The Keystone XL Environmental Assessment report was released with a 45 day public feedback process. This is what I submitted. Public comments can be emailed to: keystonecomments@state.gov

1. 04/03/2013 Print
Subject: re: Keystone XL SEIS by L. Lanteigne
From: Louisette Lanteigne (butterflybluelu@rogers.com)
To: keystonecomments@state.gov;
Date: Monday, March 4, 2013 2:48:36 AM
Re: Keystone XL Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS)
The US State Department states the Keystone will not increase Tar Sands production but this conflicts with the data previously released by the Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers released in June 2012 which states the Keystone XL will result in increase production. To view that report visit
here: http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=209546&DT=NTV
U.S. Department of Transportation's Leak Detection Study states there are up to $5 billion in property damages due to pipeline related accidents
annually. It's up to the public to find the majority of leaks and the report concludes that leak detection technology around pipelines is not modern, scientific
or technical. In today’s age, that will just not fly politically. For more information view here: http://oilandgas­investments.com/2012/energy­services/leak­
detection­pipeline­industry/
Transcanada said they intend to transport heavy crude through the Keystone XL pipeline but Texas and federal laws define crude oil as "liquid
hydrocarbons extracted from the earth at atmospheric temperatures". One Texas man is suing for the "Lie".
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/11/keystone­xl­texas­lawsuit­michael­bishop_n_2277201.html
The Natural Resource Defence Council (NRDC) states: NRDC has completed a preliminary review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement and concludes that the State Department failed to account for the pipeline’s impact to water and climate. There is now significant evidence
the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would trigger greater tar sands development leading to a sizable increase in greenhouse gas emissions equal to
adding 6 million new cars on the road. No regard for Petroleum coke impacts used to power operations in Alberta which bumps up the associated carbon
by 13%.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddroitsch/another_flawed_environmental_r.html#.UTFpyNq3fE0.twitter
Here is a full report about the impacts of Alberta's Petroleum coke http://priceofoil.org/2013/01/17/petroleum­coke­the­coal­hiding­in­the­tar­sands/
Syncrude released a report about the impacts of corrosion on it's own bitumen upgrading plant in Alberta.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef020098y
The increased corrosion is due in part, to the fact that Oil Sands in Alberta often uses deep saline aquifers to extract and process their products. Details
here: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8042.pdf.
Tar Sands Pipeline and Safety Risks is a joint report released by the Natural Resource Defence Council, the Sierra Club, the Natural Wildlife Federation
and Pipeline Safety Trust. The data indicates that Diluted Bitumen is far more corrosive than conventional crude based on the fact that the bitumen
blends are more acidic, thick, and it contains 15 to 20 times higher acid concentrations than regular crude, 5 to 10 times as much sulfer. The sulfer can
lead to weakening or "embrittlement of pipelines. To view the report visit:
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/tarsandssafetyrisks.pdf
The Keystone XL report fails to address the fact that the Keystone is a form of bulk water transfer. Huge volumes of water are needed to dilute bitumen
and when they refine it, the water is reused for refineries and possibly for fracking purposes. Seeing that the end points are the drought stricken Texas and
China, it is reasonable to state the impacts of this water transfer will further add to increased production of both oil and natural gas at the endpoints
refining this product but these values are not being represented in the current report therefore it is negating the total Environmental impacts of the
Keystone XL.
Currently there is a sweeping audit of TransCanada’s Canadian operations after confirming the account of a whistle blower documenting repeated
violations of pipeline safety regulations by the company.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/transcanadas_record_presents_a.html
During spills, booms won't work in Diluted bitumen. The product sinks and it also emits toxic vapours. Clean up costs for this product can be up to 10
times more expensive than a spill of conventional oil. http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/03/05/Diluted­Bitumen/
I created a power point to illustrate risks for breaks which are currently NOT being reasonably addressed by pipeline industries. The first concern is in
regards to the need for arc welds to build resilience in regards to seismic risks. The more droughts and fracking we have in the US the higher the risks we
face. Oxy­acetelyne welds are 100 times more likely to break than arc welds. There are also naturally occurring bacteria which can literally eat through PE
tape resulting in tenting, tearing and corrosion issues. These bacterium will be on the rise as climate change brings in hotter temperatures. We also have
to address the fact that climate change will go beyond existing design constraints for pipelines, particularly those that cross riverbeds. Increased flood and
drought issues pose a serious risk. We also have to consider that the science of hydrology has revealed the fact that we cannot simply plan based on
topography and Modflow models. Improved mapping with proper sediment studies are needed to better prevent the risks. I have also included Arctic risks
about:blank 1/4

2. 04/03/2013 Print
to illustrate concerns which may also happen with the keystone. For example, issues of buckling due to quick temperature changes may happen, ice
gouging like damages may occur when climate change results in more shallow river beds and potential rupture by ships. Permafrost settlement issues may
mimic issues of settling peat moss during times of drought. To view my power point please visit here:
http://www.slideshare.net/Waterloomoriane/pipelinespillsprevention
Currently farms in Canada and the US are at risk from climate change issues and from depletion of aquifers. I created a power point focused on farming
in Ontario but it contains details of drought impacts on the US as well. In my view water conservation and source protection should be made the top
priority for both Canadian and US interests right now. http://www.slideshare.net/Waterloomoriane/farmsat­risk
In November the Canadian Government finalized Bill C­45, the Omnibus Bill. In that bill it removed 90% of Canada's tributaries that were previously
protected by the Navigable Water's Act. This is significant because that protection previously mandated that shut off valves be placed on oil pipes crossing
these tributaries. Now it is no longer required for those unprotected tributaries. The only precaution made now is that the pipe's wall width of a quarter of
an inch thickness is increased to half an inch where it crosses the water. This was made public by staff of Enbridge at a public meeting in Halton Hills
Ontario: http://www.insidehalton.com/news/article/1580749­­enbridge­officials­grilled­about­pipeline­plan
I am concerned of uncontrolled spills occurring in proximity to these waterways. The vote for bill C­45 happened without reasonable scientific evidence to
support the abolishment of protective legislation. It passed without proper consultation with First Nations communities which is illogical, unethical and
unlawful.
In 2012 I participated in a National Energy Board Hearing regarding Enbridge Line 9 oil pipeline. I asked Enbridge to provide me with the value of the
insurance coverage for the pipeline crossing through Waterloo Region where I live and they failed to provide that figure to me. I believe the public has the
right to know how much these pipes are insured for. I also asked them how often they monitor the pipelines. They stated they do an aerial survey once
every two weeks and an in­creek survey once every 5 years. In Waterloo Region, we have experienced multiple flood incidents within 5 years time yet
there was only one inspection of the in creek oil pipelines during that period. This seems highly unreasonable. There should be monitoring after every
major flood event at the very least. You can review Enbridge's written response to me here: http://www.slideshare.net/Waterloomoriane/enbridgeresponse.
I would like to know the frequency of Transcanada's monitoring program.
Environment Canada admits there is contamination of lakes from Tar Sands at a toxicity forum in November 2012.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Federal+scientists+uncover+evidence+that+oilsands+contaminants+travel+further+than+expected/7542920/story.html
To view the data, see page 103 and 104 of the report here:
http://longbeach.setac.org/sites/default/files/SETAC­abstract­book­2012.pdf
A study, conducted for Suncor, found arsenic levels in moose meat around the oilsands may be 453 times the acceptable limits for causing cancer. But
the study, conducted by Alberta Health in March 2007 reveals arsenic levels may "only be 17 to 33 times over the limit." This is a news article regarding
this: http://oilsandstruth.org/alberta­health­fort­chip­only­eating­moose­17­33­times­safe­arsenic­level
This is the link to the actual study: http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/Wood­Buffalo­Arsenic­2007.pdf
Airborn contaminates of Wood Buffalo were directly linked to Alberta's oil sands:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/health/Study+finds+airborne+contamination+Wood+Buffalo+directly+linked+oilsands+development/7902377/story.html
The Keystone XL and Alberta Oil Sands expansion is ruining our Canadian economy. Tar Sands expansion bumped up global demand for steel which
has increased 66%. This cost raises running costs of municipalities, industries and all other sectors vying for the same base resources. Although tar sands
continues, all other sectors suffer as a result of increased prices. Based on a study by FCM & McGill in 2007 we've got the following data in Canada:
80% of our infrastructure needs upgrades.
88% is already over 40 years old
$123 billion is needed to fix existing infrastructure
$115 billion is needed for new investment
Canada and the US collectively need 3.6 trillion in water Infrastructure
21 trillion is needed to service the entire world's water infrastructure.
Southern Ontario is expecting 25% growth. ( In GTA & Golden Horse Shoe)
Reduced infiltration and damaged connectivity of water systems is causing problems
And now the EXTRA PROBLEMS as a result of uncontrolled pace of oil sands expansions:
Global Steel shortage (up 66%)
Global Cement Shortage
Global Asphalt Shortage
Global Tire Shortage
Energy Costs Escalating
In Canada, for every Natural Resource job created 15 factory workers loose theirs.
http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376­MG2C641A1I4H01­7DCTDMLUKB9CMITJN6Q4L9P5PH
Here is another report by Nature Canada showing oil dependency will cost us far more money than a spill
http://www.globalnews.ca/sports/canada/chronic+oil+a+greater+risk+than+tanker+spill+nature+canada+tells+pipeline+panel/6442769026/story.html
about:blank 2/4

3. 04/03/2013 Print
TransCanada hired the Perryman Group to provide it's job estimates regarding the Keystone Pipeline. The report states that 20,000 jobs would be created
but there is no details about the source of data other than to say it was provided by TransCanada. The job numbers were scrutinized by the US State
Department and they found it would create no more than 6000 non local, temporary jobs over a three year period putting the job estimates at less than
1/3rd of the projected numbers noted in the Perryman report.
A study conducted by the Cornell University Global Labour Institute found that the Perryman report used 100 year models to determine potential economic
benefit which is an exceptionally long time combining the years of construction and operation for 100 years. The Global Labour Institute states that trained
researchers would recognize major methodological flaws in the report making it's job estimates unreliable and therefor unsuitable for serious public debate.
The Perryman report used an economic model called USMRIAS to reach their conclusions which is a flawed model. It does not allow for independent
validation of the findings because details are not provided about the inputs or how the outputs are arrived at .
TransCanada's own consultant testified at the Canadian National Energy Board that part of the purpose of the pipeline is to raise the price of heavy crude
oil in the midwest.
The Ogallala Aquifer is the largest Aquifer in North America providing water for 30% of the US grain crops. Considering that 1 litre of oil can contaminate
up to 2 million litres of water, a spill here poses serious economic/ecological risks. Liability for corporations in regards to projects like this is capped and
should disaster strike and clean up exceed that value, it's up to taxpayers to fund the rest of the clean up. That was a harsh lesson learned from the Gulf
Spill.
The Keystone XL if approved would bind both Canadian and US energy policy to fossil fuel at a time when the global community is shifting towards more
sustainable energy. Do we really want to be economically bound to have to use Tar Sands oil for decades to come? Do we want to continue to pay the
externalized costs associated with the illness costs of smog and climate change impacts and ever increasing oil costs?
1 of every 2 Albertans will develop cancer in their lifetime and 25% of them will die from it. Externalized costs mean human lives now.
http://myleapmagazine.ca/2012/12/albertas­cancer­by­the­numbers/
Currently when First Nations reserves go to the provincial government for help regarding contamination/pollution issues, they go to the provincial Ministry
of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources or health ministry and are told it's a federal issue because they live on reserves. They go to the Federal
Government and are told it is a pollution issue, go back to the provincial officials. In the end, nobody investigates. If you view a map of Canada's Uranium
mines, oil refineries, toxic dumps and tailings ponds you will see that many of these are all placed directly adjacent to First Nation's communities ie: Fort
Chipewyan by the Tar Sands. This is specifically so companies could take advantage of the legal grey area regarding the lack of pollution monitoring. If
there is no first report of offence processed, there is no cumulative damage costs for repeat offenders. The result is a form of chemical genocide against
Canada's First Nation's People.
I spoke with the elders of Fort Chipewyan Alberta who visited the University of Waterloo. They said the tar sands are set to
run out of Natural Gas in 25 years and that operations will be replaced by planned nuclear power from 13 nuclear plants. I
asked them if there is Uranium in the soil up that way and they confirmed it. They said there is actually a massive quarry
planned to extract Uranium 19km away from Fort Chipewyan to supply the proposed nuke plants.
They spoke of the numerous deformed fish that have tumours and deformities including a double jawed white fish with eye teeth on the bottom jaw.
Normally white fish have no eye teeth at all. Here is a photo: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2008/08/18/chip­fish.html
Many more photos of other deformed fish are posted online: http://athabascafish.wordpress.com/2010/
Currently the workers at the tar sands are removing massive quantities of sediment each day. I have not encountered any
information regarding the environmental impacts of the dust particulates at all. Everyone's focused on the oil not the
sediment but I have found online reports by the Alberta Government which speak of the prospects of Uranium Mining in the
area. Here is one example: http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/minerals/uranium/index.html
Like Ontario , the Alberta MNR has no regard at all for potential cumiliative impacts of environmental discharge or emissions.
There is no centralized database on it. Generally discharge permits are kept by corporations in hand. Particulate concerns
may or may not be part of the permit process but I'm not sure. Generally in Ontario, aggregates are not required to have
Environmental Assessment processes on the believe it's not releasing anything into the environment. There is no regard for
what toxins might actually be in the sediment they are digging up. Currently there is a high rate of kidney failure and diabetes among the
Aboriginal communities in Alberta , lots of cancer and deformed fish. All the muskrats are dead and gone throughout the entire Athabasca river. I'm
wondering if uranium dust may be partially to blame. It would be interesting to know if workers involved with tar sands have levels of uranium toxicity.
Scott Vaughan — Canada's commissioner of the environment and sustainable development — said government is not keeping sufficient tabs on mining in
the North, offshore drilling in the Atlantic and hydraulic fracturing in hundreds of thousands of shale gas wells sprouting up across the country. Nor are
regulators adequately equipped to deal with major oil spills or an expected 300 per cent increase in tanker traffic off the West Coast. He question
oversight of pipelines and the oilsands, "you end up with a portrait where there are some serious questions about the federal capacity to safeguard
Canada's environment," Vaughan said.
Currently oil and gas exploration and drilling activities are exempt from reporting releases of pollutants to Environment Canada.
"The government cannot know if Canadians are adequately protected."
Here is Scott Vaughan's report: http://www.oag­bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201212_e_37708.html
about:blank 3/4

4. 04/03/2013 Print
Currently Canada is lacking on reasonable compliance measures, choosing to warn rather than prosecute firms for oil spills.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/Environment+Canada+hits+alleged+polluters+with+warnings/7855569/story.html
Documents secured using the Freedom of Information Act revealed the oil and gas industry was granted its request that the federal government change a
series of environmental laws to advance "both economic growth and environmental performance."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/09/efi­energy­industry­environmental­law­changes_n_2442950.html?utm_hp_ref=canada
I object to the Keystone XL project on the basis that it is not economic or ecologically or ethically reasonable to approve of. The pipeline would bind both
Canada and the US to an unhealthy economic model at the cost of other sectors. The job estimates were flawed, the initial EA process flawed and there
is a lack of reasonable compliance in Canada to assure public safety, public health and financial stability. Currently Canada is already loosing 30 to 70
million dollars a day with the delay of the Keystone which is self evident of the fiscal mismanagement of the entire
venture. http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/07/each­stalled­pipeline­project­costing­canada­30m­70m­a­day/?__lsa=87cf­bf24
This issue reminds me of a bible passage, Matthew 7:15­20
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men
gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot
bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their
fruits you will know them.
It is my sincere hope that the government will reject the Keystone XL.
Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo ON
N2V 2L2
Canada
about:blank 4/4