On November 6, Obama was delighted [6]to take his place in the pantheon of progressive, liberal Warren Buffett apparatchiks when he proudly announced that the Keystone XL pipeline, which had been delayed for years, had finally been rejected.
[7]
Exactly two months later, Obama's "mission accomplished" banner has just led to a big slap on the face of the former constitutional expert, and could carry a multi-billion dollar chage after late this afternoon, TransCanada filed a lawsuit in Federal court in Houston, suing the U.S. government and claiming the Obama acted unconstitutionally when he rejected the Keystone XL, while also seeking $15 billion alleging the pipeline denial was "arbitrary and unjustified."
The company's lawsuit in federal court in Houston does not seek legal damages but wants the permit denial invalidated and seeks a ruling that no future president can block construction.
According to Reuters [8], in filing the NAFTA claim, TransCanada said it "had every reason to expect its application would be granted" as it had met the same criteria the U.S. State Department used when approving other similar cross-border pipelines.
"Presumably they have a case that there are damages, as they were led to believe that if they did these things they'd get it across the line, but they weren't able to," said portfolio manager Ryan Bushell at Leon Frazer & Associates in Toronto, whose firm owns more than a million shares in TransCanada.
"I'd imagine that this is more than a PR move and they believe they have a real case."
If so that would be big trouble for not only Obama, who will have to find a lot of NSA dirt on a Texas federal judge, but also for Warren Buffett, whose intervention in Obama's "decision-making process" on halting TransCanada will surely be divulged during the discovery process, revealing the crony capitalist who stood to benefit the most.
The White House referred requests for comment to the U.S. State Department. The State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Not surprisingly, Canada is staying far away from this one, In Ottawa, a spokesman for the Canadian foreign ministry said the government "has no role in this dispute." Since October, Canada has been run by Justin Trudeau's Liberals, who backed the pipeline but not as vociferously as the former ruling Conservatives.
TransCanada said it will also take an after-tax write down of C$2.5 billion ($1.78 billion) to C$2.9 billion in the fourth quarter after the permit denial.
The environmentalists, despite winning the first round, are suddenly concerned:
"The suit is a reminder that we shouldn’t be signing new trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership that allow corporations to sue governments that try and keep fossil fuels in the ground," said Jason Kowalski, policy director of environmental group 350.org which opposed the pipeline.
TransCanada called the rejection "a symbolic gesture" aimed at burnishing the Obama administration's leadership on climate change in the eyes of the international community.
It was, of course, right. But more importantly, the rejection was a means to promote Warren Buffett's "alternative" oil pipelines, the railways, which in 2015 had their worst safety year on record, with countless flaming BNSF derailments, which, oddly enough, the White House had little to say about.
[9]
