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)

Perhaps the only NPOV option would be to refer to them as "bitumen deposits", and redirect "Oil sands" and "Tar sands" to them. David (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Either way, we shouldn't have an article called "Oil sands" start with "Bituminous sands, colloquially known as oil sands or tar sands, ...". I prefer an article move to "Bituminous sands", but failing that, I suggest rewording to "Oil sands, also known as tar sands and scientifically referred to as bitumious sands"     — SkyLined (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

To summarize earlier discussions from memory (though they are in the archives if someone wants to read through them), both "oil sands" and "tar sands" are grossly POV, pushed respectively by the petroleum industry and by the environmental lobbying industry. "Bitumenous sands" is the technically and historically correct name, but certainly is far less common than the POV names. Of the two POV names, we prefer "oil" over "tar" because it has at least a shred of reason behind it: the upgraded product brought to market is no longer bitumen, but "synthetic crude" oil (and its component products).

Personally, I'd support "bitumenous sands" with redirects from the POV names, but wp:COMMON had more sway than wp:NPOV in earlier discussions. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:08, 21 December 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)

US refining of Canadian Oil Sands

Why is it better for Canada to build a pipeline to Texas instead of refining the oil sands in Canada? Is it a way to reduce emmissions in Canada? Wouldn't it be easier to pipe a more refined liquid oil to the US or am I misunderstanding something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.107.29 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

potential Oil sands#USA resource

U.S. Tar Sands? Canadian Company Seeks to Drill in Utah "Extracting oil sands, or tar sands, is big business in Canada. But there are a few deposits here in the Western U.S. too, and now the Canadian experts are looking to get at them." December 9, 2011 2:00 PM Popular Mechanics by Bobby Magill

99.181.143.108 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)