Tar Sands vs Oil Sands

[JJRND]

Hey everyone.
I took an intro anthropology course this last year and one of the assignments was to give a group presentation on an assigned topic. The topic my group was given was, "Tar Sands/Oil Sands: What is the semantic difference?" (Or in other words, the difference in meaning)
Our group came up with the idea that Tar Sands was generally viewed in a negative light, while Oil Sands was more positive. We talked about Tar Sands being used at first to describe the initial state of the process, and then later preferring the term Oil Sands (which is the end process). We didn't use the latter idea though. I thought that this would be an interesting discussion topic though.
What are your thoughts on the difference(s) of meaning(s) between Tar Sands and Oil Sands?

[Gust]

Terminology eh?

Kinda like asking if farting is different than emitting wind from your anus.

[loyaleddie]

Mr. Suzuki might know….Go ask him!

[pseelk]

If you"re from the east its tar sands,out here they are oilsands.

[Okotokian]

Pro-industry folks call them Oil Sands, anti's call them Tar Sands, so the implication is that "tar" must be more negative than "oil". Mind you, 20 years ago most uninformed folks of any opinion (positive or negative) called them "Tar Sands". Today it's a super-quick way to judge what side of the fence the speaker is on.

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Pro-industry folks call them Oil Sands, anti's call them Tar Sands, so the implication is that "tar" must be more negative than "oil". Mind you, 20 years ago most uninformed folks of any opinion (positive or negative) called them "Tar Sands". Today it's a super-quick way to judge what side of the fence the speaker is on.

Thats what I said LOL

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by JJRND

The topic my group was given was, "Tar Sands/Oil Sands: What is the semantic difference?"

The difference is not semantic.

The fact that an anthropology professor is making that assumption, and teaching you that the difference is "semantic", tells me something about him/her and should tell you something.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

The difference is not semantic.

The fact that an anthropology professor is making that assumption, and teaching you that the difference is "semantic", tells me something about him/her and should tell you something.

Do tell... But refrain from using the word progressive or republic or liberal or eastener in your arguement

[260 Rem]

Back in the day, they were refered to as the tar sands ...that is what we called them for many years. "Oil sands" is a politically correct cleansing now in vogue. I often refer to them as the tar sands out of habit, but make a conscious effort to use "oil sands". But, you know how some of us "old boys" hate political correctness

[catnthehat]

Came up here in 1973, all the locals - Natives and Whites included, called them tarsands then , and still do.
Cat

[Hagalaz]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Came up here in 1973, all the locals - Natives and Whites, called it tarsands then , and still do.
Cat

My father did the same thing.

The way he looked at was "Tar Sands or Oil Sands. Its the same thing, just worded differently."

[Gust]

I like the term money toffey. Always tarsands to me but the derrick huggers seem really offended by the term

[beansgunsghandi]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

The difference is not semantic.

The fact that an anthropology professor is making that assumption, and teaching you that the difference is "semantic", tells me something about him/her and should tell you something.

Semantic does not mean irrelevant, even if it used that way often by people who don't understand the semantics of the word, grin... That's probably why the professor choose the topic, and it seems like a good one no matter what your position is on the tar/oil/duck sands.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by GustavMahler

Do tell... But refrain from using the word progressive or republic or liberal or eastener in your arguement

LOL He's working on it, but it's hard. That's why he hasn't replied yet.

But I actually think that what he was trying to say is that it's more than semantics, that "tar sands" is technically incorrect because it doesn't properly describe what the material is. Really, they should just call it "bituminous sands" and be done with it.

[AxeMan]

Actually, the Athabasca Tar Sands was the original terminology used to decribe the bitumen deposit in northern Alberta. Only since the negative environmental spin has been put on the industry by the environmentalists, has the name been changed to the Oil Sands by the industry. I have a training manual in front of me right now from Syncrude from the eighties titled: "The Athabasca Tar Sands an Alchem Elective Unit". Copyright Syncrude right inside the cover.

[beansgunsghandi]

And to me I grew up with tar sands, which was re-branded oil sands in a PR move. I think everyone would agree that it's a hell of a messy process to get the oil out of it's current form, so tar seems more appropriate and historically correct to me to answer the original poster's question. It is a "divide" term like gay and other terms that says more about the person using it than the what it is describing. Those who use oil sands are normally working in the industry or pro-development, while tar sands are used by older guys like me or those who are against developing the tar sands.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

LOL He's working on it, but it's hard. That's why he hasn't replied yet.

But I actually think that what he was trying to say is that it's more than semantics, that "tar sands" is technically incorrect because it doesn't properly describe what the material is. Really, they should just call it "bituminous sands" and be done with it.

are you being subjective or objective?

I can wait for rocky to answer, afterall he is a teacher

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi

And to me I grew up with tar sands, which was re-branded oil sands in a PR move. I think everyone would agree that it's a hell of a messy process to get the oil out of it's current form, so tar seems more appropriate and historically correct to me to answer the original poster's question. It is a "divide" term like gay and other terms that says more about the person using it than the what it is describing. Those who use oil sands are normally working in the industry or pro-development, while tar sands are used by older guys like me or those who are against developing the tar sands.

Not all "old guys" are against the development of the tarsands.

I for one actually welcome it.
Cat

[blueskys]

It has always been called Tar Sands. Suncors address at the site was Bag#xxxx Tar Island Alberta.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

But I actually think that what he was trying to say is that it's more than semantics, that "tar sands" is technically incorrect because it doesn't properly describe what the material is. Really, they should just call it "bituminous sands" and be done with it.

It's not what he was "trying" to say, it's exactly what he said. Those who know less than you do missed it.

Tar is a man-made substance. It has always been a man-made substance. It is made from coal.

Bitumen is heavy oil. It is a naturally occurring substance. It is not made from coal.

What we have is sand soaked in bitumen. Hence, "oil sands". When you pour oil into sand, it does not become tar.

It's no more "semantics" than it is a question of semantics whether to call a baseball a cube. If you choose to call it a cube, you are wrong. The fact that your father called it a cube does not make it so. It is a sphere.

We now live in a world where truth is often ignored in favour of ideology and propaganda. We live in a world where laws are created on the basis of good propaganda. Words matter. Now, more than ever.

Thank you for your cooperation in this delicate matter.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

It's not what he was "trying" to say, it's exactly what he said. Those who know less than you do missed it.

Tar is a man-made substance. It has always been a man-made substance. It is made from coal.

Bitumen is heavy oil. It is a naturally occurring substance. It is not made from coal.

What we have is sand soaked in bitumen. Hence, "oil sands". When you pour oil into sand, it does not become tar.

It's no more "semantics" than it is a question of semantics whether to call a baseball a cube. If you choose to call it a cube, you are wrong. The fact that your father called it a cube does not make it so. It is a sphere.

Sounds like a progressive in a pumpjack huggers coat talking. What do you call it when you are out with a crew? I am sticking with money toffee... Sticking, hey I made a pun!

[hal53]

Originally Posted by GustavMahler

Sounds like a progressive in a pumpjack huggers coat talking. What do you call it when you are out with a crew? I am sticking with money toffee... Sticking, hey I made a pun!

Yup, you're right GM, never let facts get in the way when you can poke sarcasm at somebody.....

[Gust]

Hey rockster, does singing the beverly hillbillies tune make you crazy with all that black gold and texas tea lyric?

[BeeGuy]

money toffee, hahahaha

top form today gus

[Gust]

Originally Posted by hal53

Yup, you're right GM, never let facts get in the way when you can poke sarcasm at somebody.....

The terminology never caused shares to devalue orr production to slow or anything, heck we could call it dusty cyanide licorice and all will be fine. Who exactly is offended?

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

It's not what he was "trying" to say, it's exactly what he said. Those who know less than you do missed it.

Tar is a man-made substance. It has always been a man-made substance. It is made from coal.

Bitumen is heavy oil. It is a naturally occurring substance. It is not made from coal.

What we have is sand soaked in bitumen. Hence, "oil sands". When you pour oil into sand, it does not become tar.

It's no more "semantics" than it is a question of semantics whether to call a baseball a cube. If you choose to call it a cube, you are wrong. The fact that your father called it a cube does not make it so. It is a sphere.

We now live in a world where truth is often ignored in favour of ideology and propaganda. We live in a world where laws are created on the basis of good propaganda. Words matter. Now, more than ever.

Thank you for your cooperation in this delicate matter.

When you pour oil into sand it does not become bitumen either.

Oil is a petroleum product that is liquid at ambient temperatures.

Clearly neither term is accurate.

I like bitumen sands, as they are clearly a bitc#-man.

BTW, the "oil" that comes from tarsands is just as manufactuered as any "tar".

You're really stretching beyond reason in your argument.

[dantonsen]

its a PR thing for people who've never seen the stuff.

Oilsands sounds like oily sand that you just have to squeeze the oil out of and your good to go,

Tarsands sounds like alot more of a process... Turning tar into oil, that sounds ridiculous to alot of peole who have no idea what the process looks like


It's those tailings ponds that they need to do something about, they are disgusting and will never go away. The so called reclaimed ponds are merely just covered up with fabric and they dump the petroleum coke from the plant on top then seed the top soil once they get that on there. If youve ever seen that commercial on tv bragging about how they fixed the pond there's actually 20-150 feet of toxic sludge and goop a few meters under the nice grassy field in the back. They actually took birch trees and cemented them into the ground to make it look like trees have grown there,lol

I don't care either way, I don't live there, it's allready pretty trashed so they may aswell keep going. It keeps the wages up in edmonton

[chad66]

My dad started working at "GCOS" aka "Great Canadian Oil Sands" in 1967...maybe 68....anyway it was before Syncrude. I spent many happy days mucking around in the tar along the banks of the Athabasca River while waiting for a chubfish to bite my handline. My mom gave me heck for getting tar all over my clothes, so it must be tar sands...Mom is always right...

[uglyelk]

Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi

And to me I grew up with tar sands, which was re-branded oil sands in a PR move. I think everyone would agree that it's a hell of a messy process to get the oil out of it's current form, so tar seems more appropriate and historically correct to me to answer the original poster's question. It is a "divide" term like gay and other terms that says more about the person using it than the what it is describing. Those who use oil sands are normally working in the industry or pro-development, while tar sands are used by older guys like me or those who are against developing the tar sands.

No way we are calling it "THE GAY SANDS!"

[catnthehat]

[QUOTE=dantonsen;1438649]its a PR thing for people who've never seen the stuff.

Oilsands sounds like oily sand that you just have to squeeze the oil out of and your good to go,

Tarsands sounds like alot more of a process... Turning tar into oil, that sounds ridiculous to alot of peole who have no idea what the process looks like


It's those tailings ponds that they need to do something about, they are disgusting and will never go away. The so called reclaimed ponds are merely just covered up with fabric and they dump the petroleum coke from the plant on top then seed the top soil once they get that on there. If youve ever seen that commercial on tv bragging about how they fixed the pond there's actually 20-150 feet of toxic sludge and goop a few meters under the nice grassy field in the back. They actually took birch trees and cemented them into the ground to make it look like trees have grown there,lol

I don't care either way, I don't live there, it's allready pretty trashed so they may aswell keep going. It keeps the wages up in edmonton[/QUOTE

Hmm, I have never heard of anyone cementing birch trees down, but I have seen the growth over the years of birches, poplars , willows, spruces, and many other types of trees.
Cat