Talk:Oil shale in Estonia/Archive 1

Comments
The lead says “90% of its power from this source”, but later we have “about 85% of Estonia's electricity is generated from oil shale”.

The lead also says “As of 2007, six mines (open-pit or underground) were extracting oil shale in Estonia”, but later we have “As of 2014, five oil shale mines are in operation.” Update the sentence in the lead? Novickas (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is true that the lead is not updated yet. I think it could wait until all other sections are up-to-date to be adequately summarized. Beagel (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I updated the lead as the most expansion of this article is more or less done (there would be small changes/additions, of cause). Beagel (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the Kukersite section ought to precede the Graptolitic argillite section? - it sounds as though it's more important ("Although reserves of the graptolitic argillite surpass those of kukersite, its quality is poor as a source for the energy production." Novickas (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It could be done. However, as all other sections are related mainly to kukersite, it would be probably more logical to keep 'Kukersite' subsection immediately before these sections (that means after graptolitic argillite). Beagel (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Both make sense.

Thanks for the district heating info - more than I thought it would be. I do think it would be nice to mention that Narva is the 3rd largest city in the country, or mention its population, or both (e.g. "Narva (Estonia's third largest city, with a 2010 population of x".))
 * ✅ Added this after Narva district heating was mentioned. Beagel (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

My brief Interwebs surfing of the topic shows some people complaining that the industry is subsidized. Well, the capital costs of the big ones were Soviet-era. But I'm curious about the current economics - the taxes, including EU carbon taxes, Kyoto Protocol considerations, tariffs, value-added taxes, those kind of things. I get the impression that it's important for energy independence and energy security, but that they are trying to diversify and use more renewables (possibly why the share fell from 90% to 85%?) So I would like to see a few sentences about oil shale in relation to Energy policy of Estonia. (Would come in handy if/when it gets an article.)
 * Concerning subsidies—it was certainly done during the Soviet era (in one source it was said that oil shale was sold to oil industry under its production price just to keep the shale-oil production live; can't remember were it was exactly) but I don't think that direct subsidies for production are the case anymore. This paper by the OECD, already used as a reference, does not say anything about direct subsidies. There had been some tax exemptions e.g. for heating oil but they are not in use anymore. However, there are probably some issues related to these above-mentioned claims. First one, oil-shale industry has got some grants—both national and EU—for projects like closing the old ash and semi-coke dumps. Also construction of the new power plant has probably got some kind of national support. At the same time by my understanding there is no lare energy projects in the EU without some kind of support schemes. The second issue by my understanding is that mining subsidiary of Eesti Energia is the largest oil-shale miner and in addition to selling oil shale to other subsidiaries of Eesti Energia (power plants and oil plants) it sells oil shale also to other shale-oil producers (although all shale-oil producers have also their own mines). I understand that they claim that the price for them is higher than power power plants (which is regulated price according to the above-mentioned OECD paper) but I don't know if it is different or not from the price they sell to the Narva Oil Plant. I will try to find some source about the energy security and energy policy context. Beagel (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's a really picayune quibble - the caption for the picture in the lead calls it an outcropping of Kukersite. But my understanding of an outcrop is that it spontaneously, no human intervention, appears above ground. Which doesn't seem applicable to Kukersite, because the section talks a lot about its overburden. Also the picture looks like it was taken at a mine. How about changing the caption to leave out the word outcropping?
 * This is how the picture was described by the author. As I am not expert in this field, I will ask some editors with geology background to comment this. Beagel (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The image was taken by Mark Wilson, a geology lecturer, and is clearly taken above ground - from the shadows and the flowers at the bottom of the image. Give Mark a ping if you like, but it looks fine to me.Mikenorton (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. For me an outcrop is simply a surface exposure of bedrock or sediment, whether natural or artificial. A rocky road cut or quarry wall is an "outcrop", I would think, to just about all geologists. If it bothers anyone, though, I have no problem with a word change. I suppose "quarry wall" is most descriptive here. Wilson44691 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, Beagel, that I'll probably be working on this very slowly - should have mentioned that. Novickas (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. There is no deadline, I am not in hurry and there are still same small things which will consume a lot of time. The reason why I am dealing with this article now, is that just after very long period I got enough inspiration (and still unfortunately not so much time as I want) to go forward with any GA/FA work. Trying not to loose the momentum Beagel (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a degree in Geological Engineering, and from time to time in my checkered career I worked professionally as a field geologist doing geologic mapping. I never before heard anyone say that an outcrop must be a natural exposure. I have always thought of road cuts and quarry exposures as outcrops.  I checked a couple of geologic dictionaries, neither of which mention this distinction.  It appears that Professor Wilson is right, and the caption is correct as it is.  Plazak (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for input on the outcropping discussion - I was going by my high school geology teacher's usage. (Which was some while ago, and in a very urbanized area - he might have felt natural v. human-created was important for us.) Really nice to have a picture, and particular thanks to User:Wilson44691. Novickas (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Novickas, for your participation and enthusiasm! Wilson44691 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Resource
Hey, User:Beagel and other other interested parties - it's pretty close to GA, I think. One thing that bothers me a little - the one-sentence opening to the Resource section; seems sparse. What do you think of this idea - could we change the title to Resources and reserves, and move anything about the definition of reserves that shows up later, into that opening of this section? I saw some discussion of the definitions somewhere...unfortunately didn't save the location. Novickas (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Definition of reserves is provided in Oil shale reserves. I think that as 'resource' covers also reserves, there is no need to change the title but instead of it we need to check the usage of these terms in the text. But this is again that kind of issue where editors with geology background could help. Maybe Mikenorton, Plazak, or Wilson44691 could comment? Beagel (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone. I must admit to being confused. What exactly is the question? Wilson44691 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I wasn't being clear. Right now, there is a level 1 section, Resources, followed by 2 subsections about kukersite and graptolitic argillite. But there's only one sentence in the intro to the level 1 Resources section, which doesn't seem quite right to me, and I'd like to expand it with a few more sentences. I was thinking that if it were retitled Resources and reserves, then we could put something about how reserves are defined there - maybe move the sentence "Active resource is defined as resource in the areas without environmental restrictions with an energy rating at least 35 GJ/m2 and the calorific value at least 8 MJ/kg.[21] Recoverable reserves—resource that is possible to extract–comprise up to 50% of active resources.[24]" Preceded maybe by another sentence or two along the lines of "Kukersite is much richer in organic matter and has long been the basis of the national energy industry." This is partly because I've always felt that a few intro sentences that contain relatively few technical terms, statistics, and unfamiliar names give readers a little breathing room. Hope that makes sense. Novickas (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me, Novickas. I can't apply any of my geological expertise to the issue beyond what you've got -- you have it well in hand. Wilson44691 (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that's kind of you, but I'm feeling uninspired - can still tweak wording but sentences don't come easy. We could also just get rid of that single sentence, since kuk and grap are already mentioned in the lead as the two resources. I hope, User:Wilson44691, that you'll come by again - would it be OK to ping you when it's under GA review? Novickas (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what "ping" means, but I'll help if I can. I may be out of touch in the field, though, for much of the summer. Wilson44691 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Novickas. If you think it would be better to remove this sentence, it is ok for me. And thank you for your efforts to copyedit this article. Good work and highly appreciated. Beagel (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost removed it, but it has a reference - didn't want to spoil that. Ideas? Novickas (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is good to go for a GA nom. It'll be on my watchlist, but just in case there's something I might be able to help with and I'm off for a few days, give me a ping. (I think I have it set up so that it'll send me an email. (Testing, User:Novickas). All the best, Novickas (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, excellent work. I have one request. Maybe you could help with creating alternative text for images. There is alternative text for the first image but it is needed also for all other images in the article. I am not sure if it is necessary for GA, but it is required for FA. I am not feeling comfortable enough for doing it myself. Beagel (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * De nada. About the alt text for images in FA articles, somewhere along the line that requirement went away. It's not easy to find and point to that with a diff, tho - the closest thing I could find was Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria/Archive_10. It's a good thing so I'll put some in later. Novickas (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Automatic peer review
I did automatic peer review for this article and some comments came up. While I am not concerned about infobox (there is no suitable infobox), summary style (it applies probably to the history section; however, the size of this article is not so big to justify splitting this section) and copyediting (this is a standard recommendation for every article—it is already done thank to user:Novickas), I am confused about suggestion about standard abbreviations. I don't understand for what it applies, so any idea would be useful. I am also concerned about usage of British or American English. Could someone check the consistency of language usage? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think what the standard abbreviation thing means is that if you write 100 kilometres (62 miles), the parenthetical miles should be abbreviated to mi. But most (all? we should probably check) of the conversions here are done using the convert wiki-function, which I suppose does that for us. Some guidance at Units.


 * The article seems as tho it started out in British English - e.g. tonnes. So it should probably stick to that? I may have added some USEng to it, sorry. Here's an idea - as mentioned in Spellchecking, Firefox flags words in the editing window - mine is clearly set to USEng, since it flags organisation and sulphur as misspelled, but it can be set to UK. I'll try that sometime in the next few days. Novickas (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that was interesting. The British English Firefox spell checker just stopped flagging things about a third of the way through, so I had to do the rest of it in sections. It thinks organization is OK. And I remembered another thing - they call them power stations rather than power plants. For consistency's sake, do we need to change the various uses of plant here...pipe Narva Power Plants to Narva Power Stations?
 * Now I'm wondering if any use of the full word metre or kilometre is discouraged. Just now looked at a recent main-page FA, Betelgeuse, and kilometre is always km. That convention is probably covered in the MOS somewhere...Novickas (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed "power plants" to "power stations" per British English, although most of sources about Estonian oil shale industry use "plant" instead of "station". I don't think that use of the full word metre or kilometre is discourage. However, it is very easy to add a special parameter to conversion template to use abbreviations only. Beagel (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the usage of station v. plant is confusing, but it doesn't hurt to be consistent. Also, after looking around, I get the impression that it's only scientific articles that consistently abbreviate kilometres to km in running prose. This article is more general.

On an unrelated note, I know it's kind of late in the game, sorry, but now I'm thinking that the organization and headings could be better. Maybe create a section called Late 20th and early 21st centuries? That would include the material now in Developments since independence? This is partly because I feel that the section now called Developments since independence shouldn't start with a discussion of mine openings and closings -it seems relatively minor. (Those could be a separate sub-section)

And because I suspect our hypothetical reader (the reasonably well-educated high school student or undergraduate) wouldn't know anything about the history of Estonia, I would like to see at least these two sentences introducing this suggested section: Estonia regained independence in 1991 and joined the European Union in 2004. The industry began privatising and adjusting its practices to meet EU standards. What say? Novickas (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Informal review by CorinneSD, continued
1) I have several questions about the first paragraph in the section Oil shale in Estonia, which I will copy here:


 * The Tammiku and Sompa mines were closed in 1999, and those at Kohtla and Ahtme were closed in 2001. In 2000, the open-pit mines at Viivikonna, Sirgala and Narva were merged into the single Narva open-pit mine. The Aidu open-pit mine was closed in 2012, and the Viru underground mine in 2013. New mines were opened by Kiviõli Keemiatööstus (Põhja-Kiviõli open-pit mine; 2003), Kunda Nordic Tsement (Ubja open-pit mine; 2005) and Viru Keemia Grupp (Ojamaa open-pit mine; 2006). By 2006, 90 years after major mining had begun, one billion tonnes had been mined.

(a) The third sentence is:


 * The Aidu open-pit mine was closed in 2012, and the Viru underground mine in 2013.


 * The second half of the sentence has no verb. You may have left it out with the idea that it is understood to be "was closed". Sometimes, that approach works, but here, I recommend putting in the verb. It sounds incomplete the way it is. Also, it would then follow the pattern of the first sentence in the paragraph:


 * The Aidu open-pit mine was closed in 2012, and the Viru underground mine was closed in 2013.


 * If you would prefer a little variety in sentence structure, you could word it as follows:


 * The Aidu open-pit mine was closed in 2012, followed a year later by the Viru underground mine.

(b) The last sentence of the paragraph is as follows:


 * By 2006, 90 years after major mining had begun, one billion tonnes had been mined.


 * It's not completely clear exactly to what the figure of one billion tonnes refers. Is this just in the mines mentioned here, including the ones that closed? Or is this in all of Estonia? If it's in all of Estonia, I would add "in Estonia" to the end of the sentence. If it's only in certain mines, then this needs clarifying.

This is a total amount of mined oil shale in Estonia since 1916. Beagel (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(c) The second-to-last sentence is as follows:


 * New mines were opened by Kiviõli Keemiatööstus (Põhja-Kiviõli open-pit mine; 2003), Kunda Nordic Tsement (Ubja open-pit mine; 2005) and Viru Keemia Grupp (Ojamaa open-pit mine; 2006).


 * To me, this sentence is confusing.


 * First, I don't understand why company names are in italics. Just because they are not English words? I don't think that's a reason to put them in italics. It's just a company name. (But read my second point.)


 * Second, it looks like the focus is on companies rather than on the mines. I may be wrong, but to me that shades off into promoting the companies. I think the focus should be on the mines. I would leave out the company names altogether.


 * Third, I think the use of parentheses, combined with so many non-English words and company names, makes the whole thing visually confusing and almost incomprehensible.


 * I suggest putting the mines first (not in parentheses), then use passive voice, and leave out the company names:


 * Company names were originally added to show the transition from the single mining company to several competing companies. But I agree that names should be removed from this paragraph (but to be kept in the 'Mining' subsections). At the same time, I think this section needs some additional information (per comments by Renata and earlier comment by Novickas). I try to put some additional information into this section (I am not sure exactly when). Maybe you could review it again then. Beagel (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Beginning in 2003, several new mines were opened: the Põhja-Kiviõli open-pit mine in 2003, the Ubja open-pit mine in 2005, and the Ojamaa open-pit mine in 2006. CorinneSD (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I just saw another similar sentence in Oil shale in Estonia, middle of first paragraph: "New mines were opened...." You might want to follow that pattern. CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mining

2) The section is somewhat better organized than it was before. I just have a question about the third paragraph, which I'll copy here:


 * The Narva open-pit mine, also operated by Eesti Energia Kaevandused, uses a technology that involves stripping the rock with relatively large-bucket (10–35 cubic metres or 350–1,240 cubic feet) excavators. Both the overburden and the targeted deposit are first broken up by blasting. At open-pit mines with thin overburdens, stripping is done with smaller excavators using front end loaders and hydraulic excavators. The Narva mine and the Põhja-Kiviõli open-pit mine, operated by Kiviõli keemiatööstus, use highly selective extraction in three layers of seams.

The third sentence does not seem to belong. The paragraph seems to be about the Narva open-pit mind. Why do you introduce a sentence about "open-pit mines with thin overburdens"? Unless you can connect this sentence to the Narva open-pit mine, this sentence would be better used elsewhere.
 * This text has been so many times re-organized that I can't remember the reason for inclusion of this text. Probably to show a difference with some other mines. If you think it would be better to remove, I have no objections. Beagel (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding the last sentence, is it really necessary to give name name of the company? CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that in this context it is necessary for a reason to provide information which mine is owned by who. In the future, this information could be made available in the form of a summary table of mines, as proposed by Renata. I plan to create that kind of table, but it takes time (I try to finish with other more urgent tasks before that) and there will be a problem with incomplete information about the mines from the beginning of the last century. Beagel (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. On another issue, I have noticed that, apart from en-dashes used in number ranges and in two-word names or processes, en-dashes and em-dashes are both used. If you read the few small paragraphs in WP:EMDASH, you will see that, when used as punctuation in sentences, there are two options: en-dashes with a space either side of the dash, or em-dashes with no space either side of the dash, but that whichever one is chosen should be used consistently throughout the article. If you want to decide which you prefer, I'd be glad to go through and make them all consistent. Look through the article and see how the spaced en-dash looks and how the unspaced em-dash looks and see which you like better. CorinneSD (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My preference is the spaced en-dash. Beagel (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. So that means changing any em-dashes to spaced en-dashes. Do you want to do that, or shall I go ahead and do it?


 * Also, I hope you don't mind that I went ahead and made a number of changes to wording today. It saves time, saves copying the sentences and paragraphs to the talk page, asking many questions to see if you approve, etc., but if you prefer I do that, I will. CorinneSD (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! I am happy that you are doing these changes and this is very reasonable to do changes this way. If it feels that there might be any issue with some edits, I will discuss it. Otherwise, no need to spent a lot of time to discuss things which perfectly make sense. I have been quite a slow to response recently but this is busy time at the moment in my real life. However, I will work with all these issues which are still open and these reviews have been very useful to see how to improve this article. Beagel (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Beagel I'm very sorry that I didn't get around to changing em-dashes to en-dashes, and now I see you've completed that. I got distracted by more fun editing tasks. CorinneSD (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. And definitely, editing should be a fun. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Informal review by CorinneSD
Hello, Beagel -- I saw your note on Novicka's talk page. I left a note for you there. Maybe I should have left it here. Thank you for thinking of me. I really enjoy editing to improve writing, but I want to be sensitive to your wishes regarding how much you want me to go ahead and change without asking you first. Besides minor copy-edits such as punctuation, I would be glad to run each question or concern by you here as I did when I worked on Radiocarbon dating for Mike Christie. Then you can either make the change or indicate your wishes.

I already changed one sentence in the lead and added a phrase. I hope you don't mind. Feel free to revert or change them.

✅ 1) 2nd paragraph of lead

I have a concern about this passage:


 * The first attempts to establish a surface oil shale mine and to start shale oil production were undertaken in 1838. Modern industrial use commenced in 1916. Production of shale oil from oil shale began in 1921 and oil shale was first used to generate electrical power in 1924.

In the first sentence you say, "The first attempts...to start shale oil production were undertaken in 1838." In the third sentence you say, "Production of shale oil...began in 1921..." They seem to be saying the same thing but with different dates. If they are both true, then there must be a difference, and that difference needs to be mentioned in order for this to be clear. CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I see, now that I've read on, that the difference is that the first attempts to start shale oil production were not successful. In the middle of the second paragraph in Oil shale in Estonia are the following two sentences:


 * In 1838 he [von Helmersen] undertook the first attempt to establish a surface mine in the vicinity of Rakvere and sought to distil oil from the Vanamõisa oil shale deposit. Although the distillation effort failed, oil shale was used as a low-grade fuel.

It sounds like von Helmersen did establish a surface mine but was unsuccessful in his attempt to distil oil from the oil shale. If that is correct, perhaps the sentence in the lead could better reflect this. CorinneSD (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I think that there is no need to mention the mine in that sentence in the lead. What you think about if we change this sentence to:
 * "The first unsuccessful attempt to start shale oil production was undertaken already in 1838."
 * Beagel (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest the following:


 * The first attempt to start shale oil production was undertaken in 1838 but was unsuccessful.


 * or, to avoid two words starting "un" - undertaken and unsuccessful:


 * The first attempt to start shale oil production took place in 1838 but was unsuccessful.


 * I worked on this sentence. I retained the information about the establishment of a mine. What do you think of it now? CorinneSD (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Beagel (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I still have some concerns to use "to establish a surface mine" which implies that establishing a mine was Helmersen's intention. It was not. He dig 16 trenches which could be broadly described as "mine" but his intention at that time period was only research of that rock and feasibility of oil distillation. It seems that the only source saying "to establish an open-cast pit" is Dyni and by y understanding it bases on too broad interpretation of what was said by existing sources. Any ideas how to reword this? Also, the next sentence probably needs some rewording. Right now it makes a link between Helmersen's work in Vanamõisa and usage of oil shale as a local fuel, but the only link is that there were no attempts to create any oil production. Beagel (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

3rd paragraph of lead

✅ 2) I have two questions about these two sentences:


 * Of all the power stations fired by oil shale, the largest was in this country. Estonia is the second largest shale oil producer in the world.


 * First sentence

(a) It's not clear whether "all the power stations fired by oil shale" means "all the power stations in the world that are fired by oil shale". If so, I'd like to word it like this. I think it would be clearer.

(b) I don't understand why the verb in the main clause is in past tense:


 * the largest was in this country.


 * Why "was"? Is it no longer the largest? Is that power station no longer in existence?


 * I corrected this sentence according to your comments and now it reads:


 * "Of all the power stations in the world that are fired by oil shale, the largest are in this country."


 * You are correct that this mean "in the world" and it useful clarification. Second, I changed it to the current tense and also to plural as at least two largest oil shale-fired stations are located in Estonia. They are both in use. Beagel (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. I see the changes. Good. CorinneSD (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

✅ 3) Second sentence


 * Estonia is the second largest shale oil producer in the world.

Because in the previous paragraph you used past tense to refer to Estonian oil shale production and indicated that, beginning in around 1980, nuclear power largely supplanted shale oil as the main source of energy in Russia, I think it would be helpful to mention countries (or regions) other than Estonia itself that use Estonia's shale oil. Unless I have misunderstood, Estonia is not simply a shale oil producer, it is also a shale oil exporter. (I know I've got to keep reading.) It's just following on the heels of a paragraph in which you say its shale oil is no longer much in demand by its largest customer, this statement kind of begs the question, "How is this possible?"


 * "Oil shale" and "shale oil" are interrelated, but different things. Oil shale is a sedimentary rock which is mined and used mainly for power generation (as solid fuel like coal) and shale oil production. Shale oil is a petroleum-like synthetic crude oil which is extracted from oil shale (usually by pyrolysis). To make this more confusing, the mass media, particularly in the United States, uses the term "shale oil" for the natural crude oil in shales (this is explained in the Shale oil and Tight oil articles). The term "shale oil" is linked in the lead but if you have any suggestion how to make it more clear, your ideas are welcome.


 * I also understand that as you are the second person who mentions the issue of decreased production due to the nuclear power, this issue should be make more clear. Oil shale production peaked in 1980 when over 31 million tonnes of oil shale was mined. It was because of increased electricity demand in the north-west of the Soviet Union. However, all oil shale was consumed in Estonia and electricity generated from oil shale was exported. After that demand for oil-shale electricity decreased as it was partly replaced by nuclear energy and therefore also oil-shale mining decreased. The lowest level after 1980 was in 1995 when only 12 million tonnes of oil shale was mined. After that the amount of mined oil shale has again increased and in 2013 more than 20 million tonnes was mined. It was mainly due to increased shale oil production and increased electricity export to the other Baltic countries. Beagel (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry. I see that I mixed up "oil shale" and "shale oil" (I have put the two terms in bold just so I can see them better). Thank you for all the explanation. I think it would make this clearer to add a little more of the explanation you gave. It would be immensely helpful for understanding all these terms. I realize that the lead/lede needs to be a summary of the article so it can't get too long. Do you want to work on it? Perhaps just add two things in the lead/lede:


 * (1) Clearly explain the difference between oil shale and shale oil, as you did above, and
 * (2) explain what Estonia had been selling to Russia. I'm not even sure that the details of the decrease in demand in Russia need to be given in the lead/lede. Perhaps save all of that for the body of the article where you can explain it clearly and in detail.

Last paragraph in lead

✅ 4) In the middle of the last paragraph in the lead is this sentence:


 * It has also altered the groundwater regime and water quality.

Since WP articles should be comprehensible by an average reader, I think "the groundwater regime" is not clear. I know what groundwater is, but I've never heard that phrase before. To me, "regime" usually refers either to a government or to a diet. I would use a different word or explain it briefly.
 * In general, it means functioning of the groundwater system, e.g. groundwater level, circulation etc. This term is in use in the relevant literature but maybe you could suggest a term which is better understandable for the common readers? Beagel (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This was about the negative effects of oil shale mining and production, right? Was the effect limited to polluting the groundwater or did it also include lowering the underground water table or depleting aquifers? If both, then perhaps both could be mentioned: "polluting and depleting groundwater reserves". If you don't want to mention both, perhaps "damaging groundwater reserves".
 * The effects are mainly negative but not everything is no simple in the negative-positive scale. It is polluting the ground water in some extent (mainly oxidises the rock's pyrite and through this increasing the level of sulphates; more serious impact occurs if fire brokes-out as this will distil oil shale in situ and phenols and other compaunds may leak) and it is lowering the underground water table. The latter is mainly considered as a negative effect, but at the same time in some cases it has worked as amelioration for agricultural lands. It has been seen that the original groundwater level has recovered over decades in areas where mines have been closed. It is also still unclear what kind of effect will have the creation of underground lake system of closed mines. It is certainly an impact. I personally prefer the word 'impact' instead of 'effect'. Beagel (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Graptolitic argillite

✅ 5) The third paragraph in the section Oil shale in Estonia begins:


 * The composition of graptolitic argillite varies by location within Estonia.

However, with the fourth sentence of the previous paragraph you had already begun to describe the composition. I think you can move this sentence to right before "The organic content of graptolitic argillite found in northwestern Estonia ranges from 10 to 20%.", perhaps starting a new paragraph.

✅ 6) Also, I have a question about the last sentence in the third paragraph,


 * In northeastern Estonia its carbon-to-hydrogen atomic ratio is about nine.

I wonder (a) why you mention this for northeastern Estonia but not for the other regions, and (b) whether it is really important to include (it's a little technical).

✅ 7) Finally, and this is just a thought about the second and third paragraphs where you detail the composition:


 * To me, it reads like a list of characteristics, and it jumps around a bit from region to region. It's a bit hard to follow. I'm wondering whether there might be a way to organize it a little better, perhaps by region. It can be in prose; it doesn't have to be in list or chart form, but I think if it were organized a little better, a reader could clearly see the differences from region to region. I would start with a phrase like, "In the northeastern part of Estonia, ...." "In the eastern region, ...." "In the western region, ..." Then, within each region, put the composition details always in the same order such as metals first and organic content second, or vice versa. If you decide to include carbon-to-hydrogen atomic ratio, I would include it for each region or not at all.


 * Points 5)-7). I removed the sentence about the atomic ration (this was included before the Graptolitic argillite article was created and no needed any more) and rearranged other text by geographical location. There are two regions/types which are northeast and northwest. Please feel free to make additional rearrangements and copyediting. Beagel (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Kukersite

✅ 8) In the third paragraph of the section Oil shale in Estonia is the following sentence:


 * This species has affinities with the extant modern cyanobacterium, Entophysalis major, which forms algal mats in inter-tidal to very shallow subtidal waters.

I'm just wondering why "inter-tidal" has a hyphen between the prefix and the root and "subtidal" is written as one word. Both words have the same root. Don't you think the spelling should be consistent?


 * You are right, the spelling should be consistent. Which form (one word versus hyphen) you suggest for this article? Beagel (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me do a little looking around in other articles and dictionary before I reply.


 * I looked in the article on Tides and found "intertidal", with no hyphen, used quite often. I looked in that article for "subtidal" or "sub-tidal" and found neither one (which makes me wonder whether it is actually a word, since it is not found in an article on tides), but I did find "sublunar", with no hyphen, in the caption of the second image in the article, a blue and gray graphic. I'll keep looking a bit. CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just put "subtidal" in the WP search box and it led as a redirect to the article Littoral zone. I did a search within the article for the word "subtidal" and found only one use, in the last sentence of the section Littoral zone:


 * Shallower regions of the sublittoral zone, extending not far from the shore, are sometimes referred to as the subtidal zone.


 * So, it's clear that "subtidal" is a word, but it's not used at all in the article on Tide, and only once in the article on the Littoral zone. It seems to have a very specific meaning. So it seems that both "intertidal" and "subtidal" are written without a hyphen. CorinneSD (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

✅ 9) The next two sentences are:


 * Matrix minerals dominantly include low-magnesium calcite, dolomite, and siliciclastic minerals. Its heavy metal content is low in comparison with other oil shales in Estonia and Sweden.

Instead of "Matrix minerals dominantly include...", I would write:


 * Matrix minerals predominantly include... or


 * Matrix minerals include predominantly....


 * Used "Matrix minerals include predominantly...." Beagel (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

✅ 10) The next sentence is:


 * Its heavy metal content is low in comparison with other oil shales in Estonia and Sweden.

In this sentence, the possessive adjective "its" at the beginning of the sentence is ambiguous. To what singular noun does "its" refer? The previous sentence begins with a plural noun, "Matrix minerals", followed by a list of minerals.


 * Replaced "Its" with "Kukersite's". Beagel (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Beginning of oil-shale industry

✅ 11) In the second paragraph of the section Oil shale in Estonia are the following sentences:

This sentence does not make sense. Does the first part mean that Mikhail Zalessky gave the name kukersite to the rock? The second part makes no sense at all. Is "the state enterprise" a second object of the verb "named" or the subject of a new clause:
 * In 1917, Russian paleobotanist Mikhail Zalessky named kukersite and the state enterprise Kütuse Erinõupidamise volinik põlevkivi kokkuostu ja varumise alal (English: Special Commissioner on oil shale purchase and stockpiling) began preparing an oil shale mine at Pavandu.

or
 * ...Mikhail Zalessky named kukersite and [named] the state enterprise.
 * ...Mikhail Zalessky named kukersite and
 * the state enterprise....did what? You've got an Estonian phrase translated as "Special Commissioner", which is a person.

or is this supposed to be
 * ...Mikhail Zalessky was named "Special commissioner...", and he began preparing....?
 * I see you have fixed this, so I crossed it out. CorinneSD (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I split this sentence into two sentences to avoid confusion. The first sentence says that Zalessky gave the name kukersite to the local oil shale. The second sentence says that "the state special commissioner on oil shale purchase and stockpiling began preparing an oil shale mine at Pavandu". I removed the information on state enterprise as confusing (by my understanding that commissioner was a state official who at the same time carried out business activities as a legal person. But this is not important in this context and it is better to avoid confusion). Olease feel free to copyedit, if necessary. Beagel (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

✅ 12) I was looking at the images in the article (haven't looked at all of them, yet). I think that it is helpful to have a date in the caption, especially for the older photos. I was looking for a date for the third photo on the right in the section Oil shale in Estonia, so I clicked on the photo to enlarge it and look at the image file. I didn't see a year in the image file information, but then I noticed what looks like the name of the plant and perhaps a date handwritten right on the photo. Can you look at it? It looks like a number, then a lowercase v -- don't, or didn't, Europeans write the month with a Roman numeral? If so, would that be the fifth month, or May? Then after that is a number of two digits. It kind of looks like 31. If it is 31, it might be 1931, which would make sense because the plant was built in 1930. What do you think? Can you make out the entire date? If not, do you think it does say 31? CorinneSD (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Resident European barging in: you are absolutely correct. It says plant name and 15 May 1931. Or maybe 18 May 1931. Renata (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! I'm glad you could read it. For the caption, perhaps just the year would be sufficient. User:Novickas, would you go along with adding 1931 to the caption? Or would you like the entire date to be there, and, if so, which day would you use? CorinneSD (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Sca, you may be used to this kind of handwriting. Can you determine the first two digits and thus the day in the date on the photo? CorinneSD (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably 18.
 * Wow, this is real copy-editing you're doing!
 * Agree that the end product is shale oil, e.g. oil from shale. Sca (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think that just the year would be sufficient, similarly to other images in this articles. Funny that I did not recognized the handwritten date when uploading this image. Beagel (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's wonderful to see so many fresh eyes here :) My personal preference for the photo captions would be just year - consistency is soothing. More specific dates would be important in contexts where the plant or mine or whatever had just been formally opened, or burnt down a week later, or were involved in some other major event that was discussed in the article. Novickas (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Beagel I did notice, however, some captions later in the article that gave month and year and in at least one case day, month and year. Do you want all the captions to be consistent? CorinneSD (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. We should probably use only years as Novickas suggested. I would be also impossible to find full dates for all images. Beagel (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed captions to refer to years only. Beagel (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

13) The last paragraph in the section Oil shale in Estonia is the following:


 * The only underground mine, Estonia mine, exploits the room and pillar method. Longwall mining, used earlier, was abandoned during the 1990s.[3] This mine, which opened in 1972, is the largest oil shale mine in the world.[78] It is operated by Eesti Energia Kaevandused.

There is something about the arrangement of sentences in this paragraph that makes it not quite clear. There is no indication of the connection between the second sentence and the first. Was Longwall mining used in Estonia mine earlier? It doesn't say that. (Why is "Longwall" capitalized?)


 * No, longwall mining was used in some other, now closed mines. I removed is as too technical.Beagel (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, as I read through the Mining section, there does not seem to be any organizing principle for the paragraphs and within the paragraphs. Just some examples:


 * The second-to-last paragraph, about the Ojamaa mine, should really be combined with the other information about that mine that is in the paragraph just before it.


 * You mention "the largest oil shale mine in the world" at the very end of the section. Why is it last? Also, you give no figures to support that statement.
 * Because information about open pits and underground mines is in different paragraphs. I moved underground mining before open-pit mining. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive figures available. Keep looking for this. Beagel (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you make two sub-sections (with sub-headings), one for open-pit mines and one for underground mines? and/or: could you have a separate paragraph for each mine? CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I made some re-arrangements. Is it better? I have some doubts making very small forth-level subsections. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A few questions about the lead
1) I wonder why "oil shale in Estonia" is in bold at the beginning of the second paragraph in the lead.

Beagel (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Renata, please accept my apologies, this was my fault. This edit was done by me together with some other copyediting and formatting issues, but I really can't recall at the moment why I made it bold (or even I can't recall doing it but this is what the history confirms). I will remove this formatting. Beagel (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

2) These are the first four sentences of the third paragraph of the lead:


 * in 1838, an unsuccessful attempt was made to distil oil from oil shale. Modern industrial use of oil shale did not commence until 1916. Production of shale oil began in 1921. Oil shale was first used to generate electrical power in 1924.

In the third sentence, the phrase "shale oil" is used for the first time. An average reader may be confused by this switch. He or she may wonder if "shale oil" is the same as, or different form, "oil shale". It changes back to "oil shale" in the fourth sentence.
 * Actually, the term "shale oil" is used for the first time in the first paragraph:
 * A smaller proportion of the mined oil shale is used to produce shale oil, a type of synthetic oil extracted from shale by pyrolysis, which is sufficient to keep Estonia as the second largest shale oil producer in the world after China.
 * As it explains the relation of oil shale and shale oil, I am not sure if it should be explained again in the third paragraph. For clarity it could be specified "Production of shale oil from oil shale began in 1921", but on the other hand it seems to be over-usage of the word "oil shale". Any ideas?

3) The last two sentences of the third paragraph are:


 * Subsequently, electricity produced at nuclear power stations that had come on line in Russia reduced demand for electricity produced from oil shale. Oil shale mining [in Estonia] decreased in 1980s and 1990s but started to increase again in the beginning of the 21st century.

I assume that the decrease in oil shale mining in Estonia in the 1980s was a direct result of the reduced demand for electricity from Russia. If I am correct, then I think some indication of the cause-and-effect connection should be made. I can formulate the sentence (or suggest a formulation here) if I can be sure that this is correct. CorinneSD (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Please go forward with formulating it as appropriate. Beagel (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add a year after "that had come on line in Russia". Can you give me the year? CorinneSD (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically, in the corresponding bibliography the decline is linked to the commissioning of the 4th reactor (unit) at the Leningrad Nuclear Power Station in 1981. Beagel (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added "in 1981". I also removed "electricity produced at" which does not have any added value and replaced "nuclear power stations" with "new nuclear reactors" to be more precise. There is another issue: when this cause-and-effect connection is true about 1980s, the decrease in 1990s was mainly caused by the restructuring of the industry in Estonia (and in the former Soviet block in general). Beagel (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Aagh...I've re-worded. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. Beagel (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you've clarified other areas of the article that relate to the topics in the sentences I've copied above, but you haven't yet responded to my concerns about these particular sentences. I urge you to let me do the wording of the sentences after you have explained what you want. CorinneSD (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I just saw your comments only now and I am sorry not responding them before. I would appreciate if you could do the wording. I still have not responded to your earlier concerns about the fourth paragraph of lead but before doing that I would like to check once more the body text in the 'Environmental' section. I think that the fourth paragraph should be a little bit expanded, so probably it would be more rational to deal with it after that. Beagel (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you've moved the information about Estonia's being the second-largest oil shale producer after China to later in the lead. I'm not sure if this is the best wording. By wording the sentence this way, you have minimized the importance of the information about Estonia's being second-largest after China; now it sounds like an afterthought. Also, it is not clear whether it is solely the proportion of mined oil shale used to produce shale oil that keeps Estonia at #2 or whether it is this proportion in combination with the main production that keeps Estonia at #2. CorinneSD (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I moved and combined these sentences to make a better distinction between oil shale and shale oil. It seems less confusing to keep sentences about shale oil together (but not necessarily combined in the one sentence). Beagel (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh. Now I understand. I had missed that both parts of the sentence were about oil shale. Then, actually, it's not badly worded. I'm wondering whether in the last sentence:


 * In addition, oil shale and its products are used for district heating and as a feedstock material for the cement industry.


 * whether it would make sense to add "..., including shale oil," after "its products". CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this addition makes a sense in the context of central heating. At the same time, shale oil does not apply to the part "... as a feedstock material for the cement industry". Beagel (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. Let me think about this, but first, I see you used "central heating" whereas the sentence says "district heating". I don't know whether this is a U.S./British or European thing, but I've never heard the phrase "district heating" before, so I don't know what it is. Would "central heating" work just as well? Is this "home heating"? That would also work. Or does it include heating other types of buildings? CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "District heating" is the correct term used in this context in the international English. I am not sure about the US/British varieties. Also "central heating" is used in this context sometimes (as I accidentally did) but it is confusing as it usually applies to the centrally heated system of a building while in the case of district heating the heat is produced at the heat-only boiler station or cogeneration plant and supplied for the larger area (there is often only one single supplier of heat for the whole smaller town). Beagel (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh. So we'll leave that as it is. Also, because it would be confusing to distinguish between the uses of shale oil, I guess we'd better not add "including shale oil". CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Beagel (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kukersite
In the second paragraph of the section Oil shale in Estonia, you describe the content:


 * Its conversion ratio into usable energy (shale oil and oil shale gas) is between 65 and 67% and its Fischer Assay oil yield is 30 to 47%.

followed by the organic content.

When you described the content of graptolitic argillite in the third paragraph of Oil shale in Estonia, you describe the organic content first, then sulfur content, followed by:


 * Correspondingly, its calorific value is 5–8 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg) and its Fischer Assay oil yield is 3–5%.

Besides the different order, which is not so bad (it's up to you if you want to re-arrange it), I'm wondering why you used "its calorific value" for graptolitic argillite and "its conversion ratio into usable energy" for kukersite? Is there an important difference between these? If they mean the same thing, but you want to use "its conversion ratio into usable energy" (because you want to specify what forms the usable energy takes), what would you think of putting "calorific value" in parentheses after "its conversion ratio into usable energy"? I'm just thinking of the point of view of an average reader. CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Don't answer this now; keep reading:

I read these first few paragraphs again, and I see that you do mention the calorific value of kukersite at the end of the second paragraph. I guess you mention "its conversion rate into usable energy" because in kukersite there is a substantial amount that can be converted to energy whereas in graptolitic argillite there isn't. I wonder if it would help average readers (like me) comprehend all this if the items of the content of each mineral were given in the same order. CorinneSD (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I changed the order to make it similar to the previous section and I also made calorific values comparable (right now both units – MJ/kg and kcal/kg – are provided). Beagel (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Graptolitic argillite
✅ 1) In the second paragraph of the section Oil shale in Estonia, I see "North-Estonia Klint". I was wondering why "North-Estonia" was hyphenated, so I clicked on the link. It led to the article on Baltic Klint. While I do not see anything like "North-Estonia Klint" in the article, I did see "North Estonian Klint" in the External Links at the end of the article. I don't know which is correct, but just off-hand, normally an adjective form ("Estonian") would precede a noun ("Klint"), and I don't think the hyphen is needed (unless it is the standard name, in English, for that feature). CorinneSD (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to North Estonian Klint. Beagel (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

✅ 2) In the third paragraph in this section begins:


 * The composition of graptolitic argillite varies by location within Estonia. Its organic content ranges from 10 to 20% and its sulfur content is 2–4%.

For the second sentence, I wonder if you would go along with re-wording the second half of the sentence to utilize the verb "ranges" (after "and") instead of changing the verb to BE ("is"), as follows:


 * Its organic content ranges from 10 to 20% and its sulfur content ranges from 2 to 4%.


 * Its organic content ranges from 10 to 20% and its sulfur content.......from 2 to 4%. (leaving out the verb in the second clause as being understood). CorinneSD (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Changed to "Its organic content ranges from 10 to 20% and its sulfur content ranges from 2 to 4%." Beagel (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Beagel, as I explained (see second bulleted alternative just above), the verb can be left out in the second clause since it is understood; this is normal English syntax (sentence structure and wording). (No dots.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed. Beagel (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

3) I worked on the fourth paragraph for some time and made some minor changes in wording. (Hope you don't mind.) (Note: the word "potential" implies the future, so you don't need to use the adjective "future" with it.) The paragraph ends with this clause:


 * however, there is as yet no environmentally friendly and economical technology to extract those elements.

From the way this is connected with a semi-colon to the clause about zinc oxide and molybdenum trioxide, I assume the statement "there is...no environmentally friendly and economical technology to extract those elements" applies only to those two elements (are they really elements, or are they minerals?).
 * If we are talking about oxides here, those are minerals. Pure zinc etc as a produced product may also be an element. Replaced "elements" with "minerals". Beagel (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, compounds (recovered) or elements (in situ) would be better (?) unless zincite (ZnO) and molybdite (MoO3) have been identified in the formation. As the black shales are formed in a reducing environment I would doubt that the Zn and Mo are present as oxides -- rather as trace constituents of pyrite or other sulfide phases (this per current ref #12). Given that, it seems the Zn and Mo don't occur as oxides, but rather are reported as such due to analysis techniques/protocols or recovery processes. Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, from ref 12 (Soesoo and Hade, pp 109-110): The calculated total weight of U is about 5.6656 million tons (6.6796 million tons as U3O8). Similarly, the calculations for some other elements are provided in the paper by Hade and Soesoo [submitted 05/2013]. Zn is as high as 16.5330 million tons (20.5802 million tons as ZnO) and Mo is 12.7616 million tons (19.1462 million tons as MoO3). So report the elemental amounts of U, Zn and Mo and forget about the confusing/misleading oxides that aren't really there. Vsmith (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that mean the word "elements" in "there is...no economical and environmentally friendly technology to extract those elements" is correct and should not be changed to "minerals"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry. I see you've already changed it to "metals". CorinneSD (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it clear to you that the statement applies only to those two minerals? Perhaps the source in the reference refers only to those two minerals, but in reality, doesn't this apply also to the triuranium octoxide mentioned just before this, and even to the oil? If you want that statement ("there is as yet no environmentally friendly...") clearly to apply only to zinc oxide and moylbdenum trioxide, I would change "those elements" to "these elements". ("Those elements" sort of points to something said earlier.) If you want the statement to apply to all the minerals mentioned in the paragraph, and perhaps also to the oil, we need to think about a slight re-wording of that final statement. You might want to change "elements" to "minerals". CorinneSD (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should apply to all minerals and oil mentioned. I appreciate if you could suggest better wording. Beagel (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

4) In the first paragraph in Oil shale in Estonia we read:


 * a marinite-type of black shale", and there is a link at "marinite".


 * In the first paragraph in Oil shale in Estonia we read:


 * Kukersite is a light-brown marine-type Late Ordovician oil shale".

Is there a difference between "marinite-type" and "marine-type"? Is one term traditionally used to describe graptolitic argillite and the other to describe kukersite? If not, and if they are synonyms, perhaps the more common word, "marine", should be used for both. There could still be a link to the article at the first one. CorinneSD (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a difference. By the classification adapted in 1980s, all oil shales are divided by the environment of their deposition into three groups which are terrestrial, lacustrine, and marine. The marine group consist of three type of oil shales which are kukersite, tasmanite, and marinite. While kukersite is quite unique and it occurs homogeneously in northeast of Estonia and nortwest of Russia, marinite is the most common type of oil shales (e.g. also the largest resource in the world, the Green River Formation in the United States, is marinite) and graptolitic argillite in estonia is just one subtype of marinite. (see also Oil shale geology). Beagel (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining all this so clearly. I find it very interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Early history
Hello, Beagel -- I see you've been doing a lot of work on the article. I have a few questions:

1) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Oil shale in Estonia is:


 * Due to the large-scale amelioration works and digging of drainage ditches in the 1850s, the presence of oil shale was discovered in several locations in Estonia.

Are the "amelioration works" and the "digging of draining ditches in the 1850s" mentioned earlier in the article? I don't remember reading about these before this. If they are not mentioned earlier in the article, I think more details need to be given to explain what these are and why they were carried out.


 * You are correct, that was added recently (in December). The reason for digging draining ditches was a need for additional agricultural land (extraction of peat and need for land for forestry were less important co-reasons). The need for additional land for agriculture was caused by changes in the agricultural technologies as also by the fact that just one generation before the serfdom was abolished in the Governorate of Estonia (in 1816). During that one generations, households had accumulated enough money to purchase their own land and there was lack of available agricultural land. At the same time, a significant part of the territory was excessively wet containing swamps and bogs. There was even some kind of public program for amelioration works. As in some parts oil shale lays very close to the ground, digging draining ditches uncovered these previously unknown layers of oil shale. Beagel (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining all this. Besides not finding the word "amelioration" anywhere else in the article, the word itself doesn't really say much without further details. I assume that you don't want to dwell on this or include many of the details you just provided, above. If that is correct, I'd like to suggest the following wording which may encapsulate the pertinent information:


 * During implementation of large-scale land improvement projects in the 1850s, previously unknown layers of oil shale were discovered in several locations in Estonia.

CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I changed it as you proposed but instead of "projects" I used the word "works". I also changed the next sentence to make a clear link between these these things. What you think? Beagel (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm curious as to why you think "works" is better than "projects". There is such a thing as colloquial (normal, common) wording, and "projects" normally goes with "land improvement". If you really prefer using the word "works", perhaps the sentence could be re-written, something like this:


 * During the 1850s, large-scale works were undertaken in Estonia to transform excessively wet land into land suitable for peat extraction, forestry, and agriculture; this included the digging of drainage ditches. In the process, previously unknown layers of oil shale were discovered in several locations.


 * I think this summarizes the information you provided, just above, but if you prefer a shorter sentence:


 * During the 1850s, large-scale works were undertaken in Estonia to create more land that was suitable for agriculture. In the process, previously unknown layers of oil shale were discovered in several locations. CorinneSD (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, my problem is with the word "projects" that it seems to imply that planned and coordinated activities were undertaken. In some extend this is true but at the same time there was a lot of individual spontaneous cases when landowners just started to digging of drainage ditches. However, I used your longer proposal. Beagel (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

2) Two sentences later is the following sentence:


 * Russian chemist Aleksandr Shamarin, who at the end of the 1860s studied the composition and properties of oil shale originating from the Kukruse area, found it rational to use oil shale for production of gas and as a solid fuel.

I'm puzzled by the phrase "found it rational". This sounds very stilted, as if it were a word-for-word translation into English from another language. How about, "Russian chemist Aleksandr Shamarin.....concluded it made sense to use....", "thought it made sense to use..." or something else (I'd have to give it more thought to come up with something else; it would help to know exactly what he thought.).


 * I think that "...concluded it made sense to use...." is correct. I changed that sentence. Beagel (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

3) I saw that you just made a link at "marine" to lead to the article on seawater. I know that the "article" on "marine" is just one paragraph and is basically a disambiguation page. However, perhaps the link at "marine" could be formulated so that it leads to the "Formation" section in the article on shale, at Shale. If you think seawater is better, that's fine. CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the best link would be "Marine (ocean)" but it just repeats the paragraph from the disambiguation page "Marine". I like your proposal to link to Shale but it may be confusing. It says that "shales are typically deposited in very slow moving water and are often found in lakes and lagoonal deposits". This is true for lacustrine-type of oil shales (like lamosite and torbanite) but not for marine-type. Maybe can advice, which should be the correct link in this context. Beagel (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Shale#Formation would be the better choice. I've just added sedimentary basins to that subsection and the emphasis there needs to shift away from lake seds as most shales in the stratigraphic record are marine in origin. As you say Marine (ocean) is basically a dab page and not helpful. Vsmith (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Beagel (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed your edit to the Economic impact section. Here is the sentence as it is now:


 * Other mineral resources in Estonia that are currently mined are peat, dolostone, clays, limestone, sand, and gravel; potentially mineable mineral resources are granite, iron ore, and phosphorite.

I feel that the phrase "potentially mineable mineral resources" is too heavy with two adjectives and an adverb. I'd like to suggest the following re-wording:


 * Other mineral resources in Estonia that are mined currently are peat, dolostone, clays, limestone, sand and gravel. Mineral resources that are potentially mineable include granite, iron ore and phosophorite.

Actually, the following would be even better (more concise):


 * Other mineral resources in Estonia that are mined currently are peat, dolostone, clays, limestone, sand and gravel. Potentially mineable resources include granite, iron ore and phosophorite.

CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC) CorinneSD (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC) CorinneSD (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Water usage and pollution
The first sentence in the section Oil shale in Estonia is the following:


 * Water pumped from the mines and used by oil shale-fired power stations, exceeds 90% of all water used in Estonia.

This sentence is not completely clear. Is the water "used by oil shale-fired power stations" one and the same as the "water pumped from the mines"? Or is it two different bodies or sources of water? Perhaps you could clarify this yourself; if not, you could explain it to me and let me clarify the sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could find the best wording. I try to clarify. "Water pumped from the mines" and water "used by oil shale-fired power stations" is not the same thing but two different types of water. "Water pumped from the mines" is groundwater and this surface water which flows/leaks to the mine and should be pumped out to make mining possible. Water "used by oil shale-fired power stations" is a surface water from water bodies (in the case of the Narva Power Stations it is the Narva River) which is circulated through condensers to cool the steam which was used for the electricity generation, and then is released back to the water body. Although in the reality water amount stay more or less the same, its properties (in the case of mine water it contains different substances, in the case of the cooling water its temperature has changed) and therefore, according to the law, it is considered as water usage. Beagel (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In the section Oil shale in Estonia is the following sentence:


 * Various efforts have reduced the industry's environmental impact. Fluidised bed combustion generates fewer PAHs than the earlier, dominant technologies that burned pulverised oil shale.

I'm wondering whether the word "dominant" needs to be there. The sentence would make just as much sense without it. It's not really clear what you mean by "dominant" and why it is important to include that word. (If there is a reason, I'd be interested to know it.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "dominant" was used because before 2004 all generation units used pulverised oil shale technolgy. However, I agree that this word is not needed here and I will remove it. Beagel (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. Regarding the first explanation, the first part of this sentence is not completely clear and I'd like to understand it before I continue.


 * "Water pumped from the mines" is groundwater and this surface water which flows/leaks to the mine and should be pumped out to make mining possible.

Did you really mean to say "this surface water"? Did you really mean to say:


 * "'Water pumped from the mines' is groundwater and surface water which flows/leaks into the mine:? If that is what you meant, I now understand the sentence. If that is not what you meant, then I don't. (If it is what you meant, then I also understand why groundwater is just a percentage of the total amount of water that is pumped from mines: "Groundwater comprises 64% of the water pumped annually from underground mines and 24% from open-pit mines.") CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it means "groundwater and surface water". Beagel (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Using the information you provided, I've added a kind of introductory sentence that I think makes what follows clearer. I have another question about the third and fourth sentences in the first paragraph of Water usage and pollution:


 * For each cubic meter of oil shale mined in Estonia, 25 cubic metres (880 cu ft) of water must be pumped from the mine area. About 227 million cubic metres (184,000 acre·ft) are pumped from mines annually.


 * I'd like to combine these sentences into one sentence (with something like "..., amounting to..."), but first I've got to be sure they are about the same thing. The first sentence says, "must be pumped from the mine area", and the second sentence says, "are pumped from mines annually". It's not clear what you mean by "the mine area". I wonder if that simply means "from the mines" or whether it means "from the mines and from the oil shale-fired power stations (ie., coolant water)". If it means only "from the mines", then it makes sense to join the sentences. If it means "from the mines and the power stations", then I can't join the sentences. (But then it would still be unclear what "the mine area" means.) CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are about the same thing. I also updated this figure as according to the more recent data only 14–18 cubic metres is pumped out per tonne instead of 25 cubic metres. Now both figures are from the same source. Beagel (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mitigation
I have some concerns about the second sentence in Oil shale in Estonia. Here are the first two sentences of that section:


 * Various efforts have reduced the industry's environmental impact. Fluidised bed combustion generates fewer nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and fly-ash emissions, including PAHs, than the earlier technologies that burned pulverised oil shale.

If "nitrogen oxides", "sulfur dioxide" and "fly-ash" are all supposed to be adjectives modifying the noun "emissions" -- that is, three different types of emissions -- then there should be no "s" on "oxides" in the phrase "nitrogen oxides". "Nitrogen oxide" would be correct adjective form.

If the only "emissions" are "fly-ash emissions", then the other two phrases need to be, like "fly-ash emissions", noun phrases. In that case, you've got a plural noun phrase -- "nitrogen oxides" -- followed by a singular phrase -- "sulfur dioxide" -- and then another plural phrase -- "fly-ash emissions". The comparative adjective "fewer" correctly goes with the plural "nitrogen oxides" and "fly-ash emissions" but not with the uncountable noun phrase "sulfur dioxide", which would require "less" -- "less sulfur dioxide". There are several ways to make this grammatically correct. One is: "...generates less sulfur dioxide and fewer nitrogen oxides and fly-ash emissions". Another is "...generates fewer nitrogen oxides, less sulfur dioxide, and fewer fly-ash emissions", but that's a little wordy.

After you've read all this, I think you may be able to fix the sentence yourself, but if not, let me know what needs to be said and I'll fix it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * They are all different type of emissions. Sulfur dioxide is singular because its only one type of oxide . At the same time, there are different type of nitrogen oxides, such as nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), together covered by a generic term NOx. In this context, NOx is accounted as a single type of emission, but it still consist of two different oxides. Beagel (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. Using "nitrogen oxide" as an adjective -- "nitrogen oxide emissions" -- does not preclude there being more than one type. If you want to, you can specify the two types in parentheses:


 * Fluidised bed combustion generates fewer nitrogen oxide (NO, NO2), sulfur dioxide, and fly-ash emissions, including PAHs, than the earlier technologies that burned pulverised oil shale.


 * Another possibility is to introduce the word "emissions" first, and then specify what they are:


 * Fluidised bed combustion generates fewer emissions – including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and fly-ash, as well as PAHS – than the earlier technologies that burned pulverised oil shale.


 * or:


 * Fluidised bed combustion generates fewer emissions – including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, fly-ash and PAHS – than the earlier technologies that burned pulverised oil shale.


 * What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed it to:


 * Fluidised bed combustion generates fewer, , and fly-ash, including PAHs, than the earlier technologies that burned pulverised oil shale.


 * Is it ok? Beagel (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, to a scientist who will readily recognize the abbreviations, yes, but I think words are clearer for the average reader. You didn't like any of the alternatives I suggested? CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Meaning of these formulas are provided in the previous subsection, so the reader who has read the previous subsection should recognize them. Beagel (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I see that. Then the abbreviations are all right. I would add the word "emissions" after "fly-ash":


 * fewer ......., and fly-ash emissions, ...".


 * If you don't want to do that, then change "fewer" to "less". CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Added the word "emissions". Beagel (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wastes and land usage
I have a few concerns regarding these two sentences, which appear toward the end of the section Oil shale in Estonia:


 * The structure of the relief and the ranges of altitude of a post-mining landscape, compared with the pre-mining landscape, has increased significantly. At the same time, the post-mining biodiversity in the area is poorer than before mining.

Let's look at the first sentence:


 * The structure of the relief and the ranges of altitude of a post-mining landscape, compared with the pre-mining landscape, has increased significantly.

There are several problems:

1) The subject of this sentence, "The structure of the relief and the ranges of altitude of a post-mining landscape," – essentially "The structure...and the ranges", is a plural subject (it's two things), so the verb, "has increased" is incorrect. It should be "have increased".

2) "The ranges...have increased" makes sense, but "the structure...has increased" does not. To say "the structure has increased" does not give enough information to say how it has increased -- in size, in weight, in volume? So, think about what you really meant when you said "The structure of the relief...has increased". If you can apply the word "range" to both "the structure of the relief" and "altitude", then you might be able to make the sentence more concise:


 * The range of topographical relief structures and altitude of the post-mining landscape has increased significantly compared to the pre-mining landscape.

If that's not what you meant, then you can work on it or let me know what you meant and I'll work on it.


 * Changed per your suggestion. Beagel (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Upon looking at the sentence above, I'm wondering whether "range" should be applied to topographical relief structures. Isn't it that mining has changed topographical relief structures, not increased or decreased them? If you want to say something specifically about what happened to the relief structures, you can. I'm not 100% clear on what actually has happened, but wouldn't this be more accurate? --


 * Compared to the pre-mining landscape, topographical relief structures have changed [how?] and the range of altitudes of of the post-mining landscape has increased significantly.


 * Whether or not I've got the right wording here, it's not real clear what the last part of this sentence means, either. Maybe you could add a clause or sentence that will explain what you mean. I think I know -- land that was high before mining is now lower, and artificial hills have been made that were not there before. CorinneSD (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Simply saying, that means that previously more or less flat land is not so flat anymore, but it is more structured. Maybe to say:


 * Compared to the pre-mining landscape, the land relief has changed and the range of altitudes of the post-mining landscape has increased.


 * Beagel (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How about this? I think this captures what you want to say:


 * As a result of decades of mining activity, the topography of Estonia has changed significantly; this includes a greater range of altitudes within the country.


 * CorinneSD (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is rather good, but this does not apply for the whole country but only for the limited part where mines are located. Maybe this:


 * As a result of decades of mining activity, the topography of the oil shale region has changed; this includes a greater range of altitudes within the mined area.


 * I also think it would be better not to use the adverb significantly. Beagel (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's good. I'm wondering whether you think it ought to go before the sentence that now precedes it, the one beginning "About 500 square kilometres...". The sentence we've been working on seems more general, and the sentence beginning "About 500 square kilometres" gives details that kind of illustrates the change in the topography. Also, I noticed that in this section, Oil shale in Estonia, the first, second and fourth paragraphs are about wastes (two on wastes, one on hazardous wastes). This one we've been working on, the third paragraph, is about land usage and change in topography. I'm wondering whether you think it would be good to move this paragraph to either the beginning or the end of the section. CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I made these changes as you suggest. In addition, I moved the sentence about biodiversity into a separate paragraph. Beagel (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Now let's look at the second sentence:


 * At the same time, the post-mining biodiversity in the area is poorer than before mining.

This is not bad, but I prefer saying that, post-mining, there is less biodiversity than before mining, or that biodiversity has decreased. If you think about the word "diversity", we would normally say "there is greater diversity now", or "there is less diversity now" -- greater or less, not "better" or "poorer". Also, I would change "at the same time" to "In addition". They mean almost the same thing, but starting a sentence with "at the same time" sometimes implies that the thing that follows it is opposite to, or very different in nature to (that is, a contrast), what precedes it, almost like "However,...". Since less biodiversity is equally a negative to drastic and unnatural changes to the appearance of the land, there is no contrast, and you don't want to imply a contrast. CorinneSD (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Changed to: "In addition, there is less biodiversity than before mining." Beagel (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I added the second part to this sentence: "; the reclamated and reforestrated areas have less biodiversity than the areas which have undergone a natural succession." If you think this should be a separate sentence or should be changed, please feel free to change it. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

History (again)
I was looking through Renata3's recent edits, and they all look fine. The only thing I would change is the addition of the phrase "Developments in" in sections 2.3 through 2.6 of the Oil shale in Estonia section. I think it is repetitive and unhelpful. "Developments" is history. I think just the words that now follow "Developments in" are sufficient as headings: "Interwar Estonia", "German-occupied Estonia", etc. CorinneSD (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I also think it should be "Inter-war Estonia", not "Interwar Estonia". CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, now we understand "inter-war" to refer to the period between World War I and World War II, but twenty or thirty years from now, that may not be so clear. Perhaps a more specifically worded heading would be more informative. CorinneSD (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed it would, "between the world wars", perhaps. Thanks for fixing the headings: so I was in the right place after all. Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Electricity and heat generation
The third sentence in the section Oil shale in Estonia is the following:


 * Although Estonia has the right to allocate a gradually decreasing limited number of emission allowances free of charge, this will be phased out by 2020.

I have two concerns regarding this sentence.

1) This is the only place in the article that uses the phrase "emission allowances". The sentence is written as if the reader knows what "emission allowances" are, but that may not be the case. You might consider explaining what this means.

2) In the phrase "a gradually decreasing limited number of emission allowances", you've got the adjectival participial phrase "gradually decreasing" and the adjective "limited" modifying the noun "number". However, it is not clear how something can be both "gradually decreasing" and "limited" at the same time. What is the relationship between these two adjectives? Are both really necessary? If both are necessary, I would add "and" between them: "a gradually decreasing and limited number...," but even then, it is not clear. Are the number of emission allowances limited to begin with, and then they are gradually decreasing? Perhaps put "limited" first: "a limited and gradually decreasing number..." Actually, Estonia "has the right" to a certain number of emission allowances -- a limited number. The country doesn't have the right to a decreasing number. I would remove "gradually decreasing" and, if you still want to include it, put it later in the sentence. "Will be phased out" by definition means that it will be decreasing.


 * Although Estonia has the right to allocate a limited number of emission allowances free of charge, this [what?] will be phased out by 2020.

What is "this"? The right, the limited number of emission allowances, or the free cost?

CorinneSD (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I try to explain. Emission allowances are units of greenhouse gases which are allowed to emit in the EU. Emission allowances are trade-able under the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Emission allowances are allocated to the Member States who allocate them to the companies. Starting from 2013, all emission allowances for the power sector are auctioned in the EU and allocation free of charge is not allowed.  However, Estonia like some other Member States got a temporary exemption from the auctioning requirement, providing that investments are made in modernising the electricity sector, including retrofitting and upgrading the infrastructure. This exemption does not cover 100% of allowances but only a limited part of it. In addition, the amount of free allowances is decreasing gradually. Starting from 2020, no allowances will be allocated for free.


 * I added this as Renata raised the issue of subsidies and this is the only aid that could be described as subsidy, sort of. However, I don't thinkt we should go into the details. Beagel (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You explained it quite well, and I'm wondering what you think of make a footnote out of this. I will also now take a fresh look at that sentence. I'm also wondering whether it is worth including that sentence at all. Without the explanations, it's a bit difficult to understand. CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I share your concerns about inclusion. It is certainly related issue but not about the main topic itself. I would like to ask also opinion of other editors, particularly Renata's opinion. For me, both options you proposed are acceptable. Beagel (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought about it quite a bit. I think it should be included and fully explained. When I was googling oil shale in Estonia, I came across a few articles in English that accused the industry of being heavily subsidized (not only rambling blogs, but some decent looking newspaper as well). I then tried to look up the specifics on the subsidies and I could not find anything that I could understand. Clearing that issue might be a good public service. Renata (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)