# Hurricane Harvey effect on wood prices



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

This is becoming a predictable pattern, as where I work, we saw the same thing after Katrina and Andrew….

The huge volume of plywood shipped into TX and FL to board everything up and the predicted multi-year effect of the demand for lumber products to re-build are rapidly driving up prices.

Where I work, we consume a tractor-trailer flatbed of plywood every other week and we're already being told that 1/2" CDX is oversold and unavailable. (This is really going to hurt our business, which has been booming).

We also fabricate Polyethylene foam and HDPE (both petroleum based products) and 80% of all Texas ethylene production is now off line.

I'm kicking myself for not having my ducks in a row to build a large 3-season porch addition this summer, as I think my cut list is going to cost quite a bit more to fill next summer.

I feel terrible for the peeps in TX and FL who's lives have/are being turned upside down by these disasters…. and now I'm wondering how it's going to affect the entire nation.

:^(


----------



## TungOil (Jan 16, 2017)

I think we will definitely see a spike in construction grade lumber prices and tight availability. Hopefully it does not impact furniture grade hardwood prices too much.


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

We had problems getting 5/4 hardwood in the past, as it was being re-directed from the industrial products stream (i.e. pallets) to the hard wood flooring mills.


----------



## MrRon (Jul 9, 2009)

I bought $800 worth of lumber 3 weeks ago for a deck I'm building. I'll bet that cost has gone up at least 20%.


----------



## Just_Iain (Apr 5, 2017)

Thank God Trump wants to protect US Lumber interests by renegotiating the amount of Lumber from Canada in NAFTA (i.e. this translate into making Canadian Lumber more expensive).


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

Well, up here in Maniac land, our forrest products industry has been devastated by state subsidized Canadian lumber products. Maine loggers and mills won a legal trade dispute, but it took years to litigate and many went under in the interim. So they appreciate Trump enforcing "fair" trade.


----------



## MrRon (Jul 9, 2009)

I have found that the Canadian lumber is of better quality than the locally harvested lumber.


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

They have huge coniferous forests in New Brunswick, as they do in northern Maine and often the Canadian lumber is sent into Mainiac land to be milled.

The Maine loggers are disappearing fast however, as their Canadian counterparts are subsidized by their provincial government. This is primarily accomplished because the province "owns" the land and lets the loggers have access to it for free (or next to nothing). While in the U.S., the greenies have successfully shut down most Federal and State forests to commercial logging and privately held forests (usually owned by large paper companies) sell loggers access to the timber at a premium.

Another method of indirect subsidy is that the Canadian loggers don't have to pay for health insurance for their employees.

So there's no wonder that the mills buy their logs from Canada, where they can be harvested for much less.

Trump hasn't just waved a magic wand and said that he'll slap a tariff on Canadian lumber. This has been an ongoing trade dispute for decades and it has worked it's way through the courts and the American loggers won. But any trade victory in court is meaningless, unless the Federal government decides to enforce it. With court cases dragging on and week kneed enforcement wringing their hands, most Maine loggers have gone out of business and moved on. And the northern part of the state has become a huge welfare drain on the rest of the state, which is prospering.

And that my friends, is the rest of the story.


----------



## JayT (May 6, 2012)

I feel your pain. We have a lumberyard at one of the stores where I work and are being told that OSB will be near impossible to get for the foreseeable future. That's going to put a serious dent in new home construction, which was already struggling.


----------



## bruc101 (Sep 13, 2008)

Our small valley is backed up to national forest land. The only tree that can be cut on it is down and dead, and then you have to get a firewood permit to do that. A few years ago they stopped that because a few people got caught abusing their permits and cutting live trees.

This pic shows what we found trying to get out of our valley this morning after Irma produced us 60 mph winds last night, and it's just one of many and a few power poles that went down along the same road. This is almost where our road crosses the top of a mountain. We understand the other side looks the same way. So, we are stuck going out that way until the trees are removed. then comes the replacing of power poles and lines. That way is almost 7 miles to pavement, the other way out is about 15 miles to pavement. We call this, mountain living,

National forest land on the left, power poles on the right. Lot of good lumber and firewood lying across our road today.

Hope all of our jocks are ok.


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

I personally believe that our government managed forest lands have been mismanaged for decades…

We won't allow any logging and then we wonder why we get these massive out of control wild fires.

I'd love to hear an estimate how many tons of carbon are being spit into the atmosphere by these fires….


----------



## bruc101 (Sep 13, 2008)

> I personally believe that our government managed forest lands have been mismanaged for decades…
> 
> We won t allow any logging and then we wonder why we get these massive out of control wild fires.
> 
> ...


Last summer, we had ashes falling all over us and our homes because of massive forest fires on a mountain north of us. It burned 1000's of forest land and had 100's of fire fighters in here working on it. This year we can see a lot of new grow tress sprouting up where it burned.

The forest floor had not had planned burns in years, against government rules now. The floor was covered in dry leaves and limbs because of the no planned burns anymore.


----------



## JADobson (Aug 14, 2012)

Quoted from a national newscast (Global TV):

At the heart of the trade quarrel is that the majority of Canadian lumber comes from Crown lands, managed by provincial governments. In the U.S. timber is harvested from private lands meaning the stumpage price is generally higher.

The U.S. Lumber Coalition, a powerful lobby group, claims this has led to Canada's pricing of lumber being artificially low. The Canadian government maintains that timber sold at Crown auctions are designed to reflect market rates.

"What they are saying in the U.S. is the Canadian government is essentially giving this land away cheaper than it should be and that is an illegal subsidy," BMO economist Alex Koustas told Global News. "However, it's been established through a number of panels and resolution panels that is not the case."

Both resolution panels from the World Trade Organization and under the North American Free Trade Agreement had found that Canadian softwood lumber production is not subsidized.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Well, up here in Maniac land, our forrest products industry has been devastated by state subsidized Canadian lumber products. Maine loggers and mills won a legal trade dispute, but it took years to litigate and many went under in the interim. So they appreciate Trump enforcing "fair" trade.
> 
> - Mainiac Matt


I thought the WTO ruled on Canada's side 3 times. So the "victories" have gone back and forth. I've been told that Canadian lumber is much preferred for paper products, I was told it has longer fibers.

What is the difference in stump fees between Maine and New Brunswick?


----------



## Manitario (Jul 4, 2010)

> Both resolution panels from the World Trade Organization and under the North American Free Trade Agreement had found that Canadian softwood lumber production is not subsidized.
> 
> - JADobson


Yep, exactly. The mis-information that Canadian lumber is government subsidized has been spread for years by the US lumber producer lobby. Many of the economic predictions of the effect of closing the US market to Canadian softwood will be an increase in price in construction lumber in the US due to decreased supply.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Last summer, we had ashes falling all over us and our homes because of massive forest fires on a mountain north of us. It burned 1000 s of forest land and had 100 s of fire fighters in here working on it. This year we can see a lot of new grow tress sprouting up where it burned.
> 
> The forest floor had not had planned burns in years, against government rules now. The floor was covered in dry leaves and limbs because of the no planned burns anymore.
> 
> - bruc101


I was under the impression that wild fires are good for a forest. I can't remember the exact reason, but after many decades of fighting any forrest fire it is preferred to let them burn. Returns a lot of stuff back to the ground ready to start the cycle again. As your seeing.


----------



## robscastle (May 13, 2012)

Well what do you know!!.... all the same mindless activities happen here in Australia too.

The Gov has almost ruined the timber industry in Tasmania.

Imported plywood from chile is a grade above firewood along with large warehouse suppliers of timber to the public. Again its dressed firewood standard.

Forrests are mis managed and treated like museums, you can go look but dont touch!

routine maintenance of trees in the suburbs is almost non existant and the bumbling inaction goes on.


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

I took a forestry class a decade ago and it was really interesting…

Modern and responsible forestry practices are like calling a doctor for your forests annual checkup. It makes the ecology better for all species and increases the value of the timber as well.


----------



## bruc101 (Sep 13, 2008)

> Last summer, we had ashes falling all over us and our homes because of massive forest fires on a mountain north of us. It burned 1000 s of forest land and had 100 s of fire fighters in here working on it. This year we can see a lot of new grow tress sprouting up where it burned.
> 
> The forest floor had not had planned burns in years, against government rules now. The floor was covered in dry leaves and limbs because of the no planned burns anymore.
> 
> ...


We used to have what's called control burns here to keep our forest floors as clean as possible and not have raging forest fires.. If you notice on the pic our forest are very thick with trees and shrubs. This fire got out of control and jumped into North Carolina. We had five major forest fires going at one time in our county. One got within a few 100 yards of our schools that are on top of a mountain before it was contained. There are several 1000 homes and businesses in theses mountains and many of them had to be evacuated and some burned.

The fire fighters could not get to the largest fire and fight it because it was in the most remote area here and burned many 1000's of acres. From our valley, which is small, we could feel the heat and see the glow, and sometimes flames from there.

This was last summer, it had been dry here for a long time, and the fires just exploded and took off. Not to long after our fires were contained the same thing happened in Gatlingburg, Tn. It killed a lot of people and burned a lot of the businesses in the city to ashes. This fire moved so fast it was over with in less than 2 days. It was so fast it trapped people in their homes and cars trying to get away from it and they perished in the fires.

We never had this problem when the forest service could have control burns on theses mountains.


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

> It killed a lot of people and burned a lot of the businesses in the city to ashes. This fire moved so fast it was over with in less than 2 days. It was so fast it trapped people in their homes and cars trying to get away from it and they perished in the fires.
> 
> We never had this problem when the forest service could have control burns on theses mountains.
> - bruc101


Sadly, there are more than a few people who think that's O.K. as long as no one laid a chain saw to a tree… Oddly, these same people often live in wooden houses and drive SUVs :^(


----------



## AZWoody (Jan 18, 2015)

> Last summer, we had ashes falling all over us and our homes because of massive forest fires on a mountain north of us. It burned 1000 s of forest land and had 100 s of fire fighters in here working on it. This year we can see a lot of new grow tress sprouting up where it burned.
> 
> The forest floor had not had planned burns in years, against government rules now. The floor was covered in dry leaves and limbs because of the no planned burns anymore.
> 
> ...


Sadly, yesterday I went to inspect a 20 acre reserve that burned down last year because it was so overgrown with shrubs and grasses, some sparks from a nearby fire lit it up instantly.
90% of all the trees there are dead now. My friend is now being hired to go in and bulldoze the area and leave just the standing trees. They're not sure what they want to do with it.

My friend had previously offered to bring in sheep to clean up all the excess vegetation and also offered to a few other ways of cleaning it out but the government always told him no. Now, it's all at a loss.

The same thing happened in the middle of the state where there is grazing cattle in the mountains and lower hills. 
The environmentalists wanted to prove they were threatening the forest so they fenced off a large area of the forest and it choked itself off and died. The problem is, many of the indigenous animals that would have cleared the vegetation were no longer there and the cattle were all that was there to do the job. Plus, the ratio of cow to acre was so low, it was not like there were herds running around.

The problem is, we think we can manage nature better than it can manage itself. We can't.


----------



## MrRon (Jul 9, 2009)

Wood cost so much here because the greedy lumber companies sell the lumber overseas where they can get a premium price. The overseas companies then process it into plywood and ship it back to the U.S. The same with our fisheries; sell it overseas and buy it back at an inflated price.


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

> Wood cost so much here because the greedy lumber companies sell the lumber overseas where they can get a premium price. The overseas companies then process it into plywood and ship it back to the U.S. The same with our fisheries; sell it overseas and buy it back at an inflated price.
> - MrRon


Warning … Rant on…

Back in the George H. W. Bush Days, there was lively debate about globalization, and whether it was a good thing or not. During the election, there was only one candidate that spoke out against it…. Ross Perot, who famously said "that giant sucking sound you hear is American jobs going south to Mexico".

I used to cry BS from the mountain tops every time I heard someone say "globalization is inevitable".... it wasn't then and it isn't now, though unwinding globalization is a lot harder than avoiding it in the first place.

The old stereotypes were that Republicans sucked up to big business interests and Democrats fought for the working man, but IMO history has proven to us that both parties suck up to big $ just the same and the working man, in reality, has no one on his side. Case in point, it was Bill Clinton (happily supported by the Republicans) who both pushed through NAFTA and gave China "most favorable trade status" (before which, the U.S. did very little trade with China).

The status quo, lukewarm, PC, progressive globalist elites from both parties have proven that they have no interest in bucking the big $, big corporate global shell game of outsourcing to the third world, taking advantage of their lack of labor and environmental protections. They just use different rhetoric to make it appear that they do.

Ran off.


----------



## Stew81 (Aug 29, 2014)

You have to take the good with the bad. There may be a plywood shortage but here in Houston there is an abundance of logs for turning from all the downed trees. Just pick it up off the side of the road!


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Wood cost so much here because the greedy lumber companies sell the lumber overseas where they can get a premium price. The overseas companies then process it into plywood and ship it back to the U.S. The same with our fisheries; sell it overseas and buy it back at an inflated price.
> - MrRon
> 
> Warning … Rant on…
> ...


I thought Bush the smarter negotiated NAFTA.


----------



## AZWoody (Jan 18, 2015)

> Wood cost so much here because the greedy lumber companies sell the lumber overseas where they can get a premium price. The overseas companies then process it into plywood and ship it back to the U.S. The same with our fisheries; sell it overseas and buy it back at an inflated price.
> - MrRon
> 
> Warning … Rant on…
> ...


It was negotiated by Bush Sr and Clinton. There was more than one neogtiation. Once Clinton was elected, he prioritized getting it through and signed the final draft to approve it after Congress ratified it. Both chambers had a Democrat majority when it was ratified.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> Wood cost so much here because the greedy lumber companies sell the lumber overseas where they can get a premium price. The overseas companies then process it into plywood and ship it back to the U.S. The same with our fisheries; sell it overseas and buy it back at an inflated price.
> - MrRon
> 
> Warning … Rant on…
> ...


Interesting that more republicans than democrats voted for it. It was signed by Bush the smarter, but he ran out of time to get it through congress.

So signed by a republican and voted on by more republicans than democrats. Sounds like a republican idea, just like Obamacare.


----------



## AZWoody (Jan 18, 2015)

> Wood cost so much here because the greedy lumber companies sell the lumber overseas where they can get a premium price. The overseas companies then process it into plywood and ship it back to the U.S. The same with our fisheries; sell it overseas and buy it back at an inflated price.
> - MrRon
> 
> Warning … Rant on…
> ...


Yes, a larger percentage but if the Dems wanted to stop it, they had the majorities and could have done it. It was wanted by both parties. But it was Clinton who signed it.

So, I guess the civil rights act was a Republican idea since 80% Republicans voted for it vs 65% of Democrats and the Dems were the ones who filibustered. Glad you could clear that up.

What's funny is how people can blindly feel that anything good is from one party and any bad has to be the other party. They're both the same.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I thought Bush the smarter negotiated NAFTA.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


Oh, so not stopping it gets them responsibility?

The deal was negotiated and signed by Bush. Congress approved it under Clinton.

I'm not sure who voted what way on the Civil rights act, but I suspect republicans will end it.

I've read that there was a group of people in the South who would never vote republican because Lincoln was a republican. They were called DixieCrats. They lost their minds over the Civil rights act and eventually joined the republican party. That is why it is hard to believe when they say they are the party of Lincoln and that they passed civil rights. There seems to be no connection to that group now.

I don't know if the parties are the same, but I do believe the people voting for the different parties are very different. We want different things in our society, I believe this administration is the last hurrah for a certain group.

Anyway, back to NAFTA causing a problem for lumber. In a effort to be bipartisan, I will only assign republicans 50% of the blame for NAFTA, even though they approved it at a higher percentage.


----------



## AZWoody (Jan 18, 2015)

> I thought Bush the smarter negotiated NAFTA.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


You might want to see this. You can hate Republicans and what they stand for but at least be intellectually honest.
Bill Clinton signed Nafta. The process was started under Bush but Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Far be it from me to convince. Maybe Bill Clinton's own words might carry more weight…

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=46216


----------



## rhybeka (Nov 8, 2009)

Yeah, I'm not looking forward to the cost of my 12×16 workshop going up next year either  oh well! take the good with the bad


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

> I thought Bush the smarter negotiated NAFTA.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ...


The agreement was signed by Bush, the law was signed by Clinton after the republican senate approved it. As I think I pointed out a couple of times. I'm trying to point out that you can't blame Clinton or democrats for it. Why you think I'm fooling myself is beyond me. Perhaps if you reread the posts you will notice that we were saying similar things, just I wasn't insulting you as well.


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

This is what we're looking at for panel product price increases…










Rough hardwood prices are going up ~7%

And due to all the chemical plant problems in Texas, after getting "hurricane" surcharges for a month, our baseline foam prices are jumping 15%.

Stretch film has also taken a double digit jump, as apparently, most of the countries ethylene production is in Texas.


----------

