View source for Talk:Energy East

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Chemicals|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=low|on=yes}}
{{WikiProject Energy}}
{{WikiProject Companies}}
{{WikiProject Environment}}
}}

== Requested move ==

== Requested moves ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: "Energy East pipeline" moved to [[Energy East]] as requested, with a hatnote for [[Iberdrola USA]]. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 21:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

----

* [[:Energy East pipeline]] → {{no redirect|Energy East}}
* [[:Energy East]] → {{no redirect|Energy East (disambiguation)}}
– Currently the [[Energy East]] redirect goes to the [[Iberdrola USA]] article; the American brandname Energy East hasn't been in use since 2007.  The modern pipeline project in Canada is the main modern usage.  The secondary disambiguation title proposed here would be TWODAB so not necessary; really this is about removing the "pipeline" dab from the Canadian project; rather than a TWODAB a change of hatnote on the Iberdrola article would suffice.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 06:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC) [[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 06:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]].  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[WP:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== NPOV Dispute ==

This article shows issues with neutrality throughout. Much of the weasel words were cleaned up but neutrality issues still remain.  For example, the article still has major sections on controversy and process issues, while containing no sections on benefits or history.

The description section is very small and does not give enough detail of the project to warrant the size of the controversy section as readers cannot become familiar with the project to understand what the controversy is about.  <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.30.146.110|96.30.146.110]] ([[User talk:96.30.146.110|talk]]) 02:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The article continues to be reverted to original biased views. When attempting to make the article more neutral user Rockypedia continues to revert it back without discussion. Specifically here is an example "Energy East is one of the most controversial projects in North American history." How is this uncited statement neutral and worthy to be included in an article?

:I have removed obvious weasel words to make the article a bit better and added this discussion on the issue. The reverts were made without any discussion on this topic.[[Special:Contributions/24.222.225.164|24.222.225.164]] ([[User talk:24.222.225.164|talk]]) 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Extremly biased view not at all the scope or purpose of the project. A political opinion, not based on fact.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.79.230.41|66.79.230.41]] ([[User talk:66.79.230.41|talk]]) 00:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== RfC on contents of pipeline ==
{{discussion top}}
{{consensus|1=I’m afraid I do not see a consensus for one specifc option, however, it seems that simply saying “bitumen” does not have a consensus either, so while normally we would retain the status quo in this situation that also seems problematic. I would therefore suggest that the last two comments in this discussion be considered as a compromise solution. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)}}

Is "bitumen" the correct term to describe what the pipeline transports? 21:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC) The term "bitumen" refers to unrefined extra-heavy crude<ref>[http://www.aoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/HRES-3.10.11-Lunch-Learn-BP-Heavy-Oil1.pdf Heavy Oil vs. Light Oil], BP Review</ref> which cannot be pumped through pipelines, as it is far too viscous <ref>[https://www.cepa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CEPA_Diluted-Bitumen3.pdf Canadian Energy Pipeline Diluted Bitumen in Pipelines], Association</ref>. 

I suggest changing the term to "crude oil" (as per official TransCanada statement<ref>https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:29iobGpFoOYJ:https://www.transcanada.com/globalassets/pdfs/oils-and-liquids/energy-east/transcanada-about-energy-east-2017.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca{{dead link}}</ref>{{dead link}}) or at the very least "diluted bitumen" (although there is no evidence to support the pipeline would carry diluted bitumen and NOT synthetic crude, which make up about a 60/40 split of oil sands production<ref>[http://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/technical/product-streams Products from the ooil sands: Delibit, Synbit & Synthetic crude explained], ''Oil Sands Magazine''</ref>), thus I feel it would be most correct to change the term to "crude oil" and not "bitumen". [[Special:Contributions/24.51.248.130|24.51.248.130]] ([[User talk:24.51.248.130|talk]]) 21:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

===Survey===
*'''Yes, bitumen is the correct term''' Bitumen is the simplest and most accurate term. There are multiple reliable sources that refer to the proposed Energy East pipeline as carrying bitumen.[http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/jen-gerson-in-a-calgary-ballroom-panel-hashes-out-grim-wake-for-energy-east-pipeline The National Post], [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/business/canada-energy-east-pipeline.html The NYT], [http://vancouversun.com/commodities/energy/this-16b-alberta-b-c-oil-pipeline-has-first-nations-backing-heres-why-it-may-still-never-get-built/wcm/3ef35099-4d39-4254-83b4-2e4c9e03cca7 The Vancouver Sun], among others, use the term, and muddying the issue by saying "it's actually dilbit" or "it's actually synthetic crude" is unnecessarily confusing at best, and at worst, it's an attempt to soften the image of the pipeline and its parent company, because bitumen is more emissions-intensive and therefore isn't good PR. At any rate, it's bitumen that's being extracted from the oil sands in Alberta, and that's what ultimately would've been transported via this pipeline, no matter what % of chemicals they planned to dilute it with. [[User:Rockypedia|Rockypedia]] ([[User talk:Rockypedia|talk]]) 21:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
::I disagree. "Bitumen is the simplest and most accurate term." Incorrect. Simplest, maybe, but certainly not most accurate. See my references for details. "There are multiple reliable sources that refer to the proposed Energy East pipeline as carrying bitumen." Makes no difference, incorrect use of the word "bitumen" by reliable sources does not change the incorrect use of the word. Journalists at the NYT, National Post, Vancouver Sun, etc. should not be considered more correct than the actual definitions of the terms as set out by the AOGA and CEPA. "it's an attempt to soften the image of the pipeline and its parent company, because bitumen is more emissions-intensive and therefore isn't good PR" Thank you for clarifying that you are attempting to make the company look bad. It is, in fact, an attempt to use the correct terminology. You are correct that extracting bitumen is more emissions-intensive, but you are incorrect in assuming the only reason to not use the term is PR. The point of the page is to give readers facts. Include somewhere that bitumen would be extracted from the oil sands, diluted into dilbit or synthetic crude and then shipped through the pipeline - but the fact remains that the pipeline does ''not'' carry bitumen. 21:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
::I would like to add as well that a number of sources also use the term "crude oil", or simply "crude", such as the CBC<ref>"[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/neb-hearings-new-brunswick-conclude-1.3721846 Maliseet First Nations voice concerns on Energy East pipeline]", ''CBC News'', 16 August 2016</ref>, ''Globe and Mail'', and even the National Energy Board<ref>[http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/nrgyst/index-eng.html#s2 News Releases], National Energy Board, </ref>, so the use of the term by certain news outlets is not a valid reason to continue using it. 02:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.51.248.130|24.51.248.130]] ([[User talk:24.51.248.130#top|talk]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Bitumen is not quite accurate''' per comments below.  Why overcomplicate this.  How about: 
 The '''Energy East pipeline''' was a proposed petroleum pipeline in Canada. It would deliver diluted [[Oil sands|bitumen]] from Western Canada and North Western United States to Eastern Canada, from receipt points in [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]] and [[North Dakota]] to refineries and port terminals in [[New Brunswick]] and possibly [[Quebec]].

*'''Diluted Bitumen and/or Crude''' - that seems to be the most accurate per the available sources.  If you're making the argument that it should be called bitumen because that's what the product is before being changed to make it suitable for transport, why not say that the pipeline is transporting old dinosaurs - after all, that's what the product was before becoming a fossil fuel.  A compromise position might be to include the word diluted in brackets, "(diluted) [[Oil sands|bitumen]]", but I think that adding the fact that it isn't pure bitumen being transported is worthwhile for accuracy.  I don't know that this necessarily helps the company, PR-wise, as the diluents themselves bring a new level of toxicity from the bitumen itself. [[User:PGWG|PGWG]] ([[User talk:PGWG|talk]]) 13:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Bitumen and/or crude oil''' Bitumen is simply [[asphalt]], a mostly refined product, quite rarely extracted from the ground as such. Asphalt or bitumen is the [[Petroleum_refining_processes#Refining_end-products|lowest, heaviest product]] in the [[crude oil]] refining tower. Pipelines, in constantly high temperatures, can be used for the transport of crude and asphalt interchangeably, after the materials to be transported are put through various necessary processes.<ref>Hart, Abarasi. "[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13202-013-0086-6 A review of technologies for transporting heavy crude oil and bitumen via pipelines]", ''Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology'', September 2014, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 327–336</ref>-[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 08:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

*'''Crude Oil or Diluted Bitumen'''   appear to be the most accurate. And I agree with PGWG's point and consider it to be important on this....you don't label something that has been transformed by the name of the main ingredient prior to the transformation.    And the expertise and objectivity of sources with respect to the area where they are being cited should be taken into account. <b><span style="color:#0000cc;">''North8000''</span></b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 11:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

*'''Oil pipeline''' in the opening sentence, explain later in the body text. Diluted bitumen is also oil. The same discussion seems to be started again and again in almost every article related to the crude oil produced from oil sands. However, if we look articles like [[Keystone Pipeline]] or [[Alberta Clipper pipeline]], they are using the term oil pipeline. Also, this article is categorized in [[:Category:Oil pipelines in Canada]]. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 11:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
::Comment: "Oil pipeline" is not wrong at all, especially if we mean to consolidate information. Note, however, that most (in number) petroleum pipelines in the world carry refined products - from refineries to installations, from installations to shipping ports or other installations, etc. But the term proposed is fine. "Oil" has come to mean the whole gamut of petroleum. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
====References====
{{reflist}}
{{discussion bottom}}