You are on page 1of 2

February 8, 2014 Write to the State Department - Day 6 The State Department (DOS) will soon make a National

Interest Determination whether or not to approve the TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline application. The DOS Final Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) claims the rate of extraction of the Alberta tarsands will be “insignificantly” affected whether or not the Keystone XL or any other pipeline is construction. If one believes the German Advisory Council on Global Change’s 2009 report “Solving the climate dilemma: The budget approach” (the PDF may be download at http:/ /, then we have already missed a relatively painless opportunity to prevent disastrous levels of climate change. We are now facing the prospect similar to what Dr. James E. Hansen and his team (and other scientists) have admonished: that humanity must quickly begin to reduce burning coal, oil and gas in order to achieve 5.1% and more annual reductions of carbon fuel combustion and concomitant reductions in CO2 emissions.

Figure 3.2-1 The need for scale and urgency Solving the climate dilemma: The budget approach

How can we do that while developing the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin bitumen deposits to over 800,000 barrels per day of diluted bitumen (dilbit)? The FSEIS does not explain how, since the premise and consideration of CO2 reductions is non-existent in the basic assumptions, analysis and discussion. Following is an example of the open-ended and inconclusive wording found in Section 1.4 Market Analysis, begging answers to “what if” scenarios, i.e., distinct possibilities for future context which are apparently unexplored, even in terms of sensitivity analyses. If the context suggested does materialize, what then? Rex & Barack: Retire Refineries. Replace Refineries with Renewables.

What the FSEIS describes as an “insignificant” connection between the rate of excavation of Canadian bitumen and Keystone XL pipeline becomes significant. From Section 1.4 Market Analysis § Summary of Analysis (page 1.4-8):

What if 1) rail options diminish or become too costly as a result of regulation and excessive derailments, spills, explosions, loss of life, and property damage, or 2) prices persist below current or most projected levels in the long run? How likely or unlikely is either of those or other fundamental assumptions? It appears that there is more than a remote possibility that Keystone XL could play an important role the expansion of Canadian bitumen extraction, and therefore, would contribute to the deleterious effects of climate change brought about by the combustion of the fossil fuels produced from tarsands. The Keystone XL pipeline - like other means of bitumen transport -- does nothing to inhibit, slow down or stop the extraction of Canadian bitumen. Keystone XL only has the potential to exacerbate a climate catastrophe. Keystone XL is not in the National Interest. It’ s only purpose is to move fossil fuels to market. Its construction and operation is contraindicated, as is any other means of transport of the tarsand bitumen from Canada to be burned. Facilitating the transport and combustion of increasing amounts of fossil fuels including bitumen is not in the National Interest because of the disastrous effects of the resulting changes in climate in the USA as well as globally. The Keystone XL pipeline’s potential to facilitate bitumen excavation and combustion is not in the National Interest. Please write to the Department of State at http:/ /

Rex & Barack: Retire Refineries. Replace Refineries with Renewables.