Misson Terminal and the CWB

[jdepape]

"Storage capacity has nothing to do with handling capacity"

you're kidding, right?

Mission Terminal didn't attract more CWB grains because it was "operating at a lower cost rate per tonne" because of the volume it was handling. That's a circular argument.

You're on the right track when you say there are 4 or maybe even 5 more terminals operating than need be. In other words, too much capacity.

So you tell me why Mission Terminal is expanding. Yes, its because of the CWB sending them so much grain. I get that.

So tell me why the CWB is doing that - and apparently has told Mission to expect more. If I was Viterra or Cargill or JRI or P&H, I would be have already bent over backwards to strike a deal with the CWB. The fact that nothing has happened and Mission is expanding would tell me that there is nothing I could do commercially to change the situation.

It's tough to compete when the only game in town appears to be looking for something I can's supply. So what is it?

(Sorry for repeating some points.)

[parsley]

Mission Terminal expansion gets Ont. funding
Staff 10/4/2010 9:00:00 AM

Thunder Bay's Mission Terminal grain elevator has picked up provincial funding toward a project to boost its handling capacity.

Mission Terminal, which bills itself as Canada's largest administrator of Prairie farmer-loaded producer cars, will get $1 million from the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. through its Enterprises North Job Creation program.

The expansion involves construction of three new storage bins and is expected to create up to six new jobs as a result of "additional volumes," terminal manager Paul Kennedy said in the province's release Friday.

"As well, additional volumes have allowed us to invest in increasing railroad trackage onsite and we are currently developing a new facility to accommodate the Canadian Grain Commission," he said.

Thunder Bay area MPP Bill Mauro described the terminal as "a tremendous asset to our area, and this expansion will help provide good jobs for our residents."

The terminal, sited at the mouth of the Mission River and feeding into the Great Lakes system, currently employs about 50 people and has a capacity of 120,000 tonnes.

Mission Terminal sources and markets Prairie wheat and barley as well as canola, barley, rye, flax, peas and oats through its handling facilities in Western Canada and at Thunder Bay.

Mission, which in August marked 10 years in operation, is an operating company within Soumat, a Winnipeg-based grain handling and trading operation that wholly and partly owns a number of primary elevators and producer car loading sites, shortline railways, grain terminals, transfer elevators and bulk storage sites.

Soumat in turn is part of the Upper Lakes Group, a privately-held Toronto firm dealing in shipping, marine and industrial services, grain trading, port facility services and real estate development."

[jdepape]

Boy, this has got me thinking.

What happens to the CWB program if:
1. Mission expands as planned.
2. Two other terminals shut down due to lack of business; the terminal operators negotiate a deal between them to run everything through the remaining elevators.
3. Mission has a serious breakdown and can't execute.
4. The CWB goes to the other terminals for relief.

How do they react? What if they don't have enough capacity since they closed down some terminals?

The rational thing for the CWB to do is keep its options open - get them to compete for the business.

Why would the CWB put all its eastern promises in one house?

Now I'm distracted......

[parsley]

It's helpful to go through these one at a time:

http://www.missionterminal.ca/pdfs/News-MTI_New_Appointments.pdf

http://www.upperlakes.com/sitemap.html

http://www.upperlakes.com/history.html

[parsley]

"Mission Terminal Inc. is the only independent grain terminal in Thunder Bay, Ontario, located on the Mission River. Mission Terminal currently has a grain handling agreement with The Canadian Wheat Board and has space available to tender to CWB. Mission also has space available for Non-board grains."

[JohnGalt]

Mission also loads lots of lentils.

This whole union complaint sounds way too scary to me.

Maybe we should start allocating that GM/Ford/Dodge should only make equal amounts of new trucks available for sale. Then all the union workers will be equally busy.

[parsley]

"February 16, 2006
Earlier, Lang and Mitchener LLP announced it had retained the services of federal Tory campaign co-chair John Reynolds as a strategic advisor. And who will he be advising, you may wonder? Well, the news release notes the firm is "building strength in key areas of specialization" like "natural resources, gaming, U.S. securities and China practices." But, according to the federal government records, Lang and Mitchener is also presently lobbying Ottawa on behalf of a number of interests, including: the Dairy Farmers of Canada; Ketcham Investments Inc., a Seattle investment firm that co-owns West Fraser Mills Ltd. with Tysa Investments Inc.; and the Upper Lakes Group Inc., a private Toronto company that operates one of the largest fleets on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. "

[jdepape]

JohnGalt:

you've missed the point (well, at least the point I'm trying to make). To me, the union complaint is just a symptom of a problem - not the real problem at all.

Last year, the CWB represented 75% of all the grain going through the port.

The situation appears to be the CWB is shutting out 90% of the capacity on about half of 75% of the grain flowing through the port.

When someone has that much control of your business and appears to be acting non-commercially, its the sign of a problem. For the operators and farmers alike.

First processors shun Canada as a place to invest - now we may have a tough time keeping grain handlers here.

[LWeber]

Keep digging...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely...

Can an Acredited Exporter with no facilities dictate where his CWB sales are loaded to help an old friend?

After all they are entiltled to their entitlements:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/manitoba-movers-92073999.html

[parsley]

WHICH TWO SHIPYARDS WILL EMERGE THE WINNERS IN THE NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING PROCUREMENT STRATEGY?
By Dave Pugliese Wed, Sep 22 2010 COMMENTS(7) David Pugliese’s Defence Watch
Filed under: National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy



By David Pugliese

Defence Watch





Which two shipyards will come out on top in the race to be named the federal yards that will be responsible for building 1,000 tonne non-combat ships and combat ships? Two yards will be selected late next year.



What yards are likely the strong contenders for this strategy. Industry officials point to the following yards who they say could do the job (let me know if I’ve left anyone out):



Peter Kiewit Infrastructure Co., Marystown, Newfoundland



Halifax Shipyard, Halifax, Nova Scotia



Davie Yards, Lévis, Québec



Upper Lakes Group, (Port Weller Drydocks) St. Catharines, Ontario



Washington Marine Group (Vancouver and Victoria Shipyards, Vancouver Dry Dock), Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia




Ian Mack, the Defence Department’s director general major project delivery (land and sea), said the strategy is not designed to rationalize the country’s shipyards.



“They haven’t been building a lot of 1,000 ton ships and up for the last 10 years,” said Mack, the Defence Department’s director general major project delivery (land and sea). “They’ve already rationalized repair and overhaul and other capabilities. What we’re offering to a couple of shipyards the opportunity to rebuild that capability as a strategic asset for the nation. We’re not out to take anything away from any shipyards.”



“This is not a rationalization of shipyards,” he adds. “This is a selection of two shipyards with a fair amount of government support to enhance their capabilities to satisfy the call the Canadian government needs. It isn’t about rationalizing shipyards at all.”