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

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

34 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Congress conveyed a limited authority on the President to issue permits. The Supreme Court is not a rubber stamp, the fact that they enforced an injunction is huge.  It all has a very real bearing on whether there is bias and if bias is found then most importantly on damage calculations. 

Supreme Court is not a problem, an injunction to gather evidence, ho hum. The federal government is the authority over interstate commerce. But none of this is relevant to the topic here, the NAFTA challenge.

The NAFTA issue is about whether or not the President rescinded the permit....and he certainly did.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Supreme Court is not a problem, an injunction to gather evidence, ho hum. The federal government is the authroity over interstate commerce. But none of this is relevant to the topic here, the NAFTA challenge.

The NAFTA issue is about whether or not the President rescinded the permit....and he certainly did.

No the issue, as you have pointed out many times, appears to be whether there was bias. However even if there was bias there is the still the enormous issue of calculating damages. The Presidential permit was not in place for most of the years that they were spending money.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No the issue, as you have pointed out many times, appears to be whether there was bias. However even if there was bias there is the still the enormous issue of calculating damages. The Presidential permit was not in place for most of the years that they were spending money.

The question is, did Keystone receive the same treatment that other American pipeline companies receive? Did other pipeline companies require special Presidential permits, which were later rescinded? Did other pipeline companies face a campaign of court challenges (possibly yes to this)? I doubt that any other pipeline company was subjected to the rescission of a Presidential permit, that will be the probable major issue.

Get ready to open your wallet, Jay. I feel sorry for Biden & Co. on this issue, they had no real choice, they ran for election on this particular pipeline issue, a promise to rescind was made, they painted themselves into a corner, and now they are stuck with consequences.

[nsdp + 449]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The question is, did Keystone receive the same treatment that other American pipeline companies receive? Did other pipeline companies require special Presidential permits, which were later rescinded? Did other pipeline companies face a campaign of court challenges (possibly yes to this)? I doubt that any other pipeline company was subjected to the rescission of a Presidential permit, that will be the probable major issue.

Get ready to open your wallet, Jay. I feel sorry for Biden & Co. on this issue, they had no real choice, they ran for election on t.his particular pipeline issue, a promise to rescind was made, they painted themselves into a corner, and now they are stuck with consequences.

Ecocharger, how many hours have you spent as first chair in Federal court room hearings?   0 from the intelligence level  I see.  The permit application never was final and unappealable. The district court case kept it from becoming final (res adjudicata) and the Supreme Court upholding the injunction means that there was never final unappealable permit that could be used to obtain the ROW in Nebraska  that TC Energy could complete.   Also no permits to build and operate the power lines and substations for the line exist. The permit is incomplete due to the negligence of the applicant.

There are none so blind as those who deliberately cannot and will not see. Where do we send your white cane and guide dog?

[nsdp + 449]

17 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

NG can be green also

There are carbon zero gas plants being built right as we speak.

https://www.mcdermott-investors.com/news/press-release-details/2020/McDermott-Awarded-Pre-FEED-for-NET-Power-UK-Project/default.aspx

There are also many blue hydrogen plants being built that use carbon capture to make these plants carbon neutral.

I think a sensible mix of renewables, nuclear and NG plants is the way forward, how much the sun shines and the wind blows in a region will determine the mix along with the cost obviously.

Carbon neutral yes and that is good; but more importantly they are not thermally neutral. they add heat to the atmosphere  that does not get removed by radiation at night. Best case, they add at least  40% of combustion heat to the biosphere. That is a CCGT.  SCGT will add 60-70% of total heat of combustion as waste heat to the biosphere.

[turbguy + 1,545]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

Carbon neutral yes and that is good; but more importantly they are not thermally neutral. they add heat to the atmosphere  that does not get removed by radiation at night. Best case, they add at least  40% of combustion heat to the biosphere. That is a CCGT.  SCGT will add 60-70% of total heat of combustion as waste heat to the biosphere.

Ahhh...

THE THERMAL BARRIER!

Wondered when that would arise in conversation.

[nsdp + 449]

15 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Mexican Mayan crude production is dropped so much that US refineries are importing other grades of heavy crude to make up for it, and there used to be large volumes of heavy Venezuelan crude that were processed in the gulf coast region also.  

Deer Park just had a massive upgrade and expansion, and they are importing heavy sour crude because Mexico can't deliver enough to feed it.

Exxon's production in the Gulf of Mexico isn't very large.  It's true that there are significant volumes of sour crude from the Gulf of Mexico, but most of this is from Shell, and goes to refineries in Louisiana, or for export via the LOOP port. 

It is true that Permian production has ballooned incredibly, but a significant portion of that crude goes straight to export - the US refining complexes along the gulf coast are set up to run heavy sour crudes, and the Permian shale oil production is light sweet crude.  It fetches a premium price on international markets, so it gathers a higher profit via direct export than it would be being refined, and then sold as products.   

Your back of the envelope analysis of refining capacity leaves out Exxon Baytown, Valero Texas City and several other major ones which are set up to run heavy sour crudes.  

The market and objective behind Keystone XL was always the same - substitute water-borne imports of heavy sour crude with pipeline borne Canadian crude at a discount price to increase profit margins of US gulf coast refineries geared up to export refined products.    

The cancelation of Keystone XL has 3 losers and 1 winner:

Losers: The Canadian heavy oil industry which cannot increase production, the US gulf coast refiners who have a restricted profit margin, and the Keystone pipeline company

Winners: Waterborne importers of heavy sour crudes to the US

Note that US consumers aren't on the list of winners and losers - that's on purpose, because the project never had as an objective doing anything to alter supply and demand in the domestic market of the United States. 

Valero Texas City is subject to the old Coastal LoVaca settlements. We had one genius here include Gary ville as a 500,000 b/d possibility. The ability to crack and desulfurize only 40,000 b/d.   So it is not gross capacity of the refineries that matters but the ability to desulfurize the  crude. Sulfur emissions  under TOSCA are limited to tons per day not ppm as Clea Ari amendments do it. In fact you have to meet both simultaneously. .  The IMO regulations for #5-6 fuel oil and diesel oil (0.5% S in deep water)eliminated 75% of the market for high sulfur crude. The amount of high sulfur crude  that can be sold as high sulfur pet coke is now 0 toms/day unless the refinery and purchaser have sulfur credits carried forward from 2019 and before. This is an example of the problem https://ajayp.org/2013/05/the_koch_coke_pile_in_detroit.php

Koch finally solved it by refining 25% fewer barrels of Canadian crude.   Amoco(now BP) Whiting  has cut the amount sour heavy crude they run to meet the new lower sulfur limits/. 1/1 /24 will cut all diesel (not just road diesel) and jet fuel  by 2/3's to 0.15% S.   As is already the case in the Houston /baytown/Texas city  area , it doesn't matter how much  sour crude your refinery is designed to run.  If you don't have credits to carry forward  you can't run the crude regardless of plant design. You cannot now run a full slate due these issues When the DC circuit  issued the Clean Air amendment orders in 2008 Smart refiners modeled what would happen.  Valero did not sign for firm capacity on Keystone when proposed because of the impact on the sulfur content. Mexico bought Shel's share of Deer park because Maya production is still more than 250,000 barrels a day and as long as Mexico  off loads andkeeps the Maya in the Port of Houston Free trade zone and reexports back to Mexico they are exempt from the sulfur in fuel rules. Aramco/Motiva is the same way. they offload from Saudi Arabia refine and export to South America. Valero does the same thing at Corpus.   Those three take 1.1 milli b/d out of your high sulfur refining capacity. Keystone, because the crude moves though taxable US jurisdictions at Steelhead City and Cushing does not have a sulfur exemption in the free trade zones.

Paper capacity does not equal what a refinery can run legally.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

3 hours ago, nsdp said:

Ecocharger, how many hours have you spent as first chair in Federal court room hearings?   0 from the intelligence level  I see.  The permit application never was final and unappealable. The district court case kept it from becoming final (res adjudicata) and the Supreme Court upholding the injunction means that there was never final unappealable permit that could be used to obtain the ROW in Nebraska  that TC Energy could complete.   Also no permits to build and operate the power lines and substations for the line exist. The permit is incomplete due to the negligence of the applicant.

There are none so blind as those who deliberately cannot and will not see. Where do we send your white cane and guide dog?

Again, you are way off topic. The injunction was not a final decision on this pipeline. Obviously.

But the rescission of the Presidential permit was a final decision on it, and that rescission is the basis of the NAFTA challenge. Do other American pipeline companies require a Presidential permit? Have other American pipeline companies had their Presidential permit rescinded? Those are the issues which are relevant to national treatment.

Your focus is off the central issue which the tribunal will consider.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Ahhh...

THE THERMAL BARRIER!

Wondered when that would arise in conversation.

What is the relevance of a supposed thermal barrier to this NAFTA challenge? None that I can see.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

3 hours ago, nsdp said:

Carbon neutral yes and that is good; but more importantly they are not thermally neutral. they add heat to the atmosphere  that does not get removed by radiation at night. Best case, they add at least  40% of combustion heat to the biosphere. That is a CCGT.  SCGT will add 60-70% of total heat of combustion as waste heat to the biosphere.

Carbon neutral is of no significance.

[specinho + 470]

On 7/12/2021 at 2:17 AM, 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. 

one moment plis........

if the banks are opened or managed by relatives or closed friends of those involved, you might see rule of games be changed to acclimatize for the new trend created............ the appointed to manage would just be losing jobs shall things go side ways, but the involuntary charity banks would stay and clear the mess........... with or without help from the fed..........

 

On 7/12/2021 at 7:16 AM, -trance said:

 

one

this chart is likely off scale..... I posted another chart from World Bank the other day. There is another portion of nearly 55% is made up by energy production; 10-20% transportation etc......... which lead to a deduction that the way we produce energy might not be the major cause of global warming............

[-trance + 114]

2 hours ago, specinho said:

I posted another chart from World Bank the other day.

 

 

That graph is from US.  World numbers would be different. 

Burning for electricity, burning for transportation, burning to fuel a industrial process doesn't really change much.  Fact remains most oil is burnt.

[turbguy + 1,545]

7 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

What is the relevance of a supposed thermal barrier to this NAFTA challenge? None that I can see.

The Thermal Barrier is an old environmentalist claim of the final hurdle to be overcome. 

It would occur when the world's population requires so much energy, heat rejection from conventional sources return the surface of the planet to a molten state.

I think that's still a way's off...

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

6 hours ago, turbguy said:

The Thermal Barrier is an old environmentalist claim of the final hurdle to be overcome. 

It would occur when the world's population requires so much energy, heat rejection from conventional sources return the surface of the planet to a molten state.

I think that's still a way's off...

Well, it may be an interesting prognostication of pseudo-science projection into the distant future, but I doubt that it will be raised at this upcoming NAFTA challenge.

[nsdp + 449]

On 7/11/2021 at 10:09 PM, Ecocharger said:

Jay, it looks like they have a good argument under "national treatment", just like many other cases in the NAFTA tribunal have found. I think that we might as well start reaching for our wallets on this one.

No, those permits are fairly routine, I have never heard of a problem which was not solvable.

Might cut back on the Hash you smoke. This is the real world of international arbitration as of Friday.

Ethiopia wins major International Court case against Israeli firm ICLE

The Hague based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) passed its final judgment on Friday rejecting the Israel based mining company's, Israel Chemical Limited (ICL) compensation claims filed against the government of Ethiopia.

https://www.thereporterethiopia.com/article/ethiopia-wins-major-international-court-case-against-israeli-firm-icl

US problems have been the result of bad political decisions between 2017 and 2020.  Before that the prior two adms(43 and 44) won 93% of the time.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

9 minutes ago, nsdp said:

Might cut back on the Hash you smoke. This is the real world of international arbitration as of Friday.

Ethiopia wins major International Court case against Israeli firm ICLE

The Hague based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) passed its final judgment on Friday rejecting the Israel based mining company's, Israel Chemical Limited (ICL) compensation claims filed against the government of Ethiopia.

https://www.thereporterethiopia.com/article/ethiopia-wins-major-international-court-case-against-israeli-firm-icl

US problems have been the result of bad political decisions between 2017 and 2020.  Before that the prior two adms(43 and 44) won 93% of the time.

Again, the case you refer to here was not a trade law case, that would have occurred in a World Trade Organization tribunal challenge. The Keystone case is being brought before a NAFTA panel on the basis of trade law, specifically "national treatment", a bedrock consideration for trade issues. The case you refer to was not trade-related and did not refer to WTO rules.

You sure you have worked on these trade files? 

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Ecocharger

[nsdp + 449]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, the case you refer to here was not a trade law case, that would have occurred in a World Trade Organization tribunal challenge. The Keystone case is being brought before a NAFTA panel on the basis of trade law, specifically "national treatment", a bedrock consideration for trade issues. The case you refer to was not trade-related and did not refer to WTO rules.

You sure you have worked on these trade files? 

 

The NAFTA Panel has to follow the procedural rules of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).  I gather that you do not know that rules for trade disputes are the same as for all international commercial disputes.  And I am familiar with the rules  being a witness in the water allocation rules on the Colorado and Rio Bravo (Grande) Rivers in 1997.   US was whining about Mexico over drawing water allocations  from the Rio Conchos tributary of the Rio Bravo.  The US lost.   The US also lost the "Made in USA" content rules  for solar panels and autoparts  in the 2009 stimulus package  for the same reasons Keystone will lose this case.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

6 hours ago, nsdp said:

The NAFTA Panel has to follow the procedural rules of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).  I gather that you do not know that rules for trade disputes are the same as for all international commercial disputes.  And I am familiar with the rules  being a witness in the water allocation rules on the Colorado and Rio Bravo (Grande) Rivers in 1997.   US was whining about Mexico over drawing water allocations  from the Rio Conchos tributary of the Rio Bravo.  The US lost.   The US also lost the "Made in USA" content rules  for solar panels and autoparts  in the 2009 stimulus package  for the same reasons Keystone will lose this case.

None of which is related to NAFTA panels or trade issues. Nor does any of that relate to "national treatment", which is a specifically trade related consideration, determined by WTO and NAFTA tribunals.

You got anything to say about "national treatment", the issue of this thread?

Edited July 14, 2021 by Ecocharger

[nsdp + 449]

51 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

None of which is related to NAFTA panels or trade issues. Nor does any of that relate to "national treatment", which is a specifically trade related consideration, determined by WTO and NAFTA tribunals.

You got anything to say about "national treatment", the issue of this thread?

The rules of procedure and evidence  that define "national treatment" have been adopted from the PCA. You don't make them up as you go along.  45 had to learn the hard way.

[-trance + 114]

10 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Well, it may be an interesting prognostication of pseudo-science projection into the distant future, but I doubt that it will be raised at this upcoming NAFTA challenge.

Under old laws? NAFTA is gone.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

15 hours ago, nsdp said:

The rules of procedure and evidence  that define "national treatment" have been adopted from the PCA. You don't make them up as you go along.  45 had to learn the hard way.

This was not a trade panel, it was about taxation.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

13 hours ago, -trance said:

Under old laws? NAFTA is gone.

Hm? It is still in business.

"The USMCA took effect on July 1, 2020, replacing NAFTA. The new law involved only small changes."

Edited July 14, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

32 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

This was not a trade panel, it was about taxation.

Tax on trade. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

32 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Hm? It is still in business.

"The USMCA took effect on July 1, 2020, replacing NAFTA. The new law involved only small changes."

The major change was to eliminate the section that TC is suing under. However a legacy clause allowed for suit to be brought under the old NAFTA law for 3 years. 

 

[-trance + 114]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

 

"The USMCA took effect on July 1, 2020, replacing NAFTA. The new law involved only small changes."

Don't tell that to the Trump voters who think he improved trade balances!

Trump caved on everything. 

"Mexico going to pay for the wall."   LOL

Edited July 14, 2021 by -trance