jacee Posted June 30, 2013 Report Posted June 30, 2013 (edited) Tar is a man made substance. The bitumen being extracted in Alberta is not tar. People being honest and treating the subject seriously call the location "Oilsands". Jackasses with a political agenda call them "Tarsands". They specifically choose the word "Tar" because it sounds dirty.Apparently it doesn't matter to public perception: For Canadians as a whole, 39 per cent said they were "very concerned" about the "oil sands" compared to 32 per cent for "tar sands." http://m.thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/25/TarVsOil/ And the 'oil sands' are dirty oil. Edited June 30, 2013 by jacee Quote
Bryan Posted June 30, 2013 Report Posted June 30, 2013 Unrefined heavy crude oil is dirty because the ground is "dirty". Gravel is "dirty". Sand is "dirty". Top soil is "dirty". Also, LOL at using the Tyee as a source to refute critique of a far left political position. Good one! Quote
jacee Posted June 30, 2013 Report Posted June 30, 2013 (edited) Unrefined heavy crude oil is dirty because the ground is "dirty". Gravel is "dirty". Sand is "dirty". Top soil is "dirty". Also, LOL at using the Tyee as a source to refute critique of a far left political position. Good one! Oil sands oil is "dirty" because it consumes a lot more resources and creates a lot more emissions to clean it. Edited June 30, 2013 by jacee Quote
Sandy MacNab Posted July 1, 2013 Report Posted July 1, 2013 evil? Try dirtier - as in a significantly higher carbon emissions intensity. well-to-wheel emissions: conventional crude => @88 gCO2/MJ tarsands: e.g.; surface mining => @107 gCO2/MJ // in-situ => @116 gCO2/MJ // Dilbit => 110 gCO2/MJ much to the consternation of Harper Conservatives, the EU (during its recent fuel-directive pursuit) did the relative comparison of the tarsands to its imported conventional sources... per the related following graph, the tarsands 'most likely average' reflects upon the surface mining emissions intensity @107 gCO2/MJ. Apparently, there's something about this adding to the difficulty Harper Conservatives are having in securing that EU Free Trade agreement - go figure! (source: Pembina Institute) "source: Pembina Institute" WOW! I'd want all those stats thoroughly analyzed by those with an objective frame of mind. Ask Pembina to comment on the oilsands and you'll get the same reaction as asking the Taliban to comment on kissing in public. Frothy mouthed fanaticism. Quote
jacee Posted July 1, 2013 Report Posted July 1, 2013 "source: Pembina Institute" WOW! I'd want all those stats thoroughly analyzed by those with an objective frame of mind. Ask Pembina to comment on the oilsands and you'll get the same reaction as asking the Taliban to comment on kissing in public. Frothy mouthed fanaticism. Tell that to the EU. They seem to think it matters. Apparently, there's something about this adding to the difficulty Harper Conservatives are having in securing that EU Free Trade agreement - go figure! Quote
Sandy MacNab Posted July 2, 2013 Report Posted July 2, 2013 Tell that to the EU. They seem to think it matters. Your point? Quote
waldo Posted July 2, 2013 Report Posted July 2, 2013 "source: Pembina Institute" WOW! I'd want all those stats thoroughly analyzed by those with an objective frame of mind. the graphic presentation is from the source I explicitly labeled; i.e., the Pembina Institute. The data comes directly from the European Union's Fuel Quality Directive standards initiative. Between the graphic's caption and the image itself, there are no less than a half-dozen references to "EU"... apparently, that wasn't a big enough clue for you! feel free to challenge the EU data... with your objective frame of mind! Quote
waldo Posted July 2, 2013 Report Posted July 2, 2013 The bitumen being extracted in Alberta is not tar. nor is it... oil! People being honest and treating the subject seriously call the location "Oilsands". no - again, tarsands is the original name... the long-standing industry name originating from the 1930s! It was only in the mid-1990s that the term "oilsands" began to receive notice after both government & industry began an aggressive PR campaign to heighten the use of the term "oilsands"... in an attempt to improve public perception. Jackasses with a political agenda call them "Tarsands". They specifically choose the word "Tar" because it sounds dirty. huh! "They chose"??? No - industry chose the tarsands name! Perhaps you should actually investigate the history before spouting off on something you clearly know nothing about, hey? Quote
Albert_Einstein Posted July 3, 2013 Report Posted July 3, 2013 Oil Sands Vs Tar Sands? Technically, both “tar sands” and “oil sands” are inaccurate. The substance in question is actually bituminous sand, a mixture of sand, clay, water and an extremely viscous form of petroleum called bitumen, which itself contains a noxious combination of sulphur, nitrogen, salts, carcinogens, heavy metals and other toxins. A handful of bituminous sand is the hydrocarbon equivalent of a snowball: each grain of sand is covered by a thin layer of water, all of which is enveloped in the very viscous, tar-like bitumen. In its natural state, it has the consistency of a hockey puck. Sulfur, carcinogens, heavy metals and other toxins. Seems like you apologists should just have accepted 'tar sands'. And anyone who claims the tar sands moniker was invented by environmentalists is talking through his or her hat. The term [tar sands] has actually been part of the oil industry lexicon for decades, used by geologists and engineers since at least 1939. According to Alberta oil historian David Finch, everyone called them the tar sands until the 1960s, and both “tar sands” and “oil sands” were used interchangeably until about 10 years ago, when the terminology became horribly politicized. Oh, yeah - link here. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.