You worked hard on this Shale Oil series--mucho gracias!

I was especially interested in the new info contained in this quote:

"This would also allow the leaching of the shale to be completed in a controlled condition, so that the shale could ultimately become a clean aquifer."

At the first glance, this reads very reassuringly, almost like a carefully crafted public relations statement.  But one must remember that the habitat's environmental water structure evolved in the presence of this low permeable shale, and if a very large, highly permeable, even though now clean aquifer is introduced, the surface riverine flows may be drastically altered until the water flows reach equilibrium.

Again, I am not a professional hydrologist, and I do not live in an oil shale state, so I am ambivalently neutral on this mining.  But for those that do live in these areas: in my mind, this should be the key tradeoff discussion--oil for water, is it worth it?  Above all else, they should not want to replicate the Humboldt Basin's problems.  I would wait until an exhaustive enviro-water study could prove that the subterranean system would not be drastically altered; that the surface environment would remain bio-functional.

On the other hand, if global warming makes this whole area into a sand dune dustbowl, then concerns about the local environment will diminish considerably.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?