It’s an old idea whose time may have come..After years of fits and starts, a memorandum of understanding between the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba governments has been reached to explore the feasibility of building a deep water harbour at Port Nelson on the Hudson Bay to export natural resources such as potash and liquified natural gas..Premier Danielle Smith confirmed the agreement in Calgary on Tuesday, which had reportedly been reached with Transportation and Economic Corridors Minister Devin Dreeshen and his cohorts in Saskatchewan and Manitoba prior to the election, which is awaiting final approval. .Western Standard has learned the three provinces will contribute to perform geotechnical and other studies to establish a right-of-way rail and utilities lines from Alberta across northern Saskatchewan to Port Nelson, which would be expanded to handle deep water vessels..The work would be performed by NeeStaNan — meaning ‘all of us’ — a First Nations-owned corporation comprised of local communities across the route..Speaking at the Global Energy Show Monday, Smith said the MOU is an example of how the three Prairie provinces are prepared to work with First Nations to overcome barriers to resource development and promote mutual interests..“The fact we have three provinces that are prepared to clear away some of thee regulatory bottlenecks, working with First Nations partners, that to me has the potential to be the model for other types of corridor projects we’d like to work on,” she said.. Utility corridorsProposed NeeStaNan routes. .Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe, who was also in Calgary on Tuesday, has long supported the idea. In 2020 the Saskatchewan government formed a committee to examine proposals for export pipelines from his province, including Churchill..He reaffirmed that support in 2022 after Manitoba Premier Heather Stefanson reportedly balked at a proposal put forth by Smith after she won the UCP leadership in October of that year. However, Smith confirmed on Tuesday that the government of Manitoba is now firmly on board. .The basic premise of a utility corridor to Hudson’s Bay has been tossed around since the Port of Churchill was built in 1931, but didn’t take on new urgency until 2017 when the railway to the port was washed out. Prior to 2016 it was mainly used for shipping grain..Various political candidates — mostly in Alberta — pitched the idea as an alternate route for an oil pipeline from Fort McMurray — which has drawn mostly condemnation from environmental activists committed to land locking Alberta’s oil resources. .That has since been expanded to include an all-purpose right-of-way corridor to facilitate any number of commodities including potash, LNG, grain, power lines and even timber exports, which has softened that initial opposition. It could also tie in Ontario’s so-called ‘Ring of Fire’ mining region and open the area for development..The idea gained further currency after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis in Europe. In a roundabout way, it has even gained support from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who signed a joint declaration with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz last summer to explore the possibility of shipping hydrogen and LNG to Europe, which is about 4,000-km shorter than going through the Gulf of Mexico or even Prince Rupert. In fact, Port Nelson is closer to Liverpool or Rotterdam than the Port of Montreal..But instead of Churchill, the proponents are now pitching Port Nelson, located further south, which is ice-free most of the year and has been in existence since 1915. The ground for a railroad is firmer and the existing jetty can be more easily expanded.. Port NelsonPort Nelson on Hudson Bay. .The NeeStaNan proposal calls for integrating the rail line with a trucking hub in Winnipeg that can tie into the existing NAFTA highway network to the US and Mexico to facilitate imports as well as exports..Although construction of a corridor isn’t cheap — it could cost as much as $50 billion when all is said and done — NeeStaNan backer Robyn Lore said the economic benefits far outweigh the costs. He estimated Canada — mainly the three western provinces — lost $80 billion in potential benefits from LNG in the last 18 months alone. .“The economic benefit is a one-year payout just on that one product (LNG),” he said.
