Talk:Oil sands/Archive 3

Title: Oil sands? vs.historical "Tar Sands", current European usage "tar sands" and accurate "bituminous 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). -Oosh (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion was rigged and slanted and probably did not include adequate representation of people who actually know the politics of this. The term "oil sands" is politically biased and of recent origin, as this next commenter says:
 * 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, 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)
 * Agreed. They are deposits, period, they are not "reserves" or etc.


 * 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).


 * I don't see any POV with the traditional common term "tar sands". People called it "tar" because it looked and smelled like tar centuries ago before anyone could even imagine a controversy over the name. Similarly, where the substance oozes from the ground in seeps such as at La Brea in Los Angeles, it's called a "tar pit" in common usage. "Tar sands" was arrived at for completely non-POV reasons - it's "oil sand" which is the POV neologism which appears to be pushed by those who believe the traditional "tar" sounds unappealing. Booshank (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently as of October 2013 "Tar Sands" is the colloquial and common term in the USA, as evidenced by Dick Cheney's use of it when actually promoting Tar Sands development and Keystone XL . The article makes note of "Oil Sands" as a term used only within Canada, and only by promoters of these projects.  That should decisively settle that "Oil Sands" is POV, and Tar Sands is significantly less so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.125.180 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * In politically charged situations you call something "abortion" not "baby killing" nor "women asserting rights to their bodies" as advocates inevitably will describe it. Agreed "bituminous sands" is the right name.  Don't merge with heavy crude oil though as these sands have special problems and geographic associations.

Of interest: A news item from The Gazette (Montreal) dated Oct 4, 1967 uses both with no hint of conflict; compare with a remark on  "My mother, as a recent Albertan Chemistry graduate in the 1950s, published research on petroleum extraction from what back then was unhesitatingly referred to as the Tar Sands." But also his comments "Since then, in an effort to turn black sticky sand into clean refreshing profits, there’s been a furious re-branding in favor of “oil” not “tar”, ignoring what it looks like when it’s in the ground." and "The politics start with whether you say “tar sands” or “oil sands”." For marketing purposes, ala how "Canola" is used to avoid the term "Rapeseed" this is understandable, but this article could probably be improved by finding some refs discussing who uses which terms and why. Perhaps even linking the 'tar sands' redirect to a section discussing the naming issue. -- Limulus (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Canola/rapeseed is not entirely analogous but reasonable. Wikipedia using the proper name "bituminous sand deposit" or something would go a long way to indicating that industry propaganda is not welcome and ineffective.

The article is presently grossly POV as it understates the military, diplomatic and industrial impact of this sprawling oil spill on land. Making any claim about environmental impact is simply false, there has been NO MONITORING OF THE TAR SANDS, PERIOD. Only today (February 3, 2012) has there been ANY MONITORING PROGRAM EVEN ANNOUNCED. Prior to 2009 the story was that the Tar Sands leaked tar into the river naturally and so they NEVER MEASURED the levels of that TYPE of pollution, which is an obvious criminal coverup. This article needs to be carefully watched for people paid to edit it also.


 * -->> there has been NO MONITORING OF THE TAR SANDS, PERIOD <<-- None of that is true as the Alberta government does extensive monitoring of oil and water quality throughout the province. See Alberta Environment for details. However it is true that the oil sands leak oil into the Athabasca river naturally - I've seen them do that. In fact, the early explorers complained they couldn't even land their canoes in some places because so much oil was pouring out of the riverbanks. Some people seem to be promoting an extreme environmental agenda that tries to demonize even the government environmental monitoring agencies, and claiming that anybody who doesn't agree with their extreme POV are agents of the military/industrial establishment. It has reached ridiculous levels and and makes it difficult to maintain a neutral POV in articles. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He also forgot to mention that this "sprawling oil spill on land" is in fact naturally occurring. I'm not entirely sure how the military comes into this at all, if anything the presence of oil in peaceful Canada reduces the need for military forces in more unstable places to ensure supply.
 * I'm not bothered by people with strong feelings about the impact of the oilsands. I am bothered by people with very vocal opinions but little understanding of what's actually involved. TastyCakes (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Name is POV
I challenge someone to come up with the provenance of this term, which IMO is of recent coinage and is entirely p.r.-rebranding in origin. This article primarily discusses the deposits in CAnada, where until Big Oil wanted to prettify what they're trying to sell/dig etc the VERY well-established term was "tar sands". Google counts are irrelevant here because of the "washing" of this term across so-called "reliable" media sources such as Big Media. I'm not in the mood for a firefight and for a long time I've come to the conclusion the p.r. agencies are active on all of Wikipedia, twisting language and redefining terms to suit their campaigns. But this is objectionable BECAUSE of the expressly political origin of the term.142.162.47.30 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See the /Archives for earlier discussions of this. LeadSongDog come howl!  08:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Archives are hard to search and frankly it's beside the point whatever was decided before; "oil sands" is very much an oil industry-invented term and not part of ordinary English; it's only found in the oil-industry-friendly Canadian media and government sources; US and international discussion of the TAR SANDS still uses that term; yes, Canadian English in Canadian articles when appropriate and real but this is patently a p.r. industry term and therefore POV and intentionally so; otherwise they woudln't have spent so much money persistently pushing the term and trying to rebrand the tar sands as they have been doing....Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oil sands PR campaign
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_tax#The_term_.22death_tax.22 as an example of a very similar situation.

Oil Sands is a spin campaign and it has spread to wikipedia. This needs to be cleaned up. It is a very successful campaign and unfortunately extends to the current Canadian Government who is promoting a development project there and trying to win over international opinion in favour of it. This needs to be discussed in the main article. This term is so politically contentious that to "not take a side" is in fact taking a side if the issue is not mentioned. This is a really serious manipulation of this encyclopaedia. Even the position that "Oil" and "Tar" are equally valid is spin. The stuff resembles Tar. Oil can be made from it but only with intense energy. This is described technically in this article. I don't know where to start in fixing this article. The Main title should be fixed first. I agree we should use the technical Bitumen term first and foremost, but the equal billing for Oil is a campaign with a lot of money.Rusl (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, marking the article POV, promotional and etc. On title see above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.226.204 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not tag the article with the POV template without very active discussion. Also, I have reverted your edits as they are of highly debateable neutrality, especially in regards to how they are worded. Please point out specific passages that are promotional and/or non-neutral and why they you think they are before making such changes. Claiming that editors are being paid to change the article is a gross breach of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. (Note:I am a Conservation major at a major university, so I'm well aware of the the problems with oil sands, but your edits were not neutral from a third-person perspective).  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Being a Canadian citizen and having lived +25 years in Canada, I can confirm that the name change is the direct result of an elaborate PR campaign spearheaded by both the Canadian government and tar sand lobby groups. For years, I only heard on TV/Radio references to the "Tar Sands" - only in the past 1-2 years have I started to hear more and more in mainstream media the term "oil sands". Wikipedia should not be manipulated for PR purposes - this article should be renamed "tar sands". I suggest flagging this page again and, if necessary, start a debate on the topic on this discussion page.Vincentl (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As has been discussed here many times before, both names are inaccurate, the best term being "bituminous sands". Since that is not commonly used it becomes a matter of which of the commonly used terms are more accurate, and at the end of the day bitumen is a type of oil, not a type of tar. TastyCakes (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. WP:COMMONNAME applies and "tar sands" is the msot common and also the most historical name and has no association with any p.r. rebranding cmapaign, which is very pointedly the case with "oil sands"....."bitumen is a type of oil" is patently false; oil can be made from it, but bitumen is not oil, and its most common name is "tar".Skookum1 (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly correct. It is a small group of probably-conflicted Canadians who are arguing with various specious methods to desperately keep the propaganda term as the primary title.  They seem to take this very seriously which is evidence that it is POV.  This may be a time when the "bitumen deposit" name, common or not, just has to be used to avoid the problem, if the Canadians do not take themselves out of the conversation as conflicted.  In other words what would a vote including no Canadians at all look like?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.125.187 (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Lexicography
According to the OED, oil sand, attested 1875, is porous rock or sand “impregnated with oil.” Tar-sand, 1899, is sand “impregnated with bitumen.”

Bates (1984) Dictionary of Geological Terms says oil sand, generally, contains petroleum or is impregnated with hydrocarbons, or more specifically is sand from which oil can be drilled, while tar sand holds asphalt, or is an oil sand “from which the lighter volatiles have escaped” (presumably this is heavy oil).

Ghosh (2005) Dictionary of Geology says an oil sand is “porous or oil-filled.”

I couldn't find bituminous sand in these sources, but Bates does define asphaltic sand as a mixture of asphalt and sand. Does anyone have any other geological dictionaries or glossaries to check?

From the sources above, I conclude:


 * Bitumen is also acceptably called asphalt, tar, or pitch (tar and pitch refer also, primarily, to plant-derived substances).
 * Oil sand and tar sand are two kinds of mineral deposits, possibly with some overlap.
 * Oil sand may be the best general name for an article about both.
 * This article, however, is more specific; it's about tar sand.

Note that there are also articles on specific deposits: Athabasca oil sands, Melville Island oil sands (shouldn't these be capitalized?).

When I was a kid, we always heard about the Alberta Tar Sands. Adopting the generic term oil sands when talking about tar sands isn't technically incorrect, but it's pretty sketchy, and much less precise when the topic is actually tar sands. Its current overly-broad application comes from interests promoting resource exploitation, and it is becoming more prominent as petroleum scarcity has drawn more attention and activity to these resources. It comes from a certain POV, but that doesn't change the fact that articles should use the most common name. Hard to say which is the most common however, when you take the full body of usage into consideration, including historical works and technical sources, and not just recent press.

In my opinion, this article should clearly be titled tar sand (singular). —Michael Z. 2012-04-02 07:52 z 
 * That would be the epitome of original research, not to mention simpy incorrect. We don't do that here. Consider these etymological entries:

,, ,, , , , , ,, ,, , , ,.
 * Clearly the etymology of the terms is much intertwined. But today the distinction hinges on whether the material is mineral or not. Tar is principally used for the sap that oozes from plants, especially pines. Bitumen and asphalt are principally used for semi-solid petroleum. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The question isn't about the primary meaning of bitumen, petroleum, etc. The question is what is the most common name for the subject of this article? I can't find any mention of tar sand(s), oil sand(s), or bituminous sand(s) in any of your links, so they aren't much help, unless we make a leap (*cough* original research).


 * Tar sands or oil sands (pl.) are usually specific areas of the type of deposits called tar sand or oil sand. Our guidelines say to use the singular form for article names. So it seems to me that the singular form is more appropriate.


 * Some specific links:   . Oil sand, and bituminous or tar sand, are two different things with a grey area in between. —Michael Z. 2012-04-25 05:00 z 
 * Not quite sure what to make of that. The Clark biography uses all three terms, and distinguishes them, at p.ix. Similarly this uses both "oil sands" and "tar sands", but primarily the former. This is of course a writer sympathetic to their development and interested in the technology. Other writers, opposed to their development, tend to use "tar sands" more than "oil sands", as if that was a negative description. If one googles "Venezuela oil sands" vs "Venezuela tar sands" the results massively favour "oil". We simply don't have a sound reason to choose "tar" over "oil". There are good arguments for the reverse, particularly that the product traded on the markets is oil. Extracting bitumen is simply a means toward that trade. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oil is defined as: Houston, we have a problem. The material discussed in this article is bitumen sands. It is not a liquid. Sunray (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "A viscous liquid derived from petroleum." - Oxford
 * "any of numerous unctuous combustible substances that are liquid... Merriam-Webster
 * "Any substance that is liquid at ambient temperatures and does not mix with water but may mix with other oils and organic solvents." - Wikipedia
 * That's not what OED.com says, and only part of what MW says. The OED primary definition is "As a mass noun: any of a number of liquids of natural or artificial origin which have a smooth, sticky, unctuous, feel and are insoluble in water (but soluble in organic solvents), more or less viscous, flammable, and chemically neutral." Merriam-Webster.com has as their primary definition "any of numerous unctuous combustible substances that are liquid or can be liquefied easily on warming, are soluble in ether but not in water, and leave a greasy stain on paper or cloth". The WP page was unsourced, I've revised and referenced it based on the OED. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Those definitions you quote make it clear that oil is defined as a liquid. Bitumen is not a liquid. Sunray (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends on temperature. Warm it up and it liquifies. It's entirely a question of degree: the longer the average carbon chain in the mix, the hotter it has to be to flow. Just the same as the difference between 5W30 and 20W30. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are referring to a change of state or phase transition. A phase transition requires inputs of energy. At high enough temperatures metals also liquify. That doesn't change the fact that the natural state of a metal is solid. The natural state of the bitumen found in the Athabaska region is solid or semi-solid; i.e., it does not flow without being heated. The natural state of oil is liquid. Sunray (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Natural state" implies an assumption of some specific "natural" temperature. The present-day temperatures are quite different between reservoirs. Certainly the near-surface deposits in the Athabaskan basin are colder than the Orinocco basin, but that doesn't change the fact that bitumen (by whatever name) is a class of oil. Nor does it change the fact that even the Athabaskan basin was once equatorial. Please note too that this article is not about just one deposit, but about the material. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In defining the term, we are talking about ambient temperature and modern times. The petroleum industry uses the terms "oil" and "oil sands." However, there are distinctions between extra heavy oil (such as that found in Venezuela) and the bitumen in Athabaska. Our task, as editors, is to keep this article neutral and informative. The reader needs to be informed as to the similarities and differences between bitumen and oil (or other classes of oil, if you wish). The term "oil sands," while most common now, is, nevertheless, disputed. It is also misleading (because all definitions of oil class it as a liquid and raw bitumen does not flow unless heated or diluted). We need to explain why it is disputed and how it is misleading. Would you not agree? Sunray (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the controvery over the term should in the article but insist that regular English and not an industry-coined term, invented as a rebranding/pr campaign, should be allowed to stand as the article name; and as for those google cites that LeadSongDog is on about, the issue there is how many of those links are industry-generated and never forget the p.r. people inundate the web with their desired terminology, and that vast numbers of affiliation-linked sources do not mean the term deserves generla use, only that there is a campaign to make the term general. It's only used in the Canadian press, and in oil industry circles, and is viewed as a POV term....the provenance of the term is also at issue, as to what date, and who came up with; like others here I'm a long time resident of Canada and the term "Athabasca tar sands" has been around for decades....."oil sands" is a recent invention, and I"m sure can be traced to a meeting in some p.r. firm boardroom somewhere....Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct on all points. Even industry critics like David Suzuki have been literally forced to use the propaganda term "oil sands" on the air when working for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is publicly financed and forced to toe the line of the Stephen Harper government.  The pressure on all Canadian media outlets to use only this term is evidence of it being POV, and of the deliberate attempt to alter the historical name and confuse the public by pretending that this is "only" a source of oil, dodging the toxicity of bitumen, petcoke carbon intensity, the fact that the bitumen sinks in water even when diluted, etc. - a long list of chemical and biological facts that "tar" correctly implies that "oil" does not.  In terms of its physical behavior, carbon impact, biological and environmental impact, "tar" is more accurate than "oil", regardless of the basic chemistry.  Tar sinks in water like bitumen;  Oil floats... and that makes all the difference when you're trying to clean it up.

Rename article "Tar sands"
Most who have commented in the above discussion are of the opinion that the name for the article should be "tar sands"—although several also agree that "bituminous sands" is the correct scientific term. The industry and the Alberta Government have argued for calling it "oil sands" because that is the product ultimately produced (and it sounds better). However, the area was originally named "the tar sands" and the substance is bitumen, a tar-like substance. Oil is defined as "a liquid"; tar sands are solid or semi-solid. For these reasons, I propose renaming the article "Tar sands." Sunray (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as a minor point, I came here looking for "tar sand". In my opinion the article title should be the accurate "bitumen sand" with lots of redirects pointing to it. Huw Powell (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This was previously debated here at "Article name" and "Requested_move"  (and probably elsewhere)in the Talk archives  -- with very wandering discussions, much like this one. Our article has enough caveats and refs to the various names commonly used to satisfy  the NPOV requirements, I think.  OPPOSE  renaming.  -- Pete Tillman (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Prior comments (not mine) and their authoritative references indicate the historic use of "oil sands" as much as "tar sands". Dictionary definitions suggest that "bitumen" is best and that both "oil" and "tar" have definitional problems. Many of the arguments for the "tar sands" label seem to be based on "true name" concepts that should be avoided for NPOV.  I agree with Pete that this issue is adequately addressed in the current article and would prefer that contributors focus on substantive content. OPPOSE  renaming. -- Rpclod (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * None of this is relevant. The historical term was Athabaska Tar Sands, capitalized as a proper name, and accordingly it is not relevant if "tar" was an appropriate or correct term, that was what was used.  It's a plain lie to claim that "oil sands" was in use prior to about the 1980s, it was not, and it was a result of deliberate propaganda that has clearly affected Wikipedia.  Dick Cheney calls them "Tar Sands", European diplomats (mostly from the UK) arguing *for* them call them "tar sands", there is no question whatsoever that this is the most neutral term, whether or not it is or ever was accurate.  If you want to avoid both terms call them "bitumen deposit" or "bituminous sands", but "Oil sands" is clearly a POV term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.125.187 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Water "lakes"
There must be a more authoritative source available for the recent additions. "Central Park" is 840 acres, not 2000, and Bloomberg should certainly have known that. In any case, the referent is more or less useless to people elsewhere per wp:WORLDWIDE. The source doesn't say how deep the "lake" or "lakes" would actually be. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * From Bloomberg: "By 2022 they will be producing so much of the stuff that a month’s output of wastewater could turn New York’s Central Park into a toxic reservoir 11 feet deep"   petrarchan47  t  c   08:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, a)there was no planned wastewater pipeline from Alberta to NYC, b)there was no plan for any reservoir to be that deep, c)the Pembina Institute remained an advocacy organization, coal mines are not oil sands mines, and e)it isn't 2022. It's purely a POV push, abetted by Bloomberg and based on the darkest possible view of the wp:CRYSTAL ball. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your WP:OR is misplaced. Bloomberg was using the example of Central Park since its audience is largely familiar with its size, and was merely trying to give a visual of a month's output. Since Bloomberg is RS, we go with it.  petrarchan47  t  c   00:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

On the effects on ground water David Schindler's studies are the most generally accepted as neutral and scientific.


 * Cited as neutral and scientific by whom? Greenpeace? The Koch brothers? Cite sources, give details, and give your own moniker so we can browbeat you in person. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Schindler also verified that the Alberta "Environment" department (which is or was physically situated at One Petroleum Plaza, if you can believe it) systematically ignored and refused to gather data that indicated industry and not natural leakage into rivers and lakes.


 * Alberta has "Environment" in the name of about every third department, and they have offices all over the place. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development is at
 * Main Floor, Great West Life Building
 * 9920 108 Street
 * Edmonton AB Canada T5K 2M4
 * You could argue that an environment department renting space in a life insurance building was some sort of conflict of interest, but then people would begin to think you were nuts. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Specific nature of external source when quoting, referencing, or citing.
Halfway down the introductory text, the phrase "... described by Canadian authorities as ..." suggests that the description comes from a Canadian authority (i.e. a Canadian body that has the power to decide upon, enforce, or control aspects of the subject at hand - typically at one of the three levels of government). The description in this case comes from an "association", not an "authority". To make this entry clearer and more neutral I suggest changing "Canadian authorities" to something else [please comment with suggestions]. Unless there is an objection, or another suggestion, I will make the edit and replace "Canadian authorities" with "some Canadian organisations".

gfreeman (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I named the top authority in Canada (National Energy Board). The Alberta Energy Authority will agree because they are more on the same page with the feds than their counterparts in the Uncoordinated States of America. I also added a few links to Wiki articles I thought might be enlightening. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What about the Venezuelan oil sands?
I keep thinking the oil sands of Venezuelas Orinoco Belt should be included in this article. There are two enormous oil sands deposits in the world - in Canada and in Venezuela. The Venezuelan oil sands are of the same scale or bigger than the Canadian oil sands, the geological origins (not discussed in this article) are very similar, and the technological challenges are much the same - although somewhat less difficult in Venezuela mostly because Venezuela is warmer than Canada and things don't freeze solid in the winter.

The article current says "The Orinoco Belt in Venezuela is sometimes described as oil sands, but these deposits are non-bituminous, falling instead into the category of heavy or extra-heavy oil due to their lower viscosity. Natural bitumen and extra-heavy oil differ in the degree by which they have been degraded from the original conventional oils by bacteria." but this isn't really true. The viscosity of the Venezuelan oil sands is lower because the reservoir temperatures are higher in Venezuela. The API gravity is about the same, but warm oil flows better than cold oil. If it's warm, it's extra heavy oil, and if it's cold it's bitumen. In theory the Venezuelans should be able to produce their heavy oil and deliver it to market easier than the Canadians, but their political problems mean Venezuelan oil production is falling while Canadian oil production is rising. The oil refineries don't see much difference in quality, so Canadian oil is backing Venezuelan oil out of the US market.

What do you think. Should we add the Venezuelan oil sands to this article? RockyMtnGuy (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If there are enough reliable sources to support the inclusion of the Venezuelan oil sands, then I think it would be a good idea.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC))


 * If included, it creates overlapping and confusion with Extra heavy oil article. Support inclusion only in the case these two articles are merged; otherwise keep separated. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Another possibility is to create a separate article for the Venezuelan oil sands.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC))
 * This article exists (Orinoco Belt). Beagel (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Previous relevant discussions are archived here, here and here. Beagel (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no extra-heavy oil article - it just redirects to the heavy oil article. There is a qualitative difference between heavy oil and extra-heavy oil. Heavy oil has an API gravity of 10 to 20 degrees API, extra-heavy oil has an API gravity of less than 10 degrees API, which is in the same range as bitumen. The main difference between the Venezuelan and Canadian deposits is viscosity, which depends on temperature. The Venezuelan oil sands are hotter than the Canadian ones and therefore the oil flows better and can be produced without steam stimulation or mining (only the Canadian Athabasca deposits are shallow enough to mine). Once the oil is out of the ground, the technical issues are much the same, and any oil refinery that can process Venezuelan extra-heavy oil should be able to process Canadian bitumen. Venezuela has lost almost all of its heavy oil technical experts because of its political and economic problems, so its petroleum industry is screwed. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Venezuelans like to make a distinction between their "extra-heavy oil" and Canada's "bitumen", but in the real world it doesn't really matter. The reservoirs have a rather similar geology and history (which are not dealt with in this article). They are all very heavy oils < 10&deg;API and the essential difference is in reservoir temperature. However, once the hot Venezuelan extra-heavy is out of the ground it cools and congeals like bitumen and the difficulties from that point are the same. Any refinery that can process Venezuelan extra-heavy should be able to process bitumen as well, and in fact Canadian bitumen is very successfully driving Venezuelan extra-heavy oil out of the US market.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And, I have to point out that the reference for the above quoted statement Dusseault, M. B. (12–14 June 2001). Comparing Venezuelan and Canadian heavy oil and tar sands  does not support it. A PDF copy of the paper is available from the Alberta government Department of Energy. What the paper actually says is: "There are many similarities between the large heavy oil deposits in Canada and Venezuela, suggesting that there are no barriers to the successful implementation of recently developed Canadian technologies to the Faja del Orinoco unconsolidated sandstones...." "The new technologies that have been developed in Canada in the last 15 years will soon have a major impact on the Venezuelan production strategy once the period of relatively easy cold production is past." Well, the paper is old, and that was written 13 years ago, The period of relatively easy cold production is now past, and the Venezuelan government has dropped the ball. Venezuelan oil production is declining because of the country's political and economic problems. There is far too much political skewing of the writing on this article. I'm not going to apologize for talking politics on the Talk section. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Overlapping with Athabasca oil sands
There seems to be a some overlapping with Athabasca oil sands. Although some overlapping is not avoidable, it seems that some Athabasca-specific information in this article suits better in Athabasca oil sands. Therefore I think that some cleanup is needed and Athabasca oil sands information should be moved into the relevant article. Beagel (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Athabasca oil sands are the largest of the three biggest Canadian oil sands deposits, the others being the Peace River oil sands, and the Cold Lake oil sands. It also overlaps the Wabasca oil sands. The Athabasca sands are the only ones shallow enough to surface mine, produce the most oil, and have the longest history of development, but the other sands are also under active development and production. There is also another major Canadian oil sands deposit, the Melville Island oil sands in the Canadian Arctic islands which are too remote to have seen any development. Each of these oil sands has its own article, and this article should link to all of them. Any Athabasca-specific text should be moved to the Athabasca article and a summary and a link to it established here.


 * And then User:Oceanflynn seems to have added an entire section on Oil sands tailing ponds to the article, which is only applicable to the Athabasca oil sands. The Athabasca sands are the only ones shallow enough to surface mine, and then only about 20% of them are mineable. The rest of the Athabasca sands and all of the other oil sands will be developed using in-situ techniques, which don't use tailing ponds. That section should be moved to the Athabasca oil sands article. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Rather than quibble, I moved the "Oil sands tailings ponds section" to the Athabasca oil sands article, the only area where it is relevant. None of the other oil sands areas have tailings ponds. For that matter, in-situ projects don't need tailings ponds anywhere, and even the mines don't need tailings ponds if they put in centrifuges, which apparently they are starting to do. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In the absence of active resistance, I have started the big rationalization of this article with the Athabasca oil sands article. I started by creating a section "Major deposits" with the first subsection being "Athabasca", followed by other important deposits and links to their main articles. In fact Venezuela's Orinoco oil sands are bigger. However, the Athabasca deposits are the only ones which are surface mineable, so obviously the section on mining them should be there instead of here. This is still a work in progress, so the headings need to be fleshed out with summaries. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, they are already linked from the 'Reserves' section. Somehow, these two sections should be merged. Beagel (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I could move the text from the "Reserves" section to the appropriate place in the "Major Deposits" section. The heading "Reserves" itself is somewhat dubious because most authorities (eg the SEC) haven't figured out how to define oil sands reserves. The definitions vary. Under the SPE system, they might be called "Contingent resources". BP in its oft-quoted but badly-flawed reserves report tried to define oil sands reserves almost out of existence (I can't say much more because I did sign an NDA with BP). The first paragraph is almost a dead loss (it quotes numbers with at most 1-2 significant digits to 7 significant digits, which is a sure sign that the author didn't understand the data. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Externalized costs
You revised an edit I made that said "Accrued costs exclude the effects of the mining and endproducts of consumption when these are returned to the environment, whether locally or globally." You noted when saving your edit "Canadian oil companies book future reclamation costs as a liability. US refinery cleanup costs - those are a different basket of snakes."

Do you have a link to a credible source that says Canadian oil companies actually pay these costs? If not, they're not actual costs, and are externalized as I originally stated.

Also, though you implied in your editing note that US refinery costs are not even estimated, you did not mention that they're externalized when you removed my content that covered them as externalized costs. And all the rest of the costs beyond just remediating mining and refinery sites, including the costs of the pollution generated by consuming the tar and its products.

Can you justify removing these relevant facts from the article's depiction of the costs? DocRuby (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't provide a citation for your edit, so I didn't provide one for mine. However, from the Alberta Department of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development document Alberta's Oil Sands
 * "By law, industry must post financial security equivalent to the cost of reclamation before beginning oil sands activity. This money is kept in the Environmental Protection Security Fund and returned to industry when reclamation certificates are issued. As of June 2008, the fund held $721 million". In other words, Alberta oil companies (and coal companies) pay the mine reclamation costs in advance, so it is already included when mining starts. Consuming jurisdictions are responsible for their own environmental costs, so they should build them into, e.g. higher gasoline taxes. Good luck with that in the US, but it's more common in Canada.


 * If you want more detail, see Mine Financial Security Program:
 * ''"By law, coal and oil sands mine companies are responsible for reclaiming land that is disturbed by mining and the operation of related plants. Standards for reclamation are set by the Government of Alberta..."
 * ''"The fundamental principle of the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP) is that the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Approval holder is responsible for carrying out suspension, abandonment, remediation and surface reclamation work to the standards established by the province and to maintain care-and-custody of the land until a reclamation certificate has been issued. The approval holder must have the financial resources to complete these obligations..."
 * "The Mine Financial Security Program takes an asset-to-liability approach to managing financial risks. It recognizes that the resource value associated with an approved project is an asset in terms of the cash flow generated by its operations. The program requires a base amount of security for each project which, among other things, would provide the funds necessary to safely secure the site and place the project in a care and custody state..." And it goes on and on, but you get the drift.


 * The snide little comment about US refineries involves some inside knowledge: They will never be able to clean up the old refinery sites in the US. In the bad old days companies spilled too many toxic chemicals into the ground to clean up. It's not the crude oil they spilled, which would be easy to deal with, as would crude bitumen, it's the chemical additives they used, the worst being the tetra-ethyl lead added to gasoline in the days of leaded gas. The ground around old refineries is contaminated so deep with lead and other toxic substances that the companies couldn't excavate it all. You will never see an oil company sell an old refinery site except to another oil company. They just turn it into a storage terminal and keep it off the market in perpetuity, however long that lasts.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Transportation section - move to Athabasca article?
Nothing in that section pertains to any other oil sands, does it? Why not move the whole section? LeadSongDog come howl!  16:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support moving as specific to the industry in certain area. Beagel (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the transport system is not restricted to Athabasca but actually serves all three major Alberta oil sands areas (Athabasca, Peace River, and Cold Lake), plus a number of other, smaller oil sands regions. I mentioned this at the start of the section. I didn't mention that companies move bitumen from one oil sands region to another, using 1 upgrader for multiple oil sands deposits, and Husky moves bitumen from Cold Lake, Alberta oil sands via a heated pipeline to its Lloydminster, Saskatchewan heavy oil upgrader, where it upgrades it along with AB and SK heavy oil. The whole gathering system converges at the two marketing points of Edmonton and Hardisty, where bitumen, syncrude, and dilbit is blended with conventional oil and gas liquids, and distributed via mainline pipelines to the rest of North America. And then there is rail, which goes from anywhere to anywhere else carrying anything, but in rapidly growing volumes. I could have added the Venezuelan transport system as well, if I knew anything about Venezuelan pipelines.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so then can most of it go in the Pipeline transport article? It certainly could use some work. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it would kind of overload the pipeline transport article, which is rather devoid of detail as is. Even the History of  the petroleum industry in Canada article has more details on pipelines. You would think that there would be more on American pipelines in Wikipedia considering that the List of countries by total length of pipelines shows the US has 793285 km of pipelines, enough to go more than 20 times around the world. Maybe a better solution would be to spin it off into an article of its own, and link to it from the pipeline transport article, the oil sands article, the Athabasca oil sands article, plus the Cold Lake, Peace River, and Wabasca oil sands articles, plus the Bakken article (since most of the Bakken oil that doesn't go by rail goes through the Canadian export pipelines.) And, speaking of rail, this is rapidly becoming more important. Over 2/3 of the new North Dakota Bakken oil goes by rail and Canadian exports of oil by rail are up 900% in the last two years. Transcanada pipelines has said that if Obama doesn't approve the Keystone XL border crossing, they will build a "rail bridge" to move the oil between unconnected pipeline segments between Canada and the US. There's going to be nothing but solid lines of trains moving from northern Canada to the southern US if that happens. The railroads see lots of money in their future, and Obama can't stop it without Congressional agreement. What are the chances of Congress agreeing to anything he wants? RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * See Map of Canadian and U.S. pipelines and refineries for the big picture. Also, I'm seeing a lot more unit trains of oil rolling south on the railways these days - interesting to me since I'm something of a railway buff. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Updating other sections
I've made a bunch of changes to the real world of oil sands. I'm currently working on the Economics section, which was flagged as a total mess. I've added some stuff from the Canadian National Energy Board (NEB), but I think the other major thinkers (Alberta Energy Authority (AER), Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), and Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI)) are all on the same page. I mean, they all could be wrong, but who knows more about oil sands than them? RockyMtnGuy (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that they're all on the same side of a contentious environmental issue (pro oil industry), so their consensus is highly suspect (as would be a consensus that included only organisations from the other side). David (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you can argue they're biased because oil companies and governments are all on the same side, but in reality they're not. The oil companies would be the primary sources for information, and you can argue that they are biased - but not necessarily when talking to their own industry. You have to differentiate between what is for public consumption and what is for internal industry consumption. Government regulatory bodies are secondary sources because they are aggregating information from the oil companies, but it is a crime to lie to government - oil company executives can go to jail for it - so you can assume their reports are reasonably accurate. Governments also have environmental laws to administer, which is a balancing act because they collect taxes from the industry and have to worry about employment and consumer prices. Academics are good "tertiary sources" because they don't have a lot of interests in the matter except to publish a paper. I haven't added much to the "Environment issues" section because it was already fairly well developed when I started adding material. In addition to the problem of factual accuracy, the info in the sections I added is rather new and state-of-the-art, and meaningful info isn't really available from environmental groups. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

13:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The reference to Venezuela's oil being non-bitumus is at odds with the article on orimulsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orimulsion


 * Such is true, and if you actually read the paper referenced by this article (Dusseault, 2001, "Comparing Venezuelan and Canadian heavy oil and tar sands") it contradicts the statement the article makes, "The Orinoco Belt in Venezuela is sometimes described as oil sands, but these deposits are non-bituminous, falling instead into the category of heavy or extra-heavy oil due to their lower viscosity.[7]". The referenced article which is supposed to support the point contradicts it and says that the two are basically the same. I think it was some kind of political point someone was trying to make, but it's not scientifically valid. It would be nice to edit the article to align it with the facts at some point in the future, but it's tough to deal with the political issues, ("bitumen, evil, not oil, Venezuela produce oil, not bitumen") that some people like to argue about. I think it's some kind of political leftist kind of issue and I'm more of an apolitical centrist with a couple of science degrees. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal
During last months there has been a lot of addition which about the details of petroleum industry related to oil sands. As a result, the article seems to be too industry-focused and out of balance as an umbrella article for oil sands. Therefore some sections should be better split into the new article called Oil sands industry. There may be some overlapping with Petroleum production in Canada and History of the petroleum industry in Canada (oil sands and heavy oil) articles, but the new article fills the gap between existing articles and will create more systematic and balanced approach. The following sections should be moved into the new article: Production, Methods of extraction, Input energy, Upgrading and/or blending, Transportation, and Refining. That does not mean that all this information will be excluded from this article, but it means that instead of the current detailed sections this information should be summarized here using summary style. Beagel (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not disagreeing, but I don't understand the driver for this split. What will be the focus of the remaining article and what would be the structural distinction for understanding where to place new material?--Rpclod (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This article here should cover in balanced way all aspects related to oil sands, including industry, but without being too focused on some aspects. If any aspect has too long and too detailed coverage, it would be better to split it into a separate article and to use a summary style here. I think that the Oil shale article, which is currently FA, and its daughter articles, including several FAs and GAs, may serve as a model example. Beagel (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That could make it an example of false balance, although I can see splitting it up into sub-articles since the subsections are getting rather large. I got started by moving info over from the Athabasca oil sands article, since Athabasca is only one of three major oil sands areas in Alberta (of four in Canada), and the Orinoco oil sands of Venezuela are even bigger, things that most people do not know. I may have gotten carried away because I know a lot about oil sands from consulting and doing research there before I retired, and I can just wing most of the text off the top of my head - the hard part is finding references. From my perspective, the Environment section already seemed well developed, but the rest of the article was rather thin considering oil sands are becoming increasingly important in the global oil picture. MOST of Canada's oil production now comes from oil sands, a fact not reflected in the Petroleum production in Canada article, and Canada is now one of the worlds biggest oil exporters, by far the largest supplier of crude oil and oil products to the US market - not a well-known fact in the US. The Environment section itself was rather unbalanced, since the oil sands represent less than 0.1% of Canada's vast boreal forests, and I am more concerned about Canada's much smaller Montane forests in which I live. They are under more development pressure than the oil sands, as witness this article: Forest loss worst in foothills, not oilsands area A report based on new satellite imagery says forests on the slopes of Alberta’s Rocky Mountains are disappearing more quickly than anywhere else in the province — including the oilsands area. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I came here looking for a map and details about each of the pipelines in North America since there is no article such as List of North American pipelines for them. Someone can create a pipeline map for an article.  There are many other images to view as source material else where on the web here, here, this is a nice one including flow rates, existing crude oil lines, new pipelines, here, this one shows an approximation of 2.5 million miles of US/Canada pipelines, another proposed pipeline map, another one showing all major natural gas, crude, refined lines, this one has different naming system than I've seen before, etc.  You must get the impression that discussing this topic without visual depictions is not efficient or reader friendly.  There are hundreds of articles in my search, many of which include maps, and Wikipedia has none...  So consider this when you split the article. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is true that there should be an article about North American Pipelines, since the US has about 80,000 miles of pipelines, which are mostly ignored in Wikipedia. Canada doesn't have nearly as many pipelines, but they are longer - the longest pipelines in the world. I put a certain about in this article about pipelines transporting oil sands production, and about rail as an alternative to pipelines. BTW, Canada is supplying over 37% of US oil imports these days, and the oil sands are most of Canada's oil production now since its conventional oil is running out, so the information here is significant. However, I don't know much about the US pipeline system, which should be the major part of any such article. Maps would be nice, because people could see where the pipelines run (almost everywhere in the US). I'm not very keen on splitting this article, but creating some new pipeline articles would be nice if some editor knew about them. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * [Image:Athabasca_Oil_Sands_map.png|Map of oil sands in Canada|thumb|300px|left]] I agree with Beagel (talk) that it would be useful to have a separate article for the  Oil sands industry.  The Oil sands article as it now covers too many topics. It could be more focused on oil sands itself, the naturally occurring global phenomenon, with explanations of geological formations and history of its use before industrial development occurred including deposits in Canada, Venezuela, the United States, Russia etc. This could include the sections on History, Nomenclature, Geology, Major deposits.

The article on Oil sands industry in Alberta or Canada could include Production, Methods of extraction, Primary production, Surface mining, Oil sands tailings ponds, Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS), 'Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS), Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), Vapor Extraction (VAPEX), Toe to Heel Air Injection (THAI),  Combustion Overhead Gravity Drainage (COGD), Input energy, Upgrading and/or blending, Transportation, Existing pipelines etc

I agree with Beagel (talk) that the current oil sands article, could "cover in balanced way all aspects related to oil sands, including industry, but without being too focused on some aspects. If any aspect has too long and too detailed coverage, it would be better to split it into a separate article and to use a summary style here. I think that the Oil shale article, which is currently FA, and its daughter articles, including several FAs and GAs, may serve as a model example (Beagel)."

I would also like to see articles specifically on Oil sands industry in Alberta. There is a vast amount of literature and resources about new technologies and changing economics specifically about the oil sands industry in Alberta, but there is no one-stop-shop in Wikipedia for these resources. Information is spread over many articles such as Athabasca oil sands, Peace River oil sands, Wabasca oil field Cold Lake oil sands and technology specific articles. For example, I have been making recent edits to Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute whose scientific research refers to the Alberta oil sands as case study. It would be helpful to have one overarching article that covers and references Oil sands industry in Alberta and includes sections on Athabasca oil sands, Peace River oil sands, Wabasca oil field Cold Lake oil sands with links .Oceanflynn (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree this article is getting too long. I got started lengthening it when someone pointed out that there was too much information in the Athabasca oil sands article that applied to oil sands in general, so I moved it here and put links to the Athabasca, Peace River, Cold Lake, and other oil sands areas. I tried to make it clear that only the Athabasca deposit was surface mine-able and only 10% of the Athabasca one, at that. Then I started fleshing out the detail which was missing. I may have gotten carried away in places, but information on pipelines, for instance, is missing or non-factual on Wikipedia. Since there have been so many new developments in the oil sands industry in recent years, the additions became rather lengthy.


 * However, I don't see the point in creating an article on "Oil sands industry in Alberta or Canada", since the Alberta sands industry IS the world oil sands industry, and 95% of the oil reserves in Canada are oil sands. There are only two areas where oil sands occur on the same massive scale - Alberta and Venezuela. In theory Venezuela could put its even bigger oil sands on production, but it has a dysfunctional government and a dysfunctional state oil company (PDVSA). With the current low oil prices and PDVSA's obsolete technology, the company and the country will probably go bankrupt in the near future. Even though Venezuela claims its oil sands produce "extra-heavy oil" rather than bitumen, the fact is that Alberta produces more extra-heavy oil than Venezuela. It just deems it all to be bitumen.


 * Using the oil shale article as a model is all well and good, but remember, there IS NO OIL SHALE INDUSTRY in North America, not any more. That makes it much shorter and easier to write since there is not much to write about. It is talking about a theoretical industry that could exist, but does not exist now and may never exist. There are no inconvenient facts to disturb the flow. On the other hand, the oil sands industry is already very big, and steadily getting bigger and more controversial.


 * I think it would be more rational to split this article into sub-articles on, for instance, Oil sands geology, Oil sands extraction and upgrading, Oil sands transportation and refining, Oil sands economics, Oil sands environmental issues, etc. "Oil sands history in Canada" is already covered by History of the petroleum industry in Canada (oil sands and heavy oil) but you could do a redirect. The various sub-articles could then expand along with the industry.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ref for history, nomenclature, etc
Have a look at Bitumen and Petroleum in Antiquity from the Brill Archive. It looks like a useful source for these sections. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oil sands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110820032845/http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/08/19/edm-cancer-oilsands-fort-chipewyan-study.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/08/19/edm-cancer-oilsands-fort-chipewyan-study.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)