Port of Churchill Manitoba

[WinCitySparky]

Where were the big announcements promised for last Friday?

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

Where were the big announcements promised for last Friday?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-major-projects-list-1.7630470

Apparently it's gone from a big funding announcement to "additional projects that are at an earlier stage and require further development, but could be part of the next wave for consideration"

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-major-projects-list-1.7630470

Apparently it's gone from a big funding announcement to "additional projects that are at an earlier stage and require further development, but could be part of the next wave for consideration"

churchill is a big machine in the works all these projects are and were in progress this will speed them up.

we woildnt even have it on the radar if omni tracks was still the owner

in next few weeks theres aparanetly a 100man camp going up in churchill for work on the warf

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

churchill is a big machine in the works all these projects are and were in progress this will speed them up.

we woildnt even have it on the radar if omni tracks was still the owner

in next few weeks theres aparanetly a 100man camp going up in churchill for work on the warf

Omnitrax was a terrible company as we found out after that terrible flood. So glad the area and tracks are owned by local owners being Arctic Gateway.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-major-projects-list-1.7630470

Apparently it's gone from a big funding announcement to "additional projects that are at an earlier stage and require further development, but could be part of the next wave for consideration"

When I read this all I could think is that MB's been screwed over again. Big money going to provinces where Carney needs political propping up, Manitoba on the "maybe later" list.

So tired of all this.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-major-projects-list-1.7630470

Apparently it's gone from a big funding announcement to "additional projects that are at an earlier stage and require further development, but could be part of the next wave for consideration"

This is how frustrating the latest kick in the ass from Ottawa has made me. I'm starting to think of things like this:

Maybe Manitoba should take a page from AB & SK and threaten separation to get a little look-see from the Feds. I'm not talking about joining the maple MAGAs out west. The States seems to be fracturing into pro-Trump and Anti-Trump political blocks. Minnesota is firmly anti-Trump, but they're surrounded by pro-Trump states. Maybe we should join with them, have trading ports on the Great Lakes AND Hudson's Bay.

I know, it's crazy nonsense. But it gets me through days like this.

[CoryB]

I am confident that Churchill will get its turn.

In addition to building up the port there as part of a shift in strategy on critical minerals which the USA does not want, Churchill feels like a prime location for a joint forces Arctic military base focused on the increasing importance of Arctic sovereignty.

[BorealLynx]

Originally Posted by pspeid

This is how frustrating the latest kick in the ass from Ottawa has made me. I'm starting to think of things like this:

Maybe Manitoba should take a page from AB & SK and threaten separation to get a little look-see from the Feds. I'm not talking about joining the maple MAGAs out west. The States seems to be fracturing into pro-Trump and Anti-Trump political blocks. Minnesota is firmly anti-Trump, but they're surrounded by pro-Trump states. Maybe we should join with them, have trading ports on the Great Lakes AND Hudson's Bay.

I know, it's crazy nonsense. But it gets me through days like this.

I'm pretty sure it's not a kick at Manitoba. The way I understand it is that the "shovel-ready" projects were announced first, but the others will follow as soon as they are to that point. The Port of Churchill project is so massive and so complicated that it warrants proper planning and forethought before it can even be considered design-ready. Carney has made it clear that it is on the list and it is a part of his "nation-building" agenda. Hopefully we have the right people in place to actually make it happen. For one, Kinew is a good start as a proponent and as someone who's a little more than just a dreamer (think Ford and his grand 401 tunnel).

Canadians expect due diligence on all major initiatives, so let's see it done.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by pspeid

When I read this all I could think is that MB's been screwed over again. Big money going to provinces where Carney needs political propping up, Manitoba on the "maybe later" list.

So tired of all this.

churchill has allot of moving parts being aligned we dont relize montreal is further in that process and mkes sens to get done

and churchill has work ongoing in it as we speak... allot going on

[The Jabroni]

I'm not too worried that Churchill wasn't announced as part of the "first wave" of megaprojects to proceed. I'd rather have it properly planned and have all stakeholders involved in this project with a full understanding on what is needed for the region.

[WinCitySparky]

Wab is claiming there is in fact some giveouts for Churchill in the Freep. Unsure who to believe.

Edit : apparently that’s for the “second round”. Which is an eyeroller to me but better than a kick in the ass with a frozen boot I guess.

[Hockey]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

Wab is claiming there is in fact some giveouts for Churchill in the Freep. Unsure who to believe.

Edit : apparently that’s for the “second round”. Which is an eyeroller to me but better than a kick in the ass with a frozen boot I guess.

It sounds like a highway to Churchill is part of the project.

Also, strategically the Churchill plus project sounds like it will be announced when more focus is on MB at the Grey Cup week in a November.

[James Bond Agent 007]

I would think that anything remotely resembling an attempt to make Churchill a viable port for LNG, oil or other cargo exports would involve at least half a dozen different projects totaling billions of dollars and take 20+ years to finish.

[Biff]

^^^This

They can build up the port all they want, but if they don't have the pipelines or the production increase to get product there what is the point. I get that this is the reason why it has shifted to the second batch. I was reading on how Alberta can't just flip a switch to get more production going. There is significant and lengthy timelines to get the volumes up to make Churchill viable.

They also mentioned this on CJOB yesterday.

There is still major concern regarding the length of season to make the port viable.

[drew]

"if you build it, they will come".

The scale up to modernizing the port and rail (and possible road) to Churchill has a lead time at least as long as any scale up required in an industry that could potentially ship out of there.

Delaying upgrades IMO just signals that the "upgrades" we should expect will be token at best, and won't amount to any significant improvements over what we currently have.

[casper]

Originally Posted by drew

"if you build it, they will come".

The scale up to modernizing the port and rail (and possible road) to Churchill has a lead time at least as long as any scale up required in an industry that could potentially ship out of there.

Delaying upgrades IMO just signals that the "upgrades" we should expect will be token at best, and won't amount to any significant improvements over what we currently have.

Infrastructure is dependent on the goods being shipped. You don't need to do it all at once.

If your going to export energy I would start with butane and propane. Transported by rail. Start by supplying local communities in the arctic and potentially some to Europe. That can be up and running in short order. LNG will take a decade.

Another interesting commodity would be potash.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by drew

"if you build it, they will come".

The scale up to modernizing the port and rail (and possible road) to Churchill has a lead time at least as long as any scale up required in an industry that could potentially ship out of there.

Delaying upgrades IMO just signals that the "upgrades" we should expect will be token at best, and won't amount to any significant improvements over what we currently have.

theres already work on going at the port

the coper mine in sask they are expanding might be part of the push to supply it
but we should also look at how the pot can make the north my sustainable

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

theres already work on going at the port

the coper mine in sask they are expanding might be part of the push to supply it
but we should also look at how the pot can make the north my sustainable

Ore concentrates will be shipping from the McIlvenna Bay copper mine to Flin Flon via the Hanson Lake Road to be loaded on trains, so its possible they could be shipped out via Churchill.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Biff

^^^This

They can build up the port all they want, but if they don't have the pipelines or the production increase to get product there what is the point. I get that this is the reason why it has shifted to the second batch. I was reading on how Alberta can't just flip a switch to get more production going. There is significant and lengthy timelines to get the volumes up to make Churchill viable.

They also mentioned this on CJOB yesterday.

There is still major concern regarding the length of season to make the port viable.

Climate zealots keep claiming the ice will disappear, but Arctic ice stopped receding 20 years ago and more recently has been growing. The media never reports this. Unless this trend reverses, it does not bode well for Churchill. Expensive port infrastructure, especially something like LNG requires nearly year-round access.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Climate zealots keep claiming the ice will disappear, but Arctic ice stopped receding 20 years ago and more recently has been growing. The media never reports this. Unless this trend reverses, it does not bode well for Churchill. Expensive port infrastructure, especially something like LNG requires nearly year-round access.

Cite your sources. That statement contradicts NASA's Arctic Sea Ice Minimum and Arctic Ice Volume tracking and the NSIDC data showing the same.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arc...akeaway:,Other%20measurements%20include:

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index

The NSIDC link even has a quick and simple graph showing the downward trend in sea ice extent.