|
Seymour, IL | this alludes to the point I made above...what if the change produces no change (your comment that the producer would not have to pay back if accumulation does not follow model)
so if I have a field (or preferable replications) and the change does not cause an increase over baseline, or the change is not in keeping with expectations....what changes? Is it a problem of the model, the measure, or was the initial hypothesis flawed....hence the model the measure, etc. becomes a circular argument.
As I have said before if someone can figure out how to monetize this and it adds to their bottom line, great. I think part of the friction will come if the market does not respond as you suggest. I believe the European market is not trading at 'fair' or 'open' values but at a regulated value. Is that correct?
There is a true question of value....what something is 'worth' and what it is valued at....from my post to Joel Gruver...
Water is required for life. without it we will die. Absolutely critical, no question. On my motorcycle trips, I can buy a cold quart of water out of a sales case for about $1.50 on average.
Diamonds are pretty. We use them in jewelry. Other grades are used in industrial purposes. However, I do not think they are required to sustain life. I would not want to even envision the size of the check I would have to write for a quart container full of processed diamonds (even unprocessed diamonds are expensive)
so what we think is worth alot and what the market values are not always the same.....for lots of reasons.
why would it be any different for carbon?
have a great day
bryon | |
|
what if carbon does not collect as thought/intended?
