What if oil shale is still consumed but not as oil?

If the Energy Watch Groups coal forecast is correct there will be a shortage of coal in 20 years.

Then the oil shale could be looked at as a substitute for coal if a feasible way of extracting the oil from it has not yet been found.

It may end up being burned like coal as it has been in Estonia.

"If the Energy Watch Groups coal forecast is correct there will be a shortage of coal in 20 years."

They're not correct. That forecast assumes BAU pricing of alternatives, not disastrous energy shortages.

Oil shale is low density, and a pain to dispose of after burning (it expands). That's why even low-value coal is more attractive. That's also why retort conversion to oil is unattractive, and why Shell is considering in-situ conversion instead.

I've looked at shale oil a few times and I've become hesitant to totally write Shell off.

I suspect shale oil extraction could (possibly) be practical, even if I'd personally baulk at the environmental cost and suggest you'd be much better off building a whole lot of wind farms through the central states and CSP plants in Texas and the south west and get to work switching to electric transport.

As I understand it, their process involves using natural gas extracted from the shale during the heating process to produce the energy required to perform this process (the freezing being to create an icy rock "tub" of sorts to contain the oil in if I understood it correctly). The EROI may be still be low, but this would presumably be a big improvement on older processes.

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/08/question-of-shale.html
http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3310