Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Colin Parkinson]

Thing about LNG, it's transported overland as Natural Gas in a pipeline. so pushing it to Churchill instead makes more sense. The NG can be turned into LNG by a floating facility and stored ashore in tanks. Interestingly enough LNG tanks are insulated and that is enough to keep the LNG stable without active cooling.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thing about LNG, it's transported overland as Natural Gas in a pipeline. so pushing it to Churchill instead makes more sense. The NG can be turned into LNG by a floating facility and stored ashore in tanks. Interestingly enough LNG tanks are insulated and that is enough to keep the LNG stable without active cooling.

Seen and generally agreed.

The difference between Churchill and Moosonee is that Moosonee is about 700 km closer to the TC Pipelines Mainline. It is only about a 300 km push. Like Churchill the push would parallel an existing rail line to support construction.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Thing about LNG, it's transported overland as Natural Gas in a pipeline. so pushing it to Churchill instead makes more sense. The NG can be turned into LNG by a floating facility and stored ashore in tanks. Interestingly enough LNG tanks are insulated and that is enough to keep the LNG stable without active cooling.

Had to do a bit of research about LNG fires for something, and interesting (to me) is that the AFFF foam still forms a barrier preventing off gassing, but happens because the LNG is -185 C or something so it actually freezes the AFFF (which is mostly water) and the ice layer is what stops the off gassing. When you are used to dealing with high flash point fuel fires cryogenic fuel fires is a bit of a mental shift.

A normal puddle of marine diesel is surprisingly hard to light on fire, so in test beds at normal ambient temps in the summer you usually need to put some gasoline on top to 'preheat' the diesel by burning that off first before it will ignite (which is nice when you are talking normal fuel spills).

My takeaway as an adult is that, as long as you instrument things and have a test plan you can do a lot of fun stuff in the name of science that would have gotten you arrested as a kid. Destructive testing really should be a much higher selling feature for STEM careers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Had to do a bit of research about LNG fires for something, and interesting (to me) is that the AFFF foam still forms a barrier preventing off gassing, but happens because the LNG is -185 C or something so it actually freezes the AFFF (which is mostly water) and the ice layer is what stops the off gassing. When you are used to dealing with high flash point fuel fires cryogenic fuel fires is a bit of a mental shift.

A normal puddle of marine diesel is surprisingly hard to light on fire, so in test beds at normal ambient temps in the summer you usually need to put some gasoline on top to 'preheat' the diesel by burning that off first before it will ignite (which is nice when you are talking normal fuel spills).

My takeaway as an adult is that, as long as you instrument things and have a test plan you can do a lot of fun stuff in the name of science that would have gotten you arrested as a kid. Destructive testing really should be a much higher selling feature for STEM careers.

A chap I met along the way, son of a friend and mentor, went from a NAIT diploma as an instrument tech and a job in a refinery to figuring out how to blow up refineries real good and a PhD with his own highly remunerative company.

 

[Kirkhill]

WRT Churchill vs Moosonee

Both.

Moosonee first to establish market presence and trade routes, exploiting immediate demand.

Churchill second, establishing a new northern power transfer corridor across the tops of BC, AB SK and MB.

On the west coast there should be at least two full service hydrocarbons ports as well.

 

[Navy_Pete]

A chap I met along the way, son of a friend and mentor, went from a NAIT diploma as an instrument tech and a job in a refinery to figuring out how to blow up refineries real good and a PhD with his own highly remunerative company.

Figuring out how to break things is a great way to build them better, and usually a lot safer than finding out in some kind of fatal accident (which spawns things like SOLAS regulations after Titanic). Also, even with no injuries those plants run into the hundreds of millions of dollars (or billions) with the cost of downtime being eye watering, so even if you don't care about people it gets expensive quickly.

The days doing destructive testing feels like playtime and not work, and would happily do that stuff as a forever job. Wish I had figured it out sooner, but still a pretty niche field so some good opportunities for a second career.

 

[PrairieFella]

Ive been maintaining Churchill needs a major upgrade and a naval station for years. It is the closest deepwater port to the Old World in the Americas. In my dream world we have a nuclear icebreaker or two operating out of Churchill with AOPS as supporters in order to keep shipping lanes open. It'd be the perfect LNG and grain terminal.

 

[dapaterson]

Ive been maintaining Churchill needs a major upgrade and a naval station for years. It is the closest deepwater port to the Old World in the Americas. In my dream world we have a nuclear icebreaker or two operating out of Churchill with AOPS as supporters in order to keep shipping lanes open. It'd be the perfect LNG and grain terminal.

The rail line is over a lot of challenging terrain, and could easily absorb hundreds of millions in upgrades to improve its reliability.

 

[Kirkhill]

Inuit North - Nunangat Canada as well as Nunangat plus Alaskan and Greenland Inuit.

 

[GK .Dundas]

And if you really want to pour billions in dosh into a hole in the water.
There's always Port Nelson

 

[PrairieFella]

The rail line is over a lot of challenging terrain, and could easily absorb hundreds of millions in upgrades to improve its reliability.

Strategic infrastructure costs money

 

[Kirkhill]

The rail line is over a lot of challenging terrain, and could easily absorb hundreds of millions in upgrades to improve its reliability.

How much has been invested in, and continues to be invested in, the seasonal port of Thunder Bay?
16 locks on the St Lawrence and Great Lakes.

Multiple harbours to dredge.
Ice to break.
Channels to mark.
SAR to support.

It all boils down to how much money can you make by exploiting those ports.

Both Churchill and Moosonee would bypass the entire St Lawrence infrastructure.

St. Lawrence Seaway Shut by Collision

A freighter slammed into a drawbridge on the St.

www.latimes.com

Welland Canal closed after fiery crash (August 13, 2001) - Truck News

ALLANBURG, Ont. -- Nearly a dozen ships are hung up in the Welland Canal, unable to cross through the international...

www.trucknews.com

Montreal News | Local Breaking | CTV News Montreal

Find breaking Montreal & COVID-19 news, live coverage, weather, traffic, in-depth reporting, sports, local events and video.

montreal.ctvnews.ca

https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol06/tnm_6_2_43-66.pdf

Add in strike actions that link to the ocean starts to look kind of tenuous as well as expensive.

300 km of pipe at Moosonee together with some infrastructure - floating and/or fixed - as well as dredging and ice breaking doesn't look like such a major cost.

Likewise for upgrading and maintaining the rail line to Churchill and building 1200 km of line over land not worse than Alaska or the Mackenzie to a deepwater port with a rocky bottom and existing wharfage that opens in April while running to November-December.

 

[YZT580]

How much has been invested in, and continues to be invested in, the seasonal port of Thunder Bay?
16 locks on the St Lawrence and Great Lakes.

Multiple harbours to dredge.
Ice to break.
Channels to mark.
SAR to support.

It all boils down to how much money can you make by exploiting those ports.

Both Churchill and Moosonee would bypass the entire St Lawrence infrastructure.

a standard rail car holds 700 barrels of oil. So a unit train of 100 cars would run 70,000 barrels per train. Why not twin the track sufficiently to permit efficient passing and just run unit trains for the oil and stay with Moose. for the gas

 

[Rudburg]

How much has been invested in, and continues to be invested in, the seasonal port of Thunder Bay?
16 locks on the St Lawrence and Great Lakes.

Multiple harbours to dredge.
Ice to break.
Channels to mark.
SAR to support.

It all boils down to how much money can you make by exploiting those ports.

Both Churchill and Moosonee would bypass the entire St Lawrence infrastructure.

View attachment 85180

St. Lawrence Seaway Shut by Collision

A freighter slammed into a drawbridge on the St.

www.latimes.com

Welland Canal closed after fiery crash (August 13, 2001) - Truck News

ALLANBURG, Ont. -- Nearly a dozen ships are hung up in the Welland Canal, unable to cross through the international...

www.trucknews.com

Montreal News | Local Breaking | CTV News Montreal

Find breaking Montreal & COVID-19 news, live coverage, weather, traffic, in-depth reporting, sports, local events and video.

montreal.ctvnews.ca

https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol06/tnm_6_2_43-66.pdf

Add in strike actions that link to the ocean starts to look kind of tenuous as well as expensive.

300 km of pipe at Moosonee together with some infrastructure - floating and/or fixed - as well as dredging and ice breaking doesn't look like such a major cost.

Likewise for upgrading and maintaining the rail line to Churchill and building 1200 km of line over land not worse than Alaska or the Mackenzie to a deepwater port with a rocky bottom and existing wharfage that opens in April while running to November-December.

The financial benefits of our existing ports is quite high. To use the examples you cited, Thunder Bay handles about 400 ships and 10 million tons of shipping a year. As a whole, the St Lawrence Seaway is over 200 million tons. By way of comparison, in 1940 Britain received about 31 million tons of shipping (the growth of the transportation industry is one of the big economic stories of the 20th century).

It is hard to imagine that kind of volume being handled that far from major population centers. Ports built in the Arctic might be viable if there is an existing economic asset that can be pushed through them. The Ring of Fire might do that, but it isn't there right now. Arctic ports would be almost impossible to make commercially viable if they are at the end of a very long rail or pipeline system that is unusually expensive to maintain.

I do think we need to create ports in the Arctic for security reasons, but I doubt they will ever be able to come close to paying for themselves. I think we have to be willing to eat the costs.

Upthread I mentioned Murmansk. The Russians had other options further south than Murmansk, but they were all seasonal and iced over for much of the year. The reason for this port was that it was the only way the Russians could get a year-round port that allowed shipping to stay out of the Baltic or Black Seas, which was a big deal once WW1 started and their enemies controlled both of those seas. It was expensive, but the Russians (and later the Soviets) felt it was a price that had to be paid.

 

[dapaterson]

So... we're saying CFB YYQ? Station one AOPS there?

 

[Kirkhill]

The financial benefits of our existing ports is quite high. To use the examples you cited, Thunder Bay handles about 400 ships and 10 million tons of shipping a year. As a whole, the St Lawrence Seaway is over 200 million tons. By way of comparison, in 1940 Britain received about 31 million tons of shipping (the growth of the transportation industry is one of the big economic stories of the 20th century).

It is hard to imagine that kind of volume being handled that far from major population centers. Ports built in the Arctic might be viable if there is an existing economic asset that can be pushed through them. The Ring of Fire might do that, but it isn't there right now. Arctic ports would be almost impossible to make commercially viable if they are at the end of a very long rail or pipeline system that is unusually expensive to maintain.

I do think we need to create ports in the Arctic for security reasons, but I doubt they will ever be able to come close to paying for themselves. I think we have to be willing to eat the costs.

Upthread I mentioned Murmansk. The Russians had other options further south than Murmansk, but they were all seasonal and iced over for much of the year. The reason for this port was that it was the only way the Russians could get a year-round port that allowed shipping to stay out of the Baltic or Black Seas, which was a big deal once WW1 started and their enemies controlled both of those seas. It was expensive, but the Russians (and later the Soviets) felt it was a price that had to be paid.

Which came first? The people or the port? Most models tend to see the port being created and the people moving in after the fact.

Fort William/Port Arthur, Sault Ste Marie, Detroit, York, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, Victoria, even Iqaluit. All of them started as trading posts, trans-shipment points where foreign people in ships bought goods from local people.

Successful ports became cities. Some became self-supporting and self-renewing.

Prince Rupert and Kitimat both attracted people after they were built.

...

Working in the Arctic, as you say about the Russians, is expensive. But the difference between the Russians and modern Canadians is that the Russians are willing to pay the price.

To be honest I question whether any modern Canadian business owner or politician, confronted with the Canada of 1604 or 1670, would have invested anything at all in the place.

...

As to CFB YYQ - I'd like to see it. I think it is worth doing. And then I think about CFB YOD...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

WRT Churchill vs Moosonee

Both.

Moosonee first to establish market presence and trade routes, exploiting immediate demand.

Churchill second, establishing a new northern power transfer corridor across the tops of BC, AB SK and MB.

On the west coast there should be at least two full service hydrocarbons ports as well.

Kitimat sort had that with Methenex. Prince Rupert now has bunkering service. The problem is that refined product has to come from Aberta, Prince George or Alaska. There is also limited shore space for tankage and very limited space to run yet another pipeline beside the Skeena. We do need a another refinery on this coast. But very unlikely to happen unless there is a foreign customer for some sort of hydrocarbon were you could build an adjacent 20,000 bpd refining facility as part of the export facility. That idea is being kicked around by some of the FN's in northern BC

 

[Rudburg]

Which came first? The people or the port? Most models tend to see the port being created and the people moving in after the fact.

Fort William/Port Arthur, Sault Ste Marie, Detroit, York, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, Victoria, even Iqaluit. All of them started as trading posts, trans-shipment points where foreign people in ships bought goods from local people.

Successful ports became cities. Some became self-supporting and self-renewing.

Prince Rupert and Kitimat both attracted people after they were built.

...

Working in the Arctic, as you say about the Russians, is expensive. But the difference between the Russians and modern Canadians is that the Russians are willing to pay the price.

To be honest I question whether any modern Canadian business owner or politician, confronted with the Canada of 1604 or 1670, would have invested anything at all in the place.

...

As to CFB YYQ - I'd like to see it. I think it is worth doing. And then I think about CFB YOD...

It's not really a chicken-and-egg thing, they usually grow in tandem, provided that they are economically viable. Improved transportation will create new economic opportunities and draw people in, which is why new factories tend to get built around an existing highway. More people also creates new economic opportunities and increases the requirement for better transportation; this is why a big city will get access to a new highway before a small village. The first ports in the cities you mentioned were wooden docks designed to handle small sailing vessels; the bigger ones now can handle 100,000+ ton bulk carriers. But some cities never go beyond the small wooden docks.

If you consider it from a supply/demand picture, ports supply imported goods to their local region and they also supply exported goods to the world. But the demand for those goods has to exist in the first place, or there will be no port; there will also be no port if it is impossible to supply goods at a competitive price.

 

[KevinB]

It's not really a chicken-and-egg thing, they usually grow in tandem, provided that they are economically viable.

I’d argue it is totally chicken v egg, but in an agreement with you. As without means of transportation urban areas aren’t viable. It may not be a port, it could be a railway station and/or an airport, or all three. But urban areas require transportation to move needed goods into it to support growth past subsistence. But they also require commodities to transport out, not just bring in.

Improved transportation will create new economic opportunities and draw people in, which is why new factories tend to get built around an existing highway. More people also creates new economic opportunities and increases the requirement for better transportation; this is why a big city will get access to a new highway before a small village. The first ports in the cities you mentioned were wooden docks designed to handle small sailing vessels; the bigger ones now can handle 100,000+ ton bulk carriers. But some cities never go beyond the small wooden docks.

Location, location, location…
There needs to be a reason for the growth, early days had ports being a necessity for commerce, or defense. Towns sprung up in the Ottawa valley due to logging and the river was the highway. Many of those towns have crumbled as the trade moved on or disappeared.

Simply building a port without something to ‘export’ means the town/city is limited in its growth and ability to support itself.

If you consider it from a supply/demand picture, ports supply imported goods to their local region and they also supply exported goods to the world. But the demand for those goods has to exist in the first place, or there will be no port; there will also be no port if it is impossible to supply goods at a competitive price.

Agreed. In Canada’s northern regions there are many riches that haven’t been touched
‘Rare Earth’ minerals exist in large quantities, and if Canada was pragmatic about itself - one would see northern expansion to be a major benefit to the Canadian economy, as well as the West, as currently most of those resources are acquired from hostile regimes.

 

[Czech_pivo]

View attachment 85176
View attachment 85177

Inuit North - Nunangat Canada as well as Nunangat plus Alaskan and Greenland Inuit.

View attachment 85178View attachment 85179

Whats the distance to close for a road from Thompson to Churchill to occur?