Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pa28

(6,145 posts)
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:03 PM Jan 2016

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

Last edited Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:21 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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trans Canada to file $15 Billion NAFTA claim against US for Keystone XL rejection. (Original Post) pa28 Jan 2016 OP
A perfect example. (nt) enough Jan 2016 #1
And they'll be laughed out of court. floriduck Jan 2016 #3
That is why they have Investor Dispute Resolution pannels. Judged by Corporate lawyers Vincardog Jan 2016 #8
What a delightful notion. (nt) enough Jan 2016 #41
Even if this fails, these cases end up inhibiting the government from cali Jan 2016 #2
Thanks Bill! fleur-de-lisa Jan 2016 #4
Given the State Departments report SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #5
Looks that way. Or at least enough to force a settlement. pa28 Jan 2016 #12
Thank HRC's staff for that -- they put out the study with the guideline that the actual carbon of karynnj Jan 2016 #13
I could be wrong SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #15
True -- however, if you considered that MORE of the tar sands oil would be extracted karynnj Jan 2016 #16
But the report that he said he would rely on SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #17
Because the report was rigged from the beginning by that assumption that no one who ever karynnj Jan 2016 #22
In other words SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #23
I assume that Obama might have approved it had the Secretary of Stare recommended karynnj Jan 2016 #24
Another example of the "pretend Culture" in the Conservative reality. glinda Jan 2016 #6
I had high hopes for Justin Trudeau DonCoquixote Jan 2016 #7
Harper was threatening this particular result if Keystone was rejected. pa28 Jan 2016 #10
and if he does remain silent DonCoquixote Jan 2016 #11
Trudeau was/is for the pipeline. Joe Shlabotnik Jan 2016 #20
Trudeau wants the pipeline Recursion Jan 2016 #38
Good luck with that TransCanada. Unless the US treated you differently because of your nationality pampango Jan 2016 #9
1) This is happening with or without the TPP passing; 2) "arbitrary and unjustified" geek tragedy Jan 2016 #14
That case is from a UN body not the NAFTA treaty former9thward Jan 2016 #18
Your first point is true, however the idea behind my OP was TPP will open the door wider. pa28 Jan 2016 #19
That isn't enough for them to prevail. Not nearly enough. geek tragedy Jan 2016 #27
worth a shot i guess, for 2.9 billion! Takket Jan 2016 #21
They'll win and shove the keystone pipeline right up our asses. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2016 #29
Exactly. They ram TPP and NAFTA through, and thereafter pretend they are victims of it. It's all GoneFishin Jan 2016 #37
ISDS can't force policy changes, just fines (nt) Recursion Jan 2016 #39
They're seeking $15 billion, not $2.9 billion n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #30
HUGE K & R !!! - More On NAFTA's Chapter 11 From Bill Moyers: WillyT Jan 2016 #25
Thank you very much for the Moyers link. pa28 Jan 2016 #33
You Are Quite Welcome !!! WillyT Jan 2016 #35
So this was their play. blackspade Jan 2016 #26
Yes they did, so you would think so... Luciferous Jan 2016 #36
NAFTA, GATT, WIPO, WTO, TPP. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2016 #28
They wouldn't even build this pipeline at today's oil prices anyway. Cassiopeia Jan 2016 #31
You've gotten to the real truth of the matter there. pa28 Jan 2016 #32
My opinion was always that rejecting Keystone XL was just play acting because a complaint would GoneFishin Jan 2016 #34
The TPP included tax legislation now? Recursion Jan 2016 #40
Yeah. Funny. GoneFishin Jan 2016 #42

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
8. That is why they have Investor Dispute Resolution pannels. Judged by Corporate lawyers
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:45 PM
Jan 2016

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

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
2. Even if this fails, these cases end up inhibiting the government from
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:07 PM
Jan 2016

passing legislation protecting the environment and cobsumers

fleur-de-lisa

(14,624 posts)
4. Thanks Bill!
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:08 PM
Jan 2016

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

pa28

(6,145 posts)
12. Looks that way. Or at least enough to force a settlement.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:45 PM
Jan 2016

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

karynnj

(59,498 posts)
13. Thank HRC's staff for that -- they put out the study with the guideline that the actual carbon of
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:50 PM
Jan 2016

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.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
15. I could be wrong
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:07 PM
Jan 2016

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

karynnj

(59,498 posts)
16. True -- however, if you considered that MORE of the tar sands oil would be extracted
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:22 PM
Jan 2016

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

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
17. But the report that he said he would rely on
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:32 PM
Jan 2016

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.

karynnj

(59,498 posts)
22. Because the report was rigged from the beginning by that assumption that no one who ever
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:44 PM
Jan 2016

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.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
23. In other words
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:48 PM
Jan 2016

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

karynnj

(59,498 posts)
24. I assume that Obama might have approved it had the Secretary of Stare recommended
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:54 PM
Jan 2016

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.





DonCoquixote

(13,616 posts)
7. I had high hopes for Justin Trudeau
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 06:41 PM
Jan 2016

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.

pa28

(6,145 posts)
10. Harper was threatening this particular result if Keystone was rejected.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:19 PM
Jan 2016

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

DonCoquixote

(13,616 posts)
11. and if he does remain silent
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:36 PM
Jan 2016

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.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
9. Good luck with that TransCanada. Unless the US treated you differently because of your nationality
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:06 PM
Jan 2016

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.
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
14. 1) This is happening with or without the TPP passing; 2) "arbitrary and unjustified"
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 07:50 PM
Jan 2016

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.


former9thward

(31,930 posts)
18. That case is from a UN body not the NAFTA treaty
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:33 PM
Jan 2016

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.

pa28

(6,145 posts)
19. Your first point is true, however the idea behind my OP was TPP will open the door wider.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 08:34 PM
Jan 2016

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.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
27. That isn't enough for them to prevail. Not nearly enough.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:05 PM
Jan 2016

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.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
29. They'll win and shove the keystone pipeline right up our asses.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:10 PM
Jan 2016

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.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
37. Exactly. They ram TPP and NAFTA through, and thereafter pretend they are victims of it. It's all
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 10:11 PM
Jan 2016

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

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
28. NAFTA, GATT, WIPO, WTO, TPP.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:09 PM
Jan 2016

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.

Cassiopeia

(2,603 posts)
31. They wouldn't even build this pipeline at today's oil prices anyway.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:35 PM
Jan 2016

Corporate greed pure and simple.

pa28

(6,145 posts)
32. You've gotten to the real truth of the matter there.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:42 PM
Jan 2016

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

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
34. My opinion was always that rejecting Keystone XL was just play acting because a complaint would
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:48 PM
Jan 2016

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trans Canada to file $15 ...