TransCanada Demands $15B in Damages in NAFTA Arbitration over Keystone XL Rejection

[portlander23]

TransCanada Corp moves forward with Keystone XL NAFTA challenge
Claudia Cattaneo
Financial Post

TransCanada Corp. made good late Friday on its threat to challenge President Barack Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, filing a request for arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to recoup US$15 billion in damages from the U.S. government.

A three-member panel will determine whether TransCanada was treated unfairly when Obama rejected the project last Nov. 6 after seven years of review. TransCanada spokesman Mark Cooper said no date has been set for the proceedings, but his company is prepared for a lengthy process.

In the 42-page document, TransCanada claims the U.S. government “ultimately denied Keystone’s application, not because of any concerns over the merits of the pipeline, but because President Obama wanted to prove his administration’s environmental credentials to a vocal activist constituency that asserted that the pipeline would lead to increased production and consumption of crude oil and, therefore, significantly increased greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions.”

“Those excuses were arbitrary and contrived,” TransCanada said in the document. “In fact, none of that technical analysis or legal wrangling was material to the Administration’s final decision. Instead, the rejection was symbolic, and based merely on the desire to make the U.S. appear strong on climate change.”

Who still thinks Mr. Sanders is wrong on NAFTA and TPP? Time for the party to wake up. Taking a stand against neoliberal trade agreements is both good policy and good politics.

[geek tragedy]

1. They can demand it, just like they can demand chocolate ice cream

for breakfast.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. You don't think trade agreements are legally binding?

One of us is mistaken.

[geek tragedy]

8. Yes, that doesn't mean their claim is valid.

There is a big difference between making a claim and winning a lawsuit/arbitration.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. I am no expert but it seems to have merit.

Of course I could be wrong.


Time will tell.

[geek tragedy]

11. Good lawyers can make nonsense seem sensible.

The tribunal will reject it-NAFTA doesn't invalidate borders or national sovereignty. If the intent isn't to discriminate on the basis of nationality, there is no recourse.

[synergie]

16. There seems to be little merit in this case.

[Moliere]

2. Sadly they can demand this due to NAFTA bylaws

And it will get even worse with TPP ISDS

[Lord Magus]

17. They can demand whatever they please. They won't get it.

This is frivolous nonsense.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. .

[Arizona Roadrunner]

4. TPP ISDS and the Democrats

As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

By not voting against the TPP outright, the Democrats have given Trump a great opportunity to tie the Democrats to the "establishment" and "corporate America". He can also use this position to raise questions about the Democrats "really caring about you and your job". This is a loser position for the Democrats for the "down ticket" candidates too. By the way, the US Chamber of Commerce is not worried about Clinton being "currently" against TPP. They figure after she gets into office, she will find a way for her to be "currently" in favor of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html

[drray23]

6. nothing new

For decades countries have been able to bring grievances to arbitration. This does not mean its granted. As a matter of fact we never have lost a single case at the wto or others. What we have to do is negociate good trade agreements, not withdraw from them. The UK is going to find out the hard way when they leave the EU. They wont benefit from preferential trade tariffs and will be at a big disavantage versus the rest of europe. We would have a similar situation in the asia pacific if we do not take part to the tpp. Is it perfect ? Probably not. After all its a compromise with 12 other countries. I have read it online. It has a lot of good provisions to regulate and protect labor (in an attempt to curb past abuses ) for example. I am not sure what a good alternative would be if we do not sign it (after maybe tweaking some aspects of it )

[cosmicone]

7. They are entitled to out-of-pocket expenditures already spent

which are about $2.8 billion.

They are not entitled to lost future profits which are about $12.2 billion and they will not win those.

It will probably be settled for $1.4 billion which is cheaper than the cost of repairing environmental damage caused by the pipeline -- or -- they will come back with a new proposal, strengthening the pipeline and more monitoring etc. which makes it safer.

NAFTA is not to blame -- they could have sued in a US court even without NAFTA.

[Sunlei]

9. How much was TransCanada going to pay America to use our country to transport *Their* tarsands?

http://www.transcanada.com/asset-map.html

[TheBlackAdder]

14. Doesn't Koch own a substantial portion of that, and dozens of congress critters/politicos invested?

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Lets make more treaties which enable foreign corporations to sue us for protecting our environment!

As a sensible centrist I wholeheartedly support ceding sovereignty to global corporations. The Invisible Hand guides these noble institutions to make the most efficient choices, unlike representative democratic institutions that make decisions based on all sorts of values other than "maximizing shareholder value". You probably own a share of something, so this is good for you too!

[TheBlackAdder]

13. Where is the current list of politicos who are invested in TPP, from both parties?

.


I know there was a list a year or so ago, but I can't seem to locate it.


Dozens of congress critters were positioned to make a killing on the project.


.

[jalan48]

15. Corporate Democracy?

"A three-member panel will determine whether TransCanada was treated unfairly when Obama rejected the project last Nov. 6 after seven years of review. TransCanada spokesman Mark Cooper said no date has been set for the proceedings, but his company is prepared for a lengthy process."