Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[Kirkhill]

Having been in meetings with Canadian Ice Services last week, I can assure you that the North West Passage is far less passable than people think, and warming has actually made it harder to navigate, due to changes in ice patterns.

Dreams of the NWP making the Panama Canal obsolete are pipe dreams, not reality.

Suppose we don't go through the Northwest Passage. Suppose we bypass it to the south.



If I am reading this info right the ice in Hudson Bay is >30 cm or more than a foot thick but it forms fresh every year when the bay clears. It is first year ice.

There is open water at Port Nelson but to get from Port Nelson to Churchill you have to pass through water that is about half open water and half ice (yellow 4-6 tenths). To get out of Churchill there is a mix of open water (blue), 25% ice cover (green), 50% ice cover (yellow) and 75% ice cover (75%). And that ice cover is >30 cm.

Then there is a blue water passage to the entrance to Hudson Strait. The Strait varies between 10 to 50% ice cover and bergy bits. Bergy bits seems to describe the water all the way down the west coast of Greenland from Baffin Bay, through the Labrador Sea to south of the Grand Banks.




There does seem to be a bit of traffic in that bergy water, especially east of Newfoundland.

Harry de Wolf is supposed to be Polar Class 5 (70 to 120 cm)
FedNav's Umiak I is rated for independent ops in 1.5 meter ice (DNV ICE-15)
Nunavik and Arvik are both rated at Polar Class 4 (> 120 cm ice)



Shouldn't those PC 4 and 5 ships be able to navigate even that 30 cm first year ice in the red zones?

 

[Furniture]

Suppose we don't go through the Northwest Passage. Suppose we bypass it to the south.

View attachment 94125

If I am reading this info right the ice in Hudson Bay is >30 cm or more than a foot thick but it forms fresh every year when the bay clears. It is first year ice.

There is open water at Port Nelson but to get from Port Nelson to Churchill you have to pass through water that is about half open water and half ice (yellow 4-6 tenths). To get out of Churchill there is a mix of open water (blue), 25% ice cover (green), 50% ice cover (yellow) and 75% ice cover (75%). And that ice cover is >30 cm.

Then there is a blue water passage to the entrance to Hudson Strait. The Strait varies between 10 to 50% ice cover and bergy bits. Bergy bits seems to describe the water all the way down the west coast of Greenland from Baffin Bay, through the Labrador Sea to south of the Grand Banks.

View attachment 94124

View attachment 94123
There does seem to be a bit of traffic in that bergy water, especially east of Newfoundland.

View attachment 94126 Harry de Wolf is supposed to be Polar Class 5 (70 to 120 cm)
View attachment 94130 FedNav's Umiak I is rated for independent ops in 1.5 meter ice (DNV ICE-15)
View attachment 94129Nunavik and Arvik are both rated at Polar Class 4 (> 120 cm ice)

View attachment 94128

Shouldn't those PC 4 and 5 ships be able to navigate even that 30 cm first year ice in the red zones?

To be clear, while mentioning the NWP, my point was, the Arctic is more complex than ever.

Ice Service Specialists, who work for Canadian Ice Services abord RCN and CCG ships, have made specific ice observations that indicate that passages in the arctic are more prone to ice related disruptions than before..

You can post all the ice charts you want, but the people who make those charts, and the people who observe the ice conditions that get added to the charts all say that the environment is more complex than before.

Just so we understand who is typing/speaking... I am the Staff Officer Meteorology for the RCN, and have regular contact with ECCC, and therefore CIS as a regular part of my job. When I make comments about Met or Ice related things on this forum, I am not just pulling ideas from the internet/my ass...

 

[Kirkhill]

This is the Malik Arctica reported operating in the bergy water of southern Baffin Bay today.

Malik Arctica was delivered in 2017 and has a capacity of 606 TEU containers.

With its own PRAM, the ship is able to operate in places without port facilities.

The ship calls in at most towns in Greenland, both on the east coast and the west coast.

Furthermore, Malik Arctica sails in the Qaanaaq district and in Northeast Greenland in the summer months. In Northeast Greenland, the ship delivers e.g. fuel and other supplies to the Sirius Patrol (Military).

Malik Arctica ice-going supply vessel delivered to RAL

[caption id="attachment_4612" align="aligncenter" width="1200"]

www.polandatsea.com

On 16 March 2017, the Malik Arctica arctic ice-classed supply vessel built at Remontowa Shipbuilding SA for Greenland’s Royal Arctic Line (RAL) left the Polish Gdansk – based yard heading Denmark. The vessel had been officially delivered to the Owners on 16 February, but remained in the yard for a month prior to its departure.

Malik Arctica is one in a series of ice-going supply vessels destined for RAL. The 606 TEU and DNV GL classed ship is a slightly modified sister to Mary Arctica, previously delivered by Remontowa Shipbuilding in 2005. The new vessel is expected to replace the 1984-built Arina Arctica.

The ship will be deployed in Atlantic route, as a feeder ship for Greenland (connecting mainly Aalborg and the Greenland capital of Nuuk, the company’s hub port). As an important and long-mooted part of the development of the country’s transport infrastructure, a new container terminal is under construction at Nuuk that is expected to open by 2017.

https://www.royalarcticline.com/media/877274/2019_06_malik_arctica_web.pdf

Malik Arctica​

Class notation. 1A1 General Cargo Carrier, Container, DG-P, PC6,

DNV GL 1A1 or PC6 or 70 to 120 cm ice.

 

[Kirkhill]

To be clear, while mentioning the NWP, my point was, the Arctic is more complex than ever.

Ice Service Specialists, who work for Canadian Ice Services abord RCN and CCG ships, have made specific ice observations that indicate that passages in the arctic are more prone to ice related disruptions than before..

You can post all the ice charts you want, but the people who make those charts, and the people who observe the ice conditions that get added to the charts all say that the environment is more complex than before.

Just so we understand who is typing/speaking... I am the Staff Officer Meteorology for the RCN, and have regular contact with ECCC, and therefore CIS as a regular part of my job. When I make comments about Met or Ice related things on this forum, I am not just pulling ideas from the internet/my ass...

I understand your qualifications and respect them. That is why I am asking questions.

Cheers.

 

[Furniture]

I understand your qualifications and respect them. That is why I am asking questions.

Cheers.

My point wasn't to stifle discussion, just to add some weight to the reality on the ground.

The environment has become more difficult, and less predictable. Which means we need to be more cautious about shipping in the arctic.

 

[Kirkhill]

I guess I am just trying to understand why all the interest, why people like FedNav are investing in ice-capable ships to service arctic mines, why there is active promotion of the Hudson Bay route.

 

[Underway]

I guess I am just trying to understand why all the interest, why people like FedNav are investing in ice-capable ships to service arctic mines, why there is active promotion of the Hudson Bay route.

Hudson Bay isn't the NWP. Ice conditions there clearly are different. Ice there is different.

And active promotion happens for a lot of things especially when people don't know the third order effects.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I guess I am just trying to understand why all the interest, why people like FedNav are investing in ice-capable ships to service arctic mines, why there is active promotion of the Hudson Bay route.

I’d offered up the answer, because it doesn’t involve Quebec…..

 

[FJAG]

I guess I am just trying to understand why all the interest, why people like FedNav are investing in ice-capable ships to service arctic mines, why there is active promotion of the Hudson Bay route.

I went to Manitoba for the first time in 1965 (albeit briefly). There had been a program to ship grain from there from roughly late July to end October for several decades, all dependent on a limited open season and one rickety rail line. It put out around a half a million tons of grain in, usually, less than twenty freighter loads.

Political pressure has been constant to expand the port's use. The reality of the costs involved intervenes.

 

[PrairieFella]

I went to Manitoba for the first time in 1965 (albeit briefly). There had been a program to ship grain from there from roughly late July to end October for several decades, all dependent on a limited open season and one rickety rail line. It put out around a half a million tons of grain in, usually, less than twenty freighter loads.

Political pressure has been constant to expand the port's use. The reality of the costs involved intervenes.

The fortunes of the port are changing. They've recently shipped minerals and potash from the port. With the right infrastructure and an icebreaking program, I cant see a reason it cant work, even if it only ships for 7-8 months a year to start.

 

[childs56]

The fortunes of the port are changing. They've recently shipped minerals and potash from the port. With the right infrastructure and an icebreaking program, I cant see a reason it cant work, even if it only ships for 7-8 months a year to start.

I 100% agree
Countries stock pile product on both shipping and receiving end. As long as one can store then ship product in mass during the short season the Port of Churchill can and would work.
The money investment has not been there due to the price of what they are shipping. If your adding high value product such as Oil and Natural Gas things become much more lucrative for all parties to put a fee dollars into the pot to make things happen.

I look forward to seeing more products and services being shipped and serviced through different ports then just the ones on the East and West Coast. They hold us hostage when they want to.

 

[Kirkhill]

If needs must?

There can be a great difference between that which is desirable and that which is possible. The difference is measured in cost and risk. The 401 across Toronto is free. The 407 is tolled. The 407 gets traffic. It would be desirable if the journey across town were free but there are advantages worth paying for.

The existing Trans-Canada infrastructure may be "free" or at least low risk because it is well understood and defined but it seems that there is a market for alternate solutions.

One of the things that intrigues me is what appears to be a different attitude by the Danish Government to what constitutes infrastructure in Greenland and what Canada considers infrastructure.

Denmark treats its ships and ports like railways and highways. More like trains (which are often nationalized) than trucks (which are often privately held). They also see the system as having military value because it serves the logistic needs of the military.

Royal Arctic Line A/S (RAL) or Royal Arctic is a seaborne freight company in Greenland, wholly owned by the Government of Greenland. It was formed in 1993,

History​

Royal Arctic Line A/S was spun off as a company separate from the Greenlandic conglomerate KNI in 1993. Like many Greenlandic companies, its operations derive from and carry on the traditions of the earlier Royal Greenland Trading Department.

Operations​

The company has a monopoly on all sea transport of cargo to, from, and within Greenland. Construction materials account for roughly a quarter of shipping to Greenland; fish makes up roughly half of shipping from Greenland; fish and beverages bottled at Nuuk (principally water and beer) account for most shipping within Greenland.

Royal Arctic operates cargo routes among the Greenland settlements and between Nuuk and Aarhus in Denmark and manages 13 harbors in Greenland, which serves as the source for all European shipping to the island. Seaborne traffic from North America goes to Reykjavík aboard Eimskip, whence it is carried to Greenland aboard Royal Arctic Line.

In 2011, government concessions accounted for 76% of the company's income. The Transport Committee newly formed by the Greenland Home Rule government issued a report stating that liberalisation of the shipping market offers no benefits and the current concession is reasonable. It also began planning with RAL and stakeholders to expand the harbors in Nuuk and Sisimiut.

Royal Arctic Line - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It sounds as if the Royal Arctic Line had its roots in the Danish version of the Hudson Bay Company but the Danish Company was a crown corporation and not a private enterprise.

Historical footnote -

Greenland was on the international trading routes from about 985 AD. The Viking Norse and the Thule Inuit met there in the 11th century during a warm period with the Norse coming from the east and the Inuit from the west after crossing Cape Dorset Inuit territory.

They fought. They traded. They intermarried. They paid taxes to Norway and to Rome. Then the weather turned cold around 1300 and in 1410 the last ship to Iceland and Norway left. That was a privately owned ship that had been blown off course four years previous in 1406 and ended up in Greenland by accident.

The next Norse ship didn't show up until 1728 or so.

322 years of isolation.

There was some intermittent contact with other Europeans operating out of UK, Dutch, French, Basque and Iberian ports that were fishing an whaling off the coast but the ice was so pervasive that Greenland, Spitsbergen and Baffin Island were often construed as one mass. Kind of like much of our existing arctic archipelago.

That might influence the local's attitude to contact and infrastructure.

....

By comparison the Inuit in Canada were served by the HBC, for a fee. They had access to European goods and services in return for Arctic goods and services. Until they came under Canadian jurisdiction.