Support NeoGAF

[Piecake]

ransCanada Corp. is seeking to recoup $15 billion for the Obama administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, in a legal claim that highlights how foreign companies can use trade deals to challenge U.S. policy.

The Calgary-based pipeline operator filed papers late Friday seeking arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement, arguing that TransCanada had every reason to believe it would win approval to build Keystone XL. Instead, President Barack Obama last November determined that the pipeline, which would have carried Canadian oil sands crude to the U.S. Gulf, was not in the national interest. In response, TransCanada in January vowed to use arbitration provisions in Chapter 11 of Nafta to recover costs and damages.

“None of that technical analysis or legal wrangling was material to the administration’s final decision,” TransCanada said in Friday’s filing. “Instead, the rejection was symbolic and based merely on the desire to make the U.S. appear strong on climate change, even though the State Department had itself concluded that denial would have no significant impact on the environment.”

“The TPP would empower thousands of new firms operating in the U.S, including major polluters, to follow in TransCanada’s footsteps and undermine our critical climate safeguards in private trade tribunals,” Brune said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...iles-15b-nafta-claim-on-keystone-xl-rejection

This seems absurd to me, though it is so absurd that I am kinda worried that they might win

 

[zer0blivion]

I'm glad the US rejected it. There was a lot of public opposition to it on both sides of the border and Harper would have rubber-stamped it.

 

[Frankie Williamson]

Fuck, US Corporations have been doing this to Canada since NAFTA was signed. It's almost bizarre seeing the tables turned.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Trump to turn this news on the Clintons. He thinks NAFTA was one of Bill Clinton's worst deals

 

[Piecake]

Fuck, US Corporations have been doing this to Canada since NAFTA was signed. It's almost bizarre seeing the tables turned.

Do you have a link that talks about one? kinda curious to read it

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Remember guys, the TPP adds Investor-State Dispute Settlement to the entire Pacific Rim! Please look forward to it!

 

[Giant Panda]

If the government reports really did say the rejecting the project wouldn't help the environment, then TransCanada may have a case.

Remember guys, the TPP adds Investor-State Dispute Settlement to the entire Pacific Rim! Please look forward to it!

IDS is a good thing. It keeps governments from favoring domestic companies.

 

[Mr.Mike]

I don't really see why this is a bad thing. It's not like TransCanada is just arbitrarily extorting money from the government whenever it wants. There'll be a trial and if it's found that they were unfairly treated than they should be compensated, no?

 

[oneils]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...iles-15b-nafta-claim-on-keystone-xl-rejection

This seems absurd to me, though it is so absurd that I am kinda worried that they might win

Doesn't seem absurd to me. Of course, an arbitrator hasn't ruled on this so maybe they will side with the US' position.

 

[oneils]

Do you have a link that talks about one? kinda curious to read it

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6471460

 

[Mr.Mike]

IDS is a good thing. It keeps governments from favoring domestic companies.

There is a false misconception that IDS prevents countries from making the laws they want, but that's not really true. If a country wanted to ban, for example, a certain pollutant, they still can. They just can't ban foreign companies from emitting that pollutant while domestic companies still can.

The argument here is that other, American, companies were allowed to build pipelines but TransCanada was unfairly prevented from doing so.

 

[killer rin]

Canadian Companies almost never win these cases... and when they do the USA just ignores the ruling. No way in hell Trans-Canada wins anything from this other than platitudes.

 

[Volimar]

Wait, didn't Obama just reject the Keystone Pipeline from jumping the normal EPA processes for allowing a new pipeline? And then TransCanada pulled the project themselves? Or am I misremembering?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Canadian Companies almost never win these cases... and when they do the USA just ignores the ruling. No way in hell Trans-Canada wins anything from this other than platitudes.

A sovereign nation should not have to answer to a fucking corporation. This isn't Ace Combat 3.

 

[Elaugaufein]

There is a false misconception that IDS prevents countries from making the laws they want, but that's not really true. If a country wanted to ban, for example, a certain pollutant, they still can. They just can't ban foreign companies from emitting that pollutant while domestic companies still can.

The argument here is that other, American, companies were allowed to build pipelines but TransCanada was unfairly prevented from doing so.

You do realise that even if the companies don't have a case they can still initiate arbitration and cost a country a fuck ton of money right ? The Australian Plain Cigarette Packaging laws spent 4 years in court and cost the government $US20M for a decision that the cigarette company didn't have standing. That makes it pretty attractive to just try to nuisance and bluster laws you don't like out of existence even if you have no legal case.

 

[Mr.Mike]

You do realise that even if the companies don't have a case they can still initiate arbitration and cost a country a fuck ton of money right ? The Australian Plain Cigarette Packaging laws spent 4 years in court and cost the government $US20M for a decision that the cigarette company didn't have standing. That makes it pretty attractive to just try to nuisance and bluster laws you don't like out of existence even if you have no legal case.

So what, have no mechanism to give laws any weight?

 

[Madness]

A sovereign nation should not have to answer to a fucking corporation. This isn't Ace Combat 3.

And yet the rest of the world has had to answer to US corporations for decades. The US has actually overthrown governments and have done regime changes all over the world just because certain corporations wanted it.

 

[andythinkpad]

So this is the new TPP future?

 

[Elaugaufein]

So what, have no mechanism to give laws any weight?

Strangely we have a full independent court system like most first world countries and that is loser pays. They went through the High Court and everything. And then used the ISDS after they lost there.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

A sovereign nation should not have to answer to a fucking corporation. This isn't Ace Combat 3.

Why shouldn't businesses have a right to challenge a arbitrary decision that costs them money unless you believe governments have basically the ability to violate equal protection and just seize assets whenever?

Not that it's the case in this lawsuit

Nobody would invest anything if they thought the government could just change every rule on a whim.

I mean this is pretty much the concept enshrined in the 5th and 14th amendments. Governments can't seize or restrict arbitrarily private property without compensation

 

[Coriolanus]

Why shouldn't businesses have a right to challenge a arbitrary decision that costs them money unless you believe governments have basically the ability to violate equal protection and just seize assets whenever?

Why shouldn't businesses be forced to used the state's judiciary system if they want to do business with that state?

Nobody would invest anything if they thought the government could just change every rule on a whim.

That goes directly against most recorded human history.

Quite akin to saying that no one would invent anything if IP laws didn't exist.

 

[numble]

Why shouldn't businesses have a right to challenge a arbitrary decision that costs them money unless you believe governments have basically the ability to violate equal protection and just seize assets whenever?

Not that it's the case in this lawsuit

Nobody would invest anything if they thought the government could just change every rule on a whim.

I mean this is pretty much the concept enshrined in the 5th and 14th amendments. Governments can't seize or restrict arbitrarily private property without compensation

Private arbitration is enshrined in the 5th and 14th Amendments? Citation needed.

 

[Pilgrimzero]

Oh, Canada...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Why shouldn't businesses be forced to used the state's judiciary system if they want to do business with that state?

Because judiciary systems are subject to the same whims of politics? If we were to sign an agreement with Vietnam are we going to pretend their judiciary is independent?

That goes directly against most recorded human history.

Quite akin to saying that no one would invent anything if IP laws didn't exist.

First of all free trade didn't exist for most of human history and we have ridiculously high trade barriers most of the time (since income taxes werent popular till about 150 years ago).

And secondly. We've had IP and patent law for a long time.

Its not that there would be trade but it wouldn't be at the volume and we wouldn't see the benefits we see with current trade which has been enormously beneficial to reducing global poverty and enabling vastly increased living standards.

Private arbitration is enshrined in the 5th and 14th Amendments? Citation needed.

See above. Leaving it to the country's courts leaves it in political hands exactly what the arbitration is supposed to avoid.

It's functionally equivalent to the courts in an independent judiciary. I think there are ways to limit what can be arbitrated and it's transparency but it isn't bad in concept at all

 

[Gallbaro]

Disapproving it was a needless action. Pipelines ARE much greener in terms of transportation than trains and cause much less explosions.

Hint: Warren Buffet bough the railroad after Obama was elected.

 

[Piecake]

Disapproving it was a needless action. Pipelines ARE much greener in terms of transportation than trains and cause much less explosions.

Hint: Warren Buffet bough the railroad after Obama was elected.

Or they don't want to risk the Ogallala Aquifer over a pipeline. A pipeline leak is a lot more catastrophic than a train blowing up. Also, the increased costs of not having a pipeline makes business expenses for extracting oil from tar sands less viable, meaning that there might possibly be less oil pumped out of the tar sands without the pipeline (obviously a guess)

 

[NeOak]

Disapproving it was a needless action. Pipelines ARE much greener in terms of transportation than trains and cause much less explosions.

Hint: Warren Buffet bough the railroad after Obama was elected.

You do know that all pipelines eventually leak, right? Like, the maintenance they give to them is only corrective, as in, after there has been a leak.

You would be surprised at how the oil companies are masters of not doing preventive maintenance.

So tell me, can you drink oil? Because the Keystone XL could have permanently fucked the Ogallala Aquifer. And do you think they would have tried to clean it up? LMAO, look at what happens when there are oil spills. They do the absolutely minimum required over the years.

Or what happened in California with the Ventura oil spill: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ventura-county-oil-spill-20160623-snap-story.html

So if the train blows up, the oil burns. Spill? Yeah, that is permanent. It may be greener, but is it safer due to the abysmal track record?

 

[Slime]

The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism is the main reason people should be wary about these trade agreements.

 

[Madness]

No point in even arguing the train versus pipeline angle. It was a question of the US risking great environmental and ecological damage for little and short term monetary gain. Canada is pissed because they lost an easy way to ship their dirty oil from Alberta to Texas where it can be refined and shipped to India and China and Europe for much cheaper than having to train it or build a pipeline through BC or all the way through Ontario etc.

The US was smart here. The future is clean energy and Canada and the US need to wake up to the fact China has invested close to a trillion plus in developing world class industries and technologies while we argue over short term gain. Oil isn't going away sure. But makes no sense for the US to allow this pipeline. The job growth is minimal, the economic cost benefits Canada more and yet they are risking pristine land and aquifers.

 

[Gallbaro]

Or they don't want to risk the Ogallala Aquifer over a pipeline. A pipeline leak is a lot more catastrophic than a train blowing up. Also, the increased costs of not having a pipeline makes business expenses for extracting oil from tar sands less viable, meaning that there might possibly be less oil pumped out of the tar sands without the pipeline (obviously a guess)

Pipelines can be monitored for leaks a lot easier than tens of thousands of train cars. (Fracking does have ground water issues).

Cost difference between the two modes for transport is really marginal compared to the total cost of oil extraction.

And North American fracking has contributed to a reduction in emissions as compared to importing.

Generally speaking the anti-pipeline movement was anti-vaccing in terms of voodoo, only uncle Warren made a fortune off of it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So this is the new TPP future?

Yep. Corporations already have more power than governments of small nations. The goal of trade agreements like TPP is to give them power over even large and powerful ones. Like I dunno the United States for example.

 

[Oppo]

it is absurd. I hope they don't win.

 

[inner-G]

Is that $15B in Canadian dollars?

 

[Piecake]

Pipelines can be monitored for leaks a lot easier than tens of thousands of train cars. (Fracking does have ground water issues).

Cost difference between the two modes for transport is really marginal compared to the total cost of oil extraction.

And North American fracking has contributed to a reduction in emissions as compared to importing.

Generally speaking the anti-pipeline movement was anti-vaccing in terms of voodoo, only uncle Warren made a fortune off of it.

niversity of Nebraska professor Dr. John Stansbury conducted an independent analysis that provides more detail on the potential risks for the Ogallala Aquifer.[78] In his analysis, Dr. Stansbury concludes that safety assessments provided by TransCanada are misleading. According to Dr. Stansbury, "We can expect no fewer than 2 major spills per state during the 50-year projected lifetime of the pipeline. These spills could release as much as 180 thousand barrels of oil each."[79]

Other items of note in Dr. Stansbury's analysis:
"While TransCanada estimates that the Keystone XL will have 11 significant spills (more than 50 barrels of crude oil) over 50 years, a more realistic assessment is 91 significant spills over the pipeline’s operational lifetime. TransCanada arbitrarily and improperly adjusted spill factors to produce an estimate of one major spill on the 1,673 mi (2,692 km) of pipeline about every five years, but federal data on the actual incidence of spills on comparable pipelines indicate a more likely average of almost two major spills per year. (The existing Keystone I pipeline has had one major spill and 11 smaller spills in its first year of operation.)"

"Analysis of the time needed to shut down the pipeline shows that response to a leak at a river crossing could conservatively take more than ten times longer than the 11 minutes and 30 seconds that TransCanada assumes. (After the June 2010 spill of more than 800,000 US gallons (3,000,000 L) of crude oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River, an Enbridge tar sands pipeline – a 30-inch (760 mm) pipe compared to the 36-inch (910 mm) Keystone XL – was not completely shut down for 12 hours.)"

"Realistic calculations yield worst-case spill estimates of more than 180,000 barrels (7,600,000 US gal; 29,000,000 L) in the Nebraska Sandhills above the Ogallala Aquifer, more than 160,000 barrels (6,700,000 US gal; 25,000,000 L) of crude oil at the Yellowstone River crossings, more than 140,000 barrels (5,900,000 US gal; 22,000,000 L) at the Platte River crossing and more than 120,000 barrels (5,000,000 US gal; 19,000,000 L) at the Missouri River crossing."

"Contaminants from a release at the Missouri or Yellowstone River crossing would enter Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota where they would adversely affect drinking water intakes, aquatic wildlife, and recreation. Contaminants from a spill at the Platte River crossing would travel downstream unabated into the Missouri River for several hundred miles affecting drinking water intakes for hundreds of thousands of people (e.g., Lincoln, NE; Omaha, NE; Nebraska City, NE; St. Joseph, MO; Kansas City, MO) as well as aquatic habitats and recreational activities. In addition, other constituents from the spill would pose serious risks to humans and to aquatic species in the river."

"The worst-case site for such a spill is in the Sandhills region of Nebraska. The Sandhills are ancient sand dunes that have been stabilized by grasses. Because of their very permeable geology, nearly 100 percent of the annual rainfall infiltrates to a very shallow aquifer, often less than 20 feet below the surface. This aquifer is the well-known Ogallala Aquifer that is one of the most productive and important aquifers in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Why risk that just so that some company can make money?

 

[trembli0s]

They should win. IIRC the EPAs own studies said the environmental effect wasn't bad. They did multiple studies too due to political pressure.

 

[Gallbaro]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Why risk that just so that some company can make money?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/oil-train-spills_n_4645339.html

Pipelines are safer, greener and more accountable. Killing the pipeline was based solely on voodoo and the huge benefit to a high profile Obama supporting billionaire.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism is the main reason people should be wary about these trade agreements.

ISDS is a big one, but other things like expanded American-style lifetime + 75 years copyright duration and expansion of copyright protection for drug patents should also be huge red flags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Why risk that just so that some company can make money?

Are you questioning the RIGHT of corporations to make money, even when a sovereign nation's government says that the corporation's plans may harm it's people, it's environment, it's economy, it's society, or anything else?? How dare you!

 

[Technosteve]

Throw this suit out of here candian companies are not people,

 

[killer rin]

A sovereign nation should not have to answer to a fucking corporation. This isn't Ace Combat 3.

Of course, and yet when US corporations do it to Canada they win most of the time and if we don't go along with the ruling we are threatened. Funny how that works. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the pipeline itself; just stating how these rulings tend to go

 

[Effect]

No way do they really expect to get anything out of this or even win. The very nature of the oil spills and the danger to the aquifer clearly point to the pipeline not being in the nation's best interest. That's it. It doesn't matter what other issues that were taking place. Pipes leak. They always leak and TransCanada had and has no stake in making sure it doesn't or being willing to do everything possible to clean it up or deal with the very significant and real repercussions that would result not just on the land but the people in the areas affected. It's not land they own or their country. Hell even companies from the US barely do the minimum and no way in hell an out of country company would do even that with something this big. So fuck them.

 

[Piecake]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/oil-train-spills_n_4645339.html

Pipelines are safer, greener and more accountable. Killing the pipeline was based solely on voodoo and the huge benefit to a high profile Obama supporting billionaire.

According to the same PHMSA dataset, compiled and analysed by the International Energy Agency, U.S. pipelines spilled three times as much crude oil as trains over that eight-year period, even though incidents happened much less frequently. And that eight-year period was dominated by large pipeline spill events, including one that saw 800,000 gallons of Canadian tar sands crude spill in and around the Kalamazoo River, and another 63,000 gallon pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River.

there are numerous other factors at play. When a pipeline bursts, it can be harder to contain than a leaking oil tanker — only a certain, contained amount can spill out of a single punctured rail car. A pipeline can just keep spilling until the operator shuts down the flow, and will usually continue to gush until it’s empty. Large oil spills pose major, long-term risks to human health and the environment. Three years after the Kalamazoo spill, for example, cleanup crews were still working to remove oil from the ground, and residents reported experiencing headaches, breathing problems, and nausea — not to mention a negative impact on business.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/18/3624116/how-would-you-like-your-oil-spilled-today-sir/

 

[drawkcaB]

I imagine the basis of the claim is that while the Keystone Pipeline was being evaluated the US built lots of pipelines within its own borders. Because Keystone XL crossed borders however, the US Federal government had the ability to reject it unlike the others that are solely within the US.

I don't particularly care about KXL one way or the other, but this a textbook case of why corporations are allowed to sue foreign governments under these trade agreements. It's a just suit, and I sincerely hope Transcanada wins.

If the Obama administration had the power to stop the construction of all those other oil & gas pipelines and done so, there would be no recourse for Transcanada. But as it is, laws were used to give domestic corporations an advantage over foreign competitors. Now, I don't think the Obama admins' decision was economically malicious. I think they were hard pressed by their base and there's probably lots of people with influence who are sincerely concerned about the environmental impact of KXL. I would assume Obama is (somewhat) silently among them.

But facts are facts and I don't see how it can be argued otherwise: government regulations gave domestic corporations an advantage. Don't be mad at Transcanada for suing. Be mad at a broken system in the US where lobbying and the usual political bullshit makes it hard as hell to push through any environmental regulations.

 

[SURGEdude]

The fact that it has a different set of rules because it crosses borders is by no means inherently benefiting domestic corporations over foreign. The law itself is neither factually anti-foreign nor was it abused to do so. Transcanada is rightfully pissed considering all the work they did and Obama's flakiness. But they won't win this since their case is weak as hell.

 

[Chichikov]

Why shouldn't businesses have a right to challenge a arbitrary decision that costs them money unless you believe governments have basically the ability to violate equal protection and just seize assets whenever?

Not that it's the case in this lawsuit

Nobody would invest anything if they thought the government could just change every rule on a whim.

I mean this is pretty much the concept enshrined in the 5th and 14th amendments. Governments can't seize or restrict arbitrarily private property without compensation

When a country passes a law, it's not an arbitrary decision, it's the people asserting their will through their elected officials.
And yeah, in the US, part of that will of the people was to introduce some constitutional protections, but no one is saying a company cannot challenge the constitutionality of a government action, this is not what we're talking about here.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Why shouldn't businesses have a right to challenge a arbitrary decision that costs them money unless you believe governments have basically the ability to violate equal protection and just seize assets whenever?

Not that it's the case in this lawsuit

Nobody would invest anything if they thought the government could just change every rule on a whim.

I mean this is pretty much the concept enshrined in the 5th and 14th amendments. Governments can't seize or restrict arbitrarily private property without compensation

Companies are free to sue, and governments are free to change and apply laws as they see fit. If it's bad for investments, then the country will feel the impact and decide accordingly.

Funny how people will say we need free market capitalism, but when a country reduces incentives to invest in it suddenly corporations sue the country instead of just letting the free market do its thing.

I imagine the basis of the claim is that while the Keystone Pipeline was being evaluated the US built lots of pipelines within its own borders.

I'm pretty sure you'd need a stronger argument than "it was a pipeline too". They didn't all apply for the same project at the same time.

 

[AntoneM]

I imagine the basis of the claim is that while the Keystone Pipeline was being evaluated the US built lots of pipelines within its own borders. Because Keystone XL crossed borders however, the US Federal government had the ability to reject it unlike the others that are solely within the US.

I don't particularly care about KXL one way or the other, but this a textbook case of why corporations are allowed to sue foreign governments under these trade agreements. It's a just suit, and I sincerely hope Transcanada wins.

If the Obama administration had the power to stop the construction of all those other oil & gas pipelines and done so, there would be no recourse for Transcanada. But as it is, laws were used to give domestic corporations an advantage over foreign competitors. Now, I don't think the Obama admins' decision was economically malicious. I think they were hard pressed by their base and there's probably lots of people with influence who are sincerely concerned about the environmental impact of KXL. I would assume Obama is (somewhat) silently among them.

But facts are facts and I don't see how it can be argued otherwise: government regulations gave domestic corporations an advantage. Don't be mad at Transcanada for suing. Be mad at a broken system in the US where lobbying and the usual political bullshit makes it hard as hell to push through any environmental regulations.

Case by case basis, not all pipelines have the same risks.

 

[Imperfected]

And yet the rest of the world has had to answer to US corporations for decades. The US has actually overthrown governments and have done regime changes all over the world just because certain corporations wanted it.

The US is purely bush league (it's a pun!) when it comes to overthrowing nations to protect corporate interests. We're never going to beat the high score that the United Kingdom set with the Opium Wars.

 

[gatti-man]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/oil-train-spills_n_4645339.html

Pipelines are safer, greener and more accountable. Killing the pipeline was based solely on voodoo and the huge benefit to a high profile Obama supporting billionaire.

Your link doesn't correlate with your post.

 

[Heshinsi]

Fuck, US Corporations have been doing this to Canada since NAFTA was signed. It's almost bizarre seeing the tables turned.

I'm pretty sure we've never successfully sued the US under NAFTA provisions. They've done it to us though.

The US is purely bush league (it's a pun!) when it comes to overthrowing nations to protect corporate interests. We're never going to beat the high score that the United Kingdom set with the Opium Wars.

You guys invaded Grenada of all places. Were you afraid they'd throw fruits at you? lol

 

[darkace]

You do realise that even if the companies don't have a case they can still initiate arbitration and cost a country a fuck ton of money right ? The Australian Plain Cigarette Packaging laws spent 4 years in court and cost the government $US20M for a decision that the cigarette company didn't have standing. That makes it pretty attractive to just try to nuisance and bluster laws you don't like out of existence even if you have no legal case.

PM paid all of our costs back after losing this. It was thrown out.

We're a sovereign country, they can't inundate us with paperwork or requests like they could an individual.