5 ms·

What other ways are there that are commercially viable now?

vonmoltke 7y ago
There are two issues. First is fuel versus non-fuel usage of oil. Oil for non-fuel purposes can be drawn indefinitely with little climate impact, provided oil for fuel usage is phased out. Second, on fuel usage you are correct there is currently no commercially-viable way to make it carbon-neutral. There may be in the future, and companies like Exxon are understandably working towards that. It might never happen, but that is not a reason to engage in sensationalism.
- jnwatson 7y ago
  It isn’t sensational at all. Imagining some future tech where oil can be used for fuel in a carbon neutral manner is essentially science fiction. Reducing petroleum demand to just plastics and lubricants eliminates demand to the point at which most of the reserves do remain in the ground. Mild oversimplification is not sensationalism.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    Reducing demand changes the rate of extraction. That, in turn, means reserves stay in the ground longer than they would if they were burned. "Needs to stay in the ground" says extraction must stop. That is not the case.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      > "Needs to stay in the ground" says extraction must stop. If burning it releases carbon which we can't viably recapture, which you acknowledge[0], then saying... > That is not the case. ...is wrong. Unless you mean climate change causes by anthropogenic carbon release isn't happening. [0] "you are correct there is currently no commercially-viable way to make it carbon-neutral" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21325863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21325863)
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        As I understand it, GP is essentially saying this: there are two main uses for oil - fuel (burning) and plastics. The former emits carbon to the atmosphere, the latter doesn't. To achieve full success emissions-wise, we need to kill off the first use. Second use is fine from emissions standpoint - but keeping it implies extraction needs to happen. To me, GP is quite precise and also correct. I don't understand why you try to cast them as a climate change denier.
        tempguy9999 7y ago
        I can't find figures but I expect the amount of crude used for fuel is very high compared to its other uses. Maybe 99% but that's just a guess. I'll try to find figures tomorrow (it's late here). Let's call it 95% for now. If 95% of energy is not burnt but extracted for other uses then it stays in the ground 20 times longer (ok, not forever). But we have no way of replacing that huge energy source that is crude. So we will not stop because there's no alternative. What he suggests is a counsel of perfection - "precise and also correct", I agree, but it's not going to happen. So it's a useless suggestion AFAICS. Basically I'm confused as to what he's suggesting.
        tempguy9999 7y ago
        Some quick digging regarding proportion of use of crude for energy vs chemical products: "This demand for chemical products has a direct impact on energy demand (and consequently CO2 emissions). The sector accounts for approximately 11% and 8% respectively of the global primary demand for oil and natural gas." https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/june/commentary-from-energy-to-chemicals.html https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/june/commentary-from-... So my 99% and 95% estimate was way off, if I'm reading this correctly - which I may not, as it seems to be referring to energy used to create chemical products, not necessarily the proportion of oil used as chemical precursors. Best I can find though.
        vonmoltke 7y ago
        It's somewhere between 10% and 15% of the volume: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/refining-crude-oil.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc... It's tough to get more precise, because there are trace fuels, as well as some products like kerosene that are used as fuels and solvents.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      Reducing demand massively drops price, it means that in a very real way, tons of reserves that are too expensive to access due to a lower price stay in the ground.
- jf22 7y ago
  Hold on. You are saying there aren't ways to keep oil extraction carbon neutral, but saying that we can't make oil extraction carbon neutral is sensationalism?
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    No. I'm saying that "we need to leave it in the ground" is sensationalism, because the real issue is "we need to not burn it unless we can capture the carbon (which might be never)".
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Plastic has some other issues that are coming to light. Still, even if burning oil ceases we will undoubtedly have need for some of the chemicals and plastics that have no alternatives yet, some of them important, like medical etc. We probably will for quite some time. If we stop combustion of oil that would dramatically improve emissions, and leave centuries of reserves for those non-combustive uses. "stay in the ground" seems a perfectly reasonable shorthand to avoid a paragraph of caveats.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > "stay in the ground" seems a perfectly reasonable shorthand to avoid a paragraph of caveats. I don't agree, particularly in the context of the post I replied to. The post mentioned book value going to 0, which means the oil is permanently in the ground. The paragraph of caveats does not make proven reserves worthless, just worth significantly less. Also, I generally dislike oversimplifications on technical topics, particularly controversial ones. It tends to turn discussion into a battle of sound bites where the nuance gets lost. I can tell that already just by the reaction to my initial post.
    - cagenut 7y ago
      My post clearly say "80+%" not "to 0". There is no need to lie or put words in my mouth, you can see the actual statement on your screen just a couple inches above this one. It is incredibly suspicious that you would accuse others of losing nuance and over-simplifying after doing so.
      - vonmoltke 7y ago
        You are correct, rereading my post I did not say what I meant to say. What I meant to refer to was the book value of the reserves that are not extracted. You stated > 80%+ of their reserves, and therefore their book value, must stay in the ground. That statement, to me, clearly says the oil that "must stay in the ground" is worthless, and demonstrates that you do mean permanently. If you didn't, the book value of the company would not fall by the same amount as the fraction of reserves, because those reserves still have diminished value at lower rates of production.

There are two issues. First is fuel versus non-fuel usage of oil. Oil for non-fuel purposes can be drawn indefinitely with little climate impact, provided oil for fuel usage is phased out. Second, on fuel usage you are correct there is currently no commercially-viable way to make it carbon-neutral. There may be in the future, and companies like Exxon are understandably working towards that. It might never happen, but that is not a reason to engage in sensationalism.

jnwatson 7y ago
It isn’t sensational at all. Imagining some future tech where oil can be used for fuel in a carbon neutral manner is essentially science fiction. Reducing petroleum demand to just plastics and lubricants eliminates demand to the point at which most of the reserves do remain in the ground. Mild oversimplification is not sensationalism.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  Reducing demand changes the rate of extraction. That, in turn, means reserves stay in the ground longer than they would if they were burned. "Needs to stay in the ground" says extraction must stop. That is not the case.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > "Needs to stay in the ground" says extraction must stop. If burning it releases carbon which we can't viably recapture, which you acknowledge[0], then saying... > That is not the case. ...is wrong. Unless you mean climate change causes by anthropogenic carbon release isn't happening. [0] "you are correct there is currently no commercially-viable way to make it carbon-neutral" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21325863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21325863)
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      As I understand it, GP is essentially saying this: there are two main uses for oil - fuel (burning) and plastics. The former emits carbon to the atmosphere, the latter doesn't. To achieve full success emissions-wise, we need to kill off the first use. Second use is fine from emissions standpoint - but keeping it implies extraction needs to happen. To me, GP is quite precise and also correct. I don't understand why you try to cast them as a climate change denier.
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        I can't find figures but I expect the amount of crude used for fuel is very high compared to its other uses. Maybe 99% but that's just a guess. I'll try to find figures tomorrow (it's late here). Let's call it 95% for now. If 95% of energy is not burnt but extracted for other uses then it stays in the ground 20 times longer (ok, not forever). But we have no way of replacing that huge energy source that is crude. So we will not stop because there's no alternative. What he suggests is a counsel of perfection - "precise and also correct", I agree, but it's not going to happen. So it's a useless suggestion AFAICS. Basically I'm confused as to what he's suggesting.
        tempguy9999 7y ago
        Some quick digging regarding proportion of use of crude for energy vs chemical products: "This demand for chemical products has a direct impact on energy demand (and consequently CO2 emissions). The sector accounts for approximately 11% and 8% respectively of the global primary demand for oil and natural gas." https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/june/commentary-from-energy-to-chemicals.html https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/june/commentary-from-... So my 99% and 95% estimate was way off, if I'm reading this correctly - which I may not, as it seems to be referring to energy used to create chemical products, not necessarily the proportion of oil used as chemical precursors. Best I can find though.
        vonmoltke 7y ago
        It's somewhere between 10% and 15% of the volume: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/refining-crude-oil.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc... It's tough to get more precise, because there are trace fuels, as well as some products like kerosene that are used as fuels and solvents.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Reducing demand massively drops price, it means that in a very real way, tons of reserves that are too expensive to access due to a lower price stay in the ground.
jf22 7y ago
Hold on. You are saying there aren't ways to keep oil extraction carbon neutral, but saying that we can't make oil extraction carbon neutral is sensationalism?
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  No. I'm saying that "we need to leave it in the ground" is sensationalism, because the real issue is "we need to not burn it unless we can capture the carbon (which might be never)".
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Plastic has some other issues that are coming to light. Still, even if burning oil ceases we will undoubtedly have need for some of the chemicals and plastics that have no alternatives yet, some of them important, like medical etc. We probably will for quite some time. If we stop combustion of oil that would dramatically improve emissions, and leave centuries of reserves for those non-combustive uses. "stay in the ground" seems a perfectly reasonable shorthand to avoid a paragraph of caveats.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > "stay in the ground" seems a perfectly reasonable shorthand to avoid a paragraph of caveats. I don't agree, particularly in the context of the post I replied to. The post mentioned book value going to 0, which means the oil is permanently in the ground. The paragraph of caveats does not make proven reserves worthless, just worth significantly less. Also, I generally dislike oversimplifications on technical topics, particularly controversial ones. It tends to turn discussion into a battle of sound bites where the nuance gets lost. I can tell that already just by the reaction to my initial post.
  - cagenut 7y ago
    My post clearly say "80+%" not "to 0". There is no need to lie or put words in my mouth, you can see the actual statement on your screen just a couple inches above this one. It is incredibly suspicious that you would accuse others of losing nuance and over-simplifying after doing so.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      You are correct, rereading my post I did not say what I meant to say. What I meant to refer to was the book value of the reserves that are not extracted. You stated > 80%+ of their reserves, and therefore their book value, must stay in the ground. That statement, to me, clearly says the oil that "must stay in the ground" is worthless, and demonstrates that you do mean permanently. If you didn't, the book value of the company would not fall by the same amount as the fraction of reserves, because those reserves still have diminished value at lower rates of production.