The Sudden Closure of Canada's Only Deepwater Arctic Port

August 10, 2016 12:36 PM

The sudden closure of the Port of Churchill leaves Canada without an Arctic deepwater port, and a tenth of the town's population without work. Manitoba's premier thinks the port's private owners are trying to get more money from the government. Others see the closure as a response to changing economic conditions (including the end of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly), leading to questions about the future economic viability of transportation infrastructure development in the North.
posted by Gerald Bostock (14 comments total)

This makes me so angry. I consider basic foodstuffs like wheat to be a national security issue - I wish the Liberals had reinstated the wheat board the instant they got into power, though I understand they had 5 million other pressing issues to deal with too.
posted by joannemerriam at 1:30 PM on August 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

Da fuq. How can a grain port that's LOCATED IN THE PRAIRIE PROVINCES not be economically viable? This is so bizarre.
posted by tel3path at 1:45 PM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

With the thawing northwest passage, Churchill could soon become a year-round port for product going east and west. It's not a stretch to think that in the later half of the 21st century, Churchill could easily be Canada's busiest port. Shutting it down now seems extremely short-sighted.
posted by thecjm at 2:22 PM on August 10, 2016 [5 favorites]

The American company put the port and the railway up for sale earlier this year, with a group of Manitoba First Nations reportedly being interested in acquiring those assets.

It would be amazing if a group of First Nations managed to purchase the port.
posted by thecjm at 2:24 PM on August 10, 2016 [13 favorites]

It's not a stretch to think that in the later half of the 21st century, Churchill could easily be Canada's busiest port.

That is wishcasting. It's also, incidentally, what the boosters who first built the port and the railway in the early 20th century said about Churchill then.

Nothing is going to make Churchill surpass Vancouver (or Prince Rupert). It's still easier to ship prairie commodities by rail to the Pacific and load them onto cargo ships then send the ships through the Northwest Passage.

Which isn't to say there isn't an important role for Churchill to play in Canadian exports. But it's always going to be limited by the fact that shippers are going to have problems getting insurance for trips that involve dodging icebergs.

I also hope the First Nations group is successful in buying the port and the railway.
posted by dry white toast at 3:37 PM on August 10, 2016

Wouldn't Churchill be a good port for shipping to Europe? Presumably it's a great way to get grain to Denmark & the UK, well, except for all those icebergs I guess.
posted by GuyZero at 4:36 PM on August 10, 2016

Question from a USian: why isn't Manitoba wheat going out through the Canadian ports on Lake Superior, especially since a lot of US wheat gets shipped out of Duluth? I would think that the wheat fields of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are closer to those ports than Churchill.
posted by Ber at 6:14 PM on August 10, 2016

Ber -- I'm not sure what Canada's wheat export markets look like but most US wheat exports are bound for Asia, Mexico and various South American countries. It makes more sense to send it by train to Vancouver than it does to ship it via Hudson Bay.
posted by nathan_teske at 7:01 PM on August 10, 2016

Wheat does go out through Thunder Bay, if I recall correctly. The issue is to reach European markets, it needs to be transferred to the larger ocean-going ships at Montreal.
posted by Jugwine at 7:06 PM on August 10, 2016

Mods: Could we add a note about the auto-playing video in the first link? Thank you!
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 7:25 PM on August 10, 2016

Well I guess this is it for all the railway towns running south of Churchill. I looked up the Town of Gillam site and got a 404 not found error.

That was fast.
posted by tel3path at 8:47 AM on August 11, 2016

Wheat does go out through Thunder Bay, if I recall correctly. The issue is to reach European markets, it needs to be transferred to the larger ocean-going ships at Montreal.

Sure does!

The Port of Thunder Bay has the largest grain storage capacity in North America
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:08 AM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's not about the Wheat Board or one port though. It's about a system that effectively delivers grain to market, so that farmers get good/fair value for their crops, and does that reliably year after year.

Anyway. I'd like to know more about the relationship between the Wheat Board being removed and the closure of Churchill. I read the WFP article last week and it didn't make a very strong case for the cause and effect. And what's the role of the railroads in all this finagling? goes off to read the rest of the links
posted by sneebler at 9:10 AM on August 12, 2016

in the context of grain/seed export, and how/where it gets out of the country, let's not forget about canola, either, which is at the heart of a multibillion dollar trade dispute between Canada and China right now. We export over 9 million tonnes of the seed alone each year (this doesn't include oil and meal), much of it to China.

Some folks in this thread might be interested in geeking out with StatsCan's Shipping in Canada:

This publication presents a comprehensive overview of domestic and international shipping activities at Canadian ports. It provides vessel traffic data and commodity detail by points of loading and unloading; containerization and commodity movements. With the release of the new 2000 issue the transport markets key indicators on the size and structure of the Canadian water carrier industry; as well as financial and operational statistics on revenues and expenditures, assets, liabilities, services, employees, property value and fuel comsumed are not included.

posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:06 AM on August 12, 2016 [3 favorites]