Discussions

This closure is another direct result of the dissolving of our Canadian Wheat Board. The average person probably does not realize the impact this will have on not only Manitoba but northern Saskatchewan as well. Ironically Merv Tweed, who was in favor of dissolving the Wheat Board, resigned his MP position to be the President of Omni-Trac in Canada. Now he has closed the port. Thank-you Mr. Tweed and the rest of your Reform cohorts for your deep forward thinking.

Mr. Tweed is being very quiet now. Hiding somewhere.

he is in his counting house, counting all his money from his MLA pension, and his MP pension, and his Omnitrax salary. Most of that was provided by the public. Yet he used to complain about those living off the public dime. I guess it is only wrong if it is someone else.  
 
I think one of the reasons that Omnitrax hired him was because of his experience in the government. Who better to hire to dismantle an important grain shipping port ?  
 
I hope Omnitrax will be required to refund every penny of public money they received.  
 
Edited by standard standard h8r, 2016-07-27 10:04:17

Simply not viable never was and now outdated  
without a rail line to service the port.

Rather than closing the main gateway to our extensive northern regions, why not develop it into something viable.  
 
Not only are there polar bears but Belugas are a common sight at a different time of the year, doubling the tourism possibilities.  
 
Iqualuet is attracting Europeans that want to experience wilderness. Northern Manitoba has that available as well. Churchhill could be a cruise ship port with week long adventures into the hunting and fishing areas or kayaking along the coast, down to the York Factory location where the fur trade started. A true "no screen" holiday.

katwalk1909 said "Rather than closing the main gateway to our extensive northern regions, why not develop it into something viable.     Not only are there polar bears but Belugas are a common sight at a different time of the year, doubling the tourism possibilities.     Iqualuet is attracting Europeans that want to experience wilderness. Northern Manitoba has that available as well. Churchhill could be a cruise ship port with week long adventures into the hunting and fishing areas or kayaking along the coast, down to the York Factory location where the fur trade started. A true "no screen" holiday. "

But at what cost? From reading about the closing permafrost is melting causing stability issues with the rail line. Is there not an airport to fly in people? That is probably a more viable option to visit this location. As for shipping I see there is terminals on the west and east serving Europe and Asia. As for cruise ships I know I wouldn't want to stay for more than a day or two up there.

The main benefit for the Port of Churchill shipping grain to Europe, Africa, Central and South America was once the product was loaded in Churchill it did not have to unloaded and reloaded onto ocean freighters. This was done right at Churchill,saving shipping, handling and navigation costs. $25.00 per tonne was saved doing this. True, there is problems with the rail line, but the smaller cars can still be used on this line. The port never received the same support that Bombardier has in Quebec, or the car manufacturing companies in Ontario have.

with sensible farmer that it was said in a column years ago it was far cheaper to ship out of port of churchill then the west and east ports so why not up grade and or find better route to get railine to churchill

Not really his fault. Port never did well really, far before he had his slippery fingers involved. Now with all the economic sanctions on Russia and the declining relations between nations it was only really a matter of time before something like this happened. To bad really. Maybe now the government will be able to buy it back cheap and maybe start salvaging whats left of it. Need to start building an economy up north if we want to start claiming the northern passage as our own.

SensibleFarmer said "This closure is another direct result of the dissolving of our Canadian Wheat Board. The average person probably does not realize the impact this will have on not only Manitoba but northern Saskatchewan as well. Ironically Merv Tweed, who was in favor of dissolving the Wheat Board, resigned his MP position to be the President of Omni-Trac in Canada. Now he has closed the port. Thank-you Mr. Tweed and the rest of your Reform cohorts for your deep forward thinking. "

Some Eastern Canada Special Groups and CN (the previous owners of the Hud. Bay Line) did their best in ensuring the Port would have problems. Omnitrax atleast upgraded the line a fair bit and tried to do something with the Port. CN absolutely hated the line and had their share of derailments before they sold it. Just remember it was Jean Chretien's idea to sell the Port in the first place.  
 
Omnitrax made a few mistakes when they took over. The locomotives they brought up when they bought the line were way under powered (mainly for the line to Lynn Lake) so they had to scramble to buy some old beat up CN Locomotives in a hurry. They also had no equipment to handle derailments for a while. Being from the North, I can go on about the Hillbillies as the locals called them but I will save that for another time.

Can we not ship oil out of there from Man, Sask and Alberta. No one else wants and we need it

SensibleFarmer said "The main benefit for the Port of Churchill shipping grain to Europe, Africa, Central and South America was once the product was loaded in Churchill it did not have to unloaded and reloaded onto ocean freighters. This was done right at Churchill,saving shipping, handling and navigation costs. $25.00 per tonne was saved doing this. True, there is problems with the rail line, but the smaller cars can still be used on this line. The port never received the same support that Bombardier has in Quebec, or the car manufacturing companies in Ontario have. "

Yes cheaper but it over all can not be more efficient.  
 
Smaller cars are something special nowadays I hear.  
 
25 a ton cheaper but if more cars are needed the maintenance costs on more cars have probably not be factored in.  
 
There probably is cross docking needed.  
Larger cars unloading product at the time as smaller cars are loading up to head North.  
 
I agree on lack of support for the Port.  
 
Yet if a Private company can not make it I figure Government would have to subsidize big time.  
 
Farmers were doing that through the CWB.If they were not then Federal crow subsidies of years back or then port/railway undercharge. I assume now farmers underused it is hassle/breakdowns or the rate charged is of a rate where the shipping time is not worth the hassle.  
 
The no notice given also irked me.

Freight rates paid by the farmer to the rail companies include maintenance costs whether the car goes west or east or north.  
I am not sure what you mean by cross docking. At the western terminals now boats move in and out waiting for enough of the same product for a load. This process can take many days or even weeks. In Churchill (under the former CWB) the boat moved in and was filled with the required product in 1 filling. This saves demurrage charges.  
Omni Tracs was doing much better when the former CWB co-ordinated the sales and pick up schedules. Now a 200,000 tonne season is not enough for any company to prosper.  
Farmers in the Hudson Bay catchment area were offered storage premiums to ensure enough of the right product was available for the pre-sold markets. The cheaper ocean rate benefited all farmers as the money saved went back into the pool account for everyone (who had that grade of grain) to benefit.

Logistics. Storing costs money. Getting product from A to b may have been CWB's strength but they owned near squat but stored product to be moved whenever is at whose expense?  
 
Cross docking means no storage but the facility provides the means to move product from one supplier/farmer to another buyer with a small fee.  
 
Fine but it seems small cars are a possible thorn in the system. Bottle neck?  
 
It would make more sense to ship to Churchill direct from any Grain elevator storage facility instead of cross docking or putting it into storage.  
 
I know grain has to be graded but that system has been gamed against the farmer.  
 
Long before CWB went away. Probably just has bad still.  
 
I like Churchill for many reasons. Grain was a commodity that for some reason they do not want. CWB could have should have bought it like they bought those big ships. That though would have been a big money looser.

Storing the right product for the incoming ships meant the ships could load and move out quicker. The savings on the ocean freight rates more than compensated the storage premiums.  
Because all the grain marketed was pooled it didn't matter if you sold in Oct. or Jan. or June. Everyone got basically the same price for the same product.  
The port had shipped over 600,000 tonnes before without causing much of a bottleneck, and Omni-Tracs had previously stated that they could handle 1 million tonnes per year without any major upgrades.  
There has to be a certain amount of storage in order to fill the large ocean freighters with the same product. The quicker the turn around the better for the port.  
Yes blending has always benefitted the seller. With the CWB the increased profit from blending was put back into the pool accounts.  
If the port had the ability to handle import products it would be a win/win. Full boats coming in and full boats going out.  
The 2 Great Lake freighters were expensive but as in any business the savings returned from investments more than outweigh the original cost.

You forgot to mention sensible farmer that the port of churchill is only open 90-95 days in a year because of ice, western canada exports aprox. 30 million tonnes of grain every year and in churchill's best years only aproxx. 600.000 tonnes ( that's peanuts ) the terminal was built in the 1930's, it's wore out and completely outdated, the track to churchill is extremely poor, churchill was never a viable alternative to export grain, nobody wants to risk their ships through the ice in hudson's bay. The cwb is gone (thank goodness! ) get over it and move on.

stonepicker said "You forgot to mention sensible farmer that the port of churchill is only open 90-95 days in a year because of ice, western canada exports aprox. 30 million tonnes of grain every year and in churchill's best years only aproxx. 600.000 tonnes ( that's peanuts ) the terminal was built in the 1930's, it's wore out and completely outdated, the track to churchill is extremely poor, churchill was never a viable alternative to export grain, nobody wants to risk their ships through the ice in hudson's bay. The cwb is gone (thank goodness! ) get over it and move on. "

All outdated things can be easily updated. Costs money and time, and like mentioned above, why cant the Federal Government hand out some money to help. I mean, wouldnt it be nice to have options at to where you ship your grain (be it East, West, North, or South)? Isn't it always about choosing your own market when you sell your product, like the Conservative farmers wanted? (Aaaaaaand since you mention "thank goodness" about the loss of the CWB single desk, where is that greatly inflated price for wheat we were supposed to see now that we have the choice as to where to sell? What about the value added plants? Wouldn't another port be a good thing then?)

A port that is open less than a third of the time every year isn't a viable port, the expense to upgrade facilities,track, etc. far out weigh the benefit of a 95 day port. As far as wheat prices go, if your a farmer you would realize that there are upturns and downturns in commodities, right now there's an over-supply of wheat so prices are down, that will change, it always does. I'm thankful that i can sell my wheat to whoever i want and not be jailed for doing so.

You obviously have not been reading current scientific info on the Hudson Bay and the ice movements. The shipping season can easily be increased with the changing climate. Todays ice-breakers can get to the north pole so a bit of ice in Hudson Strait is not a problem. The terminals are still quite functional.Yes the CWB is gone and we have moved on, but those "peanuts" used to land in farmers' pockets and now they land in those of the multi-national grain companies.  
The closing of the port leaves many unanswered questions for Churchill and its residents.  
-Will this affect the ships coming in with supplies for the community and area. Everything from food to fuel.  
-How does a northern community recover from losing 10% of it work force. (CKY News)  
-If those workers have to relocate how does affect the rest of the businesses and the community. The domino effect will be greater than just the port workers.  
We have a northern deep water port that the Federal Government has never appreciated.

stonepicker said "A port that is open less than a third of the time every year isn't a viable port, the expense to upgrade facilities,track, etc. far out weigh the benefit of a 95 day port. As far as wheat prices go, if your a farmer you would realize that there are upturns and downturns in commodities, right now there's an over-supply of wheat so prices are down, that will change, it always does. I'm thankful that i can sell my wheat to whoever i want and not be jailed for doing so. "

But with storage improvements, for the time the port would be open could be a lot busier. It is well known that it is cheaper to ship it from Hudson Bay, so why not improve it and maximize its potential?  
 
As for prices, thats off topic, but since you first mentioned how good it was to be rid of the CWB, I guess Ill add.  
 
Yes I farm, yes I know markets rise and fall, but what gets me is when non CWB supporters were crying they could get a higher price from choosing who they sell to, and that the CWB was holding the price down, its really funny how the price has done nothing but fall since the CWB has lost its single desk. Its also funny how those same people are not saying anything about the price, or the value added markets we were to see. Thing is, we still sell to the same companies we did before, and not alot has changed. Seems to be the non supporters that like to keep chiming in "get over it". We have, its time you all admitted, we lost a good thing.

Not off topic but not about grain. I wonder if the shut down is tactics.  
 
The push back against shipping oil through the Port may have done it in.  
 
The rail line certainly and the port in particular needs upgrades of all sorts. Traffic and coin is needed. Yep oil prices are down but maybe Omni feels grain pays Diddly squat, but adding oil makes sense in the long term.  
 
Since the oil option looks bleak for several reasons they know upgrades are not worth the coin.  
 
The port is in trouble now. Rail bed/line upgrades had a future. Now it may just be a people/ freight mover. Hardly a sign of a great future for the Port.  
 
Omni may even walk away from that if they can not make a profit. Profit needed for not just future growth but to replace what is old.

You are absolutely correct Doug. It was neglected for too long. It would cost a horrendous amount of money to bring it back now-especially the rail line.  
The Federal Government of all strips faced too much lobbying pressure from all those opposed to the northern port because it was taking business away from them. So it was basically ignored except for some token money for minor upgrades.

The Western provinces are being handcuffed by outside interests including our Prime Mister. Lots have their hands out. Alberta is already losing natural gas market share to the eastern US frac gas. How does this help Canadians?  
 
Moving oil by rail cars. Yes it needs to be done but this short term option. Look at the rail yards in any big center. I have seen these yards full with no other type of car in site. How can this be safe? Still feel a pipeline is better.  
 
Churchill Port  
You can easily find information on the internet that this idea has been discussed but. Yes it freezes over in the winter but it is a weaker ice because of the high salt content. We could easily engineer and build the required ice breaking oil tankers that could make the required round trips to either the east coast refinery’s or transfer to open water tankers. Russia already does this.  
 
http://barentsobserver.com/en/node/21009  
 
Moving oil to Churchill by rail is not the answer, a pipeline is. But by improving the port of Churchill will make the reason to improve the rail line. Americans already do this.  
 
http://www.explorefairbanks.com/go/energy/trans-alaska-pipeline/27  
 
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/oil-producers-eye-arctic-backup-plan-as-pipelines-face-uncertain-future?__lsa=403b-5735  
 
Small sample of new project construction in the US.  
 
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/01/us-shale-methanol-boom-exports-china  
 
I have a very hard time understanding why other countries can easily do and we can’t.  
 
Soon our children or their children will learn what it’s like to be poor.

I always thought the port of Churchill was ignored by first the Feds and now with Pallisters comments he is ganging on.  
 
Ice breaking/proof tankers maybe but let us get a set of decent icebreakers up there to get shipments of anything more than near a hundred days a year.  
 
Remember the big one that was planned on. Both work horse and science vessel. Overkill but at least we would have one kick arsed one.  
 
Keep the passage and port safe for traffic for near 200 days with Canadian Assets and it truly can be called sovereignty or I say taken ownership.  
 
The Port should be both a Provincial and Federal responsible. Neither have a plan.

with the loss of the Cwb large grain companies couldn''t be bothered with churchill. They now load large trains that won''t work for churchill. If it cost more to ship it, they don''t care because they just take it out of the farmers pocket. The farmer lost all his bargaining power with the loss of the Cwb, now the big companies just bill the farmer for all the cost of gathering grain for their large terminals. the railways won''t even deliver single car or less than 50 cars at a time.  
 
Edited by Hayfield, 2016-07-29 07:48:32

How do private grain co's bill us for hauling grain to port? That's what the cwb used to do. Now i sign a contract with a grain company and that's the exact price i get when i haul it in, and i get paid the same day, not a year and a half later! How many millions are ice-breakers gonna cost, and who's supposed to pay for them? With the cwb, it would've come right off your final payment, now the private co's would have to invest in them. ( if you marketed canola in the past, you should be able to market your wheat too )

One of the last years that the CWB operated, the operating expenses worked out to 9.5 cents per bushel. All other deductions are there no matter-you don't see it now but its still there. Can you tell me with certainty that grain companies only make 9.5 cents or less per bushel. We have no idea what grain companies make on our grain.  
We already have ice-breakers but the Feds are reluctant to put them into Hudson Bay. There was intense lobbying done by the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway operators to use their facilities and equipment rather than the Port of Churchill.

With the demise of the Wheat board farmers bargaining power was gone. We used to have set handling cost and freight rates. now we pay whatever the market will bear. Any farmer that thinks he can out market the grain companies is delusional, you take what they offer or go to another company. if you do get a few cents a bushel out of them Im shure they make it up in dockage and protein discounts.

With all of this also a Thompson/Gillam company Hudson Bay railway is cutting alt of jobs and with this Churchill will only be receiving food once a week by its main train source.  
 
It's all tied together. So sad.

I am totally amazed how easily Americans can build pipelines and we can't build one to anywhere.  
 
http://oilpro.com/post/26204/feds-give-extension-to-constitution-pipeline-project