Some say oilsands others say tarsands to describe Alberta resource
Oilsands and tarsands. Both words are frequently used by different groups and people to describe the bitumen deposits in northern Alberta but which term is more accurate? And does it matter?
Some like activist group Greenpeace Canada consistently refer to “the tarsands.” Greenpeace tarsands campaigner Mike Hudema says the language is important. “The main reason we go with tarsands is because it’s really a fundamentally different process [than extracting conventional oil]” says Hudema. “What you’re getting out of the ground is not oil. [It’s] a bituminous-type substance that is almost as hard as a hockey puck. It really doesn’t resemble oil in any way.” The bitumen has to be separated from the sand using hot water and diluted with lighter hydrocarbons before it can even be moved in a pipeline to be refined.
Calgary investigative journalist and author Andrew Nikiforuk also uses the word tarsands. Calling it oilsands he says is misleading. “Bitumen is more like tar than it is like oil” says Nikiforuk whose latest book is titled Tar Sands . “The resource is not oil floating on top of sand and everyone in the patch knows that. To suggest to people that it is easy as scooping oil off sand is to be dishonest about the energy water and carbon cost of this really low-grade product.”
On the other hand industry the Alberta government and most of the Canadian media consistently use oilsands. “From the bitumen you extract oil so we call it oilsands” says Alberta Energy’s Bob McManus. “Tar is a man-made substance. That’s why we don’t refer to it as tarsands. Tar does not occur naturally.” McManus goes further calling tarsands an “emotional” term meant to “elicit a response — an image of something that is dirty that is bad.” “We certainly understand when someone calls it tarsands where they’re coming from — and that they’re opposed to oilsands development” he says.
Nikiforuk however says it’s not a matter of emotion but accuracy. “I’m not using the term tarsands to be rude or to be impolite or to say ‘I’m supporting tree-huggers’” says Nikiforuk. “I’m not. I’m simply using the term — because as a journalist I feel language matters — that more accurately conveys the dirty nature of the resource and all of the difficulty we have in producing it.” Alberta Energy’s own website acknowledges that until recently Alberta’s bitumen deposits were described as tarsands. “In fact most folks in the United States in the industry still refer to it as tarsands” says Nikiforuk. “…The Americans tend to be a little more honest about things than Canadians do.”
One local environmental watchdog indirectly challenges the notion that tarsands is an anti-development word while oilsands is a pro-development one. Like the Alberta government the Pembina Institute consistently uses the word oilsands. “From our perspective it makes no difference what you call it — oilsands or tarsands” says Simon Dyer director of the Pembina Institute’s oilsands program. “It’s something of a phony war…. The real issue is the environmental issues that aren’t being dealt with.”
Earlier this year the Pembina Institute withdrew from the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) a multi-stakeholder organization initiated by the Alberta government to guide development in northern Alberta. After participating in the group for eight years the Pembina Institute said CEMA had “lost all legitimacy” because the Alberta government kept approving projects in the Fort McMurray area without the necessary environmental management.
The provincial government recently released a draft evaluation of CEMA that points to more frustration and flaws within the organization. Many of the group’s 44 participants “are concerned that… the likelihood of environmental management catching up with development in the region is near impossible” says the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. According to the evaluation groups that provide funding to CEMA “see themselves providing money to pursue uncertain results.” The draft emphasizes the need to bring environmental management in line with development. “Time has simply run out and without immediate action the gap will continue to widen” says the report.
This says Dyer is more important than the name of the resource. “We’re still not seeing a lot in the way of substantive policy change to address these issues” he says.
