Talk:2013 Mayflower oil spill

Tar sands / oil sands

Although the NG article refers to tar sands, the main article here in Wikipedia is called Oil sands and the main article about the source in Canada is called Athabasca oil sands. I there any reason why this article specifically uses the term "tar sands"? Beagel (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As you note, the related Wikipedia articles do have the term "oil sands" in their titles, although the term "tar sands" is also used in the lead. There has been a fair amount of debate about this on various talk pages. To summarize: The original name for these bitumen deposits was "tar sands." The reason for this is that they are a thick viscous semi-solid or solid substance, commonly called "tar" and that is what the petroleum geologist who made the discovery named them. According to several dictionary definitions, however, tar is defined as: "viscous, dark-brown to black substances obtained by the destructive distillation of coal, wood, petroleum, peat, and certain other organic materials."[1] Normally such distillation has been the result of a manufacturing process—until the tar sands were discovered. Evidently geological processes can also produce tar. Note that the term "oil" is almost universally defined as a liquid. Herein lies the rub: bitumen in its natural state is not liquid. It must be diluted with lighter hydrocarbons to flow through pipelines (hence "diluted bitumen)."

In the mid-20th Century the petroleum industry decided to rename the tar sands "oil sands." They tend to strongly defend that term. Environmentalists, on the other hand, call these bitumen deposits "tar sands" and equally strongly defend that term. The media and the man and woman in the street vacillate between the two terms. I suggest that we not get into the argument here. So, what I've done so far is leave the first use of the term as "oil sands." Then, later in the article when a particular news medium (such as the National Geographic article) refers to "tar sands" I'm suggesting that we follow that usage. This seems like a pretty standard convention for quoting or summarizing a source. Does anyone disagree with this approach? Sunray (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed tag

There was added clarification needed tag after words "approximately 12,000 barrels of oil" with the edit summary: "Not oil? per http://rt.com/usa/arkansas-spill-exxon-cleanup-244/ ... is clarification needed, excerpt "exempt from paying into the fund for its Pegasus pipeline, because it carries tar sands oil, not "conventional oil." The problem seems to be that the news story uses the general term "oil" as a synonym of petroleum (aka crude oil, conventional oil). That is correct that the oil transported by the pipeline was not conventional oil but oil produced from oil sands. This is a diluted bitumen or synthetic crude. However, it still falls under the general term oil and its chemical properties are similar to petroleum. It is also used to produced as refinery feedstock to produce the same products as from petroleum. Therefore the general term "oil" is correct in this context. Beagel (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right that diluted bitumen is classified as "heavy oil." It is not the same thing as synthetic crude, however. Here's the breakdown as I understand it:

• bitumen --> mixing with a diluent --> diluted bitumen (dilbit)
• bitumen --> upgrading --> synthetic crude --> refining --> finished products.

One difference between these substances is the API gravity. Bitumen is classified as "extra heavy crude," dilbit as "heavy crude" and synthetic crude as "medium crude oil." Sunray (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not expressed myself correctly. I meant that oil produced from oil sands may be dilbit or it may be synthetic crude, depending its level of processing as you correctly mentioned. Thank you for adding this clarification. Beagel (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To respond to your original question, though. The industry has argued that this unconventional oil is "not oil" and thus exempt from the oil spill liability fund but has also argued at other times that it is "just another form of crude." That is the essence of the whole debate. I think that we can summarize the arguments in the section on Keystone XL. In the meantime, I think we can remove the "clarification needed" tag. Sunray (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of article

Looking into the naming conventions for events, I note that articles are usually named according to: 1) where the incident happened, and 2) what happened. The guideline states: "If these descriptors are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously," the date of the incident should be added. This oil spill seems to fairly unambiguously named the "Mayflower oil spill" so I am proposing to rename it to that. Any comments or concerns? Sunray (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Factual Dispute Tag / Propose Renaming to "Mayflower Dilbit Spill"

Dilbit is not oil, it is not crude oil. There are many important distinctions, including,

• chemistry
• refining
• natural gas and NGL (condensate) consumption
  • additional infrastructure required, pipelines, compressors, etc.
• area-intensive mining,
  • inc. massive Boreal Forest destruction
  • massive tailings ponds,
  • The "Great Sulfur Pyramids" at the Suncor Upgrader in Ft. McMurray
• potential corrosivity distinction
• spill mechanics and cleanup
• regulation distinction
• taxation (Dilbut exempt from cleanup fund--- because dilbit is not oil!
• energy-intensive mining/refining (EROEI discussion)
• capital-intensive refining
• Fire/Explosion properties during transport

And I would also add,

• The apparent intentional effort to mislead the public about these important distinctions, including in the mainstream media, and perhaps also on Wikipedia itself, such as
  • Title of this article refers to an "oil spill".
  • The article on "Tar Sands" is titled "Oil Sands".

As an online encyclopedia, we need to strive for accuracy WP:V and also maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. I am adding Controversial tag, to indicate my question about both Accuracy, and NPOV, and tagging the word "oil" as Disputed. Thanks.

--Bill Huston ^(talk) 22:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your points have been discussed on this page and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Bitumen is not oil. On that we are in complete agreement. Also, as I have noted above, the industry is at pains to call bitumen "oil," except when it doesn't serve their purpose (as you have noted). However, in writing Wikipedia articles, we are required to go with usage. If reliable sources refer to the Mayflower incident as an "oil spill," then that is what we must call it. On the other hand, if we quote from an article that refers to "tarsands," again, that is what we call it. Note that the article does both. I'm not sure why you thus think that the article does not maintain a neutral point of view. Please elaborate. Sunray (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You agree upon the fact that Bitumen is not oil. Great. What about my assertion that Dilbit is not oil? Can you comment directly on that? Thanks.

IMO we have an interesting problem here. Yes there are many verifiable sources required by WP:V which support the claim that tar sands product is "Oil", "Crude Oil", or "Heavy Crude".

However, Dilbit is a relatively new substance. The first use I can find regarding using dilbut as a way to ship bitumen in a pipeline is 1992. (Mehrotra, A. K., “A model for the viscosity of bitumen/bitumen fractions-diluents blends”, J. Can. Petr. Technol., Vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 28-32, 1992)

So taking a new substance and calling it "crude oil" is in fact a new usage, and an overloading of the words "oil" and "crude" which have long historical meanings.

In fact this petition to PHMSA says the same thing, that "Simply put, diluted bitumen and conventional crude oil are not the same substance. There is increasing evidence that the transport of diluted bitumen is putting America's public safety at risk. Current regulations fail to protect the public against those risks. Instead, regulations ... treat diluted bitumen and conventional crude the same."

I hope we can find a way to work this out. Thanks :)

--00:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that bitumen or dilbit is not conventional oil (crude oil; petroleum) but it is unconventional oil (synthetic crude) and in this context it is correct to talk about oil and oil spill. Beagel (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Beagel: 1) Bitumen (raw material) and Dilbit are very different things. You should speak about these things discretely.

2) Also, since the term "oil" is highly overloaded, you should qualify what kind of oil you are talking about. Fuel oil? Lubricating Oil? Salad Oil? I assume you are talking about CRUDE OIL.

3) As far as your first statement: NEITHER Bitumen Nor Dilbit are "crude oil". Bitumen might be considered a COMPONENT of Crude Oil, equivalent to the heaviest fraction.

4) Dilbit is also not Crude Oil, conventional or unconventional. Unconventional oil is like fracked Bakken Shale Oil.

5) Dilbit might be considered a SYNTHETIC form of Crude oil, but a very poor substitution, due to being weighted towards the heaviest tar/bitumen, and towards the lightest NGLs used as diluents. Fully upgraded Dilbit is an entirely different product indeed, Syncrude, which chemically more resembles traditional broad-spectrum crude oil, however, again we must stress that it is a SYNTHETIC product.

6) Since for 250 years the term "Crude Oil" has referred to a natural product, we need to stress that Dilbit is a SYNTHETIC product, to avoid confusion. --Bill Huston ^(talk) 04:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Oil and crude oil are not synonyms. While crude oil is always oil, not all oils are crude oil. From that point, the term "oil spill" is correct. So, for naming it "oil spill" it is not relevant if it is conventional oil or unconventional oil, including "oil sands-based synthetic crudes and derivative products" as defined by the International Energy Agency. We have articles like Unconventional oil, Oil sands, Synthetic crude, Dilbit etc, so we don't need to argue these definitions here. Beagel (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Bill, I don't think you will get anywhere with the argument that "dilbit is a synthetic product." Bitumen is natural and the condensates used to dilute it are refined products of petroleum. The term "oil spill" is commonly used for dilbit spills. This is an encyclopedia. We write articles based on reliable sources. In this case sources refer to what happened in Mayflower as an "oil spill." Wikipedia's policies on naming are clear and I do not see a case for renaming this article. Sunray (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see case here that supports the argument that the article is not neutral. Would you be able to briefly summarize the case for non-neutrality with reference to WP policies? Otherwise, the neutrality and factual accuracy tags will be removed. Sunray (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hearing nothing further, I have removed the "factual accuracy" and "dispute" tags. Sunray (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2013 Mayflower oil spill. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160408082235/http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_350CB6046885E635DE801181456A0395E7D50900/filename/420135027_Final_Order_10012015.pdf to http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_350CB6046885E635DE801181456A0395E7D50900/filename/420135027_Final_Order_10012015.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405210649/http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_8699.html to http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_8699.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711150942/http://www.sfgate.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-Report-blames-Ark-pipeline-bust-on-defects-4657137.php to http://www.sfgate.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-Report-blames-Ark-pipeline-bust-on-defects-4657137.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102003630/http://dms.ntsb.gov/public%2F44500-44999%2F44911%2F393375.pdf to http://dms.ntsb.gov/public%2F44500-44999%2F44911%2F393375.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304094851/http://mycommittees.api.org/standards/ecs/sc5/Technical%20Papers/electricresistanceweldfailures.pdf to http://mycommittees.api.org/standards/ecs/sc5/Technical%20Papers/electricresistanceweldfailures.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

therealitywelivein.com

Since its earliest revision, this article has included a citation to a fringe-theory website called disclose.tv.

@Sunray: Since you added this citation to the article, can you find a more reliable source to replace it? Jarble (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Quite right. The sentence was not supported by reliable sources. I've removed it. Sunray (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)