Timber Models, reprinted by suggestion from Forestry MiningCo.
larryc at teleport.com
Thu Aug 27 22:04:05 EST 1998
In article <35E4CF9D.4E23 at livingston.net>, dstaples at livingston.net
Re: Re: Re: Re: Timber Models
Written by BC Wet Coast on Wed Aug 26 16:30:42 1998 GMT
> The upshot of all this is the stumpage rates are now through the
> The stumpage system is very complicated, but in essence, it is the
> value of your stand minus the costs for an average efficient
> minus the average stand value for the region. This figure is then
> added to the "base rate" to give your stumpage. The base rate is a
> target government stumpage revenue divided by the forecast annual
> cut for the province. So if you have a totally average stand with
> average logging costs you will pay the base rate. Better quality
> you pay more etc. The Coastal Base rate for June was $25.35 /m3. It
> is not uncommon to have stumpage rates for cutting permits at
> $100/m3. One m3 = 35.32 cu ft or about 212 bd ft.
Near as I can tell, $100/m3 comes out to $471.70/Mbf Canadian, or about
$285/Mbf US. That doesn't sound out of line to me. Timber companies on
the USA side of the border commonly pay well over twice that price for
federal stumpage, or did before government timber sales shut down. A
site that goes for 4x the base rate is full of peelers and #1 saw logs,
> On top of the stumpage, we have a surcharge called superstumpage
> for a fund called Forest Renewal B.C. Good name, but it has become
> slush fund for many waste money projects.
I always wondered when the Canucks were going to start reforesting. It
must be quite a shock to the old cut-and-move-on gypo outfits.
> On top of the stumpage and superstumpage, you then have your
> basic planning, harvesting, milling and transportation costs. The
> Forest Practices Code alone has raised planning costs about $8/m3.
And actually having to plan a harvest must be a shock too.
It sounds like the gravy days of timber mining are over in Canada. It's
More information about the Ag-forst