![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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)
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)
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)
There is a new proposal how to proceed with the merge from the Bituminous shale article. Beagel ( talk) 15:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ds.heavyoil.utah.edu/dspace/bitstream/123456789/10015/1/StrategicsignificanceofAmericasoilshaleresource_Vol2.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=50551&sn=DetailWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)