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

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

On 7/9/2021 at 8:57 PM, 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.

I'm still waiting for the maps/borders you used to determine your well rounded reasoning. Or did you just have a flatluent moment and inadvertently shared it.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[nsdp + 449]

2 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I'm still waiting for the maps/borders you used to determine  your well rounded reasoning. Or did you just have a flatluent moment and inadvertently share it.

Ok stupid. Here is the link to the original document posted on line in the National archives. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/sioux-treaty

This was posted in my comment on the previous page.  Try using NVDA.  It is a computer screen reader for the blind.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

I think this map that you posted earlier is what Eyes wants

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

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.

This from 2018:

As oil prices climb, Trump leans on OPEC to ramp up production "substantially"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/22/donald-trump-wants-opec-increase-oil-production-lower-prices/725347002/

This from 2019:

Trump says it’s ‘very important that OPEC increase the flow of oil’ because prices are too high

PUBLISHED THU, MAR 28 20198:33 AM EDTUPDATED THU, MAR 28 20193:06 PM EDT

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/28/trump-says-its-very-important-that-opec-increase-the-flow-of-oil-because-prices-are-too-high.html

Edited July 11, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

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.

The only year on record where we have been a net exporter of petroleum was 2020. 

In 2020, net petroleum imports were negative for the first time since the Energy Information Administration began tracking them, meaning that the United States exported more petroleum than it imported. This includes crude oil and petroleum products. Net imports peaked in 2005 at 12.5 million barrels per day.

 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1189-june-7-2021-us-net-petroleum-imports-negative-2020

Edited July 11, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,545]

Potentially dumb question...

Why doesn't somebody just build a refinery for tar sands crude in Alberta and ship the product throughout Canada?

I'm sure they can use the petcoke somewhere in Alberta...

Edited July 11, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

3 hours ago, nsdp said:

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.

The real danger for rail transport is a derailment/crash and massive explosion, which has occasionally, albeit rarely, happened.

That is several orders of higher danger than a pipeline leak, which takes about two days to fix and clean.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

3 hours ago, -trance said:

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.

 

 

Cost/price analysis, please. The petrochemical industry is growing by leaps and bounds, including medical products.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

3 hours ago, nsdp said:

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.

My understanding is that the process for permits was interfered with by the Keystone federal government permit recission, so, of course, the company would not go ahead with the other small permits if the big one is withdrawn. And don't tell me that a tribunal would not understand that. It's kind of basic.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

This from 2018:

As oil prices climb, Trump leans on OPEC to ramp up production "substantially"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/22/donald-trump-wants-opec-increase-oil-production-lower-prices/725347002/

This from 2019:

Trump says it’s ‘very important that OPEC increase the flow of oil’ because prices are too high

PUBLISHED THU, MAR 28 20198:33 AM EDTUPDATED THU, MAR 28 20193:06 PM EDT

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/28/trump-says-its-very-important-that-opec-increase-the-flow-of-oil-because-prices-are-too-high.html

So you are telling me that events have forced Biden & Co. to return to the good old days of Trump & Co.?

Jay, I never knew that you were a closet Trump fan.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The only year on record where we have been a net exporter of petroleum was 2020. 

In 2020, net petroleum imports were negative for the first time since the Energy Information Administration began tracking them, meaning that the United States exported more petroleum than it imported. This includes crude oil and petroleum products. Net imports peaked in 2005 at 12.5 million barrels per day.

 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1189-june-7-2021-us-net-petroleum-imports-negative-2020

That is beside the point, Jay. The point is that the U.S. is about to become a HUGE net importer of oil, now that Biden & Co. have appealed to OPEC to ramp up oil production to supply American gasoline buyers.

[-trance + 114]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Cost/price analysis, please.

No need.  Wherever those products are current being sourced is cheapest.  Oil is mostly just a source of energy despite all it's other wonderful uses.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

Potentially dumb question...

Why doesn't somebody just build a refinery for tar sands crude in Alberta and ship the product throughout Canada?

I'm sure they can use the petcoke somewhere in Alberta...

I think that some company is currently building a pipeline through the Rockies to Vancouver, but if Keystone is forced to pack up its already started construction in the U.S., somebody has to compensate them for their losses.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

1 minute ago, -trance said:

No need.  Wherever those products are current being sourced is cheapest.  Oil is mostly just a source of energy despite all it's other wonderful uses.

Sure, there is a need. You can get energy from many different ways, some are costlier than others.

Oil is  a source of many petrochemical products, which have alternative competitive products, but the alternatives only make sense if they are economically viable.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I think that some company is currently building a pipeline through the Rockies to Vancouver, but if Keystone is forced to pack up its already started construction in the U.S., somebody has to compensate them for their losses.

They never started construction other than some storage lots.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They never started construction other than some storage lots.

Their completed work is claimed to be worth $15 billion, which is more money than ever passed through my pockets.

Jay, maybe you could argue them down to about $12 billion? 

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I think this map that you posted earlier is what Eyes wants

The basic point is that the proposed pipeline route does not enter native lands...did you not notice that?

"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). "

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

9 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Their completed work is claimed to be worth $15 billion, which is more money than ever passed through my pockets.

Jay, maybe you could argue them down to about $12 billion? 

No, they are claiming that they deserve the benefit of the bargain. They are suing for lost profits. 

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

11 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, they are claiming that they deserve the benefit of the bargain. They are suing for lost profits. 

Wonderful how the legal folks do their calculations.

The principle on which the challenge is being made to the NAFTA tribunal is called "national treatment".

Here is the definition of "national treatment" as found in the WTO literature.

"2. National treatment: Treating foreigners and locals equally  Imported and locally-produced goods should be treated equally — at least after the foreign goods have entered the market. The same should apply to foreign and domestic services, and to foreign and local trademarks, copyrights and patents. This principle of “national treatment” (giving others the same treatment as one’s own nationals) is also found in all the three main WTO agreements (Article 3 of GATT, Article 17 of GATS and Article 3 of TRIPS), although once again the principle is handled slightly differently in each of these.

National treatment only applies once a product, service or item of intellectual property has entered the market. Therefore, charging customs duty on an import is not a violation of national treatment even if locally-produced products are not charged an equivalent tax."

Not exactly the case here. What it means in practice for this situation is, was Keystone dealt with by the U.S. government in the same way that an equivalent American company would have been treated, or was there bias against Keystone compared to how other American pipeline companies are treated.

In other words, have other American pipeline companies experienced the same type of treatment from the U.S. government that Keystone has received? Offhand, I do not know.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The only year on record where we have been a net exporter of petroleum was 2020. 

In 2020, net petroleum imports were negative for the first time since the Energy Information Administration began tracking them, meaning that the United States exported more petroleum than it imported. This includes crude oil and petroleum products. Net imports peaked in 2005 at 12.5 million barrels per day.

 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1189-june-7-2021-us-net-petroleum-imports-negative-2020

I know that to someone of your intellect, oil comes from a magic spigot in the ground, but to the actual oilmen who haven't given up on this site in disgust, the reality is quite different. In point of fact, the time between lease and production can easily be many years. Therefore the bounty from the Trump administration will continue to fill the tanks for several more years before the disaster that is Xiden gets felt. Maybe we'll be lucky and get an honest judge. That's about the 4th state suing him so far. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

58 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Wonderful how the legal folks do their calculations.

The principle on which the challenge is being made to the NAFTA tribunal is called "national treatment".

Here is the definition of "national treatment" as found in the WTO literature.

"2. National treatment: Treating foreigners and locals equally  Imported and locally-produced goods should be treated equally — at least after the foreign goods have entered the market. The same should apply to foreign and domestic services, and to foreign and local trademarks, copyrights and patents. This principle of “national treatment” (giving others the same treatment as one’s own nationals) is also found in all the three main WTO agreements (Article 3 of GATT, Article 17 of GATS and Article 3 of TRIPS), although once again the principle is handled slightly differently in each of these.

National treatment only applies once a product, service or item of intellectual property has entered the market. Therefore, charging customs duty on an import is not a violation of national treatment even if locally-produced products are not charged an equivalent tax."

Not exactly the case here. What it means in practice for this situation is, was Keystone dealt with by the U.S. government in the same way that an equivalent American company would have been treated, or was there bias against Keystone compared to how other American pipeline companies are treated.

In other words, have other American pipeline companies experienced the same type of treatment from the U.S. government that Keystone has received? Offhand, I do not know.

All the pipeline they laid was in Canada, they had not begun US construction:

"Reuters spoke via email with James Stevenson, a spokesperson for the Canada Energy Regulator, which oversees the Canadian portion of the Keystone XL Pipeline (here). Stevenson confirmed that as of late 2020, about 152 kilometers, or 93 miles, of pipeline had been laid near the U.S.-Canada border.

Therefore, about 8% of the planned 1,210-mile XL extension had been built by the time President Biden revoked the permit.

HOW MUCH FUNDING HAD THE PROJECT SECURED?

According to a March 2020 TC Energy press release, the estimated cost of the project was to be $8 billion (here).

At the time of the press release, the Government of Alberta had invested $1.1 billion in the project, largely covering the cost of construction through the end of 2020, according to TC Energy.

The press release also stated that the remaining $6.9 billion needed for construction was expected “to be largely made in 2021 and 2022 and funded through the combination of a US$4.2 billion project level credit facility to be fully guaranteed by the Government of Alberta and a US$2.7 billion investment by TC Energy.”

In other words, 14% of the investment was made in 2020, with the remaining 86% secured and expected to be paid in 2021 and 2022."

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-keystonepipelinexl-builtandpai-idUSL1N2LA2SQ

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

20 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I know that to someone of your intellect, oil comes from a magic spigot in the ground, but to the actual oilmen who haven't given up on this site in disgust, the reality is quite different. In point of fact, the time between lease and production can easily be many years. Therefore the bounty from the Trump administration will continue to fill the tanks for several more years before the disaster that is Xiden gets felt. Maybe we'll be lucky and get an honest judge. That's about the 4th state suing him so far. 

In a few years we won't need the extra oil. 

[turbguy + 1,545]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

if Keystone is forced to pack up its already started construction in the U.S., somebody has to compensate them for their losses.

Why??

 

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

All the pipeline they laid was in Canada, they had not begun US construction:

"Reuters spoke via email with James Stevenson, a spokesperson for the Canada Energy Regulator, which oversees the Canadian portion of the Keystone XL Pipeline (here). Stevenson confirmed that as of late 2020, about 152 kilometers, or 93 miles, of pipeline had been laid near the U.S.-Canada border.

Therefore, about 8% of the planned 1,210-mile XL extension had been built by the time President Biden revoked the permit.

HOW MUCH FUNDING HAD THE PROJECT SECURED?

According to a March 2020 TC Energy press release, the estimated cost of the project was to be $8 billion (here).

At the time of the press release, the Government of Alberta had invested $1.1 billion in the project, largely covering the cost of construction through the end of 2020, according to TC Energy.

The press release also stated that the remaining $6.9 billion needed for construction was expected “to be largely made in 2021 and 2022 and funded through the combination of a US$4.2 billion project level credit facility to be fully guaranteed by the Government of Alberta and a US$2.7 billion investment by TC Energy.”

In other words, 14% of the investment was made in 2020, with the remaining 86% secured and expected to be paid in 2021 and 2022."

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-keystonepipelinexl-builtandpai-idUSL1N2LA2SQ

"Credit facility"...in other words, they have to pay it back to someone. That sounds like a loss, or "damages" in legal terminology.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

In a few years we won't need the extra oil. 

You will need it, Jay, to run your ICE vehicle.