RE:Can somebody shed some light on thisI think the regulator body can ask ENB to come up with a "Canadian producer access first" policy and ways to make sure the little guy has a seat at the table and smaller producers have a chance to thrive.
This ENB proposal was made when oil was not quite moving. Times have changed. I think ENB will be happy with 70% vs 90%. Not sure about the oil producers.
Marner16 wrote: Enbridge spokeperson Jesse Semko made the following statement which was reported on Jan 6n 2021
“We have several investments we can make to optimize our Mainline system and improve transportation (egress) out of Western Canada by 200,000 barrels per day,” Semko said in an emailed statement, adding, “We can’t make these financial commitments without Mainline contracting.”
The statement was made in regards to ENB requesting the CER grant the ability to ENB to fix 90% of their pipeline capacity on their Mainline versus the open bidding process that ENB has always utilized for its Mainline.
Question 1: How can ENB increase Line 3 capacity by 200,000 barrels per day by optimizing its Mainline, which I assume is in addition to completing their Line 3 construction project?
Queston 2: Given that KXL has been officially shut down, it seems like ENB should have very little difficulty in filling its Mainline going forward (at least that is what Canadian producers say who oppose ENB's request). If that is the case, why would ENB need the fixed contracts in order to invest in optimizing egress of 200,000 additional barrels out of Alberta?
My portfolio is heavily over weighted in ENB so obviously, I want what is best for ENB. However, if ENB does receive CER approval for fixed contracts, and it ends up hurting Canadian producers due to American refineries being able to buy up the capacity, I think the cost of the win is too high. Perhaps the CER could grant fixed contracts on 70% of capacity vs the 90% that ENB has requested since 70% of ENB customers have expressed interest in a new system.
What do you think?