Should the US government be on the hook for $15 billion?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Sanders Takes Reins as Democrats Advance Biden Economic Agenda

By 

Laura Litvan

 

President Joe Biden’s plans for the biggest expansion in social spending in decades is in the hands of the Senate’s only professed democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders, who must unite both fellow progressives and moderate Democrats in the face of a tricky path through a sharply divided Congress.

 

I stand corrected Turbguy, Socialism is about to end quite abruptly, the dream's of the old hippies no longer hiden in the shadow's...all that is "left"is about to flame out in obscurity...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/sanders-takes-reins-as-democrats-advance-biden-economic-agenda

 

Let's hope so, at least. 

[nsdp + 449]

On 7/8/2021 at 9:45 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

https://2012-keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/nid/249275.htm#:~:text=The construction of the TransCanada XL Pipeline does not cross,in Tripp County%2C South Dakota.

The construction of the TransCanada XL Pipeline does not cross any tribal or allotted trust lands, but the proposed route lies adjacent to tracts of tribally owned trust and allotted trust parcels of land in Tripp County, South Dakota. Rights-of-way, including the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline, are defined by federal statute as "Indian Country." 18U.S.C. § 1151 (a). The construction of the Pipeline, and a possible spill or release of tar sands sludge from the Pipeline, poses a direct threat to two of the most important assets of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, its lands and its water resources.

This is why most posts here are stupid.  US vs. Cooley says the State of South Dakota's opinion DOES NOT MATTER when the Supreme Court determines that Tribal Police Powers extend and include treaty lands  outside the boundaries of the reservation s defined in 18 USC1151. The definition of tribal lands under 18 USC 1151 violates the Treaties between the US and Sioux tribes of 1868.   I suggest YOU READ the treaty to see what rights the  Sioux actually gave the US.  The tribal police still have the right to arrest you should you appear on their treaty lands.

I wish all of the opposing lawyers I faced had been as incompetent as as you are. You should read the treaty and show me where the United states received the the right to grant a pipeline easement.  Rights taken at the point of a gun and not granted by treaty no longer have legal validity. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/sioux-treaty 

With Justice Gorsuch's opinion the State of South Dakota no longer has the legal authority to issue a permit to construct the line.

[nsdp + 449]

Eyes , you should open your eyes and read what you cite.

"The Court of Claims' legal analysis and factual findings fully support its conclusion that the 1877 Act did not effect a "mere change in the form of investment of Indian tribal property," but, rather, effected a taking of tribal property which had been set aside by the Fort Laramie Treaty for the Sioux' exclusive occupation, which taking implied an obligation on the Government's part to make just compensation to the Sioux. That obligation, including an award of interest, must now be paid."https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/371/ T This case only addresses past damages identified in the statute and does not include prospective damages for future takings of property.   No coverage at all for Keystone or Dakota Access pipeline. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

This is why most posts here are stupid.  US vs. Cooley says the State of South Dakota's opinion DOES NOT MATTER when the Supreme Court determines that Tribal Police Powers extend and include treaty lands  outside the boundaries of the reservation s defined in 18 USC1151. The definition of tribal lands under 18 USC 1151 violates the Treaties between the US and Sioux tribes of 1868.   I suggest YOU READ the treaty to see what rights the  Sioux actually gave the US.  The tribal police still have the right to arrest you should you appear on their treaty lands.

I wish all of the opposing lawyers I faced had been as incompetent as as you are. You should read the treaty and show me where the United states received the the right to grant a pipeline easement.  Rights taken at the point of a gun and not granted by treaty no longer have legal validity. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/sioux-treaty 

With Justice Gorsuch's opinion the State of South Dakota no longer has the legal authority to issue a permit to construct the line.

Smiling would be so kind as to post a map of these tribal/treaty lands? It must at hand since you handed down your summary judgment. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

9 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Hubberts assumed that only oil could fuel ICE vehicles. He did not alow for natural gas or ethanol etc. so his whole proposition was faulty in concept and far less meaningful than his assumption. It makes me wonder what his motivation was. 

Hubbert was a geologist presenting a mathematical theory that he thought would predict the recoverable oil available from a group of geologic provinces.  He didn’t care at all about the economic or other implications of his work.  He didn’t make any assumptions about the end uses of oil at all.  In fact one of his assumptions was that the price and demand for oil never changed and was an irrelevant factor.  
 

Other people who didn’t understand how limited his model was ignored his explicit and implicit assumptions and filled the blanks in their own minds with their own assumptions, many of which were very different.  It’s really a classic example of the press and general public totally missing the point of an obscure, limited and esoteric scientific paper. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

16 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Hubberts assumed that only oil could fuel ICE vehicles. He did not alow for natural gas or ethanol etc. so his whole proposition was faulty in concept and far less meaningful than his assumption. It makes me wonder what his motivation was. 

He only dealt with supply, not demand. Supply was based on conventional resources, his weakness was not understanding unconventional oil, nor man's ingenuity. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

6 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Hubbert was a geologist presenting a mathematical theory that he thought would predict the recoverable oil available from a group of geologic provinces.  He didn’t care at all about the economic or other implications of his work.  He didn’t make any assumptions about the end uses of oil at all.  In fact one of his assumptions was that the price and demand for oil never changed and was an irrelevant factor.  
 

Other people who didn’t understand how limited his model was ignored his explicit and implicit assumptions and filled the blanks in their own minds with their own assumptions, many of which were very different.  It’s really a classic example of the press and general public totally missing the point of an obscure, limited and esoteric scientific paper. 

I was eventually banned from oildrum dot com because I kept making them see reality. They were totally invested in Hubbert's Peak an and built everything from that. They finally folded their tent when the US was clearly headed towards number one producer. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

14 hours ago, nsdp said:

Eyes , you should open your eyes and read what you cite.

"The Court of Claims' legal analysis and factual findings fully support its conclusion that the 1877 Act did not effect a "mere change in the form of investment of Indian tribal property," but, rather, effected a taking of tribal property which had been set aside by the Fort Laramie Treaty for the Sioux' exclusive occupation, which taking implied an obligation on the Government's part to make just compensation to the Sioux. That obligation, including an award of interest, must now be paid."https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/371/ T This case only addresses past damages identified in the statute and does not include prospective damages for future takings of property.   No coverage at all for Keystone or Dakota Access pipeline. 

Ohh i have did you take the time to have a read and think this thru??

https://2012-keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/nid/249275.htm

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe has regulatory jurisdiction to regulate land use and potential harmful discharges into Reservation waters on tribally-owned trust lands and allotted trust lands owned by enrolled members of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe within Todd, Tripp, Mellette, Gregory, and Lyman Counties of South Dakota. The construction of the TransCanada XL Pipeline does not cross any tribal or allotted trust lands, but the proposed route lies adjacent to tracts of tribally owned trust and allotted trust parcels of land in Tripp County, South Dakota. Rights-of-way, including the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline, are defined by federal statute as "Indian Country." 18U.S.C. § 1151 (a). The construction of the Pipeline, and a possible spill or release of tar sands sludge from the Pipeline, poses a direct threat to two of the most important assets of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, its lands and its water resources.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 7/7/2021 at 8:18 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

It is hard to argue with your brand of dumb. You don't know what Net Imports means do you?

We are importing approx. 9 million:

And we are exporting approx. 9 million:

If you subtract Exports from Imports you get Net Imports of 49,000 BPD last week.

And going forward, with the new restrictions on American oil production, you can expect the net imports to ramp up like crazy. America used to be a net exporter of oil, now a net importer of oil....future will be a BIG net importer of oil.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 7/7/2021 at 9:53 PM, Boat said:

If you pay me I will teach you how to find net imports to the US by Country. Net imports and exports for the US. US consumption. The rig count and the frac count. What I haven’t been able to find is how much US LTO is mixed with imported heavy Crude, refined and then sold to which country. And finally how much crude is exported by country to what country from US stocks. 
Jay explained it but let’s say it again. When we’re a net oil exporter that means statically we need no oil from other countries. We passed that milestone basically in 2019. Biden’s effect on US oil has not turned the US into a net importer. If you looked at the charts once a month for a few minutes, your more woke than most rednecks. It doesn’t take much.

Going forward, which is where we all want to go, net imports will be ramped up with the new restrictions on American oil production. Even the Biden & Co. people are crying out for foreign oil producers to please increase oil production so that American car drivers do not get hammered at the gas pump. 

A new era has arrived in spades.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 7/7/2021 at 11:35 PM, nsdp said:

http://www.islandbreath.org/2014Year/11/141117siouxmap.jpg

Keystone has a problem.

These are more "issues" than "problems", native rights are often involved in pipeline decisions, and they usually get worked out with agreements to share revenue or make compensatory payments. No doubt that would happen with these outstanding issues. No one can claim otherwise. "Safety"? Damage of oil spills to drinking water?  These are extremely rare problems and are usually solved within a few days.

Now, if the oil is transported through native lands by rail, THEN you have the potential for major problems which could threaten life and property and source of  living. A cost/benefit analysis strongly favors pipeline over rail.

If I know this much, you can be sure that the pipeline's legal experts are primed and ready to go.

Again, as I stated above, this is NOT going into American courts, but into an international tribunal under NAFTA, which usually rules against these type of arbitrary government actions, especially if they are deemed to be biased against a foreign company, pipeline or otherwise.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 7/8/2021 at 1:47 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Because inventory costs money. The only time we have more than 28 days of crude on hand is when there is an oil glut. Days on hand does not tell you anything about being oil independent. Look at the gasoline and diesel days on hand and note how they are running above average for this time of year. Refineries have been moving oil to the other side of the house faster than they are selling the finished product. Days on hand is very seasonal.

When it comes to oil independence the only number that matters is Net Imports. We either have more petroleum than we need and are independent or we don't and we are dependent. You can't be dependent  unless you are importing more than you are exporting. Currently we are importing 480K BPD more than we are exporting, average over past 6 weeks.

Over that same 6 weeks our Total Stock has dropped 4M bbl. so we have been consuming at a rate of 575K BPD more than we are producing.

I quite doubt that our oil consumption number was used to calculate our CO2 per capita. Some lame journalist might have referred to the number but that is very different than the official calculation.

How about you look at the balance of payments and let us know what you think is important?

btw- we are energy independent as energy includes all forms of energy coal, NG and renewables. We import none of those and they certainly outweigh the current oil import.

 

"CO2 per capita"? Was there ever a more irrelevant figure concocted by the human mind? I doubt it.

CO2 per capita is an essential input into agricultural productivity, removing CO2 from the American atmosphere would reduce crop yields per acre, and on a global basis lead to famines and political turmoil.

Up with CO2!

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 7/8/2021 at 6:39 AM, Eric Gagen said:

@Ward Smith you don't bother stocking a bunch of inventory unless you are forced to.  In any case, the stock level has no bearing or relationship with the production rate or capacity.  The only places which have to worry about stock levels of crude oil or of perishable products like gasoline are places without sufficient crude oil and refining capacity to make their own on demand.  The US is definitively not a place like that.  It produces all the oil it needs and it has the  largest export focused oil products sector in the world.  It's a massive economic and manufacturing success and has been for 20 years now.  We import cheap low quality crude from around the world, then sell back expensive diesel, gasoline and jet fuel.  The recent increase in US crude oil production merely cements that dominance by ensuring plenty of cheap crude to keep the refinery system running in a highly efficient way. 

 

FYI - China is now officially the #1 polluter according to all sources, and it has been since 2018 or 2019 depending on whose figures you cite.   

Inventory  levels are crucial in determining the price of oil on the markets. But the new presidential decrees restricting oil output will hamstring the ability of the American oil sector going forward, no doubt about that. Net oil imports will jump  up.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 7/8/2021 at 9:03 PM, nsdp said:

 

I think the subject is Keystone's $15 billion claim under NAFTA.  Given the US Supreme Court decision in US vs. Cooley,  Keystone does not have 1020 miles ROW  from the  sovereign Sioux tribes from the US Canada border , across SE Montana, South Dakota ,  and most of Nebraska. http://www.islandbreath.org/2014Year/11/141117siouxmap.jpg 

Look at the map, most of the rest of the comments are off topic.

The native ROW issues are usually solved with a reasonable agreement, not a terminal problem. Not something which the international tribune would use as an argument.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 7/8/2021 at 9:36 PM, Eric Gagen said:

That is true.  I don’t think they can win their lawsuit. 

Famous last words for many other NAFTA decisions....which went against U.S. government policy.

These tribunals often consist of international trade law experts, not government hacks.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 7/8/2021 at 11:05 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Never understood their XL pipeline idiocy over completely new ROW headaches which would cost them many many Millions-->Billions.... Why not just twin the existing pipeline with existing ROW and infrastructure in place?  Beyond stupid not doing so.  For this reason alone, they do not get $$$ for any compensation for just being STUPID short sighted idiots.  As for lawyers twiddle words... why on earth would this be up to the whims of the PRESIDENT?  And why in Gods Green earth would anyone sign off on this agreement instead of twinning the existing pipeline?(Never understood this logic at all)  Talk about doubly stupid on their part.  I have never understood how some company spending so much money to build a pipeline can put so much stupidity together.  It is no shock it fell through. 

As for your "lawyering".... Right of patroling a ROW is now ability to block ROW access in said court decision... As for relevance to the Pipeline... On land they have no powers over...  True lawyering genius.  If you wanted to actually be a lawyer here you should have posted the US v Sioux nations decision of 1980 IIRC, but even that does not cut it as this only addresses interest over the Black Hills $$$ paid a half century earlier for the unjust taking of the black hills.  Next proposal by subsequent commissions only said FEDERAL lands which would be handed over in said black hills in SD.  Only reason this is an issue is that the Sioux have not officially ceded the Black Hills though they have ceded the hunting grounds as any privately owned land would remain so under their own proposals so... If one wants to be lawyering here...   Does the XL mapped by idiots pipeline actually cross federal lands in the Black Hills?  Not that it matters at this point. 

The whole thing is beyond stupid from all 3 sides IMO.  The Canadians, the Sioux, and the US Congress who for some F'd up reason ceded authority to the damned President for domestic INFRASTRUCTURE... The last point alone should have halted the project as unconstitutional. 

The crucial legal point in these international tribunals is whether or not Keystone Pipeline Co. was treated in an unbiased manner, that is, similar to how an American pipeline company would be treated. If there is demonstrated bias, the decision would go in favor of the Keystone people.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 7/9/2021 at 8:43 AM, turbguy said:

Perhaps, yes.

There are still considerable efforts to reduce FF consumption , and that will not cease for the foreseeable future, either.

The Green New Deal will be retarded, but I very much doubt the idea will die.

 

The idea of gasoline taxes has already been abandoned by the Biden folks, for obvious reasons. His own people buy gas to fuel their second-hand cars, not a wise political move to shaft the people who voted for you.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

16 hours ago, nsdp said:

This is why most posts here are stupid.  US vs. Cooley says the State of South Dakota's opinion DOES NOT MATTER when the Supreme Court determines that Tribal Police Powers extend and include treaty lands  outside the boundaries of the reservation s defined in 18 USC1151. The definition of tribal lands under 18 USC 1151 violates the Treaties between the US and Sioux tribes of 1868.   I suggest YOU READ the treaty to see what rights the  Sioux actually gave the US.  The tribal police still have the right to arrest you should you appear on their treaty lands.

I wish all of the opposing lawyers I faced had been as incompetent as as you are. You should read the treaty and show me where the United states received the the right to grant a pipeline easement.  Rights taken at the point of a gun and not granted by treaty no longer have legal validity. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/sioux-treaty 

With Justice Gorsuch's opinion the State of South Dakota no longer has the legal authority to issue a permit to construct the line.

Again, if the oil involved were transported through tribal lands by rail, which poses a more serious problem to health and safety, could the tribal authorities stop rail traffic? I doubt that, given railroad ROW rights.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ohh i have did you take the time to have a read and think this thru??

https://2012-keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/nid/249275.htm

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe has regulatory jurisdiction to regulate land use and potential harmful discharges into Reservation waters on tribally-owned trust lands and allotted trust lands owned by enrolled members of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe within Todd, Tripp, Mellette, Gregory, and Lyman Counties of South Dakota. The construction of the TransCanada XL Pipeline does not cross any tribal or allotted trust lands, but the proposed route lies adjacent to tracts of tribally owned trust and allotted trust parcels of land in Tripp County, South Dakota. Rights-of-way, including the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline, are defined by federal statute as "Indian Country." 18U.S.C. § 1151 (a). The construction of the Pipeline, and a possible spill or release of tar sands sludge from the Pipeline, poses a direct threat to two of the most important assets of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, its lands and its water resources.

So there is no infringement of ROW by Keystone onto native lands. That pretty much sinks that argument.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

This is a gross exaggeration, 

"The construction of the Pipeline, and a possible spill or release of tar sands sludge from the Pipeline, poses a direct threat to two of the most important assets of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, its lands and its water resources."

These "threats" are not only rare, very rare, but are contained and cleaned up within two or three days.

The potential threats from the alternative form of transport, railway, is much more severe.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

This is a gross exaggeration, 

"The construction of the Pipeline, and a possible spill or release of tar sands sludge from the Pipeline, poses a direct threat to two of the most important assets of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, its lands and its water resources."

These "threats" are not only rare, very rare, but are contained and cleaned up within two or three days.

The potential threats from the alternative form of transport, railway, is much more severe.

Don't be naive.  It has nothing to do with "severity" or "threat".   It never has with these people as there is no infinitesimal too small of a "severity" or "threat" they will not use to justify their religion.  Even though:

1. Transportation is oil
2. Ag is entirely based on oil
3. Their shoes are plastic.
4. Their socks are plastic
5. Their pants are most likely plastic
6. Their underwear is plastic
7. Their shirts are plastic
8. Their coats are plastic
9. Their glasses are plastic
10. Their hats are plastic
11. Their makeup is plastic

Are their products not made from plastic and are these religious anti oil folks using them?  Yes, some exist and No they are not using them as they are horrifically inferior.

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Inventory  levels are crucial in determining the price of oil on the markets. But the new presidential decrees restricting oil output will hamstring the ability of the American oil sector going forward, no doubt about that. Net oil imports will jump  up.

For short term market movements, yes, but short term futures traders are morons. If you weren’t certain of this, I can only point you to the negative oil price debacle from last spring.  
 

In the longer term actual ability of supply to meet demand matters more than the chicken little day traders staring at stock levels in Cushing Oklahoma. 

[nsdp + 449]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, if the oil involved were transported through tribal lands by rail, which poses a more serious problem to health and safety, could the tribal authorities stop rail traffic? I doubt that, given railroad ROW rights.

Rail is already there and has been since the 1870's and damages were covered in the 1980 treaty lititgation. Your comment about being safer is  dumber than a fence post.  Tar sands return to solid state when transported in heated tank cars  and do not incur the 30% reduction in refinable crude that dilbit does. NuStar was a part fo Valero Refining before spin off.

"NuStar has leased special rail cars to transport the heavy Canadian oil. When bitumen is loaded onto rail cars, it's at a temperature of 150-180 degrees, but cools during the trip. When the rail cars arrive at refineries, they're hooked up to a steam-producing mechanism that heats the heavy oil enough to be unloaded."  https://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Moving-crude-by-rail-works-for-refiners-4547720.php Shipping by rail only is riskier when you are stupid and put dilbit in the tank cars instead of undiluted crude.

Edited July 10, 2021 by nsdp
typo

[-trance + 114]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Don't be naive.  It has nothing to do with "severity" or "threat".   It never has with these people as there is no infinitesimal too small of a "severity" or "threat" they will not use to justify their religion.  Even though:

1. Transportation is oil
2. Ag is entirely based on oil
3. Their shoes are plastic.
4. Their socks are plastic
5. Their pants are most likely plastic
6. Their underwear is plastic
7. Their shirts are plastic
8. Their coats are plastic
9. Their glasses are plastic
10. Their hats are plastic
11. Their makeup is plastic

Are their products not made from plastic and are these religious anti oil folks using them?  Yes, some exist and No they are not using them as they are horrifically inferior.

 

Many products still use natural rubber / latex.

Glasses etc. are often made using cellulose acetate.

Natural polyesters exist.

The "plastic" argument for oil is garbage.  All you need is organic feed-stocks and Energy.  Sugar --> ethanol --. ethylene --> polyethylene.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by -trance

[nsdp + 449]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The crucial legal point in these international tribunals is whether or not Keystone Pipeline Co. was treated in an unbiased manner, that is, similar to how an American pipeline company would be treated. If there is demonstrated bias, the decision would go in favor of the Keystone people.

Well not quite.  I don't think you have participated in one of the panels.  Keystone is missing the permits for constructing the power lines and substations  to power the pump stations nor have the posted the cash bond to pay for the construction and purchase of  equipment to power the pump stations.  I suggest that you go to the Southwest Power Pool an check the que for 18 CFR 292 connection studies  by Keystone; there are none. They don't even get a hearing without those studies to be included in their evidence.  Default judgment for the US.