Talk:Athabasca oil sands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada / Alberta / Geography (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
WikiProject Energy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Athabasca oil sands:

Estimated oil reserves *Projected amount of oil reserves for future use (if this makes sense, how long will the Athabasca oil reserves last at a specified consumption?)(WP:NOT#CRYSTAL)

Economic impact on the region *Besides having Fort McMurray become a boomtown, other economic influences such as it's influence on the Alberta economy in general (Albertans did just get cheques from the Klein government)

I'd say that has more to do with Alberta's conventional Natural Gas production. Kevlar67 05:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Include mention of how increasing labor costs have impacted other businesses, and how increases to the cost of living have affected Albertans
  • How much of the profit from oilsands production is staying in Alberta? In Canada?

Oil sands production

  • This section seems to be more of a history of companies... is it suppose to be like that?
  • Obtain figures for worker injuries

*Figures are obviously wrong here : "opened its first mine, producing 30 million barrels per day (48,000 m³/d) of synthetic crude oil.". So when it opened it produced a 3rd of the global oil consumption!!! That was a great mine!!! --FrancoisD (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Geopolitical importance

  • To settle the softwood lumber dispute, there was lots of talk about using the oil sands as a bargaining chip... would something like this be included?
  • Figures in this section are obviously wrong : "to build a 400-million-barrel-per-day (640,000 m³/d) pipeline". World overall consumption is roughly 80 millions barrels per day !!! --FrancoisD (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the area

  • The indigenous peoples of the area take an active role (from what I've been told) in mining operations, in particular with land reclamation. If so, this should be included somewhere (defined role of indigenous people).
  • Native groups have opposed oilsands development in the past. More elaboration in the article is needed.(done)

Environmental impacts *Mention something more about land reclamation (Syncrude keeps 3 herds of bison on land being reclaimed!)(done, needs cite) *More discussion of greenhouse gas production in absolute numbers, and as a proportion of total Canadian output(done, needs cite) *Peat bogs and boreal forest as carbon sinks *Impact on species that were previously present in the area

  • Net energy production of the oilsands after inputs are taken into account

*Proposal for nuclear power plant to provide energy for oil extraction

  • Air pollution; just take a walk to the Northeast of Edmonton and you'll know what I mean

*Pollution of ground water reservoir

Struck off completed items LeadSongDog (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is seriously needing some updating, as many projects have been delayed or canceled, and some are completed, or under construction -- (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

more useful sources[edit]

Some more sources on the above and other issues:

  • "ethical landmines" following same logic as "ethical oil" [1]
  • British newspapers and public scoff at "ethical oil" as Canada heavily lobbies British politicians [2]
  • BC Premier declares that Alberta owns the BC coastline, but First Nations apparently don't [3]
  • Enbridge falsifies poll in support of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines [4]
  • More NG stuff [5]
  • astroturfing by Conservative Party of Canada to pretend foreigners not Canadians are behind opposition to Northern Gateway [6] creates fake impression of support for this view so Stephen Harper can pretend he is responding to public pressure when attacking Canadians he claims are foreign-funded [7]
  • Alaska gas competes with Tar Sand oil [8]
  • Kinder Morgan expands pipeline [9] over protests in BC [10][11]
  • Canada gets "colossal fossil" award for sabotaging climate talks [12]

WP:RS should be satisfied for the facts in the above sources, but they're not all neutral, so quote them on facts rather than take all statements' shading into your text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)‎

edits by anon user[edit]

I have reverted recent edits of anon user. First, these information is already covered in relevant sections in more neutral way. If necessary, please add necessary information to existing sections. The lead of the article is not the place for expansive description of impacts. Second, these edits are of highly debatable neutrality, especially in regards to how they are worded. Concerning the talk page, please to not change the order of discussion sections or their titles providing reasons why it is really necessary. And last but not least, please sign your comments. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Historically known as the Alberta tar sands"[edit]

Not only is this claim not supported by the source cited, but to make the claim accordingly, on a website that aspires to public trust, could be properly described only as openly deceitful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I fixed it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
"historically known as the Athabasca tar sands", however, IS the reality; the "oil sands" terminology was not invented nor in wide use until the 21st century and is known to have been coined as an oil industry p.r. term. Find me cites from Canadian geographic texts from the last century thgat use |"Athabasca oil sands" won't, the term was "Athabasca tar sands" in all the textbooks that I and others were raised with, and until recent times was also used by the industry and also academia, even industry-allied academia. Also, given the Sydney Tar Ponds and LaBrea Tar Pits, if this title were to stand then shouldn't those be "Sydney Oil Ponds]] and LaBrea Oil Pits?? Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no issue with term tar sands and removed the term "historically" only based on the IP complaint in connection with given source being weak/questionable but without verifying what the actual historic name was. If it turns out, that athabasca tar sands is indeed the historical I have no objection to include that information again, but please with a proper source this time. See also my posting further down.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I, personally, would be greatful if someone compiled citations that use this. If this is true, it is a clear case of partisan editing to title this article "Alberta Oil Sands". This being the case, they are the Tar Sands from which we extract Oil, regardless of environmental effects or economic benefits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC) I colloquially remember in the late 1999s the Alberta TAR Sands being spoken of as a point of national pride - Canada has the largest source of OIL in the world.

I have an interesting habit of looking up IP addresses as to their location, so in looking up's location (Lloydminster SK) I noted his "contributions" and their overtly partisan tone, e.g. in the Robocall article removing "The Conservative Party has not released their records to investigators." without edit comment, and without challenge (the next edit was almost a month later) and on this article - Athabasca oil sands the tone of what he inserted says it all about what he's about. Quickly reverted within a minute by User:Mark Arsten I might add. The pretense that the term "tar sands" never existed is Orwellian in the extreme.... and I agree with that "Athabasca" was the usage "when we were young". As for "Thanks for the pointer, I fixed it.--User:Kmhkmh", I have to ask, fixed what?? I see "tar sands" is in the lede now, despite various attempts to remove it and fight that term.... all of which is why I give this article (normally) a wide berth, along with the related 'history of oil sands' article, whatever its name is, which seems entirely a p.r. piece by industry but has weathered the test of WP:RS/WP:N and despite claims to NPOV, clearly isn't, and serves as spam...but oh well you can't fight progress, they say.... changing the language is apparently necessary for progress.....Mephistopheles would be so proud.Skookum1 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You can see here what I fixed. Basically I removed the questionable source the IP complained about and the description as of the tar sands "historically known as", against of which I assumed the IP objecting. I did however not remove the term "Alberta tar sands" as such from the lead, because that is a widespread and established name for it today hence there is no good reason to remove it from lead (see [13]). If however the historic name was indeed "Alberta tar sands" feel free to reinsert the description as "historical" with a proper source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: As far as the IP possible agenda is concerned. Do I understand you correctly that there is (ridiculous) argument/edit conflict over "oil sand" versus "tar sand" because "oil sand" supposedly sounds better? As far as that would be concerned, I think Wikipedia's approach regarding that is clear, it provides in doubt all names that are common in reputable literature (or more generally reputable media depending on the subject).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I see my name was mentioned here, for references, this is the edit I reverted. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Why was this removed?[edit]

The effects of the extraction process has lead to controversy.[1] (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well imho the removal was justified since the line as well as the sourcing need improvement (journalistic report rather than a comment/opinion piece). Moreover the line didn't really reflect the content of the source. Having said all that, I think the principal idea of adding critical information on the exploitation of tar sand regarding resource use and pollution is indeed warranted. But it should be done with a somewhat different text and different sources, which are partially already available in other parts of the article. All that is needed here is an appropriate integration into the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that information, which is certainly valid, in fact, so well-known it needs no sourcing, should be supported by factual reports of the actual and possible problems resulting from the extraction processes. The cited opinion piece addresses difficulties the scientific community in Canada has had in establishing monitoring of the situation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
By definition, an opinion piece is biased. That is why we don't treat them as reliable sources. Certainly there has been controversy, but choosing how to characterize that controversy requires sources that can be trusted to be objective. It would be just as easy to say that the goal of extracting hydrocarbon fuels, irrespective of method, has been the main source of controversy. We need sources that meet wp:RS and wp:NPOV. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Though I agree with you regarding the removal, your claim regarding opinion pieces is not quite true. An opinion piece may or may not be an acceptable source, that depends on the particular opinion piece and what you want to source. Stating an opinion does make a source unreliable per se. Having said that opinion piece should be treated rather carefully and large number of them which are focusing on spin doctoring or promoting rather unfounded opinions cannot not be used. One should however not confuse the latter with opinion pieces as such or even get the false idea, that academic/scientific publications wouldn't state opinions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Better in Climate change controversy? (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oil sand companies[edit]

Are there really no new information about the status of the large amount of projects under that point?! Most are "approved", "under construction" or "applied for" and one (2011) "anounced". "Operating" (green color) are only 5 of the projects on the list, and that didn't change for over 2 years, I think more 3 than 2. At this time 3 "under construction" projects were listed, "Start up" was 2007 and 2008 for the 2 SunCor-Projects and 2010 "Start Up" for the Royal Dutch Shell project, Shell got another 6 projects, one of these "operating" since 2002 at 155,000 barrels a day. Canadas oil production increased in the last years, and the oil sands where the reason. The onshore oil fields in the populated areas are already mature and off-shore oil or oil fields in the unsettled (except forr very few small towns, mostly from the Indians that live there already for thousand year) are not developed yet due to the high cost and the available oil from the oil sands!

If someone has a reference I would update the "graphic" too as far as I can... sorry for my bad english and greetings from Berlin :) Kilon22 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Imperial oil, "Operating" (2012) - why not green?[edit]

Every other "Operating" is marked green, the orange this Operating from Imperial oil got is for "Approved". Just an error or what is up? The table should be more actual or the numbers of production :>

Kilon22 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

distortion in lede[edit]

the recent attempt to ask for a citation for "tar sands" (duh) caused me to look at this article, which I generally shy away from because of its potential for propaganda wars, but I noted this "deposits of bitumen or extremely heavy crude oil," .... bitumen is extremely heavy crude oil seems a wanton distortion. It's a carboniferous goop that heavy crude oil can be processed from, but it is not oil, and is a long ways from being crude oil. Can someone justify to me why that is there, or should I just remove that phrase as ..... propaganda (which, to me, it is).Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the source, from our bitumen/asphalt article:
"Oil sand is a naturally occurring mixture of sand, clay or other minerals, water and bitumen, which is a heavy and extremely viscous oil that must be treated before it can be used by refineries to produce usable fuels such as gasoline and diesel. Bitumen is so viscous that at room temperature it acts much like cold molasses." Source: Alberta Energy.
I'm not sure exactly what the difference from bitumen to "extremely heavy crude oil' is; both are forms of petroleum that have lost volatiles. Maybe an actual expert will chime in.--Pete Tillman (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The government of Alberta is hardly a non-partisan source :-|. I believe there was a name-war on Oil sands vs the title tar sands also. Won by overwhelming use of industry sources, and by cites from industry-allied governments. If what you say is true than "Sydney Oil Pits" and "LaBrea Oil Pits" are mandated as titles, also.Skookum1 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I have difficulties to understand, what you actually want to change or what you're asking for. You're asking for a source confirming what exactly? And which term do you want to remove from the lead? Oil sands, tar sands or none?
As far as the names are concerned both belong in the article, as they both are in widespread use (references can easily be googled). And that applies regardless of what the government of alberta may or may not call them and whether its website is to be considered partisan or not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
What I was responding to was your compliant reply to the oil-troll who wanted "tar sands" deleted and called us a bunch of names for ever including it (see my other post above here somewhere, where I looked into who he was). I couldn't easily find - or never took the time to look for - what it was you'd done to "take care of it". Newspeakers require that old language be obliterated in order to establish their own; either by outright deletion or by media inundation of the preferred term to make it seem more in public use; wide in industry use, yes, and even going way back; the iconography of the tar sands in the Canadian identity, by that term, was accepted and used by industry in the Trudeau years, when that shibboleth of Albertan beliefs was actively promoting them, under that was the govt of Alberta of the day. Yes, the government and industry terminology has to be included; but a vigilant watch - and background checks - are needed to patrol this; and I'm among those who think this article should be called "tar sands" and not pander to the oil lobby's pretense that bitumen "is a form of oil", or (gaagh) extremely crude oil. They also talk about the Gateway pipeline carrying "crude oil" and more......language is politics, politics is language; this is one of those articles where that reflexive axiom is inescapable. And where the paid p.r. machine will lurch into motion, either via established accounts of nasty, whining IP interlopers like the 71. IP in question.Skookum1 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This make no sense to me. I never deleted the term "tar sands" from the article nor did anybody else manage to remove it (permanently) and it is currently still in the lead. So what are you talking/complaining about? The only thing missing is the attribute "historical" and there are no objections to readd that either (based on a proper source).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── p.r. trolls often don't make sense: in fact, that's their job (spewing nonsense and discord). But he said that the wording, including that "historical" bit, was "deceitful" (liars often accuse others of lying), and your response was "thanks for the pointer, I fixed it.". I'm not accusing you of anything, I just want to know in what way you read his "pointer" and how you "fixed it".Skookum1 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I explained that already in a section further up, I removed the phrase "historically known as" (based on the IP complaint and the weak sourcing).
Now do you want of concrete change in the current lead or not? And if so what is it?--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, the term "historically" wasn't needed, as they're still called the tar sands, whether industry (or that IP address) likes it or not. It's fine the way it is now; I couldn't find the specific edit that you had done in reply to the IP troll (and troll it is, look at its edit history/diffs). I'd prefer to see "commonly" included there, but that would take a lot of google-point-comparison; it's more commonly called the oil sands because of the media/p.r. avalanche advancing the industry-preferred term.Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Move from "Oil sands" to "Athabasca oil sands"[edit]

Just so you know, I'm moving some text from the "Oil sands" article to the "Athabasca oil sands article". It is only relevant to this article because the the Athabasca is the only major oil sands deposit in the world which is surface mineable. The other oil sands are not mineable, so other production techniques will have to be used on them. In fact, only a fraction of the Athabasca sands are mineable, so most of it will have to be produced using other techniques over the next 100 or so years. The total oil sands deposits in the world are bigger than the conventional oil deposits, so this is going to be very important in the very, very long term. The Orinoco oil sands in Venezuela are bigger than the Athabasca oil sands, so I want to emphasize that fact in the Oil sands article. There is a lot of politics around this whole issue of non-conventional oil, but I'm trying to avoid paying any attention to politics. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)