I don't understand your commentary. He said that the cost of construction is carried by the water companies. Doesn't that undermine your dilution theory?
did I understand that right? He is saying that the time horizon is 15 months to be up and running or is it 15 months to clear all the pending appeals possible to start the project?
The only response to your post is this:
"Past Returns Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Performance"
Yes, I corrected that above. There is capital cost and operational cost. The capital cost curve bends down quite a bit with higher throughput, definitely not a linear progression, but if a 2000 gpm system runs just under $10 Million, a system capable of handling 30000 gpm can't be less than $20 Million don't you think?
I have to make a correction, really sorry.
Cadiz proposes to pump 50,000 a-f into the CRA per year. That's of course around 16,000,000,000 gallons not 16,000,000 gallons. That's roughly 30,000 gallons per minute throughput, not 30 gallons. Obviously that requires a much bigger WBA system and the cost of that is significant. A 2000 gallon/min system costs about $8,000,000 according to estimates in the same study. There is a lot of economy of scale as shown there. So an onsite facility to remove Cr6 at Cadiz might cost less than simply multiplying 8 Mill by 15, but it's obviously still a very costly capital outlay for a small private company.
If you want to look up the itemized cost of construction for such a plant, check out the estimate shown in this link
to the home page address of the city of Glendale website.
Even if source water were treated at the origin, CrVI can enter the treatment and distribution system downstream from oxidants, disinfectants, and pipe corrosion. The most sensible way to proceed is to install drinking water treatment at the point-of-use stage with R.O. or Membrane Filtration.
But let's say, in-situ treatment were the right way to proceed.
Does the Chromium-6 Removal facility at the Glendale Operable Unit built by CDM Constructors in 2009, inc. give information about the feasibility and cost?
Here are the two methods tested there:
Weak Base Anion Exchange: 425 gallons/min. still in operation
Reduction Coag: 100 gallons/min. Discont'ed too labour intensive
So what would be the cost of building and running a WBA Cr6 facility at Cadiz using the Glendale study as a guide with the goal of reducing Cr6 to 10ppb?
Cadiz proposes to produce 50,000 a-f per year. That's about 16,000,000 gallons per year or 30 gallons per minute.
Estimated capital cost for a 100 gpm facility is $1,700,000
Estimated operation cost at 100 gallons per minute throughput = $200,000/yr.
That's not a problem for Cadiz I think. This is also why the CDPH recommended 10ppb...because it's economically feasible based on the Glendale study.
GO to ciy if glendale website and add this extention to web address
NASDAQ reports 1,802,428 shares short on May 15. It actually went up after the stock gapped up . No short-covering. That's a pretty determined bearish sentiment. I am surprised.
Looks like the Office of Administrative Law approved the CDPH's proposed rule to reduce the state's Maximum Contaminant Level of Hexavalent Chromium to 10 parts per Billion from 50 on the 28th of this month. That means Cadiz water is about 4-6 ppb over limit.
I am reading that as an "if...if" scenario analysis by Cadiz to predict environmental impact. One scenario is based on gas-powered generators and one scenario is based on grid electricity. The Pacific Institute analysis is based on the prediction that electricity will be coming from both generators and the grid, but that there is no anticipated shortfall in terms of supply or infrastructure.
So the Pac Inst quote is neither inconsequential nor irrelevant. It's actually a close confirmation by an third party of Cadiz is also saying. Bottomline is that power will be no problem and not hold up the project as another poster here suggested.
"Contact: Anita Gore, Heather Bourbeau (916) 440-7259
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) today submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) its final proposed regulation establishing the first ever drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for hexavalent chromium (Cr VI). More than 18,000 comments were received by CDPH regarding the proposed regulation. The proposed final regulation documents include the Summary and Response to comments received.
The proposed final regulation will take effect after it has been reviewed and approved by OAL in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. This review can take up to 30 working days to complete. Once approved, the regulation is then filed with the Secretary of State and will become effective the first day of the following quarter.
“The drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium of 10 parts per billion will protect public health while taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility as required by law,” said Dr. Ron Chapman, CDPH director and state health officer.
If the regulation is approved as expected, implementation of the new drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium will begin July 1, 2014."
"PLEASE NOTE: This is the proposed final regulation. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has 30 working days to review and approve or disapprove the Department's proposed filing. CDPH anticipates that OAL will make this determination by May 30, 2014."
"What are EPA's drinking water regulations for chromium?
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to determine the level of contaminants in drinking water at which no adverse health effects are likely to occur. These non-enforceable health goals, based on possible health risks from exposure over a lifetime are called maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG).
The MCLG for total chromium is 0.1 mg/L or 100 parts per billion (ppb). EPA has set this level of protection based on the best available science at the time the rule was promulgated. EPA has set an enforceable regulation for total chromium, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), at 0.1 mg/L or 100 ppb. MCLs are set as close to the health goals as possible, considering cost, benefits and the ability of public water systems to detect and remove contaminants using suitable treatment technologies. In this case, the MCL equals the MCLG, because analytical methods or treatment technology do not pose any limitation.
States may set more stringent drinking water MCLGs and MCLs for total chromium than EPA.
"Chromium-6 (hexavalent chromium) is currently regulated under the 50-micrograms per liter (µg/L) primary drinking water standard (maximum contaminant level, MCL} for total chromium. California's MCL for total chromium was established in 1977, when we adopted what was then a "National Interim Drinking Water Standard" for chromium. The total chromium MCL was established to address exposures to chromium-6, the more toxic form of chromium. Chromium-3 (trivalent chromium) is a required nutrient.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the same 50-µg/L standard tor total chromium, but in 1991 raised the federal MCL to 100 µg/L. California did not follow US EPA's change and stayed with its 50-µg/L standard."
"Construction of the Cadiz Project would require electricity to operate construction equipment. This
would be provided by the use of portable generators and the use of electrical power presently
available at Cadiz and at Iron Mountain Pumping Plant. Substantial amounts of electrical power
would be required on a long-term basis to operate project wellfield pumps and the Cadiz Pumping
Plant when extraction or spreading activities are occurring. Some electrical power would be needed
for security lights at Cadiz Project facilities. Electricity to power these facilities would be obtained
from Metropolitanís power supply currently used to provide power to other pumping plants along
the Colorado River Aqueduct. As explained in Section 5.9 (Energy and Mineral Resources), other
pumps would be taken off-line when the Cadiz Project was in spreading or withdrawal mode. New
electrical equipment would be installed as necessary to supply power to Cadiz Project facilities.
These new power lines would parallel the water conveyance facility and wellfield pipelines.
Therefore, Metropolitanís existing power supply is sufficient to power the Cadiz Project facilities"
This is a quote from a report you can find on Pacific Institute's Website
It looks like power will be generated on site and transmission is close by already:
"With at least 285 days of sun per year, a reliable water source, and proximity to an approved energy transmission corridor, our property in the Cadiz Valley is an ideal location for solar energy production. The State of California and the U.S. government have called for increased renewable energy production in order to meet our future energy needs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut our reliance on foreign oil. In fact, California has mandated that 33% of the state’s electricity be acquired from renewable energy sources by 2020. Federal and State government entities, along with environmental organizations, are also drafting legislation and encouraging regulations that would support solar energy development on private, disturbed land to minimize impacts to undisturbed desert lands. We believe that our properties, which offer existing roads, housing, and other infrastructure, could help meet the demand for additional renewable power resources in California. Depending on various factors, we could make up to 20,000 unused acres at our Cadiz Valley property available for solar energy development."