News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 7.8K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 2.6K     0 

Hudson’s Bay Utility corridor & Deep water port

Huh that’s an interesting development. Fun fact: the rail line to Churchill was originally being built to Port Nelson. They made significant progress on the port and earthworks on the line to the river mouth, before suddenly abandoning that alignment in favour of Churchill. I think Port Nelson was considered an inferior option because it would require dredging on a regular basis since it’s at the mouth of a major river.
 
1687013422938.png

Western Provinces Join Forces for Deep Water Harbor Project in Hudson Bay​

The concept of a utility corridor to Hudson’s Bay has been discussed for decades, gaining renewed urgency after the washout of the railway to the Port of Churchill in 2017. Initially focused on oil pipelines, the corridor’s scope has expanded to encompass multiple commodities such as potash, LNG, grain, power lines, and timber exports. Furthermore, it could potentially link with Ontario’s “Ring of Fire” mining region, fostering development opportunities.
thedeepdive.ca

Western Provinces Join Forces for Deep Water Harbor Project in Hudson Bay

The governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have finally inked a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to explore the construction of
thedeepdive.ca thedeepdive.ca
 
I think particularly with some new mining projects that may be closer to Hudson's Bay this could make more sense in the future. That might be what tips the balance for it.
 
If they are going to do an upgrade to the rail lines , it would be interesting to see if they could take it right up to Rankin Inlet. Could benifit the current mines and help open more mines in the Kivalak region.
 
I'm not surprised by this idea, but I am surprised by the proposal of Port Nelson. Are there any more official sources on this? It just strikes me as odd; is it worth the trouble to set up a new port at Port Nelson now vs expanding the port at Churchill? I know Port Nelson was in contention originally for the port location, but at this point they'd have to duplicate a lot of infrastructure just to get it up and running.
 
If polar bears are at Churchill, I wonder if Nelson was chosen instead to protect the polar bear habitat.
 
The_Cat said:
If polar bears are at Churchill, I wonder if Nelson was chosen instead to protect the polar bear habitat.
Click to expand...
Just reading the history of the location. York Factor or Churchill would be the better location. seems they have to dredge the river because of silting. That location was first looked at in the1680s
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top