Talk:Oil sands

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)

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)