Port of Churchill Manitoba

[bodaggin]

.

[bomberjet]

Nice proposal. Is this the same group that was talking about developing port nelson recently? Regarding rail, the big dogs would be all over this one way or another. Either trying to stop it or to own it haha

Is that corridor based on existing routes of some kind? The Manitoba part looks to be the Hudbay Railway line up to Gillam.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Nice proposal. Is this the same group that was talking about developing port nelson recently? Regarding rail, the big dogs would be all over this one way or another. Either trying to stop it or to own it haha

Is that corridor based on existing routes of some kind? The Manitoba part looks to be the Hudbay Railway line up to Gillam.

I think it's the only Port Nelson one, ya. Don't quote me. Not sure micro-specifics of the route. Agree with your presumptions. Linked 2023 article.

Ya CN/CP needs to keep their paws off or have parallel room for a competitor to hold their feet to the fire. We still don't even have twinned tracks in this country. They need so competitive incentive to get their acts together.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-funding-oil-gas-hudson-bay-1.6928302

[The Jabroni]

I remember watching the history of Port Nelson on YouTube, from the Manitoba Historical Society channel.

• Video Link

If such a proposal comes to fruition, it would restart the whole idea of having it as a port, with lessons learned from all the mistakes and unforeseen consequences that happened there.

[pspeid]

More chat about the Port of Churchill. No news, just happy thoughts right now:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/trade-united-states-tariffs-kinew-trump-1.7437399

I think many people agree the Port of Churchill has some tremendous potential as a trade hub and RCN base in the coming years. Trouble is, there's no clear plan and no-one with the $$ to start the process.

I'm all for developing the Port as long as it's not just a spigot to ship AB/SK oil.

[Authentic_City]

Back when we thought Russia was a potential trading partner, there was lots of optimism on both sides about arctic shipping and the concept of an Arctic bridge.

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

I think sovereignty and national security concerns could be a catalyst to do more with the port in the short term. But as mentioned, the Port Nelson route was difficult to develop in the past, so I wonder if these challenges can be overcome now? The route certainly make sense, and there are deficiencies with Churchill that could be avoided with a different route. But I'm sure it would be costly to develop. An actual war between Russia and NATO might be a catalyst to pour more money into the port though...

[bodaggin]

.

[bomberjet]

Churchill would be a federal government led program for strategic reasons. Ie: war and security. Otherwise they have no interest in doing anything. Private companies also have had little interest in doing anything major there.

Port Nelson is interesting as it is already very close to the road network (~80km from the coast to Conawapa site). I wonder where that study is at. Did they get the rest of the funding they were looking for? They wanted like $30 million.

If there was real will and desire to develop the north, there would need to be Governemnt money put in to develop the highway network and upgrade the rail network. HudBay has been working on that so it'll be interesting to see what type of difference it makes on the transit times and train speeds. Cause it's super slow and unreliable to get to Churchill as I'm sure we all know.

[Stormer]

To me an oil pipeline from Ft Mac is required. That will take a lot of political will and will likely never happen. A gas pipeline would be more acceptable environmentally, but the cost of the LNG infrastructure would likely be prohibitive. See Kitimat.

[Flatland Metropolis]

Manitoba is not considering adding additional rail lines up north and remains committed to the Northern Gateway to Churchill as far as any northern shipping options. The Neestanan initiative was raised by the previous government but it is mothballed at this time, at least from a Manitoba perspective.

[dam_well]

Seems like a lot of effort to go through when there's already a mostly functional railway and port in place. If the same amount of money was just spent improving the existing line, that would benefit all the Indigenous communities along the route as well. I know the Churchill port isn't ideal, but that seems more solvable than trying to build a totally new one where they failed to do so already.

[WestEndWander]

Originally Posted by dam_well

Seems like a lot of effort to go through when there's already a mostly functional railway and port in place. If the same amount of money was just spent improving the existing line, that would benefit all the Indigenous communities along the route as well. I know the Churchill port isn't ideal, but that seems more solvable than trying to build a totally new one where they failed to do so already.

The big issue with the Port of Churchill is that its not deep enough to handle the type of cargo/transport ships that NeeStaNan envisions servicing with their operation. Due to geology it's not able to be made deeper either.

Port Nelson's biggest issue in its earlier existence was that dredging technology could not keep up with sediment deposition, even with the awkward connection from the shoreline to deeper waters. This problem is far more manageable with todays dredging ships, allowing for a true deep water port to be maintained.

It also has the benefit of being a much shorter traverse over large swathes of muskeg and marsh than the route to Churchill. This can't be understated as it is the largest issue the line from Gillam to Churchill faces annually. The investment required for track maintenance due to the constantly shifting permafrost is immense.

That all being said there really is no reason that both could not exist. The Port in Churchill would continue to service commercial and industrial supplies to the HudBay west shore communities of Nunavut, welcome cruise ships (they have two scheduled for the upcoming season, with up to five the following year), and ship smaller loads of grain, minerals, and mining concentrate. Port Nelson would handle the larger cargo ships, potential natural gas (large scale oil will never be in the bay, communities have no desire), large grain, mineral, timber, or resource shipments, etc.

We are a maritime province and should look utilize all opportunities we can in a responsible manner.

[bodaggin]

.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by WestEndWander

The big issue with the Port of Churchill is that its not deep enough to handle the type of cargo/transport ships that NeeStaNan envisions servicing with their operation. Due to geology it's not able to be made deeper either.

Port Nelson's biggest issue in its earlier existence was that dredging technology could not keep up with sediment deposition, even with the awkward connection from the shoreline to deeper waters. This problem is far more manageable with todays dredging ships, allowing for a true deep water port to be maintained.

It also has the benefit of being a much shorter traverse over large swathes of muskeg and marsh than the route to Churchill. This can't be understated as it is the largest issue the line from Gillam to Churchill faces annually. The investment required for track maintenance due to the constantly shifting permafrost is immense.

That all being said there really is no reason that both could not exist. The Port in Churchill would continue to service commercial and industrial supplies to the HudBay west shore communities of Nunavut, welcome cruise ships (they have two scheduled for the upcoming season, with up to five the following year), and ship smaller loads of grain, minerals, and mining concentrate. Port Nelson would handle the larger cargo ships, potential natural gas (large scale oil will never be in the bay, communities have no desire), large grain, mineral, timber, or resource shipments, etc.

We are a maritime province and should look utilize all opportunities we can in a responsible manner.

I wonder what the long-term costs, both financially and environmentally, or the constant dredging of the Nelson River to support a deep water port at Port Nelson? Would there be a domino effect along the rest of the chain of lakes and rivers? I'm sure it would take a pretty extensive study to determine the possible effects, and even then it wouldn't necessarily be exhaustive.

That being said, I agree the province should seriously look at expanding out maritime access in, as you've said "a responsible manner". IMO that excludes any imagined oil pipeline from Alberta.

[dam_well]

Interesting.

I suppose even going to Port Nelson, a good chunk of the existing Hudson's bay rail line could still be used up until it splits off in Gilliam, so probably still a benefit. And if both can exist great!

[bodaggin]

.

[NewIreland]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

A little analysis, on the topic of "which commodities" for the port.

Peak oil has passed, whether you accept it or not. We know this because EV battery prices smashed below the EV vs ICE breakeven costs last year. Breakeven is $100/kWh. They hit $40/kWh in 2024. This will take a couple years to filter thru the automaker supply chain, but EV prices are about to plummet. Making new ICE cars virtually obsolete.

So new oil pipelines to anywhere right now, are very dumb.

Nat Gas on the other hand has another 10 to 15yrs, as electric grids try to ramp up to meet the EV + AI demand surge. Nat Gas also has coal replacement demand, until truly renewable electrification replaces both NG + coal. That's a couple decades yet. So LNG has a strong decade or two. LNG to Churchill/Port Nelson is a good 10yr+ play, and a healthy contributor to MB Gov pockets. But it won't last forever. So to prevent either of these ports from becoming ghost towns in 20yrs, long term ancillary economies need to be developed in tandem. Grain, potash, mineral shipping is fine; but it's small.

That's why I say data centers + Conawapa/Gilliam Island dams should be full steam ahead. Greenhouses + waste heat spinoff industries too. Those are forever sectors. A strategic military base fits here too (FactaNV mentioned this I think). That can keep this area earning for MB for a century.

I'm just curious as to where you're getting your information from? The consensus among the experts (quick search on google scholar) is that oil will remain at 100 dollars plus per barrel until at least 2050. Furthermore, the following countries' thirst for oil is expected to increase dramatically in the next 50 to 100 years due to industrialization and a growing middle/upper class:

Nigeria
Ethiopia
India
Bangladesh
Vietnam
Indonesia
Philippines
Kenya
Egypt
Brazil

Again, I just don't see the demand for fossil fuels decreasing any time in the near future, but I'm interesting in alternative viewpoints.

[bodaggin]

.

[dennis]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Life isn't binary. Both can work. But here's the dilemma:

Churchill:
-Has rail, kinda.
-Has no road, and it's 250km to build. So it's still cut off.
-Has existing port, town, airport.

Port Nelson:
-Only 80km from the end of the road. But it will have virtually full road access when Gilliam Island Dam is built. One road, two birds.
-Has no rail. But the old rail bed does still exist. So building rail is much easier than from scratch. And it's only 100km.
-Is 200km+ closer to power than Churchill.
-Is 150km closer for any pipeline(s) on NeeStaNan.
-Has no town, port, airport.

So 250km of road construction to connect Churchill, vs 180km of construction to connect Port Nelson (100km rail, 80km road). Port Nelson is still closer to fully connect. But you have to build a town. Six 1-way, half dozen the other. Both can exist though.

Does Churchill have an ice road for the frozen months, if not why?

[cllew]

Originally Posted by dennis

Does Churchill have an ice road for the frozen months, if not why?

As I understand it the frozen months are when the railroad works the best.

The permafrost is frozen and the roadbed stays relatively stable. Once it gets warm the permafrost melts and then the rail roadbed shifts, and needs more frequent work to reduce slow orders and stoppages.