# Pipeline approved in US



## christinad (Apr 30, 2013)

I find it interesting this pipeline was approved and not keystone. So much for concerns about the environment.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/new-american-mega-pipeline-youve-never-heard


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The White House doesn't (can't) get involved regulatory/legal wise in an all-America pipeline. Besides, it would be political suicide to prevent domestically produced oil from helping to meet America's needs.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Right. Neatly illustrates the hypocrisy of this administration. Not behaving in a civilized and fair manner. And not helping their own economy either.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Keystone had an association with "Tar Sands" oil. It also had to deal with it construction above one of the major aquifers in the midwest. These were significant issues with the forces that got the Keystone nixed.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> The White House doesn't (can't) get involved regulatory/legal wise in an all-America pipeline. Besides, it would be political suicide to prevent domestically produced oil from helping to meet America's needs.


+1

Politically the U.S. cares about the U.S. and usually the U.S. alone.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

My Own Advisor said:


> +1
> 
> Politically the U.S. cares about the U.S. and usually the U.S. alone.


Keystone would have provided massive economic benefit to the US, but was politically problematic to Obama.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It will be interesting if TRP mades any headway with their compensation litigation against the White House under NAFTA regarding Keystone XL. How can this Bakken line be built and not Keystone XL? I'd think a judge may be sympathetic.

But not counting my special dividend yet......


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> It will be interesting if TRP mades any headway with their compensation litigation against the White House under NAFTA regarding Keystone XL. How can this Bakken line be built and not Keystone XL? I'd think a judge may be sympathetic.
> 
> But not counting my special dividend yet......




NAFTA disputes are not heard before a judge in a standard court room.

they're heard before the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), located in washington DC. This arbitration tribunal is a subsidiary of the World Bank.

typically there are three judging members to each tribunal. Members come from all over the world. Many are academics in law faculties. All have prominent backgrounds in international commercial litigation. 

it's arbitration, so an ICSID decision cannot be appealed. 

nor are cases promptly heard. Hearings can be dragged out across years. I somewhat follow - at a long distance - a case whose threatre is el Salvador. This relatively small case has been dragging on for 5 or 6 years.

the el Salvador case is a mosquito compared to the B-52 bomber which is trans canada pipe & Keystone. Surely the main purpose of launching the Keystone case is to place pressure on the upcoming White House.

my understanding is that the ICSID tribunals do not regard prior jurisprudence in forming their decisions. So a recent US domestic decision to build a long Bakken oil pipeline from the Dakotas to Illinois would not necessarily affect an ICSID tribunal ruling on cross-border Keystone. 

what would influence the tribunal would be public commitments of support from US authorities prior to TRP's decision to extend Keystone. Was there public support from leading US officials - enticements would be even better for trans canada's case - which lured the company into deciding to invest billions in a serious venture that would later be nixed by the US president. 

i've noticed that the lawyers in ICSID cases are always the leading partners in the grandest firms in washington. They must be freaking overjoyed with TRP Keystone. One of the most important cases, with the most critical & diverse issues, they'll ever get to plead.


.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

mordko said:


> Keystone would have provided massive economic benefit to the US, but was politically problematic to Obama.


Exactly. If this was a U.S. company do you really think it would have been blocked? Hardly.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> It will be interesting if TRP mades any headway with their compensation litigation against the White House under NAFTA regarding Keystone XL. How can this Bakken line be built and not Keystone XL? I'd think a judge may be sympathetic.
> 
> But not counting my special dividend yet......


Where is the judge from? U.S.? If so, TRP has no chance in winning.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

If you look up what Humble mentioned, i.e. the ICSID, you will get your answer. 

Also, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/27/transcanada-keystone-lawsuit-nafta_n_10696608.html

Apparently, the USA has never lost a NAFTA challenge at ICSID.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*Re: Keystone XL*

I mentioned this back when there was still a chance that XL would be approved.

One need look no further than BOLD Nebraska, Dick Holland, and Warren Buffett.

The following snip taken from here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...e_keystone_pipeline_and_crony_capitalism.html




Also a few videos about the topic of BOLD and XL:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bold+nebraska


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> If you look up what Humble mentioned, i.e. the ICSID, you will get your answer.
> 
> Also, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/27/transcanada-keystone-lawsuit-nafta_n_10696608.html
> 
> Apparently, the USA has never lost a NAFTA challenge at ICSID.




with all due respect altaRed i don't think that's true! i believe Canadian Press has made a mistake (new dog will be overjoyed to hear) ...

when i was rummaging the ICSID proceedings a few years ago - it was that tiny vancouver company that had sued el Salvador - i recall seeing that the rulings to date at that time on canada/US disputes were kind of fairly distributed between wins for canadian companies who sued the US & wins for US companies who sued canada.

these are time-consuming researches & i hope you will forgive if i say i can't take the time for so arcane a point at the mo. I'll just stick to my recollection that some canadian companies have been able to successfully pry NAFTA settlements out of the US because they said We hazz bin Wronged & the tribunals sided with em.

the way ICSID picks the 3 members of each tribunal is appealing. It has echoes of the famous Iroquois bear clan/deer clan/turtle clan tripartite justice system.

each of the 2 disputing sides picks one tribunal judge. Then, acting together, these 2 judges pick the 3rd judge. Wonderful, isn't it?

.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

.

my understanding is that - apart from short-term employment benefiits in constructing the Keystone XL pipeline - there are few economic Keystone returns for the US of A. Pipelines once built take little manpower to maintain.

all off the heavy alberta oil is destined for export out of texas ports. It will pass through the big Valero refineries on the texas coast, then get shipped to china. None of the Keystone product is destined to be consumed in north America.

there is a widespread urban myth that Keystone XL would deliver plenty cheap oil to the US. But they say that this is not the case. Tar sands oil needs special processing facilities. Valero has such big refineries. Apparently china has even bigger, even newer facilities. So it'll be bye bye Keystone. Through the enlarged panama canal & across the pacific she will sail.

.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> with all due respect altaRed i don't think that's true! i believe Canadian Press has made a mistake (new dog will be overjoyed to hear)


Fair enough. I was simply quoting the article. I still believe the system is stacked against non-US members though. The USA would not likely have ever signed anything that didn't have some residual, if behind the scenes, control.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Here is a link to the Trans Canada Pipeline Request for Arbitration. ICSID can provide financial relief but they cannot force the US administration to allow Keystone XL. TRP has asked for USD 15B. 

It's hypocritical for Canadians to blame the American administration for refusing to allow a pipeline when many Canadians oppose pipelines in our own country.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

olivaw said:


> It's hypocritical for Canadians to blame the American administration for refusing to allow a pipeline when many Canadians oppose pipelines in our own country.


Careful, It is mostly NIMBYs in BC, ON and QC that don't want pipelines....


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

olivaw said:


> Here is a link to the Trans Canada Pipeline Request for Arbitration. ICSID can provide financial relief but they cannot force the US administration to allow Keystone XL. TRP has asked for USD 15B.




olivaw is correct. The ICSID can only rule to compensate a company for the profits such a company might have earned in a foreign country *if* that foreign-country-NAFTA-member had not blocked the implantation & the development of the business. The ICSID can't rule to force a NAFTA member to change its national policies.

CAFTA (includes central american & caribbean countries) has the same provisions. I've read that TPP has slightly different provisions that could entrain even harsher penalties but i haven't studied these.

a few years ago i looked at the slate of cases pending before the ICSID as well as the index of past heard cases. It was astonishing how numerous these were.

me i think the overall setup has many thought-provoking defects. A small central american country might improve its labour laws so that workers are no longer mining in dangerous conditions for $1 per hour, for example. Or a country might improve its environmental safeguards so that dumping raw toxic waste from mines & factories will no longer be allowed.

whereupon a foreign miner or foreign-owned garment factory business can sue via the ICSID for lost profits, on the grounds that it can no longer expect to mine profitably or dump waste cheaply or employ workers to work in fire-trap factories for $1 per hour ...

the TRP case is so huge that it wlll be fascinating to watch. Or rather, it would be fascinating to watch except that it will proceed with the speed of molasses. It won't surprise if they take a year just to name the judges! deposing all the evidence will require 2 large dedicated teams of lawyers! i'm astonished that TRP has only asked for $15 billion!


.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Zylon.....interesting analysis, as recent Berkshire Hathaway financials showed a reduction in profitability for Burlington railroad attributed to lower volumes of energy related cargo. Their US oil holdings are also floundering a bit.

The analysis introduces a few other key questions if examined from a US point of view.

1) How much of a positive economic impact would the Keystone Pipeline have long term ? If as stated about the other pipeline...very little.

2) How much of a negative economic impact could the Keystone Pipeline have long term ? If as stated about Keystone.....maybe a lot.

For every job remaining after the Keystone was finished. how many jobs would be lost in rail transportation, coal and related industries ?

No doubt Buffet has a big financial interest in blocking Keystone, but he may also be protecting American jobs as a side effect.

There is no doubt that completion of the Keystone would have great benefit to Canada, but it is questionable if it would have a net positive affect in the US, and I see no reason why US politicians would be eager to approve the Keystone Pipeline.

It should also be noted the US government used "eminent domain" laws to seize control of some of the land needed for an internal US pipeline. That is already a very unpopular concept among the general population and to use it to control land for a Canadian based pipeline to ship Canadian oil for the benefit of Canadians may be very difficult for Americans to accept and the politicians to explain.

On the issue of the right to compensation , would the net positive/negative economic consequences to the host country be a consideration of the court, or is the law narrowly focused on potential losses of the injured company ?

It may also be a difficult legal argument for TRP to put forward that they have suffered financial losses for a pipeline they may not have been able to build without the US delegating already established eminent domain laws to them.

Eminent domain laws have been in existence for a long time, and were not created to block the Keystone Pipeline.

The concept of eminent domain laws came up during this year's Presidential primaries, where Donald Trump said that without eminent domain laws the Keystone Pipeline wouldn't go 10 feet.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> It may also be a difficult legal argument for TRP to put forward that they have suffered financial losses for a pipeline they may not have been able to build without the US delegating already established eminent domain laws to them.




sags you & zylon have such insightful contributions on this issue, thankx to both of you.

i have this niggly little detail re losses though:

TRP already has massive losses. Look at all those stacks of pipe piled up all along the route. Evidently a lot of the pipe has been laid already. In other areas the excavations have been done.

think of the costs! already in the billions.

then there's the controversial part of NAFTA (as best i can recall it's chapter 11 of the treaty) which sets forth the rights of frustrated companies who thought they had the green light in a foreign nation, until suddenly everything switches to red light. Chapter 11 allows these companies to sue for compensation representing the profit they might have earned if they would have been allowed to build & operate their businesses as planned.

the NDP & other NAFTA critics have complained that chapter 11 thus gives multinational corporations extraordinary & unhealthy power to force domestic policy in the countries where they want to expand, regardless of whether their incoming presence is welcome in the host country or not. Chapter 11 is viewed by NAFTA critics as destructive of the sovereign right of nations.

as i understand things, the issue of whether TRP should be compensated is totally separate from the US domestic issue as to whether the US should or should not allow XL.

what a mess. There must be 30 or 40 lawyers beavering away full-time on the dossiers by now? as best i can recall, those giant washington DC law firms that plead & defend all the NAFTA cases at the ICSID are always powerful & well-connected congressional lobbyists.

(as i write this i'm thinking Yea for TRP, the canadian company that Refused to Kow-Tow to washington)


.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*Off Topic: my, my how things change*

"In the 1890s, the small town of Los Angeles (population 50,000) began a transformation driven by the discovery and drilling of some of the most productive oil fields in history. By 1930, California was producing nearly one quarter of the world’s oil output, and its population had grown to 1.2 million."

"Here are some photographs of California during oil boom in 1920s-30s."

http://www.oldpicsarchive.com/the-f...hat-dotted-california-landscape-in-1920s-30s/

If Trump becomes Mr President, well Boy Howdy! that will be a wake up for Alberta; and that's a good thing.

I'm with Peter Lougheed (1928-2012) when he says that we shouldn't be in such a hurry to find and sell every last drop of oil. If done properly, this industry can provide livelihood for many more generations. I'm not convinced of the "end of oil"; but a change in the way we go about it? Sure hope so.



Snip taken from here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/peter-lougheed-opposes-keystone-pipeline-1.1078801


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree with Lougheed that Canada should be refining the oil into products.

I know it is expensive and there may be a need for government money to be involved, but we can and should get it done.

Beyond refining, one might also consider all the products made from oil.........plastics for example, and consider how to set up an array of end user manufacturing around the oil in a "products from oil" hub.

The problem in Canada is we have always been a little lazy. We just want to dig it up and ship it out. We do it with all commodities.

Here we are in 2016 and we don't even have a Canadian vehicle manufacturer. Many countries around the world do..........but not us.

We sit back and hope a foreign company will throw a branch plant our way once in awhile.

We have never had a long term vision in Canada and still don't.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Humble............just a question

Why would TRP buy the pipeline, secure I believe about 70% of the land necessary, with some additional land tied up in eminent domain court battles, before they had the official paperwork signed from the US administration ?

Were they seduced into overconfidence.........as was Mr. Harper when he said Keystone approval was a "complete no brainer?"

Personally I think that comment by Harper resonated throughout Washington and did more damage than good. It may have riled Obama and stiffened his resolve to not approve the pipeline, especially when Mr. Harper added this little nugget which reads like a veiled threat to the US from an overconfident Canadian PM. These untimely and slightly bravado comments caused a big kerfluffle in the US.

_The Prime Minister said *the fact that there are still questions about a decision that should be a “complete no-brainer” is encouraging Canada to pursue other export markets for oil and gas.*

It’s “all the more reason why Canada should look at trade diversification and *particularly diversification of energy exports*,” he said.

The federal government has broadly endorsed the oil industry’s efforts to build new pipelines to the West Coast to open up new markets in Asia.
_
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...mplete-no-brainer-harper-says/article4203332/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada has been talking about exporting liquid natural gas to Asia for a long time and nothing has been done. 

In the interim, the US moved forward and in March 2016 shipped out their first tanker of LNG to Asia.

They estimate they will be shipping 550 tankers a year to Asia by 2021, after the Panama Canal is expanded.

The Americans are securing the markets for their oil and natural gas, while we talk about it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ee-550-u-s-lng-tankers-a-year-after-expansion


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The US already had much of the infrastructure in place, especially pipelines to tidewater and a number of previously built liquifaction and re-gasification plants from prior 'failed' projects. We have yet to build the gas pipelines needed to get to tidewater and we have yet to have much port infrastructure either. IOW, we have to build greenfield projects from scratch. We also have way too many treehuggers and local interests with their hands out to make much progress in this regard.

The economics really are not that great for LNG. LNG pricing is tied to crude oil pricing and on the other side, supply costs are highly dependent on what the North American natural gas market is doing. Project proponents can be squeezed on both sides just like mid-stream processors extracting NGLs are squeezed, or refiners of crude oil are squeezed.

Added: Canada seems to be doing all it can to crush GDP growth in this country. We will continue to lose ground and be yet another backwater in the G7, G8, or G20....whichever you prefer.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> Why would TRP buy the pipeline, secure I believe about 70% of the land necessary, with some additional land tied up in eminent domain court battles, before they had the official paperwork signed from the US administration ?
> 
> Were they seduced into overconfidence.......




sags i can't think of any simple answers. If a real hearing ever gets underway at the ICSID i imagine it will require years & years of pleadings.

here's a wikipedia article that summarizes many of the twisting chapters in the convoluted XL story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#Phase_4_.28rejected.29


it would be too simplistic to blame remarks by former canadian prime minister stephen harper or point the finger at US president barack obama imho.

re the former, trans canada pipe has built or owned pipelines or parts of pipelines in the US for decades. According to wiki above, the company obtained US state & federal permits for Keystone every step of the way.

we should remember that the north-south pattern of energy economics in north america dates back nearly a century & a lot of that history has been cooperative.

re the latter, we should remember that obama inherited Keystone from dubya Bush, scion of the texas Bush family of oil tycoons. Obama didn't start up the project. The wiki article suggests that obama had reservations & objections as far back as 2011.

plus we should remember that Keystone itself already exists. What was rejected in 2015 was Keystone XL, an additional & final leg that would follow a different route further to the west, from alberta to an energy hub in nebraska.


.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Added: Canada seems to be doing all it can to crush GDP growth in this country. We will continue to lose ground and be yet another backwater in the G7, G8, or G20....whichever you prefer.


AltaRed, why do you say this?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

To the extent we are not willing to support development projects despite the huge "net benefits" that are demonstrated in 'cost benefit analyses' that support project proposals, we are putting the brakes on our own GDP growth. Some argue that 'cost benefit' studies overstate economic benefits and understate social impacts but the methodology has been refined over decades and the consultants that do this work have their credibility/reputations on the line.

Think about what our economy would look like without our transcontinental railroads, our transcanada highway system and our existing network of pipelines. We are letting fringe elements control the agenda rather than looking at the big picture, especially when what we don't do will simply shift the benefits to often questionable sources and not make a single dent in the global arena. Places like China, the Middle East, Russia and West Africa.. even the USA to some extent, don't give a squat what environmental and social impacts their 'undermonitored' and less 'socially responsible' projects are like. Our GDP will stagnate while that of many of our G7/G8/G20 partners continues to grow.

Falling on our sword may give some of us 'warm fuzzies' but our sacrifice will simply be taken advantage of by other more astute and manipulative nations.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

^ Which projects? 

I think that you mentioned in other threads that additional Alberta ugraders and refineries may not become profitable. Are you referring to pipelines?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I agree with Lougheed that Canada should be refining the oil into products.
> 
> I know it is expensive and there may be a need for government money to be involved, but we can and should get it done.
> 
> ...


We have 2 dozen refineries in Canada. If it doesn't make financial sense we shouldn't invest in it.

Investing in things that don't make financial sense isn't a vision, it's dumb.

If there were some other reason (energy security etc) sure go ahead, but just refining a few more barrels here just to say we refined a few more barrels here is dumb.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

olivaw said:


> ^ Which projects?
> 
> I think that you mentioned in other threads that additional Alberta ugraders and refineries may not become profitable. Are you referring to pipelines?


Pipelines in particular.

But we also need more double tracking of railroads through BC to the coast and twinning of the TCH between the BC/AB border and Kamloops. All of those are expensive bottlenecks to getting goods to/from the coast. There was outrage when CP wanted to tunnel beneath the Continental Divide in Banff Nat'l Park and outrage when AB wanted to twin the TCH from Banff to the BC border. A whole cast of characters whined about how those projects would devastate nature and disrupt wildlife. Well, the vision prevailed and those 2 projects in particular were completed with nary an impact once completed. Trains are not bottled up and the wildlife overpasses for the TCH work perfectly well. 

Another one. The Trans Mountain pipeline was twinned through Jasper National Park some time ago with no residual disruption at all to park habitat. I drove the route about 3 weeks ago and there is nothing to show as impacts. Yet the Burnaby bunch whine and moan and wring their hands about the Kinder Morgan expansion.

The point is: Too many armchair quarterbacks and vested minority interests hold our country hostage.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

True enough, if environmentalists had the last word, we never would have built the railroad or the TCH. 

But we need environmentalists too. I remember living in Montreal as a teenager. Lake Saint-Louis was contaminated with mercury and other toxic substances from industrial processes. It's what happens when you forget to consider the environmental impact of industrial processes. 

I do support the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion. It's safer than rail and environmental concerns can be addressed.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

olivaw said:


> But we need environmentalists too. I remember living in Montreal as a teenager. Lake Saint-Louis was contaminated with mercury and other toxic substances from industrial processes. It's what happens when you forget to consider the environmental impact of industrial processes.


Absolutely. We need social conscience to keep the capitalists honest. I couldn't agree more. They just need to stick to the facts.


----------

