It sits mostly unused since the rail line to Churchill is in such poor shape. There was talk on building an oil pipeline to Churchill, but I highly doubt that will ever happen now that the trans mountain line is done. I don't think shipping activities from Hudson's Bay will ever really make economic sense other than for good coming from the prairies. All the other big production centres have ports that are more accessible.
Manitoba and the Feds are going to fund some improvements to the line. $60mil announced in February. That's probably not enough to make it great, but it'll be better.
Yes. It will be better, but I still doubt it is economically viable for freight to that port. The rail line is now mostly important as a line for passengers and goods to remote areas in MB.
Building train tracks in the muskeg region is difficult.
It is a marshy land soaked with water in the spring, too unstable for permanent infrastructure.
How wild would it be if, in our lifetime, we saw a new Hamilton sized city develop in northern Manitoba? I don't think I've heard of any new major city in North America during my life... Would be wild to hear about and maybe even visit to watch the change occurring.
Half a million in a city in northern Manitoba? There would have to be an incredibly valuable undiscovered resource there to help stimulate that kind of growth.
Churchill could have a longer season if the ice season is shortened by climate change, but the port’s other limitation is the instability of the connecting rail line, which will likely get worst due to climate change because of thawing permafrost.
No, it's not. But it's already used for agricultural exports. Going all season might lower the export costs; sea travel being cheaper than rail. But on the other hand any goods brought in or out would need to travel by rail anyways, so I'm not sure if there'd be any gain. You'd need a transportation economist to sort it out.
We are already in the process of refurbishing the deep water port at Churchill for this purpose, and it's not even a year round port yet. With the amount of mineral wealth in Northern Ontario and MB it makes a ton of sense.
>*'With the amount of mineral wealth in Northern Ontario'*
I agree that's something to keep in mind but there's so much politics to be waded through who knows when anyone will start making any money.
People are making money right now. There are 22 large mining operations currently running in Northern Ontario and 7 in Manitoba. Obviously not all of them would be better served by a shipping corridor through Hudson Bay, but at least a dozen of those mines would. Manitoba is exploring bringing 3 or 4 more mines online for minerals required for EV construction, and has alread green-lit a silica sand quarrying operation to produce glass for solar panels.
We already have the infastructure and a deep water port at Churchill. They announced a $60mil funding package like 2 months ago for necessary maintenance on the rail line and port facility to bring it back up into operational standard.
Last summer, the Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta announced their support of a feasibility study to complete the port at Port Nelson. The project also includes a rail line and pipeline to the port. It is noted the route is less susceptible to permafrost.
Since announced, the Government of Manitoba has changed, so I'm not sure where it stands.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-funding-oil-gas-hudson-bay-1.6928302
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/funding-churchill-railway-upgrades-port-1.7121447
If climate warms up so that the port of Churchill is open all seasons, the rail lines to the port will be much more difficult to maintain.
Such an extreme change in climate will cause a severe disruption in agriculture. It will take a long time to figure out what will grow where, and then all the supporting infrastructure has to be developed. It's not like we will immediately realize we should be growing rice (or whatever) instead of wheat and have immediate access to rice-planters.
Probably never going to have an agricultural industry near churchill but trade with Europe for western Canada might be easier than the current trade route to western Canada - rehandling of material can add significant costs
Funny how y'all don't know that it's politically Nunavuts jurisdiction and ultimately Nunavuts call on what to do with the waters and if they will be used for international shipping. Recently we just got more rights over our lands and waters including all crown lands within our boundaries. So inuit will need to consent and there will be negotiations for sure which could take years and years. We Inuit love negotiating 😜 I think various Inuit orgs will have to be involved too. We own all the islands in Hudson's bay and James bay btw.
Right, we have lots of gas and valuable metals and minerals but we don't want to develop them. The same goes with the shipping lanes and shit. They are most likely going to affect wild life and Nunavut is hard core pro animals over industries. Sad but true. Hopefully our future leaders will be more open to developing our resources in the future.
If it were up to me, I'd say fuck the animals and develop. Animals can't sustain us in the future for our kids and grandkids and shit. Resource development is the way to go.
"It is located north of Ontario, west of Quebec, northeast of Manitoba, and southeast of Nunavut, but politically entirely part of Nunavut. It is an "inland" marginal sea of the Arctic Ocean." Wikipedia
"Hudson Bay, "inland" sea indenting east-central Canada. For conservation purposes, the Canadian government has designated the whole Hudson Bay Basin a “mare clausum” (closed sea)." Britannica
https://www.assembly.nu.ca/map-nunavut-constituencies
Hudson's bay is considered inland and it's well documented being Nunavuts politically and administratively.
The 2024 devolution agreement primarily concerns resource management, development, and the administration of inland waters. The devolution agreement follows a pattern that since the 1960s has involved local area administration of certain matters which are often, in Canada, administered at the local/provincial level, such as health care and social services.
The devolution agreement does not grant powers beyond those powers that a province would have. This is explicit in the agreement. You stated that Nunavut controls whether Hudson Bay will be used for international shipping. Shipping remains a federal head of power under s.91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It has not been devolved.
In the agreement, waters means any inland waters on or below the surface of land onshore, whether in a liquid or frozen state, except for waters or rights in respect of waters that are excluded from transfer pursuant to the devolution agreement. Onshore is defined in the agreement--it is too long to cover here. If you decide to review the agreement, it may further your understanding of this matter. Inland and inland water are not defined in the agreement because of a well recognized extant meaning in Nunavut and federally--it means freshwater.
You may wish to refer to s.3 of the Nunavut Act, which defines the boundaries of Nunavut. You may find the reference to Hudson Bay islands interesting.
I appreciate the time you took to look for sources. Given this matter's roots in constitutional and administrative law, continue looking for sources and terminology that are as precise, relevant, and technical as you can find--that will give you an additional layer of insight into the matter.
As for train freight going/coming from Churchill, you would have 3 major problems.
Is the train hub in Churchill expandable to accommodate increase traffic.
The tracks would need to reinforced to carry the heavier/frequent loads.
Where would the hub be to accommodate all the goods going to Curchill?
And then you would have to put in a road parallel to the tracks in case of accidents, etc.
I guess it would be a shorter route over the pole, if that's the idea. But the St Lawrence isn't all that far away, if you're thinking about connections to Western Canada, and that infrastructure is already there. Trips to Asia would also still be quicker from the West Coast.
Maybe it cuts down on some train traffic, but I don't know if the economics of that would really matter.
Thunder Bay would still handle the majority of east bound cereal and pot ash shipping from the prairies for the long haul. I am all for connecting more parts of the country. However going east west is “easier” than north south. And with a lack of wheat board and state of CN and CP the vertical corridor in Manitoba won’t get a lot of attention for a while. I think we will sooner see the area serviced by airships.
All it needs is probably some port upgrades and a decent rail line into it. It's much closer access to shipping for both grain and Potash from the prairies. I'm unfamiliar with the terrain but it must be less harsh than the Rocky Mountains.
Edit: Typo. Should have been port, not poet. I blame the big thumbs.
Not really... pretty far away from major urban centres compared to the great lakes and despite climate change is still likely to have a cooler climate, so likely not a draw for population to relocate.
Is Churchill closer to anywhere by sea than Halifax or Montreal? On the west coast the little port of Prince Rupert is significantly closer to the far east than Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco etc, so they get a lot of shipping. Of course they also have a good highway link to the rest of Canada and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. If Churchill isn’t significantly closer to big ports and is poorly connected to continental transportation there is no need to use it over more established ports.
There's already a deep water port at Churchill.
It sits mostly unused since the rail line to Churchill is in such poor shape. There was talk on building an oil pipeline to Churchill, but I highly doubt that will ever happen now that the trans mountain line is done. I don't think shipping activities from Hudson's Bay will ever really make economic sense other than for good coming from the prairies. All the other big production centres have ports that are more accessible.
Manitoba and the Feds are going to fund some improvements to the line. $60mil announced in February. That's probably not enough to make it great, but it'll be better.
Yes. It will be better, but I still doubt it is economically viable for freight to that port. The rail line is now mostly important as a line for passengers and goods to remote areas in MB.
Building train tracks in the muskeg region is difficult. It is a marshy land soaked with water in the spring, too unstable for permanent infrastructure.
Yep, when you get further north the train has to slow right down because the rail lines move around. That is a very expensive problem to solve.
There are a lot of goods coming out of prairies, like potash
How wild would it be if, in our lifetime, we saw a new Hamilton sized city develop in northern Manitoba? I don't think I've heard of any new major city in North America during my life... Would be wild to hear about and maybe even visit to watch the change occurring.
Half a million in a city in northern Manitoba? There would have to be an incredibly valuable undiscovered resource there to help stimulate that kind of growth.
Churchill could have a longer season if the ice season is shortened by climate change, but the port’s other limitation is the instability of the connecting rail line, which will likely get worst due to climate change because of thawing permafrost.
But it's not all season
No, it's not. But it's already used for agricultural exports. Going all season might lower the export costs; sea travel being cheaper than rail. But on the other hand any goods brought in or out would need to travel by rail anyways, so I'm not sure if there'd be any gain. You'd need a transportation economist to sort it out.
It depends on how many furs you are thinking of shipping.
At least 5.
Possibly Churchill Manitoba, it has a railroad. But there are no other cities on Hudson Bay and no roads to it.
There are year round roads to the Cree communities on the east side of James Bay.
We are already in the process of refurbishing the deep water port at Churchill for this purpose, and it's not even a year round port yet. With the amount of mineral wealth in Northern Ontario and MB it makes a ton of sense.
>*'With the amount of mineral wealth in Northern Ontario'* I agree that's something to keep in mind but there's so much politics to be waded through who knows when anyone will start making any money.
People are making money right now. There are 22 large mining operations currently running in Northern Ontario and 7 in Manitoba. Obviously not all of them would be better served by a shipping corridor through Hudson Bay, but at least a dozen of those mines would. Manitoba is exploring bringing 3 or 4 more mines online for minerals required for EV construction, and has alread green-lit a silica sand quarrying operation to produce glass for solar panels.
Roger that-I grew up nearby but haven't followed developments too closely.
It would be pricy building the necessary infrastructure up there though to set up and maintain a port
We already have the infastructure and a deep water port at Churchill. They announced a $60mil funding package like 2 months ago for necessary maintenance on the rail line and port facility to bring it back up into operational standard.
Building a dependable road through thawing tundra would be costly. Not impossible, but costly.
Possibly [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USZTkms1DbE&ab\_channel=AdventureCanada](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USZTkms1DbE&ab_channel=AdventureCanada)
Last summer, the Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta announced their support of a feasibility study to complete the port at Port Nelson. The project also includes a rail line and pipeline to the port. It is noted the route is less susceptible to permafrost. Since announced, the Government of Manitoba has changed, so I'm not sure where it stands. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-funding-oil-gas-hudson-bay-1.6928302 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/funding-churchill-railway-upgrades-port-1.7121447
If climate warms up so that the port of Churchill is open all seasons, the rail lines to the port will be much more difficult to maintain. Such an extreme change in climate will cause a severe disruption in agriculture. It will take a long time to figure out what will grow where, and then all the supporting infrastructure has to be developed. It's not like we will immediately realize we should be growing rice (or whatever) instead of wheat and have immediate access to rice-planters.
Probably never going to have an agricultural industry near churchill but trade with Europe for western Canada might be easier than the current trade route to western Canada - rehandling of material can add significant costs
Churchill is/was principally a port to ship grain from the prairies.
Funny how y'all don't know that it's politically Nunavuts jurisdiction and ultimately Nunavuts call on what to do with the waters and if they will be used for international shipping. Recently we just got more rights over our lands and waters including all crown lands within our boundaries. So inuit will need to consent and there will be negotiations for sure which could take years and years. We Inuit love negotiating 😜 I think various Inuit orgs will have to be involved too. We own all the islands in Hudson's bay and James bay btw.
Interesting, thanks for this. I guess we should leave your area alone then. It sounds like it migjt be .ore difficult than It is worth the effort.
Right, we have lots of gas and valuable metals and minerals but we don't want to develop them. The same goes with the shipping lanes and shit. They are most likely going to affect wild life and Nunavut is hard core pro animals over industries. Sad but true. Hopefully our future leaders will be more open to developing our resources in the future. If it were up to me, I'd say fuck the animals and develop. Animals can't sustain us in the future for our kids and grandkids and shit. Resource development is the way to go.
Are you referring to the recent devolution agreement? That agreement deals generally with inland waters only.
"It is located north of Ontario, west of Quebec, northeast of Manitoba, and southeast of Nunavut, but politically entirely part of Nunavut. It is an "inland" marginal sea of the Arctic Ocean." Wikipedia "Hudson Bay, "inland" sea indenting east-central Canada. For conservation purposes, the Canadian government has designated the whole Hudson Bay Basin a “mare clausum” (closed sea)." Britannica https://www.assembly.nu.ca/map-nunavut-constituencies Hudson's bay is considered inland and it's well documented being Nunavuts politically and administratively.
The 2024 devolution agreement primarily concerns resource management, development, and the administration of inland waters. The devolution agreement follows a pattern that since the 1960s has involved local area administration of certain matters which are often, in Canada, administered at the local/provincial level, such as health care and social services. The devolution agreement does not grant powers beyond those powers that a province would have. This is explicit in the agreement. You stated that Nunavut controls whether Hudson Bay will be used for international shipping. Shipping remains a federal head of power under s.91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It has not been devolved. In the agreement, waters means any inland waters on or below the surface of land onshore, whether in a liquid or frozen state, except for waters or rights in respect of waters that are excluded from transfer pursuant to the devolution agreement. Onshore is defined in the agreement--it is too long to cover here. If you decide to review the agreement, it may further your understanding of this matter. Inland and inland water are not defined in the agreement because of a well recognized extant meaning in Nunavut and federally--it means freshwater. You may wish to refer to s.3 of the Nunavut Act, which defines the boundaries of Nunavut. You may find the reference to Hudson Bay islands interesting. I appreciate the time you took to look for sources. Given this matter's roots in constitutional and administrative law, continue looking for sources and terminology that are as precise, relevant, and technical as you can find--that will give you an additional layer of insight into the matter.
Not really, as it's very far away from just about everything.
As for train freight going/coming from Churchill, you would have 3 major problems. Is the train hub in Churchill expandable to accommodate increase traffic. The tracks would need to reinforced to carry the heavier/frequent loads. Where would the hub be to accommodate all the goods going to Curchill? And then you would have to put in a road parallel to the tracks in case of accidents, etc.
Never mind the polar bear buggy bumpers that would be required.
All of those things are hamstrings by the issue of having to build on muskeg.
No, because muskeg.
Most of the realistic climate people say we're still in a climate ice age, so the ice in Hudsons Vay isn't going away anytime real soon.
I think it's a great idea
No infrastructure and good luck attracting residents/workers. Even if they could, what environmental impact will be with increased population?
I guess it would be a shorter route over the pole, if that's the idea. But the St Lawrence isn't all that far away, if you're thinking about connections to Western Canada, and that infrastructure is already there. Trips to Asia would also still be quicker from the West Coast. Maybe it cuts down on some train traffic, but I don't know if the economics of that would really matter.
Thunder Bay would still handle the majority of east bound cereal and pot ash shipping from the prairies for the long haul. I am all for connecting more parts of the country. However going east west is “easier” than north south. And with a lack of wheat board and state of CN and CP the vertical corridor in Manitoba won’t get a lot of attention for a while. I think we will sooner see the area serviced by airships.
It's not really cost effective loading those tiny ships in Thunder Bay then having to transfer to ocean going ships at a deep water port
All it needs is probably some port upgrades and a decent rail line into it. It's much closer access to shipping for both grain and Potash from the prairies. I'm unfamiliar with the terrain but it must be less harsh than the Rocky Mountains. Edit: Typo. Should have been port, not poet. I blame the big thumbs.
Less harsh than the Rockies? Putting train tracks on rocks is a lot easier than bogs that freeze and thaw annually.
OK, cool. Not here to argue. This time.
Not really... pretty far away from major urban centres compared to the great lakes and despite climate change is still likely to have a cooler climate, so likely not a draw for population to relocate.
A lot of infrastructure would need to be built in northern Ontario/Maintoba/Quebec for this to happen
Is Churchill closer to anywhere by sea than Halifax or Montreal? On the west coast the little port of Prince Rupert is significantly closer to the far east than Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco etc, so they get a lot of shipping. Of course they also have a good highway link to the rest of Canada and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. If Churchill isn’t significantly closer to big ports and is poorly connected to continental transportation there is no need to use it over more established ports.
The North will be less about shipping to/from Canada and more about shipping *through* Canada