DM&E Financing revisited.

[Anonymous]

All RRIF funding involves the inevitability of 80% to 90% of the "eggs" being in one basket at any given time.  When BNSF and UP took out their loans, I expect those loans also represented the largest portion of the RRIF portfolio.  Remember, both BN and UP had in recent times come close to a Milwaukee-type failure.  BN's PRB project came at a time (1970's) where BN was close to losing it all.  The odds of a DM&E failure are not any more than the odds of BN or UP failing back then.

Tell you what?  I'm not "ignoring you",  but for the forseeable future I'm not going to waste my time responding to you, unless what you contribute happens to make sense.

[Anonymous]

.  It just so happens that the DM&E project is the spotlight project right now. 

Then why do you keep insisting upon dredging up the past?   as you point out, that was then, this is now.

I think it was you who brought up the older loans in the first place, wasn't it?

DM&E won't be paying off their loan anytime soon, so in consequence, 91% of that program's funding will be tied up on a marginal prospect, for a considerable time.

And if DM&E should  fail, then  for CONSIDERABLY longer.

Not a good idea putting 91% of our eggs in one basket.

All RRIF funding involves the inevitability of 80% to 90% of the "eggs" being in one basket at any given time.  When BNSF and UP took out their loans, I expect those loans also represented the largest portion of the RRIF portfolio.  Remember, both BN and UP had in recent times come close to a Milwaukee-type failure.  BN's PRB project came at a time (1970's) where BN was close to losing it all.  The odds of a DM&E failure are not any more than the odds of BN or UP failing back then.

[Anonymous]

.  It just so happens that the DM&E project is the spotlight project right now. 

Then why do you keep insisting upon dredging up the past?   as you point out, that was then, this is now.

I think it was you who brought up the older loans in the first place, wasn't it?

DM&E won't be paying off their loan anytime soon, so in consequence, 91% of that program's funding will be tied up on a marginal prospect, for a considerable time.

And if DM&E should  fail, then  for CONSIDERABLY longer.

Not a good idea putting 91% of our eggs in one basket.

[Anonymous]

FM-

From as far as I can tell, the $2.5 billion dollars from the government is for all of the trackwork. Do you know, or care, where the other $3.5 billion is coming from, or what it is for ?

Is your main reason for supporting this project is that it would make America less reliant on middle-eastern oil ? And would that mean you would support government assistance for the planned $10 billion gas pipeline from Alaska ?

     I'm not futuremodal, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night....ba-da-bump!!

      How would the DM&E project make America less reliant on Middle-eastern oil?

     It appears that FM is "for" DM&E, because he is "against" BNSF.

Geez, don't any of you guys watch football or rake leaves on a fine fall Saturday?

Dale, coal is not going to reduce our dependence on unfriendly sources of foriegn oil, at least not in the near term.  Maybe someday we'll have a coal to liquid fuels plant in every state, but for the near term the best coal can do is keep our electric grid up and running.

(OT - the idea of coal reducing our dependence on foriegn oil is not as laughable as the idea of windmills reducing our dependence on foriegn oil.  Yet the latter is exactly what one US Senate candidate in the State of Washington is claiming.  For the past month, Washington Senator Maria Cantwell {Democrat, what else!} has been running ads in which she stands in front of a wind farm and states, "These windmills will reduce our dependence on foriegn oil".    Will someone please inform the Senator that windmills only produce electricity, not gasoline or diesel alternatives?)

Murphy, your last sentence is a gross mischaracterization.  I am for the DM&E project because the US (1) needs more intramodal rail competition, and (2) needs more coal hauling rail capacity.  As for BNSF, it only appears that I oppose them for personal reasons - in reality I would be indifferent to BNSF one way or the other, except for the fact that they are part of The Problem with regards to being a government sanctioned monopoly which cross subsidizes imports at the expense of domestic rail shippers.

In other words, as long as there is more non-BNSF and non-UP rail expansion out West, I am for it.  DM&E, KCS, MRL, or someone else, makes no difference to me.  But please, no more federal aid to the Big Two out West.  Just feeding these two morbidly obese gorrillas does nothing to address the aforementioned Problem.

[Anonymous]

When the DM&E loan is paid back, what percentage will it represent in the RRIF's portfolio?

NO, that figure is not "91% of the new loans currently under consideration"

it's "91% of their ENTIRE PORTFOLIO" as in the 'whole shebang',  gluttony, etc.

The UP and BNSF loans were probably good risks, since they did not constitute such a large share of their own net worth, either principal could weather the storm

If DME encounters a storm, they'll be sunk...bad way to tie up 91% of a good program on a bad risk.

Thanks for helping me make the only point that should matter FM, you are a gem.

Absolutely wrong.  The figure you give (assuming accuracy of the figure) represents 91% of what is in play.  It does not represent past loans.  It just so happens that the DM&E project is the spotlight project right now.  There are no other major projects in the works for such moneys.  So DUH!

You see AG, current loan applications under consideration ARE the entire portfolio.  Past loans are history, future loans not applied for.

[Murphy Siding]

      I'm not futuremodal, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night....ba-da-bump!!

Sioux City ? Is that the closest one ?

     

     Twelve blocks north of my house-but who's counting?

 

[nanaimo73]

      I'm not futuremodal, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night....ba-da-bump!!

Sioux City ? Is that the closest one ?

      How would the DM&E project make America less reliant on Middle-eastern oil?

     It appears that FM is "for" DM&E, because he is "against" BNSF.

Dave said-

Quite obviously, the DM&E project has ramifications for national energy security beyond it's regional impacts.

And-

Contrast CREATE with the DM&E project - the nation can do without CREATE, even if it means finding an alternative farther south, while the DM&E project is by consensus deemed vital to national energy security.  Ergo, there should be no federal funds for CREATE, and significant federal funds for DM&E's PRB project.

[Murphy Siding]

FM-

From as far as I can tell, the $2.5 billion dollars from the government is for all of the trackwork. Do you know, or care, where the other $3.5 billion is coming from, or what it is for ?

Is your main reason for supporting this project is that it would make America less reliant on middle-eastern oil ? And would that mean you would support government assistance for the planned $10 billion gas pipeline from Alaska ?

     I'm not futuremodal, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night....ba-da-bump!!

      How would the DM&E project make America less reliant on Middle-eastern oil?

     It appears that FM is "for" DM&E, because he is "against" BNSF.

[nanaimo73]

FM-

From as far as I can tell, the $2.5 billion dollars from the government is for all of the trackwork. Do you know, or care, where the other $3.5 billion is coming from, or what it is for ?

Is your main reason for supporting this project is that it would make America less reliant on middle-eastern oil ? And would that mean you would support government assistance for the planned $10 billion gas pipeline from Alaska ?

[Anonymous]

i cant wait until they day AFTER elections, so we can quit hearing all this BS for a while!!!

I don't think this contest is election related, per se.

More like a demonstration of histrionic resentment

[Anonymous]

When the DM&E loan is paid back, what percentage will it represent in the RRIF's portfolio?

NO, that figure is not "91% of the new loans currently under consideration"

it's "91% of their ENTIRE PORTFOLIO" as in the 'whole shebang',  gluttony, etc.

The UP and BNSF loans were probably good risks, since they did not constitute such a large share of their own net worth, either principal could weather the storm

If DME encounters a storm, they'll be sunk...bad way to tie up 91% of a good program on a bad risk.

Thanks for helping me make the only point that should matter FM, you are a gem.

[CrazyDelmar]

is this thread gonna turn into yet another political fight?!?

i cant wait until they day AFTER elections, so we can quit hearing all this BS for a while!!!

[Anonymous]

Dude - it's just YOU that hates DM&E, at least on this forum (thankfully).  You are the sole minority.  You are alone on an island of your own making.  YOU ARE IN A SEPARATE UNIVERSE!

Guess that means I can enjoy the bliss of knowing I'm not just another bandwagoner/clapping seal?

Well, ignorance is bliss!

 FM,  Got ignorance?

Nah, you keep it all to yourself, it fits you like a glove.

Disabuse yourself here, lots of good information there. especially in the appendices

Hmmmmm, www.protectrochester.com ???  Why not www.DMEisgoingtokillallourchildren.com or www.kevinschiefferisthedevil.com ?  Talk about pedantic URL's!

If that's where you pulled that 91% figure, I would venture a guess that the whole site is full of out of context BS.

Maybe later.  It's Saturday, and I like to enjoy my weekends, not indulge in a fool's paradise.

[Anonymous]

Did you know that if this DM&E loan is approved, 91 percent of the RRIF's ENTIRE portfolio will consist of debt owed by DM&E. ?   the claims that all parties have enjoyed the benefit of these loans is not apples and apples,  by a long shot.

RRIF loans are exactly given out to multiple clients all at the same time.  It just happens that the DM&E loan is at this time the one loan of note, e.g. there are no other large scale loans going out at this time.

When the DM&E loan is paid back, what percentage will it represent in the RRIF's portfolio?

Such intellectual disingenuousness!  What's your next out of context claim there, Poindexter!

I'm going to have to change my mind about FM,  ED Blysard was completely right, and I was wrong.

For what it's worth, my opinion of you remains unchanged.

[Anonymous]

Oh, Murphy kicks in from time to time on the anti-DM&E side of things, but that's just because Kevin Scheiffer won't wave back to him from his ivory tower.

Not anti-DM&E,but admittedly cynical about the whole deal.

He keeps bellering about how the UP and BNSF have already tapped the well of RRIF loans, as though such automatically justifies his pet ambition.

But UP and BNSF are huge, and have borrowed relatively little, especially in proportion.

Did you know that if this DM&E loan is approved, 91 percent of the RRIF's ENTIRE portfolio will consist of debt owed by DM&E. ?   the claims that all parties have enjoyed the benefit of these loans is not apples and apples,  by a long shot.

I'm going to have to change my mind about FM,  ED Blysard was completely right, and I was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Dude - it's just YOU that hates DM&E, at least on this forum (thankfully).  You are the sole minority.  You are alone on an island of your own making.  YOU ARE IN A SEPARATE UNIVERSE!

Guess that means I can enjoy the bliss of knowing I'm not just another bandwagoner/clapping seal?

 FM,  Got ignorance?

Disabuse yourself here, lots of good information there. especially in the appendices

[Murphy Siding]

FYI - DM&E will be reclassified as a Class I railroad when this is all said and done.  That'll make DM&E a peer of all the other Class I's by any definition, whether you agree or not.  They'll also be peers in that they ALL received (and will continue to receive) federal aid.

FYI-DM&E is already big enough,by definition, to be classified as a Class I.  They choose not to be at this time.

[Murphy Siding]

Oh, Murphy kicks in from time to time on the anti-DM&E side of things, but that's just because Kevin Scheiffer won't wave back to him from his ivory tower.

Not anti-DM&E,but admittedly cynical about the whole deal.

[Anonymous]

Yet you display no similar hostility to the fact that both BNSF and UP received federal assistance for their PRB projects.  Indeed, there is nary a peep out of you concerning NS's grant from the taxpayers for their doublestack project.

At least you're consistent in your inconsistency.

Believe me when I tell you, you have yet to see me "hostile" towards anyone.

I think that the word you meant to use was opposition.

And in that vein it's for good reason. For one, federal loans to UP and BNSF are not on the table here, we are talking about a loan to DM&E, an entirely seperate entity. what's done is done, we can't change that.

Where you seem to be trying to argue that since BNSF/UP received such loans, that the gov't somehow "owes" similar treatment to DM&E, you (thankfully) seem to be in the minority in that regard.

The "everybody else is doing it" mentality is not what I consider to be  a persuasive argument, never has been, never will.

The BNSF/UP loans were ENTIRELY seperate, with a loan recipient that was far less leveraged, had far more collateral, with a FAR longer track record  (no pun) as a long term operator than this DM&E bunch.

The two can not and should not be considered in the same spirit, since they come from entirely seperate universes.

The "inconsistency" you see is actually in your delusion pretending BNSF/UP and DM&E are "peers" worthy of the same consideration.


Matt Rose and Dick Davidson just don't strike me as a risk  that would borrow 10 times what they are worth,  using the proceeds to bankroll an operation where they can draw handsome salaries for six years, then as payments start falling due,  say "whoops, it didn't work",  and hand the bag back to the american taxpayer.

Draw whatever inferences you find convenient there.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had so many multiple personalities as to represent a *majority* on this issue!

Dude - it's just YOU that hates DM&E, at least on this forum (thankfully).  You are the sole minority.  You are alone on an island of your own making.  YOU ARE IN A SEPARATE UNIVERSE!

Oh, Murphy kicks in from time to time on the anti-DM&E side of things, but that's just because Kevin Scheiffer won't wave back to him from his ivory tower.

FYI - DM&E will be reclassified as a Class I railroad when this is all said and done.  That'll make DM&E a peer of all the other Class I's by any definition, whether you agree or not.  They'll also be peers in that they ALL received (and will continue to receive) federal aid.

It's just how things are done in this country regarding railroad construction.

[Anonymous]

The BNSF/UP loans were ENTIRELY seperate, with a loan recipient that was far less leveraged, had far more collateral, with a FAR longer track record  (no pun) as a long term operator than this DM&E bunch.

     I'd add to that thought, that BNSF and UP were looking to borrow money to increase profitable business.  DM&E is jumping inot uncharted waters.  That's where that risk factor comes in.

So BNSF/UP borrow money to increase profitable business, but DM&E isn't?

[Murphy Siding]

The BNSF/UP loans were ENTIRELY seperate, with a loan recipient that was far less leveraged, had far more collateral, with a FAR longer track record  (no pun) as a long term operator than this DM&E bunch.

     I'd add to that thought, that BNSF and UP were looking to borrow money to increase profitable business.  DM&E is jumping inot uncharted waters.  That's where that risk factor comes in.

[Anonymous]

Yet you display no similar hostility to the fact that both BNSF and UP received federal assistance for their PRB projects.  Indeed, there is nary a peep out of you concerning NS's grant from the taxpayers for their doublestack project.

At least you're consistent in your inconsistency.

Believe me when I tell you, you have yet to see me "hostile" towards anyone.

I think that the word you meant to use was opposition.

And in that vein it's for good reason. For one, federal loans to UP and BNSF are not on the table here, we are talking about a loan to DM&E, an entirely seperate entity. what's done is done, we can't change that.

Where you seem to be trying to argue that since BNSF/UP received such loans, that the gov't somehow "owes" similar treatment to DM&E, you (thankfully) seem to be in the minority in that regard.

The "everybody else is doing it" mentality is not what I consider to be  a persuasive argument, never has been, never will.

The BNSF/UP loans were ENTIRELY seperate, with a loan recipient that was far less leveraged, had far more collateral, with a FAR longer track record  (no pun) as a long term operator than this DM&E bunch.

The two can not and should not be considered in the same spirit, since they come from entirely seperate universes.

The "inconsistency" you see is actually in your delusion pretending BNSF/UP and DM&E are "peers" worthy of the same consideration.


Matt Rose and Dick Davidson just don't strike me as a risk  that would borrow 10 times what they are worth,  using the proceeds to bankroll an operation where they can draw handsome salaries for six years, then as payments start falling due,  say "whoops, it didn't work",  and hand the bag back to the american taxpayer.

Draw whatever inferences you find convenient there.

[Anonymous]

Somewhere, I read that DM&E will receive eminent domain privileges in order to complete this project.  How does eminent domain play into the overall picture?  How much existing (although abandoned) RoW is involved?  How much land is going to fall under eminent domain?

That's another area where  DM&E's proponents have been very misleading, trying to claim that Rochester is the sole line side resident to oppose DM&E's plans


There were eminent domain battles  at the other end (in Wyoming) that the line side people eventually lost,  meaning, I gues,s that Rochester remains as the sole survivor where DM&E has yet to twist it in and break it off. But they are far from the only entity to oppose DM&E.

[Anonymous]

So, if I understand you correctly, you would have no problems with DM&E entering the picture if it did not require a federal loan?

As a side issue they need to come to some form of peace with the city of Rochester, but if we exclude that as a seperate matter entirely, then yes I would have no objections to what DM&E is trying to accomplish.

Yet you display no similar hostility to the fact that both BNSF and UP received federal assistance for their PRB projects.  Indeed, there is nary a peep out of you concerning NS's grant from the taxpayers for their doublestack project.

At least you're consistent in your inconsistency.

[Datafever]

Somewhere, I read that DM&E will receive eminent domain privileges in order to complete this project.  How does eminent domain play into the overall picture?  How much existing (although abandoned) RoW is involved?  How much land is going to fall under eminent domain?

[Anonymous]

So, if I understand you correctly, you would have no problems with DM&E entering the picture if it did not require a federal loan?

As a side issue they need to come to some form of peace with the city of Rochester, but if we exclude that as a seperate matter entirely, then yes I would have no objections to what DM&E is trying to accomplish.

I've been on record here before as an admirer of DM&E's game plan.

Just the way they have been so willing to rub everyone the wrong way and just say "tough" has tarnished my image of them somewhat.

Let the people who stand to gain the most out of the venture absorb all the risk.

[Datafever]

Putting that much taxpayer money at risk simply to enable the principals of DM&E at the expense of BNSF & UP shareholders, in some zero sum undertaking has gotta be one of the more sterling reasons I've seen yet to deny taxpayer assistance.

So, if I understand you correctly, you would have no problems with DM&E entering the picture if it did not require a federal loan?

[Anonymous]

If you frame this as the working man against the intelligentsia, doesn't the DME represent the proletariat?  Something to think about.

 

I suspect DM&E as more along the lines of what the Butcher Brothers were to banking.

[Anonymous]

You see Murph?  Use a catchphrase like "re-distribution of wealth" in describing the DM&E vs BNSF/UP battle, and suddenly AG seems almost reticent in his critisism of DM&E.

I guess Solz and I had it all wrong regarding the framing of this debate - we should have portrayed DM&E as the oppressed proletariat fighting for equality against the bourgeoisie BNSF/UP/Mayo elite, and AG would have been all over those evil capitalist Mayo pigs.

You really are like a kitten with a ball of yarn, you know that FM?

That is not AT ALL what is going on here, your assumption a very misguided one,   par for the course  that I've learned to expect from you.

Or maybe you just have a reading disability?  Murph qualified his comment as (likely) being  "the sad truth"...and I happen to agree with that sentiment entirely,  therefore no further dialog appeared necessary.

Of course, there is no reason at all to suspect that those individualS partial to making serial kneejerk conclusions would have the capacity to ferret that out on their own.

Putting that much taxpayer money at risk simply to enable the principals of DM&E at the expense of BNSF & UP shareholders, in some zero sum undertaking has gotta be one of the more sterling reasons I've seen yet to deny taxpayer assistance.