas than ever beforeand nearly everyone's energy bill is lower because of it." 

The President is right, but the federal government has had nothing to do with that 

success. The reason that oil and natural gas is increasing on private and state lands 

while falling on federal lands is because of a major difference in policies. The states 

understand that it is possible to protect the environment and produce oil and 

natural gas, while red tape on federal lands continues to increase. 

Consider one example ofthe time required to get a permit to drill on federal land 

versus some energy producing states. It takes an average of 228 days for the Bureau 

of Land Management to process a permit to drill, up from 154 days in 2005,10 but 

only 27 days for Colorado,1114 days for Ohio,12 and 10 days in North Dakota. It 

should come as no surprise why oil and natural gas production is rapidly increasing 

even while energy production on federal lands is declining. The federal government 

has vast energy resources, but the federal government's current energy plans result 

in limiting energy production on federal lands. 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

a 

DAYS REQUIRED TO PROCESS A PERMIT TO DRILL 

FEDERAL VS. STATE 

228 

27 

FEDERAL LANDS FEDERAL LANDS COLORADO 

(20051 (20121 

5 

14 

OHIO 

10 

NORTH -DAKOTA 
25


79893c-6.eps

The federal government's land use policies have reduced oil and natural gas 

production on federal lands because federal regulations make it much more difficult 

to work on federal lands. Instead of following the example of the states, the federal 

government continues to slow down energy production. 

Some argue that the reason oil and natural production is increasing on federal lands 

is because shale resources are located on private lands.13 There are a few problems 

with this argument. First, it overlooks that the fact that it is more expensive to 

produce oil and natural gas from unconventional resources like shale. Because it is 

less expensive to produce oil and natural gas from conventional resources, 

undoubtedly conventional oil production would be occurring in the Pacific, the 

Atlantic, parts ofthe Gulf of Mexico, offshore Alaska, in ANWR, in the National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska if the federal government had allowed access to these 

conventional resources. 

Second, oil and natural gas producers go to where there is access to the resources. 

With the federal government restricting access, oil production is increasingly 

occurring on private and state lands where access is permitted and delays allow 

investment dollars to be spent. This is why the shale revolution is occurring in the 

North Dakota, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania-and not on federal 

lands or in states like California. The Monterrey shale in California is larger than the 

Bakken and the Eagle Ford combined, but production is occurring elsewhere. 

Third, with 982 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale, if R&D is successful, what 

matters is a path to commercial production because there is no guarantee the 

federal government will permit commercial leasing if R&D does indeed go well. 

Companies will not be willing to invest the hundreds of millions and billions of 

dollars necessary to make production economical ifthey are not able to reap the 

rewards from production. The government's approach is akin to inviting 

pharmaceutical companies to invent new drugs without a patenting system. Few 

believe companies would invest if there was no potential for a reward after all one's 

risk. 

This example of potential resources in the United States shows that the regulatory 

environment is critical to exploration, and oil production increases can occur if 

people have access to resources. We know it can happen because it is happening. 

6 
26


79893c-7.eps

PERCENT CHANGE IN NORTH AMERICAN Oil AND 

NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION 2007~2011 

25% - -- -------- - - -- ------

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

-5% 

-10% 

-15% 

·20% 

-19% 

·25% 

NORTH AM ERICA CANADA MEXICO UNITED STATES 

l1li Oil iIII NATURAL GAS 

Mexican Oil and Natural Gas Production Trends 

In Mexico, oil and natural gas production is controlled by Petr6leos Mexicanos or 

Pemex-the state-owned oil company. According to the Energy Information 

Administration, over the past 5 years, oil production in Mexico has fallen by 17 

percent,14 while natural gas production has increased by 5 percent.IS 

According to Mexican Finance Minister Luis Videgaray, there is no plan to privatize 

Pemex, but the company's performance shows that it "cannot do everything itself."16 

Videgaray continued, explaining "private participation-particularly in those fields 

where there is opportunity because of nature and geology but where Pemex clearly 

doesn't have either the capital or the expertise."17 

One example of where there is great potential, but where Pemex does not have 

expertise is in shale plays. The Eagle Ford shale extends into Mexico, but all of the 

production is on the U.S. side of the border. 

7 
27


79893c-8.eps

Sour!:.,. U $ e;!lol!\j'I mfmlll~UoI'\ Admlnl.<ok!lllotl ba!"d <)I; lhil\'>'l ftom wn'!1>.lSIlut»1$hd )<llllle$, C;linaO:.t:!!lld t-!",-"t~ plillyr from AM 

Up"£\l"HiI\l;l"M$Y'*, 'W11 

In a way, Mexico has privatized their refining sector. Mexico exports crude oil to the 

United States and imports gasoline and refined products from Gulf coast refineries. 

Mexican oil imports to the United States peaked in 2006 and have since decreased 

by 30 percent.1S Despite the decrease in Mexican oil imports to the U.S., American 

gasoline exports have dramatically increased in recent years. From 2007 through 

2011, U.S. gasoline exports to Mexico have more than tripled.19 

Despite the rise in Mexico's natural gas production, Mexico is a net natural gas 

importer. 2o U.S. natural gas exports by pipeline have increased by 86 percentfrom 

2010-2012.21 

8 
28


79893c-9.eps

1200000 

U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Canada and 

Mexico (MMcf) 

1000000 - -- --- ----- ---- -- -- ---------------------------- --------- -- ----------- -------

800000 

600000 

400000 

200000 

o .--.---------.-.--------.--.-.. --------------------.. --.---.-.-----.... --

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

-~U.s. Natural Gas Plpeline Exports to Canada {MMcfl 

--U.S. Natura! Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico (MMcf) 

Further Enhancing U.S. Canadian Energy Partnerships: Transboundary 

Hydrocarbons Agreement 

The Gulf of Mexico is one of the most prolific hydrocarbon-producing areas for both 

the United States and Mexico. Oil production. especially in deepwater on the U.S. 

side of the border, has moved closer to the U.S.-Mexico maritime border in recent 

years. Until last year, there was no agreement on how to divide resources between 

the United States and Mexico for resources that straddle the border. 

The Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement comes after decades of indecision 

between Mexico and the United States. This decision allows oil and natural gas 

production on 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that was previously off-limits 

because of border issues. 

The Transboundary Agreement itselfwill not lead to a revolution in hydrocarbon 

production for the United States and Mexico. This is not to say that the hydrocarbon 

resources are not important-they are. But more important than the oil and natural 

gas resources along the border is greater cooperation between the United States and 

Mexico. 

Mexico has long been a leading oil producer, but as explained above, oil production 

in Mexico is falling. This is not from a lack of resources. Mexico has an estimated 

9 
29


79893c-10.eps

10.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, but that amount could double when 

unconventional and deepwater resources become proven reserves. 22 The 

Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement is important for the production of some of 

these deepwater resources. 

As Sen. Lugar wrote last year: 

I strongly encourage the Obama administration to send the U.S.-Mexico 

Transboundary Agreement, signed in February ofthis year, to Congress and 

urge my colleagues to pass the agreement. The Transboundary Agreement is 

good for energy security, good for the environment, good for U.S. commercial 

interests, and, most critically, can open the door to bilateral engagement on 

shared energy interests. 23 

After the Obama administration did the important work of negotiating the 

Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement, they have failed to either send the 

agreement to the Senate as a treaty or decide that the agreement is an Executive 

Agreement. The Administration should decide quickly whether the Transboundary 

Hydrocarbon Agreement should be considered a treaty or an Executive Agreement. 

So far, the administration's actions on the agreement are similar to its actions (or 

really, lack of action) on the Keystone XL pipeline. The United States needs secure 

energy supplies from its neighbors and allies; it should not take years for the 

administration to decide whether an agreement is a treaty or an executive 

agreement or whether one additional pipeline is in the "national interest" ofthe 

United States. 

Canadian Oil and Natural Gas Production Trends 

In Canada, unlike the United States, the federal government owns very little land. 

For example, in Alberta, 81 percent of the land is owned by Albertans through the 

provincial government and only 11 percent of Alberta is owned by the federal 

because (it is held in trust on behalf of First Nations).24 Because the federal 

government exercises less control than in the United States, energy production is far 

easier in pro-energy provinces such as Alberta. 

From 2007 through 2011, Canada's oil production increased by 11 percent, but its 

natural gas production decreased by 19 percent. Oil production from the oil sands 

will continue to increase. Also, like the United States, Canada has many shale plays. 

For example, the Bakken extends into Canada. In the future, Canada's shale oil 

production will likely increase. 

Canada is the largest recipient of U.S. natural gas exports. Over the past 5 years, U.S. 

natural gas exports to Canada have more than doubled. 

10 
30


79893c-11.eps

Further Enhancing U.S. Canadian Energy Partnerships: Keystone XL Pipeline 

Just 5 years ago. the United States was importing almost 60 percent of its oil needs. 

while today, we import only 40 percent25 with less than a fifth of our imports26 

coming from outside the western hemisphere.27 We import almost 3 million barrels 

per day from Canada,28 the most oil imported from a single country. Canada's oil 

reserves are estimated at 175 billion barrels 29-the third largest in the world. 

The Keystone pipeline will enable more oil imports to come from Canada and reach 

refineries on the Gulf coast of Texas, which is critical for North America to reach 

energy independence. Gulf Coast refiners will then be able to substitute crude from 

our reliable northern neighbor for unreliable Venezuelan crude, both of which are 

heavy crudes. 

For four years, the Obama administration has been trying to decide ifthe Keystone 

XL pipeline is in the "national interest." If approved, it will run from the Alberta oil 

sands fields to Gulf Coast oil refineries. The southern portion of the pipeline is 

already under construction between Oklahoma and the Texas Gulf, employing 4,000 

workers.3D It will carry 700.000 barrels of oil per day when completed later this 

year.31 The 1,700-mile route of the northern portion was initially turned down by 

the administration because it would cross environmentally sensitive areas in 

N ebraska.32 The revised route has been approved by the governor of Nebraska, 

Dave Heineman33, and is awaiting the administration's approval, which is expected 

to be decided around the beginning of April. The pipeline has been under 

consideration for years and would already be operating if it were not for the delays 

from the State Department. 

Parts of the government Environmental Protection Agency and the and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) reviewed the plan and voiced no public 

oppositiol1.o4 The State Department just issued a 2,000-page revised environmental 

impact statement that provides no environmental reason against the pipeline. 

While the impact statement states that extracting. shipping, refining and burning oil 

from oil sands produces more greenhouse gases than most conventional oil (5 to 19 

percent more), the study agrees that Canada will continue to develop its oil sands 

even if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built.35 

Job estimates related to the pipeline have varied from 6,000 and higher. 36 

TransCanada, the company building the estimates the Keystone 

XL projecl will support 9,000 U.S. jobs through early 2015. 37 Regardless ofthe exact 

number, the pipeline will bring billions of dollars in economic activity and tax 

revenues to the U.S. economy.38 

Canada has invested more than $100 billion in oil sands development39 over the last 

10 years, which has generated 75,000 jobs that is expected to multiply over the next 

25 years as production increases. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 

estimates that the country's oil production will almost double by 2030, from 3.2 

11 
31


79893c-12.eps

million barrels of oil a day today to 6.2 million barrels a day by 2030, with oil sands 

representing most of the increase.4o 

Currently, nearly all ofthe country's oil is exported to the United States. It is 

expected that more Canadian oil will reach U.S. markets even ifthe Keystone project 

is not approved through a combination of rail, barge, truck and pipelines. For 

example, tank car orders to move crude petroleum by rail is rising with as many as 

30,000 new cars to be available by the end of 2014-enough capacity to move 2 

million barrels of oil per day.41 About 40 percent ofthose orders were made by 

Canadian entities that are anxious to move their oil.42 The shortage of pipeline 

capacity has produced localized supply gluts, forcing the price of Canadian crude to 

fall well below American and international benchmarks. 

The Canadians are growing exasperated with our delays and will eventually turn to 

other economies to sell the oil to if the United States does not allow sufficient 

infrastructure to bring it to U.S. markets. Thus, while environmentalists worry about 

the slightly additional carbon dioxide emissions that it takes to produce oil sands 

over conventional crude oil (5 to 15 percent from well to wheel), that oil will be 

produced and consumed somewhere, most likely China. And, if Canada sends its oil 

by pipeline, train, and tanker to Asia, more carbon dioxide emissions will be 

generated by transporting it there than transporting it to the United States. 

In view of political unrest and uncertainty in the Middle East and terrorist attacks 

against oil and gas facilities in northwest Africa, the prospect of North American 

energy independence should be embraced by all. By approving the Keystone XL 

pipeline along with other policies to encourage oil and gas development in the 

United States, the administration could accelerate the timeline for North American 

energy independence while simultaneously stimulating the economy. Further, it 

would be beneficial to have our oil supplies come increasingly from responsibly 

managed sources rather than countries where oil wealth benefits few and the costs 

of extraction are borne many. 

Conclusion 

North America is an energy rich continent. Our energy issues are not issues of a lack 

of supply, but a lack of access to energy resources. The example ofthe 

Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement and the Keystone XL pipeline shows that 

politics can get in the way of increasing our important energy ties between the 

United States, Mexico, and Canada for the good of all three countries. After more 

than a year, hopefully the administration will soon decide what to do on the 

Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement. The same is true on the Keystone XL 

pipeline. The administration has taken more than four years to try to decide 

whether the pipeline is in the "national interest". 

12 
32


79893c-13.eps

Affordable, reliable energy is critical for the welfare of all Americans, Mexicans, and 

Canadians. Hopefully our countries will work better together in the future to 

enhance our energy security and our economic welfare as well. 

1 U.S. Census. Top Trading Partners-Total Trade. Exports, Imports. http://www.census.gov/foreigntrade/statistics / highlights / toppartners.html. 

, Energy Information Administration. u.s. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports. 

http://www.eia.gov/ dnav /pet/pecmove_impcus_a2_nus_epOOjmO _mbblpd_a.hUll. 

3 Energy Information Administration. Finished Motor Gasoline Exports by Destination. 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_expc_a_epmOCeex_mbbl_a.htm. 

4 Energy Information Administration. u.s. Natural Gas Exports by Country, 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm: Energy Information Administration. U.S. 

Natural Gas Imports by Country. http://www.eiagov/dnav/ng/ng_movejmpc_s1_a.htm. 

"Gene Whitney et. aI., u.s. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary, Congressional 

Research Service, Nov. 30, 2010, 

http:// epw.senate.gov /public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.view&FileStorejd=04212 e22 -c1 b3-41f2-

bOba-Oda5eaead952. 

o Institute for Energy Research, North American Energy Inventory, Dec. 2011, 

http://www.energyforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Energy-lnventoryFINAL.pdE 

7 Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Reserves Summary as oJDec. 31, 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_encslllll_a_EPGO_R11_BCF_a.htm. 

o See Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Offshore Energy and 

Minerals Management, http://www.boemre.gov/offshorej.Accordingto the administration's 

website, the outer continental shelf is 1.76 billion acres 

(http://www.boemre.gov/ld/PDFs/GreenBook-LeasingDocument.pdfpage 1) and only 38 million 

acres are leased (DepartmentoJInterior, Oil and Gas Lease Utilization - Onshore and Offshore, 

http://www.doi.gov /news/pressreleases /loader.cfm?csModule=security / getfile&pageid=2 392 55 

page 4). That is a mere 2.16%, of the entire Outer Continental Shelf. According to the Department of 

Interior, 38 million acres of onshore lands are leased for oil and natural gas production. See Table 3 

in Department of Interior, Oil and Gas Lease Utilization-Onshore and OJfshore, 

http://www.doi.gov /news /pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security /getfile&pageid =239255. 

According to the Congressional Research Service, the federal government owns just over 650 million 

acres ofland. See Appendix A. Congressional Research Service, Major Federal Land Management 

Agencies: Management oJOur Nation's Lands and Resources, May 15,1995, 

http:j /www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/natural/nrgen-3.cfm. The federal government also 

controls an additional 58 million acres of federal mineral estate below privately owned surface 

estate. See Bureau of Land Management, Split Estate, 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/ etc/medialib/blm/wo /MINERALS_REAL TY_AND _RESO URCE_PROTE 

CTIONjbmps.Par.98100.File.dat/SplitEstate08finaIWeb.pdE 

13 
33


79893c-14.eps

9 Marc Humphries, U.s, Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas, Feb, 

28, 2013, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch,org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/CRS-reporton-oil-and -nat -gas-on-fed eral-Iands. pd f. 

111 Bureau of Land Management, Average Applica tion for Permit to Drill (APD) Approval Timeframes: 

FY2005-FY2012, 

http://www.blm.gov /wo/ st/ en/prog/ energy/ oitand..1las /statistics/apd_chart.html 

11 Dave Neslin to Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Apr. 25, 2011, 

http://cogcc.state.co.us/announcements/CommissionLtr4_25_11.pdf. 

12 Ohio Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management, 2011 Ohio Oil and Gas Summary, 

http://ohiodnr.com/portals/11/publications/pdf/oilgas11.pdf. 

B See e.g. TIle Checks and Balances Project, Senators get it wrong on oil & gas production at Jewell 

naminatian hearing; Industry is following the oil to nanfederallands, Mar. 8, 2013, 

http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2013/03/08/senators-get-it-wrong-on-oil-gas-production-atjewell-nomination-hearing-industry-is-following-the-oil-to-nonfederal-Iands/ 

l-1 Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics: Petroleum, 

http://www.eia.gov / cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.elin?tid=5&pid=5 7 &aid=l&cid=regions&syid= 19 

80&eyid=2011&unit=TBPD. 

15 Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics: Natural Gas, 

http://www. eia.gov / cfapps /ipdbproj ect/iedindex3 .elin ?tid =3 &pid =2 6&aid = l&cid =regions&syid = 19 

80&eyid=2011&unit=BCF. 

10 Mary Antastasia O'Grady, O'Grady: Will Mexico Welcome Wildcatters?, Wall Street journal. Feb. 24, 

2013, 

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SBl 000142412 78873245032 045 7832 0 1911749671 04.hnnl?m 

od=WSLOpinion_BelowLEFTSecond&mg=reno64-wsj%5C. 

17Id. 

18 Energy Information Administration, U.s. Imports by Country of Origin, 

http://www.eia.gov/ dnav /pet/pecmove_impcus_a2_nus_epOOjmO _mbblpd_a.hnn. 

19 Energy Information Administration, Finished Motor Gasoline Exports by Destination, 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_expc_a_epmOCeex_mbbta.htm. 

20 See Mary Antastasia O'Grady, O'Grady: Will Mexico Welcome Wildcatters?, Wall Street journal. Feb. 

24,2013, 

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SBl0001424127887324503204578320191174967104.html?m 

od=WSLOpinion_BelowLEFTSecond&mg=reno64-wsj%5C. 

21 Energy Information Administration, U.s. Natural Gas Exports by Country, 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm. 

22 Minority Staff Report, United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Oil, Mexico, and the 

Transboundary Agreement, Dec. 21, 2012, 

14 
34


79893c-15.eps

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/publications/ downloadj oil-mexico-and -the-trans bo undaryagreement. 

23 Minority Staff Report. United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Oil, Mexico, and the 

Transboundory Agreement. Dec. 21. 2012. 

http:j jwww.foreign.senate.gov jpublicationsjdownloadjoil-mexico-and-the-transboundaryagreement. 

,. Royalty Review Panel, Royalties in Alberta, p. 2, 

http://www.albertaroyaltyreview.ca/more_info/background.pdf. 

25 Energy Information Administration. Monthly Energy Review: Table 3.1, Feb. 2013. 

http://www.eia.govjtotalenergyjdatajmonthly/pdf/sec33.pdf. 

", Bernard L. Weinstein, Keystone key to energy independence, The Hill, Feb. 14,2013, 

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ energy -a-environmentj2 83179 -keys ton e-key -to-energyindependence. 

27 The Hill, Keystone key to energy independence, Feb. 14,2013, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressbl ogj en ergy-a-envi ronm entj 2 8 317 9-keystone-key -to-energy-ind ependen ce 

2H Energy Information Administration. Monthly Energy Review: Table 3.3d, Feb. 2013. 

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_11.pdf. 

20 Energy Information Administration. International Energy Outlook 2011: Table 5, 

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/tableS.cfin. 

30 Devin Dwyer, Keystone Pipeline Tests President Oboma on Jobs, Climate. ABC News, Jan. 23, 2012, 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/keystone-pipeline-decision-tests-president-obama-jobsc1imatejstory?id=18292 687. 

" Id. 

32 John M. Broder, Governor of Nebraska Backs Route for Pipeline, N.Y. Times, Jan. 22. 2013, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2 013/01/23/ science/earth/ keys ton e-pipeline-ro ute-approved- bynebraska-governor.html?ni=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_201 30123&J=4&. 

33Id. 

34 ABC News, Keystone Pipeline Tests President Obama onJobs, Climate, January 23. 2013, 

http://abcnews.go.com/Poiitics/OTUS/keystone-pipeline-decision-tests-president-obama-jobsc1imatejstory?id=18292687 

35 New York Times, Report May Ease Path for New Pipeline, March 1, 2013, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2 013 j 0 3 / 02 / us / us-repo rt-sees-no-enviro nmental-bar-to-keystonepipeline.htm17nl=todaysheadlines&emc=ediUh_20130302&J=0 

30 Reason, Three reasons to build the Keystone XL pipeline, February 17, 2013, 

http:j jreason.col11jblogj2013j02j17 /3-reasons-to-build-the-keystone-xl-pipel 

37 Devin Dwyer, Keystone Pipeline Tests President Obama onJobs, Climate, ABC News, Jan. 23, 2012, 

http:j jabcnews.go.comjPoliticsjOTUS/keystone-pipeline-decision-tests-president-obama-jobsc1il11atejstory?id= 1829 2 687. 

15 
35


79893c-16.eps

30 Reason, Three reasons to build the Keystone XL pipeline, February 17, 2013, 

http://reason,com/blog/2013/02/17 /3-reasons-to-build-the-keystone-xl-pipel 

:l<J John M. Broder, Governor of Nebraska Backs Route for Pipeline, N.Y. Times, Jan. 22, 2013, 

http://www.nytill1es.coll1/2 013 /01/23/ science/ earth/keystone-pipeline-route-approved-bynebraska-governor.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=ediCth_20130 123&J=4&. 

10 [d. 

41 Yadullah Hussain, Demand for tank cars to ship crude oil by rail rises at breakneck speed, Financial 

Post, Feb. 22, 2013, http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/22/dell1and-for-tank-cars-to-shipcrude-oil-by-rail-rises-at-breakneck-speed/?_lsa=d408-45da. 

12 [d. 

16 
36

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Simmons. 

Mr. Isakower? 

STATEMENT OF MR. KYLE ISAKOWER, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AND ECONOMIC POLICY, AMERICAN PETROLEUM 

INSTITUTE 

Mr. ISAKOWER. Good morning, Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sires, and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Kyle Isakower, Vice President, Regulatory and Economic Policy at the American Petroleum Institute. 

API represents all segments of America’s technology-driven oil 

and natural gas industry. In total, that is close to 550 companies. 

Our industry directly and indirectly supports 9.2 million American 

jobs and almost 8 percent of the U.S. economy. And that is what 

I want to talk to you about today, spurring job creation and economic growth in cooperation with our North American neighbors, 

Canada and Mexico, specifically, the contribution of the long-awaited and much-studied Keystone XL pipeline project and the TransBoundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. 

First, Keystone XL. In the past month, the administration seems 

to be inching closer to finally approving the Keystone XL pipeline. 

That is encouraging because it is good economic policy. 

At a time of persistent high unemployment, the tens of thousands of jobs created by the pipeline would be a welcome relief to 

families across the country. Trans-Canada, the company responsible for building the pipeline, estimates that construction of the 

full Keystone XL pipeline would create 20,000 jobs, with even more 

jobs created over the long-term. According to the Canadian Energy 

Research Institute, expanding oil sands production by 830,000 barrels per day, the equivalent capacity of the Keystone XL pipeline, 

could support 117,000 new American jobs by 2035. 

More broadly, the economic benefits of development of Canada’s 

vast oil sand energy resource, to which the pipeline is vital, would 

be felt in every state except Hawaii. There are at least 2,400 American companies in 49 states already involved in the development of 

Canada’s oil sands. 

In short, the Keystone XL project is a job-creator and a catalyst 

for economic growth nationwide. The good news is that the public 

understands and supports the project. According to a poll API sponsored last month, 69 percent of registered voters support building 

the pipeline, with strong majorities among Democrats, Republicans, 

and Independents. What’s more, 83 percent believe the pipeline 

will strengthen our energy security, and fully 92 percent agree jobs 

are important when considering the project. 

Further, strengthening our energy partnership with Canada is a 

clear economic winner because roughly 90 cents of every dollar 

used to purchase Canadian goods and services, including oil, are 

returned to our economy by Canadians buying American goods and 

services. 

In addition, the Keystone XL pipeline will provide a significant 

boost to U.S. energy security by increasing our capacity to import 

oil from a friendly, reliable neighbor, bringing more than 800,000 

barrels of oil per day to U.S. refineries. With the pipeline, our 

crude imports from Canada could reach 4 million barrels a day by 

37

2020, twice what we currently import from the Persian Gulf, and 

at a time when the U.S. is facing reduced imports from countries 

like Venezuela. 

And in spite of the erroneous rhetoric from opponents, according 

to the Department of State, the Keystone XL pipeline, when completed, would ‘‘have a degree of safety over any other’’ due to its 

57 special additional safety measures approved by the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. 

I want to conclude by briefly touching on the Trans-Boundary 

Hydrocarbons Agreement with Mexico because it, too, could create 

jobs and enhance our energy security. The agreement establishes 

a cooperative process for managing oil and gas reservoirs along the 

boundary region in the Gulf of Mexico and encourages cooperative 

agreements between U.S. independent oil companies, or IOCs, and 

Mexico’s state-owned oil company, Pemex, to jointly develop oil resources along boundary areas in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Importantly, this agreement will provide legal certainty to U.S. 

IOCs, which will encourage investment in new energy development, 

creating jobs and spurring economic growth. It is our view that the 

President should resolve the lingering uncertainty over whether he 

intends this agreement to be a treaty or an executive agreement. 

Appropriate legislative action should, then, quickly be taken to ratify the treaty, if applicable, or pass implementing legislation. While 

API has no preference regarding how this agreement moves forward, we urge action on this important agreement as soon as possible. 

Both issues, the Keystone XL pipeline project and swift implementation of the Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, are 

important to our nation’s energy security and long-term economic 

growth and highlight how important national leadership is to promoting a positive, forward-looking energy policy that will ensure 

that in the 21st century Americans are energy-secure, which I believe is the true goal of today’s hearing. 

Thank you for your time and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Isakower follows:]

38


79893d-1.eps

Testimony of Kyle Isakower 

Vice President, Regulatory and Economic Policy, American Petroleum Institute 

Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere Hearing: 

Energy Security in North America 

March 14,2013 

Good morning, Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sires and members of the subcommittee. My name 

is Kyle Isakower, Vice President, Regulatory and Economic Policy at the American Petroleum Institute. 

API represents all segments of America's technology-driven oil and natural gas industry. In total, that's 

close to 550 companies. Our industry directly and indirectly supports 9.2 million Americans jobs and 

almost eight percent ofthe u.s. economy. 

And that's what I want to talk to you about today, spurring job creation and economic growth in 

cooperation with our North American neighbors Canada and Mexico; specifically the contribution of the 

long-awaited and, much studied Keystone XL pipeline project and the Transboundary Hydrocarbon 

Agreement. 

First Keystone XL; in the past month the administration seems to be inching closer to finally approving 

the Keystone XL pipeline. That's encouraging because it's good economic policy. 

At a time of persistent high unemployment, the tens-of- thousands of jobs created by the pipeline would 

be a welcome relief to families across the country. 

TransCanada, the company responsible for building the pipeline, estimates that construction of the full 

Keystone XL pipeline would create 20,000 jobs, with even more jobs created over the long-term. 

According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, expanding oil sands production by 830,000 barrels 

per day - the equivalent capacity of the Keystone Pipeline - could support 117,000 new American jobs 

by 2035. 

More broadly, the economic benefits of development of Canada's vast oil sand energy resource, of 

which the pipeline is vital, would be felt in every state except Hawaii. There are at least 2,400 American 

companies in 49 states already involved in the development of Canada's oil sands. 

In short, the Keystone XL project is a job creator and a catalyst for economic growth nationwide. The 

good news is that the public understands and supports the project. 

According to a poll API sponsored last month, 69 percent of registered voters support building the 

pipeline, with strong majorities among Democrats, Republicans and Independents. What's more, 83 

percent believe the pipeline will strengthen our energy security and fully 92 percent agree jobs are 

important when considering the project. 

Further, strengthening our energy partnership with Canada is a clear economic winner because roughly 

90 cents of every dollar used to purchase Canadian goods and services, including oil, are returned to our 

economy by Canadians buying American goods and services. 

In addition, the Keystone XL pipeline would provide a significant boost to u.S. energy security by 
39


79893d-2.eps

increasing our capacity to import oil from a friendly, reliable neighbor, bringing more than 800,000 

barrels of oil per day to U.S. refineries. With the pipeline, our crude imports from Canada could reach 4 

million barrels a day by 2020, twice what we currently import from the Persian Gulf, and at a time when 

the US is facing reduced imports from countries like Venezuela. 

And in spite of the erroneous rhetoric from opponents, according to the Department of State, the 

Keystone XL project, when completed would I'have a degree of safety over any other" due to its 57 

special, additional safety measures approved by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration. 

I want to conclude by briefly touching on the Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement with Mexico 

because it too could create jobs and enhance our energy security. The agreement establishes a 

cooperative process for managing oil and gas reservoirs along the boundary region in the Gulf of Mexico 

and encourages cooperative agreements between US independent oil companies (laCs) and Mexico's 

state-owned oil company (Pemex) to jointly develop energy resources along boundary areas in the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

Importantly, this agreement will provide legal certainty to US laCs, which will encourage investment in 

new energy development, creating jobs and spurring economic growth. It is our view that the President 

should resolve the lingering uncertainty over whether he intends this agreement to be a Treaty or an 

Executive Agreement. Appropriate legislative action should then quickly be taken to ratify the treaty, if 

applicable, and pass implementing legislation. 

While API has no preference regarding how this Agreement moves forward, we urge action on this 

important Agreement as soon as possible. 

Both issues, the Keystone XL pipeline project and swift ratification of the Transboundary Hydrocarbon 

Agreement are important to our nation's energy security and long-term economic growth and highlight 

how important national leadership is to promoting a positive, forward-looking energy policy that will 

ensure that in the 21" century, Americans are energy secure, which I believe is the goal oftoday's 

hearing. 

Thank you for your time and attention. 
40

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Dr. Levi? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. LEVI, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW FOR 

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, AND, DIRECTOR OF THE 

PROGRAM ON ENERGY SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

Mr. LEVI. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sires, members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you this 

morning. 

The United States has a historic opportunity to capitalize on 

changes unfolding across the energy landscape. In doing so, U.S. 

strategy needs to treat economic prosperity, national security, and 

the environment and climate change all with care. 

The Keystone XL pipeline would not deliver the massive economic and security gains that some have claimed, but allowing the 

pipeline to proceed would not be the climate catastrophe that many 

have predicted, either. Ultimately, allowing the pipeline to proceed 

would likely yield benefits that outweigh the associated costs. 

I have provided the committee with a study I published on the 

Canadian oil sands that focused on six areas in which analysts 

have claimed that oil might affect U.S. security. The study concluded that many of those have been exaggerated. Buying our oil 

from Canada would not starve petro-dictators of cash, protect the 

United States against cutoffs from hostile producers, or do much to 

shield the U.S. economy from the impacts of the most destructive 

oil price spikes. 

But greater Canadian oil production does create real benefits for 

the United States. If oil production facilitated by Keystone increases total world oil supplies, that will moderate the global price 

of oil. And while the impact on each gallon of gasoline would be 

tiny, the savings would add up. 

At the other extreme, if Canadian production were fully offset by 

cuts elsewhere, the price of oil would not change. But, in that case, 

the pipeline’s climate damages would also be largely mitigated. 

In all cases, expanded Canadian oil sands production would create commercial opportunities for U.S. firms. Approving the pipeline 

would also create several thousand temporary jobs. This should not 

be dismissed, but it should not be exaggerated, either. The pipeline 

would not be a large job-creator. Opponents are right to highlight 

opportunities for job creation in clean energy as well, but this need 

not be an ‘‘either/or’’ decision. 

Those who have raised climate concerns about the pipeline are 

right to be worried about climate change and to assert that we 

have not yet done enough to deal with it. But blocking the pipeline 

would do little to rein-in greenhouse gas emissions. In an extreme 

case, blocking the pipeline would cut global emissions by less than 

half of 1 percent. The real-world impact would be lower. 

Any project in isolation, of course, has limited climate impacts, 

which makes what I have just told you a poor reason alone to let 

the pipeline proceed. More important is that the overall benefits 

that would result from approving the pipeline would likely exceed 

the resulting climate costs. 

41

You have also asked me to discuss the U.S.-Mexico Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. The United States benefits from a 

more robust Mexican economy. U.S. national security also gains 

from greater Mexican petroleum production. Mexico still relies 

heavily on the industry for a large part of its government revenues, 

and a healthy Mexican Government is better able to deal with social challenges that spill over to the United States. 

The Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement is of relatively little direct consequence to U.S. oil production. It would, however, 

boost opportunities for U.S.-Mexico cooperation on environmental 

supervision of offshore drilling. The agreement also comes at a critical time for the Mexican oil industry. The new Mexican President 

has made constitutional reform that would create opportunities for 

foreign investment in Mexican oil and gas a priority. U.S. failure 

to move forward with the agreement could only sour the environment in which these changes will be debated. More consequentially, if opening of Mexico’s hydrocarbon sector creates new investment opportunities, a U.S. Government with a credible record of 

deal-making will be more capable of advocating U.S. interests. 

The United States also has important opportunities to cooperate 

with Canada and Mexico in ways that go beyond the decisions at 

the center of this hearing. Congress could investigate shale gas cooperation, expansion of clean energy markets, and harmonized 

emissions standards. 

Moreover, while today’s discussion is valuably focused on important opportunities for enhanced oil and gas production, the United 

States ultimately needs to reduce its oil use and curb its greenhouse gas emissions, too. Putting together strong policy on these 

fronts with gains in oil and gas production would be a win for the 

economy, security, and environment. 

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to answering 

any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levi follows:]

42


79893e-1.eps

COUNCILon... 

FOREIGN 

RELATIONS 

March 14,201.3 

u.s. Energy Security: Enhancing 

Partnerships with Mexico and Canada 

Prepared statement by 

Michael A. Levi 

David 1\1. Rubenstein Senior Fel101.vfor Enel'BY and the Enl'irnnmcnl, and 

Director, Program on Energy Security and Climate Change 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

United States House oJRepresentatives 

lSI Session, 113tll Congress 

Hearing on U.S. Energy Security: Enhancing Partnerships with Mexico and 

Canada 

Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sires, memhers of the subcommittee, thank yon for inviting me to 

speak '''lith you about the potential for U.S. partnerships with Canada and Mexico to help the United States 

effectively pursue its energYN related goals, and partintlarly to disclIss the Keystone XL pipeline and the U.S.~ 

Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons AbTl'eement. 

American energy is changing more rapidly than at any time in perhaps forty years. Oil and gas production 

<in'. both surging. U.S. oil use has fallen strongly, and renewable energy deployment continues to set records. 

'lhesc trends arc being reinforced by developments in Canada and Mexico. The United States ha~ a historic 

opportunity to capitalize on all of these changes, provided that it makes the right policy chokes. 

In doing so, U.S. strategy needs t.o treat broad-based economic grmvth, national security and international 

relationships. and the environment and climate change, with siulilar care. Doing this will require creating 

new opportlllllties for energy production across the board wbile llllplcmcnting smart protectjons for the 

local emrironment, But il will also require limiting or penalizing actions, including excessive oil consumption 

and greenhouse gas emissions, that create intolerable damage on any uf these fronts, 
43


79893e-2.eps

TI,e Kevstone XL Pipeline 

Those who have raised concerns about the climate and other environmental impacts of the Keystone XL 

pipeline are right to be strongly concerned about global climate change and environmental protection. The 

administration has been prudent in taking time to enSUl'e that local environmental protections along the 

pipeline ronte are sound. Sti1l~ the world is eurrend), un track to exceed every potentially safe climate 

threshold. Strung actions are necessary if current trends arc to be changed and ultimately rcvcrs(~d. 

Yet blocking the Keystone XL pipeline would do little to rein in climate change. The pipeline would carry 

about 800,000 barrels a day of diluted bitumen from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. In an extreme case - if it 

proves impossible to build alternative pipelines or other transport routes, and if other producers do not 

compensate for a Keystone denial by boosting their own oil production - then this would add slightly less 

than 0.5 percent to global cm'bon dioxide emissions from energy use. The l'eal-vi.'Orld impact would be lower. 

Any project in isolation, of course, has limited climate impacts, which makes this a poor reason alone to give 

the pipeline the go~ahead. More important for Keystone XL is that the costs that would result from blocking 

the pipeline would likely exceed the accompanying climate benefits. 

In an earlier study of the energy security and climate change impacts of Canadian oil sands production, I 

identified six areas in which analysts have claimed that oil might affect U.S. nalional security) I concluded 

that many of these have been exaggerated, particularly in the context of the Canadian oil sands. Buying more 

U.S. oil from Canada, for cxamplc~ would not starve petrodictators elsewhere of cash; they would sell their 

oil to other customers. Moreover, buying more oil from Canada is not necessary to protect the United 

Statse against hostile producers: oil-fueled dictators are not capable of cutting off U.S. oil supplies, since the 

United States can draw oil from global market~ and its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in the face of any 

cutoff attempt. Finally, buying more oil from Canada wuuld uo relatively little to shield the United Stales 

from the impacts of the most destructive oil price spikes. During times uf severe turmoil in global oil 

lnarkets, the price of Canadian oil generally rises just as much as the price ofMidclle Eastern oil does; that 

inflic1:S the same pain on U.S. conSllllcrs and similar (though slightly less) damage on the U.S. economy. 

But greater Canadian oil production does create real benefits [or rhe United States. To the extent thal 

Canadian oil production facilitated by the Keystone XL pipeline increases total world supplies) that drives 

down the cost of oil for all U.S. CUIlSlUuers. TIle impact is likely to be vcry small- a few dollars a barrel at 

lllost and likely much less - but~ spread across the U.S. economy) it adds up: a one dollar a barrel decrease in 

world oil prices saves the United States morc than two billion donars each year. Ifl at thc other extreme, 

additional Canadian oil production were fully offset by production cuts elsewhere in the world, the price of 

oil would remain tIDchangcd. In that case, though, climate damages associated with the pipeline would also 

be largely mitigated, falling as mudl as tenfold from the high-end estimate. In al1 ca<;es, expanded Canadian 

oil sands pl'oduction would create commercial opportunities for U,S. firms that supply oil sands produccr~. 

1 See, in particular, Michael Levi "The Canadian Oil Sands: Energy Security vs. Climate Change", Counci! Special Report No. 47. 

Council on Foreign Relations, May 2009. 
44


79893e-3.eps

TIle Keystone XL pipeline decision introduces several additional factors to the equation. Approving the 

pipeline would, as many have noted, create several thousand temporary jobs. 1bis should not be dismissed 

but should also no! be exaggerated: the Keystone XL pipeline would not be a large job ereator.2 phis does 

not include indirect jobs that would Cf('.ated in the United States if the Keystone Xl. pipeline facilitated 

additional oil sands development.) Pipeline opponents are right to highlight that there are opportunities for 

job creation in clean energy as well. But this need. not be an eilher~or decision: the fate of dean eHergy will 

not be meaningfully altered by the Keystone XL decisiun. 

Rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline would also be a dear negative for U.S.-Canada relations. To be certain, 

there is considerable controversy within Canada over oil sanus expansion. But even among Canailians who 

are skeptical of the oil sands, many would chafe at what they would se.e as heavy-handed U.S. intervention. 

Denying a penult [or the Keystone XL pipeline would not be the unmitigated disaster that some claim.-- and 

allowing the pipeline to proceed would not be the climate catastrophe that many have asserted. Ultimately, 

though, allov .. d.ng the pipeline to proceed would likely produce benefits that oUI;1,:veigh the associated costs. 

U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hvdrocarbons Agreemeill 

The United States benefits economically from expanded Mexican oil production in the same way that it 

gains from greater Canadian oil output. U.S. national security al.so galus [rom greater l\1exican petroleum 

production and from improved efficiency in the Mexican oil and gas industry. ~lexico still r(,lies heavily on 

the industry for a large part ofits government revenues, and a healthy Mexican government is one better 

aole to deal with crime, economic growth, and other social challenges that spill over to the United States, 

The U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, signed in February 2012 and ratified hy 

Mexico in April 2012, would help encourage progrcs~ ill that direction. The agreemcntitsclfis oflimited 

direct consequence. It woultl allow development of of£~horc fields that straddle the U.S.-Mexico maritime 

boundary, but the Mexican government and industry have made clear that most development of these. fields 

wuuld likely occur even without the Agreement. More important} the Agreement would hoost opportunities 

for U.S.-Mexico cooperation on envirOlID1entai supervision of offshore drilling activities and on emergency 

response, reducing the odds of an oj( spill and helping n1itlgate the consequences of any that might occur. 

The agreement also comes at a critical time for reform in the Nlcxican oil industry. The Mexican oil industry 

has long been largely closed to outside capital. 'I11e result has been insufficient investment and technology 

adoptiun to sustain (let alone boost) supplies. The new Mexican President, Enrique Pena Nieto, h3..'> made 

constitutional reform dIat would create new opporhmities for foreign investment a priority. U.S. failure to 

1110ve forward with the already-concluded Transboundmy Hydrocarholls Agreement could only sour the 

environment in which these constitutional changes will be debaled. More cOl1sequentially, if opening o[ 

lVTexico's petroleum sector creates new investment opportunities, a U.S. government with a positive nxord 

of credible petrole\lm~related dealmaking will be one that will be more capable of advocating U.S. interests. 

"llIis could be valuable as new opportunities, nOL only in offshore develupment but also in shale gas and tight 

oil, emerge. The current focus on hydrocarbon reform in l\1exico also means that extended U.S. inaction on 

2 For more detail, see Michael Levi, "Five Myths Aboutthe Keystone Xl Pipeline", Washington Post, January 18, 2012. 
45


79893e-4.eps

the Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement will be noticed, \vith potentially negative consequences fur 

the broader bilateral relationship. 

Cooperation Beyond Oil Deyelopment 

The United States has important opportunities to coopcrate on energy \vith Canada and Mexico in ways 

that go beyond the issues at the focus of this hearing. Areas that Congress could investigate include: 

• Shale Gas. Mexico and Canada both have large potential shale gas resources. Mexico would benefit 

from greater openness to international investment and hence technology. It would also gain froIll 

cooperatiun un gaining a bctter geological understanding of its resource deposits. Both countries 

would also benefit from cooperation \Vltlllhe Uniled States in understanding dIe (still evolving) u,s. 

experience with managing environmental and community impacts of shale gas development. 

Congress should provide support for State Department efforts to work with other counl des on shale 

gas and encourage Mexico to participate more actively. 

• Clean Energy Markets. Bigger markets for clean energy technologies increase the incentives for 

innovators and boost opportunities for U.S. export~·J's; North America all'eady enjoys a highly liberal 

market for trade in goous and services of allkiads. SOllle have suggestedrestricdng access to the U.S. 

clean energy market in conjunction with U.S. government polici(,'~ to support grm·vth in thalmarket, 

This would he a mistake that could ultimately hurt U.S. competitiveness and climate goals. Congress 

should instead look for ways to boost other countries' delnand fur U.S. clean energy tcdlllol(Jgie~. 

• Emissions Standards. Canada is matching the amhitious fuel economy standards adopted by the EPA 

in 2012; Mexico is auempting to do the same. As the United States pursues additional regulatory 

measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Congress should encourage the administration to 

,,·/ark ·with Canada and Mexico to seek commensurate measures in those countries. This would boost 

the net benefits resulting from new u.s. regulations for the ('.('.anomy and the environment. 

Confronting Energy Insecurity and Climate Change 

Those who are skeptical of oil development in general and the KeysLOue XL pipeline in particular are right 

to warn that the United States must confront its broader climate change and energy securiLy problems. TIle 

United SLales ulLimately needs Lo reduce its exposure to vobtile oil markets through measurc!:) like stronger 

fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and support for next-generation automobile technologies. It also 

needs to cnrb its greenhouse gas emissions, ideally through a market-based policy enacted by Congress, but 

if that is not possible, through careful regulation under the Clean Air Act. T strongly urge Congress to move 

fOlward on these fronts, or to allow the atlrn:in.istratioll to do so through prudent regulation. Strong action 

here} togethel' vlith progress on oil and ga.<; production at home and in cooperation with u.s. friends and 

allies, ''''QuId be a 'Win for the economy, secl1rity, and the environment, 

------------------~-------------------
46

Mr. SALMON. I would like to thank our distinguished witnesses 

for their wonderful testimony. Both of these issues are of extreme 

importance to the American people. 

I would like to also state for the record that yesterday we were 

able to meet with folks from the administration. We did invite 

them to testify before this hearing today, but, on the advice from 

their counsel, legal counsel, they declined to testify today. But they 

did meet with me last night, and we had a very meaningful briefing. 

Especially on the Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, 

they signaled that the administration, the White House, is very 

supportive of moving forward. And we looked at language which 

would need to be instituted, passed here in the Congress, regarding 

implementing legislation for the agreement. And it is quite simple 

language, nothing real complicated about it. 

I believe—I have talked with the ranking member—that we are 

very interested in drafting that language and moving it forward. I 

intend to speak with the chairman of the Committee on Jurisdiction, Congressman Doc Hastings, and try to move that legislation, 

at least get it started within the next couple of weeks. 

So, our hope is we will get that implementing legislation done 

post haste and we can get to that great partnership with Mexico, 

more specifically, with Pemex, and go after all that wonderful, luscious oil that is waiting at our beck and call. So, we are excited 

about that. 

I would like to ask my first question of Dr. Levi. You made a 

statement, Dr. Levi, that the costs that would result from blocking 

the pipeline would likely exceed the accommodating climate benefits. It is interesting to note, yesterday President Obama came to 

the Republican Conference and he said exactly the same thing, in 

essence. He said, very similar to what you said, that he believed 

that the number of jobs may be a little bit overblown, but he also 

said that the impact on climate change is extremely overblown as 

well. 

And when asked by the Conference what they were planning to 

do with the agreement, he said that there would be a decision within the next couple of weeks. So, we can all cross our fingers that 

that decision is going to be in the affirmative and we can move forward and get those jobs and work on a great oil policy here in the 

Western Hemisphere. 

But, anyway, I just would like to ask you, can you give any rationale, given the fact that it does appear that the benefits far outweigh the cost—some were speculating that maybe this stall-anddrag-the-feet tactic is kind of beating up on big oil. We are wondering if you have any thoughts as far as why, if it is a good idea 

and the costs outweigh the benefits, why are we dragging our feet? 

Mr. LEVI. Congressman, I don’t want to speculate on the administration’s decisionmaking. 

Mr. SALMON. We will let you. 

Mr. LEVI. There are certainly local environmental issues that 

have had to be confronted over the last year or two, particularly 

around the pipeline route in the State of Nebraska. Once the pipeline route was shifted, a new Environmental Impact Assessment 

was necessary. These things take a long time. 

47

I would encourage Congress to combine stronger funding for 

those that need to handle these sorts of applications with reformed 

rules that retain environmental safeguards, but streamline the 

processes, not just for pipelines, but for oil and gas development, 

clean energy development, energy development in general. 

For those who are opposing the pipeline, I think that their assessments of the costs and benefits are often different. They may 

judge security through a different lens. They may have different assumptions about the economy, but in a lot of cases they weigh climate more strongly in their calculations. That is not unreasonable 

to do. When I make my net judgment, I am weighing the economy, 

security, and climate equally and coming to that conclusion. 

Mr. SALMON. Thanks, Dr. Levi. 

I would like to ask my next question of Mr. Isakower. We have 

good reason to believe that the Mexican President, Pena Nieto, is 

very serious about instituting reforms in Mexico, especially including their energy sector, including Pemex, which is the world’s most 

close oil regime. Do you get a sense from the companies you represent that there is an optimism in terms of the degree to which 

the reforms can have an effect on increased partnerships beyond 

the Trans-Boundary Agreement between the U.S. energy sector 

and Mexico? 

Mr. ISAKOWER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for the question. 

And, yes, I do believe that my members do see tremendous opportunity working with Pemex going forward. The Trans-Boundary 

Hydrocarbons Agreement really is just the first step. It is a foot in 

the door, so to speak. 

In working with Pemex on the Trans-Boundary plays, if that establishes a relationship with Pemex with the IOCs that I represent, we absolutely see that as a very significant step to a regime 

in a country that has not, as you have said, allowed IOCs to work 

with them in the past. And this is a tremendous opportunity. Really, this is really just a first step and the real benefit to this is the 

potential for us working with Pemex long-term on other plays. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. I recognize Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

panel for being here today. 

Dr. Wood, maybe I didn’t hear you correctly, but did you say that 

the Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement would complicate 

things? Did you say something to that effect? Can you just elaborate a little bit on that? 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you for the question. So, the question is on 

timing. I think that if, as Chairman Salmon has just said, this goes 

through in the next couple of weeks, that is fabulous news. People 

in Mexico are beginning to ask questions about, so why is taking 

so long? And so, this would be seen as a very positive step forward, 

and it would encourage, I think, the process of energy reform in 

Mexico. It would be a feather in the cap of the new administration 

of Pena Nieto to say that we were the ones that actually managed 

to get this finally onto the books, even though recognizing this is 

an internal decision of the United States. 

48

The timing question is sensitive, though. If Mexico begins its energy reform debate in earnest, which we expect to happen at some 

point during the summer, maybe August–September time, and if at 

that time the U.S. Congress passed or ratified the agreement, that 

would be seen as almost being, well, isn’t this serendipitous; isn’t 

this kind of a strange coincidence, the United States doing it exactly at this moment? 

And it could complicate the discussions in a sense that those people who are opposed to an opening of the sector in Mexico would 

be able to look at this and to say, you see, the United States, again, 

all they want is access to our oil; it is not about what is good for 

Mexico. 

And so, that is why I try to nuance that a little bit, to say that 

it is the timing that is really key. Do it now; it is a good thing. Do 

it in August–September, and it becomes a lot more complicated. 

Mr. SIRES. Now I know you taught in Mexico for what, 17 years? 

Have you seen a shift in attitude toward the United States’ involvement in the energy business in Mexico? 

Mr. WOOD. Yes. It is very difficult to back this up with any kind 

of data. There are some private opinion polls that are out there 

that suggest that Mexicans are more in favor of a meaningful energy reform—by meaningful, I mean opening of the sector to private participation—than at any time in the past. 

One of the little pieces of information, trivia, that I like to put 

forward is that, back in 2006, there was an opinion poll that was 

taken on Mexican attitudes toward the world. Mexicans were asked 

lots of questions, but two stood out. One was, if you believe that 

it would result in a significant improvement in your standard of 

living, would you agree to full integration with the United States 

of America? Now a small majority of Mexicans actually said yes on 

that, which is an extraordinary result. 

A couple of pages down on the opinion poll, there was another 

one. Mexico’s energy production is in trouble. Our oil production is 

declining. Do you believe that it is okay to allow foreign and private firms into our oil sector? Eighty percent of Mexicans said no. 

So, they are more likely to sell their country than their oil. 

That attitude has changed dramatically, largely because of what 

happened over the past few years in terms of getting the idea of 

the problems facing the oil sector into the public consciousness. 

This process began in late 2007, continued through the energy reform process in 2008. And now, perhaps more than ever, Mexicans 

are actually willing to accept that we need to make a fundamental 

change. That will involve increasing private participation, and private participation means foreign participation. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Anyone who wants, you know, who would like to answer the 

question: One of the biggest negatives that the people who are 

against this pipeline say is that, if this oil comes from Canada and 

is going to the refineries in Texas, that it is going to be shipped 

out, that it is not going to be consumed in this country. Can anyone 

answer? Can anybody address that a little bit? 

Because, to me, you know, I support this pipe wholeheartedly, 

but I would hate to see this pipe being built and, then, have the 

49

oil being shipped to some other country and not relieve the people 

of this country, pressure in this country. 

Mr. ISAKOWER. Actually, what we have in the Gulf region is the 

largest heavy oil refining complex on the planet. So, if you are 

bringing in heavy oil—and again, these refineries have been——

Mr. SIRES. I don’t mean to interrupt, but this is the same situation that we have with Venezuela? The heavy oil comes into——

Mr. ISAKOWER. Exactly. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay. 

Mr. ISAKOWER. And as those Venezuelan supplies are dwindling, 

those refineries in the Gulf of Mexico which have been optimized 

to run on heavy oil and to process heavy oil, they need a new supply of heavy oil. So, the pipeline would actually bring down another 

supply of reliable, a reliable supply of heavy oil that those refineries would, then, process. So, there is a very strong economic incentive to keep that oil here in the United States rather than export. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Mr. RADEL [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Sires. 

I recognize myself next, not because I am in this chair, but it actually is my turn. 

To me, this is so simple. National security and jobs. National security. Who would we rather deal with here in the United States, 

Canada and Mexico, our friends to our north and south, or with 

other countries that might not have our best intentions in mind 

thousands and thousands of miles away from us? 

In terms of jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs; we need them right now right 

here in the United States. And, yes, this is an answer for real private sector jobs here. But I would say that it also means jobs in 

Mexico. 

We are in a day and age when we know the reality is we still 

have undocumented workers, undocumented immigrants, coming to 

our country. Perhaps one of the best ways to solve that issue is to 

improve the economy in a country like Mexico, which is next to us. 

So, for me, again, it is just so simple, national security and jobs. 

And the President was very kind to come to our Conference yesterday and speak with us, take questions from our caucus. If he is listening now, if his administration is listening now, please send us 

this agreement. 

Now, that said, not being any kind of an expert on Mexico, I 

would refer to you, Dr. Wood. What would this mean for our economic relationship with Mexico, and perhaps more importantly, 

what would it mean for Mexico itself? 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you. 

So, the estimates that we are currently seeing in Mexico are that 

a meaningful energy reform that will take place there could result 

in a huge jump in GDP. In terms of the Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, in and of itself, I don’t think that is going to 

actually be the major detonator of jobs in Mexico, but seen as being 

a step on the path toward energy reform and an opening of the sector. Because I think it is a positive sign, if done right, then we are 

looking at a big impact. 

So, the estimates that we have of a reformed Mexican energy sector are between 2 and 4 percent GDP growth per year extra on top 

50

of what they have got right now. That fits in very, very nicely with 

what the Pena Nieto administration has set as their goal, which is 

somewhere between 4 and 6 percent GDP growth per year. I mean, 

that is ambitious. Mexico, over the past 12 years, has been stuck 

around sort of the 2.5–3 percent GDP growth per year mark. 

In terms of what that means for jobs, it is difficult to actually 

work out. But if we see a meaningful reform of the Mexican energy 

sector, we are looking at not just new jobs involved in the exploration, production, and refining process, but the real possibility of 

building up a full oil industry in Mexico that is not just about getting the oil out of the ground, refining it, and sending it on, but 

all of the other services industry that is built around that. And 

that is an incredibly exciting prospect for those of us who really 

care about Mexican economic development. 

And I think that, if we look at it in those terms, that is one 

thing. But if we look beyond that even further, and we say this has 

a knock-on impact upon the rest of the economy—and I think the 

best example of this is to see how energy prices have the opportunity to come down significantly, largely because of questions like 

the shale gas resources that exist in Mexico and, of course, on the 

U.S. side. Those lower costs for energy for Mexicans, not for the 

consumer so much, but for Mexican companies, many of which, of 

course, are owned by U.S. companies, that is a hugely exciting 

prospect. 

We are looking here not just about Mexico, not just about the 

United States, but really a North American regional economic competitiveness agenda. And integrating energy markets across the region I would say is one of the best ways to actually get that going. 

So, clearly, jobs here in the United States depend upon Mexico becoming more competitive, and vice versa. 

Mr. RADEL. Dr. Wood, I thank you for your time. 

I yield my remaining 1 minute, 15 seconds to Mr. Weber from 

Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This pipeline terminates in Port Arthur, Texas, which just happens to be my district. And so, it is of grave concern. 

Trey, can you yield me more than 1 minute, 15 seconds? 

Mr. RADEL. Sure. 

Mr. WEBER. Great. So, around lunchtime I will be done. [Laughter.] 

Let me start with you, Dr. Levi, did you say? 

Mr. LEVI. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. You made the statement that—well, let me 

back up. The witness before you, Lee Terry, had an interesting testimony. He said there have been five applications for CanadaAmerican import pipelines. Three have been approved; one has 

been denied, and one is in review. Guess which one that is? It has 

taken 1,600 days for this review process. 

Now you made an interesting analysis, Dr. Levi, in your statements. And you said that, basically, even though climate change 

needed to be paid attention to, that this had negligible, if any, effect on that discussion, and had a positive effect, no matter how 

slight, in your opinion. In essence, I took that to mean you felt like 

51

it should be going forward. How long did it take you to come to 

that conclusion? 

Mr. LEVI. It took me—I couldn’t pinpoint how long it took me to 

come to that conclusion. I didn’t have the same processes——

Mr. WEBER. Did it take you 1,600 days? 

Mr. LEVI [continuing]. To go through as the administration. 

Mr. WEBER. Did it take you 1,600 days? 

Mr. LEVI. It did not. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Have you thought about maybe hiring out to 

the administration to advise them? 

Mr. LEVI. If you would like to provide a recommendation, I would 

be happy to pass it along. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. I am just saying, you know, the President was 

gracious and did come to our Republican Conference yesterday, but 

he made the statement that this all would simply be sent overseas. 

And I had a chance to have some one-on-one face time with him, 

and I reminded him, of course, it came to my district and that it 

created construction jobs. And it doesn’t matter whether you believe the numbers, that it is 2,000 or 20,000 jobs, it is 2,000 jobs 

or 5,000, or whatever the low estimates are. It is going to provide 

construction jobs. It is going to provide maintenance jobs. We are 

going to move a product through a pipeline. It would buy up some 

property, bought at fair market value, that might otherwise be sitting fallow, so to speak. 

It would provide quite a stir in our economy. It would provide operation jobs at the ports. I have ports in my district. It would provide offloading longshoremen jobs, maintenance jobs, operations 

jobs, harbor and ship maintenance fees when foreign ships came in 

and docked on our ports. 

So, I can’t, for the life of me, see how whether it provides 2,000 

jobs or 20,000 jobs seems somehow to be a deterrent, No. 1. And, 

No. 2, is it not true that it is the safest way to transport oil as opposed to rail or truck? The environmentalists were concerned about 

an oil spill. But if they transport it by rail or by 18-wheeler, there 

are a lot more accidents that occur. No. 3, to what company would 

we say, ‘‘Just because you have a product that is moving through 

our United States’’—and it doesn’t matter whether you are Apple 

Computer or whether you are Nike tennis shoes or Toyota—‘‘you 

are going to build or produce or move a product in our country. We 

don’t want you to send it overseas.’’? That is insanity. 

This is a positive impact for my district, for our State, for our 

country. I think that, without exception—and I am not sure about 

you, Dr. Wood—but I think all four of you at the table are basically 

saying you have come to the same conclusion. Do I misspeak? 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. RADEL. Thank you. 

And I would ask if the witnesses could provide any written response to that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MICHAEL A. LEVI, PH.D., TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE RANDY K. WEBER SR. 

The Keystone XL pipeline would have mixed impacts on the United States. Most 

would benefit from (very marginally) lower gasoline prices; businesses connected to 

pipeline construction, and refineries in Texas, would benefit too. Those near the 

52

pipeline route (and possibly near some refineries) would be exposed to additional environmental risks; all would also be exposed to (very marginally) higher climate 

change risks.

Mr. RADEL. The Chair recognizes now Mr. Meeks from New 

York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I happen to be—I don’t know how many hours it has been—but 

I am one that has been on the fence, trying to decide what is the 

right thing. There are a lot of things that I heard the chairman 

talk about that I agree with. Generally, when you talk about trade, 

if you are talking about better relationships, particularly with Canada and Mexico, I think that is extremely important. 

Dr. Levi, I was listening intently—well, to all of you witnesses, 

Dr. Wood, Dr. Isakower, and Mr. Simmons, too, very intently. I 

came to this hearing because I wanted to learn. 

I should say quickly, Dr. Isakower, it is always good to see someone who has a degree from Adelphi University, since I am an 

Adelphi graduate myself. 

But let me just start with Dr. Levi because those issues that you 

talked about are the issues that have caused me to be trying to decide which way to go, which way to lean, because I have some inclinations. But I wanted to make sure that we have the proper rules 

in place, et cetera. 

For example—I will use this as an example—coming from New 

York City, and also sitting on the Financial Services Committee, I 

saw the crash in 2008 and I witnessed potential catastrophe, for 

the inaction of Congress and all the failures of some of the regulatory bodies to move, et cetera. 

And I know that we have got to make sure that we have regulations in place to protect the consumers and the environment, but 

we have also got to make sure that we are not impeding progress 

in the private sector because of being overregulated. You know, so 

we have got to find that balance. 

Given your expertise in examining trends in future oil sands, 

what do you think the future will be for oil sands production, given 

the current political landscape in Congress, the current global oil 

prices, and the availability of oil worldwide? And from a safety 

standpoint, have we properly assessed the safety risk of—and I 

think the question that the gentleman from Texas, that is something interesting to me—the safety risk of transporting oil through 

the Keystone pipeline to the other oil properties, because that is a 

concern? If we have addressed those issues, my inclination is to 

lean that way. And I appreciate the gentleman’s comments because 

they are important to me. 

Mr. LEVI. Thank you, Congressman. 

It is important to be looking at these different dimensions at the 

same time and weighing them. To take your last question first, the 

State Department has thoroughly studied the local environmental 

consequences of the different options for transporting oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, whether that is by road, by rail, by pipeline. And they have concluded that pipeline is the safest option. 

We can debate fine details forever. What is critical is to have 

those protections put in place. And my understanding is that a 

53

wide range of protections have been implemented or would be implemented, if the pipeline went forward. 

At prevailing oil prices, and given current Canadian policy, if 

there are ways to sell the oil from the oil sands, whether by transporting it to the United States or to the East Coast or West Coast 

of Canada, we will see substantial growth in the Canadian oil 

sands, on the order of several million barrels a day, which would 

require pipeline transport beyond the Keystone XL pipeline. 

When you think about the broader challenges of dealing with our 

economic and security goals and with our climate objectives, what 

I would urge is that we focus on expanding opportunities on the 

production side, including by providing sustainable environmental 

protections, but really focus our climate efforts on how we use energy, on reducing our oil consumption, and shifting to lower carbon 

energy sources. To me, that is the basic way that we capture the 

benefits from increased production while still dealing with our 

broad energy challenges. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you. 

Let me ask, I guess I can’t let an Adelphi degree graduate get 

away without me asking him a question. [Laughter.] You know, some economists will say, for every $10 increase in 

the price of a barrel of oil, the U.S. economy slows down by 0.2 percent and potentially eliminates 120,000 jobs. Now, with the increased oil production here in the United States and the existing 

capacity, how do you see the market dictating the demand for the 

Keystone pipeline, and how do you see global oil prices changing 

in the product’s viability or helping its viability? 

Mr. ISAKOWER. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. And it is good to see another Adelphi graduate. 

In terms of global oil price, I can’t predict price. No one really 

can. It is the market that is going to dictate it. However, the Canadian Government has certainly indicated that they are going to 

produce oil sands crude from Alberta with or without the Keystone 

XL pipeline. So, this is a project that is going to go forward. And 

putting additional product on the global market, additional crude 

on the global market will only have a downward effect on global 

price. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. RADEL. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Duncan from South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just touch on Keystone pipeline first. It has been over 

1,600 days, we heard earlier, since the first application for Keystone pipeline was submitted. Hopefully, we are going to see some 

movement. Of course, it has been 1,415 days since the United 

States Senate has passed a budget for our nation, and we saw 

them present a budget yesterday, and maybe they will pass a budget. So, there is some hope that we can get a Keystone pipeline approved before it goes too much further. 

The former Ambassador to Canada from the United States is a 

personal friend of mine, the former Speaker of the House in South 

Carolina, David Wilkins. He has introduced me to a lot of the folks 

from Canada, not only in the oil sands production, but also in the 

government. And you are right, Mr. Levi, they are moving forward 

54

with production of oil and the oil sands. And that oil is going somewhere. It is either coming here through the Keystone pipeline to 

provide the jobs in Texas and Oklahoma in the refineries, where 

we have the capacity, or it is going west and it is going to the Pacific Ocean, it is put on boats and it is going to China to be refined. 

It is going to be refined somewhere. 

We need an all-American energy security solution in this country 

that includes Canada and it includes Mexico, allies and friends. It 

is time for the Keystone pipeline. And so, I urge the administration 

to move forward with that, and let’s put those guys in Texas back 

to work in the refineries where the capacity is available. 

I want to shift gears to Mexico real quick and just say that Secretary Salazar spoke on April 24th, 2012 in his now infamous ‘‘do 

something’’ speech. And he said, he listed three things that Congress should do, but he said this: ‘‘We are working’’—and this is a 

quote—‘‘We are working with the Congress on legislation needed to 

implement an agreement reached with Mexico to open trans-boundary oil and gas reservoirs for development.’’ Really? You are working with Congress? 

I sit on the Natural Resources Committee. I am on the Energy 

and Minerals Subcommittee on Natural Resources. For the past 

year and a half, the Committee on Natural Resources has repeatedly requested the Interior to send over draft implementation language for the U.S.-Mexico Trans-Boundary Agreement, and we 

haven’t seen that yet. It is going to come through the committee. 

I would have intimate knowledge of whether we voted on something to send to the Floor to approve that language. Send it over. 

Let’s get started with this, and let’s deal with this issue. 

The question I have—and I would just like to ask the panel as 

a whole—considering that it has been nearly a year and a half 

since the administration signed the agreement, don’t you believe 

that it is adequate time for them to have reviewed the agreement, 

submit to Congress any enacting legislation necessary to implement it? And I will start with Dr. Wood. 

Mr. WOOD. I agree 100 percent. It is absolutely time. Any further 

delay I think is risky. It also sends exactly the wrong message. 

There is very, very important work that could be happening right 

now, not just in terms of getting the production process going, but 

in terms of regulatory cooperation, which is one of the issues that 

brings to mind a nightmare scenario where you get deepwater exploration in the border region there, and the Mexican regulators 

don’t really know how to control what is going on in E&P and we 

get another kind of a major leak that they wouldn’t know how to 

handle. That is one of the aspects of the Trans-Boundary Agreement which is very, very important and which we need to work on. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me just expand on that. Other than the 

opposition of this administration to oil and gas development, why 

wouldn’t they have submitted the agreement to Congress? What do 

you think? Policies? Politics? 

Mr. WOOD. My own interpretation is that—and I have heard encouraging words from the administration throughout the lifetime of 

this agreement—my feeling is that last year was a complicated 

year in terms of politics, but there were a lot of other issues. And 

I understand that there were discussions at the end of the year. 

55

Mr. DUNCAN. I have heard a lot of encouraging words——

Mr. WOOD. Yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN [continuing]. Out of this administration on a lot of 

fronts, and they talk a good game. 

Mr. WOOD. Yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. But there is more to governing than talking, and 

it is walking the walk. And so, I want to see some action out of 

this administration. 

My time is limited here, but I want to just make a note to the 

committee here that the U.S. Energy Information Administration 

put out a report, and this was ‘‘The Annual Energy Review of 

2011.’’ And it says, ‘‘Energy consumption per capita in the United 

States.’’ The graph shows 1949 to 2011, but I want to move forward 

to about, what it looks like, 1988–89. From that point until now, 

the graph is fairly flat. Actually, it decreases on the latter years; 

you are exactly right. So, it did go down. 

So, the energy consumption in this country is actually down, but 

the energy expenditures per capita, what we as Americans are paying for energy, has gone up—maybe they can see that on TV; it 

goes up like this; it is a true hockey stick—for what it is costing 

Americans to meet their energy needs. That is not only to heat 

their home and cool their homes, but that is also gasoline prices. 

When the administration took over, gasoline price was what, 

$1.86, $1.87 a gallon? Diesel fuel is what I buy. It is $4.00 a gallon 

in South Carolina, $4.00 a gallon for diesel fuel. Can you imagine 

that those costs are transferred down to the consumer because the 

18-wheelers are paying $4.00 a gallon for diesel fuel? 

It is time to approve a Keystone pipeline, a Trans-Boundary 

Agreement, and let’s have truly all American energy security dealing with our neighbors to the north and our neighbors to the south. 

Thank you for the leeway, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADEL. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

The Chair now recognizes, and this is my first time saying this 

outloud, Mr. Faleomavaega from American Samoa. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I thought you were 

going to call me John Wayne, but that is all right. [Laughter.] 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to offer my apologies. I missed the actual testimony of my 

good friend and colleague, Congressman Terry from Nebraska, who 

was here earlier. 

And I do want to thank the members of the panel for their excellent testimonies this morning. 

I think, based on the testimonies, we have come to realize how 

important this issue is in providing jobs, creating stronger relations 

between our country and Mexico and Canada, lessening our dependence on foreign oil reserves, and creating opportunities for 

cleaner energy development an overall boost in our economy, to 

name a few. 

But I have to share with my colleagues, and maybe the members 

of the panel could help me with this, a question that is perhaps 

rarely asked. What impact does this have on the indigenous peoples who reside in the geographical areas that will be affected by 

these two monumental projects? Allow me to highlight a few points. 

56

The existing Keystone pipeline is located within 50 kilometers of 

over 150 indigenous communities in Canada. Trans-Canada Corporation has facilities on a dozen First Nations reserves. Over 100 

miles of the pipeline passes through Native American reservations. 

Many Native Americans and indigenous Canadians are opposed to 

the Keystone pipeline project for various reasons, including possible damage to sacred sites, pollution, and water contamination 

which could lead to health risks among their communities. 

Indigenous communities are also concerned with health risks 

passed by the extension of the Keystone pipeline project. Locallycaught fish and untreated surface water, which would be at risk for 

contamination through tar sand oil production, are central to the 

diets of many indigenous communities. 

While the list goes on with regard to these two monumental 

projects, as I said earlier, only within the last 2 weeks I have received requests for support from leaders of two of the largest indigenous groups in Guatemala, who have appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the protection of their tribal 

lands from encroachment of clean energy advocates. 

The difference between Mexico and Guatemala is just geography. 

The similarity is in the trend—that indigenous rights are constantly being pushed aside for the increased expansion and benefit 

of our modern society, at the expense—at the expense—of the lives 

of these indigenous communities. 

And I would like to ask for your comments on this. Anybody? 

Mr. LEVI. You raise an important set of challenges. We have national energy goals that require changes in infrastructure. And you 

aptly point out that, whether you are focused on oil and gas development or clean energy development, change in our system requires construction, and that creates challenges for different communities. 

I would argue that when it comes to the Keystone XL pipeline, 

we should focus on those aspects of that challenge that are within 

the United States. This is an issue that is thoroughly debated in 

Canada, in Alberta, and in the affected communities. We have our 

fair share of challenges, and I would urge us to focus on those. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I want to make it clear, I cannot be a 

greater advocate and supporter of what my colleague, Mr. Weber, 

has said, in providing jobs in Port Arthur, Texas, and an economic 

benefit to the American people. 

But, on the other side of the coin, have we taken into consideration the problems affecting the rights of tribal communities who 

may be affected by this? 

Mr. Simmons? 

Mr. SIMMONS. One quick note. The issue of energy is one that is 

very important, obviously, on reservations around the country. And 

it is one more reminder that at times the Federal Government has 

not ceded enough authority to the reservations. It happened in 

North Dakota with some of the leasing that occurred there, where 

the leasing was leased at a very low rate. 

And it is the issue of the pipeline, the issue of energy in general 

is just one more example of how aboriginal Americans need to have 

a greater right to control their own lands than they currently have. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Isakower? 

57

Mr. ISAKOWER. Yes, I would second. You identified the greater 

economic opportunity that is available to indigenous peoples, both 

in Canada and Mexico, as a result of energy development. But I 

would also note that the Canadian Government has continually increased and upgraded its regulation, its environmental regulations, 

regarding development of its oil sands. So, I know that the environmental protections there are increasing. 

I would also note that in Mexico, with Pemex operating in joint 

ventures with IOCs, the IOCs operate with U.S.-based standards. 

And those standards would actually increase, again, the environmental protections and the safeguards that the industry would operate in in Mexico. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think my time is just about up. I had 100 

more questions to ask, Mr. Chairman, but, unfortunately, there 

isn’t enough time. 

I do want to thank our witnesses for their fine testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN [presiding]. You are welcome. Thanks, Mr. 

Faleomavaega. 

Well, okay, gentlemen, that concludes the hearing today. I will 

thank each of you for coming. Your remarks were—oh, Ms. Jackson 

Lee has shown up. So, we will hold off on that, and the Chair will 

now recognize Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The chairman and the ranking member are 

enormously gracious. I just came from a Judiciary Committee hearing. So, please accept the fact that I did not delay because of lack 

of interest. 

And I guess it is clear that they pointed me out as someone from 

Texas who has had a longstanding relationship, just by a geographical relationship to the State, from Mexico. 

So, let me just ask some broad questions, because of the courtesies of the chairman and the ranking member, to talk about 

where we are. 

We just had a discussion earlier about some of the assets that 

Venezuela, for example, has in contrast to some of our resources 

and allies and friends in the Mid-East. I would like to project, we 

have a difficult dilemma in the United States in accepting the ‘‘all 

of the above’’ energy policy with respect to real serious issues. I 

cede the point that the environment is extremely important. I am 

always convinced that we must have a balance. Mexico has, likewise, had concerns with the environment in the production of fossil 

fuel. 

My question is that we know that it is a job-creator. It is an 

economy booster. If I can ask each of you, so that I can have a generic question—one, let me say to my good friends that we are introducing the 21st Century Energy Caucus that we hope will be a 

forum for these kinds of discussions where people of like minds and 

those who disagree come and focus on the economic engine of energy. 

And so, from a diplomatic perspective, what can we do together 

to make energy in the 21st century, one, an energy booster for the 

most vulnerable? You see that in Mexico. But, two, how do we collectively work, when we talk about the Keystone pipeline, to balance energy with the environment? What should we be saying, beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:49 May 14, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_WH\031413\79893 HFA PsN: SHIRL
58

cause it is a diplomatic question on both sides of our border? We 

have activists and interested that are rightly so on both sides of 

the border. 

I will start with you, Dr. Levi, I guess, and go forward. And 

again, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy. 

Mr. LEVI. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

What I would argue is that we need something a bit more like 

a ‘‘most of the above’’ energy strategy. A ‘‘most of the above’’ energy 

strategy. Not every energy development is good for us, but we do 

have opportunities across the board. We need to take advantage of 

those while protecting the local environment, dealing with our oil 

dependence, and confronting climate change. 

And the best way to do that is to expand opportunities to produce 

energy while having good local protections, but, then, really focusing on how we use energy in order to tackle our oil dependence and 

the risk from climate change. So, that is roughly how I would separate it. It is not always clean, and you need to make decisions on 

individual issues, but pushing forward on both fronts at the same 

time, and weeding out the really dangerous developments, I think 

allows us to take advantage of as wide a range of opportunities as 

possible. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So, not be afraid of confronting the conflict? 

Mr. LEVI. What I would say is not every single development has 

to be good for everything. What we need is a package of developments, a suite of developments, that on the whole help us on the 

economy, on security, on the environment. If we expect every little 

aspect of every project to help on all fronts, we will end up doing 

very little on any of them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Sir? 

Mr. ISAKOWER. I do think that the ‘‘all of the above’’ strategy is 

the correct approach. Obviously, we need to balance our energy 

needs with our environmental protections. The fact of the matter 

is, globally and within this country, our energy needs are going to 

continue to increase as the population grows, and we are going to 

need all forms of energy going forward. 

The growth in renewables, while much of that investment is actually coming from my industry, the oil and gas industry, the 

growth in renewables overall is not going to be enough to displace 

the traditional forms of energy. Therefore, we need to continue to 

utilize the traditional forms of energy like oil, gas, et cetera, do so 

in a responsible manner. And again, we believe that the oil sands 

in Canada, as well as energy production in Mexico, can be done in 

a responsible manner. Obviously, we are doing so here in the 

United States. We need to continue to develop resources in a responsible manner to meet our energy needs. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Simmons? 

Mr. SIMMONS. Affordable, reliable energy is critical. The poorest 

among us spend the most of their limited resources on energy. 

Therefore, for me, one of the most important things is that we have 

affordable energy for all, and low-cost energy. If we look at what 

the hydraulic-fracturing revolution has done, it means that now the 

U.S. has some of the lowest natural gas prices in the world. Sure, 

59

that is nice for, it is great for industry that uses a lot of natural 

gas to produce things. That produces jobs. But it also means that, 

for consumers, that we have lower natural gas prices. And that is 

fantastic news for everyone, and that I believe needs to continue. 

And one little piece of also good news is that over the past, since 

1970, we have almost doubled our use of oil, coal, and natural gas 

combined, and total pollution emissions have decreased by nearly 

70 percent. So, we have used more of these resources. At the same 

time, our environment is getting cleaner, and that is great news. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you. 

Three very, very quick things. First of all, there is an active discussion between the United States and Mexico on questions of energy efficiency. Mexico has been committed to an energy efficiency 

agenda over the past 6 years. It is very important that that conversation continues. And I believe the United States and Mexico 

have a lot to talk about on that. There are positive experiences 

here that can be shared with Mexico, and vice versa. 

Secondly, on the question of renewable energy, there is a region 

of northern Baja, California called La Rumorosa, which has a huge 

potential for developing wind energy. That is not happening at the 

moment because we haven’t been able to move forward on the 

question of cross-border transmission in that area. That energy has 

a natural marketplace in California to meet their RPS requirements. We can’t move ahead until actually the cross-border transmission question is resolved, and that is something that has to take 

place between the two Federal Governments. That is a priority 

from my point of view. 

And thirdly, I would say, we are looking here at the integration 

of energy markets in the North American region. Integrating energy markets, which means building infrastructure, pipelines, 

transmission lines, et cetera, is a crucial element. If you think 

about, in particular, with regards to shale gas or to natural gas, 

natural gas being a cleaner fuel, one that can dramatically reduce 

emissions in the short-term, that is something that we have to 

work a lot on, to get more natural gas into countries like Mexico, 

to help them, in turn, to build up their own natural gas production, 

so that they begin to reduce their emissions as they go through the 

development process. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could 

just say one point, and I will yield back, and I thank you for your 

courtesies. 

First of all, these were excellent answers. I think I am going to 

pull the transcript, so I can reread them. I don’t think we should 

run away from environmental concerns. I think we should jump 

right into it, jump right into climate change, and find that balance. 

But this is a personnel manner, very quickly, because of your 

work within the American Petroleum Institute. I ask you to take 

this back. I ask you to join me in the roundtable discussions. This 

happens to be Foreign Affairs, and this is an important hearing on 

the Keystone pipeline. It impacts Texas and other areas in the 

U.S.-Mexico Trans-Boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I think it also is a jobs question as well. And 

so, if you can just give a quick answer. One of your deficiencies is 

60

the level of diversity of your personnel and the lack of partnership 

with minority companies. Does the industry see, as you grow and 

we find more supporters of all the above or most of the above, that 

you will have to diversify and reach out to Hispanic, historicallyBlack, and redo your workforce? One, you will have to build up a 

workforce because you are losing senior leaders who are retiring 

and diversify more. What are you doing about that? 

Mr. ISAKOWER. That is a very interesting question because we actually have just initiated an effort reaching out with communities 

of color, with a number of organizations from communities of color, 

looking at the opportunities for minority employment within the oil 

and gas industry. 

I would be happy offline to discuss what we are doing with you 

and look at a path forward. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think, with that very genuine offer, let me 

accept it publicly, and I would like to work with you. I would like 

to think that Members of Congress should be included who have 

this great interest in an organization that is an institute——

Mr. DUNCAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I thank the gentleman. So, let me thank 

the chairman. And thank you for the offer. And I look forward to 

working with you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very courteous. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, ma’am. You were the last one. 

And it has been a great hearing. I want to just say that this 

hearing has highlighted a number of opportunities of the TransBoundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. I think you have heard members express frustration with the administration’s delay in choosing 

to ratify this process. 

Also, we heard today that we have got tremendous opportunity 

and the importance of a bilateral agreement with our neighbors to 

the north in Canada for the Keystone pipeline, 1,600 days since the 

application was submitted, the number of jobs that could be created in states like Texas and Oklahoma as well as the significance 

of U.S. and North American energy security. 

So, I want to thank you, the witnesses, and all the committee 

members for their participation here today. 

I know that any comments that the committee wants to make 

can be submitted to the record. 

And with that, we will just stand adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(61)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

62

f


79893n.eps

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON. DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere 

Matt Salmon (R-AZ), Chairman 

March 11,2013 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You arc respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign A±Iairs to 

be held by the Subcommittee on the Westem Hemisphere in Room 2172 of the Raybum House Office 

Building (and available on the Committee \vebsite at vvw\v.foreignaffairs.house.gov): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Thursday, March 14,2013 

9:30 a.m. 

u.s. Energy Security: Enhancing Partnerships with Mexico and Canada 

Panel T 

The Honorable Lee Terry 

Member of Congress 

Panel II 

Duncan Wood, Ph.D. 

Director 

Mexico Institute 

Wilson Center 

Mr. Daniel R. Simmons 

Director of Regulatory and State Affairs 

hlstitute for Energy Research 

Mr. Kyle Isakower 

Vice President, Regulatory and Economic Policy 

American Petroleum Institute 

Michael A. Levi, Ph.D. 

Senior Fellow for Energy and the Enviromnent. and 

Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change 

Council on Foreign Relations 

By Direction of the Chairman 
63

f


79893m.eps

COMMITTEE O~ FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

Me-/UTES OF SUBCOMlvnTTEE ON ______ -'-Tit:::':::':..:v,:..:.":::":::n.:cH:.:.""'",""·sp:::/':.:.erc:.' ______ HFARlNG 

Day_-".Th!.:.u"'r"'sda=y'--_Date __ -"'03"-~=-14.:..-.=2.::.01'-'3'__ __ Room. _ _=2'"1.:..7:<.2...,R"'H"'O"'lJ"----_ 

Starting Time __ 9"'·:.Jl",O,-,al..mm.._~;nding Time [J:21 a.m. 

Recesses L_ .. 3' ___ ) ( __ to __ ) ~to J l_lo __ )( __ 10 ___ .. J L __ to __ ) 

Presiding Mcmber(s) 

Chairman Salmon, Rep. DrUlcafl, Rep. Radel. 

Check all o/Ille/ollowing thai apply: 

Open Session I1J Executive (closed) Session 0 Televised I1J 

Electronically Recf)rd~taped) I1J 

Stenographic Record 1LJ 

TlTLI': OF [mARING: 

"U.!>~ Eltergy !:.i!cllrity: bithaneiltg Partnerships with Mexico altd Canada" 

SUBCOM!\1]TTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Chairman Salm01l, Rep. Smith, Rep. Duncat~ Rep. DeSantis, Rep. Radel, Ranking M~e",ber Sires, Rep. 

Meek., and Rep. Faleomavaega. 

NON-Sl'BCOMMlTTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: (Mark 1!'ilh an • If they are not members of ji,1I commirlee.) 

Chllirman Royce, Rep. Rohrabacher, Rep Weber, and ·Rep. Jackson Lee. 

HEARING W1T:>It:SSES: Same a. meeting notice attached? Yes m No 0 

at «nn ", please list helm'\-! and indude title. agency, department, Or orgmlization.) 

STATEME:-fTS FOR THF: Rl:CORD: (List any statements submittedfor the record.) 

Rep. Weber - QFR_ 

TIl\'ffi SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED 11:21 a.l1~ 
64

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE MATT SALMON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


79893f-1.eps
65


79893f-2.eps

Arabia, with nearly I million barrels per day being exported. Moreover, both countries are 

interdependent in terms of ener6'Y exports, as the United States is the most important source of natnral 

gas to Mexico. U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico grew by 24 percent to 1.7 billion cubic feet per day 

(Bcf/d), the highest level since data began being collected in 1973. Furthermore, imports account for 

over 30% of its total supply - and Mexico's natural gas use is at its highest level ever. Mexico also has 

the possibility of a shale gas boom, but it needs foreign investment to extract these resources. The 

country is currently discussing potential energy reforms, which are a domestic issue for Mexico to 

resolve, but are being closely watched by analysts as they could lead to increased foreign investment and 

production 

The Trans-Border Hydrocarbons Agreement (TBHA) also represents an opportunity for meaningful 

energy engagement between the United States and Mexico. The TBHA was signed in early 2012, and it 

would end the current moratorium on oil exploration and production in the Western Gap of the Gulf of 

Mexico. It should be considered and implemented in a timely manner. 

Interdependencies are present in both the United States-Canada and United States-Mexico relationships 

Deepening these relationships while at the same time developing domestic sources of energy will lead to 

greater energy security for the United States, and they are a win-win for North America. Energy trade is 

as important as any other product when considering trade liberalization. The United States would be 

well served to continue deepening its ties with its two bordering allies 

North American Eneray Intearation is Vital for North America's Competitiveness 

In its nearly 20 years of existence, NAFTA has helped its members build economic growth and rising 

prosperity. However, North America now faces the rapid emergence of nations such as China and India 

in a manner that could not have been predicted accurately when NAFTA was first approved. For North 

America to remain competitive, the three countries should use trade negotiations such as the Trans 

Pacific Partnership (TPP) and potentially the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) 

with the European Union (EU) as a means to consolidate regional competitiveness and growth 

The price of energy directly influences the competitive nature of value chains in North America At the 

same time, because energy is a significant input into manufacturing, high energy costs directly influence 

the competitiveness of export-ready products made in North America for the global marketplace. 

Therefore, it makes sense to carry out actions that reduce the costs of energy, because this immediately 

bolsters supply chains from Yukon to the Yucatan. This goal can be achieved with more efficient 

energy integration, which reduces costs and increases competitiveness across borders 

Several recommendations flow from this analysis. First, it is evident that maintenance of a secure energy 

supply from foreign sources is a strategic matter for the United States, and energy in North America 

must therefore be a priority. Increasing partnership in North American energy matters must be an 

important part of our overall approach, not an afterthought or taken for granted A balanced, engaged 

approach is needed 

Second, because of global circumstances, competitiveness is a key issue facing North America. High 

energy costs such as petroleum or electricity generation impact all energy users, affecting North 

America's competitiveness, which has repercussions across the value chain. Likewise, investment 
66

Æ


79893f-3.eps

climates that are less competitive than other regions will not attract the investment required to develop 

energy resources or the broader economy. Despite sitting on significant reserves, Mexico is a net 

importer of natural gas and has been since 2000. This directly impacts Mexican, and therefore North 

American competitiveness, at a time when competition from China continues to grow 

Finally, as the energy supply in North America continues to expand, excess energy will seek new 

markets. Surplus energy exists in all three countries of North America. Canada and Mexico export crude 

oil to the United States, while the United States exports natural gas to Canada and Mexico. The 

symbiosis of energy exports within North America demonstrates that the patterns of production and 

distribution will be strengthened with greater integration among the three countries. Therefore, export 

channels would benefit from reducing barriers to produce and sell energy across borders 

This issue comes to the forefront when considering North American energy exports to global markets Tn 

particular, exporting natural gas from the United States to the Caribbean Basin represents a key 

opportunity to supply the micro-states of the Caribbean with much needed clean and cost-effective 

energy supplies. Currently, the United States is restricted to exporting natural gas to its free trade 

partners, including Central America and the Dominican Republic, under the Central American Free 

Trade Agreement (CAFTA) On both economic and foreign policy grounds, the United States should 

activity pursue an energy strategy for the Caribbean Basin that builds off a more integrated and efficient 

North American energy strategy. 

Once again, the Council of the Americas appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on this critical 

matter before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and stands ready to assist Committee Members 

as they further investigate these issues