The following comments were submitted a year ago (February 2022) by the ALC regarding public comments ON the new OSB mill. The comments proved prophetic. West Fraser and other mills succeeded in driving any competition out of the state OF MINNESOTA by obstructing, delaying, and instigating opposition to the biggest development in the timber industry in nearly 40 years. Minnesota’s loss will be someone else’s gain:
The American Loggers Council, represents 30 State Logging Associations, including the Associated Contract Loggers and Truckers of Minnesota. Every one of those states would and will bend backward for the opportunity that Minnesota has to have a new $440 million mill built in their state.
As I have traveled to 20 states in the last 8 months, I am seeing forest products mills welcomed with open arms when they reopen mills and build new mills. Minnesota is not living up to its “Minnesota Nice” reputation due to the vocal minority’s misinformed, false, and unfounded opposition to the proposed Huber Engineered Woods mill. Huber Engineered Woods is an American family-owned business with operations in Maine, Georgia, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee. When visiting those states and speaking to the timber industry representatives there, they only have the highest regard for Huber Engineered Woods corporate citizenship and business integrity.
When considering that the primary source of the vocal minority opposition, Canadian-based West Fraser (one of the largest lumber and OSB manufacturers in the world), is a potential competitor, the legitimacy of their motives is obviously suspect. Furthermore, the claims from West Fraser represent a conflict of interest from a company that has already expressed its objection to the Huber Engineered Woods plant when the legislature was considering supporting the project.
The feigned concerns for West Fraser’s objection and request are based upon manufactured and unsubstantiated false premises.
First, their accusation that the City of Cohasset is biased based on their prior expressed support of the project is a moot point when considering West Fraser’s prior documented opposition to the project.
Second, West Fraser’s claim that there is insufficient timber resource available to support the projected 400,000 cords of annual timber consumption is not legitimate. Over the past 14 years, Minnesota has lost six primary mills, many utilizing similar timber species proposed for the Huber Engineered Woods mill. Those mills, and the remaining mills, existed at the same time. At that time Minnesota harvested 4 million cords of timber annually and now harvests 2.7 million. The Huber Engineered Woods mill utilization will only be compared to one of those mills. So, based on historic timber harvest volumes, the amount of timber required to support the Huber Engineered Woods is sustainable.
Additionally, the MNDNR Forest Stand Inventory has identified 10 million cords of over-rotation (mature) Aspen on private lands. Private timber lands in Minnesota represent 46% of land ownership.
Aspen utilization was developed in the 1980s due to the abundant resource availability. Multiple mills were constructed in the 1980s and utilized this initial harvest rotation. As a result, 40-50 years later the age rotation cycle is primed for a second harvest. The timing is perfect for developing additional consuming markets.
West Fraser has expressed concern regarding the impact of additional demand and competition on the price of raw materials. This is transparently indicative of the actual premise of their opposition. However, this type of concern and interference could be a direct violation of anti-trust business competitive restrictions that are not permitted.
Third, the request for a full EIS based on air quality and emissions is designed to delay the project and increase costs with the objective of cancellation of the project.
In considering Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, they must be factored against the full lifecycle of carbon sequestration. In fact, West Fraser’s website touts its carbon negative footprint. This is based on their statement.
“As wood is the main component of West Fraser’s products, carbon is sequestered and locked up for the board’s lifetime…… West Fraser’s net carbon-negative status benefits specifiers and users of the company’s engineered wood panel products. When used in construction, these products can help tip a project’s carbon count in the right direction.”
Their claim and calculation must therefore give similar credit to Huber Engineered Woods timber utilization, production, and carbon capture/storage. Additionally, younger forests absorb 2/3’s more carbon than older forests. Silvicultural practices (managing forests) ensure a diversity of age classes and contributes to healthy forests. Based on the MNDNR Forest Stand Inventory, increased forest management will be sustainable and necessary to achieve the public and private healthy forest objectives. Therefore, the projected volume necessary for the Huber Engineered Woods plant will positively support forest management and carbon sequestration.
In conclusion, the arguments presented by West Fraser have no merit or legitimacy. They represent false arguments that are contradictory to the facts presented. The objective of their request is merely an attempt to obstruct, delay, add costs and prevent competition.
Scott Dane, Executive Director, American Loggers Council
