Talk:Shale oil extraction/Archive 1

Fortune & Shell's ICP
This Fortune article may provide some useful information for inclusion on Shell's ICP. -MmmmJoel 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Title
What is more correct title:Oil shale extraction or Shale oil extraction?Beagel 06:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Classification of processes
According to the Alan K. Burnham, James R. McConaghy "Comparison of the Acceptability of Various Oil Shale Processes" (see footnote 13), the Alberta Taciuk Process (ATP) is classified as conduction through a wall (various fuels). User by the IP address 59.100.34.181 changed this classification of ATP to the hot recycled solids (inert or burned shale). Is it possible to get some reference confirming this classification? By my knowledge, ATP is quite different from Galoter and other processes it's put together right now. Beagel 08:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A diagram of the ATP internals is on the developer's site (http://www.uma.aecom.com/MarketsAndServices/41/64/index.jsp). A more detailed sketch and description are in Southern Pacific Petroleum N.L. Annual Report 2000 p15. Both indicate that spent shale is recycled from the combustion zone to the retort zone which puts the ATP in the hot recycled solids class.  However, the ATP process does use heat transfer by conduction through a wall to dry the raw shale prior to the hot solids recycle.  The Galoter (http://www.kirj.ee/oilshale/6_golubev_2003_3s.pdf) also uses a different heating method (externally generated hot gas) to dry the raw shale.  There are several other errors in the Burnham and McConaghy reference. For example, the Paraho Direct and Indirect are interchanged (Pforzheimer, H. "paraho Oil Shale Project" Symposium of Aternate Fuel Resouces, Santa Maria, CA March 25-27. 1976) and Petrosix uses externally generated hot gas (Hohmann,J.P., Martignoni, W.P., Novicki, R.E.M., Piper, E.M. "PETROSIX - A successful oil shale operational complex" Proceedings of the Eastern Oil Shale Symposium, Lexington, Kentucky, Nov 17,1992 p.4-11).59.100.34.181 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarification. I was confused because of using conduction through a wall to dry the raw shale. And, of course, the design of ATP and Galoter retorts are quite different. I hope the classification is done correctly right now. Do you like to check also the section concerning insitu process? I don't have myself knowledge on insitu process.Beagel 07:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not as familiar with insitu processes, but what has been written is consistent with my understanding. Nice work!59.100.34.181 11:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The previous contributor, who did an excellent job describing the diversity of oil shale processes, noted and corrected the classification errors I made in my hurriedly written AICHE paper. Those errors were caught, and a corrected table was presented at the 26th Oil Shale Symposium in Golden, Oct 2006. I have changed the reference to that paper, which was unfortunately left out of the CD just distributed by the CSM but can be downloaded from the LLNL library web site. I would also request that someone in the oil shale community who knows a lot more than me about environmental issues upgrade that section, which is still not very good.


 * Thank you Alan. I have a feeling that different in-situ processes need more detailed descriptions. Unfortunately I don't knew much about in-situ processes. Maybe you would like to take a care of in-situ section?
 * I agree that environmental section needs to be improved. I have also problem with the table US Companies with Oil Shale operations or pilot projects. I don't think this is complete list. Also, somebody added Petrobras to this list. Maybe we should change the list global and add also Fushun Mining Group, VKG, Eesti Energia and other producers to the list? Or maybe we should remove the table at all? Beagel 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit
I've copyedit the entire article and did the best i could. Since it is a technical article, i had a lot questions and doubts which were promptly clarified by User:Beagel. However, as my last experience with the Oil shale article goes, it was copyedited by me, but after my copyed it went thru a lot of changes which resulted in it being denied a proofread. This time i request the editors to desist from making drastic changes, so that the proofreading can be effectively carried out. Again, thanx to User:Beagel for clarifying my doubts in the article. Some "copyed's notes" are still in the article and hope they'll be clarified soon. Gprince007 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick-fail Good Article nomination
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thank you for reviewing this article. Unfortunately I can't agree with your opinion concerning non-neutral treatment and POV-forking. Neutrality has been the essential topic. The case is that Oil shale extraction, as also Oil shale economics, Environmental effects of oil shale industry, and several others are spin-off from the the Oil shale article. Not going into details why these spin-off articles were created, I will only say that this was because the main article became too long and this approach was suggested during peer review and agreed between active editors. So, the Oil shale article deals with all aspects (including economics and environment) in summary style and specific aspects related to the oil shale are dealt in specific articles. Although nobody suggested before that summary of economics and environment should be included also this article, there is no problem to do this. As these summary sections aöready exist in the Oil shale article, it's mainly copy-paste work. So, I think that putting this article on hold to fix a problem (already fixed actually), or asking second opinion was probably better solution than just failing. I also disagree with merging the Environmental effects of oil shale industry into this article. Environmental effects related not only to the oil extraction, but also to the oil shale combustion at the oil shale-fired power plants. I agree that the Environmental effects of oil shale industry article needs to be expand. As there is process to improve all oil shale series article at least to GA level, this work will be definitely done.  Beagel (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough and considered response. You are correct in a sense, in that I would have normally held the article for a single issue. But if that issue is one of the quick-fail criteria, then I am obligated to quick-fail the article. As NPOV issues are often more contentious - and thus, more time consuming - to work out, I have no way of gauging if they can be completed in a week, and so I don't feel comfortable ignoring the standard quick-fail response. Happily, you seem to have fixed it to a basic necessary standard to attain GA. I won't press on the merge issue, as that isn't a cut and dry criterion for passing (obviously). Good luck with the other articles and thanks for your hard work, Van Tucky  Talk 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thank you for reviewing this article. Unfortunately I can't agree with your opinion concerning non-neutral treatment and POV-forking. Neutrality has been the essential topic. The case is that Oil shale extraction, as also Oil shale economics, Environmental effects of oil shale industry, and several others are spin-off from the the Oil shale article. Not going into details why these spin-off articles were created, I will only say that this was because the main article became too long and this approach was suggested during peer review and agreed between active editors. So, the Oil shale article deals with all aspects (including economics and environment) in summary style and specific aspects related to the oil shale are dealt in specific articles. Although nobody suggested before that summary of economics and environment should be included also this article, there is no problem to do this. As these summary sections aöready exist in the Oil shale article, it's mainly copy-paste work. So, I think that putting this article on hold to fix a problem (already fixed actually), or asking second opinion was probably better solution than just failing. I also disagree with merging the Environmental effects of oil shale industry into this article. Environmental effects related not only to the oil extraction, but also to the oil shale combustion at the oil shale-fired power plants. I agree that the Environmental effects of oil shale industry article needs to be expand. As there is process to improve all oil shale series article at least to GA level, this work will be definitely done.  Beagel (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough and considered response. You are correct in a sense, in that I would have normally held the article for a single issue. But if that issue is one of the quick-fail criteria, then I am obligated to quick-fail the article. As NPOV issues are often more contentious - and thus, more time consuming - to work out, I have no way of gauging if they can be completed in a week, and so I don't feel comfortable ignoring the standard quick-fail response. Happily, you seem to have fixed it to a basic necessary standard to attain GA. I won't press on the merge issue, as that isn't a cut and dry criterion for passing (obviously). Good luck with the other articles and thanks for your hard work, Van Tucky  Talk 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thank you for reviewing this article. Unfortunately I can't agree with your opinion concerning non-neutral treatment and POV-forking. Neutrality has been the essential topic. The case is that Oil shale extraction, as also Oil shale economics, Environmental effects of oil shale industry, and several others are spin-off from the the Oil shale article. Not going into details why these spin-off articles were created, I will only say that this was because the main article became too long and this approach was suggested during peer review and agreed between active editors. So, the Oil shale article deals with all aspects (including economics and environment) in summary style and specific aspects related to the oil shale are dealt in specific articles. Although nobody suggested before that summary of economics and environment should be included also this article, there is no problem to do this. As these summary sections aöready exist in the Oil shale article, it's mainly copy-paste work. So, I think that putting this article on hold to fix a problem (already fixed actually), or asking second opinion was probably better solution than just failing. I also disagree with merging the Environmental effects of oil shale industry into this article. Environmental effects related not only to the oil extraction, but also to the oil shale combustion at the oil shale-fired power plants. I agree that the Environmental effects of oil shale industry article needs to be expand. As there is process to improve all oil shale series article at least to GA level, this work will be definitely done.  Beagel (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough and considered response. You are correct in a sense, in that I would have normally held the article for a single issue. But if that issue is one of the quick-fail criteria, then I am obligated to quick-fail the article. As NPOV issues are often more contentious - and thus, more time consuming - to work out, I have no way of gauging if they can be completed in a week, and so I don't feel comfortable ignoring the standard quick-fail response. Happily, you seem to have fixed it to a basic necessary standard to attain GA. I won't press on the merge issue, as that isn't a cut and dry criterion for passing (obviously). Good luck with the other articles and thanks for your hard work, Van Tucky  Talk 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough and considered response. You are correct in a sense, in that I would have normally held the article for a single issue. But if that issue is one of the quick-fail criteria, then I am obligated to quick-fail the article. As NPOV issues are often more contentious - and thus, more time consuming - to work out, I have no way of gauging if they can be completed in a week, and so I don't feel comfortable ignoring the standard quick-fail response. Happily, you seem to have fixed it to a basic necessary standard to attain GA. I won't press on the merge issue, as that isn't a cut and dry criterion for passing (obviously). Good luck with the other articles and thanks for your hard work, Van Tucky  Talk 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Informal peer review
Usual random ramblings:
 * Lead: 'an immature form of hydrocarbon'. I think this is wrong, isn't it? The kerogen and hydrocarbon articles seem pretty clear that kerogen is not a hydrocarbon. Even if it is, I'm not sure 'immature' would be the right way to describe their relationship.
 * ✅ Done. Lead is changed. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lead:First sentence is a bit long (and I like long sentences!). Also uses 'form' three times in three lines. Suggest reformat to two separate sentences.
 * ✅ Done. Lead is changed. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lead:'It is a process wherein'. Think you can drop this and just start the sentence 'The shale is...'
 * ✅ Done. Lead is changed. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lead: Suggest change 'currently' to 'as of 2008', so that if the article is not updated it will remain accurate despite any changes to the industry.
 * ✅ Done. Lead is changed. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ex-situ technologies: There is a problem with the copyright for the pic of the Stuart oil shale processing plant. The pic is not released under the GFDL license that has been assigned to it, which allows both commercial and non-commercial use. Ask for advice from some copyright experts on whether there is another free use license that can be used, or whether fair use is a possibility.
 * Ex-situ technologies: 'internal hot gas/solid carrier technologies'. Reader has no idea what these mean at this point. Are they explained later?
 * ✅ Done. Listed, which technologies are hot gas carrier technologies and which are hot solid carrier technologies. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

More comments later. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, i think refering to the first point what it's trying to say that it isn't a hydrocarbon however when subjected to the right heat and temperature for long enough kerogen will release hydrocarbons. So it has the potential to create hydrocarbons however it just hasn't been subjected to the right conditions yet. Dexcel (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, but that is not at all the same thing as an 'immature form of hydrocarbon'. How about 'Oil shale extraction refers to the process in which kerogen, a mixture of organic chemical compounds found in sedimentary rocks, is converted into a usable hydrocarbon in the form of a petroleum-like shale oil and combustible shale gas.'? 4u1e (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Another informal peer review
More informal peer review comments, sorry for the extremely long delay on these from the first time you asked. This is only a start, I'll be back with more, probably in a few days.
 * The convert template for the temperatures in the lead section has odd spacing to my eyes. I think I'd prefer nbsps around the '/'. Obviously this isn't the right place to argue about it though!
 * Don't know how to add spaces to the template. I changed template format and hope you like it more this way. If not, it is always possible to change back.Beagel (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the table contain the names of oil shale processing technologies or companies that use these types of methods? The Hom Tov link is to a company rather than a process (although obviously they could have the same name).
 * These are names of technologies. At the same time, most of companies have their own technologies and obviously this reflects in the technology name. In case of Hom Tov, the company name and the technology name are identical. Although the Hom Tov articles is about the company, its also consists a paragraph about the technology.Beagel (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about linking some more of the company names in this table.
 * these are technologies, not companies. There is only an article about Petrosix technology, and not about any other technology (in case of Hom Tov there is a paragraph in the company stub). The company names are linked later in text (if there is an article about the company, because usually the oil shale companies are not "mainstream" companies and often don't have their own articles in the Wikipedia).Beagel (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * link char
 * Done.Beagel (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Stuart oil shale processing plant image's text (from Greenpeace) claims non-commercial use only. This is not a wikipedia compatible licence.
 * I left a request at the WP Austrialia website for a free image of the Stuart plant. The current image is currently not visible.Beagel (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'is mined either by underground mining or surface mining' - too much mining!
 * One mining less.Beagel (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (this is probably a bit picky) 'usually heated to 450 °C' - do you mean 'it is usually heated but sometimes it isn't' or 'it is heated, usually to 450 °C but sometimes to other temperatures'?
 * It means usually to 450 °C, but different technologies may use different temperatures.Beagel (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'the lump shale is used in internal hot gas carrier technologies (internal combustion technologies, externally generated hot gas technologies)' - What does the bracket mean here?
 * Just to give example, which group of technologies uses gas for heat transfer and which one uses solid matter.Beagel (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * it would be better to define the particulate size in particulate oil shale technologies at the 1st instance of it appearing
 * done.Beagel (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'are, feed shale' - do you mean to use a comma here? also the later one in this sentence.
 * reworded.Beagel (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * what is a gravitational shaft retort?
 * In this context gravitational means vertical. Replaced.Beagel (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'the yield of oil accounts for 14-17% of shale and the oil consists of a small amount of low-boiling fractions' - is there a missing 'the' before 'shale'? define 'low-boiling fraction'.
 * The ATP retort picture is very small as a thumbnail. I would recommend larger. Making it large enough to read the text does require it to be a lot larger though...
 * 'capacity of processing 40 tonnes per hour of oil shale' - is this a lot?
 * 'Internal combustion technologies use heat transferred by flowing gases, which are generated by combustion within the retort.' - is this the oil shale itself that is combusted within the retort? how does this fit with the lack of oxygen mentioned earlier?
 * 'Hot recycled solids technologies use heat, which is transferred by mixing hot solid particles with the oil shale.' - use heat to do what? don't all the technologies use heat?
 * From what I've read so far the intro is very good but the readability of the text declines after this. I think it is probably a bit difficult/technical for the hypothetical "bright teenager" to understand as there are a number of presumably technical terms that aren't explained eg 'spouted bed', 'low-boiling fractions', 'rotary kiln-type retort', 'syngas' etc etc. JMiall  ₰  19:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The hypothetical bright teenager - do you know, JMiall, if is this discussed somewhere on WP? Interesting issue. One of the readability tools gives an age, which is a nice sanity check when reading an article that's outside of one's knowledge zone; am wondering if the target age has been discussed and where in the teenage years it falls. Novickas (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing much comes up under a search for 'bright teenager' does it which I'm sure used to be in some guideline or other. Here's some helpful links. JMiall  ₰  16:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the WP article "Make technical articles accessible" is a good piece, although it does not directly address the target age. I'm thinking 'assessed as understandable at age 19 by at least one tool' as a goal to strive for. However, the tool  has hung my PC several times - could you see if it works better for you, and if so, invoke it occasionally and share the results on request? Novickas (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The tool ties up Firefox on my PC for a while but eventually comes back with some data. I can share this if you would like. Currently the various reading ages are reporting ~18-20 however I do not know what they are really testing for. JMiall  ₰  17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, who knows what their algorithms are. That would take a whole other round of research. In any case - it's good you don't have to reboot to use it, and as this article evolves, it would be nice if you could use that tool on it once in a while. Thanks, Novickas (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

More things to do: more to follow... JMiall ₰  16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * link bitumen, centrifuge, carbon dioxide, Alberta, maybe grade, condenser etc. I'm sure I've missed many.
 * links added. However, needs one more check after other changes are made.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * when you introduce the various technologies you almost always don't use the word 'the' when refring to the technology or process
 * 'The retort-style prototype was reported to have passed a test.' - what prototype, what test?
 * Sentence removed.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Israeli promoters of this process' - is the Israeli important here?
 * The technology is developed in Israel, but in this context this is not important. Word removed.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Fischer Assay' has inconsistent capitalization
 * Done.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'A 100 gram sample crushed to 8 mesh (2.38 mm) screen' - what does this mean?
 * 'cooled with ice water into a graduated centrifuge tube' - are the vapours cooled with ice water in the condenser or after? Why is it important to tell us about the graduated tube?
 * 'hot gas generated by natural gas or pyrolysis gas' - from the burning of natural gas?
 * is an 'oil shale rubble pile' a pile of rubble and oil shale or just a pile of oil shale?
 * 'has being operating' - ?
 * 'high availability' - what does this mean?
 * 'The hydrogen or hydrogen donor react with coke precursors' - what is the hydrogen donor? what is a coke precursor?
 * 'In this process conversion reaction occurs' - missing a/the
 * what is hydrotreating?
 * Other issues answered below (see answers/proposals from Alan Burnham).Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the article upon request to help fix any remaining errors. (Akburnham (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
 * In the introduction section, I don't think it is correct to say that Alberta Taciuk is currently being used commercially. It was demonstrated at near commercial scale in Australia, analogous to the Unocal Colorado operations in the early 1980s.  It is being considered for commercial operations today at multiple locations, but it is not being used currently.  The further detail on this process in the hot recycled solids section should be updated.  It states that a system is currently being designed (2007 reference) and will start operation in 2008.  It can't happen that fast.
 * Alberta Taciuk is removed from the list of technologies in commercial use. the 2008 deadline is removed.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that that "low-boiling fractions" should be defined for the Galator process. It looks to be too high for the naphtha or gasoline fraction, based on data Cameron Engineer's Handbook, so it could be gasoline and jet fuel ranges.  I will try to find out but do not guarantee success.
 * Someone asks whether 40-tonnes per hour is a lot. It depends on your perspective.  That gives a few hundred barrels per day.  We would need a thousand such retorts in the United States to make a significant dent in our oil consumption.  US industry would probably opt for larger retorts.  The Alberta Taciuk demonstration unit was 250 tonnes per hour.  The Unocal demonstration was 400 tonnes per day.  But Estonia needs much less oil than the US.
 * The question was asked about what burns in an internal combustion retort. It depends on the design of the particular retort and the quality of the oil shale being used.  Sometimes it is primarily reinjected pyrolysis gas.  Sometimes it is primarily the char left on the retorted shale.  Sometimes it is a combination of those two plus some oil in locations where the air reaches the retorting zone.  How much detail is appropropriate?
 * A question was asked about a sentence starting with "Hot recycled solids technologies use heat...". That sentence has apparently been changeed, but its replacement ("Hot recycled solids technologies use for the heat transfer solid particles (usually shale ash)")is not clear. It would be better as "Hot recycled solids technologies use solid particles (usually shale ash) to carry heat in the the retorting zone".  In the following sentence, the grammar would be better adding "the" before "feeding" and deleting the comma before "and" for proper parallel construction.
 * Reworded.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A comment was made about the use of technical terms such as "spouted bed". Spouted beds are a type of fluidized beds and are described in a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed).  Add a connection as appropriate.  I would suggest changing "rotary kiln-type retort" to "rotating kiln."  I thought I would find the term in the Wikikpedia article on cement, but it only mentioned that it is made in a kiln.  I recommend changing "syngas" to "synthesis gas" and referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_gas.
 * changed per recommendations.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A question was raised about a sentence "The retort-style prototype was reported to have passed a test." I agree that this sentence makes no sense and could be deleted.  The reference at the end gives a good review of various activities, and is maybe appropriate elsewhere, but it is not obvious how it relates to this sentence.
 * Sentence removed, more description added.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Recent discussions with colleagues suggests that "Fischer Assay" is preferred to Fischer assay, but consistency is more important than which is used.
 * Changed to "Fischer Assay".Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A description of Fischer assay has been added to the same paragraph as that describing Hom Tov. It should be a separate paragraph and probably first.  The question of shale size could be better stated, "A 100-g sample crushed to <2.38 mm is heated..." I didn't write the sentence about the graduated centrifuge tube, but that is how you measure the amount of oil.  It seems obvious to me, but if it is not obvious to others, perhaps it should be stated explicitly.
 * Moved. Sentence changed per recommendation.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that "the burning of natural gas or pyrolysis gas" is better.
 * Changed.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An "oil shale rubble pile" is a "pile of oil shale rubble". Rubble implies that it is broken into chunks by mining.
 * changed to "pile of oil shale rubble".Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume "has being operating" should be "has been operating"
 * Changed to "has been operating".Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "High availability" means that it works a high percentage of the time. Whoever contributed this sentence might be able to give a numerical percentage.
 * "hydrogen donor" is a chemical that donates hydrogen to others during chemical reactions. Tetralin is one example. The Exxon Donor Solvent coal liquefaction process (http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=7350242) uses such agents.  The Exxon Donor Solvent process is not describing in the Wikipedia article on Coal, but it should be, and then a reference could be added.  A coke precursor is a chemical structure in the oil shale that is prone to form coke during retorting but has not yet done so.
 * Explanations added.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A question was raised about "In this process conversion reaction occurs". It is not correct as written.  It could be "In this process, conversion occurs"  or "In this process, the conversion occurs" or "In this process, conversion of kerogen to oil and gas occurs" or "In this process, retorting occurs" or other options.
 * changed.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hydrotreating" is the reaction of oil with high pressure hydrogen. The term is also used in the Wikipedia article on gasoline.  A search of the term on the web gives numerous articles, one being http://www.uop.com/refining/1060.html.
 * Thank you very much.Beagel (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale vs shale oil
I notice that in your lead you switch from oil shale to shale oil. Since Shale oil redirects to Oil shale extraction, I am guessing that there is no difference between the two. If they are the same thing, I suggest that you stick to oil shale so as not to confuse. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oil shale is a rock. Shale oil is a petroleum-like product extracted from oil shale. Probably there will be also article about shale oil in the future.Beagel (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A stub shale oil article in my sandbox with a couple of conversion problems. Novickas (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in your table you say: Above ground (ex situ). But under "Ex situ technologies", you say "In ex situ methods, the oil shale is mined either underground or at the surface..." These are the type of things that are confusing to a person like me who is not familiar with the subject. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. Ex situ and in situ mean where the shale oil is produced (extraction process), not mining. Mining of oil shale means automatically ex situ extraction, notwithstanding the mining method, because in situ does not include mining at all. Beagel (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Helpful peerreviewer output
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  19:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: aluminum (A) (British: aluminium), meter (A) (British: metre), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), modeling (A) (British: modelling), cosy (B) (American: cozy), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Article improvement
I have noticed a vast improvement in the article since you have been getting input from editors that are comfortable with the subject matter. For example, the lead is 1000% improved and is much more accessible to readers like me. The good work is being noticed. Keep it up! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

diagram/early retorts
Do you think a simple schematic diagram or two would be useful? Novickas (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some process diagrams in Oil shale extraction article already, but they are bigger detailed pictures shrunken down to the point where is is very hard to read/see the details in there. Some WP:editors seem to be of the opinion that all pictures should be limited size thumbs placed on the side of a page, usually the right side, with article text on the other side.  In many cases this is good, but I do not necessarily agree so in every case, especially with detailed diagrams like the ones in this article.  A problem is that the page width and text width and therefore placement of the pictures varies with individual reader's computers and settings, and making the pictures too large can squash the text onto one side of the page in an unseemly way for readers whose text display is not very wide.  Making the image wider for these readers may squash the text for readers with somewhat wider text displays on their computers.  Centering the image thumb or frame would solve this problem, but would leave empty margins on the left and right sides of the image for readers with very wide text displays.  I think this option is the least of the evils of image sizing for these pictures. So what if there is a little empty space in the article for some readers? Surely that has to be preferable to making the images too small for anybody to read directly in the article.  I have found that an image width of 540px with center placement works well for this kind of purpose or, if the natural or optimal width of the image is slightly smaller, use that natural width of the image with a center placement.  If the image is far smaller, then right or left placement with text on the opposite side may be considered more desirable.  H Padleckas (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The diagram would be a good idea; however, I am not sure what exactly it should be as different technologies vary significantly. There are some schemes from the DoE website. It is possible to find schemes also for other technologies, but there are copyright problems. I thought also about the infobox, but again, there is no suitable infobox available. Beagel (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just throwing out an idea here. It seemed during the review that readers felt they were being rushed into the complexities. Maybe if it started with a kind of history section, it would be easier to follow - reflecting its evolution from simple chimney-type things to the complex modern ones. Those early simple versions might not be too hard to illustrate? Novickas (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems good idea. The only problem is that the article is already too long. Adding this historical evolution should be done in parallel with updating the History of the oil shale industry article. Beagel (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chapter 4 of this report gives good overview of early retorting technologies. Beagel (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the article really is already too long: as of 15:37 on May 23, 2009, it is 59297 bytes long, and that is even after Beagel pared it down slightly by removing some specific information and a couple references from it. I've tried to look for ways to shorten it, but that is very hard to do without deleting some useful information or explanation from it.  Modern Wikipedia policy requires referencing of practically all facts.  Again as of 15:37 on May 23, 2009, there are 77 references.  This sort of referencing takes up a lot of space (bytes) in an article.  I don't see how we have room to add more stuff to this article.  Sometimes, I think there is an overemphasis on History sections in Wikipedia articles.  I would usually rather concentrate on current technology.  Also, I'm not sure where we will get more useful free license images.  I've made Wikimedia diagrams before, but it is time-consuming and I consider it not worthwhile, at this point, to spend my time making such limited use diagrams on something I'm not totally familiar with.  In other words, I either have a very good idea of what I want to do or I choose to make diagrams that will be useful in multiple Wikisites (WikiProjects).  Even so, I do it in my spare time, and it usually takes a long time for the diagrams to get done.  H Padleckas (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, the size is calculated without formatings, references, etc. But it should be checked out. The critical limit is 50k bytes. Beagel (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the diagram at the page 14 of this report could be useful? Beagel (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Still digesting the info in the sources you gave, B. Have a very rough draft for a Development section - would post it here first. It's too bad about the sizing issues, because that p. 14 diagram would be so useful. Novickas (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By my understanding, the size is about the prose, and all diagrams, infoboxes etc are additional to this size. But maybe I am wrong. Beagel (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A few comments
Regarding the title of the article, surely you mean Shale oil extraction? The article has limited content regarding the extraction of the shale itself, and indeed there is none in in-situ processes.

Regarding diagrams: I particularly like the ATP image, but it does nothing to explain the flow of heat, solids and gases through the kiln. I could not understand it without the ATP article - I strongly recommend that another appeal is made at the graphics lab for a conversion to SVG and addition of arrows showing the flow of solid feed (right to left), flue gas (left to right in the heat exchanger tubes in the heating/cooling zone), product vapour right to left in the vapour tube from the retort, spent solids (ash) out the end of the combustion zone and the solids recycle left to right through helical tube. A very clever design, poorly illustrated, which is a shame. If colour is used to indicate temperature (which is a good idea) then the use should be consistent. The heat exchanger tubes on the right are shown in gray when they should be graduated from red (combustion zone) to discharge temperature (probably yellow ~100-250?). All other diagrams could benefit from a request at Graphics Lab for conversion to SVG, although this one will benefit the most and could be a real showcase of how chemical engineering diagrams can and should be done on WP. Dhatfield (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Concerning the title, I agree that shale oil extraction is more precise title, while oil shale extraction associates more with the oil shale mining. I tried to start this discussion two years ago, but did not receive any feedback then. Probably it is a right time to file a request for the page move (right now Shale oil extraction is a redirect to this pages).


 * As of diagrams, I agree with your proposal. However, I am not feeling myself very comportable with the graphical issues, so I appreciate if some more experienced editor will help with this. Regarding colours of the ATP diagram, I honestly don't knew if they used to indicate the temperature or not. It would be logical; however, these colours where used in the original diagram on the DOE website. Beagel (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have enlarged the ATP retort image to 540px across and now it takes the width of the page so that text would not be crammed on the side. Now I see the top and bottom margins of this picture could be reduced for a better appearance.  I can modify the image itself to do that.  I think I will do that sometime.  Such a change could be revertable.  H Padleckas (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just fixed the margins on the Image:ATP.PNG pic as I stated above. H Padleckas (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an overview image from the document B. mentioned above; sized here at 300 px, which was acceptable at the WTC construction FA. Oil shale extraction overview.png. Novickas (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. The only thing is that not all in-situ processes involve fracturing. Fracturing is a part of modified in-situ processes, while true in-situ processes heat the rock without fracturing it beforehand. Maybe it is possible to add additional line to the chart from deposit directly to retorting (all together 2 in-situ lines)? Beagel (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, with the software I have, it'd be hard. Do you think it would be OK to replace fracturing with fracturing or heating? Novickas (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case it would be better to keep it as it is. If somebody could add a dotted line from deposit to retorting, it would be nice, but otherwise it could be stay as it is. Most of modern in-situ technologies anyway are modified in-situ and not true in-situ technologies. Beagel (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I put it in. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the technologies that don't involve fracturing (microwaving, etc.) have never gone into even the prototype phase, that would make this diagram widely applicable, with those experminental technolgies noted later as such. Novickas (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was move -- Beagel (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction → Shale oil extraction &mdash; Would be more precise title for the article about the shale oil production and pyrolysis techniques, while oil shale extraction associates mainly with the oil shale mining.Beagel (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support. More precise. Novickas (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Novickas Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * In retrospect (after-the-fact), I support the move to Shale oil extraction. One might say that the title Oil shale oil extraction is even more precise, but .... :-X H Padleckas (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 206.48.0.60
Anom user IP 206.48.0.60 made lot of edits to this article. Unfortunately, I have to revert most of them. Reasons are following.

Beagel (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is under preparation for WP:FAC, so it is appreciated if that kind of block edits are discussed on the talk page before editing.
 * This article concentrates to the extraction process and covers other aspects only when necessary and summarized way. There are separate articles covering other aspects related to oil shale.
 * Potential Energy Supply. Unsourced and someway incorrect section. Shale oil is not exactly same as crude oil although it could be used as a substitute for crude oil. There is a separate article on shale oil, which provides more precise information about this topic, so the information does not belong here. Information about oil shale reserves does not belong here, it is provided in the article on oil shale reserves.
 * Estonia supplied by shale oil since World War II. I also fan of Estonian oil shale industry; however, again, this information doe not belongs here. Probably we need short history section and this case Estonia definitely would be mentioned in the context of extraction methods development. However, right now this this information is already provided in the oil shale industry and oil shale in Estonia articles. Information is also incorrect, because shale oil production started in Estonia in 1920s and not after WWII. 70% of world shale oil production is out of date because as of today, the world largest shale oil producer is China. As of side remark, there is no nuclear power plant in Estonia.
 * Discovery by Native Americans: "The rock that burns". Does not belongs here, but would be used in the History of the oil shale industry.
 * What shale oil is. Does not belong here, described in shale oil and oil shale geology articles. Also, oil shale is not necessarily shale or marl. Information, that some above-ground retorting processes use combustion of semi-coke for heat generation is provided in this article, no need to give Paraho as example because this process is not particular in this aspect.
 * Technologies in flux. Actually does not provide any new information.
 * Environmental considerations. Needs copyediting for neutrality. As of UNACOL, UNOCAL run the Union demonstration project, it had nothing to do with Paraho Corporation.

pre-FAC activities
I think that this article is almost ready for the FAC re-nomination. HOwever, there are some things which should be done before renomination: Please add if I missed something. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Copyediting. I think that the whole article has to go through the copyediting process, particularly in-situ sections, which probably needs some better summarizing. Also, the overall size of the article needs some trimming. I hope that user:Gprince007 and other experienced copyeditors would be able to assist with this task.
 * 2) Peer reviews. Some (informal) peer review will be useful, so all volunteers are welcome. Also any suggestion who could take a care of this is appreciated.
 * Is the article complete with regards to content ??....becos i wud like to copyedit only when the article is complete. It disrupts the flow of the copyeditor if users keep adding/removing content from the article. If the article is complete in all respects then i'll start with copyediting. But i'll might be busy this week so maybe next week I'll start working on this article. Gprince007 (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that there is no major changes anymore. However, I agree that before starting copyediting we need some fresh views to this article and some expert reviews. I also see a need to trim this article little bit to be in line with the size requirement and probably in-situ subsections needs to be better summarize. I will try to go through this myself; however, I am out of fresh ideas (which explains the slow progress in last months).Beagel (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if you still need help with touching up or redrawing images, please let me know. I enjoy doing that and it would be nice to get this article to FA status  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 01:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on images, so I fully trust your opinion. Maybe you could check over all images in this article to be sure they are in line with all requirements? Concerning the image you updated, it looks good. There is only one thing you maybe could assist and which was already not correct in the original diagram. The thing is that not all in-situ processes involve fracturing. Fracturing is a part of modified in-situ processes, while true in-situ processes heat the rock without fracturing it beforehand. It is true that most of in-situ processes currently under consideration are modified in-situ processes and from this point of you the diagram is correct. However, most of early in-situ processes were true in-situ processes without any kind of fracturing. Maybe it is possible to add additional line in the chart from the deposit directly to retorting (all together 2 in-situ lines)? Beagel (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, done.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 14:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Splette..but crushing is misspelt..could you fix that? Novickas (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2009

(UTC)
 * Ups, how embarrassing. I'll fix it tonight. Thanksfor pointing this out!  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 19:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No hurry, thanks. Novickas (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of the diagram. Beagel (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I corrected the typo. I also uploaded as png now, for better quality.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviews are needed
Before FAC nomination, this article needs some (informal) peer reviews. It needs a scientific peer review as also a peer review taking account all other issues such as formatting, readability of prose etc. If you knew any editor who would like and is able to take a care of this, please invite her/him to take a care of this. Beagel (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Potential copyright issues
The discussion about potential copyright issues is here. Beagel (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
I created an infobox template for industrial process (Template:Infobox industrial process), which I added to this article. You are welcome to comment and improve it. Beagel (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ready for FAC?
The peer review was closed. Is there anything else what should be done or is it ready for the FAC nomination? Beagel (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

19th-century retort
What do you all think of including this image? (Turn-of-the-century shale oil retort) Altho, if we could retrieve the schematic diagram of a 19th-century Scots retort mentioned sometime, somewhere and re-draw it in Powerpoint or something, that'd probably be better... Novickas (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Diagrams of different 19-century Scottish retorts are available in the chapter 4 of this report. I particularly like the Pumpherston retort on the page 56 as one of te most significant retorts of this period. However, although listed also as the DOE report, this publication is copyright protected and therefore these images can't be reproduced. Maybe there is some possibilities to re-draw this image without copyright violating, but this is something I am not very familiar with. Beagel (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)




 * Thanks, was racking my brains about that pic. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, so I'll rework it in PP, I think many reworked diagrams are accepted on WP. Will post it here first. Unless you think the approval process will slow the FAC process. Novickas (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think that redrawing the diagram does not violate copyright because the threshold of originality is too low. Let me know, if you want to include one of the diagrams...  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I really hope you all won't laugh out loud - also that you will express your honest opinions as to whether the image adds to a reader's understanding. Splette, your image work is wonderful, so if you could improve it, pls do so. Novickas (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I already said: images are out of my competence. But I think that the image has some added-value to the article. Beagel (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you both agree that this is the retort you want in the article I can start redrawing it. Do you have any requests for modifying diagram or labels of the original design?  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need for the modification, at least right now. But I will think about this and will post later if there is anything to modify. Beagel (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe steam heat delivery (label) is redundant, Steam injection instead (per text on preceding page). Novickas (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree.Beagel (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, here we go. I just realized that I ignored your comment about the steam delivery. I'll rename it to 'Steam injection'. Any other comments, suggestions for changes?  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 05:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wow. Suggestions - remove t from end of trough; change to gas and oil vapour collection; somehow move that label a little to the left so the image is more symmetrical? Thanks so much! Novickas (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, fixed.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is beautiful, thank you - you are clearly really busy and I feel bad about this but steam injection ? Novickas (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know where is my mind. I have fixed that now.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 18:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wonderbar, thx! Novickas (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Serial comma
BTW - serial comma use is inconsistent here, they'll notice that at FA. I like them but if other authors object pls go ahead and standardize accordingly. Novickas (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer serial comma, but at the same time I don't have any strong feelings if there are objections for this. Beagel (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ATP
Maybe we could insert a short para about the Alberta Taciuk process before its picture?

The Alberta Taciuk process (ATP) was originally developed for pyrolysis of oil sands. From 1999 to 2004, ATP technology was used at the Australian Stuart Oil Shale Plant. Its strengths consist of its simple and robust design, minimal use of process water, ability to handle fine particles, and high oil yields (about 85–90% of Fischer Assay). It is particularly suited for processing materials with otherwise low oil yields. Since much of the process heat is produced by burning char and shale gases or recycling, external energy requirements are minimized as well. Its high processing temperatures, however, can increase greenhouse gas emissions by breaking down carbonate minerals within the shale.

I kind of hesitate to do this since the refs might duplicate, so am adding reflist here. Novickas (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I may do this and check references, no problem. However, I have different hesitations. As of today, the ATP is used for the oil shale processing only at the test plant in Canada. Australians have decided to replace ATP technology with the Paraho process and the ATP plant was dismantled last year. Estonian VKG considered to use this technology, but instead of it the Galoter process was chosen.  This leaves only one project in China, but there is no recent information about this project. So, I have a feeling that giving a separate para to the ATP may be unbalanced compared with other technologies.  But if you think that this would improve the article, I agree. Beagel (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Maybe, tho we could move the diagram to the end of the para? So that the description precedes the pic?


 * Re weight and balance. I think it would be good to include an extra sentence or two for each process that ever moved past the experimental/small pilot stage, e.g. "The Galoter process has been used at the Estonian Narva Plant since x and Jordan plans to construct a modified version." "A Shell ICP installation in Colorado began processing a shale formation in 2000." Useful info that also gives the reader some breathing space between tech discussions. What do you think? Novickas (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hydrogenation and thermal dissolution
One more thing - We have pyrolysis, hydrogenation, or thermal dissolution in the lead, but don't mention the latter two later. Could one of us write up a few sentences about them; to go in process principles, perhaps. Some sources -, ,. It's another weight/balance thing, clearly achieved in labs but not done on industrial or even pilot scale, but if it's in lead should be mentioned sonewhere, and that's obvious but hard to reference. Novickas (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In principle these are described in the 'Reactive fluids' subsection. Hydrogenation and thermal dissolution are mentioned also in the 'Process principle' section (without description, but with references). But yes, probably it should be made more clear and some description should be added in the 'Process principle' section. Will think about this and try to add something a later.


 * One more source already referred in the article is .Unfortunately this is only abstract. The full article will be published in the Oil Shale journal, but this is not done yet. Beagel (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I added some information concerning hydrogenation and thermal dissolution into 'Process principles' and 'Classifications' sections. Please take a look if this is sufficient, or we needs some more detailed descriptions? Beagel (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to tweak/expand it a little; like a lead sentence along the lines of "Ordinary solvent processes are relatively ineffective at extracting kerogen from its mineral matrix and decomposing it.." from . Ideas?

Some other pre-FAC things

 * About the infobox. The Standard Industrial Classification of shale oil extraction is oil & gas extraction; would you-all be ok with changing industry type to that?
 * Which field in the infobox you exactly mean?
 * Having thought it over, maybe what bothered me was the the infobox wording; maybe not quite terse enough. WP's Industrial process article defines them basically as mechanical or chemical, so yes we should probably go with that division. Hope you don't mind if I shorten the wording in the template. One thing about templates I don't get yet is the use of plural(s), like how one implements things like Sector vs. Sector(s). If you know how that's done pls implement. Novickas (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It could probably use a read-thru for wlink usage.
 * It was done before peer review, so I think it is not a big problem to go through one more time. But lets wait until all copyediting is done.
 * Sure. Novickas (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This might be a little harder, sorry. We now need to mention copying within WP. Don't know how much detail is required. It started as a copy from a section of oil shale; other sections may have been copied from oil shale daughter articles? Novickas (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in the begging the first version of this article was moved, not copied from the Oil shale article. The relevant section in the oil shale article was replaced with a summary of this article. It is different with the Economics and Environmental considerations sections, which are copied from the Oil shale article. Also some material in the history section is copied from the History of the oil shale industry. It is possible that something may be from the Shale oil article and other daughter articles, but I am not able to say if this done or not. Beagel (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you've clarified its beginnings, and on re-reading Copying within Wikipedia, I think it may not be necessary; to be on the safe side and save time if it turns out to be needed after all: Oil shale economics, ; Environmental effects of oil shale industry, ; History of the oil shale industry, . All those additions have been modified here but again, just to be safe and fair. Novickas (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I added necessary attributions concerning splitting and copying of text from other articles. Beagel (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's ready for nom? Unless someone's committed to further copyedit or review? I'd be willing to do co-nom. Novickas (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

two pics repositioned
I repositioned two of the process pictures. If you don't like my pic positioning, you can reposition them yourself again. H Padleckas (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Pre-FA nom comments Nov 2010
The last sentence - 'stated that surface mining and retort operations produce 2 to 10 US gallons (7.6 to 38 l; 1.7 to 8.3 imp gal) of waste water per 1 short ton (0.91 t) of processed oil shale' needs wikilinks to units and conversions. Novickas (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * links to units added. Beagel (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely comfortable with this sentence - "The reaction roughly doubles the yield of oil, depending on the characteristics of oil shale and process technology.[38]". The ref doesn't lead to an online link and I'd rather it specified double of what process. Thoughts? Novickas (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This para was originally proposed by Alan Burnham (including ref). However, I removed this sentence to avoid any potential confusion. Beagel (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

my review edits so far
You can take a look at my mostly minor review edits if you like.
 * I withheld adding a bunch of additional internal links per previous FAC review. I did add a link to retorting and retort, both leading to the "Retort" article, and a link to Condensation, and I think it would be a good idea to link to Hydrogen, but I did not link to it yet .  There is already a link to hydrogen in the first paragraph of the article, so ... never mind. :-X
 * At the sentence introducing spent shale, it would be a good idea to mention, ex situ processing produces spent shale as a "byproduct", whereas for in situ processing, spent shale stays underground.
 * Done. Beagel (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I modified the File:Oil shale extraction overview.png image to put "(In situ)" after "Conventional" using Windows 7-Paint software for the sake of clarity in the Shale oil extraction article. A transparent background may have become white in this revision.
 * This article is now about 72000 bytes long.

I think I'm ready to support Shale oil extraction as a Feature Article now. H Padleckas (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect to the 72000 bytes: here are the results of the pagesize script for this article:
 * File size: 240 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 44 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 131 kB
 * Wiki text: 70 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 25 kB (3874 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 22 kB
 * The readable prose size makes this no more than an average size article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

resource
It's Official: 'Age of Shale' Has Arrived OCTOBER 18, 2011 by RUSSELL GOLD AND RYAN DEZEMBER 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This article in The Wall Street Journal is not about shale oil extraction from oil shale, but extraction of shale gas and tight oil from shale (conventional gas and oil which is tapped in the shake and therefore need unconventional extraction methods, and shale not necessarily means oil shale). This is very different thing what this article here is about. Beagel (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
Sinopec Enters U.S. Shale JANUARY 4, 2012 Wall Street Journal by ANGEL GONZALEZ and RYAN DEZEMBER; excerpt ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article in The Wall Street Journal is not about shale oil extraction from oil shale, but extraction of shale gas and tight oil from shale (conventional gas and oil which is tapped in the shake and therefore need unconventional extraction methods, and shale not necessarily means oil shale). This is very different thing what this article here is about. Please consider your provided sources more critical way. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanx for the pointers. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shale oil extraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916051633/http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2005/september/NR_050920.html to http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2005/september/NR_050920.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225223819/http://www.nevtahoilsands.com/pdf/Oil-Shale-and-Tar-Sands-Company-Profiles.pdf to http://www.nevtahoilsands.com/pdf/Oil-Shale-and-Tar-Sands-Company-Profiles.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shale oil extraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://ds.heavyoil.utah.edu/dspace/bitstream/123456789/10015/1/StrategicsignificanceofAmericasoilshaleresource_Vol2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118023837/http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/ to http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509152859/http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/white_river_field/oil_shale.Par.62160.File.dat/PlanofOperation.pdf to http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/white_river_field/oil_shale.Par.62160.File.dat/PlanofOperation.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006065550/http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/white_river_field/oil_shale.Par.37256.File.dat/OILSHALEPLANOFOPERATIONS.pdf to http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/white_river_field/oil_shale.Par.37256.File.dat/OILSHALEPLANOFOPERATIONS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)