CASR
|
- |
|
In Detail |
|
Index to |
|
|
Also see: |
|
|
Canada's Arctic Sovereignty – Iqaluit Deep Water Port – February
2006 Update: On 10 August 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that the Canadian Forces would develop a new naval base at the existing deepwater port at Nanisivik, further north on Baffin Island. Perceived advantages include: a strategic location on the Northwest Passage, pre-exisiting dock and refuelling infrastructure, and a nearby airstrip. Downsides are a gravel runway – Iqaluit has the only paved runway in Nunavut – and the capital of Nunavut is left without a deep water port. The Conservatives promised $2B for the construction of three new armed heavy ice breakers for the Navy and an enlarged deep water port for Iqaluit. Do the numbers stand up? How does the Conservative concept differ from plans made by Iqaluit? 
The City of Iqaluit’s plans for a deep water port are
straightforward. They consist of a new single-berth in the form of a 77m-long concrete caisson placed at the 11m+
depth mark. A causeway links the berth to a filled in sorting area extending out over Koojesse Inlet’s extensive
low-tide mudflats. A road – roughly following the route of an existing pipeline – leads to
the city via YFB (Iqaluit International Airport). A new bridge would connect the port facility (on Innuit
Head ) to the mainland. This new road would also link a new pier and small craft wharf closer
to town. Total cost is estimated at $49.5M.The Iqaluit consultants report lists the planned Innuit Head deep water berth, port equipment, evironmental assessment, etc. at about $35.5M (including access roads but not the small craft wharf ). Much of that cost (about $21.5M) is in the concrete caisson berth. The accuracy of these estimates have come under scrutiny recently. But, from a defence perspective, it is more germain to ask whether the estimates are relevant to the plans announced by Mr. Harper for a larger Iqaluit deep water port. [Update: Mr. Harper has since announced that the planned deepwater port will be refurbished mining dock facilities at Nanisivik in western Baffin Island, not Iqaluit.] 
It has been suggested in the press that the environmental assessment alone could eat up the entire projected budget.
Certainly a fuel leak in this area would be catastrophic, but the planned port is intended to reduce this risk.
Petroleum product transfer is now by floating hose, but ships will often refuel directly from other vessels (right).
Hardly a desirable state of affairs. An environmental compromise was made on dredging – if the causeway
were extended into deeper water, less dredging would be required. But, of course, a longer causeway would
also increase both cost and construction time.How Does Iqaluit’s Deep Water Port Concept Compare with Conservative Plans? 
Few details of the Conservative’s concept for a deep water port
were announced but, what is clear, is that three berths would be needed. Since the cost of a single concrete
caisson is $21.5M , we can simply multiply by three ($64.5M). The same would be true of port equipment ($2.5M x
3 = $7.5M). So, three caissons and suitable port equipment [2] might total $72M. Construction costs for the
triple-berth port would be more difficult to extrapolate. The construction costs for Iqaluit’s
single-berth port were estimated at $9.06M. However, a three-berth port could more than treble the total size
of the facility.When designing its single-berth port, Iqaluit planners naturally located the caisson to minimize blasting, dredging, and the filled-area size for the terminal. Flanking this planned caisson with two additional berths sounds simple but the terminal’s filled- area will need to be large enough to off-load/replenish three vessels at once as well as follow the contours of Innuit Head, above. If the terminal’s inward side wall were angled to deflect ice during break-up, the filled-in area becomes larger still, possibly even closing the gap between Innuit Head and the mainland. [3] Let’s say, for sake of argument, construction costs would be $33M ($9.06M x 3 plus a wobble factor of just under $6M). Added to our caisson and equipment costs of $72M, that takes us to an appropriately conservative $105M total for Mr. Harper’s deep water port plan. Of course, most of the cost lies in building the icebreakers, which we’ll cover next. [1] This page is an expanded version of briefing notes prepared for Canadian Press. [2] Iqaluit budgeted for modest port equipment (a 150t mobile crane, a 40t container loader/forklift, a 12t forklift, and three 3t forklifts), relying heavily on ships’ cranes. [3] This extreme scenario would obviate the need for building a bridge, since Innuit Head would now be connected to the mainland. However, the effect on the marine environment would be considerable. In any case, the cost of fill material and labour for this enlarged terminal would chew through any savings on bridge construction. Next in this In Detail Survey – Costing the Three New Armed Icebreakers |