Lipid, though I understand that you're trying to get the conversation started, I could not disagree more with the "wasted space" commentary. And since none of us truly know the location/layout, these are my opinions, based on the company's previous actions, and my own logic. A few counterpoints...
Regarding space:
1. If each PBR in the 150-acre subdivision is SHARING resources (as stated in the PR), it stands to reason that those resources are also sharing space. Picture two country roads intersecting, and dividing 4 farms. If those 4 farms were to share resources, it would make the most sense to put the resources right where all the farms meet, and build them outward, wouldn't it? It's simple logic that I doubt is lost on a crew of engineers. No one knows the layout (doubt it's perfectly square), but there is some basic math that I trust will be accounted for.
2. One of the smaller modifications made to the new corners was to put the openings closer together. It was something they learned from the beta version they installed in SJC. I think it was something like 20-30% closer together, which over 150-acres is a major increase in acreage. Point being, they're adept at maximizing space whenever possible - and are clearly aware of the impacts on any scale.
Regarding # of acres:
3. You argue that BEHL should sell 5-acre units instead of 10 or 15. Read the PR - they came up with this plan on account of demand for product, and are set to lease 150 acres (if they haven't already). My opinion is that if they're ready to purchase/lease the land, they've already sold enough acrage to warrant the money spent.
Obviously all my opinion, but I think we need to be careful about making wild assumptions on major projects, especially when it flies in the face of how they've operated to thus far.
