Jump to content

Mighty fine

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mighty fine

  1. Man, I posted my last response before reading your follow up.

    Note, I have not studied this in great detail, so a lot of what I'm saying is based on my judgment and general knowledge of the topography.

    Depending on how fast lake travis drops after Mansfield fails, yes, it could conceivably reach that high.

  2. LLs post got me to thinking about what may happen if Mansfield did go. I imagine the flow regime goes subcritical to super critical through the busted dam, then a hydraulic jump downstream before the foodways narrows at the cliffs and then subcritical until about mopac, then supercritical again where the foodways spreads out. The subcritical portions will be flowing higher and slower (relatively) compared to the shallower and faster super critical sections. That said, probably isn't worth differentiating the flow profiles as either would be catastrophic

    • Like 1
  3. I would suspect that the inundation maps are pretty similar.
    Downstream from Mansfield, the Colorado flows through a pretty significant gorge all the way to Tom Miller.  If Mansfield were to fail, that water would flow at high speed through that gorge until it hit Tom Miller.  
    At that point, the flood would overtop Tom Miller as soon as it got above 519 feet msl (i.e., the elevation of the top of the dam).  Overtopping Tom Miller Dam would cause it to fail within a short amount of time.  Tom MIller's failure would quickly lower the level of the flooding of Lake Austin.
    So basically, anything upstream of Tom Miller Dam that is below about 530 feet msl would probably be inundated in that type of scenario.  But looking at a topographical map upstream shows that there's not just a whole lot below that elevation.
    But hey--don't trust me.  I'm not an engineer and I haven't done the H&H modeling.
     
    In general terms, assuming level pool routing, you aren't far off. However in this case, you need to look at a more energy dynamic model since the reach distance between Mansfield and Tom Miller is not great enough to attenuate the flood wave before hitting Tom Miller. The ensuing flood wave would likely be significantly higher than the top of the dam.... pretty much just cover it up and sweep it away. It's that extreme wave height that'll flood a much greater area.
  4. Thanks for the response. Your first paragraph clears up one of my concerns and the second confirms my understanding of the general mechanics.

    One follow up question, and then I'll pass the mic: how selective is the Fed when evaluating the loan, or how often do they say no or request a lower risk profile from the borrower? Curious as to whether that would be a canary in the coal mine type indicator, or if it's something that happens with regular occurrence.

  5. Ponzi scheme? How so?
    Thank you for the link. I'll surf around through this data later this evening.

    Ponzi scheme may not be the best descriptor. My concern is this: Fed loans Institution A $x dollars on Monday, to be repaid on Tuesday. Institution A is able to repay on Tuesday, but then at the end of the Tuesday, turns out they need to borrow more money. This continues daily for a couple of months.

    When Institution A repays their loan, where does that money come from? Why does Institution A need continual assistance to remain liquid? Also, It seems that there is not a healthy repo market currently, and without Fed support some of these institutions may be hurting.

    I suppose my real question are these: is there a fatal flaw in the structure/ operation of the repo market in which the Fed participates? And what is the real risk to Everyday Joe if some unforeseen event happens?
  6. Ponzi scheme? How so?
    Thank you for the link. I'll surf around through this data later this evening.

    Ponzi scheme may not be the best descriptor. My concern is this: Fed loans Institution A $x dollars on Monday, to be repaid on Tuesday. Institution A is able to repay on Tuesday, but then at the end of the Tuesday, turns out they need to borrow more money. This continues daily for a couple of months.

    When Institution A repays their loan, where does that money come from? Why does Institution A need continual assistance to remain liquid? Also, It seems that there is not a healthy repo market currently, and without Fed support some of these institutions may be hurting.

    I suppose my real question are these: is there a fatal flaw in the structure/ operation of the repo market in which the Fed participates? And what is the real risk to Everyday Joe if some unforeseen event happens?


  7. This isn't a bailout, its an overnight loan. You can even call it a bridge loan as it allows banks to maintain their capital requirements while funding their daily operational needs. Banks borrow money overnight and then return it in the morning.
    It isn't a risky loan either as these are high quality securities, US treasuries mostly in exchange for money that again will be returned next day. 
     


    Is there any source that shows how much is being injected daily and the feds net balance?

    When I first heard the story a couple of weeks ago, It assumed that the net deposit was $500B. But on further investigation of how that market operates, it sounds like it could conceivably be a situation where the fed makes $10B each day for 50 days, but each one is paid k back the next day.

    Now, not knowing the rules, it's also conceivable (in my lay understanding and with the data, or lack thereof, provided) that the borrowers could potentially be running the market in a ponzi scheme like operation.
×
×
  • Create New...