The consequences for our members are the most severe. Obviously, there is no alternative but to move the volumes of product. I asked one of our VPs at transportation once why they didn't switch, and they had a mine that was actually quite close to the port in New Brunswick. I asked if they couldn't move some of it by truck, and he said to move the product by truck would require a semi-trailer every 34 seconds going down Main Street. That's not feasible.
We move 70% of our product to farmers in 70 days. We have a very compressed season and it started in January. For North America's farmers, we need to be able to deliver across North America something in the order of 50 million tonnes of fertilizer in order to grow the crop that is going to be produced this year, and that is critical to the world's food supply because half of the world's food supply comes from commercial fertilizers.
The consequences of not getting those products to farmers are that we would lose our food production capacity.
In terms of the consequences to our members, we do deal in a very competitive environment, and as Richard said, these plants operate pretty much with the cars having to be loaded as it's produced. We're exporting those products to the United States, by and large—we also sell to eastern Canadian farmers and Quebec farmers, but the bulk of our product goes to U.S. agriculture—and if we have to shut a plant down in Canada because we cannot get rail service and we can't move the products, the consequences would be that we would lose that business in Canada and it would be imported from other countries.