Letter to State Dept 14-02-18 KXL
2
Douglas A. Grandt PO Box 6603 Lincoln, NE 68506 February 18, 2014 Bureau of Energy Resources, Room 4843 Attn: Keystone XL Public Comments U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520 Re: TransCanada permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline Dear John Kerry and Barack Obama: I have written in previous letters about my concern that EnSys WORLD model appears to be a static forecast predicated on IEA’s continuously increasi ng consumption of oil, gas and coal, which is contraindicated, given the conventional scientific wisdom that humanity must begin to reduce carbon-fuel combustion and concomitant CO2 emissions by at least 5%-6% per year. I have been searching for a graph showing the conundrum, and EUREKA, I found it! Oil Change International (http://priceofoil.org) published just yesterday, an excellent article “Kerry’s State Department Ignored Obama’s Climate Action Plan” (http://bit.ly/OIL17Feb) which illustra tes the traj ectory of the assumptions built into WORLD vis-a-vis the required trajectory vis-a-vis the U.S. offic ial 2020 target. The FSEIS is ‘worlds apart’ from wher e we need to be (pardon the pun). Seriously, variations upon this have been the subject of several of my letters. Today, I am posing two more considerations: 1) Petco ke emissio ns apparently have not been included in the FSEIS well-to -wheel carbon footprint calculations. The logic and arguments enumerated in Appendix U, Sec tion 5.0, page 62-70, are not conclusive, but seem to wish the petcoke away as incrementally nil. 2) U.S. refine ries must take ownershi p of and account for emissio ns from diesel, kerosen e, fuel oil, petcoke (stockpiled and combusted) and all other products and co-products of tarsand upgrading and dilbit refining operations upstream and down stream of Keystone XL . For all the discussion in Section 5.0 about stockpiles, substitution, displacement, increments, and offsets, it is not clear how FSEIS treats petcoke emissions. It must be fully accounted for. Canada will probably not take ownership of the emissions, since they are exporting the raw materials, and we cannot be assured than European, South American, or Asian consuming nations will own the emissions. The only way the U.S. can take a lead in reducing emissions is to own them and reduce them as mandated by the science. If we don’t lead, who will? Sincerely yours, Doug Grandt
-
Upload
doug-grandt -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Letter to State Dept 14-02-18 KXL
8/13/2019 Letter to State Dept 14-02-18 KXL
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/letter-to-state-dept-14-02-18-kxl 1/1
Douglas A. GrandtPO Box 6603
Lincoln, NE 68506
February 18, 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:
I have written in previous letters about my concern that EnSys WORLD model appears to bea static forecast predicated on IEA’s continuously increasing consumption of oil, gas and coal,which is contraindicated, given the conventional scientific wisdom that humanity must begin toreduce carbon-fuel combustion and concomitant CO2 emissions by at least 5%-6% per year.
I have been searching for a graph showing theconundrum, and EUREKA, I found it!
Oil Change International (http://priceofoil.org)published just yesterday, an excellent article“Kerry’s State Department Ignored Obama’sClimate Action Plan” (http://bit.ly/OIL17Feb)
which illustrates the trajectory of the assumptions built into WORLD vis-a-vis the required trajectory vis-a-vis the U.S. official 2020 target. The FSEISis ‘worlds apart’ from wher e we need to be (pardon the pun). Seriously, variations upon this
have been the subject of several of my letters.
Today, I am posing two more considerations:
1) Petcoke emissions apparently have not been included in the FSEIS well-to-wheel carbonfootprint calculations. The logic and arguments enumerated in Appendix U, Section 5.0,page 62-70, are not conclusive, but seem to wish the petcoke away as incrementally nil.
2) U.S. refineries must take ownership of and account for emissions from diesel, kerosene,fuel oil, petcoke (stockpiled and combusted) and all other products and co-products oftarsand upgrading and dilbit refining operations upstream and down stream of Keystone XL .
For all the discussion in Section 5.0 about stockpiles, substitution, displacement, increments,and offsets, it is not clear how FSEIS treats petcoke emissions. It must be fully accounted for.
Canada will probably not take ownership of the emissions, since they are exporting the rawmaterials, and we cannot be assured than European, South American, or Asian consumingnations will own the emissions. The only way the U.S. can take a lead in reducing emissionsis to own them and reduce them as mandated by the science. If we don’t lead, who will?
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
