To spell it out for you, Just because something is well established in the industry does not make it good.
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.
MANY WELL ESTABLISHED practices are horribly stupid...
See the many natural disasters caused by company standard practices.
Dumped raw toxins directly into rivers
Locking the doors on clothing factories
Fracking
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.
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.
I do care about facts, but relevance and context matter.
You miss their point
I do. I hope they will explain.
To spell it out for you, Just because something is well established in the industry does not make it good.
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.
MANY WELL ESTABLISHED practices are horribly stupid...
See the many natural disasters caused by company standard practices.
Dumped raw toxins directly into rivers
Locking the doors on clothing factories
Fracking
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.
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.
I do care about facts, but relevance and context matter.