Water Use in Bitumen Production: Tailings Management in Surface Mined Oil Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Approximately 12 barrels of water are used for the production of each barrel of bitumen in surface mined oil sands operations. Typically, about 70% of this water is recycled, leaving a net trade of about 4 barrels of water per barrel of bitumen production. This water is tied up in the pore spaces of the mineral sand, silt, and clay left after the bitumen is extracted from the oil sands. The sand component of the mineral tailings is a relatively straightforward reclamation problem due to the relative ease with which strength can be developed in the sand tailings. The silt and clay component which forms the fluid fine tailings, or mature fine tailings, is usually contained behind large dikes and at 30 to 50% solids, even after 40 years, this material does not have enough strength to support the overburden or soil horizon replacement required for reclamation. Currently the lowest cost reclamation option is the long term storage of the mature fine tailings under a water cap in an end pit lake. This so-called wet landscape reclamation has several unknown long term monitoring liabilities, aside from the difficulties inherent in the creation of an artificial lake above the mature fine tailings. Some of the tailings management options which would lead to a dry stackable tailings naturally also significantly decrease the barrels of water lost with each barrel of bitumen production. These options are discussed along with an analysis of their impact on recycle water quality and quantity. Introduction Tailings management in surface mined oil sands is a very complex endeavor (1). In order to appreciate the impact of various tailings management options, it is possible to apply several simplifying assumptions. In this discussion, the tailings management options and their impact on recycle water chemistry will necessarily have to be simplified, and where possible, the shortcomings of these simplifications will be noted. In general, there are three oil sands tailings streams. These are the coarse tailings from the primary bitumen separation step, the fine tailings from the secondary and/or tertiary bitumen recovery step, and the froth treatment tailings. Solvent addition to the bitumen froth reduces the viscosity and allows for the removal of the froth minerals. The resulting froth treatment tailings are particularly important because of the environmental impact of the residual solvent or diluent. In terms of their contribution to the total tailings volume, however, they represent a relatively minor stream(2,3). Surface mined oil sands convention defines sand as the mineral fraction greater than 44 microns and the fines as the mineral fraction less than 44 microns. The coarse tailings are predominantly made up of the sand fraction, and the fine tailings are predominantly made up of fines. It has been demonstrated that it is the clay fraction, as a size and mineral that defines the tailings properties, and in particular the tailings volume and water holding capacity. For comparison purposes, however, one can discuss the fines fraction, with the underlying assumption that the clay to fines ratio is 0.5.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".