Thank you. Dear committee members, it's a pleasure and honour to be here today with you to discuss your important study into the state and future of Canadian energy data. My only apology is that I could not be there in person to join you.
I work at IHS Markit, an international data analytics and insight company. IHS Markit works with governments and industries around the world to help them make informed decisions. We service sectors across the economy, including finance, automotive, aerospace, defence, maritime, technology, geopolitical risk, and energy, which includes power, gas, renewables, oil, and climate change issues.
IHS Markit has a strong presence in the Canadian marketplace, with over 400 of my colleagues based here. Our two primary offices, located in the Toronto area, are focused on financial intermediary services and automotives, and our office in Calgary is focused on finance again, as well as energy.
I am based in Calgary, where I lead our western Canadian crude oil market research. We make extensive use of Canadian energy data and commodity data to deliver insight and analytics to our clients around the world. We also, through a unique service, make some of our oil sands research public.
My focus is on supply and demand fundamentals of Canadian oil and its role in the global oil market, which includes energy policy. It is from this perspective that I will share with you some thoughts that I hope you will find relevant to your study.
First, we believe considerable energy data does exist in Canada. However, it is often dispersed among federal and provincial governments, departments, ministries, agencies, and regulators. This complex web of sources can make it difficult to locate relevant data, to understand what data is available, and to interpret this data. This can lead to confusion and misinterpretation.
Having data is one thing; understanding and using data is another. Expertise is required to understand the data, appreciate any limitations, and identify any errors or gaps. Much of this expertise has been taken on by provincial governments, which collect different data for different purposes. This will likely always be the case, because provinces have their own interests in the data they collect. Some reasons include royalty purposes, regulatory processes, and environmental assessment and monitoring.
Some provincial data sets are very robust, such as the Alberta Energy Regulator, which makes much of the Canadian upstream industry data available. However, there are different priorities between regions. What one region collects, another might not, or it might not be presented in the same way, which can cause alignment issues between regions. These issues can generally be overcome, but they also complicate accessibility for the average Canadian.
Duplication of provincial data by the federal government may be counterproductive. This has the potential to lead to further alignment issues between series and/or confusion if multiple series exist.
As for the data itself, today, federally the key data sources we use in my shop are Statistics Canada and the National Energy Board. Provincial major sources of data are the Alberta Energy Regulator, the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of British Columbia, and the Newfoundland offshore board. Over time, the availability of some of this federal data has declined, particularly around natural gas liquids, refined products, and interprovincial transfers.
It is also important to acknowledge that accessibility of some data has improved. For example, the National Energy Board has expanded its coverage and made accessible greater detail on crude-by-rail exports and pipeline exports as well.
Generally, the best way to view Canadian hydrocarbon data is that we have, through a network of various actors, a pretty good understanding of what is produced and what is exported. Where we see gaps is in what we consume as Canadians and how it comes and goes within Canada. Recognizing this patchwork of actors, there is a possible role for a national aggregator, one that recognizes the importance and the interests of the provincial governments in having expertise in collecting data sets and also in helping with alignment. Moreover, alignment can help identify future data needs and ensure consistent methods are established in other regions across Canada.
It's important to underscore that data gathering is only one factor. The other two important factors are expertise and accessibility. There is a need to understand the uses, limitations, errors, and gaps in the data. At the federal level, some of this expertise already exists with the National Energy Board, Natural Resources Canada, and Statistics Canada.
The last component is that the data needs to be accessible not only to researchers and academics but to the public. In this regard and others, the U.S. Energy Information Administration is often cited. Over time, the U.S. EIA has increased its customer services, developing analytical tools, providing interpretations of data, and developing user-friendly interfaces. The U.S. EIA also provides national and international energy outlooks and will respond to Congress to provide independent analysis on key questions, something that could be of value in our currently fractious energy and climate conversations.
Key to the U.S. EIA has been their administrator's ongoing pledge of impartiality. The currency of data and insight is credibility, and it is of utmost importance, because often data may not agree with one's opinions.
Part of the process of these sessions, as was provided by the clerk in the notes, was to make recommendations. I would like to take the opportunity to do so now, though I may have done so thus far indirectly.
First and foremost, I encourage you to seek out both the sitting and former U.S. EIA administrators. I have found them in the past to be an incredible wealth of knowledge, and they have incredible history and expertise.
Second, there is value in working with federal and provincial agencies to align data series, identify data gaps—and there are gaps—and interpret the data.
Third, the focus needs to consider or be broader than data itself. It needs to include considerations about the expertise required and for making data accessible.
Fourth, it needs to be impartial to ensure the data and its interpretations are credible.
I would like to thank you all for inviting me to speak today. This ends the portion of my prepared remarks.