1000 Sask employees laid off

[madmax]

Lower commodity prices and weakening demand creeps into Sask Employment.

Weakening demand for fertilizer prompts Mosaic to layoff 1,000 Sask workers

Jennifer Graham, THE CANADIAN PRESS

January 12, 2009

REGINA - Potash and fertilizer producer Mosaic Co. (NYSE:MOS) has issued layoff notices to 1,000 workers in Saskatchewan and dealt a blow to the province's economy which has been booming due to high commodity prices.

Mosaic said the layoffs affect 700 people in Esterhazy and 300 at its Colonsay operation. The indefinite layoffs are effective Feb. 15 in Esterhazy and March 8 in Colonsay.

A spokesman said the Plymouth, Minn., based company is "experiencing the challenges, as most industries are, with the way the economy is."

Saskatchewan's resources-based economy has been booming in recent years. Solid growth in agriculture, high commodity prices from oil and gas resources and potash revenue have fattened the provincial coffers.

But the province is now beginning to feel the impact of lower commodity prices, which have led to job cuts across primary industries in Western Canada.

For the period ending Aug. 31, Mosaic earned US$1.18 billion, or $2.65 per share, compared with profit of $305.5 million, or 69 cents per share, during the same period a year ago. Revenue more than doubled to $4.32 billion from $2 billion.

Logic would concurr with the article that these layoffs will be short term.

[jdobbin]

Logic would concurr with the article that these layoffs will be short term.

Are you so sure?

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...R00406120090112

Toronto's main stocks index was down more than 300 points late Monday afternoon, hitting its lowest level since Dec. 30, as falling commodity prices took their toll on the resource heavy index.

[Molly]

There aren't a lot of places to get potash, and there is a lot of ground that needs it to be particularly productive.

This is likely a cash-flow problem, but there will be repercussions. It's the sort of thing that will be felt in the north American crop next fall.

[blueblood]

Those are short term layoffs, they have to pay for the new mines that were opened up. Judging that the ag market is extremely volatile right now, the demand for fertilizer has temporarily crashed. Those mines will be going next year.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Oh, and just a few months ago the Sask economy was booming and they were recruiting out of province. Well, easy come, easy go...

[blueblood]

There aren't a lot of places to get potash, and there is a lot of ground that needs it to be particularly productive.

This is likely a cash-flow problem, but there will be repercussions. It's the sort of thing that will be felt in the north American crop next fall.

It'll be felt in other world crops. I have mine all ready to go!

[jdobbin]

Those are short term layoffs, they have to pay for the new mines that were opened up. Judging that the ag market is extremely volatile right now, the demand for fertilizer has temporarily crashed. Those mines will be going next year.

You hope. Grains crashed in the biggest plunge since 1986 and only rebounded a bit today.

The problem is that no one is sure just how bad things are going to get yet. It seems inevitable that farmers are going to grow less and buy less. All Ag related businesses will see a downturn because demand will fall. This will mean that more people will feel the recessionary stresses.

Only a reduced supply of product will help increase prices. Farmers will reduce capacity. Others won't stay in the market at all.

The Paradox of Thrift is that if farmers are trying to downsize growing or raising of product, it means that businesses that supply also have to decrease capacity. The recession grows.

At some point, the bottom is reached but in the worst cases, people sit on their money until confidence somehow returns.

[blueblood]

You hope. Grains crashed in the biggest plunge since 1986 and only rebounded a bit today.

The problem is that no one is sure just how bad things are going to get yet. It seems inevitable that farmers are going to grow less and buy less. All Ag related businesses will see a downturn because demand will fall. This will mean that more people will feel the recessionary stresses.

Only a reduced supply of product will help increase prices. Farmers will reduce capacity. Others won't stay in the market at all.

The Paradox of Thrift is that if farmers are trying to downsize growing or raising of product, it means that businesses that supply also have to decrease capacity. The recession grows.

At some point, the bottom is reached but in the worst cases, people sit on their money until confidence somehow returns.

Grains have been going up and down like crazy. However that being said, prices are still better than they were in 04. Canola was down 30 bucks and up 10. It's nuts. Canola is still above it's bottom I predicted it at (400 bucks per tonne = bottom) Economists say prices will be on a roller coaster and will react sharply to any news story out there, case in point potential drought in S.America, prices shot up. USDA report pegging stocks to be higher than usual, big crash yesterday.

The problem for the fert companies is that farmers awash in cash invested in storage and snapped up as much fertilizer as they could off the bat, with the fert. sitting in the bin and the Americans and others not wanting to buy, the price crashed. That combined with the fertilizer companies opening new mines does not bode well for the workers. Given the fundamentals, it was prudent to temporarily lay off workers and get the mines operational/paid off.

There will be reduced capacity all over the world, the world grew its biggest crop ever last year and has to eat its way out of it. However, prices are extremely volatile. One drought somewhere in the world and it's back off to the races. Volatile prices don't mean that it's necessarily going in the tank.

[Molly]

I'm sure you always use lots and lots of K in your applications, Blueblood......

"Americans and others not wanting to buy"...

More likely not able, credit crunch and all. Western Canadian grains are a pittance in global, or even North American terms.

Like I said, less K will be felt in the North American crop, and the world will feel shortages from NA. Maximize production, Blueblood. This could be a seriously paying crop.

[jdobbin]

Grains have been going up and down like crazy. However that being said, prices are still better than they were in 04. Canola was down 30 bucks and up 10. It's nuts. Canola is still above it's bottom I predicted it at (400 bucks per tonne = bottom) Economists say prices will be on a roller coaster and will react sharply to any news story out there, case in point potential drought in S.America, prices shot up. USDA report pegging stocks to be higher than usual, big crash yesterday.

I don't know a world-wide recession that didn't have an effect on crop prices.

I hope for your part that prices remain viable for farmers but you know from experience that even when the economy does better than prices for farmers don't always follow.

The problem for the fert companies is that farmers awash in cash invested in storage and snapped up as much fertilizer as they could off the bat, with the fert. sitting in the bin and the Americans and others not wanting to buy, the price crashed. That combined with the fertilizer companies opening new mines does not bode well for the workers. Given the fundamentals, it was prudent to temporarily lay off workers and get the mines operational/paid off.

It doesn't sound like the lay-off would be temporary. Temporary would be a month to three months. 2010 would be a long lay-off and the fall-out from that would spread to a large community in Saskatchewan.

There will be reduced capacity all over the world, the world grew its biggest crop ever last year and has to eat its way out of it. However, prices are extremely volatile. One drought somewhere in the world and it's back off to the races. Volatile prices don't mean that it's necessarily going in the tank.

If there are subsidies to continue food security, I expect we will see more oceans of butter and mountains of grain. Isn't that how it has always been in recent decades?

[blueblood]

I don't know a world-wide recession that didn't have an effect on crop prices.

I hope for your part that prices remain viable for farmers but you know from experience that even when the economy does better than prices for farmers don't always follow.

It doesn't sound like the lay-off would be temporary. Temporary would be a month to three months. 2010 would be a long lay-off and the fall-out from that would spread to a large community in Saskatchewan.

If there are subsidies to continue food security, I expect we will see more oceans of butter and mountains of grain. Isn't that how it has always been in recent decades?

The 1970's were good.

The fundeamental demand however is keeping prices adequate. The early 2000's were boom years and prices were downright disgusting.

That's depends on year idea of temporary. To me permanent means dismantling the plant completely, There will be workers back to those mines, ag prices are still profitable enough to justify the application of fertilizer, unless we see tractor parades again, those mines won't be closed for too long. Potash mines also have a union problem, this might be a way of putting a stop to it as well. The union was a terrible distraction to fertilizer production in the fall.

I think Obama is quite adamant about putting a hard cap on direct payment subsidies, he has a trillion dollar deficit and needs to cut spending somewhere. I also don't know if the EU is going to be able to afford ag subsidies in the near future as well. I'm not to sure about the oceans of butter and mountains of grain due to the fact that prices took off and people are buying at a bargain. Like I said prices are extremely volatile, and the economists are saying any news event good or bad has an effect on prices. Wheat swinging 30 cents either way on the Chicago Board of Trade suggests volatile times. However if I were Dalton McGuinty, I would be wanting oilseed crushing plants built up in anticipation for the Canada-EU free trade agreement, Europe is in dire straits for energy.

Edited January 14, 2009 by blueblood

[jdobbin]

The 1970's were good.

Were they? I seem to remember a lot of farmers unhappy.

It was called the Farm Crisis back in the 1970s. Farms grew larger and many farmers left the market. Farms required fewer workers so the rural economy was affected and the family farm was threatened by large farm operations. Farmers racked up the debt to buy machines, seed and fertilizer. Foreign markets started to dry up for a variety of reasons.

In 2008, many farmers face different issues but the same one that marked the 1970s is occurring now: Recession.

The fundeamental demand however is keeping prices adequate. The early 2000's were boom years and prices were downright disgusting.

Have we seen a major change since then?

That's depends on year idea of temporary. To me permanent means dismantling the plant completely, There will be workers back to those mines, ag prices are still profitable enough to justify the application of fertilizer, unless we see tractor parades again, those mines won't be closed for too long. Potash mines also have a union problem, this might be a way of putting a stop to it as well. The union was a terrible distraction to fertilizer production in the fall.

I know some people's solution to any problem is to crush workers but there is a lot more going on than just union problems.

I guess we can call anything temporary. I suppose we could call farm problems temporary since the land will always be there.

I think Obama is quite adamant about putting a hard cap on direct payment subsidies, he has a trillion dollar deficit and needs to cut spending somewhere. I also don't know if the EU is going to be able to afford ag subsidies in the near future as well. I'm not to sure about the oceans of butter and mountains of grain due to the fact that prices took off and people are buying at a bargain. Like I said prices are extremely volatile, and the economists are saying any news event good or bad has an effect on prices. Wheat swinging 30 cents either way on the Chicago Board of Trade suggests volatile times. However if I were Dalton McGuinty, I would be wanting oilseed crushing plants built up in anticipation for the Canada-EU free trade agreement, Europe is in dire straits for energy.

That is a lot of pre-supposition that the subsidies are about to end. Hell, we can't even end our own protection for dairy.

And why should McGuinty have to pay for plants? Isn't that what private business for?

Edited January 14, 2009 by jdobbin

[Molly]

.......... _I_ sure don't remember very many unhappy farmers during the '70's, Things tightened up at the end of the decade, but the '70's provided a decent farm income for the first time since Lord knows when and the last time for 20+ years.

If that's a crisis, we could have used a few more decade-long crises.

[madmax]

.......... _I_ sure don't remember very many unhappy farmers during the '70's, Things tightened up at the end of the decade, but the '70's provided a decent farm income for the first time since Lord knows when and the last time for 20+ years.

If that's a crisis, we could have used a few more decade-long crises.

IIRC things tightened up at the end of the decade and followed somewhat in the early 80s. I believe some was a result of the boycott of products to the USSR over their invasion of Afghanistan. Shortly after the need for Combines and such declined dramatically both out west and in foreign exports.

[blueblood]

Were they? I see to remember a lot of farmers unhappy.

It was called the Farm Crisis back in the 1970s. Farms grew larger and many farmers left the market. Farms required fewer workers so the rural economy was affected and the family farm was threatened by large farm operations. Farmers racked up the debt to buy machines, seed and fertilizer. Foreign markets started to dry up for a variety of reasons.

In 2008, many farmers face different issues but the same one that marked the 1970s is occurring now: Recession.

Have we seen a major change since then?

I know some people's solution to any problem is to crush workers but there is a lot more going on than just union problems.

I guess we can call anything temporary. I suppose we could call farm problems temporary since the land will always be there.

That is a lot of pre-supposition that the subsidies are about to end. Hell, we can't even end our own protection for dairy.

And why should McGuinty have to pay for plants? Isn't that what private business for?

Farmers were unhappy with Trudeau and his attitude. Having the USSR as a customer was a good thing in those days. What your alluding to happened in the 80's when prices crashed and interests rates took off.

Ag is the only commodity with a somewhat bullish outlook in 2008-09. It's prices are not sliding like oil. Ag is going up and down like a see-saw.

In ag there has been a major change since the early 2000's. The mountain of grain vanished and the demand kept growing. If there was a change in demand fundamentals, a market catastrophe like this would have sent grains to levels even lower than in the early 2000's, so the demand is there, just not enough cash/credit flowing around.

The union was a huge problem. The strike shut down fertilizer and caused worldwide supply problems. Had it not been for the credit crunch and banks not wanting to lend out money to finance farmers/firms taking loans out to buy fertilizer, the price would have been astronomical. The Union was at the point of wanting to gouge shareholders themselves.

The farm problems of the early 2000's were indeed temporary. The mountain of grain up and vanished. Take the dairy problem up with Quebecers, they're a major thorn in the side regarding WTO negotiations at the Doha round.

Obama wants to cut subsidies going to "wealthy" people in the ag sector. That is the case even though bush reluctantly signed a 290 billion dollar farm bill. There is Free trade negotiations going on with Europe, which is great for us because they are an energy basketcase and looking for ways to get out from Russia's thumb. Shipments of Canola oil will aid to that.

Considering you want the gov't to be stimulating the economy, why shouldn't Ontario create a value added industry to provide jobs for workers in our extremely profitable energy sector/food sector. I wasn't aware that providing jobs and doubling the value of an export (i.e. crushing canola/soybeans) is bad for the economy. Europe doesn't want Canola seed entering Europe, but a removal on tariffs considering canola oil would be really beneficial for Canada and give Ontarians some jobs.

[jdobbin]

.......... _I_ sure don't remember very many unhappy farmers during the '70's, Things tightened up at the end of the decade, but the '70's provided a decent farm income for the first time since Lord knows when and the last time for 20+ years.

If that's a crisis, we could have used a few more decade-long crises.

The term farm crisis started in the 1970s. While price might have been better, farmers were hurt by fuel costs and other inflationary costs. Many small farmers left the business and technology meant fewer people were needed. There was lots of talk about the end of the family farm because of the costs needed to expand.

[jdobbin]

Farmers were unhappy with Trudeau and his attitude. Having the USSR as a customer was a good thing in those days. What your alluding to happened in the 80's when prices crashed and interests rates took off.

I'm sorry. It started a lot earlier than that. Farmers were upset with rising fuel costs in the 1973 and 1979. They were hit with inflation on equipment and smaller farms were being bought out by larger farms and the rural population was in decline.

There has been rarely a time that farmers have been completely happy and the word "farm crisis" originated in the 1970s, not the 1980s. You can look it up if you don't believe me. I'd hate for people to be nostalgic for a time that really didn't exist. Farm prices only tells a small part of the story.

Ag is the only commodity with a somewhat bullish outlook in 2008-09. It's prices are not sliding like oil. Ag is going up and down like a see-saw.

I hope you're right. I have my doubts though that demand will keep pace.

In ag there has been a major change since the early 2000's. The mountain of grain vanished and the demand kept growing. If there was a change in demand fundamentals, a market catastrophe like this would have sent grains to levels even lower than in the early 2000's, so the demand is there, just not enough cash/credit flowing around.

And yet you have said that the Liberal times were bad times for farmers.

The union was a huge problem. The strike shut down fertilizer and caused worldwide supply problems. Had it not been for the credit crunch and banks not wanting to lend out money to finance farmers/firms taking loans out to buy fertilizer, the price would have been astronomical. The Union was at the point of wanting to gouge shareholders themselves.

I doubt the lay-offs were due to the union. I also doubt that demand from farmers is only curbed by credit problems. Many farmers have stored fertilizer and others are likely to reduce how much they grow this year.

The farm problems of the early 2000's were indeed temporary. The mountain of grain up and vanished. Take the dairy problem up with Quebecers, they're a major thorn in the side regarding WTO negotiations at the Doha round.

So was the entire existence of the Wheat Board. We'll see if Harper throws it under the bus this year. No dual market if marketing boards are made illegal.

Obama wants to cut subsidies going to "wealthy" people in the ag sector. That is the case even though bush reluctantly signed a 290 billion dollar farm bill. There is Free trade negotiations going on with Europe, which is great for us because they are an energy basketcase and looking for ways to get out from Russia's thumb. Shipments of Canola oil will aid to that.

I'll believe it when I see it. The farm lobby is a tough one and they want their subsidies.

Considering you want the gov't to be stimulating the economy, why shouldn't Ontario create a value added industry to provide jobs for workers in our extremely profitable energy sector/food sector. I wasn't aware that providing jobs and doubling the value of an export (i.e. crushing canola/soybeans) is bad for the economy. Europe doesn't want Canola seed entering Europe, but a removal on tariffs considering canola oil would be really beneficial for Canada and give Ontarians some jobs.

I wasn't aware that private business couldn't do this job.

[blueblood]

I'm sorry. It started a lot earlier than that. Farmers were upset with rising fuel costs in the 1973 and 1979. They were hit with inflation on equipment and smaller farms were being bought out by larger farms and the rural population was in decline.

There has been rarely a time that farmers have been completely happy and the word "farm crisis" originated in the 1970s, not the 1980s. You can look it up if you don't believe me. I'd hate for people to be nostalgic for a time that really didn't exist. Farm prices only tells a small part of the story.

I hope you're right. I have my doubts though that demand will keep pace.

And yet you have said that the Liberal times were bad times for farmers.

I doubt the lay-offs were due to the union. I also doubt that demand from farmers is only curbed by credit problems. Many farmers have stored fertilizer and others are likely to reduce how much they grow this year.

So was the entire existence of the Wheat Board. We'll see if Harper throws it under the bus this year. No dual market if marketing boards are made illegal.

I'll believe it when I see it. The farm lobby is a tough one and they want their subsidies.

I wasn't aware that private business couldn't do this job.

The 70's were a lot better than the early 2000's. If you were smart, you did well in the 70's. I don't buy that the 70's were bad compared to the 80's to the 2000's.

Demand will keep pace, however, the credit needed for financing is not keeping pace. Prices haven't even come down to 2004 levels. Times aren't as bad for farmers now as they were in the early 2000's. My cost of inputs has been reduced as prices came down so my bottom line is still good.

Part of the layoffs had to have been the union. They were outrageous in their demands from management. This is saving management a lot of money and at the same time adjusting for supply. Yes I have told you myself and others have stored fertilizer, and yes there will be reductions around the world. Plus the shock of the possibility of their customers not being able to obtain financing for their product also helped lower prices.

The WTO was already gunning for the CWB. You keep saying that dual marketing is illegal, but in every edition of the Western producer where the CWB representatives debate with the free market supporters, Dual marketing being illegal has not come up once. Not at all. Dual marketing being illegal would simplify and polarize the debate, but even the CWB representatives who know their business front and back aren't even mentioning this once. To not mention a critical point such as this either means that dual marketing being illegal is a hoax or the representatives are buffoons.

The farm lobby in the US has to justify getting more funding from the US's massive debt. I think that there are going to be some cuts coming there. RCalf was a powerfull lobby in the US, but even they couldn't win against orders from the gov't.

Gov'ts can provide the stimulus needed for private business to get set up. The same kind of stimulus you want the gov't to provide.

[jdobbin]

The 70's were a lot better than the early 2000's. If you were smart, you did well in the 70's. I don't buy that the 70's were bad compared to the 80's to the 2000's.

I guess if you compare them as such. It was still a time when many farmers were badly hit by inflation and racked up a lot of debt.

Demand will keep pace, however, the credit needed for financing is not keeping pace. Prices haven't even come down to 2004 levels. Times aren't as bad for farmers now as they were in the early 2000's. My cost of inputs has been reduced as prices came down so my bottom line is still good.

So long as your price holds.

Part of the layoffs had to have been the union. They were outrageous in their demands from management. This is saving management a lot of money and at the same time adjusting for supply. Yes I have told you myself and others have stored fertilizer, and yes there will be reductions around the world. Plus the shock of the possibility of their customers not being able to obtain financing for their product also helped lower prices.

It is why I've said if demand was there, the jobs would not have been cut. I think they might have lay-offs for a good while.

The WTO was already gunning for the CWB. You keep saying that dual marketing is illegal, but in every edition of the Western producer where the CWB representatives debate with the free market supporters, Dual marketing being illegal has not come up once. Not at all. Dual marketing being illegal would simplify and polarize the debate, but even the CWB representatives who know their business front and back aren't even mentioning this once. To not mention a critical point such as this either means that dual marketing being illegal is a hoax or the representatives are buffoons.

Dual marketing is allowed if it is a provincial marketing board. It does not cover a federal board. I shown the link here many times. The minute you open the market, the minute the Wheat Board is gone. I defy anyone to say different.

The farm lobby in the US has to justify getting more funding from the US's massive debt. I think that there are going to be some cuts coming there. RCalf was a powerfull lobby in the US, but even they couldn't win against orders from the gov't.

I guess we'll have to see. I suspect that we will see more money to ag sectors and farmers.

Gov'ts can provide the stimulus needed for private business to get set up. The same kind of stimulus you want the gov't to provide.

I have not even seen evidence that private business has asked for help for these plants you mention.

[blueblood]

I guess if you compare them as such. It was still a time when many farmers were badly hit by inflation and racked up a lot of debt.

So long as your price holds.

It is why I've said if demand was there, the jobs would not have been cut. I think they might have lay-offs for a good while.

Dual marketing is allowed if it is a provincial marketing board. It does not cover a federal board. I shown the link here many times. The minute you open the market, the minute the Wheat Board is gone. I defy anyone to say different.

I guess we'll have to see. I suspect that we will see more money to ag sectors and farmers.

I have not even seen evidence that private business has asked for help for these plants you mention.

My floor of 400 dollars per tonne has only been crossed briefly then shot back up. So far the price has been see sawing just above 400 dollars per tonne since September. I'm pretty sure that's the floor. The demand is there. When the price goes under 400, the trucks stop rolling. It's safe to say its holding, and the ag economists are saying we are one weather malfunction from another price upshoot. Ag has not been hit as hard in this recession as say metals, and oil. Which is good news for Canada as we do a lot of ag exporting.

Long term the demand is there, that's why they've scaled back the work force and haven't dismantled any mines and plants. That is a good thing.

And I defy you to go to the western producer open forum and make that claim. No CWB supporter on there has made that claim and the debate there has been raging for years and is heated. I would love to see the rebuttal to that from the tory mp and the various free market associations. As one of the majority of option 2 voters, I'd like to know my vote wasn't wasted. Us option 2 voters want as much marketing options as possible, and if that means going into the pool from time to time then so be it.

[jdobbin]

My floor of 400 dollars per tonne has only been crossed briefly then shot back up. So far the price has been see sawing just above 400 dollars per tonne since September. I'm pretty sure that's the floor. The demand is there. When the price goes under 400, the trucks stop rolling. It's safe to say its holding, and the ag economists are saying we are one weather malfunction from another price upshoot. Ag has not been hit as hard in this recession as say metals, and oil. Which is good news for Canada as we do a lot of ag exporting.

I hope your price holds. And I hope the weather malfunction is in Canada.

Long term the demand is there, that's why they've scaled back the work force and haven't dismantled any mines and plants. That is a good thing.

I wouldn't expect them to dismantle. I do think it is going to be a while before they open again.

And I defy you to go to the western producer open forum and make that claim. No CWB supporter on there has made that claim and the debate there has been raging for years and is heated. I would love to see the rebuttal to that from the tory mp and the various free market associations. As one of the majority of option 2 voters, I'd like to know my vote wasn't wasted. Us option 2 voters want as much marketing options as possible, and if that means going into the pool from time to time then so be it.

I don't know how they think the Wheat Board will function as a Crown Corporation. The Board would have to be privatized. The problem is that it doesn't have any assets. None aside from its office in Winnipeg. In effect, it would be a wheat pool. Remember those?

[blueblood]

I hope your price holds. And I hope the weather malfunction is in Canada.

I wouldn't expect them to dismantle. I do think it is going to be a while before they open again.

I don't know how they think the Wheat Board will function as a Crown Corporation. The Board would have to be privatized. The problem is that it doesn't have any assets. None aside from its office in Winnipeg. In effect, it would be a wheat pool. Remember those?

A weather malfuncion in Canada is not good for us, a weather malfunction in other areas of the world is better. Canola is linked directly to soybeans, when they go up so does canola. A weather malfunction in the US and South America would be ideal right now. The last thing any gov't in Canada needs is a farm disaster in the middle of a recession. So far it has pretty much made up its big loss on monday.

It has it's ace in the whole concerning Churchill. That in all intents and purposes is the wheat boards main asset. I for one would love to see Churchill go full bore and put an end to that ridiculous St. Lawrence Seaway rip off. With the incoming European Free Trade Agreement, that opens up the door to Canola oil exports, and with two crushers going up full steam ahead, we can get around their GMO nonsense. I do think however a priority for the 3 prairie provincial gov'ts should be to get Churchill up and running as soon as possible. This business of going thru mountains and through Ontario is killing everyone with shipping costs.

[jdobbin]

A weather malfuncion in Canada is not good for us, a weather malfunction in other areas of the world is better. Canola is linked directly to soybeans, when they go up so does canola. A weather malfunction in the US and South America would be ideal right now. The last thing any gov't in Canada needs is a farm disaster in the middle of a recession. So far it has pretty much made up its big loss on monday.

Farm weather disasters are difficult to predict at the best of times. I hope Canada doesn't get hit by one.

It has it's ace in the whole concerning Churchill. That in all intents and purposes is the wheat boards main asset. I for one would love to see Churchill go full bore and put an end to that ridiculous St. Lawrence Seaway rip off. With the incoming European Free Trade Agreement, that opens up the door to Canola oil exports, and with two crushers going up full steam ahead, we can get around their GMO nonsense. I do think however a priority for the 3 prairie provincial gov'ts should be to get Churchill up and running as soon as possible. This business of going thru mountains and through Ontario is killing everyone with shipping costs.

Churchill isn't owned by the Wheat Board. The Board owns no rails, no trucks, no elevators, no ships, no railcars.

I wish Harper had made the announced that Churchill was the going to be the new military base.

[blueblood]

Farm weather disasters are difficult to predict at the best of times. I hope Canada doesn't get hit by one.

Churchill isn't owned by the Wheat Board. The Board owns no rails, no trucks, no elevators, no ships, no railcars.

I wish Harper had made the announced that Churchill was the going to be the new military base.

That's what I meant when I said for all intents and purposes. The CWB however is Churchill's largest client, without grains going through there, Churchill would be just another Northern Town. The CWB does however own a lot of grain, as liquid an asset as that might be. How much grain the CWB owns depends on the diehards that support it and the softies such as myself would be willing to contribute if the price is right.

Churchill is a port, it is of better strategic value to pop up a military base where it is closer to the waters that are under contention and closer to Islands the Danes want to snap up. Other than that there is no reason why Churchill shouldn't have a military base. However, it is clear that that port needs to roll. This ridiculousness of having to load ships on two occassions is hurting our exports that go east. Send them North and it's one stop shopping.

[jdobbin]

That's what I meant when I said for all intents and purposes. The CWB however is Churchill's largest client, without grains going through there, Churchill would be just another Northern Town. The CWB does however own a lot of grain, as liquid an asset as that might be. How much grain the CWB owns depends on the diehards that support it and the softies such as myself would be willing to contribute if the price is right.

My understanding of the Board is that it doesn't own the grain. It only markets it. It doesn't own anything except its headquarters on Main Street in Winnipeg and even that it is up for debate.

I don't think any private enterprise would send grain through Churchill. Through deregulation, I suspect grain would just go to the coasts and by truck to the States unless the U.S. shuts its border.

Churchill is a port, it is of better strategic value to pop up a military base where it is closer to the waters that are under contention and closer to Islands the Danes want to snap up. Other than that there is no reason why Churchill shouldn't have a military base. However, it is clear that that port needs to roll. This ridiculousness of having to load ships on two occassions is hurting our exports that go east. Send them North and it's one stop shopping.

Churchill is a deep water port close to the waters in contention. It is the only one with a rail link and an airport equipped to handle the largest cargo planes in the world.

The port Harper wants will not have those things.