Huh? Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?

Scratch that. Treat it as a rhetorical question. I'd forgotten that Major Tom lives in an alternative reality. He speak Exxon-Mobil, and that's not a language I want to learn.

OK, please answer this: Why do you refer to them as tar sands?

OK. Because I'm a European and that's what we call them.

You clearly did not notice the report in the Globe and Mail last year, that reported that Canada seemed to have lost the propaganda war on that one, in Europe. The author had studied the European media and found that tar sands was the preferred term of the media, including the right wing press.

If you want a few examples here is one from the Daily Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...-sticky-patch/

Here is one from the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-industry.html

And here is one from the Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...-reviewed.html

I am entitled to speak my own language.

I can also add that the minister of transport dealing with the FQD in the UK -- Norman Baker, also refers to the tar sands not the oil sands. He has done so in the House of Commons, and he has also done so in personal conversations with me, since I happen to know him.

I actually don't give a baboon's fart whether I have "credibility" in Canada on this issue. More pertinently, Canada is fighting a battle for credibility with the rest of the world and losing it big time.

Now that is the end of the conversation, Major T. Go back to orbiting your planet.

I believe you inhabit the same planet as me. I believe the said area contains minimal, if any, actual tar. I care little either way as I do not work in the oil business, nor do any of my friends or family. Still, as one who stated she cannot fathom the workings of a north American oven, I accept that you are easily confused.

Whilst I fully agree with your views on this issue, I think it's more complex than to simply label the tar sands as a Canadian and Harper issue. Multi-nationals are heavily involved and invested in said region, the lovely BP included of course, which gives Britain and other countries involved a modest amount of entanglement with the problem ... That said, the lobbying from Harper's cronies is totally see-through and completely makes Canada look pathetic.

The tar sands are a full scale embarrassment. Those from Calgary who continue to stand by and argue against this are wasting theirs and other people's time. It's clear this will get worse for Canada and Harper over the coming year or so.

I don't disagree, and to BP you can add the RBS, which is particularly embarrassing since it is, to all intents and purposes, nationalized, and also the HSBC. The Grauniad reported that the tar sands lobbyists held some kind of strategy meeting in London recently, and an RBS representative attended.

I know I shouldn't go on baiting Major Tom, but sometimes it is irresistible:

From Austria's leading paper Der Standard: Österreich stimmt für Importverbot von Teersand


From Germany's Frankfurther Alllgemeine Zeitung: Die EU streitet um Kraftstoff aus Teersand

And from Le Monde: L'Union européenne reste divisée sur les sables bitumineux

I'd think that the oil sands are a fairly major reason why the national economy isn't more in the shite though.

And I don't think that most people love the idea of digging huge chunks out of the ground and burning lots to energy to make a bit more energy and leaving a place behind that looks like Mordor.

BUT I also think there's a lot of hypocrisy talked on this issue from all sides.

I need oil, I use it and until we have genuinely credible alternative energy sources I think its fairly pointless to pretend any of these outraged protests about tar sands amount to much.

That's a bit unfair. I doubt he can read either German or French.

I don't think it's hypocritical to voice concerns about the tar sands but to also use oil. Even Greenpeace have ships, vehicles etc. If it were possible to know exactly where my oil came from I would ensure that I didn't purchase tar sands derived fuel.

My problem here is the blatant disregard for the truth in this matter. I would actually respect the Government more if they said "Look, it's terrible and we know we're an international embarrassment but it's the 3rd largest reserve in the world and it's oil we simply have to get access to. We'll attempt to offset in x / y fashion to try and keep step with environmental targets or invest in technologies to make this as clean as possible. Vote for us or don't for us but that's our platform." Instead, the propaganda machine has gone into overdrive which has led to many of the editorials that Editha has posted - Canada just looks utterly pathetic. Of course, China and the US couldn't give a shit, and I'd expect nothing less.

Agreed. But in addition it's such a stupid strategy for Canada to base its economy on exploiting a resource which doesn't produce a reasonable return on energy invested. Oil/tar/bitumen/Teer-sands use in total roughly 0.6 energy units to "win" 1.0 energy units, and then they leave a devastated landscape, water table, atmosphere, First Nations lands etc. Not to mention rain forest destruction and more encroachment of First Nations lands when they figure out that America doesn't want that stuff but maybe China is less principled.

Was it this thread or another where I likened this strategy to basing your economy on typewriter ribbons and photographic paper?

Prince Charles probably calls them the Tar Sands.

No, I don't.

If you can understand even a bit of German, I recommend the article in Der Standard. It refers to "kanadischen Klimabomben". Delightful phrase. No translation needed, I think.

On an EROEI basis coal is better than wind. Oil sands are similar to biofuels. Conventional oil is bettered only by coal and hydro. Why is EROEI used to demonise the oil sands but not used to endorse the use of coal?