# Talk:Oil shale geology

I changed the opening sentence of the article from "Oil shale geologically includes a group of fine-grained sedimentary rocks which contain significant amounts of kerogen." to  "Oil shale includes a group of fine-grained sedimentary rocks which contain significant amounts of kerogen." because I felt it was an unnecessary qualification. This article is about the geology of oil shale anyway. I think it reads better too. Unlike other (more significant) geological terms including "rock" and "volcano", I doubt oil shale is confused with anything non-geological. GeoWriter 08:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Found following information, which is probably worth to add into this article. However, as I'm not the expert on this field, maybe somebody who is more familiar with this topic, could assist. 
"Hutton (1987) recognised three major macerals in oil shale: telalginite, lamalginite, and bituminite. Telalginite is defined as structured organic matter composed of large colonial or thick-walled unicellular algae such as Botryococcus and Tasmanites. Lamalginite includes thin-walled colonial or unicellular algae that occur as distinct laminae, but displays little or no recognisable biologic structures. Under the microscope, telalginite and lamalginite are easily recognised by their bright shades of yellow under ultraviolet/blue fluorescent light. The third maceral, bituminite, is another important component in many oil shales. It is largely amorphous, lacks recognisable biologic structures, and displays relatively low fluorescence under the microscope. This material has not been fully characterised with respect to its composition or origin, although it is often a quantitatively important component of the organic matter in many marine oil shales. Other organic constituents include vitrinite and inertinite, which are macerals derived from the humic matter of land plants. These macerals are usually found in relatively small amounts in most oil shales." http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/oil_shale/647.asp  Beagel 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with following block:

The problem is that this information, obtained from http://www.solarnavigator.net/coal.htm and http://www.eng.uwo.ca/people/esavory/ES%20832_Lect%204.ppt , talks about formation of coal. It needs also verification and additional references to prove that same process applies also to oil shale. Beagel 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't exactly see how this info comes from the links you cite here. Ref 1, the Estonian source, provides the material about geologic times, and although I didn't check thoroughly the Dyni ref (#5) seems to support most of the rest of the info. The section might do with some explicit information about differences between oil shale and coal, such as might be derived from Dyni: In terms of mineral and elemental content, oil shale differs from coal in several distinct ways. Oil shales typically contain much larger amounts of inert mineral matter (60–90 percent) than coals, which have been defined as containing less than 40 percent mineral matter. The organic matter of oil shale, which is the source of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, typically has a higher hydrogen and lower oxygen content than that of lignite and bituminous coal.In general, the precursors of the organic matter in oil shale and coal also differ. Much of the organic matter in oil shale is of algal origin, but may also include remains of vascular land plants that more commonly compose much of the organic matter in coal. The origin of some of the organic matter in oil shale is obscure because of the lack of recognizable biologic structures that would help identify the precursor organisms. Such materials may be of bacterial origin or the product of bacterial degradation of algae or other organic matter.
Thanks for all your good work on this article. Cheers Geologyguy 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope this solves the problem.Beagel 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, i just wanted a clarification regarding "One theory supposes that the organic material in the Irati oil shale originates from algae deposited in a freshwater to brackish lacustrine environment"......In the above sentence, what does the phrase "freshwater to brackish lacustrine environment" mean??? Does it mean "oil shale originates from algae deposited in a freshwater environment" or does it mean "oil shale originates from algae deposited in a brackish lacustrine environment" ??? or does it mean something else???....Gprince007 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That means that according to the first theory, the deposition took place in lacustrine environment, which may varied from freshwater  to brackish water, but was still less saline as seawater (marine environment, which is what the second theory suggests). So, this is not the point if the lacustrine environment was a fresh water environment or a brackish water environment, the important thing is if it was lacustrine environment (first theory) or marine environment (second theory).Beagel (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, my knowledge on this subject is limited and as per the explanations provided, i have reworded the paragraph... pls go thru it and let me know if it is correct in its technical aspects. Gprince007 (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I reworded little bit as lacustrine environment itself means body of water (lake). Hope this ok.Beagel (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oil shale geology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'm going to review this GA nom now. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think it fulfills all of the GA requirements, so I'm promoting it!
1. Worded and organized well, plenty of wikilinks to help in comprehension2.reliable refs3.doesn't get off topic4.neutral5.looks stable6.every pic is tagged
Feel free to go over the article again too. My recommendations for FA: you only have 11 refs for all that info. You might want to try and get some more. Also, at the end, you list a bunch of formations from around the world, then you only cover 3 countries - the US, Brazil, and Estonia. Maybe explain why or add sections about other countries... just a thought for later.
Anyway, good job! Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)