3 ms·

Somewhat tangential question - for the "Just Stop Oil" folks - is it the extraction of oil that is the problem, or the burning of it? If the former, then we hav

by nDRDY 7mo ago

Somewhat tangential question - for the "Just Stop Oil" folks - is it the extraction of oil that is the problem, or the burning of it? If the former, then we have an opportunity to investigate more renewable sources.

tencentshill 7mo ago
The goal is to keep the oil in the ground, to not be burned or to be made into plastics.
- dylan604 7mo ago
  Isn't the main source of helium from oil production? It's not like we have fusion reactors turning H into He.
  - ac29 7mo ago
    The main source of helium is natural gas production, not oil
    - dylan604 7mo ago
      Okay, but while technically correct, it does nothing to change the situation. They are punching holes in the ground to extract the sweet sweet nectar. They have to store what has been extracted. When that storage is full, what does one do? Stop the input into the storage.
      - fc417fc802 7mo ago
        The amount of activity required for helium is insubstantial compared to the amount of natural gas being extracted globally. And the amount of natural gas extracted pales in comparison to total combined gas, oil, and coal. Helium extraction doesn't pose a notable environmental issue on its own.
- MOSI2 7mo ago
  It's not just plastics. Practically every substance we use and rely on to maintain civilisation as we know it has a petrochemical or fossil fuel base. I understand the not burning fossil fuel thing, but why can't it be seen like another mineral resource?
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    Because that's still geological carbon entering the overall cycle on the surface. The air and ocean are giant buffers of it. When it's needed it needs to be pulled from there somehow (such as by felling trees or directly extracting CO2). Unfortunately that's not economical when it's legal to tap the giant lakes of it sitting underground.
  - cmrdporcupine 7mo ago
    Many of the other things (plastics esp) are byproducts after refining for fuel. If the fuel isn't consumed, the byproducts would become cost ineffective. Don't "worry" though. Oil consumption is going up not down. Just don't have kids.
    - MOSI2 7mo ago
      If the cure is as bad as the disease, then why intervene?
killerstorm 7mo ago
[flagged]
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
renewiltord 7mo ago
Well primarily the goal is to ensure that we don't build any homes for people or any clean energy. There's a reason a group of people funded by an oil heir are anti-nuclear.

by nDRDY 7mo ago

tencentshill 7mo ago

The goal is to keep the oil in the ground, to not be burned or to be made into plastics.

dylan604 7mo ago
Isn't the main source of helium from oil production? It's not like we have fusion reactors turning H into He.
- ac29 7mo ago
  The main source of helium is natural gas production, not oil
  - dylan604 7mo ago
    Okay, but while technically correct, it does nothing to change the situation. They are punching holes in the ground to extract the sweet sweet nectar. They have to store what has been extracted. When that storage is full, what does one do? Stop the input into the storage.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      The amount of activity required for helium is insubstantial compared to the amount of natural gas being extracted globally. And the amount of natural gas extracted pales in comparison to total combined gas, oil, and coal. Helium extraction doesn't pose a notable environmental issue on its own.
MOSI2 7mo ago
It's not just plastics. Practically every substance we use and rely on to maintain civilisation as we know it has a petrochemical or fossil fuel base. I understand the not burning fossil fuel thing, but why can't it be seen like another mineral resource?
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  Because that's still geological carbon entering the overall cycle on the surface. The air and ocean are giant buffers of it. When it's needed it needs to be pulled from there somehow (such as by felling trees or directly extracting CO2). Unfortunately that's not economical when it's legal to tap the giant lakes of it sitting underground.
- cmrdporcupine 7mo ago
  Many of the other things (plastics esp) are byproducts after refining for fuel. If the fuel isn't consumed, the byproducts would become cost ineffective. Don't "worry" though. Oil consumption is going up not down. Just don't have kids.
  - MOSI2 7mo ago
    If the cure is as bad as the disease, then why intervene?

killerstorm 7mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

renewiltord 7mo ago

Well primarily the goal is to ensure that we don't build any homes for people or any clean energy. There's a reason a group of people funded by an oil heir are anti-nuclear.