Are We Reading the Water Market Right?

[00:00:00] Speaker A: 1995, Ismail Suraj Eldin, a World bank vice president, predicts that wars of the next century won't be fought over oil. Rather, they'll be fought over water. It's one of the most quoted lines in the water sector. And 30 years later, it's still debated whether it held up. That war hasn't happened, at least explicitly. But that gets at one of the biggest challenges with predictions and forecast the outcome is only part of the story. The assumptions, the methodology and the underlying trends influencing that outcome, they actually may tell us more. This is the future of water, which we talk about, all the ways which companies, utilities and people are addressing the challenges and opportunities and water. I am Reece Tisdal and this is episode 150. And because round numbers deserve something different, we're flipping the format. Instead of me interviewing a Bluefield colleague, I'm the one answering questions today. Swapnil Gandhi, who has been with us this summer here in Boston, he's been reading the research, doing some research, and apparently taking notes on everything he wanted to ask me directly. So today, at his request, if not encouragement, he's going to run the show. He's going to ask me questions that cover a lot of ground. What Bluefield has gotten right in the past. The one chart to change how I see the industry, cybersecurity for utilities that still run on decades old systems and a lot more. There are a number of questions he's going to ask. So let's get into it with Swapno Gandhi and see where this conversation goes with Bluefield's summer intern. All right, so I'm joined here by Swapnil Gandhi. Swapnil, what's up? How are you? [00:02:11] Speaker B: I'm doing pretty good. How's your day been? [00:02:14] Speaker A: Well, as you know, it's early because you're here in Boston with me and we're changing the script a little bit, as I mentioned in the intro. And that is because, one, you're a new guest to the Future Water podcast. But also this is your idea, so I'm giving you full credit. So let's see if we can execute on it. So just for the listeners out there, let's, let's, let's introduce you. So give us a quick who are you? What are you doing the summer? How'd you end up at Bluefield? Where are you from? Where do you go to school, et cetera. [00:02:51] Speaker B: Yeah. So I am currently an intern at Bluefield. I grew up in Lexington, Massachusetts. Currently I'm attending Northwestern for my undergrad. I'm studying environmental engineering there so I've always been pretty immersed in a climate, environmental background. I've been doing policy work since high school. I've helped write bills in the Massachusetts legislature, done a bunch of cool stuff. So I always want to be kind of within an environmental industry. I saw Bluefield pop up on my, you know, college board for an internship. I thought it looked really interesting. So I just applied and here I am. I've been having a lot of fun this summer, I think learning a lot of really cool things. The idea for this came about because y' all were talking about podcast ideas. And that's also one of the more interesting things, is like, to have this consistently, you gotta really think about what you're gonna do. So you guys were having that conversation. I just kind of had the idea of like, well, what if you had an intern on, kind of got down to basics and did like a more general, casual, basic episode? Talking to an intern, that could spark some interesting conversation. That was kind of the idea I had. So I guess that's why we're here. [00:04:02] Speaker A: Yeah, no, that's exactly why we're here. I think that I remember exactly where you brought it up to me. I think it was even at like a after hours, happy hour after work one day, we're all sitting outside, the weather was great, and we were talking about the podcast and you threw it out there and I just said, let's do it. So now that your summer is winding down, in a couple words, what have you been working on this summer? [00:04:28] Speaker B: Yeah, so I've been working on a couple things. I started out the summer looking at corporate sustainability and looking, looking through a bunch of, like, reports that these companies have been releasing, trying to understand the water usage, consumption, et cetera, and, you know, generate takeaways from those. I also been working on updating our desalination database. So that's been an interesting process. There's a lot going on there, a lot of ownership changes. So trying to keep track with that. And then finally, I've been working on a consulting project which has been really interesting, fascinating project, actually, but I don't think we can talk about that. [00:05:07] Speaker A: So that's a lot for an intern. I'm not going to lie. Relatively speaking, some people get buried in one project, but you're one of the ones who looks like you're on three and you're doing a podcast. All right, so let's see if we can make this memorable. So laying out the groundwork, you've laid out the questions, or you've got questions you're going to ask me. And so let's give it a shot. You ask, and I'll see if I can give the answer and we'll go from there. So the floor is yours. [00:05:38] Speaker B: All right, cool. Well, on my first day, we had a little chat and I was asking about, like, how you came up with the idea for Bluefield. And I was really, really curious about how everything kind of came together. So just, like, thinking back a little bit since 2013, what's one of the ideas or what's one of the perspectives? Or just a call, right? Like, what is something that Bluefield got right, that proves how you set up the model, proves that it works? [00:06:07] Speaker A: So I would say twofold. That's a good question. To prove that it works, I would say. I mean, we are making forecasts or developing forecasts in a number of different ways all the time. I would say over and over. Sometimes it's not always the outcome that's the most important is really sort of the inputs and methodology and really the logic. Right. Because things change, things are dynamic. But then when I think about what something that proves the model works. Well, in some respects, Bluefield started even before we were founded in 2013. One of the things, we were posed with a question, one of my partners and I, in particular, with the question, where's an opportunity for market research? And the point came back, well, oil and gas, because this is early days, so this is, you know, over 13 years ago. And we pointed at. And really, I get. I can't even take full credit. It's really. My partner, Bill Ambrose said, you know, midstream, water is where there's an opportunity. It's being overlooked. Fracking is relatively new. It's really, as we used to call it, the shale gale. When I worked at my prior company, and we really looked at it and we were having clients who were asking us, what's the size of that market? Is there an opportunity for things like reuse? And at the time, it was pretty small. We were looking at things like rig counts and in the across the US in these different basins. And at the time, I want to say our forecast was about 7 to $10 billion a year market, that's just moving water. So it was super interesting. And for anybody who's listening to the podcast and knows me, I love oil and gas. I think it's fascinating. Super interesting. But apart from the trucking and sort of throwing water down the well to extract the gas or oil, what we looked at was, what is the opportunity for reuse? And we're an advanced industrial water management, if you will. So apart from the volumes itself, the reuse numbers have really climbed. I mean, that was something we were saying at the time where we're seeing reuse rates of upwards of 90%. But the other part of it is our last forecast, which we'll be updating soon for midstream water management. Now it's like a 25 to 30 billion dollars a year market. Did we predict that? Yes. No. Maybe we saw the opportunity and we looked at it and we read the tea leaves and said, look, oil and gas aren't going anywhere despite even in 20, 2014, the move towards electric vehicles or renewables and other things. So that's one thing I would say we got right. And we, I'll stand by that one. But that's, you know, for me that's an easy one. We probably got other things wrong too. [00:09:11] Speaker B: Yeah, but it's cool that like the ideas and the research work. Right. Like when you're, you're thinking about just, it's even like common business sense. Right. You know, that oil and gas, gas is not going to go away regardless of what people are hoping. That I think is interesting to me where it's like, it's almost kind of obvious, but it's not right. Like you, you have to make that judgment call. You have to make the decision of where you think it's going to go. And I think that decisiveness is really interesting. [00:09:42] Speaker A: Yeah. And I think just to follow up on that, I would say that one of the things that I think we got wrong, because one of the things we looked at earlier, just for transparency, I thought there would be more utility consolidation in the US Than there is. We track it every quarter we look at it. I think we definitely thought so. I thought that was going to be the case and I think in the case of Bluefield, I thought we'd be doing more work outside of the U.S. than we are in the U.S. but the U.S. it's our bread and butter. We don't work exclusively in the US but the market is strong. It's big. People are used to buying research. In the US There is information and a want for information. So the US works, but you know, we're strong. We work all over the world. We've got people in Europe as well. So yeah, it's been an interesting experience. But I, I like the question though. [00:10:39] Speaker B: Well, on that thread actually, like, I think with the U.S. something that I, I guess from my perspective is like that's not necessarily a good thing. Where we The US still has so many infrastructure problems and things that need to be solved where you, I guess you would assume that, you know, there, there are these challenges in more developing countries, but the US has its fair share of problems as well still. [00:11:00] Speaker A: Yeah, it's bifurcated. Right. And so in the developing world you don't. It's greenfield development. You need the basics. In the US or Europe or Australia for that matter, we have everything. But as a result, it's a different challenge. I think that's a better way to look at it. [00:11:17] Speaker B: Yeah. Okay. So I guess moving on a little bit, you track a bunch of segments across the water industry. If you had to point to one chart, data set, conclusion, idea, piece of research that changed how you see the industry, what would that be? I'm really putting you on the spot there. Kind of shrink it down. [00:11:38] Speaker A: No, I think I knew this question was coming, truth be told. And it's tough. One chart or data set? So the one thing, and I chewed on this, I've been chewing on this a bit. And that is, you know, there is a data set back. This is good. Maybe a perfect segue. The U.S. market, there's a data set that, for the U.S. that really showcases two things. It shows the share of OpEx versus CapEx for public utilities. Right. So what are the capital expenses versus operating expenses? And the second within the same data set highlights federal spending versus state and local spending. And it shows that over time, since I think it goes as far back as the 50s, I can't remember exactly, but each of these tells a different story and therefore unveils or reveals a bigger challenge in the US itself. So I'll break it down for you. So the OPEX capex data really shows that the share of total spend is moving towards OPEX. So since the late 70s, operating and maintenance expenses have gone from 50% of the total to 66%. So there is this trend towards just maintaining a system. So I would call that patching a system as we go. The capital expenses is total share have, have gone down. But they've. But within themselves of they're pretty flat. We're looking at one to one and a half percent, maybe two. It's pretty low. And so that's a concern because, you know, the system is aging, it ages by the day. And if we're not reinvesting into infrastructure, then it's not going to sustain itself. Right, it's not sustaining itself. So that's one thing. And then the other would be the federal government and its financial impact on Water wastewater systems. I do think, I firmly believe that water is local and that local authorities and, you know, governing structures should control that water with the guidance of the EPA and others, whether it be over things like water quality and such. But federal spending has declined from about, I want to say it's 33% in the late 70s down to about 4% today. So it's pretty small with a couple little bumps here and there through, you know, American Reconstruction Recovery act or iija. And what that tells me is the money's gotta come from somewhere. You hear about cities, states, towns not having enough resources for everything that they need to deal with, including the water. And someone's got to pay for it, whether that's private capital, public capital or other sources. And who's going to pay for the one thing we can't live without, and that's the data set, at least for the US market. That really gets me jazzed. [00:14:50] Speaker B: Yeah, I knew that federal water spend is low right now at 4%, but I'm really curious as to how that share declined so drastically from the 70s. Right. It's 33 to 4. Is it that local spending is increasing or that federal spending decreased or is it kind of a. Just an expansion? [00:15:10] Speaker A: Well, I think it's a little bit of both. I think it's a good question. I think the key is one, that peak was right around post Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water act time period. So there's a lot of infrastructure investment that happened. So starting at a high point in that period, late 70s, mid to late 70s. The other is federal dollars have shifted over towards state revolving funds which came about in the late 1980s. So these state revolving fund programs, they are managed at the state level. The federal government puts money based on surveys and allocations by population and needs that's provided to the states and the states manage it. So there is money going into the system. But you know, I think part of it is also how much of it is, you know, Reagan era policy. I'm, I'm winging it here. But don't trust the government. The federal government can't be there for everybody. And the system is so fragmented. I mean, we're talking 49,000 drinking water systems, another 18 to 20,000 wastewater systems. It's a little gnarly to manage. And so the federal government has put some in and periodically, this is my frustration to your point, has a decline the trend now, and it's not a great trend, but when you look at ARRA in 2011, 2012, post Great Recession, and you look at IIJA, those funding dollars were thrown at the problem reactively to whether it be an economic meltdown or a pandemic. [00:16:54] Speaker B: It's not consistent. [00:16:55] Speaker A: Right. And this is. I'm going to go on a flyer here, but I'm not wrong. The Trump administration and the Biden administration want the same thing. They want people to have jobs. Right, Right. And so Biden used that opportunity through ARPA, or sorry, through iija, to throw dollars at infrastructure so people could have jobs, people could work, and we could rehabilitate our infrastructure. Per my point about OPEX and capex, the Trump administration is using tariffs, so they're using different tools to achieve or not achieve the same thing. Right. And, and so that's, I'd say my broader frustration is as a citizen, but also as I look in the market, I can't think of a better way than to create jobs than building rehabilitating water infrastructure. They're 4 million miles of pipe. I already mentioned the systems. They need rehabbing. And if AI is going to take all our jobs, why not just have everybody go dig ditches and we're going to have clean, drinking, reliable drinking water? [00:18:05] Speaker B: I'm going to go off on a limb a little bit here. I'm thinking about, okay, we're talking about infrastructure and federal spending. Do we have a model in a place like China that really invested heavily into infrastructure? This is actually something, I don't know. How much does Bluefield, how much access, I guess, does Bluefield have into research into China and China's water infrastructure? Because I think that could be an interesting model to a country that maybe even overinvest into infrastructure. And, you know, you have these stories about like, ghost cities and places that are just kind of empty, causing, you know, these real estate crashes and et cetera. But I'm curious on the opposite spectrum, how much, how much information we have on that. [00:18:49] Speaker A: So that's super interesting. So in the early days of Bluefield, probably 2015, 2016, we look closely at China, at water, wastewater, infrastructure. The challenge with China, it's a black box. Right. I think for anybody, any outsider, even within China, it's a really tough market. The government is very strategic in what it does. It has done the same thing with renewable power. It's done it with manufacturing or electric vehicles. It strategically allocates dollars at significant scale. So when I worked in renewable power, to your point about ghost cities, I mean, they were building wind farms with no grid connection. They were just towers and standing out in the middle of these fields I've seen the ghost cities and when we were doing that research, looking, I'm thinking about wastewater for some reason in my mind, you know, being in China, we're doing the research and there were these cities that had drinking water systems, they had wastewater systems. So do they count or do they not count? As far as. Because no one's living there but China. It's, you know, if you compare the US and China, they're just different approaches to the market. The US could use a little bit about a lot of that. And so when you think about semiconductors, right. If you look at, if they're strategic, we should be putting money towards it. If people need drinking water and reliable drinking water infrastructure, we should, we should be putting money towards it. We shouldn't be putting money towards being able to get a big Mac in 15 minutes because, you know, bunch of 19 year olds are hungry in the middle of the night. But that's where people get excited and that's where a lot of dollars go, unfortunately. [00:20:31] Speaker B: Yeah, interesting. All right, moving on. So one of the other big things in the news has been data centers. But when you actually look into the data, there's actually something that I was surprised by during my corporate sustainability research, actually going to those reports and digging out water withdrawals and consumption. Direct water use by data centers is actually pretty small. Like I'm the one, I was pulling out the data and looking at this like this is kind of, I feel like it's being blown out of proportion. But I do realize that there's a lot more water being indirectly used by power. Right. Like the amount of energy draw that the data centers are causing are using a lot more water there. So I'm just trying to understand, you know, what is that kind of how much comes from direct use, how much is coming from power. And then is there any opportunity for small, smaller markets here? Right. Like, or newer markets, for example, I'm, I love nuclear energy and I think all the stuff about, you know, small modular reactors, I think that's, that's really cool. I'm curious what your perspective is and especially on the water use site, how that might be affected. [00:21:35] Speaker A: So. Wow, that's a generational statement. I love nuclear. You know, I'm grow up from the generation of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. [00:21:45] Speaker B: Yes. [00:21:46] Speaker A: So there's a bit more reservation about it. But I'm with you on nuclear. I think that's really where the opportunity is or it is part, it's part of the solution is a better way to put it. So let's just stepping back for a second. So when we look at data centers, we've had Amber Walsh on this podcast, we've put out the research. You're exactly right. The data center, the on site water usage at a data center is pretty small. It's I think 28%. So that means where's the other 72%? The other 72% is at the power plant. Right. And so that's where this whole question kind of goes in a number of different directions. So I will, in response to the on site usage, why is it being overblown? You. Yes, in some respects. But I think an important point to be made is that, and it's probably no secret people are pissed off and whether it be people don't want to live next to a data center because it hums and whirs all night long, they're not attractive. So that's aesthetically. Secondly, they're worried about their power prices. So if prices are go, power prices are going, electricity prices are going up, data centers are being blamed for that because that's where the demand is. Thirdly, people's health care is higher. I'm really going far here. And so are they getting as much out of every dollar that they earn? They look at the gas pump and fuel prices are up. So people are angry. But the one commonality that everybody has is water. They understand water and they're using that as in my argument, they're using that as leverage because the total water footprint is not necessarily small when you take into account the power. And the data center developers, they do have the solutions and technologies to go towards more closed loop reuse. They're more efficient systems and that's happening and that's happening quickly. But the existing fleet is, they're not going to change those, they're just going to change everything going forward. So I think that's why people are upset. But your point about the power sector is super interesting. I love oil and gas. I already said that. I like the power sector too. And what's happening when you. And part of this is there is energy transition happening and so what does that mean for the water footprint? So there was this move towards renewables, but even natural gas, those systems are far more efficient than they were a decade ago. The natural gas, thermal power systems, coal is being decommissioned. But because of data centers, there are some expected or previously expected retirements of coal plants. They're not being retired. Those decommissionings are being deferred because they need power. The data centers in the Grid and the, in the power companies. But the small modular, the nuclear reactors, the small ones or large for that matter, I think it's super interesting but it doesn't change unless the permitting in the risk and the liability changes. It's the, the one thing that, that's where the government needs to really be making investments because they're so massive and the costs are so high and people, I mean my generation and definitely older, my parents generation, I mean their nuclear scares the hell out of them. That being said, you know, my stepfather built nuclear submarines and he said, you know, basically we didn't have any problems. I don't know why. I bet he's raising Cain about it, but so be it. I don't know. Does that answer, does that get at it? [00:25:49] Speaker B: Yeah, I think that does. The other thing I was, I was curious about was with nuclear, my general understanding is that the water withdrawal and consumption is pretty high. It's like especially because you can use these coal plants as the same infrastructure, right? You can refit, right, refit the coal plants into nuclear power plants and the water usage or at least withdrawal is pretty high. But then you're not actually consuming a lot of it, it's just being discharged back. So what I was curious about is like, is that water withdrawal impactful? Right? Like how important is that to keep in mind? Because for me, especially from a Gen Z perspective, I think what you were saying about how people don't like data centers, I think especially for Gen Z in my chronically online era, what I'm seeing a lot of is also just like dislike for AI in general and that's being translated into dislike for data centers that being translated into using water as this parrot point like talking point. So if we are developing on site nuclear reactors, the water consumption is not necessarily decreasing, but I guess it's a more sustainable solution. I'm not sure what do you think about that? [00:27:04] Speaker A: So I think you really get at a good point, right? There's a big difference between water withdrawals and water consumption. Consumption is really the key when it comes to nuclear though. And I, I, in my mind when I think nuclear I'm thinking of the big facilities. There is a risk though, right? They do need access to water for cooling and in the steam generation, right? So it's the, the need is significant at least as you know, consumption may be lower. I think one of the concerns that we need to think about though too is one where they cited. But also this is where climate comes into play, right? Because you do there are demonstrated events where temperatures Rise, the water temperatures rise, they can't cool those plants. And so they then they have to start curtailing those plants. It happens in France a lot, but it happens there because one, they have a lot of nuclear. It's a significant share of their fleet. I think I want to say 20, 20 plus percent, maybe more. I can't remember. I'm getting a little old in the brain, but so I think that's people will rate probably is those reactors, if they come to be, and it's going to take more than a decade, it's not going to happen fast. And, and it's not because of the technology and it's not because of the lack of need, for sure. It's going to be the permitting and the cost. And when it comes to all of the stuff that we've already been talking about, whether it be infrastructure development, whether it be power development, et cetera, the big winners in all of this, engineers and attorneys, they're the big winners of everything. But I'm a fan because I think we need it and I'm a strong believer in, well, I'm a believer in a portfolio of solutions because at any given time, things run off the rails, things happen. We saw that in the Texas winter storm several years ago. There's a winter freeze. The gas wells freeze, the plant, the valves freeze. They can't get gas to market. The natural gas plants can't produce power. And all hell broke loose. And next thing you know they're, you know, 11 million people without power and water and water mains are breaking because the pipes are not deep underground and it's cold and so on and so forth. Chaos broke out in Texas. But yeah, I think there's a lot of things that need to be addressed. And so I'm a big fan of the portfolio of solutions. I am in favor of ones that don't produce carbon. But cynically speaking, we're sailing past any carbon target ever set. [00:29:54] Speaker B: Yeah, there's no shot. [00:29:55] Speaker A: So my argument would be, okay, fine, if this is a way, as a society, as a species, as people with brains, if this is a way we're going to approach it, fine, then we're going to have to adapt. That's where the water opportunity becomes. Because climate problems are manifested more often than not through water issues, whether it be flooding, large storm events, etc. Etc. [00:30:23] Speaker B: Exactly. All right. I think this next one is one I'm personally really curious about because I've heard a lot about it. I know it's an issue, but I don't know why? Can you describe to me the importance of cybersecurity for municipal water and the challenges that municipalities have faced in the past? And also I think there's something that happened recently. Right? [00:30:46] Speaker A: Yeah. So there's definitely news. So it's not hypothetical. It's not the first time. So I'm a fire. Quick question back at you. If you ever. At home. So you're from Lexington and that's where you are this summer or in Evanston when you're in college. Have you ever had your water shut off where you didn't have access to water in your house for 24 to 48 hours? [00:31:08] Speaker B: I actually don't think so. [00:31:10] Speaker A: All right, I'm. One more question. How long can you live without water? How many days? [00:31:16] Speaker B: Well, if you're talking straight survival, it's in like three days, but I, I really think it would not be. It would be much shorter than that in like a realistic modern scenario. [00:31:27] Speaker A: All right, so that sort of lays the groundwork, like why do people care? So what's happened? It happened and happening is that through technology like anything else, you know, cyber hackers. Cyber hackers have used the Internet as a medium to infiltrate infrastructure systems. And it's happened in a number of different ways. In this case, Minnesota has been targeted, but it's across 12 states that no one said exactly who it is. I think the government. Well, I don't. Depends on who you speak to in the government. [00:32:02] Speaker B: They're saying Iran. Right. [00:32:04] Speaker A: Iran. The Iranians are hacking us. Right. And so they figured out a way to get into, I want to say, 37 or more systems across 12 states. It's probably more than that, but it's not like they've done anything sophisticated. It sounds like what they've done is really just gone knocked on door to door every system electronically to figure out which ones haven't changed their passwords from the default password, whether it be admin or 1234, and change it to something. So that's one thing. And that happens. I mean, a shudder to think if I went to my parents house to check their passwords, what they are, I'm not sure. So that's what's happening. There are a lot of systems. It's being used as an argument we need to consolidate all these systems. You know, it's really a. It's a human problem. Right. And I don't know necessarily think introducing AI to solve the problem, would that help? Yes. No. Maybe. It also introduces other, you know, technology problems. So it's not the first time this has happened. It's, you know, I think I just put something out on LinkedIn because I was curious over the weekend. I said, I just want to look time wise. What's happened over the last decade as far as water, wastewater, security hacks, excluding Colonial Pipeline and all these other big ones that have happened? It's super. I'm not surprised. And I say that one, it's easy to do. Sometimes it's disgruntled employees, sometimes it's people that you're bombing so, you know, to be bombed. And one would expect they're going to fight back in any way they can. Could they go further? Yes. And it can go in a number of different ways. Right. They can lock down the water system and get well, they can steal the billing information, so they can steal all your credit card details, bank details, potentially. They can deploy ransomware that's a ransom attack and say if you give us $20 million worth of bitcoin, we'll open it back up. Right. And then the third would be, oh, we're going to go into your control system, into your control system and we're going to open valves or we're going to give your water supply an extra dose of chlorine or something like that. Not to put the fear of God, of whatever God that is in anybody. I would say we're exposed. And I think some people at Bluefield hate it when I say this and I use this in presentations, but this kind of makes me think of Warren Buffett's quote, when the tide goes out, we find out who's swimming naked. Well, I think we're swimming naked. And my frustration, or my concern is a better way to put it is we're not doing anything about it. [00:35:02] Speaker B: And it's a relatively simple problem to solve, especially to just make the barrier higher of just like let's, you know, implement passwords, two factor authentication, whatever it may be. Right. Like it's a low barrier to get a pretty high success rate from what you're telling me of, like just these are, these are simple issues. So, yeah, it is frustrating that there is no, you know, major advancement. And I think that is another, that's another, I guess, disadvantage to having things being so fractured where it's like you can't have a mandate that's just like, oh, the federal government's saying this, so everyone's got to do it. It's very like, you know, it's a tiny municipality in the middle of Arkansas. Whatever, you know, whatever it may be, they may not have the capacity or just like the time to think about these things. Right. So that is a disadvantage of that fracturing. Yeah. [00:35:58] Speaker A: And I think different states are back to the state and local level control. Right. Different states are doing different things. New York is doing different things. They're allocating money and funding. What I've said thus far is not a big money problem. Quite honestly, changing a password is pretty cheap, right? [00:36:15] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:36:16] Speaker A: So that's one thing. The other is, you know, I think it's Idaho. Lee Ramsey would know for sure who works for us. But I think Idaho is saying if you to receive federal funds or receive state funds, you need to implement these cybersecurity measures. So it's a, that's how you. It's more of like this carrot and a stick, but just pouring money into it or forcing every utility to consolidate. That seems like a sledge. I don't know, is it a sledgehammer approach? It seems a little, I don't, I don't know. [00:36:50] Speaker B: I always think it's like you got to think about the incentive, right? Like how are you going to, how are you going to make it the best possible choice for these municipalities to, to, to do whatever we need them to do? So yeah, I think that that is a good approach that hopefully we should see in other places, especially as it happens more and more. Okay, so I think we talked about this a little already, but I think it is the news of the time. So with high tech like data centers and semiconductors, of course they're holding the headlines right now. This is what we're hearing about for the past almost three years now, especially within the water sector too. But what I'm curious about is what other industries should be talked about more that might be hidden under the big sheen of data centers and semiconductors or is there an established industry that's kind of heating up a little bit? You know, something that I'm thinking about is mining for rare earth minerals. Right. Like this is something that China's heavily invested in over the past 20 years and are now reaping the rewards of that, like kind of holding that supply chain. So is there any, any industries that we're not looking at that maybe we should be a little more. [00:37:56] Speaker A: Yeah, this is something that I think is we've long thought it was of importance also in terms of water management. I think in 20, probably our second or third report after launching Bluefield, we did a big report on mining and it sticks with me. In fact, I know that there are analysts today that go back to that report to use it as Kind of an analytical structure for some of the research they're doing. But mining is interesting. And I think everybody talks about rare earths. There's something about saying rare earths that sounds sexy and appealing and really scary. But. But there's also just the, the basics, just copper. Like, is there enough copper? And guess where all the copper comes from. Well, a lot of it comes from places like Chile. And guess what Chile doesn't have, particularly in the Atacama or the. Or high in the Andes. That's water. Right. So, so I think that's really interesting. And you know, a lot of these mineral minerals, hard and soft. But let's, you know, I'm thinking hard in this case, like things like platinum, gold, copper, they come from places like southern Africa, so like South Africa, Namibia, they come from Western Australia, they come from South America, they come from the Western U.S. every single one of these places has some form of water stress. So there's an opportunity there. And the opportunity is probably two, three, four times larger than what we've actually what people are really talking about. And that is. And this really gets at your point because of electronics, because of electric vehicles, also because of national security, to your point about China. But I think it just for to meet demand. I have a friend who works at Cobalt which they're developing ways they actually they own copper mines as well. Kurt House is a friend of mine. Super interesting. And we've talked about it and, and the demand. I wish I had his simple math. He's done it on other podcasts. But the demand for these minerals is so high, even if we recycle everything, we still don't have enough. And so to meet the demand just for electric vehicles because of all the minerals that go into it. So guess what's needed to mine all of that? It's water. It's water to move the product, it's water to precipitate the product. And it's going to happen definitely in those countries that I already mentioned in regions, but it's probably going to have to happen elsewhere also. So it'll be interesting to see. So that is a huge opportunity. [00:40:43] Speaker B: Yes. Yeah. As someone who's updating our desalination database, I can say for sure, places like Latin America, even in Africa, building a bunch of D cell. And a lot of it's for industrial uses where it's like. And even so one of the interesting things that I noticed there is the cost of desalination plants per like amount of capacity is much higher in these, in these countries, in Africa, and Latin America that are used for industrial uses because they also have to incorporate like the cost of pumping this water because they're pumping it from the ocean like over like mountain ranges and stuff to get it to the mining sites. And the cost per, you know, per cubic meter of water is way higher in these desalination plants what they're using for industrial uses. So I find that really interesting of like not only is there demand, there is a lot of the cost of the infrastructure is much higher to, to supply that because of the geographical necessities and restrictions there. [00:41:44] Speaker A: It's kind of, it's kind of amusing when you don't have water. Like I asked you about, if you didn't have water in your house for two or three days, how much would you pay for it? You'd certainly be, you'd, you'd be out there buying, you know, Fiji water. Death. What is it? Is it death water? Whatever that. [00:42:00] Speaker B: Liquid death. [00:42:01] Speaker A: Liquid death. Liquid death. You'd be paying through the nose for water because you need it. That's what mining companies are doing. They either don't have it or they're taking it from communities and have to make a trade or where they'll say hey, we're going to use this water but we're going to build a desal plant and we're going to provide you with desalinated water. So that's the way it goes. [00:42:21] Speaker B: Super interesting. So yeah, mining for sure. Any other industries that, that are interesting that flying under the radar I think. [00:42:28] Speaker A: I wouldn't say it's flying under the radar. I would say the one interesting we get a lot of questions about. It's a tough one but it's interesting. It's just food and beverage. Everybody sort of uses that, broadly speaking, super fragmented. But I know we've talked a lot about water supply. The wastewater side of the equation for food and beverage is really interesting. Right. There's energy, it's high in organics. In many cases. Like if you think about a brewery that can be captured for whether it be energy and gases and power, ultimately that's one. One thing. The other is from a strategic or market entry perspective, getting into the water sector is tough. And we've talked about semiconductors, we've talked about midstream oil and gas. They require specialists. If you're a semiconductor fab, you're not going to go to some regional player that doesn't have a lot of experience. You're going to go to the big companies, the brand names that can stand behind their product and have the capital to do so. Food and beverage is so fragmented. It is an opportunity to get into the market for newer, less mature, maybe that's, you know, technologies and solutions. Potentially it's harder going door to door because there's so many. You may not get the scale, but it's interesting. [00:43:54] Speaker B: Yeah, I was, when I was doing corporate sustainability, there were some really interesting, like, innovations that they're trying to do in food and Bev. Like, I think one of the, one of the interesting things was I think one of the snack companies, they were testing a technology to capture the condensate from when they're frying their chips. So all the steam that comes out, they're trying to capture that and reuse that really weird, wacky, interesting stuff. So, yeah, I definitely agree. There's a lot of interesting innovation there. [00:44:24] Speaker A: And I think the food and beverage companies also, because they're very customer focused, they want to show that sustainability. So that matters. The mining company in Namibia, they don't [00:44:37] Speaker B: need to worry about it. [00:44:38] Speaker A: Yeah. As my mother would say, I don't know them from Adam's house cat, nor do they know me. So they're, they're, they're B2B. But the B2C companies, food and beverages one is where it's at. [00:44:50] Speaker B: Makes sense. All right, I'm going to transition now into a little bit of a, I guess, broader conversation. This is something I really wanted to do with my time at Bluefield, and it's inspired by some of the conversations I've had in my undergrad studying environmental engineering. It's very water focused. And some things we do is we talk about society and what the future of water is looking like. One of the ways that we did this was through a book written by Peter Glick. You read it in one of our classes and we use it as a jumping off point for many interesting discussions called Three Ages of Water. And the kind of premise of the book is that your first age of water is learning how to use it, how to do simple things like irrigation or just using it to your advantage. Second age is understanding sanitation and expanding that use in the world. And the third age is something that I guess is something we're aspiring to be where it's more about conservation, resilience, understanding the inherent value of water. And it's a little more a sustainability climate, respecting the earth perspective. So I'm curious, do you think we're making progress towards a third age water, regardless of what your definition or what Peter Glick might think of it? But where do you think we're headed, do you think we need to work towards a third age where we are a little bit more respectful of the water use that we have? Or you know, what are the largest challenges impeding the way towards getting to somewhere where we, we feel a little more in tune with the nature environment that we are pulling from. [00:46:33] Speaker A: So I would say we are heading towards it. I don't think it's because of some prescriptive measure. I think it's really economics, operational risk to companies, I think so I think we are heading in that direction. And I said this before, I don't think there's no better time to be in the water sector. As I mentioned earlier because of climate. If we're not going to deal with climate change, then we're going to have to adapt. And so that is in some respects will force it. We've talked about data centers. I mean they are using closed loop reuse systems or the power sector. Let's go to the power for a second. Super high consumption. That consumption has fallen for two decades in the power sector not because of renewables explicitly, but it's also fallen because of just more efficient cooling towers and systems at natural gas plants. So I think that's happened. I mean, you know, I wish there was more things, there was more reuse, whether it be municipal and industrial, that will continue to happen. Technology is not the problem. It's really a matter of. And maybe it's really a water problem where people either are not being charged enough for the water. It's a human right. And so I think that's what this message or this trend rubs up against. Right? It's water's available, it's everywhere. It rains here every other week. It or maybe multiple times a week depending on where you are, but that I go to the beach all summer and there's water everywhere, but no one wants to pay for it. No one wants to pay for desalinated water. As you mentioned, the costs are high. So I would say the progress is happening. I wouldn't say we're catching up or where we need to be, then it's going to have to happen out of necessity. [00:48:27] Speaker B: I think it's also hard because when we're. This is something we talked about is like when you're thinking about these kind of philosophical understanding the inherent value of water, it's hard to do that when you don't even have the bare minimum infrastructure to supply it. In many places, even the U.S. like we're having pretty crumbling infrastructure. So it's hard to Think about some of these fanciful, I guess, hopes and dreams when things are not working in reality here. But I think, I guess in a Gen Z perspective, I think it's so valuable to hold those ideas of understanding. And I think your point about charging for water is really interesting to me because I think especially in the US because we made water be so relatively cheap, people forget that we are consuming a resource that is inherently limited. And I think we forget that. So I think holding that perspective is important and I think it should drive us to be working on our infrastructure and in a way that we are not being driven currently. [00:49:40] Speaker A: I would also say, sure, the resource itself is valuable because we can't live without it, but the other is unlike other things, whatever that may be. Everything's expensive in one way or another, but the infrastructure to get it to your second bathroom on the second floor of your house, it's kind of amazing what it takes to get it there. It came from some reservoir in western Mass, the Quabbin Reservoir, probably, you know, to get into this comes all the way into the city through pipes and pumps and everything. You know, all these it's treated, it runs through this network there. I don't know how many people work at, let's say Boston Water and Sewer, where we are now, how many people work there. They have to be paid the infrastructure and operating expenses to deliver a gallon of water to your house is pretty expensive. And you know, so it forces, it should be forcing people to look at how are we doing it now. But also if that's the way we way it is, then why are we letting 17.5% of every gallon go out the door because of aging infrastructure? I'm not saying it should be zero, but that's like, that's six and a half billion dollars a year in the [00:51:05] Speaker B: US and it's just water that we're letting go. So yeah, I think, is it maybe an education, like lack of education or understanding of how the water infrastructure works? Like for example, there's a, the, the issue of the flushable wipes, right? Like there's an example of people have no idea what goes into the water infrastructure that they're, they're using on a daily basis. And it's just like completely, you know, kind of screwing themselves a little bit, right? Like when you're flushing water flushable wipes down your toilet, you are increasing your own rates. You know that. I think, I think education is definitely a part of it where people need to understand how do these processes work? And you know, I'M learning this in a very expensive degree and I'm just learning this now. Right. And this is like what I'm technically supposed to be doing is like environmental engineering. This is what I'm supposed to be working on. But like especially coming from that perspective, I feel like everybody should know like the basics and simplest understanding of how does this stuff work. It's is really unfortunate. [00:52:13] Speaker A: Yeah. I think the, the flushable wipes. But back to that point is part of the change, at least at the product level is happening because those companies are getting the pants suit off of them. Right. And so there are these big lawsuits because water, wastewater utilities are saying, you're killing us here. The cost of these wipes, they're basically you're, you're privatizing the benefits of meaning they're making revenues and you're socializing all the costs. And the costs are plugging pipes, overwhelming wastewater systems that the same could be said. I mean that's the American way, unfortunately, but so be it. Yeah, I think it's a really interesting point about, you know, it just makes me think your point, the discussion is great because part of it is philosophical. What do we think? You know, and ultimately it gets to what is the cost of water, but then at the same time what drives action. And every country is a little bit different. Like Singapore is in a different spot than we are here and what Switzerland is, you know, we're not top down people don't want to hear the government or some authority say you've got to do this. No, you can't use this much water. [00:53:29] Speaker B: Yeah, I think, I think that is why sort of education of this stuff is important because then kind of inception, the idea into everyone's understanding. Right. Like this is why it's important. But yeah, it's falling on the thread. Like what then is an ideal world in terms of human water consumption? Where should, like in your ideal world, where would we be going? What would it look like if, you know, we had everything mapped out, planned out? How would our water consumption change? Like would it decrease? Like would we be super efficient reusing everything? So we're withdrawing almost nothing. Like what do you think it should it be and where what is realistic? [00:54:11] Speaker A: Well, I think there are a couple ways to look at it. One is, yeah, I think fundamentally every household, everywhere, we should be reusing everything. We should be capturing the rainwater on our footprint, reusing it if we're not using it, putting it back into the system or supply. I mean, so that's what. Absolutely. Whether you wash your dishes and you're washing in your dishwasher, that water can be recycled, treated. There becomes a management cost issue of that. I mean, the magic number that people use these days is, was it 50 liters per day? So for any American out there, I guess that's about 13 gallons a day of water, which, I don't know. Is that a lot? Yes. No, that's per person. That's. I think that's per person. Is that per person? [00:55:02] Speaker B: Seems like it'd be per person. [00:55:03] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:55:04] Speaker B: Per household. [00:55:04] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:55:05] Speaker B: But that's also like with an American perspective, that's like we use that much in an instant here, right? Like, is there, is there some sort of, you know, balancing or, you know, is there some sort of equity to be established in terms of water consumption? [00:55:20] Speaker A: Right, but, but then here's where it gets. I don't know if there's a way in a place like the US or across Europe or across large geographic expanses, there's a way to put a specific number broadly. Right. I think it does depend on where you are. I mean, that number, 50 liters per day, it comes from Cape Town. Cape Town was heading towards day zero and they were basically rationing water and saying, we're going to run out on this day. I think the first research note I wrote for Bluefield Research was about Cape Town and what are the solutions to this problem. And one of them was, you know, it was things like desal and reuse. But we're also going to see more cities go through. I mean, it's like, look at London, right? You know, or the uk. People talk about water stress there. Mexico City is maybe a better example. There are a number of different cities of significantly large populations that either are under significant water stress or will be. And you know, it's a different ball game when the mayor, town council, whomever gets on the horn and says, guys, we've got 45 days of water left. Yeah, Corpus Christi, Texas, yes, they're going to do the same thing. And so, but that doesn't impact me. I'm in Boston, Massachusetts. I'm like, oh, wow, those jackasses, they haven't been planning at all. What are they doing? But that's. So the numbers do need to vary geographically. I think it's hard to put a big number, but I think there should be. You know, we live in a world of abundance in the US and people take 20 minute showers. Including my children. [00:57:09] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. That's, you know, kind of the point I was kind of getting at, where of course, geographical restrictions are going to be the main drivers. But how much of a centralization and circularity should we be implementing within a state, within a country, within a municipality? Where does that limit become unfeasible of we're sharing water from Boston to corporate Christie, Is that realistic or not? [00:57:36] Speaker A: So one that's not realistic because water weighs too much and it's impossible. But what is interesting though is we do see semiconductor fabs and industry going to places like Phoenix, Arizona and one would think that industry would say wait a second, we don't want to go there. Well, there are a number of factors going to corporate decisions. Like what are the taxes? Do we get any tax benefits? What's the workforce look like? Are there earthquakes or not? Do we have to worry about earthquakes? Do we need to worry about hurricanes? But at what point do they start saying there's not enough water there? And because the one issue is in a places like Phoenix, they're looking at do you have enough water for 100 years for this household or for this property development? 100 years for a manufacturing facility. It's not even close to what corporates are thinking they'll jettison from that city or town. You know, they're not going that far out. I mean look at the Walmarts that pop up here and there. I mean they just. So they can move, but the community can't. [00:58:43] Speaker B: Yeah. So is that another thing we should be thinking about is like implementing a long term view even within some of our corporate entities. Right. Is that one. How would we even do that? Right. Especially in a place like America that's so difficult to do. But is that a necessity if we're going to end up in a more equitable environment? Like because for example, there is some kind of. There are methods we've come up with sharing. For example. I think there's a agreement between I think California and Arizona where Arizona is purchasing California share of withdrawing from. I think they have the same river. [00:59:21] Speaker A: Exactly. As part of the compact agreement. [00:59:24] Speaker B: Yeah. So they're purchasing California shares of water. Withdrawal in California is like withdrawing from. I think. I don't even know where they're getting from. Maybe. [00:59:33] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. I mean they just, they're allocated shares. I mean that's the issue. Right. So upper basin states, lower basin states and there's different demands on the water supply. So they've worked out an agreement. [00:59:45] Speaker B: Yeah. So I think it is. There are ways to quote unquote, share water there. But I think building in a long term view, that's so difficult. [00:59:55] Speaker A: I'm going to tell you politically, it's a third rail. The politicians, they don't want to say industry, you can't come here because you use too much water. When did I have Keith Hayes on that was a lot? No, two episodes ago. I asked him a question about the biggest concern in the water industry, broadly speaking. And his point was, and I think he was right on, it's the political issues that are the biggest problem for ce because politicians, they're living for the next midterm election, they're living for the next, the four year presidential, they're living for the six year Senate election. They're just living election, election. They don't want to get voted out, they don't want to raise water rates, they don't want to. No one wants to tell anybody. [01:00:41] Speaker B: No, exactly. And that's why I think like, you know, to go back to this a little bit, that's why I, I'm very interested in understanding, you know, how did this kind of infrastructure in future thinking happen in a place like China. Right. Like where they did do some of this forward thinking a little bit, but it kind of backfired in the way that they over invested. So I, I just think there's a really interesting middle ground there. And I don't know, like, I think that is the main thing is that the political reality of how can we allocate for the future and not just consume for today. [01:01:17] Speaker A: The government is here for us, not for them. Right. And so I think that you put it correctly, I think there is middle ground. We want our government, whether it be local, state or federal, to look out on the horizon and say, you know, we're going to need semiconductor chips because everything we do, including washing our dishes, requires a chip in the dishwashing machine. So we might want to plan accordingly. Our, our fighter jets need semiconductor chips. So why don't we do that? [01:01:51] Speaker B: Yeah, and I think it's cool that we at least we started right a little bit and hopefully we can start looking ahead a little more and hopefully we can advocate for looking ahead more rather than some of these kind of direct, immediate, you know, short attention spans. [01:02:08] Speaker A: Yeah, no, I get it. [01:02:10] Speaker B: All right, last question. This is kind of for the industry as a whole. How often do industry members have these kind of abstract conversations and do you think they should happen more? Does Bluefield have them? Like, I've been here for a couple months and I think having the space to hold these conversations is really, really valuable because it helps us all keep in mind what are we moving towards. I guess this is also, this is my perspective. But yeah, I'm curious to see what you think. [01:02:41] Speaker A: So I think they do happen. I mean, you know, this is, I mean, like you said, we've been talking an hour, right? This is one of the longer ones. We've covered a lot of ground here within the industry. They do happen at conferences, their forums, I mean, at everywhere from, you know, the Aspen Institute to, you know, they have their own water forum to Swan. And what does that mean for Digital Solutions or Stockholm Water Week or Climate Week in New York or rethinking, you know, Science Capital? They have rethinking water, which I think is in, that's with, in affiliation with Columbia University. They do that in New York. I think this year it's in October, October 20th. So they happen. I think the challenge is you do it once, you do it twice, you do it three times. And what action, what's the actions that come out of that? So there's a. Maybe some built in or the frustration that comes out of it, partly because the water sector, it doesn't move fast. It's like a battleship group. It doesn't. It's not like nimble like a cat. So it's not like everybody wakes up and said, I had this awesome conversation. Hey, we're going to focus on leakage across 49,000 water systems and we're going to deal with this in the U.S. well, step one is like, where's the money? And then you say like, oh fine, we're private capital, we got tons of money, let's go deploy it. There's an opportunity here. And then the public sector, whether it be the public stakeholders, say, wait a second, we don't want private capital because one, it's not your system and two, we don't want you touching our water because we don't trust you because you're private. And then the public says, wait a sec, you know, it just, it's this. And then it turns into a death spiral, right? And then nothing gets accomplished. And everybody keeps talking about the same thing. So I think it's super interesting. So to maintain our sanity, you just have to take one bite at a time and identify instead of saying, here's this landscape of 50,000 systems that I would argue need to be consolidated in one form or another. I was wrong. I thought would have happened more. But we're still seeing 100 to 130 acquisitions or consolidations. Among IOUs, specifically you include the munis, it's slightly more, not much more every year. So there is some Consolidation happening, but that's the way it goes. [01:05:10] Speaker B: Yeah. I think it makes sense that it's easy to burn out from these conversations when there's so much action happening. That's the other thing I was thinking about, is it's important to follow the incentive to solve some of these issues. Right. Like we're not going to just solve it because we want to. There has to be some sort of incentive, competitive, economic, otherwise, to go for it. And I think, again, this kind of ends up being a policy issue of, you know, we have to be able to have the funding and the regulation permission to do some of these things. But I think that incentive structure is really important to maintain forward progress so we don't burn out of working towards these larger aspirational goals. [01:05:51] Speaker A: I would say this. And so people have short memories. And that's another problem. So I'm old. Not that old. So I'm 55. So I was born in 1970. So in the early 70s, late 60s, early 70s, there were rivers on fire. There were. I mean, the Clean Water act didn't even exist, and now we can go to rivers. Is it perfect? No, but we've come so far to address some, and it's in my lifetime. So, you know. So I think, you know your point about incentives. So the incentive is I can go to the beach and swim in it and hopefully not die of typhoid or whatever, the, you know, hepatitis or something, which people like my grandfather caught swimming in Charleston harbor when he was a kid, so in bed all summer. So, you know, we've come a long way and people need to remember how far we've come, as opposed to saying the world sucks and we're in a. We're in a mess. It's like, actually, we've been in a mess the whole time. It's just you're improving little by little, and you can apply that approach to so many different things. Is a perfect. No can, you know, but that's. I hate. That's life. I don't know of another way to put it. So we just need to get our affairs in order and start marching forward. [01:07:21] Speaker B: Yes, absolutely. [01:07:23] Speaker A: Swapnilt. Thanks for running the show. It was super fun for me. Hopefully it was for you. [01:07:28] Speaker B: Yes. Thanks for having me on. [01:07:30] Speaker A: I think you did a great job and I look forward to seeing how this comes out. Hopefully we press record. Pretty sure we did, but if not, we'll have to do it all over again. [01:07:40] Speaker B: I wouldn't mind. All right. [01:07:44] Speaker A: That was. I think it was fantastic. It was super fun. It was swapnil's idea to do this and definitely change pace for me. I don't get to answer a lot of questions like that. And yeah, hopefully you like it too. So big shout out to him and the other Bluefield interns who've done some heavy lifting this summer as they always do. So it's been a great crew. And now that's August, we're winding down a little bit. All right, so I'm gonna make this quick cause we talked actually a little bit about this. I'd prepared this before the conversation with Swap Neil, and that is what caught my eye. Well, there was obviously, if you're late to the news, coordinated cyber attack that hit water utilities across 12 states in late July. I think Bluefield is either, if it hasn't, it's about to put out some research. Just about what's happening in the market in terms of that. Everybody's panicking and freaking out about it, and rightfully so. But also we've tracked more than 15 similar incidents across 19 plus states since 2018. So it's not just Minnesota, it's not just one state. Almost all of them do trace back to Internet facing PLCs and control systems or just a password that nobody changed as we talked about earlier. So what Kamai isn't the attack, it's actually that everybody's surprised by it. The outrage is a little late. It's the same vulnerability that we've been going through. I think the scale has made the headline, but it didn't really make a new problem. And this isn't just water. We get into other infrastructure like oil and gas, hospitals get hacked. It's an ownership problem, not a money problem. So New York spends about $120,000 per implementation grant for utilities. And so that was. That's I think referring to the dollars that we talked about in New York State throwing money at it. Idaho, like I said, almost spends nothing. It's just changed its funding criteria and it's gotten upwards of 85% compliance. Idaho is a small, not very densely populated state, but it's a good example. Budget's not the constraint in that case. And then AI monitoring and consolidation, I'm not sure they're the fixes. I think we're kind of bringing a, you know, a howitzer, aging myself once again to a, to a knife fight. AI adds another system that needs to be secured. It's a bigger question in and of itself. And consolidation means this is what I'm interested in as I think about election systems. And that is the fragmentation of the water sector may be the best security we have. So less people, no one wants that, but less people are impacted by these cyber attacks. Similar to our election system, it's highly fragmented down to the district level in the US So if you centralize it in any way, all it takes is one hack and you impact more people. Both make, you know, whether it be AI or consolidation, both make the failure mode bigger, not smaller. Those are just my takes on what caught my eye this past week. Like I said, I didn't realize he was going to throw cybersecurity at me, but there you have it. All right, well, that's 13 years of research that's gotten us to this point in 150 podcast episodes. Thanks for all of you that have listened to all of them. And it took one summer intern and one summer with Swapno Gandhi to make us actually stop and check what's happening, or at least ask some, as he's put it, philosophical questions. That is the future of water. Not just making the calls, but being willing to look back at them as we go. So if you got a topic you want us to cover, send it to waterexpertsluefieldresearch.com if you're looking for a career, we've got a career website or page on our website. So a lot of our, some of our employees and interns, they all came that way and some of them actually found Bluefield research through podcasts. So that being said, this is the future of water from Bluefield Research. Thanks to everybody who's participated in 1, 2, 3, or all 150 episodes. It's been a great experience. And until we talk again, until next time, be well, be safe, and take care.