E.g. I think a 100 years ago, you would have gotten that rail link.
I'm not saying yes or no here, just that it's something to ponder. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I'm not aware if and or how the company will pay for track acess and such. Something to ask at the next annual meeting.
By the way, do check out this really cool video about the huge glacier at the bottom of the Dannemora mine.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/video/will-gadd-ice-mines.html Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Would the company runs its own trains in an open-acces regime, it would have to pay itself. Would the company pay a railfreight operator to run the trains, track access would be paid by that operator, which of course would make part of the money the company asks for from the mine. Would the freight branch of a state company broken into separate organiations do it, it would be the same story but with internally paid track access charges. In a fully integrated state (or private) railway, track access would feature in internal price calculations.
At any rate, I note the gain for railways would be the transport of the ore on the entire route, not just the new track; would be nice if cost/benefit analyses for new line construction would reflect that. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Of course, the owners of the mine should pay a property tax for the mine (and for the deposits in it). And since the value of the mine goes up when the railroad is added, that property tax would go up as well.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
