Interesting tidbit

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Interesting tidbit

Klause's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 18:17 1 This is what we are competing with. Canadians need to give their collective heads a shake.
Either we start a real build out of infrastructure... Not water treatment plants and hockey rinks....

Or we will be left in the dust.






In sum, Argentina is making great efforts to rejuvenate its rail systems. Modernization efforts seem to be resulting in significant performance improvements and a substantial shift in traffic from motor to rail service. The United States, on the other hand, is relying somewhat less on its extensive rail network. Recent figures indicate that motor transportation has replaced rail as the preferred mode for movements from the elevator to processor or export port locations.
Water Transportation
The significance of motor and rail operations in all three settings has been clearly demonstrated but water transportation cannot be overlooked. Table 2 shows that approximately 20 percent of all U.S. grain movements from the point of consolidation to the processor or export port location are made by barge. In addition, more than 90 percent of U.S. grains moved by barge are ultimately destined for export markets. Barges serve as the primary mode of export movement for U.S. corn and soybeans (rail maintains a 60 percent share of wheat export movements). The use of waterways for export delivery is even more pervasive in South America.
Argentina and Brazil are currently looking to expand their already extensive network of navigable inland waterways. Significant investment in recent years extends the reach of barge and vessel traffic inland from the deep rivers of the region's major port cities along the Atlantic coast. Perhaps the most ambitious, and certainly the most controversial, of all South American transportation developments is the creation of the Rio Paraguay-Rio Paran� Hidrovia. The Hidrovia, or "water highway," is a multinational effort to extend the reach of inland navigation from Uruguay's Nueva Palmira to C�ceres in the Mato Grosso region of western Brazil, spanning 3,442 kilometers through all four Mercosur nations (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) as well as Bolivia. The extensive dredging and realignment in South American rivers is anticipated to have a significant economic impact on producers and carriers alike. It is estimated that transportation costs for upstream shippers will be cut in half by using the river system rather than rail or truck.
Progressive barge carriers in Argentina are already achieving considerable efficiencies within the nation's current network of navigable waterways. Foreign investment has dramatically expanded barge and towing capacity while also improving the navigability of large tows. Satellite tracking and guidance systems are helping South American barges to operate with efficiencies on a par with those of the United States. U.S. shippers and barge operators, on the other hand, are concerned with an aging waterway infrastructure. After several decades of extensive use and reliance on the river system for efficient bulk materials movement, the rivers are in need of renewed attention. Special concern is directed toward the aging lock system of the Mississippi River. The Mississippi serves as the backbone of efficient grain movement in the United States. The proximity of growing areas for corn and soybeans to the Mississippi and its tributaries make the system imperative for low cost exporting. The ability to quickly and efficiently access port facilities located at the mouth of the Mississippi River in Louisiana has proven critical to the export success of these U.S. crops.
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 19:28 2 And in Canada the carbon tax will dramatically raise the cost of western Canadian grain to the coast . All on a rail system that has been slashed to the bone for stockholder profits . Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 19:36 3 Yup all about the investors Furrow! CN and CP can make or break communities that they are SUPPOSE to service regularly. Too bad our governments are to stupid to realize it. Just think of the value added businesses that could be built to help keep small communities viable but the railways often dont give good enough commitments to ensure startup. Real sad that we tear our infrustructure down instead of add to it. Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2017 | 19:38 4 It might not mean jack shit in the grande scheme but with all this container traffic I can’t understand why more grain isn’t shipped back to China etc in empty cans. Fill the can wherever, put on truck and move to rail head or direct to port. Some done with specialty stuff but in a time of rusting grain cars and unreliable grain car logistics why not more of the bulk stuff? I think I know a partial answer like say the producer needs to do it themselves cause it’s piddly blah blah blah. Maybe a sea can of flour, oat flakes, cleaned cwrs, processed pulses etc. Klause you’ve done this stuff. What’s your take Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 19:53 5
Quote Originally Posted by WiltonRanch View Post
It might not mean jack shit in the grande scheme but with all this container traffic I can’t understand why more grain isn’t shipped back to China etc in empty cans. Fill the can wherever, put on truck and move to rail head or direct to port. Some done with specialty stuff but in a time of rusting grain cars and unreliable grain car logistics why not more of the bulk stuff? I think I know a partial answer like say the producer needs to do it themselves cause it’s piddly blah blah blah. Maybe a sea can of flour, oat flakes, cleaned cwrs, processed pulses etc. Klause you’ve done this stuff. What’s your take
Depends on the market. Location. Etc.


Container shipping works great if you're after a niche market... For us high value wheat and whole clean peas. Looking at shipping dehulled oats next year if I ever finish building my dehuller.


It doesn't work for mass production though. Too much labour and not enough material... For instance a 20t container of wheat is great for a mom-and-pop bakery in Nigeria. It doesn't work well for large corporations like Warburton.

As far as costs... Freight rates change all the time though. Haven't looked lately. Sometimes you can freight a container to Asia for less than you can get a bulk car to Vancouver. Reply With Quote
farmaholic's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 21:18 6 Klause. ...meanwhile CP is thinking about closing some sections of branchlines ...4 in Sask and 2 in Alta. They also closed 9 Producer Car loading sites in Sask and are now down to 27 from 79 in 2005.

From an article in the Western Producer.

Edit...it talks about the closures being "volume related"....well between GrainCos and RRs....they can design the outcome they want.
Last edited by farmaholic; Nov 5, 2017 at 21:26.
Reply With Quote
blackpowder's Avatar Nov 5, 2017 | 23:02 7 How much Canadian grain now goes south? Thereby using Ol'Miss and the Colombia? Reply With Quote
LEP
Nov 6, 2017 | 07:19 8 Funny story about containers. I was involved with a project that required meeting with CN a lot in the early 2000s.

So the business development guys were brainstorming and wanted to run something by me. If they could supply containers would I load them in the field rather than going to the bin? They were going to revolutionize farming. Now one of these guys had close to 30 years in.

I said ok, let's see. We are two and a half hours from Saskatoon. You would need say 10 or 12 of these a day and I am only one of 50 guys that need the same thing. You guys buying the equipment to achieve those?

They realized pretty quick that idea wasn't going to fly. Reply With Quote
farmaholic's Avatar Nov 6, 2017 | 07:40 9
Quote Originally Posted by LEP View Post
Funny story about containers. I was involved with a project that required meeting with CN a lot in the early 2000s.

So the business development guys were brainstorming and wanted to run something by me. If they could supply containers would I load them in the field rather than going to the bin? They were going to revolutionize farming. Now one of these guys had close to 30 years in.

I said ok, let's see. We are two and a half hours from Saskatoon. You would need say 10 or 12 of these a day and I am only one of 50 guys that need the same thing. You guys buying the equipment to achieve those?

They realized pretty quick that idea wasn't going to fly.
"When common sense is fleeting..........!" Must have been one of those "book smart practically stupid" guys.... probably never even been on a farm. Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2017 | 20:16 10 Klaus

Read the whole article which is basically explaining how the USA utilizes their waterways to move grain to export position. It also explains how the South Americans are dredging and realignment of their rivers to move grain to export. Everybody and their dog knows this is the cheapest way to move grain to export.

Canada has no natural east to west river system, twining rail lines across the country isn't going to make movement cheaper. So Klaus, you tell me what exactly Canada can do to make moving grain to export position in a cheaper matter to compete with nature water ways other counties enjoy? Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 03:03 11 Transcontinental rail is our waterway, just needs some maintenance and upgrading but..... Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 07:44 12 Sum

"Transcontinental rail is our waterway, just needs some maintenance and upgrading but..... "


As I stated in my post I realize that our rail lines are our only means of moving grain to export. But I'll ask you as I asked Klaus how does twining lines or fixing current infrastructure make us more competitive. This will not reduce our cost of moving the grain, freight rates will not decrease. Canada does not have a natural water way moving east to west which is a cheaper way of moving grain.

I have to think that Klaus's thread is nothing more than another of his anti-Canada bitching sessions that he likes to start. Time to move, again!
. Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 7, 2017 | 08:09 13 Holy forage give your head a shake.



Trains have to pull over and stop sometimes for hours waiting for another train to pass.


You could tripple the amount of freight on rail with teinned tracks


Down there they are building tunnels under the Rocky mountains to make traveling safer and faster. Here we shut the Cocahalla down every time it snows.


Our oil industry struggles because we can't get it to market.
Our grain industry struggles because we can't get it to market.


We keep telling about billions in infrastructure but nothing comes of it... a patch on a highest err a water treatment upgrade there... Doesnt do anything for the economy.


Why not build a high speed passenger train connecting large cities. Make it electric (green transportation).

Twin the main rail beds.


Dredge the south sask river... You could connect it to Port of Churchill. Imagine how cheap that would move grain. It was actually studied in the 30s... And found to be feasible. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 08:18 14 Been saying this for years....part of the open market was to ensure all market players....farmers railways graincos .....do their part....


All I see is farmers adding thousands of tonnes of on farm storage....

You are right the railways will stop split the train and wait for 6 hours to let others pass...

Just twinning the lines from Calgary to thunder bay would improve logistics...


High speed rail....how else will you entice immigrants to come here....I know if I could hop a train to different places I would for a brief holiday....
Last edited by bucket; Nov 7, 2017 at 08:21.
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 08:27 15 Heard this one ....
cut the transfer payments to Quebec
Use that money to help twin rail from western Alberta to ports in Vancouver and Rupert.
Build the oil pipeline to the BC coast , China / Japan would buy every drop .
Get our resources to markets that want , need and will pay for it . Reply With Quote
SASKFARMER3's Avatar Nov 7, 2017 | 08:55 16 Thats what we need furrow. Enough of being held captive in our own country.

The west would be wealthy and eventually the East would crumble. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 09:08 17 Klaus tell me how twinning rail lines (which I agree with as it would move more product) would put more money in my pocket, freight rates wouldn't go down, unless your suggesting they bring back the crow rate.This would be a government subsidy, I thought your a Libertarian.

More grain movement doesn't mean higher returns to farmer, there is a glut of wheat in the world market and every country can grow it. The Black Sea blows out their product every year which drops the world market price every year. That's the underlying factor! Have you not notice Ukraine and Russia's proximity to the Black Sea?

Your pipe dream about dredging the Sk River to Churchill and using it as a port has been smoke way to many times. Not economical many have tried and have failed. importers done't want to use it, bottom line. Why you would mention a study that was conducted in the 1930s stating Churchill is feasible, that's 80 years ago many things have changed. Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 7, 2017 | 09:19 18
Quote Originally Posted by foragefarmer View Post
Klaus tell me how twinning rail lines (which I agree with as it would move more product) would put more money in my pocket, freight rates wouldn't go down, unless your suggesting they bring back the crow rate.This would be a government subsidy, I thought your a Libertarian.

More grain movement doesn't mean higher returns to farmer, there is a glut of wheat in the world market and every country can grow it. The Black Sea blows out their product every year which drops the world market price every year. That's the underlying factor! Have you not notice Ukraine and Russia's proximity to the Black Sea?

Your pipe dream about dredging the Sk River to Churchill and using it as a port has been smoke way to many times. Not economical many have tried and have failed. importers done't want to use it, bottom line. Why you would mention a study that was conducted in the 1930s stating Churchill is feasible, that's 80 years ago many things have changed.


Yup you're right. Let's sit on our ass and watch as we turn into a third world country. I like my standard of living. Don't you? Unless we keep up with our competition our standard of living will drop significantly Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 09:30 19 All these ideas to increase efficiencies, have less to do with the spending/finance that would be needed for these projects, and way more to do with the regulation, enviroNazis, and particularly the Canadian courts.

Dredging the S.Sask is a great idea, but it's a pipe dream because enviroNazis and the left leaning Supreme court would never approve it. Would there ever be a federal government that would use "not withstanding" to push a project through. Where would our international standing be? with other trading partners? U.N.? et al?

Don't think there won't be enviro challenges to twinning rail lines either. Courts make law now days.

Would doubling track on a path to the Mississippi be a more realistic possibility? How far north are grain barges loaded? Minneapolis?


Foragey/grasseyfarmer

Moving grain on waterways is not all that! Here's a report done regarding moving grain on the Missouri to get it to the Mississippi River for shipping.

https://iatp.org/files/Past_and_Futu..._Missouri_.pdf

Here are the conclusions;

• Commercial barge traffic has been declining on the Missouri River since 1977.
• Wheat shipments, over one-third of all commercial traffic on the Missouri River in
1979, have almost disappeared.
• The reasons for these dramatic declines in Missouri River barge traffic are reduced
wheat production, a highly competitive railroad system, high Missouri River barge
costs, and rapidly growing local and domestic markets.
• There is little reason to believe that these trends will be reversed on a long-term basis.
• The public cost of providing navigation on the Missouri River exceeds the benefits to
shippers.
• An open public debate is needed to evaluate alternative navigation investment
strategies on the Missouri River and other low-volume rivers. Farmers like Steve
Swanson need to be involved in these debates.
Last edited by danny W1M; Nov 7, 2017 at 09:39.
Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 7, 2017 | 09:52 20 I wonder where Chuck and grassy stand on building a high speed passenger train network....


Connect cities with more than 200,000 people... You could take how many cars off the road.


Would do a lot more for the environment than what a carbon tax would do.

The US got w lot of use out of the barge system during the time they spent as a major grain exporter... Today they have enough mouths to feed that exporting isn't as important anymore.

Canada is very different... Huge breadbasket tiny population. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 09:54 21 Twinning lines would make passenger cargo feasible, airlines would lose a lot of traffic, possibly not survive in domestic passenger competition. Dredging to Churchill or even rail to Churchill would remove too much grain freight to Ontario and Quebec, Richardsons, Cargill et al would not have control.
Tech advances likely make it feasible now compared to old feasibility studies but not gonna happen. Stepping on somebody's toes. Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 10:49 22 For all those commenting on the dredging of the Sk River to Churchill, if it could make shipping more efficient and cost effective, why hasn't Potash Corp not looked into it? Reply With Quote
Klause's Avatar Nov 7, 2017 | 11:27 23
Quote Originally Posted by foragefarmer View Post
For all those commenting on the dredging of the Sk River to Churchill, if it could make shipping more efficient and cost effective, why hasn't Potash Corp not looked into it?

Because they are a potash mine ? That's the same as asking why didn't pics build their own railway Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 14:27 24
Quote Originally Posted by Klause View Post
I wonder where Chuck and grassy stand on building a high speed passenger train network....


Connect cities with more than 200,000 people... You could take how many cars off the road.


Would do a lot more for the environment than what a carbon tax would do.

The US got w lot of use out of the barge system during the time they spent as a major grain exporter... Today they have enough mouths to feed that exporting isn't as important anymore.

Canada is very different... Huge breadbasket tiny population.
Right on Klaus, a carbon tax is a tax and has no measurable benefit. I suppose the carbon tax plan was to invest the money from the tax in environmental programs. With Morneau the tax will no doubt go to his friends and his companies of course. We need concrete action on the environment. A railway system to serve small communities would do more for the environment and the economy. Rail passenger service absolutely

Trucks hauling grain hundreds of miles before it goes by train is insanity. A carbon tax will pass those trucking costs onto the farmer. Rail transportation is known to be 10 times more energy efficient than truck. Why are the railways and highways treated differently?

Grain transportation needs to be organized. The Canadian Wheat Board also did a great deal for the environment and the efficient movement of grain.

Grain production the the prairies has never been viable without a Canadian Wheat Board. With $4.20 1RS wheat low protein wheat farmers need a Canadian Wheat Board. Malt barley and durum used to be go to crops for many farmers and that was because of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Producer car loaders also had a market for their wheat with the CWB, no wonder the car loading sites are being shut down. The rail line to the port of Churchill was financially viable because of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Finally since the CWB was eliminated farmers have lost billions in revenue.
Last edited by Integrity_Farmer; Nov 7, 2017 at 14:46. Reason: clariication
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 14:44 25 IF - agree on most thing but the CWB illusion.
Just sold some more HRSW for $7.40 , delivered and will get a check for 100% of it . That was a pipe dream with the CWB .
Sorry but agree and disagree with ya Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 14:49 26 Also had to sell hrsw with frost damage in 2004 through the board for well under $3 and had to wait 18 months to get paid that full amount . Regardless the CWB is gone and would do nothing to help us today . It's really irrelevant to even bring it up any more . Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017 | 19:07 27 We are the highest cost producer in the world. Highest inputs, cold climate, short season, ridiculous taxes and equipment costs, tax government policy that will makes us even less competitive. Far away from key markets. We need demand to keep rising, other countries will continue to ramp up production. Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2017 | 21:09 28 I agree Klause! U might be only able to use it half the year but would save us alot in the long run. Anything can be done just costs money. Beauracracy would be the biggest hurdle. CN and CP would have a hissy fit. Reply With Quote