Toil and Trouble: the Oil Sands debate, and why it is an exercise in futility

"STOP!!!" is the cry. "YOU ARE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT!"

"Really?" asks the Shell guy. "I thought you people liked electricity?"

Truly, this is the moronic debate that has been raging for the past few years over the Alberta Oil Sands.  The oil industry develops the oil/dirt mixture that takes up about 1/4 of the land area of Alberta--containing a whopping 1.7 trillion barrels of oil--because it is, truthfully, profitable, in spite of the great cost in separating the oil from the soil--that extra "s" is quite the doozie apparently.  In doing so, there have been a few environmental snaffoos, most notably the issue of tailing ponds.

ENVIRONMENTAL BADNESS

I'll start with the negative side, since that is fair, and so I can get it out of the way early.  The "badness" stems from the issue of the "tailings ponds" which are necessary for recycling the contaminated water used in the process of extracting the oil.  This came about because, understandably (and intelligently) the oil people didn't want to keep using fresh water for the process when they could simply keep using the same water over and over.  The issue arose when one such pond grew close proximity to the Athabasca River.  Needless to say, there were issues of the tailings polluting the fresh water in the river.  At the same time, many water-going birds were harmed by the toxic waters, since they landed and swam about in it because of the proximity to the river.  Everyone has seen pictures of poor birds slick with black oil.  Disgusting.  Oddly, the poor ducks got a lot more publicity than any humans who were harmed by the polluted river.  This is only the first indication of why people who protest the oil sands tend to be ignorant at best.  There has been nothing in the media recently about these ponds.  Apparently the oil companies are being far more intelligent about managing/placing the tailing ponds these days.  However, there is still the issue of what to do with this water when they're done.
On top of the environmental cost, the monetary cost is staggering to say the least.  And yet, Alberta is still the richest province in Canada.  What a coincidence.

WHY THE COMPLAINTS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING

Have you ever noticed that when people start spouting off about how the "tar sands" are ruining the environment, everyone who matters stops listening?  This is because as soon as someone uses the phrase "Tar Sands" they're basically proclaiming to the world that they're an idiot.  Or that they're so poorly informed about the issue that their opinion means absolutely nothing.  This is because the term not only applies a needless negative connotation to the problem (Oil has a negative connotation anyway because of its emissions--tar is just an ugly word), but the term is blatantly incorrect.  "Tar" is not the same thing as "Oil".  Tar is a substance processed from wood and coal, and is used in construction (such as paving roads, or weather-proofing roofs).  Oil is derived from petroleum (crude oil) and is used as fuel, rubber, or lubricant (depending on how refined it is).  The term "tar sands" was created by the media (and Toronto) to cause a negative public reaction to the oil sands.  It worked.
Another thing pundits simply refuse to comprehend is that the alternative to developing the oil sands is leaving the oil in the soil.  This isn't any ordinary oil patch we're talking about here, the kind that exists a long way underground and stays there not doing anything or hurting anyone if no one extracts it.  This is a field of nothing.  A vast space of land where the dirt is literally mixed with crude oil.  Do these people think the oil is doing any good just sitting there in the ground?  It's basically one giant permanent oil spill.  The people developing it are essentially the people cleaning it up.  If the oil industry were to explain it to the public like that, they might not have to duck and cover every time the "tar sands" are mentioned.  Considering that these companies are being pressured to allow nature to "reclaim" the land--land it never truly possessed anyway--maybe we're better off if the oil sands are developed.