Talk:Oil shale in Israel

Technopromexport
If we can find out who in Israel considered buying oil shale technology from Technopromexport, then we can justify including the following comment in the article. Otherwise, an unreferenced citation from Bustan does not, on its own, warrant inclusion.

In 1999, Israel considered to buy the oil shale processing technology from Russia's Technopromexport. The shale oil plant with capacity of 90,000 tons of shale oil per year was planned to be located at the Rotem deposit. In addition, spent shale was planned to use for power generation. However, the project was terminated. In May 1999, also Pittsburgh-based MidAtlantic Energy Group cancelled its plan to build a 150 MW oil shale-fired power plant at Mishor Rotem. Jdkag (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bustan has reported this and, unlike some other claims from this organization, I don't have any rational reason not to believe this. I slightly changed the wording and I hope in its current form this paragraph is ok. Beagel (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if this detail were supported by a reliable source, the fact that someone considered a technology does not make this sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion in this article. I think that adding this detail exaggerates the extent of shale activity in Israel.Jdkag (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Undeveloped resource
Until economical technologies are available ( all-in cost, positive EROEI), most of Israel's oil shale will remain an "undeveloped resource," just as seawater uranium and mantle plumes are undeveloped resources. Claims by IEI that in-situ development can produce oil for $35/barrel do not seem to have any basis, given that no one has ever tested key elements of the technology they plan to implement (i.e., the "CCR" technology). If the opening sentences of this article refers to shale as an undeveloped resource, it also needs to qualify this as an issue of economic viablity, otherwise readers might be misled into thinking that the only obstacle is a lack of initiative. According to Tsvi Minister of the Geological Survey of Israel, "new technologies are still in developing stages. Their development into economical processes may take some years to come." According to the United States Bureau of Land Management, "there are no economically viable ways yet known to extract and process oil shale for commercial purposes."Jdkag (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Resource is resource notwithstanding its extraction's economic and technological viability. If economically and technologically viable, resource classifies as reserve. In case of Israel, most of reliable sources are classifying oil shale in Israel as resource and not as reserves. So I don't see what is wrong with using the term "resource" in this article? Beagel (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The BLM statement refers to the oil shale in the United States, not globally (there are commercial level production in China and Estonia). Therefore, although agree that this statement is correct also for Israeli oil shale, the source does not naming Israel, therefore it is not correct to add it here. Beagel (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Inter RAO
A press release by Inter RAO that was picked up by some Russian media but which provided no details on who issued the license, and which had no confirmation by any licensing agency in Israel or by any reliable news source that checked the story is not WP:V. This story should be dropped from the article until we have reliable info.Jdkag (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article says that this was announced by the company itself. That the fact. It also says that this is not confirmed by Israeli sources. In this form, it is reliable and belongs to the article. Removing it is actually POV. Beagel (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)