July TRAINS takes on the captive shipper debate - Best Issue Ever?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Okay murph I'll give you all of that. So how do you get RR "A" with 55% captive shippers to be able to compete fairly with RR "B" who has only 40% captive shippers. One has lost more income than the other. "A" must raise its other rates more than "B" in markets where they compete directly. "A" will lose market share to "B" who intially will have problems meeting the increased demands. As the cheapest way to go what's another day? The additional income will facilitate more capacity and the traffic will be hard to get back by "A". The solution requires a level playing field for all. Captive, non-captive and railroads.

Like I said, I just don't quite see what the answer is on the captive shipper issue is. As I read things, my understanding is that this goes back to the lead-up to the Staggers Act. While it was obvious that the industry needed deregulation to survive, it was unclear what to do about captive shippers. What many on one side of the issue say, is that as part of the *deal* to pass Staggers, captive shippers were given certain concessions-the 180% thing that keeps being refered to. So, it seems that some parts weren't of the industry weren't de-regulated. They just stopped enforcing those regs. Therein lies the rub.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

I don't know of a specialty petrochemical that is.

You mentioned ehtylene and propylene on your list of petrochemicals. As every one knows in the "trade" it moves via pipeline in massive quanaties. If chemical enginering was your trade where did you ply your trade? What are your degress in chemical enginering? Who granted the degrees?

[rrandb]

I'll bet companies will be lining up to send 2 units and 55 empties trundling out to pick up a grain train in the middle of Montana. What if no operator wants to stop and get the singles because there is no train going by that way soon? Will we now have multiple locals clogging the mains? LTEX, WATX etc. Lets here from our overseas friend's how well this has worked for all there shippers. The drawback to the pipelines is they are always there. Open a valve and your product flows. The rails are also there but you need crews, loco's empties, loaded cars before anything can flow.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Oh gosh, open access is quite a sensitive topic. Some feel it would be a solution, some don't. It was interesting to see that it had been effective for interstate pipelines which share many of the networking considerations that rail does. I think enforcing the 180% R/VC standard in the Staggers Act would be a better solution than open access, but I still haven't quite got a handle on the ramifications of open access in the rail industry.

I agree if it is updated to todays enviroment. Its a 20th century answer to a 21st century problem. There have been changes to the industry in 40 years.

Open access is the most logical solution to introducing de facto intramodal competition among rail transportation service providers. The counterclaim (which I acknowledge does have merit) is that such comprehensive competition among carriers will result in many going under, e.g. not able to cover the cost of capital without having those slaves known as captive shippers to pay the majority of the upkeep bills.

The solution I introduced some time back is to separate infrastructure from transporting operations (similar to the AT&T breakup a while back), allow de facto intramodal competition among transporters for every rail shipper, but regulate the infrastructure portion like a utility, with transparency of maintenance and capacity expansion costs, and then allowing a portion of infrastructural needs to be financed via federal tax credits, property tax exemptions for ROW, and even a portion of the federal fuel tax receipts. Logically, if railroads are going to receive federal aid for infrastructure maintenance and expansion, they should also pay into the Highway Trust Fund (which would be renamed the Intermodal Trust Fund) via federal fuel taxes on diesel, supplemented by a per energy unit tax for electric or other diesel fuel alternative energy sources.

BTW - Open Access is working wonders in Europe and Australia, at least in terms of providing the option of competitive choices for rail shippers.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Oh gosh, open access is quite a sensitive topic. Some feel it would be a solution, some don't. It was interesting to see that it had been effective for interstate pipelines which share many of the networking considerations that rail does. I think enforcing the 180% R/VC standard in the Staggers Act would be a better solution than open access, but I still haven't quite got a handle on the ramifications of open access in the rail industry.

I agree if it is updated to todays enviroment. Its a 20th century answer to a 21st century problem. There have been changes to the industry in 40 years.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
No, seriously, I have invited him several times..come sit and watch, or grab a pair of gloves and boots and I can put him to work lining switches and pulling pins...
So far, he has chickened out every time.
Go figure.[:D]Ed

Oh, now it's an open invitation, is it? And for what? To watch a sorryass operation manned by folks like Ed? On my own dime?! No offer of paying my appearance fee, no per diem?

And you call that "chickening out"?. I call it a waste of my valuable time and resources.

And I would have thought someone down there in oil country would have a better grasp on which petro products go by which mode to which consumer market a majority of the time.

So, ignoring Dave's insults on this post, we can easily conclude 1) he's not a railfan, and 2) he's allergic to doing anything resembling real work. You could wonder what his knowledge is of railroads would be based on, like anybody with a blank profile.

It also makes you wonder what his "star" appeal would be. "On my own dime?! No offer of paying my appearance fee, no per diem?"

So Tom, apparently turning down an *invitation* from Ed is considered an "insult" down there in banjo country, yet being accused of "chickening out" over the understandable disregard I have for the faux invitation is NOT an insult?

Whatever. Now I guess the reference to "banjo country" will be considered an insult by your type.

Oh no! Now referencing "your type" will be considered an insult! Oh no!

I'll say this, and if you guys want to pu***he "insult" angle, by all means go ahead, you all have lost whatever credibiltiy you might have had at this point.

Bert is ignorant of the difference between the monopolistic tactics of the US railroad industry and the current operations of the oil & petrochemical industry. He claims there is no difference between the railroads' captive shipper rates and the oil industry's current fuel prices. What I pointed out to him was that there are no consumers that are captive to the oil industry, so to try to analogize the railroad industry with the oil industry is ridiculous.

Bert then proceeded to accuse anyone who disagreed with him of name calling and Google name searches to ostensibly scrape up some dirt on him. Well, fine. Bert, you are ignorant. There, now I have given credibility to your otherwise asinine "name calling" acusation. My bad.

As for a Google search, really now, why would I care?

Now, Tom. Do you really want to go into the comparison of how petrochemicals get to the primary consumption markets, or are you fine with thinking that all petrochemicals can get to the end user by pipeline? Just let me know and we'll go from there. No name calling, no Google searches, just a discussion.

[MichaelSol]

Oh gosh, open access is quite a sensitive topic. Some feel it would be a solution, some don't. It was interesting to see that it had been effective for interstate pipelines which share many of the networking considerations that rail does. I think enforcing the 180% R/VC standard in the Staggers Act would be a better solution than open access, but I still haven't quite got a handle on the ramifications of open access in the rail industry.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

"Introducing open access to interstate pipelines and their unbundling from gas sales has allowed end users to participate in the efficiency gains in upstream markets. All this has contributed to declining retail prices for all major consumer categories."
Andrej Juris, "Development of Natural Gas and Pipeline Capacity Markets in the United States," World Bank, March, 1998.

Are you offering this as a solution to the current shipping problem of our rail system? [?] By substituteing "interstate railroads" for "interstate pipeline" and "interstate shipments" for "gas sales". Would open access to our national rail system work for shipping railcars the same as pipelines? [?]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
No, seriously, I have invited him several times..come sit and watch, or grab a pair of gloves and boots and I can put him to work lining switches and pulling pins...
So far, he has chickened out every time.
Go figure.[:D]Ed

Oh, now it's an open invitation, is it? And for what? To watch a sorryass operation manned by folks like Ed? On my own dime?! No offer of paying my appearance fee, no per diem?

And you call that "chickening out"?. I call it a waste of my valuable time and resources.

And I would have thought someone down there in oil country would have a better grasp on which petro products go by which mode to which consumer market a majority of the time.

So, ignoring Dave's insults on this post, we can easily conclude 1) he's not a railfan, and 2) he's allergic to doing anything resembling real work. You could wonder what his knowledge is of railroads would be based on, like anybody with a blank profile.

It also makes you wonder what his "star" appeal would be. "On my own dime?! No offer of paying my appearance fee, no per diem?"

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Wow, Dave,
You might want to call Shell, British Petroleum, Phillips, Solvay, Lubrizol, Exxon Mobil, Valero, and Fina and tell them that...those silly companies seem to have thousands and thousands of miles of pipeline they are not using...

Dave lives in a very small world. Maybe he should sign up for the Port's Ship Channel tour follwed by the PTRA tour.

That is they way that certain people act on this board, they make things up to support their point when others poke holes in their argument. If you do not agree with them they then resort to name calling, or better yet, they Google your name to see if they can find any dirt on you.[}:)]


Bert

Well Bert, I guess I wasn't the ONLY one to notice this. [:D]

Wow! It must be a brain virus going around. "Petrochemicals" usually refers to the byproducts of refining, not the distilates. Not all petroleum products can move by pipeline, not all the country is accessed by pipeline, and not all pipelines are heading in the direction of the consumption markets. Distribution of propane to the end users is usually done by railcar.

As for the rest of Bert's post, nothing but pure pedanticism.

And we have ANOTHER great example of Dave not being able to read.

Petrochemicals had absolutely NOTHING to do with what Bert and I noticed.

[MichaelSol]

Oh good grief, another pile on by the half-informed.

Chemical engineering was my original trade. "Petrochemical" is not a term of art, it is precisely defined as a type and class. I worked with a number of the following petrochemicals, and this would be a typical list of "petrochemicals."

ethylene
polyethylenes
ethylene oxide
ethylene glycols
polyesters
engine coolant
glycol ethers
ethoxylates
vinyl acetate
1,2-dichloroethane
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
vinyl chloride
polyvinyl chloride
ethylbenzene
styrene
polystyrenes
synthetic rubbers
higher olefins
detergent alcohols
propylene
cumene
acetone
bisphenol A
epoxy resins
polycarbonate
solvents
isopropyl alcohol
acrylonitrile
polypropylene
propylene oxide
propylene glycol
glycol ethers
acrylic acid
acrylic polymers
allyl chloride
epichlorohydrin
epoxy resins
butadiene
synthetic rubbers
benzene
ethylbenzene
styrene
polystyrenes
synthetic rubbers
cumene
acetone
bisphenol A
epoxy resins
polycarbonate
cyclohexane
adipic acid
nylons
caprolactam
nylons
nitrobenzene
aniline
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)
polyurethanes
alkylbenzene
detergents
chlorobenzene
toluene
benzene
toluene diisocyanate (TDI)
polyurethanes
benzoic acid
caprolactam
nylon
mixed xylenes
ortho-xylene
phthalic anhydride
para-xylene
dimethyl terephthalate
polyesters
purified terephthalic acid
polyesters

Many, most, of these are called "specialty" chemcials. For a variety of reasons including purity concerns, most are not shipped by pipeline. I don't know of a specialty petrochemical that is.

From an SEC filing by a shipping company:

"Petrochemical and commodity chemical products are typically produced and
moved in volumes considerably smaller than the capacity of an entire tank
vessel. As pipelines cannot economically transport most petrochemical and
commodity chemical products, most of these products are transported by rail, as
the smaller unit sizes of railcars are conducive to typical shipment sizes.

"Parcel tankers, with multiple cargo compartments and cargo handling systems, can
cost-effectively transport these products because they can accommodate the small
shipment sizes without having a portion of the vessel capacity unfilled. Wilson
Gillette estimates that in 2003 approximately 68% of commodity chemicals were
transported by rail, 20% by vessels in the inland waterways, 7% by pipeline and
the remaining 5% by vessels in U.S. coastal waters.

--U.S. SHIPPING PARTNERS L.P. SEC Form 1-A, p. 88.

Every time Futuremodal posts, you guys are waiting breathlessly for your "gotcha's" and it is amazing how your enthusiasm for your silly game continues to overwhelm and strangle any actual knowledge that you might -- might -- possess.

[Anonymous]

MichaelSol.

Re: The Anology with the drug companies, I take your point, but on this side of the pond the market is slightly different with a monolitihic public sector buyer. Mind you, the drug companies still charge over the odds to the NHS and it doesn't use its buying power at all efficently. Which probabley adds more grease to your elbow.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Wow! It must be a brain virus going around. "Petrochemicals" usually refers to the byproducts of refining, not the distilates. Not all petroleum products can move by pipeline, not all the country is accessed by pipeline, and not all pipelines are heading in the direction of the consumption markets. Distribution of propane to the end users is usually done by railcar.

Dave, take a break before people start to think you are foolish. Perhaps you should just stick to the Palouse.

Petrochemicals are simply chemicals made out of petroleum or natural gas (11th ed. Merriam-Webster). It can be a basic chemical like benzine, an intermediate chemical like vnyl chloride or and end use chemical like PVC.

Distribution for most propane to users is done by pipeline as a feedstock into chemical plants making polypropylene. In the much smaller home heating market about 85% of the propane moves from the stripper to a destination terminal by pipeline, about 10% moves by water and about 5% moves by rail. All to the propane from the terminal to the home is by truck.

[edblysard]

And, like the champ he is, Dave comes through with the insults, just as Bert pointed out he would, when he (Dave) ran out of anything worthwhile to write.


Dave, just to clue you in...Most of the refineries along the ship channel are interconnected with pipelines.
And I hope you can figure out why they are located on the ship channel in the first place...(key word there is ship)
Every single refinery here has a dock, and almost everyone of them handle and load / unload ocean going ships, or barges headed up the intercostal waterway.


ICT will send Phillips a raw product, and when Phillips is finished with that product, the by product you are confused about is piped to say, Diamond or Oxy Pasadena, where they further refine other products out of it.

In the end, the waste product, or sludge, which has almost no value left, is piped to Arco, where they run the sludge through their Coker unit, and make petroleum based coke out it, which is shipped all over the place, by barge, ocean going vessel and rail.

Not much goes to waste.

Shell even has a wax plant that separates the paraffin out of the crude.

As for your misconception that the distillates are shipped only by rail, well, come on down and we will hike the current pipeline corridor...after about three hours or so you might, maybe, get the point.
There is a real nice one that goes from here out northeast, all the way to Boston.

What gets shipped in and out by rail is, for the most part, the specialty products, like the ultra fine lubes made by Lubrizol, or the by products you refer to, the wax, coke, along with some of the distillates, and inbound the production chemicals needed by the refineries to refine or modify the original crude.
Almost as much of that is shipped in as the distillates is shipped out by rail.

We have almost as much pipeline inside Texas as most other countries have within their borders.
You should check out Governor Perry's concept, the Trans Texas Corridor, for pipeline, rail and trucking.

And we don’t pay to a per diem for rookies....but we might set up an amature night just for you.
More that happy to send you a ticket.
What’s your real name, and the address you need the ticket sent to?
Do you prefer to fly, ride a train, or the bus?

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Wow! It must be a brain virus going around. Distribution of propane to the end users is usually done by railcar.

Speaking of brain virus.

http://www.propanecouncil.org/trade/manufHousing/general_benefits/general_benefits.Htm

"The primary mode of transporting propane within the United States is by approximately 70,000 miles of interstate pipelines."

But they wouldn't build a pipeline to my tank on the farm, so I had to build a rail line myself to get supplies delivered.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
No, seriously, I have invited him several times..come sit and watch, or grab a pair of gloves and boots and I can put him to work lining switches and pulling pins...
So far, he has chickened out every time.
Go figure.[:D]Ed

Oh, now it's an open invitation, is it? And for what? To watch a sorryass operation manned by folks like Ed? On my own dime?! No offer of paying my appearance fee, no per diem?

And you call that "chickening out"?. I call it a waste of my valuable time and resources.

And I would have thought someone down there in oil country would have a better grasp on which petro products go by which mode to which consumer market a majority of the time.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Wow, Dave,
You might want to call Shell, British Petroleum, Phillips, Solvay, Lubrizol, Exxon Mobil, Valero, and Fina and tell them that...those silly companies seem to have thousands and thousands of miles of pipeline they are not using...

Dave lives in a very small world. Maybe he should sign up for the Port's Ship Channel tour follwed by the PTRA tour.

That is they way that certain people act on this board, they make things up to support their point when others poke holes in their argument. If you do not agree with them they then resort to name calling, or better yet, they Google your name to see if they can find any dirt on you.[}:)]


Bert

Well Bert, I guess I wasn't the ONLY one to notice this. [:D]

Wow! It must be a brain virus going around. "Petrochemicals" usually refers to the byproducts of refining, not the distilates. Not all petroleum products can move by pipeline, not all the country is accessed by pipeline, and not all pipelines are heading in the direction of the consumption markets. Distribution of propane to the end users is usually done by railcar.

As for the rest of Bert's post, nothing but pure pedanticism.

[rrandb]

Okay murph I'll give you all of that. So how do you get RR "A" with 55% captive shippers to be able to compete fairly with RR "B" who has only 40% captive shippers. One has lost more income than the other. "A" must raise its other rates more than "B" in markets where they compete directly. "A" will lose market share to "B" who intially will have problems meeting the increased demands. As the cheapest way to go what's another day? The additional income will facilitate more capacity and the traffic will be hard to get back by "A". The solution requires a level playing field for all. Captive, non-captive and railroads.

[Murphy Siding]

Ye-gods! I'm going to explain something MichaelSol is trying to say. Que up the Twilight Zone music.......
This now makes sense to me, but first, you have to look at the situation *backwards*. Forget about captive shippers for moment. We'll come back to them. Suppose two or more railroads are both fighting for the same business. They will be competitive with each other to get the business. At this point some aspects of railroad traffic are so competitive that the railroads keep cutting prices. Other posts refered to it as "the race to the bottom". Coal and intermodal both come to mind. They can keep undercutting each other until none are making enough money on the business. I work in the building materials/homebuilding business. We call it "buying the business". Eventually, one,or both of the competitors will have to stop cutting prices to keep from going broke. This same scenario seems to be playing out in the rail industry.
Railroads "not earning their cost of capital" in layman's terms, to me at least, means they're not earning enough profit for the hassle of what they're doing. So, why aren't they going broke, if this is true? The Class 1's seem to be pretty healthy, even though some think they're not making *enough* money. The answer is, they must be making up that money somewhere else. Which brings us back to the captive shippers.
A boring sales seminar I was forced to attend one time had a theme that somehow reminds me of this issue. "You make 110% of your profit from your main, core group of customers. The balance of your profit comes from cross-subsidizing the rest." So, for better or worse, it does appear that the railroads are cross-subsidizing some segments of their business by making *extra* on other parts, wherever possible. I don't feel anybody purposely planned it that way, that's just how it worked out.
While every captive shipper, I'm sure, feels he is bearing the total financial burden of the railroad on his back, we'd probably all be surprised if someone could figure out just what is cross-subsidized, and to what extent.
That's my explanation, you may turn off the Twilight Zone music now.
As far as Staggers, and possible *re-regulation* (or just plain enforcement of existing regs,depending on how you look at it), I'm not really sure what to think. In a weird sort of way,it might actually help the railroads to have a cap of some sort of put on captive business. It would force them to try to make money on other segments of the business that currently aren't pulling their fair share.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Wow, Dave,
You might want to call Shell, British Petroleum, Phillips, Solvay, Lubrizol, Exxon Mobil, Valero, and Fina and tell them that...those silly companies seem to have thousands and thousands of miles of pipeline they are not using...

Dave lives in a very small world. Maybe he should sign up for the Port's Ship Channel tour follwed by the PTRA tour.

That is they way that certain people act on this board, they make things up to support their point when others poke holes in their argument. If you do not agree with them they then resort to name calling, or better yet, they Google your name to see if they can find any dirt on you.[}:)]


Bert

Well Bert, I guess I wasn't the ONLY one to notice this. [:D]

[MichaelSol]

Congress, probably correctly so, understood that the days of railroad building in America were, with some exceptions, over. With that constraint, over a broad spectrum of captive shippers located in essence all over the place, providing physical competition at all such points was an unlikely endeavor -- simply impractical.

It was more feasible for sure, and more advantageous to both the railroads and the captive shippers, to permit the railroads some ability to engage in differential pricing, yet protect the captive shippers from "too much of it." Rather than impose high system costs of redundant facilities, Congress opted to impose economic constraints -- utlimately a cheaper solution for both the rail industry and the shippers. It was a legislative solution to the absence of market power of rate regulation otherwise.

It was a "deal" and in return for those economic constraints designed to protect key shippers, railroads were permitted to be free of regulation of rates otherwise.

The railroads, in return for great benefits, simply did not uphold their end of the "bargain."

And that is the dispute since 1981, and to this day.

[ChuckHawkins]

Mr. Sol - I am somewhat confused by your position on captive shippers and Market Theory. Obviously, captive shippers could move their product by trucks via a publicly funded, highway system. I'm sure there is sufficient economic reasons for them not to do that. Instead, they are faced with a single RR alternative, as their sole, viable economic alternative. Thus, I cannot perceive that the resulting situation is due to lack of a Market. If Market Theory pricing requires an alternative RR that provides appropriate competition, in order to achieve "correct" pricing, why isn't one being built? I accept that there must be excess profit that could be "competed" away that would provide some return on investment?

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Money talks in this Congress. Some folks think that high priced lawyer tactics and high priced lobbyists are justified if it supports their predetermined conclusions and agendas.

Are you infering the railroads have deeper pockets than the oil industry, ag industry and all other captive shippers combined? [?] Check your math. They must be in cahoots with the chinease who we owe half the country too. Its the importers who got us in this mess. Ask futuremodal.

Is this something that really interests you, or are you just kind of passing the time? I think you are arguing for arguing's sake. Do I think railroads have more at stake in captive rail rates and are willing to spend more to preserve them?

Yes.

How do you think a rate complaint is brought? Rate by rate. Not industry by industry.

Check the math on that.

Your reference was to congress and implied RR's have enough assets/ votes to prevent change. In the STB so far they are winning. The solution is congress where there is a more level playing field. That way they can spend head to head. In D.C. there is no free lunch (unless your eating with a lobbiest). In court there only prayer is a class action suit. The STB is not the route to go historically speaking. While I may take the role of Devil's advocateit's no more than that which will be faced by anyone who wants to change the rules. It takes fresh and compelling ideas to change the status quo. Most of what I've said are common misconceptions. And if it will make you feel any better in my own case you are preaching to the choir.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
If you do not agree with them they then resort to name calling, or better yet, they Google your name to see if they can find any dirt on you.[}:)]

Bert

Sure enough, "Bert is evil."

http://www.bertisevil.tv/index2.htm

[MichaelSol]

Don't think you guys want to get into a pipeline discussion, and why they might be preferred over railroads, too far.

"Introducing open access to interstate pipelines and their unbundling from gas sales has allowed end users to participate in the efficiency gains in upstream markets. All this has contributed to declining retail prices for all major consumer categories."

Andrej Juris, "Development of Natural Gas and Pipeline Capacity Markets in the United States," World Bank, March, 1998.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Wow, Dave,
You might want to call Shell, British Petroleum, Phillips, Solvay, Lubrizol, Exxon Mobil, Valero, and Fina and tell them that...those silly companies seem to have thousands and thousands of miles of pipeline they are not using...

Dave lives in a very small world. Maybe he should sign up for the Port's Ship Channel tour follwed by the PTRA tour.

That is they way that certain people act on this board, they make things up to support their point when others poke holes in their argument. If you do not agree with them they then resort to name calling, or better yet, they Google your name to see if they can find any dirt on you.[}:)]


Bert

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Money talks in this Congress. Some folks think that high priced lawyer tactics and high priced lobbyists are justified if it supports their predetermined conclusions and agendas.

Are you infering the railroads have deeper pockets than the oil industry, ag industry and all other captive shippers combined? [?] Check your math. They must be in cahoots with the chinease who we owe half the country too. Its the importers who got us in this mess. Ask futuremodal.

Is this something that really interests you, or are you just kind of passing the time? I think you are arguing for arguing's sake. Do I think railroads have more at stake in captive rail rates and are willing to spend more to preserve them?

Yes.

How do you think a rate complaint is brought? Rate by rate. Not industry by industry.

Check the math on that.

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Money talks in this Congress. Some folks think that high priced lawyer tactics and high priced lobbyists are justified if it supports their predetermined conclusions and agendas.

Are you infering the railroads have deeper pockets than the oil industry, ag industry and all other captive shippers combined? [?] Check your math. They must be in cahoots with the chinease who we owe half the country too. Its the importers who got us in this mess. Ask futuremodal.

[edblysard]

Oh, and I forgot to mention ICT, Intercontinental Terminals in the above list...

http://www.iterm.com/profile.html

If you read the first paragraph of their company profie...well, dedicated pipelines, barge and ship loading, blending and storage are mentioned long before rail.

Ha ha ha, thats funny Bob....dont have any Bethgons handy right now!

No, seriously, I have invited him several times..come sit and watch, or grab a pair of gloves and boots and I can put him to work lining switches and pulling pins...
So far, he has chickened out every time.
Go figure.[:D]
Ed

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Wow, Dave,
You might want to call Shell, British Petroleum, Phillips, Solvay, Lubrizol, Exxon Mobil, Valero, and Fina and tell them that...those silly companies seem to have thousands and thousands of miles of pipeline they are not using...

Dave lives in a very small world. Maybe he should sign up for the Port's Ship Channel tour follwed by the PTRA tour.