The Us dept of commerce with global energy institute an affiliate :rotate: with it's president Marty Durbin was in ABQ today siting how fracking is the future for NM saying if we don't continue it it's a loss of 100k+ jobs and over 86B loss over the next 5 years
Mining is not a good indicator of a stable economy. Oil and gas futures this state relies on will only end in tears. I really feel they need to find different avenues of income for the future.
I'm doing research on the economic development prospects of wind farms as a substitute for fracking in rural west Texas (and conceivably New Mexico too depending on wind conditions there). It would take more wind turbines than a single fracking rig, but at least then it's sustainable both for the environment and the economy (you don't extract anything ya just sit there and generate that sweet sweet land rent).
Also wind turbines don’t take water out of the ecosystem
I’m guessing there is speculation on power generated by turbines though
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Never trust pro-fracking figures. They are always inflating the amount of jobs created and the money invested while also neglecting to mention the cost to the public for infrastructure upgrades. None of the rural communities that fracking attracts have the roads or facilities to support the huge influx in truck and heavy machinery traffic not to mention the inevitable added public cost when contractors get caught illegally dumping their waste chemicals which happens quite often.
Never trust pro-fracking figures. They are always inflating the amount of jobs created and the money invested while also neglecting to mention the cost to the public for infrastructure upgrades. None of the rural communities that fracking attracts have the roads or facilities to support the huge influx in truck and heavy machinery traffic not to mention the inevitable added public cost when contractors get caught illegally dumping their waste chemicals which happens quite often.
Fracking is also not a long-term affair, so what happens is hundreds of workers turn up, overburden local services and housing, drink like fishes, cause trouble, then vanish 4 years later leaving the town with the hangover. Local politicians and people tend to invest like the fracking will be there for decades so they do things like build houses, bars, gyms and cinemas for the workers then when they disappear, everyone goes bankrupt.
Never trust pro-fracking figures. They are always inflating the amount of jobs created and the money invested while also neglecting to mention the cost to the public for infrastructure upgrades. None of the rural communities that fracking attracts have the roads or facilities to support the huge influx in truck and heavy machinery traffic not to mention the inevitable added public cost when contractors get caught illegally dumping their waste chemicals which happens quite often.
Fracking is also not a long-term affair, so what happens is hundreds of workers turn up, overburden local services and housing, drink like fishes, cause trouble, then vanish 4 years later leaving the town with the hangover. Local politicians and people tend to invest like the fracking will be there for decades so they do things like build houses, bars, gyms and cinemas for the workers then when they disappear, everyone goes bankrupt.
Not so cut and dry as you put it; depending on the well and given the nature of fracking, you could very well continue to pop holes in the shale for more than 4 years and have it continue to be productive.
I agree that NM is making a terrible mistake in relying it as a sole source of future growth and development.
Yeah, really wish there was something on the books to force people to have to admit that extraction based economies are of a finite benefit and I want to say most are very short lived. I'd have to do some research, but I suspect tech has rendered some of the longer lived ones, which IIRC only lasted a few decks, even shorter lived. Essentially, these industries only give you a temporary boost and it's not a boost that comes free either. You need infrastructure that can withstand the stresses that heavy machinery brings, which isn't cheap. You also need to improve infrastructure to accommodate all those people: schools for the new kids. Hospitals; especially, since these tend to be dirty industries. Police services, not to paint everyone that works in these industries with a broad brush, but they do tend to have an issue of being stocked with people that have the toxic masculinity mindset and are thus more likely to get into trouble and a fair number of them are still fucking awful to work, so that tends to cause it's own issues even if a ton of the people working it aren't macho assholes. That's a fuckton of shit to invest in that might go to waste in less than a decade because everything worth extracting has been extract or with some of these, needs change to render it pointless to commit to further extraction (we already see this happening with goal and last I checked, we are getting closer at perfecting battery tech, which is going to do a number on both oil and gas).
Hell, I feel like the latest push with many fossil fuel projects is anything but "it's a good investment for the community," and more of a cash grab before technology and shifts in public opinion result in them no longer being able to make gobs of money off of it. Usually, when scummy people are doing that. The least of your worries are going to quickly shift from having to deal with a massive local economic crash and having to clean up all the other illegal shit those companies get up to because it's more of smash and grab deal than a just a cash grab. So chances are pretty good, you'll have hazardous chemical dump all over the place because proper disposal was deemed inconvenient because it might reduce profits.
Oil is at a small peak price of 58 dollars right now. Last time I was around Oil industry engineers they were telling me that the real price point of profitability for fracking was 70 dollars per barrel. I wonder what has changed in the last 8 years to have made that different now.
NM shale oil must be easy to process because otherwise I would not expect it to be profitable.
Even when mining economies last decades they do eventually vanish, leading to problems like in West Virginia where many mature but remote communities are collapsing in despair after the bottom fell out of coal mining.
I'd say a sizable chunk of rural America's issues come down to the fact that a fair number of small towns were built around exploitable resources underground and now that all of those resources have been depleted either entirely or to the point of not be worth extracting. Those locales are now quickly withering because there is literally nothing to support them. People that need jobs are just going to go elsewhere if they can. As we've seen numerous times, many of the locals are outright hostile tot he idea of bringing in new industries because they want to go back to the way things were, which isn't going to happen. They also get really pissy when some suggests that perhaps the whole area should be shut down and the remaining people move elsewhere because they refuse to accept that their town wasn't really viable and only really existed to allow for a company to more easily and cheaply exploit a resources before moving on.
I'd say a sizable chunk of rural America's issues come down to the fact that a fair number of small towns were built around exploitable resources underground and now that all of those resources have been depleted either entirely or to the point of not be worth extracting. Those locales are now quickly withering because there is literally nothing to support them. People that need jobs are just going to go elsewhere if they can. As we've seen numerous times, many of the locals are outright hostile tot he idea of bringing in new industries because they want to go back to the way things were, which isn't going to happen. They also get really pissy when some suggests that perhaps the whole area should be shut down and the remaining people move elsewhere because they refuse to accept that their town wasn't really viable and only really existed to allow for a company to more easily and cheaply exploit a resources before moving on.
Rural communities in America were traditionally based around three industries - extraction, agriculture, and low-wage manufacturing. Manufacturing has moved abroad, agriculture is becoming both more international and more corporate (turning farms into low-wage factories), and extraction is location and resource dependent and often so environmentally devastating that they make the community too toxic to attract new industries and talent.
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
Never trust pro-fracking figures. They are always inflating the amount of jobs created and the money invested while also neglecting to mention the cost to the public for infrastructure upgrades. None of the rural communities that fracking attracts have the roads or facilities to support the huge influx in truck and heavy machinery traffic not to mention the inevitable added public cost when contractors get caught illegally dumping their waste chemicals which happens quite often.
Fracking is also not a long-term affair, so what happens is hundreds of workers turn up, overburden local services and housing, drink like fishes, cause trouble, then vanish 4 years later leaving the town with the hangover. Local politicians and people tend to invest like the fracking will be there for decades so they do things like build houses, bars, gyms and cinemas for the workers then when they disappear, everyone goes bankrupt.
Not so cut and dry as you put it; depending on the well and given the nature of fracking, you could very well continue to pop holes in the shale for more than 4 years and have it continue to be productive.
I agree that NM is making a terrible mistake in relying it as a sole source of future growth and development.
Even if the source is longer-term the amount of supposed jobs created includes construction and other contracted crews that won't be there once the required infrastructure for a well pad is operational. My dad lives on fracked land in Southeast Ohio and though their well still produces right now the nearest town still doesn't have a grocery store anymore.
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
That's not what 100 year flood means.
There's a lot of 100 year flood areas that have flooded a few times in recent years, rather than the once a century event it should be.
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
That's not what 100 year flood means.
There's a lot of 100 year flood areas that have flooded a few times in recent years, rather than the once a century event it should be.
Again, 100 year flood does not mean an event that only occurs once a century. It means there is a 1% chance it will happen any given year. That can happen every year for a decade if the dice roll up wrong.
Yeah, really wish there was something on the books to force people to have to admit that extraction based economies are of a finite benefit and I want to say most are very short lived. I'd have to do some research, but I suspect tech has rendered some of the longer lived ones, which IIRC only lasted a few decks, even shorter lived. Essentially, these industries only give you a temporary boost and it's not a boost that comes free either. You need infrastructure that can withstand the stresses that heavy machinery brings, which isn't cheap. You also need to improve infrastructure to accommodate all those people: schools for the new kids. Hospitals; especially, since these tend to be dirty industries. Police services, not to paint everyone that works in these industries with a broad brush, but they do tend to have an issue of being stocked with people that have the toxic masculinity mindset and are thus more likely to get into trouble and a fair number of them are still fucking awful to work, so that tends to cause it's own issues even if a ton of the people working it aren't macho assholes. That's a fuckton of shit to invest in that might go to waste in less than a decade because everything worth extracting has been extract or with some of these, needs change to render it pointless to commit to further extraction (we already see this happening with goal and last I checked, we are getting closer at perfecting battery tech, which is going to do a number on both oil and gas).
Hell, I feel like the latest push with many fossil fuel projects is anything but "it's a good investment for the community," and more of a cash grab before technology and shifts in public opinion result in them no longer being able to make gobs of money off of it. Usually, when scummy people are doing that. The least of your worries are going to quickly shift from having to deal with a massive local economic crash and having to clean up all the other illegal shit those companies get up to because it's more of smash and grab deal than a just a cash grab. So chances are pretty good, you'll have hazardous chemical dump all over the place because proper disposal was deemed inconvenient because it might reduce profits.
They are really doubling down on the infrastructure for the southern part of the state because of the oil/gas production as overburdened what in place. the argument is the 85M bonus the state got from it should mostly go to the area to upgrade it. They are pushing for teachers to come [in general I did post in the SE++ job thread about my awkward conversation with Kelly services because they were contracted to look for teachers for ABQ} as teachers are fleeing the state and getting ones to come is for naught. I have said it the coming recession is basically a nut punch for NM they will not recover from. They squeaked by to barely recovered from the housing crisis 10 years ago.
Or if something, can't imagine what, has recently swapped out the old set of dice for a new pair...
Yes, data needs to be updated constantly for shifting rainfall patterns. Even with that, an updated 100 year floodplain will flood more frequently than once a century. Because math.
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
That's not what 100 year flood means.
There's a lot of 100 year flood areas that have flooded a few times in recent years, rather than the once a century event it should be.
Again, 100 year flood does not mean an event that only occurs once a century. It means there is a 1% chance it will happen any given year. That can happen every year for a decade if the dice roll up wrong.
Yeah, that's why I said obviously not that lax - I realize it can happen, but using proper statistical modeling to be able to detect the situation of "okay, this thing shouldn't be happening as frequently as it is, things are getting worse, this will continue to happen and we should buy them out instead of paying out every year" sort of thing. I was more mentioning the concept.
But anyway, I probably shouldn't have had the idle thought in here, it's not really applicable to the topic at hand.
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
That's not what 100 year flood means.
There's a lot of 100 year flood areas that have flooded a few times in recent years, rather than the once a century event it should be.
Again, 100 year flood does not mean an event that only occurs once a century. It means there is a 1% chance it will happen any given year. That can happen every year for a decade if the dice roll up wrong.
It is highly unlikely to do that though. Roll a 1% event a hundred times, about a third of the time you won't see it, a third of the time you see it once and a third of the time you get it more than once but occurring say >5 times much less in a row is absurdly rare
Now, floods aren't exactly independent variables and are probably more likely to reoccur in years following a flood, but if you see 10 such events in a row it's highly unlikely to actually be anywhere near 1% chance
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
That's not what 100 year flood means.
There's a lot of 100 year flood areas that have flooded a few times in recent years, rather than the once a century event it should be.
Again, 100 year flood does not mean an event that only occurs once a century. It means there is a 1% chance it will happen any given year. That can happen every year for a decade if the dice roll up wrong.
It is highly unlikely to do that though. Roll a 1% event a hundred times, about a third of the time you won't see it, a third of the time you see it once and a third of the time you get it more than once but occurring say >5 times much less in a row is absurdly rare
Now, floods aren't exactly independent variables and are probably more likely to reoccur in years following a flood, but if you see 10 such events in a row it's highly unlikely to actually be anywhere near 1% chance
There are a lot of floodplains though, and they are nationally televised.
Or if something, can't imagine what, has recently swapped out the old set of dice for a new pair...
Yes, data needs to be updated constantly for shifting rainfall patterns. Even with that, an updated 100 year floodplain will flood more frequently than once a century. Because math.
I'd say a sizable chunk of rural America's issues come down to the fact that a fair number of small towns were built around exploitable resources underground and now that all of those resources have been depleted either entirely or to the point of not be worth extracting. Those locales are now quickly withering because there is literally nothing to support them. People that need jobs are just going to go elsewhere if they can. As we've seen numerous times, many of the locals are outright hostile tot he idea of bringing in new industries because they want to go back to the way things were, which isn't going to happen. They also get really pissy when some suggests that perhaps the whole area should be shut down and the remaining people move elsewhere because they refuse to accept that their town wasn't really viable and only really existed to allow for a company to more easily and cheaply exploit a resources before moving on.
Rural communities in America were traditionally based around three industries - extraction, agriculture, and low-wage manufacturing. Manufacturing has moved abroad, agriculture is becoming both more international and more corporate (turning farms into low-wage factories), and extraction is location and resource dependent and often so environmentally devastating that they make the community too toxic to attract new industries and talent.
Manufacturing was traditionally done close to cities. You had to move materials around anyway and cities, the big transportation hubs, were where everything was going anyway. Thus factories tended to be just on the edge of cities(to balance between land costs and resource availability) and near ports/river junctions.
Industrialization saw huge numbers of people move into the cities as a result of the manufacturing jobs there. This did not reverse during the boom times and has only slightly reversed recently now that cities are expanding past their old borders. Land on the edge of cities is more expensive and transportation is cheaper.
Rural production has always been farming or extraction. Not manufacturing*
*you would get intermediate good production on the way in. Between the port and the extraction source. Since refining et al had to be done it might as well be done on the way in. These places die when the resources that supply them die. This is also why refineries are built near ports on the back side of the supply chain rather than between ports and fields on the front side even if you could more efficiently distribute product by refining close to the source the refinery could not last much longer than the field, making it less efficient in total.
It's neglected. It works on the theory of the rain goes to the storm drain to the ditches/arroyos to the river or retention ponds. It's neglected as there are trees/plants growing in the drains/ the retention pond near my house as a grove of cottonwood that is huge It also has tree like sage brush.
This is the cistern as I call it near my house
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
That's not what 100 year flood means.
There's a lot of 100 year flood areas that have flooded a few times in recent years, rather than the once a century event it should be.
Again, 100 year flood does not mean an event that only occurs once a century. It means there is a 1% chance it will happen any given year. That can happen every year for a decade if the dice roll up wrong.
Yeah, so for multiple areas to flood repeatedly over several years probably means something has changed in the underlying maths. Chance a 100 year flood happens three times in five years - almost a million to one? That that happens more than once? Something has changed and yours maths is now wrong - sure there is a chance that it was all random, but if we're talking these kind of long odds chances are more likely you've just got bad data (or outdated) or your models aren't correct. I don't think anyone here was thinking that this was some 'Old Faithful' type occurrence.
But what should that 100 year flood area now be regraded as? And how long before you downgrade it (knowing with a changing climate, your downgrade is also going to be out of date if just based on past data)?
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
That's not what 100 year flood means.
There's a lot of 100 year flood areas that have flooded a few times in recent years, rather than the once a century event it should be.
Again, 100 year flood does not mean an event that only occurs once a century. It means there is a 1% chance it will happen any given year. That can happen every year for a decade if the dice roll up wrong.
Yeah, so for multiple areas to flood repeatedly over several years probably means something has changed in the underlying maths. Chance a 100 year flood happens three times in five years - almost a million to one?
No, it's still 1% for each year. If I flip a quarter and it comes up heads 3 times out of 5 that doesn't make it any less likely to show tails on the 6th. It's still 50/50.
That the data for river flow and precipitation rates need to be updated and redraw the boundaries for floodplains is true, since future performance will diverge from past thanks to climate change. However that doesn't make the 100 year floodplain more prone to flooding, it just makes it cover a different area that was previously considered safer and shrinks the area that was previously a 500 year flood or increases the 50 year floodplain or what have you.
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
That's not what 100 year flood means.
There's a lot of 100 year flood areas that have flooded a few times in recent years, rather than the once a century event it should be.
Again, 100 year flood does not mean an event that only occurs once a century. It means there is a 1% chance it will happen any given year. That can happen every year for a decade if the dice roll up wrong.
Yeah, so for multiple areas to flood repeatedly over several years probably means something has changed in the underlying maths. Chance a 100 year flood happens three times in five years - almost a million to one?
No, it's still 1% for each year. If I flip a quarter and it comes up heads 3 times out of 5 that doesn't make it any less likely to show tails on the 6th. It's still 50/50.
That the data for river flow and precipitation rates need to be updated and redraw the boundaries for floodplains is true, since future performance will diverge from past thanks to climate change. However that doesn't make the 100 year floodplain more prone to flooding, it just makes it cover a different area that was previously considered safer and shrinks the area that was previously a 500 year flood or increases the 50 year floodplain or what have you.
If there's apparently a 1% chance each year, and you hit the 'jackpot' 3 goes out of 5. The chance of these events happening in this time frame is 1 in million.
If it were a game of chance, then yes - we'd probably look to see how often this is happening elsewhere and think of it as being like the lottery - I am unlikely to win, but that doesn't mean someone isn't likely to win.
But if people keep winning lotteries, repeatedly, across the globe...your first thought has to be "they've fucked up the odds, or someone is cheating" rather than "how lucky am I, to be on the planet among millions that holds lotteries and for our number to come up". It's not like this is occurring in a vacuum, areas are consistently receiving more rain than usual, large amounts of building work can make flooding worse by worsening drainage and the original estimate was made with fairly patchy data!
The bit you're missing is that you've assumed it's a quarter, when it might be a weighted coin or even a double headed one. If your model isn't working, chances are it's the model that is wrong rather than a freak event for the exact same reason you suggest. I expect 1 in 100 areas to flood with a 100 year flood every year - if 10 do in one year, or even 1 single one does every year for ten years, my model is more likely to be wrong than it just being a quirk of probability.
There's a part of me which has idly wondered whether it might be reasonable to roll, say, the Superfund stuff, the national flood insurance, and a new program together into the Department of Reclamation, whose purpose is effectively to "return areas to natural state." Superfund inclusion is self-evident. Flood insurance would introduce a rolling period where, dictated by historical trend (ie, if it's in a 100-year floodplain and it floods 3 times within a 10 year period or something....obviously not that lax, but you get the idea), where insurance would pay out normally, then pay a reduced amount and offer over-market price to purchase, followed by automatic eminent domain of the property, whereupon the property would be restored back to its natural state as best as able (plants, etc) to act as a flood barrier. New program would be effectively the same thing, but for the rural towns which are dying - a lot of the rural issues when it comes to those areas is that since no one wants to move there, much of the wealth of the families is locked up in real estate they can't sell. This would enable them to get that value in liquid form, and the government could actually dismantle the structures and restore them instead of letting the shells of homes rot away.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
That's not what 100 year flood means.
There's a lot of 100 year flood areas that have flooded a few times in recent years, rather than the once a century event it should be.
Again, 100 year flood does not mean an event that only occurs once a century. It means there is a 1% chance it will happen any given year. That can happen every year for a decade if the dice roll up wrong.
Yeah, so for multiple areas to flood repeatedly over several years probably means something has changed in the underlying maths. Chance a 100 year flood happens three times in five years - almost a million to one?
No, it's still 1% for each year. If I flip a quarter and it comes up heads 3 times out of 5 that doesn't make it any less likely to show tails on the 6th. It's still 50/50.
That the data for river flow and precipitation rates need to be updated and redraw the boundaries for floodplains is true, since future performance will diverge from past thanks to climate change. However that doesn't make the 100 year floodplain more prone to flooding, it just makes it cover a different area that was previously considered safer and shrinks the area that was previously a 500 year flood or increases the 50 year floodplain or what have you.
Except that it's probably not actually 1% we just thought it was 1%. "100 year flood" doesn't mean shit other than that's what we expected to approximate the chances
If you flip a coin 100 times and you get 90 heads, while it's theoretically possible for it to be a fair coin it's so much more likely to be an unfair coin
Nickelsburg noted that the state is still seeing weakness in housing production, and he anticipates a bump in the unemployment rate by the end of 2020 and beginning of 2021, calling it “a consequence of the slower growth during this period.”
“It is followed by a rebound in economic growth and hiring in 2021,” he wrote. “For the entire years 2020 and 2021 we expect average unemployment rates of 4.3% and 4.6%, respectively.”
He predicted employment growth rates of 0.9% and 1.3% in the coming two years.
On mobile, sorry, but jobs report was real good today.
Still coasting on the Obama economy, waiting for the bottom to fall out on the Trump economy.
At the risk of being a heretic, the Republicans must be doing something effective. It's been 3 years now. Everyone thought they'd crash the economy by now. But we have to look at the world like rational people and accept when things don't fit our mental model. The rich guy tax cuts did seem to boost the economy and employment.
On mobile, sorry, but jobs report was real good today.
Still coasting on the Obama economy, waiting for the bottom to fall out on the Trump economy.
At the risk of being a heretic, the Republicans must be doing something effective. It's been 3 years now. Everyone thought they'd crash the economy by now. But we have to look at the world like rational people and accept when things don't fit our mental model. The rich guy tax cuts did seem to boost the economy and employment.
The economy swings at the whims of the rich I wonder why it doesn't collapse while their guy is in supreme control.
On mobile, sorry, but jobs report was real good today.
Still coasting on the Obama economy, waiting for the bottom to fall out on the Trump economy.
At the risk of being a heretic, the Republicans must be doing something effective. It's been 3 years now. Everyone thought they'd crash the economy by now. But we have to look at the world like rational people and accept when things don't fit our mental model. The rich guy tax cuts did seem to boost the economy and employment.
Except the trend lines for both weakened since 2017. Not so much as to actually contract, but not accelerating. Which is what should happen when an economy reaches full employment. The lack of inflationary pressure also points to underlying problems that aren't visible in headline rates, which is also worrying.
And I'm still expecting the bottom to fall out, more or less, because expansions eventually end. We are in the longest one on record, currently. Which means the end of it is likely closer than it is further away. I would feel the same under President Clinton, because we seem to typically have a business cycle that lasts ~a decade or less and we're just pushing past that.
Posts
Won't somebody think of the profits?
/s
I'm doing research on the economic development prospects of wind farms as a substitute for fracking in rural west Texas (and conceivably New Mexico too depending on wind conditions there). It would take more wind turbines than a single fracking rig, but at least then it's sustainable both for the environment and the economy (you don't extract anything ya just sit there and generate that sweet sweet land rent).
I’m guessing there is speculation on power generated by turbines though
Fracking is also not a long-term affair, so what happens is hundreds of workers turn up, overburden local services and housing, drink like fishes, cause trouble, then vanish 4 years later leaving the town with the hangover. Local politicians and people tend to invest like the fracking will be there for decades so they do things like build houses, bars, gyms and cinemas for the workers then when they disappear, everyone goes bankrupt.
Not so cut and dry as you put it; depending on the well and given the nature of fracking, you could very well continue to pop holes in the shale for more than 4 years and have it continue to be productive.
I agree that NM is making a terrible mistake in relying it as a sole source of future growth and development.
Hell, I feel like the latest push with many fossil fuel projects is anything but "it's a good investment for the community," and more of a cash grab before technology and shifts in public opinion result in them no longer being able to make gobs of money off of it. Usually, when scummy people are doing that. The least of your worries are going to quickly shift from having to deal with a massive local economic crash and having to clean up all the other illegal shit those companies get up to because it's more of smash and grab deal than a just a cash grab. So chances are pretty good, you'll have hazardous chemical dump all over the place because proper disposal was deemed inconvenient because it might reduce profits.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
NM shale oil must be easy to process because otherwise I would not expect it to be profitable.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Rural communities in America were traditionally based around three industries - extraction, agriculture, and low-wage manufacturing. Manufacturing has moved abroad, agriculture is becoming both more international and more corporate (turning farms into low-wage factories), and extraction is location and resource dependent and often so environmentally devastating that they make the community too toxic to attract new industries and talent.
Of course, if successful, it would only accelerate the deaths of said towns as some people take it up, and would exacerbate the property cost problems in cities, so it's not perfect. But I feel like the idea has some degree of merit worth exploring.
Even if the source is longer-term the amount of supposed jobs created includes construction and other contracted crews that won't be there once the required infrastructure for a well pad is operational. My dad lives on fracked land in Southeast Ohio and though their well still produces right now the nearest town still doesn't have a grocery store anymore.
That's not what 100 year flood means.
There's a lot of 100 year flood areas that have flooded a few times in recent years, rather than the once a century event it should be.
Again, 100 year flood does not mean an event that only occurs once a century. It means there is a 1% chance it will happen any given year. That can happen every year for a decade if the dice roll up wrong.
They are really doubling down on the infrastructure for the southern part of the state because of the oil/gas production as overburdened what in place. the argument is the 85M bonus the state got from it should mostly go to the area to upgrade it. They are pushing for teachers to come [in general I did post in the SE++ job thread about my awkward conversation with Kelly services because they were contracted to look for teachers for ABQ} as teachers are fleeing the state and getting ones to come is for naught. I have said it the coming recession is basically a nut punch for NM they will not recover from. They squeaked by to barely recovered from the housing crisis 10 years ago.
Yes, data needs to be updated constantly for shifting rainfall patterns. Even with that, an updated 100 year floodplain will flood more frequently than once a century. Because math.
Yeah, that's why I said obviously not that lax - I realize it can happen, but using proper statistical modeling to be able to detect the situation of "okay, this thing shouldn't be happening as frequently as it is, things are getting worse, this will continue to happen and we should buy them out instead of paying out every year" sort of thing. I was more mentioning the concept.
But anyway, I probably shouldn't have had the idle thought in here, it's not really applicable to the topic at hand.
It is highly unlikely to do that though. Roll a 1% event a hundred times, about a third of the time you won't see it, a third of the time you see it once and a third of the time you get it more than once but occurring say >5 times much less in a row is absurdly rare
Now, floods aren't exactly independent variables and are probably more likely to reoccur in years following a flood, but if you see 10 such events in a row it's highly unlikely to actually be anywhere near 1% chance
There are a lot of floodplains though, and they are nationally televised.
Where is this math when rolling for loot amirite
Manufacturing was traditionally done close to cities. You had to move materials around anyway and cities, the big transportation hubs, were where everything was going anyway. Thus factories tended to be just on the edge of cities(to balance between land costs and resource availability) and near ports/river junctions.
Industrialization saw huge numbers of people move into the cities as a result of the manufacturing jobs there. This did not reverse during the boom times and has only slightly reversed recently now that cities are expanding past their old borders. Land on the edge of cities is more expensive and transportation is cheaper.
Rural production has always been farming or extraction. Not manufacturing*
*you would get intermediate good production on the way in. Between the port and the extraction source. Since refining et al had to be done it might as well be done on the way in. These places die when the resources that supply them die. This is also why refineries are built near ports on the back side of the supply chain rather than between ports and fields on the front side even if you could more efficiently distribute product by refining close to the source the refinery could not last much longer than the field, making it less efficient in total.
Do... do you guys not have drains?
Edit: I guess you do:
https://www.cabq.gov/municipaldevelopment/our-department/street-and-storm-maintenance
It's neglected. It works on the theory of the rain goes to the storm drain to the ditches/arroyos to the river or retention ponds. It's neglected as there are trees/plants growing in the drains/ the retention pond near my house as a grove of cottonwood that is huge It also has tree like sage brush.
This is the cistern as I call it near my house
Yeah, so for multiple areas to flood repeatedly over several years probably means something has changed in the underlying maths. Chance a 100 year flood happens three times in five years - almost a million to one? That that happens more than once? Something has changed and yours maths is now wrong - sure there is a chance that it was all random, but if we're talking these kind of long odds chances are more likely you've just got bad data (or outdated) or your models aren't correct. I don't think anyone here was thinking that this was some 'Old Faithful' type occurrence.
But what should that 100 year flood area now be regraded as? And how long before you downgrade it (knowing with a changing climate, your downgrade is also going to be out of date if just based on past data)?
No, it's still 1% for each year. If I flip a quarter and it comes up heads 3 times out of 5 that doesn't make it any less likely to show tails on the 6th. It's still 50/50.
That the data for river flow and precipitation rates need to be updated and redraw the boundaries for floodplains is true, since future performance will diverge from past thanks to climate change. However that doesn't make the 100 year floodplain more prone to flooding, it just makes it cover a different area that was previously considered safer and shrinks the area that was previously a 500 year flood or increases the 50 year floodplain or what have you.
If there's apparently a 1% chance each year, and you hit the 'jackpot' 3 goes out of 5. The chance of these events happening in this time frame is 1 in million.
If it were a game of chance, then yes - we'd probably look to see how often this is happening elsewhere and think of it as being like the lottery - I am unlikely to win, but that doesn't mean someone isn't likely to win.
But if people keep winning lotteries, repeatedly, across the globe...your first thought has to be "they've fucked up the odds, or someone is cheating" rather than "how lucky am I, to be on the planet among millions that holds lotteries and for our number to come up". It's not like this is occurring in a vacuum, areas are consistently receiving more rain than usual, large amounts of building work can make flooding worse by worsening drainage and the original estimate was made with fairly patchy data!
The bit you're missing is that you've assumed it's a quarter, when it might be a weighted coin or even a double headed one. If your model isn't working, chances are it's the model that is wrong rather than a freak event for the exact same reason you suggest. I expect 1 in 100 areas to flood with a 100 year flood every year - if 10 do in one year, or even 1 single one does every year for ten years, my model is more likely to be wrong than it just being a quirk of probability.
Except that it's probably not actually 1% we just thought it was 1%. "100 year flood" doesn't mean shit other than that's what we expected to approximate the chances
If you flip a coin 100 times and you get 90 heads, while it's theoretically possible for it to be a fair coin it's so much more likely to be an unfair coin
https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2019/12/04/ucla-forecast-u-s-economy-slowing-but-outlook-for-california-remains-positive/
Still coasting on the Obama economy, waiting for the bottom to fall out on the Trump economy.
At the risk of being a heretic, the Republicans must be doing something effective. It's been 3 years now. Everyone thought they'd crash the economy by now. But we have to look at the world like rational people and accept when things don't fit our mental model. The rich guy tax cuts did seem to boost the economy and employment.
They’re fucking vanity metrics, the real things that matter are how all of us are doing
The economy swings at the whims of the rich I wonder why it doesn't collapse while their guy is in supreme control.
I only know one person who wants a job and can't get it. So middle class techies are doing well.
The poor are pretty screwed, as the Republicans are taking a hatchet to any remaining welfare, particularly healthcare.
Except the trend lines for both weakened since 2017. Not so much as to actually contract, but not accelerating. Which is what should happen when an economy reaches full employment. The lack of inflationary pressure also points to underlying problems that aren't visible in headline rates, which is also worrying.
And I'm still expecting the bottom to fall out, more or less, because expansions eventually end. We are in the longest one on record, currently. Which means the end of it is likely closer than it is further away. I would feel the same under President Clinton, because we seem to typically have a business cycle that lasts ~a decade or less and we're just pushing past that.