Talk:Oil shale industry

Copyediting

I was enjoying doing some copyediting of this article, until I came to this rather confusing paragraph:

The most modern used technology of a combustion of oil shale in power plants is a pressurized fluidized-bed combustion (PFBC). The most modern used technology of a combustion of oil shale in power plants is a bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) or circulating fluidized bed (CFB) process, while the traditional way of burning oil shale is through pulverized combustion.[20][13]

There seems to be a contradiction between the first and second sentences, and the use of "most modern used" is confusing. Any clarification would be appreciated. Johnfos (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope it is more clear now.Beagel (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. I notice you have put in an LOCE request, so will leave further copyediting to them. Wish you success at WP:GAN. Johnfos (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Well, I liked this article, and it was a good read for the completely uninitiated (that's me). But, some things need to be corrected.

Lead

Maybe you could start of with an explanation of what oil shale is, first?

Y Done. New first sentence with industry and oil shale definitions added to the lead.Beagel (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Oil shale is being used for industrial purposes since the early 1600s, when it was mined for its minerals."

"Has been used", not "is being used".

Y Done.Beagel (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Since the late 1800s, shale oil is also being used for its oil content and as a low grade fuel for power generation. "

Same correction as above.

Y Done.Beagel (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Similarly, oil shale is a source for production of synthetic crude oil and it is being seen as a solution towards increasing domestic production of oil in countries that are reliant on imports."

Eliminate "being".

Y Done.Beagel (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

History

"Oil shale is being used since ancient times."

"Has been used", please.

Y Done.Beagel (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mining

"To ensure sustainable development, Estonia is going to adopt the "National Development Plan for the Use of Oil Shale 2008-2015", which would limit the annual mining of oil shale by 20 million tonnes."

I think it would be better to say "Estonia has announced that it is going to..."

Y Done.Beagel (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Power generation

"While some countries such as Romania, have shut their oil shale-fired power plants or converted to other fuels (e.g. Russia), other countries are looking forward towards constructions of these power plants (e.g. Jordan and Egypt), or burn oil shale at the power plants together with coal (e.g. Canada and Turkey)."

1. I think maybe you could move "Romania" into the parentheses with Russia.
2. Maybe you could get rid of the "e.g."s in the sentence.
3. Change "other countries are looking forward towards constructions of these power plants" to "other countries will be constructing these power plants.
4. Add "and some countries" before "burn oil shale".

Y Done. Changed paragraph more clear saying which country has done or plans what.Beagel (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"The traditional method being Pulverized combustion (PC) which is used in the older units of oil shale-fired power plants in Estonia, while the more advanced method is Fluidized bed combustion (FBC), which is used by Rohrbach Zement in Dotternhausen, Germany, and in PAMA power plant at Mishor Rotem in Israel."

1. Change "being" to "is."
2. What is the "Rohrbach Zement"? A company, a town, a place?

Y Done. Clarified that Rohrbach Zement is a company.Beagel (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Main FBC technologies are Bubbling fluidized bed combustion (BFBC) and Circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC). There are more than 60 power plants around the world, which are using CFBC technology, but only two new units at Narva Power Plants in Estonia, and one at Huadian Power Plant in China use CFBC technology for combustion of oil shale."

Put a "the" at the beginning of the first sentence. And, first you say 60 plants use CFBC technology, and then you say only two do. Which is right?

Y Done. Clarified that CFBC is used also for combustion of coal and lignite. There is only three units in two plants, which use CFBC for combusting oil shale.Beagel (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oil extraction

"The in-situ method converts the kerogen while it is still in the form of an oil shale deposit and then it is extracted via a well, where it rises up as normal petroleum."

Put a comma after "deposit". Also, keep the tense consistent.

Y Done.Beagel (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Other industrial uses

"Oil shale can also be used for production of specialty carbon fibers, adsorbent carbons, carbon black, phenols, resins, glues, tanning agents, mastic, road bitumen, bricks, construction and decorative blocks, soil additives, fertilizers, rock wool insulation, glass, and pharmaceutical products."

This is a rather long list. Maybe you could just include the most important ones, or just say "oil shale can also be used in many other products"?

Y Done. The list is summarized to chemical products; construction materials, and pharmaceutical products.Beagel (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

However, use of oil-shale for production of these products is still very rare and in experimental stages only."

Sometimes oil shale is two words, sometimes they are joined by a hyphen. Keep the use consistent.

Y Done. Changed consistently as two words.Beagel (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"However, at the current price level, this is not economically feasible"

The current price level of what?

Y Done. Current price level of natural gas.Beagel (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Final GA Review

Review of Oil shale industry

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This article had surprisingly little changes to be made to get it to GA status. Congratulations. Noble Story (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oil shale industry. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120224021635/http://www.oilshalesymposium.com/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/SIIRDE.pdf to http://www.oilshalesymposium.com/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/SIIRDE.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721161801/http://www.aspo-usa.com/fall2006/presentations/pdf/Bartis_J_Boston_2006.pdf to http://www.aspo-usa.com/fall2006/presentations/pdf/Bartis_J_Boston_2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oil shale industry. 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/20071025105404/http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/synergy_vol2_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/synergy_vol2_en.pdf
• 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/20080229103340/http://www.envir.ee/961665 to http://www.envir.ee/961665
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221231255/http://www.envir.ee/1082834 to http://www.envir.ee/1082834

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)