« PreviousContinue »
We can go up to 2,800 pounds pressure per square inch in this pipe. The transportation of gas or oil requires 600 or 700 pounds.
Senator RADCLIFFE. The pipe is lined with steel ?
Mr. FERLA. The Trans-American Pipe Co. has 50,000 tons. We require 7,000 tons of steel, plus the tonnage required for the equipment.
Senator RADCLIFFE. You would require priorities for the machinery and also for so much steel as may be necessary for the lining?
Mr. FERLA. Yes, sir; that is correct.
The value of this pipe is that it is noncorrosive. There is no expansion or contraction. There is a joint inside here [indicating] which is flexible. There is a protection of rubber here [indicating] for carrying water. We can supply, any quantity of this. You see, it is flexible (illustrating]. There is no danger of leaking. This joint is able to stand 2,600 pounds pressure.
Senator RADCLIFFE. What is the outer surface composed of?
Mr. FERLA. Asbestos cement, which is without priority. We are below No. 4 priority. We can obtain cement on the east coast, from Canada, free of duty, from Central United States, from Wyoming, from the Pacific coast, from Arizona. We can obtain cement anywhere, except standard cement.
There is no compressing or breaking this pipe. Mr. Hammond, of the Oil Coordinator's Office, took a hammer. If you take a hammer you can smash anything.
I came in contact with the natural-gas people through Mr. Krug, Chief Engineer of the Power Board. Finally I decided to go to the Senate. I had been to the House and Judge Mansfield looked at this pipe. We have got pipe here in this building that can stand up to 3,100 pounds pressure. The same pipe that we sent to the Bureau of Standards tested to 3,330 pounds pressure.
So I came to the Senate to see if we could save 85 percent on steel.
I have some photographs here to show you. You see what the pipe is like [exhibiting a photograph]. It does not require any laying. It is just attached with a couple of wires. This pipe [indicating on photograph] is transporting 400 barrels of oil a day. We have a small pipe up to 10 inches in diameter.
We think it is worth considering when somebody can come here and show you how you can save 85 percent of steel.
STATEMENT OF J. T. SWECKER, REPRESENTING UNITED STATES
ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE CO., CAMDEN, N. J. Mr. SWECKER. My name is J. T. Swecker.
The point of this is that pipe for these pipe lines can be made available from material with a trifling amount of steel, using, instead of 50,000 tons for the pipe line, only 7,500 tons, representing 15 percent of the total amount that they propose to use. If you add to that the plants that are required to make this material, we can build five plants with only 300 tons of steel. So that would be far below the amount of steel that would be required in a steel pipe line. The point is that we can make available very quickly, with a
very trifling amount of steel, an entire pipe line and have it loaded in 6 months.
Senator RADCLIFFE. It is my impression that the testimony has been that the material is available at this time.
Mr. SWECKER. They were talking about second-hand pipe being available. But there is not sufficient second-hand pipe available for a long 500-mile pipe line. That which they propose to build from Longview, Tex., up to Salem, Ill., would use about 300,000 tons of new steel, as I am informed.' We can build the whole thing with 15 percent of that amount of steel.
Senator CLARK. of Missouri. In connection with Mr. De Golyer's testimony, I would like to call attention for the purpose of the record to the fact that Mr. Swann yesterday testified that the oil reserves in Illinois were increased, according to 0. P. C. admission, by 165,000,000 barrels in the year 1941 by drilling less than 3,000 wells in that year. I think that ought to be answered in the record in connection with the testimony given this afternoon by Mr. De Golyer.
Senator PEPPER. Was the letter from the Chief of Engineers, correcting the statement that he made in response to a question I asked, put into the record ?
The CLERK. Senator Pepper, General Reybold has corrected his statement, and here is his letter.
Senator PEPPER. We were talking about the relationship of this canal to the ship canal, and I asked the question of General Reybold how many cubic yards had to be excavated for the building of the ship canal, and he said 225,000,000. I spoke to him about it afterward and he said he understood that I was talking about a sea-level barge canal; and he wrote a letter explaining that and pointing out that a 12-by-150-foot sea-level barge canal would require the excavation of 206,181,000 cubic yards; that a 12-by-150foot lock barge canal would require the excavation of 80,956,000 cubic yards; that a 33-by-400-foot sea-level ship canal, recommended in House Document No. 194, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, would require the excavation of 815,729,000 cubic yards.
I just want to be sure that that letter goes into the record.
(The letter referred to, dated June 30, 1942, from Major General Reybold to Senator Josiah W. Bailey, is here printed in full as follows:)
Washington, June 30, 1942.
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. My DEAR SENATOR : Reference is made to my testimony this morning before the committee concerning H. R. 6999. During the hearing Senator Pepper requested information on the yardage to be excavated in constructing the proposed lock barge canal as compared to that which would have to be excavated to provide a sea level canal. In answer to this question, I stated that about 75,000,000 yards would have to be excavated for the lock barge canal as compared to 225,000,000 yards for the sea-level canal.
Subsequent to completion of my testimony I was informed that the comparison desired was between the proposed lock barge canal and the sea-level ship canal as recommended in House Document No. 194, Seventy-fifth Congress, 1st session. In order that there may be no misunderstanding in this matter, I am pleased to present the following information:
(a) 12 times 150-foot sea-level barge canal, 206,181,000 cubic yards.
No. 194, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, 815,729,000 cubic yards.
pension of work on the project in 1936. I trust that the above information will serve to clarify any misunderstanding that may have arisen in connection with my testimony. Should further information be desired, I will be pleased to furnish any additional data available. Very truly yours,
Major General, Chief of Engineers. Senator CLARK of Missouri. I move that the subcommittee go into executive session.
(Whereupon, at 4:45 p. m., the subcommittee went into executive session.)
LETTERS FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING PIPE LINES AND BARGE BIDS
MAY 4, 1942. Re S. 2426-H. R. 6999. Hon. JOSIAH W. BAILEY, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR BAILEY: This will respond, with regrettable but unavoidable delay, to your request of April 1, 1942, for my comment concerning the above bill. Most of the delay has been caused by the need for obtaining information concerning the situation, as I have never heretofore had occasion to make a study of it.
The bill contains two separate but related purposes. One would authorize construction of a 12-foot canal from Withlacoochee Bay to the St. Johns River near Palatka, Fla. The other would provide for construction of a pipe line between the same points, for the transportation of petroleum and petroleum products. The proposed appropriation for the two projects would be $68,000,000. I understand that a break-down of this estimated cost would be as follows:
Estimated 1. Pipe line, 0. D., 24-inch, 82 miles long; capacity of 250,000 barrels
cost per day of crude or 300,000 barrels per day of products
$5, 500,000 2. 2 terminals, storage, and offshore unloading facilities.
2, 000, 000 3. Canal
55, 500, 000 4. Harbor works, jetties, etc.
68,000,000 I am now unable to obtain sufficient data to permit an expression of opinion as to whether the canal would be a commercially feasible or desirable project in times of peace, but from what I know of present conditions, and if its construction can be completed in time, I ans of the opinion that it may have some real benefits as a war measure. The almost complete elimination of coastwise shipping has created a serious transportation problem not only as to petroleum but as to many other commodities, such as sulfur, wood pulp, and phosphate rock from Gulf ports to the Atlantic seaboard. The strain which this transportation is placing and will continue to place on rail facilities is a severe one, and whatever can be done substantially to ease this strain will be of benefit. However, the construction of the canal alone will not solve the problem. Before it can be said that the canal will be worth while as a war measure, I think that there should be assured the availability of adequate barges, tugs, and other necessary equipment not only for use on the canal itself but also, and more important, for use on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterways. Also, necessary enlargement and repair of the latter waterways to accommodate a heavy yolume of traffic should be cared for in advance of action upon the proposal to construct the Florida canal, as the former seems to me to be a necessary condition precedent to the beneficial use of the latter.
For these reasons, I suggest that section 3 of the bill be amended to include barge and towing equipment for use on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterways and
to authorize whatever improvements may be required to permit those waterways to accommodate the probable increased volume of traffic thereon. You should know, however, as I am sure you do, that the availability of critical war materials for such equipment is dependent on the judgment of the War Production Board. It must decide how the limited stocks of such materials shall be allocated between demands, all of them important, which in the aggregate greatly exceed the supply, To relieve the railroads also, there is à choice between adding to their facilities and expanding these waterway facilities.
Also, in connection with the provision in section 3, concerning the financing and operation of barge and towing equipment, I suggest that the language "and other carriers” should be changed to “or other persons” in order not unduly to restrict the applicability of the provision.
As to the proposed pipe line, I stated in a report issued on April 16, 1942, in the matter of the Trans-American Pipe Line Corporation, that whether new pipe lines to the Atlantic seaboard are needed for national-defense purposes or as a result of the war, and, if so, where they should be constructed, are not matters which I feel that I can determine solely on my own responsibility. Clearly, there are other Federal agencies whose responsibility with respect to such matters would require their participation in the determination of those questions. I further stated that I would be glad to undertake to join with such other agencies in an investigation of the necessity for additional pipe-line facilities and expressed the opinion that any study of this character must consider the merits of all proposed projects. That statement and opinion seem to me to be equally applicable to the pipe-line proposal contained in the bill here discussed. Very sincerely yours,
JOSEPH B. EASTMAN, Director.
OFFICE OF PETROLEUM COORDINATOR FOR WAR,
Washington, July 4, 1942. Hon. JOSIAH W. BAILEY, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce,
United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR BAILEY: In appearing before the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday, July 1, incident to H. R. 6999, I was requested to file with the committee a statement showing the estimated additional volume of oil which would reach the east coast as a result of a program initiated by this office. Pursuant to said request the following data are submitted :
Project 1.-To increase by 40,000 barrels per day the movement of crude oil from Texas north to Chicago, and 25,000 barrels per day east through existing pipeline systems by means of the installation of additional pumping units, loop lines, and the reversal of the Tuscarora pipe line. Anticipated completion date, November 15. 40,000 barrels. Project 2.—The Plantation pipe-line project:
(a) The construction of a 60,000-barrel-per-day pipe line from the vicinity of Beaumont, Tex., to Baton Rouge, La., to supply the Plantation pipe line.
(6) The expansion of the capacity of the Plantation pipe line by installing intermediate pumping stations.
(c) The extension of the Plantation pipe line from Greensboro, N. C., to a point northwest of Norfolk. Anticipated completion date, November 15. 60,000 barrels,
Project 3.—The construction of a 10,000-barrel-per-day products line from Fostoria, Ohio, connecting the Shell and Sohio gasoline pipe lines with the SunSusquehanna system at Akron, Ohio, for the movement of petroleum products eastward. Anticipated completion date, September 30. 10.000 barrels.
Project 4.-The reversal of the Keystone-Atlantic gasoline pipe line and an increase in the movement through the Socony-Vacuum pipe line from Buffalo, N. Y., so as to feed the Sun pipe line going south. Anticipated completion date, August 1. 10,000 barrels.
Project 5.-(a) The reconditioning, rearrangement, and conversion of a crude oil pipe line or pipe lines between Port Arthur, Tex., and Eldorado, Ark., into a products pipe line or pipe lines; the reversal of such pipe line or pipe lines, and the extension of such pipe line or pipe lines.
(6) The reversal of an 8-inch products pipe line between Shreveport, La., and Port Arthur, Tex., to move products to Shreveport, La.
(c) The construction of a 150-mile 10-inch products pipe line from Eldorado, Ark., to Helena, Ark. Anticipated completion date, November 1. 50,000 barrels.
Project 7.-(a) The conversion and reversal of a 12-inch crude oil pipe line extending from east Texas to Houston in order to deliver 60,000 barrels per day of refined petroleum products from the Houston refineries to a point in or near the east Texas field.
(6) The construction of a 12-inch pipe line from the east Texas field or its vicinity to deliver 60,000 barrels per day of refined petroleum products to a point near Paducah, Ky. Anticipated completion date, December 31; 60,000 barrels.
Project 8.-A 24-inch pipe line designed to carry crude oil and products from Longview, Tex., to Philadelphia and Bayonne, of which a 550-mile section from Longview, Texas., to southern Illinois has received steel allocation. Pipe has already been ordered. It is expected to deliver 300,000 barrels per day of crude oil to southern Illinois points for transshipment to the east coast by tank car, barge, existing pipe lines, and lake tanker. Anticipated completion date, December 1; 300,000 barrels.
Total.—Five hundred and ten thousand barrels added pipe-line capacity to Mississippi River and Illinois points.
Project 11.-A Gulf-Intracoastal Waterway movement by wooden barge from Texas ports to Panama City, Fla., has been recommended to deliver 50,000 barrels per day of residual fuel oil. This residual fuel would be transshipped by tank car to Norfolk and Jacksonville and intermediate points. This movement will require pipe-coiled wooden barges and related power equipment built new. The Government agency has as yet not been designated, so far as this office is informed, which will have responsibility for providing this floating equipment; 50,000 barrels per day.
Project 12.-A steel barge movement of 35,000 barrels per day of clean products from Texas ports to Port St. Joe, Fla., by existing barge equipment to be assigned and transferred from other services. This volume of products would be transported across Florida by the proposed 8-inch trans-Florida pipe line recommended for construction to Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which is under consideration for financing and actual contract by that office. Anticipated date of completion, October 31; 35,000 barrels.
Projects 1 to 7, inclusive, upon completion, will make available increased pipeline carrying capacity to the east-coast district of 87,000 barrels per day, leaving the remainder of 123,000 barrels per day available for the shorter tank car, barge, and lake tanker hauls. This 123,000 barrels per day moved this far, in terms of east-coast delivery from Texas, represents the equivalent saving of 3,500 tank cars.
Project 8, when completed to southern Illinois and delivering 300,000 barrels per day of crude oil, will produce a transportation equivalent by saving of tankcar time of 8,800 tank cars, in terms of Texas to east-coast delivery.
Project 11, if carried through with transshipment by tank car, will accomplish a net east-coast delivery at the rate of 50,000 barrels per day.
Project 12, though it contemplates the transfer of steel barge equipment now in use elsewhere, is considered a very efficient movement and will, when put in effect, effectively deliver to the east-coast district 35,000 barrels per day. The pipe-line projects 2, 5, and 7 will release barge equipment for this purpose.
The tank-car saving outlined in the foregoing summary would indicate the possibility of moving more oil from Illinois points than can be safely forecast because all authorities agree we cannot expect a sustained tank-car movement into the east-coast area to exceed 800,000 barrels per day. It would, therefore, be hazardous to assume that by the rearranged program a net result should be expected as indicated directly by these figures. The several limiting factors upon tank-car movements must be expected to govern the railroad movements finally to be realized.
It is important, however, that a large quantity of additional oil at Ohio River and Illinois points will greatly strengthen and insure movement to the east coast by maximum use of all existing facilities, namely, Ohio River barges, railroad tank (ars, pipe lines, and lake tankers.