Talk:Oil sands/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Venezuela's oil deposits

Are the deposits in Venezuela really tar sands, or are they heavy oil? What's the difference?

Venezuela's heavy oil deposits are mostly tar sands, also known as oil sands. They're quite similar to Canada's, though the bitumen in them tends to be a little heavier than the stuff coming out of the Canadian oil sands.

Note that the size of the Orinoco oil-sand resource isn't known all that well, and there was confusion in the article between reserves and resources (a reserve is better defined). I revised this section to clarify. Cheers, Pete Tillman 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Venezuela's bitumen is sonsiderably warmer, which means it flows easier. While Canada's oil sand is like rock most of the year, Venezuela's flow more easily. Although this may not constitute a different name, it does make a considerable difference in mining and drilling processes. IceFisher (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the 'Canada' section claims Canada has 85% of the bitumen in the world, while the Venezuela section claims they have 90% of the 'extra heavy oil' in the world, there also are claims of very large tar sand deposits in the US (Utah, Russia, and the middle east) so really what gives? 90% (Venezuela) + 85%(Canada) + 25% (rest of the world) == 200%?!?! I realize they use different names, but isn't it silly to claim to have 90% when you probably really have 45%? Just because you called it a different name? you get to claim 90%?66.191.101.81 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

2007 Survey of Energy Resources gives following definitions according to witch natural bitumen (tar sands) and extra-heavy oil differ by their viscosity. According to the SER 2007 definitions of extra-heavy oil and natural bitumen are:

• extra-heavy oil is commonly defined as oil having a gravity of less than 10° and a reservoir viscosity of no more than 10 000 centipoises.
• natural bitumen is defined as oil having a viscosity greater than 10 000 centipoises under reservoir conditions and an API gravity of less than 10°API.

Also reserves are presented in different tables (natural bitumen in the table 4-1 and the extra-heavy oil in the table 4-2).Beagel (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Put in lay terms, a "gravity less than 10° API" means bitumen sinks in fresh water, while greater than 10° means oil floats. "Under reservoir conditions" matters because the Orinoco basin is much warmer than the Athabaskan basin.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is somewhat arbitrary, depending on reservoir temperature more than anything - and it's hotter in Venezuela. However, if heavy oil occurs in the designated oil sands areas of Alberta, the government arbitrarily deems it to be bitumen and charges a lower royalty rate. Hence Canadian companies are quite happy to call it bitumen rather than heavy oil. The Venezuelan government would rather call it extra-heavy oil and charge more money for it. In either case, if the API gravity is around 10, which is to say the density is about the same as water, it doesn't sink but rather forms an oil/water emulsion which is rather difficult to separate and accounts for many of the production problems and costs. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sands and Shales

What's the difference between tar sands and oil shales? --Atlastawake 20:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm no expert, but it seems to me oil shales is more like loose, flaky rock (see shale)with oil trapped within it (I don't know how exactly), while oil sand is.. well sand ;), but more like clay (mud and dirt) with oil between the particles of sand and dirt. I don't know if one contains more oil than the other, although I would suspect Tar Sand would. And since it says $40 per barrel is break even cost for shale while oil sand is something like $12/barrel, I guess it's considerably harder to extract oil from shale. TastyCakes 21:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sand is sand, and shale is is flakey rock. However, the oil in oil sands is actually bitumen, a semi-solid form of oil that will not flow under normal conditions, whereas the oil in oil shale is really a waxy oil precursor called kerogen. The difference is that bitumen will flow if you heat it, whereas kerogen must be baked at high temperatures to cook it into oil. In the case of conventional oil, mother nature did the job by burying kerogen under thousands of feet of rock, where high temperatures cooked it to oil and it flowed into conveniently placed oil reservoirs (maybe). However, if you have to excavate the rock and bake it in ovens, it's far more expensive. Bitumen is expensive to produce, but not as expensive. RockyMtnGuy 04:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that 'oil shale' is neither oil, nor shale. it's kerogen, and it's usually in sedimentary rocks (not shale) the difference is huge, because 'oil shale' is not actually oil, so while it can produce energy, and can be used in chemical processing, including the manufacture of synthetic oils, and a 'non conventional oil' who would buy 'non conventional oil' hrm? with a big warning label that it's NOT oil, because it's really processed kerogen? the most interesting thing about oil shale is that it sometimes can be used to process uranium and aluminum.. and it's also a suitable fuel for burning in stoves (without processing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.101.81 (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bitumen is also considered non-conventional oil. RockyMtnGuy got it right in saying that oil shale is more expensive, but didn't go into good detail as to why. Oil sand contains a granule of sand covered in a minute layer of water, covered in bitumen, which is covered in water, and so forth, creating a "jawbreaker"-like particle. This makes it much much easier to use water to extract bitumen from oil shale. I'll be writing this up including references for the Tar Sands page within the next few days. IceFisher (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a limited tag to the environmental section

3/18/2008

I read the environmental section and it reads like an industry handout- I think someone with a NPOV should rewrite and expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.226.62 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. All the environmental experts have been hired by the industry to work on environmental problems, and don't have time to edit Wikipedia articles. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing the tag. No clear issues with the article identified to fix.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree though. It doesn't feel very NPOV. It is subtle, but it seems to be written in a disguised pro mining way. Look at the Tailings page to see more of this, it is obvious on that page. 212.76.241.182 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)HichamVanborm

The trouble with the material issued by environmental organizations like Greenpeace is that they consistently use loaded language and highly misleading statistics. Once you strip these out of their handouts, you end up with basically nothing of any use in an article. If you want reliable information, you have to get it from the oil industry, and naturally their handouts are somewhat sanitized. However, they are more accurate than Greenpeace, which seems to be getting their information from a source on Mars or some other planet.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was renamed oil sands Beagel (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
NB See suggestion to revert to "tar sands" below. Glecroix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

Tar sands versus oil sands

This guy is exactly right. Tar is as chemical product of combustion, the Athabasca Oil Sands are the result of a much slower geological process.

There seems to be a deliberate "messaging" policy of Greenpeace and other environmental activist groups to rename the Athasbaca Oil Sands as the "Tar Sands" because they seem to think it will be easier to turn public opinion against "Tar Sands."

I do not believe Wikipedia should be part of this branding/messaging effort. The term "Oil Sands" is more scientifically accurate and should be used.

______________________

Rocky Mountain Guy:

There appear to be some attempts to introduce some revisionist history into the article. Some people are trying to claim that the original name was "tar sands" and that in recent years companies and governments have started trying to rebrand it to "oil sands" to improve its image. These people are new to the subject and don't know the history or the chemistry. They are being encouraged by articles in the popular press, who also have a weak grasp of the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.186.199 (talk • contribs) 2008-04-20T12:16:32

• As I mentioned before, in chemical terms the word "tar" is a misnomer and the stuff is more accurately described as "bitumen" - a semi-solid form of crude oil which has to be heated before it will flow. Converting it into gasoline and diesel fuel just requires some enhancements to the front end of a conventional heavy oil refinery - and all that takes is money.
• Some research on the history discloses that the first European to see the Athabasca deposits, Peter Pond in 1778, wrote about "steams of bitumen", while Sir Alexander Mackenzie who saw them in 1788 referred to "bituminous fountains", so it's clear they knew what they were looking at. The first company to built a large-scale mine, "Great Canadian Oil Sands" (now known as Suncor), was founded in 1952, so the phrase "oil sands" is not exactly new.
• The phrase "tar sands" is more commonly used in the United States, although their deposits are somewhat more tar-like (and considerably smaller) than the Canadian ones. Due to technical problems the techniques used to separate the bitumen from the sand, which is relatively easy in Canada, probably wouldn't work for the US deposits so the Americans will have to develop their own technology. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who works in the oil sands industry, I can assure you that in the past, Oil sands were referred to as BOTH Tar Sands and Oil Sands. However, in recent years there has been a major name shift towards using Tar Sands in a negative sense and Oil Sands in a positive sense. Yes, Suncor was "Great Canadian Oil Sands", but that only reflects the fact that the names were used interchangeably. If you can get your hands on some company literature, you'll see that it often refers to Tar Sand. Again, I plan on finding some public papers that express this, and we'll have something soon. IceFisher (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether one works there or not, the article needs to have a consistent message. Bouncing back and forth between the use of 'oil' and 'tar' reduces the scholarly impact of the article. The 'Scientific Community' has agreed on the label of oil sand, and apart from the historic need for the use of 'tar' (valid at the time) and references to the use of 'tar' for its negative political purposes, oil is the only term that should be used for the article. J0ckser (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Certain groups, notable Greenpeace, have been making a consistent effort to reintroduce the old (and chemically incorrect) term "tar sands" as a negative branding effort to portray the oil sands as "dirty" (compared to conventional oil) However this use violates the wp:NPOV criteria by introducing loaded phrases into their documents. On the other side, the oil companies would definitely prefer "oil sands" since they are in the oil business, not the tar business. Canadian regulatory authorities have been coming down solidly in favor of "oil sands" and since they are the official setters of standards in Canada perhaps their view should prevail. The scientific community would probably opt for "bituminous sands", but that might be a bit technical for the average reader. The dividing line between bitumen and heavy oil is rather arbitrary and the short supply of light to medium oil is the source of the current price escalations. There's lots of heavy oil and bitumen available. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So after all this discussion, and not a single dissenter, I'm flipping it to "oil sands". Well okay, requesting a move. Oosh (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Renamed. Vsmith (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have not previously taken part in Wiki editing.. however, it seems fairly clear that there is an effort here to manage the image of Alberta tar sands development as an insignificant environmental issue. The insistence on using the term "oil sands" vs "tar sands" is clearly an effort to spin the perception. When the public at large think of "oil", they picture refined golden, transparent motor or lubricating oil. In contrast, when the public thinks "tar" they picture a relatively unrefined black, opaque asphalt or roofing/surfacing tar. Clearly, the latter perception is a better fit and to use "oil sand" vs "tar sand" is consequently misleading for the average reader. The move should be reversed.

There appears to be agreement that the material at issue is bitumen…. see following accepted definitions that are consistent with common perception of “tar”:

The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English (2009): bi·tu·men / biˈt(y)oōmən; bī-/ • n. a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing. DERIVATIVES: bi·tu·mi·nous adj.

Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary (current): Main Entry: bi·tu·men Listen to the pronunciation of bitumen Pronunciation: \bə-ˈtyü-mən, bī-, -ˈtü-, especially British also ˈbit-yə-\ Function:noun Etymology: Middle English bithumen mineral pitch, from Latin bitumin-, bitumen Date: 15th century

1: an asphalt of Asia Minor used in ancient times as a cement and mortar 2: any of various mixtures of hydrocarbons (as tar) often together with their nonmetallic derivatives that occur naturally or are obtained as residues after heat-refining natural substances (as petroleum) ; specifically : such a mixture soluble in carbon disulfide

Collins English Dictionary (2009): bitumen n a sticky or solid substance that occurs naturally in asphalt and tar and is used in road surfacing, Latin adj bituminous Glecroix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

Our goal here is not to reinforce people's misconceptions, but to inform them. The most accurate word is "bitumen", and the Merriam-Webster definition 1: an asphalt of Asia Minor used in ancient times as a cement and mortar is exactly right. The stuff they found in Asia Minor and used as a cement and mortar is the exact same stuff the Indians used to waterproof their canoes on the Athabasca river in northern Alberta.

People's perception of oil as refined golden, transparent motor or lubricating oil is because they are thinking of refined motor oil. That's just one cut of the crude oil barrel. Another is gasoline, another is diesel fuel, and another is relatively unrefined black, opaque asphalt or roofing/surfacing tar. It's not relatively unrefined, it's the heaviest fraction that comes out the back end of the oil refinery. What goes in the front end is generally black, sticky, and contaminated with sulfur, sand, brine and heavy metals. It's called crude oil for good reason - when people talk about "clean" oil versus "dirty" oil, they're kidding themselves. Crude bitumen differs mainly in being so viscous that it will not flow at room temperature, although you can persuade it to flow by heating it or diluting it with solvents. Chemically, it's much the same as crude oil.

The word tar sands arose because during the late 19th century because the bitumen in the sands resembled the coal tar produced as a byproduct of the coal gas operations near many major cities. They used to heat coal with steam to produce coal gas, a dangerous mixture of methane and carbon monoxide. The process produced large amounts of tar which was useless for anything, so they dumped it in pits where it still is an environmental hazard. Chemically, tar is different from crude oil. The difference is that you can feed crude bitumen into a refinery and get gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil and asphalt out the back end, which you can't do with tar. Certainly, there's a certain amount of marketing involved, but the oil companies are running out of crude oil and crude bitumen is the next best thing.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

introduction

the intro is too long, it should summarise everything in a much smaller space —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.156.243 (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. TastyCakes (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

CO2 emissions

What percentage of Canada's CO2 emissions are from the tar sands? I have heard 3% looking to expand to 5% with planned expansions, is that accurate? I couldn't find a decent source for this. I've also heard that Alberta power plants running on coal and natural gas emit more CO2 than the oil sands. Is that true? How does it compare to heavy industry emissions in Ontario? Compared to auto emissions country wide? Have any studies been done on a CO2 released per $ GDP generated for various industries in Canada? I think the article fails to provide perspective on this matter. TastyCakes (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any good sources either. However, I do know that the top 5 corporate emitters of CO2 in Canada are electric power utilities (Syncrude and Suncor are 6 and 7), and the largest single source of CO2 emissions in North America is Ontario's Nanticoke Generating Station. Electric power in Canada falls under provincial jurisdiction so the national government can't control it, regardless of having signed the Kyoto accord. Canada, however, is not the main problem. About half of US electric power is generated by coal, and China (which recently overtook the US as the world's #1 emitter of greenhouse gases) is building two new coal-burning power plants PER WEEK.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe we need to add another point regarding Alberta's climate change plan. The government plans on using carbon capture and storage to reduce oil sands emissions which is mentioned. However, perhaps adding something about how carbon capture and storage can't be used for oil sands, and the technology is not fully demonstrated leaving this plan with considerable risk. The only possible benefit is from capturing C02 from Alberta's coal plants and using it for enhanced oil recovery but this doesn't really change emissions reductions stemming from oil sands, simply Alberta's emissions. Canking (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that true they can't use carbon capture for oil sands emissions? I hadn't heard that before. I am also somewhat skeptical about carbon capture in general and think it should be mentioned that it has not been proven in large scale projects before (to my knowledge). TastyCakes (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course they can capture and sequester oil sands emissions. The broader issue is that the majority of the emissions come when you burn the fuel products in your vehicle, and they haven't figured out how to capture automobile emissions yet.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they can for two reasons. Firstly, you cannot capture the fugitive emissions when hauling the tar sands away. Secondly, according to the Pembina Institute report that came out in February, the C02 streams are too small making the capturing difficult. Therefore with the challenge of of capturing emissions at both source points, its currently applicability is limited Canking (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

At a guess, mining haul truck emissions make up a very small portion of total CO2 emissions from oil sands. The shovels used are mostly electric. The extraction facility (in which typically large volumes of hot water are used) and upgrading facilities (which require high temperatures and pressures to thermally crack the bitumen into lighter components) would seem to be the dominant CO2 sources. These processes are both in a plant type environment where capturing waste gasses shouldn't be any trickier than a power plant. For in-situ processes (which use SAGD and cyclic steam stimulation) the streams may be smaller as individual steam generators might be used, but they are still stationary and I believe capturing/processing their emissions would be quite feasible. I haven't read the Pembina report you speak of, although I think it would be fair to say they have not been a particularly good source of technical information in the past. TastyCakes (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing the problem, too. The power shovels are already electric. The trucks are diesel-electric, and if necessary they could be converted to all-electric (although the weight of the batteries would be a problem). Process heat and electricity typically comes out of a big cogeneration plant which is not much different than a conventional power plant. The steam generators for in-situ projects are not all that small, either, and carbon capture should not be difficult relative to other industrial processes. I think the Pembina Institute is blowing smoke, again.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I used to work in Syncrude's mine mobile department, the Komatsu and Liebehr trucks they use are diesel electric but all the others (Caterpillar and some Haul Packs) are just diesel. I'm not sure making them fully electric would be feasible because of recharge times - unlike an electric car, say, where they've got all night to recharge, haul trucks are left on all the time (at least until they break or come in for scheduled maintenance). I guess maybe if they had a way to routinely switch out a dead battery with a charged one... TastyCakes (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright well I think we need two things here to clear this up. First is a verified source in the article about the ability to capture C02 from oil sands. Second, under the 'climate change' section of the article where it says that 100Mt will come from CCS activities related to oil sands, can one of you please point me to where it says this in the climate change strategy 2008 because I can't find it. Thanks, Canking (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know where the 100MT came from... As for it being applied to the oil sands, I'll keep an eye open for an article that says it directly. TastyCakes (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright I found another source. According to Carbon Capture Journal, March/April Edition page 12, "A recent Canadian-Albertan government joint report, for example, concluded that in oilsands operations “only a small percentage of emitted CO2 is 'capturable' since most emissions aren't pure enough”." Therefore I think the 100Mt needs to be removed because we can't find the source and a point should be made that a joint Alberta-Canada report recently mentioned however that only a small percentage of the C02 that is emitted is capturable" Canking (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Site for the above is Carbon Capture Journal. The Mar/Apr issue is secured to subscribers. Does it say what the "recent Canadian-Albertan government joint report" is so we can try to find it?LeadSongDog come howl 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this might be misleading. I think that what people have gotten hold of is briefing notes from the government meetings rather than a "joint report". Context is everything - what they are talking about is what I alluded to earlier - the vast majority of the emissions occur when the fuel is burned by the end-user, not when it is extracted by the oil company. Here is an analysis of what they are talking about from a couple of university professors: http://www.ucalgary.ca/iseee/files/iseee/Keith_Bergerson_CCS_Opinion_Edmonton_Journal.pdf A typical in-situ oil sands operation emits one-tenth of the carbon emitted by a typical coal-fired power plant. So, the optimum strategy is to capture the emissions from the power plants first, and ignore the oil sands projects for now. From what I understand, this is going to be relatively easy in Alberta - they just inject it into one of the numerous depleted oil fields, but in Ontario it is going to be a big problem. They have to pipeline the CO₂ to the US to dispose of it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I tracked down the original source of this report, which is available on-line at http://www.c-resource.com/view_article.php?aid=102

It appears to have been reprinted a number of times in various places. I suspect it refers to the meeting briefing notes I mentioned above. Unfortunately, it doesn't give any more detail, but just says:

A recent Canadian-Albertan government joint report, for example, concluded that in oilsands operations “only a small percentage of emitted CO2 is 'capturable' since most emissions aren't pure enough”

The authors are a pair of Brits in London. It's not clear how much they know about oilsands technology, although it is clear they are marketing a product that "rates the health of resource projects in terms of their socio-political license to operate – including stakeholder pressures driven by environmental concerns", for what that is worth.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So there are many sources mentioning that emissions of C02 aren't pure enough during the production process (Pembina, Critical Resource, Carbon Capture Journal). If you can prove that that original report was faulty, then I will drop my recommendation for including this point. Furthermore, 30% being emitted during oil sands production is a huge amount. Granted it makes much more sense with coal, I agree, but that 30% is massive relative to Alberta's emissions and its projected emissions growth. The article currently says "the bulk of those reductions (100 Mt) will come from activities related to oil sands production". Furthermore, if we know that only 30% of emissions from oil sands is capturable during production, then how can the bulk of those reductions come from oil sands? Canking (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if we could properly identify the original source... Perhaps we could try contacting the critical resource people and asking them which report they're referring to and where to find it? TastyCakes (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources don't clearly identify what they're referring to, and I think the original report has been misquoted to the point where it is difficult to identify what it is. I've chased down some possibilities, but the documents don't say what the people quoting them claim they do.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

While it doesn't demonstrate its feasibility, the Alberta government's fund announcement (here and here) clearly state the money is to be used to sequester gas from oil sands plants (extraction and upgrading). TastyCakes (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Alberta/Federal task force report Canada’s Fossil Energy Future certainly indicates that it is possible to sequester oil sands plant emissions. However, looking at their data, it appears there would be more bang for the buck to start with the coal-burning power plants, which are bigger emitters. Transalta's 2 GW Sundance power plant would be the obvious place to start, since it emits far more CO₂ than any of the oil sands plants, and the oil fields in the region of the power plant would be more amenable to a CO₂ flood project.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That Task Force document is where the quote is from and it says "only a small portion of the CO2 streams are currently amenable for CCS due to both the size of emissions streams and the concentrations." Furthermore it says "The problem is that lower concentration or smaller emission streams are more costly to capture because of the additional unit capital and operating costs (including energy use) associated with the capture, separation, and purification processes.". So I therefore say that there is no way that the bulk of Alberta's emissions reductions are going to come from the oil sands. Clearly, it is because of ability and cost. Canking (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

mm isn't it more that the bulk of Alberta's emissions reductions won't come from the oil sands because the bulk of Alberta's emissions come from sources other than the oil sands? I think you guys are essentially saying the same thing: a power plant emits more CO2 than an oil sands extraction or upgrading plant, so it is more economically efficient to install the sequestration equipment on the power plant than the oil sand plants. TastyCakes (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The individual oil processing facilities are small and produce only a diluted stream of CO₂ - but that's true of conventional oil as well. The bitumen upgraders produce more concentrated streams of CO₂ and those emissions could be sequestered. However, the bulk of Alberta's emission reductions are not going to come from the oil sands because the power plants are a larger source of emissions. And it's not just Alberta - the biggest CO₂ emitter in North America is Ontario's Nanticoke Generating Station. Unfortunately, Ontario doesn't have any suitable formations to inject the CO₂ into.RockyMtnGuy (talk)

Sorry for the slow reply. RockyMtnGuy, if you can find a source for the upgraders then that would be fine to include it but as it stands, according to the official provincial report, it seems that short-medium term reductions from oil sands operations that come from CCS will be minimal given technology and costs. Therefore, I propose changing the text to "The new plan aims to cut the projected 400 Mt in half by 2050, with a 139 Mt reduction coming from carbon capture and storage. An Alberta/Federal task force report noted that for the oil sands, "only a small portion of the CO2 streams are currently amenable for CCS due to both the size of emissions streams and the concentrations". The report then goes on to add that "smaller emission streams are more costly to capture", making CCS more applicable for coal-fired power plants than for oil sands operations. Canking (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Resource by countries

I think that we have to agree, which countries should be included in this articles and which not. This is a general article about oil sands /bituminous sands and therefore it can't consists of information about all worldwide oil sand resources. If necessary, a separate article about oil sand resources should be created, in which case the relevant section in this article should use summary style.

This article should include only countries with the most significant resources or with major oil sands developments. According to the Survey of Energy Resources 2007 by World Energy Council, pages 133-135, the major resources are in Canada and Venezuela. Definitely these countries need their own subsections. I am not sure, it the subsection about the United States is needed in this article. Although quite comprehensive overview, the resource in the United States is not so significant and there is no production yet. Therefore, maybe we should move this subsection into some more appropriate article and just summarize it under other countries subsection? By the total resource, in addition to Russia also Kazakhstan is worth for mentioning. Resource in Nigeria and particularly in Madagascar is quite limited, so I have some doubts if they should be mentioned here at all. However, as there are some developments in both countries, maybe they should remain. Any other country which is enough significant to be included?

In overall, this article is already to long, so maybe we should create some spin-off articles? Beagel (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are two countries with major oil sands deposits, Canada and Venezuela, and these constitute 75% of the world's resources. The other 25% is spread among 70-odd other countries, but none of them has really large deposits. Much of it is in the Middle East and the Former Soviet Union, but it's hard to break it out by country because there is really not a lot of information about these other deposits. Deposits exist in the US, but they are not large by comparison, and they are problematic to extract from a technical standpoint.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no concensus Beagel (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
See justification below at earlier move talk. Glecroix (talk)

• Oppose. We where through this discussion and the result was "Oil sands". If anything at all, maybe Bituminous sands as a more neutral term. Beagel (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, we've already had this discussion. "Oil sands" is the most accurate common English language name, and the one preferred by most reliable sources. "Bituminous sands" is technically more accurate, but not a name that most people are familiar with. "Tar sands", while in use in some regions, is technically inaccurate, and many of the groups using it are questionable sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking. This is also a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation - i.e. Canada.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as per previous discussion. TastyCakes (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, this issue has been debated before and, as per previous, is being monitored and managed on a full-time basis by those posting above. As argued in support of reverting to original term "tar sands", this terminology is clearly a more accurate description of these natural bitumen deposits as revealed by following accepted definitions:

The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English (2009): bi·tu·men / biˈt(y)oōmən; bī-/ • n. a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing. DERIVATIVES: bi·tu·mi·nous adj.

Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary (current): Main Entry: bi·tu·men Listen to the pronunciation of bitumen Pronunciation: \bə-ˈtyü-mən, bī-, -ˈtü-, especially British also ˈbit-yə-\ Function:noun Etymology: Middle English bithumen mineral pitch, from Latin bitumin-, bitumen Date: 15th century

1: an asphalt of Asia Minor used in ancient times as a cement and mortar 2: any of various mixtures of hydrocarbons (as tar) often together with their nonmetallic derivatives that occur naturally or are obtained as residues after heat-refining natural substances (as petroleum) ; specifically : such a mixture soluble in carbon disulfide

Collins English Dictionary (2009): bitumen n a sticky or solid substance that occurs naturally in asphalt and tar and is used in road surfacing.

Clearly "tar sands" is a no less accurate term than "oil sands" and better reflects the nature of these deposits as perceived by the objective public. In my view, objection to "tar sands" is motivated by interest to clean up the environmentally negative image of onging tar sands development. Glecroix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

Hmm reading Wikipedia's Tar article further convinces me that "tar" is less accurate a term than "oil" for bitumen, since tar is clearly defined as being a synthetic compound. Bitumen has similarities to tar, to be sure, but so does any heavy oil, and indeed tar is manufactured from a very different source (usually pine trees, from the look of it) than what occurs in northern Alberta. As for the term "Oil Sands" being promoted to sanitize people's conception of the industry, I agree. But I think pushing the definition as "tar sands" is just as blatant an effort to make the industry appear dirty, and the term has the misfortune of being inaccurate as well as biased. Given the choice between biased and reasonably accurate and biased and inaccurate, I think the choice is clear. However, I would also give weak support to moving the article to bituminous sands, I think that gives the opportunity to escape some of the political loading both "tar" and "oil" have acquired. People are much less familiar with the term, but a redirect and clarifying first sentence (ie "Bituminous sands, also known as oil sands and tar sands") would clear that up. TastyCakes (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - As before. Our other mining article names are reasonably consistent in following the name of the traded product rather than the raw ore. We have silver mining not argentite mining, uranium mining not uranite mining and list of diamond mines doesn't show a single kimberlite mine. So unless we are going to pretend that this bitumen isn't being upgraded to oil, we should be calling it by that name. LeadSongDog come howl 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but none of those terms (diamond mining etc) have nearly as much controversy and vitriol behind them. TastyCakes (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

ROFL. Here's a little social science project for you. (It's OR, but I'm not proposing it go into article space.) Go stake a few claims for uranium mines and watch the reaction you get from the locals. I can't think of a major mining operation that doesn't draw cries of outrage from Greenpeace, Sierra Club, et al. It's just what they do. LeadSongDog come howl 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not sure you're taking me for what I mean - other mines have controversy associated with them, to be sure, but the issue of terminology is not the hot spot it has become in the oil sands. Greenpeace isn't pushing to rename Uranium mines "radiation pits", for example. TastyCakes (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've suggested it, I'm sure they'll pick on the idea. But I take your point. I just don't go along with letting WP be hijacked for propaganda^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hevangelism.LeadSongDog come howl 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

- To suggest that the term “tar sands” is an invention of the environmental movement is ridiculous. The term long predates “oil sands” and remains the accepted terminology wherever industry advocates have not already managed to control it (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica, Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, CRC Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing, Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Wiley Encyclopedia of Energy, IFPP Encyclopedia of Well Logging). If accuracy is in fact the basis for objection to “tar sands”, then the only appropriate alternative is “bituminous sands” with clarifying first sentence: "Bituminous sands, also known as “tar sands” or “oil sands".... Glecroix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

I don't think anyone suggested Tar Sands was invented by the environmental movement or that it isn't an older name. You skirt the meat of the "oil sand" argument: oil is not the most accurate name, but it is more accurate than tar. It is also the term currently used by most people in the industry and most people in the area (most Albertans, I'd say). So the justification for renaming it back to Tar Sands just isn't there. Bituminous sands, maybe, as I've said before, but as you can see there are good arguments against that move as well (it is virtually never used in the industry or by the public at large). TastyCakes (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"exceedances"??

"Air monitoring has shown significant increases in exceedances of hydrogen sulfide (H
₂S) both in the Fort McMurray area and near the oil sands upgraders." What should this word be? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question. It seems to be jargon like "governance" that no one would use in plain English, but has meaning in specialized circles. Check onelook.com (dictionary search engine) for a variety of definitions. Search WP to get list of occurrences of the word in WP. Wiktionary also has a limited definition. Kkken (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Disjointed facts/stats

Is anyone else baffled by this sentence?: "The Alberta deposits contain at least 85% of the world's total reserves of natural bitumen but are concentrated enough to be the only deposits..."

What does the "but are..." clause mean? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, that 85% statistic seems incompatible with the subsequent one on Venezuela: "...the Orinoco oil belt vies with the Canadian oil sand [sic] for largest known accumulation of bitumen in the world." If Venezuela's vies with Canada's, that would add up to, um, somewhere around 170% in total? If this mathematical impossibility is due to a difference in definition between "reserves" and "accumulation", then can someone please repair this inappropriate comparison of apples and oranges?

Perhaps "apples and oranges" is responsible for this apparent contradiction too: "Venezuela prefers to call its oil sands "extra heavy oil", and although the distinction is somewhat academic, the extra heavy crude oil deposit of the Orinoco Belt represent [sic] nearly 90% of the known global reserves of extra heavy crude oil."

Please, either the distinction is meaningful or it isn't. If it is, then please clarify the confusion. If it isn't, then we've got 85% of the reserves in Canada, and 90% of the reserves in Venezuela, for a total of 175%. Kkken (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RockyMtnGuy: good, your changes made it clearer. Glad you know your numbers.

Now I'm seeing more---some small things I can fix, but some that someone else will have to fix:

• History section, last paragraph:

(a) Made slight change to "alternative to the crude oil found in wells" because elsewhere the article correctly says some oil sands produce into wells through enhanced recovery methods, and because crude isn't "found" in wells.

(b) The last sentence is poor but someone else will have to fix it. The reference article is inaccessible without subscription, but its preview looks flaky and speculative. "Countless barrels" doesn't sit right, because this WP oil sands article does the counting.

• Reserves section: Last paragraph numbers don't add up and don't jibe with numbers in the sections on Canada and Venezuela.

(a) It says Athabasca has at least 270E9 m3, but the Canada section says 280E9 m3 proven.

(b) It says Venezuela's Orinoco sands only have 37E9 m3, which isn't at all on a par with Canada's reserves or the dominant percentage indicated in the Venezuela section.

(c) The above don't add up to the indicated 570E9 m3. Not close.

• Canada section: Petro Canada is obsolete now. I made the reference to its Fort Hills project more bland so it won't need close maintenance as status fluctuates.

• Venezuela section: Added the missing date of strike.

• Surface Mining section: I can't figure out what this means; is it a typo? "...has stranded oil and other carbonate applications as well." Kkken (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kkken: It's good that you're doing some cleanup on this article, which has suffered a bit from random editing by random people.

• alternative to the crude oil found in wells really meant alternative to conventional oil. The editor didn't realize that non-conventional oil can also be "found" in wells. It's just harder to produce.
• Countless barrels should really be counted. The sentence could be changed to: Oil sands and oil shale have the ultimate potential to produce more oil than conventional reserves."
• (a) It says Athabasca has at least 270E9 m3, but the Canada section says 280E9 m3 proven. - The Athabasca deposit is only the largest of three in Alberta and four in Canada. Proven is incorrect, it should be oil in place.
• (b) It says Venezuela's Orinoco sands only have 37E9 m3 - That is a McIntosh apples to oranges comparison. The number is proven reserves, as compared to oil in place.
• (c) The above don't add up to the indicated 570E9 m3 - If you do the math, Venezuela has 290E9 m3 as compared to Canada's 280E9 m3. All oil in place numbers. I don't have any source to confirm the Venezuelan number.
• Canada section: Petro Canada is obsolete now. - True, it should all be Suncor after the merger. More editing required.
• Surface Mining section: I can't figure out what this means; is it a typo? - Actually, it's the SAGD section. It's somebody abstracting from a brochure for a junior oil company without understanding what it means. I don't know what to do other than delete it.

Cheers. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made some small edits based on RockyMtnGuy's 1st, 2nd, and last bullets above, but I'm not qualified to dig up or sort out the statistics.

Comparisons of apples to oranges are unfortunately an occupational hazard in the oil biz. It doesn't help that they're all estimates anyway. Terms and modifiers intertwine, with specific definitions (not all universally agreed on), such as "oil in place", "reserves", "conventional", "unconventional", "recoverable", "discovered", "established", "proven", "probable", "possible", "potential", "marketable", and even "conceptual".

A truly encyclopedic article might present the numbers in a tabular format, with a column for each different kind of apple and orange used in the salad. There'd be lots of blank cells, but it'd help prevent misleading readers and future contributors into confusing McIntoshes with Mandarins and drawing wrong conclusions.

If no one feels like making that table (or knows how to), is there some kind of WP caveat banner that can be posted at the top? Something like, "Caution: this article contains statistics that compare apples to oranges."

This problem isn't exactly unique to this article, of course. Robert Meneley showed up Canada's own National Energy Board for applying different meanings to the same terms in the West vs. the frontiers (March 2009 CSPG Reservoir, vol. 36 #3 p. 45). His "Stats 101"-style conclusion: "Consistency in methodology and presentation is important to prevent skewing the results, particularly when people who do not understand how resource estimates were made use those results."

Cheers, Kkken (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed a section on bitumen adhering to the Tower of Babel, as the source cited was "about.com" which is not a valid historical reference, as well as the about.com article making no mention of this statement. Ochotona —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

History

This sentence in the history section is very confusing "Naturally occurring bitumen is chemically more similar to asphalt than to tar, and oil sands (or oilsands) is more commonly used in the producing areas than tar sands because synthetic oil is what is manufactured from the bitumen." The article implies that tar sands and oil sands are the same thing and the sentence implies a difference. I don't have access to the source. Could somebody please correct this. Weetoddid (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I think what the sentences are trying to do is explain why they are now referred to as oil sands rather than tar sands. Tar sands and oil sands are the same thing, oil sands is simply the more accurate and I believe now the more common term. TastyCakes (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum. The correct technical term for the resource is "bitumenous sands", and the first-stage product is bitumen. The general usage locally, in the industry, in government, and in finance is "oil sands", as the bitumen is mostly upgraded to synthetic crude oil. The term "tar sands" is used almost exclusively by those opposed to its development, such as the competing "clean coal" industry and their improbable allies among the environmental lobbyists. Consensus here has been to go with the most commonly used term, while explaining the others. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "Naturally occurring bitumen is chemically more similar to asphalt than to tar, and the term oil sands (or oilsands) is more commonly used in the producing areas than tar sands because synthetic oil is what is manufactured from the bitumen". That seems much clearer to me.Weetoddid (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Weetoddid. Funny, I thought that confusion was fixed last autumn. Déja vu, I guess. Kkken (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Energy estimates are based on deep extraction which is in the far future.

Current and past methods of separation do not require steam injection. There are three parts to current plants. Mining, which uses traditional surface mining methods and equipment. Extraction, which uses recycling solvents to separate the tar from the sand. Finally, there is upgrading which uses standard refining methods to upgrade the tar by cracking it into lighter and more useful products. The high energy extraction that is mentioned will not be in use for many years. If it is ever adopted then the energy source may sell be nuclear which does not produce gases. Much of the information is more political than factual.68.149.247.130 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to stay current with industry developments. Alberta is currently producing about 700,000 barrels of bitumen per day from 11,000 wells drilled into deeper formations, and about 75% of that is produced using steam injection. The latest methods (i.e. SAGD) are very effective and the volumes are rising steadily. By 2015 in-situ production should exceed mined production. Also, the mining operations don't use solvents to separate the bitumen from the sand - it's a hot-water process.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Weeelllll, I suppose that technically water is a solvent, but it is about as immiscible with bitumen as it is with oil. Hence the need for added surfactants and mechanical centrifuges.

So far as input energy goes, there is absolutely no reason why it has to be fluid hydrocarbons used other than economics. It could as easily be nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, for that matter wind or solar could be partial solutions, thought they would not have 24/7 availability. They might be useful for example in pre-heating feedstock or pumping it from low to elevated storage tanks. But the continuous running of large industrial processes that also need substantial amounts of low-grade heat is the ideal load description for nuclear cogeneration. I frankly can't think of a better usage. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Schindler ref

The recent addition of an attribution to David (W.) Schindler is only referenced to his own list of his publications, without indication of which publication pertains. The context implies it is from 2007, but his only listed 2007 pub is here, pp.21-27 and makes no reference to "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons". It is possible that the intended ref is: Kelly EN, Schindler DW, Hodson PV, Short JW, Radmanovich R, Neilsen CC (September 14, 2010). "Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries". PNAS. 107 (37): 16178–83. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008754107.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). While this is certainly a scholarly work, it is a quite recently published original work and has yet to attract reviews. It should be treated as a primary source. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"The professional environmentalist [anti-oilsand] movement"

This Toronto Sun op-ed by Ezra Levant makes some interesting points re the antis:

As Vivian Krause has documented, the U.S. Tides Foundation, their Canadian arm Tides Canada and other foreign foundations have pumped about $200 million into Canada to fight development of the oilsands and forestry, among other causes.

I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics to add this, but it seems it should be considered. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Similar efforts from Oil Sands Watch, Greenpeace and the Pembina Institute would need comparable discussion. While their POV does not make them wrong per se, it does mean we need to treat their publications with caution and balance them with other sources to maintain wp:NPOV. Likewise publications from the oil sands industry itself. It gets more awkward when examining works by the local governments, which are simultaneously dependent on the revenues from that industry and responsible to their electors for environmental stewardship. In general these governments are pretty good sources for direct statements of fact, but usually apply substantial "spin" to any analysis. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent figures

The article states near the beginning that following the "Well to Wheels" approach "oil sands extraction, upgrade and use emits 10 to 45% more greenhouse gases than conventional crude." Later the article says "'well-to-pump' emissions, for example, are estimated to be about 1.3-1.7 times that of conventional crude", in other words 30 to 70% more than conventional crude. (Surely well-to-pump can't be more than well-to-wheels?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitig (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The source from the Moose Jaw Times was pretty clear about this:

How does oilsands oil compare with other oil from an emissions standpoint?
It depends on how you measure it. Industry likes to use a so-called well-to-wheel approach, which takes into account all emissions created by a barrel of oil from finding it and pumping it out of the ground to burning it in a gas tank. By that measure, oilsands crude creates between 10 and 45 per cent more carbon dioxide than other crudes, depending on the source.
Environmentalists, however, point out that 80 per cent of the carbon from any barrel of crude is emitted when you burn it. The well-to-wheel approach, they say, disguises how much more carbon-intensive it is to produce oilsands crude. They prefer a well-to-tank comparison, which excludes burning the final fuel. By that measure, a barrel of oilsands oil creates three times more greenhouse gas than a barrel pumped from the ground.

The other source, from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers must be regarded with caution, as it clearly is not a neutral observer. The question comes down to whether or not to include the 400kg CO2/bbl that goes out the tailpipe for all varieties of petroleum. Note that this is a fixed amount, rather than the relative "80%" mentioned in the quote.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Assay

For a ton of extracted "oil sand", how much is (non-combustible) rocks,sand, and silt? How much is extractable bitumen? How much bitumen gets left in the tailings? How much synthetic oil does that bitumen make? Does it vary between Canada and Venezuala? Does it very between Canadian producers (are some "oil sands" richer than others in yield)?

Pictures would be nice. A lump of raw sand, a beaker (or lump) of extracted bitumen, a beaker of synthetic oil. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The numbers vary pretty dramatically, depending on the temperature, the raw material, the energy used in extraction, and the type of extraction (strip mining, steam injection, THAI, etc.) The chief advantage of the Venezuelan oil sands is that they are already warm enough to flow, hence they call them "heavy oil". There are some pictures at Bitumen but they aren't quite what you seem to be after. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Right now just upper and lower bounds for these variables would be good to have. I haven't found a source yet. --Wtshymanski (talk)

Even light sweet crude has some sand. Even asphalt has some bitumen. Those bounds don't exist in any practical sense. This paper may be useful.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Light sweet crude is also called oil sands? Asphalt is also called oil sands? So what isn't called oil sands? C'mon, it's got to be tighter than that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

climate change

The article currently states: "Environment Canada claims the oil sands make up 5% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, or 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It predicts the oil sands will grow to make up 8% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 2015."

However, the citation provided links to document put out by the Canadian Association of Oil Producers. If Environment Canada makes this claim, a direct link would be helpful. Also, from what I can see here, oil sand *production* makes up 5% of Canada's GHG emissions, and this figure doesn't include refinement, transportation and end-use. As it stands now it appears to be repetition of CAPP propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.212.195 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Public Health Impacts of Tar Sands

Why is there not a section detailing the long list of potential negative public health effects of the tar sands? This is at the heart of recent concerns moreso even than environmental concerns and should have a detailed subsection of its own. If I had more time, I'd do it myself, but there is a lot of data on the increased cancer rates among Native populations, and high level of contaminants found in the blood streams of large animals like moose, etc.. See http://www.nodirtyenergy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=162 for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.165.233 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo caption issue

The photo caption beneath the satellite image of the oil sands facility goes out of its way to direct the reader to the tailing's pond proximity to the Athabasca River. This treads into POV territory: the implication is clearly that this proximity is a noteworthy threat to the river. What is unclear, however, is whether the pond is above, level with, or below the river grade, and this matters greatly. A pond below the river grade could not flow into the river, and proximity wouldn't be a noteable issue. Without further information, I strongly suggest removing the 'proximity to the river' bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.250.169 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

The Roots of the Tar Sands Movement by Bill McKibben in December 2011 issue of Sojourners magazine, "The real work has been done for years by indigenous leaders on both sides of the border."

99.190.83.205 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

US refining of Canadian Oil Sands

Why is it better for Canada to build a pipeline to Texas instead of refining the oil sands in Canada? Is it a way to reduce emmissions in Canada? Wouldn't it be easier to pipe a more refined liquid oil to the US or am I misunderstanding something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.107.29 (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

potential Oil sands#USA resource

U.S. Tar Sands? Canadian Company Seeks to Drill in Utah "Extracting oil sands, or tar sands, is big business in Canada. But there are a few deposits here in the Western U.S. too, and now the Canadian experts are looking to get at them." December 9, 2011 2:00 PM Popular Mechanics by Bobby Magill

99.181.143.108 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result of the discussion: No consensus to merge. Beagel (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Heavy crude oil into this article. Although there are some small differences in their physical properties, by most of sources they are described together (e.g. WEC 2010). There is a significant overlapping between these articles as both of them describes Canadian oil sands and Venezuelan extra-heavy oil (extra-heavy oil is a redirect to heavy crude oil). Merging these article will help to discribe the topic more complexed way avoiding unnecessary confusion. Beagel (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought the difference was that "heavy crude", at the conditions pervailing in the reservoir, will flow - but bituminous sands don't flow ( you have to dig them our or heat them or dissolve them to get them to flow). The industry seems to distinguish betweeen the terms and so should we. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, but in this case both articles need extensive cleanup as both of them are talking about both—Canadian oil sands and Venezuelan extra-heavy oil. I agree that there is a difference in their viscosity but by their chemical properties they are similar. Also above-linked WEC's 2010 Survey of Energy Resources combines they together into the joint chapter although providing resources data by separate tables. Beagel (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think that this archived discussion could be relevant. Beagel (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, bitumen is bitumen, whether it's called "extra heavy crude oil" or not. The difference between "it floats" and "it sinks" is a key determinant in ease of extraction and distribution, but not so key as whether "it flows" or not. Still, the techniques for extraction (which the industry persists in calling "production") do differ enormously between the Orinoco and Athabaskan basins, as do the contaminants (sand, metals, sulfur,...) that have to be removed in upgrading. I'd prefer to see this article first be cleared of content which is specific to just one basin. Such content belongs in the more specific articles. This article might however benefit from more direct discussion of the comparison if we can source it properly. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Chemical properties" are irrelevant. As ecological problems and industrial phenomena heavy crude oil (that flows) and tar sand (which doesn't) are completely different. As 99% of the extant conversation about them is about these issues, it's misleading to pretend that tar sand is just another heavy crude source. Also geographically these things are located in different places: Probably best to redirect to Orinico crude oil and Athabaska bitumen deposit as a disambiguation up front in heavy crude oil which can thereafter be about the chemistry and problems thereof... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.226.204 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, this article is about oil sands in general, not about Canadian oil sands. Although most of oil sands deposits are located in Canada, there are also deposits in other countries. I don't think that this article should be country-specific, this is an umbrella article for all oil sands articles and country specific issues should be addressed there. We already have articles about Athabaska oil sands and Orinoco oil belt. I strongly disagree that chemical properties are irrelevant. For NPOV, all relevant aspects should be covered.

However, it seems that there is no consensus for merging these articles, so I propose to close this debate and start cleaning up both articles per above discussion. Beagel (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is important and appropriate to maintain the distinction. While there is some commonality between the enhanced oil recovery processes used for some heavy crude resources and bituminous resources, it is well understood that extra heavy oil is a subset of crude oil (as the liquid phase of crude) while bitumen is the solid state (World Petroleum Congress 1987). bitumen is a distinct material with distinct issues around it (technical and political) and it would be odd for Wikipedia to remove the distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICCT Chris (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mention ocean acidification alongside climate change re high-carbon industries

Also no mention of climate change alone should be made re high-CO2, as ocean acidification is a direct, measurable, and quite different effect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.226.204 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutralizing: coal comparisons, pipeline costs, diplomacy

Coal comparisons are suspect because of tailpipe emissions effects. GM officials have publicly said (on video, at car shows) that coal-fired electricity in the US, when used to charge an electric car, is a lower-CO2-emission way to run the same vehicle than free-running oil, and by that measure, using gasoline made from tar sands oil would be about twice as carbon-intensive as its current alternative, that being coal-fired electricity. GM (Brita Gross I believe) made the comments two years ago, with reference explicitly to "the worst coal plant in the US"

Making this clearer, with more references, and a separate article on tailpipe emissions, would go a long way towards explaining the controversy and offsetting the obvious industry spin in this article as it stands with its current title. Most of the spin regards the refining and does not include the cost or issues with heavy crude pipelines, e.g. Kinder Morgan, Keystone XL or transoceanic shipping, e.g. Northern Gateway. This very expensive infrastructure, a malinvestment by most modern economic measures, has diplomatic, political, military and even economic overheating risks.

The race to the bottom that an open market in dirty oil between India, China and the US would create is understated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.226.204 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The bad thing about coal is that it is 100% carbon, so burning it is automatically going to generate a lot of CO2. If a coal burning power plant or industry does not do carbon sequestration into underground formations (which none of them do), all of this CO2 is released into the air. This is why US coal burning power plants emit about 50 times as much CO2 into the air as Canadian oil sands plants. Chinese power plants emit even more CO2 than American ones (80% of Chinese electricity is produced from coal), and the Chinese are building a couple of new coal power plants every week, which is why China is now the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, ahead of the US. India also is heavily dependent on coal, and is also growing rapidly, so if you take all three - China, the US, and India, all big coal producers and burners - you have about 50% of the world's emissions of greenhouse gases right there. Canada accounts for only 2% of world GG emissions - 60% of its electricity production is hydro and 15% nuclear - and only a fraction of that is from oil sands. Even in hydro-rich Canada, coal-burning plants emit more CO2 than oil sands plants. Just a reality check for the GG unaware. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Coal is never 100% carbon; the table in the Wiki article shows as low as 60%, and the table in "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers" shows lignite down to 42% C. The problem with bitumen-sands oil is that you get a double whammy of carbon emissions; first from actually burning the stuff, and secondly from all the fossil fuel required to produce it in the first place. Mining bitumen sands is an energy amplifier, not an energy source...--Wtshymanski (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There are energy requirements for extracting and upgrading bitumen, but as the article points out the majority of the carbon released is through use of the final product, for the most part means gasoline. Since that CO2 emission is similar to gasoline from conventionally extracted oil, the total lifecycle carbon emissions, or "well to wheel" emissions, are not much larger than conventional oil - about 5 to 15% according to the source mentioned in the article. Many people don't know that there are some heavy conventional crudes (in California, for example) that have higher CO2 emissions than oilsands by this measure. And that's not to mention the activities in the third world, where huge amounts of natural gas are routinely flared and refineries do not operate under emission restrictions.

If the oilsands used coal generated energy this wouldn't be the case. But they use natural gas, which is much cleaner burning than coal. If Alberta was really serious about lowering its carbon emissions (and I think it should be, to provide cover for the oilsands if nothing else) it would push electricity producers to switch from coal to natural gas. TastyCakes (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Venezuelan oil sands?

What on Earth makes people think there is an intrinsic difference between Venezuelan "Extra-Heavy Oil" and Canadian "Bitumen"? The difference is primarily one of average viscosity and reservoir temperatures, not of the chemical composition of the oil. Many countries have "Oil Sands", i.e. deposits of extra-heavy oil and/or bitumen mixed with sand, but only Canada and Venezuela have these enormous world-scale deposits of very heavy oil - both of them roughly equivalent to the world's reserves of conventional oil.

Chemically, they are very similar, and the geological mechanisms that created them were very similar. On average, the Venezuelan deposits are somewhat less viscous than the Canadian ones, but Venezuela has regions of its oil sands where the oil is more viscous than average, doesn't flow, and is described by the Venezuelans as "Bitumen", while Canada has regions of its oil sands where the oil is less viscous than true bitumen, flows (albeit reluctantly) and can be produced by conventional heavy-oil techniques. However, when the Canadians find extra-heavy oil in an officially designated oil sands region, the Canadians deem it to be "Bitumen" because, in reality, it doesn't make much difference. About 20% of the Canadian deposits can be produced by surface mining, versus none of the Venezuelan deposits, but that is because the Venezuelan deposits are much deeper. I'm sure if the Venezuelans could, they would surface-mine their oil sands. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was a proposal to merge Oil sands and Extra-heavy oil articles, but this proposal did not gained support, notwithstanding the argument of same chemical properties. If these articles are kept separately, it should be make clear where we are taking about what. The distinction used by the WEC seems a good starting point for me. Before today, there was lot of contradictions about the Venezuelan information while one paragraph said that they are not oil sands and next one described them as a major oil sands deposits.

Another common position of the above-mentioned discussion was that this article should not deal with country specific issues. It is still too Canada-centric and some additional cleanup and rewriting is needed. As of Venezuela, this information is included in the Orinoco Belt article. Beagel (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Extra-heavy oil article just redirects to the Heavy oil article, and what this says is

Heavy crude oil or extra heavy crude oil is any type of crude oil which does not flow easily. It is referred to as "heavy" because its density or specific gravity is higher than that of light crude oil. Heavy crude oil has been defined as any liquid petroleum with an API gravity less than 20°.[1] Physical properties that differ between heavy crudes lighter grades include higher viscosity and specific gravity, as well as heavier molecular composition. Extra heavy oil is defined with a gravity of less than 10° API(i.e. with density greater than 1000 kg/m3 or, equivalently, a specific gravity greater than 1) and a reservoir viscosity of no more than 10,000 centipoises.

Although Heavy oil is significantly less dense than Extra-Heavy, most Canadian bitumen has about the same density as Venezuelan Extra-heavy oil, so the essential difference between the Canadian oil sands and the Venezuelan oil sands is one of viscosity. From an Imperial Oil document:

Bitumen has been defined by various sources as crude oil with a dynamic viscosity at reservoir conditions of more than 10,000 centipoise. Canadian “bitumen” supply is more loosely accepted as production from the Athabasca, Wabasca, Peace River and Cold Lake oil-sands deposits. The majority of the oil produced from these deposits has an API gravity of between 8° and 12° and a reservoir viscosity of over 10,000 centipoise although small volumes have higher API gravities and lower viscosities.

So in reality the quality of the oil in the Canadian and Venezuelan oil sands is about the same, it is just that Bitumen has a higher viscosity than Extra-heavy oil. The Canadians deal with this by injecting steam to reduce the viscosity in producing wells, and blending it with light oil/condensate to reduce the viscosity to move it through pipelines. The Venezuelans often do the same since, even though their oil is less viscous, it helps mitigate their production and transportation problems.

While the Orinoco Belt has its own article, so does the Athabasca oil sands.

The Orinoco Belt consists of large deposits of extra heavy crude (oil sands), known as the Orinoco Oil Sands or the Orinoco Tar Sands. The Orinoco Tar Sands are known to be one of the largest, behind that of the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada.

Note that they call it the "Orinoco Oil Sands" or "Orinoco Tar Sands", because that it is what it is.There is far more information available. about the Canadian oil sands (especially in the Athabasca oil sands article) than the Venezuelan oil sands, but I don't think this is a good reason to delete the Venezuelan oil sands from the oil sands article. The Venezuelan information just needs to be expanded, as does the Orinoco Belt article.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:32, 12 February 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)

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)

Geological origin

There doesn't seem to be any explanation in the article of how oil sands are formed. As far as I can make out from other sources on the web, it is thought that oil sands are formed where liquid petroleum has seeped to the surface and soaked into suitable layers of sand. The lighter and more volatile fractions of the petroleum are then removed by evaporation and biological action, leaving behind the heavy 'gunk'. Anyway, the article surely needs a section on the origin of the stuff.109.158.41.137 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, that's certainly an important omission, the Athabasca oil sands article is similarly lacking such information. I'll see what I can find and start a section if and when I get the time. Mikenorton (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've begun by starting to write a geology section for the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin article and then I'll adapt it for the other articles - I'm not sure how long it will take. Mikenorton (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

From the preview, it appears that there's a useful explanation at "Mineralogy of Nigerian Bituminous Sands using Particle Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) Spectrometry". Journal of Sustainable Energy Engineering. 1 (2): 148–160. April 2013. doi:10.7569/JSEE.2012.629511. ISSN 2164-6295. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Oil sands → Tar Sands – Usage is most common in US and Europe among both advocates and detractors of these projects, and "Oil Sands" is restricted to promoters of these projects within Canada, according to recent news reports. Dick Cheney, strongly promoting Keystone XL, calls them "Tar Sands" strongly indicating it is an NPOV term: "Interestingly, Cheney repeatedly referred to Alberta's bitumen deposits as the "tar sands," the National Post noted -- a term that is widely accepted in the U.S., but in Canada connotes opposition to the industry."[1] 173.212.125.180 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - tar sands, colloquially, are only the thick end of oil sands. E. Ruttley, Standard terms of the energy economy: a glossary World Energy Conference - 1978 Page 52 "... found especially in Canada, in which bitumen-saturated sands are found near or at the surface of the ground; the hydrocarbon can be separated from the sand by mechanical or thermal processes. Heavy oil sands are similar to tar sands." And see also below. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nicola Armaroli, ‎Vincenzo Balzani Powering Planet Earth: Energy Solutions for the Future 2012- Page 136 "Although visually they appear to be similar, tar and oil sands are quite different. Oil sands are a naturally occurring petrochemical source, whereas tar is a substance produced from the degradation of hydrocarbons. In addition, their uses are totally different—oil sands are first refined to produce oil, and this, after subsequent treatment at an oil refinery, is converted into a useful fuel. Tar, on the other hand, cannot be refined and historically has been used as sealer and for treating rope against moisture.

• Oppose many more books about the topic use Oil sands as the primary term for the whole thing as seen by a Google book search - Oil sands 1,010,000 results vs Tar sands 317,000 results. The a net search has the same result in that Oil sands is used much more often. -- Moxy (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, and even if we moved it "sands" should not be capitalized. Red Slash 03:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: since most of these occur in Canada we should take note of their terminology. Alberta Energy says "Historically, oil sand was incorrectly referred to as tar sand". But on a related issue, is there any justification for the use of the plural in this article name? Chris55 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How many of those who "voted" on this proposal are Canadian? The term is POV anywhere else in the English speaking world, and the arguments used are specious. For instance, the many "oil sands" links are actually from Canadian sources that are forced to use the term. Normalize for actual readership and you get quite different results. Or normalize for usage by qualified persons versus industry sources. You will find that the million links are coming from promoters, conflicted parties and Canadians. Which makes Wikipedia merely another target for a propaganda campaign as others have outlined.

Singular title

Now the tar/oil issue has been decided, I am prepared to move the article to the singular name (Oil sand) in line with WP:PLURAL. I can't see that any of the exceptions apply to this case and unless there are objections I don't think it's necessary to go through a formal vote. Chris55 (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: I've been writing about the oil sands for many years (both books and for two technical magazines) and there are times to use the singular and times to use the plural. For example, compare "Alberta's oil sands represent a vast reserve of bitumen" to "That oil sand deposit is relatively small". Whatever happens on this discussion page will not affect the reality that people who write about the oil sands will continue to use both singular and plural forms.

Certainly this is not across the board. I have no intention of applying this to Alberta oil sands, Athabasca oil sands etc. In those instances one is talking about specific deposits where the plural is defensible. But I think it helps to distinguish this as the generic article. Many topics are often referred to in the plural, but WP policy is normally to use the singular. Links to Oil sands will still work as normal. Chris55 (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, one oppose, which can be interpreted as a lack of understanding of wiki policy, and a lot of silence. Shall I do it or not? Chris55 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Even when referred to as "tar sands", it is plural. We should go with RS terminology and keep it plural. petrarchan47tc 08:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)