Talk:Oil shale in Estonia/Archive 2
This is an archive of past discussions about Oil shale in Estonia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Review by Renata
Hello, I am going to shamelessly intrude with my review, if you don't mind :) So first of, I know nothing about oil shale and all the technical stuff went straight over my head. So excuse my total ignorance on the topic. I do know a little about the history of Estonia. Second, I did not read previous comments and reviews. Apologies in advance if I am duplicating already addressed issues. Third, it is a good article, truly. I can see how much effort went into it. But I have this talent (curse?) to torture people with nitpicks... Please don't hate me. With that, let's rumble.
Resolved stuff
Resolved stuff from Lead
|
---|
|
Resolved stuff from Resource
|
---|
|
Resolved stuff from History
|
---|
|
Resolved Other stuff
|
---|
|
History
- ✓ Pass Estonian oil shale industries conducted tests of oil shales from Australia, Bulgaria, Germany and South Africa.
- This is the sentence that prompted me to ask for comparison with other oil shale industries. Does that mean that Estonia became a leader/authority of sort? Also, wouldn't "oil shale samples" be better?
- Changed to "oil shale samples". I think that Estonia was not the leader (the largest industry that time was still in Scotland although it was in process of decreasing) but certainly the description "authority of sort" could be used. E.g. the Glen Davis Shale Oil Works in Australia even planned to use the Estonia-manufactured tunnel ovens but due to economic reasons decided to use the existing equipment from the closed nearby plant. Beagel (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Any way of incorporating some of that? Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure. It is an interesting information but the question is if it belongs into this article. Beagel (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Addressed elsewhere. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure. It is an interesting information but the question is if it belongs into this article. Beagel (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Any way of incorporating some of that? Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Changed to "oil shale samples". I think that Estonia was not the leader (the largest industry that time was still in Scotland although it was in process of decreasing) but certainly the description "authority of sort" could be used. E.g. the Glen Davis Shale Oil Works in Australia even planned to use the Estonia-manufactured tunnel ovens but due to economic reasons decided to use the existing equipment from the closed nearby plant. Beagel (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Between 1946 and 1952, uranium compounds were extracted
- Any clue what they did with that?
- That time it was used for the Soviet nuclear weapons project. After 1952, local GA was replaced by uranium ore from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I find this morsel fascinating enough to be added into the article. Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Any suggestion how to word it? It is also included in the Silmet article. I have to check in which source this was mentioned. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I added a sentences about possible use for the Soviet nuclear bomb project. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Any suggestion how to word it? It is also included in the Silmet article. I have to check in which source this was mentioned. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I find this morsel fascinating enough to be added into the article. Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- That time it was used for the Soviet nuclear weapons project. After 1952, local GA was replaced by uranium ore from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done Section "Peak of production"
- I would recommend of getting rid of it. The rest of history follows political history (which is appropriate). Also, there is no clean cut where "Restoration of the industry after World War II" ends or should end and where "Peak" begins. That way you could organize the whole Soviet period by topic (same way the previous independence period is organized).
- The Soviet period all together seems to be to large section. And this seemed the most logical way to split. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe it is worth to merge these two sections about the Soviet era. I would like to ask more opinions about this issue. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I went BOLD and merged them. Hope you'll approve the result (I personally like it much better). Please make sure I did not confuse subjects... Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe it is worth to merge these two sections about the Soviet era. I would like to ask more opinions about this issue. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Soviet period all together seems to be to large section. And this seemed the most logical way to split. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Estonia Mine became the largest oil shale mine in the world.
- I think this was asked somewhere else: the largest by what measure?
- By amount of mined oil shale. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's weird leaving this info bit just like that. I feel it needs some info: production or second largest (previous largest) or something else to place in context. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I am not able to find more detailed information. It certainly was the largest mine in the world as it was the largest in Estonia and there was no other country with so large industry that time. If it still is, as of today, I am not sure. It could be that open-pits in Fushun, China, have higher annual output but I can't find these data. Beagel (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's weird leaving this info bit just like that. I feel it needs some info: production or second largest (previous largest) or something else to place in context. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- By amount of mined oil shale. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Since 1935, Estonian shale oil was supplied to the German Kriegsmarine as a ship fuel.
- Do you think it's worth elaborating about the bilateral agreements here?
- What exactly do you mean? Mentioning that it was supplied under bilateral agreements (actually contracts)? Maybe this is unnecessarily detailed. Beagel (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I mean the sentence that was cut (Although the price of oil shale-based gasoline was at least triple that of global gasoline prices, high production and bilateral agreements supported its export) in the revisions. I find it interesting that the price was actually higher, but they still bought it (cause no one else would sell it to them?). Also, worth mentioning that was in relation to German re-armament. I find the geopolitical implications simply fascinating. Just read the section in Holmberg about it. Definitely deserves more attention. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I restored the sentence about the gasoline price and bilateral agreements. Please feel free to expand it if you think it is necessary. Beagel (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- I mean the sentence that was cut (Although the price of oil shale-based gasoline was at least triple that of global gasoline prices, high production and bilateral agreements supported its export) in the revisions. I find it interesting that the price was actually higher, but they still bought it (cause no one else would sell it to them?). Also, worth mentioning that was in relation to German re-armament. I find the geopolitical implications simply fascinating. Just read the section in Holmberg about it. Definitely deserves more attention. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean? Mentioning that it was supplied under bilateral agreements (actually contracts)? Maybe this is unnecessarily detailed. Beagel (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think it's worth elaborating about the bilateral agreements here?
- ✓ Pass the entire oil shale industry was nationalised and subordinated to the Mining Office and later to the General Directorate of Mining and Fuel Industry of the Peoples' Commissariat for Light Industry
- Of Estonian SSR or Soviet Union?
- The source does not specify this but this seems that at first it was under local office and later directly under Moscow. Beagel (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of Estonian SSR or Soviet Union?
- Prisoners of war made up about two-thirds of the work force in these units
- Any detail if Jews were involved? Probably not, since Jewish population in Estonia was small, but I am curious.
- Actually yes, after order of Himmler to abolish ghettos in Ostland and to send Jews from ghettos to the concentration camps in Riga and in Estonia. Mainly it included Jews from Vilnius and Kaunas. More information is provided in Vaivara concentration camp. I expanded this section giving some background and adding that in addition to war prisoners also forced labour was used. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fascinating. Can we add link to Vaivara in the article? Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please propose the wording how to include it? Beagel (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fascinating. Can we add link to Vaivara in the article? Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Actually yes, after order of Himmler to abolish ghettos in Ostland and to send Jews from ghettos to the concentration camps in Riga and in Estonia. Mainly it included Jews from Vilnius and Kaunas. More information is provided in Vaivara concentration camp. I expanded this section giving some background and adding that in addition to war prisoners also forced labour was used. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Any detail if Jews were involved? Probably not, since Jewish population in Estonia was small, but I am curious.
- ✓ Pass Gasoline in Soviet times
- Curious. The interwar section has info on gasoline produce from shale oil. Nothing about it in Soviet section. Why?
- Because there was no gasoline production during the soviet time. There was enough cheaper petroleum available in the Soviet Union which was also easier to refine to produce gasoline. Shale oil was mainly used as fuel oil. Beagel (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Curious. The interwar section has info on gasoline produce from shale oil. Nothing about it in Soviet section. Why?
Economic impact
- National Development Plan for the Utilisation of Oil Shale 2008–2015
- When was that prepared? Criticism: [1]
- It was adopted in 2007, so it probably was prepared in 2005–2007. The report by the National Audit Office itself is already in use as a source for this article. If you think that this critisism should be added, plase feel free to do that. Beagel (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- When was that prepared? Criticism: [1]
- ✓ Pass 4% of Estonia's gross domestic product.
- What's that in euros? Also, curious, any explanations why/how 1% of workforce produce 4% of GDP?
- In 2013, the GDP of Estonia was €18.7 billion, so 4% of this is ~ €750 million. The fact that 1% of workforce produces 4% of GDP means, that produced value per person is above the average. Don't have exact statistics but probably this 1%/4% is nothing extraordinary. Beagel (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- What's that in euros? Also, curious, any explanations why/how 1% of workforce produce 4% of GDP?
- In 2012, 15.86 million tonnes of oil shale were mined.[110] Mining losses were about four million tonnes.
- I think (judging by the chart) it means that they mined 19.8M of which 4M was wasted resulting in 15.8M of good stuff. That should be clarified.
- Annual production numbers for the five operating mines?
- I am not able to find production data split by mines. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I found this from 2002. A bit dated, but it has a wealth of info. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not really helpful as a number of these mines are closed and three new mines are opened. Beagel (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I found this from 2002. A bit dated, but it has a wealth of info. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not able to find production data split by mines. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is it possible to add capacity to the "Shale oil extraction plants" table?
- It is not clear what are the capacities. There is information about the production in 2012 just in the paragraph above. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done National policy, as codified in a 2009 document
- Is that the same National Development Plan for the Utilisation of Oil Shale 2008–2015?
- yes. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, clarified that in article. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- yes. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is that the same National Development Plan for the Utilisation of Oil Shale 2008–2015?
- I think there should be some discussion on government subsidies to the industry, since it's profitable only because of subsidies. I tried to look it up, but can't make sense of it.
- I think you have misinterpretated this interview. It does not talk about the oil shale specifically but electricity sector in general, and not about profitability but about new investments. The point is that due to heavy subsidies to the renewables (through feed-in tarrifs etc) also producers of other kind electricity (nuclear, fossils) can't be sure that their investments into new generation capacities would be profitable. As of today, building every new generation capacity in the EU needs some kind of support or guarantee scheme (state aid or so called subsidy). Same applies also to the Visaginas NPP. In the case of new plant in Auvere, the investment was supported by the allocation of free CO2 quota till 2020. There is no direct subsidies for oil shale mining, oil shale electricity generation or shale oil production. Of course, there is always question if all external costs are taken into account. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I added information about free allocation of emission allowances but I am not surer if this belongs into this article. Please see the discussion at #Electricity and heat generation. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think you have misinterpretated this interview. It does not talk about the oil shale specifically but electricity sector in general, and not about profitability but about new investments. The point is that due to heavy subsidies to the renewables (through feed-in tarrifs etc) also producers of other kind electricity (nuclear, fossils) can't be sure that their investments into new generation capacities would be profitable. As of today, building every new generation capacity in the EU needs some kind of support or guarantee scheme (state aid or so called subsidy). Same applies also to the Visaginas NPP. In the case of new plant in Auvere, the investment was supported by the allocation of free CO2 quota till 2020. There is no direct subsidies for oil shale mining, oil shale electricity generation or shale oil production. Of course, there is always question if all external costs are taken into account. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think there should be some discussion on what could replace oil shale.
- Looks like they are doing pretty good on renewable energy [2]
- I added some suggestions by the IEA. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like they are doing pretty good on renewable energy [2]
- I think there should be some discussion on Estonia's energy independence and geopolitical consequences. [3]
Environment
- are classified as hazardous waste
- What does that mean? What is the definition/criteria for hazardous?
- The term Hazardous waste is linked in the lead of this article. The EU information is provided in this page. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am reading this like the clueless person I am. Is hazardous the worst category? Is there something worse (toxic?). Should be explained. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- The term Hazardous waste is linked in the lead of this article. The EU information is provided in this page. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- What does that mean? What is the definition/criteria for hazardous?
- The spontaneous ignition risk is mentioned in the article. In that case which was mentioned in the news, the internal combustion (well, exothermic internal reactions as there was no oxygen involved) was continued for years, maybe decades. It became critical when works started to close this heap according to new standards and these works involved also changing the profile of the heap. Due to these works, air accessed inside to combustion area and fire started. The fire is extinguished and the heap is closed, but most likely exothermic internal reactions still continue. Beagel (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- It was my intention that you could use this fire as an example of "spontaneous ignition risk" to illustrate that it could become a serious and costly problem. Are you saying it's something else? Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- The spontaneous ignition risk is mentioned in the article. In that case which was mentioned in the news, the internal combustion (well, exothermic internal reactions as there was no oxygen involved) was continued for years, maybe decades. It became critical when works started to close this heap according to new standards and these works involved also changing the profile of the heap. Due to these works, air accessed inside to combustion area and fire started. The fire is extinguished and the heap is closed, but most likely exothermic internal reactions still continue. Beagel (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- significant amounts of sulphates into mine water. and Consequently, the transportation water becomes highly alkaline.
- Can you add (in general terms) why sulphates and alkaline water are bad? I know that Estonia-specific info might not exist/be readily available, but general explanation that "sulphates have been shown to cause cancer" would be great. Also, where does that alkaline water go? This rant has pictures of holding ponds. Is that where it goes?
- Sulfates occur in water also naturally and they are not considered toxic to plants or animals at normal concentrations. In higher concentrations it stimulates growth of aquatic organisms, particularly algae. Problems caused by sulfates are most often related to their ability to form strong acids which changes the pH of water. Sulfate salts can be major contaminants in natural waters.
- In humans, higher concentrations of sulfates in drinking water cause a temporary laxative effect. Concerns have been raised because of reports that diarrhea may be associated with the ingestion of water containing high levels of sulfate. However, health effects needs additional studies.
- Alkalinity of water has negative impact to aquatic organisms. It may damage fish outer surfaces like gills, eyes, and skin and an inability to dispose of metabolic wastes, higher alkalinity may kill fish and other organisms. High pH may also increase the toxicity of other substances like ammonia. In the picture you linked, the alkaline lake is the blue one in the map. Beagel (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Can some of this general explanation be added to the article. Since I know nothing of chemistry, and I read that "sulphate levels have increased tens of times" and I have absolutely no idea how dangerous that is. Can you give me a clue in the article that it's not good (it grows algae and increases acidity), but but I am not gonna die if I drink it. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Can you add (in general terms) why sulphates and alkaline water are bad? I know that Estonia-specific info might not exist/be readily available, but general explanation that "sulphates have been shown to cause cancer" would be great. Also, where does that alkaline water go? This rant has pictures of holding ponds. Is that where it goes?
- In Mitigation sub-section
- Might add Kohtla Mining Park which first opened in June 2012. I might have to add it to my vacations list...
Things that are not in the article that I am curious about
- In history: comparison to histories of other oil share industries. Is it early? Late? Is it leading the way or trailing behind? Is it copying example of X?
- I am not sure how to integrate it here. In the second half of 19th century and in the beginning of 20th century oil shale industries emerged in a lot of countries, just to be deceased after very short period (usually from few years up to decade). From long period industries it was more than half century after oil shale industry started in Scotland but some decades before China, Russia and Sweden. More detailed information is in the History of the oil shale industry article. There were attempts to copy existing technologies of Scotland but it became clear that due to unique properties of kukersite, it needed a tailor-made or at least adjusted technology. As a result, already in 1930s Estonia became a leading oil shale country (industry in Scotland that time still existed in some scale but it had lost the importance it had in the 19th century). Any suggestion how to include this here is welcome. Beagel (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I added comparison with Scotland on the one hand and with China on the other hand. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Another item should be added: most other countries switched to oil in mid-century. Also, it has the sentence "Estonia's oil shale industry is currently the most developed in the world." which IMHO is lead-worthy sentence. {Also, "During direct combustion of the Estonian Kukersites, approximately 106 kg of CO2 is emitted per GJ (Veiderma, 2003). This corresponds to 2.4 moles of CO2 per MJ. As can be seen from Table 4, this figure is significantly higher than that of other sources of fossil fuel." which I find interesting. Also has power plant heat capacity on page 41.} Looks like Estonia is ready to export their technology to Utah. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Estonia's oil shale industry is currently the most developed in the world". I am little bit sceptical about that kind of promotional tone. Even if it was true ten years ago, the development in China has been impressive. They have became the largest shale oil producer and there have been also some technological developments.
- As for Jordan and Utah projects, I don't think this belongs here. There are separate articles Oil shale in Jordan, Attarat Power Plant, and Enefit American Oil. These are development projects, not just selling technology. In addition, VKG has developed the project in Ukraine, but this is put in hold at the moment. There is also technology sale to Morocco and most recently plans to sale technology to China, but as I said, I am not sure if this belongs here. Beagel (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sentence The oil shale industry in Estonia is one of the most developed in the world is added, sourced by the IEA. "One of the most developed" seems to be accurate description. Beagel (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the point about all other countries switching to oil/petroleum is very important for historical perspective. Estonia is unique in that it relies on oil shale (China is growing, but it's still just a fraction of its energy mix) and that should be emphasized. Re export to USA/Jordan, I think it's worth a sentence with links to other articles on wiki. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sentence The oil shale industry in Estonia is one of the most developed in the world is added, sourced by the IEA. "One of the most developed" seems to be accurate description. Beagel (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Another item should be added: most other countries switched to oil in mid-century. Also, it has the sentence "Estonia's oil shale industry is currently the most developed in the world." which IMHO is lead-worthy sentence. {Also, "During direct combustion of the Estonian Kukersites, approximately 106 kg of CO2 is emitted per GJ (Veiderma, 2003). This corresponds to 2.4 moles of CO2 per MJ. As can be seen from Table 4, this figure is significantly higher than that of other sources of fossil fuel." which I find interesting. Also has power plant heat capacity on page 41.} Looks like Estonia is ready to export their technology to Utah. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I added comparison with Scotland on the one hand and with China on the other hand. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to integrate it here. In the second half of 19th century and in the beginning of 20th century oil shale industries emerged in a lot of countries, just to be deceased after very short period (usually from few years up to decade). From long period industries it was more than half century after oil shale industry started in Scotland but some decades before China, Russia and Sweden. More detailed information is in the History of the oil shale industry article. There were attempts to copy existing technologies of Scotland but it became clear that due to unique properties of kukersite, it needed a tailor-made or at least adjusted technology. As a result, already in 1930s Estonia became a leading oil shale country (industry in Scotland that time still existed in some scale but it had lost the importance it had in the 19th century). Any suggestion how to include this here is welcome. Beagel (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done It simply begs for a summary table of mines with at least name, open or underground, years of exploitation; extra: operator, coordinates, production...
- Is adding the coordinates a possibility? Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure if it is possible to find coordinates for all mines. I just tested some of them and I was not able to find exact location for all of them, particularly for the older ones. Beagel (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is adding the coordinates a possibility? Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done In environment section: impact on living things (humans, animals, plants)
- I add some information. In general, it is too complex to be described in details in this article. Beagel (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Some more information (e.g. impact on biodiversity) is added. Beagel (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Old info on cancer rates. Estonia is the biggest waste generator per capita in European Union due to oil shale use. Interesting calculations of pollution costs. Could be used as a ref that the issue is not well studied. Looks like they plan a health study in 2015. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Added Estonia ranks first among the European Union countries by generated waste per capita. Also added There is no recent research about monetary valuation of health damage and environmental impacts caused by the oil shale industry. An oil shale sector health impact survey will be carried out in 2015. The article already includes information that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are carcinogenic. Beagel (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Old info on cancer rates. Estonia is the biggest waste generator per capita in European Union due to oil shale use. Interesting calculations of pollution costs. Could be used as a ref that the issue is not well studied. Looks like they plan a health study in 2015. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Some more information (e.g. impact on biodiversity) is added. Beagel (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I add some information. In general, it is too complex to be described in details in this article. Beagel (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Renata (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Renata. Very useful comments. I will certainly go through and respond to all of them, but please give me just a few days for this. Beagel (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- No rush :) I don't know how much time I will have myself... Renata (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Happy New Year! Sorry, been MIA. My weird wiki ADD continues where I don't do any of the things I am supposed to, and do all the shiny random things ;) But I see you have been busy - the article is much improved since I last read it. Awesome!!! I am going to be very busy in real life in the upcoming weeks, so feel free to ping me when I am offline for too long. Renata (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have made some edits to the article directly - please review to make sure i did not screw up too badly. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Early history
New study about the oil shale discovery has been published and it questioned the role of Güldenstädt and Hupel. I changed accordingly text in the relevant section. Beagel (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Beagel, you will have seen by now that I've made some minor changes in wording and minor copy-edits. I'm going to read through the entire article. Feel free to change, revert, or ask me about any of my edits. I have two questions for you about the sub-section Oil shale in Estonia#Early history:
- 1) Just after the middle of the second paragraph in this section is the following sentence:
- This discovery was shortly mentioned in a paper prepared by the German chemist Johann Gottlieb Georgi and presented by the Actual State Councillor Anton-Johann Engelhardt at the meeting of the Society in 1789.
- The word "shortly" is ambiguous here. Do you mean to say that it was soon after the burning rock was discovered on the Kohala estate that Johann Gottlieb Georgi prepared a paper? If so, I suggest one of these two wordings:
- Soon afterward, this discovery was mentioned in a paper prepared by the German chemist...
- This discovery was mentioned in a paper prepared soon afterward by the German chemist...
- Or do you mean that the mention of the discovery in the paper was short, or brief? If so, I suggest the following wording:
- This discovery was briefly mentioned in a paper prepared by the German chemist...
- Thank you, CorinneSD. The meaning is briefly, so I changed it accordingly. Beagel (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
2) The third sentence in the third paragraph in this section Oil shale in Estonia#Early history is the following:
- In 1850–1857, these occurrences were studied by the Baltic German geologist Carl Friedrich Schmidt.
- The phrase "these occurrences" is not entirely clear. Does it refer to the large-scale works that were undertaken in Estonia or to the discovery in several locations of previously unknown layers of oil shale (the subject of this last phrase, "the discovery", is actually singular, making the connection between "these occurrences" and "the discovery" a little difficult). It even occurred to me that the "occurrences" that Carl Friedrich Schmidt studied might include the discoveries mentioned in the previous paragraph. Can you think of a phrase that would be more accurate than "these occurrences"? If you can't, can you describe to me what exactly Schmidt studied? Then I might be able to come up with a phrase.
- If Schmidt studied some "occurrences" over a period of seven years (1850 to 1857), I'd like to suggest that "In 1850–1857" be changed to:
- In the years 1850–1857,... - Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I changed it and tied to clarify. Beagel (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Beagel I see you changed "owner" (of the Kukruse Manor) to "landlord". I want to be sure that is really the best word. In the U.S., a landlord is the owner of the building, and it is a building in which there are rooms or apartments rented out, and rent is paid to the landlord. Is that the case with Kukruse Manor? By the way, I don't recall reading anywhere in the article what Kukruse Manor actually is. Is it an old manor house that is now a hotel, or inn, or apartment building, or manor house with the land that goes with it? What is it? If you changed "owner" to "landlord" because the man is not really the owner, then perhaps he is a manager of the estate, or estate agent, or caretaker. CorinneSD (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- von Toll was owner of the estate. That time manor in Estonia was an estate (manor house together with surrounding lands) owned by a nobleman. Some of the land was used for the needs of estate (owner), rest of it was rented out to common people (peasants/farmers) living on the lands of the estate. The system was reformed only after Estonia gained independence at the beginning of the 20th century when lands of the Baltic German nobility were expropriated and distributed among farmers and veterans of the Independence War. As of today, the Kukruse Manor house is a Polar Museum dedicated to the Toll's family (Eduard von Toll was a famous explorer of the Arctic). Beagel (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Beginning of oil shale industry
Beagel, I see you added some material in Oil shale in Estonia#Beginning of oil shale industry. I made a few minor copy-edits and word changes, but I have to ask you about this paragraph:
- (1) For large-scale oil shale utilisation, the construction of oil shale-fired power stations and oil shale thermal processing facilities was planned. (2) The plan for oil shale mining in Estonia was presented to the Emperor Nicholas II on 3 January 1917. (3) On 13 February 1917, the Council of Ministers of Russia allocated 1.2 million rubles for purchasing land and starting mining activities. (4) After the February Revolution, the Russian Provisional Government continued to implement the plan. (5) The special commissioner of the Provisional Government for oil shale purchasing and stockpiling began preparing an oil shale mine at Pavandu. (6) About 500 workers, including war prisoners, were engaged in the construction of the mine in the summer of 1917. (7) After the October Revolution financing ceased and construction stopped. I've put two spaces between each sentence, visible only in edit mode, and numbered the sentences, just to make it easier to see and discuss the sentences.
The first sentence states, "the construction of...power stations and...processing facilities was planned". The second sentence says, "The plan for oil shale mining in Estonia was presented...
That's going from somewhat specific (power stations and processing facilities) to more general ("oil shale mining in Estonia"). Normally, the order in a paragraph is from general to specific. The third sentence says "the Council of Ministers...allocated...rubles for purchasing land and starting mining activities". That's also fairly general.
The fourth sentence, "...continued to implement the plan", is related to the third. The fifth gets more specific about the plan, but "preparing a...mine" is not very precise. It should either be more precise or be left out. The sixth sentence describes construction of the mine, and the seventh says construction stopped, which is fine.
The main problem with this paragraph seems to be the first sentence. It's not clear how it relates to the rest of the paragraph. Can you include the information in the first sentence in the second sentence? Something like this:
TheA plan for oil shale mining in Estonia, including construction of oil shale-fired power stations and oil shale thermal processing facilities, was presented to the Emperor Nicholas II on 3 January 1917.
If you like this sentence, then the only other thing that needs your attention is sentence (5). CorinneSD (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- I changed and re-arranged the text to make it more clear. Please feel free to change it. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- @CorinneSD: After copyediting there is the sentence:
- After the February Revolution, the Russian Provisional Government appointed a special commissioner for oil shale purchasing and stockpiling who began construction of an oil shale mine at Pavandu in the summer of 1917, supervising about 500 workers, including war prisoners.
- Actually this is incorrect as works (digging a drainage etc) started immediately after financing was granted. The summer time was probably the peak time for construction. Beagel (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- How is it now? I re-worded it again, and it's now back closer to the way it was. CorinneSD (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine. I only removed the word 'immediately'. Beagel (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Developments in Soviet Estonia
Beagel In the middle of the fifth paragraph in the section Oil shale in Estonia#Developments in Soviet Estonia, you will see the following two sentences:
- The stations, collectively known as the Narva Power Stations, are the world's two largest oil shale-fired power stations. Both power stations burned pulverised oil shale.
The verb in the first sentence ("are") suggests that the Narva Power Stations are still in operation. The verb in the second sentence ("burned") refers to the past. If the power stations still burn pulverised oil shale, "burned" should be changed to present tense: "burn". CorinneSD (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, they are still in operation. When commissioned, they burnt only pulverised oil shale. They are still burn partly pulverised oil shale (until the next year) but they are modernized to use the circulated fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) technology in their main generation units. Beagel (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, my gosh. That's pretty complicated. To indicate the change without going into too much detail, could you say, "For many years (or "At that time", or "When commissioned"), both power stations burned pulverised oil shale but are transitioning to circulated fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) technology in their main generation units."? CorinneSD (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the second sentence. I don't think this is needed here as there is a separate article about these plants. Beagel (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, my gosh. That's pretty complicated. To indicate the change without going into too much detail, could you say, "For many years (or "At that time", or "When commissioned"), both power stations burned pulverised oil shale but are transitioning to circulated fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) technology in their main generation units."? CorinneSD (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)