Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Black Diamond, Inc. Message Board

tex7779 17 posts  |  Last Activity: May 2, 2015 2:52 PM Member since: Apr 9, 2001
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    SA Article

    by sierra_whiskey_fife_niner_fife Apr 22, 2015 6:02 PM
    tex7779 tex7779 May 2, 2015 2:52 PM Flag

    Well, the person that took your shares at 10 in March, most probably feels like a real shmuck right now.

    Ditto for the guys who bought this back last summer up to 14.9.

    What I find amazing is that just one SA article brought out about a dozen law firms. How many vultures can this one little company accomodate?

    Frankly, any shareholder planning on suing should have read the financials that the company has issued.

  • Reply to

    Chromium-6

    by ana_kin_skywalker May 9, 2014 3:46 PM
    tex7779 tex7779 Jun 1, 2014 5:05 PM Flag

    Skywalker:

    You wrote - Cadiz proposes to produce 50,000 a-f per year. That's about 16,000,000 gallons per year or 30 gallons per minute.

    You ought to check your math. 50,000 acre-feet per year is about 16 Billion gallons per year vs. the 16 million that you posted. Therefore, the flow rate is 31,000 gal/min.

    So, using your Glendale example of $ 1.7 million per 100 gpm, will mean a cost of $ 1.7 million times 310 or $ 527 million. Let us assume that there are tremendous economy of scale opportunities of 50%, then you are still looking at a capital cost of at least $ 260 million - just to remove the chrome - 6.

    FWIW, I don't see the chrome - 6 issue as a deal killer. Cadiz will have to remove / reduce the chrome - 6 concentration, period. It is only a question of money.

  • Reply to

    Chromium-6

    by ana_kin_skywalker May 9, 2014 3:46 PM
    tex7779 tex7779 May 31, 2014 6:08 PM Flag

    Now, that the MCL for hexavalent chromium is set at 10 ppb, let us look what those numbers mean.

    The Cadiz water project is supposed to deliver 50,000 acre feet of water per year.

    At 1233.4818 cubic meter per acre - foot, then the Cadiz water project will deliver 61.674 Billion liters each year.

    Given the MCL for chrome-6, it looks like Cadiz will be in excess of that limit by 5 ppb. Multiplying that out times the total flow, yields a total chrome-6 in excess of the allowable of 308,370 grams per year, which is about 679 pounds per year.

    But the total throughput is 14 - 16 ppb, which means that the MWD will have to accept the addition of about 2,000 pounds each year of a highly carcinogenic compound in the drinking water.

    Doubtful that MWD will accept that.

    For that matter, the 5 or 6 organizations, who had their lawsuits recently dismissed, will now have totally new ammunition in their legal pursuits.

  • tex7779 tex7779 May 13, 2014 5:43 AM Flag

    And now Part III

    Beyond the unsustainable nature of the Cadiz proposition, this project highlights serious shortcomings with California’s groundwater law. Imagine if one of the landowners adjacent to Lake Tahoe decided to take water from the lake and sell it for personal, short-term economic gain. That may sound crazy, and yet the state’s groundwater is the same resource.

    The Cadiz project, if approved by San Bernardino County, would set a precedent for future privatization of groundwater in other desert basins. This calls for a broader public policy debate and discussion of state groundwater policy – or lack thereof.

    We question that mining groundwater for short-term private gain is what an informed public would like to do with precious groundwater stored in the desert. The fact that the decision is left to San Bernardino County indicates the broader need for clear state policy to manage groundwater resources and a revision of groundwater laws.

    John Bredehoeft, formerly with the U.S. Geological Survey, formed the Hydrodynamics Group, a Sausalito consulting firm.

    Newsha Ajami, a hydrologist specializing in sustainable water resource management, is a senior research associate at the Pacific Institute in Oakland.

  • Beyond the unsustainable nature of the Cadiz proposition, this project highlights serious shortcomings with California’s groundwater law. Imagine if one of the landowners adjacent to Lake Tahoe decided to take water from the lake and sell it for personal, short-term economic gain. That may sound crazy, and yet the state’s groundwater is the same resource.

    The Cadiz project, if approved by San Bernardino County, would set a precedent for future privatization of groundwater in other desert basins. This calls for a broader public policy debate and discussion of state groundwater policy – or lack thereof.

    We question that mining groundwater for short-term private gain is what an informed public would like to do with precious groundwater stored in the desert. The fact that the decision is left to San Bernardino County indicates the broader need for clear state policy to manage groundwater resources and a revision of groundwater laws.

    John Bredehoeft, formerly with the U.S. Geological Survey, formed the Hydrodynamics Group, a Sausalito consulting firm.

    Newsha Ajami, a hydrologist specializing in sustainable water resource management, is a senior research associate at the Pacific Institute in Oakland.

  • Pubilshed: April 13, 2012
    Authors: John Bredehoeft, Newsha Ajami

    Plan to Tap Groundwater for Profit
    Shows Need for Better State Policy
    By John Bredehoeft and Newsha Ajami
    Op Ed in the Sacramento Bee
    April 13, 2012

    Imagine a lake half as large as Lake Tahoe, containing 17 million to 34 million acre-feet of water. That is what lies under the Cadiz and Bristol valleys in the Eastern Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County. Cadiz Inc., a privately held company, owns 34,000 acres that overlie this vast groundwater basin. The company plans to extract 2.5 million acre-feet of the water, a public good, over the next 50 years and sell it back to the public at a profit.

    This project raises several concerns, some of which are directly related to the project while others point to the need for a public debate and discussion about California’s groundwater laws.

    Here are some facts about the project: Cadiz is proposing to extract on average 50,000 acre-feet of groundwater from the basin each year for 50 years. The intended rate of extraction of groundwater is significantly greater than the estimated natural recharge rate (the speed that groundwater is refilled naturally by rain and snow) of 5,000-32,000 acre-feet a year, which will lead to unsustainable mining of groundwater during the life of the project. The groundwater will go into a 43-mile-long pipeline to transport it to the Colorado River Aqueduct, where it will be distributed to several water utilities in Southern California.

  • Reply to

    Power Access

    by ana_kin_skywalker May 9, 2014 10:48 AM
    tex7779 tex7779 May 13, 2014 5:24 AM Flag

    AKS:

    When was the Pacific Institute analysis that you refer to published.

    Can you provide a title so anyone can google it. Alternatively, provide a modified link - you know with changes that will have to be made to the URL since Yahoo does not let us provide links anymore.

  • This is a challenge to anyone and post your best guess as to when water will be flowing. Let's keep it simple and simply state the calendar quarter and year.

  • Reply to

    Power Access

    by ana_kin_skywalker May 9, 2014 10:48 AM
    tex7779 tex7779 May 12, 2014 5:36 AM Flag

    Again, Debbie you make me laugh - which in itself is an accomplishment for you.

    You wrote this - These guys would much rather make up what the company needs to do with pretend figures and imaginary timelines that of course if they were true, would make bringing on a project like this seem impossible.

    I just gave you a quote directly out of the company's EIR and you call these made up. Just to make sure that even you understand it, the company will have to get SCE get them the power to the site or they will have to build their own power station. That is simply too funny.

  • tex7779 tex7779 May 12, 2014 5:27 AM Flag

    Well, it looks like Yahoo omitted my main points, which were the following:

    There were over 120 trades in CDZI, of which 2 were at 1,000 shares each and one at 5,000, plus of course the one large trade of 150,000 shares. All of the remaining trades were for the most part 100 share trades but all under 400 shares.

    Thus, any natural or normal trade of 150,000 would cause a big swing up or down depending on whether the originating party was the seller or buyer. These are very basic mathematical principles, which you clearly cannot understand or choose to set aside.

  • Reply to

    Chromium-6

    by ana_kin_skywalker May 9, 2014 3:46 PM
    tex7779 tex7779 May 11, 2014 9:43 PM Flag

    xds:

    After reading the new public health standard that was published on April 14, 2014, it looks like the new standard is now 10 micro-gram / L. The Cadiz water level of 14 - 16 is pretty close.

    What is also clear now with the drought is that the TDS or total dissolved solids is now exceedingly high, which will cause many of the water treatment plants downstream to consume more soda ash and lime to clarify the water, that is to " soften " it so that it is fit for human consumption. Adding the Cadiz water will in fact help with MWD with their water quality by reducing the TDS. On that score the comingling of the Cadiz water with the MWD water in the CRA will be a win-win.

  • tex7779 tex7779 May 11, 2014 9:35 PM Flag

    Debbie:

    First of all, allow me to express my sincerest appreciation for the most enjoyable chuckle that I got out of your response.

    Let's see you claimed the following: it was a cross - between a natural buyer and seller

  • Here is a listing of the ten trades before and after. It is pretty clear that this was a pre-arranged deal. Question is; was the initiating party the seller or buyer. Since the stock traded downward after the trade, the logical conclusion is that it was a sell. In fact the stock kept trending downward the rest of the day.

    It seems that we might have to wait till mid August to find out who the seller / buyer was.

    14:43:38 $ 7.98   400
    14:43:38 $ 7.978  400
    14:43:28 $ 7.97   100
    14:43:28 $ 7.97  100
    14:43:28 $ 7.97   100
    14:43:28 $ 7.97  100
    14:43:28 $ 7.99   100

    14:32:47 $ 7.95  100
    14:31:07 $ 7.96   100
    14:31:07 $ 7.96  100
    14:27:29 $ 8   150,000

    14:22:11 $ 7.975  100
    14:22:11 $ 7.975   100
    14:21:52 $ 7.975  100
    14:21:52 $ 7.975   100
    14:21:49 $ 7.975  100
    14:21:27 $ 7.975   5,000
    14:17:24 $ 7.9999  500
    14:17:23 $ 7.98   100
    14:17:23 $ 7.9799  100
    14:17:23 $ 7.9799   100

  • Reply to

    Power Access

    by ana_kin_skywalker May 9, 2014 10:48 AM
    tex7779 tex7779 May 9, 2014 10:24 PM Flag

    Now, for Part II

    If electricity from the grid is used to power the Project, emissions would be generated at offsite
    power generation facilities, but no additional emissions would be generated on site within the
    Cadiz Valley. Offsite power would be generated by a wide network of power generating facilities
    that include fossil-fuel burning and renewable energy sources. Each generator is permitted to
    generate power under the CAA. If power from the grid is used, the proposed Project would add
    additional load to the grid, but the emissions associated with the additional power generation
    would be spread throughout the Western U.S., and would not result in significant air quality
    impacts or violations of the CAA.

    Clearly, the EIR makes a totally different statement than your Pacific Institute source.

    Bottom line; your quoted source is totally inconsequential and irrelevant. The only source that matters here is the Environmental Impact Report filed by the company in 2011, period. Everything else is garbage.

  • Reply to

    Power Access

    by ana_kin_skywalker May 9, 2014 10:48 AM
    tex7779 tex7779 May 9, 2014 10:20 PM Flag

    AKS:

    It might help you and others to consider that which the company, Cadiz, has stated in their EIR. Suggest you look at that document, Section 4.3 - then specifically page 4.3-13 and you will find the following - copied and pasted here.

    Part I here:

    Natural Gas to Power Pumps
    Depending on the wellfield configuration, there would be between approximately 22 and 34 wells
    in operation. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the wells would operate
    simultaneously 24-hours per day 365 days per year. The electric motors used to operate the wells
    would range from 1,000 to 1,250 hp using natural gas engines supplied by locally available
    natural gas. Two configurations may be used including installing engines at each wellhead, or
    constructing a centralized generator that supplies the entire wellfield with electricity. The
    MDAQMD requires permits to operate new internal combustion engines. Therefore, each natural
    gas engine would require a permit from MDAQMD prior to initiation of the Project.
    The amount of electrical energy required to operate the wellfield would be approximately
    30,800,000 kWh per year, and the amount necessary to power the intermediate pump station (if
    required) would be approximately 22,000,000 kWh per year, totaling 52,800,000 kWh per year,
    or 513 billion Btu per year.6 Table 4.3-6 shows the estimated emissions from natural gas engine
    operations. No emissions would exceed MDAQMD thresholds; therefore natural gas engine
    operational emissions would be less than significant.

  • Reply to

    more discussion

    by xds58 May 8, 2014 3:44 PM
    tex7779 tex7779 May 9, 2014 5:37 AM Flag

    The next major item to consider is getting electricity to the project site so that the water can be pumped from underground to the CRA.
    They will have to pay SCE to run a power line, which could cost $ 50 million or more, or they will build their own onsite generation plant.

    The SCE option will also take many years to get the new power lines processed through the legal system for ROW's and other challenges as they always come up when the power company wants to run new power lines.

    The on-site power plant will most likely take at least two years to get a permit from the California Energy Commission, CEC. Then, once permitted it will take them at least another two years to build the plant.

  • Reply to

    more discussion

    by xds58 May 8, 2014 3:44 PM
    tex7779 tex7779 May 9, 2014 5:25 AM Flag

    So totally true about MWD. The folks who run MWD and other reasonably minded individuals recall all to well the trouble that PG&E went through and made famous by that movie Erin Brokovitch ( sp? )

BDE
8.99+0.18(+2.04%)1:46 PMEDT