The journey toward an expanded Port of Churchill has only just begun

Compared to other major projects granted "national importance" status by Mark Carney’s Liberal government, the proposed expansion of the Port of Churchill is still a very fuzzy idea.

It’s relatively easy to wrap your brain around what it means to expand a liquefied natural gas terminal in Kitimat, B.C. or build a new copper mine at McIlvenna Bay, Sask., to name two major projects already in the works.

Manitoba’s megaproject involves five components, most of which remain entirely conceptual at this point and can not be defined before a series of economic, engineering and environmental questions are answered.

According to Premier Wab Kinew’s office, the project involves a port expansion of some sort, an upgraded Hudson Bay Railway, an all-weather road to Churchill and perhaps other northern Manitoba destinations, the presence of icebreakers in Hudson Bay, and an "energy corridor" that could involve the transport or transmission of liquefied natural gas, crude oil, natural gas, electricity or hydrogen, the latter most likely in form of ammonia.

Kinew said Thursday "it’s going to take some time" to better define the scope of the project, let alone come up with a projected cost. The province is spending $750,000 this winter to study what would be required in terms of icebreaking to allow all-season shipping through Hudson Bay, he said.

The list of what needs to be determined beyond that is long for Arctic Gateway Group, the Indigenous-led company that owns the railway to Churchill and the port in the northern Manitoba town.

It must determine the economic case for the increased shipping of commodities through Canada’s coldest rail-accessible deepwater port, the environmental feasibility of including fossil fuels among those commodities and the geographic placement of an expanded port — if such an expanded port is even possible, given the climate and geography of Hudson Bay.

Trevor Heaver, professor emeritus in transportation and logistics at the University of British Columbia, said he doesn’t believe there will be a purely economic case for expanding the Port of Churchill — but says Canada should still pursue the project, anyway.

Heaver said he cannot conceive of a single commodity — not potash, not minerals and not even fossil fuels — that makes more sense to ship through Churchill than through Canada’s existing coastal seaports.

"I can't see this being financially feasible. There's not going to be a positive economic return there," Heaver said Thursday in an interview.

"But you've got to view these things from a national perspective, and that is present in this route."

Heaver said Canada ought to consider the Port of Churchill as an insurance policy against another flood at the Port of Vancouver, another labour disruption there or at the Port of Montreal, or potential shipping obstacles through the United States.

By definition, insurance comes with a cost.

"But it's surprising how often a high-cost alternative will become a useful niche," Heaver said.