duped 11 hours ago

My understanding from some of these articles is that oil isn't literally transported in barrels the vast majority of the time, it's in tanker trucks/rail cars/ships moving from source to refinery to retail the whole way. Part of what makes it fun to "buy a barrel of oil" is that you can't go many places and ask for a barrel, you need to bring the thing to put it in (like a tanker truck or rail car).

Swoerd123 17 hours ago

This is common for a huge number of products, ranging from cosmetics, consumables, pharmaceuticals, bottled water, etc.

  • HPsquared 16 hours ago

    For carbon footprint also, I believe. For bottled water at least, manufacturing the bottle has by far the most environmental impact, even more so than the shipping/transportation part of the process (which you'd think would be severe, as water is heavy).

    • thmsths 13 hours ago

      That's an interesting tidbit. Every time there is a suggestion we switch to reusable glass bottles instead of plastic, someone raises the issue of the extra weight of the bottle which will lead to greater carbon emissions during transport.

      But if, as you say the largest emission comes from manufacturing the plastic bottle, not the transport of the bottle AND the content; then it seems possible to lower the carbon footprint by switching to glass (on top of the other advantages like reducing landfill use/litterring/environmental pollution).

      • moralestapia 12 hours ago

        >someone raises the issue of the extra weight of the bottle which will lead to greater carbon emissions during transport

        Lmao, that's on the order of 1-2%.

pydry 16 hours ago

in one market oil prices even went negative so presumably, yeah.