Yes. Of course. On what planet would you think otherwise?
On the planet where one can ask a question and have if answered with something other than snark. Since you seem to be an expert on the financials, can you tell me how much? A cite would be nice if you have one.
When the insinuation is that Canada is somehow violating US sovereignty, then it deserves a snarky response.
How much isn’t relevant as long as both parties agree to the price.
Obviously Canada wouldn’t be “violating” U.S. sovereignty, that’s why it has to be approved. So you don’t think it’s “relevant” whether we get $1 a year or a $1 per barrel transported via the pipeline?
I’m sure it is relevant to the parties involved in any negotiations. What business is it of ours?
Interesting question, are we really sure the US is a party to the agreement? Outside of passing laws, and stuff. Signing agreements, shit like that. I mean, if Belgium passed laws about it, that wouldn’t make them a party to it!
An uncommon…nay, unique!…insight into the issues. I doubt a anyone else would have thought of it!
There’s a serious public policy debate going on. I’m not clear on why this aspect of the deal should be considered nobody’s business. Especially when there has be debate about whether the government should be able to use takings to ensure the pipeline is built on the preferred route. Is that not reason enough to discuss compensation, in your view?
So, every foreign company that opens an office in the US and then complies with its laws requires your personal oversight on legal deals it may make while doing its business? Look it up in the annual report if it is that important to you.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
There’s a serious public policy debate going on.
[/QUOTE]
On what? Whether a pipeline should be built? There are lots of pipelines already built and more are being built constantly. As to the seriousness of this debate, it isn’t. Buying oil from your largest trading partner and one of your closest allies vs. third world theocrats and dictatorships is the only debate that matters. The rest of it is just political posturing around the environment and safety issues.
Just because you have a burr in your saddle about who-knows-what doesn’t mean that Congress and the White House aren’t having a serious debate on whether this pipeline should be built.
Thank you for your opinion that it is all just “political posturing,” but you’ve managed to contribute the least substance to my honest questions on whether or not building this pipeline is a good idea.
I’m not big on discussing this topic as it’s such a small issue that has been overblown, but this is a part of it that does bother me. What is the return for the U.S. taxpayer? Well it seems infinite to me since the U.S. taxpayer isn’t funding anything. People act like this pipeline will be publicly funded. It won’t. This is a privately financed deal that will result in the generation of tax revenues.
Why are the proponents (the ones who aren’t financially invested) of the pipeline so enthusiastic for something which won’t benefit them in any significant way?
This is exactly correct. I don’t know anyone in the oil industry that cares about this pipeline. That it has been made into a big deal shows the dysfunction of our political system.
Right, but the fact that a disaster on a plane is more spectacular doesn’t change the risk (or loss) assessment at all. It just LOOKS more dangerous if you don’t look at the numbers, since a large spill happening at once gets in the news while a lot of small spills which does more actual damage doesn’t.
I agree that from a fiscal perspective that the pipeline only makes marginal sense, since it would be a large capital investment that would somewhat defray the increased costs of rail or alternative pipeline transit (I assume the ROI would be several years at least), but this is not the argument you guys started the thread with. The irony here is that THIS argument actually makes the most sense for why someone would oppose this pipeline (well, someone like me anyway), while the actual arguments used by most both in this thread and by various environmental groups don’t, those being the increased CO2 (which isn’t going to be much of an increase, since the oil is already being shipped, refined and used today) and danger of spills (since, as you note, the current method of shipping is actually many times more likely to cause environmental damage than the proposed pipeline).
As has been noted (by me at least 3 times in this thread) this entire issue is a tempest in a tea cup, and is really just political bread and circuses for the faithful on both sides to get hopped up about and distract from real, actual issues. That’s it’s only real purpose at this point.
Because it is now a political issue. Why are the opponents so enthusiastic? Same reason.
Honestly, my own view coming into the thread is that the pipeline was more or less like building a factory, power plant, or refinery somewhere. If Pfizer builds a new plant to produce some kind of drug, odds are very, very high that I have no personal stake in that facility. It might not even produce any new jobs, other than construction jobs, if it is simply relocating business from Point A to Point B.
But just because that plant doesn’t benefit me, or perhaps anyone other than Pfizer’s shareholders if it is simply moving jobs from one place to another, I don’t think is a convincing argument for why private money shouldn’t be allowed to build private infrastructure.
The matter of the safety of the pipeline is a very legitimate public policy concern, but from what I’ve heard so far, it isn’t clear to me whether there’s a way to mitigate that concern or if it really should be a dealbreaker.
TransCanada, like any pipeline company, would need to acquire an easement or right of way from the landowners. The process is exactly like you would think it would be. They negotiate individually with each landowners to set up compensation. Different land has different value and negotiations are taking place with probably thousands of different parties, so compensation will vary considerably.
I’m sure Canada is not paying the U.S. for anything. If the U.S. is a landowner for any of the land affected (I’m sure they are since much of that western area is federally owned) then they would get paid by TransCanada the same as anyone else. I’m sure that payment isn’t anything like half the equity in the company.
The flaw here is that if we don’t build the pipeline we won’t be shipping that crude for refining anyway because we don’t have a vertical purpose built pipeline (well, a new one) and instead are relying on a rail system that is already a sunk cost. This makes no sense. The pipeline will certainly get an improved ROI down the road, but obviously the current mixed system is doing the job wrt getting the oil to the refineries and market.
And it’s doing it at a higher environmental cost, ironically enough. So, basically all that stopping this pipeline is doing is cutting into a fraction of the oil companies transportation costs in the medium and long terms, which will marginally reduce their profits…at the cost of more environmental damage due to the fact that the current system using rail is higher risk. The same amount of CO2 is going to be released, the same front loaded CO2 needed to extract this resource and that makes it ‘dirty’ is going to be released, but you have prevented those marginal profits to the bad oil companies! 
The only thing that could shut this down and lower the amount of oil extracted is the price of oil on the global market. Keep it down (by, basically, producing more from other sources, which means…?) and that will probably impact the oil extracted in Alberta, at least in the short term. In the medium term, though, I doubt OPEC will continue to keep production high indefinitely, so eventually the price of oil will recover and go up again, and this facility will continue to be used and the oil sent to market. In the long term, the best bet is to push for alternatives that render petroleum oil used as a major energy source for personal transport somewhere along with whale oil used for reading lamps…and you aren’t going to get as much movement on that with oil at $50-60/barrel as you will with oil at $150-160, even if that means in the short term we will be extracting oil from places like Alberta as fast as we can.
OK, let’s put it this way: Why is this a political issue at all? If the Canadian oil companies want a pipeline along a particular route, surely they can negotiate with the appropriate landowners to buy or lease that land, and buy sufficient insurance against the possibility of a spill, and go ahead and build it themselves, without any governmental involvement, right? That’s the free market in action, just like conservatives claim they like it.
Except it’s impractical for the oil companies to do so: There are a lot of landowners to negotiate with, and some of them will want prices higher than what the oil companies are willing to pay. So they’re trying to get the land via eminent domain, instead, using governmental compulsion instead of the free market.
Why should we go along with that? Use of eminent domain is well-established for public works like roads, and there’s a fair bit of precedent for using it for private development that’ll benefit the community. But using it for something that won’t even benefit the community? How is that possibly justified? It’s socialism at its worst.
It’s a political issue because when you’re building a pipeline that crosses the U.S.-Canadian border the Department of State has to approve of it, and that’s a very political organ of government. The Federal body that regulates pipelines that are solely within the United States is structured to be politically independent. The various States also have to approve things like this in varying levels of political processes, but I think the last State that had any legal hold up was Nebraska, which was settled recently.
I don’t believe they’re using eminent domain at all, but I could be mistaken. Pipelines are often built over unproductive lands so most landowners are thrilled at the chance to get money in exchange for land they don’t use and couldn’t sell for much if they sold it outright.
Well, since you chose Pfizer, look at the results of Kelo v. New London. The land that was taken from private owners is now sitting vacant and unused, Pfizer closed their New London campus after the Wyeth merger, and the taxpayers are on the hook for millions. There is simply no way to build that pipeline without eminent domain.