The Arctic - Resource Exploitation, Development and Population

[Underway]

Using this logic, we should never have built a railroad across the country and no government should ever invest in any infrastructure in remote areas as its "unnatural".  There are places in the World that are as difficult as the most remote regions in Canada to access and yet that development is occurring.  Government totally has the ability to influence the natural settlement of people along with the development of industry.  Every Empire in history has been built off of the quest for riches and wealth in previously undiscovered locales.  Gold in the New World was the impetus for the strengthening of the Spanish Empire and the Spanish made considerable investments getting that gold.  Likewise, European Powers spent large sums colonizing and exploiting Africa.  The British even tried building a railway from Cape Town to Cairo and would have succeeded had the Great Depression not affected the economics of the final piece of the project.

What's my point?  Governments can and do influence development. Canada hasn't developed its North or its immense resource wealth at its disposal, the real question isn't why we have not?  It is: should we?

My opinion is that Canada is essentially a Satrapy of the United States and while there is an underlying Anti-Americanism that exists within Canada, we are 100% focused on looking South as opposed to North.  The American tail always wags the Canadian dog.

I was referring mainly to the natural alignment of settlement in Ontario along waterways to explain why Ontario doesn't and hasn't invested in the north in comparison to other provinces.  It's waters run east west.  Manitoba's for example runs north south. WRT Alaska it's no surprise that the great cities of the world are all located on great rivers and important ports.  Northern Canada has few frost free ports inland (mainly because its inland! But also because all the great northern rivers freeze).  The communities inland that naturally grew were along the waterways and the railroad was constructed to connect them more effectively to the rest of Canada.  But a railway isn't even close to a port in terms of wealth generation and people tend to move where there is wealth.  Hence Montreal grew huge, then Toronto after the St. Lawrence Seaway/Welland Canal was constructed, and now Vancouver (busiest port on the west coast of NA) as Asian trade become more important.  Alaska has investment because its easy to ship those resources to markets.  Yukon needs the train to get access to the world.  Alaska already has it.

As for gov't investment, yes governments can spur things with investment like the St. Laurence Seaway.  But that's to connect already existing markets and resources.  Not develop ones that aren't being accessed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Thankfully BC had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._C._Bennett

BC is still in a way riding the coattails of his vision. For the record, water in BC flows either East-West, North-South or South to Arctic, depending where you are in relationship to the divides.

 

[Underway]

Thankfully BC had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._C._Bennett

BC is still in a way riding the coattails of his vision. For the record, water in BC flows either East-West, North-South or South to Arctic, depending where you are in relationship to the divides.

In Ontario all the rivers go north south.  But the big waterways are east west.  BC is similar in that the ocean is north south and the waterways that are navigable take the resources to the ocean.  Hence the biggest settlements in BC are where the ports are on the water.  I am also a fan of Bennett.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

He had his quirks, i get to read old correspondence on our files from that time, in BC eyes, Ottawa was basically the Galactic Empire, evil incarnate that should keep their nose out of all things Provincial. Which for him was anything west of the provincial border. I am sad he never finished his railway to Dease lake. https://www.flickr.com/groups/375539@N24/discuss/72157600541709752/

 

[daftandbarmy]

He had his quirks, i get to read old correspondence on our files from that time, in BC eyes, Ottawa was basically the Galactic Empire, evil incarnate that should keep their nose out of all things Provincial. Which for him was anything west of the provincial border. I am sad he never finished his railway to Dease lake. https://www.flickr.com/groups/375539@N24/discuss/72157600541709752/

Yes, I'm 68, but when I was a boy I was too poor to smoke, so knock off ten years. That makes me 58. And since I never developed the drinking habit, you can knock off ten more years. So I'm 48 - in the prime of my life. Retire? Retire to what?

- W. A. C. Bennett


WAC Bennett Would Be NDP Today

https://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/01/19/WACNDP/

 

[Stoker]

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.

 

[Stoker]

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

 

[a_majoor]

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.

 

[Stoker]

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 Parkinson]

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

 

[Dale Denton]

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 Parkinson]

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 Parkinson]

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.

 

[Dale Denton]

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". 

 

[Dale Denton]

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 Parkinson]

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.