Effect of Caustic Type on Bitumen Extraction from Canadian Oil Sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of different types of caustics in bitumen extraction from Canadian oil sands is investigated by analyzing their effect on subprocesses involved in bitumen extraction. Both sodium hydroxide and ammonium hydroxide were shown to improve bitumen liberation, which is favorable for bitumen recovery, but increased induction time of bitumen–bubble attachment, which is harmful for bitumen recovery. Although a similar performance was observed at pH of ∼8.5, at pH 11.3, the use of ammonium hydroxide led to a shorter induction time of bitumen–bubble attachment and, hence, better bitumen recovery than the use of sodium hydroxide to achieve the same slurry pH. The better performance of ammonium hydroxide is attributed to a more hydrophobic surface and a less negative zeta potential of bitumen in the process water because of the release of less amount of natural surfactants in ammonium hydroxide solutions than in sodium hydroxide solutions of the same solution pH. Overall, ammonium hydroxide was found to be a suitable replacement for sodium hydroxide. Although this study was mainly concerned with mining–extraction operations, the major findings derived from this study could be applied readily to in situ thermal bitumen production operations, because ammonia can be delivered with steam to oil sands formations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".