Anyone invested in the market
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Cleaner, for sure. Photovoltaic cells require immense resource extraction for ores, as do wind-farms (though the metals required aren't as lucrative). Also, the obvious: assembling these technologies requires energy.
I'll call you sometime this week. I don't really have an entrepreneurial bone in my body though
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]
Banned
I disagree that it is extremely "leaky", although obviously it is pretty flip.
oil and water, famously, don't mix. That is why a lot of oil exists underground, beneath significant underground water resources, where trapped in some manner within rock and under sealing rock formations that have prevented it from being displaced further towards the surface. Oil is a low specific gravity material, and whatever oil exists within the mass of the earth, occluded from oxygen or sulfur in reactive forms, will continue to rise within the earths depths towards the surface. I believe there are more hydrocarbon resources within the total mass from non-biological origins than from decaying materials covered with sediments and chemical rock deposits.
The fact that oil is almost always present at some level in our soil , water and air might cut against the grain of propagandists like yourself who want to push an unrealistic "problem" to the max.
It might be undeniable that fracking mobilizes trapped oil, but it is generally done with water displacement and the oil is harvested, and the levels of oil "pollution" have not been demonstrated objectively, which is to say scientifically, to be significant in comparison with the oil within our geology and aquifers at they have existed through geological history.
If no study has been done of undisturbed oil-bearing formations, you have no "baseline" for comparison of the effects of "fracking", and you are a disgrace to science to make unqualified political assessments of the problem.
My speculative sort of prejudices are set on the side that it is a real issue, and needs to be researched objectively. The same kind of speculative prejudices in me suggest that it a "problem" that will never really "surface", and if it does it is easy enough to clean water contaminated with oil. We have that problem already with almost all the pumps that bring water to our use, and some more responsible folks take precautions to use cleaner oils for lubrication or pumps designed to be less polluting. My legislative approach to the problem would be to require escrow accounts for oil from fracking operations and the funds s sequestered against future "cleanup" costs. Probably should be done with all oil pumping. It's the price of exploiting our resources.
I'm studying desalination technology and looking at the problems of toxic materials used in the processes, and the nature of desal water, trying to find a way to make it better water. . . .and cheaper water.
The problem with the political hype about technology and "progress" and population growth, is it's mostly ignorant, and mostly done for the benefit of industrial cartel folks like the Standard Oil corporates, aka Rockefeller, which is to say both the Bush and Clinton family political dynasties.
The intention of our "corporates" is to lock up our resources under their control. The political hype goes to drive out the competition, earlier referred to in this thread as the irresponsible and reckless wannabes in the competition, while the giants hire public relations firms, buy politicians, and use the regulations against their competition, with bureaucracies like the EPA solidly "in their pockets". With the giants, the EPA lawyers go out to lunch with the corporate lawyers and enjoy pleasant and convenient relations. with the competition, the little guys are run out of business with baseless lawsuits.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
You know nothing about me-- your generalizations and insults (propagandist? Really?) weaken your integrity as a poster.
You're conveniently ignoring the larger elephant in the room-- the 'proprietary solutions' that oil corps use for fracking, that quite obviously contain all sorts of carcinogens that they refuse to disclose. Benzenes, VOCs continue to show up in aquifers most likely from these solutions-- THIS is the problem. Keep selectively disclosing info tho, babe. A fine propagandist, you are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't really have an entrepreneurial bone in my body though
Would you like one?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
This may be bad news for some but for most cheap oil will be an economic boon(for a while anyway). Start of another bubble. If you are looking for collapse/really bad news I would wager it will happen when oil ultimately rises again. We will surf this out until the lack of investment in energy caused by the low prices catches up to us.
Basically exactly what happened in the nineties-2007 again except next time we will have even fewer options for new oil sources and greater demand. I won't guess on timelines but that is what I see as being the basic plot.
We need to invest more in public transport/less in highways. We need to at least invest in a renewable "backbone" to temper the coming storm.
Since we probably won't do nearly enough of any of that I would suggest people downsize, pay **** off, and hold on.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Here is a water project idea of the super controversial variety.
California's Imperial Valley provides most of our winter produce. The reason why it able to is because of a water diversion project in the early 20th century. The site was chosen because the valley is wide and sits 65 meters(215 feet) below sea level. The Colorado river from where the water comes is only about 50 meters (a few hundred feet) above sea level in California. This made the Imperial Valley an obvious choice. There are other sites in California and Arizona that could take over for the Imperial Valley for the purposes of food production. Including undeveloped areas within the Imperial Valley that are above sea level. Sites that are feasible to irrigate today that were much less feasible 100 years ago.
So why should we move the entire Imperial Valley?
As I said it sits a whopping 65 meters below sea level. Laguna Salada to the southwest in Mexico sits 10 meters below sea level. The northern part of the Gulf of California experiences tidal ranges of up to 5 meters. So a canal or series of them could provide the US and Mexico with a great deal of energy(thank you moon) and we would get a massive new inland port and fishery as a bonus. Mexico would get a much smaller but still quite significant one.
Is it feasible? The highest point along the whole path is only 9 meters(30 feet) above sea level and it is all deposits from the colorado river(no bedrock). The hard part would be moving the people that live there but I think that if it was part of a plan with a sufficient timescale(say 30 years) and we moved the farmers first it would be politically possible. Course I'm kinda a loon.
My Brother From Another Mother?
So hey hey, you think you're "kinda a loon"?
So I've been going around California looking the place over. Some people I know want to actually build a water project JFK had folks planning. . . . to bring water from north-flowing rivers like the Yukon, form Canada and Alaska, to the Southwest and even to Mexico, to make the deserts "blossom like the rose", but with veggies.
My dream is a desal project on a scale that would make it the Mother of all desal projects, producing water for agriculture and municipal use. I'm not local, I'd do the same for the Rio Grande Valley, Texas and Mexico's east coast.
Canals from the arctic would change our El Nino weather cycles because it salt concentrating in the tropic oceans and freshwater rivers draining into the Arctic Oceans that drive the ocean current and switches them periodically.
Our stupid Congress and environmental managers have curtailed use of the Sacramento and other Central California rivers for irrigation in the San Jaquin valley. They need desal too. A mountain range just means you have to pump the water uphill, and a good nuclear power plant would do the job, and provide the heat/power for the multistage flash evaporators as well.
If we made the projects multi-state we could rewrite some of the western water compacts, and Utah could use more water in the Green River area. Watermelons would be cheap in Utah. Delta could be about twenty times the farm area it is now.
So hey hey, you think you're "kinda a loon"?
So I've been going around California looking the place over. Some people I know want to actually build a water project JFK had folks planning. . . . to bring water from north-flowing rivers like the Yukon, form Canada and Alaska, to the Southwest and even to Mexico, to make the deserts "blossom like the rose", but with veggies.
My dream is a desal project on a scale that would make it the Mother of all desal projects, producing water for agriculture and municipal use. I'm not local, I'd do the same for the Rio Grande Valley, Texas and Mexico's east coast.
Canals from the arctic would change our El Nino weather cycles because it salt concentrating in the tropic oceans and freshwater rivers draining into the Arctic Oceans that drive the ocean current and switches them periodically.
Our stupid Congress and environmental managers have curtailed use of the Sacramento and other Central California rivers for irrigation in the San Jaquin valley. They need desal too. A mountain range just means you have to pump the water uphill, and a good nuclear power plant would do the job, and provide the heat/power for the multistage flash evaporators as well.
If we made the projects multi-state we could rewrite some of the western water compacts, and Utah could use more water in the Green River area. Watermelons would be cheap in Utah. Delta could be about twenty times the farm area it is now.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Why don't we just divert the Erie canal and instead of shuttling all that water back into the ocean bring it across the plains and dump it into the grand canyon or elsewhere in the Colorado river system to supply SoCal with an abundance of fresh water, and the plains states as well when needed due to drought or whathaveyou.
https://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/28/nation/na-water28
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I being can't imagine desal not being a major part of the future of the southwest and probably Texas. I think the problem that we have now is the failure of the guys at the top to think big.(it seems you agree with me) The Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, Highway system, railroad, power infrastructure, etc etc all were fantastic projects in their day. These are projects that but for them our lives would be profoundly less comfortable.
This is probably the part of political thought that I can see my own cognitive dissonance to the greatest degree. I may think that the government in general should butt out but I do not apply this thinking to massive projects for the "general welfare". I'm probably more liberal than the most liberally liberal when it comes to do this. If a project is so expensive/large that the largest corporations could go bankrupt just trying(in other words the risks are too great) than the free market has no chance to work.
I also can't imagine a renegotiation of the Colorado river Compact ever happening. I imagine it's more likely for California to lease water to Arizona if they had a new source or for upper states to lease to lower states but there is no way that they give up their assets. In the scenario I was envisioning above I could see California allowing farmers to use their water rights in Arizona but they would still be under Californian jurisdiction. I imagine for this to happen that California might say that an Imperial valley farmer could use 75% of his/her water rights in Arizona if that farmer agreed to lease the remaining portion to Californian cities.
I'm fully invested and my hedge stocks have been killing me for 18 months. I need this thing to go down to save from under performance.
If you're worried about junk bonds then take a look at Oaktree. Howard Marks is best in breed, the junk king, and was raising money for a new junk fund last year. Last I checked the company is worth about $700mm more than the market value. There's some accounting issues with how future earnings that cannot currently be booked are recorded (they aren't). It's not bad leverage controlling $90bln of other's money with your $2.3bln market cap either.
Also, Viny, I wouldn't touch oil with a ten foot pole and haven't since 2008. This plunge was inevitable in my past view, and will have a long time to play out. This part of the cycle isn't going to be helped by an aging population that will continue driving less and less as they retire.
The majors might be able to acquire on the cheap, however.
The majors might be able to acquire on the cheap, however.
Oil is currently in a long-wave "Gas War" with the established players definitely looking to pick the bones of the independents bound to go bankrupt, but there's the other thing about rubbing Putin out as well. . . . We have fought two wars to prevent a pipeline from Russia to India, and to prevent the reemergence of the Silk Road in railroad and canal transcontinental scales from Russia to China.
I am believing that a new wave of nuclear power plants is coming, along with economical cold fusion. . . . . solar and wind will never be economical against well-scrubbed coal electricity, either.
we're a match in this opinion. How can we make money on it?
Jazz Insider
Banned
i invest in people.
-people's champ
-people's champ
hmmm....
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Write a y2k style disaster book and market it in California. Put a small prepper catalog with a link to a website in the back.
Waterocalypse?