STCALRR if the plan included oil trains - it would be akin to the MRL trains through Montana. Virtually all I saw this summer on the former NP in Missoula was oil trains. A GOOD reason for a second line across Montana. With fracking made illegal about two weeks ago production from a lot of established oil fields will deteriorate.
if the plan included oil trains - it would be akin to the MRL trains through Montana. Virtually all I saw this summer on the former NP in Missoula was oil trains. A GOOD reason for a second line across Montana. With fracking made illegal about two weeks ago production from a lot of established oil fields will deteriorate.
Fracking wasn't banned, unfortunately. Just no new fracking on Federal lands. Current projects on private property can continue. The damage is financial, lowering the values of oil company paper assets. I'm OK with that.
Here's a fun fact about fracked shale wells. They're not like gushers or larger reservoirs that can produce for decades. Production drops rapidly after the first year or two. Then you have to frack somewhere new, while maintaining or decomissioning all your old pipes and wells. It's like a snowball that keeps on rolling downhill, leaving wreckage in its wake. There's no future in it.
"UP is not going to put a dime into reactivation, I would think."
-Time will tell. All the moves are not in play yet. The chess game moves on.
It would be interesting to see who owns 2nd, 3rd or 4th log cabin mansions in Minturn.
At the same time it sounds like RGP did not provide much detail. UP is not going to put a dime into reactivation, I would think.
How about an end around ? Up is paid to reactivate line and allows them to lease route for $1.00 a year or get unlimited track rights. Then where are the Nimbys ?
How about an end around ? Up is paid to reactivate line and allows them to lease route for $1.00 a year or gets unlimited track rights. Then where are the Nimbys ?
Remember, new leases can be issued but have more hurdles put in front of them so that the final permitting process to actually use the leases takes so long and is so cost prohibitive that the oil or gas stays in the ground.
ANWR comes to mind.
The more I think about this, the more I think CMPR made a serious strategic blunder in filing a "bare bones" notice of exemption.
Here's why. In an ordinary line sale/lease transaction, all that's needed is a regulatory filing that shows that the transaction meets the STB's criteria for a notice of exemption - a "bare bones" filing is all that's needed, and that's typically all that's filed.
But more clearly was needed here, and CMPR should have realized it. They had to know that the transaction was likely to be opposed by CP/KCVN, the prior suitor (as it was), which had previously submitted a very comprehensive application which, on its face at least, appeared pretty serious. That meant that CMPR's notice of exemption had to do more than just meet the technical exemption requirements. Strategically, it also had to demonstrate that the CMPR transaction was a serious, realistic and well thought out proposal. It totally failed to do this. I don't know who failed to see this, but someone on CMPR's side dropped the ball big time.
One other observation. CP/KCVN shouldn't be popping any champaign corks. The same collection of NIMBY's, rafters and others who opposed the CMPR transaction are almost certain to oppose any future CP/KCVN attempt to acquire the line. You reap what you sow.
Agreed. This isn't the end of the CMPR saga (unless CMPR or UP want it to be). Just the first round. We'll see if CMPR can get its act together for the next round.
Let me start with my usual disclaimer on this subject. I was involved in the Tennessee Pass abandonment/discontinuance during the late 90's and early 2000's, but I have had no significant involvement in the line since about 2005 (I retired in 2008). As such, I have absolutely no inside information - nada - about what's happening now. I'm speculating just like everyone else.
With that out of the way, let me address the latest development. As reported in the Trains newswire, on March 25, the STB "rejected" the RGP/CMPRP notice of exemption to lease the TP line from Parkdale to Sage, Colorado, without prejudice to the applicants filing under a different procedure (presumably a petition for exemption or a formal application) that allows "more comprehensive review".
This was hardly a surprise, given the minimal information in RGP/CMPRP's filings on what it planned to do with the line. I can understand why this wasn’t addressed in the notice of exemption itself – these filings are normally pretty bare boned. But, once the blizzard of objecting comments had been filed, the applicants should have filed a detailed reply, explaining exactly what they anticipated doing with the line, including details like upgrading plans to restore the line to service, and the projected passenger and freight operations applicants expected to perform once the upgrading was complete, including projections of train operations and traffic. Granted, they could not project exactly what would happen in the future. But they must have had reasonably firm plans for the services they intended to perform, the traffic they would handle and the revenues they would earn - otherwise how could they make a business case for the transaction (or for the lenders or grants providers who would presumably be asked for the funds needed to restore the line to service)?
Instead, CMPR’s reply filings provide virtually no specific information about the transaction. We are told that CMPR's "primary objective" in leasing the line is to provide passenger service, that it might get interchange rights to Dotsero once the line is rehabilitated (which means it expects to handle freight), that rehabilitation costs will be "substantial" (but without any estimate) that it probably won't interchange with Rock & Rail at Parkdale, and that it does not project gross revenues in excess of $5 million per year. In a later filing, CMPR asserts that it won't handle crude oil, coal or hazardous commodities. That's a lot of discussion about what it supposedly WON’T do, but a paucity of hard information about what it WOULD do if it leased the line.
I don’t understand how CMPR’s powers-that-be thought this was an effective regulatory strategy. We’ll see what comes next.
Erik_MagThough I suspect the main constraint will be from wellheads to the transcontinental pipelines, which means lots of LNG trucks as was done from the San Luis Valley.
mudchicken Meanwhile, back at the ranch: Coalition promotes Rockies’ motherlode of natural gas as source for overseas markets | PostIndependent.com Being that most of that natural gas cannot be easilly piped out of mountain terrain, it gets to the Oregon coast how?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
Coalition promotes Rockies’ motherlode of natural gas as source for overseas markets | PostIndependent.com
Being that most of that natural gas cannot be easilly piped out of mountain terrain, it gets to the Oregon coast how?
There are already gas pipelines from NW Colorado and Uinta Basin to the Coos Bay area.
https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/wells-to-consumer/transporting-oil-natural-gas/pipeline/where-are-the-pipelines
mudchicken Meanwhile, back at the ranch: Coalition promotes Rockies’ motherlode of natural gas as source for overseas markets | PostIndependent.com Being that most of that natural gas cannot be easilly piped out of mountain trrain, it gets to the Oregon coast how?
Being that most of that natural gas cannot be easilly piped out of mountain trrain, it gets to the Oregon coast how?
Some Washington Bureaucrat will author aqn E.O. Get Joe B. to sign it, and they''ll just /'deem' it over to the Left Coast for use in China... Thwey'll just call it ricksha fuel.......
LNG trains???
Though I suspect the main constraint will be from wellheads to the transcontinental pipelines, which means lots of LNG trucks as was done from the San Luis Valley.
Pres. Biden ordered a freeze on new leasing, pending further review. There are already laws that require leasing on federal land. The Pres alone cannot change that. There is also not much they can leagally do to restrict existing leases. There is also a 60 day pause on drilling permits, but that appears to be for a review of permiting procedures.
[quote user="blue streak 1"]
Not a fracking ban. However freeze on new federal land leases. As well doubtfully trying to stop new wells on present leases.
/quote]
I think you are exactly right..... THe 'ban' seemed to be on 'new' wells and no new drilling pernits to be issyed on 'Federal Lands'... The major deal sees to be that Federal lands COMPRISE sometrhing around a magnitude of two-thirds of the land mass of the 'Western' U.S. *(?).
That seems to be 'interpreted' as an impact on all oil production in those areas(?)
ttps://download.winzipdriveru\
MidlandMike STCALRR With fracking made illegal about two weeks ago production from a lot of established oil fields will deteriorate. Pres. Biden did not advocate for a fracking ban, I can't find anything about a recent ban, and without a link from you to back it up, it sounds fabricated.
STCALRR With fracking made illegal about two weeks ago production from a lot of established oil fields will deteriorate.
Pres. Biden did not advocate for a fracking ban, I can't find anything about a recent ban, and without a link from you to back it up, it sounds fabricated.
STCALRRWith fracking made illegal about two weeks ago production from a lot of established oil fields will deteriorate.
Unrelated - the TRAX/RGP people (Think Nebraska Central et al...Bertel, Traylor, Bach*) and the other group (Denver Area/ Court Hammond/Jones et al who flopped in multiple places) ....and certainly not the sleazy/underhanded scrap outfit** at A&K/V&S/SF&L/KCT/others... Kulmer & Schumacher from Utah)
...CDOT was correct in trying to save the line, but their managerial, railroad & compliance skills stunk up the place (absolutely inept)
* and our diesel fried chicken guy
** who abandoned their ex-CN Bombardier M-420 at Ordway, CO (still there) and fled Colorado
Does anybody know the names of the railroad people involved the Colorado Pacific proposal? I haven't seen them mentioned anywhere, although it's possible I missed something. In particular, I wonder if any of them were involved in the prior Colorado Kansas and Pacific, in either of its versions - the 1998 attempt to buy the Towner and TP lines through a state sponsored line sale effort (which was rejected by the state evaluation panel) and the later version of CKP which operated the Towner line after the state had purchased it, and ultimately failed. The reason I'm asking is that what CP is trying to do now seems suspiciously similar to the 1998 CKP proposal that the state rejected, which may not be a coincidence
I'm posting this to the other active Tennessee Pass tread as well.
Overmod http://www.realvail.com/two-companies-hope-to-revive-passenger-freight-rail-service-on-tennessee-pass-line/a9538/ Soloviev's great plan: Pueblo to Minturn. Any guesses what the attraction at the end of the run will likely be?
http://www.realvail.com/two-companies-hope-to-revive-passenger-freight-rail-service-on-tennessee-pass-line/a9538/
Soloviev's great plan: Pueblo to Minturn. Any guesses what the attraction at the end of the run will likely be?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
mudchickenPhillip Anschutz sold most of the station grounds at Minturn that had any marketable title already.
(2) Phillip Anschutz sold most of the station grounds at Minturn that had any marketable title already. (Minturn is on the backside of Vail, the ski-burbs if you will. Rediculously over-valued real estate.)
You haven't seen all the bizarre, outlandish and/or irrational letters the STB has gotten since this started, have you? (not that they will sway an administrative law judge looking for facts - like STB is - )
CSSHEGEWISCH If their primary objective is what appears to be seasonal passenger service, they will be filing Chapter 11 fairly quickly.
If their primary objective is what appears to be seasonal passenger service, they will be filing Chapter 11 fairly quickly.
Before the ski season is even over, I have seen them clearing snow off the greens to prep for golf at Vail/Beaver Creek. However, I still agree that passenger service would not pay to rehab the line. Maybe it is just a ploy to gain favor with the locals beforing opening it for their grain traffic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.