Seems a great use of windpower,but, considering transmission losses and conversion of electric to thermal energy has conversion costs too, whats the real EROI? I suspect a lot less than 1.
  Weren't these shale experiments funded from Deoartment of Energy grants?
   And a small aside-the Cistern and Muldoon fields in Fayette County Texas were produced with windmills as pumps years ago. They were very shallow Yegua(Eocene) fields. It strike me that very shallow fields in other areas could profitably be produced with windmills to and save the energy conversion losses. Won't add much to the US reserves, but it might make some good ol' boy a buck or two.  
I know that Eastern Colorado is basically one big wind resource, and spots of Western Colorado have good wind as well.

I am unsure where the oil shale is.  Perhaps they could be dual siting with no transforming or transmission losses, perhaps not.  Worst case 5% to 6% T&T losses.

If Shell got a 5% return on their invesntment when all is said & done, the political & PR return would make it a wise investment.

The oil shale is in north western Colorado, SE Utah, and Wyoming in the Green River formation. Folks have ben trying to figure how to economically produce the stuff for twenty or thirty years.
    It can be done, but not cheaply. Thar's plenty o' grease in them thar hills,  but not cheaply extracted. At least global warming can't raise the oceans that high.