This article is from the source 'rtcom' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.rt.com/business/528459-canada-kestone-pipeline-us-lawsuit/
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Canadian Keystone XL pipeline owner seeks $15 billion In damages from Washington | Canadian Keystone XL pipeline owner seeks $15 billion In damages from Washington |
| (about 2 months later) | |
| TC Energy, the Canadian pipeline operator that was building the Keystone XL project is seeking $15 billion in damages from the Biden Administration. | TC Energy, the Canadian pipeline operator that was building the Keystone XL project is seeking $15 billion in damages from the Biden Administration. |
| According to the notice, the US administration violated the North American Free Trade Agreement with its decision to kill the $9-billion project that would have carried 830,000 bpd of Canadian crude to the United States. The company had to official drop Keystone XL after President Biden revoked a crucial permit. | According to the notice, the US administration violated the North American Free Trade Agreement with its decision to kill the $9-billion project that would have carried 830,000 bpd of Canadian crude to the United States. The company had to official drop Keystone XL after President Biden revoked a crucial permit. |
| Proponents of the Keystone XL project have argued that scrapping the pipeline would not diminish the demand for the heavy crude oil that the pipeline would have carried to US refineries. Instead, it would merely raise the United States’ dependence on crude oil from OPEC countries. An argument has been made that it would also kill jobs on both sides of the border. | Proponents of the Keystone XL project have argued that scrapping the pipeline would not diminish the demand for the heavy crude oil that the pipeline would have carried to US refineries. Instead, it would merely raise the United States’ dependence on crude oil from OPEC countries. An argument has been made that it would also kill jobs on both sides of the border. |
| Opponents, on the other hand, argued that the Keystone XL was unnecessary because there were enough pipelines carrying Canadian crude into the US. It was on the grounds of this perceived lack of necessity for the infrastructure that President Obama suspended the project years ago before his successor, Donald Trump, revived it. | Opponents, on the other hand, argued that the Keystone XL was unnecessary because there were enough pipelines carrying Canadian crude into the US. It was on the grounds of this perceived lack of necessity for the infrastructure that President Obama suspended the project years ago before his successor, Donald Trump, revived it. |
| It was suggested back in January that if TC Energy did not challenge the permit rescission in court or through NAFTA, it might sell some of the pipes from the project to offset some of what has been invested so far. | It was suggested back in January that if TC Energy did not challenge the permit rescission in court or through NAFTA, it might sell some of the pipes from the project to offset some of what has been invested so far. |
| Canadian oil sands production, meanwhile, is on the rise, suggesting demand is quite healthy. According to IHS Markit, oil sands output is on its way to rebounding to pre-pandemic levels and rise by 650,000 bpd between this year and 2030. Since most of the oil sands output not used locally goes to US refineries, this means the argument against additional pipelines may have been premature. | Canadian oil sands production, meanwhile, is on the rise, suggesting demand is quite healthy. According to IHS Markit, oil sands output is on its way to rebounding to pre-pandemic levels and rise by 650,000 bpd between this year and 2030. Since most of the oil sands output not used locally goes to US refineries, this means the argument against additional pipelines may have been premature. |
| This article was originally published on Oilprice.com | This article was originally published on Oilprice.com |
| Dear readers and commenters, | |
| We have implemented a new engine for our comment section. We hope the transition goes smoothly for all of you. Unfortunately, the comments made before the change have been lost due to a technical problem. We are working on restoring them, and hoping to see you fill up the comment section with new ones. You should still be able to log in to comment using your social-media profiles, but if you signed up under an RT profile before, you are invited to create a new profile with the new commenting system. | |
| Sorry for the inconvenience, and looking forward to your future comments, | |
| RT Team. |