It will be interesting to see how this will work when the economics of everything are so difficult? Will energy companies become the lead forest stewards or will they be given what the existing licence holders do not want.
Hopefully in this move there will not be a situation where usable sawlogs end up being chipped for energy while licencees go after green wood elsewhere. This would surely lead to the end of the industry in short order.
Even though there seems to be endless timber for fuel--the portion of which is usable for sawlogs must be recovered as such to avert a future supply problem.
Its always the "little things" that seem to be overlooked--until its too late.

I hate to say it, but there is something wrong with our system when we can sell our trees for 25 cents to burn them--but we can't charge 25 cents if these same trees are made into solid wood products--because of our retarted softwood lumber agreement.

Just auction this wood and allow it to be made into what it can be made into.
So what if a significant amount of sawlog ends up only costing 25 cents--its better than seeing it rot. Its better than jumping to a false conclusion that it can and all should be made into energy--if it could--which is practically impossible.

Remove the strangle hold which the majors have on our timber resources and allow unfettered access by inovators which might be able to prove that a variety of uses are perhaps possible. The bio energy answer will come through this as well, as it is an important piece of all this.

Its just seems that this approach described by coleman will likely predetermine that a huge portion of our timber inventory will only be allocated if it is made into energy.
What is the forecast for what takes place when lumber prices and demand goes back up? Will too much of the resource be tied to be destined for powerplants?
Who will profit from controlling the forest landbase--the power company or the public?

The price of lumber will come back and we ought to have as much remaining wood available when this happens.

If a little relief was possible to the existing forest industry through 25 cent stumpage--they might also be around when the price comes back.

I agree woodchipper,but the question is,who will use it and how soon?
And I also think this should have been started a long time ago.
And you are also correct in that we cannot chip useable saw logs or we will REALLY have a problem!
Also, when the demand for finished lumber goes back up,what happens to bio-fuel market?
It's a start,but there is some clarification needed on what type of wood is fair game and what isn't.
I guess my big concern is how many jobs this has the potential to create in the near future and how much control the big guns have in who gets what?

The forest industry is able to purchase the logs for the same 25 cent rate (when the logs qualify) but the problem is that 25 cents for this wood is still 25 cents (at least) to much as the quality of the wood is an issue in this situation. I dont think that sawmills even want it anymore, it causes problems in the mill and then when complete the product is crap.

I say give the wood licences away at 25 cents (plus reforestation costs) with the stipulation that any decent quality logs will be resold to mills for the same price.

I sure hope that the bioenergy users will have to pay reforestation costs. That would truly be a mess if this was not the case.

On a related topic, why are we allowing the export of raw logs? That has to be taking a lot of tax money out of the province. The damn trees should stay where they are until it is time to use them here in our existing and new industries. It is nothing short of criminal to allow the value to be shipped overseas.
metalman.

Metalman suggest you do some basic research prior to making stupid statements on exports- less than 3% of the AAC is export- their is a 15% fee in lieu on Crown and Provinical Private wood. Even the USW now admits exports of logs are way down this year due to very poor log markets. Little or no log exports occur in your region- mostly on southern vancouver island on private land where the crown/public do no own or have any interest in the wood.

Metalman. Cut off the export of raw logs and you get more people laid off in the forest industry. Loggers, Truckers, Dock Workers, etc; I doubt if they would agree with you.

I tend to agree with you, howeve the people who log and export wouldnt.

Good post, Woodchipper. The concerns you raise are ones I have as well. A lot of the beetle-killed lodgepole may indeed be good for nothing other than energy chips, and it would be nice to see it utilized rather than left to rot.

But such is NOT likely the case in many other parts of the Province, and with other species. Already there are chipping plants on the Coast that are being fed not only sawlog size hemlock, but old-growth, fine grained sawlog hemlock. While the type of fibre that should be the feedstock for these plants is left in the bush to rot. And I, myself, have witnessed this first hand.

Just as I've also seen fine-grained, old-growth red-cedar ~ logs with perhaps a bit of centre-rot in the butt~ go up the slip into the woodroom at the now dismantled Gold River pulp-mill and be broken down with their band headrig entirely for chipper feed.

Without any effort whatsoever being made to recover any of the valuable lumber in them ~ lumber the like of which we'll NEVER see again.

To me, waste of this nature represents a sacriledge, and is another example of the complete perversion of sane, physical economics by a disfunctional 'accounting' system that increasingly distorts the facts it purports to represent.

Sadly, this BC Liberal government seems to be the greatest upholder of such financial distortions. And it certainly should give us all cause for concern over how many small operators, ones who could have extracted the maximum value from logs their larger counterparts curently waste, will be displaced further if Coleman extends a policy that might make sense with MPB killed lodgepole to other species in other areas.

One question which needs to be asked is why do these offers of "waste wood" (as defined by current economics and established by the majors)are restricted to a specific end use such as pellets or bio fuels? Why not available for any use?
Why not a use to any inovator which could extract a higher value than burning it for power? Is our government afraid that someone might come up with an alternative process or product which might interfere with the majors? Think about that?
If our government is not in bed with the majors--then why is it that they are restricting the ways of which our resources could be utilized? Especially in light of the fact that no way possible is all the dead pine going to get utilized for power?
A power plant will require employees but very few in comparison to sawmill/reman types of operations. A number of powerplants spread around the province would be an ideal fit for an expanded/diversified forest industry--provided that they do not undermine the options which will certainly arise when markets change--when alternative options are made possible by our tenure system--and genuinely supported by policy which allows this to work. NOT a repeat of the absurd small business program.

An initative such as the minister describes, meets the CURRENT agenda of government--its green--it doesn't compromise the majors--it generates electricity--it disposes of (what is currently) "CALLED WASTE", and it looks more logical than a flushable toilet.
BUT is it right to commit this resource for 20+ years to the single purpose of generating power? Who and how is this going to be stopped when things change? When in ten years most of the dead pine will be on the ground --too rotten to remove--then what?
Is coleman going to go to a 100 million dollar power plant and tell them to shutter down because lumber is worth 700 bucks a thousand--and the stumpage rate could be 100 bucks a meter?
NOPE..the 3 guys that work at the power plant will tell him that they spent a 100 million because they have a contract for 20 years at 25 cents......duh!

woodchipper- The problem is the majors are governing our government. If you create legislation that allows a company to take waste wood left behind by the majors on their tenures and make a significant profit out of it they will take the government to court.. Even though it is called waste it still is an asset for the major being its on their tenure. Here's a project for you guys.. Put in a proposal to set up a portable mill on site to utilize waste. Good Luck!

So, this means I can go out and harvest all the beetle killed wood I want and profit from it.
Cool

I agree 100% northman, about who is actually governing.
The suggestion to propose a portable mill is a not an option as the ministry of forests will not allow this "waste" to be licenced for anything but energy or energy fuels, such as pellets. Thats my beef with this corporate/political partnership.
There is no other plausible explanation for RESTRICTING the uses for OUR resources.

In a more optimistic view, I think that what this "waste initiative" actually amounts to is a final ultamatem to the majors to "use it or lose it."
No doubt that some will use it or part of this waste and for the most part this "should" be all good.
The andyfreeze comment concerning a definition of what is fair game wood types/qualities (to be used for power generation)is a very important requirement in all this. Without this being defined and simply leaving it to a corporate economic choice could leave us in a world of hurt--and no way to change anything, knowing that changes inevitably occur.