I think they were talking about something that could fit in a tractor-trailer, not a pickup (even the size of a shipping container will probably not actually happen).
Also, fusion *does* produce radiation (deuterium-tritium fusion makes lots of nasty fast neutrons- they are where a lot of the heat is harvested from, via a moderator) in large quantities- but it does not produce long-lived, highly radioactive waste to any appreciable extent. That's one of the key benefits over fission (the other is that fusion reactors can't melt down- if anything goes wrong, they just stop). The need for extensive shielding and a neutron moderator will probably be why they can't actually hit their advertised size target.
As to the main points of the thread: can they do it? Realistically, probably not. The academic fusion community doesn't give them much chance at all (but they all have their careers and egos staked on competing technologies, so they are not unbiased). Still, it's possible they've seen something everyone else missed. Certainly, the Skunk Works guys are very smart. I'd give them one chance in four.
If they can do it, how should LMT be valued? I agree with the previous assessment: we just don't know. A modestly sized, reasonably priced fusion reactor that can be mass-produced would be such a world-beating invention that it would literally reshape our civilization. It's hard to put a dollar value on that, but suffice it to say I expect it would be an extraordinarily valuable patent.
The scientists studying magnetic reversals (a common feature of the earth's geologic history- yes, were are due for one in the next few millenia, and no, it will probably not be a big deal- they've happened routinely before without correlating with extinctions or big climate swings) are geoscientists. They are the same guys who research paleoclimate, from which our understanding of atmospheric CO2 is largely inferred. So the are all "real" scientists, and I suggest you leave the science to them.
Global warming has not been shown to have any effect whatsoever on the number and intensity of tornadoes. You can theory-craft that by creating more vigorous mid-latitude atmospheric mixing, it night make more energy available for them, but there's so much noise in the actual data that no impact can be seen. Thanks for playing, though. Good try.
They've been having bad springtime tornadoes in the midwest for as long as that area has been settled (and probably long before that). It's unfortunate for the people there, but it's not an indicator of anything about climate change.
This has got to be short-covering induced by the general rally on the Fed's softening of rate-increase predictions. It's nice to get a little bounce, but with oil still declining, I don't expect it to last. I figure it'll be fall before we start seeing any really sustained recovery.
U.S. onshore production will be able to expand very rapidly in response to rising prices, so I don't see $200 except in a couple of unlikely cases (i.e., Putin perceives SA as a threat and supports some kind of insurgency that forces them to raise prices to calm discontent, or else the U.S. foolishly blunders into a shooting war with Iran that closes the Strait of Hormuz for several months). $75-80, on the other hand, seems pretty likely in the intermediate future.
I think it highly likely SA will hold the line until the regular June meeting, but I'm sure a lot of the smaller OPEC players are hurting big-time and ready to cut a deal.
Solar's critical problem is that it's not base-load power. Efficient energy storage on a very large scale is required to overcome its intermittent nature. We don't really have that. Perhaps we will at some point in the future, but it's not clear when that will be.
You are obviously welcome to pontificate as long as you like. However, it makes you seem disingenuous at best regarding you claims to have no position here.
There *is* an academic field of inquiry about low energy nuclear reactions. I would not expect any viable power sources from it any time soon. Solar is also seriously overrated in terms of market penetration. All that solar is going to do is slow demand growth in oil, not stop it or reverse it. Demand for energy in India and China (and the rest of the developing world) is simply growing too fast.
The only thing that looks like it could change the calculus about fossil fuels near-term is conventional fusion, either from Lockheed-Martin or some of the smaller companies researching it. I would not be too optimistic there, either- the academic physics community is pretty certain LM's claims are off-base (although they could certainly be wrong). If that pans out and can be manufactured in assembly-line fashion, then fossil fuels will go the way of whale oil within a generation. But like I said, that's a giant "if".
As far as shorting goes, the only reason to have done so at 14 is because a day like today was bound to come along sooner or later. Fundamentals have not changed in such a way to justify a big price run-up... yet. By the fourth quarter, I expect oil to be back at $70/barrel, and averaging around $75-85 next year. While that's not back to the days of $3.00/share distributions, LINN can survive quite nicely in that environment, and share price should appreciate accordingly... just a lot slower than the jump over the past few days.
If you actually sold (and if you actually ever owned to start with), I'm glad you got out at a point you find satisfactory. Best of luck. I expect we will not be hearing from you further.
None the less, CVRR's stock movements have recently been very tightly correlated with oil prices. It's not so much that it *should* track oil prices... it just does anyway.