This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 17:12, 9 April 2013 (Signing comment by 146.131.120.2 - "→Wrong way for sand oil: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:12, 9 April 2013 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 146.131.120.2 - "→Wrong way for sand oil: ")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oil sands article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oil sands article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Title: Oil sands? vs.historical "Tar Sands", current European usage "tar sands" and accurate "bituminous sands"
I thought oil was a liquid - "oil sands" sounds like you just strain out the big lumps and squeeze out the oil into a gas tank. Processing this stuff is like mining road pavement and turning it into liquid. It's a misleading name for the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bituminous sands is a more correct name (and scientific one), however oil sands (tar sands) is the common name as seen in publications by way of books and/or media. Thus as per WP:COMMONNAME we are stuck with this.Moxy (talk)
- Is there a reference for what the common name is? I've always heard "tar sands" up until recent years. In grade 10, about 12 years ago, I was taught "tar sands". So, who says that the colloquial name is "oil sands" and where do they say it? - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- The stories we tell to children... anyway see the archives for more on this discussion, in particular the one that resulted in the article rename from "tar sands" (Talk:Oil_sands/Archive_2#Requested_move). -Oosh (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- That discussion was rigged and slanted and probably did not include adequate representation of people who actually know the politics of this. The term "oil sands" is politically biased and of recent origin, as this next commenter says:
- The stories we tell to children... anyway see the archives for more on this discussion, in particular the one that resulted in the article rename from "tar sands" (Talk:Oil_sands/Archive_2#Requested_move). -Oosh (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- We have to make sure we're not falling for the industry spin here. They're able to cite the first use of "oil sands" (rather than the traditional term "tar sands") from 1939, but that doesn't mean that the term was in common usage from that time on, especially outside the oil industry. When I went to school in Ontario in the 1970s and 80s, all textbooks that I remember still referred to them as the "tar sands," and I don't think I even heard to the term "oil sands" for the first time until well after 2000. There's a little bit of history-rewriting going on in the industry's spin on the world, and the article buys into to too uncritically, simply citing a Government of Alberta site (which has a strong incentive to be biased). David (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a reference for what the common name is? I've always heard "tar sands" up until recent years. In grade 10, about 12 years ago, I was taught "tar sands". So, who says that the colloquial name is "oil sands" and where do they say it? - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the only NPOV option would be to refer to them as "bitumen deposits", and redirect "Oil sands" and "Tar sands" to them. David (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. They are deposits, period, they are not "reserves" or etc.
- Perhaps the only NPOV option would be to refer to them as "bitumen deposits", and redirect "Oil sands" and "Tar sands" to them. David (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Either way, we shouldn't have an article called "Oil sands" start with "Bituminous sands, colloquially known as oil sands or tar sands, ...". I prefer an article move to "Bituminous sands", but failing that, I suggest rewording to "Oil sands, also known as tar sands and scientifically referred to as bitumious sands" — SkyLined (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- To summarize earlier discussions from memory (though they are in the archives if someone wants to read through them), both "oil sands" and "tar sands" are grossly POV, pushed respectively by the petroleum industry and by the environmental lobbying industry. "Bitumenous sands" is the technically and historically correct name, but certainly is far less common than the POV names. Of the two POV names, we prefer "oil" over "tar" because it has at least a shred of reason behind it: the upgraded product brought to market is no longer bitumen, but "synthetic crude" oil (and its component products).
- I don't see any POV with the traditional common term "tar sands". People called it "tar" because it looked and smelled like tar centuries ago before anyone could even imagine a controversy over the name. Similarly, where the substance oozes from the ground in seeps such as at La Brea in Los Angeles, it's called a "tar pit" in common usage. "Tar sands" was arrived at for completely non-POV reasons - it's "oil sand" which is the POV neologism which appears to be pushed by those who believe the traditional "tar" sounds unappealing. Booshank (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd support "bitumenous sands" with redirects from the POV names, but wp:COMMON had more sway than wp:NPOV in earlier discussions. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- In politically charged situations you call something "abortion" not "baby killing" nor "women asserting rights to their bodies" as advocates inevitably will describe it. Agreed "bituminous sands" is the right name. Don't merge with heavy crude oil though as these sands have special problems and geographic associations.
- Personally, I'd support "bitumenous sands" with redirects from the POV names, but wp:COMMON had more sway than wp:NPOV in earlier discussions. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Of interest: A news item from The Gazette (Montreal) dated Oct 4, 1967 uses both with no hint of conflict; compare with a remark on "My mother, as a recent Albertan Chemistry graduate in the 1950s, published research on petroleum extraction from what back then was unhesitatingly referred to as the Tar Sands." But also his comments "Since then, in an effort to turn black sticky sand into clean refreshing profits, there’s been a furious re-branding in favor of “oil” not “tar”, ignoring what it looks like when it’s in the ground." and "The politics start with whether you say “tar sands” or “oil sands”." For marketing purposes, ala how "Canola" is used to avoid the term "Rapeseed" this is understandable, but this article could probably be improved by finding some refs discussing who uses which terms and why. Perhaps even linking the 'tar sands' redirect to a section discussing the naming issue. -- Limulus (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Canola/rapeseed is not entirely analogous but reasonable. Misplaced Pages using the proper name "bituminous sand deposit" or something would go a long way to indicating that industry propaganda is not welcome and ineffective.
The article is presently grossly POV as it understates the military, diplomatic and industrial impact of this sprawling oil spill on land. Making any claim about environmental impact is simply false, there has been NO MONITORING OF THE TAR SANDS, PERIOD. Only today (February 3, 2012) has there been ANY MONITORING PROGRAM EVEN ANNOUNCED. Prior to 2009 the story was that the Tar Sands leaked tar into the river naturally and so they NEVER MEASURED the levels of that TYPE of pollution, which is an obvious criminal coverup. This article needs to be carefully watched for people paid to edit it also.
- -->> there has been NO MONITORING OF THE TAR SANDS, PERIOD <<-- None of that is true as the Alberta government does extensive monitoring of oil and water quality throughout the province. See Alberta Environment for details. However it is true that the oil sands leak oil into the Athabasca river naturally - I've seen them do that. In fact, the early explorers complained they couldn't even land their canoes in some places because so much oil was pouring out of the riverbanks. Some people seem to be promoting an extreme environmental agenda that tries to demonize even the government environmental monitoring agencies, and claiming that anybody who doesn't agree with their extreme POV are agents of the military/industrial establishment. It has reached ridiculous levels and and makes it difficult to maintain a neutral POV in articles. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- He also forgot to mention that this "sprawling oil spill on land" is in fact naturally occurring. I'm not entirely sure how the military comes into this at all, if anything the presence of oil in peaceful Canada reduces the need for military forces in more unstable places to ensure supply.
- I'm not bothered by people with strong feelings about the impact of the oilsands. I am bothered by people with very vocal opinions but little understanding of what's actually involved. TastyCakes (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Name is POV
I challenge someone to come up with the provenance of this term, which IMO is of recent coinage and is entirely p.r.-rebranding in origin. This article primarily discusses the deposits in CAnada, where until Big Oil wanted to prettify what they're trying to sell/dig etc the VERY well-established term was "tar sands". Google counts are irrelevant here because of the "washing" of this term across so-called "reliable" media sources such as Big Media. I'm not in the mood for a firefight and for a long time I've come to the conclusion the p.r. agencies are active on all of Misplaced Pages, twisting language and redefining terms to suit their campaigns. But this is objectionable BECAUSE of the expressly political origin of the term.142.162.47.30 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- See the /Archives for earlier discussions of this. LeadSongDog come howl! 08:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Archives are hard to search and frankly it's beside the point whatever was decided before; "oil sands" is very much an oil industry-invented term and not part of ordinary English; it's only found in the oil-industry-friendly Canadian media and government sources; US and international discussion of the TAR SANDS still uses that term; yes, Canadian English in Canadian articles when appropriate and real but this is patently a p.r. industry term and therefore POV and intentionally so; otherwise they woudln't have spent so much money persistently pushing the term and trying to rebrand the tar sands as they have been doing....Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Oil sands PR campaign
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Death_tax#The_term_.22death_tax.22 as an example of a very similar situation.
Oil Sands is a spin campaign and it has spread to wikipedia. This needs to be cleaned up. It is a very successful campaign and unfortunately extends to the current Canadian Government who is promoting a development project there and trying to win over international opinion in favour of it. This needs to be discussed in the main article. This term is so politically contentious that to "not take a side" is in fact taking a side if the issue is not mentioned. This is a really serious manipulation of this encyclopaedia. Even the position that "Oil" and "Tar" are equally valid is spin. The stuff resembles Tar. Oil can be made from it but only with intense energy. This is described technically in this article. I don't know where to start in fixing this article. The Main title should be fixed first. I agree we should use the technical Bitumen term first and foremost, but the equal billing for Oil is a campaign with a lot of money.Rusl (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, marking the article POV, promotional and etc. On title see above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.226.204 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not tag the article with the POV template without very active discussion. Also, I have reverted your edits as they are of highly debateable neutrality, especially in regards to how they are worded. Please point out specific passages that are promotional and/or non-neutral and why they you think they are before making such changes. Claiming that editors are being paid to change the article is a gross breach of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. (Note:I am a Conservation major at a major university, so I'm well aware of the the problems with oil sands, but your edits were not neutral from a third-person perspective). Falcon8765 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Being a Canadian citizen and having lived +25 years in Canada, I can confirm that the name change is the direct result of an elaborate PR campaign spearheaded by both the Canadian government and tar sand lobby groups. For years, I only heard on TV/Radio references to the "Tar Sands" - only in the past 1-2 years have I started to hear more and more in mainstream media the term "oil sands". Misplaced Pages should not be manipulated for PR purposes - this article should be renamed "tar sands". I suggest flagging this page again and, if necessary, start a debate on the topic on this discussion page.Vincentl (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- As has been discussed here many times before, both names are inaccurate, the best term being "bituminous sands". Since that is not commonly used it becomes a matter of which of the commonly used terms are more accurate, and at the end of the day bitumen is a type of oil, not a type of tar. TastyCakes (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. WP:COMMONNAME applies and "tar sands" is the msot common and also the most historical name and has no association with any p.r. rebranding cmapaign, which is very pointedly the case with "oil sands"....."bitumen is a type of oil" is patently false; oil can be made from it, but bitumen is not oil, and its most common name is "tar".Skookum1 (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- As has been discussed here many times before, both names are inaccurate, the best term being "bituminous sands". Since that is not commonly used it becomes a matter of which of the commonly used terms are more accurate, and at the end of the day bitumen is a type of oil, not a type of tar. TastyCakes (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Lexicography
According to the OED, oil sand, attested 1875, is porous rock or sand “impregnated with oil.” Tar-sand, 1899, is sand “impregnated with bitumen.”
Bates (1984) Dictionary of Geological Terms says oil sand, generally, contains petroleum or is impregnated with hydrocarbons, or more specifically is sand from which oil can be drilled, while tar sand holds asphalt, or is an oil sand “from which the lighter volatiles have escaped” (presumably this is heavy oil).
Ghosh (2005) Dictionary of Geology says an oil sand is “porous or oil-filled.”
I couldn't find bituminous sand in these sources, but Bates does define asphaltic sand as a mixture of asphalt and sand. Does anyone have any other geological dictionaries or glossaries to check?
From the sources above, I conclude:
- Bitumen is also acceptably called asphalt, tar, or pitch (tar and pitch refer also, primarily, to plant-derived substances).
- Oil sand and tar sand are two kinds of mineral deposits, possibly with some overlap.
- Oil sand may be the best general name for an article about both.
- This article, however, is more specific; it's about tar sand.
Note that there are also articles on specific deposits: Athabasca oil sands, Melville Island oil sands (shouldn't these be capitalized?).
When I was a kid, we always heard about the Alberta Tar Sands. Adopting the generic term oil sands when talking about tar sands isn't technically incorrect, but it's pretty sketchy, and much less precise when the topic is actually tar sands. Its current overly-broad application comes from interests promoting resource exploitation, and it is becoming more prominent as petroleum scarcity has drawn more attention and activity to these resources. It comes from a certain POV, but that doesn't change the fact that articles should use the most common name. Hard to say which is the most common however, when you take the full body of usage into consideration, including historical works and technical sources, and not just recent press.
In my opinion, this article should clearly be titled tar sand (singular). —Michael Z. 2012-04-02 07:52 z
- That would be the epitome of original research, not to mention simpy incorrect. We don't do that here. Consider these etymological entries:
- Clearly the etymology of the terms is much intertwined. But today the distinction hinges on whether the material is mineral or not. Tar is principally used for the sap that oozes from plants, especially pines. Bitumen and asphalt are principally used for semi-solid petroleum. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The question isn't about the primary meaning of bitumen, petroleum, etc. The question is what is the most common name for the subject of this article? I can't find any mention of tar sand(s), oil sand(s), or bituminous sand(s) in any of your links, so they aren't much help, unless we make a leap (*cough* original research).
- Tar sands or oil sands (pl.) are usually specific areas of the type of deposits called tar sand or oil sand. Our guidelines say to use the singular form for article names. So it seems to me that the singular form is more appropriate.
- Some specific links: . Oil sand, and bituminous or tar sand, are two different things with a grey area in between. —Michael Z. 2012-04-25 05:00 z
- Not quite sure what to make of that. The Clark biography uses all three terms, and distinguishes them, at p.ix. Similarly this uses both "oil sands" and "tar sands", but primarily the former. This is of course a writer sympathetic to their development and interested in the technology. Other writers, opposed to their development, tend to use "tar sands" more than "oil sands", as if that was a negative description. If one googles "Venezuela oil sands" vs "Venezuela tar sands" the results massively favour "oil". We simply don't have a sound reason to choose "tar" over "oil". There are good arguments for the reverse, particularly that the product traded on the markets is oil. Extracting bitumen is simply a means toward that trade. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Some specific links: . Oil sand, and bituminous or tar sand, are two different things with a grey area in between. —Michael Z. 2012-04-25 05:00 z
Oil is defined as:
- "A viscous liquid derived from petroleum." - Oxford
- "any of numerous unctuous combustible substances that are liquid... Merriam-Webster
- "Any substance that is liquid at ambient temperatures and does not mix with water but may mix with other oils and organic solvents." - Misplaced Pages
Houston, we have a problem. The material discussed in this article is bitumen sands. It is not a liquid. Sunray (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's not what OED.com says, and only part of what MW says. The OED primary definition is "As a mass noun: any of a number of liquids of natural or artificial origin which have a smooth, sticky, unctuous, feel and are insoluble in water (but soluble in organic solvents), more or less viscous, flammable, and chemically neutral." Merriam-Webster.com has as their primary definition "any of numerous unctuous combustible substances that are liquid or can be liquefied easily on warming, are soluble in ether but not in water, and leave a greasy stain on paper or cloth". The WP page was unsourced, I've revised and referenced it based on the OED. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Those definitions you quote make it clear that oil is defined as a liquid. Bitumen is not a liquid. Sunray (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- That depends on temperature. Warm it up and it liquifies. It's entirely a question of degree: the longer the average carbon chain in the mix, the hotter it has to be to flow. Just the same as the difference between 5W30 and 20W30. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are referring to a change of state or phase transition. A phase transition requires inputs of energy. At high enough temperatures metals also liquify. That doesn't change the fact that the natural state of a metal is solid. The natural state of the bitumen found in the Athabaska region is solid or semi-solid; i.e., it does not flow without being heated. The natural state of oil is liquid. Sunray (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Natural state" implies an assumption of some specific "natural" temperature. The present-day temperatures are quite different between reservoirs. Certainly the near-surface deposits in the Athabaskan basin are colder than the Orinocco basin, but that doesn't change the fact that bitumen (by whatever name) is a class of oil. Nor does it change the fact that even the Athabaskan basin was once equatorial. Please note too that this article is not about just one deposit, but about the material. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- In defining the term, we are talking about ambient temperature and modern times. The petroleum industry uses the terms "oil" and "oil sands." However, there are distinctions between extra heavy oil (such as that found in Venezuela) and the bitumen in Athabaska. Our task, as editors, is to keep this article neutral and informative. The reader needs to be informed as to the similarities and differences between bitumen and oil (or other classes of oil, if you wish). The term "oil sands," while most common now, is, nevertheless, disputed. It is also misleading (because all definitions of oil class it as a liquid and raw bitumen does not flow unless heated or diluted). We need to explain why it is disputed and how it is misleading. Would you not agree? Sunray (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the controvery over the term should in the article but insist that regular English and not an industry-coined term, invented as a rebranding/pr campaign, should be allowed to stand as the article name; and as for those google cites that LeadSongDog is on about, the issue there is how many of those links are industry-generated and never forget the p.r. people inundate the web with their desired terminology, and that vast numbers of affiliation-linked sources do not mean the term deserves generla use, only that there is a campaign to make the term general. It's only used in the Canadian press, and in oil industry circles, and is viewed as a POV term....the provenance of the term is also at issue, as to what date, and who came up with; like others here I'm a long time resident of Canada and the term "Athabasca tar sands" has been around for decades....."oil sands" is a recent invention, and I"m sure can be traced to a meeting in some p.r. firm boardroom somewhere....Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- In defining the term, we are talking about ambient temperature and modern times. The petroleum industry uses the terms "oil" and "oil sands." However, there are distinctions between extra heavy oil (such as that found in Venezuela) and the bitumen in Athabaska. Our task, as editors, is to keep this article neutral and informative. The reader needs to be informed as to the similarities and differences between bitumen and oil (or other classes of oil, if you wish). The term "oil sands," while most common now, is, nevertheless, disputed. It is also misleading (because all definitions of oil class it as a liquid and raw bitumen does not flow unless heated or diluted). We need to explain why it is disputed and how it is misleading. Would you not agree? Sunray (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Natural state" implies an assumption of some specific "natural" temperature. The present-day temperatures are quite different between reservoirs. Certainly the near-surface deposits in the Athabaskan basin are colder than the Orinocco basin, but that doesn't change the fact that bitumen (by whatever name) is a class of oil. Nor does it change the fact that even the Athabaskan basin was once equatorial. Please note too that this article is not about just one deposit, but about the material. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are referring to a change of state or phase transition. A phase transition requires inputs of energy. At high enough temperatures metals also liquify. That doesn't change the fact that the natural state of a metal is solid. The natural state of the bitumen found in the Athabaska region is solid or semi-solid; i.e., it does not flow without being heated. The natural state of oil is liquid. Sunray (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- That depends on temperature. Warm it up and it liquifies. It's entirely a question of degree: the longer the average carbon chain in the mix, the hotter it has to be to flow. Just the same as the difference between 5W30 and 20W30. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Those definitions you quote make it clear that oil is defined as a liquid. Bitumen is not a liquid. Sunray (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Economics needs an update
I cleaned this up a bit, but the most recent data is from 2007 -- too old in such a fast-changing industry. Can a knowledgeable person take this on? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Merging with Heavy crude oil
I think that the previous discussion attracted too little interest before the cleanup that resulted from No merge outcome. There's already a thread just above that opposes the cleanup. I'm thus opening another merge discussion.
The argument for the merge is that heavy crude oil is almost the same as oil sands from both chemical and technical perspectives. I saw an opposing opinion in the previous merge discussion stating that ecological problems are different. That's true, but they are different from basin to basin and there are a lot more things with an impact greater than what exact type of hydrocarbons is contained within the field. Consider, for example, a shallow field which results in a natural oil spill and a deep one, which can be observed only using modern technology. I think that User:RockyMtnGuy covers the chemical and industrial properties well in an above post, so I'll not repeat the justification here. 1exec1 (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. 1exec1 (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as it's important to distinguish between hydrocarbon deposists that can be pumped as opposed to hydrocarbon deposits that have to be excavated. If the industry thinks these are different, we should be consistent with that here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Observation: That pump/excavate criterion would (perhaps usefully) split the ex-situ from the in-situ bitumen operations, but it doesn't distinguish in-situ bitumen from EHO. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as this is already a monster article. While the Orinoco and Athabascan fields are the largest known exemplars of their types they are not unique. The fields are not the commodities. It makes no less sense to distinguish bitumen from EHO than it does to distinguish gasoline from diesel. <retoric>Are we going to merge every organic chemical into an enormous hydrocarbon article?</retoric> LeadSongDog come howl! 15:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, these are related but distinct terms. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the originator of the proposal: can you find a source that indicates that these terms are identical? Do you know of a textbook, major journal article, or informational page from a major petro- or geological industry player that indicates these terms are identical? I notice that Oil and Gas Journal does not use the terms interchangeably. Nor does the U.S. Department of Energy: Venezuelas's massive new reserves are classed as "heavy crude," but have nothing to do with oil sands as we think of them in Alberta! For one thing, the term "oil sand" always refers to the play, or the deposit, while "heavy crude" refers to the chemical and physical properties of the product (per API standardization, as we describe in the article). I don't believe there is justification for a merge while the majority of sources still treat these terms differently. Nimur (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Tar sands bitumen will not be heavy crude oil until it's processed into same; you might as well ask for plastics to be merged with petroleum products.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Input energy
This edit deleted the discussion of the now-halted plan to use nuclear power for input energy, thus reducing CO
2 emissions. Given the prominence of carbon emissions in the discussion, this seems questionable. Comments? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I removed it and still think it does not belong (t)here. If necessary, we could restore this sentence: "In early 2007 the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology considered that the use of nuclear power to process oil sands could reduce CO2 emissions and help Canada meet its Kyoto commitments, as it would require nearly 12 GW to meet production growth to 2015, but the implications of building reactors in northern Alberta were not yet well understood.". However, in this case it should go to the Greenhouse gas emissions section. At the same time, the whole article and particularly the Environment section still needs some trimming. Beagel (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the discussion belongs in the article. Beagel's proposal to move the text looks fine to me. Agree that trimming is a good idea.Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Too Athabasca-Centric
This article seems to have been hijacked by material that is specific to the Athabasca oil sands and really should be moved to that article. In particular, much of the information in the economics, environmental, and energy sections is written so as to be specific to Athabasca. I am not saying that the information could not be applicable to Venezuela or one of the other locations with bitumen sands, but that is not clear from the text.--Rpclod (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- So, be wp:BOLD and see what happens.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Athabasco field is currently the most important at least for north America and Europe and picking out the economic and environmental sections for special treatment seems to be special pleading. Many people will come first to this article and there's little in those sections which is unique to Athabasco. Chris55 (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify your point? Are you saying that this article should or should not include extensive Athabasca-specific details? LeadSongDog come howl! 02:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Athabasco field is currently the most important at least for north America and Europe and picking out the economic and environmental sections for special treatment seems to be special pleading. Many people will come first to this article and there's little in those sections which is unique to Athabasco. Chris55 (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Wrong way for sand oil
In 2013, Ji Zhong Wei New Energy ( China ) has realized to lower critical point on supercritical fluid by bionic technology. For example, regularly, the critical point of water is:374 °C and 217.755atm. But after bionic process, its pressure change into 0.7 ~ 1.2 atm. This achievement will greatly simplize Alberta sand oil processes and let result product as super light crude oil -- the base oil of gasoline/diesel.
If the process CSS or SAGD is using supercritical water, the output will be not bituman. This technology not only save complex processes of sand oil but also help Canadian export. Everyone know how different price between bituman and light crude oil. Supercritical water can make bituman become light crude oil has been proved by a lot of scientists. This is matural technology. The only trouble is, before, it need 217.755atm and its expensive
The only chanllenge for this technology is us, Canadian people believe or not. Most of time, we just listen from US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.131.120.2 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Geology articles
- Mid-importance Geology articles
- Mid-importance B-Class Geology articles
- WikiProject Geology articles
- B-Class energy articles
- High-importance energy articles
- B-Class Environment articles
- Mid-importance Environment articles
- B-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- B-Class Saskatchewan articles
- Low-importance Saskatchewan articles
- B-Class Alberta articles
- Low-importance Alberta articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- B-Class Venezuela articles
- Low-importance Venezuela articles
- Venezuela articles