HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Trans Canada to file $15 ...

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 05:03 PM

Trans Canada to file $15 Billion NAFTA claim against US for Keystone XL rejection.

Last edited Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:21 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.transcanada.com/news-releases-article.html?id=2014960&t=

CALGARY, ALBERTA--(Marketwired - Jan. 6, 2016) - TransCanada Corporation (TSX:TRP) (NYSE:TRP) (TransCanada) announced today it has filed a Notice of Intent to initiate a claim under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in response to the U.S. Administration's decision to deny a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline on the basis that the denial was arbitrary and unjustified.


This is how agreements like NAFTA and TPP can force Americans to pay foreign corporations for our own environmental laws and policies. Remember, TPP is just days away from it's vote under the fast track law and NOBODY in the media is talking about it.

UPDATE: Sorry misread the original press release. It's a $15 Billion claim. Not 2.9 billion.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/transcanada-files-lawsuit-over-keystone-pipeline-rejection/article28038526/

42 replies, 4985 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trans Canada to file $15 Billion NAFTA claim against US for Keystone XL rejection. (Original post)
pa28 Jan 2016 OP
enough Jan 2016 #1
floriduck Jan 2016 #3
Vincardog Jan 2016 #8
enough Jan 2016 #41
cali Jan 2016 #2
fleur-de-lisa Jan 2016 #4
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #5
pa28 Jan 2016 #12
karynnj Jan 2016 #13
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #15
karynnj Jan 2016 #16
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #17
karynnj Jan 2016 #22
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #23
karynnj Jan 2016 #24
glinda Jan 2016 #6
DonCoquixote Jan 2016 #7
pa28 Jan 2016 #10
DonCoquixote Jan 2016 #11
Joe Shlabotnik Jan 2016 #20
Recursion Jan 2016 #38
pampango Jan 2016 #9
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #14
former9thward Jan 2016 #18
pa28 Jan 2016 #19
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #27
Takket Jan 2016 #21
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2016 #29
GoneFishin Jan 2016 #37
Recursion Jan 2016 #39
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #30
WillyT Jan 2016 #25
pa28 Jan 2016 #33
WillyT Jan 2016 #35
blackspade Jan 2016 #26
Luciferous Jan 2016 #36
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2016 #28
Cassiopeia Jan 2016 #31
pa28 Jan 2016 #32
GoneFishin Jan 2016 #34
Recursion Jan 2016 #40
GoneFishin Jan 2016 #42

Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 05:05 PM

1. A perfect example. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enough (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 05:08 PM

3. And they'll be laughed out of court.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 05:45 PM

8. That is why they have Investor Dispute Resolution pannels. Judged by Corporate lawyers

When they are not arguing in front of the IDRP that is. It is a corrupt corporate fantasy realized in these "trade agreements".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 10:35 PM

41. What a delightful notion. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 05:07 PM

2. Even if this fails, these cases end up inhibiting the government from

 

passing legislation protecting the environment and cobsumers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 05:08 PM

4. Thanks Bill!

. . . has filed a Notice of Intent to initiate a claim under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 05:09 PM

5. Given the State Departments report

Trans-Canada might well have a winnable case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:45 PM

12. Looks that way. Or at least enough to force a settlement.

With a settlement the US government can continue to say there have been no adverse ISDR rulings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:50 PM

13. Thank HRC's staff for that -- they put out the study with the guideline that the actual carbon of

using the oil could not be considered. The statement rejecting it - explicitly rejected that explaining that at current prices, it did make the difference.

Where they unfortunately might have a chance is because in 2011 - 2012, they were allowed to build the southern end and there were statements - including HRC's that it was likely to be approved. I wonder what if anything was said to TransCanada when they were permitted to do that Southern part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:07 PM

15. I could be wrong

But I believe that President Obama also stated at one point that if it didn't significantly increase emissions, he would approve it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:22 PM

16. True -- however, if you considered that MORE of the tar sands oil would be extracted

if the cost of getting it to the place where it would be processed was lower - it would fail his test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:32 PM

17. But the report that he said he would rely on

didn't come to the conclusion that emissions would be significantly increased.

If he wasn't going to abide by the report, he should have just said so from the beginning and denied it immediately.

Personally, I'm neutral - build it, don't build it, I couldn't care less. I just think if he knew he was going to deny it, which looks to be the case, he should have just done it right away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:44 PM

22. Because the report was rigged from the beginning by that assumption that no one who ever

took a microeconomics course would ever agree to.

Note this study was put out when HRC was SoS and it was concluded in her final months -- but she argued that the review should be done by her successor. Clearly, HRC did not want it under her signature. John Kerry had a long history as an environmentalist and had voted against Keystone. He initiated a VERY long process to get comments on the report and had it reviewed by all relevant departments.

His conclusion last year was to reject it. (This was after Trudeau was elected and after the company asked the US to suspend action -- likely because they saw the writing on the wall. ) Part of the reason given was that they could not lead on climate change if they approved it. This was a big deal as Kerry played a very significant role in the historical Paris agreement ... and had more quietly played a big role in the 2007 Bali agreement where (in Congressional committees) he was thanked by the Bush administration.

However, the rejection also leaned on the rejection of Keystone by all the other departments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:48 PM

23. In other words

President Obama was never going to approve it under any circumstances. So why not just say that instead of dragging it out for years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:54 PM

24. I assume that Obama might have approved it had the Secretary of Stare recommended

that and stood behind the study - maybe in 2013 or 2014. Consider that before 2012, he agreed that the Southern part could go ahead. This was before Nebraska objected and the top part was rerouted because the original path was really really bad.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 05:09 PM

6. Another example of the "pretend Culture" in the Conservative reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 05:41 PM

7. I had high hopes for Justin Trudeau

If he does not speak out against it, we will know he is of the talk liberal, but keep the monsters in the pit very well fed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:19 PM

10. Harper was threatening this particular result if Keystone was rejected.

Not surprising, that was Harper. Trudeau could at least speak out against Trans-Canada but remaining silent would burnish his neoliberal credentials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:36 PM

11. and if he does remain silent

I sincerely hope the Bolc Quebecois, the First nations and a whole bunch of real leftists show him that, unlike American which settles for a certain former junior senator from New York, they can be real leftists.

Or, if they do not, than they better realize that they will become more and more like us every damned day. It would be like someone whose mom and dad died of Lung Cancer taking up chain smoking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:37 PM

20. Trudeau was/is for the pipeline.

Which was one of many reasons I voted NDP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:48 PM

38. Trudeau wants the pipeline

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/canada-keystone-pipeline-trudeau-obama-1.3307458

His argument is that the XL path is shorter than the current keystone pipeline and so is a lower risk overall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:06 PM

9. Good luck with that TransCanada. Unless the US treated you differently because of your nationality

you've got no leg to stand on.

... each NAFTA Party must accord investors from the other NAFTA Parties national (i.e. non-discriminatory) treatment and may not expropriate investments of those investors except in accordance with international law.

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3439.htm

TransCanada says it has also filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Court in Texas asserting that President Barack Obama's decision to deny construction of Keystone XL exceeded his power under the U.S. Constitution.

"The denial reflected an unprecedented exercise of presidential power and intruded on Congress's power under the Constitution to regulate interstate and international commerce," TransCanada said.

See the lawsuit documents that TransCanada filed here

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/transcanada-lawsuit-keystone-xl-pipeline-1.3392446

It is noteworthy that TransCanada chose to file a separate federal lawsuit in US Federal Court in Texas. Texas, huh? Looks like their lawyers are going to be quite busy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:50 PM

14. 1) This is happening with or without the TPP passing; 2) "arbitrary and unjustified"

 

isn't going to cut it.

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c5818.htm

a non-discriminatory regulation for a public purpose, which is enacted in accordance with due process and, which affects, inter alios, a foreign investor or instrument is not deemed expropriatory and compensable.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:33 PM

18. That case is from a UN body not the NAFTA treaty

between the U.S. and Canada. Also the case involved a regulation passed by CA. This matter is a decision made by the Executive Branch. Apples and oranges on both counts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:34 PM

19. Your first point is true, however the idea behind my OP was TPP will open the door wider.

Second point regarding Trans-Canada's claim the decision to block Keystone XL was "arbitrary and unjustified".

When Trans-Canada brings this before a NAFTA tribunal they'll cite the State Department's own report as evidence.

The report was favorable and here is what Trans-Canada said at the time.

“We’re very pleased with the release and about being able to move to this next stage of the process,” said Russ Girling, chief executive of TransCanada. “The case for the Keystone XL, in our view, is as strong as ever.”

Contradictions like that make a case and Trans-Canada's multi-billion dollar claim will be decided and enforced by appointed figures in the WTO. I'm guessing the US will end up settling out of court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:05 PM

27. That isn't enough for them to prevail. Not nearly enough.

 

There was no discriminatory, or corrupt, intent. The Obama decision was made transparently, for legitmate public policy reasons.

That means no recovery for TransCanada.

Their argument rests on the proposition that the US could not legally control its own border. It's a losing argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:37 PM

21. worth a shot i guess, for 2.9 billion!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:10 PM

29. They'll win and shove the keystone pipeline right up our asses.

 

And the elected government will say "Oh well. The law is the law" forgetting that they were hired to write it, not surrender passively to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:11 PM

37. Exactly. They ram TPP and NAFTA through, and thereafter pretend they are victims of it. It's all

play acting to give themselves plausible deniability while they give away taxpayer money to their corporate robber baron friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:49 PM

39. ISDS can't force policy changes, just fines (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:13 PM

30. They're seeking $15 billion, not $2.9 billion n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:01 PM

25. HUGE K & R !!! - More On NAFTA's Chapter 11 From Bill Moyers:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:47 PM

33. Thank you very much for the Moyers link.

I'm a fan and somehow I'd missed this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:53 PM

35. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

 




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:03 PM

26. So this was their play.

Didn't they withdraw it?
If so, doesn't that void their claim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:02 PM

36. Yes they did, so you would think so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:09 PM

28. NAFTA, GATT, WIPO, WTO, TPP.

 

All are designed and intended to screw over workers and destroy self governance.

None of the assholes who promoted or supported this bullshit should ever be elected to anything, ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:35 PM

31. They wouldn't even build this pipeline at today's oil prices anyway.

Corporate greed pure and simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cassiopeia (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:42 PM

32. You've gotten to the real truth of the matter there.

If oil was priced at $100 today we'd be discussing the administration's decision approve the project. Not it's rejection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Original post)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:48 PM

34. My opinion was always that rejecting Keystone XL was just play acting because a complaint would

be filed under TPP and it would be rammed through anyway. And given that the people at the TPP negotiating table are some of the same people filing the complaint over Keystone XL, I am sure that TPP contains strong provisions favoring Keystone XL.

Sure, it won't specifically mention Keystone XL. But it will be like one of those tax loopholes that is worded to appear broad and general, but upon close examination it only applies to one company, which also happens to be a big donor to the politician who inserted the provision.

I called this one a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneFishin (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:50 PM

40. The TPP included tax legislation now?

Sigh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 7, 2016, 06:01 AM

42. Yeah. Funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread