Talk:Oil shale in Estonia/Archive 2

Review by Renata
Hello, I am going to shamelessly intrude with my review, if you don't mind :) So first of, I know nothing about oil shale and all the technical stuff went straight over my head. So excuse my total ignorance on the topic. I do know a little about the history of Estonia. Second, I did not read previous comments and reviews. Apologies in advance if I am duplicating already addressed issues. Third, it is a good article, truly. I can see how much effort went into it. But I have this talent (curse?) to torture people with nitpicks... Please don't hate me. With that, let's rumble.

Resolved stuff

 * ✅ Oil shale in Estonia is defined by a national development plan as a strategic energy resource.
 * First, I think there should be a {lang-et} for "oil shale" in Estonian. Second, it is a very vague and useless statement. I think it should be something to the effect "Oil shale in Estonia is a strategic energy resource contributing 4% of GDP"


 * ✅ It can be processed to produce an oil or directly burnt as a fuel.
 * Again, vague, appropriate for oil share general article. Something to effect: "It is used to generate about 85% of Estonia's electricity."


 * ✅ General organization
 * Third paragraph, IMHO, should be first - all the reasons why oil shale is important in Estonia. Then you can get into details of deposits, history, etc.
 * Implemented these three first suggestions. What you think? Beagel (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Graptolitic argillite is the larger resource
 * Just awkward phrasing. It's not much of a resource if it can't be used industrially.
 * Well, not really. Resources are the total amount of a given material in the Earth. Reserves are those resources which can now be economically recovered. The issue of resources versus reserves are explained in the main oil shale article. Beagel (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? I would think it would be the opposite, but ok.


 * ✅ The other one is Kukersite, which has been mined for almost one hundred years.
 * Why Kukersite is capitalized here? Suggest: almost a hundred years.


 * ✅ Production of shale oil from oil shale began in 1921
 * Can you produce shale oil from something else? If you want to emphasize that there is a difference between shale oil and oil shale, you might say smth to the effect: Production of shale oil, a type of synthetic oil, began in 1921.
 * I think that it is important to show the linkage between oik shale and shale oil. I changed this sentence:
 * "Production of shale oil, a type of an unconventional oil produced from oil shale by pyrolysis, began in 1921."
 * What you think? Beagel (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ After World War II, several new oil shale mines were opened.
 * The lead says nothing about mines before WWII. Say smth like: There were X mines operating in interwar Estonia. Or delete the sentence.
 * The sentence is deleted. Beagel (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Estonian oil shale gas was used in Leningrad and nuclear power stations that had come on line in Russia reduced demand
 * Contemporary Leningrad, but modern Russia. Either Leningrad and Russian SSR or St Petersburg and Russia.
 * Agree, but the question is broader. There are references to this city in times it had different names (St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad). What would be the correct usage of the city name: using each time the name it had in that moment or should we have consistently used only one name notwithstanding what was the name that time? Beagel (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha. Welcome to Eastern Europe :) You have a lot of catching up to do. The beginner's guide is here: Talk:Gdansk/Vote... and it only gets better from there. But I will take pity on your poor soul. Basically, whatever you do, you will offend someone. In this particular case, I think Leningrad with St Petersburg in parenthesis would be fine. Russian SSR is important because after the Soviet Union collapse, no more Russian nuclear electricity. Renata (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Used Saint Petersburg with the name what was used that time in parentheses. Beagel (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ The first attempts to establish a surface oil shale mine and to start shale oil production were undertaken in 1838.
 * No need for repeat "oil shale" - we know article topic
 * Shortened, so no repetition any more. Beagel (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Estonia is the second largest shale oil producer in the world.
 * Which country is first? Also, sentence is out of place: separates sentences about uses of oil shale in Estonia.
 * After China, added this. I personally don't see the problem with this placement, but I am open for suggestions how to reorganize this paragraph. Beagel (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Duh. Blonde moment. Oil shale =/= shale oil. Renata (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Might want to mention it has the largest mine in the lead... which should totally have its own article...
 * Maybe it is unnecessary detail for the lead (particularly taking account the comment of CorinneSD. I fully agree that it deservers its own article and it would be in my to-do list. Right now there are two iw articles but I am not sure how much we could use them. Estonia kaevandus seems quite informative but totally unsourced. Mine d'Estonia is just an one-sentence stub. Beagel (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ The industry has serious past and present environmental impacts.
 * Such corporate speak. Suggest: The industry causes serious pollution and other environmental issues.


 * ✅ It has also altered the groundwater regime and water quality.
 * Altered is such a vague word. Suggest: lowered groundwater levels and decreased water quality.
 * This was also mentioned by CorinneSD; therefore I suggest to discuss this issue the CorinneSD review section. Beagel (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ There are two kinds of oil shale in Estonia, both of which are sedimentary rocks laid down during the Ordovician era.
 * Suggest: Two types of oil shale deposits in Estonia. How long ago was the Ordovician era? Might want to say Ordovician geological era.
 * Ordovician was 485–443 million years ago. Graptolitic argillite is about 480–485 million years old, kukersite is about 460 million years. I changed it in the lead to Ordovician geologic period which is more correct term than era. I don't think we should add the exact age in the lead, the term is linked to the Ordovician article, which provides the age information. Beagel (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Exact dates not necessary (nor they are known), but I always like when dates are provided. They help general orientation. When I read that, I guessed it would be like 50 MYO... (don't judge). Renata (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * about one percent of the national workforce and elsewhere
 * Is there some guideline that % under 10 are spelled out? I personally like 1% format throughout (which is used later in economy section).
 * I think there is some guidelines but I can't find this at the moment. Changed it to 1% Beagel (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * MOS:PERCENT looks to be silent on this. There is one percent left: Former and current oil shale mines cover about one percent of Estonia's territory. Renata (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I prefer the word "percent" for small numbers. To me, the percent symbol is more for articles on science topics. Remember that WP is for the average reader, including young people. I think for general reading, words are more easily understood than symbols. CorinneSD (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Economic and environmental statistics in lead
 * Need "as of date" or "in 20xx" to know what year it refers to.
 * I added "in 2012" to the figure about the workforce. I am not sure how to do this for other figures which probably would not change so rapidly. Maybe it would be sufficient to have the relevant years mentioned for these data in the specific sections and not in the lead? Beagel (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think years, at least approximate ("early 2010s"), are important in lead. I would add year to 85% of electricity and to the waste stats (they should be from the same year). Renata (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All these figures are from 2012, so please feel free to update the lead as you feel necessary. Although this was not clear from the referred news story, I looked to report by the National Audit Office which is the source for the news, and it says that these figures are from 2012. I will go through that report and also update the 'Economic impact' section, if appropriate and necessary. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ This reduced demand, followed by a restructuring of the industry
 * "restructuring of industry" is very vague. Add "post-Soviet" or "post-independence"?
 * Maybe "post-Soviet" in this case. Otherwise it makes impression that independence was the cause for restructuring but the real reason was a transition from one economic system to another. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Its deposits in Estonia account for 1.1% of global oil shale deposits.
 * Total deposits or usable deposits? (there is a distinction drawn earlier between unusable argillite and usable kukersite).
 * Total deposits. Beagel (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think there should be a % given for argillite deposits as well. Because now it leaves an impression that Estonia has 1.1% of world's reserves when it should be more than 2% when both are counted. Renata (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking more deeply in this, I am not sure what this figure exactly means. I have no reason to have any doubt about reliability of the International Energy Agency, but there is no exact information about the calculation of this figure. As there is uncertainty about the global amount of oil shale, it is really depends which figure is used for the amount of the global resource (e.g. estimates of global resources by World Energy Council has increased from 2002 to 2008 almost 50%). Beagel (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, should this maybe be removed then? Or qualified in-text who estimated and when? Renata (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have my concern but at the same time this figure is referred by a number of reliable sources. This IEA story is based on their book "Energy Policies Beyond IEA Countries – Estonia 2013" (isbn: 978-92-6419079-5). That book does not provide a reference to 1.1% but in the one sentence before it says that "Global reserves of oil shale are estimated to be over 400 billion tonnes." with reference to 2005 data by USGS (Dyni, J.R., 2006, "Geology and resources of some world oil-shale deposits", U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5294, p. 42). In addition, Dyni used the same figure in the "Survey of Energy Resources 2007", published by the World Energy Council. In this article, the 2010 year edition is used which uses updated, bigger global figure. At the same time, none of them uses 1.1% but I have seen that figure cited also before the IEA's book was published. I think that we could qualify that the figure was reported by the IEA, but use something more vague instead (a la about 1%). I think that in this context the exact figure is less important than the the overall understanding of Estonia's oil shale proportion in the global context. Beagel (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added that this was reported by the IEA. I hope this resolve this issue. Beagel (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Should also add year, IMHO. Renata (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is problematic. It was reported by IEA in 2013 but they do not provide the source and time of this estimation. As I said, I have my suspicions from where and how they got this figure but it would be OR by me to say that in 2005. I still have a feeling that the best thing to do is just report what the source says without giving exact year which is not specified by the source. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I defer to your judgement on this one. Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ during the Early Ordovician age under a marine environment and It formed some 480 million years ago.
 * Combine


 * ✅ It is a brown, lithified claystone of the Türisalu Formation belonging
 * Since Türisalu Formation is not linked, explain what that is in-sentence
 * I am not sure if I am able to explain this without creating confusion and new questions as my knowledge about geology is rather limited. The short explanation could be: "the Türisalu Formation, a geological formation of the Baltic lithostratigraphy which is named after Türisalu cliff in northwest of Estonia." Maybe some expert on geology like Professor Mark A. Wilson could help with better explanation. Beagel (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, User:Vsmith might be able to help. CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I simplified the text and removed these details such as Türisalu Formation as too specific for purposes of this article. They are still available in the Graptolitic argillite article. Beagel (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The image caption of the argillite sample from the Türisalu cliff still contains Türisalu Formation. Seems the best fix would be an article on the Türisalu Formation, but don't look at me :). Tweaked the caption a bit and zapped a sulphur. Vsmith (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, we should put creation of Türisalu Formation as also Viivikonna Formation and Kõrgekallas Formation articles into the to-do-list but I don't think this is the first priority at the moment. Beagel (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against "Türisalu Formation" being mentioned in image caption. Renata (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Graptolitic argillite: should mention it was used to mine uranium. Is it used in any other way? Section leaves the impression that it's absolutely useless.
 * It was used for uranium production but only for a limited time period. This is mentioned in the 'History' section, so I don't think we should include it here. It is not used currently but it has been seen as a potential source of energy and metals when and if there will be better technologies and more favourable economic feasibility. Beagel (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IMHO, there should be something on the (potential) use. Because I walked away from the section thinking argillite is absolutely useless. But then in the history section was like - oh, wow, they mined uranium there! Renata (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added information about potential usage. Beagel (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Although the name dictyonema argillite is widely used instead...
 * Move that whole paragraph to very first sentence where alt names are listed. Also, link to argillite somewhere.
 * Moved it the first paragraph as the second sentence. Not sure about linking argillite as this link was removed at some stage as confusing. Beagel (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Its name reflects the German language rendition of Kukruse Manor in northeastern Estonia.
 * Can't help but ask: why? (here and in history section). What's so special about that Manor? Was he born there? Also, suggest: German name for Kukruse Manor
 * The rock he researched was from the territory of that manor. Beagel (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Added to article, hope ok. Renata (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Kukruse and Uhaku stages of the Viivikonna and Kõrgekallas formations
 * Since none of this is linked, some basic explanation would be helpful: what is that? I am not even hazarding a guess...
 * Removed from this article as too technical. Still available in the Kukersite article. Beagel (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see also the comment on Türisalu Formation. Beagel (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Up to 50% of active resources are designated as recoverable.
 * What is that in tonnes?
 * Based on the 2012 data in that paragraph (50% from the sum of economically proven and economic probable reserves) it is about 650 million tonnes. Of course, this figure changes over the time due to the changed limitations and technological changes. Beagel (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be added to the article. Renata (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ The Estonian deposit, which covers about 2,000 square kilometres (770 sq mi), is used industrially.
 * I wonder if for completeness it would be a good idea to add the size of Leningrad deposit (it is, after all, the same deposit, just divided by country borders, no?) and indicate whether it is used for mining.
 * It definitely should be added into the Kukersite article. Some of the information is also included in the Leningradslanets article. According to Dyni, the total resource of the Leningrad deposit is 3.6 billion tonnes. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I trust you'll add that to the Kukersite article. Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added it there. Beagel (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Kukersite's heavy metal content is low in comparison with other oil shales in Estonia and Sweden.
 * Two things, since there was such an exhaustive list of heavy metals in graptolitic argillite section, there should be some numbers here as well for comparison purposes. Second, any ideas what caused such difference in heavy metals?
 * I removed listings of heavy metals as this information included in Graptolitic argillite and Kukersite. Concerning your question, I think that this information is available somewhere but so far I did not find it. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like that it got shortened, but IMHO, you axed a little too much - there should be a sentence in very general terms that there is substantial presence of heavy metals and other stuff there (I assume that also makes it non-viable for mining currently). Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But it still says "it contains 5.67 million tonnes of uranium, which makes it one of the main potential sources of uranium in Europe, 16.53 million tonnes of zinc, and 12.76 million tonnes of molybdenum". Beagel (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅1 billion tonnes economically proven reserve, 0.3 billion tonnes economic probable reserve and about 3.5 billion tonnes uneconomical proven and probable reserve
 * This is very confusing. Is the main grouping "economically proven" (i.e. proven to be economically viable) or "proven reserve" (i.e. proven to exist). If the the later, suggest something like this: 1B and 0.3B of economically viable proven and probable reserves, and 3.5B nonviable proven and probable reserve
 * Will think about this. Not sure at the moment if this make it better understandable. Beagel (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "The total kukersite resources in Estonia are estimated to be about 4.8 billion tonnes, including 1.3 billion tonnes of economically proven and probable reserves." to avoid confusion and to be in line with the "2P reserves" definition. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ According to Peter Simon Pallas, the travel notes of the 18th-century naturalist and explorer Johann Anton Güldenstädt mention "burning rock on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland".
 * Why double attribution? Why need to bring Pallas into this? Ref to Güldenstädt should be enough, no?
 * This is not so easy. There is a lot of sources saying that this was attributed to Güldenstädt by Pallas who was the editor of his travel notes, but nobody has actually found where in the Güldenstädt's notes this reference is made (at least not in the printed version). Therefore, saying that Güldenstädt said this, without mentioning Pallas, would be probably incorrect. Beagel (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling this might be the case. Then I think there should be more uncertainty expressed. How about smth like this: Reportedly, 18th-century naturalist and explorer Johann Anton Güldenstädt witnessed "burning rock on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland", but his published travel notes do not reference the incident. Renata (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I partly implemented your proposal but I think that it is important to keep the reference to Pallas. It is also unclear if he himself witnessed that phenomena or, more likely, heard about this. I also added precise years and where supposedly it happened. Beagel (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ According to Paul Kogerman, a foundational figure in oil shale chemistry
 * foundational figure sounds awkward. Pioneer of?
 * I removed reference to Kogerman from this paragraph. Beagel (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ sought to distil oil from the Vanamõisa oil shale deposit.
 * No need for duplication. "from this deposit" should suffice. Also, typo in distill?
 * Will remove the duplication. Distil is how the Brits spell it, see List_of_spelling_variants, at some point we decided to go with British EN usage. Novickas (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ oil shale was used as a low-grade fuel
 * Very vague. Need details: by who, when, where?
 * Not really details available. I understand in 19th century it was used by local people for heating houses, also for some local productions at manors but it was not used commercially (also not as the main fuel for heating). Beagel (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One example is that since 1870 the distillery of Kukruse Manor used oil shale as fuel. Should we add it? Also, there are several folkloric tales about discovery of oil shale (peasant built his sauna stove by using oil shale rock and the whole sauna burnt down; shepherds used oil shale rocks to surround their campfire and these rocks burnt – both stories from the area of Kukruse Manor; story from Vanamõisa is similar but it says that stones from the well digging were used). Should we mention these stories? I have some doubts but not strong objections. Beagel (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe just add that it was used by local residents? I.e. not in any kind of industrialized sense. Renata (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Beginning of oil-shale industry
 * Why hyphen? No hyphen elsewhere.
 * It is used as compound modifiers. There was this kind of dispute at the main Oil shale article where one editor very strongly insisted of using this. There are also some other usages in this article, but I agree that we need to be consistent. I leave it to native speakers/more language sensitive persons for decision if we should use it or not. Beagel (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a hyphen is needed here. What do you think? (Look through the article a bit to see how "oil shale" and "shale oil" are used.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, not needed. Rothorpe (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Caption: Historical monument at the location where the first tonnes of oil shale were mined
 * Where?
 * Added location (Pavandu, Kohtla-Järve) to the caption. Beagel (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ A large shale oil extraction plant in Estonia was proposed in 1910.
 * Need ref. Also, gap in history: from a small failed attempt in 1838 to a plan for a large plant in 1910.
 * Ref for what exactly? If for 1910, the ref after the next sentence (Ots (2004), p. 14) applies also for this. The original text in the source is:
 * The rapid growth of St. Petersburg and its industrial base, coupled with a shortage of fuel resources in the region, compelled Russian geologists to start studying Estonian oil shale resources and mining possibilities in 1910. They intended to erect a large-scale shale oil production factory. At the beginning of World War I in 1914, the fuel crisis became an even more serious problem, and the Fuel Committee, headed by A. Lomshakov, was founded.
 * As for the cap from 1838 to 1910 the reason is that probably nothing significant happened at this time period. Beagel (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also find in Holmberg's study (already intensively used as a source for this article but not for this particular fact) the following:
 * In 1910 a group of Russian engineers studied the possibilities of extracting oil from Estonian oil shale, but despite favorable experiments, no further steps were taken, with the exception of initial agreements with landowners to gain access to the resources. In 1916, however, imperial Russia saw oil shale as a solution to fuel shortages resulting from the ongoing war, especially as the deposits were located near the capital, Petrograd, where numerous industries were located.229 Foundations for a first open pit mine were laid in 1917, but as a result of the revolution in Russia, further development was soon aborted. Still in the summer of 1918, the local authorities in Petrograd viewed oil shale as a potentially important fuel for heating, as railway fuel, in cement production, and as illumination gas. 230
 * Maybe we should make some changes into the current text to be more precise? Beagel (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ In June 1916, the Russian geologist Nikolay Pogrebov organised mining of the first tonnes of oil shale at Pavandu and delivered it to Petrograd Peter the Great Polytechnic Institute for large-scale experiments.[33][34] This is considered the beginning of the Estonian oil shale industry.[10] Oil shale was used in Saint Petersburg at gasworks and was also burned in boiler houses.
 * Another break in history: from a test in 1916 to being used in St Peter's. Where/how mined? Or that's the "large-scale experiment"?
 * Yes, the test in 1916 was a result of the fuel crisis which was the trigger of the 1910 plans. Beagel (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅  However, Germany occupied Estonia and the following Estonian War of Independence
 * Link points to wrong World War. I would simply say "World War I". Right now the sentence provides too much irrelevant detail.
 * removed it from here to avoid confusion as also the next paragraph talks about the German occupation. Beagel (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to say that the construction was planned and then cancelled. I just disagreed on the level of detail neede for the cencellation. Renata (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Surface mines were opened at Kukruse by Böckel & Co. and at Järve by Mutschnik & Co.
 * Year?
 * 1916. Beagel (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Should say 1916 since last time year was refenced was at beginning of paragprahp. Also, what does "In the following year both companies determined their mining activities." mean? determined? Maybe terminated? Renata (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * ✅ the state special commissioner on oil shale
 * Of which country? Makes me think it should be Germany since Estonia was occupied two sentences prior... but then Germany occupies again in the next sentence...
 * This is a good question. By the timeline, it should be of Russian Provisional Government but it was time when it was unclear who is in power in Russia. It could be also of Governorate of Estonia. Beagel (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ In February 1918, the area surrounding the oil shale basin in northeast Estonia was occupied by German troops and mining activities were carried out by Internationales Baukonsortium (English: International Construction Consortium).
 * It's weird the way Internationales Baukonsortium is left hanging without any explanation or follow up. Was it a German firm?
 * It was a German company but no information about this company is available. Beagel (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Usually a sentence ends with an important piece of info. It was just weird. Glad you worked around it. Renata (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ was the predecessor of Viru Keemia Grupp
 * Should add explanatory note that Viru is a today's firms


 * ✅ It took over all existing open-pit mines.
 * How many?
 * By the governmental degree it took over abandoned mines of St. Petersburg companies and the Pavandu open pit from the German company. I practise, it was only the later as the Kukruse mine was in so bad shape that a new mine was open some years later next to that abandoned mine. I changed the sentence mentioning only the Pavandu open-pit. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Section: Development during Estonia's independence
 * I think this section has too much detail in comparison to the rest of history. Production in that period was just a fraction of production post-WWII, but in therms of word-count those sections are equal (901 vs 917 words). It might be a good idea to put some of those interwar entities/mines into a list/table.
 * I trimmed this section a little bit; mines are listed in the table in the 'Mining' section. Beagel (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Better, thank you. Couple things I think got cut unjustly:
 * Years mines opened (simple, short parentheticals are always a plus in my book)
 * This information is provided in the table (Mining section) now. It seems that there is too many mines to repeat the opening years in the text. Beagel (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored opening and closing years for mines, but still not sure if they should be kept also in the body text or it is enough to have them in the table. I would like to hear more opinions about that. Beagel (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The mining and oil industry employed 6,150 persons. - good reference point
 * Restored. Beagel (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In 1938, 45% of Estonian shale oil was exported exceeding import value of other fuels - another good ref giving a sense of magnitude
 * Restored


 * ✅ Although the price of oil shale-based gasoline was at least triple that of global gasoline prices, high production and bilateral agreements supported its export.
 * I know you cut the sentence and I am not sure I follow, but I find the implications fascinating. Can you elaborate what this all means?
 * The shale oil cost triple of that price of conventional petroleum which was available from the Middle East or in the United States. However, due to geographical or political limitations conventional petroleum was in short in the region. Bilateral agreements in this contexts means mainly agreements with German Navy. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Also several private investors, including investors from abroad, initiated oil shale industries in Estonia by opening mines at Kiviõli, Küttejõu, Ubja, Viivikonna, and Kohtla.[5][46] The first private oil shale mining company was Eesti Küttejõud (English: Estonian Heating Power) which was established in 1922 by the Union of Estonian Industrialists.[47]
 * Confused by internal logic. If "Eesti Küttejõud" is the first of "several private investors" then that sentence should come first. if not, then I am not sure the distinction.
 * Actually, I personally don't see a confusion of internal logic. However, I removed this sentence for another reason. Although it could be that the company was established before than Eesti Kiviõli, in fact Eesti Kiviõli opened its mine before than Eesti Küttejõud. Therefore, to avoid confusion I removed it. Beagel (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Asserin cement factories
 * What's Asserin?
 * Asserin (like Port Kunda) was name of the cement factory. The name was derived from the old name of Aseri. However, to simplify the text I removed the names Port Kunda and Asserin leaving just the locations Kunda and Aseri. Beagel (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ At the beginning of World War II, the total capacity of oil shale-fired power stations was 32.5 MW.
 * Any data for total electricity production for comparison purposes?
 * Will look for it but not sure. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ the Ministry of Economic Affairs established the Geological Committee and the Institute of Natural Resources was founded
 * The way the sentence is structured, it begs the question founded by?
 * Both were founded by Presidential decree. However, I think this is unnecessary detail. Reworded and clarified their status. Beagel (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Caption: Open-pit oil shale mine in Estonia (1933)
 * Which one?
 * The source does not say this. It it seems than the description provided by the source is incorrect. I mentioned only now that in the background there is an entrance to the underground, and there is no mining activities outside, so it is probably not the open-pit. Most likely it seems to be Küttejõu mine. Beagel (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I go to the source website and click on "More" it says "Eesti Kohtla-Järve". But according to the table the mine opened in 1937?? Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Kohtla and Kohtla-Järve is not the same. At the same time, Kohtla-Järve is quite often used as a general term for places around the town which are not part of the town. However, probably not for Küttejõu which is more far away. Taking account that the same photographer made photos about oil industry, which seems to be the industry in Kohtla-Järve, and that the industry owned that time Kukruse and Käva mines, and that this is not the entrance into the Kukruse mine, it is probably Käva mine (which was actually very close to Kohtla-Järve). I will change the caption to Käva. Beagel (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Baltische Öl started construction of new mines and shale oil extraction plants
 * Any detail where or how many?
 * Can't find the precise information. There is a source saying that one oil plant was planned near Jõhvi. It seems that construction of the mine in Ahtme had started. But it needs probably work at archives (OR for WP) to get more precise information. Beagel (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Jõhvi (Mine No. 2, 1949), Sompa (1949), Tammiku (1951) and in the area between Käva and Sompa (Mine No. 4, 1953)
 * Stupid question: Where is Mine No 1 or 3?
 * At same period at the beginning of Soviet time, all mines were officially named by numbers. Later, other names were (re)introduced but for some reasons No. 2 and No. 4 never got another name. No. 1 was probably Kukruse, but I can be wrong. Beagel (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just curious (I work with numbers...) Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ In 1947, a pilot Galoter retort unit was built in Tallinn, capable of processing 2.5 tonnes of oil shale per day.[66][67] The first Galoter-type commercial scale pilot retorts were built at Kiviõli in 1953 and 1963 with respective capacities of 200 and 500 tonnes of oil shale per day.
 * Confused. Was Tallinn just a test? What happened to it so it took 6 years for ten-times smaller unit in Kiviõli?
 * The Kiviõli unit was 80 times bigger, not ten times smaller. The Tallinn retort was just for testing and it was dismantled later. Beagel (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added some clarifications. Beagel (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are too kind. I had a total blond moment there. I should find a rock to hide under. Somehow I read it as "2.5k tonnes"... Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apology. I have had a number of similar moments (and I can't even refer to my hair colour as a reason). Beagel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ The German-owned company Eesti Kiviõli (German: Estländische Steinöl, English: Estonian Stone Oil, predecessor of Kiviõli Keemiatööstus), affiliated with G. Scheel & Co. and Mendelssohn & Co., was established in 1922.
 * IMHO, too much detail on the company (particularly since it has its own article). What is missing, though, is where it was operating and that there is the whole new town in that location.
 * Added this information. However, I think that also the information about affiliates and being a predecessor of Kiviõli Keemiatööstus, is important. Scheel family was one of the richest and most influential families in Estonia that time. Unfortunately there is no article about them in the English wiki. Similarly, Mendelssohn family was an import business families in Germany. I think that information about the owners is important. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ In 1924, the British investor-owned Estonian Oil Development Syndicate Ltd. (later Vanamõisa Oilfields Ltd.) purchased an open-pit mine in Vanamõisa and opened a shale oil extraction plant which was abandoned in 1931 due to technical problems.[3][50][47] The Swedish–Norwegian consortium Eestimaa Õlikonsortsium (Swedish: Estländska Oljeskifferkonsortiet; English: Estonian Oil Consortium), controlled by Marcus Wallenberg, was founded in Sillamäe in 1926 and produced shale oil between 1928 and 1930.[47][53] Due to recession, production halted in 1930 but was restarted in 1936.[50][54] New Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd. of the United Kingdom built a shale oil extraction plant at Kohtla-Nõmme in 1931.[5][50] This facility continued to operate until 1961.[5]
 * Too much detail. Jam-packed with names that I am not so sure are so vital and significant. I lost the thread that it is listing shale oil producers. By comparing the pre- and post- versions I see that shale oil paragraph was my biggest issue... My suggestion is this: cut this paragraph to very lean summary and have a table of shale oil producers in "Shale oil extraction" section. That way you will have table of mines in Mining (which is awesome, btw), a table of electric plants in Electricity and heat generation, and a table shale oil producers. It will de-clutter the text and will provide an easy reference material. And restore info you had on what technology was used in production, etc.
 * I trimmed it little bit more. But again, I think that the names of companies are relevant as also the link to Marcus Wallenberg. Again, Wallenberg family is still the most influencial Swedish business group. At the same time, if something is too technical it is probably the retort/oven types. It could be restored if the table about shale oil producers will be added. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ The concept met local opposition and was never implemented.
 * There is so much history and politics hiding under such an innocent sentence! It was important: in Soviet Union you did not protest anything. You either kept your mouth shut or you declared your eternal and undying love to Marxism-Leninism. But glastnost brought freer political expression. The first thing people did - took up environmental issues (since politics were still too dangerous and mother nature is a seemingly benign issue). But it was not benign. People gathered, decided they liked it, gathered some more and sung songs. Next thing you know - the Baltics are independent and Soviet Union is no more. So it's not just your regular picket line. It needs a lot more attention. See also this.
 * You are correct. Of course it was not just about environment, it was the the way to express your opposition to the Soviet regime, something which a decade before was unthinkable. But the main event was the Phosphorite War, the fight against oil shale mining was not so visible. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added reference to the Phosphorite War and the Singing Revolution. Is it ok? Beagel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ To enable its delivery, a 200-kilometre (120 mi) pipeline from
 * Is the pipeline abandoned?
 * No, it is still a part of the gas system. It is not in use for gas transmission from Russia to Estonia at the moment but it could be used in the case of emergency. Beagel (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Although this gas had become uneconomical by 1958, 276 gas generators operated until 1987.
 * Two things. First, does that mean they stopped producing gas in 1987? If yes, should be made clearer. Second, the sentence implies that in 1987, 276 generators were suddenly shut off. I would venture to guess that 276 is the total number of generators from 1948 to 1987.
 * You are correct. I reworded it. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The year 1987 is now gone. Is that intentional? Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the next section where is seems to be more logical- But if we decide to re-mere these two sections again, the whole section should be re-arranged again. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Power stations
 * Should give Mwh capacity in parenthesis
 * MWh? Do you mean MW (capacity) or GWh )annual production)? Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MW... Another blonde moment... Sorry :) Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added capacities of Narva plants into the history section and I still plan to add the table about the power stations. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ which decreased consumption of electricity.
 * You might want to add reason for the decrease: end export to Russia and collapse of heavy industry
 * But it already says "due to the restructuring of economy" and the next sentence says about export. If you would like to reword this, you are welcome to do this. Beagel (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean a little more specificity than "restructuring": the big energy consumer was heavy industry (manufacturing) which basically collapsed... Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Made this addition. Beagel (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Also shale oil production decreased as the previous markets disappeared.
 * Unclear what the "previous markets disappeared" refers to. Exports to Russia again?
 * The Soviet Union/eastern block in general. Beagel (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Comparison with other natural resources of Estonia? Is oil share basically the only truly useful natural resource there?
 * Well, in addition to oil shale, also peat, limestone, dolostone, sand, gravel, and clay are mined. Potential mineable mineral resources in addition to graptolitic argillite are granite, iron ore, and phosphorite. From other natural resources there is a forest. But oil shale is important as an energy source: in 2013 it accounted more than 3/4 of Estonia's primary energy production and more than half of Estonia's energy consumption (calculated based on Statistical Office of Estonia data). I think that to avoid WP:OR, a secondary source is needed for this. Beagel (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ In history: in photos I see bunch of railway cars. Should mention building railways somewhere.
 * I don't know. Most of those railways are built for one purpose only and I don't think there is any particular significance. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Similarly, it simply begs for a summary list/table of power plants


 * ✅ It simply begs for a table/chart of oil shale production per year
 * I added a chart into the 'Mining' section. Beagel (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would think it better belongs to History. Renata (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But in that case, where exactly in the 'History'?


 * ✅ In history: post-1990 is missing first 10 years. One world: privatization.
 * I added issues related to the industry restructuring. Beagel (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha, knew there had to be privatization drama :) If I am reading it right, other than Viru Keemia Grupp and Kiviõli Keemiatööstus, everything else is still owned by the government? if so, it should be emphasized somewhere. Renata (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right. I clarified the ownership status in the 'Mining' section. Beagel (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Mine accidents and safety? Was looking up Estonia mine in ET wiki, and it looks like there was a large fire in 1988.
 * I added information about fire in 1988. Of course, there is a number of smaller accidents/incidents but I don't think any of them significant enough to be included. Unfortunately I have not found any comprehensive statistics about accidents. Beagel (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ In economic impact: is there any pressure from EU for cleaner energy? I know there is a lot of grief in Lithuania about it...
 * Actually yes. There is the Climate and energy package which says that 25% of energy should come from renewables in Estonia by 2020. There is also the 'Roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050', which foresees significant decrease in emissions. This is one of the reasons why all development scenarios foresee decrease of oil shale in the national energy mix.  If you have any suggestion how to integrate this into the article, please do it. Beagel (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added "the share of oil shale in electricity and heat production is set to decrease due to the European Union climate policy" into the 'Electricity and heat generation' section. Beagel (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

History

 * ✅ Estonian oil shale industries conducted tests of oil shales from Australia, Bulgaria, Germany and South Africa.
 * This is the sentence that prompted me to ask for comparison with other oil shale industries. Does that mean that Estonia became a leader/authority of sort? Also, wouldn't "oil shale samples" be better?
 * Changed to "oil shale samples". I think that Estonia was not the leader (the largest industry that time was still in Scotland although it was in process of decreasing) but certainly the description "authority of sort" could be used. E.g. the Glen Davis Shale Oil Works in Australia even planned to use the Estonia-manufactured tunnel ovens but due to economic reasons decided to use the existing equipment from the closed nearby plant. Beagel (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any way of incorporating some of that? Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. It is an interesting information but the question is if it belongs into this article. Beagel (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Addressed elsewhere. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Between 1946 and 1952, uranium compounds were extracted
 * Any clue what they did with that?
 * That time it was used for the Soviet nuclear weapons project. After 1952, local GA was replaced by uranium ore from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find this morsel fascinating enough to be added into the article. Renata (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any suggestion how to word it? It is also included in the Silmet article. I have to check in which source this was mentioned. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a sentences about possible use for the Soviet nuclear bomb project. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Section "Peak of production"
 * I would recommend of getting rid of it. The rest of history follows political history (which is appropriate). Also, there is no clean cut where "Restoration of the industry after World War II" ends or should end and where "Peak" begins. That way you could organize the whole Soviet period by topic (same way the previous independence period is organized).
 * The Soviet period all together seems to be to large section. And this seemed the most logical way to split. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is worth to merge these two sections about the Soviet era. I would like to ask more opinions about this issue. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I went BOLD and merged them. Hope you'll approve the result (I personally like it much better). Please make sure I did not confuse subjects... Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Estonia Mine became the largest oil shale mine in the world.
 * I think this was asked somewhere else: the largest by what measure?
 * By amount of mined oil shale. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's weird leaving this info bit just like that. I feel it needs some info: production or second largest (previous largest) or something else to place in context. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am not able to find more detailed information. It certainly was the largest mine in the world as it was the largest in Estonia and there was no other country with so large industry that time. If it still is, as of today, I am not sure. It could be that open-pits in Fushun, China, have higher annual output but I can't find these data. Beagel (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Since 1935, Estonian shale oil was supplied to the German Kriegsmarine as a ship fuel.
 * Do you think it's worth elaborating about the bilateral agreements here?
 * What exactly do you mean? Mentioning that it was supplied under bilateral agreements (actually contracts)? Maybe this is unnecessarily detailed. Beagel (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean the sentence that was cut (Although the price of oil shale-based gasoline was at least triple that of global gasoline prices, high production and bilateral agreements supported its export) in the revisions. I find it interesting that the price was actually higher, but they still bought it (cause no one else would sell it to them?). Also, worth mentioning that was in relation to German re-armament. I find the geopolitical implications simply fascinating. Just read the section in Holmberg about it. Definitely deserves more attention. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored the sentence about the gasoline price and bilateral agreements. Please feel free to expand it if you think it is necessary. Beagel (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅  the entire oil shale industry was nationalised and subordinated to the Mining Office and later to the General Directorate of Mining and Fuel Industry of the Peoples' Commissariat for Light Industry
 * Of Estonian SSR or Soviet Union?
 * The source does not specify this but this seems that at first it was under local office and later directly under Moscow. Beagel (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Prisoners of war made up about two-thirds of the work force in these units
 * Any detail if Jews were involved? Probably not, since Jewish population in Estonia was small, but I am curious.
 * Actually yes, after order of Himmler to abolish ghettos in Ostland and to send Jews from ghettos to the concentration camps in Riga and in Estonia. Mainly it included Jews from Vilnius and Kaunas. More information is provided in Vaivara concentration camp. I expanded this section giving some background and adding that in addition to war prisoners also forced labour was used. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Can we add link to Vaivara in the article? Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please propose the wording how to include it? Beagel (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Gasoline in Soviet times
 * Curious. The interwar section has info on gasoline produce from shale oil. Nothing about it in Soviet section. Why?
 * Because there was no gasoline production during the soviet time. There was enough cheaper petroleum available in the Soviet Union which was also easier to refine to produce gasoline. Shale oil was mainly used as fuel oil. Beagel (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Economic impact

 *  National Development Plan for the Utilisation of Oil Shale 2008–2015
 * When was that prepared? Criticism:
 * It was adopted in 2007, so it probably was prepared in 2005–2007. The report by the National Audit Office itself is already in use as a source for this article. If you think that this critisism should be added, plase feel free to do that. Beagel (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ 4% of Estonia's gross domestic product.
 * What's that in euros? Also, curious, any explanations why/how 1% of workforce produce 4% of GDP?
 * In 2013, the GDP of Estonia was €18.7 billion, so 4% of this is ~ €750 million. The fact that 1% of workforce produces 4% of GDP means, that produced value per person is above the average. Don't have exact statistics but probably this 1%/4% is nothing extraordinary. Beagel (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was trying to look up more precise data, but it seems like the 1.1% of resources - often quoted, but hard to pinpoint. Renata (talk)


 * In 2012, 15.86 million tonnes of oil shale were mined.[110] Mining losses were about four million tonnes.
 * I think (judging by the chart) it means that they mined 19.8M of which 4M was wasted resulting in 15.8M of good stuff. That should be clarified.


 * Annual production numbers for the five operating mines?
 * I am not able to find production data split by mines. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I found this from 2002. A bit dated, but it has a wealth of info. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really helpful as a number of these mines are closed and three new mines are opened. Beagel (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to add capacity to the "Shale oil extraction plants" table?
 * It is not clear what are the capacities. There is information about the production in 2012 just in the paragraph above. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ National policy, as codified in a 2009 document
 * Is that the same  National Development Plan for the Utilisation of Oil Shale 2008–2015?
 * yes. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, clarified that in article. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there should be some discussion on government subsidies to the industry, since it's profitable only because of subsidies. I tried to look it up, but can't make sense of it.
 * I think you have misinterpretated this interview. It does not talk about the oil shale specifically but electricity sector in general, and not about profitability but about new investments. The point is that due to heavy subsidies to the renewables (through feed-in tarrifs etc) also producers of other kind electricity (nuclear, fossils) can't be sure that their investments into new generation capacities would be profitable. As of today, building every new generation capacity in the EU needs some kind of support or guarantee scheme (state aid or so called subsidy). Same applies also to the Visaginas NPP. In the case of new plant in Auvere, the investment was supported by the allocation of free  quota till 2020. There is no direct subsidies for oil shale mining, oil shale electricity generation or shale oil production. Of course, there is always question if all external costs are taken into account. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I added information about free allocation of emission allowances but I am not surer if this belongs into this article. Please see the discussion at . Beagel (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there should be some discussion on what could replace oil shale.
 * Looks like they are doing pretty good on renewable energy
 * I added some suggestions by the IEA. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think there should be some discussion on Estonia's energy independence and geopolitical consequences.

Environment

 * are classified as hazardous waste
 * What does that mean? What is the definition/criteria for hazardous?
 * The term Hazardous waste is linked in the lead of this article. The EU information is provided in this page. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am reading this like the clueless person I am. Is hazardous the worst category? Is there something worse (toxic?). Should be explained. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Example of recent fire
 * The spontaneous ignition risk is mentioned in the article. In that case which was mentioned in the news, the internal combustion (well, exothermic internal reactions as there was no oxygen involved) was continued for years, maybe decades. It became critical when works started to close this heap according to new standards and these works involved also changing the profile of the heap. Due to these works, air accessed inside to combustion area and fire started. The fire is extinguished and the heap is closed, but most likely exothermic internal reactions still continue. Beagel (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was my intention that you could use this fire as an example of "spontaneous ignition risk" to illustrate that it could become a serious and costly problem. Are you saying it's something else? Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * significant amounts of sulphates into mine water. and Consequently, the transportation water becomes highly alkaline.
 * Can you add (in general terms) why sulphates and alkaline water are bad? I know that Estonia-specific info might not exist/be readily available, but general explanation that "sulphates have been shown to cause cancer" would be great. Also, where does that alkaline water go? This rant has pictures of holding ponds. Is that where it goes?
 * Sulfates occur in water also naturally and they are not considered toxic to plants or animals at normal concentrations. In higher concentrations it stimulates growth of aquatic organisms, particularly algae. Problems caused by sulfates are most often related to their ability to form strong acids which changes the pH of water. Sulfate salts can be major contaminants in natural waters.
 * In humans, higher concentrations of sulfates in drinking water cause a temporary laxative effect. Concerns have been raised because of reports that diarrhea may be associated with the ingestion of water containing high levels of sulfate. However, health effects needs additional studies.
 * Alkalinity of water has negative impact to aquatic organisms. It may damage fish outer surfaces like gills, eyes, and skin and an inability to dispose of metabolic wastes, higher alkalinity may kill fish and other organisms. High pH may also increase the toxicity of other substances like ammonia. In the picture you linked, the alkaline lake is the blue one in the map. Beagel (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can some of this general explanation be added to the article. Since I know nothing of chemistry, and I read that "sulphate levels have increased tens of times" and I have absolutely no idea how dangerous that is. Can you give me a clue in the article that it's not good (it grows algae and increases acidity), but but I am not gonna die if I drink it. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In Mitigation sub-section
 * Might add Kohtla Mining Park which first opened in June 2012. I might have to add it to my vacations list...

Things that are not in the article that I am curious about

 * In history: comparison to histories of other oil share industries. Is it early? Late? Is it leading the way or trailing behind? Is it copying example of X?
 * I am not sure how to integrate it here. In the second half of 19th century and in the beginning of 20th century oil shale industries emerged in a lot of countries, just to be deceased after very short period (usually from few years up to decade). From long period industries it was more than half century after oil shale industry started in Scotland but some decades before China, Russia and Sweden. More detailed information is in the History of the oil shale industry article. There were attempts to copy existing technologies of Scotland but it became clear that due to unique properties of kukersite, it needed a tailor-made or at least adjusted technology. As a result, already in 1930s Estonia became a leading oil shale country (industry in Scotland that time still existed in some scale but it had lost the importance it had in the 19th century). Any suggestion how to include this here is welcome. Beagel (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added comparison with Scotland on the one hand and with China on the other hand. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another item should be added: most other countries switched to oil in mid-century. Also, it has the sentence "Estonia's oil shale industry is currently the most developed in the world." which IMHO is lead-worthy sentence. {Also, "During direct combustion of the Estonian Kukersites, approximately 106 kg of CO2 is emitted per GJ (Veiderma, 2003). This corresponds to 2.4 moles of CO2 per MJ. As can be seen from Table 4, this figure is significantly higher than that of other sources of fossil fuel." which I find interesting. Also has power plant heat capacity on page 41.} Looks like Estonia is ready to export their technology to Utah. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Estonia's oil shale industry is currently the most developed in the world". I am little bit sceptical about that kind of promotional tone. Even if it was true ten years ago, the development in China has been impressive. They have became the largest shale oil producer and there have been also some technological developments.
 * As for Jordan and Utah projects, I don't think this belongs here. There are separate articles Oil shale in Jordan, Attarat Power Plant, and Enefit American Oil. These are development projects, not just selling technology. In addition, VKG has developed the project in Ukraine, but this is put in hold at the moment. There is also technology sale to Morocco and most recently plans to sale technology to China, but as I said, I am not sure if this belongs here. Beagel (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence The oil shale industry in Estonia is one of the most developed in the world is added, sourced by the IEA. "One of the most developed" seems to be accurate description. Beagel (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the point about all other countries switching to oil/petroleum is very important for historical perspective. Estonia is unique in that it relies on oil shale (China is growing, but it's still just a fraction of its energy mix) and that should be emphasized. Re export to USA/Jordan, I think it's worth a sentence with links to other articles on wiki. Renata (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ It simply begs for a summary table of mines with at least name, open or underground, years of exploitation; extra: operator, coordinates, production...
 * Is adding the coordinates a possibility? Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if it is possible to find coordinates for all mines. I just tested some of them and I was not able to find exact location for all of them, particularly for the older ones. Beagel (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ In environment section: impact on living things (humans, animals, plants)
 * I add some information. In general, it is too complex to be described in details in this article. Beagel (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some more information (e.g. impact on biodiversity) is added. Beagel (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Old info on cancer rates. Estonia is the biggest waste generator per capita in European Union due to oil shale use. Interesting calculations of pollution costs. Could be used as a ref that the issue is not well studied. Looks like they plan a health study in 2015. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added Estonia ranks first among the European Union countries by generated waste per capita. Also added There is no recent research about monetary valuation of health damage and environmental impacts caused by the oil shale industry. An oil shale sector health impact survey will be carried out in 2015. The article already includes information that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are carcinogenic. Beagel (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Renata (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Renata. Very useful comments. I will certainly go through and respond to all of them, but please give me just a few days for this. Beagel (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No rush :) I don't know how much time I will have myself... Renata (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Happy New Year! Sorry, been MIA. My weird wiki ADD continues where I don't do any of the things I am supposed to, and do all the shiny random things ;) But I see you have been busy - the article is much improved since I last read it. Awesome!!! I am going to be very busy in real life in the upcoming weeks, so feel free to ping me when I am offline for too long. Renata (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made some edits to the article directly - please review to make sure i did not screw up too badly. Renata (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Early history
New study about the oil shale discovery has been published and it questioned the role of Güldenstädt and Hupel. I changed accordingly text in the relevant section. Beagel (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Beagel, you will have seen by now that I've made some minor changes in wording and minor copy-edits. I'm going to read through the entire article. Feel free to change, revert, or ask me about any of my edits. I have two questions for you about the sub-section Oil shale in Estonia:


 * 1) Just after the middle of the second paragraph in this section is the following sentence:


 * This discovery was shortly mentioned in a paper prepared by the German chemist Johann Gottlieb Georgi and presented by the Actual State Councillor Anton-Johann Engelhardt at the meeting of the Society in 1789.


 * The word "shortly" is ambiguous here. Do you mean to say that it was soon after the burning rock was discovered on the Kohala estate that Johann Gottlieb Georgi prepared a paper? If so, I suggest one of these two wordings:


 * Soon afterward, this discovery was mentioned in a paper prepared by the German chemist...


 * This discovery was mentioned in a paper prepared soon afterward by the German chemist...


 * Or do you mean that the mention of the discovery in the paper was short, or brief? If so, I suggest the following wording:


 * This discovery was briefly mentioned in a paper prepared by the German chemist...


 * Thank you, CorinneSD. The meaning is briefly, so I changed it accordingly. Beagel (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

2) The third sentence in the third paragraph in this section Oil shale in Estonia is the following:


 * In 1850–1857, these occurrences were studied by the Baltic German geologist Carl Friedrich Schmidt.


 * The phrase "these occurrences" is not entirely clear. Does it refer to the large-scale works that were undertaken in Estonia or to the discovery in several locations of previously unknown layers of oil shale (the subject of this last phrase, "the discovery", is actually singular, making the connection between "these occurrences" and "the discovery" a little difficult). It even occurred to me that the "occurrences" that Carl Friedrich Schmidt studied might include the discoveries mentioned in the previous paragraph. Can you think of a phrase that would be more accurate than "these occurrences"? If you can't, can you describe to me what exactly Schmidt studied? Then I might be able to come up with a phrase.


 * If Schmidt studied some "occurrences" over a period of seven years (1850 to 1857), I'd like to suggest that "In 1850–1857" be changed to:


 * In the years 1850–1857,... - Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed it and tied to clarify. Beagel (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Beagel I see you changed "owner" (of the Kukruse Manor) to "landlord". I want to be sure that is really the best word. In the U.S., a landlord is the owner of the building, and it is a building in which there are rooms or apartments rented out, and rent is paid to the landlord. Is that the case with Kukruse Manor? By the way, I don't recall reading anywhere in the article what Kukruse Manor actually is. Is it an old manor house that is now a hotel, or inn, or apartment building, or manor house with the land that goes with it? What is it? If you changed "owner" to "landlord" because the man is not really the owner, then perhaps he is a manager of the estate, or estate agent, or caretaker. CorinneSD (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * von Toll was owner of the estate. That time manor in Estonia was an estate (manor house together with surrounding lands) owned by a nobleman. Some of the land was used for the needs of estate (owner), rest of it was rented out to common people (peasants/farmers) living on the lands of the estate. The system was reformed only after Estonia gained independence at the beginning of the 20th century when lands of the Baltic German nobility were expropriated and distributed among farmers and veterans of the Independence War. As of today, the Kukruse Manor house is a Polar Museum dedicated to the Toll's family (Eduard von Toll was  a famous explorer of the Arctic). Beagel (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Beginning of oil shale industry
Beagel, I see you added some material in Oil shale in Estonia. I made a few minor copy-edits and word changes, but I have to ask you about this paragraph:


 * (1) For large-scale oil shale utilisation, the construction of oil shale-fired power stations and oil shale thermal processing facilities was planned. (2) The plan for oil shale mining in Estonia was presented to the Emperor Nicholas II on 3 January 1917.  (3) On 13 February 1917, the Council of Ministers of Russia allocated 1.2 million rubles for purchasing land and starting mining activities.  (4) After the February Revolution, the Russian Provisional Government continued to implement the plan. (5) The special commissioner of the Provisional Government for oil shale purchasing and stockpiling began preparing an oil shale mine at Pavandu.  (6) About 500 workers, including war prisoners, were engaged in the construction of the mine in the summer of 1917.  (7) After the October Revolution financing ceased and construction stopped. I've put two spaces between each sentence, visible only in edit mode, and numbered the sentences, just to make it easier to see and discuss the sentences.

The first sentence states, "the construction of...power stations and...processing facilities was planned". The second sentence says, "The plan for oil shale mining in Estonia was presented...

That's going from somewhat specific (power stations and processing facilities) to more general ("oil shale mining in Estonia"). Normally, the order in a paragraph is from general to specific. The third sentence says "the Council of Ministers...allocated...rubles for purchasing land and starting mining activities". That's also fairly general.

The fourth sentence, "...continued to implement the plan", is related to the third. The fifth gets more specific about the plan, but "preparing a...mine" is not very precise. It should either be more precise or be left out. The sixth sentence describes construction of the mine, and the seventh says construction stopped, which is fine.

The main problem with this paragraph seems to be the first sentence. It's not clear how it relates to the rest of the paragraph. Can you include the information in the first sentence in the second sentence? Something like this:


 * The A plan for oil shale mining in Estonia, including construction of oil shale-fired power stations and oil shale thermal processing facilities, was presented to the Emperor Nicholas II on 3 January 1917.

If you like this sentence, then the only other thing that needs your attention is sentence (5). CorinneSD (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed and re-arranged the text to make it more clear. Please feel free to change it. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * After copyediting there is the sentence:


 * After the February Revolution, the Russian Provisional Government appointed a special commissioner for oil shale purchasing and stockpiling who began construction of an oil shale mine at Pavandu in the summer of 1917, supervising about 500 workers, including war prisoners.


 * Actually this is incorrect as works (digging a drainage etc) started immediately after financing was granted. The summer time was probably the peak time for construction. Beagel (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How is it now? I re-worded it again, and it's now back closer to the way it was. CorinneSD (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I only removed the word 'immediately'. Beagel (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Developments in Soviet Estonia
Beagel In the middle of the fifth paragraph in the section Oil shale in Estonia, you will see the following two sentences:


 * The stations, collectively known as the Narva Power Stations, are the world's two largest oil shale-fired power stations. Both power stations burned pulverised oil shale.

The verb in the first sentence ("are") suggests that the Narva Power Stations are still in operation. The verb in the second sentence ("burned") refers to the past. If the power stations still burn pulverised oil shale, "burned" should be changed to present tense: "burn". CorinneSD (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are still in operation. When commissioned, they burnt only pulverised oil shale. They are still burn partly pulverised oil shale (until the next year) but they are modernized to use the circulated fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) technology in their main generation units. Beagel (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, my gosh. That's pretty complicated. To indicate the change without going into too much detail, could you say, "For many years (or "At that time", or "When commissioned"), both power stations burned pulverised oil shale but are transitioning to circulated fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) technology in their main generation units."? CorinneSD (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the second sentence. I don't think this is needed here as there is a separate article about these plants. Beagel (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)