8/13/2019 Letter to State Dept 14-02-11 KXL

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/letter-to-state-dept-14-02-11-kxl 1/2

Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603

  Lincoln, NE 68506

  February 11, 2014

Bureau of Energy Resources, Room 4843 Attn: Keystone XL Public Comments

U.S. Department of State2201 C Street NWWashington, DC 20520

Re: TransCanada permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline

Dear John Kerry and Barack Obama:

Conclusions from testing various combinations of market and pipeline scenarios using theEnSys World Oil Refining Logistics & Demand (WORLD) model leads the authors of theFSEIS and the DOS project managers to conclude:

Updated model results indicated that cross-border pipeline constraints have a

limited impact on crude flows and prices. If additional east-west pipelines were builtto the Canadian coasts, such pipelines would be heavily utilized to export oil sandscrude due to relatively low shipping costs to reach growing Asian markets. If neweast-west and cross-border pipelines were both completely constrained, oil sandscrude could reach U.S. and Canadian refineries by rail.

From Section 1.4 Market Analysis § 1.4.1.3 Summary of Analysis (page 1.4-3):

This is likening U.S. consumers to heroin junkies. Desperate for a fix, and not having a sterilehypodermic needle, they have no qualms recycling dirty ones, stained with filth if necessary.Better yet, I ask: “Would you prefer heroine or Sodium Pentothal? Here, choose a clean orrusty syringe. Either way is going to kill you, guaranteed. It is just a matter of how messy anduncomfortable you want to be in the process.”

Slow leaks, disastrous spills, derailments, explosions, asthma, cancer, incineration, rail orpipeline? Lots of combinations to consider. What a choice! Que sera sera....

Page 1 of 2

8/13/2019 Letter to State Dept 14-02-11 KXL

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/letter-to-state-dept-14-02-11-kxl 2/2

The problem with the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) is thatsixteen combinations seem to cover the gamut. Unconscionable is the fact that missing arethe real cases which must be evaluated.

What is missing, you may ask. If you must ask, you must be living in a carbon bubble.

The scenarios that are missing would be apparent if the underlying assumptions were clear.

Clearly, one missing scenario is US consumers consume less fossil fuel to save the planet.

Take a closer look at penultimate sentence. It reveals a clue to an unanswered question thatnobody dares to ask, and which the FSEIS authors have hidden in a clever choice of wordsand phrases:

Read this very carefully, and notice the two distinct objects of the phrase “prices U.S.consumers pay,” i.e., 1) for refined products such as gasoline” and 2) “for heavy crudedemand in the Gulf Coast” presented in high-contrast highlights here for your convenience:

Varying pipeline availability has little impact on the prices U.S. consumers pay

for refined products such as gasoline or  for heavy crude demand in the Gulf Coast.

People purchase gasoline for their vehicles. Refineries purchase heavy crude to process.This is very subtle, but the nuance is glaring once you see it. Is it obfuscation? Subterfuge?

Ironically, the final sentence is apropos of the deadly drug choice analogy mentioned above,lumping Canada together with Latin America and the Middle East as suppliers to our habit:

When this demand is not met by heavy Canadian supplies, it is met by heavy crude fromLatin America and the Middle East.

Who is the consumer of the tar sand bitumen in this global market that is being analyzed byWORLD? Who are these U.S. consumers who demand heavy crude? Canadian refinerieson the Canadian coasts, and U.S. refineries in the Gulf Coast whose primary product isdiesel for export markets. Subtle clues in Section 1.4: Heavy crude has limited output value.

Refineries demand a stable flow of feedstock that matches their optimized configuration andat the least cost in order to maximize thin profit margins.

Keystone XL pipeline aids and abets the refineries’ demand for heavy crude.

Eliminating refinery demands for heavy crude will solve the climate catastrophe by allowinginvestments now sunk into tarsands excavation and SAGD projects to shift over to renewableenergy projects that can replace the refineries. Keystone XL is not in the National Interest. 

Sincerely yours,

Doug Grandt

Douglas GrandtFebruary 11, 2014

 Page 2 of 2