CGC tightens rules for direct hits

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Published: March 14, 2002

The Canadian Grain Commission wants to put the “direct” back into

direct hits.

The commission announced new rules last week designed to ensure that

grain shipped under the direct hit program goes straight from rail cars

to vessels.

Too often that grain ended up stored in terminal elevators just like

regular shipments.

“The idea is to return to the original intent of direct hits,” said Jim

Stewart, director of industry services for the commission.

Read Also

Spencer Harris (green shirt) speaks with attendees at the Nutrien Ag Solutions crop plots at Ag in Motion on July 16, 2025. Photo: Greg Berg

Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow

It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…

The new rules will put more pressure on shippers to make sure they have

all the transportation logistics arranged before undertaking a direct

hit.

But grain handlers say that will increase the costs of direct hits and

may be a disincentive to using the cost-saving alternative.

“There is some money to be saved if you can do a direct hit because

some of the elevation charges are not there,” said Ed Guest of the

Western Grain Elevator Association. “But you have some pretty big risks

and the risks just got a little bigger.”

Direct hit shipments mean putting trains together at inland terminals,

shipping to export position and unloading directly into an arriving

vessel. Not only are terminal handling fees avoided, but the rail cars

are returned to the country more quickly, thus reducing overall rail

costs.

In the 2000-01 crop year there were 110 direct hit shipments to

Vancouver and 21 to Thunder Bay. About halfway through the current crop

year there have been 47 direct hits at Vancouver and four at Thunder

Bay.

The new regulations, which go into effect at the beginning of the next

crop year Aug. 1, specifically state that grain destined for direct hit

shipments cannot be stored in licensed terminal handling facilities.

Under the previous policy, direct hit grain could be diverted into a

terminal for 20 days of unregistered storage at no charge to the

shipper. The idea was to provide a buffer in cases where a vessel was

late arriving to pick up the grain.

The policy also allowed grain in regular registered storage in the

terminals to be used to fill a direct hit vessel if loaded rail cars

were late arriving from the country.

In both scenarios, the shipper could avoid demurrage charges.

However, Stewart said that not only eroded the original concept of

direct hits, but also made it difficult for the commission to maintain

proper records of grain movement in and out of the terminals.

“It became very confusing for the commission to track since it was

unregistered storage.”

He added the commission will provide exemptions and allow grain to go

into unregistered storage on a case-by-case basis, for things like

inclement weather or unavoidable vessel delays. However, shippers will

have to pay a monitoring fee and any stocks left in the elevator after

the vessel is loaded will have to go into registered storage.

Guest doesn’t think the original intent of direct hits is undermined by

putting grain into unregistered storage for 20 days or allowing

shippers to top up a vessel from regular terminal stocks to avoid

demurrage charges.

“I just don’t particularly understand why they’re doing it, especially

if that can mean higher costs,” he said.

The notion of case-by-case exemptions provides little comfort, he

added: “There is uncertainty and if they turn you down it costs you

money.”

Under the new rules, direct hit grain must be officially inspected and

weighed as it’s loaded into the vessel.

Previously shippers could choose from three options for official

inspection and weighing: when the grain was loaded into rail cars at

the country elevator, when it was unloaded from the rail cars at the

terminal or when it was loaded into the vessel.

Guest said he doesn’t understand why the official inspection and

weighing can’t be done at the country elevator.

“If the buyer and the seller can agree on a commercial basis that a

country inspection is OK, then it should be OK,” he said. “Why does the

CGC have to be involved?”

Stewart said he doesn’t think the changes will be a disincentive to the

use of direct hits.

“All we’ve tried to do is bring everything together into one simple

policy which is standard across the board,” he said.

About the author

Adrian Ewins

Saskatoon newsroom

explore

Stories from our other publications