Ukraine struck Russia’s largest oil refinery, located in the city of Omsk, on Monday, marking what its forces say was its furthest-ever drone attack in the war.

The Omsk facility, which processes about 21 million tons of oil a year, is in Western Siberia and about 1,700 miles from Ukrainian territory — roughly the distance between Los Angeles and Houston.

  • goferking (he/him)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 day ago

    Gotta make it worse.

    There’s the emissions from while it’s on fire plus some of the chemicals in it are worse after being burned like that then in regular emissions. Or become other environmental issues on their own once released/burned.

    Then the emissions from building a new one.

    It’s so much better to just shut it down because no one needs it than blow them up

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Also on the comparison of “on fire” vs used as fuel - IDK about the emissions during the refining process, but when gas or diesel is burnt as fuel in a car, there are typically several emissions control systems reducing the pollution produced

      • nlgranger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        48 minutes ago

        I doubt the majority of engines consuming oil are euro-5 compliant: cargo ships, airplanes, military vehicles, electricity generators, water heaters, tractors, none of these typically use catalytic converters.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Then the emissions from building a new one.

      In Russia’s case, depending on how things go, that many not apply all that much.

      If things go far enough it might lead to Ukraine striking construction sites of oil refineries. Still not great, but much less worse than an actual running refinery.