Port of Churchill Manitoba

[cheswick]

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.

Completely inaccurate. The rate of decline slowed over the past 20 years, it has continued to decline and has certainly not reversed.

Article about:
https://phys.org/news/2025-08-temporary-slowdown-arctic-sea-ice.html

Likely study you're misinterpreting:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL116175

[drew]

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.

Do we want a upgraded usable arctic port - or don't we?

Ice seems to be something that can be mostly dealt with whether by climate or ice-breakers. We can control the ice-breaking side of things, but again, there is a massive lead time associated with it (10-15 years or more).

Everything arctic related has a massive lead time and logistic complexity associated with it.

If we all agree that this port is necessary for national security, shipping logistics, whatever - then we need to shit or get off the pot.

This type of location and infrastructure cannot wait until there is a need. It doesn't work that way. It's a want. Do we want it or not.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Completely inaccurate. The rate of decline slowed over the past 20 years, it has continued to decline and has certainly not reversed.

Article about:
https://phys.org/news/2025-08-temporary-slowdown-arctic-sea-ice.html

Likely study you're misinterpreting:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL116175

I don't believe I am misinterpreted anything. The graph in the second link you posted show no decrease in the last 20 years. Here is an article:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...g-of-arctic-sea-ice-surprises-scientists

The melting of sea ice in the Arctic has slowed dramatically in the past 20 years, scientists have reported, with no statistically significant decline in its extent since 2005.

This year there is much more ice: The minimum Arctic sea ice extent for 2025 has been set at 4.602 million km². This is 350,000 km² more than last year and 180,000 km² above the average for the past decade.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by drew

Do we want a upgraded usable arctic port - or don't we?

Ice seems to be something that can be mostly dealt with whether by climate or ice-breakers. We can control the ice-breaking side of things, but again, there is a massive lead time associated with it (10-15 years or more).

Everything arctic related has a massive lead time and logistic complexity associated with it.

If we all agree that this port is necessary for national security, shipping logistics, whatever - then we need to shit or get off the pot.

This type of location and infrastructure cannot wait until there is a need. It doesn't work that way. It's a want. Do we want it or not.

Yes I support this if it is feasible. Why can't we buy icebreakers offshore instead of waiting 15 years? Likely much cheaper as well

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I don't believe I am misinterpreted anything. The graph in the second link you posted show no decrease in the last 20 years. Here is an article:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...g-of-arctic-sea-ice-surprises-scientists


This year there is much more ice: The minimum Arctic sea ice extent for 2025 has been set at 4.602 million km². This is 350,000 km² more than last year and 180,000 km² above the average for the past decade.

"The media never reports this." *shares recent Guardian article about it

That same article also explains that it is widely believed to be a temporary situation caused by changing ocean currents. Global temps are still rising steadily. You don't have to be a fancy scientist to understand that higher temps = less ice.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

"The media never reports this." *shares recent Guardian article about it

I knew someone would call me on that. Would you believe if I said I meant Canadian media?

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I don't believe I am misinterpreted anything. The graph in the second link you posted show no decrease in the last 20 years. Here is an article:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...g-of-arctic-sea-ice-surprises-scientists


This year there is much more ice: The minimum Arctic sea ice extent for 2025 has been set at 4.602 million km². This is 350,000 km² more than last year and 180,000 km² above the average for the past decade.

It's hard to see a statistically significant difference when the sea ice minimum numbers fluctuate drastically. If it was much more stable, it's likely it would be a statistically significant drop from 2005.

The overall trend is for a decrease if you use all the available data that dates back to the 80s. If you frame it within a specific set of years (20 in this case) that didn't see as crazy of a drop, then the trend gets lost in the fluctuations.

Put another way, if my bank account balance was looking like that, I wouldn't be thinking "phew, I'm fine now".

[BorealLynx]

I personally wouldn't bank on climate change to justify the viability of a Port of Churchill expansion. There have to be other more tangible and less volatile reasons to do this, for example national security, Arctic sovereignty and alternative shipping options. If climate change trends continue as predicted by most scientists, then that will only make the case more attractive. But let's not count on it to make the business case, and let's plan as if it's not going to happen anytime soon (i.e. start planning for those icebreakers!).

[Winnipeg Grump]

Some need for actual data here on the icebreakers.

Canada has the 2nd largest icebreaking fleet in the world, behind Russia.

Contracts have been signed for 2 polar-class icebreakers from Seaspan (delivery 2032) and CDCI (Davie)(delivery 2030); both capable of year-round operation in the Arctic. This isn't 10-15 years....

Full credit to Ottawa for starting the National Shipbuilding Strategy (PMSH), not slowing it/cancelling (PMJT), and for accelerating it (PMMC), so that Canada's domestic shipbuilding capacity is being rebuilt. There 'are' some things which we don't have the expertise to build (the new sub fleet, for example) so will offshore that acquisition from allies that do, but we can certainly build icebreakers and River-class destroyers.

Rolling CCG into CAF is a good thing, and will mean a better chance of the icebreaking fleet work being able to get a portion of the increased funding envelope that CAF is receiving.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services...eakers-for-the-canadian-coast-guard.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services...ruction-of-its-polar-max-icebreaker.html

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Grump

Some need for actual data here on the icebreakers.

Canada has the 2nd largest icebreaking fleet in the world, behind Russia.

Contracts have been signed for 2 polar-class icebreakers from Seaspan (delivery 2032) and CDCI (Davie)(delivery 2030); both capable of year-round operation in the Arctic. This isn't 10-15 years....

Full credit to Ottawa for starting the National Shipbuilding Strategy (PMSH), not slowing it/cancelling (PMJT), and for accelerating it (PMMC), so that Canada's domestic shipbuilding capacity is being rebuilt. There 'are' some things which we don't have the expertise to build (the new sub fleet, for example) so will offshore that acquisition from allies that do, but we can certainly build icebreakers and River-class destroyers.

Rolling CCG into CAF is a good thing, and will mean a better chance of the icebreaking fleet work being able to get a portion of the increased funding envelope that CAF is receiving.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services...eakers-for-the-canadian-coast-guard.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services...ruction-of-its-polar-max-icebreaker.html

I couldn't disagree more with every statement in this post. The estimated total cost for Canada's Polar Icebreaker Project is $8.5 billion for two ships! That is ludicrous. For comparison China's new icebreaker is $US150 million. I am not advocating buying Chinese ships and the Chinese ship is only a class 3 versus a class 2 for the Canadian ships, but I am just using this to demonstrate how broken Canadian ship procurement is. I understand the industrial strategy behind this but here has to be practical limits.

Similar US Polar Class 2 icebreakers in USD:

$1.038 billion (first vessel)
$794 million (second vessel)
$841 million (third vessel)

I would suggest we could buy twice as many icebreakers from the US or elsewhere, get spinoff work for our shipyards and other industries and still have $ billions left over for other priorities.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by Stormer

I couldn't disagree more with every statement in this post. The estimated total cost for Canada's Polar Icebreaker Project is $8.5 billion for two ships! That is ludicrous. For comparison China's new icebreaker is $US150 million. I am not advocating buying Chinese ships and the Chinese ship is only a class 3 versus a class 2 for the Canadian ships, but I am just using this to demonstrate how broken Canadian ship procurement is. I understand the industrial strategy behind this but here has to be practical limits.

Similar US Polar Class 2 icebreakers in USD:

$1.038 billion (first vessel)
$794 million (second vessel)
$841 million (third vessel)

I would suggest we could buy twice as many icebreakers from the US or elsewhere, get spinoff work for our shipyards and other industries and still have $ billions left over for other priorities.

Sigh.

The US can't even build their own hulls fast enough to keep up with replenishing their Navy/CG and you think they can all of a sudden start building for us?! Why do you think they signed the ICE Pact?

From the U.S. Naval Institute:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2025/august/close-icebreaker-gap-ice-pact
"The Polar Security Cutter program is intended to recapitalize the Coast Guard’s aging fleet of icebreakers, but it has experienced both schedule and budget overruns. Only two years after its original 2019 estimate of $2.3 billion for three PSCs, the Coast Guard’s cost estimate had increased to $3.2 billion. An August 2024 Congressional Budget Office report put the cost at more than $5 billion, which looks to be more accurate.2 In March 2025, the Coast Guard awarded a $951.6 million contract modification for the first PSC, bringing the lead ship’s cost to just under $1.7 billion, not including government -furnished equipment, Navy-type/Navy-owned equipment, post-delivery, and other program costs.3"

To the myth of 'just buy existing designs (Off the Shelf)':
If Only Warships Grew on Trees: The Complexities of Off-the-Shelf Defence Procurement
https://www.cgai.ca/if_only_warships_grew_on_trees


Look, everyone who is paying attention knows that procurement is broken but that's tied in with the fact that this country abandoned serious capacity to build anything, never mind the ships in discussion.

We can all sit here and wish that weren't the case, and that we could simply turn back the hands of time to keep that capacity which we once had, but if wishes were fishes, we'd all be casting nets, right?

We're going to overpay for kit for the next little while until we can get that capacity back.

[Biff]

I don't follow any of this stuff, so I really have no idea what is right or wrong. All I know is I really like this line;

"if wishes were fishes, we'd all be casting nets". That is a beauty.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Grump

Sigh.

The US can't even build their own hulls fast enough to keep up with replenishing their Navy/CG and you think they can all of a sudden start building for us?! Why do you think they signed the ICE Pact?

From the U.S. Naval Institute:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2025/august/close-icebreaker-gap-ice-pact
"The Polar Security Cutter program is intended to recapitalize the Coast Guard’s aging fleet of icebreakers, but it has experienced both schedule and budget overruns. Only two years after its original 2019 estimate of $2.3 billion for three PSCs, the Coast Guard’s cost estimate had increased to $3.2 billion. An August 2024 Congressional Budget Office report put the cost at more than $5 billion, which looks to be more accurate.2 In March 2025, the Coast Guard awarded a $951.6 million contract modification for the first PSC, bringing the lead ship’s cost to just under $1.7 billion, not including government -furnished equipment, Navy-type/Navy-owned equipment, post-delivery, and other program costs.3"

To the myth of 'just buy existing designs (Off the Shelf)':
If Only Warships Grew on Trees: The Complexities of Off-the-Shelf Defence Procurement
https://www.cgai.ca/if_only_warships_grew_on_trees


Look, everyone who is paying attention knows that procurement is broken but that's tied in with the fact that this country abandoned serious capacity to build anything, never mind the ships in discussion.

We can all sit here and wish that weren't the case, and that we could simply turn back the hands of time to keep that capacity which we once had, but if wishes were fishes, we'd all be casting nets, right?

We're going to overpay for kit for the next little while until we can get that capacity back.

Good response. In a perfect world, the U.S. and Canada would have come up with a joint design, split the work and sought to sell a best in class reasonably priced ship to other countries. It is really sad that these ships are so expensive we can only afford 2. There will be times when neither of them are available.

[Hockey]

Originally Posted by Biff

I don't follow any of this stuff, so I really have no idea what is right or wrong. All I know is I really like this line;

"if wishes were fishes, we'd all be casting nets". That is a beauty.

It reminded me of “if ‘if’s’ and ‘but’s’ were candy and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas.”

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by Biff

I don't follow any of this stuff, so I really have no idea what is right or wrong. All I know is I really like this line;

"if wishes were fishes, we'd all be casting nets". That is a beauty.

I paraphrased Gurney Halleck in Dune, talking to a young Paul Atreides -- "If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets"

[trueviking]

The whole thing seems like a square peg in a round hole to me....

[casper]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Good response. In a perfect world, the U.S. and Canada would have come up with a joint design, split the work and sought to sell a best in class reasonably priced ship to other countries. It is really sad that these ships are so expensive we can only afford 2. There will be times when neither of them are available.

You may get your wish. But it is a reverse takeover.

The world leader in ice breakers is Helsinki Shipyard in Helsinki. They have made most of the European and Russian ice breakers.

That shipyard was acquired by a multi-national shipbuilding company called "Chantier Davie Canada" based out of Quebec a few years ago. Where they have a shipyard building ice breakers for Canada.

Given the US is now interested in building their first ice breaker in decades, Davie a few weeks ago announced that they had acquired a shipyard in Galveston Texas, and would be refurbishing that shipyard to build ice breakers for the US.

Part of a NATO collaboration between Finland, Canada and the US, a collaboration where Canada and Finland are going to help the US develop ice breaker capabilities.

I think the only question is will the Americans be welcoming of these foreigners from Canada and Finland that will help setup this new shipyard are will they be arrested by ICE and flown back to Canada? Time will tell.

[peg]

Originally Posted by trueviking

The whole thing seems like a square peg in a round hole to me....

who you calling square

[The Jabroni]

Ice breakers come and go, but mobility is very important.

Originally Posted by peg

who you calling square

If your first name initial is J, then we truly are living in a pixelated world, unless clearer images are taken.

...

I'll see myself out.

[peg]

Originally Posted by The Jabroni

If your first name initial is J, then we truly are living in a pixelated world, unless clearer images are taken.