Talk:Oil shale/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

USGS vs EIA

It's worth noting that the 'USGS' figures in the first paragraph are nearly double the EIA's figures. I don't know which is correct. Dan100 10:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

...but as I can include a reference and I see no reason why this publication should be inaccurate, I've changed the figures to these. Dan100 11:39, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Economics

Are the dollar figures noted in this section US dollars, or other; and at what time? This [1] seems to say US$30/bbl in 2005 is the floor for economic production rather than the $40/bbl stated in the article. --69.157.100.206 16:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It probably depends upon details of each study. It doesn't matter much. OPEC does not have to follow market forces and can drop the price at any time so as to drive a price-sensitive competitor out of business. (SEWilco 18:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC))

Not nowadays it can't. The Saudis and other OPEC countries are already producing about as much oil as they can. —wwoods 18:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In what way is the price set by OPEC related to the upper limit of their production rate? Couldn't they cut their production rate to one barrel a day and sell it for $20 if they so desired? (SEWilco 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

Sure, but then whoever they sold their oil to could turn around and resell it at the market price, which is the price at which overall production and overall consumption are ~equal. By cutting production, OPEC could raise the price of oil. (Which maybe would push the world into a depression, which would lower the demand for oil and hence lower the price...)

—wwoods 21:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know how market forces work. However, the point here is that it is not right to be using OPEC-driven market prices as a guide for when a competitor to OPEC becomes competitive. There is a flaw in that logic, as OPEC can choose to undercut the price of a competitor and force the competitor into an unprofitable situation. (SEWilco 22:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

With the discovery of the 2 trillion barrel deposit below Colorado, the stakes in the "Shale Oil Recovery" game just went through the roof. Shale oil is now the single biggest fossil fuel resource on earth and the US has possibly as much as 72% of the total. Historically, when prosented with a potentially huge profit, US producers have found a way to exploit the resource. Even with conventional methods, the production of the Colorado reserves would be more profitible than Gold Mining per ton of material. Having followed my Grandfather into the petroleum industry, I feel comfortable in predicting that the shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountains will yeild in excess of 20 billion dollars (US) per annum by 2010. -VeeRay-

Getting Oil Shale to Relieve Looming Oil Shortage. Under the assumptions a) oil shale can be extracted economically at $30-$40 per barrel; b) US shale reserves about equal to estimated world oil reserves; c) the US government could guarantee a large scale purchase of oil from oil shale at $40/ barrel to be put either into reserve or sold on the market with say a 10 billion per year to support commercial production could we bring stability to the oil maket price? This would effectively cap the long term price of oil at some deliverable level. --WalterSchneiderPittsburgh 13:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[[2]]

Shales and Sands

What's the difference between tar sands and oil shales? --Atlastawake 20:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Tar Sands consist of Bitumen mixed in a soil. Oil Shale is a shale (which is a rock) which contains a large quanitity of Kerogen (IIRC all shales contain some Kerogen). According to the chemists, Bitumen has a lower average molecular weight then Kerogen and is soluble in carbon disulphide. These differences make Bitumen easier to refine into oil. Toiyabe 17:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Reserves

I've added the Confusing tag to the Reserves section. This section switches back and forth between talking about some countries having certain amounts of billions of tons of oil shale, and others having certain numbers of billions of barrels. --Xyzzyplugh 18:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Biased economics

The following refers to the section "Economics" in the article.

This section is incredibly biased towards the Oil Tech process and appears to be written by a promoter. No credible comparative economic study I've seen has come to this conclusion--one can only reach a defendable conclusion by using and disclosing a consistent set of economic assumptions. For example, there is no mention of the 1990 NRC report "Fuels to Drive our Future", which tried to compare different oil shale processes with other sources of synthetic fuels using consistent economic assumptions. That is not to say that the Oil Tech process should be dismissed out of hand, but there is no objective basis for making these claims in an encyclopedia.

The Oil Tech process is merely one of hundreds that have been tried, and there is no technical basis for its prominence in a general article on oil shale. It would be far better to present a systematic classification table based on heat source, heat transfer method, above or below ground, and then give multiple examples of the various types.

The same problem is true for the statement that the Oil Tech process would be environmentally safe. Even if it were true, there is no independent study I've seen, and certainly none referenced here, to substantiate that claim. It is certainly true that open-pit mining is cheaper than room and pillar mining and is necessary if aboveground shale oil production is to be a significant player in our energy needs, but is it universally accepted that digging up large fractions of the Uinta and Piceance Basin and returning it as a different material is environmentally safe? This conclusion is somewhere between unsubstantiated and subjective. Akburnham 00:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)A. K. Burnham

Environmental Considerations

This section is equally flawed and appears to be written by someone who has no direct experience with oil shale. First, by what basis does the author claim that waste rock is a known carcinogen? Even if it were true for waste rock from some specific process, the differences in spent shale from different processes are vast, so it cannot be generally true. The statement that rock expands by about 30% after processing due to a popcorn effect is obsurd urban legend. The increase in mined oil shale volume occurs efore processing merely because there are interparticle voids introduced to any solid when it is broken up, and the fractional increase depends on the width of the particle size distribution. Beds of oil shale do not expand during retorting, as I have observed hundreds of times. A rare exception can occur for extremely rich oil shale veins (~60 gal/ton), which may froth during pyrolysis like a coking coal, but such cases are vanishingly small in importance, do not occur under load, and can be easily compacted away if they do occur.

Akburnham 00:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)A. K. Burnham

Anyone can edit. Find sources and add details, delete what is wrong and unsourced. (SEWilco 04:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Rather than delete, most would try to fix it or flag it for someone else to fix.LeadSongDog 23:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Classification of processes

According to the Alan K. Burnham, James R. McConaghy "Comparison of the Acceptability of Various Oil Shale Processes" (see footnote 13), the Alberta Taciuk Process (ATP) is classified as conduction through a wall (various fuels). User by the IP address 59.100.34.181 changed this classification of ATP to the hot recycled solids (inert or burned shale). Is it possible to get some reference confirming this classification? By my knowledge, ATP is quite different from Galoter and other processes it's put together right now. Beagel 08:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A diagram of the ATP internals is on the developer's site (http://www.uma.aecom.com/MarketsAndServices/41/64/index.jsp). A more detailed sketch and description are in Southern Pacific Petroleum N.L. Annual Report 2000 p15. Both indicate that spent shale is recycled from the combustion zone to the retort zone which puts the ATP in the hot recycled solids class. However, the ATP process does use heat transfer by conduction through a wall to dry the raw shale prior to the hot solids recycle. The Galoter (http://www.kirj.ee/oilshale/6_golubev_2003_3s.pdf) also uses a different heating method (externally generated hot gas) to dry the raw shale. There are several other errors in the Burnham and McConaghy reference. For example, the Paraho Direct and Indirect are interchanged (Pforzheimer, H. "paraho Oil Shale Project" Symposium of Aternate Fuel Resouces, Santa Maria, CA March 25-27. 1976) and Petrosix uses externally generated hot gas (Hohmann,J.P., Martignoni, W.P., Novicki, R.E.M., Piper, E.M. "PETROSIX - A successful oil shale operational complex" Proceedings of the Eastern Oil Shale Symposium, Lexington, Kentucky, Nov 17,1992 p.4-11).59.100.34.181 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I was confused because of using conduction through a wall to dry the raw shale. And, of course, the design of ATP and Galoter retorts are quite different. I hope the classification is done correctly right now. Do you like to check also the section concerning insitu process? I don't have myself knowledge on insitu process.Beagel 07:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not as familiar with insitu processes, but what has been written is consistent with my understanding. Nice work!59.100.34.181 11:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The previous contributor, who did an excellent job describing the diversity of oil shale processes, noted and corrected the classification errors I made in my hurriedly written AICHE paper. Those errors were caught, and a corrected table was presented at the 26th Oil Shale Symposium in Golden, Oct 2006. I have changed the reference to that paper, which was unfortunately left out of the CD just distributed by the CSM but can be downloaded from the LLNL library web site. I would also request that someone in the oil shale community who knows a lot more than me about environmental issues upgrade that section, which is still not very good.

Thank you Alan. I have a feeling that different in-situ processes need more detailed descriptions. Unfortunately I don't knew much about in-situ processes. Maybe you would like to take a care of in-situ section?

I agree that environmental section needs to be improved. I have also problem with the table US Companies with Oil Shale operations or pilot projects. I don't think this is complete list. Also, somebody added Petrobras to this list. Maybe we should change the list global and add also Fushun Mining Group, VKG, Eesti Energia and other producers to the list? Or maybe we should remove the table at all? Beagel 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Development of this article

I think that this article is quite stable. However, some issues need clarification or further work.

• Current state of the oil shale industry. It seems to be clear that right noe the most extensive oil shale industries are In Estonia, China and Brazil. All they use oil shale for shale oil production, Estonia and China also for firing power plants and Estonia for the cement production. Germany use oil shale only for the cement production and for firing thermal power plant. It's not clear about Russia. In Slantsy the oil shale mine was closed, processing plant was converted to petrochemical plant and the power station was shifted from oil shale to gas. It was said that also the mine in Syzran is closed, but the processing plant continues to work and a new plant is planned together with reopening of mine. Does anybody has an informaation, which is the current state of play? It needs also clarification if the shale-fired power plant in Israel is in use or not?
• The environmental section needs to be upgraded and move information about the environmental impacts of mining and oil shale processing is needed.
• Probably also the geological section needs more detailed information.
• Different in-situ processes need more detailed descriptions.
• Current status of the U.S. oil shale programs. The Interior Department issued oil shale research, development and demonstration leases to five companies http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2006/december/blm_announces_waiver.html but is there any other projects or activities?

Beagel 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Per your request, or part of it, I've provided a link for the citation of the section of environmental concerns. Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001^(T+C+U) 17:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Efficiency

Efficency? Nowhere in the article, energy efficiency is mentioned. How much energy do I have to invest to harvest 1 calory in shale oil? Or one could also ask the question in a diffenerent way: How much is the total CO2 output if I want to get 1 MJ of energy from shale oil compared to conventional oil? If some of the processes need months of electrical (!!) heating before extraction, this sounds ridiculous. The processes might be economically viable because liquid fuels yield extremely high prices these days compared to, let's say, coal or even natural gas but might result in a net reduction of fossile fuel resources. Does anybody have data to answer these crucial questions?

Shell reported the EROEI of their In-situ Conversion Process to be 3:1 or even 3.5:1.Beagel 19:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Information about the EROEI of oil shale is added.Beagel 08:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Figure about production from selected deposits

The figure about production of oil shale from selected world oil-shale deposits from 1880 to 2000 seems to be the most classical figure about the oil shale industry, which repeats from paper to paper (e.g. [3] page 76; [4] page 240; [5] page 5). I think this is a good figure, which should be added to the history section of current article. Unfortunately it's not clear if this image is free or not. Unfortunately I also didn't find the base data to construct new figure. Can anybody help with this? Beagel 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

N America

I;ve jsut been looking at a Wood Mackenzie on oil shale and they have listed the largest in-situ reserves in N America as being in the Unita-Piceance basin with 1,214 Bn bbls followed by Greater Green River with 244 bn bbls, Illinois Basin with 234 bn bbls and finally the Appalachian basin with 184 bn bbls. Currently the article has Green river and the Appalachian as the most significant basins. Any objections if i change it around Philbentley 17:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Classification of geology

Just been havign a read through the USGS report on oil shales and noticed that they have used a different method to classify oil shales than , S Lee was using in his Oil Shale Technology book. The USGS are using a method by Hutton which is based upon their depositional enviroment while the method by Lee was based upon their mineral content. They can both line up toghether in the sense that siliceous shale are likely to be formed in a Marine Depositional enviroment and Lacustrine oil shale is likely to carbonate rich oil shale. Think a rewording perhaps of the introduction to the Geology section could help. Philbentley 08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Both classifications are mentioned and sourced, although the classification by Hutton seems to be more used. Beagel 11:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Formation in the United States

Maybe to move this information under Reserves section? Beagel 12:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Split

This article is too long for the FA nomination. I propose to split it into two articles:

• Oil shale - would consists current article's geology and reserves sections, and short summary of oil shale industry
• Oil shale industry - would consists short introduction plus current sections of industry, economics, and environmental considerations.

To keep these articles' length appropriate, I propose not to add too much country specific details into these articles, but to create country related articles, particularly about oil shale in the United States. Possible country-specific articles could be:

• Oil shale reserves and industry in the United States - there is lot of information about the United States in the current article, and active developments are going on.
• Oil shale reserves and industry in Brazil - maybe also merge Petrosix article into this?
• Oil shale reserves and industry in Estonia
• Oil shale reserves and industry in China

Maybe also country specific articles about oil shale in Australia, Canada, and e.g. Scotland (historical review).

Any comments on these proposals? I would like ask also opinions if the article is ready for FA (or at least GA) nomination (actually two articles after split)? Beagel 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the idea of the split, just because of the length if nothing else. However, for country-specific information, it seems to me that it would be more useful to have it in one place. Even though there are several country-specific separate articles in Category:Petroleum, there is not a suite of articles on "Oil (or Petroleum) in X". There is such a suite for several countries on "Energy policy in X" but not for oil reserves, production, etc. by country. Not saying that is how it should be, but suggesting that until we see how the country-specific info develops in terms of size etc., maybe keep together; it can always be subdivided later. Just my Two Cents (US). Cheers Geologyguy 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beagal

I agree with you that the article needs breaking up, esp when you look at the layout of other FA articles and there is certinally enough info to do it well. Personally I think we could create one shorter oil shale article and still cover the current headings which i think provide a good and broad overview of the subject and then each subject could be spun off into its own article.

• Geology : One Paragraph, describing the three types and what it is made of

• Formation: Paragraph describing the three depostional enviroments

• Reserves: The current three paragraphs sum it up nicely with the table

• Industry Usage: Desrcribe the three uses, mining, power and oil

• Extraction : one paragraph each for ex-situ and in-situ methods

• Economics: three paragraphs, hisotrically, current cost per BOE, and energy usage

• Enviroment: two paragrpahs

so 12 paragraphs give or take. And we have enough info in the current article to give good spin off versiosn for each of the sub headings. I think the only thing i am wary of is putting reserves and industry togther and then divided by country. I would have put all industry togther and all reserves and formations togther. Cheers Philbentley 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with this. Probably the best way is to create a spin-off article in the first place, and make the relevant section of the main article shorter only after transfer of all relevant information. Otherwise we may lost some information. Also, I'm not sure if we are able to create seven good spin-off articles at the same time, so maybe it could be more practical to go forward with "pizza slicks tactics" and start with one split. But if we get involved enough editors, why not.Beagel 21:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, could we name the spin off article Oil Shale Geology, Oil Shale Economics etc, that would be in keeping with the petroleum industry in general, i.e. Petroleum geology,

I read SandyGeorgia's comments as well, do you want to tackle these once we've created the spin off articles. Cheers Philbentley 05:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

These things have to be done. I am little bit busy in this and next week, but right now I try to fix the citations. I also discovered that WEC has removed PDFs with its report's sections and only full report of energy resources is available. That means the the report should be listed under biography and every reference to this report has to include also page number. Will work with this.

Went ahead and started creating the sub articles, haven't doen anything more than copy from this article and paste it in. The main article is still as it was. Was thinking though that Oil Shale Formation could be re-directed to Oil Shale Geology instead of having its own article. Philbentley 08:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that merging formation and geology is a good idea. I am not sure about the title, e.g. petroleum geology is about different subject. Suggest to ask Geologyguy what he suggests for the title. Maybe include also reserves into the same article?

I will change the capitalization of spin-off articles per WP:MSH. Beagel 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beagel. Sorry i didn't mean to say the geology section should be merged with petroleum geology, rather the naming of the spin offs from oil shale would be good if it was Oil shale XXXXX etc etc

I've put reserves in their own section, only really because that is similar to what had been done with Oil reserves, Oil shale geology this way just sticks to the geological aspects of oil shale . I see how reserves and geology are linked and they can be merged but i think they work well seperatley as well. not really too bothered. Philbentley 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I think Beagel's titles would work fine; parallelism with oil/petroleum would be logical and encyclopedic, but certainly not required if the information does not warrant it. "Reserves" is sort of a cross-over topic, has fingers in the basics (geology, formation, etc) as well as (moreso??) in economics, development, industry. So I'd go with whatever seems more logical depending on the specific focus and content of the section(s). Thanks for the work and improvement on these articles. Cheers Geologyguy 19:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy from the user page

Dear Beagel, This article has grown considerably since I looked at it last. In general, it is very good. I noticed a few things that need to be fixed, and I would hope to do that this weekend. Since it has grown so large, perhaps it would be better split into two articles. The environmental section is still weak by comparison. The in-situ technologies are not completely covered--MIS is missing--and the EGL process description is not correct. Alan

As a followup to my previous statement, I have written a few more short paragraphs on In Situ activities from the previous boom and will add them now to the main article. I also added to the reactive fluids paragraph and fixed the EGL paragraph. Finally, I added a reference to one of my papers relating oil shale retorting to petroleum formation in the Uinta basin. The changes alone are on the discussion page between Beagel and myself. AKBurnham

Shale oil redirect

Hi all, I'm not exactly sure where this is meant to go but the other day I noticed that if I type "Shale Oil" instead of "Oil shale" it directs me to the more advanced page on "Oil Shale Extraction" and the user misses the other important debates and pages in the "Oil Shale" introductory page, which also lists the environmental concerns and links to the environmental effects page. (When I first typed "Shale Oil" and went to the Extraction page, I was not even aware of the other comprehensive environmental pages on Oil Shale, and thought Big Oil had been in here and deleted them all! ;-)

I don't know how to redirect "Shale Oil" to the basic "Oil Shale" introductory page, so I'll leave it with you. (I'm still a newbie.) Cheers.

Best Regards, Eclipse Now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipsenow (talk • contribs) 21:40, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Shale oil is not a same as oil shale. Oil shale is a sedimentary rock while shale oil is an oil produced from oil shale or potential amount of oil containing in oil shale. This is a reason why shale oil was redirected to the oil shale extraction. If you think it will be better to redirect to oil shale, I have nothing against it. Right now I will add "See also" section to the Oil shale extraction article. Beagel 06:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Spinoff articles

Seems to me that rather much of the spinoff content is still present inline. I'm particularly looking at Extraction. Any reason not to trim down the inline part to a para or two?

I'm not sure if there are automated tools with {{main|spinoff}} to help ease this process (it would seem to be a recurring need in WP). It's somewhat complicated by the referencing style (particularly all the refs to WEC pages) but I'm sure it could be handled somehow. User:LeadSongDog 2007-08-29T11:03:06 (reconstructed sig)

No specific reason, so if you see how to trim it, you are welcome to do this. If I understood you correctly, the Extraction inline consists two para and the table of classification of technologies. Did you mean removing this table? Beagel 2007-08-29T13:53:22 (reconstructed sig)

I mostly meant the text. I'll take a crack at it.LeadSongDog 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, at that I did take out the extraction table from this article and restructured Industry. See if you think its an improvement.LeadSongDog 21:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking dates inside of reference template

In the old peer review SandyGeorgia suggest to wikify (link) when a full date is given, according to the WP:MOSNUM. The reason is that while the accessdate parameter is automatically linked, the date parameter isn't. WP:MOSNUM says also that full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. Years with full dates should be linked. So, I understand that full date is normally formatted, while week days and month are not.Beagel 05:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

However, also only make links that are relevant to the context - although on that page it is acknowledged that there is not consensus about this. Cheers Geologyguy 13:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus. However, linking the full dates was suggested during both peer reviews (latest: Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked), so I will link the full dates. Beagel 05:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Limited succes v. temporary success

I wonder, if it is more correct to say that "attempts to develop oil shale reserves, have had limited success", or "attempts to develop oil shale reserves, have had temporary success". While in the U.S. context "temporary success" is correct, in global context "limited success" seems more suitable, because some countries (particularly Estonia and China) have stable and continuous oil shale industry over decades. What you suggest? Beagel 05:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Copyedit has been completed and the concerns have been expressed in the main article itself... Most of the sources/references are pdf files and its difficult to download each of them and go thru it....if possible then pls provide alternate references wherever possible.Gprince007 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I am from the WP:LoCE and wanted to let you know that we are unable to complete a final proofread of Gprince007's copyedit, due to the many changes that have been made to the article since then. You are welcome to relist the article with us after your development has slowed. Thanks! Galena11 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

kukersite

Just removed the wikilink to kukersite because it redirects back to this article. The term kukersite either needs removal from the photo captions, or definition somewhere in this article, or its own article. Using it only in a photo caption without definition is confusing. BTY, I believe it is an important type of oil shale. --Zamphuor 12:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope the current solution is ok. The main article about different type of oil shales is Oil shale geology. I agree that kukersite as one of the most important oil shales needs its own article.Beagel 12:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I put a new link to the Oil shale geology article where there is some info on kukersite. Agree that it could have its own article. --Zamphuor 13:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Re the sentence "Total world resources of oil shale are estimated at 411 Gt, which is enough to yield 2.9 to 3.3 trillion (2.9 to 3.3 x 1012) U.S. barrels." It needs a reference, and a wlink to the metric Gt. Novickas 19:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

References added (these figures are included also in the lead).Beagel 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nice. But I must say I disagree with the importance rating, altho I hesitate to change it, not being a member of the energy project. Novickas 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What you propose for the importance rating?Beagel 20:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

High. Novickas 20:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, I have edited this article significantly, so probably I am not the right person to upgrade the ratings.Beagel 20:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, now I've done it too, so we'll have to wait for someone else. Novickas 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! There's one little thing I personally would like to see: what percent of Estonia's electrical demand does that plant meet? It would support the energy independence statement in the lead. Best, Novickas 12:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the "Estonian Energy in Figures 2005" Narva Power Plants produce 95% of electricity produced in Estonia. http://www.mkm.ee/doc.php?173480, p.35 Beagel 15:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article

This article is well written and well referenced, and an excellent overview of the topic. I was particularly impressed with the breadth of coverage, from geology and history to economics and the environment. The article meets all of the GA criteria... Johnfos 23:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats Great news! Well done to everyone Philbentley 19:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada

Canada has 9th largest deposits in the world, but its share in the world total is less than 1% (see: Oil shale reserves). Alberta has huge oil sands reserves, but oil shales and oil sands are very different things (from geological point of view). Beagel 07:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Informal peer review

Apologies for the delay - I hope the following comments are useful.

• Lead: 'and the hydrocarbon in it is not truly oil.' It is an oil, though, isn't it? Are oil and petroleum (the piped link from oil) truly synonyms? The Petroleum and Oil articles suggest not. Perhaps call it 'Crude oil' instead?

Y Done. Used crude oil instead of oil.Beagel (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Geology: Wikilink sedimentary rock?

Wikilink to sedimentary rock is used in the lead,no need to link same term again.Beagel (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Geology: 'It is differentiated from bitumen-impregnated rocks (tar sands and petroleum reservoir rocks), humic coals and carbonaceous shale.[1] In oil shales, the kerogen has not yet been naturally cooked into petroleum by heat and pressure.' Perhaps link those two with a colon or semi-colon to make the linkage clearer? Should 'cooked' really be in italics? I assume it's being used as a technical term, but surely its commonly understood meaning is very similar here?

Y Done. Combined two sentences and replaced 'cooked' with 'transformed'.Beagel (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to start the wikilink count again from the beginning of the main article - I think that's a personal preference though.
• Geology: It might be helpful to gloss 'lacustrine' in the text - since the term is only tangentially of interest here, you don't really want readers to have to click off-article to find out what it means.

Y Done. Beagel (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reserves: You might need to be a bit more specific about what U.S. barrel means - presumably it's barrels of the crude oil equivalent that can be made from the shale? Perhaps link to Barrel_(unit)#Oil_barrel? If oil is measured in tonnes outside the States, should an equivalent in tonnes be provided for the measurement in barrels?

Y Done. Linked to the oil barrel and added equivalent in tonnes.Beagel (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• History: I would like to see a little more on the use of oil shale in ancient times; what was it use for, as a minimum. I note that the main article History of the oil shale industry, although it also contains the statement that oil shale was used in ancient times, doesn't give any history before 1596. My understanding of ancient times is anything before 400 AD (you might want to check that's a standard figure, though!). The early uses described are from the Middle Ages (very late Middles Ages at that).

It is a problematic issue. Several sources like [6], [7] or [8] say that oil shale is used since ancient times without giving any specific example or reference. [9] says that "Speight (1990) reports that oil shales were sources of fuel as early as 800 A.D., oil shale deposits in what is now the British Isles were worked during Phoenician times, and applications of oil shale as fuel in Austria have been recorded as early as 1350 A.D." [10] says that "The Mongol Hordes, also realised the potential of arrows capped with flaming oil shales in spreading fear across the known world." It also says that "Of the alternative fuels the Mesopotamians used rock oil for architectural adhesives, ship caulks, medicines, and roads around 3000 B.C.", although I can't say for sure if 'rock oil' means oil extracted from the oil shale (shaleoil) or not. Any suggestion what to do with the early history?Beagel (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there are no sources for what the uses in ancient times were, there's not a great deal you can do. I'd suggest just making the difference between ancient times (where it was used, but we don't know what for) and medieval times (AD 400 - 1500 ish), when we start to have some detail, clearer. 4u1e (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I hope the difference between acient and modern times is more clear. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• History: It would be good to have a brief comment on why commercial exploitation of oil shale started when it did.

The modern explotation of shale started in 19th century because of industralization and limited access to the crude oil. However, I can't find any good reference for this. The best one I found is [11]: "The direct combustion of oil shale to produce hot water, steam, and, finally, electricity has developed in accordance with the general trends in solid fuel combustion technology. At the beginning of the 19th century, industrialized countries became more interested in obtaining oil and gas from coal pyrolysis."Beagel (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Explanation added.Beagel (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• History: I should probably know this, but what is a 'commercial leasing program' in this context?

Commercial leasing program for oil shale is a program to commercial oil shale development on public lands according to the Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.[12] Beagel (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Explained. Beagel (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Industry: 'At present, Estonia alone accounts for about 70 % of the world's oil shale production.' Probably better to say 'As of 200X', where 200X is the year of the report from which this figure comes. I'm having trouble reconciling the 70% figure here with the production figures given earlier: if the United States, Russia and Brazil have 86% of the world's resources, it seems unlikely that Estonia has 70% of the world's production. Does this mean 70% of the world's use, or are the major resource holders not using their resources?

Y Done. Replaced with 'As of 2005'. Estonia's 70% is discussed below. As most of oil shale ressources's holders don't use their ressources (less than 1% of ressourced could be classified as reserves), the figure is realistic.

• Industry/Applications: Why is Estonia's usage so high? A legacy from their days in the Soviet Union? If so, why not the other Baltic states?

In Estonia, the deposits are concentrated in North-East of Estonia (the Baltic Oil Shale Bassin, which eastern part is in Leningrad Oblast, Russia). There are no oil shale ressources in other Baltics. The oil shale industry of Estonia was largely developed during Soviet times and was used to supply Leningrad (St. Petersburg) with power and shale gas. However, the industrial use of oil shale started in Estonia already during the World War I.Beagel (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Applications: 'While some countries, such as Romania, have shut down their oil shale-fired power plants, others, including Russia, have switched to other fuel sources.' This is slightly ambiguous; I assume that Russia have switched their existing oil shale-fired power plants to other fuels and Romania have shut them down altogether (and presumably built new power stations for other fuels)?

Y Reworded. There was 330-MW oil shale power plant in Anina, Romania, which was in shut down in 1989.[13] I don't have an information if this plant was converted to use other fuels or any new plant was built at the same site. Russia had two oil shale-fired plants plants in 1930s, both shut down. The 75 MW power plant in Slantsy was converted to use natural gas in 1999.[14] (p. 115) Beagel (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Applications: Perhaps wikilink adsorbent, to prevent well-meaning editors changing it to absorbent.

Y Done. Beagel (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Applications: Uranium production. Was the uranium extracted from the oil shale, or was the oil shale used somehow in the extraction process?

Uranium was extracted from the oil shales.Beagel (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Applications: Could we have a brief comment on the effect of the differences between shale oil and normal crude oil. I assume the general effect would be that shale oil is less useful compared to crude.

Y Done. Added that only middle-distillates could be extracted. Beagel (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Economics: 'have experienced successes' Success? Not sure on that one.

Y Reworded. Although there is no current success to exploit oil shale ressources globally, there have been succesfull periods in certain regions.Beagel (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Economics: The RAND report identified $100 per barrel as the threshold of economic viability. Didn't we hit that limit last year? If so, shouldn't we reflect that in some way?

Reworded. However, there is no reason to believe any immidiate change as a development of technology is a long-term process.Beagel (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Economics: at what EROEI does this become viable? Is it as straightforward as 1:1, or do you allow for other costs? Some context is needed for the figures given.

It is very hard to say. Usually you have to have the EROEI higher than 1:1. However, in certain circumtances, theoretically it could be less 1:1 if cheap input energy or energy which otherwise would to be just wasted, could be used for shale oil extraction in the period of high oil prices. Beagel (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Environmental concerns: I think you need to be specific about what the main environmental impacts are for open pit mining. I would also imagine that environmentalists would also point out that oil shale products (not the process) produce the same pollutants as petroleum products, and that using oil shale is only delaying the problem. Any refs for those points?

Y Done. Beagel (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good overview article, which I found informative and (99% of the time) easy to read. Good work. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this extremely comprehensive and useful review. Re the EROI: I believe all costs are included, except for what economists call externalities, the costs that are borne by the community as a whole. One point, there is a lot of recent media coverage since, as you point out, oil is over $100, but much of it from sources that are not up to the high standards this article is currently using. There's always a lag there, you know, for good reason. Again, thanks so much. Novickas (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This review is very useful. Unfortunately for the week I am away from my usual home and work terminals and have only limited random access to the internet.I hope to address these issues after next week. Concerning the issue of ressources and production,that is true that most of countries having ressources don't have any commercial production. As of today (2008) there is large-scale commercial production only in Estonia,China and Brazil. The share of Estonian production is so high because of electricity production at the oil shale-fired power plants although Chinese shale oil production is increasing very rapidly. After some 15-20 years the largest producers will be probably the United States if oil price is staying high, but this is just a speculation right now. And yes, there are some oil shales which consists small amount of uranium and these oil shales were used in Sweden and Estonia as a source for uranium production. Unfortunately I am not able to contribute more right now.Beagel (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, the comments aren't going anywhere! I may be wrong, but when you talk about Estonia, I don't think you're talking about oil shale production: production surely means digging the stuff out of the ground. Estonia may be processing the stuff, or using it, but I'm pretty sure from what you say that they're not producing it. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should define what oil shale production means? It means mined and, if needed, enriched oil shale ready for further processing (oil production; chemical production; cement industry; power production)ˇ. If it is technically also possible to produce oil from oil shale without mining it before processing (in-situ processing), in practice there is no commercial scale in-situ processing yet, so all commercially processed oil shale is mined. There is commercial scale operating oil shale mines only in Estonia, China (mainly coal mines producing oil shale as by-product), Brazil and Germany, and non-commercial scale operating mines probably in Israel and Russia (Syran?). The biggest oil shale mines are located in Estonia. It is not economically feasible to transport oil shale for processing in long distances, so the preocessing industries should be located near oil shale reserves. So, I think that statement about Estonia producing around 70% world's oil shale production was correct in 2005. [15] (see page 117), although it accounts only around 1% of total world reserves [16] (see p. 101). The reason is that the largest reservers' holders don't have commercial production.Beagel (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - convincing! 4u1e (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Another informal peer review

• 2nd sentence has 4 'it's. Might be worth refering back to the subject for 1.

Y Done. I hope this wording is more clear.Beagel (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The yield link is not exactly in the chemistry sense, the common meaning of yield works fine here so it probably doesn't need linking.

I think that the link is ok, but I have nothing against if you suggest to remove it.Beagel (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I know this section has a main article but do the different shale classification schemes have names? Why are there several schemes? Who uses the different ones?

I dont knew if different classifications have speicific names (except classification based on kerogen type, which is also known as van Krevelen diagram). Dirrefent classifications are based on different properties of oil shale. However, I am not able to say how and where different classifications are used. The main classification seems to be this one which is based on the environment of deposition, developed by A. C. Hutton in 1987. Beagel (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Added more details.Beagel (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to explain 411 x 109 tonnes if you are linking gigton. Equally after the first explanation of trillion I'm not sure you need things like '2.8 to 3.3 trillion (2.8 to 3.3 x 1012)'

Y removed unnecessary explanations.Beagel (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• When writing about the known and unexplored resources can you put dates for these estimates as this text could potentially hang around for years.

Y Estimates by 2005.Beagel (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• why 'supposed shortage of gasoline'?
• did the oil shale industry increase in order to make the vehicles or to fuel them? I can guess which but it would be better to state explicitly.

Y Reworded.Beagel (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• there's no need to mention the price of petroleum in the history section if there are no other prices to compare it with.

Y Removed price info.Beagel (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• what is a 'commercial leasing program for oil shale'? what is it that is leased?

Commercial leasing program for oil shale is a program to commercial oil shale development by leasing oil shale ressources on public lands according to the Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.[17] Beagel (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Explained. Beagel (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• At the start of the Industry section replace the currently with a date. Check for more of these throughout.

Y Done.Beagel (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'As of 2005, Estonia alone accounts' - accounted. In the previous sentence semicolons could be used to break up the lists of countries.

Y Done.Beagel (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to mention 'in/ex situ' if these terms are not used again?

Explained these terms, which are main processing methods.Beagel (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It may well come up again later as we expand, so I think it's best to leave it for now. It's a major distinction in terms of technology and environmental impacts. Novickas (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1st sentence of Economics section. Which 150 years? Is this clause really necessary?

Y removed unnecessary time clause.Beagel (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• 'may be profitable if crude oil prices would stay at least in the range between US$70 to US$95 per barrel (in 2005 dollars)' - if this is pretty much a quote then it might be OK to leave. If not it could be rewritten to make it briefer, I take it the compex won't go unprofitable again at >$95/barrel.

The price range $70-95 was given by RAND, but it was done before crude oil price hit this level. Reworded and gave explanation.Beagel (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Reworded.Beagel (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'experience-based learning' ? learning what based on what? also a doubling of efficiency in 12 years seems quite high especially as you might expect the easiest to extract reserves to be mined first.

Although you may use same technology for almost all all shales, you have to spend a lot of time and money to make the technology work properly with specific oil shale. 'Experience-based learning' means adjusting the technology to suit with properties of specific oil shale. Therefore it takes a time to achieve capacity, which means lower costs per produced shale oil barrel.Beagel (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Removed and reworded.Beagel (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• (for ex situ) does all oil shale extraction take a lot of water then? how much per barrel?

Most of technologies do, but it varies a lot. Have not find any comprahensive figures.Beagel (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The source for ex situ processing is a huge pdf, but good. Novickas (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.Beagel (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• why is the last mention of Colorado in the table linked?

Y link removed. Beagel (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• the petroleum price graph does not display well at the current resolution. Can it be redrawn to use thicker lines & larger text maybe?
• Environment section - 'The oil shale industry can have a negative impact on the surrounding environments, if the risks associated with it are not managed correctly.' - this sentence is rather stating the obvious. I would rewrite this sentence and move this paragraph to after the next i.e. talk what the effects on the environment are 1st and then how this affects the industry after.

Y Done.Beagel (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've not properly looked at all the child articles but from a quick glance they do seem to repeat each other quite a lot, not necessarily a problem, but it may be that not all of them are needed. JMiall₰ 23:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are some repetitions. Actually all spin-off articles are based on the original sections of this article, after which this article mainly summarize spin-off articles. Other issue is a repetition of 'economics' and 'environment' sections. Actually it was insisted during Oil shale extraction GA procidure, that the article talkingabout technologies shoulld also consists 'economics' and 'environment' sections. After that this sections were also added to the Oil shale industry article. Actually I personally don't see a problem, but if you have any suggestion what to do, I will be glad to discuss this. Beagel (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Water usage

"a 2007 programmatic environmental impact statement issued by the US Bureau of Land Management stated that between 2.4 and 6 gallons of water would be required to produce one barrel of oil in surface mining and retort operations." Something is wrong with these figures. I am not able to find where in this source it is said. Instead, at the page 4-3 and 4-4 it says that "Considering the possible range of technology components, it is assumed that 2.6 to 4 bbl of water would be required for production of 1 bbl of shale oil using surface mining/surface retort."[18] RAND says that "Water consumption in producing oil shale is about 3 barrels per barrel of oil." [19] U.S. Water News cites 2006 report by researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which projects water usage between one and three barrels of water per barrel of oil produced.[20] In 1980, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported that net water requirements, in terms of the number of barrels of water consumed for each barrel of oil produced, would range from a low of 2.1 to a high of 5.2. From the industry side, Larry Lukens argues, that OTA figures applied for the pilot stage and at commercial scale Paraho technologiy water balance resulted in a net [requirement of 1.3 barrels of water per barrel of oil.http://www.shaleoilinfo.org/library/citizens/lukens2005Jul09.php] So I think it would correct to say that "depending of technology, the above-ground retoring uses 1 to 5 barrel of water per barrel of produced oil." Of course, in situ technologies use less water. I propose also to move this information into 'Economics' section and to add into 'Environment' section figures about wastewater. According to [21] "Above-ground retorting produces 2 to 10 gallon of wastewater per ton of processed oil shale". Beagel (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The RAND research brief you cite is from this monograph, which has a full 90 page pdf available online. At page 72, it says:

“ For mining and surface retorting, water is needed for dust control during materials extraction, crushing, and transport; for cooling and reclaiming spent shale; for upgrading raw shale oil; and for various plant utilities associated with power production and environmental control. Estimates of process water needs and the extent to which water can be recycled or economically reclaimed vary considerably. For example, the U.S. Water Resources Council estimated that oil shale development will increase annual consumptive water use in the Upper Colorado Region by about

150,000 acre-feet per year for each million barrels (oil equivalent) per day of production, which is the equivalent of about three barrels of water per barrel of oil (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1981). Other estimates range from 2.1 to 5.2 barrels of water per barrel of shale oil product (OTA, Volume I, 1980).

”

Note that they got the arithmetic wrong: Google calculator says it should be 4.3, not 3 bbl water/bbl oil, but this figure has been widely quoted. Note also that the full report is extensively referenced. They cite that calculation as being from: U.S. Water Resources Council (1981). "Synthetic Fuels Development in the Upper Colorado Region, Section 13(a), Water Assessment Report". Washington, D.C. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

The OTA ref is to: National Research Council Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (June 1980). "An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies, Volume I". Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)LeadSongDog (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the water usage figures should go into the environmental section, per this from the Rocky Mountain News: "Environmental groups Thursday demanded that companies hoping to develop Colorado's oil shale deposits explain how much water the process could consume and how it would affect water quality and supplies."[22] Sorry I miswrote BLM's upper figure as 6 barrels, was tired. It would be good to include the complete range of estimates, eh? Novickas (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the EROEI figures are in 'Economics' section, the water usage ratio should be kept at the same place. But I don't oppose moving this information back into 'Environment' section. Different water usage figures for above-ground retorting given by different sources vary between 1 and 5.2. The problem is that all these figures are based on (mainly pilot stage) technologies used in the United States before 'Black Monday' 26 years ago. It would be good to have also figures about Brazil, Chinese and Estonian technologies currently in use (and also about Australian Stuart project), but so far I didn't find any data about water usage by these technologies. At the same time I don't think these figure could be significantly different. So, I think that the range 1 to 5 could be used for this article, and more detailed explanation should be included maybe in the 'Environmental impact of the oil shale industry' article. Beagel (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April 20

Hi B - I see that S. Lee's book is listed in references. Since we now have an inline cite to it, what should we do with it? Also, have you found an organic matter ratio for coal? It might be in Britannica or Kirk-Othmer, but I only have access to those at work.

Do you think it would be good to note briefly how many houses are heated in Estonia by oil-shale-fired district heating? Novickas (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the book, I think it would be best to have the book in the References section and to have inline citations having just a exact page numbers. Same as with the WEC report and other books having IBSN code. Actually we have also second cite to Lee in Geology section.

I think I have seen the organic matter ratio for coal, but not sure where. Trying to find.

WEC page 94 says: "the OM:MM ratio of coal is usually greater than 4.75:5."Beagel (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to worry about volume vs weight here? Also, am a little uncertain about how to use this referencing system, so hope you'll bear with me.

Concerning heating by oil shale, I will try to find figures. However, I don't think it is so significant as for electricity production — I understand that the heat is mainly by-product of power production and therefore its usage is limited with the nearby area of oil shale-fired stations.Beagel (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Found this link. There are no figures concerning households, but accoring to the info at the page 22, the share of oil shale for the heat production was 13.2% in 2006. Not so much compared with the electricity production (more than 90% of electricity produced by burning oil shale).Beagel (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see what you mean. I was a little misled by the figures in district heating for Estonia- thought maybe more of it was coming from oil shale. Doesn't seem to hold much potential for growth. Novickas (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of information from BUSTAN

Some editors have been very active advertising BUSTAN adding links from its website and activists. Unfortunately, this information has poor quality. Just some examples:

• John Laherrere - should be Jean Laherrère. And, if we have his original paper available, why to link BUSTAN?
• Oil Shale Journal editor Anto Raukus - quick check to this journal says that the name is Anto Raukas. And if you cite him, please provide the link to the Oil Shale Journal to the see context, not to BUSTAN website. This is, of course, interesting information, but one could also ask, what is the industry structure in Estonia. I don't believe rhere are any other significant heavy industry beside of oil shale industry in Estonia. It doesn't mean that same percentage of pollution from oil shale will be in the United States or Israel.
• "oil shale processing requires 3 gallons of water per barrel for conventional processing" - this is interesting, because given reference says nothing about this. As already said in thie next paragraph, "above-ground retorting uses between one and five barrels of water per barrel of produced shale oil". I don't say that the statement "3 gallons of water per barrel for conventional processing" is completely wrong, but it needs better explanation what it exactly means (consumed water or recycled water etc).
• "91% of Estonia’s abundant water resources were consumed by the power industry" - actually Anto Raukas wrote, that "In 2002, 91% (more than a billion cu m) of the water consumed in Estonia was used in the power industry".[23] It is a big difference.
• Jesper Jørgensen - the name seems to be Danish, not Estonia. Putting into google search together "Jesper Jørgensen" and "oil shale", the only result links to the BUSTAN website. Paper in BUSTAN website refers to the readers letter at the Danish College of Journalists, so it can't be considered as very reliable source.

I am sure, that all these edits are made in good faith, but unfortunately it looks like blatant promotion of BUSTAN environmental group. Probably we need little bit more NPOV and quality. Also, it is not a good idea to use Wikipedia for fighting against oil shale industry of Negev desert.Beagel (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Some good points. Thanks for explaining. However I personally believe that rather than entirely remove facts that may be a bit rough or hint at an agenda, it's best to polish them and balance them. Aside from the spelling issue the facts themselves were mostly highly relevant, no? I understand the hesitation in trusting activist research, however, the sources cited were all industry sources. Would you prefer I go in and cite them directly? For instance, the translation of Jean into John notwithstanding, I think this point remains relevant:

"Coal is much cheaper than oil shale, is no more polluting, and offers more oil when processed than oil shale. According to John Laherrere, formerly of the Society of Petroleum Engineers/World Petroleum Congress, 'As Petrole Informations noticed in 1972: One ton of coal can give 650 liters of oil while one ton of oil shale can give only 150 liters of shale oil. Production of oil shale should start only after that coal is completely depleted.'"

Also, I don't really see an emphasis on the Negev in the article - it's mentioned along with the US desert and water issues. But otherwise, points taken.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked more closely at your edits and I see that you did integrate the information though I think in a way that buried it. I guess you could put the info about the bust of the oil shale industry in the Western Mountain states under history, but I do think it also belongs under economics. Overall though your fact-checking has been useful, thanks. I might try to tweak some of my old edits a bit in a way that pleases you, we'll see. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can't overload this article with all environmental details as it is a general article about oil shale. It should give an overview about all major environmental impacts in general and the current summary lists all major impacts—water usage, land management; air pollution and emissions. Details should be added into the Environmental impact of oil shale industry. Unfortunately this article is not so well developed yet as I think it has to be, so any assistance to develop that article is welcome.

About other points. I don't think I removed any fact. The citation of Jesper Jørgensen was removed, but the problem with this source was already explained. Also, citation like "It is a very poor fuel that creates as much emissions as energy" is a trivia. Is it poor fuel or not is a question of economic feasibility, not so much environment. Also, the geology section describing composition of oil shale makes clear that oil shale is poorer fuel than coal. And the Petrole Informations of 1972 gives estimates how much oil consists in one ton of coal and how much in oil shale. So, there is actually no new information in this sentence. What we could do is to give a figures how many CO₂ emits combustion of different fossil fuels. The ascending list is natural gas, oil, hard coal, lignite and oil shale, but I don't have exact figure and sources.

I don't have anything against the sources of environmental groups (we have several in this article including one from Greenpeace) and I have removed also information from the industry sources if there were problems with WP:V. The sources should be high quality and to be in accordance with WP:V. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, also details should be reliable. It even spelling of person's name is not correct, it is natural to have doubts about reliability of the contest.

Petrole Informations of 1972—this is an opinion 36 years old. I agree that the first sentence of this opinion is relevant and this informaton is still in the Economy section. However, the second sentence contradicted reality even in this as as there were shale oil industries in the Soviet Union and China. Well, there was no market economy in these countries this time, but as of today there are oil shale industries in Estonia, China and Brazil, so the production of oil shale definitely started before complete depletion of coal. I believe (can't check as I don't have an access to this journal), this statement was made in the context of the United States, but we have to have global approach.

Neglev Desert. Actually I think it was very good to add Neglev example to the sentence about water. No problem with this. The problem actually is that oil shale articles of BUSTAN (or Rebecca Manski's articles in other media issues) makes clear that BUSTAN is an anti-oil shale group fighting against expansion of Israeli oil shale industry in Negev. At the same time, most of links you or your fellow editors added referred to BUSTAN. I believe this wasn't intentional, but one could see this as using Wikipedia for political agenda. Once more, I personally don't believe this is a case, but it potentially may compromise the NPOV.Beagel (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Black Sunday" is a important event in the history of oil shale industry. However, I don't think it says anything about a feasibility of todays shale oil industry, because the oil prices in 1982 and in 2008 are absolutely different. The article says: "the various attempts to develop oil shale deposits have been successful only when the cost of shale oil production in a given region was less than the price of crude oil or its other substitutes". It is clear that in 1982 because of cheap crude oil made oil shale industries in the United States to collapse. In 2008, we have absolutely different oil prices and different feasibility of the industry. Actually, the first oil shale industry collapse happened in the United States already in 1860-61 because of the crude oil discovery in Pennsylvania.Beagel (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just want to add my voice to the equation since I'm the one who introduced that one Bustan article to the site. I assume the others saw the link and got to to the other articles that way. I use the Bustan website as a sort of information source for a range of different issues related to Israel. Yes, Bustan is against oil shale development, and the objective of their research is definitely to discourage oil shale development in Israel. However, I don't think that discredits all of their research. Much of what you say if fine, Beagel, except that I think you're glossing over the economics - the fact that oil shale has never proved itself an economic fuel is nowhere in sight. And I'll be quite frank, I do have anti-oil shale views. As someone who is willing to admit to an opinion here, and willing to admit that it has influenced what I want to see represented, I must make clear: I am very happy to see all the other pro-oil shale views represented. But I think somewhere in the article it needs to say: The oil shale industry has thusfar bankrupted investors consistently, in this, that, and the other situation. Because this is a fact. But I'll refrain from editing this page, now that I've admitted what my stance is.Refcahman (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to refrain from editing this article because of your point of view. While I don't think the article is glossing over the economics, maybe it needs some more mention of why some countries do operate this industry or are planning to. Estonia and Jordan have few other domestic energy resources; in the case of Brazil and China, there may be distribution or trade imbalance considerations. In the case of the US, there are political issues with our oil suppliers. It's probably possible to find reliable citations to various countries' rationales for their OS industries, just not immediately. I'll look.

I suppose what we are coming to is perhaps an agreement that although the article is very good on the technical side, it needs filling in in terms of on-the-ground applications. The Bustan backgrounder on oil shale is the only comprehensive online source on oil shale in Israel that I have come across and I think I haven't seen much more info in academic print. At the moment due to this discussion I feel timid about citing the backgrounder itself, but maybe I will go in and check the sources it brings together, which are all industry and government sources. However, I think that, so that the inclusion of this info on Israel does not stand alone, I will try to wait until others have added some info on Estonia, the US, etc.,Whynot25 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As this article deals with complex issues (starting with geology and ending with economics and environmental issues, it uses summaries of more detailed specific articles. More detailed information about the oil shale industry is provided in the Oil shale industry. It would be excellent to have more information about Israeli oil shale industry there. Right now only information about the (former) PAMA power plant is included. I would like also ask if you have any pictures about Israeli industry (e.g. oil shale-fired power plant, mines, oil shale crops etc).Beagel (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about adding it there, then. Pictures? Maybe from the PAMA site? When I get a chance to work on this I'll see if I can find any useful ones.Whynot25 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

PAMA website could be problematic because of WP:COPYRIGHT. The GNU Free Documentation License is needed.Beagel (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that I checked out your issue, Beagel, that we should not overload this article with environmental details. I looked back into the history asn saw that no environmental details had been added, just small bolded headings had been inserted to organize the info.Whynot25 (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Environmental impact of oil shale industry has all these headings.Beagel (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Energy independence

Energy independence is mentioned in the lead; maybe a wikilink to energy policy or energy security, in connection with this, would be useful, after supporting material is added. Novickas (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear definition of energy independence, but the energy dependence is defined by Eurostat as net energy import ratio to total energy consumption. There is the article about energy dependence, but in general this is a link to the Energy security. Maybe energy security link then?Beagel (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft proposed addition: Despite the industry's variable history, it remains a component of several national energy policies focusing on energy security. The United States government sees its development as part of a strategy for ensuring a diverse and secure portfolio of liquid fuels; [24] the European Parliament declared in 2006 that all possible sources of energy, including oil shale, must be considered.[25] China [26] and Jordan [27] see the industry as a way to reduce their dependence on imported crude oil.

(Nothing found on Brazil yet) Novickas (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Canada

Where's Canada? It seems that's all geologists talked about for the past few years the rich New Brunswick (Albert Formation?) oil shales of Canada. Yet nothing in here. Are the Canadian oil shales really so whimpy? So outsmoked by those to the south? --Blechnic (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

15 Billion barrels of oil in place in canada vs 2.2 trillion in the US. fraid they are a little wimpy compared to the states this time. there is a little bit on the Oil Shale reserves section which links to this article for more info. But at least you've got world class oil sands still. Dexcel (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so it's an international whose is bigger contest. Sorry, I don't got one to compare. You have a source for your statistic? --Blechnic (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it lists the reserves of 2 of the 19 discovered and explored oil shale sources in Canada and you take this to mean that this is the total reserves of Canada and this number makes it too small, compared to the US, to include in the article. Interesting research. I can see where this is going. Not geology, which leaves me out. Or accuracy. --Blechnic (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the World Energy Council, Canada has 11th size of resources in the world, which is around 1% of global oil shale resources. As the Oil shale article deals with all aspects of oil shale, this is not he place to describe all countries with oil shale resources. At the same time, the Oil shale reserves article needs to be expanded, so you are welcome to assist to develop this article and to put any available information about Canadian reserves there. Beagel (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reserves vs. Resources

Good article! Congratulations to the editors who worked on it.

I have a comment on this:

A 2005 estimate set the total world resources of oil shale at 411 gigatons — enough to yield 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels of shale oil.[2][3][4][5] This is more than world's proven conventional oil reserves, estimated to be 1.317 trillion barrels (209.4×109 m3), as of 1 January 2007.

I think you should compare like things. Compare oil shale resurces to conventional oil resources, compare oil shale reserves to conventional oil reserves. Can you find numbers for total world oil shale reserves? Life.temp (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true that you can't compare resources and reserves. It is also explained in the Reserves section. This comparison was added during FAC review to give just some imagination about the amount of resources and not for saying that all resources could be used for oil production. The problem is that it is very difficult to say how big are oil shale reserves, because there are not enough studies of different deposits. At the same time it is also difficult to say how much oil is in place globally.Beagel (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I second the congrats, an interesting article. SGGH ^speak! 10:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Phrases such as "oil shale mining" or "oil shale industries" remain inherently ambiguous. Distinguish, for example, between an oil industry which happens to dabble in shales and some other industry which uses the material known as "oil shale" for non-oil-oriented purposes such as electricity-generation. Our article discusses both types of activity: we would do well to differentiate them clearly. Hence the phrase "oil shale", when used adjectivally, should often -- even usually -- appear as ""oil-shale" -- see WP:HYPHEN. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Shale

I have not looked at this article for some time, so I do not know or remember when the statement that oil shale is not shale was introduced. The statement is false and indicates that the writer had a very limited view of oil shale. The statement was specifically identified as erroneous in a talk a couple months ago by geologist Jerry Boak from the Colorado School of Mines, who organizes an annual Oil Shale Symposium. Perhaps some oil shales are not shale, but some certainly are. One can find various definitions in the literature, but the term shale does not require a specific level of carbonate minerals. The most common definition I have seen is that (1) the constituent particles are less than 20 micrometers, give or take a factor of a few, (2) the rock is laminar, and (3), it tends to break in the sheets upon fracturing (fissility). It is debatable whether oil shale from the Parachute Creek member of the Green River formation qualifies as a shale. While it certainly qualifies for (1) and (2), it doesn't split so readily along the bedding planes prior to weathering or retorting, but weathered and retorted oil shale certainly qualify. While Parachute Creek member is about half carbonate minerals by weight and less than 10% clay, the Garden Gulch member is only about 20 wt% carbonate and 50% clay. It definitely shows fissility. It also contains enough kerogen to qualify as an oil shale. Moving on to other formations, the eastern devonian oil shales fit the definition of shale by any criteria, even if one wants to claim it requires low carbonate levels, which is probably not a valid anyway. The one sample each of maoming and fushun oil shales I studied had less than 10 wt% carbonate, and the one sample of Bakken shale I studied had about 15 wt% carbonate--about the same as the Garden Gulch member of the Green River Formation. Rather than edit the article at this time, I would like to hear from other geologists who can speak directly to the technical issues rather than just repeat statements in semi-technical literature. Akburnham (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Alan. It is nice to hear about you. I put a notice about this discussion also at the talk page of WP:Geology to draw more attention of geologists.

The sentence you refers says right now: "The name oil shale is a misnomer as geologists would not necessarily classify the rock as a shale, and its kerogen differs from crude oil." It is very hard to say now how and why the current version of this statement was introduced. It is inserted only in the lead of this article–the "Geology" section does not discuss this. Also the Oil shale geology article does not discuss if oil shale is shale or not. I think that the current wording does not exclude some oil shales from being shales, but probably the sentence should be improved. I see two options: (1) to find new wording (maybe you could suggest better wording?), and (2) to delete this sentence as unnecessary.

I would like also ask if the statement by Jerry Boak is publicly available? Was it included in the Oil Shale Symposium papers? I think this would be definitely interesting to add here or in the Oil shale geology article. I would like also ask if you are interested also to look other articles in the Category:Oil shale. Beagel (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence certainly needs changing - 'misnomer' is actually a misnomer in this situation, it may be somewhat misleading in some cases but that's about all. Certainly kukersite would probably fall outside most geologists' understanding of 'shale' with calcite >50%, but that can be handled with the right wording. The second half of the sentence, which says that kerogen differs from crude oil seems unnecessary - it's named oil shale because you can get oil from it, not because it's made up of oil - I suggest getting rid of that altogether. We probably do need a sentence on this, but not in the lede - the 'Geology' section being the obvious place to mention it. Perhaps we could add something to the existing 3rd sentence in that section - "Oil shales vary considerably in their mineral content, chemical composition, age, type of kerogen, and depositional history" such as "and not all oil shales would necessarily be classified as shales in the strict sense" or something similar. Mikenorton (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both proposals. I also don't think that in addition to this proposed addition in the geology section we need to go in further details in this article. If further specification is needed, it would be better to add in the Oil shale geology article. Beagel (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, changes made - ref 12 discusses the range of rock types involved, so I think that no further citation is required. Mikenorton (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Akburnham (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)I see that a change was made before I got back to here. The revision looks good to me. Meanwhile, Jerry Boak wrote back to me. His presentation is at

http://www.colorado.edu/law/centers/nrlc/events/documents/oil%20shale/Oil%20Shale%20PowerPoints/PPT%20-%20BOAK,%20Jeremy.pdf

The slides are not as critical as his words were concerning the shale issue. He may have edited them before posting. He agreed with my statement that shale is a textural, not chemical, definition and said the term "shale" came from a 1757 paper by Hoosen. I checked with another geologist colleague, and he also agrees that shale is textural, not chemical, in nature. Jerry current favors a ternary plot of carbonate vs clay vs quartz and feldspars (slide 6 in his presentation) that does not mention the word shale. He prefers mudstone for that end member. Of course, some differentiate mudstone and shale by fissility. The resulting irony is that it is hard to determine whether oil shale is a shale if we cannot precisely define what a shale is shale. Concerning that issue, he did not like to plot in the Wikipedia article on shale that has only carbonate and clay as endmembers. I agree that the ternary diagram is preferable. That said, I don't agree with the location of the points on his ternary diagram for Green River shale. Clays in the lower part of the Green River formation are replaced by feldspars in the upper part. Carbonate content also changes, but it is not as profound as the clay-feldspar change. Of course, all this needs to be worked out in the peer reviewed literature before Wikipedia can make a definitive statement. Perhaps there is more in the literature than I am aware.

To the writer

Excellent article. Just read it to get a background for an environmental project in my public policy class. Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

North America

With so much being decovered in Canada and the USA, the could there be a seperate sub-page dealing with thier own oil shale industry/reserves sepratly?--Peter dan davis (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[28]--Peter dan davis (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look to the talk page archive, you see that proposal to create an article about the United States oil shale industry and reserves had been made last summer. This time the decision was to concentrate on articles about different aspects of oil shale. However, I think that US oil shale industry and reserves is worth to have its own article after developing recent article on the oil shale series. Beagel (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the Barnett Shale reserves in Fort Worth, TX? I was told that they are now considered the largest shale oil reserve in the U.S....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.6.184 (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnett Shale is not "oil shale" but a shale reservoir that contains gas and oil in fractures and pores. The oil shale referred to in this Wikipedia article needs to be heated to high temperatures to make shale oil. In contrast, gas and oil (also called shale oil) can be obtained from the Barnett Shale and other US reservoirs (Bakken, Haynesville, and Monterey) by horizontal drilling and fracturing the formation with high-pressure fluids. Journalists and even investors often confuse the two types of shale oil. Maybe an explanation of the differences needs to be made at the beginning of this article.Dirtburner (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Last decade data

Beagel, the graph comes from an industry promotional article that specifically states that Dyni is the source through 1998, but gives no clue as to where the authors took the data for the last decade. This is not a reliable source by Wiki standards. Your call. In general, I would not trust any data from AMSO. In this case, they may have taken announcements about planned Chinese projects and converted those into projections that are now displayed as historical fact.Jdkag (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The data obtained from national authorities from China, Brazil, and Estonia as only these three countries have had any oil shale mining activities during the last decade (well, for very short test period of the Stuart pilot plant also Australia, but this amount is not significant and does not have any impact to the graph). Sources actually are the same that used by Dyni. I have no reason to think that this source is not reliable. I knew that you don't trust anything related to Genie Energy and its subsidiaries (including AMSO) due to the IEI's project in Israel; however, Alan Burnham has a long history of good reputation as an oil-shale expert. Before joining AMSO some years ago, he was the leading oil shale expert at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I really don't see why this study is not RS. Do you have any specific concerns about these figures despite of distrust to AMSO? Beagel (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: Chinese figures are mainly oil shale mined by the Fushun Mining Group who differently from a number other projects in China has operational commercial-scale production for decades. Beagel (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My point is not that I distrust AMSO, but that the article itself does not mention the source of the data. Providing the source of the data would be a useful addition to this Wiki article. Where did the Chinese authorities publish 2010 production data? I am also looking for that.Jdkag (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if and where Chinese had published this data. I think that authors of this reference just asked these data. I knew that Chinese oil shale scientist (e.g. Qian Jialin and others) quite often present these data at the oil shale symposiums (annually at the Colorado Symposium, there are similar events with a longer interval in Estonia and Jordan), so you may look for the most recent conference papers. Also, I think that maybe you could write directly to Alan Burnham and ask from him about these data. Beagel (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)