Pricing the tail on a pine tract when the one mill in the basin shuts
Take a 1,400 acre southern pine tract, mixed ages, roughly 40 percent in sawtimber-eligible stems by the cruise. Base case underwriting assumes stumpage roughly flat in real terms and a final harvest around year 12. The concern is basin concentration. Two mills sit within economic haul distance and one of them takes most of the sawlog volume in the area. If it curtails, the effective stumpage price for that tract moves a lot rather than a few percent, because the alternative haul adds enough cost that the logger's bid collapses. Single mill closures have been tied to 20 percent plus moves in local stumpage. How is this actually modeled? A straight haircut to the price assumption feels wrong, because it is a discrete event with a probability rather than a shift in the mean. And the standard answer of deferring the harvest does nothing if the mill is gone permanently rather than for a cycle. Does anyone stress it as an extension of the hold period instead of a price cut, and if so what extension is realistic?