Page images
PDF
EPUB

Major Parten speaks of one in connection with the rearrangement of lines and the removal of bottlenecks from Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, and Illinois, into the Chicago area, to deliver 40,000 barrels a day into the Chicago area. That is one. That will include the delivery of 40,000 barrels a day by June 1, and probably before that, “and we expect to get 25,000 barrels of that all the way up to Bayonne, N. J. But that part of the distance will not be in use soon.

Project 2 is the enlargement of the Plantation capacity by the extension of the areas to Port Arthur and Houston, with a 10-inch second-hand line, and an extension from Greensboro to some point near Norfolk with an 8-inch line to carry 30,000 barrels through to water, near Norfolk.

I take it that that is in addition to the 50,000 they are now carrying, because he says they are going to step it up [reading further] :

No. 3 is a project with second-hand pipe to connect up to Shell's system that runs from Fostoria to Akron. That will be about a 150-mile hook-up that will provide also a hook-up with the Sun's Susquehanna line which is being reversed through Pennsylvania and will probably deliver 15,000 barrels a day to the east coast.

Project No. 4 calls for a movement by pipe line into Toledo and Cleveland of about 10,000 barrels a day increase, and that includes a reversal of those lines in Buffalo, then moving south into New York and eastern Pennsylvania, to handle about 10,000 barrels a day.

Project No. 5 contemplates the reversal of the two 8-inch pipe lines now going from El Dorado, Ark., to Port Arthur, Tex., through Shreveport. These lines will be reversed at El Dorado, Ark.

He says that the capacity is about 50,000 barrels a day [continuing reading]:

Project No. 6 is a new project. Project 7 is a second-hand pipe-line project that will be a combination of 14-inch and 12-inch lines that will originate at Longview, Tex., and go to some point on the Ohio River near Paducah, Ky., to deliver 60,000 barrels a day of products, chiefly, and which may go as high as 75,000 barrels a day. This line will be in addition to the line from Longview to Houston, which will be reversed and which will bring products out of the congested Houston area through Longview, through a new line, through to Paducah, and it will there be available by barge up the Ohio River, or by tank car.

He said that the combined capacity of all of these projects was about 200,000 barrels a day of crude oil and products [reading further] :

The second-hand line projects will carry through to the east coast between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of the 200,000 barrels.

So far as I can make it definite, it is made definite from Major Parten's testimony.

Senator PEPPER. Would the Chair advise me the page from which he was reading?

Senator BAILEY. Pages 236 and 237 of the House hearings.

Mr. GERMANY. Major Parten intends in that testimony, honestly, I think, to convey the idea that he expects to move 1,400,000 barrels to relieve congestion through the system; but you will notice that 300,000 barrels are going to Chicago and not to the Atlantic seaboard.

That is the point that I made in the beginning. You are 300,000 barrels short after you complete that line, because you have still got to get it from Chicago east; and you have got as much production as you need over there to supply it.

Somebody asked the question as to whether or not you could pump crude oil through a 10-inch line. You can pump all grades of crude except the very lowest grade through even an 8- or 10-inch line. There would not be any crude brought over here.

Major Parten's program creates an unusual situation, because he is attempting to lead the House committee to believe that he is taking care of the east coast, when he is simply pumping oil from one oil section to another. That is the thing that I cannot understand about it—why he takes it to Chicago to get it across to Norfolk and along the coast.

Senator PEPPER. May I interpolate, for whatever it might be worth, that on page 237 of the House hearings the following appears in Major Parten's testimony. The question is asked by Mr. Smith [reading]: What is the combined capacity of all these projects, of all of these pipe lines?

That is following the enumeration of the several projects by Major Parten; and the following is the major's answer [reading]:

They are estimated to deliver as far as the Mississippi River or Illinois points about 200,000 barrels a day of crude oil and products.

The second-hand line projects will carry through to the east coast between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of the 200,000 barrels.

Senator BAILEY. I read that just now.
Mr. GERMANY. I did not catch it if you did.

. Senator PEPPER. I did not, either. I am sorry if I misunderstood.

Mr. GERMANY. The point is that there is not now sufficient to take care of the oil that is being brought across from Illinois; and if you take 300,000 barrels more, or 200,000 more, as he says here--I think that 24-inch line will handle 300,000 barrels. However, if you bring that across, you will still not have any way to get it across without building additional lines.

Senator BAILEY. Are there any other questions?
Senator PEPPER. None from me.

Senator CLARK of Missouri. Let me call attention to Major Parten's testimony before this committee. He enumerates the various proposals and winds up as follows (reading]:

That will give us 200,000 more, which will increase the figure to 1,073,000 barrels, approximately.

Senator OVERTON. That is the most you expect?

Major PARTEN. Yes. That leaves us short—that is, the 1,450,000 to which he had previously referred—that leaves us short just about what can be carried by this 24-inch pipe line we are asking.

Senator OVERTON. Three hundred thousand barrels a day?
Major PARTEN. Yes.

Senator BAILEY. Do you get the impression that the 24-inch line would be in addition!

Senator CLARK of Missouri. Yes.

Mr. GERMANY. I would like to say just one more thing, and that is that all of these things that are in Major Parten's report have been in the report for 6 months, practically. The whole business has been worked out for that long, and we still do not have any relief. There is nothing yet that has been done toward construction of this project, except the reversal of a few lines that were carrying oil one way or the other.

Senator BAILEY. I think they are having difficulties with priorities.
Mr. GERMANY. They have absolute priority rights.
Senator BAILEY. I read that they had asked Mr. Nelson repeatedly.

Mr. GERMANY. That is for a 24-inch line, not for second-hand pipe. There is a line from the east Texas oil field that runs from the Gulf of Mexico parallel with four other lines, and this line is the Texas Empire line, a 12-inch line. None of those lines are running to capacity. Any two of those five lines can carry all the oil that is needed down there. All we ask is permission to take one of those unused lines and put it across Florida where they have all the pumping facilities. Somebody asked me, “What are you going to do for power to run that pipe line?” There are enough drilling rigs in the east Texas oil field alone, with pumping equipment on the rigs, that is not used now and cannot be used until after the war, and I offered to furnish all the pumping equipment for five pipe lines across Florida.

There is plenty of Diesel power stacked up in those yards to pull these barges that we are talking about; that is, Diesel power for Diesel rotary drilling rigs. We proposed to use all of it second hand. None of it would require any new material whatever_less than 9 percent of new steel; and none of that is plate steel. We have not got anything done about it yet.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE OSCAR C. DANCY, COUNTY JUDGE, CAMERON

COUNTY, TEX., BROWNSVILLE, TEX.

Judge DANCY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to have just about 2 minutes, if you please. I want to adopt, approve, and emphasize the statements that were made this morning by Mr. Miller and Colonel Creaker, from my section of the State, and I also wish to emphasize the statement presented by Mr. Dempsey. I shall not take your precious time to go into details, but I hope every one of you will carefully read and reread the statements in the House record, of Mr. James Č. Bowie, manager of Port Isabel, Tex.; Mr. Hofmokel, manager of the Brownsville

port, and Mr. Murphy, chairman of the board of commissioners of the Harlingen navigation district. I hope you will read every one of them.

I might add to the testimony that has been given here that I understand that there is a vast number of shipbuilding concerns all along this proposed canal, which might almost overnight be turned into building wooden barges. I know definitely of one that has been established within the last few months, I would say, since the first of the year.

The Brownsville Shipbuilding Corporation is building hospital boats, and we have just across the river in Mexico ample railroad facilities and a plant that could be turned immediately into building wooden barges. I could not tell you exactly their capacity, but understand that all along the line there are plenty.

In Mexico, in connection with Harlingen, Port Isabel, and Brownsville, we have an empire of enormous resources consisting of materials that are needed to win this war.

I want to say just another word in conclusion. It does not do much good to hold post mortems, gentlemen, but I want to say to you that it is just tragic that we do not have the canal built right now. If it were built we could tell Mr. Hitler and his submarines to go to thunder.

But let us not assume, as one of the speakers did, I believe, that this war may not last for years. Whether it lasts 12 months or 12 years there is nothing for us to do but to fight to win. If we go ahead and authorize the building of this canal it will be a help in the propaganda to show the Nazis and the Japs that we actually mean to win.

I believe that is all I wish to state, unless the chairman or some other member of the committee wishes to ask me questions.

I will say in conclusion that I only wanted to emphasize what has been said here, and I did not want to take your precious time in repeating it.

Senator CARAWAY. Is Mr. Ernest R. Graham here? (No response.) The others on the list have been called. Is Colonel Thompson here?

Mr. MILLER. Colonel Thompson is chairman of the Texas Railway Commission. He is due here today, but has not yet arrived.

Senator CARAWAY. Mr. Walter Lechner?

Mr. MILLER. He will not appear, because he is an associate of Mr. Germany, and Mr. Germany has made his statement.

Senator PEPPER. Mr. Buckman, from Florida, is prepared to proceed, Madame Chairman. Mr. Buckman is in Washington. If there are any witnesses in the room who are from out of the city and who are proponents, I am sure the committee would be glad to hear them. Mr. Buckman would gladly defer to them. If not, Mr. Buckman is ready to proceed.

STATEMENT OF HENRY H. BUCKMAN, CONSULTING ENGINEER,

WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. BUCKMAN. If the committee please, my name is Henry H. Buckman. I am a consulting engineer. I appear here as engineering counsel for the Ship Canal Authority of the State of Florida.

With your permission I should like to devote my time to discussing the transportation features of this project. I should be glad, of course, to go into any detail on questioning, but I want to call attention . to the fact that the facilities proposed to be authorized in this bill preeminently constitute the relief of our general transportation system in this country. They do not relate essentially to any particular section. They do, more predominantly, of course, relate to the Mississippi Valley and the eastern seaboard; but they have a very direct connection with the Pacific coast, as I hope to have time to show you.

I assume that it is not necessary to prove that, given an adequate protected waterway from point to point, we can move over that waterway by barges all of the tonnage which is required.

I think it is necessary more particularly to define the general picture, so that we will all know what the possibilities are that are offered by these improvements. For that reason I have prepared a schedule which I think is attainable. I do not claim that it is the only schedule. Others might be better, but not so well adapted. This is a feasible and an attainable schedule. I am assuming that the canal along the Gulf coast and across Florida will be completed within the time which has been indicated by the Chief of Engineers.

Senator VANDENBERG. What is that time, Mr. Buckman? I have been looking through the record trying to find a statement on the subject.

Mr. BUCKMAN. The Chief of Engineers' statement was that to complete the canal from Port St. Joe down to Port Inglis, and then across the State, would require approximately 3 years.

I can find no statement which he has made as to how long it will take to build it simply across the State. My own estimate of that is approx

imately 15 months, but I can find no statement of the Chief of Engineers upon that point.

Senator VANDENBERG. If you have not found it, I am going to quit looking

Senator PEPPER. The distance from Port Inglis to Port St. Joe is about how far!

Mr. BUCKMAN. About 179 miles. The distance of the canal across the State is 92 miles, and the balance of it is 179 miles,

Senator PEPPER. And that has been left out of this bill?
Mr. BUCKMAN. That has been left out of this bill; yes, sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. I have heard this 15-months estimate so often that I was trying to locate it. As I understand it, that is your estimate?

Mr. BUCKMAN. Not entirely, although I did say it was mine. But it is an independent estimate, sir.

Some 12 months ago an officer in the office of the Chief of Engineers, acting for him, addressed a letter to Mr. Benjamin in North Carolina, a manufacturer and businessman, who was interested in this, saying that their estimate to cut the canal across Florida was approximately 15 months. That was not a statement by the Chief of Engineers himself, but it was from his office.

Senator PEPPER. I will say, Mr. Chairman, that my recollection is that that statement was carried in the report of the House Rivers and Harbors Committee to the House on the original Mansfield bill.

Mr. BUCKMAN. If you please, let us go back to barges. We cannot discuss the canal without discussing barges. We have to assume that we are going to have the barges. But let us face the fact that we have not the barges now. Barges will have to be built; as many as are needed will have to be built, and of such materials as are necessary to carry the cargoes they are designed to carry, whether they be of wood or of steel. We must deliver these materials to the war-production plants and to public utilities, such as the light, power, and transportation companies, if we are going to continue the war effort. It is idle to say that we have not the steel or the wood. We have either got to find it or we are going to seriously cripple our war effort. We must make up our minds that we are going to have barges if we are going to have this transportation.

I have developed a schedule, after a careful inquiry and survey over existing yards in the Southeast and on the Gulf coast, which might construct barges and tugs for this purpose. It appears to be an entirely attainable program to build standard barges; that is, a barge 195 feet by 35 feet, with an 11-foot molded depth, carrying 11,000 barrels of oil on a 9-foot draft, or 1,500 tons of dry cargo-to build those barges at the rate of at least 210 per month.

Standard practice will require that a string of three of those barges be pulled by one tug. Those tugs can be standard in type. They may be built either of wood or of steel, but they must be appropriately pow. ered, of course. If we cannot get good engines to put in the tugs, if they are unattainable, there is no use in building the canal. But if we do not do something of the kind we are going to shut down a very large part of our industrial effort in the East.

On this schedule of 210 barges per month, allowing a 60-day preparation period for organizing production, and assuming a miscellaneous collection of barges equivalent to 210 to start with, I think it

a

« PreviousContinue »