Same rationales, different ways of mining? The case of reversed mining One of the rationales climate change framing produces is the reinforcement of the idea that the underground is not part of the environment. According to it, drilling is not a hazard itself, but a way to protect the environment, in order to fight climate change. I show that this rationale is not new and that it allowed not only the expansion of mining geographies but also the conception of what mining is. Using as a study case an underground exploitation project from the '70s, I argue that sending undesirable things into the underground can be understood as 'reversed mining'. Schellenberger compared the vertical transfer of waste, from the surface to the underground to a 'form of reverse mining' (2021, p. 28). In addition to that, injection companies are often the same companies that do mining, or/and or gas/oil exploitation, using the very same infrastructure to extract or to inject. In a French case of injection of effluents into the underground, I show that two main different positions were held by actors: injections shouldn't happen because the underground is considered to be part of the environment; on the opposite side, injections were a way to protect the environment from what is injected. I argue that the same logic is being used by CCS projects and other 'traditional' mining ones. This STS research can shed light on the impact of categorizing things, providing epistemic content for those in the oppressed and marginalized territories of mining and reversed mining.