Strategic Plan For The Iqaluit Deepwater Port Project

Strategic Plan for the
Iqaluit Deepwater Port

Project
Prepared for The City of Iqaluit by
Aarluk Consulting Inc., Gartner Lee Limited and Chris Anderson
August, 2005
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
2. Vision for the Iqaluit Integrated Deepwater Port.......................................................... 3
3. Integrated Port Facilities: User Needs ............................................................................ 3

3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Shipping Season..................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Historical and Projected Usage .............................................................................................. 5
3.3.1 General Cargo .............................................................................................................. 5
3.3.2 Petroleum Products ...................................................................................................... 7
3.3.3 Fisheries 9
3.3.4 Cruise Ships 11
3.3.5 Coast Guard, Military and Research Vessels ............................................................. 11
3.3.6 Small Craft 12
3.4 Issues and Needs in Relation to Integrated Port Facilities................................................... 13
3.4.1 General Cargo ............................................................................................................ 13
3.4.2 Petroleum Products .................................................................................................... 13
3.4.3 Fisheries 14
3.4.4 Cruise Ships 15
3.4.5 Coast Guard and Military........................................................................................... 16
3.4.6 Small Craft 16
4. Preliminary Deep Water Port Concept......................................................................... 17
4.1 Facilities Location................................................................................................................ 17
4.2 Proposed Deepwater Facility ............................................................................................... 20
4.3 Proposed Small Craft Facility.............................................................................................. 23
4.4 Marine Structure for the Deepwater Berth........................................................................... 25
4.5 Cargo Handling Equipment ................................................................................................. 27
4.6 Berth Occupancy.................................................................................................................. 27
4.7 Capital and Operating Cost Estimates ................................................................................. 29
4.8 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 29
5. Benefits of Integrated Port Facilities............................................................................. 33
5.1 Direct Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 33
5.1.1 Cost Savings 33
5.1.2 Increased Use of Port and Port Services by Other User Groups ................................ 34
5.1.3 Direct Employment .................................................................................................... 35
5.1.4 Environment and Safety............................................................................................. 35
5.2 Spin-Off Benefits ................................................................................................................. 35
5.2.1 Fisheries 35
5.2.2 Provision of Services for Other User Groups............................................................. 36
5.3 Further Studies ..................................................................................................................... 36
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd.

6. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment and Regulatory
Requirements................................................................................................................... 36
6.1 Environmental Assessment.................................................................................................. 37
6.2 Regulatory Approvals .......................................................................................................... 38
7. Project Planning – Phases of Development and Funding Requirements................... 39
8. Community Consultation ............................................................................................... 41

8.1 Approach.............................................................................................................................. 41
8.2 Consultation Phases ............................................................................................................. 42
9. Approach and Scope of Environmental and Socio-Economic Baseline
Programs.......................................................................................................................... 43
10. Intergovernmental Oversight Committee..................................................................... 44
11. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 45
Appendices
Appendix A: February Workshop Notes
Appendix B: May Workshop Notes
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd.

Strategic Plan for the Iqaluit Deepwater Port Project
Executive Summary
The need for deepwater port facilities in Iqaluit has long been recognized. During the 1970s, a series of
federal government studies led to preparation of a preliminary federal government engineering report in
1980 that recommended the construction of a concrete caisson wharf to handle the shipping of dry cargo
and petroleum. However, the project did not proceed at that time, likely due to insufficient volumes of
both cargo and petroleum products being shipped into Iqaluit to justify the costs.
Since 1980 the population of Iqaluit has grown from approximately 2,500 to well in excess of 6,000 and
the Village of Iqaluit has become the capital city of the new territory of Nunavut. The annual volumes of
dry goods and petroleum products being shipped to Iqaluit have increased dramatically and other marine
activities such as the offshore fishery and tourism have also emerged as significant factors for
consideration.
In 2005 the City of Iqaluit decided to spearhead a planning process for the establishment of deepwater
port facilities at Iqaluit. Aarluk Consulting, Gartner Lee Limited and port planner Captain Chris
Anderson were engaged by the City of Iqaluit to work on Phase 1 of the project – to conduct research and
to bring together the various stakeholders to identify the opportunities and challenges in establishing
integrated port facilities. This Strategic Plan for the Iqaluit Deepwater Port Project is the initial result of
that decision, and is based on two planning workshops held with a broad group of stakeholders, an
analysis of the earlier engineering study, and preliminary engineering, environmental and socio-economic
investigations. The Strategic Plan examines current and projected usage, presents the initial concept and
project description including preliminary estimates of capital and engineering costs, identifies potential
direct benefits and economic spin-offs, and details phases required to plan for and realize the
establishment of deepwater port facilities in Iqaluit.
Vision for the Iqaluit Integrated Deepwater Port

The objective of the planning process, defined in meetings of the Iqaluit Port Stakeholders Group, is to
work towards the development of an Integrated Port Facilities Plan. All stakeholders agreed that planning
for a deepwater port facility must address the needs of all users, not only large vessels, but also the mid-
size and smaller vessels that use the harbour and are an essential element of the economy and future
growth of Iqaluit and Nunavut.
The vision defined by the Stakeholders Group for the Iqaluit Integrated Deepwater Port Facilities is
presented on the following page.
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. i

Vision Statement
To provide marine support services for the benefit of the residents of Iqaluit and for
Nunavummiut at large in a manner that protects marine assets and:
supports a variety of users;
ensures safe and timely access;
supports the efficient shipping and trans-shipment of goods using the best environmental
practices; and
provides the infrastructure necessary to serve and promote local industries including
tourism, commercial fishing, mineral exploration and traditional pursuits.
User Groups: Current Issues and Needs

User groups utilizing the harbour area in Iqaluit include:
1. Dry cargo shipping (sealift)
2. Petroleum shipping
3. Fisheries
4. Tourist cruise ships
5. Coast Guard, military and research vessels
6. Small craft operators: hunters and fishermen, local tourism outfitters, and small cargo
operators
The lack of adequate port facilities affects in varying degrees all user groups by hindering economic and
business development, directly increasing costs, and creating significant, in some cases untenable risks.
The need for integrated port facilities serving all user groups is clear and critical to the future
development of the City and Nunavut as a whole.
General Cargo
Under the present system, general cargo shipped into Iqaluit is handled multiple times. At every handling,
there is the potential for breakage and damage to cargo. In addition, the transfer of cargo to shore by
barge introduces a significantly higher than normal risk of damage due to the rough water conditions that
frequently prevail in the Iqaluit harbour area. The current lack of wharf facilities means that cargo can
only be unloaded from the vessels for a few hours during each 24-hour period at high tide. All of these
factors add significantly to cost of shipping.
Therefore, the needs of general cargo carriers in relation to a deepwater port facility include:
• Docking facilities allowing for unloading at all times throughout the day;
• Facilities to easily handle unloading of containerized cargo;
• Sufficient number of berths in a port facility to schedule and handle cargo shipments;
• A large, secure holding area for sealift cargo containers with direct access by vehicles.
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. ii

Petroleum Products
The current method of unloading petroleum tankers creates a very high environmental risk, as well as
creating a hazard for other vessels operating in the harbour. The increase in the volume of petroleum
products shipped into Iqaluit within the last decade and the resulting extension of the petroleum shipping
from the beginning of July to the end of November has created conditions that in turn increase
exponentially the level of environmental risk, as well as the safety risks to workers. If a leak or spill were
to occur, there would be very limited ability to mount an adequate response, with immense consequences
in such an environmentally sensitive area.
In order to address the very significant issues facing petroleum re-supply, the needs of petroleum
shippers in relation to a deepwater port facility include:
• A wharf for transfer of petroleum with a hydraulic oil transfer arm and direct access to
the onshore petroleum pipeline;
• Implementation of best practices for the transfer of petroleum from tankers to shore
facilities and for bunkering (refuelling) of vessels, which under current conditions and
with existing facilities, it is not possible to put in place.
Fisheries
Currently, offshore vessels are fishing for shrimp and turbot in off-shore zones easily accessible to
Frobisher Bay where significant shrimp and turbot quotas have been allocated to Nunavut organizations.
All of these vessels operate out of southern ports, obtaining supplies, offloading project and carrying out
crew changes in these ports. For the vessels fishing in waters accessible to Iqaluit, this involves up to a
twelve day return trip to their home port and back to the fishing grounds, a major loss in fishing time. A
port in Iqaluit could offer fisheries companies and vessels a viable alternative. Re-supplying vessels and
offloading product in Iqaluit would reduce the round trip time required to only three or four days, with
very significant reduction in expenses and in time lost fishing. At present this is not an option because of
the lack of deepwater port facilities in Iqaluit. Current tidal loading and unloading make it too expensive
and risky to undertake offloading of cargo, and resupply of goods and crew.
Therefore, needs in relation to development of deepwater port facilities for the fishing industry include:
• Facilities for docking and unloading palletized fish;
• Access to cold-storage facilities in Iqaluit;
• Access to reefer vessels to trans-ship product from Iqaluit to markets in Europe and Asia;
• Facilities and services for re-supply of vessels, repair and maintenance, and crew change.
Cruise Ships, Coast Guard and Military Vessels

Despite increased traffic of tourist cruise ships in the region around Baffin Island, most cruise ships
currently bypass Iqaluit because the transfer of passengers to shore and back to ship is an extremely risky
operation and can only be properly carried out when tides allow, and because of the lack of suitable re-
supply and refuelling facilities in Iqaluit, with refuelling by floating pipeline once again being a very high
risk operation.
Therefore the needs of cruise ship operators in relation to deepwater port facilities include:
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. iii

• Convenient and safe means of transferring passengers between vessel and shore;
• Suitable and environmentally safe bunkering and re-supply services and facilities.
Coast Guard and Military Vessels

As is the case with other current users of the Iqaluit harbour, the refueling of Coast Guard icebreakers and
of Navy vessels, as well as the unloading of crew in the Iqaluit harbour are high-risk operations. As a
result, whenever possible Coast Guard and military vessels obtain refueling services direct from tankers
or in other ports, rather than attempting to utilize services in Iqaluit.
The needs of Coast Guard and military ships in relation to deepwater port facilities are:
• facilities for safe and secure refuelling, re-supply and crew changes that are accessible
throughout the tide cycle.
Small Craft
Small craft operators, including hunters and fishers, small cargo carriers and tourism operators, face
major obstacles and risks associated with the operation of smaller craft in the Iqaluit harbour area. With
tides of almost 12 metres, boats must be left out on the tidal flats. At the current breakwater, leaving and
landing, and loading and unloading of small craft can be done only during the 1 to 2 hour period every 12
hours at high tide. For tourism operators, the timing of high tides means that tides occurring at suitable
hours for loading clients into boats in the morning are available only every second week. No sheltered
anchoring is available in the water all of the time, since the area protected by the present breakwater is dry
for much of the tide cycle, and there is no designated boat storage area. As a result, there is extensive
damage to boats. Refuelling of small craft is at present a high-risk procedure, and for small operators,
insurance costs are prohibitive as a direct result of the lack of in adequate infrastructure in Iqaluit.
Needs of small craft operators in relation to integrated port facilities are:

• A dock or wharf providing access to boats throughout the whole tide cycle;
• A breakwater that would provide safe, protected anchorage during the full cycle of the
tides;
• Facilities for safe re-supply, refuelling and repair of small craft, accessible at any tide,
including a permanent fuelling facility;
• A designated area to haut out for maintenance and safe storage of small craft.
Preliminary Integrated Deepwater Port Concept

The preferred location for a deepwater berth facility is at Innuit Head, at the location currently serving as
the terminus of the land based oil pipeline. The preferred location for a small craft facility is on the
western side of the inlet, in the area immediately south of the existing boat ramp.
It is generally agreed that a deepwater berth of approximately 80 meters in length, with a working width
of 18 meters, located to provide a water depth of 11.0 meters at the berth face would be capable of
servicing the types of ships forecast to call at the facility. The berth length should allow ships to work
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. iv

two deck cranes or be assisted with the use of a shore crane, or, in the case of oil takers, allow installation
of suitable oil transfer arms. The proposed Deepwater Port Facility would include, as part of the overall
Integrated Port Facilities, the following components:
• Road access to the site (from the existing boat ramp to Innuit Head)
• A proposed bridge crossing at “Canoe Passage”
• Development of a caisson type berth structure of approximately 80 meters in length, and
berth approach causeway
• Development of a level terminal site area of approximately 2 hectares
• Provision of a 35 x 20 meter covered storage shed
• Provision of a 10 x 10 meter operations control building
• Upgrading of the on-shore oil pipeline and provision of a ship to shore oil transfer arm
• Provision of cargo handling equipment for port operations
• Extended distribution of utilities along the road access and within the terminal site.
For the small craft facility, the provision of three berthing floats, each of 30 meters length, would provide
for mooring of 10 to 15 boats per float section for a total of 30 to 45 berths. In the event that the demand
for moorage increases, the facility can be expanded by adding float extensions to the proposed structures.
The proposed Small Craft Facility would include the following components as part of the overall
Integrated Port Facilities:
• Road access to the causeway/ breakwater
• Development of a hardstand area adjacent to the existing boat ramp
• Development of a causeway /breakwater structure and adjacent hardstand area
• Provision of a 30x 30 metre piled small craft floats with two interconnection floats, and an access
ramp.
A review was conducted of the proposed marine structure concepts developed in the 1980 (DPW)
Preliminary Engineering Report for the General Cargo Marine Terminal, Iqaluit, Nunavut, primarily to
assess the viability of the design concepts in light of more recent construction experience, and to upgrade
the capital cost estimates for the marine structure component of the project. The four concepts reviewed
were:
1. A design built Concrete Caisson (as per the 1980 DPW Report).
2. Steel Jackets, Concrete Elements and Steel Bridge with precast panels.
3. A combination Steel Pile Walls, Pipe & AZ and HZ.
4. Use of the existing (Tarsiut) Concrete Caisson and Vertical Sheet Pile Wall.
For this assessment, and specifically in development of project cost, a caisson structure has been proposed
as a viable option, but it is noted that a more cost effective design may be presented at future stages of
project development.
A simple assessment has been made of the level of berth occupancy that can be anticipated over the first
twenty years of operation of the Deepwater Port Facility (between the years 2005 and 2025). The results
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. v

indicate that the berth is likely to operate at 40 to 45% occupancy level, which is considered a reasonable
level of utilization for a single berth facility. Ships calling the berth should not experience excessive
levels of queuing (or delays awaiting the berth). In the event that there is a substantial increase in the
forecast number of ship calls at the berth beyond that noted in this report, it is considered feasible to
incorporate an extension of the wharf to the south east by providing a second caisson (or alternative) berth
structure.
Development of Integrated Port Facilities within the harbour area of Iqaluit is considered technically
feasible. Capital cost estimates were calculated for each of these structural options, and detailed
preliminary estimates for capital costs and operating costs for the entire Integrated Deepwater Port
Facilities are included in the main report. A summary of estimated capital and operating costs is provided
in the table below.
Estimated capital and operating costs for the integrated port facilities are shown in the table below. Note
that all estimated costs are order of magnitude estimates only and will be refined at the final engineering
stage.
Iqaluit Integrated Port Facilities:

Summary of Estimated Capital and Operating Costs
Deepwater Berth $32,060,000

Deepwater Berth Equipment $ 2,475,000
Deepwater Berth - Base Capital Cost $34,535,000
Small Craft Harbour - Base Capital Cost $ 2,423,000
Integrated Port Base Capital Cost Estimate $36,958,000
Total Capital Cost Estimate, including engineering,
approvals and contingency $49,228,056
Annual Operating Cost Estimate $ 2,146,413
The next phase of the project would progress all aspects of planning and facilities design to a feasibility
level (or even to a detailed design level) of assessment, which in turn will provide a higher level of
confidence in the capital and operating cost estimates for the project.
Benefits of Integrated Port Facilities

Construction of deepwater port facilities at Iqaluit will have a major impact on costs currently
experienced by two of the current users of the Iqaluit harbour, general cargo and petroleum products, and
by fisheries as a potentially significant future user of Iqaluit port facilities. While detailed estimates of
costs and potential cost savings will be a key element of feasibility studies, this Plan provides an initial
estimate of the cost savings to these three user groups, using the data outlined above in this section. For
general cargo vessels, time spent in port unloading could be reduced by almost 80% compared to the
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. vi

current situation, and for petroleum product vessels, it is estimated that unloading time could be reduced
by 60%. If a deepwater port were available at Iqaluit, fisheries vessels could reduce the time lost fishing
through trips to port for resupply, refuelling and product transfer by 6 days per trip on average. It is
projected that this could provide the incentive for at least 8 fisheries vessels visit Iqaluit several times per
season, where now there is less than 1 visit per year by a fisheries vessel.
This initial estimate of cost savings suggests that there could potentially be a savings to these user groups
of between $3.4 and $4.9 million annually. When this figure is compared to the projected annual
operating costs of port facilities, the indication is that there will be a reasonable potential for charging a
level of user fees that will cover operating costs and provide for a viable operation, as well as a potential
for reducing cargo and petroleum transportation costs. This would be a significant benefit for Nunavut,
which has the highest cost of living of any jurisdiction in Canada. This does not take into account at this
point additional user fees to be obtained from other user groups.
Direct employment will be created through the increased use of the Iqaluit deepwater port facilities by
other user groups, and facilities geared to small craft users would immediately double the opportunities
for local outfitters to provide boat tours to visitors and increased efficiency for small cargo vessels that
potentially increase the level of operations and income. Other direct benefits for local small craft users
would be access to boats during the entire cycle of the tides for re-supply, refuelling, loading, and
offloading, a very significant reduction in damage through protected area for anchorage and designated
safe storage area, and a major reduction in high insurance costs currently related to the lack of
infrastructure.
Construction of integrated port facilities will create a safer working environment, and most importantly,
the elimination of petroleum product transfer through a floating pipeline will make it possible to prepare
proper spill contingency plans, creating a safer environment for transfer from petroleum tankers and
refuelling of both large and small vessels.
The potential economic spin-offs of increased visitation to an Iqaluit port could be immense. Use by
fishing vessels of the port of Iqaluit will require freezer storage space readily available for the offloaded
frozen product. It will also require services for repacking, regrading and containerization of the product.,
and trans-shipment of the containerized product to market. These operations will provide not only
increased use of the port, but also major economic spin-offs for the local economy in terms of increased
employment, and increased business opportunities and income. Moreover, construction of port facilities is
considered to be a necessary condition for the development and viable operation of a summer inshore
fishery within the regional economy. Additional spin-off benefits would be created through services
required for resupply of the all vessels, for repair and maintenance, and for accommodation and
transportation involved in crew changes. Having crew changes carried out in Iqaluit rather than in
southern ports may also make it easier to promote increased employment of Nunavut Inuit beneficiaries.
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. vii

Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment and Regulatory

Requirements
In Nunavut, there are two key stages to approval of major projects. The first stage is the environmental
assessment stage where project impacts and appropriate mitigation and monitoring is assessed by the
proponent and then reviewed and approved through the Nunavut Impact Review Board or NIRB process.
The second stage is the regulatory approval stage that gives a proponent the necessary permits and
authorities to initiate development of the project. The environmental and socio-economic assessment and
regulatory applications required for approval of the Integrated Deepwater Port Project should be
completed in an integrated manner for ease of review and approval by government departments and
boards, and use an “issues based approach” to ensure that programs are carried out in a strategic and
seamless manner, and are developed in response to local concerns that have been raised during the initial
planning stages of this project. Workplans for environmental and socio-economic baseline programs need
to be shared with stakeholders and the general public with an emphasis placed on hiring and training local
technical support personnel and services.
Project Phases
Eight project planning phases are outlined in the main report to provide general guidance and timing for
the overall Integrated Deepwater Port Project. Funding for this project should occur in stages to
correspond with the project planning phases, which allows for effective cash management and gives
maximum flexibility as port concepts evolve. The flowing planning phases and schedule for the project
are described in detail in the main report:
1. Initial Project Planning/Scoping (In progress – to March 2006)
2. Consultation (Throughout the planning project)
3. Integrated Port Plan and Feasibility Engineering (April 2006 – September 2006)
4. Baseline Programs (October 2005 – September 2008)
5. Final Engineering and Project Design (July 2006 – December 2006)
6. Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Approvals (October 2006 – June 2008)
7. Construction (July 2008 – December 2009)
8. Operation and Monitoring (Commencing October 2009)
Community Consultation
The approach to community consultation is based on the decision by the City of Iqaluit, as the lead
organization co-ordinating the integrated port project planning, to form a Steering Committee which has
subsequently grown into a larger Stakeholders Group. The Stakeholders Group provides a vehicle for the
direct participation of all interested parties in the project direction and planning. The Stakeholders Group
serves as a primary mechanism for input of information, concerns and support from the community, as
well as for the dissemination of information and reports to all interested parties within the community.
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. viii

Two major meetings of the Stakeholders Group have been held to date, in February and May of 2005.,
and Stakeholder consultations have been the basis for the definition of the vision, concept and project
description for the integrated port project. The activities of the Stakeholders Group will be complemented
by information and consultation sessions designed for the broader community of Iqaluit, and for other
communities in Nunavut that will be impacted through construction and operation of the integrated port
facilities.
Intergovernmental Oversight Committee

It is recognized that in order to realize the ambitious objectives of this Strategic Plan for development of
Integrated Port Facilities in Iqaluit, the active cooperation and participation of all three levels of
government will be required. It is recommended therefore that an Intergovernmental Oversight
Committee be formed, under the leadership of the City, including representatives of the three levels of
government and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Membership for this Committee is described in Section 10 of
the main report.
The preferred option for management of the Integrated Port Facilities identified in the Stakeholder
workshops would be a tripartite management structure involving all three levels of government. It was
suggested that this management structure would be appropriate during the formative operational stages,
and might later be replaced by a public/private or independent management structure. While further
detailed planning on management structure for the proposed Integrated Port Facilities is to be carried out,
it is envisioned that the formation and work of the Oversight Committee would provide an appropriate
means for planning and establishing the initial tripartite management body.
Conceptual Drawing of the Deepwater Port Site

On the next page we are showing an artist’s rendition of what the proposed Deepwater Terminal facility
might look like based on the preliminary information developed for the Strategic Plan.
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. ix

PROPOSED
SMALL CRAFT
BERTHS
Deep Water
EXISTING
OIL PIPELINE
PROPOSED
PROPOSED SMALL CRAFT
EXISTING
OIL PIPELINE
IQALUIT PORT BERTHS
PROPOSED
DEEP WATER
PORT
PROPOSED
ACCESS ROAD
AND BRIDGE
NEW ACCESS ROAD
AND VEHICULAR BRIDGE
ardesco
1. Introduction
There has long been a recognized need for deepwater port facilities in Iqaluit resulting primarily from
some of the highest tidal action in the world. Annual sealift operations during the open-water summer
months are a particular challenge since cargo vessels must anchor in deep water, with goods transported
to a beach holding area by barge. This is a time-consuming, labour intensive and expensive operation.
During the 1970s, a series of federal government studies led to the preparation of a preliminary federal
government engineering report in 1980 that recommended the construction of a concrete caisson wharf to
handle the shipping of dry cargo and petroleum. In addition to the cumbersome process of dealing with
dry cargo, another reason cited for constructing deepwater port facilities was the extremely high
environmental risks associated with fuel transfer from petroleum tankers. Both of these considerations
would have been addressed directly through the construction of the deepwater port recommended in the
study to be constructed in the Iqaluit harbour at Innuit Head. Nevertheless, the project did not proceed 25
years ago likely due to insufficient volumes of both cargo and petroleum products being shipped into
Iqaluit at that time to justify the costs.
Since 1980 the population of Iqaluit has grown from approximately 2,500 to well in excess of 6,000 and
the Village of Iqaluit has become the capital city of the new territory of Nunavut. The annual volumes of
dry goods and petroleum products being shipped to Iqaluit have increased dramatically and other potential
marine activities such as the off-shore fishery and tourism have also emerged as factors for consideration.
Earlier this year the City of Iqaluit decided to spearhead the development of a planning process for the
establishment of deepwater port facilities at Iqaluit. The starting points for this process were the earlier
study completed in 1980 by Public Works Canada and some encouragement from both Government of
Canada and Government of Nunavut senior officials.
This document is the initial result of that decision and follows an analysis of the earlier study combined
with two Stakeholder workshops and initial investigations into some of the engineering, environmental
and socio-economic considerations. The objective, based on the outcomes of the two workshops, is to
work towards the development of an Integrated Port Facilities Plan for Iqaluit. This plan, when
implemented will meet the long-term sealift needs and objectives for Iqaluit, and support local
commercial and other small craft operations. An essential foundation for continuing the pursuit of this
goal will be the continued involvement of an active stakeholders group representing current and potential
users of the Iqaluit harbour and the proposed new port facilities. It is deemed to be critical to the success
of the project that stakeholders participate fully in all stages of the planning.
One of the more significant new considerations that will impact on a port project will be the regulatory
requirements that have evolved since 1980 and more specifically the co-management regime now in place
as a result of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement enacted by Parliament in 1993. Stakeholder
workshops held in February and May of this year both focussed on this factor, which impacts on
environmental, socio-economic, engineering and regulatory considerations.
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 1

Stakeholders agreed that the planning for a deepwater port facility must address the needs of all users.
Planned facilities must serve not only large vessels, but also the mid-size and smaller vessels that use the
harbour and are an essential element of the economy and future growth of Iqaluit and Nunavut. Final port
concepts must meet local objectives for users in Iqaluit and at the same time provide benefits to all of
Nunavut. Those participating in the planning process up to now include representatives from the
following groups and agencies:
City of Iqaluit
Government of Nunavut, Legislative Assembly
Government of Nunavut, Department of Environment
Government of Nunavut, Department of Community Government and Services
Amarok Hunters and Trappers Association
Baffin Fisheries Coalition
Qikiqtaaluk Corporation
Local Cargo Hauling firms
Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping (NEAS)
Nunavut Sealink and Supply Inc. (NSSI)
Uqsuq Oil
Iqaluit Chamber of Commerce
Nunavut Economic Forum
Nunavut Tungavik Inc.
Government of Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
National Defense
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Limited as well as a Port Planner, Captain Chris Anderson, were
engaged by the City of Iqaluit to work on Phase 1 of the project to conduct the initial research and to
bring together the various Stakeholders to identify the opportunities and challenges in achieving the goal
of establishing integrated port facilities. This Strategic Plan for the Iqaluit Deepwater Port Project is the
result of those efforts together with the input provided by stakeholders.
The plan details several phases required to plan for and realize the project and provides as well some
preliminary cost estimates of each of the phases through to the construction and operation of the port. A
preliminary identification of potential cost benefits and economic impacts are also included. It must be
emphasized that these projected costs and benefits are at this point initial estimates and will require
adjustments as each stage progresses. It must also be noted that the proposed timetable is also
preliminary and in many respects should be considered somewhat ambitious since some environmental
and engineering studies may result in additional work being completed at certain points, thus extending
the timeframe.

2. Vision for the Iqaluit Integrated Deepwater Port
At the May Stakeholder workshop, representatives at the meeting prepared a draft vision statement for
development of the Iqaluit integrated port facilities. It is included below with some minor adjustments.
Vision Statement
To provide marine support services for the benefit of the residents of Iqaluit and for
Nunavummiut at large in a manner that protects marine assets and:
supports a variety of users;
ensures safe and timely access;
supports the efficient shipping and trans-shipment of goods using the best environmental
practices; and
provides the infrastructure necessary to serve and promote local industries including
tourism, commercial fishing, mineral exploration and traditional pursuits.
3. Integrated Port Facilities: User Needs
3.1 Introduction
The need for deepwater port facilities located in Iqaluit, serving the city, the region and all of Nunavut,
was clearly recognized at least 25 years ago. However, initial plans for construction of the port were not
implemented at that time. Since then, with the continued growth of Iqaluit and its designation as capital
of Nunavut, the population of the city has almost tripled. With this population and economic growth, the
need for port facilities has increased proportionately. However, despite the fact that Nunavut has a longer
coastline than any other province or territory in Canada and that all communities in Nunavut except one
are located on the ocean, Canadian infrastructure funds have not to date contributed to the construction of
port facilities in Nunavut.
Groups currently making use of the harbour area in Iqaluit include the following:
1. Dry cargo handling: construction, other government and commercial, and private
2. Petroleum shipping
3. Fisheries
4. Tourist cruise ships
5. Coast Guard, military and research vessels

6. Small craft operators: hunters and fishermen, local tourism outfitters, and small cargo
operators
The lack of adequate port facilities affects in varying degrees all user groups by hindering economic and
business development, directly increasing costs, and creating significant, in some cases, untenable risks.
As outlined in this section, the need for integrated port facilities serving all user groups is clear and
critical to the future development of the City and Nunavut as a whole.
3.2 Shipping Season

The shipping season for large vessels and smaller local craft in the Iqaluit harbour has gradually expanded
over the years to take up the entire open water season. Data provided by the Canadian Coast Guard on
types of marine shipments to Iqaluit for the years 1992 to 2003 indicates that the earliest arrival in the
harbour was June 26th and the latest departure was November 28th. Both of these dates were recorded for
petroleum tanker shipments for the most recent year available, 2003.
A summary of initial and final shipping dates by user type is provided below.
Table 1. Iqaluit Harbour

Initial and Final Shipping Dates by Type of Vessel
1992-2003
Initial Date Final Date
General Cargo June 30th November 17th

Tugs July 27th October 22nd
Petroleum Products Tankers June 26th November 28th
Fishing Vessels July 29th November 13th
Passenger Ships July 20th September 4th
Coast Guard Icebreakers June 26th November 15th
Other Coast Guard / Navy Vessels September 16th September 29th
Source: Canadian Coast Guard

3.3 Historical and Projected Usage

3.3.1 General Cargo
There are two principal carriers of general cargo serving Iqaluit at the present time – Nunavut Sealink and
Supply Inc. (NSSI) and Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping Inc. (NEAS). NSSI is majority owned by
Arctic Co-operatives Limited, in conjunction with Desgagnes Transarctik, which operates four cargo
vessels – the Anna Desgagnes, Cecilia Desgagnes, Mathilda Desgagnes, and Camilla Desgagnes. NEAS
is majority owned by Inuit birthright corporations in conjuction with Transport Nanuk, a Canadian marine
carrier that has operated in the North for almost half a century and operates two cargo vessels – M/V
Aivik and M/V Umiavut. Both companies are headquartered in Iqaluit.
NSSI is the official carrier for the Government of Nunavut under the GN Eastern Arctic Re-supply
Agreement of 2001. NSSI estimates that anywhere from 30% to 65% of their total shipping business per
year is with the Government of Nunavut, depending on the number of government capital projects
undertaken in any given year. Between 2001 and 2004, cargo volumes shipped by NSSI increased 33%,
and for the year 2004, NSSI shipped just over 25,000 m³ (cubic metres) of goods to Iqaluit. While exact
figures were not available, on average NEAS reports that they ship between 12,000 m³ and 15,000 m³ of
goods into Nunavut per year. Based on this, an estimate of the total volume of dry cargo shipped to
Iqaluit in the last five years is presented in the Table below. Between the years 2000 and 2004, cargo
volumes increased by almost 20%.
Table 2. Estimated Sealift Weights and Volumes

Shipped to Iqaluit, 2000-2004
SEASON VOLUME (m3)

2004 39,171
2003 36,372
2002 32,318
2001 32,778
2000 32,783
Sources: NSSI and NEAS
For the years 1992 to 2003, the Coast Guard data provides data on the number of vessels visiting the
Iqaluit harbour area. As shown in the graph below, there was in general a doubling of the number of cargo
shipments in the six-year period 1998 to 2003 over the previous six-year period 1992 to 1997. The
average number of cargo shipments made per season over the first six-year period was 8, while for the
more recent six-year period the average number of cargo shipments was 17.

Chart 1. General Cargo: Number of Shipments to Iqaluit (1992-2003)
25
21
20
18 18
16
Number of Shipments
15 14
13
11
10 9 9
7 7 7
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
On average, the number of days spent in the Iqaluit harbour area for the purpose of unloading cargo for
the years 1992 to 2003 was 4.2 days. For the more recent six-year period, 1998-2003, the average
number of days spent in harbour was 4.1. As shown in the table below, the highest annual average time
spent in harbour during these years was 5.1 days in 1992, while the lowest average amount of time spent
was 3.2 days in 2002. The overall range of time spent in harbour was from 1 day to 14 days.
Table 3. General Cargo Vessels:

Days Spent Unloading in the Iqaluit Harbour Area,
Range and Average (1992-2003)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Minimum Days Unloading 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1
Maximum Days Unloading 8 7 5 11 7 9 9 15 12 10 7 14
Avg. Days Unloading 5.1 4.5 3.4 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.2 4.8
While it is unlikely that the rate of growth of cargo volumes in the past three years (20%) will be
maintained, industry and government estimates place the projected growth at a minimum of 1 to 3%. At a
maximum, it is possible that growth could attain an average rate of up to 5%. The following chart shows
projected cargo volumes for the years 2005 to 2010, assuming both a conservative growth estimate of 1%
per year and a more generous average growth estimate of 5% per year.

Chart 2. Projected Growth of Total Cargo Shipments
55,000
52,493
50,000 49,993
47,613
Cargo Volume (cubic metres)
45,345
45,000
43,186
41,581
41,130 41,169
40,761
40,358
40,000 39,563
39,958 Historical
39,171
1% Growth
5% Growth
36,372
35,000
32,783 32,778
32,318
30,000
25,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
3.3.2 Petroleum Products
Coast Guard data on petroleum shipments show that from the years 1992 to 2003 there were 53 tankers
delivering petroleum products to Iqaluit, an average of 4 tankers per year. Although the number of
tankers delivering petroleum into Iqaluit over the years has remained fairly constant, as shown in the chart
below, the size of the individual shipments has increased with time due to the growth of Iqaluit as a City
and as the centre of government in Nunavut. The average number of shipments made per season over this
duration was 4.4.

Chart 3. Petroleum Tankers: Number of Shipments to Iqaluit (1992-2003)
7 7
7
6
6
5
5
Number of Shipments
4 4 4 4
4
3 3 3 3
3
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Specific data on the total volumes of petroleum products transported to Iqaluit were not available prior to
the year 2003. The total volume of petroleum products delivered by tanker in 2003 was 59.7 million litres.
While 2004 saw a 20% decrease in volume shipped to 47.7 million litres delivered, the projected volume
for 2005 is 70.0 million litres, which would result in a 47% increase over 2004.
The average days spent in the Iqaluit harbour area transferring petroleum products for the years 1992 to
2003 was 3.9 days, as shown in the table below. The highest annual average during these years was 6.3
days in 2000, while the lowest average amount of time taken was 2.8 days in 1993 and 1994 respectively.
The range of time spent in harbour was from 1 day to a maximum of 9 days.
Table 4. Petroleum Product Tankers:

Days Spent Transferring Products in the Iqaluit Harbour Area, 1992-2003
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Minimum Days in Unloading 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 3 2 1 2
Maximum Days in Unloading 7 3 3 5 4 9 6 4 7 5 5 5
Avg. Days in Unloading 4.1 2.8 2.8 3.7 3.5 5.7 4.0 3.8 6.3 3.4 3.6 3.3
The following are the projected petroleum volumes for the years 2005 to 2010, assuming both a
conservative growth estimate of 1% per year and a more generous growth estimate of 5% per year.

Chart 4. Projected Total Petroleum Volumes Shipped

2005-2010
100.0
90.0 89.3
Petroleum Volume (million litres)
85.1
81.0
80.0
77.2
73.6
73.5
72.1
72.8 Historical
71.4
70.7
70.0 70.0 1% Growth
5% Growth
60.0 59.7
50.0
47.7
40.0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
3.3.3 Fisheries
There are two fisheries currently operating in waters near to Iqaluit that have the potential for major
impact on Iqaluit and Nunavut as a whole as a result of development of deepwater port facilities. These
are the offshore shrimp fishery and the offshore turbot fishery.
The shrimp fishery is carried out in each of eight Shrimp Fishing Areas (SFA), established by the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), that extend from Davis Strait south to
Newfoundland. Qikiqtaaluk Corporation, the Inuit birthright development corporation for the Qikiqtani
region located in Iqaluit, holds one and a half licences that allow them access to a total quota of 3,838
metric tonnes (mt) of shrimp from these Shrimp Fishing Areas.1 In addition, a number of Nunavut-
specific quotas have been established for the Shrimp Fishing Areas adjacent to Baffin Island in Shrimp
Fishing Areas 0 to 4. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board allocates these to Nunavut-based
fisheries organizations. These quota holders include a number of Hunters and Trappers Organizations,
Cumberland Sound Fisheries of Pangnirtung, and members of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. Overall, in
the Shrimp Fishing Areas 0 to 4 adjacent to Baffin Island, there is a Total Allowable Catch of 33,967
1
Interview with Peter Keenainak, Qikiqtaaluk Corporation,

tonnes. Of this total, Nunavut-based organizations have access to 10,680 tonnes through their quota
allocations, or 31% of the Total Allowable Catch2.
The turbot fishery off Baffin Island is carried out in Davis Strait within two areas. NAFO Division A has
a Total Allowable Catch of 4,400 mt, which is allocated entirely to Nunavut interests within the Baffin
Fisheries Coalition. NAFO Division 0B has a Total Allowable Catch of 5,500 mt, of which 1,500 mt, or
27%, is currently allocated by the NWMB to Baffin Fisheries Coalition members, including an allocation
to Cumberland Sound Fisheries for their inshore winter turbot fishery. The rest of the TAC for Division
0B is allocated to southern fishery organizations through a Developmental/Company Allocation and a
Competitive Allocation, neither of which Nunavut organizations have access to. Therefore, Nunavut
organizations hold about 60% of the Total Allowable Catch for division 0A and 0B combined.
Up to this point in time all of the shrimp and turbot quotas held by Nunavut organizations are contracted
out to outside fishing organizations located mainly in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and the 14
factory/freezer trawlers fishing the offshore shrimp and turbot quotas are operated by southern fishery
interests.3 The vessels operate out of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, taking on crews and supplies and
landing catches in ports in these two provinces. Product may occasionally be landed in Greenland, but
only very infrequently because of the high cost structure prevailing in Greenland and scheduling
problems. Royalties generated from these contracts total approximately $4 million per year under current
market conditions, typically 12 to 15% of the landed value of frozen-at-sea product, which therefore is in
the range of $36 million per year landed at sea value.4 Both offshore shrimp vessels and offshore turbot
vessels employee Inuit as crewmembers, currently at a level of between 10% and 15% of total crew.
Generally, offshore fishing vessels do not travel to Iqaluit for services or resupply. Over the 12-year
period from 1992 to 2003, only 11 fishing vessels have visited the Iqaluit harbour, an average of under 1
vessel per year.
Future use of the Iqaluit harbour on a more regular basis by offshore fishing vessels is entirely dependent
on the construction of deepwater port facilities. Once these were established, it has been estimated that at
least 50% of the vessels operating in the offshore fishery could choose to make use of the Iqaluit port for
trans-shipment, resupply and crew change, since it involves a round trip of only 4 days from the fishing
grounds whereas a return trip to Newfoundland can mean up to 12 days lost fishing time. The cost
structure of a port in Iqaluit should also be significantly lower than the costs of using a port in Greenland.
Each of the vessels could make between 2 to 5 landings per season at the port. This would mean between
14 and 25 landings per season, compared to an average of less than 1 vessel per season currently visiting
Iqaluit.
2
Nunavut Fisheries Strategy, p. 28
3
The Baffin Fisheries Coalition is currently taking an ownership position in two of the ships, and Qikiqtaaluk
Corporation is also considering the acquisition of a factory/freezer trawler for the offshore shrimp fishery.
4
Overview of Nunavut Fisheries, 23

3.3.4 Cruise Ships
Most cruise ships operating in the Nunavut area bypass the community of Iqaluit. Reasons for this
include a lack of suitable bunkering (refuelling) and resupply facilities and the significant difficulty and
risk associated with transferring passengers between the cruise ship and the shore. Over the 12-year
period from 1992-2003, Canadian Coast Guard records show only 6 cruise ships as visiting Iqaluit. Of 10
cruise ships custom-cleared in 2005 to visit Nunavut, it was possible to confirm 4 cruise ships itineraries,
and none of these vessels will be landing at Iqaluit.
Table 5. Cruise ships Confirmed as Visiting Nunavut, 2005
Maximum # of
Name Nunavut Communities on Itinerary
Passengers
Kapitan Khlebnikov 112 Cambridge Bay, Cape Dorset, Pangnirtung, Resolute Bay
Name: Peregrine Mariner 110 Iqaluit, Nanisivik/Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet, Resolute Bay
Name: Clipper Adventurer 122 Clyde River, Iqaluit, Pond Inlet, Qikiqtarjuaq
Ushuaia 66 Cape Dorset, Kimmirut, Pangnirtung
In total, 36 cruise ships were customs cleared for visits to Nunavut during the years 2002 to 2005, as
shown in the table below.
Table 6. Cruise ships to receive customs clearance for visits to Nunavut
Year Number of Cruise Ships Customs Cleared

2002 6
2003 8
2004 12
2005 10
It is difficult to project with accuracy future landings of cruise ships at Iqaluit. However, given the
incentive provided by deepwater port facilities, direct air connection to Montreal and Ottawa, re-supply
services, and the attractions of a capital city, there is great potential for tourism development It is possible
that cruise ship landings at Iqaluit may increase to at least 4 or more per season following construction of
a deepwater port.
3.3.5 Coast Guard, Military and Research Vessels
Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers operate around the Iqaluit area, assisting general cargo and petroleum
tankers in dealing with ice conditions during the shipping season. Over the twelve-year period from 1992
to 2003, 74 Coast Guard icebreakers have visited the Iqaluit harbour, an average of 6 annually.

In the same period however, only one Navy vessel has visited the Iqaluit harbour, in 2002. This was the
HMCS Goose Bay, a Kingston-class coastal defence vessel.
Over the entire twelve-year period, there is no record of a research vessel visiting the Iqaluit harbour.
According to the Nunavut Research Institute, there is only one research vessel that may visit Iqaluit this
season, a vessel working on the Arctic Net Research Project of the University of Laval.
Given the current emphasis on sovereignty, it is quite possible that the number of military ships visiting
Iqaluit will increase in the future if deepwater port facilities were available. With increased research into
global warming, there may well be increased activity and visits by research vessels. However, it is
difficult at this point to project actual numbers of ships that could be making use
3.3.6 Small Craft
The most active users of the Iqaluit harbour are the owners and operators of smaller craft, generally under
10 m in length. These operators include the very large number of hunters and fishers using the harbour as
the base for the marine travel, small- and mid-scale tourism operators and outfitters, and smaller cargo
carriers. A proper inventory and survey of smaller craft in Iqaluit has never been conducted, so little
accurate data is available. Overall, the Department of Transport suggests that as a rough estimate there are
well over 100 smaller boats using the harbour.
Throughout the current planning process for the Iqaluit integrated port facilities, all stakeholders have
emphasized that the interests of small craft owners must be taken into account and accommodated in the
development of marine facilities. The economic importance of hunting and fishing is sometimes
overlooked, but it is critical to the economic health and development of the community. In the late 1980s,
a number of studies were carried out in the Baffin region and other regions of Nunavut that found the
contribution of wildlife harvesting to be 50% of the household income of Inuit families.5 While more
recent data is not available, and there may be some differences between Inuit families in Iqaluit compared
to those living in smaller communities, there can be no question of the economic importance of hunting
and fishing to families in Iqaluit and to the community as a whole.
Overall, it is projected that small craft ownership will increase as the population of Iqaluit increases.
Development of integrated port facilities that serve small craft operators will also help increase the
business opportunities for cargo carriers and tourism operators.
5
See Weihs, F., R. Higgins, and D. Boult. 1993. A Review and Assessment of the Economic Utilization and
Potential of Country Food in the Northern Economy (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples), p. 30-31.

3.4 Issues and Needs in Relation to Integrated Port Facilities

3.4.1 General Cargo
Under the present system, general cargo shipped into Iqaluit can be handled at least four times, including
transfers from ship to barge and from barge to shore, sorting on shore, and distribution to customers. At
every occurrence of handling, there is the potential for breakage and damage to cargo. Since the risk of
damage is estimated for each time goods are handled and taken into account in both the extent of crating
used and the calculation of overall transport charges, the number of times goods are handled adds
significantly to the cost of shipping. In addition, the transfer of cargo to barges and the unloading of cargo
from barges to the shore also introduces a significantly higher than normal risk of damage due to the
rough water conditions that frequently prevail in the Iqaluit harbour area.
Given the current lack of wharf facilities, cargo can be unloaded from the vessels for only a few hours
during each 24-hour period at the occurrences of the high tides twice a day. This means that a vessel
unloading operation may require several days, while the active unloading time is much less. Clearly, the
number of days spent in harbour represents direct costs to a shipping company in wages, expenses, and
reduced income from alternative shipments during the extended unloading periods, resulting in higher
shipping costs.
Over the past number of years, there has been a trend for shipment of smaller items through sealift, and
many items have been refused because they could not be handled securely and efficiently. The current
trend for use of containers to ship general cargo will make it increasingly possible to accommodate the
shipment of smaller items.
Therefore, the needs of general cargo carriers in relation to a deepwater port facility to address these
issues include:
• Docking facilities allowing for unloading at all times throughout the day, independent of
the tides;
• Facilities to easily handle unloading of containerized shipments and distribution of goods
from containers;
• Sufficient number of berths in a port facility to adequately schedule and handle the
volume of cargo shipments;
• A large, secure holding area for sealift cargo containers with direct access by vehicles.
3.4.2 Petroleum Products
The current method of unloading petroleum tankers involves anchoring in the Iqaluit harbour area off of
Innuit Head, and hooking up a floating hose pipe from the tanker to the shore manifold. The various
petroleum products delivered are separated by the use of an air plug.

The transfer of petroleum products by means of a floating pipe creates a very significant environmental
risk for spills, as well as creating a hazard for other vessels operating in the harbour. Moreover, the
increase in the volume of petroleum products shipped into Iqaluit within the last decade and the resulting
extension of the petroleum shipping from the beginning of June to the end of November has created
conditions that in turn increase the level of environmental risk exponentially.
By November the transfer of petroleum products is occurring with ice present, as well as with the
increased likelihood of high winds and otherwise stormy weather that is prevalent at this time of year.
This in itself increases greatly the possibility of an environmental accident. In addition, with the ice
present and periods of 20-hour darkness, it is impossible to access the unloading location by water, and it
not possible as well to adequately patrol the ship to shore pipeline nor the onshore pipeline. The work at
this time of year is also very risky for the workers involved in the operation. As a result of these factors, if
a leak or spill did occur, there would be very limited ability to mount an adequate response. Although no
spills have occurred within the last decade in Iqaluit, there have been spills in other communities,
including three spills by the tanker Tuvaq in 2003 and 2004.6 If the method of transfer used in Iqaluit
continues, it is only a matter of time until a major spill occurs in the Iqaluit harbour, with immense
negative consequences in such an environmentally sensitive area.
Similar issues apply to the refuelling of vessels using the Iqaluit harbour, and as a result many vessels will
not come into the Iqaluit harbour since they can’t take on fuel there in an environmentally safe manner.
In order to address the very significant issues facing petroleum re-supply, the needs of petroleum shippers
in relation to a deepwater port facility include:
• A wharf for transfer of petroleum, with a hydraulic oil transfer arm and direct access to
the onshore petroleum pipeline;
• Implementation of best practices for the transfer of petroleum from tankers to shore
facilities and for bunkering of vessels, which under current conditions and with existing
facilities, it is not possible to put in place.
3.4.3 Fisheries
Currently the offshore vessels fishing for shrimp and turbot in waters or near Iqaluit are all operating out
of southern ports, obtaining supplies, carrying out crew changes and offloading frozen shrimp and turbot
product in these ports. For vessels fishing in waters near Iqaluit, this involves up to twelve day return trip
to their home port and back to the fishing grounds, a major loss in time fishing. Occasionally, vessels
unload in Greenland, but generally companies find the cost structure of Greenland ports too high, and
prefer the longer trip to southern ports.
6
Hazardous Cargo Bulletin, November 2004, http://www.hazardouscargo.com/Storage/IsgResourceFile/Nov-
2004/26/hcb_novincident.pdf; see also Tank and Petroleum Use Mishaps, http://www.steeltank.com/library/
Tank_Petroleum_Use_Mishaps/news-083104.pdf.

A port in Iqaluit could offer fisheries companies and vessels a viable alternative, as long as the cost
structure for a port in Iqaluit was competitive. Re-supplying and offloading in Iqaluit would reduce the
time for vessels up to twelve days to only three to four days, with very significant reduction in expenses
and in time lost fishing. At present however, this is not an option because of the lack of deepwater port
facilities in Iqaluit. Current tidal loading and unloading make it too expensive and risky to undertake
offloading of cargo, and resupply of goods and crew.
Therefore, needs in relation to development of deepwater port facilities for the fishing industry include:
• Facilities for docking and unloading palletized fish;
• Access to cold-storage facilities in Iqaluit;
• Access to reefer vessels to trans-ship product from Iqaluit to markets in Europe and Asia;
• Facilities for re-supply of vessels, including food and gear;
• Facilities for crew change; and
• Re-supply of water for vessels lacking water-processing facilities on board and for
removal of sewage.
3.4.4 Cruise Ships
Despite increased traffic of tourist cruise ships in the region around Baffin Island in the past few years,
most cruise ships currently bypass Iqaluit because of a number of critical factors:
• Transfer of passengers to shore and back to ship is an extremely awkward and risky
operation, because of the possibility of adverse weather conditions and rough water;
• Transfer of passengers can only be properly carried out at certain times because of the
need to adapt to tidal realities, which may cause inconvenience to passengers, with tides
much higher in Iqaluit than in other communities in the region;
• The lack of suitable bunkering (refuelling) and re-supply facilities in Iqaluit mean that
cruise ships currently prefer to refuel from tankers rather than attempting the risky
operation of refuelling by floating pipeline in Iqaluit.
Therefore the needs of cruise ship operators in relation to deepwater port facilities include:
• Convenient and safe means of transferring passengers between vessel and shore;
• Suitable bunkering and re-supply services and facilities.

3.4.5 Coast Guard and Military
The bunkering of Coast Guard icebreakers and of Navy vessels, as well as the unloading of crew in the
Iqaluit harbour is a high-risk operation as outlined above. As a result, Coast Guard and military vessels
obtain bunkering services direct from tankers or in other ports, rather than attempting to utilize services in
Iqaluit.
The needs of Coast Guard and military ships in relation to deepwater port facilities in Iqaluit are for
facilities for safe and secure bunkering and re-supply and crew changes that are accessible throughout the
tide cycle.
3.4.6 Small Craft
For hunters and fishers in Iqaluit, a boat and motor is by far the largest capital investment made as part of
the overall inventory of equipment required for hunting and fishing. These operators then face
considerable obstacles and risks associated with the operation of smaller craft in the Iqaluit harbour area.
With tides of almost 12 metres, it is much too far to launch boats at low tie, and boats have to be left out
on the tidal flats. At the current breakwater, leaving and landing, and loading and unloading of small craft
can be done only during the 1 to 2 hour period every 12 hours at high tide. For tourism operators, the
timing of high tides means that tides occurring at suitable hours for loading clients into boats in the
morning are available only every second week. Also, there is no sheltered anchoring available in the
water all of the time, since the area protected by the present breakwater is dry for much of the tide cycle.
There is no designated boat storage area at the waterfront, and current ad hoc storage areas are
overcrowded. As a result, damage to boats from snow removal and snowmobile traffic has been
extensive. For small operators, insurance costs are prohibitive, directly as a result of the lack of adequate
infrastructure in Iqaluit for docking and storing smaller craft.
Refuelling of small craft is at present a high-risk procedure, since there is no proper fuel truck access to
the shore and fuel has to be transferred to the boats in oil drums.
Needs of small craft operators in relation to integrated port facilities are:

• A dock or wharf providing access to boats throughout the whole tide cycle for loading
and off-loading or all types smaller craft;
• A breakwater that would provide safe, protected anchorage during the full cycle of the
tides;
• Facilities for safe re-supply, refuelling and repair of small craft, accessible at any tide,
including a permanent fuelling facility to replace refuelling from drums;

• A designated area to haut out for maintenance and safe storage of small craft, possibly
with a slip and trolley for facilitating removal of boats.
4. Preliminary Deep Water Port Concept
4.1 Facilities Location

The city of Iqaluit is located at the head of Koojesse Inlet. Access to the Inlet for deep sea shipping is by
way of the natural deepwater channel to the east of Monument Island and Innuit Head. General Cargo
ships currently anchor in the deepwater pocket lying northwest of Long Island, and lighter cargo (by
barge) to a beach landing area at the head of the inlet. Oil tankers anchor adjacent to the eastern side of
Innuit Head and discharge by floating pipeline to a shore pipeline connection located on the eastern side
of Innuit Head. Small craft generally use the existing breakwater causeway that extends approximately
275 meters SW from the shore on the northeastern side of the inlet. The only other existing harbour
facility is the boat ramp that extends approximately 250 meters east of the shore, and is located
approximately 1 kilometer NNW of the oil tanker discharge location. A general site plan showing
Koojesse Inlet and the foreshore areas around Iqaluit is presented in Figure 1.
The foreshore area of Koojesse Inlet is intertidal mud flats which are dry during times of low water. The
preferred location for a deepwater berth facility is at Innuit Head, at the location currently serving as the
terminus of the land based oil pipeline. There is reasonable water depth adjacent to the shore, and
adequate area (between Innuit Head and the southern end of Polaris Reef) in which a large ship can be
turned.
It is not recommended to attempt development of a small craft facility on the northern side of Koojesse
Inlet. Mud flats extend approximately 1.0 km from shore, and it would require extensive breakwater
structures (and or dredging) to provide a small craft facility which can be accessed at any stage of the tide.
The preferred location for a small craft facility is on the western side of the inlet, in the area immediately
south of the existing boat ramp. This area allows development of a small craft facility in water depths of
1 to 3 meters and can be protected by a causeway/breakwater constructed over the inshore reef south of
the boat ramp.
The proposed road alignment and both the Deepwater and Small Craft Facilities are shown on Figure 2.

Project: Iqaluit Deep Water Port
Location: Iqaluit, Nunavut
Client: City of Iqaluit
0 100 200 400 SITE PLAN
SCALE 1:10,000 Figure No.

1
000
7066
000
524
000
7067
000
523

0 50 100 200 GENERAL LAYOUT
SCALE 1:5,000 Figure No.

2
It is assumed that the oil pipeline may be re-routed and or modified and upgraded to avoid conflict with
the proposed road alignment, and an estimate has been prepared for the cost of bridging the Canoe
Passage between the SW peninsula and Innuit Head.
4.2 Proposed Deepwater Facility

The demand for deepwater facilities has been assessed in section 4 of this report. The types and typical
dimensions of ships which are forecast to call at the facility are summarized in Table 7 below.
Table 7. Forecast Ship Dimensions for Iqaluit Integrated Port Facilities
Ship Types Ship Name DWT Ship Dimensions (in meters)

LOA Beam Depth Draft
General Cargo / Container Anna Desgagnes 17,850 173.50 23.05 13.70 10.00
(1)
Oil Tanker N/A 30,000 190.00 26.00 13.00 10.50
Tuvaq 15,954 164.47 22.20 12.02 10.00
Passenger Ship Peregrine Mariner 117.04 18.28 n/a 6.09
Coast Guard Louis St Laurent 119.60 24.40 n/a 9.90
Fishing Arctic Prawns 74.30 15.60 6.20 5.80
(1)
It is reported that the largest oil tanker to call at the existing oil terminal was a 30,000 dwt ship
It is generally agreed that a berth of approximately 80 meters in length, with a working width of 18
meters, located to provide a water depth of 11.0 meters (Chart Datum) at the berth face would be capable
of servicing the types of ships forecast to call at the facility. The berth length should allow ships to work
two deck cranes (or be assisted with the use of a shore crane), or in the case of oil takers, allow
installation of suitable oil transfer arms. It may be preferable to increase the depth of water at the berth
face to 12 meters to allow larger oil tankers unrestricted access to the berth.
Oil product would be transferred by shore pipeline to the existing oil tank farm, and it is not anticipated
that any support land will be required for oil storage facilities at Innuit Head. General cargo shipments
will be discharge to support facilities at the Innuit Head Terminal. This will comprise a covered storage
shed, and an open yard area in which containers and some general cargo can be stored awaiting
distribution, or for consolidation of empty containers.
It is estimated that a storage shed of approximately 700 square meters will be adequate for short term
storage of sensitive general cargo, or cargo stripped from containers. The actual demand for covered
storage should be confirmed for final facilities design. An open storage yard of approximately 1 hectare
is provided for storage of containers and general cargo which does not require covered storage.
A preliminary layout of the proposed Deepwater Facility is presented in figure 4, and the configuration of
a typical caisson structure is presented in Figure 5.

0
600
706
000
524
0 25 50 100
SCALE 1:2,500
CONCRETE CAISSON
STRUCTURE
BOLLARD BOLLARD
CONTROL
BLDG.
OPEN
STORAGE
STORAGE
SHED
10m ACCESS
ROADWAY

AREA 4
DEEP SEA TERMINAL
Figure No.
4
ELEVATION
1:500
SECTION ON CAUSEWAY CL
0 10 20
1:500
SCALE 1:500

Client: City of Nunavut
WHARF SECTION &

FRONT ELEVATION
Figure No.
5
In summary, the proposed Deepwater Facility would be comprised of the following components:
• Road access to the site (from the existing boat ramp to Innuit Head)
• A proposed bridge crossing at “Canoe Passage”.
• Development of a caisson type berth structure (of approximately 80 meters in length, and berth
approach causeway.
• Development of a level terminal site area of approximately 2 hectares.
• Provision of a 35 x 20 meter covered storage shed.
• Provision of a 10 x 10 meter operations control building.
• Upgrading of the on-shore oil pipeline and provision of a ship to shore oil transfer arm.
• Provision of cargo handling equipment for port operations.
• Extended distribution of utilities along the road access and within the terminal site.
4.3 Proposed Small Craft Facility

The proposed Small Craft Facility is presented in Figure 3. The proposed development includes the
provision of a hardstand area (similar to the open storage area provided at the deepwater facility) adjacent
to the existing boat ramp, suitable for storage of small boats and parking of vehicles.
In addition, it is proposed to develop the area immediately south of the boat ramp, by providing a short
section of road access and a causeway/breakwater structure over the inshore rock shelf. This will allow
development of pile restrained small craft floats, which will allow summer access to boats at any stage of
the tide.
There is no definitive information regarding the number of small craft in Iqaluit, but it is estimated to be
in excess of 100 boats. The provision of three berthing floats, each of 30 meters length would provide for
mooring of 10 to 15 boats per float section (if boats are double banked on one side of the float)for a total
of 30 to 45 berths. In the event that the demand for moorage increases, the facility can be expanded by
adding float extensions to the proposed structures.
Provision is also made for development of a second hardstand area adjacent to the inshore section of the
causeway. This area could be used for installation of a “day” fuel tank which would service one berth of
the mooring floats. It also provides for some parking and other ancillary uses.
In summary, the proposed Deepwater Facility comprise the following components:
• Road access to the causeway/ breakwater.

• Development of a hardstand area adjacent to the existing boat ramp.
• Development of a causeway /breakwater structure and adjacent hardstand area.
• Provision of a 30x 30 meter piled small craft floats with two interconnection floats, and an access
ramp.

THREE FLOATING SMALL
CRAFT BERTHS
(30m x 5m, 20m APART)
ACCESS RAMP
0 10 50 100
SCALE 1:2,500
5m ACCESS
ROAD
BOAT STORAGE

AREA 3
SMALL CRAFT FACILITY
Figure No.
3
4.4 Marine Structure for the Deepwater Berth

A review was conducted of the proposed marine structure concepts developed in the 1980 (DPW)
Preliminary Engineering Report for the General Cargo Marine Terminal, Iqaluit, Nunavut, primarily to
assess the viability of the design concepts in light of more recent construction experience, and to upgrade
the capital cost estimates for the marine structure component of the project.
Four concepts were reviewed for the marine structure, namely :
1. A design built Concrete Caisson (as per the 1980 DPW Report).
2. Steel Jackets, Concrete Elements and Steel Bridge with precast panels.
3. A combination Steel Pile Walls, Pipe & AZ and HZ.
4. Use of the existing (Tarsiut) Concrete Caisson and Vertical Sheet Pile Wall.
Capital cost estimates were calculated for the purpose of upgrading the marine structure costs developed
in the 1980 DPW report, and comparing the four structure concepts noted above. The results of this
assessment are presented in tabular format in Table 8 below.
It is noted that Cellular (Cofferdam Style) “Sheet Pile Cells” were not considered in this particular
assessment, but they are anticipated to be a viable alternative, and could be constructed at a cost similar to
that of Concept 3, and that construction aspects of three of the four concepts have been built in the Arctic,
the exception being the Steel jacket concept (Concept 2).
It is anticipated that all four concepts could be constructed during a two-season construction schedule
period.
It is recommended that engineering/construction contract companies be approached to develop the most

innovative and economical solutions for the design and construction of the marine structure. Concept 3 is
considered to be a reasonably “traditional” structure design for Arctic waters and may attract more
competitive bids.
To allow comparison with the 1980 DPW report, capital cost estimates presented in the project capital
cost estimate are premised on a caisson type structure.

Table 8. NEW TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT (Wharf Concepts)
Concept Cost Benefits Risk

1. Concrete Caisson $21,584,000 • Weather and environment resistant • Two seasons to construct.
Wharf • Low maintenance costs • Expensive marine tow and positioning
• 100% assured constructability costs.
• Indefinite service life • Expensive purpose built structure.
• Subcontract labour and schedule
cost/delays. Only a few contractors in
Canada are capable of bidding this
design.
2. Steel Jackets, $19,600,000 • Cost savings. • Design needs to be able to withstand ice
Precast Elements and • Single season construction schedule. loads.
• Limited dredging required. • Design requirement for small craft at
Steel Bridge with
Wharf face regarding fendering for tides
precast deck panels. and wind.
3.Combination Walls $17,978,000 • Cost Savings. • Design is susceptible to sea and wind
• Pipe and AZ • Potentially a free standing wall.(one tie conditions.
Wall back) • Construction is tide and weather
• HZ Wall • Pipe and AZ wall can have socket footings dependant
in limited overburden. • Includes two end “wing” walls allowing
development of a wharf apron
4. Caisson Crib $18,589,000 • Costs Savings • High cost of “marine lift” from
(Tarsiut) and Vertical • No cost for caissons. Western to Eastern Arctic.
• Remaining three caissons could be used for • Wharf size would be smaller; 69m X
Sheet Pile Wall
“small boat harbour” Break Water. 15m versus vs 79 X 20m.
• Potential for single season construction
schedule.
Note: This comparison table presents costs ONLY for the marine structures component of the Deepwater Facility.

4.5 Cargo Handling Equipment

The Deepwater Facility will require cargo handling equipment to transfer cargo between the berth apron
and the storage shed or yard, to strip cargo from containers, and to transfer cargo between storage
facilities and trucks.
Typically, the equipment required to transfer cargo is as follows
• A mobile crane (a 150 tonne capacity crane is proposed) will allow offloading of barges that have
no cargo handling gear; it can also be used to assist in conventional ship or fishing vessel
discharge during low tide periods when it may not be feasible to use ships cranes for cargo
discharge.
• A 40 tonne fork lift truck (with both fork and “top” container spreader attachments) will be used
to transfer containers and larger units of general cargo.
• A 12 tonne capacity fork lift truck for intermediate units of general cargo.
• Two 3 tonne fork lift trucks, used for handling of smaller general cargo units, and stripping of
containers.
In addition, it is assumed that an oil transfer arm will be provided for ship to shore transfer of oil
products.
Capital cost estimates in this Plan include allowance for provision of these units of equipment.
4.6 Berth Occupancy

A simple assessment has been made of the level of berth occupancy that can be anticipated over the first
twenty years of operation of the Deepwater Terminal Facility (between the years 2005 and 2025), and is
presented in Table 9 below.

Table 9. Iqaluit Integrated Port Facilities

Berth Occupancy Assessment
Year 2005
Product General Cargo Containers Oil Products Fish Products Other ships Total
Type
Movement Import Imp/Exp Import Import
Annual Tonnage 6,000 12,400 43,000 8,400
Annual Containers 775
Ship calls/year 13 13 4 12 8
Av Shipment Size 461.54 119.23 10,750.00 700.00
Handling Prod (T or TEU/berth hr) 20 10 350 30

Av B hrs/ship call 23.08 11.92 30.71 23.33
Estimated Ops Hours per day 20.00 20.00 22.00 20.00
Total B days/ship call 1.15 0.60 1.40 1.17 0.75
Total B days/year 15.00 7.75 5.58 14.00 6.00 48.33
Available B days/year 98 98 98 98 98
Berth Occupancy level (%/Annum) 15.31% 7.91% 5.70% 14.29% 6.12% 49.32%
Year 2015
Type
Movement Import Imp/Exp Import Export
Annual Tonnage 5,490 16,958 52,460 10,248
Annual Containers 1211
Ship calls/year 13 13 4 18
Av Shipment Size 422.31 186.35 13,115.00 569.33
Handling Prod (T or TEU/berth hr) 22.5 12 400 35

Av B hrs/ship call 18.77 15.53 32.79 16.27
Total B days/year 12.20 10.09 5.96 14.64 0.00 42.90
Year 2025
Type
Movement Import Imp/Exp Import Export
Annual Tonnage 4,440 22,792 63,640 12,432
Annual Containers 1,628
Ship calls/year 13 13 5 20
Av Shipment Size (Tonnes or TEU) 341.54 250.46 12,728.00 621.60
Handling Prod (T or TEU/berth hr) 25 14 450 40

Av B hrs/ship call 13.66 17.89 28.28 15.54
Total B days/year 8.88 11.63 6.43 15.54 0.00 42.48
Notes 1) An estimated average annual cargo growth rate of 2% is assumed

2) The percentage of Containerised cargo is assumed to increase annually
3) Container volumes include export of empty containers for general cargo & Fish product
4) Fish products are estimated at 700 T per ship call
5) Cargo Handling productivity increases have been assumed between years 2005 and 2025
6) Cargo Handling productivity rates incoroprate berthing,unberthing and documentation time.
7) Cargo Handling operations are premised on a three shift/day operation.
8) "Other" Ship Calls include passenger, CCG and other ships

These berth occupancy estimates are premised on an average increase of 2% per annum in general cargo
and oil product shipments to Iqaluit. An allowance is also made for handling of fisheries product,
(including increased annual volumes reefer type containers for transhipment of fish products), and for
accommodation of other ships such as passenger ships and Canadian Coast Guard ships over a typical
shipping season of approximately 98 days.
The cargo handling productivity rates for general cargo and containerized cargo are typical of those
achieved at small multi-purpose berth facilities, and the cargo handling productivity rates noted for oil
product discharge fall with the range of those achieved at the existing facility. Increases in cargo handling
productivity are anticipated as experience is gained in port operations, and with increase penetration of
containerized cargo.
The results indicate that the berth is likely to operate at 40 to 45% occupancy level, which is considered a
reasonable level of utilization for a single berth facility. Ships calling the berth should not experience
excessive levels of queuing (or delays awaiting the berth).
In the event that there is a substantial increase in the forecast number of ship calls at the berth (beyond
that noted in this report), it is considered feasible to incorporate an extension of the wharf to the southeast
by providing a second caisson (or alternative) berth structure.
4.7 Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

Preliminary cost estimates have been made for the Capital and Annual Operating costs of the integrated
port facility. Detailed estimates are presented (in year 2005 Canadian dollars) in Tables 10 and 11
respectively below.
These estimates are intended for initial planning purposes only and will need to be refined as the preferred
design of the port facilities is selected. .
4.8 Summary
The development of an Integrated Port Facility within the harbour area of Iqaluit is considered technically
feasible.
A number of options are available with respect to the type of marine structure that is proposed for the
berth itself. For this assessment, and specifically in development of project cost, a caisson structure has
been proposed as a viable option, but it is noted that a more cost effective design may be presented at
future stages of project development.

The next phase of the project would be to progress all aspects of planning and facilities design to a
feasibility level (or even to a detailed design level) of assessment, which in turn will provide a higher
level of confidence in the capital and operating cost estimates for the project.

Table 10. Iqaluit Integrated Port Facilities:

Base Capital Estimate and Total Capital Estimate
Item Unit Qty Unit Cost Cost

Cdn $
Deepwater Berth Capital Estimate
Berth Structure Lump Sum (LS) 20,000,000
2
Storage Yard M 20,000 75 1,500,000
2
Storage Shed M 700 750 525,000
2
Operations Bldg & furnishings M 100 750 75,000
Site Utilities LS 2,000,000
Road Access Linear metre (LM) 1,600 850 1,360,000
2
"Canoe Passage" Bridge M 800 2,500 2,000,000
Land Pipeline upgrade L/M 1,800 750 1,350,000
Oil Transfer Arm LS 1,750,000
Safety and oil spill gear LS 1,500,000
Subtotal 30,560,000
Deepwater Berth Equipment Capital Estimate
Mobile Crane (150 t capacity) LS 1 1,500,000 1,500,000
Container Top Lift Truck (40 t Capacity) LS 1 500,000 500,000
GC Handling Fork Lift Truck (12t) LS 1 170,000 170,000
GC Handling Fork Lift Truck (5t) LS 1 85,000 85,000
Container Fork Lift Truck (3t) LS 2 60,000 120,000
Cargo Handling Gear (slings, ropes, shackles etc.) LS 100,000
Subtotal 2,475,000
Deepwater Berth Total Capital Estimate 33,035,000
Small Craft Harbour Capital Estimate
Road Access L/M 250 850 212,500
Causeway/Breakwater L/M 275 4,000 1,100,000
2
Boat Mooring Floats M 700 300 210,000
Float Piling per pile 16 7,500 120,000
2
Access Ramp M 90 450 40,500
2
Storage Areas M 10,800 50 540,000
Fuel day tanks and supply lines L/S 200,000
Small Craft Harbour Total Capital Estimate 2,423,000
Integrated Port Base Capital Estimate 35,458,000
Port Facility: Base Capital, Environmental, Engineering and
Contingency
Base Capital Cost 33,035,000
Environmental assessment/regulatory approvals (@5 % of Capex) 1,651,750
Engineering (@ 6% of Capex) 1,982,100
Contingency (@20% of Capex) 7,003,420
Total Deepsea Facility 43,672,270
Small Craft Facility: Base Capital, Environmental, Engineering
and Contingency
Base Capital Cost 2,423,000
Environmental assessment/regulatory approvals (@5 % of Capex) 121,150
Engineering (@ 6% of Capex) 145,380
Contingency (@20% of Capex) 513,676
Total Small Craft Facility 3,203,206
Integrated Port Total Capital Estimate, with Environmental,
Engineering and Contingency 46,875,476
Note- all costs are order of magnitude estimates only and will be refined at the final engineering stage


Estimated Annual Operating Cost7
Item General Cargo/ Oil Products Fish Products Total

Containers
Annual Cargo Volume (metric tonnes) 10,000 43,000 8,400 61,400
Terminal Operating Components

Est. cargo transfer rate(metric tonnes/berth hr) 22 350 30
Est Ship Discharge Time (hours/annum) 455 123 280
Operational Efficiency (working hours/available hours) 0.83 0.92 0.83
Est Effective Ship Discharge Time (hours/annum) 545.45 134.03 336.00
Est Effective Ship Discharge Time (days/annum) 22.73 5.58 14.00
On-site Manpower requirements per shift (number) 14 4 6
Est cost per hour per man & equipment (dollars per hour) 85 75 85
Est man & equipment hours per annum 7,636 536 2,016
Estimated operating costs per annum 649,091 40,208 171,360 860,659
Other Terminal Costs Capital Estimate % of Cap. Est./yr
Terminal Facility Infrastructure Maintenance* 40,553,770 0.75% 304,153

Terminal Facility Equipment Maintenance 3,118,500 2.50% 77,963
Insurance 43,672,270 1.00% 436,723
Overhead & Management 43,672,270 0.25% 109,181
Total Other Terminal Costs 928,019
Base Est'd Annual Deepsea Facility Operations Cost 1,788,678

Contigency (at 20%) 357,736
Estimated Annual Deepsea Facility Operations Cost 2,146,413
*Note- include Capital estimate of 33,035,000 plus contingency
Note- all costs are order of magnitude estimates only and will be refined at the final engineering stage
7
It is recommend that funding be acquired to support the Terminal Operating Costs forecast to be spent
over the first five years of operations. This will allow the port authority to develop operational experience
and market the port facilities over this critical star-up phase of operations.

5. Benefits of Integrated Port Facilities
5.1 Direct Benefits

5.1.1 Cost Savings
Construction of deepwater port facilities at Iqaluit will have a major impact on costs currently
experienced by two of the current users of the Iqaluit harbour, general cargo and petroleum products, and
by fisheries as a potentially significant future user of Iqaluit port facilities. While detailed estimates of
costs and potential cost savings as a key element of feasibility studies, it is possible to provide an initial
estimate of the cost savings to these three user groups, using the data outlined above in this section:
General cargo vessels:
For general cargo vessels, current ship days spent in port are calculated from the recent figures on
average days in port, 4.1 days, and the average number of cargo vessels, 17 vessels annually. Overall,
general cargo ships spend 70 days in port annually. It is estimated that with modern port facilities
allowing for unloading through all phases of the tide cycle, reduced number of time handling cargo, a
reduced level of cargo damage, and increased use of containerization, this could be reduced by almost
80%, to 15 days annually. In addition, general cargo vessels would save on the costs of lighterage
(barging) currently required to transport cargo to the beach.
Petroleum products vessels:
Current annual ship days in port are 16 (an average of 4 vessels per year requiring 3.9 days average
for transferring products). It is estimated that through reduced transfer time as a result of more
efficient procedures and reduced risk, this could be reduced by a factor of about 60%, to 6 days
annually.
Fisheries vessels:
Currently, fisheries vessels are travelling to ports in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia for unloading
product, resupply and crew change, which requires from 8 to 12 days for the return trip to port and
back to the fishing grounds, depending on the location of the port. If an average of 10 days is used as
the current number of days required, this could be replaced by a round trip of 4 days for the projected
minimum of 8 fisheries vessels visiting a port at Iqaluit an average of 3 times per season in the future.
The results would be very significant cost savings for fisheries vessels, increased fishing time and
greater volume of catch where quotas are not currently being filled, and vastly increased visitation to
Iqaluit by fisheries vessels (up from an average of less than 1 visit per year).
The initial estimate of cost savings for these three user groups, based on low and high estimates of
operating costs per day for vessels, is presented on the following page. The costs estimates are calculated
in real terms, that is, inflation has not been factored in at this point.

This initial estimate of costs savings suggests that there could potentially be a savings to these user groups
of between $3.5 and $4.9 million annually. When this figure is compared to the project annual operating
costs of port facilities, the indication is that there will be a reasonable potential for charging a level of user
fees that will cover operating costs and provide for a viable operation, as well as a potential for reducing
cargo and petroleum transportation costs. This would be a significant benefit for Nunavut, which has the
highest cost of living of any jurisdiction in Canada. This does not take into account at this point additional
user fees to be obtained from other user groups.
Table 12. Estimated Cost Savings to General Cargo, Petroleum Products, and Fisheries Users
From Construction of Deepwater Port Facilities
General Cargo Oil Fish Total

Low Range High Range Low Range High Range Low Range High Range Low Range High Range
Current Annual Ship Days in Port or Transit 70 70 16 16 240 240
Forecast Annual Ship Days at Berth or Transit 12 12 6 6 96 96
Variance in Annual Port/Berth time or Transit 57.7 57.7 9.6 9.6 144 144
Estimated Cost per Ship day 25,000 35,000 35,000 45,000 7,000 10,000
Estimated Annual Ship Cost Savings 1,442,500 2,019,500 336,000 432,000 1,008,000 1,440,000 2,786,500 3,891,500
Estimated Lighterage cost per day 10,000 15,000 10,000 15,000
Estimated Lighterage cost per annum 697,000 1,045,500 697,000 1,045,500
Total Annual Estimated Cost Savings 2,139,500 3,065,000 336,000 432,000 1,008,000 1,440,000 3,483,500 4,937,000
5.1.2 Increased Use of Port and Port Services by Other User Groups
In addition to the cost savings and associated benefits to the three user groups outlined above, there would
potentially be increased use of the Iqaluit port by other user groups identified previously. This includes
visits by cruise ships including Iqaluit in their tour schedules and docking for services such as tour
passenger changes, resupply and bunkering. There may also be increased use by military Canadian Coast
Guard and military vessels for resupply, bunkering and crew change.
Port facilities geared to small craft users would immediately double the opportunities for local outfitters
to provide boat tours to visitors, and increased efficiency for small cargo vessels in time required for
anchoring, loading and unloading could potentially increase the level of operations and income.
Other direct benefits for local small craft users would be:
• access to boats during the entire cycle of the tides for re-supply, refuelling, loading, and
offloading;

• a very significant reduction in damage through protected area for anchorage and
designated safe storage area;
• a major reduction in high insurance costs currently related to the lack of infrastructure.
5.1.3 Direct Employment
Direct employment will be created through the operation of the integrated port facilities providing
services to all port users. The total projected employment created and wages paid will be the subject of
future feasibility analysis.
5.1.4 Environment and Safety
Construction of integrated port facilities will create a safer working environment through the elimination
for general cargo of barge transfer across water that frequently takes place in rough seas, and the creation
of safer working conditions for the transfer of petroleum products. It will also eliminate hazards from
other vessel operators currently encountering the floating pipeline used for the transfer of petroleum
products.
Most importantly, the elimination of petroleum product transfer through a floating pipeline will make it
possible to prepare proper spill contingency plans, which as discussed above is currently impossible. It
would also created a safer environment for refuelling of both large and small vessels, which currently
involve environmentally high risk operations.
5.2 Spin-Off Benefits

5.2.1 Fisheries
The potential economic impact of increased visitation to an Iqaluit port could be immense. Use by fishing
vessels of the port of Iqaluit will require freezer storage space readily available for the offloaded frozen
product. It will also require services for repacking, regrading and containerization of the product. The
containerized product could then be trans-shipped via a large container ship that would transport the
product to market. This may entail up to three containerships each season, based on the volume of
fisheries product.8 These operations will provide not only increased use of the port, but also major
economic spin-offs for the local economy in terms of increased employment, and increased business
opportunities and income. The large volumes of fisheries products being shipped out of Iqaluit would
greatly increase the current low levels of backhauled cargo, and could possibly result in reductions in
overall cargo rates.
8
Interview with Jerry Ward, Baffin Fisheries Coalition.

Additional spin-off benefits would be created through services required for resupply of the fisheries
trawlers, and accommodation and transportation services for crew changes. Having crew changes carried
out in Iqaluit rather than in a southern port may also make it easier to promote increased employment of
Nunavut Inuit beneficiaries on offshore fisheries vessels. Resupply would include both food services and
other marine goods including parts and fishing supplies. Repair and maintenance services, including
welders and mechanics would also be in demand.
Finally, construction of port facilities is considered to be a necessary condition for the development and
viable operation of a summer inshore fishery within the regional economy. One option proposed for
development of the inshore fishery is for communities to use small inshore vessels that would fish in
areas around the communities, then off-load their catch to a large regional collector that could transport
the product to a port like Iqaluit for processing, storage and trans-shipment.9
5.2.2 Provision of Services for Other User Groups
There would also be demand for services from the increased use of the port by other user groups, such as
cruise ships and Coast Guard and military, that would impact on both employment and business
opportunities and income. These services would include:
• Refuelling
• Resupply of food
• Resupply of parts and maintenance services
• Passenger and crew changes – accommodation and transportation services.
5.3 Further Studies

A full cost/benefit analysis will form part of future comprehensive feasibility studies to be carried out as
part of the Iqaluit integrated port planning process. This will include further research and detailing of
operational revenues and costs, and further elaboration and quantification of direct and indirect economic
benefits provided by the project.
6. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment and

Regulatory Requirements
The Iqaluit deepwater port facility is to be located on commissioner’s land within the municipal
boundaries of the City of Iqaluit. The proposed Iqaluit Port Project will require approval from a number
of territorial and federal government departments and boards depending on the final project scope. The
environmental assessment and regulatory applications required for approval of this project will be
9
Overview of Nunavut Fisheries, p. 8.

completed in an integrated manner for ease of review and approval by government departments and
boards. The environmental assessment and supporting baseline programs will also use an “issues based
approach” to ensure that programs are carried out in a strategic and seamless manner. This approach has
been developed in response to local concerns (e.g. use of explosives) that have been raised during the
initial planning stages of this project. Workplans for environmental and socio-economic baseline
programs will be shared with stakeholders and the general public and there will be an emphasis placed on
hiring and training local technical support personnel and services.
There are a number of territorial and federal government departments and boards that will play key roles
in the assessment and approval of this project. In Nunavut, there are two key stages to approval of major
projects. The first stage is the environmental assessment stage where project impacts and appropriate
mitigation and monitoring is assessed by the proponent and then reviewed and approved through the
Nunavut Impact Review Board or NIRB process. The second stage is the regulatory approval stage which
gives a proponent the necessary permits and authorities to initiate development of the project.
The following is a synopsis of approvals that are required and is not intended to represent all the
approvals that will be required at all stages of this project.
6.1 Environmental Assessment

The Project will undergo an environmental review with the Nunavut Impact Review Board (“NIRB”) as
the Board has principal jurisdiction over the project (commissioner’s and municipal land and off-shore).
NIRB will undertake a project screening, prepare EIS Guidelines, and, subject to the approval of the
project, issue a Project Certificate pursuant to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (“NLCA”) Article 12,
Part 5. NIRB will play a key leadership role in the assessment and approval of this project.
As the Nunavut Planning Commission (“NPC”) has no approved plan in the area, the NIRB Project
screening and review would likely be done at the request of the Government of Nunavut. NIRB would
report its findings on any potential impacts to the Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development (“DIAND”) and the need for a review by NIRB (12.5) or a Federal Panel (12.6).
The Project will also require a review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (“CEAA”),
due to the triggering of federal statutes that are for the approval of this project.
A summary of the environmental assessment process in Nunavut is shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7- Generalized NIRB Process
6.2 Regulatory Approvals

As the port project will be developed on Commissioner’s Land, a Commissioner’s Land Lease will be
required from the Department of Community and Government Services (“CG&S”) of the Government of
Nunavut (“GN”).
If any quarrying were to occur outside of municipal land (‘hinterland’), appropriate quarrying permits
would be needed from CG&S. Any other land activities of short duration would also require a land use
permit from CG&S. The department would submit any land use permits and/ or quarry applications to
the Nunavut Impact Review Board for environmental screening. If land based activity is required on
federal crown land to support the development of the port project, federal land use approvals would be
required through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC).

Authorizations will also be required from the GN in regards to health and safety and employment
standards.
The Project’s development of a dock and associated activities in the marine environment will require a
fisheries authorization from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (“DFO”), under section 35 of the Fisheries Act.
This authorization allows for alteration of fish habitat with associated fisheries habitat compensation
being required, depending on the type of activity. It is anticipated there will not be the requirement for a
water license under the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, as there are no
anticipated impacts on receiving fresh water as a result of this project.
Approval will be needed from Transport Canada (“TC”) for the Project’s construction and operation
within navigable waters pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Any shipping activities would
be regulated under the Canada Marine Act.
Environment Canada’s (“EC”) legislations concerning the management of storage tanks will also need to
be considered by the project proponent.
The Proponent will have to follow regulations under the Species at Risk Act (“SARA”) in regards to the
species at risk in the area: the Harlequin Duck, the Peregrine falcon, the Beluga whale, the Northern
Wolfish, the Spotted Wolfish and Atlantic Wolfish. The Migratory Birds Convention Act will also need to
be considered, along with its regulations for migratory birds and destruction of habitat.
There are a number of other approvals required such as scientific permits from the Nunavut Research
Institute (“NRI”) to conduct environmental and socio-economic baseline and monitoring activities.
Clearly the application package required to support the Iqaluit Port Project will have to be comprehensive
given the number of authorities required to move this project forward. A transparent and highly
consultative approach will be used at all stages to ensure that approval agencies receive sufficient
information to move this project forward in an effective manner.
7. Project Planning – Phases of Development and Funding

Requirements
The planning phases outlined below are intended to provide general guidance and timing for the overall
project. The overall port development and related infrastructure costs are estimated to be in the order of
$47 million (Canadian). These costs are preliminary and are based on a general understanding of the
proposed port facility. The refinement of these costs will occur as the engineering, permitting
requirements and overall project design with ancillary infrastructure is at a more advanced stage. Funding
for this project should occur in stages to correspond with the Project Planning Phases, which allows for

effective cash management and gives maximum flexibility as port concepts evolve. The following is an
overview of the funding phases required for this project.
1. Initial Project Planning/Scoping

This project phase is currently underway. During the winter and spring of 2005, stakeholder
workshops with the Iqaluit Port Steering Committee have been held to determine local objectives
needs, project visioning and to develop an overall strategy in moving this project forward. This phase
should also include preliminary environmental and socio-economic baseline information.
2. Consultation
Consultation with the project Steering Committee, government departments and boards, communities
and the general public will occur throughout the life of this project.
3. Integrated Port Plan and Feasibility Engineering

This phase of the project will use the visioning and stakeholder concepts to develop the Integrated
Port Plan including feasibility level engineering. This will be used to refine overall project costs and
to refine the assessment and approvals strategy including associated baseline information collection
and community consultation.
4. Baseline Programs
There will be a requirement to carry out engineering, environmental, socio-economic and IQ baseline
programs in 2006 as follow up to the reconnaissance baseline programs outlined in Phase 1 above. It
is an advantage to have 2 complete field seasons of field data from break-up until freeze-up to ensure
the range of environmental conditions are included in the data set for the approvals process.
5. Final Engineering and Project Design

Final engineering and project design will be required prior to submitting regulatory applications.
Refinement of the project will occur after receiving comments on the preliminary project design from
stakeholders and will be done in concert with the results of the above baseline programs.
6. Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Approvals

An integrated regulatory application package including the environmental assessment document will
be submitted once a final project design is complete to ensure the project base case does not change
throughout the assessment and approval process.
7. Construction
It is estimated that 2 construction seasons will be required to complete the Iqaluit Port Project.
Construction will not be initiated until all required government and board approvals are in place.
8. Operation and Monitoring

It is expected that operation of the facility and post construction monitoring will occur sometime after
2009.

The schedule for the planning phases, and the generalized pro forma funding schedule is presented in
Table 12 below.
Table 12. Preliminary Project Schedule – Iqaluit Port Project
Major Activities 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

th st nd rd th st nd rd th st nd rd th st nd
4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3rd 4th
1. Initial Project
Planning/Scoping
2. Consultation
3. Integrated Port Plan
and Feasibility
Engineering
4. Baseline Programs
5. Final Engineering and
Project Design
6. Environmental
Assessment and
Regulatory Approvals
7. Construction
8. Operation and
PREP. ONLY
Monitoring
Generalized Pro Forma

$ 35K $ 35K $352K $916K $780K $ 670K $435K $390K $920K $ 630K $ 635K $ 11.16M $6.51M $5.21M $3.02M $5.01M $3.01M
Funding Schedule*
8. Community Consultation
8.1 Approach
The primary approach to community consultation is based on the decision by the City of Iqaluit at the
commencement of the planning project, as the lead organization co-ordinating the Integrated Port Project
planning, to form a Steering Committee which has subsequently grown into a larger Stakeholders Group.
The Stakeholders Group provides a vehicle for the direct participation of all interested parties in the
project direction and planning. The Stakeholders Group serves as a primary mechanism for input of
information, concerns and support from the community, as well as for the dissemination of information
and reports to all interested parties within the community.

Two major meetings of the Stakeholders Group have been held to date, in February and May of 2005.
These included representatives of the City, key user groups for the port facilities, appropriate agencies of
the Government of Nunavut, local representatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, economic
planning bodies based in Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. as the key organization overseeing
implementation of the land claim, the Hunters and Trappers Association representing hunters and fishers
involved in traditional harvesting pursuits, and the Iqaluit Chamber of Commerce representing business
interests within the City. The objective is to continue to expand participation in the Stakeholders Group to
additional representatives of user groups and other local representatives of government departments as the
project planning unfolds.
Stakeholder consultations to date have been the basis for the definition of the vision, concept and project
description for the integrated port project. The consulting team has complemented this with ongoing
research and technical support.
The activities of the Stakeholders Group will be complemented by information and consultation sessions
designed for the broader community of Iqaluit, and for other communities in Nunavut that will be
impacted through construction and operation of the integrated port facilities.
8.2 Consultation Phases

Phases for community consultation will correspond to key project phases outlined above in section 7:
Initial Project Planning/Scoping (October 2005 – March 2006)

• Stakeholders Group: discussion and feedback of initial concept and project description through at
least two Stakeholder meetings/workshops;
• Community: information provided to community members through newsletter and radio, and
feedback, concerns and support obtained through a general community information meeting;
• Other impacted communities: initial written information to be provided, and meetings to be held
with representatives of other communities.
Engineering and Baseline Programs (April 2006 – September 2007)

• Development and sharing of baseline workplans with Stakeholder groups and communities;
• Stakeholder Group: ongoing reporting and input through scheduled meetings/workshops to
provide information as design progresses, and to ensure that community objectives and interests
continue to lead and provide a framework for project design;
• Community and other impacted communities: baseline programs, conducted over two summer
seasons, will include detailed research through surveys, interviews, focus groups and other means
covering current past and current use by all user groups, and all other environmental, socio-
economic aspects and cultural aspects related to the project, including project objectives and
description, land and resource use, archaeological areas, terrain sensitivities, Inuit cultural
objectives and concerns, Inuit, city resident, and Nunavut employment and business contracting
participation, etc.

Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Approvals (October 2006 – June 2007)

• Stakeholders Group: the stakeholders will be directly involved in providing input into the
environmental assessment process and regulatory approvals process;
• Community: during the environmental assessment, efforts will be directed at ensuring that all
community members have sufficient knowledge of and opportunity to participate in the
assessment process.
Construction (July – December 2008)

• Stakeholder Group: during the initial stages of construction, the Stakeholders will act as a conduit
for monitoring and communication of any community concerns during the construction process.
9. Approach and Scope of Environmental and Socio-

Economic Baseline Programs
A number of environmental and socio-economic baseline studies will need to be carried out to ensure
there is adequate information to properly assess the short term (e.g. construction) and longer term (e.g.
operations) impacts of the Iqaluit Port Project.
The following are examples of baseline programs that will need to be carried out over at least 2 field
seasons in support of the assessment and approval of the port project.
Example Physical Baseline Programs:

• Fall/Winter/Spring Ice conditions;
• Near shore marine conditions including detailed bathymetry, distribution and thickness of bottom
sediments;
• Inter-tidal assessment;
• Sea level dynamics, including coastal erosion and storm events;
• Climate change-long term impact on sea-ice formation and break up;
• Geotechnical drilling (both sediment and bedrock); and,
• Permafrost considerations.
Example Biological Baseline Programs:

• Fish presence/abundance;
• Fish habitat characterization (also required for compensation requirements);
• Marine mammal presence/abundance;
• Inventory of threatened or endangered species (birds, mammals, fish); and,
• Inter-tidal assessment.

The approach that will be used for the development of baseline programs will be to develop and share
workplans with the port stakeholder committee, boards, government and the general public prior to
initiation of these programs. Of particular importance will be the integration of Inuit qaujimajatuqangit
into baseline programs and the linkages between this knowledge and western science.
The Iqaluit Port Project will require services and employees that are resident in Iqaluit to support baseline
programs through institutions such as Arctic College. In this context training will be a significant
component of the collection of environmental, engineering and socio-economic baseline information.
.
The following issues would need to be considered for any social, economic and cultural studies:
• Identification of communities to be impacted in the Baffin region;
• Current need for project;
• Predicted economic benefits of the Project;
• Predicted negative impacts from the Project;
• Assessment of cultural values;
• Archeological studies; and
• The incorporation of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (“IQ”) (traditional knowledge).
10. Intergovernmental Oversight Committee
It is recognized that in order to realize the ambitious objectives of this Strategic Plan for the Iqaluit
Deepwater Port Project, the active cooperation and participation of all three levels of government will be
required. It is recommended therefore, that an Intergovernmental Oversight Committee be formed, under
the leadership of the City, including representatives of the three levels of government and Nunavut
Tunngavik Inc.
Membership of the Intergovernment Oversight Committee would include:
Federal Government:
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should play a lead role as the agency
with overall responsibility for development in the Arctic. Nevertheless, there are other key federal
players as well, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in conjunction with the Canadian
Coast Guard Service and the Department of Transport.
Territorial Government:
There are also several departments with direct interest in the construction and operation of marine
facilities, perhaps led by the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, but including the Departments
of Economic Development and Transportation, Environment and Community Government and
Services.

Municipal Government:
There should be a combination of Councillors, led by the Mayor and supported by senior officials,
and also including two or three key representatives from the broader community. The City would
provide leadership of the Oversight Committee.
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.:

Although not a governmental group, because of their integral role in the creation of Nunavut and
representational function played on behalf of the Inuit, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. should also play a
role in the oversight committee.
An early decision should be taken as to how this committee will be formally structured including
members and alternates, its broad responsibilities and how information will be shared and developed as
the project proceeds. It should be this Committee that ensures a close level of coordination between all
interested parties and determines the specific and unique roles that each of the parties will play in
realizing the vision of an Integrated Port. The Committee should meet at least quarterly throughout each
stage of development outlined earlier in this plan, and detailed public reports, approved by the
Committee, should be issued at least semi-annually. In this way accountabilities will be established and
effective communication between all interested parties assured.
During the Stakeholder workshops, a preferred option for initial management of the Integrated Port
Facility was identified. This option would involve a tripartite management structure involving all three
levels of government. It was suggested that this initial management structure would be appropriate during
the formative operational stages, and might later be replaced by a public/private or independent port
authority once management and operational patterns and procedures have become established. While
further planning on management structure for the proposal Integrated Port will be carried out, it is
envisioned that the formation and work of the Oversight Committee would provide an appropriate means
for planning and establishing an initial tripartite management body.
11. Conclusions
In this study an examination has been conducted of various factors that must be considered before a
deepwater port facility at Iqaluit can be constructed and it has been determined that such an endeavour is
indeed both technically feasible and economically desirable. Preliminary estimates of costs for each of
the phases necessary to bring the construction of port facilities to fruition have been identified and range
of cost benefits also initially assessed. To complete this project, considerable effort will be required and
it will take time. Perhaps the most ambitious estimate for completion of this project is four years, but
more realistically five years from this point before the first ship could be berthed at the new wharf .
This report notes that there are a number of options available with respect to the type of marine structure
for the berth itself. Nevertheless, in order to develop some preliminary cost estimates it was necessary to

choose one of these and a caisson structure has been proposed as a viable option. Notwithstanding this
initial choice, more cost effective designs may be presented at future stages of project development.
A significant feature of the planning stage must be completion of a broad range of environmental and
socio-economic impact studies. Once these studies have been completed and all of the regulatory
requirements have been satisfied and engineering and design work completed, at least two full seasons is
estimated as being necessary for the actual construction of this type of facility
As identified in the earlier stakeholder workshops, the notion of an integrated port facility has also been
shown as the most logical way of proceeding rather than considering the establishment of facilities
designed to serve only one or two marine user groups. The length of the shipping season in Frobisher
Bay is short and in order to maximize the potential benefits of a deepwater port, a wide group of users
must be considered. Since 1992, the shipping season has been extended from as early as June 30th to as
late as November 28th just one day short of five months.10 While falling far short of year-round access
this is still a significant period for active marine activity in the arctic.
The broad vision for Deepwater Port Facilities in Iqaluit is to provide marine support services for the
benefit of the residents of Iqaluit and for Nunavummiut at large in a manner that protects marine assets
and supports a variety of users.
Potential user groups include those involved in dry cargo handling including provision of construction
materials, petroleum re-supply, support for the minerals industry, fisheries, tourist cruise ship operations,
Coast Guard, military and research vessels as well as small craft users including hunters and fishermen,
local tourism outfitters, and small cargo operators. Two separate but linked facilities are included in the
integrated plan – a berthing area for large vessels and a small craft harbour area.
The benefits will include a significant decrease in off-loading times for cargo ships resulting in
considerable cost savings; opportunities for cruse ship arrivals and departures facilitating passenger
changes and resulting in significant economic spin-offs for Iqaluit; and opportunities for vessels engaged
in the off-shore fishery to use the port facilities to refuel and re-supply and offload product for
transshipment to international destinations. Crew changes will also be possible in all cases thus realizing
additional benefits to the local Iqaluit economy. The facilities available for smaller craft will assure much
safer and more efficient means for local owners and passengers to use these classes of vessels. Equally
important will be a dramatic reduction in environmental risk in transferring fuel products as well as an
overall reduced impact on the inter-tidal zone with the cessation of current off-loading procedures.
It is proposed that the project schedule be developed in 8 distinct phases including: initial project
planning/scoping; consultation; integrated port plan and feasibility engineering; baseline socio-economic
and environmental programs; final engineering and project design; environmental assessment and
10
Although the full shipping season is five months duration, to be conservative in forecasting usage, we have
focused only on the period of most active shipping, which is approximately ninety-eight days. The duration of this
most active period may well expand with the availability of a deepwater port.

regulatory approvals; construction and finally operation and monitoring. While some of the preliminary
work has commenced this year, it is estimated that the remainder of Phase 1 and the other phases will take
a minimum of an additional four years for completion.
Estimated capital and operating costs for the integrated port facilities are shown in the table below. Note
that all estimated costs are order of magnitude estimates only and will be refined at the final engineering
stage.

Summary of Estimated Capital and Operating Costs
Deepwater Berth $32,060,000

Deepwater Berth Equipment $ 2,475,000
Deepwater Berth - Base Capital Cost $34,535,000
Small Craft Harbour - Base Capital Cost $ 2,423,000
Integrated Port Base Capital Cost Estimate $36,958,000
Total Capital Cost Estimate, incuding engineering,
approvals and contingency $49,228,056
Annual Operating Cost Estimate $ 2,146,413
The most immediate requirement is the identification of funding sources to complete the preliminary
work and to begin the regulatory and engineering planning process. Since the federal government is
always involved in the installation of saltwater port facilities, various federal departments are seen as the
primary source of required planning and capital funding, but the full and active cooperation and
involvement of both territorial and municipal governments will also be required. This support will
include the marshalling of existing resources to help facilitate the development.
At all stages the public must be kept fully informed and indeed play an active role in the entire process
thus ensuring appropriate input at each stage and a full understanding of the planning, construction and
operational processes.

Appendices

APPENDIX A
STEERING COMMITTEE WORKSHOP

NOTES
FEBRUARY 16, 2005

Iqaluit Integrated Deepwater Port Plan
Stakeholder Planning Workshop
Iqaluit, Nunavut, May 26, 2005
Workshop Notes
1. Introduction
The City of Iqaluit is spearheading the development of a plan for establishment of deepwater
port facilities at Iqaluit. The intent of this planning project is to produce an Integrated Port
Facilities Plan that will meet the long-term needs of Iqaluit for sealift and handling of other large
vessels and at the same time provide facilities to address the needs of local commercial and other
small and mid-size craft operators.
An essential foundation for pursuing this plan is the establishment of an active stakeholders
group representing current and potential users of the proposed new integrated port facilities. It is
critical to the success of the project that stakeholders participate fully in all stages of the
planning.
An initial meeting of Stakeholders was organized by the City and held in Iqaluit on February
16th, 2005. At that meeting there was discussion of the various groups that use the current Iqaluit
harbour, and a presentation by the consulting team on environmental, socio-economic,
engineering and regulatory considerations. The key point agreed upon by stakeholders at the
initial meeting was that the planning must addresses the needs of all users. Planned facilities
must serve not only large vessels, but also the mid-size and smaller vessels that use the harbour
and are an essential element of the economy and future growth of Iqaluit and Nunavut. Final port
concepts must meet local objectives for users in Iqaluit and at the same time provides benefits to
all of Nunavut.
The second meeting of Stakeholders was held in Iqaluit on May 26th, 2005. This meeting
included an expanded Stakeholder group representing:
• City of Iqaluit
• Government of Nunavut, Legislative Assembly
• Government of Nunavut, Department of Environment
• Government of Nunavut, Department of Community Government and Services
• Amarok Hunters and Trappers Association
• Baffin Fisheries Coalition
• Qikiqtaaluk Corporation
• Local Cargo Hauling
• Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping (NEAS)
Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Limited Pg. 1

• Nunavut Sealink and Supply Inc. (NSSI)
• Uqsuq Oil
• Iqaluit Chamber of Commerce
• Nunavut Economic Forum
• Nunavut Tungavik Inc.
• Government of Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
A list of participants is provided in Appendix 1.
Opening comments at the May 26th workshop were made by both Mayor Elisapee Sheutiapik and
Deputy Mayor Glen Williams. City representatives noted that the City has obtained resources to
hire a consulting team under Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Limited to work on initial
project research and to bring together the various Stakeholders to identify the opportunities and
challenges in achieving the goal of establishing integrated port facilities. Objectives for the
workshop were:
1. To ensure that stakeholders have a common understanding of circumstances and factors

affecting marine activity in Frobisher Bay, specifically with respect to:
• Current status of marine vessel activity and results of research and special studies
undertaken in recent years. (1980-2005)
• Growth of types of marine vessel traffic in Frobisher Bay over the past several years
• Environmental and Regulatory considerations concerning construction and operation
of Deepwater Port facilities
2. To identify user group needs in relation to the establishment of an Iqaluit Deepwater

Port:
• Medium to Long Term potential of marine vessel activity with or without a
Deepwater Port Facility
• Opportunities and Challenges impacting on the establishment of Deepwater Port
Facilities in Iqaluit
3. To Explore and Identify Basic Concepts and Options to meet Local Objectives of a
Deepwater Port.
4. To develop a Vison and Planning Framework for the establishment and operation of a
Deepwater Port facility in Iqaluit.
5. To understand the scope of work and steps which must be undertaken and completed in
order to realize the Port Vision.
A complete statement of objectives and the agenda for the workshop are provided in Appendix 2.
The workshop was facilitated by the consulting team – Terry Forth and Fred Weihs of Aarluk
Consulting, and Steve Morison and Chris Anderson of Gartner Lee Limited. During the morning
session, the consulting team presented the results of research to date, and a summary of
engineering and environmental considerations. In the afternoon session, detailed discussions

were held among the stakeholder representatives on their current situation. potential for
development, and the specific needs of each group in relation to integrated port facilities. The
participants also developed a draft Vision Statement for development of integrated port facilities,
and identified next steps required to pursue the project. The results of these discussions are
presented in the notes below.
2. User Groups: Current Situation and Potential
a) General Cargo Shipping
Current Situation
Number of shipments:
• Initial data on shipping to Iqaluit was obtained from the Canadian Coast Guard for the
12-year period 1992-2003;
• Over the entire period 1992-2003, there were 150 vessels landing general cargo in Iqaluit,
or an average of 13 shipments annually;
• From 1992-1997, there were 8 shipments on average annually, and from 1998-2003 the
average number of shipments doubled to 16 annually;
• One of the larger cargo ships currently in use is 361 feet in length and has a minimum
draught of 25 feet;
• There were also 9 shipments of general cargo by tug and barge over the period, with 8 of
these occurring between 1999 and 2003.
Shipping season:
• Over the 12-year period, the earliest general cargo shipment arrived in Iqaluit June 30th;
• Last shipment left Iqaluit November 17th.
Unloading times and costs:

• Over the 12-year period, general cargo vessels spent an average of 4.3 days in harbour;
• In 2003, the days spent in harbour by general cargo vessels ranged from 1 day to 14 days;
• Currently, sealift is a tidal operation which involves handling of cargo up to four times,
and there is significant damage during transfer by barge in rough water;
• The number of times goods are handled adds to the overall cost of shipping, since the risk
of damage is estimated for each time goods are handled and taken into account in crating,
• The number of days in harbour represents direct costs to shipping company, which is
passed on to consumers;
• The beach master system costs the federal government about $300,000 per year; currently
there is no system for cost recovery;
• There is some uncertainty whether the Canadian Coast Guard will continue to operate the
beach master service.

Nature of the sealift:
• Previously, standard sealift packaging was in 2.5 cubic metre crates of approximately 100
kilos each;
• In recent years, package size of sealift goods has been decreasing, with an increasing
number of complaints related to problems of consolidation and getting delivery of smaller
packages;
• This has resulted in a strong trend to containerization of cargo and use of larger ships.
Transshipment:
• Transshipment of cargo on to other communities is already occurring through Iqaluit;
• Current transshipment volumes are low, but increasing.
Potential
• In the future, carriers will move increasingly to accepting small packages and
containerizing shipments, with shipments going to a redistribution centre for distribution
to customers;
• This will allow vessels to move to more secure facilities, and will reduce handling and
damage;
• Containerization will result in reduced shipping costs.
• There is also great potential for increased transshipment, however the required
infrastructure in not currently in place
b) Petroleum
Current Situation
Number of shipments and volumes:

• Coast Guard data on petroleum shipments shows that there were 53 tankers delivering
petroleum products to Iqaluit from 1992 to 2003, an average of 4 tankers per year;
• Number of tankers has remained fairly constant over the years, but size of shipments are
increasing;
• Volume of fuel delivered in 2004 was 47.7 million litres;
• Projected volume of fuel to be delivered in 2005 is 70.0 million litres.
Shipping season:
• Over the 12-year period, earliest petroleum shipment arrived in Iqaluit June 26th;
Unloading times:
• Over the 12-year period 1992-2003, average days spent in the Iqaluit harbour were 3.8
days;
• In 2003, days spent in harbour ranged from 3 days to 5 days.

Current issues:
• The major problem facing petroleum shipments is accessibility;
• Until a couple of years ago, the sealift season for petroleum was 6 to 8 weeks in duration;
• Now the sealift season lasts from the end of June right up to the end of November, a
period of 5 months;
• The increase in the shipping season has created increased risk;
• By November, the sealift is operating with ice present and in 20 hours of darkness,
coupled with an increased likelihood of high winds and otherwise stormy weather;
• At this time of year, it is not possible to get to the ship unloading location any more by
water, and it is no longer possible to adequately patrol the ship to shore pipeline or the
onshore pipeline;
• A single 1000 to 1500 foot floating hose line is used, which can be a navigation hazard;
• Onshore, there is a single 10 inch line;
• An air plug is used to separate the petroleum products;
• The work at this time of year is very risky for workers, and they have no shelter from the
weather;
• Once the ship is hooked up to the shore manifold, the whole operation becomes the
responsibility of the terminal;
• If a problem (i.e. a leakage or spill) did occur, it becomes an issue of accessibility and of
safety;
• Right now, the spill contingency plan only applies to the land; there is no spill
contingency plan applicable to the ship to shore operation;
• All of these factors mean that it is a very high risk operation;
• There is a clear environmental risk in transferring fuel in later fall/early winter that is not
adequately covered in current spill contingency plans; to date there have no incidents in
regards to fuel transfer however the risk remains high with the current method of fuel
transfer.
Potential
• The potential for increased sales of petroleum products through Iqaluit is very great;
• This includes bunkering (refueling) of ships in the area and fuel deliveries to other
projects (e.g. mining sites);
• The capacity is present in Iqaluit to hold fuel for meeting the needs of a variety of
customers outside the direct needs of the city;
• Fishing vessels, cruise ships, exploration company vessels, military vessels in the area all
require refueling;
• However, the demand for vessel refueling either cannot be met with current facilities, or
can only be met at very high risk;
• Many vessels won’t come into the Iqaluit harbour because they can’t take on fuel there
given current facilities;
• Refueling of vessels requires a safe docking facility with hydraulic arms;
• The environmental risk associated with fuel transfer is more easily managed in a port
facility.

c) Small Cargo Vessels and Other Small Craft
Current Situation
• Small craft (less than 10 m in length) are the most frequent users of the harbour, and
many of the operators are hunters, along with small and mid-size cargo or tourism
operators;
• A boat and motor is the largest capital expenditure required for any hunter;
• However, there is little data currently available on use of the Iqaluit harbour by small and
mid-size vessels;
• The Government of Nunavut is planning a survey to look at small craft use in
communities, but the current survey will not include Iqaluit;
• Insurance for small craft is very expensive and often unaffordable; the high cost of
insurance is directly related to the lack of infrastructure in Iqaluit;
• Currently, refueling of smaller boats is a high risk procedure: there is no proper fuel truck
access and fuel is transferred from oil drums;
• A lot of vessels want to come to Iqaluit to refuel, but can’t because of lack of facilities;
• There is no designated area and no facilities for storage of smaller boats, which are
currently just pulled up on the shore in a very crowded area, resulting in significant
damage to the boats from snow removal, snowmobile traffic, etc.;
• The current breakwater does not provide adequate protection:
• Leaving, landing, loading and unloading of small craft at the breakwater can be done
only during 1 to 2 hour period every 12 hours at high tide;
• There is no sheltered anchoring available in the water all of the time, since the area
protected by the breakwater is dry for much of the tide cycle.
d) Fishery
Current Situation
Number of fishing vessels and shipping season:

• Over the 12-year period 1992-2003, only 11 fishing vessels have visited the Iqaluit
harbour, an average of about 1 per year;
• The earliest visit by a fishing vessel over the 12-year period was July 29th, and the latest
departure of a fishing vessel was November 13th.
Current fishing operations:

• There are three classes of fishing boats –30-64 feet, 65 to 99 feet, and over 100 feet;
• Currently there are 5 vessels operating in the area near Iqaluit that are fishing for turbot;
• The turbot season last from mid-May to December.
• There are 17 offshore shrimp licences in the area, with 152,000 metric tones of quota;
• Currently there are 14 vessels fishing for shrimp, with 15 to be operating next year;
• Shrimp vessels are from 48 m to 63 m in length;
• Shrimp fishing is a year round activity, starting in January in Newfoundland, reaching
Baffin in late June and operating in the area until December;

• The vessels hold up to 500 metric tones of product;
• 99% of the fishery products are sold outside of Canada (Europe, Asia, etc.);
• Fishing vessels require port facilities to unload and transship product, cold storage
facilities, and services for food, fuel, oil, and crew changes;
• There needs to be increased access for Nunavut to the fishery: current access and
allocation arrangements discriminate against Nunavut, which is the only coastal
jurisdiction in Canada that does not have access to the majority of its adjacent fish
resources;
• Infrastructure is required to enable Nunavut to land and process its own fish resources;
• Nunavut has been excluded when the federal government has made major marine
infrastructure investments for harbours, ports, service centres, processing plants and cold-
storage facilities;
• There are no facilities in Baffin to properly accommodate fishing vessels: currently,
vessels leave the Baffin area and go to Nuuk or St. Anthony land their catch, resupply
and refuel, and then head back up to the Baffin area to fish again, which is an expensive
method of operating for the fishing companies;
Potential
• Construction of port facilities in Iqaluit would change the economics of the whole
picture, making Iqaluit an economic option for loading, offloading, trans-shipment,
refueling, etc. of offshore fishing vessels;
• Iqaluit could service fishing vessels in the area from July to November if the required
port facilities were available;
• Port facilities in Iqaluit would also help development of inshore fisheries in other
communities: fish could be stored in smaller communities in containers, moved to Iqaluit,
and then transferred to reefer boats;
• This could help to obtain increased fishery allocations;
• A port facility would provide essential support to the inshore fishery;
• All fish caught off Newfoundland have to be shipped through Newfoundland; this policy
can’t be implemented in Nunavut currently, because required port facilities do not exist,
resulting in a huge economic loss to Nunavut;
• There is a need to get much higher quota allocations: there are no quotas available now
around Iqaluit, but they are available around Qikiqtarjuaq, Clyde River, and Pond Inlet;
• If facilities were available, quotas could be fished by Nunavummiut through the inshore
fishery.
e) Tourism
Current Situation
• Over the 12-year period from 1992-2003, 6 cruise ships have visited Iqaluit;
• Most cruise ships currently bypass Iqaluit because suitable refueling and resupply
facilities are not available;

• Transfer of passenger to shore and back to ship is currently an awkward and sometimes
risky operation;
• Cruise ships now refuel directly from a tanker;
• Lack of facilities limits services provided to tourists from smaller tourism operators: tides
suitable for loading clients into boats in the morning are available only every 2nd week.
Potential
• There is great potential for tourism development if marine facilities were developed;
• This would double the time smaller tourism operators could be providing services to
clients;
• Mid-size passenger boats could be chartered by local tourism operators;
• Large cruise ships would have a convenient port for refueling, resupply, and exchange of
passengers.
f) Coast Guard and Military Vessels
Current Situation
• Over the 12-year period from 1992-2003, 72 Coast Guard icebreakers have operated
around the Iqaluit harbour, an average of 6 per year;
• Over the 12-year period, only 3 other Coast Guard or military vessels have visited Iqaluit;
• The earliest arrival of a Coast Guard or military vessel over the 12 years was June 26th,
and the latest departure was November 15th.
• The resupply and refueling of the military vessels is a high risk operation.
Potential
• There should be increased activity by military vessels in the future related to
considerations of sovereignty;
• There should also be increased activity of research vessels related to research in climate
change, etc.
3. Engineering and Environmental Considerations

1980 Engineering Study:
• The 1980 preliminary engineering study prepared by Public Works identified Inuit Head
as the preferred location;
• The engineering study looked at construction of a deep sea port, with a 77 metre concrete
caisson wharf connected by a causeway to an open storage area, a transit shed, and an 1.6
kg roadway for access;
• Alternative construction methods considered for the wharf included steel sheet pile
bulkhead, timber crib, and floating platform;
• The port would operate late June to November;

• The engineering report noted that construction would required dredging (48,000 cubic
metres), and blasting of rock.
Environmental considerations:
• The environmental impact of dredging must be considered: could the proposed causeway
be put out further to reduce or eliminate dredging?
• On the other hand, dredged materials could be used to extend existing small boat
breakwater;
• The cost of dredging versus extending the causeway farther will have to be considered,
and DFO will be looking at the environmental impact of dredging as part of the
environmental assessment;
• DFO is pleased to be involved at the start of the planning process for the integrated port
facility, and would like to be involved in all phases, particularly during the design stage;
• Concerns were expressed about the use of explosives in the water, the time of year this
might be done, and the resulting impact on marine life;
• The potential use of explosives will have to be considered during the environmental
assessment;
• If explosives were to be used, advice would be sought from the HTO on when and how to
blast in order to minimize the impact on marine life;
• It appears that the route proposed for the access road does not impact on areas of existing
grave sites; however, the route of an access road needs to be examined in more detail;
• Options for the road to span the existing gap (construction of a bridge versus in-filling of
the gap) need to be examined in terms of cost, impact on marine life, and impact on
boating routes and operations (existing gap provides sheltered passage for smaller vessels
in rough weather);
• Under the Fisheries Act, there is a requirement for compensation for damage to fish
habitat: if a portion of fish habitat is negatively impacted by port construction, equivalent
new habitat has to be created elsewhere;
• Guidelines on fish habitat compensation can be obtained from DFO;
• If compensation for the alteration of fish habitat is required for the port project, it would
be useful to look at the option of building up the habitat in the Sylvia Grinnell River,
which is an important char river for the community of Iqaluit;
• Members of the HTO are very concerned about the transfer of petroleum from tankers
that arrive in October and November: there is a high risk of spills, given the heavy winds
and rough water in October/November, and this would be a very serious situation if a
spill did occur.
6. Needs of Users in Relation to Integrated Port Facilities
Dry Cargo
The needs of users shipping general cargo to Iqaluit in relation to integrated port facilities
include:

• Vessels to be able to move to a secure facility for off-loading;
• Reduced time for discharging cargo;
• Safer environment for unloading cargo;
• Reduced number of handlings for cargo, which will reduce crating costs as well as
handling costs;
• Facilities to handle containerization and redistribution of cargo, that will handle smaller
lots of goods;
• One or two berths for vessels, depending on the number and volume of cargo shipments,
and the ability to adequately schedule shipments.
Petroleum
The needs of users shipping and receiving petroleum include:
• A safe dock for transfer of petroleum, with a hydraulic oil transfer arm, and direct access
to the pipeline;
• Implementation of best practices for the transfer to petroleum from tankers to shore
facilities, and for bunkering (refueling) of vessels.
Small Craft/Cargo
The needs of users with small craft and mid-size vessels, including hunters, mid-size cargo
vessel operators and tourism operators, include:
• Safe, protected anchorage in the harbour;
• A place to gain access to boats throughout the whole tide cycle;
• Possibly a floating dock and access ramp for small and mid-sized vessels;
• A slip to put larger boats in and out of the water;
• Fixed point to unload fish to dock level by crane;
• Vehicle access to the wharf;
• Facilities for safe resupply and refueling (gasoline and diesel), accessible at any tide;
• Permanent fueling facility (gas bar) to replace refueling from truck and drum, for both
gas and diesel;
• An area to haul out for maintenance and safe storage: possibly a slip with a trolley for
facilitating removal of boats, and an area for safe storage linked by the trolley;
• What about cost of fees for use of dock versus current no cost for anchoring;
• A protected area for anchorage with water present all the time: possibly extend the
existing breakwater to small island, or construct an additional breakwater.
Fishery
The needs of users involved in offshore and inshore fishery operations include:
• Port facilities for docking, and facilities for cold storage, refueling, resupply and crew
change, and transshipment to market;
• Unloading of palletized fish for larger boats, buckets for small inshore vessels.

7. Vision Statement
The stakeholder representatives at the workshop prepared the following draft vision statement for
development of the Iqaluit integrated port facilities:
The vision for the Iqaluit Deep Water Port Facilities is to provide services for the
residents of Iqaluit and the region that are integrated for a variety of users to
ensure safe and timely access, and that support the efficient shipping of goods
using the best environmental practices, and to provide the infrastructure
necessary to serve and promote industries such as tourism, commercial fishing,
mineral exploration and traditional pursuits, while at the same time ensuring the
protection of marine assets.
5. Options for Management of Port

The stakeholder representatives identified the following options for management of the
integrated port facilities. The management functions would encompass the port and harbour
operations, beach master duties, and collection of user fees. Facilities would be required to
accommodate Canada Customs operations. These management options are to be explored further
in subsequent stages of the research and development of the integrated port plan.
1. Independent Port Authority
2. Local Board
3. City of Iqaluit
4. Transport Canada
5. Private enterprise
6. Phased approach to management, starting perhaps as a joint venture among the City of
Iqaluit, the Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Canada, and evolving to
private sector or port authority management arrangements.
8. Moving Forward
a) Directions and Sources for Further Research

1. Current and forecast traffic by all users:
• Look at Port of Churchill for comparisons;
• Conduct market survey to determine extent to which user groups will utilize integrated
port facilities;

• Sources of information on fishing vessels:
• Government of Nunavut Fisheries Strategy documents;
• Look at number of vessels currently operating in the area that would come into Iqaluit
for provisioning and repair if the infrastructure was there;
• Fishing vessels are licensed by DFO; should be able to identify where the fishing
vessels are going and why;
• Fisheries Coalition is a source of information;
• CMAC review should provide useful information: source is Peter Kanunan, Winnipeg
• Sources of information on tourism:
• Sources for data on larger passenger ships are GN Dept. of Economic Development
and Nunavut
2. Economic Development
• In developing the integrated port concept and presenting it to government, it is essential
to tie port planning to priorities for environmental protection and economic development.
3. Port Management
• A major question for planning is who will manage the port facilities;
• Investigation and research into this must be pursued actively.
4. Operating Costs and User Fees

• Port will have to be self-sufficient in O&M;
• Therefore, need to address ongoing O&M costs, and extent to which user fees are
required;
• Quantify efficiencies and benefits to existing users, compared to any additional user fees
and costs;
• Investigate option of having shipping fees go to local authority.
b) Next Steps
1. Obtaining Initial Support:
• Concept for integrated port facilities has widespread support from current City Council;
• Need to inform public of advantages to the community as a whole, and obtain further
input on community needs, and input from Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit;
• Need to go to Assembly at next sitting and obtain support:
• Each stakeholder group should write directly to the three MLAs, with a copy to the
City, to obtain a letter of support;
• Will need to lobby in Ottawa for support and to identify potential sources of funding,
based on preparation of a detailed business case document and proposal.

2. Preparation of Business Case:
• Need to build a comprehensive business case to provide information and obtain support
of Government of Nunavut, Government of Canada, industry and other user groups, and
public;
• The Business Case document will include:
• Rationale for construction of integrated port facilities at Iqaluit;
• Quantification and comparison of efficiencies and other benefits created by new
facilities, and potential costs to users;
• Proposal for phased funding related to port development schedule, addressing both
public and private funding partnerships;
• Overall cost and timing for planning, design, construction and operation of integrated
port facilities;
• Consideration of impact on environment, to be fully investigated through subsequent
• Analysis of feasibility.

Appendix 1: List of Stakeholder Representatives
Name Organization
Mayor Elisapee Sheutiapik City of Iqaluit
Deputy Mayor Glen Williams City of Iqaluit, and local tour
operator/outfitter
Kim Rizzi City of Iqaluit – Economic
Development Officer
Hunter Tootoo MLA – Iqaluit Centre
Wayne Lynch Dept. of Environment – GN Fisheries
Joshua Kango Board Member –Amarok HTA
Sammy Josephie Board Member –Amarok HTA
Sytukie Joamie Secretary Manager –Amarok HTA
Peter Keenainak Qikiqtaaluk Corporation
Russell Chislett Owner/Operator – Soapstone Hauling
Archie Angnakak NEAS - Iqaluit
Glenn Cousins President, Iqaluit Chamber of
Commerce, and Manager of Northmart
Store
John Paton Nunavut Sealink and Supply Inc. (NSSI)
Barry Cornthwaite NSSI and Arctic Coops Ltd.
John Dawe Community Government and Services,
Government of Nunavut
Monica Ell Director of Business Development, NTI;
also representing the Nunavut Economic
Forum
Scott Cooper Uqsuq Oil
Andrejka Lokar Fisheries and Oceans, Government of
Canada
John Fast Community and Government Services,
Government of Nuanvut
David Alexander Baffin Fisheries Coalition

Appendix 2: Workshop Objectives and Agenda
Iqaluit Deepwater Port, Stakeholder Workshop

Objectives for the Workshop
Overall Purpose:
Complete the Initial Phase 1 Planning for an Iqaluit Deepwater Port by the Stakeholder Group
Specific Workshop Objectives:


2. To identify user group needs in relation to the establishment of an Iqaluit Deepwater Port


3. To Explore and Identify Basic Concepts and Options to meet Local Objectives of a Deepwater
Port
5. To understand the scope of work and steps which must be undertaken and completed in order
to realize the Port Vision.

Iqaluit Deep Water Port
Phase 1 Planning Workshop

Navigator Inn, Iqaluit
Thursday May 26, 2005
Agenda
1. Welcome -Mayor Elisapee Sheutiapik and Deputy Mayor Glen Williams
2. Introduction of Stakeholders and Project Team Members
3. Review Workshop Objectives and Agenda
4. Background/Overview
5. Report on project findings from research conducted to date.
• Types of Shipping and Activity Data,
• Bio-physical and Regulatory Information
• Port Planning and Engineering Considerations
• Lessons Learned from other Nunavut Ports – Polaris and Nanisivik
• Other proposed Nunavut Ports – Kimmirut and Bathurst Port and Road
6. User Needs and Local Objectives
Lunch Break – Noon until 1:30 PM
7. Visioning –
• How do we see the Iqaluit Deepwater Port?
• Who will it serve and what benefits will be achieved for Nunavut?
8. Brainstorming, identification and discussion of Key Issues – Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and Threats
9. Next Steps – Phase II – Phase III Timetable
10. Workshop Closing

APPENDIX B
STAKEHOLDER
WORKSHOP NOTES
MAY 26, 2005

Iqaluit Integrated Deepwater Port Plan
Stakeholder Planning Workshop
Iqaluit, Nunavut, May 26, 2005
Workshop Notes
1. Introduction
The City of Iqaluit is spearheading the development of a plan for establishment of deepwater
port facilities at Iqaluit. The intent of this planning project is to produce an Integrated Port
Facilities Plan that will meet the long-term needs of Iqaluit for sealift and handling of other large
vessels and at the same time provide facilities to address the needs of local commercial and other
small and mid-size craft operators.
An essential foundation for pursuing this plan is the establishment of an active stakeholders
group representing current and potential users of the proposed new integrated port facilities. It is
critical to the success of the project that stakeholders participate fully in all stages of the
planning.
An initial meeting of Stakeholders was organized by the City and held in Iqaluit on February
16th, 2005. At that meeting there was discussion of the various groups that use the current Iqaluit
harbour, and a presentation by the consulting team on environmental, socio-economic,
engineering and regulatory considerations. The key point agreed upon by stakeholders at the
initial meeting was that the planning must addresses the needs of all users. Planned facilities
must serve not only large vessels, but also the mid-size and smaller vessels that use the harbour
and are an essential element of the economy and future growth of Iqaluit and Nunavut. Final port
concepts must meet local objectives for users in Iqaluit and at the same time provides benefits to
all of Nunavut.
The second meeting of Stakeholders was held in Iqaluit on May 26th, 2005. This meeting
included an expanded Stakeholder group representing:
• City of Iqaluit
• Government of Nunavut, Legislative Assembly
• Government of Nunavut, Department of Environment
• Government of Nunavut, Department of Community Government and Services
• Amarok Hunters and Trappers Association
• Baffin Fisheries Coalition
• Qikiqtaaluk Corporation
• Local Cargo Hauling
• Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping (NEAS)

• Nunavut Sealink and Supply Inc. (NSSI)
• Uqsuq Oil
• Iqaluit Chamber of Commerce
• Nunavut Economic Forum
• Nunavut Tungavik Inc.
• Government of Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
A list of participants is provided in Appendix 1.
Opening comments at the May 26th workshop were made by both Mayor Elisapee Sheutiapik and
Deputy Mayor Glen Williams. City representatives noted that the City has obtained resources to
hire a consulting team under Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Limited to work on initial
project research and to bring together the various Stakeholders to identify the opportunities and
challenges in achieving the goal of establishing integrated port facilities. Objectives for the
workshop were:

2. To identify user group needs in relation to the establishment of an Iqaluit Deepwater

Port:
3. To Explore and Identify Basic Concepts and Options to meet Local Objectives of a
Deepwater Port.
5. To understand the scope of work and steps which must be undertaken and completed in
order to realize the Port Vision.
A complete statement of objectives and the agenda for the workshop are provided in Appendix 2.
The workshop was facilitated by the consulting team – Terry Forth and Fred Weihs of Aarluk
Consulting, and Steve Morison and Chris Anderson of Gartner Lee Limited. During the morning
session, the consulting team presented the results of research to date, and a summary of
engineering and environmental considerations. In the afternoon session, detailed discussions

were held among the stakeholder representatives on their current situation. potential for
development, and the specific needs of each group in relation to integrated port facilities. The
participants also developed a draft Vision Statement for development of integrated port facilities,
and identified next steps required to pursue the project. The results of these discussions are
presented in the notes below.
2. User Groups: Current Situation and Potential
a) General Cargo Shipping
Current Situation
Number of shipments:
• Initial data on shipping to Iqaluit was obtained from the Canadian Coast Guard for the
12-year period 1992-2003;
• Over the entire period 1992-2003, there were 150 vessels landing general cargo in Iqaluit,
or an average of 13 shipments annually;
• From 1992-1997, there were 8 shipments on average annually, and from 1998-2003 the
average number of shipments doubled to 16 annually;
• One of the larger cargo ships currently in use is 361 feet in length and has a minimum
draught of 25 feet;
• There were also 9 shipments of general cargo by tug and barge over the period, with 8 of
these occurring between 1999 and 2003.
Shipping season:
• Over the 12-year period, the earliest general cargo shipment arrived in Iqaluit June 30th;
Unloading times and costs:

• Over the 12-year period, general cargo vessels spent an average of 4.3 days in harbour;
• In 2003, the days spent in harbour by general cargo vessels ranged from 1 day to 14 days;
• Currently, sealift is a tidal operation which involves handling of cargo up to four times,
and there is significant damage during transfer by barge in rough water;
• The number of times goods are handled adds to the overall cost of shipping, since the risk
of damage is estimated for each time goods are handled and taken into account in crating,
• The number of days in harbour represents direct costs to shipping company, which is
passed on to consumers;
• The beach master system costs the federal government about $300,000 per year; currently
there is no system for cost recovery;
• There is some uncertainty whether the Canadian Coast Guard will continue to operate the
beach master service.

Nature of the sealift:
• Previously, standard sealift packaging was in 2.5 cubic metre crates of approximately 100
kilos each;
• In recent years, package size of sealift goods has been decreasing, with an increasing
number of complaints related to problems of consolidation and getting delivery of smaller
packages;
• This has resulted in a strong trend to containerization of cargo and use of larger ships.
Transshipment:
• Transshipment of cargo on to other communities is already occurring through Iqaluit;
• Current transshipment volumes are low, but increasing.
Potential
• In the future, carriers will move increasingly to accepting small packages and
containerizing shipments, with shipments going to a redistribution centre for distribution
to customers;
• This will allow vessels to move to more secure facilities, and will reduce handling and
damage;
• Containerization will result in reduced shipping costs.
• There is also great potential for increased transshipment, however the required
infrastructure in not currently in place
b) Petroleum
Current Situation
Number of shipments and volumes:

• Coast Guard data on petroleum shipments shows that there were 53 tankers delivering
petroleum products to Iqaluit from 1992 to 2003, an average of 4 tankers per year;
• Number of tankers has remained fairly constant over the years, but size of shipments are
increasing;
• Volume of fuel delivered in 2004 was 47.7 million litres;
• Projected volume of fuel to be delivered in 2005 is 70.0 million litres.
Shipping season:
• Over the 12-year period, earliest petroleum shipment arrived in Iqaluit June 26th;
Unloading times:
• Over the 12-year period 1992-2003, average days spent in the Iqaluit harbour were 3.8
days;
• In 2003, days spent in harbour ranged from 3 days to 5 days.

Current issues:
• The major problem facing petroleum shipments is accessibility;
• Until a couple of years ago, the sealift season for petroleum was 6 to 8 weeks in duration;
• Now the sealift season lasts from the end of June right up to the end of November, a
period of 5 months;
• The increase in the shipping season has created increased risk;
• By November, the sealift is operating with ice present and in 20 hours of darkness,
coupled with an increased likelihood of high winds and otherwise stormy weather;
• At this time of year, it is not possible to get to the ship unloading location any more by
water, and it is no longer possible to adequately patrol the ship to shore pipeline or the
onshore pipeline;
• A single 1000 to 1500 foot floating hose line is used, which can be a navigation hazard;
• Onshore, there is a single 10 inch line;
• An air plug is used to separate the petroleum products;
• The work at this time of year is very risky for workers, and they have no shelter from the
weather;
• Once the ship is hooked up to the shore manifold, the whole operation becomes the
responsibility of the terminal;
• If a problem (i.e. a leakage or spill) did occur, it becomes an issue of accessibility and of
safety;
• Right now, the spill contingency plan only applies to the land; there is no spill
contingency plan applicable to the ship to shore operation;
• All of these factors mean that it is a very high risk operation;
• There is a clear environmental risk in transferring fuel in later fall/early winter that is not
adequately covered in current spill contingency plans; to date there have no incidents in
regards to fuel transfer however the risk remains high with the current method of fuel
transfer.
Potential
• The potential for increased sales of petroleum products through Iqaluit is very great;
• This includes bunkering (refueling) of ships in the area and fuel deliveries to other
projects (e.g. mining sites);
• The capacity is present in Iqaluit to hold fuel for meeting the needs of a variety of
customers outside the direct needs of the city;
• Fishing vessels, cruise ships, exploration company vessels, military vessels in the area all
require refueling;
• However, the demand for vessel refueling either cannot be met with current facilities, or
can only be met at very high risk;
• Many vessels won’t come into the Iqaluit harbour because they can’t take on fuel there
given current facilities;
• Refueling of vessels requires a safe docking facility with hydraulic arms;
• The environmental risk associated with fuel transfer is more easily managed in a port
facility.

c) Small Cargo Vessels and Other Small Craft
Current Situation
• Small craft (less than 10 m in length) are the most frequent users of the harbour, and
many of the operators are hunters, along with small and mid-size cargo or tourism
operators;
• A boat and motor is the largest capital expenditure required for any hunter;
• However, there is little data currently available on use of the Iqaluit harbour by small and
mid-size vessels;
• The Government of Nunavut is planning a survey to look at small craft use in
communities, but the current survey will not include Iqaluit;
• Insurance for small craft is very expensive and often unaffordable; the high cost of
insurance is directly related to the lack of infrastructure in Iqaluit;
• Currently, refueling of smaller boats is a high risk procedure: there is no proper fuel truck
access and fuel is transferred from oil drums;
• A lot of vessels want to come to Iqaluit to refuel, but can’t because of lack of facilities;
• There is no designated area and no facilities for storage of smaller boats, which are
currently just pulled up on the shore in a very crowded area, resulting in significant
damage to the boats from snow removal, snowmobile traffic, etc.;
• The current breakwater does not provide adequate protection:
• Leaving, landing, loading and unloading of small craft at the breakwater can be done
only during 1 to 2 hour period every 12 hours at high tide;
• There is no sheltered anchoring available in the water all of the time, since the area
protected by the breakwater is dry for much of the tide cycle.
d) Fishery
Current Situation
Number of fishing vessels and shipping season:

• Over the 12-year period 1992-2003, only 11 fishing vessels have visited the Iqaluit
harbour, an average of about 1 per year;
• The earliest visit by a fishing vessel over the 12-year period was July 29th, and the latest
departure of a fishing vessel was November 13th.
Current fishing operations:

• There are three classes of fishing boats –30-64 feet, 65 to 99 feet, and over 100 feet;
• Currently there are 5 vessels operating in the area near Iqaluit that are fishing for turbot;
• The turbot season last from mid-May to December.
• There are 17 offshore shrimp licences in the area, with 152,000 metric tones of quota;
• Currently there are 14 vessels fishing for shrimp, with 15 to be operating next year;
• Shrimp vessels are from 48 m to 63 m in length;
• Shrimp fishing is a year round activity, starting in January in Newfoundland, reaching
Baffin in late June and operating in the area until December;

• The vessels hold up to 500 metric tones of product;
• 99% of the fishery products are sold outside of Canada (Europe, Asia, etc.);
• Fishing vessels require port facilities to unload and transship product, cold storage
facilities, and services for food, fuel, oil, and crew changes;
• There needs to be increased access for Nunavut to the fishery: current access and
allocation arrangements discriminate against Nunavut, which is the only coastal
jurisdiction in Canada that does not have access to the majority of its adjacent fish
resources;
• Infrastructure is required to enable Nunavut to land and process its own fish resources;
• Nunavut has been excluded when the federal government has made major marine
infrastructure investments for harbours, ports, service centres, processing plants and cold-
storage facilities;
• There are no facilities in Baffin to properly accommodate fishing vessels: currently,
vessels leave the Baffin area and go to Nuuk or St. Anthony land their catch, resupply
and refuel, and then head back up to the Baffin area to fish again, which is an expensive
method of operating for the fishing companies;
Potential
• Construction of port facilities in Iqaluit would change the economics of the whole
picture, making Iqaluit an economic option for loading, offloading, trans-shipment,
refueling, etc. of offshore fishing vessels;
• Iqaluit could service fishing vessels in the area from July to November if the required
port facilities were available;
• Port facilities in Iqaluit would also help development of inshore fisheries in other
communities: fish could be stored in smaller communities in containers, moved to Iqaluit,
and then transferred to reefer boats;
• This could help to obtain increased fishery allocations;
• A port facility would provide essential support to the inshore fishery;
• All fish caught off Newfoundland have to be shipped through Newfoundland; this policy
can’t be implemented in Nunavut currently, because required port facilities do not exist,
resulting in a huge economic loss to Nunavut;
• There is a need to get much higher quota allocations: there are no quotas available now
around Iqaluit, but they are available around Qikiqtarjuaq, Clyde River, and Pond Inlet;
• If facilities were available, quotas could be fished by Nunavummiut through the inshore
fishery.
e) Tourism
Current Situation
• Over the 12-year period from 1992-2003, 6 cruise ships have visited Iqaluit;
• Most cruise ships currently bypass Iqaluit because suitable refueling and resupply
facilities are not available;

• Transfer of passenger to shore and back to ship is currently an awkward and sometimes
risky operation;
• Cruise ships now refuel directly from a tanker;
• Lack of facilities limits services provided to tourists from smaller tourism operators: tides
suitable for loading clients into boats in the morning are available only every 2nd week.
Potential
• There is great potential for tourism development if marine facilities were developed;
• This would double the time smaller tourism operators could be providing services to
clients;
• Mid-size passenger boats could be chartered by local tourism operators;
• Large cruise ships would have a convenient port for refueling, resupply, and exchange of
passengers.
f) Coast Guard and Military Vessels
Current Situation
• Over the 12-year period from 1992-2003, 72 Coast Guard icebreakers have operated
around the Iqaluit harbour, an average of 6 per year;
• Over the 12-year period, only 3 other Coast Guard or military vessels have visited Iqaluit;
• The earliest arrival of a Coast Guard or military vessel over the 12 years was June 26th,
and the latest departure was November 15th.
• The resupply and refueling of the military vessels is a high risk operation.
Potential
• There should be increased activity by military vessels in the future related to
considerations of sovereignty;
• There should also be increased activity of research vessels related to research in climate
change, etc.
3. Engineering and Environmental Considerations

1980 Engineering Study:
• The 1980 preliminary engineering study prepared by Public Works identified Inuit Head
as the preferred location;
• The engineering study looked at construction of a deep sea port, with a 77 metre concrete
caisson wharf connected by a causeway to an open storage area, a transit shed, and an 1.6
kg roadway for access;
• Alternative construction methods considered for the wharf included steel sheet pile
bulkhead, timber crib, and floating platform;
• The port would operate late June to November;

• The engineering report noted that construction would required dredging (48,000 cubic
metres), and blasting of rock.
Environmental considerations:
• The environmental impact of dredging must be considered: could the proposed causeway
be put out further to reduce or eliminate dredging?
• On the other hand, dredged materials could be used to extend existing small boat
breakwater;
• The cost of dredging versus extending the causeway farther will have to be considered,
and DFO will be looking at the environmental impact of dredging as part of the
• DFO is pleased to be involved at the start of the planning process for the integrated port
facility, and would like to be involved in all phases, particularly during the design stage;
• Concerns were expressed about the use of explosives in the water, the time of year this
might be done, and the resulting impact on marine life;
• The potential use of explosives will have to be considered during the environmental
assessment;
• If explosives were to be used, advice would be sought from the HTO on when and how to
blast in order to minimize the impact on marine life;
• It appears that the route proposed for the access road does not impact on areas of existing
grave sites; however, the route of an access road needs to be examined in more detail;
• Options for the road to span the existing gap (construction of a bridge versus in-filling of
the gap) need to be examined in terms of cost, impact on marine life, and impact on
boating routes and operations (existing gap provides sheltered passage for smaller vessels
in rough weather);
• Under the Fisheries Act, there is a requirement for compensation for damage to fish
habitat: if a portion of fish habitat is negatively impacted by port construction, equivalent
new habitat has to be created elsewhere;
• Guidelines on fish habitat compensation can be obtained from DFO;
• If compensation for the alteration of fish habitat is required for the port project, it would
be useful to look at the option of building up the habitat in the Sylvia Grinnell River,
which is an important char river for the community of Iqaluit;
• Members of the HTO are very concerned about the transfer of petroleum from tankers
that arrive in October and November: there is a high risk of spills, given the heavy winds
and rough water in October/November, and this would be a very serious situation if a
spill did occur.
6. Needs of Users in Relation to Integrated Port Facilities
Dry Cargo
The needs of users shipping general cargo to Iqaluit in relation to integrated port facilities
include:

• Vessels to be able to move to a secure facility for off-loading;
• Reduced time for discharging cargo;
• Safer environment for unloading cargo;
• Reduced number of handlings for cargo, which will reduce crating costs as well as
handling costs;
• Facilities to handle containerization and redistribution of cargo, that will handle smaller
lots of goods;
• One or two berths for vessels, depending on the number and volume of cargo shipments,
and the ability to adequately schedule shipments.
Petroleum
The needs of users shipping and receiving petroleum include:
• A safe dock for transfer of petroleum, with a hydraulic oil transfer arm, and direct access
to the pipeline;
• Implementation of best practices for the transfer to petroleum from tankers to shore
facilities, and for bunkering (refueling) of vessels.
Small Craft/Cargo
The needs of users with small craft and mid-size vessels, including hunters, mid-size cargo
vessel operators and tourism operators, include:
• Safe, protected anchorage in the harbour;
• A place to gain access to boats throughout the whole tide cycle;
• Possibly a floating dock and access ramp for small and mid-sized vessels;
• A slip to put larger boats in and out of the water;
• Fixed point to unload fish to dock level by crane;
• Vehicle access to the wharf;
• Facilities for safe resupply and refueling (gasoline and diesel), accessible at any tide;
• Permanent fueling facility (gas bar) to replace refueling from truck and drum, for both
gas and diesel;
• An area to haul out for maintenance and safe storage: possibly a slip with a trolley for
facilitating removal of boats, and an area for safe storage linked by the trolley;
• What about cost of fees for use of dock versus current no cost for anchoring;
• A protected area for anchorage with water present all the time: possibly extend the
existing breakwater to small island, or construct an additional breakwater.
Fishery
The needs of users involved in offshore and inshore fishery operations include:
• Port facilities for docking, and facilities for cold storage, refueling, resupply and crew
change, and transshipment to market;
• Unloading of palletized fish for larger boats, buckets for small inshore vessels.

7. Vision Statement
The stakeholder representatives at the workshop prepared the following draft vision statement for
development of the Iqaluit integrated port facilities:
The vision for the Iqaluit Deep Water Port Facilities is to provide services for the
residents of Iqaluit and the region that are integrated for a variety of users to
ensure safe and timely access, and that support the efficient shipping of goods
using the best environmental practices, and to provide the infrastructure
necessary to serve and promote industries such as tourism, commercial fishing,
mineral exploration and traditional pursuits, while at the same time ensuring the
protection of marine assets.
5. Options for Management of Port

The stakeholder representatives identified the following options for management of the
integrated port facilities. The management functions would encompass the port and harbour
operations, beach master duties, and collection of user fees. Facilities would be required to
accommodate Canada Customs operations. These management options are to be explored further
in subsequent stages of the research and development of the integrated port plan.
1. Independent Port Authority
2. Local Board
3. City of Iqaluit
4. Transport Canada
5. Private enterprise
6. Phased approach to management, starting perhaps as a joint venture among the City of
Iqaluit, the Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Canada, and evolving to
private sector or port authority management arrangements.
8. Moving Forward
a) Directions and Sources for Further Research

1. Current and forecast traffic by all users:
• Look at Port of Churchill for comparisons;
• Conduct market survey to determine extent to which user groups will utilize integrated
port facilities;

• Sources of information on fishing vessels:
• Government of Nunavut Fisheries Strategy documents;
• Look at number of vessels currently operating in the area that would come into Iqaluit
for provisioning and repair if the infrastructure was there;
• Fishing vessels are licensed by DFO; should be able to identify where the fishing
vessels are going and why;
• Fisheries Coalition is a source of information;
• CMAC review should provide useful information: source is Peter Kanunan, Winnipeg
• Sources of information on tourism:
• Sources for data on larger passenger ships are GN Dept. of Economic Development
and Nunavut
2. Economic Development
• In developing the integrated port concept and presenting it to government, it is essential
to tie port planning to priorities for environmental protection and economic development.
3. Port Management
• A major question for planning is who will manage the port facilities;
• Investigation and research into this must be pursued actively.
4. Operating Costs and User Fees

• Port will have to be self-sufficient in O&M;
• Therefore, need to address ongoing O&M costs, and extent to which user fees are
required;
• Quantify efficiencies and benefits to existing users, compared to any additional user fees
and costs;
• Investigate option of having shipping fees go to local authority.
b) Next Steps
1. Obtaining Initial Support:
• Concept for integrated port facilities has widespread support from current City Council;
• Need to inform public of advantages to the community as a whole, and obtain further
input on community needs, and input from Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit;
• Need to go to Assembly at next sitting and obtain support:
• Each stakeholder group should write directly to the three MLAs, with a copy to the
City, to obtain a letter of support;
• Will need to lobby in Ottawa for support and to identify potential sources of funding,
based on preparation of a detailed business case document and proposal.

2. Preparation of Business Case:
• Need to build a comprehensive business case to provide information and obtain support
of Government of Nunavut, Government of Canada, industry and other user groups, and
public;
• The Business Case document will include:
• Rationale for construction of integrated port facilities at Iqaluit;
• Quantification and comparison of efficiencies and other benefits created by new
facilities, and potential costs to users;
• Proposal for phased funding related to port development schedule, addressing both
public and private funding partnerships;
• Overall cost and timing for planning, design, construction and operation of integrated
port facilities;
• Consideration of impact on environment, to be fully investigated through subsequent
• Analysis of feasibility.

Appendix 1: List of Stakeholder Representatives
Name Organization
Mayor Elisapee Sheutiapik City of Iqaluit
Deputy Mayor Glen Williams City of Iqaluit, and local tour
operator/outfitter
Kim Rizzi City of Iqaluit – Economic
Development Officer
Hunter Tootoo MLA – Iqaluit Centre
Wayne Lynch Dept. of Environment – GN Fisheries
Joshua Kango Board Member –Amarok HTA
Sammy Josephie Board Member –Amarok HTA
Sytukie Joamie Secretary Manager –Amarok HTA
Peter Keenainak Qikiqtaaluk Corporation
Russell Chislett Owner/Operator – Soapstone Hauling
Archie Angnakak NEAS - Iqaluit
Glenn Cousins President, Iqaluit Chamber of
Commerce, and Manager of Northmart
Store
John Paton Nunavut Sealink and Supply Inc. (NSSI)
Barry Cornthwaite NSSI and Arctic Coops Ltd.
John Dawe Community Government and Services,
Government of Nunavut
Monica Ell Director of Business Development, NTI;
also representing the Nunavut Economic
Forum
Scott Cooper Uqsuq Oil
Andrejka Lokar Fisheries and Oceans, Government of
Canada
John Fast Community and Government Services,
Government of Nuanvut
David Alexander Baffin Fisheries Coalition

Appendix 2: Workshop Objectives and Agenda
Iqaluit Deepwater Port, Stakeholder Workshop

Objectives for the Workshop
Overall Purpose:
Complete the Initial Phase 1 Planning for an Iqaluit Deepwater Port by the Stakeholder Group
Specific Workshop Objectives:


2. To identify user group needs in relation to the establishment of an Iqaluit Deepwater Port


3. To Explore and Identify Basic Concepts and Options to meet Local Objectives of a Deepwater
Port
5. To understand the scope of work and steps which must be undertaken and completed in order
to realize the Port Vision.

Iqaluit Deep Water Port
Phase 1 Planning Workshop

Navigator Inn, Iqaluit
Thursday May 26, 2005
Agenda
1. Welcome -Mayor Elisapee Sheutiapik and Deputy Mayor Glen Williams
2. Introduction of Stakeholders and Project Team Members
3. Review Workshop Objectives and Agenda
4. Background/Overview
5. Report on project findings from research conducted to date.
• Types of Shipping and Activity Data,
• Bio-physical and Regulatory Information
• Port Planning and Engineering Considerations
• Lessons Learned from other Nunavut Ports – Polaris and Nanisivik
• Other proposed Nunavut Ports – Kimmirut and Bathurst Port and Road
6. User Needs and Local Objectives
Lunch Break – Noon until 1:30 PM
7. Visioning –
• How do we see the Iqaluit Deepwater Port?
• Who will it serve and what benefits will be achieved for Nunavut?
8. Brainstorming, identification and discussion of Key Issues – Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and Threats
9. Next Steps – Phase II – Phase III Timetable
10. Workshop Closing

Strategic Plan For The Iqaluit Deepwater Port Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Plan For The Iqaluit Deepwater Port Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Plan For The Iqaluit Deepwater Port Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Plan for the

Iqaluit Deepwater Port

Prepared for The City of Iqaluit by

Aarluk Consulting Inc., Gartner Lee Limited and Chris Anderson

2. Vision for the Iqaluit Integrated Deepwater Port.......................................................... 3

3. Integrated Port Facilities: User Needs ............................................................................ 3

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd.

8. Community Consultation ............................................................................................... 41

10. Intergovernmental Oversight Committee..................................................................... 44

11. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 45

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd.

Vision for the Iqaluit Integrated Deepwater Port

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. i

User Groups: Current Issues and Needs

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. ii

Cruise Ships, Coast Guard and Military Vessels

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. iii

Coast Guard and Military Vessels

Needs of small craft operators in relation to integrated port facilities are:

Preliminary Integrated Deepwater Port Concept

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. iv

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. v

Iqaluit Integrated Port Facilities:

Deepwater Berth $32,060,000

Annual Operating Cost Estimate $ 2,146,413

Benefits of Integrated Port Facilities

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. vi

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. vii

Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment and Regulatory

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. viii

Intergovernmental Oversight Committee

Conceptual Drawing of the Deepwater Port Site

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. ix

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 1

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 2

2. Vision for the Iqaluit Integrated Deepwater Port

3. Integrated Port Facilities: User Needs

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 3

3.2 Shipping Season

Table 1. Iqaluit Harbour

Initial Date Final Date

General Cargo June 30th November 17th

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 4

3.3 Historical and Projected Usage

Table 2. Estimated Sealift Weights and Volumes

SEASON VOLUME (m3)

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 5

Chart 1. General Cargo: Number of Shipments to Iqaluit (1992-2003)

Table 3. General Cargo Vessels:

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 6

Chart 2. Projected Growth of Total Cargo Shipments

3.3.2 Petroleum Products

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 7

Chart 3. Petroleum Tankers: Number of Shipments to Iqaluit (1992-2003)

Table 4. Petroleum Product Tankers:

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 8

Chart 4. Projected Total Petroleum Volumes Shipped

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 9

Aarluk Consulting and Gartner Lee Ltd. Pg. 10