5 ms·

Even if they don't use much, they tend to spill a lot which is worse than burning it.

by thatcat 10y ago

edblarney 10y ago
"they tend to spill a lot which is worse than burning it." Both parts are not correct. First, they spill very little in the grand scheme of things. Second, an 'oil spill' unless it's quite large, is not a hugely damaging thing for the environment. Oil is a plentiful, organic material, found everywhere in nature. It's just not concentrated enough in most places to be extracted. The soil in northern Alberta (an area the size of Florida) is literally oozing with hydrocarbons - same for Venezuela and many other places. Nobody considers those parts of the world 'toxic' - they are otherwise normal places.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- codecamper 10y ago
  What sort of technologist thinks like you? Are you sys admin?
- thatcat 10y ago
  I guess it's arguable whether it's worse or not, but CO2 doesn't typically kill any wildlife whereas oil spills do. There is a certain percentage that is leaked from every pipeline in addition to the large leaks that occur during tanker and drilling accidents. Even a small percentage of the large volume they extract is a large volume to pour on the ground. I'm not sure why you think the concentrations of oil in the soil occurring naturally approach even the smallest pipeline leak; would love to see some sources though if you have them.
cr1895 10y ago
Crudely (haha) crunching some numbers, if we consider the oil spilled in the US in 2011 (incl. Deepwater Horizon) of 4.95e6 bbl compared to the total oil consumption in 2015 of 7.09e9 bbl, the oil spilled is less than 0.07% of the oil consumed. This, mind you, is considering a massive outlier year for spilled oil. In a more typical year it's an order of magnitude less. Not to minimize the damage from spilled oil or suggest that it's no problem, but let's keep "spill a lot" in perspective.
- thatcat 10y ago
  4.95e6 bbl ( 41 L/bbl) = 203 million liters. Your only reference for scale can't be just net product, absolute numbers seem to more accurately approximate the scale of damage. Do your numbers include pipeline and other small but continuous sources of loss?
  - cr1895 10y ago
    As I said, crude, so I just grabbed some numbers I found quickly to illustrate "a lot." Here's where the 2010 (I notice a typo now in my original post, it's not 2011) comes from: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/13factsfigures/table5_18.htm http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight... That includes spills from vessels, facilities, pipelines, and other unknown sources. Regardless, the spill due to Deepwater Horizon was so massive compared to more typical years. Also, it's 786,987,110 liters (there are ~159 liters in an oil barrel).

Even if they don't use much, they tend to spill a lot which is worse than burning it.

by thatcat 10y ago

Even if they don't use much, they tend to spill a lot which is worse than burning it.

"they tend to spill a lot which is worse than burning it." Both parts are not correct. First, they spill very little in the grand scheme of things. Second, an 'oil spill' unless it's quite large, is not a hugely damaging thing for the environment. Oil is a plentiful, organic material, found everywhere in nature. It's just not concentrated enough in most places to be extracted. The soil in northern Alberta (an area the size of Florida) is literally oozing with hydrocarbons - same for Venezuela and many other places. Nobody considers those parts of the world 'toxic' - they are otherwise normal places.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
codecamper 10y ago
What sort of technologist thinks like you? Are you sys admin?
thatcat 10y ago
I guess it's arguable whether it's worse or not, but CO2 doesn't typically kill any wildlife whereas oil spills do. There is a certain percentage that is leaked from every pipeline in addition to the large leaks that occur during tanker and drilling accidents. Even a small percentage of the large volume they extract is a large volume to pour on the ground. I'm not sure why you think the concentrations of oil in the soil occurring naturally approach even the smallest pipeline leak; would love to see some sources though if you have them.

cr1895 10y ago

Crudely (haha) crunching some numbers, if we consider the oil spilled in the US in 2011 (incl. Deepwater Horizon) of 4.95e6 bbl compared to the total oil consumption in 2015 of 7.09e9 bbl, the oil spilled is less than 0.07% of the oil consumed. This, mind you, is considering a massive outlier year for spilled oil. In a more typical year it's an order of magnitude less. Not to minimize the damage from spilled oil or suggest that it's no problem, but let's keep "spill a lot" in perspective.

thatcat 10y ago
4.95e6 bbl ( 41 L/bbl) = 203 million liters. Your only reference for scale can't be just net product, absolute numbers seem to more accurately approximate the scale of damage. Do your numbers include pipeline and other small but continuous sources of loss?
- cr1895 10y ago
  As I said, crude, so I just grabbed some numbers I found quickly to illustrate "a lot." Here's where the 2010 (I notice a typo now in my original post, it's not 2011) comes from: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/13factsfigures/table5_18.htm http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight... That includes spills from vessels, facilities, pipelines, and other unknown sources. Regardless, the spill due to Deepwater Horizon was so massive compared to more typical years. Also, it's 786,987,110 liters (there are ~159 liters in an oil barrel).