Trump wants to replace Canadian fertilizer with potash from Belarus — why it would be a logistical nightmare

On Sept. 22, Trump expanded on the trade announcement at a United Nations meet-up with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

“Belarus has a lot of potash, and our farmers need good prices,” Trump stated. “We’ll continue to go with Canada, but Belarus would like to sell it for a much lower price.”

Belarus likely cannot meet US fertilizer demand

The trade deal may already be on thin ice for two primary reasons:

• Belarus may be tapped out: On Sept. 21, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko poured cold water on the deal, noting that current potash production is committed to other contractual buyers. “Even if we wanted to supply potash to other Western markets, we simply do not have those volumes — everything is contracted,” Lukashenko said, according to a presidential office statement.
• Belarus also faces a potash transport problem. Moving potash to U.S. farmers may be a logistical headache for the Eastern European country.

Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX, a global financial business advisory firm, told Reuters that Belarusian potash’s usual delivery route through western neighbor Lithuania remains offline, mostly due to sanctions linked to the ongoing war between regional heavyweights Russia and Ukraine.

Linville added that potash isn’t an immediate U.S. fertilizer need right now. “We have not struggled to find potash,” he told Reuters. “We have more than enough to go around. It is phosphate and nitrogen that we need help with.”

Trade experts agree, noting that it wouldn’t be cheaper to transport potash from Belarus to the U.S.

“First, Belarus currently doesn’t have enough volume to meet U.S. demand,” Yagiz Sullu, founder and lead analyst at Sullu Strategic Advisory LLC and a former U.S. Commerce liaison, told Moneywise. “Belarus is also landlocked, and the port of Klaipėda restricts Belarusian cargo and transit, so potash exports must travel longer distances through Russia, which would add rail, port, insurance, and handling costs.”

Sullu noted that although Belarus could offer a lower initial price, transportation, insurance, and handling fees would all add up, and not in Uncle Sam’s favor. “Without knowing which routes potash exports will travel and the initial price, it’s too early to say that Belarusian exports will be cheaper,” he added.

Canada may offer a better deal

Canada, which produces 15 million metric tons of potash annually, mostly from Saskatchewan, is the globe’s premier producer and exporter of the material. Trade friction aside, it may make more sense as a potash partner than Belarus.

“The journey of Canadian potash will be simpler than that of Belarusian potash,” Sullu said. “For instance, Canadian potash can leave a mine in Saskatchewan, loaded onto a train, cross the border, and reach Midwest markets. On the other hand, Belarusian potash will be much harder to get to Midwest markets.”

According to Sullu, Belarusian cargo is restricted to the port of Klaipėda in Lithuania; it must move by rail from mines in Belarus into Russia and then reach a Russian port. From there, it must be loaded onto a large cargo ship and transported across the Atlantic. Then it has to be unloaded at a U.S. port and moved again, such as by rail or truck, to fertilizer distributors and ultimately to farms in the Midwest.

“In this potential route, every transfer will create a new bottleneck,” he noted. “Russian port capacity, insurance and financing, and U.S. port handling are all costs that need to be considered.”