![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Shale oil extraction was copied or moved into Shale oil with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Shale oil was copied or moved into Shale oil extraction with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | A fact from Shale oil appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 1,656 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I believe this entire article is incorrect. There is a difference between Shale Oil and Oil Shale.
Shale oil is similar to shale gas. It is oil stored in tight shale formations requiring pressure fracturing techniques in order to extract it. The oil is in fact of higher quality and value than WTI.
What has been described in this article is "Oil Shale", the low grade Kerogen hydrocarbon that requires significant upgrading to be used as petroleum..
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175771-the-difference-between-oil-shale-and-shale-oil
I agree with the incorrect statement. This article is confusing to an outside reader that does not understand the difference between the two materials. Shale oil is the same as conventional oil but trapped in a shale formation whereas Oil shale is a type of rock itself which contains Kerogen which can be converted into the synthetic oil. Even the user Beagel states that in his reply above. So if Beagel sees that the article is about "oil shale oil" and not shale oil then maybe it should be titled that or be included under the discussion of oil shale instead of incorrectly titled shale oil? The topic of shale oil should be linked or tied with the discussion of tight oil since that seems to be the one talking more specifically about shale oil. I think even the supporting article listed above gives a prime example of the confusion that sometimes arises from using the terms. Wikipedia should give a better, clearer, and more correct definition and explanation of the two and not just cop out and say the terms are ambigious. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
146.186.54.69 (
talk) 14:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I got here from Wall Street Journal's
"A shale-oil boom will thrust the U.S. ahead of Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer by 2020, a radical shift that could profoundly transform not just the world’s energy supplies but also its geopolitics, the International Energy Agency said. In its closely watched annual World Energy Outlook, the IEA, which advises industrialized nations" Nov 13, 2012.
Yet Wiki's article implies this is a non-practical source of oil?! ha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.232.163 ( talk) 23:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Obvious potential for confusing our users here. I'm not an oil guy, but my attention was drawn by a recent discussion paper at Harvard: The Shale Oil Boom: a US Phenomenon by Leonardo Maugeri, Harvard University, Geopolitics of Energy Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Discussion Paper 2013-05. Magueri, an industry insider, opts for "shale oil" for what we call tight oil, and remarks "Shale oil must not be confused with oil shale... " (Box 1, p.2, where he discusses the terminology in some detail). My guess is, the industry will settle on shale oil, for comparison to shale gas and for promotion.
At the least, both articles need a dab hatnote explaining the terms. Also see Plazak's cmt above, at 18:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC). Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC) , a mining guy.
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Shale oil extraction was copied or moved into Shale oil with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Shale oil was copied or moved into Shale oil extraction with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | A fact from Shale oil appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 1,656 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I believe this entire article is incorrect. There is a difference between Shale Oil and Oil Shale.
Shale oil is similar to shale gas. It is oil stored in tight shale formations requiring pressure fracturing techniques in order to extract it. The oil is in fact of higher quality and value than WTI.
What has been described in this article is "Oil Shale", the low grade Kerogen hydrocarbon that requires significant upgrading to be used as petroleum..
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175771-the-difference-between-oil-shale-and-shale-oil
I agree with the incorrect statement. This article is confusing to an outside reader that does not understand the difference between the two materials. Shale oil is the same as conventional oil but trapped in a shale formation whereas Oil shale is a type of rock itself which contains Kerogen which can be converted into the synthetic oil. Even the user Beagel states that in his reply above. So if Beagel sees that the article is about "oil shale oil" and not shale oil then maybe it should be titled that or be included under the discussion of oil shale instead of incorrectly titled shale oil? The topic of shale oil should be linked or tied with the discussion of tight oil since that seems to be the one talking more specifically about shale oil. I think even the supporting article listed above gives a prime example of the confusion that sometimes arises from using the terms. Wikipedia should give a better, clearer, and more correct definition and explanation of the two and not just cop out and say the terms are ambigious. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
146.186.54.69 (
talk) 14:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I got here from Wall Street Journal's
"A shale-oil boom will thrust the U.S. ahead of Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer by 2020, a radical shift that could profoundly transform not just the world’s energy supplies but also its geopolitics, the International Energy Agency said. In its closely watched annual World Energy Outlook, the IEA, which advises industrialized nations" Nov 13, 2012.
Yet Wiki's article implies this is a non-practical source of oil?! ha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.232.163 ( talk) 23:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Obvious potential for confusing our users here. I'm not an oil guy, but my attention was drawn by a recent discussion paper at Harvard: The Shale Oil Boom: a US Phenomenon by Leonardo Maugeri, Harvard University, Geopolitics of Energy Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Discussion Paper 2013-05. Magueri, an industry insider, opts for "shale oil" for what we call tight oil, and remarks "Shale oil must not be confused with oil shale... " (Box 1, p.2, where he discusses the terminology in some detail). My guess is, the industry will settle on shale oil, for comparison to shale gas and for promotion.
At the least, both articles need a dab hatnote explaining the terms. Also see Plazak's cmt above, at 18:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC). Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC) , a mining guy.