Port of Churchill Manitoba

[Authentic_City]

Have you ever talked to a local from Churchill? They are all convinced the port can operate year round with icebreaking - paid for by the feds. If this was the United States, they would bring in the US Army Corps of Engineers and a fleet of military icecbreakers and find a way. I'm sure it's possible, but not without a huge government investment. If we want to assert our sovereignty in the Arctic, then it could make sense to put a military base back up there, and invest in an icebreaking fleet. But I don't think we can rely on commercial shipping companies to keep it open., not year round at least. Maybe they can extend the shoulder seasons?

I think the current military icebreaker building program is heavily delayed - and I'm not sure if the two ships under construction are capable of keeping hudson bay open all year.

So yeah, lots of unanswered questions about this.

[FactaNV]

Do they really need to ship year round if LNG is a main export? Store it up North and then ship it for 6 months or whatever to refill European reservoirs.

[Authentic_City]

^Yeah, I had the same thought. If they can extend the shipping season to six months, they can still ship a lot of product to Europe before the winter heating season.

[trueviking]

Russia has a couple nuclear icebreakers that can run year round in the arctic. The only ones in the world. The two ships being built by Canada (ready in the early 2030’s) will be the first capable of operating throughout the winter in the Canadian arctic but they are not adequate to create an open shipping lane for very large oil tankers. They travel at a speed that would take more than two weeks to go from Churchill to open ocean.

You would need a fleet of these icebreakers dedicated to the task to accomplish it. Each one of these ships costs more than three billion dollars to build and it takes a decade to do it. The icebreakers would cost far more than the pipeline.

Russia is trying to build a Northern Shipping Route but it will cost many billions and take a long time. If it can even be done reliably. Even then it will not have the capacity that an oil pipeline requires. A ship every day leaving port.

The cost of insurance, the speed, cost of icebreakers, and the logistics of keeping a channel open for six months seems like it would make the investment unprofitable. Even normal pipelines are so expensive they can’t just sit idle half the year.

I mean. People a lot smarter than me are championing this so there must be something to it. Even just for my own interest, I wish the discussion was being had more publicly. It seems to be the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring.

[Hockey]

I’m all for the federal government spending billions of dollars in Manitoba on docks, storage bins, and related port infrastructure in Churchill.

I get the port will need a few dock workers to load ships with cargo,and that the port will charge fees, but is this what this is about? How will this project be a boon for MB? I’m not naysaying, i just want to understand.

Will a proper highway be built from gillam, or even wpg, to Churchill be built as part of this? Then I could see more benefits.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by Hockey

I’m all for the federal government spending billions of dollars in Manitoba on docks, storage bins, and related port infrastructure in Churchill.

I get the port will need a few dock workers to load ships with cargo,and that the port will charge fees, but is this what this is about? How will this project be a boon for MB? I’m not naysaying, i just want to understand.

Will a proper highway be built from gillam, or even wpg, to Churchill be built as part of this? Then I could see more benefits.

Good question. I'm also in favour of the potential improvements, but are we looking at direct financial benefits to the province (like taxes on whatever is shipped) or more the potential benefits of growing import and transportation businesses?

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by pspeid

Good question. I'm also in favour of the potential improvements, but are we looking at direct financial benefits to the province (like taxes on whatever is shipped) or more the potential benefits of growing import and transportation businesses?

Port fees are federal as they federally governed. Provinces make money on ports through income tax, sales tax, increased economic development in the area, etc. The port needs maintainers, cooks, cleaners, executives, clerks, etc. All pay provincial taxes. Nevermind the knock-on effects of increased flow of goods through the area. You need storage, you need logistics chains, you need pipeline and road construction, you need processing plants, etc.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hockey

I’m all for the federal government spending billions of dollars in Manitoba on docks, storage bins, and related port infrastructure in Churchill.

I get the port will need a few dock workers to load ships with cargo,and that the port will charge fees, but is this what this is about? How will this project be a boon for MB? I’m not naysaying, i just want to understand.

Will a proper highway be built from gillam, or even wpg, to Churchill be built as part of this? Then I could see more benefits.

It is not clear a road is going to be a boom for Manitoba. It is going to be an expensive that has to be maintained, policed and cleared in winter.

In BC to be allowed to operate the trans-mountain pipeline we required the operator to cover the cost of building and operating a fleet or oil spill ships along the coast. You would expect the same would be needed in Manitoba, Quebec and the territories. That may well employee more people than the actual terminal.

Pipelines etc do may local property tax to municipal governments. If its grain elevators to helps with getting product to market. Oil and LNG is more about helping out Alberta.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by casper

It is not clear a road is going to be a boom for Manitoba. It is going to be an expensive that has to be maintained, policed and cleared in winter.

In BC to be allowed to operate the trans-mountain pipeline we required the operator to cover the cost of building and operating a fleet or oil spill ships along the coast. You would expect the same would be needed in Manitoba, Quebec and the territories. That may well employee more people than the actual terminal.

Pipelines etc do may local property tax to municipal governments. If its grain elevators to helps with getting product to market. Oil and LNG is more about helping out Alberta.

A road to churchill would be one of the most important things to be done in Canadian history. It would dramatically reduce costs of goods all throughout the North.

It would increase tourism and allow for easier distribution of perishable goods to remote communities.

It needs to happen.

[trueviking]

Ever in Canadian history?!

[trueviking]

I hope at some point they make the town of Churchill less ugly.

[bomberjet]

These type of "nation bulding" projects somewhat ignore economics for the greater good. If the country truly values having a port and larger military presence at Churchill and along the Hudson Bay coast, a highway is essential to that.

IMO if they do push a highway to Churchill, Highway 6 should be twinned. IMO also, if we're doing nation building things, the TCH should be federally funded like the interstate. We've touched on that before.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I hope at some point they make the town of Churchill less ugly.

How about like this?

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

They should make Churchill look like this.

[EndIt]

A Churchill highway seems like a tall order. Who's gonna run the gas stations and man the snow clearing equipment? Would shipping via highway really be any more economically viable than rail or air freight?

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by EndIt

A Churchill highway seems like a tall order. Who's gonna run the gas stations and man the snow clearing equipment? Would shipping via highway really be any more economically viable than rail or air freight?

Not an issue. It’s about 250 km from the current end of the road to Churchill…a shorter distance than some stretch’s of PTH 6 with no gas stations.

[casper]

Originally Posted by EndIt

A Churchill highway seems like a tall order. Who's gonna run the gas stations and man the snow clearing equipment? Would shipping via highway really be any more economically viable than rail or air freight?

Air freight is expensive. Rail generally is not.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by Mr Tall Forehead

Not an issue. It’s about 250 km from the current end of the road to Churchill…a shorter distance than some stretch’s of PTH 6 with no gas stations.

And easier than blasting through the Canadian Shield to Kenora

[Hockey]

The vision for the port needs to include a four lane divided highway from the perimeter hwy to the Hudson’s Bay. The highway needs to be maintained, serviced, and be resilient to climate if the politicians are serious about this project. New docks, storage bins, and a couple of new longshoreman jobs can’t be what this is about.

The modern highway would service Military vehicles to and from the new base, transport trucks with goods to support growth of the area for all the new jobs, tourists would use it for the natural world attractions there. Let’s truly open up northern MB.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Four lane highway?!?

I’m in favour of building a road to Churchill but there is absolutely no reason it needs to be four lanes. Stuff will move on trains or pipelines, not trucks.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Mr Tall Forehead

Four lane highway?!?

I’m in favour of building a road to Churchill but there is absolutely no reason it needs to be four lanes. Stuff will move on trains or pipelines, not trucks.

cargo goes by truck u need it for the port if it takes off u build or dont bother