Why the Keystone Pipeline has been (and will be) delayed...

[asaratis]

Al Zappola

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - make Obama pay fer it...

TransCanada formally seeks damages over Keystone XL rejection
Sat Jun 25, 2016 - TransCanada Corp is formally requesting arbitration over U.S. President Barack Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, seeking $15 billion in damages, the company said in legal papers dated Friday.

TransCanada Corp is formally requesting arbitration over U.S. President Barack Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, seeking $15 billion in damages, the company said in legal papers dated Friday.

A depot used to store pipes for Transcanada Corp's planned Keystone XL oil pipeline is seen in Gascoyne, North Dakota​

Obama rejected the Canadian company's cross-border crude oil pipeline last November, seven years after it was first proposed, saying it would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to the U.S. economy.

TransCanada formally seeks damages over Keystone XL rejection

 

[waltky]

'The rich will pay their fair share': Trump overhauls income tax proposal...

Trump would freeze new federal regulations, revive Keystone: speech
Tuesday 9th August, 2016: Republican Donald Trump sought to regain momentum for his White House campaign on Monday by proposing sweeping tax breaks, cuts to federal regulations and a revival of the stalled Keystone XL oil pipeline project.

The New York businessman used a speech on the economy to try to turn the page after a week of missteps in which he came under heavy criticism, including from some in his own party, and rival Democrat Hillary Clinton surged ahead in opinion polls with three months to go until the Nov. 8 election. Trump followed prepared remarks rather than the freewheeling style that produces controversial comments at rallies. He kept his cool as some 14 protesters jumped to their feet and shouted at intervals as he spoke at the Detroit Economic Club. Trump’s remarks, which were repeatedly cheered by the crowd, appeared targeted at both an affluent business community and working people, in particular those who have suffered from a decline in U.S. manufacturing in cities such as Detroit. “We now begin a great national conversation about economic renewal for America,” Trump said. “It’s a conversation about how to make America great again for everyone ... especially for those who have the very least.”

Much of the speech reflected Republican talking points, and critics said his proposals lacked detail. But Republican operatives and others who saw the speech praised the New York businessman for turning his focus to policy and contrasting his ideas with Clinton’s. Trump pitched a tax plan that mirrored traditional Republican thinking that lowering taxes and slashing regulation generates economic growth and jobs. He proposed lowering individual and corporate rates and a discounted 10 percent levy for businesses that bring back profits held overseas. Trump’s plan to create new tax deductions for childcare costs raised questions from economists about whether lower-income families would benefit, and many Republicans remain frustrated with his trade vision, which bucks party orthodoxy by calling for a rewrite of major deals. “My response is good, bad and ugly,” said Lanhee Chen, who was policy director for the 2012 presidential campaign of Republican Mitt Romney. “I think the trade position remains pretty ugly,” he said. “But I understand why they did it. I think it’s a strong effort, at least, to meld elements of conservative economic policy with Trump’s more populist thinking.”

Trump’s effort to shift focus came after what was widely seen as the worst week of his campaign, in which he sparred with party leaders and got entangled in a dispute with the parents of a Muslim American soldier who was killed in the Iraq war. Some frustrated Republicans plan to back a conservative alternative, former CIA officer Evan McMullin. On Monday, Trump waited for the frequent disruptions by protesters to end, smiling and refraining from his practice at campaign rallies of asking security to “get them out of here.” A group called the Michigan People’s Campaign took credit for the protests, which they said were aimed at Trump’s recent comments about sexual harassment. Clinton will outline her economic vision in Michigan on Thursday. In a statement ahead of Trump’s speech, her campaign said his plan would give tax breaks to the wealthy and big companies and would hurt working families. At a rally Monday in St. Petersburg, Florida, she derided a list of economic advisers Trump released last week as “six guys named Steve.” “Now, they tried to make his old, tired ideas sound new,” Clinton said. “He wants to basically just repackage trickle-down economics.”

MORE

See also:

AFTER NAFTA
Monday, Aug. 08, 2016 - The United States hasn’t walked away from a trade agreement in 150 years, but that could change if Donald Trump takes up residence in the White House. The most anti-trade U.S. presidential candidate in decades, he’s called NAFTA ‘a disaster’ and threatened to pull out of the historic trade pact. Can he do it? And if he does, how badly would Canada’s economy be hurt?

It’s July 4, 2017 – U.S. Independence Day – and President Donald Trump is celebrating his country’s historic exit from the North American free-trade agreement. “This will bring back our jobs and make America great again,” he proclaims on the White House lawn.[ Mr. Trump has pulled the trigger on his threat to pull the United States out of the deal after taking office, and six months later NAFTA’s unravelling has begun. But few are rejoicing U.S. independence from NAFTA on this side of the border, where free trade and open borders have been the bedrock of Canada’s economic policy for decades.

NAFTA’s demise means an end to the preferential market access and common rules that have bound Canada, the United States and Mexico since 1994 (and since 1989 under the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement). Under Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress, the United States is expected to raise tariffs within the region to the consistently higher ones it imposes on all other countries. Canada and Mexico have already said they will likely retaliate by doing the same. A series of escalating trade barriers would cause trade within the region to drop sharply – by perhaps 5 to 10 per cent, economists estimate – and trigger a gradual unwinding of vast supply networks established over decades. Factories that produce in one country with components from the other two make a lot less sense amid all the economic disintegration.

A far-fetched scenario? Perhaps. But few experts expected Brexit to happen. So Amexit might not be such a long shot after a wild and unpredictable lead-up to U.S. election in November. No matter that the United States hasn’t walked away from a trade agreement in 150 years. Mr. Trump is the most anti-trade U.S. presidential candidate in decades. He is behind Democrat Hillary Clinton in the latest national polls, but he has a narrow path to potential victory if he can win a number of key states – including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where globalization and free trade are hot, contentious issues. For her part, Mrs. Clinton is promising to “review” NAFTA after embracing a more trade-skeptical stance during her primary run against Bernie Sanders. She also says she will oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping trade deal signed but not yet ratified by the U.S., Canada, Mexico and nine other countries.

It’s no longer a given that the United States is unreservedly committed to free trade amid rising angst about globalization, trade deals and lost manufacturing jobs. And that’s a huge problem for a trade-dependent country such as Canada, which ships nearly three-quarters of its merchandise exports to one customer, the United States. Merchandise trade accounted for 55 per cent of gross domestic product in 2015, up from less than 30 per cent in the 1960s. Exports to the United States alone make up a fifth of Canada’s economy. The economic integration between the two countries is even more sweeping when trade in services and investment flows are thrown into the mix.

MORE

 

[ABikerSailor]

I hope the damn thing is never completed. Why? It goes right over the top of the aquifer that supplies drinking water and irrigation to the whole central US.

If that pipeline leaked over the aquifer, it would sink to the bottom and pollute the whole damn thing. Tar sands oil doesn't float like normal crude in water, it sinks.