Editor:
Did you attend either one of Port Metro Vancouver's recent small group sessions? If so you will recall that participants questioned the economics and justification for building a second container terminal (T2) on Roberts Bank, even though the meeting topic was environmental mitigation. Participants expressed concern regarding the accuracy of the 2014 Ocean Shipping Consultants container forecast and requested that additional information be made available regarding the justification and need for the project, including a business case and container forecast information from alternate sources.
If you thought for a moment that as a result Port Metro Vancouver would set up a separate consultation session to discuss the economics and justification, think again. PMV is steadfastly refusing; therefore there will be no opportunity to discuss this before it produces its environmental impact assessment.
Why do you think this might be? Could it be because the justification for a second terminal is very weak? Could it perhaps be because they are underperforming against their latest forecast, which they have done with every recent forecast that has been produced? Could it be because a good part of their justification relies on moving more and more U.S. containers, which adds no value to the Canadian economy? Or is it that they know T2 - which will be a semiautomated terminal with fewer jobs - will need to
attract business away from other Vancouver area container terminals, information they do not want to put out there? There is no business justification to build T2. PMV's container growth estimates are likely to top out in the three to four per cent range for the foreseeable future.
And at that level of growth, Canada's west coast ports have sufficient capacity in operation now or planned to come online without ever needing to add a second container terminal at Roberts Bank.
If Port Metro Vancouver believes otherwise then it should agree to hold separate consultation sessions so participants can better understand and ask questions dealing with the whole justification for T2.
Roger Emsley
