Talk:Heavy crude oil

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 December 2005 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Chemical properties

Added chemical properties of heavy...will come up with more data in a day or so Yourdeadin 07:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin[reply]

Can someone knowledgeable in chemistry add the chemical abstraction or representation of crude oil? Similar to how the phosphorous acid page is represented in the right column? 70.137.91.190 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest reserves

Someone just obliterated my work on this article - I don't mind it saying the largest reserves are in Canada, if this can be properly backed up. I was under the impression that Canada had tar sands, not heavy oil. I know there isn't a great deal of difference between these, but Wikipedia has articles for both, so we should keep with the distinction. Also, the references don't make sense for the information this unnamed person has added. I've made some alterations. --Willplatts (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, with respect to this I found this article comparing oil in place. Just a little tidbit, too, Northern Alberta and Saskatchewan are almost completely heavy crude and tar sands. A good rule of thumb is the surface mines are tar sands and the wells are heavy oil. That said, there is also a lot of gas closer to the rockies and other exceptions. I know I'm anonymous (Not bother to log in) so feel free to re-edit any changes I make. The only thing I ask is that you read this paper.

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/pdfs/RPT_Chops_app3.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.84.180 (talk) 19 February 2012

This issue was intensively discussed at the talk page of Oil sands and, at least for the moment, there is consensus to keep oil sands and extra heavy oil in separate article and not mixed these things together. Therefore I will revert your edit for the moment. Beagel (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact

There was some dubious chemistry listed in the Environmental Impacts section, claiming a higher carbon footprint because of "more carbon" by molecular weight. This is pretty dubious, so unless there's a cited source, it should probably be removed. Heavy oil probably does have a more energy-intensive extraction, transportation, and refining process - but by the time anybody burns it, it's unlikely that the carbon atom mass fraction has any relevant impact on the total amount of carbon released compared to other crude sources. Nimur (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "molecular weight" may confuse more than enlighten. The fact they have higher CO2 emissions is at http://www.laohamutuk.org/Oil/Power/NTNHeavyOilMar09.pdf which states in part, "The Table below compares the comparative GHG intensity (in carbon terms) of coal, gas, heavy oil and light fuel oil. The comparison involves carbon output after combustion as well as the total carbon equivalent output including carbon emitted during the processing of the fuels to make them suitable for combustion...heavy oil has the highest CO2 emissions and highest emission factors of any fuel type and cites footnote 14. Footnote 14 in turn states:

These CO2 emission factors are based upon data provided by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center of the government of the United States and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP): (Carbon Dioxide and Climate - Third Edition (ORNL/CDIAC-39), Edited by: Fred O'Hara Jr., Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1990 (www.cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html ); A National Inventory of Greenhouse Gas (GHG), Criteria Air Contaminant (CAC) and Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) Emissions by the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry / Volume 1, Overview of the GHG Emissions, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Calgary, September 2004.)

On the other hand reading carefully you'll notice it's only for "CO2 per ton" that oil sands are highest. If you use CO2 per MJ (energy) it is not as high as coal. However, being at 84% of the CO2 of coal (78 / 93 = 0.8387) that would still make the oil sands, unsurprisingly, higher in co2 per unit energy, than conventional oil.

A different source [1] states "Because of the energy needed for extraction and processing, petroleum from Canadian oil tar sands has higher life cycle emission", "up to 25% more" versus convention fossil fuels. Harel (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oil sands and heavy crude oil

There is a discussion if Oil sands and Heavy crude oil should be merged or not, and how these articles should refer different deposits. Your opinion is welcomed. Beagel (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Heavy crude oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DNAPL

The statement that "Heavy oils and asphalt are dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs)" doesn't seem right. DNAPL's are less viscous than water, where heavy oil is very viscous. I can't remember an example of DNAPL off the top of my head. It seems like it's chemical solvents as opposed to oils. To have oils heavier (more dense) than water is rare. The "heavy" oils are heavy relative to other oils, not relative to water. Lldenke (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Lisa Denke[reply]