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

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Why??

 

Read what I posted above...it's called "national treatment". That is what this thread is all about.

This is from the WTO material.

"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.

One thing I do know, the U.S. government has lost many of these NAFTA tribunal challenges.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

35 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

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

Wrong again. A credit facility is a preapproved loan that can be drawn down at need. They haven't borrowed the money yet.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

38 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

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

Nah, I'm going to modify it to run on your hot air.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

8 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 statement is stupid as the 1980 litigation covered INTEREST from the 1920 decision to pay the Sioux for the Black Hills but not interest.  Monies the Sioux have never collected on. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

8 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.

Can you 4th grade math bro? Apparently not, but you can type the word "garbage"... You can harvest all the cellulose etc you want, it won't cover the oil use without denuding the earth.  All one has to do is look at Corn/Sugar.  2 largest crops harvested in the world in the best AG land in the world where over half those crops go to Ethanol which only provides a pittance of fuel for transportation(roughly 5%) in 2 measly countries. 

Transportation only uses ~50% of the oil.

Wake up, open your eyes, do some simple math please or propose to turn every desert and arid region of the planet into a gargantuan plantation biogrow zone.  So, when are you invading Libya again?  Maybe you would prefer Iraq again?  Enjoy, I won't be going. 

Every chemical etc CAN come from plant matter, that has NEVER been in question.  QUANTITY is,

[specinho + 470]

pardon my ignorant........ just out of curiosity....... based on the chart below, is this pipeline completed or not yet?

If, the issue is phase 4, the green line, why is Kinder Morgan building a redundant pipe while the phase one, red line, is already in function? (recall reading it somewhere, but do not recall where exactly)

 

 

Red Pipe leaked? Shorter transportation time by one  hour? May be two?

 

 

Each president elected mentioned might be trying to show how much power one has because of the stupid phrase "that the president has the right to revoke prior to consultation" or something like that...... 

 

 

It's a pity the contract does not include something like those signed by some governments of not so developed. In these contracts, there,  usually, will be a clause saying "the toll of usage must be increased every two years. Shall the government fail to fulfill XYZ or comply, the government must compensate the builder OOO sum"....... or something like that...

 

📢 📢 📢 Kindly do not miss the government spending party in the next contract. 🎉

 

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by specinho

[Eric Gagen + 713]

@specinho the other pipelines are at maximum capacity.  You can’t fit more through them than they are already taking.  To increase capacity you need more pipes. The part noted as Phase 4 XL has not been competed.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[Eric Gagen + 713]

11 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...

Canada already has enough oil for its needs.  The rest has to be exported to somewhere else.  The US has the demand  in the form of a massive refining industry and an existing pipeline network, so it makes sense to send it there.  The US doesn’t actually need the oil either, but it’s far better set up to export oil and products than the ports and infrastructure of Canada is, so a super simplified explanation of the actual flow is as follows:

Canadian crude to other parts of Canada and the US

US crude to US refineries and for export

Refined products from US refineries made using US and Canadian crude for export

Edited July 11, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[-trance + 114]

14 hours 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? 

Mostly just storage lots full of waiting pipes. Lots of expensive prep work but no actual construction of the line.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Nah, I'm going to modify it to run on your hot air.

Just tap into the Green Revolution windbags, they will keep you going.

[-trance + 114]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Can you 4th grade math bro? Apparently not, but you can type the word "garbage"... You can harvest all the cellulose etc you want, it won't cover the oil use without denuding the earth.  All one has to do is look at Corn/Sugar.  2 largest crops harvested in the world in the best AG land in the world where over half those crops go to Ethanol which only provides a pittance of fuel for transportation(roughly 5%) in 2 measly countries. 

Transportation only uses ~50% of the oil.

Wake up, open your eyes, do some simple math please or propose to turn every desert and arid region of the planet into a gargantuan plantation biogrow zone.  So, when are you invading Libya again?  Maybe you would prefer Iraq again?  Enjoy, I won't be going. 

Every chemical etc CAN come from plant matter, that has NEVER been in question.  QUANTITY is,

That is ethanol for fuel / Energy.  The amount needed for the plastic industry is much smaller. 

My gasoline is 10% ethanol. 

The vast majority of petrochemicals are burnt for energy, not chemical feed stocks.  Only 11% is not directly burnt.

People here do question if you can get chemicals without oil. At least you agree "plastic" is not dependent on oil.  It is dependent on the energy we currently get from oil.

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by -trance

[-trance + 114]

19 hours 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.

 

^^ this is BS that makes people think you can't have plastic without oil.

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by -trance

[-trance + 114]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Every chemical etc CAN come from plant matter, that has NEVER been in question. 

Yet... you post BS suggesting it is.

Edited July 11, 2021 by -trance

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

13 minutes ago, -trance said:

Mostly just storage lots full of waiting pipes. Lots of expensive prep work but no actual construction of the line.

Looks like lost profit expectations will be the bulk of this claim.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

7 hours ago, specinho said:

pardon my ignorant........ just out of curiosity....... based on the chart below, is this pipeline completed or not yet?

If, the issue is phase 4, the green line, why is Kinder Morgan building a redundant pipe while the phase one, red line, is already in function? (recall reading it somewhere, but do not recall where exactly)

 

 

Red Pipe leaked? Shorter transportation time by one  hour? May be two?

 

 

Each president elected mentioned might be trying to show how much power one has because of the stupid phrase "that the president has the right to revoke prior to consultation" or something like that...... 

 

 

It's a pity the contract does not include something like those signed by some governments of not so developed. In these contracts, there,  usually, will be a clause saying "the toll of usage must be increased every two years. Shall the government fail to fulfill XYZ or comply, the government must compensate the builder OOO sum"....... or something like that...

 

📢 📢 📢 Kindly do not miss the government spending party in the next contract. 🎉

 

 

Keystone is making this tribunal challenge on the basis of "national treatment", which I described at the top of this page.

It all boils down to whether or not Keystone was treated by the U.S. government in the same or equivalent manner that other American pipeline companies would have been treated, based on industry experience. The U.S. government will have to demonstrate that other American pipeline companies have been treated the same way that Keystone has been treated.

There is another possible legal "out" for the U.S. government, which has been referred to in previous cases. Namely "national security", that it was essential for American national security to violate the NAFTA investment rules in order to protect American national security. In other words, American energy security would have been compromised by relying on a Canadian source of oil.

The "national security" out might be difficult to sell, there are already other pipelines carrying Canadian oil to the U.S., and no one has complained that American oil security was compromised by them. Nor has anyone shown that a Canadian source for oil would be unreliable in the event of a national emergency.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Wrong again. A credit facility is a preapproved loan that can be drawn down at need. They haven't borrowed the money yet.

I'm sure in your world of high finance (limited to credit cards?) the credit "facility" is free. However in the business world they cost money from the moment they're setup. A line of credit costs twice, once based on the size available then again once you draw it down. Banks aren't charities. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

6 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I'm sure in your world of high finance (limited to credit cards?) the credit "facility" is free. However in the business world they cost money from the moment they're setup. A line of credit costs twice, once based on the size available then again once you draw it down. Banks aren't charities. 

The cost to set up a credit line isn't that large though - a few minor fees and that's about it.  Sometimes the fees are rolled into the general interest on the line of credit and aren't assessed up front, although in most cases they would be due immediately if the line were terminated before the agreed on date and/or not accessed.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I'm sure in your world of high finance (limited to credit cards?) the credit "facility" is free. However in the business world they cost money from the moment they're setup. A line of credit costs twice, once based on the size available then again once you draw it down. Banks aren't charities. 

I never said there wasn't a cost involved. But it is a lot less than having borrowed the money. As you point out, the second cost of a line of credit is when you draw down, which is the much greater of the two costs and they did not incur it.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

1 minute ago, Eric Gagen said:

The cost to set up a credit line isn't that large though - a few minor fees and that's about it.  Sometimes the fees are rolled into the general interest on the line of credit and aren't assessed up front, although in most cases they would be due immediately if the line were terminated before the agreed on date and/or not accessed.  

I have no doubt that any banking or credit expenses will be included in the claim for damages by Keystone.  The main claim may well be for lost business opportunities. Plus expenses for planning and whatever pre-contracting was done with pipeline suppliers.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I have no doubt that any banking or credit expenses will be included in the claim for damages by Keystone.  The main claim may well be for lost business opportunities. Plus expenses for planning and whatever pre-contracting was done with pipeline suppliers.

They bought a bunch of pipe last year when steel prices were rock bottom. Their mitigation date is now, with steel prices at record highs. Would be very amusing if they make a profit on the pipe.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They bought a bunch of pipe last year when steel prices were rock bottom. Their mitigation date is now, with steel prices at record highs. Would be very amusing if they make a profit on the pipe.

My understanding is that the pipe was accumulated between 2010 and present - there was a big article in the oil and gas journal about a year ago detailing how they were inspecting, testing and tracking all of the stored pipe for such a long time and trying to make sure that it didn't rust out or get coating damage while in storage.  Without regard for the cost of the steel, I'm sure they will loose money on the pipe based on the cost of coating (which will not be recovered on the scrap market) and the cost of storage and inspection) 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/10/2021 at 2:53 PM, 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.

A new era of Green overreach raising prices on everything that is purchased or goes on in America. Plus, Biden wants new fossil fuel taxes. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

15 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

A new era of Green overreach raising prices on everything that is purchased or goes on in America. Plus, Biden wants new fossil fuel taxes. 

 

Biden does not want new fossil fuel taxes. He wants to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

Biden Budget Eliminates Host of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/sujatha-bergen/market-warping-oilgas-subsidies-way-out-biden-budget

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Fossil fuels built America and will continue to do so. This will just give wind and solar an unfair advantage that will cost American consumers and taxpayers a lot more money. It will also disadvantage America as a worldwide leader and competitor in all areas. Natural gas has made America the leader in improving air quality worldwide, with one or two minor exceptions such as Denmark. Anyone who falls for the Green Nightmare is responsible for what comes out of it. Meanwhile China and Russia will improve their status. Anyone with any sense should see this. Hopefully they will pay the price at the ballot box. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

15 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Fossil fuels built America and will continue to do so. This will just give wind and solar an unfair advantage that will cost American consumers and taxpayers a lot more money. It will also disadvantage America as a worldwide leader and competitor in all areas. Natural gas has made America the leader in improving air quality worldwide, with one or two minor exceptions such as Denmark. Anyone who falls for the Green Nightmare is responsible for what comes out of it. Meanwhile China and Russia will improve their status. Anyone with any sense should see this. Hopefully they will pay the price at the ballot box. 

The number one reason empires and leaders fall is because they keep doing what they did yesterday and don't adapt to tomorrow. Technology is moving forward at a rapacious rate. Anyone who ignores it will be responsible for our demise.

With your strategy Ron we will forever be the leader of yesterday.