您具體說的是什么意思？“其他什么”可能指的是？

????現(xiàn)在，在加拿大有很多關(guān)于“管道改向”的討論。也許現(xiàn)在聽起來有點怪，我們的東海岸已經(jīng)在進口石油，然后在安大略省薩尼亞進行精煉。而阿爾伯塔省的石油正在運往南方的美國。這完全是經(jīng)濟因素作用。我們現(xiàn)在正在討論管道改向的可能，將西部出產(chǎn)的石油輸送至東海岸，并供應(yīng)沿途城鎮(zhèn)。它將開啟輸油管道從加拿大東部進入美國東部的可能。如果Keystone項目繼續(xù)因政治原因受阻，我們會另想辦法。

Keystone項目遭到否決，環(huán)保組織起了很大作用。但不管美國想不想，未來幾年還是要面對油砂的問題，對吧？畢竟你們有豐富的石油儲量。

????你說的完全正確。我們坐擁世界第三大已探明石油儲量。未來10年，隨著技術(shù)的進步，我們將超過沙特，成為世界上已探明儲量最多的國家。“已探明儲量”的計算是以是否具有經(jīng)濟開采可行性為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的。如今，我們知道的儲量中僅有10%為“已探明”儲量。但如果科技取得突破，這個比例提高到15%，我們就會擁有世界上最大的（已探明）儲量。

因為這個原因，環(huán)保組織才盯上了你們？

????的確如此。如果我所在的機構(gòu)是以讓世界擺脫化石燃料為宗旨，我可能也會將目標(biāo)鎖定在最大的障礙上，即擁有世界最大已探明儲量的國家。

Keystone項目取消后，加拿大總理很快對中國進行了訪問。這只是一個禮節(jié)性拜訪么？

????我可以告訴你，此行不僅僅是涉及大熊貓的禮節(jié)性拜訪。訪問的意圖是向中國發(fā)出這樣的信息：“中國是我們的重要投資者，中國需要我們的物產(chǎn)，而我們有富余的物產(chǎn)，我們希望賣給你們。”就這么簡單。

????如今，阿爾伯塔省每天出口150萬桶石油。隨著產(chǎn)量逐漸增加，到2020年我們每天將出口400萬至500萬桶。出口將出現(xiàn)巨大的增長。美國有能力全部消化掉。但我們不想完全依賴某一家客戶。到2020年，如果一切正常，美國將成為我們的大客戶，我們供應(yīng)的石油在美國石油用量中的占比也將達到歷史最高水平。但與此同時，我們也將為我們的產(chǎn)品打開國際市場。

聽起來加拿大在談判中有望處于非常有利的地位。

????我想關(guān)于未來可能的情形，天然氣就是一個很好的例子。加拿大絕大部分天然氣一直銷往美國。如果將天然氣價格和匯率結(jié)合起來計算，五年前我們的天然氣銷售額約為50億美元，而今年只有10億美元。頁巖氣的發(fā)現(xiàn)拉低了天然氣價格，并搶走了我們唯一的客戶。我們現(xiàn)在有4項方案，希望將液化天然氣運往我們的西海岸然后出口。我們將放開天然氣開采商取得國際價格的能力，它是我們在北美價格的3-4倍。我們過去依賴于一個客戶，但由于美國國內(nèi)供應(yīng)激增，他們不再那么需要我們了，我們所有的天然氣只能低價出售。我們不能讓這樣的情況再在石油行業(yè)重演。

你本身就是一名政界人士。我們怎么才能結(jié)束阻礙美加兩國實現(xiàn)這一雙贏格局的政治僵局？

????你是說從美國方面嗎？那得由你來告訴我。這些障礙的確都涉及政治。但你們要做的就是把政治因素放在一邊，看看經(jīng)濟效益。拿石油來說。美國每天以布倫特原油價格進口1,000萬桶。沙特不不可能按西德克薩斯中質(zhì)油（WTI）的價格把石油賣給美國。布倫特原油價格比美國付給加拿大的油價每桶差不多高20美元。這怎么符合經(jīng)濟常識？傻子都知道，我們得另外想辦法拓展業(yè)務(wù)。

What does that mean? What might "something else" be?

????There is a lot of talk in Canada about "reversing lines." Currently today, as strange as this might sound, we have imported oil that comes into the east coast that is then refined in Sarnia, Ontario. And Albertan oil is going south. It's just economics. Now we're talking about reversing that line -- taking western oil for usage all the way to the east coast. That would open up the potential for lines from eastern Canada to head into the eastern U.S. We will find some way of making it work if Keystone continues to be caught up in politics.

????Evironmental groups helped kill Keystone. But whether or not the U.S. wants to, they're going to need to deal with the tar sands for years to come, right? You've got all the oil.

????You're absolutely correct. We're currently sitting on the third-largest proven reserves in the world. With technology advancement over the next ten years, we will have the largest proven oil reserves in the world, ahead of Saudi Arabia. "Proven reserves" is calculated by determining you can economically pull out of the ground. Right now only 10% of what we know is there is considered "proven." But with any tweak in technology, that goes to 15%, and at that point, we have largest reserves in the world.

Which makes you the obvious target for environmental groups.

????Indeed. If I am part of an organization that wants to rid the world of fossil fuels, I may as well put my target on the place that is the largest obstacle, which has largest proven reserves in the world.

Your Prime Minister made a fairly quick visit to China shortly after Keystone was quashed. Was it just a social visit?

????It wasn't just about panda bears, I can tell you that. The intent of that trip was to send this message to China: "You are a major investor in our country, you need our product, we have excess product, and we want to get it to you." It's as simple as that.

????Today, Alberta exports 1.5 million barrels a day. Just with production that is coming on-stream, we will be exporting between 4 and 5 million barrels per day by 2020. That's a huge jump. The U.S. could consume it all. But we don't want to rely on just one customer. By 2020, all things being reasonable, the U.S. will be a larger customer of ours, and we will be supplying a larger portion of your oil than at any time in history. But at the same time, we will be opening up global markets for our product.

Sounds like a great negotiating position to be in.

????I think we have a very good example of what can happen when you look at natural gas. The vast majority of Canadian gas has been sold to the U.S. And if you combine the price of gas and exchange rate, our revenues from gas sales were about $5 billion five years ago. This year, they will be $1 billion. The discovery of shale gas has driven down prices and taken away our only customer. We now have four proposals to get liquefied natural gas to our west coast to send it abroad. We will be opening up, for our producers, the ability to get international prices for gas, which are three to four times what we get in North America. We relied on one customer, but the U.S. domestic supply exploded, they don't need us as much, we are stuck with all of our gas at giveaway prices. We can't let that happen with oil.

You're a politician. How do we end the politics of what seems a win-win situation for both countries?

????At your end? You tell me. The roadblocks are indeed political. But all you have to do is set the politics aside and look at the economics. Take oil. You're importing 10 million barrels a day at Brent prices. The Saudis are not selling you oil at WTI prices. Brent is almost $20 a barrel more than you would be paying for oil from us. How the hell does that make any economic sense? It's a no-brainer that we find a way to get more business done.