At some point the question of the proposal to turn Picton Terminals into a container port will come before Council and they should be aware of serious discrepancies in the claims made by Ryan Williams MP.  I will address this issue mostly from the aspect of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.  Why am I qualified to give an opinion on this?  I began studying climate change and its impacts back in the 1970s and for many years was a spokesman for the insurance industry in Canada on the issue.  I have done presentations to the United Nations Environment Programme, federal and provincial ministers, was a member of the Canadian Climate Programme Board, the Canadian Public Health Association Steering Committee on Climate Change and Health and have lost track of the number of speeches and interviews I have given on the topic.  I think my credentials at least match those of Ryan Williams whose avid support for the project ignores reality.

One of the main reasons that Ryan Williams gave was the lower emissions in transporting the battery cathodes from the plant in Bath to the new VW battery plant in St. Thomas or it could also be used for the Stellantis plant in Windsor. Unfortunately he was totally wrong! It is also worth noting that in 2019 The County declared a climate emergency which presupposes supporting a reduction, not an increase, in greenhouse gas emissions

I will begin by looking at a viable comparison of GHG emissions by sector – truck, rail, and ship.  Probably the most valid in the context of Picton Terminals are the carbon calculator emission factors used by CN – a Canadian company using all three modes of transportation.  Their factors as of today are:

Truck – 81.14 g CO2e/tonne-km

Rail – 13.05 g CO2e/tonne-km (I would also mention that the rail factor continues to decrease with the greater use of bio-fuels and the incipient introduction of fuel-cell powered trains.)

Ship – 10.43 g CO2e/tonne-km (all vessels) but I will use the International Maritime Organization container ship emissions of 8.26 CO2e/tonne-km as it is specific to this type of vessel.

So let’s look at the different modes of transport and a comparison of the emissions in getting the battery cathodes from Bath to St. Thomas or Windsor.  It is also worth commenting that the time for transportation is vastly less for train transport (100kmh) than by ship (32kmh + time taken to load/unload the vessel and transfer to truck transport)

In considering emissions you must also look at the location of Picton Terminals as a possible container port.  A review of the global recommendations for construction and location of a container port includes the following:

The port should be distanced from residential areas as a container port is normally a 24/7 operation with significant noise.

The port should be in close proximity to major highways and to rail transportation.

Picton Terminals does not meet the first requirement and fails miserably on the second.  Any goods being brought in to Picton Terminals for onward transmission by water MUST be brought in by truck from the 401 down County Rd (not Highway!) 49.  Any cargoes brought in to Picton Terminals by water MUST be taken out by truck – again almost certainly up County Rd 49.  No shipper would put containers on a vessel to be offloaded at Picton Terminals then reloaded onto another vessel for onward travel – they would load onto a vessel going on to an established container port such as Oshawa, Toronto, Hamilton or, east of here, Johnstown (formerly Prescott) all of which have direct highway and rail connections. Picton Terminals will have to use the most emission-intensive form of transport.

Another factor to be taken into account is the efficiency of the operation.  As far as I am aware there is no other container port in the world that would hoist containers up a couple of hundred feet to load them onto a trailer. In the words of the head of a major Canadian port “That is effing ridiculous!” In efficient container ports few jobs are created – most of the work is computer assisted and cranes raise and lower containers a minimal distance.

We also have to look at environmental considerations. What would be in the containers?  We do not know.  The waters in Picton Bay are slow moving and do not renew themselves rapidly while also being the source of drinking water for Picton and Bloomfield.  Establishing Picton Terminals as a container port for vessels from around the globe would open Picton Bay up to the importation of invasive species and pathogens from who knows where.  I know there are rules regarding emptying of ballast water but are they rigidly followed?  We cannot threaten our drinking water again.

In summary Picton Terminals is a project looking for a subsidy, not a viable port. It would not be an energy efficient way to transport goods; it would guarantee continual degradation of County Rd 49 even after reconstruction, and County taxpayers would remain on the hook for repair costs; it would be a 24/7 source of noise and light pollution for nearby residences; it would bring environmental threats to the waters of Picton Bay; it would destroy visitors’ ideas of The County as being a non-industrialized place to visit.  Why would Council and individual councillors, want to be eternally linked with destroying the soul of The County? I hope they wouldn’t.