20 Comments
User's avatar
Kevin 🇨🇦's avatar

Fertilizer is an incredibly valuable commodity. I’ve read elsewhere that without fertilizer the world’s crop production would drop by roughly 50%. The Gulf region is a large producer of nitrogen based fertilizer, and let’s just say that shipping through the Gulf region is currently “constrained”.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Exactly Kevin... and that’s the part most people still don’t fully grasp.

Fertilizer isn’t just “another commodity”… it’s a multiplier on the entire food system.

Take it away and you don’t get a slow decline... you get a cliff.

And you’re right about the Gulf.

Nitrogen flows through energy routes…

potash comes out of the ground in a few very specific places.

Two different supply chains... both fragile in their own way.

That’s what makes this moment interesting.

Energy can spike and settle.

Food doesn’t give you that kind of flexibility.

Once planting windows are missed or input costs jump too high…

you don’t feel it immediately... but it shows up later, at the grocery store.

And by then, it’s already baked in.

Hans Boserup, Dr.jur. 🇩🇰's avatar

Fred, this is a very strong piece — and clearly grounded in serious work.

The way you frame fertiliser as leverage is exactly right, and it points to something even deeper.

You describe this as:

“Canada locking up the world’s food supply.”

That captures the intuition very well.

More precisely, what Canada is shaping here is not food supply itself — but yield.

And in some ways, that is even more powerful.

Because fertiliser — especially potash — doesn’t determine whether food is grown.

It determines how much margin the system has.

Crops still grow without it

But yields fall

Soil depletes faster

And volatility increases

So the effect is not immediate collapse.

It is systemic tightening over time.

That’s where your argument becomes strategically important.

In a world of:

shrinking buffers

climate variability

and fragmented supply chains

yield becomes the difference between:

stability

and persistent pressure

Seen that way, Canada’s position is not just about scale.

It’s about reliability over time:

100-year asset

predictable output

politically stable environment

At a moment when:

Belarus is constrained

Russian supply is uncertain

and new capacity takes a decade or more

That combination is rare.

What your piece really highlights is something broader:

This isn’t just about dominance —

it’s about concentration inside a system that has very little slack.

Because the fertiliser system has some structural characteristics that amplify this:

Geographic concentration (Canada, Russia, Belarus)

Political exposure (sanctions, trade friction)

Time sensitivity (farmers can’t delay decisions)

So when pressure appears, it moves quickly into:

yields

prices

and food security

Which is why your core insight lands:

“This isn’t about mining… it’s about control.”

Yes — and at a deeper level:

it’s about control over how efficiently the global food system can operate under stress.

And that connects to something even larger we’re seeing across sectors:

Oil → flow constraints

Chips → production bottlenecks

Fertilizer → yield constraints

Different domains — same pattern:

power is shifting toward control of bottlenecks.

So your conclusion is exactly right:

“Control food… you influence survival.”

And perhaps one step further:

Control yield… and you determine how much stress the system can absorb before it starts to fracture.

That’s the quiet shift your piece captures very well.

Pete's avatar

Your reply is equally thoughtful. Not brash or dramatic. A recount of an element of food security.

Hans Boserup, Dr.jur. 🇩🇰's avatar

Thank you Fred

Your opinion means a lot to me 🙏😊

Susan Kelly's avatar

I understand the Jansen Mine is American owned? How does that fit into control?

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Owned by BHP Group, yes Susan... but the resource is in Canada.

That means the rules, permits, and export control all sit with Canada.

Ownership builds it…

location controls it.

Susan Kelly's avatar

Thank you. Wasn’t sure how that would work.

Northshore2025's avatar

Hmmmmm. That is not what I was hoping to hear. Real control comes through ownership-where is the Potash Corp of Saskatchewan, a crown corporation, in this 100 year supply mine ownership stake?

And given the amount of our food chain owned by foreign interests, is it time to revive the idea of a foreign investment review agency, to ensure Canada or Canadian companies have true agency in the decision making about how to harvest OUR resources?

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Fair concern... and you’re not wrong to raise it.

We no longer have a crown player like PotashCorp in the same way, and yes, ownership has shifted more global.

But even then... the resource, approvals, royalties, and export rules are still Canadian-controlled.

So it’s not full ownership control…

but it’s not zero leverage either.

The real question is how far Canada chooses to use that leverage going forward.

Freedom350's avatar

Chump and his henchmen will soon realize how valuable an ally Canada is. He managed to destroy all the goodwill our countries had for one another. Yes, we have cards!

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Canada and the U.S. are still deeply tied... that doesn’t change overnight.

But yeah… moments like this remind people that the relationship runs both ways.

Pam Lake's avatar

Shame Trump isn’t speaking to Canada anymore 😂😂😂

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Haha… these things tend to cool off eventually Pam.

But yeah... timing like this definitely makes the relationship a bit more “interesting.”

Saoirse's avatar

Good job Canada!!!

Colin Goodfellow's avatar

You know it's an Australian company right? Canada didn't do anything.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Yes Colin BHP Group is Australian and they are building it.

But the resource is Canadian, the approvals are Canadian, and the export control sits with Canada.

They’re investing in it…

Canada still holds the leverage.

M.Wilson's avatar

Farmers are working on thin margins as it is. They don't set price, the market does. With ever increasing cost of fuel, machinery and upkeep, fertilizer, labor shortage and a seed controlled monopoly, the food supply is under threat from being able to pass on the cost. Lower yields mean negative profitability. Gobal leaders seem to forget, oil and rare earth minerals can't feed a nation.

omg this place's avatar

welcome to the canadian century. sorry eh.

Fred Ferguson (GeezerWise)'s avatar

Haha… a bit early to call it that.

But Canada’s sitting on some cards the world suddenly cares about...

and people are starting to notice.