Not that I know a damn thing about the subject, but it strikes me that the saving in transport costs has to be significantly greater than the rise in insurance costs before people start eating from the lead-lined cans.
Underwriting Arctic marine insurance for potential new passages -- ha! there's already a literature on it. I got stuff to do, otherwise I'd give you a review.
The port of Churchill at the start and stop of navigation regularly sees ships coming in with ice damage from the little trip into Hudson's bay. Churchill works currently because it is the closest salt water port for a sizable region of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Shipping from there saves a great deal of rail freight. The insurance for ships travelling to Churchill is high. For the NW passage or the Arctic Sea routes to be seriously competitive, insurance rates will likely need to be much lower.
I also suspect a greater number of ships designed to deal with the ice will be needed. I am not talking about ice-breakers. Ships with specially reinforced hulls are required in northern water to deal with those waters' icy conditions.
There are a number of Ice-class ships that will be constructed starting pretty soon to handle new mining operations up this way. Give the South Koreans a working start and they should be able to knock a few out a year.
The Canadian ship-building industry, such as it is, has never had the capacity to build ship of the size needed at the speed that would make them economically viable in the modern world. Not that I consider it a huge loss.
Omnitrax, whom I believe owns the track to Churchill and the port facilites there, stands to be in for some long term success if they handle the port properly. The wood, mineral and grain handling from that port could be very significant. Add northern Manitoba's huge hydro electric facilities (and further potential for more) and the large quantities of relatively good water (anywhere else in the world wouldn't use the term relatively but we are spoiled with fresh water here) and the long term potential for production/consumption in the region is huge when it has access to a viable salt water port.
Actually this entire story seems to be factually challenged - see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3229 - we'll probably see whether it is right or not sometime in the next couple of weeks
It is quite possible that the explanation is basic math error done by one PR flack or journalist and then witlessly copied by others - see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3242
OH and I find this graph (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm ) interesting. At the time of posting 2008 looks 2005 and/or 2006
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2008-06-23 04:37 pm
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Underwriting Arctic marine insurance for potential new passages -- ha! there's already a literature on it. I got stuff to do, otherwise I'd give you a review.
no subject
I also suspect a greater number of ships designed to deal with the ice will be needed. I am not talking about ice-breakers. Ships with specially reinforced hulls are required in northern water to deal with those waters' icy conditions.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
You didn't say it had to be in English.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-06-24 09:00 pm (UTC)(link)"Snow aghast peters".
William Hyde
no subject
It is quite possible that the explanation is basic math error done by one PR flack or journalist and then witlessly copied by others - see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3242
OH and I find this graph (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm ) interesting. At the time of posting 2008 looks 2005 and/or 2006