• CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I never said it was good. I said it was a well established practice in response to @fubarx@lemmy.ml who seemed surprised that anyone would even consider it. I was surprised to learn about it as well, but it makes sense to use the oil or gas in the deposit to directly help fuel the process.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      MANY WELL ESTABLISHED practices are horribly stupid…

      See the many natural disasters caused by company standard practices.

      1. Dumped raw toxins directly into rivers

      2. Locking the doors on clothing factories

      3. Fracking

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        None of those things are in situ combustion thermal recovery. It may well be that this method isn’t appropriate for the process described in the paper. The paper also suggests RF thermal recovery as an alternative. The process just requires additional heat besides the steam to affect the SMR reaction and get the hydrogen out.

        • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          No but they all claim their business practices were safe…

          The water dilutes and carries the toxins away. Until the river catches fire…

          If there’s a mine fire just close up the entrance and it’ll go out. Except it hasn’t for 60+ years.

          Fracking can’t cause earthquakes, except it does and there is evidence the chemicals could actually be getting in ground water… This one is particularly interesting. Considering they claim this process is safe.

          But I doubt you care about facts.