Mr. Ernst and Mr. Krutikhin noted that, unlike in other oil infrastructure such as pipelines, a lot of complex machinery and sophisticated engineering goes into refineries, and they can take several months to fix. Some analysts say the repairs could take longer than usual because sanctions prohibit Western sales of certain components to Russia.

  • silence7OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    3 months ago

    Key difference: a major failure at the nuclear reactor is can kill people across a large area.

    Taking out refineries is going to raise the cost of gas, and lower the value of oil, resulting in both a cut to drilling and to burning, which is a net benefit for people.

    • rammer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Key difference: a major failure at the nuclear reactor is can kill people across a large area.

      That area being large enough to encompass others. Not just the belligerents.

      • silence7OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Prevent crude oil from being refined, and it’s not useful, so people don’t burn it. The quantities passed through the refinery are far greater than the amount present at it on any given day, so one less refinery means a whole lot less consumption.

        • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh so what you’re saying is that the US burning Iraqi oil fields in the Gulf war(s) was for environmental reasons.

          That’s really progressive.

          • silence7OP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Burning an oil well directly burns oil which people would otherwise burned, while raising prices and encouraging additional extraction. I’ll also note that Saddam Hussein had people light the oil wells on fire before the US moved in.

            An attack on a refinery prevents oil from being burned, and can’t burn oil that’s not there. I’d prefer to see them shut down in a planned matter, but this is better than keeping them going.

            Different things are different. Deal with it.

            • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Burning oil to prevent people from burning fossil fuels is certainly a take.

              Carbon is carbon. Burning crude oil puts carbon in the air just like burning petroleum does. The difference is now you’ve driven energy costs up while wasting the resource.

              Edited to add: so if Saddam burning oil fields in Kuwait was bad, are we also going to admit that Ukraine burning oil refineries in Russia is also bad? Or is it only bad when our enemies do it?

              • silence7OP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                An attack on the midstream is fundamentally different from burning oil at the well in terms of how it affects how much carbon goes into the atmosphere; it results in oil not being extracted and burned.