I believe the exact term was, act of God. (AAR published embargo)
If you are meaning level the playing field to all modes of transport, I am for that. And DM&E has gotten a lot of that help in the form of four large loans. The PRB project does not however, sound like basic to me.
Offer me some factual evidence that indeed the DM&E can compete as far as rates with the UP or BNSF. Do they connect with the latters on-line customers? What percentage of coal traffic can the reasonably grab from the “duopoly”? If you ask Morgan Stanley, you will hear that 80% of that tonnage DM&E cannot capture (40% are actual on-line customers, and 40% are customers or interchanges that are not competitive for DM&E to attempt such as the Mid-Mississippi river markets). And the other 20% would be very very competitive. RDI Consulting took the same view using information from the DOE.
I heard they were looking at the Chicago Great Western right of way, Through Oelwein ?
BNIRRLives
I heard they were looking at the Chicago Great Western right of way, Through Oelwein ?
BNIRRLives
Offer some of that crystal ball logic that says they can’t.
Here’s a bit of news that might clear things up - RAIL SHIPMENTS OF COAL OUT OF PRB ARE STILL RUNNING ABOUT 80% OF DEMAND!
Now, a logical evaluation of that situation - should it persist long term (and those of us in the energy sector are betting that it will persist) - is that a third player into the PRB is going to have all the business it can handle, given current coal demand projections. AKA, there won’t be a rate war, but there might be some rate and service improvements. And what’s wrong with that?
Ah, but the beauty of it is that I am not obliged to offer “factual evidence” or make Mr. Schieffer’s business decisions for him. If his plan succeeds and he finds some way to be competitive against those two giants, great–competition tends to drive price down. If not, he can, if he wishes, remarket: shift focus and adapt his line’s infrastructure to another purpose (which essentially he’s done by taking agri-transport). If the trains run at 10 mph and the shippers are nonetheless willing to pay, where’s the harm? The trains won’t block crossings very long, because the trains are short – so just for once I’d like to hear nothing about this topic from Rochester’s self-appointed quality-of-life community.
Indeed, Schieffer may fail miserably; I think I am only being logical, though, in pointing
The Edison Institute reported in late 2006 that stockpiles were “the highest in five years”. EIA also shows increases on stockpiles in 2006, well above pre-2005 levels, and well above consumption. Loadings in the first three months for both carriers have been down due to weather.
Lastly, if BN and UP have limited time slots on the line, and limited loading slots at the mines, how is DM&E going to avoid that? Yes additional landing pads will be built at some mines in the next year or two, which will add more capacity.
Well, you sure are a dyed-in-the-wool Cascade Greenie, 'cause you just keep on coming up with excuses for 'em while dissing the DM&E and us energy folk…
You do know the difference between coal stockpiles at power plants and PRB delivery contractual obligations, don’t you? Let me give you a brief primer:
When the PRB duopoly failed to keep up with contractual deliveries, utilities had to come up with alternatives to keep the juice flowing to the customers. These alternatives include…
There is also a fear within the utility sector that delays in PRB deliveries are only going to get worse, so everyone is stockpiling in a panic. FYI - that stockpiled coal is mostly non-PRB stuff.
Another convenient act of God, huh?
I’m under the impression that you’re under the impression that the DM&E would use the Joint Line once the Greater Bill metro area is attained. My understanding is that DM&E would build it’s own north-south line once Bill-ish is reached. D
What about a connecting line between the DM&E at Sioux Falls and the western most point of the ICE in Iowa? Are there any other shortlines or regionals who can provide the connection between South Dakota and Iowa? Such would allow DM&E to avoid Minnesota altogether, which would then allow them to torture Minnesota politicos with an anouncement of abandonment proceedings of the “I-90” line through southern Minnesota.[^]
Well…Who else would it be an act of?[D)] To my knowledge, neither UP or BNSF controls the weather.
Better check you map there, Buckwheat. The DM&E doesn’t go to Sioux Falls. Kevin Schaffer has to drive 50 miles straight north to Brookings, S.D., just to physically see his railroad. The I-90(?) line? you speak of (DM&E) is about 50 miles north of I-90.
All the north/south lines that could connect as you suggest are owned by UP and BNSF. I guess it wouldn’t hurt DM&E to ask?
The News-Record - Wyoming / March 7, 2007
Judge orders landowners to grant access to DM&E Railroad
By JAMES WARDEN, News-Record Writer
Despite landowners’ worries about the solvency of a proposed railroad expansion, a District Court judge ruled Tuesday that the company had sufficient authority to survey their lands for the project.
“These matters were written in stone before the doors to the courtroom opened in this case,” Judge Michael “Nick” Deegan said in his ruling.
Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad sued Lenard Seeley and Jerry Dilts for permission to conduct required surveys on lands they own in Campbell, Converse and Weston counties. The surveys are preparation for a proposed $6 billion expansion that would give the railroad access to Powder River Basin coal fields.
The surveys could be a first step toward the railroad’s using its condemnation powers to seize the land for the project.
Full story here