Talk:Oil sands

Oil sands?

I thought oil was a liquid - "oil sands" sounds like you just strain out the big lumps and squeeze out the oil into a gas tank. Processing this stuff is like mining road pavement and turning it into liquid. It's a misleading name for the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bituminous sands is a more correct name (and scientific one), however oil sands (tar sands) is the common name as seen in publications by way of books and/or media. Thus as per WP:COMMONNAME we are stuck with this.Moxy (talk)

Is there a reference for what the common name is? I've always heard "tar sands" up until recent years. In grade 10, about 12 years ago, I was taught "tar sands". So, who says that the colloquial name is "oil sands" and where do they say it? - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The stories we tell to children... anyway see the archives for more on this discussion, in particular the one that resulted in the article rename from "tar sands" (Talk:Oil_sands/Archive_2#Requested_move). -Oosh (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We have to make sure we're not falling for the industry spin here. They're able to cite the first use of "oil sands" (rather than the traditional term "tar sands") from 1939,[1] but that doesn't mean that the term was in common usage from that time on, especially outside the oil industry. when I went to school in Ontario in the 1970s and 80s, all textbooks that I remember still referred to them as the "tar sands," and I don't think I even heard to the term "oil sands" for the first time until well after 2000. There's a little bit of history-rewriting going on in the industry's spin on the world, and the article buys into to too uncritically, simply citing a Government of Alberta site (which has a strong incentive to be biased). David (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Assay

For a ton of extracted "oil sand", how much is (non-combustible) rocks,sand, and silt? How much is extractable bitumen? How much bitumen gets left in the tailings? How much synthetic oil does that bitumen make? Does it vary between Canada and Venezuala? Does it very between Canadian producers (are some "oil sands" richer than others in yield)?

Pictures would be nice. A lump of raw sand, a beaker (or lump) of extracted bitumen, a beaker of synthetic oil. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The numbers vary pretty dramatically, depending on the temperature, the raw material, the energy used in extraction, and the type of extraction (strip mining, steam injection, THAI, etc.) The chief advantage of the Venezuelan oil sands is that they are already warm enough to flow, hence they call them "heavy oil". There are some pictures at Bitumen but they aren't quite what you seem to be after. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Right now just upper and lower bounds for these variables would be good to have. I haven't found a source yet. --Wtshymanski (talk)

Even light sweet crude has some sand. Even asphalt has some bitumen. Those bounds don't exist in any practical sense. This paper may be useful.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Light sweet crude is also called oil sands? Asphalt is also called oil sands? So what isn't called oil sands? C'mon, it's got to be tighter than that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

climate change

The article currently states: "Environment Canada claims the oil sands make up 5% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, or 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It predicts the oil sands will grow to make up 8% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 2015."

However, the citation provided links to document put out by the Canadian Association of Oil Producers. If Environment Canada makes this claim, a direct link would be helpful. Also, from what I can see here, oil sand *production* makes up 5% of Canada's GHG emissions, and this figure doesn't include refinement, transportation and end-use. As it stands now it appears to be repetition of CAPP propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.212.195 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Public Health Impacts of Tar Sands

Why is there not a section detailing the long list of potential negative public health effects of the tar sands? This is at the heart of recent concerns moreso even than environmental concerns and should have a detailed subsection of its own. If I had more time, I'd do it myself, but there is a lot of data on the increased cancer rates among Native populations, and high level of contaminants found in the blood streams of large animals like moose, etc.. See http://www.nodirtyenergy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=162 for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.165.233 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo caption issue

The photo caption beneath the satellite image of the oil sands facility goes out of its way to direct the reader to the tailing's pond proximity to the Athabasca River. This treads into POV territory: the implication is clearly that this proximity is a noteworthy threat to the river. What is unclear, however, is whether the pond is above, level with, or below the river grade, and this matters greatly. A pond below the river grade could not flow into the river, and proximity wouldn't be a noteable issue. Without further information, I strongly suggest removing the 'proximity to the river' bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.250.169 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

The Roots of the Tar Sands Movement by Bill McKibben in December 2011 issue of Sojourners magazine, "The real work has been done for years by indigenous leaders on both sides of the border."

99.190.83.205 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)