It’s easy for me to sit here on my sofa as an armchair critic, but I’d like to see the PM move more quickly on some of these things. I understand that CUSMA negotiations are lurking in the corner. But at some point, we are going to have to stop worrying about that in the context of how it affects our actions in moving forward with the rest of the world. I guess we’re getting there - just a little more slowly than we’d like.
One really great thing? Wab Kinew is one of the greatest wing men I have ever seen or heard. He is an amazingly articulate orator for the support of Churchill and the road to get there.
Setting up an export hub in Churchill makes sense: to route Alberta's and Manitoba's natural gas to Europe through Churchill would be great.
But also setting up an hub in Quebec (Tadoussac) / New Brunswick/Nova Scotia (Halifax) would provide export facilities not subjected to difficult winter conditions. The main problem: no large capacity gas/oil pipelines on sovereign Canadian soil at this time, the Energy East pipeline cancelled in 2017.
So, fully agree on setting up an export hub in Churchill. But also let's go on with gas/oil pipelines going east as to open export hubs on the East coast in order to set up export facilities intended to all European nations seeking to have secure supplies.
Agreed. The world must adopt the Chinese model. Overbuild today, because tomorrow that overbuilding will become the baseline.
Overbuild everything energy related, Canada. Give partners a stake. Allow the world’s capital to finance Canada’s growth. Use the windfall to lower costs to build houses. Invest in universities, healthcare, and jobs. The breaking of the unipolar world is a prime opportunity for the world to grow at the expense of the US.
Interesting. So much so I accidentally put up a comment I intended for someone else’s post. Not enough coffee, I guess. Deleted with apologies. Meantime, thanks for offering a challenging vision.
It would be a perfect arrangement, but for some very big challenges to getting materials to Churchill, and operating in the Canadian Arctic.
The railway line to Churchill is built over large areas of muskeg, or frozen soil. When a train passes over tracks built on frozen soil, the ice melts under the pressure. Even with a larger and deeper road bed, and the use of chill pipes, washouts still happen, and that will only happen more frequently with more rail traffic. That is especially bad when you are totally reliant on propane for heating. And with Global Warming thawing permafrost, the problems from the melt grow.
So this is also a problem for the construction of NG pipe lines, and the loading facilities for LNG tankers. The nearest natural gas pipe line is almost 1100km away, in Winnipeg. Building and functioning in winter conditions that will regularly reach -40C, with wind chill often hitting -55 to -60C temperatures will slow winter construction to a crawl. You should start to get an idea of what you are facing trying to build a port as quickly as possible.
Shipping during the summer is manageable, but spring and fall will be difficult due to ice. The new Icebreakers that Canada is building ie ordering will help, but once there is more than a couple of feet of ice, LNG Tankers will be risking their insurance premiums going North even with an escorting breaker.
Then the current facilities at Churchill are not suitable for large ships, as the only pier has grain silos on it, and is only big enough for one or two grain carriers. We will need to build piers, a Natural Gas liquification plant, and a terminal to load the big ships.
Then there are the people. Churchill is a small town. Building enough shelter for workers on the construction sites alone will be difficult enough.
Now there are a pile of strategic and economic reasons Churchill looks good as a port. The amount of materials needed to bring natural gas to the port would keep the few remaining Canadian rolling mills busy for many years. The other goods that could be shipped out, like potash and grains will be needed too. The deciding factor will be cost.
The Port of Montreal already has most of the facilities needed. Why invest billions of dollars to get a shorter route to Germany? Even 50 years on, there will still be a demand for natural gas. The stuff is just too useful. But can we afford the short term pain to get Canadian NG to Europe via the Arctic?
No, I don’t think that increasing exports to the US is a viable option. You don’t keep feeding an oil junkie more. But we have to look at our choices.
What we needed was a new pipeline to bring Alberta crude to refineries Ontario and Quebec, and an additional pipeline to supply NG to Montreal, both to replace foreign supplied oil, and to make diesel and LNG available to Europe. We sat on our thumbs while Russia cashed in.
Unfortunately, the governments in Ottawa and Edmonton have been anything but disagreeable over nation building projects. I recall someone was stupid enough to float the idea of sending Oil Sands bitumen down an old single wall NG pipeline, which was an environmental disaster waiting to happen. A new double walled pipeline on the same right of way would have been smarter, and would have made the Transmountain pipeline less of a political hot potatoe. A guaranteed market in Eastern Canada with closer to world prices would have helped Alberta out allot.
So many of the problems we are facing stem from the myopic focus of Conservative and Liberal governments, and the increasing influence exerted on policy by American owned oil companies who were working only to maximize their profits at Gulf Coast refineries using Canadian oil.
The biggest break we can make would be to nationalize the oil sands, build our own refineries to produce enough to support Canada, and lock the US out. They started the fight, and that’s the quickest way to end it.
So in the meantime, many of the paths we might take will be a balancing act between contradictory influences mashed against our physical reality. We have the technology and skill to overcome our expansive geography, to process the raw resources ourselves, and do it in cost effective and environmentally sensitive ways. The missing ingredient seems to be the confidence to do it.
C.D. Howe did amazing things to get Canada prepared to fight a long war. We are facing the same challenges 87 years later, and we have just gone through the Great Depression. Instead we have faced a continuous bombardment of US propaganda that has led the country’s leadership to think we can’t do anything to save ourselves. The only good thing is that at least one Canadian leader has some vision of a much better future.
Now it usually works best to go from what you already have and build in a direction. If we want to use Churchill as an export port, CAF supply hub, and air base, we need to understand it will be hard to do and expensive. We will need to build up to it, just like any other nation building project. In the meantime, we can look at existing infrastructure, and see what we can do by replacing old kit with newer.
The ALTO high speed rail line project is a good starting point to make better use of railways and existing rights of way. If there is still track, what is stopping Ontario from using some of those rail lines to provide smaller electric trains that can carry commuters and their cars? There are old rail beds that could be improved and reused.
The missing piece is the political will. Doug Ford may be an affable sort, but he has gotten by on that and support from moneyed interests who are always against change. Does he have the courage to step up and see a project that will show Canadians that we can still do great things?
This is a fascinating comment on a fascinating post by Narayan. I spent four years of my life fighting the Energy East pipeline. It was indeed an old single wall natural gas pipeline, which had already burst many times while simply carrying natural gas. And the (incredibly naive) plan was to have it transport dilbit, heavier and absolutely impossible to fully clean up once it hits water. Deep water, in Northern Ontario, where I live. And oh yes, we have snow. A LOT of snow. The pipe could leak under the snow, in an isolated location for months. Maybe until spring. And nobody would know. It was indeed an enormous environmental disaster waiting to happen. And it crossed the source of our drinking water, and ran alongside that pristine lake. Water for over fifty thousand people, at serious risk, from an antique pipeline. Thousands of people all along the length of that pipeline fought it, for similar reasons. Stopping that ridiculous conversion was a source of pride for all of us- even though we knew its demise was as much economic as due to our efforts.
So. The argument here. I have many points of agreement with Jim, and some points that are perhaps tangential. The whole fossil fuel enterprise is costly for the environment and especially for any people who live close to the land. Indigenous people. Farmers. We all know all that, and we know we cannot put them, or our children at risk. (Think climate.)
However. If we are going to use this resource, let’s use it wisely, carefully, with all the genius we can muster. Jim is admirably creative and realistic in this regard. Yes, we have the skill and creativity to be much more environmentally sensitive. Let’s use that skill. Also, let’s be Norway, as much as possible in our context. ( Are you listening, Alberta? ) Fossil fuel is a finite resource. Its extraction needs to underwrite both the future, and a more secure present. I wish we could nationalize it, and I’m glad Jim raised the idea. We should discuss it, even knowing the resulting brouhaha would be a genuine historical moment, and not a pleasant one. Let’s do our own refining. Let’s fix the rail beds by all means, and run electric trains. Hurray for that idea. ( Let’s not depend on Doug Ford though. Really. Not happening.)
So I am intrigued by Shankar Narayan’s challenge here. I’m listening, even as my environmental tribe (to which I am extremely proud to belong ) makes me very alert, actually suspicious. Let us allow ourselves to envision some ideas we have not considered before. Carefully but imaginatively. And with the confidence Jim invokes. We have a lot of very smart people after all, many of them on Substack. We have Mark Carney. We have Wab Kinew. Who can stop us?
How would we move product to Montreal? Is there an existing pipeline that could be used, or - I tremble at the thought - would the Great Lakes shipping system work?
If Churchill is to be brought into service...yikes! Every part of that system is fraught. However...could a pipeline from AB to Churchill be used for oil/gas rather than train? Or would it have to be heated in winter? With the permafrost issue, trains seem... impossible. Hovercraft???? Then you also need port facilities and icebreakers. - unless all the shipments go out in - what is it a 3-month window? Years of building, anyway you look at it.
While Churchill is frequently promoted as an Arctic "deep-water port," that classification generally applies to handling mid-sized, Panamax-size bulk carriers and container ships. Shipping oil requires much deeper drafts, which presents several logistical and environmental hurdles:Depth Limitations: The natural harbor at the mouth of the Churchill River lacks the depth required for large oil tankers.Offshore Solutions: To accommodate modern tankers, massive construction would be required to dredge the harbor or build an "offshore" loading terminal several miles out into the bay.
Well building an offshore loading terminal - same as Kharg Island terminal Iran - would be a reasonable option since this terminal - kinda oil platform - would provide a solution at a reasonable cost
From AI: Canada sells oil at a discount primarily because its export infrastructure is constrained, limiting access to international buyers and forcing Canadian crude to be sold where transportation and market conditions compel price reductions.
Yes heavy nature of Canadian oil does influence also but slightly compared to distribution issue. What we export from Vancouver is ar near market price of WTI
A very instructive analysis provided by Doomberg related to the North American oil/gas context: Alberta's oil is sold at a $20 discount to the US since there's no alternative option to export this crude.
And since US shale production is more of a light sweet crude, it is well in demand and exported - with high profits - to customers outside US. While US refineries use Canada's heavy oil which is refined and used for the American market.
So US refiners get double benefit being the "exclusive" importers of Canadian oil. A pipeline from Alberta to BC and from Alberta to Quebec/New Brunswick would open much larger revenues for Canada.
In my own comment, a part from Churchill, I do propose building gas/oil pipelines to carry these to the East coast (Montreal/Tadoussac namely) as winter conditions are less difficult then setting up facilities to/in Churchill.
But the only problem: there's no large volume pipelines (gas/oil) linking Alberta to the East Coast since Energy East project has been cancelled in 2017. They would have to travel through US facilities to do so and nothing on sovereign Canadian soil. So building pipelines going East is imperative as far as I'm concerned.
Now yes there will be major problems around the Churchill option but, as an engineer, quite confident that we can solve these on reasonable costs.
Yes, Quebec has resisted setting the Port of Montreal as an LNG terminal. The question is why?
Any government in this day would love to have the additional revenue from having a busier port. Considering that there are existing pipelines running into Montreal and up the St. Lawrence to Trois-Riviere, added capacity should not be a huge problem, considering the benefits to its economy.
Unfortunately I have little information about the current political climate and economy in Quebec on which to base any serious ideas. I cannot believe that the government would oppose a new pipeline given the current stupidity in the Middle East. Maybe it’s time for an MOU with Quebec on moving energy?
Unfortunately depends on who is leading provincial government. Seems that the support from public is greater than has been in awhile . As for Port of Montreal, not sure if best choice simply because already busy and expansion will be in Contrecœur not exactly in the actual site. But plenty of other places for an export port for LNG
Correction: the LNG project which has been refused a few years ago was about setting up an export terminal in Saguenay near Tadoussac and not Montreal. Pls update your references.
And why Tadoussac and not Montreal? Better access to such a terminal in winter conditions. And one doesn't set up a LNG terminal near a large city...
Now when that project was dismissed (2022), environmentalists launched a huge campaign against the project. Not sure if today there would be such a strong opposition.
At this time there's another project being discussed for Baie Comeau
Never said myself that Montreal was destination for the LNG project, was just answering to another comment that mentioned Montreal. I have heard Tadoussac mentioned and also a place called Cacouna, just after Rivière du Loup for LNG terminal. And recently yes also Baie Comeau
Indeed, AI has provided this info: While Churchill is frequently promoted as an Arctic "deep-water port," that classification generally applies to handling mid-sized, Panamax-size bulk carriers and container ships. Shipping oil requires much deeper drafts, which presents several logistical and environmental hurdles:Depth Limitations: The natural harbor at the mouth of the Churchill River lacks the depth required for large oil tankers.Offshore Solutions: To accommodate modern tankers, massive construction would be required to dredge the harbor or build an "offshore" loading terminal several miles out into the bay.
The problem will be how to expand the port to accommodate the LNG Terminal, and later add container cargo cranes. Building on gravel beds will be tricky, expensive, but doable.
At some point, after the build outs are costed, the political leaders will have to make a decision. There is where the problem will be: on a 30-40 year horizon, which will bear the best fruit, and for how long?
On that time line, Arctic traffic will be a major concern, especially to supply deep water ports at either end of the North West Passage. Canada will need ships, subs, troops and aircraft to maintain sovereignty of the Arctic. And that means having two main bases and some smaller listening posts scattered across the region.
You can almost envisage the North West Passage becoming like the Strait of Hormuz if global warming removes the Arctic Ice Sheet, and that is looking like it will, and much sooner than anyone realizes, or at least makes it navigable for most of the year. The reason is the global circle route: it will be shorter to go from Churchill to Antwerp is roughly 3200mi. From Vancouver to Panama City, to use the Canal, that leg is about 3200mi, and from Panama to Antwerp is roughly 4800mi.
For comparison, Montreal to Antwerp is about 3000mi, but any pipelines or container cargo have to cross the Canadian Shield, and that is a major bottleneck for rail traffic.
So for Wester Canadian resources, Churchill looks like the better option from that perspective. It is going to be a challenge to the Nation. The call will be needed to secure what could become as important a trade corridor as the Strait of Hormuz if other development plans come to fruition. Grain, potash, LNG, hydrogen, carbon fibre, farm produce, and military equipment may all be on the trains or in pipelines to the port.
As the song goes “The future’s so bright I gotta wear shades”.
Not looking at the present but at the future of energy production, will wind and solar have any long term impact here? Texas, for all of its oil presence, is the largest producer of wind energy in the U.S. Might these sources eventually offset the oil to the point that some of the massive infrastructure will go idle?
To some degree it will. India is at a higher pace of renewables per capita income than China was at a similar stage. The oil will shift to middle powers and poorer countries, until they too have enough renewables to power their economy. This transition will take decades, even with China’s overbuilding. Given the energy shortage from the US war on Iran, nuclear, solar, wind, batteries, oil, LNG are all needed fast.
Pipelines might go idle, but potash, uranium, rare earths and other products will make Churchill viable - once port facilities and icebreakers are available.
The train ride from Thompson to Churchill, a distance of 400 km, took 16 hours. There is no road to Churchill. There is a really big runway, though. And it had the world’s only indoor rocket launch facility.
As noted above, permafrost will be the big climate and engineering obstacle. Yes, there will be less ice in the future, but will still present a navigation challenge. More polar icebreakers will be needed to provide more than a few months of navigation into and out of Hudson Bay. But the idea of bringing Germany in as a partner is brilliant. Too bad Trudeau didn’t have the mental capacity to offer such a deal when the Chancellor came here looking for a solution years ago. And Quebec should be brought online too. The Saguenay already has a port that can be built upon and as a strategic node, is one of the few ports with a CAF capability to defend it, something that will also have to be addressed as our power grid is expanded.
Would like to see this also. Churchill wants this , Alberta would like this ……. and USA would probably not like it…that would be a bonus. It’s the quickest way to get oil out east. As much as I would like Energy East to become a reality, Churchill would be faster. And once that done, maybe Energy East could get done
GIVING EUROPE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE GULF! This is an excellent piece that makes a strong case:
Build corridors. Lock in customers. Turn geography and democratic stability into power. The Gulf is always in some kind of crisis. One serious maritime crisis — like the one we have now — and Europe has no democratic alternative.
Canada is the obvious answer nobody has organized yet. Democratic government. Rule of law. Stable institutions. Massive reserves. Atlantic-facing geography. It strengthens alliances. It removes leverage from hostile regions all at once. Canada has the resources. The geography. The democratic credentials. What we have lacked is the will to organize it into power. Mark Carney has the credibility and the European relationships to offer a solid proposal.
Yes, clean energy is the future, and I hope we put real resources behind it. But you cannot get there from a position of energy insecurity. And Europe cannot transition while it remains one crisis away from catastrophe. Canada building a democratic alternative to Gulf supply is the bridge.
This is the corridor argument Europe needs to hear. And I hope Carney makes it. 🍁
The existing pipeline infrastructure needs to extend through to Nova Scotia. It's more cost effective, you have year round ice free access, and shorter transport routes to Europe. It would provide ready market access for Atlantic offshore oil and gas which was never really considered.
It’s easy for me to sit here on my sofa as an armchair critic, but I’d like to see the PM move more quickly on some of these things. I understand that CUSMA negotiations are lurking in the corner. But at some point, we are going to have to stop worrying about that in the context of how it affects our actions in moving forward with the rest of the world. I guess we’re getting there - just a little more slowly than we’d like.
One really great thing? Wab Kinew is one of the greatest wing men I have ever seen or heard. He is an amazingly articulate orator for the support of Churchill and the road to get there.
He is indeed!!
Setting up an export hub in Churchill makes sense: to route Alberta's and Manitoba's natural gas to Europe through Churchill would be great.
But also setting up an hub in Quebec (Tadoussac) / New Brunswick/Nova Scotia (Halifax) would provide export facilities not subjected to difficult winter conditions. The main problem: no large capacity gas/oil pipelines on sovereign Canadian soil at this time, the Energy East pipeline cancelled in 2017.
So, fully agree on setting up an export hub in Churchill. But also let's go on with gas/oil pipelines going east as to open export hubs on the East coast in order to set up export facilities intended to all European nations seeking to have secure supplies.
Ref: https://ft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html
Right on!! Cheers!
Agreed. The world must adopt the Chinese model. Overbuild today, because tomorrow that overbuilding will become the baseline.
Overbuild everything energy related, Canada. Give partners a stake. Allow the world’s capital to finance Canada’s growth. Use the windfall to lower costs to build houses. Invest in universities, healthcare, and jobs. The breaking of the unipolar world is a prime opportunity for the world to grow at the expense of the US.
I love that I just had a second opportunity to absorb this brilliant strategy. So, so great.
Interesting. So much so I accidentally put up a comment I intended for someone else’s post. Not enough coffee, I guess. Deleted with apologies. Meantime, thanks for offering a challenging vision.
Yes! Exactly. Thank you Shankar.
I’m not sure why this Churchill/Hudson Bay route has not been explored before. The Canada-Germany partnership is indeed interesting. Promising.
It would be a perfect arrangement, but for some very big challenges to getting materials to Churchill, and operating in the Canadian Arctic.
The railway line to Churchill is built over large areas of muskeg, or frozen soil. When a train passes over tracks built on frozen soil, the ice melts under the pressure. Even with a larger and deeper road bed, and the use of chill pipes, washouts still happen, and that will only happen more frequently with more rail traffic. That is especially bad when you are totally reliant on propane for heating. And with Global Warming thawing permafrost, the problems from the melt grow.
So this is also a problem for the construction of NG pipe lines, and the loading facilities for LNG tankers. The nearest natural gas pipe line is almost 1100km away, in Winnipeg. Building and functioning in winter conditions that will regularly reach -40C, with wind chill often hitting -55 to -60C temperatures will slow winter construction to a crawl. You should start to get an idea of what you are facing trying to build a port as quickly as possible.
Shipping during the summer is manageable, but spring and fall will be difficult due to ice. The new Icebreakers that Canada is building ie ordering will help, but once there is more than a couple of feet of ice, LNG Tankers will be risking their insurance premiums going North even with an escorting breaker.
Then the current facilities at Churchill are not suitable for large ships, as the only pier has grain silos on it, and is only big enough for one or two grain carriers. We will need to build piers, a Natural Gas liquification plant, and a terminal to load the big ships.
Then there are the people. Churchill is a small town. Building enough shelter for workers on the construction sites alone will be difficult enough.
Now there are a pile of strategic and economic reasons Churchill looks good as a port. The amount of materials needed to bring natural gas to the port would keep the few remaining Canadian rolling mills busy for many years. The other goods that could be shipped out, like potash and grains will be needed too. The deciding factor will be cost.
The Port of Montreal already has most of the facilities needed. Why invest billions of dollars to get a shorter route to Germany? Even 50 years on, there will still be a demand for natural gas. The stuff is just too useful. But can we afford the short term pain to get Canadian NG to Europe via the Arctic?
So export more to USA?..build more pipes because it is easier?
No, I don’t think that increasing exports to the US is a viable option. You don’t keep feeding an oil junkie more. But we have to look at our choices.
What we needed was a new pipeline to bring Alberta crude to refineries Ontario and Quebec, and an additional pipeline to supply NG to Montreal, both to replace foreign supplied oil, and to make diesel and LNG available to Europe. We sat on our thumbs while Russia cashed in.
Unfortunately, the governments in Ottawa and Edmonton have been anything but disagreeable over nation building projects. I recall someone was stupid enough to float the idea of sending Oil Sands bitumen down an old single wall NG pipeline, which was an environmental disaster waiting to happen. A new double walled pipeline on the same right of way would have been smarter, and would have made the Transmountain pipeline less of a political hot potatoe. A guaranteed market in Eastern Canada with closer to world prices would have helped Alberta out allot.
So many of the problems we are facing stem from the myopic focus of Conservative and Liberal governments, and the increasing influence exerted on policy by American owned oil companies who were working only to maximize their profits at Gulf Coast refineries using Canadian oil.
The biggest break we can make would be to nationalize the oil sands, build our own refineries to produce enough to support Canada, and lock the US out. They started the fight, and that’s the quickest way to end it.
So in the meantime, many of the paths we might take will be a balancing act between contradictory influences mashed against our physical reality. We have the technology and skill to overcome our expansive geography, to process the raw resources ourselves, and do it in cost effective and environmentally sensitive ways. The missing ingredient seems to be the confidence to do it.
C.D. Howe did amazing things to get Canada prepared to fight a long war. We are facing the same challenges 87 years later, and we have just gone through the Great Depression. Instead we have faced a continuous bombardment of US propaganda that has led the country’s leadership to think we can’t do anything to save ourselves. The only good thing is that at least one Canadian leader has some vision of a much better future.
Now it usually works best to go from what you already have and build in a direction. If we want to use Churchill as an export port, CAF supply hub, and air base, we need to understand it will be hard to do and expensive. We will need to build up to it, just like any other nation building project. In the meantime, we can look at existing infrastructure, and see what we can do by replacing old kit with newer.
The ALTO high speed rail line project is a good starting point to make better use of railways and existing rights of way. If there is still track, what is stopping Ontario from using some of those rail lines to provide smaller electric trains that can carry commuters and their cars? There are old rail beds that could be improved and reused.
The missing piece is the political will. Doug Ford may be an affable sort, but he has gotten by on that and support from moneyed interests who are always against change. Does he have the courage to step up and see a project that will show Canadians that we can still do great things?
We do live in interesting times.
Yes
Time to move..
This is a fascinating comment on a fascinating post by Narayan. I spent four years of my life fighting the Energy East pipeline. It was indeed an old single wall natural gas pipeline, which had already burst many times while simply carrying natural gas. And the (incredibly naive) plan was to have it transport dilbit, heavier and absolutely impossible to fully clean up once it hits water. Deep water, in Northern Ontario, where I live. And oh yes, we have snow. A LOT of snow. The pipe could leak under the snow, in an isolated location for months. Maybe until spring. And nobody would know. It was indeed an enormous environmental disaster waiting to happen. And it crossed the source of our drinking water, and ran alongside that pristine lake. Water for over fifty thousand people, at serious risk, from an antique pipeline. Thousands of people all along the length of that pipeline fought it, for similar reasons. Stopping that ridiculous conversion was a source of pride for all of us- even though we knew its demise was as much economic as due to our efforts.
So. The argument here. I have many points of agreement with Jim, and some points that are perhaps tangential. The whole fossil fuel enterprise is costly for the environment and especially for any people who live close to the land. Indigenous people. Farmers. We all know all that, and we know we cannot put them, or our children at risk. (Think climate.)
However. If we are going to use this resource, let’s use it wisely, carefully, with all the genius we can muster. Jim is admirably creative and realistic in this regard. Yes, we have the skill and creativity to be much more environmentally sensitive. Let’s use that skill. Also, let’s be Norway, as much as possible in our context. ( Are you listening, Alberta? ) Fossil fuel is a finite resource. Its extraction needs to underwrite both the future, and a more secure present. I wish we could nationalize it, and I’m glad Jim raised the idea. We should discuss it, even knowing the resulting brouhaha would be a genuine historical moment, and not a pleasant one. Let’s do our own refining. Let’s fix the rail beds by all means, and run electric trains. Hurray for that idea. ( Let’s not depend on Doug Ford though. Really. Not happening.)
So I am intrigued by Shankar Narayan’s challenge here. I’m listening, even as my environmental tribe (to which I am extremely proud to belong ) makes me very alert, actually suspicious. Let us allow ourselves to envision some ideas we have not considered before. Carefully but imaginatively. And with the confidence Jim invokes. We have a lot of very smart people after all, many of them on Substack. We have Mark Carney. We have Wab Kinew. Who can stop us?
Thanks for these posts. Enlightening about the physical difficulty of building a workable eastern pipeline
How would we move product to Montreal? Is there an existing pipeline that could be used, or - I tremble at the thought - would the Great Lakes shipping system work?
If Churchill is to be brought into service...yikes! Every part of that system is fraught. However...could a pipeline from AB to Churchill be used for oil/gas rather than train? Or would it have to be heated in winter? With the permafrost issue, trains seem... impossible. Hovercraft???? Then you also need port facilities and icebreakers. - unless all the shipments go out in - what is it a 3-month window? Years of building, anyway you look at it.
Yes. Years. Why not? Better to get started now...
While Churchill is frequently promoted as an Arctic "deep-water port," that classification generally applies to handling mid-sized, Panamax-size bulk carriers and container ships. Shipping oil requires much deeper drafts, which presents several logistical and environmental hurdles:Depth Limitations: The natural harbor at the mouth of the Churchill River lacks the depth required for large oil tankers.Offshore Solutions: To accommodate modern tankers, massive construction would be required to dredge the harbor or build an "offshore" loading terminal several miles out into the bay.
Well building an offshore loading terminal - same as Kharg Island terminal Iran - would be a reasonable option since this terminal - kinda oil platform - would provide a solution at a reasonable cost
Nope…but if it does happen….full price, to hell with discount
This will be your last time ..mocking. want to discuss, disagree, you are welcome. Mocking, you had your last try.
I insist we are selling at discount ….. don’t see why we should send any more than we do at discount. Don’t like, don’t buy
From AI: Canada sells oil at a discount primarily because its export infrastructure is constrained, limiting access to international buyers and forcing Canadian crude to be sold where transportation and market conditions compel price reductions.
Yes heavy nature of Canadian oil does influence also but slightly compared to distribution issue. What we export from Vancouver is ar near market price of WTI
A very instructive analysis provided by Doomberg related to the North American oil/gas context: Alberta's oil is sold at a $20 discount to the US since there's no alternative option to export this crude.
And since US shale production is more of a light sweet crude, it is well in demand and exported - with high profits - to customers outside US. While US refineries use Canada's heavy oil which is refined and used for the American market.
So US refiners get double benefit being the "exclusive" importers of Canadian oil. A pipeline from Alberta to BC and from Alberta to Quebec/New Brunswick would open much larger revenues for Canada.
https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/remedial-math
In my own comment, a part from Churchill, I do propose building gas/oil pipelines to carry these to the East coast (Montreal/Tadoussac namely) as winter conditions are less difficult then setting up facilities to/in Churchill.
But the only problem: there's no large volume pipelines (gas/oil) linking Alberta to the East Coast since Energy East project has been cancelled in 2017. They would have to travel through US facilities to do so and nothing on sovereign Canadian soil. So building pipelines going East is imperative as far as I'm concerned.
Now yes there will be major problems around the Churchill option but, as an engineer, quite confident that we can solve these on reasonable costs.
https://ft.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html
Talk to Quebec! They are the ones preventing the Port of Montreal from becoming a natural gas and oil port!
Yes, Quebec has resisted setting the Port of Montreal as an LNG terminal. The question is why?
Any government in this day would love to have the additional revenue from having a busier port. Considering that there are existing pipelines running into Montreal and up the St. Lawrence to Trois-Riviere, added capacity should not be a huge problem, considering the benefits to its economy.
Unfortunately I have little information about the current political climate and economy in Quebec on which to base any serious ideas. I cannot believe that the government would oppose a new pipeline given the current stupidity in the Middle East. Maybe it’s time for an MOU with Quebec on moving energy?
Unfortunately depends on who is leading provincial government. Seems that the support from public is greater than has been in awhile . As for Port of Montreal, not sure if best choice simply because already busy and expansion will be in Contrecœur not exactly in the actual site. But plenty of other places for an export port for LNG
Correction: the LNG project which has been refused a few years ago was about setting up an export terminal in Saguenay near Tadoussac and not Montreal. Pls update your references.
And why Tadoussac and not Montreal? Better access to such a terminal in winter conditions. And one doesn't set up a LNG terminal near a large city...
Now when that project was dismissed (2022), environmentalists launched a huge campaign against the project. Not sure if today there would be such a strong opposition.
At this time there's another project being discussed for Baie Comeau
https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80115
Never said myself that Montreal was destination for the LNG project, was just answering to another comment that mentioned Montreal. I have heard Tadoussac mentioned and also a place called Cacouna, just after Rivière du Loup for LNG terminal. And recently yes also Baie Comeau
Indeed, AI has provided this info: While Churchill is frequently promoted as an Arctic "deep-water port," that classification generally applies to handling mid-sized, Panamax-size bulk carriers and container ships. Shipping oil requires much deeper drafts, which presents several logistical and environmental hurdles:Depth Limitations: The natural harbor at the mouth of the Churchill River lacks the depth required for large oil tankers.Offshore Solutions: To accommodate modern tankers, massive construction would be required to dredge the harbor or build an "offshore" loading terminal several miles out into the bay.
Did a quick check: The Port of Churchill has 4 deep water berths to service Panamax class freighters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax
So the draft of 12.04m requirement is met.
The problem will be how to expand the port to accommodate the LNG Terminal, and later add container cargo cranes. Building on gravel beds will be tricky, expensive, but doable.
At some point, after the build outs are costed, the political leaders will have to make a decision. There is where the problem will be: on a 30-40 year horizon, which will bear the best fruit, and for how long?
On that time line, Arctic traffic will be a major concern, especially to supply deep water ports at either end of the North West Passage. Canada will need ships, subs, troops and aircraft to maintain sovereignty of the Arctic. And that means having two main bases and some smaller listening posts scattered across the region.
You can almost envisage the North West Passage becoming like the Strait of Hormuz if global warming removes the Arctic Ice Sheet, and that is looking like it will, and much sooner than anyone realizes, or at least makes it navigable for most of the year. The reason is the global circle route: it will be shorter to go from Churchill to Antwerp is roughly 3200mi. From Vancouver to Panama City, to use the Canal, that leg is about 3200mi, and from Panama to Antwerp is roughly 4800mi.
For comparison, Montreal to Antwerp is about 3000mi, but any pipelines or container cargo have to cross the Canadian Shield, and that is a major bottleneck for rail traffic.
So for Wester Canadian resources, Churchill looks like the better option from that perspective. It is going to be a challenge to the Nation. The call will be needed to secure what could become as important a trade corridor as the Strait of Hormuz if other development plans come to fruition. Grain, potash, LNG, hydrogen, carbon fibre, farm produce, and military equipment may all be on the trains or in pipelines to the port.
As the song goes “The future’s so bright I gotta wear shades”.
Nous nous souviendrons.
We are Canadian.
Thx Jim. Much appreciated
You’re welcome.
Gotta keep practicing our mental teamwork.
Thanks for this updated info!
Not looking at the present but at the future of energy production, will wind and solar have any long term impact here? Texas, for all of its oil presence, is the largest producer of wind energy in the U.S. Might these sources eventually offset the oil to the point that some of the massive infrastructure will go idle?
To some degree it will. India is at a higher pace of renewables per capita income than China was at a similar stage. The oil will shift to middle powers and poorer countries, until they too have enough renewables to power their economy. This transition will take decades, even with China’s overbuilding. Given the energy shortage from the US war on Iran, nuclear, solar, wind, batteries, oil, LNG are all needed fast.
A lot of poorer countries are electrifying right past fossil fuels.
As they should. It is cheaper and ensures energy supplies not dependent on hostile actors.
Good point. Thank you.
👍🏽
Pipelines might go idle, but potash, uranium, rare earths and other products will make Churchill viable - once port facilities and icebreakers are available.
Yes, thank you. It won’t become a ghost town, if ever, for quite some time.
You give rational and logical hope for a morning after this messed up chaos. Thank you for this sliver of silver lining 🍁🇨🇦🍁
The train ride from Thompson to Churchill, a distance of 400 km, took 16 hours. There is no road to Churchill. There is a really big runway, though. And it had the world’s only indoor rocket launch facility.
So much to gain then..
I am starting to notice the absence of Australia and Japan in these discussions. Will they be brought in?
No. Not yet. Keep it easy..aim small..miss small..once canada and germany lock in, rest will fall in place over time..
Sorry to bug you Shankar, but as a Concis subscriber, am I eligible to be grandfathered in as a Concis Canada subscriber?
Yes. Will add tmrw..
https://substack.com/profile/89230459-kendon-curtis/note/c-260858615?r=1h4inv&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
As noted above, permafrost will be the big climate and engineering obstacle. Yes, there will be less ice in the future, but will still present a navigation challenge. More polar icebreakers will be needed to provide more than a few months of navigation into and out of Hudson Bay. But the idea of bringing Germany in as a partner is brilliant. Too bad Trudeau didn’t have the mental capacity to offer such a deal when the Chancellor came here looking for a solution years ago. And Quebec should be brought online too. The Saguenay already has a port that can be built upon and as a strategic node, is one of the few ports with a CAF capability to defend it, something that will also have to be addressed as our power grid is expanded.
Would like to see this also. Churchill wants this , Alberta would like this ……. and USA would probably not like it…that would be a bonus. It’s the quickest way to get oil out east. As much as I would like Energy East to become a reality, Churchill would be faster. And once that done, maybe Energy East could get done
GIVING EUROPE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE GULF! This is an excellent piece that makes a strong case:
Build corridors. Lock in customers. Turn geography and democratic stability into power. The Gulf is always in some kind of crisis. One serious maritime crisis — like the one we have now — and Europe has no democratic alternative.
Canada is the obvious answer nobody has organized yet. Democratic government. Rule of law. Stable institutions. Massive reserves. Atlantic-facing geography. It strengthens alliances. It removes leverage from hostile regions all at once. Canada has the resources. The geography. The democratic credentials. What we have lacked is the will to organize it into power. Mark Carney has the credibility and the European relationships to offer a solid proposal.
Yes, clean energy is the future, and I hope we put real resources behind it. But you cannot get there from a position of energy insecurity. And Europe cannot transition while it remains one crisis away from catastrophe. Canada building a democratic alternative to Gulf supply is the bridge.
This is the corridor argument Europe needs to hear. And I hope Carney makes it. 🍁
The existing pipeline infrastructure needs to extend through to Nova Scotia. It's more cost effective, you have year round ice free access, and shorter transport routes to Europe. It would provide ready market access for Atlantic offshore oil and gas which was never really considered.