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.
"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.
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.
> 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.
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.
"Needs to stay in the ground" says extraction must stop. That is not the case.
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)
To me, GP is quite precise and also correct. I don't understand why you try to cast them as a climate change denier.
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.
"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-...
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.
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.
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?
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)".