|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 14, 2009 13:30:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 14, 2009 14:07:47 GMT -5
He also has confidence the rail system is a viable means of transportation. Good news all around.
|
|
|
|
Post by ty454 on Nov 14, 2009 17:24:55 GMT -5
He also has confidence the rail system is a viable means of transportation. Good news all around. I think it's more a sign that he thinks trucking is doomed and rail is going to be what's left as fuel prices rise. Same end result, I hope he's right. |
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 14, 2009 17:42:09 GMT -5
He also has confidence the rail system is a viable means of transportation. Good news all around. I think it's more a sign that he thinks trucking is doomed and rail is going to be what's left as fuel prices rise. Same end result, I hope he's right. Point taken. But, if Buffet is investing in rail, it means he thinks good will travel by rail. Rail is more fuel efficient than trucking, although it's not as convenient or generally as quick. There are going to be a whole lot of changes to our society over the next 20 years, and I'm pretty excited to be alive to see it all unfold. |
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 14, 2009 18:05:21 GMT -5
The one joy of the broken economy has been the lack of trucks on the highway.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 14, 2009 21:03:51 GMT -5
I saw the Buffett BN biz a week or two ago.. I just found it amazing that one guy could buy such a giant chunk of US infrastructure outright, seemingly as casually as an order of fries & a burger.... What I thought was, "That is definitely too much power in one pair of hands..."
|
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 15, 2009 2:52:37 GMT -5
One thing t'all missed is that he thinks COAL is where it's at for the future. Guess who hauls all that Wyoming and Montana coal east for all those power plants. It be the Bee Enn, dudes. Kit. $44 Billion. It's the new.....$43 billion.  |
|
|
|
Post by ty454 on Nov 15, 2009 8:30:35 GMT -5
One thing t'all missed is that he thinks COAL is where it's at for the future. Guess who hauls all that Wyoming and Montana coal east for all those power plants. It be the Bee Enn, dudes. Kit. $44 Billion. It's the new.....$43 billion. Yeah I think coal is the future too. |
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 15, 2009 12:26:49 GMT -5
Here's some fun related coal & coal biz fax:
The power river basin coal is indeed low sulfur--about 30% lower than Appalachian coal per ton--but it is also less dense, putting out about 30% *less* btu's than eastern coal per ton. Sum result? Low sulfur coal is as dirty as eastern coal per BTU output. ;D
Buffett also owns the largest private utility in Iowa. It is also the dirtiest carbon footprint-wise of any utility in the country.
The gov't suspended financial reporting requirements (Form EIA-412) for all public utilities in 2004 making it impossible to directly compare economic efficiency with private utilities. (Public utilities prior to this time operated at efficiency levels comparable to private utilities--inconvenient fact considering this is when the private utilities were successfully arguing for deregulation as an efficiency point.) here's a hint: In Cali, public electricity rates are about HALF of private electricity rates (7.3cents per kwh vs. 13.4cents per kwh). Just like in healthcare, the difference lies in profit taking. That is "efficient" for only one group of people: the bank accounts & portfolios of the tiny minority who actually own those private utilities.
What do you suppose will happen to electricity prices when private corps end up owning majority interests in *both* transportation of the fuel for electricity and the generation facilities *and* are the primary speculators in those same energy markets?
Wanna bet that the coming electric transportation revolution isn't going to be so "economical" in the future?? ;D These people will position themselves to get their pound of flesh, regardless...
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Nov 15, 2009 13:07:18 GMT -5
I don't know if it's that great of an investment.
The infrastructure sucks. Trains are very old and they are limited in their range.
They are also still heavily reliant on other forms of transportation as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 16, 2009 11:52:21 GMT -5
Here's some fun related coal & coal biz fax: The power river basin coal is indeed low sulfur--about 30% lower than Appalachian coal per ton--but it is also less dense, putting out about 30% *less* btu's than eastern coal per ton. Sum result? Low sulfur coal is as dirty as eastern coal per BTU output. ;D Buffett also owns the largest private utility in Iowa. It is also the dirtiest carbon footprint-wise of any utility in the country. The gov't suspended financial reporting requirements (Form EIA-412) for all public utilities in 2004 making it impossible to directly compare economic efficiency with private utilities. (Public utilities prior to this time operated at efficiency levels comparable to private utilities--inconvenient fact considering this is when the private utilities were successfully arguing for deregulation as an efficiency point.) here's a hint: In Cali, public electricity rates are about HALF of private electricity rates (7.3cents per kwh vs. 13.4cents per kwh). Just like in healthcare, the difference lies in profit taking. That is "efficient" for only one group of people: the bank accounts & portfolios of the tiny minority who actually own those private utilities. What do you suppose will happen to electricity prices when private corps end up owning majority interests in *both* transportation of the fuel for electricity and the generation facilities *and* are the primary speculators in those same energy markets? Wanna bet that the coming electric transportation revolution isn't going to be so "economical" in the future?? ;D These people will position themselves to get their pound of flesh, regardless... Well, so far Buffet may or may not own the largest generator in Iowa. (Iowa?) but taking that and expanding it to the entire nation is a bit of an overreach. Clearly, Buffet believes that coal as a source of energy is going to be around for a while. I think the very long term trend, though, is going to be local generation, using wind, solar and nuclear and other alternatives. It's just going to take a long time for that to occur. What's holding it all up is simply the price per kw of one vs. the other. The price of coal has more to do with the cost of its transportation than its mine head cost. And evidently, the BN has most of that business sewn up. But it doesn't preclude one of the other railroads from coming in there. See this Univeristy of Wyoming website on Coal. |
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 16, 2009 11:57:54 GMT -5
Why are we just assuming he bought it to move coal? Doesn't anyone think it's possible that he's predicting a rise in gasoline prices?
|
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 16, 2009 12:16:20 GMT -5
Because the BN's primary business is hauling coal. How do you figure gasoline into this equation - well, unless you expect the resurrection of the passenger rail business....??
|
|
|
|
Post by ty454 on Nov 16, 2009 12:28:01 GMT -5
Because the BN's primary business is hauling coal. How do you figure gasoline into this equation - well, unless you expect the resurrection of the passenger rail business....?? Dude Fly, take a trip down memory lane to last summer and the havoc that distillate prices were playing on the independent truckers. Trucking as it is structered now is doomed, it's going to be rail for continental transport. That's what Warren is looking at like Jim said, not primarily coal. Who cares if the trains are old and crappy, as long as infrastructure access is there then it's a no-brainer. Ultimately it needs to be electrified and new trains put out anyway...which is what the US ought to be spending stimulus dollars on right now. The rail network is what I think Warren is after, and all the right-of-way access that comes with it. |
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 16, 2009 12:37:15 GMT -5
Because the BN's primary business is hauling coal. How do you figure gasoline into this equation - well, unless you expect the resurrection of the passenger rail business....?? If gas prices go up it puts upward pressure on Diesel because more crude is diverted to the more profitable refinement. When truck costs rise, rail benefits. During the fuel price run up last year, trucks virtually disappeared from the 95 corrider for the first time in my memory. The price of gas directly drives the price of diesel which drives the mix of rail freight vs. truck freight. I think BH might be making a prediction about fuel costs. |
|
