By Jeff G. Gilmour, 26 Feburary 2025
The following is included under the heading of “ Asserting Canada’s Sovereignty“ in the recently announced Canada’s 2024 Arctic Foreign Policy:
“Building on the NORAD modernization investments announced in 2022, Canada’s defence policy update, “Our North, Strong and Free” identified the Government of Canada’s most pressing priority as the continued assertion of Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic and northern regions. Canada is making investments to ensure the CAF has the capabilities required to operate in an evolving context.”
That brings us to consideration of the Nanisivik Naval Facility. The site was a lead-zinc mine built in 1975, near Arctic Bay some 750 k north of the Arctic Circle. The mine ceased operations in 2002. At that time the facility included a docking facility and an airstrip. The docking jetty accommodated freighters which would load the ore and transport it to Europe for further processing. As an aside, around 40 years ago I visited the large mining complex to resolve some taxation problems between the company and the Government of the Northwest Territories.
As noted in a recent article in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, in 2007 Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that a new docking and refuelling station for the RCN would be established at the old Nanisivik mine site.1 It was envisioned that the site would be a year-round deep water port to boost Canadian sovereignty in the region. DND projected that the station would be operational by 2012. However actual construction did not commence until 2015. It was also announced by the government that the facilities would only be used by the ships of the RCN in the summer months and not year-round.
Since then there have been continuous delays for the operational opening of the site. In 2023 the Auditor General of Canada stated that the new opening would take place this year. In a recent announcement but DND has admitted there is no planned opening date and no plans when the site will be operational.
If this project is any example of this country’s "most pressing priority" for action in our Arctic after 18 years of debate, we are in for a big hurt in actioning a strong military presence in our North.
1- David Pugliese, ”Opening of Arctic Naval Refuelling Facility in Limbo, DND Acknowledges,” Ottawa Citizen, February 24, 2025.
Image: Nanisivik Naval Facility as seen in 2019 during a visit by HMCS Ville de Quebec. Photo Credit: Dave Mazur
7 thoughts on “The Nanisivik Naval Facility”
Some things to consider that are not mentioned in the article by Pugliese. Before Nanisivik could be taken over by DND there had to be a mine remediation by the company which as mentioned was lengthy due to the short construction season, and location of the site. Additionally one just doesn’t take over and build what you want, consolations with the land owners and an environmental assessment had to take place, especially for a fuel depot in the Arctic.
Other things not mentioned include things such as the concrete piers were sinking into the clay had to be stabilized. In addition there were other known reasons for delays such as Covid, and the washed out road caused delays. These are all valid things. I applaud the government in trying to do this but building anything infrastructure wise in the Arctic is lengthy and costly. In my opinion this was a bad area, more than likely a better spot would be somewhere close to a settlement with proper infrastructure that allowed regular heating and circulation of the fuel and 24/7 onsite security. In the current location at the end of the season all fuel has to be removed because the facility is not manned and there is an unacceptable risk of a spill. As well apparently this also opens the facility to vandalism.
In my opinion, choose some better location and put in proper infrastructure. Repurpose Nanisivik as a maintenance and supply depot less fuel.
In the meantime AOPVs carried lots of fuel which is around 700M3. Fueling options include Nuuk, Greenland, Thule Air force base, directly from a CCG ship or by shuttle tanker from St. John’s which is under contract to refuel CCG ships in the Arctic.
How do we measure the utility of this refueling facility in the context of Arctic security? To what extent does it appreciably enhance the ability of the RCN to sustain operations in northern waters? Are there alternatives?
If anyone’s interested, please read this Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) Institute report, “International and Domestic Arctic Assessment: Canada’s Arctic Threats and Vulnerabilities”, by Andrea Charron et al. (Nov 2024). The authors suggest that we should forget about Nansivik and open one in Iqaluit, which would presumably be available for longer periods of time each year.
https://cdainstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/EN-Threat-Assessment-Charron.pdf
And here’s an online interview with Dr. Charron: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU75ipN9V6k
Mr. Pollievre has recently opined on the desirability of establishing a permanent CFB in Iqaluit. It is unclear how much thought or analytical rigour has gone into that proposal. Pre-election proposals may be no more than attempts at brand differentiation. But the idea that we should focus any extra spending in Canada raises the question of whether an infrastructure Mega-project can kill 3 birds with one stone: get us closer to to 2% of GDP, deal with vulnerabilities up north, and reassure the US that we’re serious about continental defence. Government investment can spur private sector activity, too.
Still, it’s an undeveloped idea. And the voting public resides down south!
Originally the plan for the Arctic Refuelling Facility Nanisivik was a jet capable runway, storage buildings and other facilities to allow crew transfers, parts, contractors, food, etc., to be flown in to allow replenishment closer to the Northwest Passage. Nanisivik does have the location right at the entrance of the NW passage. So yes in my opinion it does enhance the RCN’s ability to sustain operations in that manner. The issue however is that the government didn’t want to spend the money to build the infrastructure and properly support it year round.
I have suggested on more than a few occasions facilities built in Iqaluit. Larger population, airfield, hospital, infrastructure including a sea base which could be expanded. The only issue is that Iqaluit is not close to the NW passage like Nanisivik. I would suggest both Iqaluit and Nanisivik complementing each other.
I would envision a large expansion of jetty space in Iqaluit to allow for tank farms, accommodations, warehouses, repair facilities and facilities to host Canadian and allied ships. Expand the airport to have broader support of Air Force assets, P8’s, drones, SAR, F 35’s etc. Facilities for the Army along the lines of what their priorities are. I would even consider moving Arctic Command to Iqaluit.
Ted, do you have any views on what would be required in terms of numbers of CAF personnel and/or contractors to support an expanded presence in Iqaluit? I assume that personnel may be surged (temporarily) to suit requirements, but that there would have to be something akin to a “Station” up there, if not a full CF Base.
When I look at Iqaluit airport (ironically sporting the IATA code, CYFB) on Google maps, I see that Transport Canada is building a 2,500 square metre hangar for its National Aerial Surveillance Program. One wonders if this can be dual-hatted to serve military purposes.
Hi Bill, currently the CAF has around 300 personnel posted to Iqaluit. Any base or station there is going to have some contractors and local workers as per the custom. If we went ahead and built this base with a naval component on an expanded sea port, with army and air force staged out by the airport, the number of personnel depending on winter as you surmised would surge as taskings and seasons come and go. I would say offhand 1500 to 2000 personnel at peak dropping off to around 300 to 700 personnel in the winter.
I would say the new hangar certainly would be dual purposed.
Very interesting comment thread. I think you have made many good points. One point to note: Iqaluit tides are not ideal for a naval sea port. https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/why-arent-sealifts-docked-at-iqaluits-new-deepsea-port/
Justa Landlubber, yes building the port in Iqaluit required a lot of dredging due the tides, any further infrastructure built there would require massive dredging. As the article says the sealift ships don’t dock alongside because the massive tides affect the visibility of unloading of the ships and instead use the ramps there. This wouldn’t affect naval ships to that extent.