Make Port of Churchill, Manitoba viable

Admiral Beez · Sep 14, 2016

The Port of Churchill is hurting, and hurting bad. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/abondoned-churchill/

But this needn't be the case. With longer ice free periods in the Arctic and a rail head connecting to all of North America, there should be something beyond wheat to ship from Churchill, even with the collapse of oil exports.

Galba Otho Vitelius · Sep 14, 2016

I went through the Maclean's article.

According to the article, during World War 2 the Canadian federal government built the port, built a railway to the port, required farmers to ship grain to the port, and owned and operated the port and the railway.

During the globalization/ privatization era, the Canadian federal government first sold off the port and railway (Chretien) and then stopped requiring farmers to ship wheat from the port (Harper). The for-profit company then shut down the port.

This indicates that the port really is not that viable and valuable mainly to asset Canada's claim to the Artic. Though it could be that the private company,which had a monopoly in regards to the port, was over-charging. Probably what had happened is that the costs of operating a port and railway that far north and really high and the company was charging farmers high prices, and its cheaper for them to ship out of ports of the Great Lakes.

Either keep the Wheat Board, or have the federal government maintain the port in operation, even if no one uses it, and the port is kept.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Sep 16, 2016

Advantage in days over Thunder Bay.....
???
If you're shipping bulk goods to Europe, what you want to minimize is rail distance, not sea distance, firstly. Secondly, things like oil are probably better pumped via pipeline to the east coast (e.g. Nova Scotia) than sent to EITHER Thunder Bay OR Churchill.

Panamax ships are fine for many goods, but containers (which might have a time-component) and oil all are moving to ships much larger than Panamax.

The problem is - if you're time critical, you go by land all the way to the east coast. If you're not time critical, what's the advantage of Churchill over the established infrastructure of Thunder Bay.

It might have been fun if Diefenbaker had actually carried through on his 'development of the North' platform. But it doesn't really make a lot of economic sense, mostly.

I would have LOVED for Churchill port to have been more successful. But I don't really see how.

(SK native, here.)

Admiral Beez · Sep 16, 2016

Maybe if this got underway, the construction alone may give the port some work, but Churchill is poorly placed as a rail head vs. the Cochrane to Moosonee run.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recycling_and_Northern_Development_Canal

Carl Schwamberger · Sep 17, 2016

As always it boils down to salesmanship. Just convince the Saudis they need billions of acre feet of Canadian snow. No other snow will do.

Napoleonrules · Sep 17, 2016

With the possibility of at least more and more ice free days in the Northwest corridor to ship oil from there to Japan and China, could that help the port market as a gateway to shipping to growing China's need for oil?

Carl Schwamberger · Sep 17, 2016

Have to balance that with transport cost via the Vancover port group.

Its strange that with the recession of the ice & viability of a NW Passage in view that Canada should be letting its northern infrastructure athropy. In the US Naval Institute Proceedings a few years ago there was a brief item about cutting back on Canadas northern coast guard stations.

Ming777 · Sep 17, 2016

How about turning it into a Canadian military port, or one jointly operated with the Americans as a forward base for submarines?

Admiral Beez · Sep 17, 2016

Napoleonrules said:
With the possibility of at least more and more ice free days in the Northwest corridor to ship oil from there to Japan and China, could that help the port market as a gateway to shipping to growing China's need for oil?

One downside of ice free days is that the permafrost turns into swamp, and the rail lines are badly impacted, s shown here in Russia.

So the port get more annual ice free access, but the rail lines will need reinforcement.

Carl Schwamberger · Sep 18, 2016

Increasing traffic will likely require a rebuild anyway. During WWII the Depression neglected US railways underwent a large scale make over. Some fifteen years of neglected upkeep and 1900 era or earlier structure was rebuilt to mid 20th Century standards. If this port & region have the business proposed here the railway in the area will demand improvement as well.

riggerrob · Sep 20, 2016

Consider that the bulk of Canadian oil is in Alberta and north-eastern British Columbia (Peace River). It might be less expensive to barge or pipe oil straight north to the Yukon River, then pump it into tankers bound for Chinese markets.

Churchill could be a viable military base for RCN Arctic patrol vessels because it can be re-supplied by air, rail and ship.

Admiral Beez · Jun 25, 2017

This is bad news for Churchill. The track is washed out, and the American owners want 10 months to fix it, even though a local firm can have it done in 2 months.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-build-road-engineer-1.4174034

Arkenfolm · Jun 26, 2017

Only more development of the Canadian North could make Churchill truly viable. But if global warming keeps up, it would be a waste not to keep the port usable.

I guess in addition, you could have more cruise lines in the Canadian north, going around Labrador and through the Hudson Bay, and docking at Churchill, to see polar bears.

Galba Otho Vitelius · Jun 26, 2017

metalinvader665 said:
Only more development of the Canadian North could make Churchill truly viable. But if global warming keeps up, it would be a waste not to keep the port usable.

I guess in addition, you could have more cruise lines in the Canadian north, going around Labrador and through the Hudson Bay, and docking at Churchill, to see polar bears.

No polar bears to see if global warming heats up!

My understanding is also that all that permafrost/ tundra turns to swamp and releases gasses into the air, so you can't do much more with these reasons commercially.

Arkenfolm · Jun 26, 2017

Galba Otho Vitelius said:
No polar bears to see if global warming heats up!

My understanding is also that all that permafrost/ tundra turns to swamp and releases gasses into the air, so you can't do much more with these reasons commercially.

But on the other hand, global warming makes it so the Hudson Bay and the Arctic Ocean is much more easily navigable. The Northwest Passage is pretty viable nowadays. And IMO, Earth's climate warming is very good for the economy (including agriculture and shipping in northern areas like the Canadian Prairies and the Port of Churchill) as long as its kept under control (which it sadly isn't at this point).

Changundramon · Jun 26, 2017

metalinvader665 said:
But on the other hand, global warming makes it so the Hudson Bay and the Arctic Ocean is much more easily navigable. The Northwest Passage is pretty viable nowadays. And IMO, Earth's climate warming is very good for the economy (including agriculture and shipping in northern areas like the Canadian Prairies and the Port of Churchill) as long as its kept under control (which it sadly isn't at this point).

The kind of global warming that would benefit the economy of Northern Canada is one that's wildly out of control, and makes other areas of Earth suffer greatly.

Arkenfolm · Jun 26, 2017

Changundramon said:
The kind of global warming that would benefit the economy of Northern Canada is one that's wildly out of control, and makes other areas of Earth suffer greatly.

Not really. About 1-1.5 degrees C would make the Northwest Passage relatively open, as well as warm agricultural land in Canada to assist agricultural production. That's about where we want it in terms of warming, where global warming aids the economy of many nations as well as helps agriculture. If we ever reverse global warming, we should keep it in that range.

PNWKing · Jun 26, 2017

Break up the US and Canada, annex Manitoba to the "Great Plains states", and there you have it, Churchill is a major port city.
@Chipperback, did this

Admiral Beez · Jun 26, 2017

Galba Otho Vitelius said:
My understanding is also that all that permafrost/ tundra turns to swamp and releases gasses into the air, so you can't do much more with these reasons commercially.

The The Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk Highway had to be specifically designed to protect the permafrost. It makes for an interesting read. They build the road on a bern at some spots 3 stories high to insulate the road from the permafrost.

http://ith.dot.gov.nt.ca/designtechnical
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/inuvik-tuktoyaktuk-highway-1.3526669

Changundramon · Jun 27, 2017

metalinvader665 said:
Not really. About 1-1.5 degrees C would make the Northwest Passage relatively open, as well as warm agricultural land in Canada to assist agricultural production. That's about where we want it in terms of warming, where global warming aids the economy of many nations as well as helps agriculture. If we ever reverse global warming, we should keep it in that range.

If the NW passage is relatively open, some cities on Earth are flooded, some areas are uninhabitably hot... And as it has been pointed out, swampy ground isn't really useful for major economic activity, either.