Huge potash mine for Evart?

Anything pertaining to railfanning in Michigan.
Steve B
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1255
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:03 pm
Location: East Lansing

Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by Steve B »

Would be big business if the Ludington Sub still went there. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 417385002/

150 years of reserves!

atrainguy60
Saginaw Sub Foamer
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:54 pm
Location: None of your business......

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by atrainguy60 »

Any chance the line might be rebuilt, either west from GLC at Clare or east from MQT at Baldwin, if a huge mine is built? Maybe both to allow access to two carriers for competition's sake?

User avatar
AARR
Ann Arbor RR Nerd
Posts: 37904
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Washington, MI

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by AARR »

In 1997 a transload was built at the north end of TSBY's Cadillac North Yard for the pot ash being mined near Hersey. While loading the wind was blowing the potash onto the cars in the parking lot next to the transload. TSBY had to pay for the car clean up and no more potash was shipped by rail.

The transload is still there and is currently operated by MAC for grain loading.
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...

User avatar
trnwatcher
My name ain't Steven
Posts: 4855
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 6:22 pm
Location: Grandville MI
Contact:

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by trnwatcher »

We went down this road back in 2013... do we need to again?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=28410&sk=s&sd=a#p287365
Steven F. Shick
http://www.youtube.com/user/trnwatcher
http://www.trnwatcher.net

I.T. guy/Railfan
"The true railfan has two favorite railroads....the Baltimore & Ohio and another one." - Charles S. Roberts

User avatar
~Z~
Sofa King Admin
Posts: 12908
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Contact:

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by ~Z~ »

trnwatcher wrote:We went down this road back in 2013... do we need to again?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=28410&sk=s&sd=a#p287365
Absolutely :) Read that article earlier as a buddy of mine works at the DEQ. Heard some concerns with Nestle, who bottles water nearby, and how this mine would use far more groundwater than Nestle is, and their use seemed very high as it is.
Webmaster
Railroad photos on Railroadfan.com

User avatar
Doktor No
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:49 pm
Location: Rockford, Michigan

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by Doktor No »

The Hersey group also loaded a unit train on the MQT at Baldwin using the old coal tower. Was a success and I believe it was destined to New Orleans for export IIRC.
The deposit they are tapping into is one of the most pure potash deposits in the world...so why hasn't it been tapped before? Production costs. Potash in western Canada is strip mined and many other sources in the world are out there that are easily accessed. THAT my friends is why it hasn't happened IMHO. Rather this venture will..., remains to be seen.
Best of luck but don't look for any rails to be relaid. The previous venture in Hersey was run by Mosaic (iirc)...THE miner of potash in the world and they pretty much dropped it.
Google a little bit and you get into Western Michigan University explorations, purity of the source, etc, etc.
Last edited by Doktor No on Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Curb Your Enthusiasm.

User avatar
AARR
Ann Arbor RR Nerd
Posts: 37904
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Washington, MI

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by AARR »

There was hard discussions about relaying the track from Clare to Reed City. TSBY would supply the rail (pulled up from northwest of Yuma IIRC) and provide an engine. Although the line would have been operated by an independent entrepreneur.
AARR wrote:In 1997 a transload was built at the north end of TSBY's Cadillac North Yard for the pot ash being mined near Hersey. While loading the wind was blowing the potash onto the cars in the parking lot next to the transload. TSBY had to pay for the car clean up and no more potash was shipped by rail.

The transload is still there and is currently operated by MAC for grain loading.
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...

User avatar
NS3322
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:08 pm
Location: CP-LEVITT

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by NS3322 »

AARR wrote:There was hard discussions about relaying the track from Clare to Reed City. TSBY would supply the rail (pulled up from northwest of Yuma IIRC) and provide an engine. Although the line would have been operated by an independent entrepreneur.
Why Clare to Reed City? That is a lot farther apart than Baldwin and Reed City.

User avatar
SD80MAC
Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
Posts: 10431
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
Location: Grand Rapids

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by SD80MAC »

NS3322 wrote:
AARR wrote:There was hard discussions about relaying the track from Clare to Reed City. TSBY would supply the rail (pulled up from northwest of Yuma IIRC) and provide an engine. Although the line would have been operated by an independent entrepreneur.
Why Clare to Reed City? That is a lot farther apart than Baldwin and Reed City.
At the time TSBY was willing to make it happen, CSX had absolutely no interest.
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
Image

Raildudes dad
Roadmaster
Posts: 4753
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:12 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by Raildudes dad »

This backs up Doc's comments. If it was profitable, the big players would have pursued it. The current operation was set up as a "potash mine" but produces more salt than potash.

https://www.argusmedia.com/fertilizer/w ... h-outlook/ The Cliff's notes for the forecast thru 2030 is the industry is adding more capacity than the demand.

hoborich
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 2992
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:05 am
Location: Northern Michigan

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by hoborich »

The potash operation would use almost 2 MILLION gals of water per day, dwarfing Nestles already excessive water use, and would lower the water table for miles around, drying up residential wells and contaminating the ground water when brine was disposed of in injection wells. The company and the DEQ claim there have only been a few complaints so far, but that is due to the whole issue being kept a tight secret until it was already approved. Only when someone leaked it to the media did the surrounding communities get wind of it.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201 ... 8400015179

And Nestle which is already drawing almost 2 MILLION gallons of water a day, admits that it will lower nearby creeks and streams "Minimally", whatever that means.
In its proposal, Nestle claims average water levels in Twin and Chippewa creeks would "decline only minimally" from the increased pumping and wouldn't exceed what might be expected from natural stream stage variability.

According to the proposal, "an incremental effect of the proposed increased withdrawal on wetland water levels may occur in five wetlands, but is not expected to cause adverse ecological effects. Observations of these wetlands did not find the presence of any threatened or endangered species."

Nestle already increased the well's daily pumping rate in 2015 and earlier this year, but needs DEQ drinking water office approval to max out the withdrawal capacity under the Section 17 of the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

Nestle is adding two new bottling lines and 80,000-square feet of production space to its 746,000 square-foot Stanwood plant.

Growth of the facility and the U.S. market for bottled water in general is driving the bid for more Michigan groundwater, say company representatives.

And for the millions of gallons of Michigan groundwater pumped and sold by Nestle, they only pay the state $200 for a water withdrawal permit! :evil:
"Ask your doctor if medical advice from a TV commercial is right for you".

hoborich
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 2992
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:05 am
Location: Northern Michigan

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by hoborich »

The Nestle issue is directly related to the proposed potash mine, because they would be pumping millions of gallons of water from the same general area as Nestle, and would get the same deal and free ride as Nestle.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201 ... othin.html
"Ask your doctor if medical advice from a TV commercial is right for you".

TC Man
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:25 am

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by TC Man »

hoborich wrote:The Nestle issue is directly related to the proposed potash mine, because they would be pumping millions of gallons of water from the same general area as Nestle, and would get the same deal and free ride as Nestle.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201 ... othin.html

Bump! In the news yesterday that the DEQ approved the last hurdle, and the Michigan Potash Company plans to break ground in the next few months. Assuming they even consider rail, I could see either GLC (Cadillac or Clare?) or Marquette (Baldwin?) getting the business, perhaps?
CEO of the Waving Institute- teaching great wave forms.

David Lang
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:43 am

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by David Lang »

I have the following questions / comments "IF" rail service was to return:

1. I believe the railroad grade is now a trail. Does the former railroad retain the right to reactivate the trail into a railroad again since they owned the property originally? If not, then the railroad would have to purchase the land back from the state correct?

2. If the grade is rebuilt, does the railroad have the obligation to continue the trail next to the right of way? I wonder if they would have to anyway due to the uproar that this may cause.

3. What if Marquette AND GLC wanted to build to Evart and share the traffic? Could Marquette have more leverage over GCL legally as this was former C & O trackage and Marquette is now the owner of that former trackage (although they never owned from Baldwin East to Clare, so maybe my question is a dumb one).

4. The bigger picture here is Return on Invested Capital. This potash mine would have to be BIG for rebuilding to occur. Marquette (or the state) would have to rebuild about 25 miles, and GLC has a good 20 miles or so. If you figure at least $500,000 per mile, (I believe $1,000,000 per mile is too high as we are not talking about a main line here) we are looking at a minimum of $10 million dollars and I am not sure if this cost would include grade crossing construction. Still, maybe a more realistic number is $15M. (750K / mile @ 20 miles), and that does not include the cost to repurchase the right of way (unless the right of way can be leased from the state???) Anyway, that's a lot of money unless someone other than the railroad can pay for it. It appears the scope of the mine project is large, reading the article from March 2018 - 650,000 tons per year = maybe one-100 car unit train per week (100 tons per car @ 100 cars = 10,000 tons). 650,000 / 10,000 = 65-100 car unit trains per year, or around 1 (or a little more) trains per week. Now, even if its 2 unit trains per week, does this justify all the investment? I would think yes, but what do you all think?

Thanks.

David Lang

TC Man
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:25 am

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by TC Man »

David Lang wrote:I have the following questions / comments "IF" rail service was to return:

1. I believe the railroad grade is now a trail. Does the former railroad retain the right to reactivate the trail into a railroad again since they owned the property originally? If not, then the railroad would have to purchase the land back from the state correct?

2. If the grade is rebuilt, does the railroad have the obligation to continue the trail next to the right of way? I wonder if they would have to anyway due to the uproar that this may cause.

3. What if Marquette AND GLC wanted to build to Evart and share the traffic? Could Marquette have more leverage over GCL legally as this was former C & O trackage and Marquette is now the owner of that former trackage (although they never owned from Baldwin East to Clare, so maybe my question is a dumb one).

4. The bigger picture here is Return on Invested Capital. This potash mine would have to be BIG for rebuilding to occur. Marquette (or the state) would have to rebuild about 25 miles, and GLC has a good 20 miles or so. If you figure at least $500,000 per mile, (I believe $1,000,000 per mile is too high as we are not talking about a main line here) we are looking at a minimum of $10 million dollars and I am not sure if this cost would include grade crossing construction. Still, maybe a more realistic number is $15M. (750K / mile @ 20 miles), and that does not include the cost to repurchase the right of way (unless the right of way can be leased from the state???) Anyway, that's a lot of money unless someone other than the railroad can pay for it. It appears the scope of the mine project is large, reading the article from March 2018 - 650,000 tons per year = maybe one-100 car unit train per week (100 tons per car @ 100 cars = 10,000 tons). 650,000 / 10,000 = 65-100 car unit trains per year, or around 1 (or a little more) trains per week. Now, even if its 2 unit trains per week, does this justify all the investment? I would think yes, but what do you all think?

Thanks.

David Lang

I think it would just be a transload from either Baldwin or Clare myself. Also, looking at the Google Earth view, it appears the place was once served directly by rail as you can see a grade with a curved bridge leaving the rail-trail heading southeast to the mine.
CEO of the Waving Institute- teaching great wave forms.

User avatar
AARR
Ann Arbor RR Nerd
Posts: 37904
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Washington, MI

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by AARR »

GLC still has a transload in Cadillac that is operated seasonally by MAC for grain. It was originally built in the late 1990's for the potash being mined around Hersey.
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...

PatAzo
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:20 pm

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by PatAzo »

David Lang wrote:I have the following questions / comments "IF" rail service was to return:

1. I believe the railroad grade is now a trail. Does the former railroad retain the right to reactivate

2. If the grade is rebuilt, does the railroad have the obligation to continue the trail next to the right of way?

3. What if Marquette AND GLC wanted to build to Evart and share the traffic? Could Marquette have more leverage over GCL legally as this was former C & O trackage and Marquette is now the owner of that former trackage (although they never owned from Baldwin East to Clare, so maybe my question is a dumb one).

4. The bigger picture here is Return on Invested Capital. This potash mine would have to be BIG for rebuilding to occur. Marquette (or the state) would have to rebuild about 25 miles, and GLC has a good 20 miles or so. If you figure at least $500,000 per mile, (I believe $1,000,000 per mile is too high
Thanks.

David Lang
1. Ocseola County property records show the portions of the White Pine and Pere Marquette trails in Richmond township as belonging to the Michigan DNR. Railroad right of ways were a mix of owned and leased property. As railroads abandoned large sections of track the rails to trails programs took possession of the right of ways under the guise of preserving the right of ways for future rail service. If they were broken up they could never be recreated again the argument went. There was a suit in Pennsylvania over a trail RJ Corman wanted to reclaim to service a mine. I'm not sure how that came out.

2. My guess is if the track were relaid the railroad would be stuck with whatever conditions the DNR or the courts laid on them.

3. Doubtful MQT has any claim to the property. They leased what they have from CSX.

4. $1M a mile is a good figure. We built a plant to load out sand with capacity to hold 100 two bay hoppers. Track work came in in the $900K range. Here is a link to some figures on materials to build a siding based on relay rail. http://www.acwr.com/economic-developmen ... ding-costs Sand shippers will truck sand a fair distance to get access to a second railroad. U.S. Silica has a mine in Illinois served by the U.P. They can truck sand 50 miles to Rochelle, load it out at a facility served by the Burlington Junction and with competitive pricing save more than the cost of trucking.

The potash will come out of the ground dissolved in water. Why not pump it through a slurry pipeline to the load out?

User avatar
Saturnalia
Authority on Cat
Posts: 15385
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Michigan City, IN
Contact:

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by Saturnalia »

PatAzo wrote: The potash will come out of the ground dissolved in water. Why not pump it through a slurry pipeline to the load out?
Far easier to truck the dry, finished product to loadout instead of the slurry solution. Especially considering all of Michigan will probably source from this mine if it happens, there will be a quite significant amount of local truck-only traffic as well.

Plus the fact that the Canadian sources can do unit trains is a bonus for them, gives them the scale that many Ag joints want these days. Gone are the days of the town grain, feed and fertilizer plant. All those super-sized joints like Webberville now!
Thornapple River Rail Series - YouTube
Safety today is your investment for tomorrow

PatAzo
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:20 pm

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by PatAzo »

Saturnalia wrote: Far easier to truck the dry, finished product to loadout instead of the slurry solution.
Why is it easier to dry the product in Evart, load it on trucks to say White Cloud then into rail cars vs pumping the solution to White Cloud and drying it there?

User avatar
Saturnalia
Authority on Cat
Posts: 15385
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Michigan City, IN
Contact:

Re: Huge potash mine for Evart?

Unread post by Saturnalia »

PatAzo wrote:
Saturnalia wrote: Far easier to truck the dry, finished product to loadout instead of the slurry solution.
Why is it easier to dry the product in Evart, load it on trucks to say White Cloud then into rail cars vs pumping the solution to White Cloud and drying it there?
I’ll start with the big one: land acquisition for that pipeline. Then the cost for that pipeline, and it’s maintenance.

I imagine it is also similar to why strip mines down use conveyors to get stuff out of the hole, and instead use trucks: a pipeline is a single point of failure. If one truck breaks down or a highway gets blocked another can go around.

Plus moving all that water would be hilarious in terms of power consumption. They wanna use as little water as possible, so when they dry the slurry they can re-use the water.

Brine well facilities are all over the place and on-site drying is the standard.
Thornapple River Rail Series - YouTube
Safety today is your investment for tomorrow

Post Reply