Co-processing of fresh oil sand tailings and fluid fine tailings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes co-processing of fresh tailings (i.e. whole tailings), such as coarse tailings and flotation tailings from the oil sand extraction plant, and legacy fluid fine tailings (FFT) in line with a polymeric flocculant to produce paste tailings without the use of thickeners and cyclones. The objective of the project is to develop an efficient and low-cost tailings management technology to accelerate the creation of trafficable landforms that are ready for terrestrial reclamation. The idea for co-processing is that increasing the sand-to-fines ratio (SFR) will increase the hydraulic conductivity of the co-processed deposit, thus accelerating its consolidation rate. Compared to composite tailings (CT) with SFR of 3–5 and FFT centrifuge cake or flocculated FFT (fFFT) with SFR of 0–0.1, the target SFR of co-processing is 1–3 with an optimal SFR of 2. In a broader definition, the co-processing could become the treatment of whole tailings when the FFT supply is shut down or switch to the flocculated FFT process if the fresh tailings are diverted for conventional beaching operation. This paper highlights the advancements in co-processing technology development from laboratory-scale to small pilotscale. It discusses learnings from large strain consolidation (LSC) and beam centrifuge testing of the co-processed deposits to assess its long-term consolidation within the context of final reclamation and closure. Results to date show that co-processing of fresh tailings and FFT is a promising technology for achieving terrestrial closure of oil sand tailings.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it