Topic: The Arctic - Resource Exploitation, Development and Population

[Chief Engineer]

Agreed...

But...

1.  I think I'm actually going to take a vacation to Nuuk, Greenland.  I had no idea a place like that existed, and it might be fun to explore real quick on the way to/back from Europe sometime soon.

2.  I think the population of Russia would have a large influence on the size of their northern communities.  Yes they do have less ice, and it does warm earlier than our side.  But a population of 144 million compared to...35 million-ish?  That alone I think would be a big factor.  Plus natural resource development.  (One of the anchors of the Russian economy. like ours, is natural resources & a vast country geographically.)

I have been in Nuuk about 8 times in the last 15 years and the was in Nuuk again last week. It was amazing to see the new builds going on there now. Most is due to the mineral boom going on due to previously unexplored ice covered territory now being uncovered due to warming.

[Chief Engineer]

Iqaluit doesn't have a seaport

Iqaluit deep water port is being built now.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/iqaluit-explosions-rock-blasting-deep-sea-port-1.4789985

[Thucydides]

There used to be some shows on there History Channel (or Discovery, lately they all look alike with crap Ancient Aliens and "Reality" shows) about Arctic air cargo operations, which seem to be descendants of the Bush Pilots. These are almost gypsy outfits with one or more C-47 Dakotas you can charter to carry "stuff" around the arctic. This actually makes sense due to the distance and lack of road/rail/shipping infrastructure.

It occurs to me that if there were some incentive for a company to buy refurbished C-130's, the amount fo air cargo could be considerably increased, operations would be much easier (loading and offloading from a tail ramp, rather than a side hatch), not to mention things would be safer once you replaced 70 year old airplanes......

The incentive? I would suggest the Government be willing to pay C-130 operators a yearly fee (perhaps enough to cover insurance) in return for having the right to charter the planes at need (preempting existing charters, if needed). If that is not feasible, then enrolled them as an "Air Reserve" squadron and allow the pilots and aircrew some paid time to conduct drills and support northern exercises. Many of the things like the semi annual air evacuations of northern communities threatened by fire or flooding would be much easier if the GoC could simply charter a few C-130's or activate the "Northern Air Reserve Squadron".

The only other monies the Federal Government would have to contribute would be upgrading existing airports to handle C-130 sized airplanes, if they don't already have this capability. I'm sure communities that are dependent on air to connect them to the outside world would likely expend their resources to improving airfields as well.

While air freight isn't feasible for taking out iron ore or bulk oil production, it provides a faster and more efficient link for tying communities together, building some economic momentum and establishing footholds for resource companies to do the exploratory work.

[Chief Engineer]

There used to be some shows on there History Channel (or Discovery, lately they all look alike with crap Ancient Aliens and "Reality" shows) about Arctic air cargo operations, which seem to be descendants of the Bush Pilots. These are almost gypsy outfits with one or more C-47 Dakotas you can charter to carry "stuff" around the arctic. This actually makes sense due to the distance and lack of road/rail/shipping infrastructure.

It occurs to me that if there were some incentive for a company to buy refurbished C-130's, the amount fo air cargo could be considerably increased, operations would be much easier (loading and offloading from a tail ramp, rather than a side hatch), not to mention things would be safer once you replaced 70 year old airplanes......

The incentive? I would suggest the Government be willing to pay C-130 operators a yearly fee (perhaps enough to cover insurance) in return for having the right to charter the planes at need (preempting existing charters, if needed). If that is not feasible, then enrolled them as an "Air Reserve" squadron and allow the pilots and aircrew some paid time to conduct drills and support northern exercises. Many of the things like the semi annual air evacuations of northern communities threatened by fire or flooding would be much easier if the GoC could simply charter a few C-130's or activate the "Northern Air Reserve Squadron".

The only other monies the Federal Government would have to contribute would be upgrading existing airports to handle C-130 sized airplanes, if they don't already have this capability. I'm sure communities that are dependent on air to connect them to the outside world would likely expend their resources to improving airfields as well.

While air freight isn't feasible for taking out iron ore or bulk oil production, it provides a faster and more efficient link for tying communities together, building some economic momentum and establishing footholds for resource companies to do the exploratory work.

I believe First Air had operated the civilian variant of the C-130 for cargo.

[YZT580]

The C130 is not a civilian licensed aircraft as far as I know.  There is a civilian variant but it is a different a/c.  In order to use an F or H model for example the aircraft would have to be certified in Canada and that would be very expensive.  Better to go with a new build if you are going to develop that type of freight operation or convert an old B737 that can be gravel certified.  In fact, Lockheed just spent a lot of money certifying a civilian version of their latest.

[Colin P]

There is a civil model of the C130J, expensive I am sure.  http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7540/first-civilian-version-of-the-c-130j-super-hercules-rolls-off-the-assembly-line

You want to assess which airports/airfields/runways get which upgrades. Look at the existing arctic allweather/year round airports, give them upgrades to allow the military to be able to surge and operate from them. Look at which existing gravel airfields could be paved or partly paved, add navigation assist equipment. Extend some of the Gravel strips to handle larger aircraft and provide navigation assists, aircraft parking, areas where structures could be easily set up on and general infrastructure improvements. Then look at areas that could use a smaller airfield that can take a Twin Otter or similar. This means the ability to access these areas most times of the year quickly.
Not sure if the current small airfield do this now, but radio beacons might be still useful and not hard to setup.
Also improve some of the existing water aerodromes by funding upland support infastructure, docks, nav aids and clearing/marking submerged hazards.   

[daftandbarmy]

I believe First Air had operated the civilian variant of the C-130 for cargo.

I have flown a few times in their HS-748, in the Eastern Arctic. They have a moveable bulkhead forward that can be adjusted for cargo, passengers, or a mix of both. And hot food!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/First-Air/Hawker-Siddeley-HS-748-Srs2A-272/781178

[LoboCanada]

I think the expansion of air travel and subsidization of it is a half-measure. Just build a highway or railway, more sustainable and long-term than subsidizing a tiny fleet of civilian C-130s.

I think Northern Corridor projects are a better solution:

Based on the cost and benefit
estimates among the projects included in our study, we estimate that about $11 in economic
benefit and about $11 in fiscal benefit can be generated for every one dollar invested in
transportation and energy infrastructure.

https://nnca.ca/sites/default/files/Recommendations%20on%20Northern%20Infrastructure%20to%20Support%20Economic%20Development.pdf

The report estimates that, if fully built, the corridor would cost $100 billion.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/northern-corridor-infrastructure-transportation-1.3622562


Map of Northern Infastructure projects:
http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/gmap-gcarte/index-eng.html

[Colin P]

you need all 5 , road, rail, ports, electricity and airports. Different areas get a different mix. Rail needs a good resource potential to make it work. But will trigger a lot of resource extraction in the future. 

[suffolkowner]

You would think given the above that getting the rail line to Churchill operational again would be a priority

[Colin P]

It requires real money now, rather than future promises that can be gentle forgotten after the election. It would be difficult to get all of the work done before winter sets in, even if they tendered contracts right now.

[LoboCanada]

Agreed. But even if you just build a railway line only, the economic impact will trigger further needs that will start other projects in roads, airports etc...

Think about the rollover construction savings from being able to ship materials and workers to the sites as opposed to sending them by boat/air.

Northern railway - triggers - development and migration - starts - private/public mix of funded Roads/airports/seaports - on and on...

Sovereignty will almost be a side-benefit.


Edit to add: Expecting Arctic Sovereignty to be the start and reason to push northern infrastructure and development is a pipe dream. Since when have we had significant public/cabinet long-term interest in keeping the military reasonably equipped? Why rely on this short-lived and periodic interest to be reason why a new XYZ mode of transportation is built in the north?

[GR66]

Agreed. But even if you just build a railway line only, the economic impact will trigger further needs that will start other projects in roads, airports etc...

Think about the rollover construction savings from being able to ship materials and workers to the sites as opposed to sending them by boat/air.

Northern railway - triggers - development and migration - starts - private/public mix of funded Roads/airports/seaports - on and on...

Sovereignty will almost be a side-benefit.


Edit to add: Expecting Arctic Sovereignty to be the start and reason to push northern infrastructure and development is a pipe dream. Since when have we had significant public/cabinet long-term interest in keeping the military reasonably equipped? Why rely on this short-lived and periodic interest to be reason why a new XYZ mode of transportation is built in the north?

It's great in theory, but did the Churchill railway line generate all that when it WAS there?  Unfortunately it's more than a case of "if you build it they will come". 

[LoboCanada]

The Churchill rail is tiny compared to what was proposed. Been discussed as the issue was with gov't, private mismanagement among other things.

For image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Northern_Corridor

[Colin P]

It's great in theory, but did the Churchill railway line generate all that when it WAS there?  Unfortunately it's more than a case of "if you build it they will come".

It did work for a time, but it was not meant for resource extraction. One also wonders what the politics were, did they actually try to get new clients, or did they just milk it for as long as they could. 

[Underway]

Churchill railway gets a reprieve.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-port-lentils-1.4808227

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-raiway-sale-omnitrax-1.4807450


Combined with new port facilities being built in Iqaluit it might be cheaper to ship stuff to/from the arctic through Churchill over the summer months.   Hopefully they can make it economically viable.

[Colin P]

Agreed. It would be a confidence building measure to have the government ship materials for the Arctic out of Churchill, even if a tad more expensive. They could make it a prerequisite of any contract that materials must be shipped out of Churchill (just make sure they have the loading capability beforehand).

[Oldgateboatdriver]

With all due respect, Colin, that would not be a smart way of doing thing. Not to mention - considering it would be more expensive - it would smack of political interference in the economy at taxpayer's expense, solely to "justify" Churchill's existence.

As I have indicated before, Churchill may have made some sense for shipping grain to Europe, but in practice, where the NW Passage is concerned, the navigational passages in the Arctic are such that it's just as long to travel at points in the Arctic to/from Churchill as it is to travel to/from St-Johns, or Sept-Iles, Qc. Once you are in Sept-iles, it's only four or five hundred nautical miles more to go to Quebec City or Montreal harbours. Considering most of the stuff consumed in the Arctic in terms of materiel, and a large portion of the food, come from Quebec and Southern Ontario, it makes no economic sense to somehow transport it all to the Peg, then rail it up North to Churchill, just to save those few extra hundred Nautical miles.

[Xylric]

You know, it occurs to me that airships and other rigid lighter-than-air craft would be quite useful in the Arctic, presuming certain modifications to deal with the climate. Would make spotting submarines and other foreign craft crossing through the archipelago much easier, as well.

[Colin P]

With all due respect, Colin, that would not be a smart way of doing thing. Not to mention - considering it would be more expensive - it would smack of political interference in the economy at taxpayer's expense, solely to "justify" Churchill's existence.

As I have indicated before, Churchill may have made some sense for shipping grain to Europe, but in practice, where the NW Passage is concerned, the navigational passages in the Arctic are such that it's just as long to travel at points in the Arctic to/from Churchill as it is to travel to/from St-Johns, or Sept-Iles, Qc. Once you are in Sept-iles, it's only four or five hundred nautical miles more to go to Quebec City or Montreal harbours. Considering most of the stuff consumed in the Arctic in terms of materiel, and a large portion of the food, come from Quebec and Southern Ontario, it makes no economic sense to somehow transport it all to the Peg, then rail it up North to Churchill, just to save those few extra hundred Nautical miles.

I was thinking more bulk products, fuel, concrete, steel.

[daftandbarmy]

You know, it occurs to me that airships and other rigid lighter-than-air craft would be quite useful in the Arctic, presuming certain modifications to deal with the climate. Would make spotting submarines and other foreign craft crossing through the archipelago much easier, as well.

Except for the near hurricane force winds that scour the area year round most of the time, I guess.

[Xylric]

Except for the near hurricane force winds that scour the area year round most of the time, I guess.

That's just an engineering problem no one's bothered to solve yet. 

[Underway]

With all due respect, Colin, that would not be a smart way of doing thing. Not to mention - considering it would be more expensive - it would smack of political interference in the economy at taxpayer's expense, solely to "justify" Churchill's existence.

As I have indicated before, Churchill may have made some sense for shipping grain to Europe, but in practice, where the NW Passage is concerned, the navigational passages in the Arctic are such that it's just as long to travel at points in the Arctic to/from Churchill as it is to travel to/from St-Johns, or Sept-Iles, Qc. Once you are in Sept-iles, it's only four or five hundred nautical miles more to go to Quebec City or Montreal harbours. Considering most of the stuff consumed in the Arctic in terms of materiel, and a large portion of the food, come from Quebec and Southern Ontario, it makes no economic sense to somehow transport it all to the Peg, then rail it up North to Churchill, just to save those few extra hundred Nautical miles.

True, but shipping by... ship is much cheaper then shipping by train for those few hundred miles.  If a case can be made for cheaper shipments for some items then it will be used.  A pipeline to Churchill.  You heard it here first!  No need for Energy East anymore and cuts Quebec right out of the picture.

[daftandbarmy]

That's just an engineering problem no one's bothered to solve yet. 

I recall that the Airborne Regiment used to train to jump into the Arctic in the event of them having to respond to an airliner crashing, or something like that.

I'm not sure that was well thought out either

[Colin P]

True, but shipping by... ship is much cheaper then shipping by train for those few hundred miles.  If a case can be made for cheaper shipments for some items then it will be used.  A pipeline to Churchill.  You heard it here first!  No need for Energy East anymore and cuts Quebec right out of the picture.

I have seen government waste money on far less important things. Contracting some of the materials out of Churchill is a way of subsidizing port revitalization in a indirect fashion, creating jobs and revenue to be invested back in. The hope would be that improved cargo handling will eventually make the port more self sufficient. There are some other ways as well to got goods flowing through, but this would be a statement about the governments commitment about the port.