Technical Briefing: HBR Engineering Assessment Winnipeg, MB Tuesday, July 18, 2017
1 INTRODUCTION
• Provide a detailed interim update on the status of the engineering assessment of the HBR
• Share details about the current status of the Port of Churchill, and plans for use of the port throughout the rail suspension
• Share details on the current status of the Marine Tank Farm and plans for winter fuel storage
• Provide an opportunity for questions from stakeholders
2 PANEL MEMBERS
• Peter Touesnard, CCO OmniTRAX • Sergio Sabatini, COO, OmniTRAX • Ron Mitchell, Senior Rail Manager, AECOM Canada • Tony Simoes, VP Engineering, OmniTRAX Canada • Trent Weber, VP Sales, OmniTRAX Canada • Jeff McEachern, VP Terminal Operations, OmniTRAX Canada
3 HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Section Two
4 HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
5 HUDSON BAY RAILROAD
• 627 miles of track purchased in 1997 along with the Port of Churchill • No vehicle access North of MP 355 or Bird, MB. Only access is via rail or helicopter • Railroad was built on top of a swamp • Flat open tundra with 90,000 lakes and swamp/bog areas • The railroad is built on permafrost, which is constantly shifting under the track requiring extensive maintenance • The only railroad that serves the Hudson Bay • 23 online customers • 7 effected by the floods • Numerous OCFS customers effected
6 THE HBR HAS MAINTAINED THIS LINE TO TRANSPORT CANADA TRACK STANDARDS NECESSARY FOR SAFE AND EFFICIENT OPERATIONS AT A COST OF MORE THAN $9M/YEAR.
HBR Operating and Capital Spend (Millions$)
14
12 4.53 4.81
10
4.23 8 3.62 3.48
6 9.27 8.45 4 6.11 5.32 5.59
2
0 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Herchmer Sub Non-Herchmer 7 2017 FLOOD
8 2017 FLOOD RESPONSE CHRONOLOGY
On May 23, 2017 at 1400 central time, all train traffic was halted north of Gillam, Manitoba because of an unprecedented flooding event between Gillam and Churchill Manitoba. HBR Crews were conducting HI rail inspections when the flooding occurred. First washout was found at Mile 393.6 while inspecting northwards. Crews also commenced inspections from Churchill and identified high water over the rail at Mile 441.
May 24/25: HBR crews continued inspections northward and were stopped by flood waters at Mile 413.7.
May 26: HBR senior management (Sergio Sabatini, Tony Simoes, Jim Conner) conducted a helicopter inspection of the line. Discovered 19 washouts, 5 damaged bridges and area at Mile 441 that was under 10 feet of water for 1.5 miles. Town of Churchill and Transport Canada were made aware of the severity of the situation.
May 29: Emergency Measures Manitoba accompanied senior HBR management on another helicopter inspection to see the catastrophic damage.
9 2017 FLOOD RESPONSE CHRONOLOGY
May 29/30: OmniTRAX met with Emergency Measures Manitoba to discuss damage to the rail line.
June 1: AECOM was brought under contract to conduct a detailed assessment of the flood damage. Ron Mitchell accompanied HBR staff on another helicopter inspection.
June 5: HBR issued an RFP to AECOM seeking engineering and construction project management consulting services to repair the infrastructure and restore rail operations. The methodology for safely and efficiently repairing the line requires enough detail for HBR to plan budget and schedule for a resumption of service.
June 8: HBR conducted another helicopter inspection. This inspection revealed that much of the flood waters had receded.
10 FORCE MAJEURE
• On June 9, 2017, HBR declared Force Majeure
• An event of Force Majeure is defined as an event beyond the control of the operator, which prevents a party from complying with any of its obligations under a contract
• There were two main reasons for declaring Force Majeure in this instance:
1. Social Responsibility: We wanted everyone to understand the seriousness of the situation and to start taking steps in case the railway could not be rebuilt before winter.
2. Contractual Responsibility: We had contractual obligations under several agreements and providing written notice of Force Majeure was a requirement under those agreements.
11 Technical Briefing on Hudson Bay Railway Flood
July 18, 2017 Introductions: Ron Mitchell, Senior Rail Manager, AECOM
− Ron is a licensed Professional Engineer, a member of AARS (American Association of Railroad Superintendents) and AREMA − Ron has 45 years of rail industry experience, including 20 years with CP and 15 years of railway safety oversight with Transport Canada. For the past 10 years, he has worked as a consultant delivering rail projects worldwide − Ron participated in a June 1, 2017 helicopter assessment of the flooded portions of the rail line and the first few days of the detailed assessment Introductions: The Detailed Assessment Team
Key members of the detailed assessment team were:
− Tony Simoes, VP Engineering, OmniTRAX Canada − Dan Kryska, P.Eng., Senior Engineer Track and Structures, AECOM Calgary − Carmen Otero, Civil Engineer, AECOM Burnaby AECOM Understands the Importance of the HBR to Northern Communities
Key messages for today:
− Safety. Repairs must be done properly. The HBR carries hazardous goods like aviation and diesel fuel as well as gasoline. VIA Rail carries passengers to and from their homes as well as vacationers to the North. − Rail Regulatory Framework. HBR must comply to Transport Canada Regulations for track and other infrastructure. This railroad is built on a fragile northern environment. It has to be rebuilt properly. − Importance to have this railroad open prior to freeze up. Reliable service for customers and the town of Churchill but also has to be compliant to regulations and standards. − We have a plan to rebuild the railroad in 60 days. It won’t be inexpensive or easy, but it can be done. Condition of HBR Herchmer Subdivision Prior to Flood
− HBR Herchmer Subdivision has been maintained with sound engineering practices and adheres to Transport Canada regulations. − AECOM has assisted HBR in maintaining this line into compliance with Transport Canada Safety Standards for 10 years. − Some assessments/improvements made in the Herchmer Subdivision since 2008: − Ballast: ~400 carloads per year − Bank widening unstable areas: 819 carloads − Ties: 75,500 installed − Surfacing 1,220 miles − A thorough assessment was required to ensure that safety standards are met before reopening the line to rail traffic. − Running a railroad on muskeg and melting permafrost is a constant challenge. A permanent solution, although theoretically possible, is not practical as conditions are always changing. AECOM’s Work for OmniTRAX
− Engineering services to OmniTRAX-owned HBR, CTR, and KFIR, for routine re-occurring services and to provide “on call” Professional Engineering support of the Maintenance of Way activities on their respective railways. Ongoing since Nov 2014. − Engineering services as Independent Engineer to a 10-year, $60 million project to rehabilitate the HBR, 509 miles of track from The Pas to Churchill, Manitoba. Reporting to OmniTRAX, Transport Canada, and the Province of Manitoba. Ongoing since Oct 2009. − Engineering services for bridge inspections and bridge ratings to OmniTRAX Canada. From 2007 to 2009. − Engineering services for design and construction of emergency bridge repair at MP 12.9 HBR Thompson Subdivision. Cost Associated with Maintaining HBR since 2008
− Since 2008 through 2016, the Hudson Bay Railway (HBR) has had $75M invested in the infrastructure of the rail line and its operating equipment. − In addition, the HBR has spent $44M in maintenance of the railway’s track and right of way. − The HBR has received $40M in assistance from the Federal and Provincial governments over the same timeframe. AECOM Overview
With an integrated team operating in more than 150 countries, AECOM works to positively impact lives, transform communities and make the world a better place. Industry Rankings AECOM is a leading global provider of professional technical and management support services.
2015 ENR Rankings
#1 Global Design Firm #1 International Design #1 Transportation #1 Water #1 General Building
Airports 1 Hydroplants 1 Architecture 2 Mass Transit/Rail 1 Bridges 1 Marine and Port Facilities 1 Chemical & Soil Remediation 1 Power 2 Commercial Offices 2 Residential 1 Correctional Facilities 1 Sanitary and Storm Sewers 1 Dams and reservoirs 1 Solar Power 1 Education 2 Sports Facilities 1 General Building 1 Transmission and Distribution 1 Government Offices 1 Transmission Lines 1 Health Care Facilities 1 Transportation 1 Highways 1 Wastewater Treatment Plants 2 Our Core Values and Commitment to Safety
Innovation
Safety
Integrity
Our goal is to implement our “Safety for Life” Program as the catalyst to lead our industry in SH&E and commit to zero incidents in the workplace. Scope of Work
− AECOM was retained by HBR to perform a detailed assessment of the damage to the existing infrastructure caused by the extreme flooding and to identify the material and work required to repair it. − The assessment required the detailed inspection of 182 miles of rail track, 32 bridges, 507 culverts, and 31 washout areas. − AECOM will work closely with HBR to develop a repair plan, cost estimates, a Project Management Plan for safely restoring the line to service, and prepare contract documents for tender. In addition, AECOM will provide Construction Management services. Hydrological Survey • Statistical analysis performed using 40 years of data from three Water Survey of Canada gauges. • The 2017 event was the flood of record for both the Churchill and Deer Rivers. • The 2017 event was approximately equivalent to a 200-year event. • For reference, the 1997 flood in Southern Manitoba was a 100-year event. Flood (m3/s) Event Churchill43% higher River thanDeer River Weir River (289,000previouskm2) flood(1,890 km2) (2,190 km2) 1000-year 5,070of record 534 430 2017 4,260 439 326 200-year 4,120 437 352
100-year 3,710 396 319
50-year 3,300 354 285
10-year 2,330 256 205
2-year 1,220 143 114
Churchill River Deer River Weir River (2005) (1983) (1983) Previous Flood 2,990 324 349 of Record (m3/s) Preliminary Visit
− Inspected section of track between Gillam and Churchill by helicopter on June 1; a few days after water levels had reached their peak. − Water level observed was already 1.5 m lower than peak reached earlier that week. − Photos of MP 441
May 29 June 1 Assessment Status Inspected to date • Distance: 182 miles • Bridges: 32 • Culverts: 507
Identified for repair • Washouts: 31 (9 of them are July 6 – July 12 culverts with washout damage) MP 434 – MP 509 • Bridges: 13 • Culverts: 68
AECOM will deliver a detailed report of the flood damage on August 4.
Outstanding items • Bridge inspections (MP 419.4, MP 441.5 and MP 496.4) • Bridge pier underwater June 22 – June 29 inspections (MP 331.5 , MP 349.8 and MP 377.5) MP 327 – MP 434 • Geotechnical inspection at unstable locations (MP 413.4, MP 424.72, MP 433.65-434.05, MP 441.38-MP 441.91, MP 442.45, MP 444.06 and MP444.9) Key Locations
Bridges Washouts Bridges to Additional Repair Inspection MP 331.5 – Nelson River Bridge
MP 333.9 – Stream Bridge MP 337.4 – Clemmons Creek Bridge
MP 343.4 – Sky Pilot Creek Bridge MP 349.8 – Limestone River Bridge
MP 353.8 – Match Creek Bridge MP 354.0 – Big Timber Creek Bridge
MP 358.9 – Sundance Creek Bridge MP 360.3 – Donnelly Creek Bridge
MP 365.7 – Goose Creek Bridge MP 368.6 – Fork Creek Bridge
MP 373.0 – Weir River Bridge MP 377.5 – Roblin Creek Bridge
MP 378.7 – Porcupine River Bridge MP 380.7 – Borrow Creek Bridge
MP 382.6 – Lawledge Creek Bridge MP 387.6 – Coppu Creek Bridge
MP 393.6 – Washout/Culvert MP 396.2 – Silcox Creek Bridge/Washout
MP 400.3 – Washout MP 400.9 – Washout
MP 401.8 – Creek Bridge MP 402.6 – Stream Bridge
MP 403.7 – Washout MP 403.8 – Washout
MP 403.9 – Washout MP 404.0 – Washout
MP 404.1 – Washout MP 408.5 – Screech Creek Bridge
MP 409.3 – Washout MP 409.4 – Washout
MP 411.4 – Owl River Bridge MP 413.4 – Washout
MP 414.6 – Washout MP 416.4 – Culvert
MP 416.9 – Washout MP 419.4 – Horn Creek Bridge
MP 419.5 – Culvert MP 420.4 – Culvert
MP 420.5 – Washout MP 421.2 – Culvert
MP 422.5 – Hoot Creek Bridge MP 424.7 – Unstable Area/Shoulder slump
MP 425.9 – O’Day Creek Bridge MP 427.0 – Washout
MP 427.1 – Washout MP 427.3 – Washout
MP 429.6 – Culvert MP 432.8 – Washout
MP 434.0 – Culvert MP 441.5 – Blind Creek Bridge
MP 441.38 to 441.91 – Unstable Area (S and N of Bridge) MP 442.4 – McLintock Switch
MP 442.7 – Washout MP 443.8 – Washout
MP 443.9 – Washout MP 444.1 – Culvert/Unstable Area
MP 444.9 – Washout/Unstable Area MP 458.1 – Tundra Creek Bridge
MP 464.6 – Creek Bridge MP 470.5 – Spur Creek Bridge
MP 496.4 – Cotter Creek Bridge MP 496.6 – Culvert
MP 498.2 – Dixon Creek Bridge MP 498.7 – Goose Creek Bridge Nelson River Bridge – MP 331.5
− South end: guard rail is missing. − North end: clean debris between bearing and abutment. There is an extra tie at abutment, should be removed. − Piers to be sounded for scour. − Requires MB Hydro assistance to get divers in water to inspect. Limestone River Bridge – MP 349.8
− Concrete deteriorated at abutments and piers, needs assessment of concrete, possible encasement/repair. − Replace curb timbers. − Check for scour at centre pier. − Requires bridge inspection divers. Roblin Creek Bridge – MP 377.5
− Bridge supported on crib piers, flood waters removed granular material from cribs. Fill cribs with large rock. − Irregular bridge surface profile. Survey track profile 400 ft. each side of bridge, strike a new grade. − Shim stringers with custom shim sizes. − Check for scour around piers prior to running traffic. − Requires bridge inspections under water. Porcupine River Bridge – MP 378.7
− Flood damage. − Scour at north abutment under dump wall. − South dump wall leaning pushing piles over and cap is tilted. − Remove debris. − Cut brushes on south abutment and clean mud on north. − Remove ballast on deck and caps. − Rip rap required at north and south abutments. Horn Creek Bridge – MP 419.4
− Piles and Cap are heaved 9 inches at Bent 4. − Weld at south east abutment is cracked. − Further investigation required to properly repair. Blind Creek Bridge – MP 441.5
− Flood water over bridge, no apparent flood damage. − Piles settling or heaving (cause to be determined). − Material leaking on both dump walls. − Unstable area at both ends of bridge. − Bent 4 is tilting to the west. − North abutment is sinking. Cotter Creek Bridge – MP 496.4
− Bents settling or heaving (cause requires determination). − Concrete is deteriorating. − Exposed reinforcement on piers. Bridge Damage – Rip Rap Required
A total of 121 railcars of rip rap are required.
MP Bridge Railcars of Rip Rap 377.5 Roblin Creek 5 378.7 Porcupine River 6 387.6 Coppu Creek 6 396.2 Silcox Creek 40 401.8 Creek 8 411.4 Owl River 32 498.2 Dixon Creek 15 498.7 Goose Creek 9 Other “Unstable” Locations
− Locations that require further assessment to remediate conditions of track grade sinking: − MP 413.4 (58 ft. long and 3 ft. deep) − MP 424.72 (50 ft. long and 10 ft. deep) − MP 433.65 to 434.05 (widen berm) − MP 441.38 to 441.91 (McLintock switch) − MP 442.45 (widen berm at switch 150 ft. long) − MP 444.06 (widen berm 600 ft. long and replace culvert) − MP 444.9 (washout area) − Possible cause: Failed construction corduroy mat. − Possible fixes: − Replace with geogrid reinforcement material. − Lighten load of grade. − Thermal syphons. Regular Annual Maintenance – Herchmer Subdivision
− It has not been possible to perform regular annual maintenance (ties, ballast and surfacing) this year. − Several locations are out of service because of changes in track geometry due to track washouts and settlements. Transport Canada standards calls this Impassable Track. − Required work − Replace 14,000 ties (between MP 380 and MP 495) − Add 45,000 tons of ballast, approximately 600 railcars (between MP 327 and MP 509) − Surfacing (between MP 327 and MP 509) − Sperry Car (ultrasonic testing equipment): regulatory requirement for this class of track − Heavy Geometry Car (rail surface conditions under load and rail wear: regulatory requirement for this class of track Constructability
− This type of linear project has unique challenges: − No access − No housing for workers − No supplies − Basically, need to create a small community that must be continuously supplied during the reconstruction period. − Preliminary plan is to work from south to north. − Also considering having a second front to replace ties and surface the track from Churchill to the first washout, making it ready for traffic during the major reconstruction period. − Material sourced from Thompson (ballast and rip rap), and limestone pit (for fill material). (MP350.7, requires track upgrade to access) − Procurement must commence now to ensure repairs can be made in time. Constructability – Mileage Chart
Miles from Gillam Miles from 338 Miles from 351 one way round trip one way round trip one way round trip 393.6: 78’ long shoulder erosion 67 134 55 110 42 84 · 396.2: 6’ south end 70 140 58 116 45 90 · 400.3: 200’ long washout 74 148 62 124 49 98 · 401.8: 4’ south abutment 75 150 63 126 50 100 · 403.8 – 18’ long washout 78 156 65 130 54 108 · 2 markers bracketing 403.8 78 156 65 130 54 108 · 409.5 – 94’ long washout 83 166 71 142 58 116 · 413.4 – 58’ long washout 87 174 75 150 62 124 · 414.6 – 260’ long washout 89 178 77 154 63 126 · 416.7 – 110‘ long washout 90 180 78 156 65 130 · 420.4 – 69’ long washout 94 188 82 164 69 138 · 427.1 – washout 101 202 89 178 76 152 · 432.8 – washout 106 212 94 188 81 162 · 434.1 – high water 108 216 96 192 83 166 · 441.1, 441.2 - underwater 115 130 103 206 90 180 · 442.1 – washout 116 232 104 208 91 182 · 443.6 – washout 117 234 105 210 92 184 · 443.7 – washout 117 234 105 210 92 184 Scope of Work Summary
June July Aug Sep Oct
Track Assessment (Completed) Outstanding Inspection Items AECOM Flood Damage Report Repair Plan Cost Estimates Project Management Plan Contract Tendering Awarding Mobilizing Construction 60-day Plan
September October Activity Duration (days) Washouts 50 Culverts 5 Bridges 30 Bridges (structural work) 14 Unstable Areas Investigation/Engineering 30 Construction 14 Regular Maintenance Ties 24 Ballast 30 Surfacing 30 Equipment List Equipment Quantity Boom Truck/Grapple 2 Spike Puller 1 Tie Extractor 2 Tie Crane 2 Plate Placer 1 Spike Driver 2
Production Tampers 4 Ballast Regulators 4
Hi-Rail Excavators 3 3-way Rotary Dump Trucks 2 Compactors 2 Dozers 2 Loaders 2
Air Dumps 20 Ballast Hoppers 100 Locos 6 Camp Cars 17 Hi-Rails 9 Fuel Cars 2 Potential Challenges
− Contractor availability − Procurement delays − Camp equipment availability − Work equipment availability − Early freeze up − Delayed decisions as to when to start repairs − Each challenge can significantly increase the cost Estimate to Repair
Transportation Material Tie & Surface $6M $2M $5M
Investigate & Repair Rail Equipment Repair Bridges Rental Unstable Areas ? ? ?
Contractor Project Boarding Labour and Management ? Profit ? ? Summary
− Safety is Paramount – fix it right! − Repair the washout damage at identified locations. − Continue the program of replacement and renewal that is necessary to keep this track in compliance with the rules, regulations and standards. − Tackle the emerging problems that are highlighted in this assessment.
− This was not a “normal” washout. This was a once in 200-year flood level event.
− Get service restored quickly, but not at the expense of safety − The Town of Churchill needs this lifeline of a railway to be safe and consistently reliable – fix it right! www.aecom.com NEAR-TERM SUPPORT: PORT OF CHURCHILL AND MARINE TANK FARM
79 PRIOR TO THE FLOODING
• Conversations with customers began in April, warning that an above-normal snowpack could result in flooding
• Our largest fuel customer, Exchange Petroleum (Calm Air), ordered extra fuel in preparation for a potential rail outage
• CMTF ordered more diesel and gasoline than normal
• During the week of May 16, we became more specific and suggested it would make sense to stock up in case it floods
• May 20, advised the town of Churchill that warm weather was coming and we were concerned that we could see some flooding
80 WITH TEMPERATURES IN THE LAST HALF OF MAY GOING WELL ABOVE NORMAL, HBR BEGAN TO WITNESS FLOODING
81 FOLLOWING THE FIRST FLOOD EVENT, HBR BEGAN REGULAR COMMUNICATION TO IMPACTED PARTIES
• May 23: the line to Churchill was closed due to flooding
• Provided regular updates to customers and the community of Churchill, through emails to our mailing list
• Requested Town of Churchill to share updates with the community
• Observed pictures and updates posted on the Town of Churchill facebook page
• Started bi-weekly conference calls with Mayor and CAO of Churchill
• Provided pictures and updates to government and other stakeholders based on helicopter tours
82 ADDITIONALLY, COMMUNICATION WITH EMO MANITOBA BEGAN THE WEEK THE FLOODING WAS FIRST DETECTED
• Week 1: Detected flooding on Tuesday, May 23rd and commenced direct communication with EMO Manitoba on Thursday, May 25th
• Week 2: Hosted EMO Manitoba on Helicopter tour Monday, May 29th and had first 2 face-to-face meetings
• Week 3: Face-to-face meeting describing the conditions that led to the event of Force Majeure
83 FOLLOWING HBR’S FORCE MAJEURE ANNOUNCEMENT, WORK WITH EMO MANITOBA ACCELERATED
• Week 4: First EMO hosted stakeholder call occurred on June 14th
• Week 5: EMO Meetings continued with two subcommittees: – Fuel subcommittee (Gas/Diesel/Jet-A) – Propane subcommittee
• Week 6: EMO Meetings continued with one additional subcommittee: – Transportation and Logistics Group
• These three EMO subcommittees continue to meet every week
84 EMO MEETINGS FOCUSED ON PROVIDING ALL STAKEHOLDERS WITH UPDATES AND INPUT
• Weekly fuel inventory levels
• Roundtable discussion on fuel storage solutions
• Roundtable discussion on propane storage solutions
• Roundtable discussion on sealift options
85 WORKED DILIGENTLY ON SHORT-TERM FUEL SOLUTIONS
• July 14 marine delivery of fuel to ensure community needs are met until October delivery – API visual inspection of gas and diesel tanks to increase storage to 600,000 L of gas and 600,000 L of diesel – Shipped equipment to Churchill to prepare new tanks to accept Jet-A – Worked with Exchange Petroleum to coordinate Jet-A and gas/diesel fuel delivery
• HBR/CMTF Petroleum Engineer on site – Researched options – Installed tanks
• Safe handling practices for marine transfer of inbound fuel – Worked with Woodward’s to detail ship to shore transfer procedures – Created Oil Pollution Emergency Plan – Created procedures to safely fill tank farm from vessel – Worked with Manitoba Conservation and Transport Canada for regulatory guidance and direction
86 WORKED WITH SEALIFT COMPANIES TO ENABLE WATER SHIPMENT OF SUPPLIES TO CHURCHILL
• NSSI / Desgagnes to bring supplies into Churchill: – First sailing arrived on July 12 – Second sailing ETA August 29 – Third sailing to be confirmed
• NEAS to bring in an October shipment
• Contacted Moosonee Transport as an option
• Woodward’s to bring in marine fuel: – First vessel arrived on July 14 – Second vessel to arrive in October
• Propane delivery discussions
87 FIRST NSSI SUPPLY VESSEL: JULY 12 2017
88 FIRST WOODWARD’S FUEL VESSEL: JULY 14, 2017
89 FUEL CAPACITIES: JULY FUEL DELIVERY
• Gasoline: 600,000 L capacity – Expanded tank 6 working capacity from 300,000 L to 600,000 L – Visual API inspection supporting expansion – Manitoba Conversation confirmation
• Diesel: 600,000 L capacity – Expanded tank 8 working capacity from 300,000 L to 600,000 L – Visual API inspection supporting expansion – Manitoba Conversation confirmation
• Jet-A Fuel: 1.968 million L capacity – 10 railcars: 1,000,000 L – Legacy tanks: 208,000 L – Airport storage: 250,000 L – 6 new Envirotanks: 510,000 L
90 NEW TANKS IN PLACE
91 PORT CAPABILITIES: REVERSING THE FLOW
• Port of Churchill – Historically, has been predominantly a grain export port, which also provided summer supply of goods to Nunavut – This season the port is supporting the inward flow of goods for the community of Churchill • Churchill Marine Tank Farm – Historically, the tank farm unloaded railcars of fuel into storage – This season, the tank farm is receiving marine deliveries of fuel into storage • To support port operations, the following equipment is in place: – 100 ton crane – 2 tug boats – 2 front end loaders – 2 forklifts – Navigational buoys in the water from July until end of October • The port will remain open until October 31
92 NEXT STEPS
93 LONG-TERM FUEL SOLUTIONS ARE PROGRESSING IN CASE THE RAIL LINE CANNOT BE REBUILT BEFORE WINTER
• October delivery of fuel for winter – Researched fuel bladder storage – Researched adding new Envirotanks – API inspection of existing tanks to determine work required to return to service – Ordered additional equipment/materials to arrive in Churchill on second sailing in sufficient time to do work prior to October fuel delivery
• HBR/CMTF Petroleum Engineer will continue on site to support planning and construction
94 FUEL CAPACITIES: OCTOBER FUEL DELIVERY
• Gasoline: 855,000 L capacity – Tank 6: 600,000 L, with Manitoba Conservation confirmation – 3 new Envirotanks: 255,000 L – 2016 winter consumption 545,000 L (October 1 to June 30)
• Diesel: 600,000 L capacity – Tank 8: 600,000 L, with Manitoba Conservation confirmation – 2016 winter consumption 350,000 L (October 1 to June 30)
• Jet A: 4.232 million L capacity – 10 railcars: 1,000,000 L – Legacy tanks: 208,000 L – Airport storage: 250,000 L – 6 new Envirotanks: 510,000 L – Old tank brought into service: 2.264 million L following successful remediation
95 QUESTIONS
96 97