What bothers me more are the "progressives" (whom one might think would progress their thinking a bit more on the subject) who moan every time gasoline prices go up a few dimes per gallon, about how they are "too high" in America, when most major consuming countries price the stuff at a much higher level more suited to the natural capital that it mostly is (except for the non-extractive part of its "production").
Cool (and windy) video!
Nice to have you here once in a while. Answer a few more questions so you can stay ahead of Sagebrush in the best answers sweepstakes.
Good English, I was taught, efficiently conveys ideas in the English language. Both terms convey the idea.
What does that have to do with the fraud of AGW? Whether we extract oil from the ground or produce oil products for human use, it does not alter the fact that AGW is a scam. That is the theme of this category.
Fossil fuels like, coal, oil and natural gas were produced by dead plants and animals. I resent times humans (oilmen) have extracted these fossil fuels. It should be noted that with the extraction of all natural resources the top of the pyramid (the easiest to get) is extracted first and therefore the energy required to get to the harder to extract becomes higher. So we had better be prepared to pay the price or find an option.
What is actually being extracted is petroleum or crude oil or just crude. So the term "oil extraction" is incomplete.
I would say "oil production" is a figurative term referring to any part of the overall process starting with extraction and going from there.
I like David's attitude.
Oil is extracted, gasoline is produced.
Also I don't think it matters. I don't intend to call food production, mineral extraction from the soil, any time soon.
Edit:
It is certainly true that most of it is water and CO2 conversions that make the energy component of food and some vitamins like vitamin C, but certainly not all of the vitamins and minerals that we also need.
When talking about Municipal Water supply wells, we tend to call them production wells; however, I tend to use the word extraction in my line of work. Both uses are probably from a long history of the use of those words. In our remediation systems, our pumps extract groundwater and the soil vapor extraction system extract vapors so I tend to agree that extraction is a better word. I would like to refer to my systems as soil vapor depleters but I think the regulators might laugh at me for that one.
Pedantry can be fun, but I'm not really with you on this one. I'm pretty sure "production" has a very long usage in the business and a long historical precedent brings legitimacy in language.
I can understand how you would like to make that distinction, but virtually everyone is savvy enough to realize where it comes from without beating them over the head with it.
It refers to the multitude of products that come from oil. If you want to split hairs over what to call it, then you don't have enough to do and probably need to get out and look for a job.
If "production" means "creation" then perhaps it would be best to remove the word "production" from the dictionary altogether.
We don't create much - it all exists and we just transform or assemble it.
Well, technically it is produced, since the crude oil pumped out of the ground is not immediately useful.
Does the term oil production lead to muddy thinking.
Nobody's 'producing' (creating) oil.
Would the term "oil extraction" be better?
Would the term "Oil Extractors" be more accurate?
OR, maybe "Oil Depletion" ?
or, "Oil Depleters" ?
try using the word 'Energy companies' instead of 'Oil companies', How's that for politically correct language?
