Prince Rupert terminal starting to make waves

[amor de cosmos]

Industry and Governments weigh in on 'unfair' advantage of Prince Rupert Port
By Alan S. Hale - The Northern View
Published: January 06, 2012 4:00 PM
Updated: January 06, 2012 4:32 PM

The US Government body that will be deciding if Prince Rupert enjoys an unfair advantage over west coast ports in America, has made available the public input it has received since the inquiry was first called in November.

As of Friday Afternoon, the US Federal Maritime Commission​ has made available 57 different submissions from business and trade groups – sometimes representing hundreds of companies –, corporations, governments, politicians and even one or two private individuals.

It's a diverse bunch, ranging from Canada's biggest business interest group, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, to the American Apparel and Footwear Association.

The good news for Prince Rupert is that the majority of the submissions advise the Maritime Commission against imposing new fees on containers entering the US after being unloaded at Canadian Ports; a solution that is being espoused by American west coast ports such as Seattle and Tacoma.

The conflict is centred around the Harbour Maintenance Tax (HMT), which is a federal government fee charged by American ports to those who unload cargo there. The fee is charged on each container and is based on a small percentage of whatever the cargo inside is worth. The money from this is collected and distributed by the government to ports nation-wide to be used for port improvements, more specifically, dredging.

In Canada, ports do not charge a fee like this to port users. Canadian Port Authorities, including Prince Rupert's, often absorb the cost of harbour maintenance instead of charging their customer's extra. Port's with naturally deep harbours, also like Prince Rupert, don't need to worry about dredging costs at all, or at least, not very often. Contrast this with the Port of Houston in the US, which depends on the HMT to pay for $50-million worth of dredging every year.



With US ports blaming the HMT and Canadian ports claiming that is better transit times and infrastructure, the Federal Commission​ has asked those who actually import goods into the US through Canada for their reasons for doing so, and many industry groups have responded.

The National Retail Federation represents hundreds of individual businesses, many of which import goods from Asia. They say its a matter of who can get their goods to them faster.

“The biggest motivating factor is the speed at which they can get their products to market. This includes factors such as the productivity of the port, reliability of services, workforce stability, and available infrastructure. While fees such as the HMT are a consideration, they are not the sole factor in a retailer’s decision,” says the retail federation.



“Prince Rupert is the closest port to China in North America. That proximity translates into shorter ocean transit times, which, in turn, allow ocean carriers to offer lower rates. Although cargo must then move by rail or truck to the U.S., our experience has been that the transit times are still shorter,” says FedEx.

While the HMT is not a non-issue, the comments appear to suggest that it is not the biggest reason companies are using the Prince Rupert port. One anonymous “port user” from the US pretty much sums it up in their individual input.

“I hope you realize it's not the taxes, it's the transit times. So unless your going to change the curvature of the earth I will continue to import my US goods through the port of Prince of Rupert.”

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/136852308.html

[amor de cosmos]

For Immediate Release
2012TRAN0004-000090
Jan. 30, 2012
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
Transport Canada
Pacific Gateway

Booming Pacific trade means more jobs in Prince Rupert

PRINCE RUPERT – The Port of Prince Rupert beat expectations and had another banner year in 2011 with record exports of forest, coal and grain products to China, Japan and Korea.

Some highlights of increased port traffic are:

• 19.3 million tonnes of cargo moved through the port altogether, an increase of 18 per cent over 2010.
• Total coal tonnage shipped from Ridley Terminals Inc. (RTI) to Korea, China and Japan was up 16 per cent over 2010. RTI shipped 9.64 million tonnes of product compared to 8.30 million tonnes in 2010.
• The number of loaded containers shipped out through Prince Rupert was up 59 per cent from 2010, with much of the growth attributed to strong exports of B.C. forest products to the expanding Chinese market.
• Grain exports, principally to China, increased 17 per cent, from 4.29 million tonnes in 2010 to five million tonnes in 2011.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...004-000090.htm

[Wrecker]

If we spent this money helping to make Canadian companies stronger, then spending it on this place which only helps to make asian companies stronger, we'd be a lot better off in this country. But once again, we do the opposite of what we should.

[osirisboy]

great news!!! hopefully PR continues to see strong growth

[amor de cosmos]

Prince Rupert Port Authority working with international LNG group on potential terminal
By Shaun Thomas - The Northern View
Published: February 07, 2012 4:47 PM
Updated: February 07, 2012 4:47 PM

The Prince Rupert Port Authority today announced that it is working with a major international firm to potentially bring a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant to the community.

“The Prince Rupert Port Authority has engaged with the BG Group to consider Prince Rupert for a potential LNG export facility. The BG Group is number two in the world in LNG, next to Shell and they are number two depending on what measurements you look at, so they are already a big player in that industry” explained Shaun Stevenson, Vice-president of Marketing and Business Development, noting that the port authority was aware of their interest but the work between the two is a recent development and there is no time line in place for the development at the moment.

“We have an agreement signed to provide them a site and to secure that site to examine the suitability of it and the feasibility of the facility...We have given them a period of time to conduct the feasibility and suitability study, and if it is determined to be viable from the preliminary work that is done then we will look at further development.”

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/138866944.html

[amor de cosmos]

DAILY NEWS Feb 29, 2012 8:33 AM - 0 comments
Feds to funnel $15 million into B.C. port project
2012-02-29

PRINCE RUPERT, B.C. -- The Government of Canada will be contributing $15 million to the Ridley Island Road, Rail and Utility Corridor (RRUC) project at the Port of Prince Rupert. Together with contributions from the Government of British Columbia, CN Rail and the Prince Rupert Port Authority, the $90-million project is designed to expand capacity and operations at the Port of Prince Rupert.

"This project will create local jobs, economic growth and prosperity for workers and businesses, while supporting Canada's broad and ambitious pro-trade plan," said

Ed Fast, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway. "Investments in projects such as the RRUC are strengthening our competitive advantages and further positioning Canada as the gateway of choice for global supply chains between Asia and North America. As a result of these strategic investments and partnerships, Canadian exports to the Asia-Pacific region have reached record levels."

http://www.ctl.ca/news/feds-to-funne...ct/1000946312/

[Metro-One]

one would think with all these projects that Prince Rupert's population would start to increase...

[JBinCalgary]

were now taking coal trains on cn to rupert from the powder river basin in wyoming.
The train gets interchanged at sweet grass montana from BNSF, CPR then takes it to clover bar (edmonton) where we take it to rupert! sounds like a hassle, but its cheaper and quicker I've been told

[lubicon]

JB, are these coal trains the big Unit Trains like we see coming out of Crowsnest Pass etc.? Do you know if CP takes them through Calgary on teh way to Edmonton or uses another line? It would be cool to see some long ass coal trains heading north through Calgary.

[weezerfaninfreddy]

It sounds like the canpotex terminal is looking like it may happen. In the daily commercial news daily top 10 there was mention of the terminal being in the prebid phase.

[casper]

Recent Article from CNW:

CN to construct five long sidings in 2012 on B.C. North Line as part of C$155-million expenditure to handle rising traffic in Edmonton-Prince Rupert corridor

"CN announced today that it plans to construct five extended sidings on its B.C. North Line in 2012 as part of a multi-year capital program to expand freight train capacity to handle growing freight volumes along its important Edmonton, Alta.-Prince Rupert, B.C., corridor... In 2011, more than half a million carloads/intermodal units moved over CN's B.C. North corridor. By 2015, CN traffic on this line could nearly double. "

Full article: http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/cn-...181500875.html

Looks like CN is ramping up to support more port activity......

[amor de cosmos]

• Video Link

[amor de cosmos]

Canada to be accused of luring cargo away from U.S. ports by American agency
By Lee-Anne Goodman, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – 8 hours ago

WASHINGTON - A U.S. federal agency is poised to chastise Canada in an upcoming report to Congress, alleging Canadian ports on the West Coast are deliberately luring lucrative cargo business away from their American counterparts, say sources familiar with the findings.

The Federal Maritime Commission, assigned by Congress last year to probe allegations levelled by two Washington state senators, received more than 75 responses after asking interested parties on both sides of the border if Canada was diverting cargo away from U.S. ports.

The bulk of those responses came from American experts, and the overwhelming majority of them indicated Canada wasn't doing anything underhanded, a source familiar with the report said Monday.

Nonetheless the report is expected to chide Canada for the practice, with sources adding its conclusions have caused uncharacteristic dissension among the five-member commission.



The Canadian government and other officials told commissioners during their investigation that in a 10-year period, only 2.5 per cent of U.S.-bound cargo was imported via Canadian ports, Dye said last month.

The commission's report "reads more like a political document, and not a very well done one, because it contains some information that's unsubstantiated," one source said.

"This is a non-partisan entity that doesn't usually break down along party lines; in fact it's fairly unusual for them to have contested votes."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-accu...--finance.html

[Chadillaccc]

How American of them... They're developing their economy! Nope can't let them do that!

[amor de cosmos]

DAILY NEWS Jul 24, 2012 12:47 PM - 0 comments
FMC report to chastise Canadian ports for diverting US traffic. But where's the proof?
By: Lou Smyrlis
2012-07-24

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Federal Maritime Commission is expected to decide today whether to sanction a report to Congress that alleges Canadian ports on the West Coast are deliberately diverting US import containers from Asia through Port Metro Vancouver and Prince Rupert through “unfair” practices.

If the US Congress agrees with the report, it could launch retaliatory trade actions against Canada. The Port of Prince Rupert has been singled out by the commission, but if punishing new fees are imposed on containers from overseas entering the US after first being unloaded in Canada’s West Coast it could also be detrimental for the Deltaport terminal.

The report is the result of a study requested by Washington State senator Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. Some of the issues investigated included the Harbor Maintenance Tax, which isn't in place in Canada, as well as rail service rates and infrastructure funding.

The senators pointed out that a growing number of containerized US imports from Asia have been moving through the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert en route to the US Midwest through cross-border rail.

They affirm that the HMT, a levy imposed since 1986 on shippers based on value of goods to help finance maintenance dredging, “may be a key factor causing US ports to lose a growing share of imported container cargo from Asia.”

They further argue that “non-US ports are able to claim a substantial per-container cost advantage over US seaports based on the HMT alone” and that this amounts to “unfair disparity,” provoking lost US jobs.

The HMT is not collected at border crossings when cargo enters the country on trains from Canada after being unloaded at Canadian ports and Senators Murray and Cantwell suggested that should change. Some US lawmakers were considering attaching a US $140 per-container levy on cargo entering the US after coming through BC ports.

Canadian authorities point out there is minimal to no dredging required in Canada’s natural deep water West Coast ports and such a levy amounts to an unfair impediment on the efficient movement of cargo between the two countries.



CN operates a rapid, double-stack service between Prince Rupert, Chicago, Memphis and the Gulf of Mexico. Jean-Jacques Ruest, executive vice-president and chief marketing officer of CN, rejected as unfounded any suggestion that the company is subsidizing rates for ocean carriers and their customers using the Prince Rupert gateway in order to establish that port as a competitor North American gateway.

“CN is a market-driven company that operates in highly-competitive commercial markets, and customers are making choices in those markets. Sometimes they choose Canadian gateways for US customers and sometimes the reverse.

“Prince Rupert is up to 58 hours closer to Asia than other West Coast ports. This saves the ocean liners time and money each way, not to mention the benefits derived by cargo owners through reduced inventory carrying costs,” he told Canadian Transportation & Logistics marine expert Leo Ryan when we first wrote about this issue last year.

The Canadian government has pointed out that over a 10-year period, only 2.5% of US-bound cargo was imported via Canadian ports.

In its official response to the US concerns, Ottawa pointed out that a key feature of Canadian port authorities is that must be financially self-sufficient. CPAs finance their operations from their revenues and borrow from commercial banks for capital projects. They do not receive appropriations or funding from the government to meet operating costs or deficits. They do not receive federal government loans or any federal government guarantees of commercial loans. Nor can they pledge federal real property as security for any borrowing, benefit from any interest free loan or bond issue status. And they don’t have taxing powers.

It added that this legislative framework and business model has established “a solid foundation” for the global competitiveness of Canadian ports and that it believes “robust” competition between ports supports both commercial discipline and choice for Canadian and US shippers.

http://www.ctl.ca/news/fmc-report-to...of/1001568990/

[Metro-One]

I honestly fail to see their claim here, are they really pissing and moaning simply because our ports are better managed and have better infrastructure? Is that not fair competition, especially in a nation that so overwhelming praises the ideals of capitalism and free enterprise.

Also are we not in a free trade agreement???

Honestly, first the bullshit soft wood lumber debate and now this, what a joke the US is becoming.

[amor de cosmos]

US government report challenges Prince Rupert port claims, calls for government investment
By Shaun Thomas - The Northern View
Published: July 30, 2012 10:00 AM
Updated: July 30, 2012 10:40 AM

On Friday the US Federal Maritime Commission released its report into the movement of containers into the US through Canadian ports, and the report is a comprehensive look at the issue.

The largest issue being discussed was the Harbour Maintenance Tax (HMT), which is charged at US ports to help with dredging and other maintenance. The report says this may be a reason shippers are going to through Canada instead of the US, but not a significant one.

“We believe that $109 is a reasonable approximation of the average weighted HMT charged per FEU at U.S. ports. If U.S. importers were relieved from paying this tax or, equivalently, if a fee of this magnitude was imposed at the border on U.S. bound containers having used Canada’s west coast ports, a portion of the U.S. cargo that comes through the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert likely would revert to using U.S. west coast ports,” reads the report, while noting that only 2.6 per cent of west coast US bound imports were coming through Canada.

“The FMC has an interest in ensuring that U.S. ports remain competitive in the waterborne commerce arena. This task is not simple, as there are many factors involved. U.S. ports are competitive internationally; however, it would appear that the HMT makes the challenge more difficult...It is clear that HMT is one of many factors affecting the increased use of foreign ports for cargo bound for U.S. inland destinations. While a user fee is necessary for U.S. ports to grow, the number of proposals in both the House and Senate as well as from other sources, suggest that amendment to the current HMT structure should be given consideration.”

The report states some shippers choose to use Prince Rupert to diversify access to the US markets to avoid issues with natural disasters and work stoppages along one corridor.



The report concludes that the solution may rest with the US government making further investments in port infrastructure, citing Prince Rupert as a specific example.

“Maintaining the competitiveness of the U.S. ports requires in part, improving port infrastructure. Prince Rupert, for example, is geared toward handling intermodal rail traffic and has on dock rail facilities that allow the gang to make fewer moves with the cargo. The design of the Port of Prince Rupert allows a single gang to move the cargo from ship to train and then move the train to the switching yard. In other ports, there are separate gangs that discharge the cargo, move the cargo to rail sidings, and then to switching yards to be consolidated with other flatcars,” it states.

“Currently, many U.S. ports, highways, and bridges are slowly decaying due to lack of investment and strategic long-term planning. Our closest competitors, Mexico and Canada, have national transportation policies that ensure that their ports, highways, and bridges, all of which play important roles in the intermodal transportation of commerce, are sustained. Our country’s decisions regarding infrastructure investments today will directly impact our ability to compete in a global economy for years to come.”

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/164287106.html

[Chadillaccc]

what a crock of shit.

[bulliver]

Losers. 'We're not competitive on our own merits and shippers don't like our crumbling infrastructure so we'll ignore NAFTA and impose tariffs to get the business back'.

[Chadillaccc]

American politics is getting more and more pathetic and childish by the day... hell and we complain about Harper... I hate to say it but he is 10x better than their best guy... and I sincerely dislike Harper.