Jump to content

Talk:Oil shale/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Economics

The section on economics is only about the economics of shale oil conversion, not on other applications of oil shale (which are currently more significant). Perhaps the name of the section should be changed, or moved to the article on shale oil? Jdkag (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What you mean "other applications currently more significant"? As of today, most of mined oil shale is used for shale oil production. Even in Estonia, which still uses most of its oil shale for power generation, the share of oil shale used for shale oil production is increasing. Oil shale-fired power generation is a significant issue only for Estonia and maybe in the future for Jordan. Other commercial usage (in Germany and Russia) is rather limited. Beagel (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The statement "In 2011, oil shale scientists in Estonia expressed doubts that shale oil could be produced economically outside of Estonia, because of the high levels of impurities in other countries' shale" is OR because all these doubts were related to purchase of OSEC and implementing Enefit process for Utah oil shale. That does not mean that shale oil production can't be economical outside of Estonia. As of today, it is not Estonia but China who is the largest shale oil producers, so the above-mentioned statement is already wrong. Also, there is more complex and historical background why some of these scientist are very critical about Eesti Energia's activities. Is this critics justified or not is not important in this context; important is that they are focusing in their critics to the concrete projects and not to the global oil shale development in general. Beagel (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Eesti claims to be producing 180,000 tons/year of shale oil, vs. the latest figures we seem to have for China, of 240,000 tons in 2006 (from the Oil Shale in China wiki page). So perhaps China is producing more, but Eesti is the corporation that is expanding to other countries, with much fanfare given to their programs in the US and Jordan. So the information on the view of Estonian scientists about the possible economics in the US and in Jordan is very relevant to a discussion of the industry economics. Can we come to an agreement in this talk on how to word a summary of the article? By the way, their criticism helps to explain why it is that most countries with shale, like Jordan and the US, are still not producing shale oil today, despite oil prices at $100/barrel. Also, the criticism is not related to concrete projects--how do you reach that conclusion?Jdkag (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
First, according to the WEC's 2010 Survey of Energy Resources, in 2008 China produced 375,000 tons of shale oil versus 355,000 tones produced in Estonia. That means that China has taken over Estonia's positions as the world leading shale oil producing country. Oil shale chapter in the survey is compiled by John Dyni, by the way.
Second, "much fanfare given to their programs in the US and Jordan" is exactly one reason for criticism of Eesti Energia. As a state-owned company and so far mainly utility company, there are lot of concerns if the company should expand outside of the country or deal with shale oil production at all. As I said, this criticism may be justified because Jordan and Utah are definitely risky projects for the company and there is always a question how many risks should the state-owned company to take.
Third, differently from the conventional oil production or even production of oil sands, to make specific technology to work with specific oil shale deposits takes decades. The principles of the process are very simple but there are lot of nuances which vary from deposit to deposit. Most countries phased out their oil shale industries after World War II due to the low oil prices. The U.S. industry collapsed in 1980s for the same reason and for the same reason, the Jordan's attempts staid just on the research and test level. Prices over $100/bbl have been only for some years which is not enough to start the oil shale industry. Industries in Estonia and China survived only due to the fact that there was a planning economy in the Soviet Union and China which does not follow the market behavior.
Fourth, if you read the article, you could see that the critics is clearly about the projects doubts are about suitability of Enefit technology, and there is nothing said about viability of oil shale industry in general outside of Estonia. "Scientists in Estonia have raised questions about the project's viability", "although it would be possible for Eesti Energia to use its extraction technology on other types of shale, the high percentage of nitrous compounds in the US shale would limit oil production", 2It's too early to say whether this project can succeed or fail," "As a negative example Raukas cited Eesti Energia's project in Jordan", "that the Utah project was very risky on the technology side". If this is not about the Eesti Energia's projects, what it is about then?
Fifth, I used the word "concrete" in the meaning of pertaining to or concerned with realities or actual instances rather than abstractions (opposed to general) and not in the meaning of construction material. Beagel (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The criticism expressed by Estonia scientists should be mentioned somewhere in the article as a balance to the article's overly optimistic slant, in particular the EROEI figures given by industry proponents. (The stats I've seen both for Estonia and for China are that about a quarter of the energy in the shale is recovered as shale oil, the rest is consumed in the process. Applied to in-situ production, this would give an EROEI of 1/3.) The question about who produces more shale oil, Estonia or China, is important for the article, but not relevant to the discussion as to whether or not to cite the scientists' skepticism. Regarding Estonia's production, Eesti claims that its 2008 production was 448,000 tons in 2008: http://www.keemia.ee/en/chemical-industry-in-estonia. I'm still looking for first source information on China's production. Dyni doesn't say where his numbers come from.Jdkag (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I explained why the critics given in that source is relevant to Eesti Energia's Utah project (and thank you for providing this source — I already added this to the Enefit American Oil article) but not to the oil shale perspectives in general. I am nothing against to add critical sources if they qualify as reliable sources and citations are precise, not OR. I disagree that "the article's overly optimistic slant". It went through a very careful examination during FA review and has been stable since.
Concerning EROEI, I am not understanding what you try to say. I appreciate if you could provide a source about your claims.
WEC's survey gives figures that in 2008 the largest shale oil producer was China. Do you have any reason to say that this is not WP:RS? Concerning the data about Estonia's shale oil production, I don't knew why the figures from Dyni and the Chemical Industry Association of Estonia are different. I think that we should prefer WEC's data to have comparison between countries. By the way, there are three shale oil producers in Estonia, so please keep in mind that not all shale oil in Estonia is produced by Eesti Energia. Beagel (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
According to the World Energy Outlook 2010, "Worldwide, only a small amount (15 kb/d) is processed into liquid oil, in Estonia (4 kb/d), Brazil (4 kb/d) and China’s Fushun shale oil plant (7 kb/d).". Unfortunately it does not say for which year it applies. It is only clear that this should be before 2010. Beagel (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

From Professor Jialin QIAN China University of Petroleum Beijing, China
Date: Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:20 AM
The Chinese shale oil production in China in 2011 accounted as follows:
1. Laioning Province: Fushun: 320,000 t, Zhaoyang: 15,000 t, Beipiao: 50,000 t, Tiaopingshan:20,000 t, total:405,000 t;
2. Shangdong province; Longkou: 120,000 t;
3. Jieling Province: Huadian: 80,000t; Wangqing: 50,000t;total;130,000 t;
4.Hailongjiang Province: Dongning: 15,000 t;
5.Gansu province: Yaojie: 40,000 t.
Totally in China shale oil production in 2011: 710,000 t.
reference: Li Shuyuan, Ma Yue, Qian Jialin; "Global oil shale research, deaveloment and utilization today",Chinese Journal"Sino-Global Energy", Vol.17, No.2,P.8-17, the above data was checked and modified by Jialin QIAN
The above data is the updated data, my book was published in 2010, therefore there is no such data.
Jialin Qian.
[In Fushun, the laboratory Fisher Assay shale oil yields about 6% shale oil, commercially utilize the old process Fushun type retrort, about 30 t oil shale are to be used for producing 1 t shale oil.]

Jdkag (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

For 2011, these Chinese data for shale oil production seems to be accurate as several projects have become operational in recent years (after 2008). Beagel (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

New proposal concerning merge from the Bituminous shale article

There is a new proposal how to proceed with the merge from the Bituminous shale article. Beagel (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Green Zionist Alliance

Anon user added the name of the Green Zionist Alliance in the paragraph about protests. While this organisation has protested oil shale development in Israel, they are only one country focused and even not the most active regarding protests in Israel. Therefore adding their name before Greenpeace seems quite promotional. I think that in this article we should name only the globally active and most significant organisations. There are number of other organisations opposing oil shale development in the United States, Israel, Australia etc, sometimes nation-wide, sometimes local, and listing all of them in this article is probably not the best idea. I think that these information should go into country-specific articles. I already started a relevant section in Oil shale in Israel, using also references added by anon. editor. Therefore, I propose to remove the Green Zionist Alliance link from this article. Beagel (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Beagel (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

British Crown patent

It seems that reporting by Louw and Addison that the Patent No. 330 was issued to Becker and Serle in 1684 for the production of "oyle from a kind of stone" is incorrect as other sources says that the Patent No. 330 was issued to Martin Eele, Thomas Hancock and William Portlock who had "found a way to extract and make great quantities of pitch, tarr, and oyle out of a sort of stone.". It is true that in 1681 Becker and Serle got a patent for carbonizing coal to produce pitch, tar, and smokeless fuel; however, it was about coal and not about oil shale, although the distinction of these sources was not clearly established that time. Therefore I changed the text to refer to the patent of 1694. Beagel (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Kerogen shale

JeremyBoak added the following two sentences into the lead: Some authors suggest the alternative name kerogen shale, but this has not been in common use anywhere in the oil shale industry over the last 170 years. The terms oil shale (for the rock) and shale oil (for the product liquid) have been in use in English for at least 110 years. This is disputable as the term "kerogen shale" as its own entry in Handbook of Oil Industry Terms & Phrases, 6th Edition (2014). Macro-Economics of Mineral and Water Resources (2015) uses 'kerogen shale' as an alternative name to oil shale. Coal, Oil Shale, Natural Bitumen, Heavy Oil and Peat - Volume II (2009) lists 'kerogen shale' among different names which have been used for oil shale in general or for some type of oil shales in particular. There are more sources, of course. Therefore I will remove that addition (but without restoring kerogen oil in brackets after the first use of the term oil shale). Beagel (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Oil shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oil shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oil shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Oil shale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oil_shale/Archive_2&oldid=1225450094"