Talk:Athabasca Oil Sands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	Alberta Portal This article is part of the Alberta WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

	Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid importance within energy.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

To-do list for Athabasca Oil Sands:

edit · history · watch · refresh

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)

Contents 1 Confusing and contradictory figures 2 Minor correction please 3 Estimated Size 4 Economics 5 Heavy use of water 6 Cleanup? 7 400,000 barrels of oil to China 8 Protests? 9 Realism and hype 10 Reformatting the table 11 Severe NPOV Issues 12 Citing Sources 13 The article is not NPOV 14 Move to Athabasca oil sands 15 article title 16 NPOV issues 17 Ownership 18 Dispute 19 Albian Sands 20 broken link

[edit] Confusing and contradictory figures

The figures given in the first paragraph of the "Estimated oil reserves" section appear to be incorrect with regard to scale. For example, the first paragraph states:

The next sentence reads:

28 billion is not "about 10%" of 2.5 billion; it is about 1,000% of (10 times) 2.5 billion. I believe that either the scale used in the first sentence should be "million" (to bring it in line with the second sentence), or the values in the second sentence need to be increased by a factor of 100 (to bring it in line with the first sentence).

Any thoughts? Adams kevin (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help much, but of all these numbers, the one that is commonplace (and ballpark correct) is the 174 billion barrels of recoverable. That is about 20.5 billion cubic meters. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

*SIGH* Somebody (who shall remain nameless but their initials are Jimp) edited 1,700,000,000,000 barrels down to 1.7 billion barrels. Of course, they appear to be Australian, so it may make sense from their perspective (i.e. they may use the British or "long" billion.) In any case, the correct volume is 1.7 to 2.5 trillion (American trillion) barrels (American oil barrels). Or, in metric (SI) units: 270×10⁹ m³ to 400×10⁹ m³. The Alberta Energy Conservation Board, which made the estimate of 28 billion cubic metres (28×10⁹ m³) of recoverable oil, uses the American billion and the metric (SI) system. Could we all be more careful in editing these numbers if we don't understand them, guys... RockyMtnGuy (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor correction please

The link at References footnote No. 4 doesn't work any more. As I don't know how to edit the correction within the References section could anyone please do this? The correct link should be the following: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lsnd/pprtntsndchllngs20152006/pprtntsndchllngs20152006-eng.pdf Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.178.158.208 (talk) 21:40:37, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estimated Size

I am editing the estimated size section to reflect the true production numbers, the ones currently listed are lower than the actual production numbers as in 2003 was 858, 000 bbl/d. (Alberta Government, Engergy Department) http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp, these numbers reflect a general industry consensus. -Meanie-

Some of that discrepancy reflects the difference between figures for all of Alberta and for the Athabasca area only. 2004 production for all of Alberta is around 1 million bbl/d. Production is projected to reach 2 millons bbl/d by 2010.

Confusing the issue, and this should be addressed, is that the standard extraction process requires huge amounts of natural gas. This really should be deducted from the energy output, and natural gas availability is limiting oil sands development.

It only takes 0.4 Mcf of gas to produce 1 barrel of syncrude, and 1 barrel of syncrude is equivalent to 6 Mcf of gas, so I think you have a 15:1 gain. I added the idea of bitumen gasification, which seems to be the main alternative being considered. I also added the likelihood that they are just going to curtail exports of gas to the US to free up fuel. This is in the NEB and EUB documents, but I don't think the Americans have been reading them. RockyMtnGuy 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a project nearing completion, the Long Lake Project (http://www.nexeninc.com/Operations/Athabasca_Oil_Sands/Long_Lake/project_overview.asp) which is supposed to provide its own fuel, by on-site cracking of the bitumen mined. It's supposed to start operations in 2007, producing 60,000 bbl/day of usable oil. If this works, the natural gas problem becomes much less of an issue.

They used natural gas to fire the boilers because there are natural gas fields underneath the oil sands, and there was no other market for it. Since the Americans are now short of natural gas, it's more efficient to sell the gas to the Americans and burn something else. The Athabasca area has bitumen (which can be burned directly), coal, hydro-electric and (nearby in Saskatchewan) uranium. Pick one or more. RockyMtnGuy 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly, what's really holding up development in the Athabasca area is that the only real city there, Fort McMurray, has been at 100% apartment occupancy since late 2005. House price levels are at Silicon Valley levels. Building is held up because the sewer plant is at capacity. Sewer plant expansion is being held up because the city and the province are arguing over who pays for expansion. The province, not the city, gets the oil royalties.

Oil sands projects, unlike oil fields, are labor-intensive while in operation. These are huge mining operations, and need tens of thousands of people on-site to work them. The area only has a population of about 75,000, and people must be convinced to move there permanently.

-Nagle- 15:58, 2006 February 8

According to the fact sheet (reference #8) the total recoverable reserves are estimated to be 335,000,000,000 barrels, not 1,700,000,000 barrels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.123.164 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

I don't have time to do this because I'm leaving for a few weeks in Peru, but the section on oil sands economics needs a reality check. Not even the Arabs have production costs below $2/barrel any more. Saudi Aramco is having to put in waterflood systems and drill horizontal wells with multiple multilaterals to keep production up, and although their costs are a state secret, it can't be cheap. See oil well. Recent oil sands numbers: Suncor's first quarter profits were C$713 million, over 10 times the first quarter last year, their operating costs dropped to C$19.05 per barrel, their sales price increased to C$65.75 a barrel. That means they made a profit of 46.70 per barrel - it's like having a license to print money. RockyMtnGuy 16:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The economics estimates might have to revised based on the latest estimated capex and opex for expanded production. For the next expansion project Shell Canada announced anticipated capital cost of $275 - 325 per annual flowing barrel. Assuming rate of return of 10%, this results in about $45/bbl capital cost contribution. Shell Canada also revealed current operating cash cost at about $20-25/bbl. Therefore, total cost of oil produced is close to $70/bbl (this includes cost of upgrading bitumen). For reference see: http://www.shell.ca/home/Framework?siteId=ca-en&FC2=/ca-en/html/iwgen/investor/presentations/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/ca-en/html/iwgen/investor/presentations/investor_presentations.html

Shell is probably wishing they did this ten years ago because costs are skyrocketing due to an acute shortage of labor and everything else. However, they're going ahead anyway. Parent company Royal Dutch Shell seems to be desperate to find new oil after it had to restate its reserves. On the other hand, CNRL claims its project is on budget and on time, possible due to the use of sharper pencils. RockyMtnGuy 09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I bet, Suncor is probably laughing becuase they have had all their ducks in gear for years, and their major expansion is both on time and on budget because of this.

Production costs are probably a lot lower than that now given that gas has fallen. It will be interesting when the reports have come out. Gas is as Cheap as it was around 2000, which means costs are probably nearer to 10 dollars per barrel. Thats one of their largest expenses. That means that at 25 bucks a barrel with those costs, you are still making a cool 20%.--Meanie 03:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Due to a severe labor shortage in the oil sands in particular and Alberta in general, production costs are still likely north of $20/barrel. However, oil prices are still over $50, so they probably are making well over 20% on their investment. RockyMtnGuy 03:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy use of water

I'd like a better comparison to conventional drilling, which also uses a lot of water. (i.e. pumping water into wells to increase the pressure) -- unsigned comment by User:24.57.157.81 17:07, 2005 September 27

Conventional wells have a one-to-one correspondence between the amount of water pumped in and the amount of oil pushed out. Exploiting Tar Sands uses many times as much water per unit of petroleum extracted. And, unlike drilling, exploiting tar sands leaves a vast amount of toxic tailings. The sand, after the oil is extracted, is highly toxic. -- Geo Swan 08:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Athabasca River runs through the middle of the Athabasca oil sands. The Peace River runs through the Peace River oil sands. These are two of the biggest rivers in Western Canada. There's no other use for the water because you can't grow anything and there are no towns downstream. The sand, after the oil is extracted, is less toxic than it was before the sand was extracted because there's less oil in it. You have to realize that the oil sands are basically an oil spill the size of Belgium. It's hard to make it worse. RockyMtnGuy 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice this reply.

There's no other use for the water because you can't grow anything and there are no towns downstream.

• The rivers feed rich wetlands -- essential wetlands.
• The rivers flow into the Arctic Ocean, one of the most fragile environments on Earth.
• Can you support the assertion that the tailings are less toxic than the original tar sands? Even if that were true, the current technology leaves a lot of polluted water.

Cheers!

[edit] Cleanup?

Does anyone think this still requires a cleanup tag? It looks like a decent enough article. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article overlaps with "Tar Sands", but contains some very good material. Cleaned it up April 8, 2006. Non-Athabascan specific material cut (someone may want to move the old material on the oil extraction process to the main article "Tar Sands" and edit a final text). Extraneous material on oil in sedementary rock was cut (since article is about oil sands); someone may want to create a new article on this subject. Tedious discussion on oil reserves has been simplified; if necessary, insert comments into the main article "Oil Reserves". -- Joseph B.

Yes, feels like there are still NPOV issues, and therefore/however edits.70.75.22.190 (talk)

Oilsands mining operations do not consume water. Syncrude for example draws very little river water anymore, they recycle all the water. Stating that each barrel of oil puts 2 or 3 into a tailings pond is misleading in that it seems to imply that that water then sits there for ever, when in fact its recycled back into the process. River water use is strictly monitored, mines are responsible for all process effected water, including rain water that falls on the mine, and ground water they remove for mine dewatering. The ground water closest to the oilsand layer is not sutible for consuption or release even beofre mining, it carries H2S and in somecases methane.The tailings ponds do not flood forests or bogs, rather dykes are created on cleared land., the dykes are created using both the earth over the oilsands and the tailings, the tailings is not toxic. Theres even exploration into using the tailins sands as a source of Ti. --Shane H.

[edit] 400,000 barrels of oil to China

That doesn't seem like a significant amount, especially to a country like China. As it's written, it's a small, one-time shipment. Is it supposed to be a flow rate: barrels per day, per month, per year? Indefatigable 18:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's barrels per day. Ref: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-10/16/content_485265.htm Fixed article accordingly. --Nagle 01:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the claim that Harper fast tracked the deal because of the soft wood lumber dispute backed up anywhere? It's the first I've hard that, and it seems a bit of a stretch to include it here. TastyCakes 06:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protests?

Aren't there any protests against this monster of a project? I have seen a National Geographic report about the Suncor site and although deforestation, air pollution and water redirection are being mentioned, to me, it mostly was like an advertisement showing, for example, huge trucks. So, again: isn't there any protest against all of this? Internationally as well as on an NGO-basis?

The feature mentioned that 75% of the water which is used, is being cleaned and recycled. It also said that, oil companies have 'promised' to renature the area after the project finished. LIllIi 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's going to complain? There are 80,000 people up there in an area bigger Florida with a climate nastier than Alaska. They're all working in the oil sands. Other than that, there's a National Park that's bigger than Switzerland. However, you can't go there - there are no roads. But the trees, water, bears and wolves are doing fine in their absence. RockyMtnGuy 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

They're proud of it. The mines are a tourist attraction. Take the "Experience the Energy" tour. “Experience the Energy” of Fort McMurray with a tour of Syncrude Canada Ltd. or Suncor Energy mine sites. See the earth move before your eyes as shovels carrying 100 tons load 380 ton payload trucks with the rich, black oil sand. Follow the process from mining to pipeline and see how the sand is reclaimed as a productive partner in the natural environment. --John Nagle 04:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That and the sites aren't really any worse than any big strip mining project. TastyCakes 17:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

They're actually better than the big coal mines in the Western states which 1) are in a semiarid region with insufficient water to support revegetation, and 2) turn the little available groundwater acidic. And they're nowhere near as big an evironmental disaster as the abandoned open-pit copper mines in Montana, which are filled with lakes of concentrated sulphuric acid, copper, arsenic and other minerals. The Berkeley Pit near Butte, Montana is the largest superfund site in the US. RockyMtnGuy 14:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Realism and hype

In my honest humble opinion it is more than naive to assume that a so called "promise to leave behind a reasonably intact natural environment" by corporate oil producers will ever become reality. When there is no monetary value associated with it, it's not going to happen. It is the provincial/federal governments' responsibility to create that value and require environmental remediation by the producers immediately after exploitation of an area. After all the province/federation licenses the resource exploitation, too. Interesting times for the government to invent some new law. While the oil sand fields are remote, they occopy vast amounts of land and a significant share of Alberta. I assume it would be in Alberta's and everybody else's interest to avoid large scale scarring and the creation of such deadlands the province may have never seen before.

It would also be advisable to carefully review estimates and figures. The current 40 to 400 years of Alberta's oil sand reserves are not production ratio derived (see BP's report "Quantifying energy", June 2006). At best they seem to be extremely optimistic estimates. Alberta and Canada would be well advised to realistically assess the effects of oil sand exploitation. It is the government's responsibility to wisely manage the land for its people. If done so, other Canadian's and the rest of the world will be very grateful, that's certain.

The misleading thing about the BP report is that it really uses only publicly available information which anybody can find from other sources. See the footnote: "nor do they necessarily represent BP’s view of proved reserves by country" - which means that PB doesn't include its own proprietary data in them.

Also see the footnote, "The figure for Canadian oil reserves includes an official estimate of Canadian oil sands ‘under active development’". That means it only includes oil sands leases that are have a mine or thermal facility on them. However, the oil sands are the size of Florida and the vast majority is not ‘under active development’, so BP doesn't include the oil in its reserves despite the fact that thousands of wells have been drilled to delineate it.

The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board publishes a review of Alberta's energy reserves every year. For the latest (178-page) version see Alberta's Energy Reserves 2006 It's actually rather conservative. For instance it assumes a 20% rate of oil recovery from the sands, while the oil companies claim they get closer to 60 or 70%. RockyMtnGuy 23:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reformatting the table

Before reformatting the table, I'll store the old version here for easy reversion. My new version (tested in my sandbox) looks OK, but it sure pumps up the volume of the code.

2005 Production	m3/day	barrels/day
Suncor Mine	31,000	195,000
Syncrude Mine	41,700	262,000
Shell Canada Mine	26,800	169,000
In Situ Projects	21,300	134,000
TOTAL	120,800	760,000

[edit] Severe NPOV Issues

The section on environmental impact is judgement-ridden in absence of evidence and uses alarmist language.

Examples, of which there are many:

"The certain possibility of enduring, expensive environmental and health risks however remain to be studied, remedied and otherwise accounted for." -- deserves a request for source citation at the least. Difficult to prove a negative, I expect. "certain possibility" is weasel-language of the type encyclopedias do not need -- "Critics contend that government and industry measures taken to mitigate environmental and health risks are inadequate, citing..." yadda yadda would be the usual formulation.

"Extremely rich archaeological and natural values may be permanently lost forever as the natural northern Boreal landscape is ravaged and destroyed by large scale essentially dirty, energy consumptive mining practices" -- "Critics further contend that archaelogical sites and natural resources may be damaged by large scale mining."

"The strong need for curtailing mining activity until solutions are provided for ongoing environmental and health risks is paramount to the survival of local inhabitants." -- I'm assuming there's a study that says "More controls or mining will kill everyone", or this would just be irresponsible.

I've made preliminary edits to correct the NPOV issues. Feel free to comment or correct. It is probably obvious but I'll mention for the sake of completeness that I do not self-identify as an environmentalist. 210.172.204.147 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your edits70.75.22.190 (talk)

I think the main problem is that it is all boilerplate envirobabble written by people who have no first-hand experience in the oil sands. It's like everything else in the oil sands. Any environmentalist who is capable of contributing something about the oil sands to Wikipedia is too busy writing environmental impact statements or reviewing environmental impact statements to contribute anything. Most of the text looks like copied text with "Amazon rain forest" replaced with "northern boreal forest" wherever it occurred.

• Certain possibility - Huh? That's a contradiction. Like a certain uncertainty.
• Critics contend - Who are these critics, exactly? Name a few. Provide references.
• Government ... measures ... are inadequate - Government measures are always inadequate for people who are not on the receiving end of blank cheques.
• Extremely rich archaeological and natural values - I don't recall seeing pyramids and ancient walled cities on the banks of the Athabasca River. I do recall seeing naturally occurring tar seeping out of them.
• Natural resources may be damaged - Be more specific. Are these the naturally occurring coal, natural gas, salt or uranium resources that might be damaged. Or possibly the diamonds they keep finding in the rivers but haven't found the source of? More likely it's the aforementioned boreal forest, but the companies intend to convert the land to pasture land and stock it with buffalo since they can't restore it to its original boggy scruffiness.

In other words, it needs some informed research rather than cut-and-paste copying from something about Montana copper mines or Appalachian coal mines. I know people who could do it, but again they're too busy consulting. Personally, I know a lot more about the production issues than the environmental issues. RockyMtnGuy 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I became severely irritated about the copy-and-paste environmentalism being repeated, and the fifth-hand envirobabble (see citing sources below) being bandied about (a quotes b quotes c quotes d quotes e who was actually talking about the Amazon rain forest) so I did a lot of rewriting from the perspective of neutralizing the language, plus I added a bunch of first-hand references. RockyMtnGuy 05:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good.

"does not require companies to restore the land to "original condition"" -Is there any evidence that original condition can be restored?70.75.22.190 (talk)

[edit] Citing Sources

People really need to stick to authoritative sources close to the subject when contributing content to this article. In particular, they should read Wikipedia:Attribution. In this case, I'm thinking about some new material added in the Environment impacts section.

The information added cites the Dogwood initiative as an authoritative source. Following up on the reference, I find the Dogwood Initiative as an environmental action group in Victoria, British Columbia, concerned about protecting BCs forests. The Dogwood Initiative is quoting an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail. Toronto is roughly 1000 miles south and 3000 miles east of the oil sands and is not noted for its acumen about the oil industry. The Globe and Mail is quoting the Pembina Institute, which at least is located in Alberta although nowhere near the oil sands. The Pembina institute is another environmental action group quoting even more distant sources. So, this information is at least fifth-hand and probably more distant. It could take forever to find the original source of this information, and figure out what they were trying to say.

The quoted information says "A cubic metre of oil, mined from the tar sands, needs two to 4.5 cubic metres of water." However, the Pembina Institute's version it says "2 to 4.5 cubic metres of steam". That's not quite the same thing. Does it mean "steam reduced to a cold-water equivalent", or does it mean "steam as a gas". There's a huge difference. Which is it? Feel free to chase down the original source and figure it out.

Here's another misleading quote. "There is beginning to be some preliminary indication of health impacts." That's all there is, rumor and innuendo. The reference cites an article in the National Review of Medicine, based in Montreal (even further from the oil sands than Toronto.) The article is about the Alberta College of Physicians investigating a complaint by Health Canada about a physician complaining about high levels of cancer in Fort Chip Chipewyan. Health Canada is accusing him of causing "undue alarm". Now, while Fort Chip is closer to the oil sands than any of the other places mentioned, it's still a really small place and not all that close. Most likely, the health authorities believe he's raising red flags because of what is known as statistical clustering. In other words, in a small town, a high rate of cancer may be three cases (actually, it was three cases), and for the next decade you might get none at all (known as "regression to the mean"), so they want him to shut up until he has some solid data. The government has spent millions investigating rumors of health problems in other small towns, only to discover that the people there are actually much healthier than in the big cities (less air pollution, of course). In fact, a study by the Alberta Cancer Board determined that rates of cancer in Fort Chip were not unusually high, although you're not likely too see an environmental action group print that. RockyMtnGuy 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article is not NPOV

The article essentially goes into great detail extolling the benifits of the Athabasca Oil sands and pays short shift to the environmental concerns.

Take this part as an example:

"Canada is a minor source of greenhouse gases, producing about 2% of world emissions of carbon dioxide. The United States, which has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, is the world's largest emitter at a fluctuating 25% of the total. China is the second largest emitter at 20%, but as a developing country is exempt from controls. Its economy has been growing rapidly, and as a result the International Energy Agency expects it to exceed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide by about 2008. Other developing countries in Asia and Africa have also been increasing their emissions rapidly, and most European countries have missed their reduction targets. Against this background, Canada's developments in the oil sands are relatively minor."

Essentially its an argument that Canada should keep doing what its doing and ignore the possible environmental impact because there are others who are worse then us in this regard and those that are trying harder to meet international commitments probably won't pull it off anyway.

Furthermore the 2% figure for Canada's total world emissions seems to exist solely to mislead readers. Its a small number and that is the reason it is being cited. If one takes a closer look at the 2% figure then it no longer seems that "...Canada's developments in the oil sands are relatively minor." If we presume that every country in the world gets an equal share of the world wide emissions then Canada is producing significantly above its fair share with 2% as there are ~130 countries in the world.

Now that is a pretty unusual method of dividing up the total allowed emissions so let us consider another view. Everyone in the world gets an equal share. Then 31 million Canadians, out of a world population of ~6 billion, make up 2% of the emissions. Clearly far more then their fair share. Furthermore this section precedes to slap China for its 20% of the worlds emissions but with ~1.5 billion people China's per capita world emissions are significantly lower then Canada's.

In other words this small section of Wikipedia is designed not to inform the general public but to mislead them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.87.155 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

The article goes into great detail about the Athabasca Oil Sands because some people have put a lot of work into researching it, and says little about the environmental impact because nobody has done any research and come up with any hard facts. If you have any hard facts, feel free to add them. However, don't add any nebulous factoids or off-topic information about the Amazon Rain Forest because we don't really need any more of those.

On the 2% solution - it's a numbers game and 2% is a small number. It really doesn't matter what Canada does about greenhouse gases because Canada has fewer people than metropolitan Tokyo, and no matter how high the per capita emissions are, the total national emissions just aren't very big. Canada builds a new power plant every few years; China builds one EVERY FOUR DAYS. It does matter what China does, but China is not going to limit its emissions. China will become the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases either this year or next year. Also, somebody is emitting large amounts of undocumented CO2 into the atmosphere, and we don't know who they are. Speculation is that it is people burning charcoal in Africa and Asia, but nobody is monitoring that. So, if CO2 emissions cause global warming, then global warming is going to happen, Kyoto notwithstanding - so get ready for it. Now that's an opinion, as distinct from a fact. RockyMtnGuy 02:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Off topic! Why do we need those figures about how much China and US emit? This is about Canada~~

[edit] Move to Athabasca oil sands

Shouldn't this be at "Athabasca oil sands" (by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization))? --Taejo|대조 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article title

I continue to believe this article should be named Athabasca Tar Sands. "Oil sands is a neologism coined by oil industry spin-doctors, to make the technology seem less polluting. The original term was "Tar Sands". IMO one of the missing sections from WP:NOT is WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a hagiography. Accepting, without question, the terms preferred by PR experts does not comply with WP:NPOV.

Cheers! Geo Swan 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Geo Swan. Cheers Geologyguy 14:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable suggestion, however, the spin-doctors comment requires some documentation - who says so besides you & me. The page was moved to its current name back on 21 Feb 2005, seems there was no discussion on talk that old. Also the name on the map is Oil sands. I personally don't care which name is used, but agree with the comment in the previous section regarding capitalisation. Vsmith 14:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll change the map labels to tar sands if the article is moved. When I learned about this in school it known as the tar sands. The subtle shift in terminology is interesting. --NormanEinstein 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The most accurate term is "bituminous sands"; however that would be somewhat baffling to the average reader. The original explorers called it tar from analogy with pine tar or coal tar, which is what they were familiar with. However pine tar and coal tar are obtained by the destructive distillation of wood or coal. The field is actually an incomplete oil reservoir with no cap rock. In the absence of such, the lighter fractions have escaped and the remainder has been partially biodegraded by bacteria. The Athabasca deposit contains an extremely heavy, partially biodegraded form of oil. It's a lot easer to upgrade to light oil than actual tar would be. RockyMtnGuy 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of what the technically correct name for the naturally occuring material is, there is no dispute over the fact that it is being used because it is a source of oil. They aren't mining to get asphalt, bitumen, or tar. Oil sand is as valid a name as any on that basis. We don't call diamond mines kimberlite mines, do we?LeadSongDog 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the key point here is that bitumens are just extremely viscous crude oil and can be refined into gasoline, diesel fuel and asphalt by existing oil refineries, hence as light oil becomes scarcer a lot of U.S. oil refineries are being modified to process Canadian heavy oil and bitumen. The distinction is somewhat arbitrary since term "bitumen" just means oil that will not flow at reservoir conditions. If the reservoirs were hotter (which they are in Venezuela) it would flow and hence be considered heavy oil. The term "tar" is chemically incorrect for these bitumen deposits since tars are, by definition, man-made. RockyMtnGuy 04:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues

This article is embarrassingly biased in favor of oilsands development. Considering the massive environmental impacts of the project, shouldn't these be a major focus near the top of the article? Instead 95% of the article is all gung-ho about development, while environmental considerations get a small poorly-written paragraph at the end, filled with weasel words and edited to remove anything of substance. For shame. Ultiam 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed~~

By all means, write a better section on environmental issues (just make sure it's well referenced). By the same token, if you feel something is NPOV, please point out the particular phrase/issue. Thank you. --Qyd 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. I came here to see what all this environmental damage was, but found the environment section rather lacking. I am not familiar with the topic enough to add to the article at this point, but I would like to see more analysis of the environmental impact. vlado4 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussed at greater length at Tar sands#Environment. I've added a seealso to this article.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

is there any information on who owns the land that is in focus of the article? Have the Oil companies already bought the whole area? --Trickstar (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is all owned by the Alberta government (except for the part under Indian reserves which is owned by the Indians). However, the oil companies have purchased leases on most of it. Actually, they're not really leases, they're a legal instrument called a profit-à-prendre, which is the legal right to enter land owned by someone else and take something (in this case oil) away for your own profit. However, the companies have to pay royalties on what they take away, and the government sets the royalty rates. On oil sands, they are relatively low, but they probably will be increased in future.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Natural Resources Transfer Acts transferred ownership of the land to the province in 1930. --Qyd (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

A factual dispute regarding the first companies involved in the tar sands. The Globe and Mail is doing a series of feature articles on the oil sands this week (starting on Saturday Jan 26). A letter to the editor was posted on Jan 28, 2008 with the following information, which is in conflict with what is included on the wikipedia page. I do not know who is correct, although the letter writer is pretty sure in his recollection:

Walter Petryschuk of Sarnia writes “Suncor Energy did not exist in 1967 and was a product of the next decade….Rather, the Sun Oil Company of Philadelphia financed the first tar sands extraction plant. Its CEO was the head of the majority-owning Pew family. He was the force that made it happen. Company folklore has it that the project would have been abondoned had it not been for his eadership and determination during that first decade. Alberta should erect a statue in honour of Mr. Pew’s pioneering initiative.” 24.215.117.117 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a conflict, although perhaps wording could be clearer. At Suncor's History page following the link "The Oil Sands Story (1960s, 1970s & 1980s)" we find

"1962 Sun Company reduces interest to 55% in Sun-Canadian (a joint partnership with a company called Canadian Oil)...", "1963 Sun Oil invests almost a quarter-billion dollars in the Great Canadian Oil Sands project..." and "1979 Suncor Inc. forms when all the Canadian operations of Sun Company Inc. are amalgamated with Great Canadian Oil Sands...." LeadSongDog (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suncor Energy Inc. is the successor in interest to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited (GCOS), which built the major first oil sands plant. It has a complicated pedigree. Sun Oil Company of Philadelphia created GCOS in 1953 to build the oil sands plant. Sun Oil merged GCOS with its other Canadian interests to create Suncor Inc in 1979, sent Suncor public in 1992, and sold its remaining interest in Suncor in 1995. Meanwhile, Sun Oil Company changed its name to Sun Company in 1976, got out of the oil production business, and changed its name to Sunoco, Inc in 1998. Sunoco in Canada is unrelated to Sunoco in the US. For further information see the "Which Sunoco Are You Looking For?" bifurcation page at http://sunoco.com/ RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albian Sands

Article had been speedied, leaving red link here. I've recreated a stub and provided some refs, but it needs work to avoid repetition. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] broken link

Citation 18 is a broken link. I'm removing it. Moonbug (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)