Date: 2008-06-23 10:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] carloshasanax.livejournal.com
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.

Date: 2008-06-24 01:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] maruad.livejournal.com
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.

Date: 2008-06-24 02:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] keithmm.livejournal.com
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.

Date: 2008-06-24 03:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] maruad.livejournal.com
I am afraid you are correct. The Canadian ship building industry, assuming one still exists, will have missed the boat (sorry I couldn't resist).

Date: 2008-06-24 08:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] keithmm.livejournal.com
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.

Date: 2008-06-24 02:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] carloshasanax.livejournal.com
shoot, I should write the review anyway. It'd make a good seminar topic.

Date: 2008-06-24 04:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] maruad.livejournal.com
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.

Date: 2008-06-24 04:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] maruad.livejournal.com
If I had the edit option I would rewrite that last sentence. "when it has access to a viable salt water port" is not needed.

Profile

james_davis_nicoll: (Default)
james_davis_nicoll

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 6th, 2025 08:18 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios