• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TransCanada the underdog in NAFTA gambit over Keystone XL rejection

JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,416
Reaction score
38,991
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
TransCanada the underdog in NAFTA gambit over Keystone XL rejection - The Globe and Mail

Legal observers say that while TransCanada Corp. appears to have a strong case under the North American free-trade agreement to challenge Washington’s rejection of its Keystone XL pipeline, the Calgary-based company has just embarked on a long-haul process in which it remains an underdog.

The United States has never lost a case launched by a Canadian or Mexican company in the 22 years since the dawn of NAFTA, which allows foreign investors from the treaty’s signatories to sue governments for decisions they claim discriminate against them. More than a dozen Canadian companies have tried over the years to challenge the United States under the trade deal.
Click to expand...
And here we go.
Thoughts are?
 
This is the precise reason that NAFTA and like agreements cause headaches, the literal spelled out right for a foreign owned corporation to challenge another nation in court for the purpose of dictating activity in that nation.

All they have to claim is discrimination and financial loss. Before the rejection, TransCanada was already lining up various levels of government here to go after domestic land owners to obtain easement rights at key needed route points. Including several that did not want this on their land. Worse, this Keystone XL project means nothing more than convenience for TransCanada in getting their product onto a boat for export. This expansion and route change means only temp jobs, and absolutely zero impact on our Oil and Oil Products usage.

Welcome to agreements where the tables are tilted further to large business. Several here at DP were talking well of TPP, well... it is NAFTA on steroids.
 
Chomsky said:
Forget them!

Here I thought we were done with then via the political process, and now they do this?

No NAFTA claim has prevailed in U.S. courts in 22 years; let's keep that record perfect!
Click to expand...
The odds, based upon numbers only are in favor of a win.
 
OrphanSlug said:
This is the precise reason that NAFTA and like agreements cause headaches, the literal spelled out right for a foreign owned corporation to challenge another nation in court for the purpose of dictating activity in that nation.

All they have to claim is discrimination and financial loss. Before the rejection, TransCanada was already lining up various levels of government here to go after domestic land owners to obtain easement rights at key needed route points. Including several that did not want this on their land. Worse, this Keystone XL project means nothing more than convenience for TransCanada in getting their product onto a boat for export. This expansion and route change means only temp jobs, and absolutely zero impact on our Oil and Oil Products usage.

Welcome to agreements where the tables are tilted further to large business. Several here at DP were talking well of TPP, well... it is NAFTA on steroids.
Click to expand...

The pipeline was turned down due to political reasons. More oil is still shipped across the border using other lines. And the agreement cuts both ways.
 
The pipeline did discriminate in a sense. It was done to pander to a liberal base that gave outcry and not for any real valid reason. I hope TansCanada sues and wins. The denial was a political ploy by a pundit president and his administration. Who knows, it may have been safer than shipping it down in other ways.
 
digsbe said:
The pipeline did discriminate in a sense. It was done to pander to a liberal base that gave outcry and not for any real valid reason. I hope TansCanada sues and wins. The denial was a political ploy by a pundit president and his administration. Who knows, it may have been safer than shipping it down in other ways.
Click to expand...

Rex Murphy said it best:

 
OrphanSlug said:
This is the precise reason that NAFTA and like agreements cause headaches, the literal spelled out right for a foreign owned corporation to challenge another nation in court for the purpose of dictating activity in that nation.

All they have to claim is discrimination and financial loss. Before the rejection, TransCanada was already lining up various levels of government here to go after domestic land owners to obtain easement rights at key needed route points. Including several that did not want this on their land. Worse, this Keystone XL project means nothing more than convenience for TransCanada in getting their product onto a boat for export. This expansion and route change means only temp jobs, and absolutely zero impact on our Oil and Oil Products usage.

Welcome to agreements where the tables are tilted further to large business. Several here at DP were talking well of TPP, well... it is NAFTA on steroids.
Click to expand...

Good job! You got almost all of the White House talking points/lies.
 
JANFU said:
TransCanada the underdog in NAFTA gambit over Keystone XL rejection - The Globe and Mail


And here we go.
Thoughts are?
Click to expand...



I said last summer that the age of the north/south pipeline is over, there would be no more started in my lifetime. The shift has happened and Canada looks to east west pipelines.

The article is right, foreign companies have not been able to win against the US in the US. Just like the softwood lumber dispute; and even if they do win, the government merely ignores the finding.

What was the Keystone consortium is no more, I understand a group of American investors who had money in Keystone are going after losses, but it won't happen.
 
Keystone was **** for America anyway. Most Canadian crude is transported to American refineries via rail or truck, and that pipeline would have killed permanent jobs in favor of a few thousand temporary construction jobs. I regularly worked at rail facilities in North Dakota and Wyoming that dealt with Canadian oil and the workers at these facilities were getting paid good, middle class wages.
 
digsbe said:
The pipeline did discriminate in a sense. It was done to pander to a liberal base that gave outcry and not for any real valid reason. I hope TansCanada sues and wins. The denial was a political ploy by a pundit president and his administration. Who knows, it may have been safer than shipping it down in other ways.
Click to expand...

Most of the liberal base decried it because of the environment. As a liberal myself, my motivations for being against it came down to the net benefits that America would receive from the pipeline. Few temporary benefits and long term job loss in the rail and trucking industries, which pay decent middle class wages. The only ones who would benefit from Keystone are Canada and oil executives watching their bottom line.
 
akrunner88 said:
Keystone was **** for America anyway. Most Canadian crude is transported to American refineries via rail or truck, and that pipeline would have killed permanent jobs in favor of a few thousand temporary construction jobs. I regularly worked at rail facilities in North Dakota and Wyoming that dealt with Canadian oil and the workers at these facilities were getting paid good, middle class wages.
Click to expand...
Most is shipped by pipeline.
 
JANFU said:
Most is shipped by pipeline.
Click to expand...

Much is shipped by pipeline to intermediary rail facilities or tank farms, which are then shipped truck to rail facilities or further pipelined to rail facilities. I used to test the nasty **** in a lab in Wyoming, I hated working with it because it was thick and messy whereas the shale oil from the Niobrara was clean to work with. I usually obtained it by tanks that the crude was pipelined into. I now work in California with clients who receive Canadian crude via rail.
 
All I'm saying is that the incentive for the pipeline for Canada and oil companies is to further cut out the middle man AKA American jobs. Besides the few thousand temporary jobs we would have created, America would not benefit economically from the pipeline. I would argue that if Canada and American oil companies want the oil, they should pay the American people to get it. I honestly could care less about the "impact" on the environment as global warming isn't a concern to me. Which I know is counter-intuitive to my label as a progressive.
 
Is it wrong to be a benefit to neighbors? Undoubtedly this would benefit Canada far more than the US. But is loosing a few jobs in order to maximize the use of economic resources and helping a neighbor bad? Do we really want more trains and trucks clogging roads and railways transporting oil when a more efficient alternative is available?

I think the denial had nothing to do with current railway or trucking jobs and more to do with pleasing a liberal environmentalist base that opposed it because "big oil."
 
JANFU said:
Odds - The longer you have a winning run, the odds increase in favor of a loss.
Click to expand...

That's not actually true. For example, even if you flip a billion straight heads by tossing a coin, the odds for heads on the next flip are still exactly 50/50, assuming the coin is honest.

In fact, with 22 straight wins, it's probably an indication the odds are heavily stacked somehow in favor of the U.S. government so the odds are probably higher for another government win.
 
JasperL said:
That's not actually true. For example, even if you flip a billion straight heads by tossing a coin, the odds for heads on the next flip are still exactly 50/50, assuming the coin is honest.

In fact, with 22 straight wins, it's probably an indication the odds are heavily stacked somehow in favor of the U.S. government so the odds are probably higher for another government win.
Click to expand...
Disagree- The odds are 50-50 on a coin flip- fine- what are the odds of continually having it turn up heads when on a streak, surely not 50-50
 
JANFU said:
Disagree- The odds are 50-50 on a coin flip- fine- what are the odds of continually having it turn up heads when on a streak, surely not 50-50
Click to expand...

That's right and they are two different questions.

You said the government is somehow due a loss after 22 straight wins because of the odds. But the next case like the next flip IS independent of previous cases. There is no mechanism for previous cases (win or loss) to influence the outcome of the current case, like with coin flips (assuming that the 'true' odds are 50-50). So the odds of having a billion straight heads show up in a row approaches zero. But the odds on the NEXT flip, billion plus one, is still, always, 50-50 (assuming a fair coin, no trickery, etc.). It's just the way it is. It's not intuitive, but it's just the way it is.

Here's a mathematician's explanation (I assume). See the second one: bayesian - Explain intuition regarding probability of "next flip" when tossing a fair coin - Cross Validated
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom