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.

  • @Altofaltception@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -109
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    But when Russia attacked Ukraine’s nuclear reactor, we were told that was bad.

    Edit: one person’s terrorism is another person’s fight for freedom.

    • @silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      589 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
        2
        edit-2
        9 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.

        • @silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          29 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
            -29 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.

            • @silence7@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              29 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
                -1
                edit-2
                9 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?

                • @silence7@slrpnk.netOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  19 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.

    • @usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      399 months ago

      Never mind the huge difference in impact from oil infrastructure and nuclear, context matters. Who the aggressor is makes a big difference.