Post by
Wangotango67 on Jul 21, 2022 7:32pm
INERT CO2
Is the title sufficient ?
Tease.
Guess i'll have to explain.
Inert, Co2 is stable, intact, in a solid, not in a gas form, in a solid.
It's when humans disturb things like the earth crust, things alter, conversions begin.
We convert things in the natural ( nature ) to synthetics.
This is where things get dicy.
As most masses can convert from solid to liquid to gases.
Too much of one thing in a - conversion state - distrupts the eco cycle.
Take for instance, hydrocarebons.
Left inert, like oil sands, it remains intact, settled, nature dealt with it for years andhumans come along and distrupt the inert hydrocarbon.
We disturb the soils.
Causes run offs, ends up in water table.
Refined oils - converted to thinner oils, fuels = gases.
Once burned, in refineries, other chemicals added causing reaction even escaped gases or creating compound gases , or fuels burnedin engines = burnt carbon bearing gases can accumilate. Once accumilation occurs= saturations of too much of one thing develops.
Saturated gases do rise.
Hot gases all the more.
Which then mix with the airstreams
Which then increase the speeds of the jet streams and thus... alter the climate.
Moving air from one region into foriegn regions causing a disturbence in weather.
Hot gases can rise even futher into the atmosphere, all the way up to the ozone layer.
Ozone layer is comprised of, 3 oxygen molecule. ( 3 bond )
It's a special protective oxygen shell.
Keeping in our stable gases and also preventing solar radiation or, solar gases from enerting ;
Some solar radiation does enter and solar gases too.
If our gaseous eco system that becomes unbalanced.
Our air that we breath, oxygen and a wopping 78% nitrogen will affect humans.
As per co2 gases, it's not just gas from anamals, but also our lungs expel co2 and other gases
that are excreted from our blood ot our lungs. One only needs ot think of, some heart patients need their nitrogen gas levels checked - make sense ?
UPPER ATMOSPHERE
We then have hydrogen, helium, ozone, nitrogen in these upper atmospheres, along with other bombarding sililar gasesthat passthrough our magnetic field which the solar gases can also mix with the upper atmospheric gases.
Hydrocarn or sulphuric andchlorinated gases we produce on earth rise and do disturb the upper atmospheric gases thus causing an imbalance inthat gas ecosystem.
How do i feel about carbon ?
As mentioned, carbon in an inert phase ( solid ) is fine.
If converted to a gas, it's then how we manage this gas asnot otr interfere with the upper atmospheric gases.
Carbon gas is looked at as bad, but in some cases is good.
Take for instance, we use carbon gases in canned foods.
It's properties have unique qualities that imobilize bacterias.
Hence - the prevention of, foods going bad and also acts as a preservative.
As mention in previous post,
i feel we have a monoxide problem more than a, carbon co2 problem.
Which as most know is caused from the burning of fuels.
Our issues ppintsto inadequete conversions of the co2 or monoxide ( single carbon / oxygen )
with proper diluters or separators of the gas in which captures the carbon and releases the oxygen.
I could elbaorate more on carbons... but i'll refrain.
Involvdes trade secrets.
lol
To touch the topic of, sulphur.
We are experiencing issues with the grreat lakes.
The solubity of silica isincreasing in the great lakes.
one only needs to pair the numerous manufacturers around the great lakes and the use of sulphuric acids to know where the culprit lies.
Some say, silica is good for the body, while others say, silica cannot be processed.
Many health forums promote injestable silica suggesting the silica has many attribute that benifit the body.
Like any substance...
Too much of one thing in one area alters the ecosystem.
Hnece in mining, dilution of that disturbed substance must be diluted to managable ppm's.
otherwise it distrubts nature.
Chlorides are natures own - cleansers.
Hnece... the use of chlorides bonded with fertilizers are perhaps the best for agricultural.
Many forget... that clays harbor numerous minerals with in.
And are the best soils for the agricultural industry.
Using limes breaks up the clay plasicity which enables the plants to grow their roots lrger.
Clays that are too tight, prevent root growth.
Clayswith to omuch limes burn the roots.
Hnece the proper management ofthe soils are imperitive.
I'm sure others have noticed that all farm lands lie in regions with clay belts.
Former ocean beds.
Like Hollad, they actually expanded into ocean water to increasetheir farming lands .
Yes... it's actually possible.
So that's my take on, solids, liquids and gases.
Hope i've answered your question on, co2.
At one time i tohught the climate change was all, HS.
I have since changed my stance.
One only needs to probe the depths of the science behind it to fully understand it.
What i don't agree with is, the passing the buck on humans as a causative versu industry that created the imbalance. Had we took that left turn instead of right... long ago.
And introduced hydrogen cars and electric at the turn of hte century... we'd be in a different place now as a collective - on this earth. Own opinion.
Cheers....
Now... my thoughts on this fertilizer idea ?
Yes... given it some more thought, i think it would be the easiest path for this junior.
Their deposit has remarkable percentages of hte magnesium, calcium, iron, aluminum.
I asked myself one question...
How much could they save if they didn't run the calcination model ?
kept the calcium in the mixas part of hte fertilizer andconverted all of it to - Mg Cl.with bonus calcium ? Blended mix.
Driftwood has been sitting for years...
I'd like ot see it deliver profits for shareholders .
Too many excuses over the years,
which act as a deterent and keeps shareholders from profiting.
If others don't know... UN announced in 2019 to initiate thier Agenda 2030.
Just theother day... UN came forth and expressed they'll accellerate their 2030 Agenda.
Now i have a few issues with this.
In terms of... shareholders being rewarded with green mineral assests that appear to be in competition with, Gov'ts, First Nations, UN, and executive orders and emergency acts, critical minerals act or bills, along with stakeholders that most certainly are moving at a fast pace - seking out these valuable assets. And i ask.. .where do shareholders fit in ?
Sitting too long... halted too long...
Keeps the odds in the favor of the entities - afrementioned.
I feel many valued mineral projects are sitting far too idle leaving shareholders at a diss.
I would like to see Jared come forth and express his intentions on the Driftwood Mg deposit.
I would also like to see a validation in the financials od the Driftwood being in the ownership of MGX minerals in a value of, claims block identity. When i think of, Utah, Arkansas, and other projects suddenly go poof - and the knowing each had incredible value in hydrogen gases, and other minerals beyond lithium, points my compass to wanting to know all the more about driftwood. I'm not parital to the solar industry knowing Canadian Solar has pret near the whole Canadian Market control with ties to China. I can't see a success, if the silicon didn't feed Canadian Solar.
As for the magnesium projects in Canada ?
Hmmm.... each are experiencing unusal behavior.
Why resource gone silent, and as for Western they;re wrapped up stateside.
MGX has held off on driftwood for far too long.
I think it's only right we shareholders are given solid answers - too much down time.
Which may point to, higher up managers of the resources at Gov't levels not knowing what to do, and maybe bowing to foreign managers at a global level that seem to have looked after the gas industiresin Canada ( hydrogen ) and forgotten about the hard rock mineral sector. I see opportunity of magnesium as a fertilizer, especially with the advent of, nitrogen fertilizer reductions are being implemented. It would be an easy transition, easy conversion, something a Canadian miner could handle -
My own policy and ethics ?
When juniors don't pick up the phones...
Something's up.
That something could be not in favor of, or... in favor of shareholders.
The way the world is being run with critical minerals... i don't like the odds.
Shareholders need more answers.