Bacterial corrosion leaves opening date for Nanisivik in limbo
Federal policy primer uses delayed project as ‘cautionary tale’ against using shortcuts in the Arctic
The long-promised Nanisivik Naval Facility, 20 kilometres from Arctic Bay, still has no estimated completion date due to corrosion of the jetty. (Photo courtesy of Department of National Defence)
Construction of the long-promised Nanisivik Naval Facility in the High Arctic is complete, but the opening date is still unknown due to “corrosion,” a Defence Department spokesperson says.
Then-prime minister Stephen Harper, left, and Gordon O’Connor, the then-minister of national defence, at the site of what will become the Nanisivik Naval Facility on Aug. 10, 2007. (File photo)
“The facility itself is not yet operational due to ongoing concerns with the condition of the accompanying jetty structure,” said Cheryl Forrest, media relations officer at the Department of National Defence, in an email Jan. 21.
Initially, the plan was to open in 2015, but construction delays moved that target to 2018. Then it was expected to open in 2025.
For the past year, the federal government hasn’t provided a new estimated opening date.
The department saw evidence in 2008 of corrosion in the steel of the existing jetty, caused by Arctic cold-water bacteria.
“Since 2010, we have been working with consultants to understand the phenomena and develop options to mitigate the problem,” Forrest said.
The Nanisivik Naval Facility was first announced in 2007 by then-prime minister Stephen Harper as a way to “significantly strengthen Canada’s sovereignty over the Arctic.”
In addition to a deepwater port, the original site plan included a jet-capable airstrip.
The government originally planned $100 million for the project, but the cost ballooned in 2011 to $258 million so its scope was reduced.
The airstrip was nixed and the facility’s purpose was reduced to a summer docking and refuelling hub for government vessels in the Arctic, which would be accessible for about one month per year. Plans still included the jetty, fuel storage tanks for ships and embarked helicopters, a site office, a wharf operator’s shelter, a storage building and a helicopter landing pad.
“Consequently, the still-incomplete facility that currently exists is far smaller and less capable than what was originally envisaged for the site,” said a policy primer by North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network titled The Ongoing Saga of the Nanisivik Naval Facility, 2005-2025.
The project now has a $114.6-million price tag.
Nanisivik Naval Facility is built on the site of the now-demolished mining town of Nanisivik, 20 kilometres from Arctic Bay.
“This ongoing saga serves as a cautionary tale that presumed shortcuts in the Arctic often prove chimerical,” the policy primer said of the Nanisivik delays.
That sentiment was repeated last March by then-defence minister Bill Blair in Iqaluit during the announcement of another major military infrastructure project – an Arctic military support hub planned for Iqaluit, Inuvik and Yellowknife.
“The challenges we have faced at that particular facility have demonstrated that that’s not the way to go forward,” Blair said of Nanisivik.
“Chimerical”? What a delightful word, not usually used to describe a financial boondoggle. $114M+ for a facility that will be operational approximately 1 month per year? Cut your losses – or I should say our losses because this is taxpayers’ money. Stop this project NOW. Even if a big chunk of the money has already been spend – it has been wasted, so don’t waste the rest of the budget. The first mistake was demolishing the townsite when the mine closed years ago. It was a beautiful town – with a swimming pool, a library, a community centre, a store, a school, and houses. All gone because of the stupid requirement that, when a mine is finished, the site must be returned to its pristine condition. In addition, there was a jet airstrip and a road to Arctic Bay, now not maintained, and now derelict. As for a naval facility that’s only capable of being operational one month per year? It is not even on the Northwest Passage, which is where a naval facility should be. And it should be on the north side of the Northwest Passage, to exert sovereignty over the passage. Nanisivik is two left turns away from the Northwest Passage. In other words, it is geographically close, but functionally not close. Give up this stupid idea, which was Stephen Harper’s idea based on bad advice from so-called Arctic consultants who knew nothing about the north. Twenty years is a long time to be wrong. And it’s a long time to not even admit that you are wrong.
Nanisivik Mine closed in 2002.
24 years later, I do not think anyone should be stunned or astonished that while Ottawa twiddled its collective thumbs, that stuff would start rusting out up here.
The “presumed shortcut” for the public to benefit from privately built infrastructure existed in 2002.
The “presumed shortcut” would have been a “real shortcut” if Ottawa had worked with Breakwater even prior to 2002 to transition and transfer these facilities the day after the company left.
As it stands, having Nanisivik port somewhat operational has been a big help, especially to Kugaaruk when they have had problems (twice and counting) with their annual sealift.
The only cautionary tale here is that Federal bureaucrats are fully capable of sitting on a reasonable idea long enough for it to turn to dust.