Farmers complain about BNSF rates to STB

[MichaelSol]

"Montana’s low rainfall from 2000 through to July of 2004 contributed to hydrological drought conditions that have been classified from severe to exceptional (See Chart 2).1 Montana holds the third largest acreage of wheat in the nation, and ranks in the top ten in terms of hay and other forage."

"In addition to drought conditions, Montana’s direct government farm subsidies, which represented half of the state’s farm net income during 2003, may be affected by other recent developments "

"For wheat farmers, transportation costs of as much as a third of the value of their crop would be devastating if it weren't for the government subsidies. "We barely meet the costs of production. This year, with low wheat prices and BNSF raising rates by $150 or more per carload, the government is really just subsidizing the rail industry. We don't really get them [the subsidies]. We deposit one check so we can write another.""

Even with subsidies, "net farm income has remained flat for over 25 years."

"I've lost more money in the past five years than I've made in the past 35 years. I have a bumper crop, and I'm going broke doing it." Billings Gazette, 8/28/05, p. 9A.

Interesting, wheat farmers don't know anything about railroading, but railroaders sure act like they know a lot about wheat farming.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

If farmers can take our money through taxes, how about a government subsidy for every local Ace Hardware put out of business by Lowes or Home Depot? On the other hand why don't we ask farmers to face the same risks as any other business.

[Anonymous]

So the history of railroads vs. farmers continues to repeat itself. CN and CP stiff the farmers in Alberta, C&NW angers the farmers in Iowa, and UP overcharges the farming folk in Nebraska. Now it's BNSF's turn. Would it help if the railroad assigned enough sales reps to an area and actually have them live there so the rep could get to know the people and the way things are done in their assigned area? It's a throwback to the "good old days," and the railroad (in this case BNSF) may balk at the extra cost, but it's better than having to play phone tag with a railroad employee stationed a thousand miles away who has no idea what's going on, aside from some stats on a piece of paper.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox
... why don't we ask farmers to face the same risks as any other business.

I think "same risks" is the key phrase. That's exactly what they are asking for.

A North Dakota or Montana farmer pays pretty much the same costs for labor, fertilizer, seed, fuel, bank financing, etc. as any other farmer.

The cost that is dramatically different is the 100% or more greater cost they must pay to ship, compared to other farmers shipping the identical product the identical distance over the identical railroad to the identical markets.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Cris Helt

So the history of railroads vs. farmers continues to repeat itself. CN and CP stiff the farmers in Alberta, C&NW angers the farmers in Iowa, and UP overcharges the farming folk in Nebraska. Now it's BNSF's turn. Would it help if the railroad assigned enough sales reps to an area and actually have them live there so the rep could get to know the people and the way things are done in their assigned area? It's a throwback to the "good old days," and the railroad (in this case BNSF) may balk at the extra cost, but it's better than having to play phone tag with a railroad employee stationed a thousand miles away who has no idea what's going on, aside from some stats on a piece of paper.

We did just that on the C&NW in Iowa for over 100 years. It did not pay off.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

If farmers can take our money through taxes, how about a government subsidy for every local Ace Hardware put out of business by Lowes or Home Depot? On the other hand why don't we ask farmers to face the same risks as any other business.

Those poor corporations. Montana farmers pay the usual income tax rate on their income.

However, * According to the Oct. 24 [2003] New York Times, House Republican leaders are close to offering yet another tax cut aimed at US multinational corporations. The proposal, estimates the Times, will provide an additional $60 billion in tax cuts to US companies over the next 10 years.

House Republicans claim the beneficiaries will be US manufacturers and small businesses [including Ace Hardware]. “But,” explains the Times, “the definition of manufacturing includes movies, software, oil and gas refining and engineering services. That means the beneficiaries would also include Time Warner, Disney, Microsoft and giant engineering companies like Bechtel and Fluor.”
...
* But they’re not paying any taxes now: Recent estimates released by the Congressional Budget Office show that corporate income tax revenue to the federal government fell 36% between 2000 and 2003. In 2000, corporations paid $207 billion in income taxes; in 2003, those taxes were $132 billion.

According to the CBO, corporate taxes represented just 7.4% of all federal tax dollars in 2003. “With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level since 1934, the first year the data was collected,” said the non-partisan Center on Budget & Policy Priorities."

Oddly enough, farmers don't ask for income tax relief from their 24%-38% income tax bracket.

They pay their taxes and send their kids to war.

All they ask for is fairness, while Bob Wilcox not only disparages their livelihoods and their sacrifices, but he wants business to get more government help and tax breaks above what they already have which are already ridiculous.

The rail industry has enough public relations problems without spokesmen like these, who hurt this industry far more than they help it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[edblysard]

"The moral of the story being that you can single out just about any idiocy, and by careful ignorance, proclaim just about anything about anything. "

See below....

“But,” explains the Times, “the definition of manufacturing includes movies, software, oil and gas refining and engineering services. That means the beneficiaries would also include Time Warner, Disney, Microsoft and giant engineering companies like Bechtel and Fluor.”

"Oddly enough, farmers don't ask for income tax relief from their 24%-38% income tax bracket.

They pay their taxes and send their kids to war. "

Seems you practice what you preach against, and very well, I might add...

As if Time Warner, or Disney employees, up to and including company officers don’t pay their taxes, or send their kids off to war...

Pretty cheap shot, but then, considering the source....

[Anonymous]

Aw, crap, here we go again. Why is it so hard for pro-railroad types to just admit that there are captive rail shippers, most rail captivity is foisted upon U.S. producers and exporters to the benefit of importers, and this one sided captivity hurts the U.S. position in the world trade game, not to mention causing undo hardship on their fellow Americans? Geez, you can still be a pro-rail bigot even if you make such an admission. Or are you afraid of losing your membership to the cult of ilks if you dare to be truthful?

It is a stark form of traitorism when many pro-rail bigots would rather stroke the collective egos of overseas producers (who oft times make no secret as to their anti-American attitudes) than to lend a helping hand to their fellow citizens.

BTW, all this talk of "giving away" certain states to Canada is done tounge in cheek, at least on my part. Not to sure about Bob Wilcox, but at this point I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is doing the same. Even so, it is sophomoric and insulting that his response to Montana farmers being gouged by BNSF is to suggest that the entire state be shipped north. If any states should be "shipped north", e.g. cast out from this nation, it should be those that have done the least for this nation.

Subtle traitorism, that's what it seems to suggest.......

[edblysard]

Never said there were no captive shippers, but then again, they all do have choices.
Know all about “captive” shippers, most of the PTRA customers would fall into your skewed definition of captive.

They aren’t, they could truck it out, but that would cost more.

The rub is the wheat farmers don’t like the alternatives, and the cost, regardless of what mode is used.
What they want is a break on their shipping cost, which it would appear that you have a vested interest in.
I notice you don’t carry on near as much about the poor coal mines, or the fruit growers, or the captive General Motors plants, most of which are served by only one railroad.

That and it's just easier to gripe about the railroads, which the farmers, and you, seem to heartily wish would somehow turn into a public utility.

They are not, but you guys seem to think that if you repeat the same nonsense over and over again, by simple rote and repetition the rest of the world will agree, if only to make you be quite.

Add in the fact that you need a villain to make your pseudo economics appear to make sense, and the fact that the wheat growers in Montana somehow seem to think that because they grow their crop out in the middle of nowhere, they should get a break on shipping cost....

You just willing ignore the free market place forces at play...one of which is if you build your product far away from the transportation center, then it will cost you more to ship your product, regardless of the product, or it’s supposed public value, and regardless of how many carriers serve your area...not a hard concept to grasp, but then again, you seem to think "fair" is a business concept due "the people", and profit is a dirty word....

Yup, railroads cut deals with some big shippers, almost every business in the world does so, and they cut deals with their suppliers, shippers, buyers and retailers, its part of doing business.

Get it…business, not “public utility”….

If the Montana farmers can’t make living growing crops, maybe they should change business, or move….

But this is all a waste of time; you refuse to concede any part of any concept that doesn’t fit your narrow view of the world, or your personal vendetta against railroads and railroaders…and, like most trolls, when someone doesn’t agree with you, or your view point, you insult them…

Many people here have looked very hard at your concepts, asked very clear, concise question, and those that fail to jump on your bandwagon you rant on about, almost rabid in your derogatory insults towards them…even those that tentatively agree with you get slapped, if they fail to agree 100% in short order.

Like I said, what a waste….and the really funny part of all of this is this thread started with people having fun with a posters dyslexic moment…

[edbenton]

Fine let the farmers stop growing grain and see how long our standard of living remains the same. We are the worlds breadbasket we supply over 60% of the worlds grain supply. Yet farmers have seen the prices drop and demand grow. I thought if supply was tight prices go up the oil companys think that way.

[edblysard]

The supply isn’t tight...I yarded two 125 car unit grain trains today, with two more already entering the metroplex...we called a extra to pull the empties out of Cargill just to have a place to park one of them.
All four of them were from the "evil" monopolistic BNSF.
And all four are overseas shipments; the ships are in the docks right now, waiting for us to spot the plant.

Montana farmers aren’t starving, they do make a profit, just not as much as they would like...the gripe is they don’t want to pay the cost of shipping, no one else wants to build a railroad into the area, or serve small elevators because the railroad cant make a profit, or enough of a profit, to justify running the small trains needed to do so.

BNSF isn’t refusing to serve them, if they want to pay the cost, BN will go and haul the cars...but BNSF is offering a cheaper rate if they bring the grain to the big elevators, which the fine folks of Montana don’t want to do.

And don’t buy into the myth of oil supplies being tight, they aren’t...it’s the refining capacity that’s lacking.
Shell, Mobil/Exxon, Phillips, BP and Chevron are running the Pasadena and Texas City refineries full till, 24/7, and still can’t meet the demand.
No one is going to invest in new refineries, they are tremendously expensive, and with all the EPA regs now in place, if they did, what they would have to charge for the products would price them beyond anyone’s ability to pay.
Katrinia didn’t hurt the crude supply one bit, it hammered the ability to make the finished product…so in that instance, yes, the “supply” of finished product, gasoline, is smaller, which drives the price up.

Ed

[edblysard]

QUOTE: [i] Even so, it is sophomoric and insulting that his response to Montana farmers being gouged by BNSF is to suggest that the entire state be shipped north. If any states should be "shipped north", e.g. cast out from this nation, it should be those that have done the least for this nation.

Yeah, but who in their right mind would want Louisiana?

[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

QUOTE: [i] Even so, it is sophomoric and insulting that his response to Montana farmers being gouged by BNSF is to suggest that the entire state be shipped north. If any states should be "shipped north", e.g. cast out from this nation, it should be those that have done the least for this nation.

Yeah, but who in their right mind would want Louisiana?

[:D]

France?[:o)]

[Anonymous]

Note to NuclearWinter: You can edit the topic title to get rid of the "Framers" misspelling and replace it with the proper "Farmers" spelling, unless "Framers" really was your intent?

Do it, if for no other reason than to make the subsequent "framers" references look just plain stupid.

[MP173]

I personally like captive customers. It enables me to make good margins. That is the goal.

ed

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Ed writes:
I personally like captive customers. It enables me to make good margins. That is the goal.

Your customers understand you completely. That's the goal that will cause your clients to outsource to where the captive market doesn't exist. The inexorable operation of capitalism that will put you and your company out of business. "Good margins" will be replaced by no business at all if the customer perceives them as unfair, or perceives you as taking advantage of them.

Everyone sees it coming.

From Railway Age, November 2002, by Luther Miller:
...
[C]aptive customers insist that they're being under-served and overcharged in ways never intended by the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, nor by the Surface Transportation Board's approval of mergers that severely eroded rail-to-rail competition (particularly, for chemical shippers, the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific consolidation).

Solvay America President David G. Birney told Senator Breaux: "One of our major operations with thousands of railcars has seen an increase in the average transit time from 7 to 9 days on loads and from 10 to 15 days on returning empty railcars. This has forced it to add 250 cars at an annual cost of $1.7 million. To add insult to injury, railroads now claim that the chemical industry has too many railcars and have instituted punitive demurrage charges of up to $100/day for cars held out on their lines; shippers are left with no recourse because there are no competitive options available."

Sunoco Chemicals ships and receives 38,000 rail carloads annually. According to Senior Vice President Bruce Fischer, railroads "are willing to offer service accountability on select competitive movements, yet are unwilling to stand behind their service products on lanes where no competition exists. Our ability to deliver products competitively from two of our single-railroad served plants is hindered by the local carrier being inflexible on economic demands, often necessitating supplying a customer from a much more distant competitively served site producing the same products." [China?]

Petrochemical manufacturer BP, whose transportation costs add up to $110 million a year, put this into the record: "We have 80% of our business captive at origin or destination. One of our major businesses is significantly disadvantaged by lack of competitive access. Despite the efforts within the business to reduce manufacturing, site logistics, corporate overhead, and other supply chain costs, we continue to be faced with high rail costs. In this business alone, we pay an approximate premium of $9 million in rail freight annually, on a total spend of $35 million. This premium along with other competitive factors has caused BP to rationalize the business and shut down production sites and lines. Competition, much of which will be foreign in the future, requires us to have lower costs to compete. It is essential we have congressional support to allow us to be effective in meeting current and future competitive challenges."

Celanese Chemicals President Lyndon E. Cole said discriminatory pricing is going from bad to worse: "For Celanese, a freight premium of 30% to 40% is typically imposed at our plants without rail competition. This value gap is increasing, as railroads lower their prices in competitive markets and offset the revenue loss by increasing prices where they have no competition. Ultimately, this impacts decisions on where product is made, putting the economic viability of many existing plants and their communities at risk."

DuPont is "very concerned about the lack of competition in the rail industry," said Gerard L. Donnelly, Global Director, Logistics. Noting that the post-Staggers rail industry has "dramatically improved its overall financial situation," Donnelly said that "the competitive marketplace forces Congress had correctly relied on to 'regulate' the industry have all but disappeared." The result, he said, is "a less responsive and innovative rail partner and the imposition of a 'monopoly premium' in excess of 30% being imposed on captive shippers."

The build-out option, a condition imposed by the STB in approving the UP-SP merger, is one escape for captive shippers, though a costly one. A company that has taken this route is Basell North America, whose president, Charles E. Platz, represented not only his own company but the American Chemistry Council at the Senate hearing. Platz noted that Basell has production facilities in Lake Charles and Taft, La., as well as in Bayport, Texas, and Jackson, Tenn. "Basell is not captive at Lake Charles," said Platz. "But one of the railroads at that location [Union Pacific] does have a monopoly on rail service at Basell's Bayport facility. That railroad uses its market power to obtain leverage over our Lake Charles traffic. Because of this situation, Basell and three other shippers of chemicals have joined with another railroad [Burlington Northern and Santa Fe] to create San Jacinto Rail Limited, a partnership whose mission is to introduce and provide competitively priced rail service options. Although my company would prefer to invest in plastic resin production facilities rather than rail assets, current regulatory policies compel us to do so."

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, October 23, 2003:

"For manufacturers facing tough economic times, the story is different. In the absence of competition, shippers are forced to pay arbitrary rates. It is common practice for captive shippers to send their goods without knowing how much they will pay for carriage, and without a guarantee of on-time delivery. Every day captive shippers face the choice: pay the rate or close the business.

"Almost 35 percent of the nation's railroad traffic is now considered captive. Not surprisingly, captive shippers pay a premium per mile compared to those served by more than one railroad. In Victoria, Texas, a shipper once had three railroads competing for business. After the mergers, only Union Pacific remains. With no competitors, UP has added new fees for carriage of empty cars, dispatching and storage until overall shipping costs rose more than 35 percent for this shipper in Victoria.

"Toyota currently operates five major manufacturing plants in the United States, some captive, some competitive. Captive facility rates were so much higher that Toyota adopted a policy dictating that no plant could be built without service from at least two railroads. Ultimately, Toyota chose to build its sixth plant in San Antonio, TX but not until our Legislature threatened to build a spur to the site so another railroad would be able to compete with the incumbent.

"In San Antonio, a build-out was an option, due to the relative proximity of a competing rail line. For most captives, this is not the case and build-outs are prohibitively expensive.

"The Staggers Act was explicitly intended to protect captive rail shippers and preserve competition. However, Congress had never anticipated that the Staggers dispute resolution mechanisms would have to function in a market of only five Class I railroads. Bringing a rate case under Staggers is slow and expensive. We need to bring the law into the 21st century."

STATEMENT OF GLENN ENGLISH, C.E.O. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Surface Transportation Board U. S. Department of Transportation October 19, 2005 STB Ex Parte No. 658:

Twenty-five years after the Staggers Act, deregulation is clearly not working for “captive” rail customers in many vital industries, as evidenced by the experience of consumer-owned electric cooperatives. Today, cooperatives that are “captive” under current practices and decisions are subject to the unrestrained monopoly power of the rail carrier upon whom they are dependent.

With some rare exceptions, cooperatives that are “captive” are not able to negotiate reasonable commercial relationships with their monopoly carriers. They have rates and terms of service dictated on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis – rates that are significantly and unreasonably high when compared to non-captive shippers. In addition to exhorbitant rates, captive shippers often receive poor service and suffer from a lack of rail capacity.
...
NRECA has determined from a recent survey of our members, however, that at least 40-percent of our coal-fired generation and transmission cooperatives are subjected to captive rail rates for their shipments of coal. This issue is particularly important to our nearly 40-million consumer-owners because about 80% of the electricity produced by cooperative generators is fired by coal. And we should all be aware that when consumer-owned, captive electric cooperatives are charged arbitrary and unreasonably high freight rates for that coal, those increased costs make it even more difficult for our industrial, manufacturing, processing, and agricultural producers to be competitive in domestic and world markets, and impairs their ability to retain and expand jobs, facilities, and operations.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MP173]

The biggest difference between my "captive" customers and the railroads is that my company delivers the value added difference that allows them to justify the difference. I make no bones about it. My customers have choices, as do the rail customers which are captive.

Dont even begin with me about BP. I fully understand how they operate and what their motives are. They are not about fairness, they are about BP and BP alone. That is the kind of customer I DONT want.

Michael, you make a very telling remark about moving from "good margins" to "no margins". That is what you and most large shippers require. "Here is my business, please go make money off of someone else, but not me."

My guess is that the majority of shipping locations have only one option. I could be wrong. But very few industries have more than one rail spur into their facility.

It looks like Toyota, for their case, got it right. Demand competition. Demand it from the government, or the plant and the jobs wont be there. Cant you see what this is? Michael, dont you understand all of this?

It is about leverage, pure and simple. It is not about evil railroads and wonderful shippers. IT is about leverage. Who can and will squeeze the very last drop out of every business dollar out there. It is called survival in today's business environment. Global survival.

BTW, how did you like Merging Lines? I would highly recommend the followup book Main Lines. But, I didnt understand your comment about "petty and childish behavior." Please explain.

ed

[MP173]

BTW...speaking of BP, their ROE is 20.5%, NS's is 13.6%.

Easy to ***, when your supplier is making all that money, isnt it.

ed

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173
BTW, how did you like Merging Lines? I would highly recommend the followup book Main Lines. But, I didnt understand your comment about "petty and childish behavior." Please explain.

Well, I was in San Jose last weekend as the Chair of a USOC-appointed committee reorganizing the business side of an NGB on behalf of the USOC. My copy of Merging Lines, complete with dog ears and my annotations, was and possibly still is sitting on top of the ATM at the San Jose Marriott.

I have ordered another copy. It's an interesting book.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

BTW...speaking of BP, their ROE is 20.5%, NS's is 13.6%.

Easy to ***, when your supplier is making all that money, isnt it.

ed

So the moral of the story is that companies that locate plants overseas to obtain lower outbound shipping costs from the plant will earn more than the railroads the tried to screw them back in the States? Do you think the railroads should advertise this fact, especially to their stockholders?

I'm curious Ed, have you ever witnessed a business closing shop due to poor customer relations, or is that just storybook stuff in your opinion?

[MP173]

BP has a major presence in the United States. But, just to acknowledge your point...

XOM's ROE is 28.3% while BP's is 20.5%.

XOM (Exxon Mobile) is a US company, granted with worldwide productiona and refining. The fact they (and BP) are worldwide would not be because of captive rail rates, but for several other factors:
1. Location of crude oil.
2. Ability to refine such crude oil
3. Environmental laws allowing or restricting production and refining

Regarding your second question...yes, I was a part of a transportation company which eventually closed down due to poor service to customers. I left before the fact, as I saw the writing on the wall. Revenues were in a downward fall, upper management was weak and self centered, and there was no investment in the future of the company...in other words the owners (second generation) were living off of the father's investment and work.

So, yes, I have been involved in that type of business, first hand. I went to the exact opposite of a company, one with dynamic ownership which is involved in the day to day operations. A company which produces the industry's best product and service (based not on my opinion, but the marketplace reaction). A company which motivates and rewards it's employees and a company which invests it's substantial profits in both return to investor and growth of the company.

I have never said that railroads dont have problems. If you go back to my posts from day one, you will find me questioning their operations and their marketing. I will continue to do so. I believe that they must get better.

If it is one thing I have learned in business...actually I have learned a couple of things, but it is critical for a company to grow. For the rails, growth generally means intermodal in today's business climate. They have done a decent job of growth in intermodal.

I might as well clarify something now. I dont deal with buying transportation service from railroads. I am not going to try and be something that I am not. I am not on the front lines of buying rail services. Never ever admitted that I was. My background in the aforementioned company gives me a background in transportation. I can find my way thru a tariff, as Michael found out several months ago. My interests here are hobby related. I wish I could add antedotes of either successes or failures, but I cant.

However, I do understand the business climate. Perhaps I dont speak your language of STB, CURE, captive intermodal, etc, but I can usually figure it out with a little help.

Now, do me a favor. I could probably do it, but we have brilliant minds on this discussion that could do this in a fraction of the time I could.

What is a typical rate (today) from Montana to a major market for a unit train of wheat? How many bushels will that unit train hold and how much per bushel will the transportation cost? What is the price for a bushel of Montana wheat (today). What has it historically been? How much was it 1 year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago?

What is the size of an average farm in Montana (or is referred to as a ranch?). What is value of that farm (value per acre)? How does that compare to 1 year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago?

We can take this even further, if you like...seed prices, fuel prices, taxes, equipment costs, etc.

I dont know the answers. This is no trick question on my behalf. I have an idea as I do own a farm in Southern Illinois. Post your answers and then I will continue an intellegent discussion. You dont have to site your sources.

ed

[MP173]

Michael:

What is the USOC and NGB? Too bad about the book. Saunders did a great job with that book. It is a book that actually could have been bigger.

I am hoping he is following up on a third such book. I will call him today and see if he is.

ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Note to NuclearWinter: You can edit the topic title to get rid of the "Framers" misspelling and replace it with the proper "Farmers" spelling, unless "Framers" really was your intent?

Do it, if for no other reason than to make the subsequent "framers" references look just plain stupid.

Actually I did that at 6 in the morning, my bad will change it now :)

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

What is the USOC and NGB? Too bad about the book. Saunders did a great job with that book. It is a book that actually could have been bigger.

I am hoping he is following up on a third such book. I will call him today and see if he is.

USOC is the United States Olympic Committee; an NGB is the recognized business entity that "operates" or administers a specific sport, "National Governing Body."

There's a $100 million operating budget for the USOC (in a non-Olympic year, which just about triples in an Olympic year), plus individual operating budgets for the individual sport entities, probably a total of $300 million or so involved. As you might guess, there is a collision between "sport" people and "business" people over best practices and budgeting.

Once in a while an NGB -- which are pretty autonomous entities ordinarily -- falls flat on its face financially, typically misfeasance if not malfeasance.

In this instance, the USOC stepped in and restructured the particular entire NGB from the bottom up -- a very unusual step. In essence, it was a Receivership with the USOC taking the position of Trustee. Specialists brought in to oversee the actual operation and reorganization report to the Trustee, not to the former officers or board, and are technically "special assistant to" or just "assistant to the Trustee," which would be the position I was filling along with several other appointed persons.

In this instance, I was appointed to develop a plan to reorganize what was in essence the old entity into something on the order of a subsidiary that could operate within a larger but more streamlined new business entity with a different set of financial and political controls. Interesting process as it involves working with the former stakeholder interests who have conflicting goals and ideas, and sometimes not too much business or organizational sense. My review of the corporation's books suggested possible malfeasance, and I personally made the referral for criminal investigation to the Economic Crimes Unit of the Colorado Springs District Attorney's office [USOC's main office is in C. Springs]. But, the $1.5 million deficit is now nearly gone, and so next year will be a rebuilding phase as everyone gets reoriented to the new structure.

Saunders attacked a big, complex topic, but he's a good writer so its all very readable and interesting. There is a reliance on secondary and tertiary sources, inevitably, and a couple of spots where the secondary sources had the analysis wrong, but that is inevitable in a work of that scope. I would look forward to his third book (got the other one, Main Lines, sitting here, no time to read it just now).

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MP173]

Michael,

I would be the USOC group would be a pretty political group, not unlike the diverse opinions found here.

I am very interested in the economics of the Montana wheat farmers, so I am really looking forward to your answers to the questions I posed.

thanks in advance.

ed

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

I would be the USOC group would be a pretty political group, not unlike the diverse opinions found here.

Cats, hundred and hundreds of cats, all daring to be herded.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Nuclearwinter

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Note to NuclearWinter: You can edit the topic title to get rid of the "Framers" misspelling and replace it with the proper "Farmers" spelling, unless "Framers" really was your intent?

Do it, if for no other reason than to make the subsequent "framers" references look just plain stupid.

Actually I did that at 6 in the morning, my bad will change it now :)

On behalf of the framed farmers, we thank you![^]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173



Now, do me a favor. I could probably do it, but we have brilliant minds on this discussion that could do this in a fraction of the time I could.

What is a typical rate (today) from Montana to a major market for a unit train of wheat? How many bushels will that unit train hold and how much per bushel will the transportation cost? What is the price for a bushel of Montana wheat (today). What has it historically been? How much was it 1 year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago?

What is the size of an average farm in Montana (or is referred to as a ranch?). What is value of that farm (value per acre)? How does that compare to 1 year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago?

This is deja vu all over again! Didn't we go through that on the old "Montana Farmers Strike Back Against BNSF" thread? I do not look forward to searching through 300 forum pages to find out the stuff Micheal Sol and artftbe posted regarding Montana grain transportation rate comparisons. Maybe Micheal can reiterate all that data for you(?)

BUT, I can point out one thing in response to the framing of your questions: If you only want Montana prices compared to a few years ago, and not Montana prices compared to the rates other areas of the country are getting, then you will miss the gist of the problem. The problem is with the pricing and transport rates imposed upon Montana shippers relative to other areas of the country and other areas of the world. I made this point in the other thread regarding captive vs non-captive rates, it is the relative comparison that makes all the difference.

[DaveBr]

Gentlemen,You have your Montana farmers trying to survive with the railroads.Have any
one heard the full scoop on the Oregon farmers and the water they will be able to get?
I understand it's going to be a fight between the Salmon coming upstream and the
farmers trying to irrigate their land? At Klamath Falls
DaveBr.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DaveBr

Gentlemen,You have your Montana farmers trying to survive with the railroads.Have any
one heard the full scoop on the Oregon farmers and the water they will be able to get?
I understand it's going to be a fight between the Salmon coming upstream and the
farmers trying to irrigate their land? At Klamath Falls
DaveBr.

In the case of the Klamath farmers, they are fighting government entities, including but not limited to the EPA, USF&W, NOAA, and most importantly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The creation of the new 12th Circuit Court of Appeals can't come soon enough for them!

Isn't it ironic that farmers, dams, ect take all the blaim for ostensibly low salmon returns, yet the feds continue to allow tribal and commercial fishermen to stretch their hundreds of gill nets across all the salmon bearing streams and rivers? Last time anyone looked, a gill net doens't discriminate between a *protected* wild salmon and a harvestable hatchery fish. There was a federal judge who rightly ruled that there is no difference between hatchery and wild fish, and if push comes to shove I expect the Bush Administration will use that combined count to delist most of these fish.