The Arctic

[daftandbarmy]

Manitoba to the rescue...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931107635421438024

 

[lenaitch]

Manitoba to the rescue...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931107635421438024

A good proposal. Doesn't help with Asia markets though. Churchill has several things going for it no other Arctic proposal does: It has an existing rail/electric corridor, an existing deep water port and an existing community. The caveat is the seasonality of the shipping route and whether than can be be reasonably overcome or a customer country can develop sufficient storage facilities.

 

[RangerRay]

Churchill is still seriously isolated though. There is no road access, flights are expensive and rail is slightly less expensive but is excruciatingly slow. I believe the rail line will need significant improvements if it is to support this increase in activity. Also, you’ll need to incentivize people to move there to have no real, or an extremely short, summer and pay through the nose for food that isn’t pop and chips.

 

[YZT580]

Churchill is still seriously isolated though. There is no road access, flights are expensive and rail is slightly less expensive but is excruciatingly slow. I believe the rail line will need significant improvements if it is to support this increase in activity. Also, you’ll need to incentivize people to move there to have no real, or an extremely short, summer and pay through the nose for food that isn’t pop and chips.

treat it the way the mining companies handle their remote locations: 2 crews rotate monthly with those who are full time residents running the place

 

[lenaitch]

Churchill is still seriously isolated though. There is no road access, flights are expensive and rail is slightly less expensive but is excruciatingly slow. I believe the rail line will need significant improvements if it is to support this increase in activity. Also, you’ll need to incentivize people to move there to have no real, or an extremely short, summer and pay through the nose for food that isn’t pop and chips.

True, but what arctic/near arctic location or proposed location isn't.

I would assume if Churchill were to be a NG terminal, it would be fed via pipeline and not rail. Perhaps I assume wrong. As far as I know, improvements to the rail corridor are happening as we speak.

With rail service, the cost of food, etc. is no where near those in remote arctic communities. According to this, COL is only 4% above the national average (Thunder Bay is +5%).

 

[childs56]

A good proposal. Doesn't help with Asia markets though. Churchill has several things going for it no other Arctic proposal does: It has an existing rail/electric corridor, an existing deep water port and an existing community. The caveat is the seasonality of the shipping route and whether than can be be reasonably overcome or a customer country can develop sufficient storage facilities.

This would be for the European Market as primary. The Asian market could be added. Depending on who's paying.

Churchill is still seriously isolated though. There is no road access, flights are expensive and rail is slightly less expensive but is excruciatingly slow. I believe the rail line will need significant improvements if it is to support this increase in activity. Also, you’ll need to incentivize people to move there to have no real, or an extremely short, summer and pay through the nose for food that isn’t pop and chips.

CFB Cold Lake was isolated not that many years ago with a seasonal road.
Tuktoyaktuk is futher north and equal issues with building a road and they did it.
The only reason the road has not been built is need and want. Run a pipeline, fix the rail line and the road will come.
People.live and work in isolated places all the time. Money talks.

 

[FJAG]

All the years that I lived in Manitoba, the viability of Churchill as a port was always a major political issue for the governing party. The key problem has always been a question of how do you make it an enterprise that provides a reasonable, or any, return on investment to its operators (and those of the rail line leading to it). The answer was that you couldn't. Any business model was always dependent on massive subsidies, grants or whatever from both provincial and federal coffers.

Here's and article from just before the rail line shut down that highlights the issues.

Regardless of the commodity to be put through the port, the limitation will always be its actual shipping season. Betting on global warming to extend the season is a mug's game if one considers that the world is spending trillions of dollars in trying to stop that very same global warming. To count on a longer open season is gambling that the world will not succeed. Maybe that's a reasonable gamble but regardless, whatever money is spent on building and maintaining the infrastructure (note that I am not saying making the port and rai line self sufficient) could be spent on our ice-free coasts to create year-round terminals that will provide profits for the economy as a whole.

I generally like having a vision for things that we could and should do. Churchill isn't one of them.

$0.02

 

[YZT580]

All the years that I lived in Manitoba, the viability of Churchill as a port was always a major political issue for the governing party. The key problem has always been a question of how do you make it an enterprise that provides a reasonable, or any, return on investment to its operators (and those of the rail line leading to it). The answer was that you couldn't. Any business model was always dependent on massive subsidies, grants or whatever from both provincial and federal coffers.

Here's and article from just before the rail line shut down that highlights the issues.

Regardless of the commodity to be put through the port, the limitation will always be its actual shipping season. Betting on global warming to extend the season is a mug's game if one considers that the world is spending trillions of dollars in trying to stop that very same global warming. To count on a longer open season is gambling that the world will not succeed. Maybe that's a reasonable gamble but regardless, whatever money is spent on building and maintaining the infrastructure (note that I am not saying making the port and rai line self sufficient) could be spent on our ice-free coasts to create year-round terminals that will provide profits for the economy as a whole.

I generally like having a vision for things that we could and should do. Churchill isn't one of them.

$0.02

Hudson Bay freezes every fall/winter. But it thaws in the spring which makes the ice single season thickness. If Russia can make a viable route across the top of Asia and keep it open for much of the winter season we should be able to build and field a fleet of ice breakers capable of creating an open passageway for tankers provided they have an ice-strengthened hull. It may mean doubling our order from both Seaspan and Davies but it should be doable.

 

[Kirkhill]

All the years that I lived in Manitoba, the viability of Churchill as a port was always a major political issue for the governing party. The key problem has always been a question of how do you make it an enterprise that provides a reasonable, or any, return on investment to its operators (and those of the rail line leading to it). The answer was that you couldn't. Any business model was always dependent on massive subsidies, grants or whatever from both provincial and federal coffers.

Here's and article from just before the rail line shut down that highlights the issues.

Regardless of the commodity to be put through the port, the limitation will always be its actual shipping season. Betting on global warming to extend the season is a mug's game if one considers that the world is spending trillions of dollars in trying to stop that very same global warming. To count on a longer open season is gambling that the world will not succeed. Maybe that's a reasonable gamble but regardless, whatever money is spent on building and maintaining the infrastructure (note that I am not saying making the port and rai line self sufficient) could be spent on our ice-free coasts to create year-round terminals that will provide profits for the economy as a whole.

I generally like having a vision for things that we could and should do. Churchill isn't one of them.

$0.02

Roads are subsidized.
Rail is subsidized.
Air is subsidized.
Shipping is subsidized.

All of that is just as true at the Port of Montreal as it is in Churchill.

And Montreal didn't always have a population of 1.8 million.

There was a port. And then there was the 1.8 million.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hudson Bay freezes every fall/winter. But it thaws in the spring which makes the ice single season thickness. If Russia can make a viable route across the top of Asia and keep it open for much of the winter season we should be able to build and field a fleet of ice breakers capable of creating an open passageway for tankers provided they have an ice-strengthened hull. It may mean doubling our order from both Seaspan and Davies but it should be doable.

The tankers may be able to clear their own paths if in the PC4/PC5 range. Keep a couple of PC2s on hand in the winter to manage emergencies.

 

[Kirkhill]

A good proposal. Doesn't help with Asia markets though. Churchill has several things going for it no other Arctic proposal does: It has an existing rail/electric corridor, an existing deep water port and an existing community. The caveat is the seasonality of the shipping route and whether than can be be reasonably overcome or a customer country can develop sufficient storage facilities.

Perhaps we could build an entrepot in ice-free waters. Placentia Bay perhaps?

 

[PrairieFella]

True, but what arctic/near arctic location or proposed location isn't.

I would assume if Churchill were to be a NG terminal, it would be fed via pipeline and not rail. Perhaps I assume wrong. As far as I know, improvements to the rail corridor are happening as we speak.

With rail service, the cost of food, etc. is no where near those in remote arctic communities. According to this, COL is only 4% above the national average (Thunder Bay is +5%).

Churchill is also a pretty significant grain terminal and recently had their first mineral shipment out of SK (potash). With the rail upgrades that would come from those billions in investment, you could probably even send finished or value-added goods by rail up to the port. Having an under-utilized Panamax capable port with the closest shipping routes to Europe is an attractive offer. Even the ice shouldn't be too too much hassle as it's first year ice only in the Bay. With inland bonded port and railyard being built in Winnipeg in conjunction to this, there may be a future very similar to the 1910s- 1930s boom in store for my beloved MB haha.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The problem is not first year ice in the Hudson Bay, it's the multi year ice inclusions caught in the first year ice that forms in Hudson strait and the Labrador sea in the fall. Once you have some snow on top of it all, it becomes near impossible to determine where those inclusions are ... and if you hit one ....

Moreover, if anything at all happens to you up there in the ice, you are literally on your own. No one is coming to your assistance in any reasonable or comforting time frame.

There is a reason why nobody operates up there in winter. Even the highly specialized icebreaking bulk carrier that service the Boisey Bay mine (Umiak I), which is not that far North into the Labrador sea, find it challenging in winter.

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem is not first year ice in the Hudson Bay, it's the multi year ice inclusions caught in the first year ice that forms in Hudson strait and the Labrador sea in the fall. Once you have some snow on top of it all, it becomes near impossible to determine where those inclusions are ... and if you hit one ....

Moreover, if anything at all happens to you up there in the ice, you are literally on your own. No one is coming to your assistance in any reasonable or comforting time frame.

There is a reason why nobody operates up there in winter. Even the highly specialized icebreaking bulk carrier that service the Boisey Bay mine (Umiak I), which is not that far North into the Labrador sea, find it challenging in winter.

So if we invested in a fleet of PC5 Aframax tankers - 7 days to Come by Chance, 20 days return, requiring a conveyor of twenty tankers to achieve a shipping rate of 1 MBPD for as long as the ice permits, we/the-company, should also invest in three or 4 PC2 breakers/Emergency Response ships to support the route.

20 tankers at 70 MUSD apiece = 1.4 BUSD for the tankers
How much useable life? 15 to 20 years?

How much for a commercial ice-breaker (as opposed to a government flagship?)

----

Why Come by Chance? Existing refinery and transfer station half way between Churchill and Milford Haven. And Ice Free. Create a Hardisty type tank farm there.

 

[PrairieFella]

The problem is not first year ice in the Hudson Bay, it's the multi year ice inclusions caught in the first year ice that forms in Hudson strait and the Labrador sea in the fall. Once you have some snow on top of it all, it becomes near impossible to determine where those inclusions are ... and if you hit one ....

Moreover, if anything at all happens to you up there in the ice, you are literally on your own. No one is coming to your assistance in any reasonable or comforting time frame.

There is a reason why nobody operates up there in winter. Even the highly specialized icebreaking bulk carrier that service the Boisey Bay mine (Umiak I), which is not that far North into the Labrador sea, find it challenging in winter.

Fair enough - tough situation in the winter. That said, do the time savings make enough sense that spring - fall operations are good enough to help full euro winter reserves? I'm sure none of us actually know here but it's worth considering haha.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The problem is not first year ice in the Hudson Bay, it's the multi year ice inclusions caught in the first year ice that forms in Hudson strait and the Labrador sea in the fall. Once you have some snow on top of it all, it becomes near impossible to determine where those inclusions are ... and if you hit one ....

Moreover, if anything at all happens to you up there in the ice, you are literally on your own. No one is coming to your assistance in any reasonable or comforting time frame.

There is a reason why nobody operates up there in winter. Even the highly specialized icebreaking bulk carrier that service the Boisey Bay mine (Umiak I), which is not that far North into the Labrador sea, find it challenging in winter.

How does this stack up against the Russian LNG facility at Sabetta?
Sabetta looks like it might have similar issues with 1+yr ice coming into the channel and Kara Sea.
If the Russians can make this work, we should be able to as well.

Sabetta - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Christophe de Margerie Class Icebreaking LNG Carriers

South Korean shipbuilding company, Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME), has a series of 15 icebreaking liquefied natural gas (LNG)…

www.ship-technology.com

The Christophe de Margerie-class LNG tankers can sail at a speed of 19.5kt in open seas and at 5kt in 1.5m-thick ice. They will have the ability to withstand temperatures of -50°C when operating in arctic environments.

The vessels are capable of navigating independently through 2.1m-thick ice and 15m-high waves, as well as turning 180° using the Azipod.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I'll not form a final opinion here, but I am not sure that the Russians are facing the same type of situation we do.

Unlike us (look at the maps) their Arctic waters are not made up of complex, multiple and at times constricted passages that create complex currents and flows that either move or trap multi year ice in unexpected positions, nor do they have to contend with land base ice caps breaking into the sea and creating icebergs that then flow South and get caught in the re-forming ice at the end of the summer.

Knowing where Murmansk is located and the fact that it is ice free most of the year, then looking at Sabetta's location, I wonder to which extent there is only limited first year ice between those two ports, which would equate to reasonable navigation to European nations to deliver the Natural gas. One thing I know for sure though: The Northern Sea Route (sometimes referred to as the North-East passage) is not, at this time, opened year round to navigation.

This is all speculation on my part, but info on the type of ice encountered in those otherwise open expenses of ocean would be useful to making a determination.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If a Hudson Bay port isn't open year-round and is supposed to be a terminus for a pipeline, what do the people on the input end of the pipeline do with their products when the port is shut down?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If a Hudson Bay port isn't open year-round and is supposed to be a terminus for a pipeline, what do the people on the input end of the pipeline do with their products when the port is shut down?

Tankage

 

[Kirkhill]

Tankage

Salt and/or potash caverns?