Subject: Fw: (for Craig) Fwd: Confidential Embargoed
From: Craig Smith <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 01:00:50 +0000

FYI.  Embargoed.  They wanted me to get this to you.

From: Scott Kleeb<mailto:[email-masked]>
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎9‎, ‎2015 ‎8‎:‎15‎ ‎PM
To: Craig Smith<mailto:[email-masked]>

See below, and attached.

   222 West 3rd Street
   Hastings, NE 68901
   P 402.834.0800
   www.energypioneersolutions.com<http://www.energypioneersolutions.com/>
   Like us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Energy-Pioneer-Solutions/187195251293628>
   Follow us on Twitter<http://twitter.com/#%21/energypioneer>
   [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:[email-masked]]

   Please consider the environment before printing this message.

   This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message.
   Any other use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or retention of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

From: "<Jane Kleeb>", Jane Fleming Kleeb <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:44 PM
To: Scott Kleeb <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: (for Craig) Fwd: Confidential Embargoed

Can you forward this to Craig? We are actually trying to make sure Podesta gets this in his hands—over 100 scientists tomorrow (Wed) will call for a moritorium on new Tar Sands expansion (which means #nokxl, no Alberta Clipper, etc).

This has never been done in the scientific community—they decided to do this now as the road to Paris is happening and solutions to keep 75% of the commercially proven fossil fuels have to stay in the ground.

It only makes sense to start with tar sands given how carbon intensive this form of oil is (not to mention the amount of water and energy used to mine and produce it).

Of course, we have our own valid reasons for stopping the expansion of tar sands which focus around eminent domain for private gain, water pollution, liability of economic damages when a pipeline bursts, etc.

The consensus scientist statement from Canada draws a number of conclusions about tar sands:

  *   Continued investment in oil sands production and infrastructure is not consistent with Canada’s current climate targets and is incompatible with limiting climate warming to a level that society can handle without widespread harm.
  *   Contaminants from oil sands development permeate the land, water and air of the Canadian boreal and many of these impacts are difficult to mitigate;
  *   In Canada, there are few controls and no uniform standards regarding pollution and other impacts from oil sands mining;
  *   The oil sands industry’s claim that its mine sites can be restored to their former natural state is not true;
  *   Development of the oil sands violates the title and rights of many Aboriginal peoples of North America.