• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

churchill viability

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    churchill viability

    further to a previous post...

    there are two non-board vessel shipments set to leave through churchill soon - feed barley sold back in may when we thought there was going to be an open market; and yellow peas.

    don't these examples seem to discredit the notion that churchill relies on the cwb monopoly for survival?

    #2
    Point taken, but it will take more than 2 non-board shipments to make it viable.....either that or an interventionist government.

    On the other hand, if it truly is to become an instrument of national sovereignty then we can benefit from the government's policy, just like the Americans do with beneficial spin-offs from their military investments. And as we occaisionally do, by the way. I think of Ronald Reagan every time my GPS auto-steer and yield monitor is put to use. But I digress!

    Comment


      #3
      btjadenlepp,

      With Canada's Arctic Sovereignty claims under fire... competition needed to discipline the railroads... the capacity of transportation needing to become more energy efficient...

      US subsidies to the water ways clearly WTO green... as we seek to lower green house gasses... and as the North West Passage opens up to more and more shipping...

      ANY PM would be foolish not to support Churchill and find a way to make it work!

      Comment


        #4
        My question is if Canada wants to use Churchill for sovereignty reasons, who should pick up the tab?

        I also always have to ask the question what customers want to pick up grain at Churchill during its short shipping season and does it involve a discount to get them to use this port. Maybe Canadian grain handling companies have to do more around booking freight and doing the business CIF (landed buyers port) to ensure Churchill capacity is used.

        A final question is how a world of more domestically value added (eg. ethanol) and a move to lower yielding/higher valued crops will impact Churchill. This year, western Canada could easily do the entire export program for wheat, barley, canola and peas off the west coast. Some will be done St. Lawrence so this will remove some from the system. More open markets south will take pressure off again. How will Churchill do in a transportation system that competes for grain?

        Comment


          #5
          Charlie,

          Private brokers, independents, and grain handlers who do NOT own port capacity at Vancouver, Rupert, or Thunder Bay.... have been the biggest boosters of Churchill.

          If the CWB were voluntary, I do not see any GOOD reason why we as growers couldn't use CWB logistics and support the Churchill port that way... it is one of the shortest routes for NE Sask grain to the international market! I don't see that Bunge owns any port facilities on west or east coast... ADM... there are many smaller operators that would use an enhanced Churchill!


          RELIABLE On time delivery, Harvest peak capacity upgrade... there are many good reasons why the Canadian Government should make this a cost effective functioning alternative for western Canadian Agriculture!

          Comment


            #6
            Now here's an interesting twist. Yesterday, I talked to a small international grainco that operates in Canada. In order to survive, they are always trying to do specialty things in the grain markets. A big chunk of their business is exporting canola, rye, flax and some other crops via containers. The reason it works, of course, is that many containers are heading east as empties. Examples of their business are canola to China and flax to India and Japan. To that company, that means only Vancouver or the new container port at Prince Rupert. I wonder if they'd be interested in using Churchill if it had container capability.

            Another interesting thing I learned - forty foot containers can't carry any more product - measured by weight - than can 20 ft. containers. The max for either one is about 22 tonnes.

            Comment


              #7
              Would agree with Lee that Churchill has to be supported by other activities other than straight grain (i.e. container business).

              The BBC had a special this last week which showed open water right across the north west passage. Lots of things may become possible in this new warmer world.

              Comment

              • Reply to this Thread
              • Return to Topic List
              Working...