Is the ski resort model dead?

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby Admin » Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:53 pm

rfarren wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend.


You didn't. I just didn't want to be quoted (or implied) as saying things that I didn't say.

Of course I have my preferences as does everyone. I'm just questioning whether or not my preferences are in as small a minority as one would first believe. In any event I suspect that those who share my preferences are growing, not shrinking, although I of course have no empirical evidence of that.

I had a good exchange on point with James Chung of Research Advisors. I'm also in contact with another industry consultant on the topic and await responses from some of the key resort players. The article is starting to germinate and the exceptional dialog in this thread will contribute to it.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10013
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby Patrick » Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:42 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:A few random thoughts:
Patrick wrote:And if you enter the changing climate and demographic where the boomers won't be skiing anymore and the next generation don't have the skiers numbers to replace them.

I'm questioning the demographic doom and gloom after last year's Kottke report of 2nd highest U.S. skier visit numbers. With a bad economy AND a below average snow year how can this be? In general the skier visit trend is slightly increasing after two flat decades.


The demographic situation of the US versus the rest of the Western World is different. I believe that the US is the only country in that group where births are numerous enough for population replacement. Canada and Europe's births aren't enough to maintain the population at the current level and needs immigration to prevent a decline.

There are a studies out there that say that the average skier will ski more at the age of 40-45 that any other time in his life. My biggest season have been since I reached 40. Sure there are a few retirees that hit the 70-80 days mark, but many of them ski less than before or have stopped all together. My mom was an active people and continued to cross-country skied until she died last March, but her last day alpine skiing was when we brought Morgane to Tremblant at aged 3 (not sure on the age), so my mom would have been 66. I know that John Fripp continued skiing until 2 years ago when his wife thought that it wasn't such a good idea anymore, I believe that he was 87 at that time. The problem with John (from what I heard) is that he doesn't want to hold back and ski full out. I guess when you won the Alta Cup ahead of Alf Engen in the 40s, it's hard to slowdown. Now he joins his wife and spends his winters in Florida.

But the most important fact in my bloom and doom talk, is that I'm looking at 25 years down the road. I'm the first year (1965) of the non-boomers, in 25 years I'll be 70 ([censored] that is depressing) and wondering if Tony will ski as much then too? Many of the infrastructure being built now and in the last 10-15 years will be need of replacement.

Tony Crocker wrote:
Patrick wrote:the small locally or family run places have mostly disappeared from the landscape.

Unfortunately it is those local, convenient places for which the snowmaking is a necessity.


Yes and No, there are kids still showing up with toboggans on Mount Royal Park in Montreal. There used to be one t-bar when I started skiing. Mont Chilly in the Pontiac/Western Quebec offer minimal skiing with one t-bar, non-snowmaking and cheap skiing. I believe the lift ticket is around $15. YEah the season isn't long, but you aren't breaking the bank either.

Tony Crocker wrote:
soulskier wrote:Energy overheard will also be greatly reduced by creating clean energy. Jiminy Peak is a great example of this.

so I wonder how many ski areas are actually situated where wind is consistent enough to be economically viable.


There was talk at one point that a company was looking to put a windmill into Appalachian Gap next to MRG. I believe that there are a few next to Bolton now. There are a bunch next to Mont Miller and along the ridge around Matane in the Gaspe Peninsula. I notced a bunch when you drive from LA to Mammoth next to Mojave.

Tony Crocker wrote:Of course we can expect the environmental wackjobs to oppose a Mammoth wind tower as despoiling the Sierra views.


I consider myself an environmentalist, but those against the wind tower because of spoiling the views aren't necessarily from the same group in my opinion. They might have that label for the cause, but ...

rfarren wrote:I think it's very easy for Admin to say what he wants (to live in an Urban environment near mountains) and say that's what most people who ski want. (...) Yet, one must remember that many resorts close to urban areas are subsidized by vacationers who really do want an urban environment nestled in the mountains.


You're going to the mountain and the country, urban sprawl is already bad enough, now some folks want it in a place that had a natural setting. Tremblant initial model when it started was Rural Quebec, low density and country cottages. It made sense with it's setting. Once Intrawest arrived it choose to copy the Old Quebec City in a Disneyesque way. I understand that the one model wasn't viable with the market pressure, but it's now reached a ridiculous point.

rfarren wrote:but I would imagine that there are a whole lot more of people like this than people who move to places like SLC for the skiing.


A whole lot of people visiting Europe would like Paris (replaced with any European place) to be more like the US with McDonalds, Starbucks, etc at every corner, just like people from the city would like the mountain to be like the city. I am saying there is something wrong with this picture.

rfarren wrote:The real estate development model has taken a hit, but will recover too. For those who are saying the ski resort is dead, I caution them to put their biases aside, and wait to see what happens.


Look at the demographic of who is buying in Ski Resorts...where will these people be in 25 years and will there be enough people to replace them plus maintain the existing construction?

Great post by River. Don't necessarily agree with 100% of it, but he brings some valid points.
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby Harvey44 » Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:04 pm

While I'm an active user of Facebook, I'm actually not a big fan. But ... thanks to Patrick's FB post/link that directed me to this thread. Some of the most substantive, interesting commentary I've seen on the skinet in a long time.

I never really though about the unsustainable nature of the real estate model. I never liked seeing slopeside accommodations, but of course loved staying in them at Squaw (actually that was a hotel). Should be interesting to see what happens for sure.

I can't possibly comment on the impact of older skiers and the extended retirement age of skiers. I never resort skied until I was 40, and I've got my head in the sand about quitting. I just can't face the concept in any kind of a realistic way.

I'll be following this thread until it dies.
NYSkiBlog.com
User avatar
Harvey44
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:37 pm
Location: North River, NY
Location: North River, NY

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby riverc0il » Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:47 pm

Some business practices from MRA:

* A well-laid-out, strategically placed lift system
* Free parking that offers quick access to the lifts
* Lodge floor plans that keep walking in boots in mind, as well as comfortable seating for everyone
* Avoiding profit margins based solely on skier visits
* Staying open until the snow runs out
* Base area lodges that offer healthy, cost-efficient food, are brown bag lunch supportive, and filled with fun off-the-slopes activities for those not interested in being on the hill
* A reliable shuttle bus that runs at opportune times for riders
* Treating all guests with respect, kindness and appreciation
* A clock and trail updates at all lift stations
* Hydration stations located in strategic areas
* An updated, real-time website that provides information about lift operations, including weather conditions, accurate wind speeds and direction, hourly temperatures, rate of snowfall and water content, operating lifts and reason for closures, current avalanche forecast, and an interactive message board to speak your mind
* Low-interest and affordable payment plans for passes
* The ability to purchase investment shares, and become an owner in your own ski-energy center
* Shareholder and member privileges

Most of this stuff requires more expenses on the resort end of things. Also, some of these goals reduce revenues. I don't see MRA working from the financial perspective. This is way too idealistic and not multi-dimensional enough. If they want to do a Coop, fine. Good luck with that. MRA's goals and methods are not in line with the results they will get in reality. They can't have it both ways. You can't have cheap and affordable skiing open until the snow melts with incredible terrain and also have an organization operate sustainabiy in the black. How are they going to pay for all that hydro solar wind stuff? That stuff is expensive and it would take a LONG time before costs were off set with savings. Sorry to be a nay saying fuddy duddy, but this is rosy colored glasses new age kumbaya :bs:

Looking forward to reading admin's article when it is published.
--Steve

TheSnowWay.com
"Skiing is not a sport, it is a way of life." - Otto Schniebs
User avatar
riverc0il
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:22 am
Location: Ashland, NH

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby EMSC » Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:25 pm

Wow where to begin? First off who's idea was it to start this thread on a Friday night? And get so many responses on a Friday night (and Saturday night)? Lol...

I've already gone on record on the MRA announcement/post by soulskier saying that there is more than one way to skin the cat in the ski biz and that Vail Inc and Whistler are not going away and there is no single model that all must follow (BTW Whistler is very highly profitable operations wise including the capital spent on lifts (depreciation), etc... even at the somewhat reduced skier visits. Fortress was just dumb enough to buy the place with basically not a single penny down and 100% in debt while also at the peak of seller pricing in the RE biz).

I think there could be some creative ways to fund a few of Soulskiers ideas (esp around energy generation), but I suspect he has not seen the detailed financials of many ski areas or resorts. You could look at Vail inc, for example but unless you know what the numbers even represent with required GAAP accounting, in some areas you'd still be lost in a maze as to how it is all funded. I think MRA will have to be exceptionally creative to succeed. Remote areas tend to have far fewer players to choose from for employees, builders, contractors, financiers, etc... Not only does the design and mtn location need to be nearly perfect, so do the people you use and interact with for the key pieces (There are a few 'good luck with that' in the list too though).

One huge key for a smaller operator is not just what a full year income statement looks like for the place but what does the weekly and monthly cash flow look like. A lot of smaller businesses in the world fail due to cash flow issues while waiting for others to pay up, etc...

Skier visits have been trending up slightly the past few years and I can assure you kids programs are going gangbusters. I think most of today's remaining areas/resorts can find a way to maintain their share. There are programs in Colo to get inner city folks introduced to the sport even if for a day, etc... This makes for interesting cultural issues for many long time snow sliders as well as mtn town locals. It'll be interesting to see for example if hispanics in the US can be introduced in large numbers. Vail and Beaver Creek already get decent numbers of wealthy Mexican nationals on holiday.

I'm like Admin and probably many others on this board in that I would prefer a more minimal mtn infrastructure (compared to the 'mc skiing' one week per year desires of many skiers in North America). I think we are in the minority. Large cities are still growing much faster than rural areas and they will drive the large areas to provide what they desire. One of the biggest issues I have seen are mid sized ski areas trying to become resorts. The 'we must have a bed base and RE here no matter what' kind of mentality. Developers want to build, local governments generally want the increased tax base, etc... a lot of factors and folks all interested in that direction without ever figuring out the business model that is unique to that specific area and it's users.

That said, anyone here who has a pass and skis more than 20 days on it (maybe a bit more in a few places like Utah) is generating no profit for the area. Our role is usually to incite less frequent skiers and newcomers into the sport as well as - at least for the many areas with spring pass deals - providing cash flow during a time when resorts traditionally had little cash left to pay for the maintenance and new capital items like lifts.

Of all the Resort side folks I've seen and heard about I think Vail has it most dialed in right now. They are not only profitable, but adding significant 'vertical integration'. It was talked about a long time ago how Vail was really competing with cruise lines and etc.. not with other ski areas. Vail now will drive you from DIA to your lodging (which they own), and then rent you skis and POV cameras, etc.. at ski shops they own, and have you push Facebook updates about your ski day via their own Apps, etc...Two points to Capital spending sustainability: first Vail has redeveloped the core of Lionshead area of Vail village - during a massive downturn in real estate. So obviously it can work, but obviously Vail is not Mission ridge Washington nor Magic Mtn VT. This is where I go back to several different business models work in different cases. Second, as was pointed out earlier while a distressed asset may continue operating there may only be short term gains in cash flow. If you have a very expensive decor, you may essentially get a decent 'sale price' on the initial asset (say....Tamarack), but you still need to maintain it up to that spec - or be very open about how you plan to let it get beat up and maintain it or remodel/replace at lower standards. After a few years you have to pump in significant capital to keep pace - you really primarily get a few year grace period if you can pick up the asset cheap.

I'm sure I've forgotten much and rambled a bit too, but it's late (man do I feel old now that I have a baby and 10:30 feels late), and I rather quickly skimmed the thread. Hope I contributed something unique in that mess above.
User avatar
EMSC
 
Posts: 2098
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:54 pm
Location: Front Range of Colorado

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby Tony Crocker » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:42 am

Excellent points by both Riverc0il and EMSC. Vail I view like Whistler. It has the natural attributes of terrain and snow plus the other stuff, and is a very valuable property IMHO even with no growth or additional real estate.

Soulskier is not going to find anyplace where he can implement that entire laundry list. Just as the resort model didn't find some mid-size areas like Tamarack that attempted to clone it, there aren't that many locations which will fit the MRA model either. I would caution soulskier to view any prospective area within its regional context, which Tamarack and The Canyons clearly did not. I would also suggest that soulskier spend the upcoming ski season actually visiting some of the "small but interesting places," assess how viable they are and how many of the attributes on that list apply to them. I would suggest Castle Mt. and Whitewater in Canada, Powder Mt. in Utah, and some of those Montana areas q visits every year.

* A well-laid-out, strategically placed lift system
MRA-type areas almost by definition have slow lifts with some grunt work required to reach some of the goods. I would think in this model one would be very sparing in spending big $ on new lifts. You should be buying old chairs from areas putting in high speeds, even surface lifts, to serve terrain expansions.
* Free parking that offers quick access to the lifts
Agree, but you might inherit awkwardly situated parking
* Lodge floor plans that keep walking in boots in mind, as well as comfortable seating for everyone
See lift issue above. Spending big $ on shiny new lodges is probably something you should avoid. You probably want to live with the one you inherit, making incremental improvements.
* Avoiding profit margins based solely on skier visits
Since we're avoiding real estate plays and frou-frou amenities, what else would profit margins be based upon?
* Staying open until the snow runs out
Actually they do that here in SoCal, even at minimalist places like Baldy. But we have a big population base (without cold winters) to support that. Out in big snow country the locals are snow snobs and eager to move on to summer pursuits when the weather warms up.
* Base area lodges that offer healthy, cost-efficient food, are brown bag lunch supportive, and filled with fun off-the-slopes activities for those not interested in being on the hill
Agree, though the latter needs to be kept simple and inexpensive.
* A reliable shuttle bus that runs at opportune times for riders
Not sure whether we're talking about places with awkward parking or town-to-mountain shuttles. It depends on the specific situation.
* Treating all guests with respect, kindness and appreciation
That's not so easy with transient employees and erratic seasons, as I see at Baldy (another place soulskier should probably visit).
* A clock and trail updates at all lift stations
The boards like Alta's would be good. The big electronic signs like Vail or Big Bear are an unnecessary expense.
* Hydration stations located in strategic areas
I wouldn't spend $ to run plumbing where it isn't already.
* An updated, real-time website that provides information about lift operations, including weather conditions, accurate wind speeds and direction, hourly temperatures, rate of snowfall and water content, operating lifts and reason for closures, current avalanche forecast, and an interactive message board to speak your mind
This is the direction I've been advocating for Mt. Baldy. Very cost effective in improving local image and user friendly reputation.
* Low-interest and affordable payment plans for passes
This has to be a fairly hard headed economic decision. The relationship between day and season pass pricing is all over the map, varying by area and region.
* The ability to purchase investment shares, and become an owner in your own ski-energy center
* Shareholder and member privileges

This was the issue discussed at some length with Shames. MRG is the model here. This is the ski area soulskier really needs to visit and study. Hopefully he will come away with a different view than he expressed during the Shames episode.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 10169
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby soulskier » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:32 am

In the simplest terms, I believe a greatly reduced overhead, minimal infrastructure with an emphasis on the skier experience is the new model. Then throw in the green energy component and offer membership shares. Think the Silverton ski experience, but include energy creation and owned/operated by the ski community, not an individual(s).

One of the areas the MRA is evaluating would have 1 double/triple chair, and 2-3 nut crackers. The lodge is already in place and sitting empty for the winter. Besides avalanche mitigation (plans to lower costs are being discussed), the overhead is much lower than any ski area that offers 1000's of acres of excellent terrain. The energy demand is very low, and thus would not require a huge amount of wind mills, solar panels, etc to be net negative (create more energy than is produced).

Tony Crocker wrote:
soulskier wrote:Also, MRA will only be located in reliable snow belts and not need to have snowmaking, a huge expenditure.

This is a very limiting criterion, based upon the data I've collected over the years. Even in some of the better places for snow, like Whistler or Mammoth, some snowmaking is needed for extreme seasons or for runs near the base facilities that don't get as much snow as most of the terrain. If an area is affordable but has a great snow record, it's likely to be in a remote location. It's not an accident that Shames was the first area that caught soulskier's eye.



A simpler and less costly solution would be a chair with a mid station that you can download, as the snow line creeps up. In the case of Shames (which Tony wisely points out first caught my eye due to it's 1.5 CDN million price tag), the lower chair could easily be down-loadable, adding 700ish feet (I can't remember exactly) of elevation. The locals said that would add 2-3 weeks to an average season.
Last edited by soulskier on Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.MountainRidersAlliance.com
User avatar
soulskier
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby soulskier » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:18 am

Tony Crocker wrote:Excellent points by both Riverc0il and EMSC. Vail I view like Whistler. It has the natural attributes of terrain and snow plus the other stuff, and is a very valuable property IMHO even with no growth or additional real estate.

I am curious what you mean by valuable. Does that mean the ability to charge and recieve $90+ for a lift ticket? Or do you mean property values? Please elaborate.

Soulskier is not going to find anyplace where he can implement that entire laundry list.

Just as the resort model didn't find some mid-size areas like Tamarack that attempted to clone it, there aren't that many locations which will fit the MRA model either. I would caution soulskier to view any prospective area within its regional context, which Tamarack and The Canyons clearly did not.

Absolutely. Community, environment and guests make up the three elements for MRA decisions. Involving and getting the community's input will be paramount to MRA's success.

I would also suggest that soulskier spend the upcoming ski season actually visiting some of the "small but interesting places," assess how viable they are and how many of the attributes on that list apply to them. I would suggest Castle Mt. and Whitewater in Canada, Powder Mt. in Utah, and some of those Montana areas q visits every year.


* A well-laid-out, strategically placed lift system
MRA-type areas almost by definition have slow lifts with some grunt work required to reach some of the goods. I would think in this model one would be very sparing in spending big $ on new lifts. You should be buying old chairs from areas putting in high speeds, even surface lifts, to serve terrain expansions.

Spot on, used old lifts and nut crackers to accesses ridges.

* Free parking that offers quick access to the lifts
Agree, but you might inherit awkwardly situated parking

By being values-based, I predict we will attract and have more return clients than trying to gouge them on parking.

* Lodge floor plans that keep walking in boots in mind, as well as comfortable seating for everyone
See lift issue above. Spending big $ on shiny new lodges is probably something you should avoid. You probably want to live with the one you inherit, making incremental improvements.

Minimalist approach for sure. MRA cares about the skiing experience, not some plush lodge with $15 cheeseburgers. BTW, one project MRA is evaluating already has a nice lodge that sits empty all winter.

* Avoiding profit margins based solely on skier visits
Since we're avoiding real estate plays and frou-frou amenities, what else would profit margins be based upon?

Energy creation. By making more energy than is consumed, that would translate into another revenue stream, or at the very least, a credit on the electric bill. Also, clean energy has many incentives and other opportunities to reduce overhead, such as tax credits, selling carbon offsets (when cap and trade passes), etc.

Summer mountain biking, selling MRA merchandise and being a regular music/festival venue are other examples.

* Staying open until the snow runs out
Actually they do that here in SoCal, even at minimalist places like Baldy. But we have a big population base (without cold winters) to support that. Out in big snow country the locals are snow snobs and eager to move on to summer pursuits when the weather warms up.

If many skiers had lift access to 40+ degree slopes into May and June, that would be a whole different story than at Mt Baldy.

* Base area lodges that offer healthy, cost-efficient food, are brown bag lunch supportive, and filled with fun off-the-slopes activities for those not interested in being on the hill

Agree, though the latter needs to be kept simple and inexpensive.

Exactly.

* A reliable shuttle bus that runs at opportune times for riders
Not sure whether we're talking about places with awkward parking or town-to-mountain shuttles. It depends on the specific situation.

Getting people to the mountain without driving their gas guzzler.

* Treating all guests with respect, kindness and appreciation
That's not so easy with transient employees and erratic seasons, as I see at Baldy (another place soulskier should probably visit).

If employees have a vested interest, they will treat the guests better. Tony, I grew up in So Cal and know Baldy well.

* A clock and trail updates at all lift stations
The boards like Alta's would be good. The big electronic signs like Vail or Big Bear are an unnecessary expense.

Simple, ski-centric stuff that cost virtually nothing and enhances the overall ski experience.

* Hydration stations located in strategic areas
I wouldn't spend $ to run plumbing where it isn't already.

Do you know the spickot at Brighton? Admin, does it still exist?

* An updated, real-time website that provides information about lift operations, including weather conditions, accurate wind speeds and direction, hourly temperatures, rate of snowfall and water content, operating lifts and reason for closures, current avalanche forecast, and an interactive message board to speak your mind
This is the direction I've been advocating for Mt. Baldy. Very cost effective in improving local image and user friendly reputation.

A real time website is not only cost effective, but is an awesome marketing tool and another example of being skier-centric.

* Low-interest and affordable payment plans for passes
This has to be a fairly hard headed economic decision. The relationship between day and season pass pricing is all over the map, varying by area and region.

MRA believes skiing should not be a rich man's sport. If that means making payments to support your lifestyle, so be it.

* The ability to purchase investment shares, and become an owner in your own ski-energy center
* Shareholder and member privileges

This was the issue discussed at some length with Shames. MRG is the model here. This is the ski area soulskier really needs to visit and study. Hopefully he will come away with a different view than he expressed during the Shames episode.


Some parts of MRG's model will be replicated. I appreciate what they have been able to accomplish.
Last edited by soulskier on Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.MountainRidersAlliance.com
User avatar
soulskier
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby Tony Crocker » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:40 am

soulskier wrote:Energy creation. By making more energy than is consumed, that would translate into another revenue stream, or at the very least, a credit on the electric bill. Also, clean energy has many incentives and other opportunities to reduce overhead, such as tax credits, selling carbon offsets (when cap and trade passes), etc.

I remain very skeptical here. I have hands-on experience here with my solar panels. Thanks to rebates and tax credits the energy savings are about a 11% return on my investment but without them it would be 4% and not happening. Most companies that own ski areas are bottom line oriented, and more of them would be doing this if numbers pencil out as they did in my case. So Whistler, which has glacier fed hydro, has done it but very few areas are fortunate to have a resource like that. Why not investigate Mammoth as an example? Are they leaving money on the table by not putting up a wind tower or do the numbers not add up for them?

I'll save admin's breath and note that cap and trade is not happening anytime soon in the current economic and political climate. And if people like Joe Bastardi are right about La Nina, PDO etc. the actual climate over the next decade or two will put these plans on the back burner for quite a while. Technology improvements and the rising cost of oil will be the keys to growth of clean energy.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 10169
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby soulskier » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:00 pm

First of all I want to say I think this is a great thread. Lots of intelligent people with great points, keep it flowing.

Tony Crocker wrote:
soulskier wrote:Energy creation. By making more energy than is consumed, that would translate into another revenue stream, or at the very least, a credit on the electric bill. Also, clean energy has many incentives and other opportunities to reduce overhead, such as tax credits, selling carbon offsets (when cap and trade passes), etc.


I remain very skeptical here. I have hands-on experience here with my solar panels. Thanks to rebates and tax credits the energy savings are about a 11% return on my investment but without them it would be 4% and not happening.

The point here was creating more energy than you consume, thus creating another revenue stream. But if the solar panels are paid off in full, wouldn't that essentially be an 11% ROI?

Mt Abram, Maine is in the permitting process for 2 acres of solar panels. When installed, they will be North America's first net negative ski area. The cost was 4.2 million, and they financed it over 40 years. And bear in mind, they have snowmaking, which as we all know, is over 60% of a ski area's energy consumption


Most companies that own ski areas are bottom line oriented, and more of them would be doing this if numbers pencil out as they did in my case. So Whistler, which has glacier fed hydro, has done it but very few areas are fortunate to have a resource like that.

That's because Whistler was benefiting from the excellent exchange rate to the dollar for many years as well as the now-collasped real estate boom, not thinking about how to be sustainable for the long term. Post Olympics, they are at crossroads on how to proceed. Check out Michel's Beaudry guest piece on this.
http://mrablog.com/2010/09/10/notes-on- ... l-beaudry/


Why not investigate Mammoth as an example? Are they leaving money on the table by not putting up a wind tower or do the numbers not add up for them?

Great idea, Mammoth is a fantastic example to examine for many reasons. Maybe we should start a Mammoth Mountain Fantasy league thread?

The problem with Mammoth is they have over 30 lifts, many of them high speed, numerous lodges and a rather large footprint. Sure they have the wind, solar and hydro, but they need to generate an enormous amount of energy to be net negative.

Say we could develop Mammoth today, in 2010, forgetting the permitting process. We would install one chairlift from the base area to the top the Gondola, with a mid loading/down loading around the top of chair 1/bottom of chair 3. Maybe a couple nut crackers to pull you out from Canyon Lodge and the bottom of Chair 13/14, so you can ski from DragonBack to Whitebark Bowl. Totally minimalist approach, but all the same terrain as is accessed today. In fact, we would add an eco friendly shuttle bus to take you back from Tamarack so you can ski the whole backside, including one of Cali's coolest run, Hole in the Wall.

Sure, you aren't skiing 40,000 vertical feet/day, but you aren't skiing bumps and crossing tracks too much either. We think it's all about the quality, not quantity.


I'll save admin's breath and note that cap and trade is not happening anytime soon in the current economic and political climate.

The elections are next month. Then maybe the politicians will start doing something again? And Cap and Trade will eventually happen, so why not position for it now?

And if people like Joe Bastardi are right about La Nina, PDO etc. the actual climate over the next decade or two will put these plans on the back burner for quite a while. Technology improvements and the rising cost of oil will be the keys to growth of clean energy.


I see that huge catastrophe off the gulf coast as a huge opportunity to develop clean energy economy.
http://www.MountainRidersAlliance.com
User avatar
soulskier
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby Admin » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:13 pm

soulskier wrote:
Tony Crocker wrote:I'll save admin's breath and note that cap and trade is not happening anytime soon in the current economic and political climate.

The elections are next month. Then maybe the politicians will start doing something again? And Cap and Trade will eventually happen, so why not position for it now?


I really shouldn't do this but...

<soapbox unrelated to my perspective in the pending article>

If you think Cap and Trade is going to happen after Nov. 2nd's bloodbath you're being blindly idealistic. By January we're going to have a lame duck President with two years to go in his only term in office and if the lame duck Congress tries to ramrod Cap and Trade down the country's throat between November and January you're going to have nothing short of popular revolt in this country. What this country needs to focus on after the Republicans regain control of both the House and Senate is small business incentives to produce job creation, not another tax to fund a get rich scheme for certain individuals to support unproven "science" that will further extend and deepen the economic quagmire that we're in now.

</soapbox off>
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10013
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby soulskier » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:15 pm

Admin wrote:
soulskier wrote:
Tony Crocker wrote:I'll save admin's breath and note that cap and trade is not happening anytime soon in the current economic and political climate.

The elections are next month. Then maybe the politicians will start doing something again? And Cap and Trade will eventually happen, so why not position for it now?


I really shouldn't do this but...

<soapbox unrelated to my perspective in the pending article>

If you think Cap and Trade is going to happen after Nov. 2nd's bloodbath you're being blindly idealistic. By January we're going to have a lame duck President with two years to go in his only term in office and if the lame duck Congress tries to ramrod Cap and Trade down the country's throat between November and January you're going to have nothing short of popular revolt in this country. What this country needs to focus on after the Republicans regain control of both the House and Senate is small business incentives to produce job creation, not another tax to fund a get rich scheme for certain individuals to support unproven "science" that will further extend and deepen the economic quagmire that we're in now.

</soapbox off>


Your right, you shouldn't do that. Let's stick to skiing, OK?
http://www.MountainRidersAlliance.com
User avatar
soulskier
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby Admin » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:33 pm

soulskier wrote:Your right, you shouldn't do that. Let's stick to skiing, OK?


I bend over backwards to avoid espousing my political views on these forums, and with good reason -- it's a ski forum, not a political one. There are other forums dedicated to political discussion and debate. However in this case it has a direct correlation if you're including the rewards of cap and trade, something that won't happen anytime soon if ever, in your profit equations for MRA. Where I ran afoul of my own rules was in discussing my perspective on what the country needs to do next.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10013
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby soulskier » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:35 pm

Admin wrote:
soulskier wrote:Your right, you shouldn't do that. Let's stick to skiing, OK?


I bend over backwards to avoid espousing my political views on these forums, and with good reason -- it's a ski forum, not a political one. There are other forums dedicated to political discussion and debate. However in this case it has a direct correlation if you're including the rewards of cap and trade, something that won't happen anytime soon if ever, in your profit equations for MRA.


You should never mention bending over backwards and politics in the same sentence [-X
http://www.MountainRidersAlliance.com
User avatar
soulskier
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Is the ski resort model dead?

Postby longshanks » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:04 pm

What is Cap and Trade? - short answer please...Happy Thanksgiving eh!
User avatar
longshanks
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:45 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use