Dear Gary Doer, Ambassador of Canada to the United States, I am writing to urge you to stop lobbying for the Keystone XL pipeline and encourage the Canadian government to instead turn efforts to addressing the serious social and environmental impacts of the tar sands. I read the August 25 Globe and Mail column in which you raise arguments in support of the Keystone XL pipeline. I feel that there are clear reasons to question a number of these points, I am also writing to share these reasons with you. CANADA IS DEMOCRATIC: In your interview, you suggest it is not difficult to persuade Americans they are better off relying on oil from Canada than from "unstable or undemocratic regimes." This is a limiting and false choice. Moving ahead with the Keystone Pipeline XL project assumes that Americans will remain dependent on carbon fuels for the next several decades. Instead, the U.S., like Canada can choose policies that will pave a different path away from fossil fuel dependence. Policies that help reduce oil consumption, such as public transportation plans, improved fuel efficiency and renewable energy. THE TAR SANDS AND KEYSTONE CREATES US JOBS: You also suggest that the Keystone XL pipeline will lead to 20,000 unionized construction jobs. We assume that you are referring the Perryman Group study commissioned by TransCanada, the industry behind the Keystone pipeline. The job estimates in this report have been widely criticized. [i] These estimates are roughly thirteen times greater than the estimates prepared by the U.S. State department in its draft environmental impact statement on the project. Nearly one in five construction workers in the U.S. are currently unemployed. These and other workers need jobs, but they also need a liveable environment and communities for their families. The Canadian government must start taking seriously the need to shift to sustainable energy alternatives which will generate jobs, and providing support and transition strategies for impacted workers. PIPELINE SAFETY: Regarding the safety of the Keystone XL pipeline. TransCanada, not unlike your comments, has consistently reassured the public that their pipelines are safe, yet TransCanada's own Keystone 1 pipeline spilled eleven times in its first year of operation. As reported by Canadian media, in 2009, Alberta's pipeline industry had a pipeline failure rate of 1.7 per 1,000 kilometres of pipeline, bettering (but still not more acceptable than) the previous record of 2.1 set in both 2008 and 2007.[ii] Independent analysis prepared by a water resources engineer at the University of Nebraska lends further questions to these reassurances. Whereas TransCanada's assessment of the expected frequency of significant spills equates to 11 spills over the course of a 50 years, this independent analysis estimates closer to 91 major spills. Tar sands are unlike conventional oil. It's more corrosive and acidic consistency makes spills more likely.[iii] WATER FOR TAR SANDS OIL VS. ETHANOL: Regarding the comparison of water used to produce tar sands oil to ethanol. It is misleading to talk about the amount of water used for ethanol. The reality is that the tar sands are using unsustainable amounts of water. Operations are currently using 652 million cubic metres which is 7 times the annual water use of the Edmonton area. [iv] By 2020 the Tar Sands will use 45 cubic metres per second which is half of the Athabasca River's low winter flow.[v] The tar sands are also responsible for the contamination of water. Four billion litres of contaminated water are released into Alberta's groundwater and natural ecosystems every year.[vi] Toxins connected to tar sands production have been found as far downstream as the Athabasca delta one of the largest freshwater deltas in the world.[vii] The Keystone XL planned route crosses major rivers and key sources of drinking and agricultural water including the Ogallala aquifer which supplies two million Americas. This is why many are attending the ongoing Washington sit-ins, why landowners, despite documented cases of bullying on the part of TransCanada, are continuing to oppose this project. TAR SANDS HAVE RELATIVELY LIMITED EMISSIONS: Regarding the tar sands contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The tar sands are already the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Environment Canada estimates that emission from the tar sands will triple over the next ten years, by 2020, tar sands operations may account for twelve per cent of our national emissions![viii] Numerous studies have verified that the tar sands have a heavier carbon footprint than conventional oil. One such report estimates that average GHG emissions for tar sands extraction and upgrading compared to conventional crude oil produced in Canada or the US are 3.2 to 4.5 times more intensive per barrel.[ix] This is why many concerned citizens in Canada and the U.S. are raising questions about our reliance on tar sands crude and expansion plans. The tar sands are having serious environmental and social impacts. I respectfully encourage you to reconsider your position. Stop lobbying President Obama in support of the Keystone XL pipeline and instead encourage the Canadian government to turn efforts to addressing the serious social and environmental impacts of the tar sands. Sincerely,
[i]Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith, "Pipeline Climate Disaster: The Keystone XL Pipeline and Labor," Labor Network for Sustainability, <http://www.labor4sustainability.org/articles/pipeline-climate-disaster-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-and-labor/> [ii] "4.5 Million Litres of Crude Oil Spill from Northern Alberta Pipeline," The Calgary Herald, (May 3, 2011) <http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/latest/story.html?id=4721501> [iii] John Stansbury, Ph.D., P.E."Analysis of Frequency, Magnitude and Consequence of Worst-Case Spills From the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline," Executive Summary, <http://watercenter.unl.edu/downloads/2011-Worst-case-Keystone-spills-report.pdf> [iv] Suzuki Foundation: <http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/suzuki-elders/2010/08/stop-the-tar-sands-how-exactly-2/> [v] D.W. Schindler and W.F. Donahue, "An Impending Water Crisis in Canada's Western Provinces," <http://www.pnas.org/content/103/19/7210.full.pdf+html> [vi] Environmental Defence, "11 million litres a day: the tar sands leaking legacy," <www.environmentaldefence.ca/reports/pdf/TailingsReport_FinalDec8.pdf> [vii] Erin N. Kelly and David W. Schindler et al, "Oil sands Development Contributes Elements Toxic at low Concentrations to the Athabasca River and its Tributaries," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, (March 2010) <http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16178.full> [viii] Nathan Vanderkippe, "Oil Sands expected to Undo Carbon Cuts," Globe and Mail (August 7, 2011) <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/oil-sands-expected-to-undo-carbon-cuts/article2122227/> ; Pembina Institute: http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/briefingnoteosghg.pdf Government of Canada: Turning the Corner: Canada's Energy and GHG Emissions, http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/virage-corner/2008-03/pdf/nat_eng.pdf [ix] National Energy Technology Laboratory, Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels, DOE/NETL-2009/1346 (November 2008), 12, table 2-4.

* Please note that we've been experiencing a high volume of email submissions. When you press "Send letter", you should land on our "thank you" page. Even if you don't see the "thank you" message, your email will still be sent as soon as the server is free, and you may close the window. If you have any questions, or would like verification that your email was submitted successfully, please email webmaster@canadians.org.