Pipeline for Canadian Tar Sands (Keystone XL) -- Could TPP reverse Obama's decision?

[no_hypocrisy]

If Congress passes and Obama signs TPP as is, then wouldn't it be possible for the Canadian company wanting to build the pipeline through the Midwest petition a court made up of nothing but corporate lawyers because the company invested a certain sum in anticipation of the Pipeline being approved? And if the panel finds for the Canadian company, would this country have to compensate it for monies spent and lost investment?

TPP aside, would NAFTA reverse Obama's decision?

[Hoyt]

1. Nope. Even if the company tried to use ISDS and somehow "won" damages, wouldn't change ruling.

They won't win damages either, from the 3 person panel -- one selected by company, one by USA, and one by mutual agreement of both parties.

[GoneFishin]

2. Yes. They have had years to make sure the language they needed was inserted into TPP. There is no

way that they overlooked TPP as an avenue to get what they want. They have platoons of weaselly lawyers working on it. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake.

They could claim damages for their already committed investment. And they would likely argue that requiring them to obtain a permit to run a pipeline across the Candian-US border imposes an unfair burden on them which a U.S. company would not have, and is unfair trade.

[Recursion]

4. No, the courts just allow for monetary damages. And for that matter it's the same as under NAFTA

Conceivably under NAFTA and WTO rules, TransCanada could sue the US government for damages if they thought they could prove the government asked them in bad faith to do work on the pipeline. The TPP doesn't change our arbitration rules with Canada except for mandating that our Labor secretaries/ministers review each others labor laws.

[GoneFishin]

6. There's no day in "court" under ISDS, just a coven of corporate attorneys. Guess who they work for?

And there is no requirement to prove bad faith, just lost profits.

[Recursion]

9. Yeah, that's not true, but I realize a lot of blogs are saying that

The arbitration courts are staffed by three judges, one chosen by the country, one by the company, and one by mutual agreement.

If you're genuinely curious about the arbitration process, look into the WTO and how it works.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm

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

[Recursion]

3. No, that's not how those works. Conceivably TransCanada could sue for damages if they could prove

that the US government asked them to do surveys in bad faith.

It's like the Metalclad case against Mexico: they can't use the court to force them to allow the dump, but they can get back the money they spent building stuff that Mexico told them to knowing all along they were going to reverse their decision on the dump.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Correct me if I'm wrong...

I thought one of the main points of TPP was not preventing a company based in a signatory country from making a buck INSIDE your borders.

[GoneFishin]

7. You are correct. Regulations impeding theoretical profits can be challenged.

[joshcryer]

8. America has built the equivalent of 10 Keystone pipelines since 2010 — and nobody said anything

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/america-has-built-the-equivalent-of-10-keystone-pipelines-since-2010-and-no-one-said-anything

[delrem]

10. Party politics aside, when it's that much money, that large a part of the economy,

anything that isn't there to grease the wheels is likely smoke and mirrors.

First a disclaimer, I know Palin's a troll, OK? But remember how Sarah Palin was ridiculed for "drill, baby, drill!"?
Considering events post-2007, it's clear that she was just saying it as it is in any case, regardless of what this or that politician says in a campaign.
That was before fracking became the solution to a hell of a lot of problems for the US. And that didn't happen under Sarah's rule.

At the current price of oil and gas the Canadian tar sands are hardly economically feasible.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/20/most-canada-oil-sands-crude-being-produced-at-a-loss-report
"CALGARY - More than three-quarters of Canada's daily output of 2.2 million barrels of crude from oil sands is being produced at a loss at current prices, research from analysts at TD Securities shows, although producers are unlikely to halt operations."

At present, the pipeline isn't immediately necessary for anything to do with making fat profits. The industry probably doesn't mind, at all, putting the project on hold while more profitable and less politically sensitive or well known endeavors are pursued.

By the way, when I just looked it up it seems that "tar sands" is a controversial term and some prefer "oil sands". But that's just image. What is it? "Oil sands are a mixture of sand, water, clay and bitumen", and way back in the long ago when I was a kid I learned that "bituminous coal" the dirtiest and lowest grade of all the coals, far and away inferior to anthracite. So what we have in the Alberta "oil sands" is a sludge of clay, sand, mud and bitumen, which has to be combined with water and a whole shitload ofheavy duty chemicals to turn it into a flowable soup before it can be passed thousands of miles down a pipeline - and all of this has to be processed at the end of the line before it can be sold as some kind of oil product. These products are necessary - oil, gas, plastics, and more - but really, putting Keystone on hold was a no-brainer.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Fucking Obama haters don't shut they fucking mouths even when they're proved dead wrong

My Gawd.

Endless bullshit from this crew.