There are people who insist on calling the monstrous mega-project in northern Alberta the “oilsands”. I insist on the historically used “tarsands” since I try to reject all rebranding efforts (especially for projects that are so detrimental to life). Yes, it’s technically, chemically incorrect to call it tar sands. Even so, the reason it has a new name that sounds more oil-like is because companies associated with CAPP have paid for the name. If environmental orgs were really the ones with unlimited money to rebrand the tarsands, they’d instead be referred to as the tardsands, deathsands, or “Quick, Grab-Your-Money-Sands”.
And while another federal party leader faces the monotonously simple minded echo machine supported by our country’s right-wing media bias, Rome continues to warm/burn. There’s no questioning that we’re getting better all the time at open-pit/strip mining bituminous sands, heating them, and shoving the [engine] life bringing goo to refineries and eventually market. What there is a severe lack of, in our Petrodollar state, is a questioning if we should be making the tarsands the primary economic engine of our nation. I have a few other suggestions, which would employ plenty of people (probably as many as big oil), and doesn’t leave us with a huge carbon hole to climb out of.
“pulled up from Lexis Nexis from Oil & Gas Journal”
May 8, 1978
Canada urged to boost exports to U.S.
SECTION: GENERAL INTEREST; Pg. 122
LENGTH: 1260 words
Canadian Petroleum Association, Gulf say higher short-term oil and gas exports would help spark domestic reserves. Shell warns that governments must push tar-sands, heavy-oil projects to meet goals.
CPA recommendation. The CPA told the National Energy Board’s 1978 oil supply/demand inquiry that energy self-reliance can be achieved by maintaining adequate financial returns to producers by high levels of conventional exploration activity, accelerated tar-sands and heavy-oil development, and substantial cuts in the rate of demand.
People from 1978 working on oil and gas research were touting the necessity of “substantial cuts in the rate of demand”. How’d that intensity target scheme work out, anyway?
What would make efficiency more attractive to consumers? Feed-In Tariffs and seeing their neighbours paying a local company for renewable power, instead of a high monthly SaskPower bill. It’s hard to argue with a lower bottom line, and less deadly air pollution for everyone.