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”.
I’m am learning the basics of nitrogen fertilizer given the supply chain situation. My understanding is it is a byproduct of LNG production.
My question is, Canada has LNG, can we produce nitrogen fertilizer (and helium) as well? Do we already? If it is possible, then we can be more self-sufficient in these needs as well and have another commodity for export.
That appears to be the result of poor planning. Australia is one of the largest exporters of Liquefied Natural Gas, which is an important feedstock for nitrogen based fertilizer. It seemed they thought that outsourcing the production of fertilizer was the better option than making it themselves.
Kind of like Canada relying on free trade with the states. Trading is the best way to get deals, unless some imbecile comes along and decks it all up. Some serious lessons to be learnt by all of this.
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?
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!
Janice... Epstein has made Trump's life really complicated... and now Iran has plans for Trump that's going to keep him busy and using up what he's got left of munitions.
This shows the difference in a country’s economic strength and geopolitical power….educated, experienced leaders who know what they are doing and how to invest and build their economy while caring for its citizens.
We are lead by a reality TV president, podcasters, influencers, tradwives, and conspiracy theorists.
None of them are making America any greater but sure all expanding their financial portfolio. And Wall Street is a joke.
It’s not beneficial to Canada unless we convert the potash into fertilizers ourselves. We should not allow our natural resources to be exported in raw form.
I heard this in high school geography class (1970s) and it's still a major issue for us. It's relevant to all our natural resources. 50 years and no progress on that front. What will it take?
I love in a highly agricultural area, presently most farms are still family affairs, about 12 hectares, some are bigger but the acquisition of more land than you can handle is frowned upon. Most of my neighbours run small dairy herds and grow winter feed, mainly maize
on land that is "spare". Arable land is thoroughly soaked with the contents of slurry pits and the piles that accumulate over the winter when the cows are kept in the barn. This is just to let the grass have a chance to re-generate. And right now the single farmer farms around me are working flat out to get ready for planting. Big is not always beautiful or best.
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.
Many consumers believe that the $.20 or $.50 a loaf in bread prices is due to the farmers getting that extra money. When in fact, it is the in between guy, the stores and grocery chains that get the bonus there.
I was raised on a Saskatchewan farm, not far from where the potash mines first started. I grew up, listening to farmers talk about prices and fertilizer and machinery costs.
Another well written peace on some very astute comments to Fred's piece.
Farmers need both Potash (Potassium) as well as Nitrogen to grow crops. Canada is the largest producer of Potash followed by Belarus. The US has removed sanctions on Belarus in order to source Potash there and reduce US farmer dependency on Canada. Obviously the US is worried and want to have the upper hand in negotiations with a contingency plan. Is this enough? How much can they get? At what price?
The second is Nitrogen, much of it comes as a byproduct of Oil and Gas extraction and it seems like most of it comes from the Middle East. Canada produces some we are the 14th largest producer of Nitrogen fertilizers and we export about 40%. With the situation in the Middle East, there will be a shortage of Nitrogen Fertilizer worldwide. I don’t know if Canada can produce more to fill the demand.
Industrial farming requires BOTH, Canada is in a good place to sell these two types of fertilizers but we may not be able to be a big player and meet the demand for Nitrogen fertilizers and the US and other oil and gas producers may also be able to increase production. One thing is certain, food production will be impacted potentially for years to come.
It's reassuring to hear that such a large amount of agricultural fertilizer is under control of Canada and not one of several unstable economies ruled by global despots. There's hope for the future
I think Trump actually has been advised on this. I also think he simply doesn't care. He knows that in reality, there is no third term for him (small miracles) and he is fine with simply making off with the largesse of his gutting the government, plundering as much of the resources he possibly could from the citizens; then scurrying back to the gates of Mar-a-Lago, slamming them shut and hiding, like bloated rat with his cheese.
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”.
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.
I’m am learning the basics of nitrogen fertilizer given the supply chain situation. My understanding is it is a byproduct of LNG production.
My question is, Canada has LNG, can we produce nitrogen fertilizer (and helium) as well? Do we already? If it is possible, then we can be more self-sufficient in these needs as well and have another commodity for export.
Also, are both types of nutrients required (potassium and nitrogen)? Or does one type of fertilizer substitute for the other?
I read that Australia is deeply compromised over the no fertiliser issue. Their farmers are in dire straits
That appears to be the result of poor planning. Australia is one of the largest exporters of Liquefied Natural Gas, which is an important feedstock for nitrogen based fertilizer. It seemed they thought that outsourcing the production of fertilizer was the better option than making it themselves.
Kind of like Canada relying on free trade with the states. Trading is the best way to get deals, unless some imbecile comes along and decks it all up. Some serious lessons to be learnt by all of this.
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.
Your reply is equally thoughtful. Not brash or dramatic. A recount of an element of food security.
Thank you Fred
Your opinion means a lot to me 🙏😊
I understand the Jansen Mine is American owned? How does that fit into control?
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.
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?
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.
Thank you. Wasn’t sure how that would work.
It is owned by BHP out of Australia, which is publicly traded on the NYSE.
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!
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.
Janice... Epstein has made Trump's life really complicated... and now Iran has plans for Trump that's going to keep him busy and using up what he's got left of munitions.
This shows the difference in a country’s economic strength and geopolitical power….educated, experienced leaders who know what they are doing and how to invest and build their economy while caring for its citizens.
We are lead by a reality TV president, podcasters, influencers, tradwives, and conspiracy theorists.
None of them are making America any greater but sure all expanding their financial portfolio. And Wall Street is a joke.
There’s definitely a lot of frustration out there right now.
But these shifts are bigger than any one group or personality... they’ve been building for years through policy, markets, and global demand.
What we’re seeing now is the result of that… not just who’s in the spotlight today.
The U.S. is already SOL with the Strait being closed and nitrogen fertilizers possibly in short supply. Crickets.
Yeah Richard… and nitrogen’s tied to energy and shipping routes, not just supply.
If that flow gets squeezed at the same time potash gets more expensive…
that’s a double hit farmers can’t absorb for long.
Problem is... by the time people notice, it’s already showing up in food prices.
welcome to the canadian century. sorry eh.
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.
It’s not beneficial to Canada unless we convert the potash into fertilizers ourselves. We should not allow our natural resources to be exported in raw form.
Hard to argue with that Richard.
Shipping raw value out and buying it back processed has never been the smartest long-term play.
Hewers of wood and drawers of water. Time to switch it up.
I heard this in high school geography class (1970s) and it's still a major issue for us. It's relevant to all our natural resources. 50 years and no progress on that front. What will it take?
I love in a highly agricultural area, presently most farms are still family affairs, about 12 hectares, some are bigger but the acquisition of more land than you can handle is frowned upon. Most of my neighbours run small dairy herds and grow winter feed, mainly maize
on land that is "spare". Arable land is thoroughly soaked with the contents of slurry pits and the piles that accumulate over the winter when the cows are kept in the barn. This is just to let the grass have a chance to re-generate. And right now the single farmer farms around me are working flat out to get ready for planting. Big is not always beautiful or best.
You’re absolutely right Margaret... small farms do a lot of things better, especially when it comes to care of the land.
What’s changed is the scale of demand.
Natural cycles and manure can sustain local systems…
but feeding millions (or billions) consistently pushes farms toward inputs like fertilizer.
So it’s not really big vs small...
it’s local resilience vs global demand.
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.
Exactly... and that’s the pressure point most people miss.
Farmers don’t set prices… but they absorb the costs.
When inputs keep rising and margins keep shrinking, something eventually gives...
and it’s usually production.
You’re right... oil and minerals matter…
but if farmers can’t stay profitable, none of it feeds anyone.
Many consumers believe that the $.20 or $.50 a loaf in bread prices is due to the farmers getting that extra money. When in fact, it is the in between guy, the stores and grocery chains that get the bonus there.
I was raised on a Saskatchewan farm, not far from where the potash mines first started. I grew up, listening to farmers talk about prices and fertilizer and machinery costs.
Another well written peace on some very astute comments to Fred's piece.
And faced with these facts Trump is slapping Canada around the chops. His ignorance is astounding.
Good job Canada!!!
Shame Trump isn’t speaking to Canada anymore 😂😂😂
Haha… these things tend to cool off eventually Pam.
But yeah... timing like this definitely makes the relationship a bit more “interesting.”
Farmers need both Potash (Potassium) as well as Nitrogen to grow crops. Canada is the largest producer of Potash followed by Belarus. The US has removed sanctions on Belarus in order to source Potash there and reduce US farmer dependency on Canada. Obviously the US is worried and want to have the upper hand in negotiations with a contingency plan. Is this enough? How much can they get? At what price?
The second is Nitrogen, much of it comes as a byproduct of Oil and Gas extraction and it seems like most of it comes from the Middle East. Canada produces some we are the 14th largest producer of Nitrogen fertilizers and we export about 40%. With the situation in the Middle East, there will be a shortage of Nitrogen Fertilizer worldwide. I don’t know if Canada can produce more to fill the demand.
Industrial farming requires BOTH, Canada is in a good place to sell these two types of fertilizers but we may not be able to be a big player and meet the demand for Nitrogen fertilizers and the US and other oil and gas producers may also be able to increase production. One thing is certain, food production will be impacted potentially for years to come.
You’ve got it exactly right Luc... it’s a two-part system.
Potash is where Canada has structural leverage.
Nitrogen is more flexible, but tied to energy and geopolitics.
The Belarus angle gives the U.S. a partial workaround… but it’s not clean, cheap, or fully reliable... and scaling it is another question.
And you nailed the key point...
You need both.
If either side gets constrained... supply, price, or timing... the whole system feels it.
Canada can anchor one side of that equation…
but nobody can fully stabilize both right now.
That’s where the longer-term pressure on food production comes from.
It's reassuring to hear that such a large amount of agricultural fertilizer is under control of Canada and not one of several unstable economies ruled by global despots. There's hope for the future
There’s definitely some stability in where it’s located... no question.
But it’s still a global market with global players, so nothing is ever fully “controlled.”
What it does mean is Canada sits in a very steady, reliable position in a system that’s getting less predictable.
I think Trump actually has been advised on this. I also think he simply doesn't care. He knows that in reality, there is no third term for him (small miracles) and he is fine with simply making off with the largesse of his gutting the government, plundering as much of the resources he possibly could from the citizens; then scurrying back to the gates of Mar-a-Lago, slamming them shut and hiding, like bloated rat with his cheese.
There’s definitely a lot of strong opinions around that.
But the bigger issue here isn’t any one person... it’s how these supply chains and dependencies are structured.
Those don’t change overnight…
but when they do shift, the effects last a long time.
Thanks for bringing this out. Trump put heavy tariffs on potash and Canada moved to sell in other markets