Obama’s vow on climate change signals bumpy road for Keystone


News Articles Featured | Shawn McCarthy | The Globe and Mail | January 21, 2013

Read the full article on the originating site

U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to show global leadership on climate change, a vow that could have a major impact on Canada’s oil exports to its largest customer as well as this country’s own climate debate.

The Harper government is lobbying heavily to have President Obama approve the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry 830,000 barrels per day of oil-sands bitumen to the vast refining complex on the U.S. Gulf and would ease the delivery bottlenecks that have driven down Canadian crude prices.

Opponents have mounted a well-organized, celebrity-studded campaign against the pipeline, arguing it would increase U.S. dependency on the oil sands, which they describe as the world’s dirtiest oil.

In his inaugural speech Monday, Mr. Obama highlighted climate change as a priority in his second term, though he will act without the support of Congress where the Republicans control the House of Representatives.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” he said.

Mr. Obama did not spell out any specific plans in his speech – those will have to wait for the State of the Union address that he will make in Congress next month, and for the installation of a new slate of cabinet secretaries. He did suggest that his administration will fight for continued funding for clean-energy technology, something Republicans have criticized as a boondoggle.

At the very least, the Harper government will face political pressure to match whatever policies Mr. Obama can deliver without congressional support, which could include new energy-efficiency standards, support for renewable energy and greenhouse-gas-emissions regulations for the energy and manufacturing sectors.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said his government aims to move in tandem with the Americans because the two economies are so intertwined that Canada would be disadvantaged if it did not harmonize its approach with its largest trading partner.

Ottawa has moved with the United States on tougher vehicle-efficiency standards: It is promising to introduce sector-by-sector emission rules but has been slow to do so. Likewise, the Obama administration largely stalled in its first term on regulating industrial emissions, as Republicans and some more conservative Democrats argued such rules would drive up energy costs and impede the economic recovery.

There are skeptics who believe Mr. Obama will be severely limited in what he can deliver despite his rhetorical commitment.

“He is incredibly constrained in what he can do,” said Michael Cleland, an energy-policy expert with the Canada West Foundation.

On Keystone XL, opponents are urging the administration to revisit an earlier conclusion in which it stated the project would not increase overall greenhouse-gas emissions because the oil-sands crude would be produced regardless of the fate of a single pipeline project.

In November, 2011, Mr. Obama delayed a decision on the project until TransCanada Corp. could reroute it and address concerns in Nebraska about damage to a fragile ecological zone.

That rerouting work is done and the company now expects approval from Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman in the coming weeks.

But Mr. Obama’s promise of action on climate change may signal trouble for the Canadian pipeline project, particularly if he is looking for a highly visible action that does not requires backing from Congress.

“After President Obama’s inaugural remarks about climate change, Keystone XL pipeline proponents should not assume he will approve it,” said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at Washington’s Center for American Progress.

President’s trip to Canada defines critical carbon moment


Opinion | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | James Hansen | OP-ED | February 17, 2009

Read the full article on the originating site

President Barack Obama has committed to fight global warming. In just his first few weeks in office, he already has taken steps to move the U.S. in a direction that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The most important step so far is the indication that tailpipe emissions will be regulated as needed for improved fuel efficiency. Similar steps will be needed to improve energy efficiencies in buildings and homes.

In my opinion, and in the view of most economists, those steps must be accompanied by a rising price on carbon emissions if we hope to stabilize atmospheric composition. Incentives must be provided for economic development that steadily replaces outdated fossil fuel-based energy infrastructure. Such transformation is needed if we are to preserve for future generations the remarkable planet we inherited from our elders.

Now Obama is heading off on his first foreign trip —destination Canada. Few realize that Canada is the United States’ No. 1 source of oil. And, unlike energy conversations in prior administrations, science and the environment are expected to be an important part of the agenda.

Let us hope so.

The Canadian media are full of speculation that the Canadian government will push for special treatment and protections from global warming regulation of its fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions — the tar sands oil development in Alberta, where much of Canada’s oil is derived. Such protection would be disastrous for life on our planet.

The tar sands of Canada constitute one of our planet’s greatest threats. They are a double-barreled threat. First, producing oil from tar sands emits two to three times the global warming pollution of conventional oil. But the process also diminishes one of the best carbon reduction tools on the planet — Canada’s Boreal Forest.

This forest plays a key role in the global carbon equation by serving as a major storehouse for terrestrial carbon — indeed, it is believed to store more carbon per hectare than any other ecosystem on Earth. When this pristine forest is strip-mined for tar sands development, much of its stored carbon is lost. Canada’s Boreal Forest is also the reservoir for a large fraction of North America’s clean, fresh water, home to about 5 billion migratory birds, and some of the largest remaining populations of caribou, moose, bear and wolves on the planet.

As a climate scientist, I am focused on what levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide can be considered safe. In the past few years, based on increasingly detailed information about the history of Earth and observations of ongoing climate change, a startling conclusion has become apparent. The safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 parts per million, if we want the diversity of other species on the planet to survive — as well as “amenities” that humans require, such as fresh water supplies, stable coastlines and a normal degree of extreme weather events.

Unfortunately, because of our fossil fuel use, our planet is already at 385 parts per million. It is still practical, with improved agricultural and forestry practices to get future carbon dioxide levels below 350 ppm, provided we phase out emissions from the largest source — coal — in coming decades. It is a tough challenge to develop the needed renewable energies of the future, but it is doable. Together with improved energy efficiency we can move to the clean world of the future, beyond fossil fuels.

So an underlying fact has become crystal clear. The horrendously carbon-intensive unconventional fossil fuels, tar shale in the United States and tar sands in Canada, cannot be developed. The carbon emissions from tar shale and tar sands would initiate a continual unfolding of climate disasters over the course of this century. We would be miserable stewards of creation. We would rob our own children and grandchildren.

Now is a critical moment in the history of our planet. U.S. and Canadian governments must agree that the unconventional fossil fuels, tar sands and tar shale, will not be developed. They will send a message that their statements recognizing “a planet in peril” are not empty rhetoric. They will provide hope to young people and nature. We can preserve our heritage with its remarkable diversity of life.

James E. Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and is an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

Syncrude charged over dead ducks


News Articles | Calgary Herald | Edmonton Journal | Darcy Henton & Hanneke Brooymans | February 09, 2009

Read the full article on the originating site

EDMONTON ‚Äî Syncrude Canada faces charges from both Alberta and the federal governments in connection with the deaths of 500 ducks on one of the company’s tailings ponds north of Fort McMurray last spring.

The provincial government laid charges under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, accusing Syncrude of failing to have proper deterrents in place at the facility.

Environment Canada charged Syncrude under the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act for one count of allegedly depositing or permitting the deposit of a substance harmful to migratory birds in waters or an area frequented by birds.

Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner said Monday both charges will be dealt with during the same court hearing.

“I don’t know if circumstances such as this have ever happened,” Renner said. “This is the first of its kind for charges to be laid in this manner in Alberta.”

Alberta Justice Minister Alison Redford said the investigation was a joint investigation between Alberta Environment and Environment Canada.

“This has been done hand in hand,” she said.

The maximum penalty for the provincial charge is a $500,000 fine, and the maximum on the federal charge on summary conviction is a fine of $300,000 or six months imprisonment, or both. Redford said that if the province is successful in getting a conviction, it will be seeking an alternative penalty against Syncrude that involves “creative sentencing” around what the company may have to do in terms of technical development or environmental program work.

About 500 ducks landed on the Aurora mine tailings pond north of Fort McMurray on April 28. They became covered in oily residue floating on the surface and quickly sank to the bottom of the pond. Only a handful of waterfowl were recovered. The company said it delayed its normal deployment of scare cannons at the pond due to a late spring snowstorm.

The deaths caused an international uproar and critics said it gave Canada, and particularly Alberta, a black eye. Environmentalists have branded oil from the oilsands “dirty” and lobbied governments to refuse to buy it or use it.

Renner said it was important to the credibility of the environmental regulatory system to lay charges in this widely publicized incident.

“I think we have an obligation to enforce our legislation,” he said. “If we believe there has been an infraction committed under our legislation I think we have an obligation not only to the environment, but to the public and to the credibility of our system.”

Syncrude is not saying how they will plead to the charges.

“It’s really early in the process right now, so we’re very much in review mode,” said Alain Moore, a company spokesman. “We’ll be looking at the charges, understanding the charges and how they apply. And our legal team, after the analysis, are hoping to decide the appropriate path forward and that will be taking place over the next few weeks.”

Meanwhile, the company is working on preventing a repeat incident.

“The system had worked well for decades, but obviously last spring showed it didn’t work as well as intended, so changes had to be made. Since then we’ve had a thorough investigation to help understand what barriers we encountered and how we can help incorporate steps to prevent it from happening again. We’re in the process of finalizing those changes. And we committed to our stakeholders to communicate those changes prior to spring migration and we’ll be doing so.”

Moore said the company looked at a whole bunch of different things from technology to their protocol in deploying their deterrents.

“We have spoken to both Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and they’ve provided input to the improvement plan.

“This incident was horrible. There’s a huge resolve in our organization to help prevent it from happening again.”

Alberta NDP MLA Rachel Notley said the $500,000 maximum penalty is “laughable” and will not prevent other similar incidents from occurring.

“It’s just not good enough,” she said. “Five hundred thousand is a slap on the wrist.”

She said the province should boost the fine by 10 to 100 times if it expects to see change in the way natural resources are managed by private corporations.

But Renner said he believed the legislation is robust and does not need to be changed.

Notley also criticized the fact it took the province nearly 10 months to lay the charge.

“It’s profit first; protecting people and the environment second,” she said. “That’s the way the government operates and the kind of delays we see are indicative of that fact.”

Tailings ponds are used by oilsands mining companies to store water used in the oil upgrading process. Particles of heavy bitumen, sand and clay settle out in the ponds so the water can be reused.

New provincial rules governing tailings ponds were unveiled last week. They call on oilsands mining companies to reduce the fine particles in liquid tailings by 50 per cent within four years, on top of what is already being captured.

The directive, posted on the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board website, directs that tailings ponds be made ready for reclamation within five years after they are no longer being used.

Companies must also describe in detail dedicated disposal areas for their ponds, have them approved by the ERCB and submit annual compliance reports for them.

If companies don’t meet requirements, they face increased inspections, shutdown orders and delays in approving any upgrades or improvements, the ERCB said.



Tar Sands Pipeline Delay Makes Room for Alternatives


Media Releases | ForestEthics, Equiterre | January 19, 2009

Ontario and Quebec can create green jobs and avoid dirty oil

MONTREAL and TORONTO – Conservationists celebrated news that Enbridge will shelve its controversial “Trailbreaker” project to reverse the flow of oil in the Montreal-Sarnia pipeline in order to bring tar sands oil to and through Montreal for export. Groups see this decision as an opportunity.

“This is a great opportunity,” said Steven Guilbeault, Deputy Executive Director of √âquiterre. “Ontario and Qu√©bec spend tens of billions of dollars each year to secure a piece of the increasingly unstable supply of an energy commodity whose long-term price projection is skyrocketing. We must start making the transition away from fossil fuels and pursue aggressive energy security policies that are both sustainable, make sense economically, create green jobs at home while fighting climate change.”

The Trailbreaker project would have brought tar sands oil to Quebec for the first time and ultimately made Ontario almost entirely dependent on tar sands oil by cutting off access to sources of oil other than Alberta.

“Ontarians just dodged a bullet with the shelving of this project,” said Matt Price, Project Manager with Environmental Defence. “Trailbreaker would take away Ontarians choice of oil – it would be dirty oil from the tar sands and nothing else.”

The Enbridge announcement comes just as a new report on Trailbreaker is being released: Freedom from Dirty Oil: Ontario’s Tar Sands Decision. The report highlights how Ontario can save billions on oil and create jobs by investing in urban infill, transit, vehicle efficiency and low carbon fuels, and avoid dependency on tar sands oil.

“The federal government has allowed the tar sands to become the most destructive project on Earth,” said Gillian McEachern, Senior Energy Campaigner with ForestEthics. “Unless aggressive action is taken on the tar sands we will be on guard to oppose Trailbreaker again should it resurface.”

Download Freedom from Dirty Oil: Ontario’s Tar Sands Decision.

Opponents line up against proposed Canada oil pipeline


News Articles | Minnesota Public Radio | by Bob Kelleher | April 22, 2008

Read the full article on the originating site

Duluth, Minn. — Enbridge Energy plans a 36-inch diameter pipeline running almost 1,000 miles, from Alberta, Canada, to Superior, Wis. Dubbed the Alberta Clipper, this line would cut a diagonal across northern Minnesota.

Some opposition is predictable — from property owners who would lose land to right-of-way, and others concerned about wetlands and oil spills.

But this project is getting lots of flak from people worried about climate change. Janette Brimmer is with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

“While there are concerns about the landscape through which the pipeline travels, we’re quite concerned from the policy perspective with what it’s carrying, and where it’s coming from and where it’s going,” Brimmer said. “What it’s carrying is oil that is produced in Alberta, Canada’s tar sands, or sometimes called the oil sands region.”

The Alberta tar sands hold a vast pool of oil, sometimes described as the next Saudi Arabia. But Brimmer says that oil comes with a cost. She describes the tar sands as oil-bearing dirt.

“The soil itself has oil in it. But the process to get the dirt to give up the oil is extremely energy intensive,” said Brimmer. “It basically requires scooping up huge amounts of dirt in these boreal forest regions — regions that look a lot like far northern Minnesota — stripping away all the trees and vegetation on top, scooping up the sands or the clays, and then steaming it.”

Making that steam takes lots of natural gas, which she says creates significant amounts of greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide.

Brimmer says the oil the pipeline would carry comes with too high an environmental pricetag.

“If Minnesota is going to permit this and become a player, it’s our argument that we need to take a step back and think about the consequences,” said Brimmer. “Especially in light of the fact that our governor and our Legislature are in many ways trying to take us in the other direction — to be more energy conscious, to be more careful about greenhouse gases.”

Brimmer says the environmental costs of the pipeline flies in the face of state environmental efforts.

The MCEA is bringing its arguments to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, which has to sign off on the project before it can go ahead.

Enbridge Energy spokeswoman Denise Hamsher says MCEA’s argument, while laudable, is baseless.

“The matter before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is about the pipeline, it’s not about the production source,” Hamsher said. “When those projects are proposed, they undergo their own environmental permitting. And Alberta has gone through a very extensive environmental permitting effort.”

Stopping the pipeline, Hamsher says, does nothing for Alberta or global warming.

“The oil sands are going to be produced, with or without this pipeline,” Hamsher said. “But without this pipeline that Enbridge is now proposing, that production will just go to other parts of the United States, or other parts of the world.”

Bob Cupit, manager of the Public Utility Commission’s Facilities Permitting Unit, says the PUC will balance the environmental costs of construction with the expected benefits. He says there’s no established requirement to consider the source of the oil in the pipeline.

But, he says, it’s not unthinkable that climate concerns could play a role.

“We’re getting these kinds of debates going on in a number of different dimensions of energy supply, and we’re trying to make the distinctions between the policies that are yet unsettled, and our responsibility to review these projects,” Cupit said.

Canadian officials have approved the portion of the line that runs north of Minnesota. The MCEApresents its climate change arguments May 13 and 14 in a hearing before the Public Utilities Commission.

The PUC will also consider a second, smaller line that would carry a product north, from Chicago to the Alberta oil fields, to dilute the heavy crude recovered in Alberta.

NOTE: The MPR website has both the story in audio and a slide show.

Environmental group says oil spill underscores its point


News Articles | Janesville (WI) Gazette | AP | January 05, 2007

Read the full article on the originating site

The state Department of Natural Resources has approved construction permits for Houston-based Enbridge Energy Co. to install the 321-mile crude-oil pipeline.

But Midwest Environmental Advocates of Madison sued the DNR two weeks ago, claiming it didn’t perform a thorough environmental impact study before granting approval.

“Our main concern is, what causes these ruptures?” said Brent Denzin, an attorney for the group. “And what if it happens in one of the 68 miles of wetlands this (new) pipeline will run through? What then?”

Officials are investigating what caused Monday’s rupture that leaked crude oil onto half an acre of a 30-acre plot of farmland near Curtiss in central Wisconsin’s Clark County.

The oil leaked from a 4-foot crack in a length of pipe that has been removed and sent for analysis, said Enbridge Energy spokeswoman Denise Hamsher.

About 52,500 gallons – or 1,250 barrels – of crude oil spilled, much of it recovered by workers after it pooled in drainage ditches, Hamsher said. Cleanup crews worked around the clock since the spill and expected to finish Thursday night, she added.

But even if Enbridge cleaned the leak quickly, that doesn’t excuse its track record of spills, Denzin said.

According to the company’s 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report posted on its Web site, Enbridge averaged 53 spills per year between 2001 and 2005, accounting for a total spillage of about 2.5 million gallons of crude oil.

“The DNR said they didn’t think the new pipeline would have a significant impact (on the environment),” Denzin said. “But with those types of failures in the past, we simply couldn’t buy the fact it wasn’t significant.”

Dave Siebert, the director of the DNR’s Office of Energy, said the DNR felt comfortable with the quality of its six-month environmental assessment effort prior to granting Enbridge’s permit.

Hamsher said the recent spill may raise issues about pipeline safety, but it also shows how effective Enbridge’s spill-control measures are.

“The system detected the spill immediately and shut down, the crews were down there right away and we avoided any environmental impact,” she said.

The company transports 1.5 million barrels of crude oil – or 63 million gallons – a day through its pipeline network in the Upper Midwest, according to Hamsher.

The farmer on whose land the spill occurred said Enbridge did an “excellent” job of containing the spill and cleaning up promptly. Dean Jarvis, 54, said the company will replace any contaminated soil but he wasn’t sure whether he’d be given additional compensation.

“In my opinion, they don’t have to. If they do, fine,” Jarvis said.

Oil spill tainted water table


News Articles | Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel | by Lee Bergquist | February 16, 2007

The accident is one of two resulting in the release of at least 176,000 gallons of Canadian crude oil in northern Wisconsin since the beginning of the year.

Both are under investigation by the U.S. Office of Pipeline Safety and being reviewed by the state Department of Natural Resources.

The spills took place during construction of a 320-mile pipeline by Enbridge Inc. of Calgary, Canada, alongside its existing pipeline from Superior to near Whitewater.

The expansion has drawn criticism, and a lawsuit, from environmental groups including the Wisconsin Wetlands Association and the River Alliance of Wisconsin. The groups say the massive undertaking should have required a highly detailed environmental impact statement, instead of a less rigorous environmental assessment.

The DNR, which reviews such projects for effects on streams and wetlands, said the pipeline expansion did not rise to the level at which Enbridge needed to complete the more thorough analysis.

The operations in Wisconsin owned by Enbridge were formerly known as Lakehead Pipeline.

Enbridge is expected to seek permission shortly for construction of another pipeline – this time along private land where a pipeline doesn’t currently exist.

The new pipeline would run through 23 miles of Rock County into Illinois, where the company also plans to add more capacity.

“Obviously, it does not make us feel very comfortable to trust Enbridge to do the right thing,” said Lori Grant, policy program manager for the River Alliance.

“I think they are in a hurry to move forward with the project. It makes you wonder if these spills are a part of their M.O.”

But Enbridge spokeswoman Denise Hamsher said, “We greatly regret what happened – and it’s a spill we just won’t accept.”

She said the two spills are the first breaks in more than four years along the company’s more than 8,000 miles of pipeline right of way in North America.

Enbridge says it operates the largest pipeline system in the world.

The company moves crude oil from northwest Canada to terminal locations, including Chicago, Detroit and Montreal.

Enbridge said the expansions are needed because of growing demand for Canadian crude – an alternative to Mideast oil.

Oil moved through Wisconsin is refined in Chicago.

The first of the two spills took place Jan. 1 in Clark County when 50,000 gallons of crude leaked onto farmland and into a drainage ditch.

Hamsher said the pipeline inexplicably cracked open and released crude until an operator could shut down the line from an operations center in Canada.

The oil was removed and returned to the pipeline, she said.

Crews will use equipment that runs the length of the pipeline to look for explanations for why the pipeline cracked, Hamsher said.

In the second accident, Feb. 2 near Exeland in Rusk County, crews mistakenly struck the existing pipeline while preparing to extend the new pipeline beneath a roadway.

Oil filled a large hole more than 20 feet deep before the flow was again shut down. But in this case, Enbridge and the DNR confirmed oil that was not removed seeped into the water table, a finding that could potentially affect local private water supplies.

But state officials and the company say the spill is in a remote locale where only one seasonal home lies within the immediate area.

Monitoring wells will be constructed around the accident site to determine the spread of the oil.

A spokesman for the Office of Pipeline Safety said it was premature to draw conclusions about the accidents.

DNR records show that the 1973 Lakehead Pipeline break in Jefferson County was the largest such break in Wisconsin.

The Feb. 2 spill appears to be the fourth biggest pipeline spill, according to DNR records, though officials at the agency said computerized records could be incomplete.

There have been other larger spills from bulk tanks, the DNR said.

In 2005, Enbridge reported 412,650 gallons of oil were spilled in its North American operations and largely contained within its operational facilities.

The two spills in Wisconsin this year would represent 43% of that figure.

Reports 3


phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpgDrilling Down: Groundwater Risks Imposed by In Situ Oil Sands Development

By: Water Matters | By Juli a Ko and William F. Donahue

Published: July 2011

Drilling Down: Groundwater Risks Imposed by In Situ Oil Sands Development provides clear, achievable recommendations for improving groundwater management, assessment and monitoring in the oil sands region. In Drilling Down, Water Matters recommends scientifically rigorous monitoring and assessment of groundwater resources by the provincial and federal governments, and perhaps most importantly the eradication of technical and regulatory uncertainties inherent to the in situ oil sands industry that pose huge risks to groundwater in the region.

Tagged with: water pollution, in situ, water matters, groundwater contamination,monitoring

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (1)Migration of whooping cranes (Grus americana) through Alberta’s bitumen sands region

By: Global Forest Watch Canada | Peter G. Lee

Published: July 2011

This report maps historical records of whooping crane flight paths and landing points in relation to Alberta’s bitumen (oil) sands region. Whooping cranes have regularly flown over and landed within Alberta’s oil sands region. Their migration route intersects with areas leased to and developed by oil sands companies, including the surface mineable area and its associated facilities, mine pits and tailings ponds. Several factors present in the oil sands region, including exposure to tailings ponds, poses a threat to the survival and recovery of the Canadian wild whooping crane population.

Tagged with: wildlife, global forest watch, whooping cranes

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (2)Analysis of Frequency, Magnitude and Consequence of Worst-Case Spills From the Proposed Keystone XL

By: | John Stansbury, Ph.D., P.E.

Published: July 2011

TransCanada is seeking U.S. regulatory approval to build the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada to Texas. The pipeline will transport diluted bitumen (DilBit), a viscous, corrosive form of crude oil across Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The purpose of this paper is to present an independent assessment of the potential for leaks from the pipeline and the potential for environmental damage from those leaks.

Tagged with:

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (3)Economic Impacts of Staged Development of Oil Sands Projects in Alberta (2010-2035)

By: Canadian Energy Research Institute | Afshin Honarvar, Jon Rozhon, Dinara Millington, Thorn Walden, Carlos A. Murillo

Published: June 2011

The worldwide economic recession that hit in 2008 affected the Canadian oil sands significantly. But close to three years later the industry is once again expanding, with a number of major projects under development and still more proposed for the future. Pipelines, or other transportation means such as increased rail haulage, will soon be required to ship new product to destinations in the United States and elsewhere. Three major transportation projects are being planned and have received considerable attention from government, stakeholders, and the general public. These pipeline proposals face opposition, and the possibility exists that one, two, or all three may not be realized. This study examines the impacts of oil sands operations (existing and future) limited by pipeline export capacity. Four capacity scenarios, or cases, are documented within this report:

Tagged with: pipeline, alberta, economic development, transportation, canadian energy research institute

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (4)Marginal Oil – What is driving oil companies dirtier and deeper?

By: Friends of the Earth

Published: May 2011

With conventional oil production in decline, the global oil industry is investing heavily in dirtier and riskier forms of unconventional oil such as heavy crude, tar sands, and oil shale. These investments pose a challenge to the climate, the environment, and local communities. This paper is a document that describes the drivers behind marginal oil investments and gives an overview of existing and potential projects across the globe. It contains important analysis that should be public knowledge and will productively feed the ongoing debate, from Cancun to Durban to Rio and beyond.

Tagged with:

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (5)Dirty Business How TransCanada Pipelines bullies farmers, manipulates oil markets, threatens fresh

By: Friends of the Earth | Kenny Bruno, Steve Herz and Alex Moore.

Published: April 2011

Dirty Business: How TransCanada Pipelines bullies farmers, manipulates oil markets, threatens fresh water and skimps on safety in the United States, examines the tactics and motivations of TransCanada Pipelines, one of the continent’s largest pipeline companies, as it pushes for approval of its proposed mega-project, the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. The Canadian tar sands oil industry produces some 1.5 million barrels a day of this dirty, highly polluting crude. And the United States is its main customer. TransCanada is proposing a new pipeline that would carry the tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Texas – across six U.S. states, several rivers and the Ogallala Aquifer, a source of drinking water for two million people, as well as a source of irrigation water for many of the nation’s farms. Dirty Business shows how TransCanada has bullied farmers and ranchers in America’s heartland into giving up their land; it has misled the American public about the safety risks of the project; and it has aimed to manipulate American oil markets for its own profit. When TransCanada first applied for the Keystone XL permit, its approval appeared to be a foregone conclusion. But controversy of the project is growing, final approval is in question, and the Obama administration has the power to shut it down. To learn more and join the growing fight against TransCanada’s tar sands boondoggle, visit http://www.foe.org/keystone-xl-pipeline.

Tagged with:

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (6)King Carbon: How Enbridge Damages Our Climate as the World’s Largest Tar Sands Shipper

By: Environmental Defence Canada

Published: March 2011

Enbridge is more than just the company that delivers natural gas to homes across Ontario. It’s also the largest shipper of tar sands oil, and is responsible for shipping enough of Canada’s oil and gas each year to equal, when burned, half of Canada’s entire annual release of global warming pollution.

Tagged with: pipeline, enbridge, canada, environmental defence canada,greenhouse gas

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (7)Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks

By: Natural Resources Defense Council

Published: February 2011

Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks, shows that by its nature raw tar sands oil or diluted bitumen is more corrosive and more likely to result in pipeline failures. The risks of spills from tar sands pipelines are high and U.S. safety regulations are not enough to protect special places such as the Great Lakes, the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala Aquifer. With the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in the middle of its environmental impact assessment by the U.S. State Department, getting a better understanding of what raw tar sands oil in a pipe means for our environment and safety is more important than ever.

Tagged with:

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (8)Oil Use Must Drop To Meet Climate Goals

By: Oil Change International, Corporate Ethics International | Lorne Stockman, Kenny Bruno

Published: December 2010

The 2010 World Energy Outlook, published on November 9, shows that in order to meet climate goals global oil demand must peak by 2018. This goal will not be easy to achieve but may still be within reach. The IEA’s forecasts for oil demand have consistently declined for several years and demand growth appears to be slowing without a concerted effort from most countries. The implication for expensive, high risk and high carbon fuels such as Canadian tar sands is that over the long haul, in a world that is responding to climate change, neither price nor demand will support the rapid growth that is currently planned for by industry and the Canadian government.

Tagged with: climate change, corporate ethics international, oil demand, oil change international, iea

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (9)Tar Sands Pipelines: presenting unaddressed hazards to public safety

By: Natural Resources Defense Council | Anthony Swift, Elizabeth Shope

Published: December 2010

Tar sands crude oil pipeline comanies may be putting the American public’s safety at risk by using conventional pipeline technology to transport a highly corrosive, acidic and potentially unstable blend of thick raw bitumen and volatile natural gas liquid condensate called DilBit.

Tagged with: pipeline, natural resources defense council, bitumen, pipeline safety

Reports 2


phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpgOil Spills and Vancouver’s Stanley Park

By: Wilderness Committee Rex Weyler

Published: July 2012

Vancouver’s Stanley Park is one of the largest, most ecologically diverse urban parks on the planet. A rare gem situated at the heart of one of Canada’s major cities, the 1,000-acre park is home to huge trees, wildlife, stunning beaches, and a gorgeous seawall‚Äîmaking it a must-see attraction for every Vancouver visitor. The area has already suffered heavy environmental damage due to increased industrial activity, but an oil spill in the region would absolutely devastate the park and its delicate marine ecosystem. This new report, written for the Wilderness Committee by author and environmentalist Rex Weyler, addresses the potential threats to Stanley Park if an oil tanker accident were to occur. Citing extensive research conducted by the Stanley Park Ecology Society, the report gives readers some insight into the diverse‚Äîand delicate‚Äîecosystems that rely on the park, demonstrating what would be at stake in the event of a spill.

Tagged with:

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (1)Going in Reverse: The Tar Sands Oil Threat to Central Canada and New England

By: Natural Resources Defense Council | Jeff Benzak & Danielle Droitsch

Published: June 2012

Canadian pipeline company Enbridge Inc. appears to be reviving a previous pipeline plan that would take tar sands oil to central Canada and New England. The long-term plan would reverse the direction of oil flowing through two major pipelines — Line 9 and the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line — along an approximately 750-mile route, running through central Canada and down to the New England seacoast for export. Under the plan, the pipeline would carry Canadian tar sands oil, the dirtiest oil on the planet, through some of the most important natural and cultural places in Ontario, Quebec, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Any tar sands spill in these areas could devastate wildlife, pollute water, and compromise the health of local residents especially since tar sands spills cause much more harm than conventional oil spills. Transporting tar sands on this new route would only bring risks to central Canada and New England. Reversing existing pipelines is not necessary and should not be put into operation.

Tagged with: enbridge, oilsands, trailbreaker, east

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (2)In the Shadow of the Boom: How oilsands development is reshaping Canada’s economy

By: Pembina Institute | Dan Woynillowicz and Nathan Lemphers

Published: May 2012

This report by the Pembina Institute looks at the extent to which oilsands production and exports are affecting Canada’s economy, and explores the longer-term economic implications of increased reliance on oilsands expansion to support economic growth and generate public revenue. While the significant economic benefits of oilsands development are well documented, the report suggests relatively little attention has been paid to the downsides. Analysis indicates that failing to consider both the positive and negative impacts of oilsands development could have serious economic implications both now and in the future.

Tagged with: canada, pembina institute, economy, dutch disease

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (3)Keystone XL: A Tar Sands Pipeline to Increase Oil Prices

By: NRDC, ForestEthics, and OilChange International

Published: May 2012

North American drivers will face higher gasoline prices if the Keystone XL Tar Sands pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico were built, according to a new analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International and ForestEthics Advocacy. That finding adds to the long list of reasons why the proposed pipeline should not be built, said the study, released May 22, 2012.

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, natural resources defense council, forestethics,oil change international, gas prices

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (4)Who Benefits? An investigation of foreign investment in the tar sands

By: ForestEthics Advocacy

Published: May 2012

ÔªøMaking one industrial project a nation’s nearly singular economic and policy priority puts Canada on a road straight to the 19th Century. The Government of Canada under Prime Minister Harper is taking a bad idea, compounding the risks and minimizing the Canadian rewards. The vast majority of tar sands production is not owned by Canadians and most of the profits from the resource go to foreign companies. An in-depth review of shareholder information from Bloomberg shows that 71 per cent of all tar sands production is owned by non-Canadian shareholders. Canada’s national interest should come before the interest of foreign shareholders.

Tagged with: canada, economy, investment, imports, forestethics advocacy,exports

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (5)Dirty Oil Diplomacy: The Canadian Government’s Global Push to Sell the Tar Sands

By: Climate Action Network Canada, NRDC, Environmental Defence, Equiterre, Greenpeace, Sierra Club

Published: March 2012

Our new report, “Dirty Oil Diplomacy: The Canadian Government’s Global Push to Sell the Tar Sands,” outlines the changing domestic and international policies of the Canadian government as they work to expand the tar sands – Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution. This report is based on hundreds of pages of documents obtained through Canadian freedom of information laws. It paints a clear picture for the first time of the tar sands advocacy strategy, a collaborative effort of the Governments’ of Canada and Alberta along with industry to ensure that no doors are closed to Canada’s highly polluting tar sands.

Tagged with: lobbying, diplomacy

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (6)Pipeline and Tanker Trouble

By: Natural Resources Defense Council | Anthony Swift, Nathan Lemphers, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, Katie Terhune and Danielle Droitsch

Published: November 2011

The Canadian government is considering a proposal to build a pipeline under mountains and across rivers that could carry more than half a million barrels of raw tar sands crude oil (known as bitumen) daily across important salmon rivers, coastal rainforests, and sensitive marine waters. While the potentially devastating impacts of tar sands production are well documented, the increased risk and potential harm from transporting bitumen is less known.1,2 This report outlines the potential dangers of bitumen transportation and the risks of spills to the environment and the economy in a region that depends on healthy fisheries, lands, and waters.

Tagged with: pipeline, enbridge, northern gateway, british columbia, tankers

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (7)Tar Sands and the CETA

By: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives | Scott Sinclair

Published: October 2011

ÔªøThe recent decision by the European Union (EU) to disregard Canadian government pressure and forge ahead with regulations that recognise the higher green-house-gas intensity of fuel produced from tar sands and oil shale is encouraging. The Canadian government has lobbied furiously against Article 7a of the European Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) and is even threatening to challenge the measure under international trade rules. The Canadian government position flies in the face of increased scientific certainty that the ever-expanding exploitation of oil sands reserves within Canada and around the world would lead to disastrous climate change. In the words of climate scientist James Hansen, ‚ÄúPolicy makers need to understand that these unconventional fossil fuels, which are as dirty and polluting as coal, must be left in the ground if we wish future generations to have a liveable planet (Hansen, 2009: 173).”

Tagged with:

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (8)Pipe Dreams? Jobs gained, jobs lost by the construction of Keystone XL

By: Cornell University Global Labor Institute

Published: September 2011

The purpose of this briefing paper is to examine claims made by TransCanada Corporation and the American Petroleum Institute that, if constructed, TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline will generate enough employment to kick-start important sections of the US economy through the creation of tens of thousands‚Äîperhaps even hundreds of thousands‚Äîof good, well-paying jobs for American workers.

Tagged with:

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (9)Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed

By: Oil Change International

Published: August 2011

A closer look at the new realities of the global oil market and at the companies who will profit from the pipeline reveals a completely different story: Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but transport Canadian oil in American refineries for export to overseas markets.

Tagged with:



phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpgPetroleum Coke: The Coal Hiding in the Tar Sands

By: Oil Change International | Lorne Stockman

Published: December 2013

The Canadian tar sands have been called the ‚Äúmost environmentally destructive project on earth”, with good reason. Extracting tar sands bitumen from under the boreal forests of Alberta, Canada requires huge amounts of energy and water. It has cleared vast tracts of forest, left scars on the land that are visible from space and threatened the health and livelihoods of indigenous First Nations communities across the region.

Tagged with: tar sands, bitumen, climate, carbon, petcoke

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (1)Beneath the Surface

By: Pembina Institute | Simon Dyer, Jennifer Grant, Marc Huot, Nathan Lemphers

Published: January 2013

This report examines some common claims about the environmental performance of oilsands producers and the environmental impacts of oilsands production. Many of the claims included in this document are not false, but they selectively present information to minimize the negative impacts of oilsands production or overstate the positive strides that industry or governments have made toward addressing those impacts. The information presented draws on independent research, public information and expert analysis to put key facts about oilsands production in their proper context.

Tagged with: tar sands, impacts, facts

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (2)Financial Liability for Kinder Morgan

By: Living Oceans Society | Wilderness Committee | Georgia Strait Alliance | West Coast Environmental Law

Published: January 2013

This report warns that Kinder Morgan’s new Trans Mountain Pipeline proposal represents an exponential increase in the risk of a major marine-based oil spill affecting the Salish Sea’s most populous region, including the Cities of Vancouver and Victoria and the Southern Gulf Islands. The report analyses the insurance available to pay for spill response costs and damages caused by such a spill and concludes that Canadian taxpayers could be on the hook for as much as 90 percent of the cost.

Tagged with: pipeline, economy, oil, kinder morgan, spill, insurance, ocean, liability

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (3)Point of no return

By: Greenpeace | Ria Voorhar & Lauri Myllyvirta

Published: January 2013

“In 2020, the emissions from the 14 projects in this report –if they were all to go ahead – would raise global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by 20% and keep the world on a path towards 5 to 6¬∞C of warming.” Burning the coal, oil and gas from these 14 projects would significantly push emissions over what climate scientists have identified as the ‚Äúcarbon budget,” the amount of additional CO2 that must not be exceeded in order to keep climate change from spiraling out of control. The mega dirty energy projects in this report range from the development of risky unconventional sources of oil in the tar sands of Canada,in the Arctic, in the ocean off the coast of Brazil, in Iraq, in the Gulf of Mexico and in Kazakhstan, massive expansion of coal mining in China, to large-scale expansion of coal exports from Australia, the U.S. and Indonesia. The magnitude of CO2 from these projects in the next few years would push the climate beyond the Point of No Return, locking the world into a scenario leading to catastrophic climate change and ensuring that we run out of time.

Tagged with: emissions, climate, fossil fuels, threat

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (4)Competing in Clean Energy: Capitalizing on Canadian innovation in a $3 trillion economy

By: Pembina Institute | Dan Woynillowicz, Penelope Comette, Ed Whittingham

Published: January 2013

What will it take for Canada to become a clean energy super power? With more than 700 companies, the clean technology sector has emerged as a major driver of innovation and employment growth in Canada. As this industry grows to a projected $3 trillion by 2020, Canadian clean technology companies have the potential to increase their market share from today’s $9 billion to $60 billion. Yet Canada currently captures just one per cent of the $1 trillion global clean technology industry and places fifth in clean energy inventions, with its companies securing only two per cent of clean energy patents granted in the United States since 2002. In Competing in Clean Energy we ask nearly two dozen clean energy entrepreneurs, executives, investors and academics about what Canada needs to do in order to compete in the global race for clean energy.

Tagged with: economy, clean energy, green energy, technology

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (5)The climate implications of the proposed Keystone XL oilsands pipeline

By: Pembina Institute | Nathan Lemphers

Published: January 2013

To help inform the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline, this backgrounder features new analysis showing that producing enough bitumen to fill the Keystone XL pipeline would lead to a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and inhibit Canada’s ability to meet its climate targets.

Tagged with: keystone xl, canada, keystone, climate, targets

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (6)Crude behaviour: TransCanada, Enbridge, and the Tar Sands Industry’s Tarnished Legacy

By: National Wildlife Federation | Peter LaFontaine

Published: December 2012

Up north of the border, past Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta, the planet’s biggest carbon bomb is ticking. It’s called the tar sands region, and it represents both incredible feats of industry and incredible hubris ‚Äî– and potentially the last blow to the fight against global climate change.

Tagged with: enbridge, tar sands, keystone, crude, summary

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (7)Importing Disaster

By: National Wildlife Federation | Eric Young

Published: July 2012

We all know the companies we buy our gas from: Exxon, BP, Shell, just to name a few. But do you know much about the companies that build, maintain, and operate the pipelines that transport oil throughout North America? Recently, corporations like Enbridge, Inc., TransCanada Corp., and Kinder Morgan, Inc. have entered into the public consciousness as part of the national energy debate. These companies are in the business of moving oil across our landscape‚Äî–heavy crude oil from Canada’s tar sands fields, for example‚Äî–and have an obligation to operate their pipelines safely, clean up their spills, and not unduly influence lawmakers who are tasked with overseeing their operations. Our focus in this short report is on Enbridge, Inc., because of their shoddy safety record and their bold plans to expand their pipeline network in the U.S. to move dirty Canadian tar sands oil to market.

Tagged with:

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (8)Harper’s Shell Game: Why Tar Sands Pipelines Are Not in Canada’s National Interest

By: Greenpeace Canada | Keith Stewart

Published: July 2012

The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the British Columbia coast has become a major political flashpoint. ‚ÄòHarper’s Shell Game’ uses documents obtained under the Access to Information to argue that Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and Shell’s new tar sands mines are bad for our environment, economy and democracy. The report details how Prime Minister Harper’s ambition to transform Canada into an ‚Äòenergy superpower’ by rapidly expanding tar sands exports may be in the interest of oil companies like Shell, but ultimately comes at the expense of the environment, economy and health of Canadians and thus is not in the national interest.

Tagged with: enbridge, tar sands, northern gateway, economy, energy, harper

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (9)Towards A Clean Energy Accord

By: Tides Canada

Published: July 2012

How and Why a Canadian Energy Strategy Can Accelerate the Nation’s Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy – In the spring of 2012, Tides Canada hosted a series of meetings across the country to discuss how a Canadian energy strategy could help accelerate the nation’s transition to a prosperous low-carbon economy. The result is Towards a Clean Energy Accord.

Tagged with: energy, clean, solutions, future

Letters 3


phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpgWildlife mortality FOIP request

By: Alberta Sustainable Resource Development | Gary Brauer, FOIP Coordinator

Published: February 2009

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) request was filed by independent scientist Kevin Timoney and sought material from Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (SRD). The disclosed SRD information covers only three oil companies and shows reported deaths of 27 black bears, 67 deer, 31 red fox, 21 coyote, as well as moose, muskrats, beavers, voles, martens, wolves, and bats.

Tagged with: ducks, wildlife, alberta sustainable resource development, kevin timoney, greeenpeace canada, foip, sierra club prairie chapter

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (1)James Hansen: President’s trip to Canada defines critical carbon moment

By: Seattle Post-Intelligencer | James Hansen

Published: February 2009

Prior to President Obama’s first trip abroad — to Canada where Prime Minister Harper wanted to discuss special treatment for oil sands development — NASA climatologist James Hansen penned this open letter/op-ed about the perils of oil sands.

Tagged with: stephen harper, james hansen, barack obama, seattle post-intelligencer

Letters 2


phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpgEPA letter to the State Department commenting on the Keystone XL draft EIS

By: Environmental Protection Agency | Cynthia Giles

Published: July 2010

In its comments on the State Department’s draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL dirty tar sands oil pipeline, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency judged the EIS to be “inadequate” and in need of revision.

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, state department, epa, eis

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (1)House Energy Cmte Chair Letter to Secretary of State: Keystone XL is a step in the wrong direction

By: House Committee on Energy and Commerce | Representative Henry Waxman

Published: July 2010

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman’s letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declares that building the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline would be a “step in the wrong direction” and that it constitutes “a multi-billion dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel.”

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, state department, hillary clinton, congress, henry waxman, waxman 20100702 letter

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (2)House letter to Secretary Clinton urging to complete analysis of Keystone XL

By: House of Representatives

Published: June 2010

50 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging the State Department to fully analyze the impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline before permitting it. Specifically, they called for transparent consideration of all potential climate change impacts.

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, state department, hillary clinton, house kxl letter,jay inslee

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (3)Business leader letter to Secretary Clinton opposing Keystone XL

By: Environmental Entrepreneurs

Published: June 2010

Over 250 individual business leaders co-signed this letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling on her to suspend the Keystone XL permitting process.

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, hillary clinton, environmental entrepreneurs

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (6)Group letter to President Obama

By: Corporate Ethics International | EARTHWORKS | Environment America | Environmental Defence Canada | Friends of the Earth | | Natural Resources Defense Council | National Wildlife Federation | Sierra Club | Western Organization of Resource Councils

Published: May 2010

The gulf spill shows that ALL dirty fuels are dangerous and expensive — including the tar sands. Please reduce our dependence on dirty fuels.

Tagged with: obama, natural resources defense council, national wildlife federation,sierra club, corporate ethics international, friends of the earth, earthworks,environment america, western organization of resource councils

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (5)James Hansen letter to Norway Prime Minister discouraging Statoil tar sands investment

By: | James Hansen

Published: May 2010

In an opinion editorial in Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, Professor James E. Hansen calls on Jens Stoltenberg to show leadership and pull Statoil out the destructive extraction of oil from the Canadian tar sands. The full text of the letter — in English — is available at Greenpeace Canada’s website. Clicking the thumbnail returns the original letter with the logos of supporting organizations.

Tagged with: greenpeace canada, investment, james hansen, statoil, norway

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (4)European Parliament Members Letter to Tar Sands Companies

By: European Parliament

Published: December 2009

A group of 11 MEPs, representing three political groups and seven countries, is today appealing to the leaders of four European oil companies to stop producing oil from Canadian tar sands, a process causing 2-3 times more pollution than the production of conventional oil.

Tagged with: copenhagen, bp, shell oil, european parliament, total, statoil

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (7)Comments to the White House regarding the EISA Section 933 Energy Security Report to Congress

By: Corporate Ethics International | Sierra Club | Greenpeace | Lorne Stockman | Kenny Bruno

Published: October 2009

The following comments are submitted as input to the content of the report the White House is required to submit to Congress under Section 933 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). This memo focuses on the role of Canadian oil sands, traditionally known as tar sands, and suggests that the White House begin dismantling myths about the supposed key role of oil from tar sands to provide energy security. We argue that growth in tar sands imports cannot provide energy security to the United States.

Tagged with: greenpeace, sierra club, corporate ethics international, congress,white house, eisa

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (8)September 14th letter to President Obama regarding Prime Minister Harper’s visit

By: Climate Action Network

Published: October 2009

The Climate Action Network to President Obama expressing concerns that Prime Minister Harper wants to protect the oil sands industry from climate regulation.

Tagged with: whoisharper, climate action network

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (9)Canadian Minister Lisa Raitt Letter to California Gov. Schwarzenegger

By: Minister of Natural Resources (Canada) | Lisa Raitt

Published: April 2009

A letter from Canadian Minister of Natural Resources to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger opposing California’s then pending, now in effect, Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

Tagged with: low carbon fuel standard, california, minister of natural resources,schwarzenegger



phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpgLetter from Houston Mayor to Hillary Clinton regarding Keystone XL

By: Mayor of Houston, TX | Annise D. Parker

Published: March 2011

A copy of the March 1, 2011 letter from Houston mayor Annise D. Parker to Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the letter, the mayor adds her voice to that of the EPA and others in calling for the State Department to provide additional information and analysis regarding the Keystone XL pipeline project.

Tagged with: keystone xl, hillary clinton, annise parker

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (1)Secretary Clinton response to Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson re Keystone XL permitting

By: Department of State | Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Published: December 2010

Secretary Clinton responds to Senator Nelson’s October 10th, 2010 letter assuring him that a decision has not been made regarding the Keystone XL dirty tar sands oil pipeline permit. She also indicates that they will be sure to take into account potential impacts to the Ogallala aquifer, and are deciding whether or not to conduct a supplementary environmental impact statement (EIS).

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, secretary of state, ogallala aquifer,environmental impact statement, ben nelson

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (2)House letter to Secretary Clinton requesting Supplementary EIS for Keystone XL

By: House of Representatives

Published: December 2010

28 members of the House of Representatives sent this letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to “honor” the U.S. EPA’s low rating of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and conduct a Supplementary EIS for the Keystone XL dirty tar sands oil pipeline proposal.

Tagged with: keystone xl, epa, house kxl letter, secretary of state, environmental impact statement

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (3)Environmental group letter to Secretary Clinton requesting a supplmental EIS for Keystone XL

By: Environmental community (many groups)

Published: November 2010

“On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, particularly those whose land and livelihood are located along the proposed pipeline right-of-way, we write to you to formally request that the Department of State issue a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Keystone XL project and provide a sufficient period of time for public review. The public and cooperating agencies deserve the opportunity to review and comment on the myriad impacts of this massive energy infrastructure project that were left unaddressed in the Draft EIS before the Department finalizes the EIS.”

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, secretary of state, ogallala aquifer, eis, seis

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (4)Senate Letter to Secretary of State Clinton on Keystone XL

By: | Senators Leahy, Merkley, Cardin, Lautenberg, Menendez, Shaheen, Sanders, Whitehouse, Dodd, Gillibrand, Burris

Published: October 2010


Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, secretary of state, senate, clinton, leahy

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (5)Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns letter to Secretary Clinton regarding her October Keystone XL remarks

By: | Senator Mike Johanns

Published: October 2010

“Your comment that the State Department ‘is inclined’ to grant approval for the [Keystone XL] pipeline appears to prejudge the outcome as a foregone conclusion.”

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, nebraska, secretary of state, mike johanns

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (6)No Tar Sands Oil letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on her trip to Canada

By: No Tar Sands Oil network

Published: September 2010

The No Tar Sands Oil network group letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Chair Edward Markey in preparation for their September 2010 trip to Canada. The letter thanks them for their efforts to transition the United States to a clean energy future. It also highlights the importance of stopping the Keystone XL pipeline so as to stop America’s increasing addiction to the world’s dirtiest oil… so that a clean energy future can be possible.

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, transcanada, pelosi-markey, stelmach,congress, nancy pelosi, edward markey

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (7)Representative DeFazio “heavy haul” letter to Transportation Secretary LaHood

By: | Representative Pete DeFazio

Published: August 2010

Oregon Representative Pete DeFazio’s letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood urges the Secretary to closely examine the potential impacts of the “Heavy Haul” road widening necessary to transport tar sands mining equipment to Exxon’s Kearl project in Alberta. It also points out that U.S. taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing the Albertan tar sands mining.

Tagged with: montana, exxon, department of transportation, heavy haul, idaho, ray lahood, pete defazio, oregon

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (8)Nebraska State Senator Tony Fulton’s letter to State Department re Keystone XL

By: | Senator Tony Fulton

Published: August 2010

Nebraska State Senator Tony Fulton, a conservative member of the state legislature, sent a letter to the Department of State asking a series of questions about the safety of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal.

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, transcanada, nebraska, tony fulton

phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg (9)TransCanada threatens Nebraska landowner with eminent domain for Keystone XL

By: TransCanada | Tim Irons

Published: July 2010

In this copy of a letter to a Nebraska landowner, TransCanada is threatening eminent domain — taking their property by government fiat — to acquire land for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline proposal. They are making these threats before the pipeline has been approved.

Tagged with: keystone xl, pipeline, transcanada, nebraska, eminent domain