Coal Gasification has been tried.. it works, just low grade.. but the oil shale problem is the amount of energy it takes to get it..
that pdf file mentions Shell's idea for converting the shale to oil in the ground.. then just pumping it out..
Thought I'd share this from another site..
http://www.energybulletin.net/11779.html
Although Shell's method avoids the need to mine shale, it requires a mind-boggling amount of electricity. To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year, producing 10 million tons of greenhouse gases. (The company's annual electric bill would be about $500 million.) To double production, you'd need two power plants. One million barrels a day would require 10 new power plants, five new coal mines. And 10 million barrels a day, as proposed by some, would necessitate 100 power plants.
How soon will we know whether Shell's technology is economic? The company plans to do more experiments, before making a final decision by 2010. If it pulls the trigger, it would be at least three or four years before the first oil would flow, perhaps at a rate of 10,000 barrels a day. That's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of current U.S. consumption. But if it turns out that Shell needs more energy to produce a barrel of oil than a barrel contains, bets are off. That's the equivalent of burning the furniture to keep the house warm.
"the oil shale problem is the amount of energy it takes to get it.."
What about the amount of energy needed to extract hydrogen from air and water?
Bite me.
Burning 5 million tons of coal produces 10 million tons of greenhouse gases? Methinks your doobies must be producing a prodigious amount too.