« PreviousContinue »
Mr. PARTEN. Yes, sir. We have made a very extensive study of that. We made that study in connection with other agencies.
I think it is fair to say that we are in agreement that from the standpoint of the efficient use of steel and time required, we cannot utilize the barge over that route to western Florida and the transshipment involved, reasonably, to go north of the Chesapeake; that in terms of the use of steel and time, we had better go for our increased facilities, for that heavy consuming area around New York and New England, by way of the northern route.
Senator VANDENBERG. When you say that all other agencies are in agreement, what do you mean?
Mr. PARTEN. We have been in consultation with the Office of Defense Transportation, with General Reybold's office, and with the Office of Price Administration, which has made a study of this matter. We have also reviewed it with some others, I do not recall them right now. However, I think you will find that the Office of Defense Transportation and General Reybold's office are in agreement with us on that proposition. We think there should be increased movement into Florida by barge for use generally south of the Chesapeake, not for transshipment north.
Senator PEPPER. Have you made a calculation of the per barrelsteel requirements for that route as compared with the pipe-line requirements you have approved ?
Mr. PARTEN. Yes, sir.
Senator PEPPER. Have you that study, so that it may be placed in the record ?
Mr. PARTEN. Senator, my statement contained a steel efficiency figure on the movement of residual fuel over that route from Texas, across Florida, up the Intracoastal Waterway with transshipment at Norfolk.
Senator BAILEY. Do you mean across Florida by pipe line?
Mr. PARTEN. By pipe line. We have here a calculation on a 300,000-barrel-a-day movement of crude oil from Port Arthur, Tex., to the west coast of Florida, across Florida by 24-inch pipe line, up the Atlantic intracoastal canal to Norfolk, and transshipment at Norfolk to Philadelphia and New York by tanker. This contemplates the use of steel equipment. I should be glad to give you that figure. Senator PEPPER. All right, if you will.
Mr. PARTEN. The total critical materials, principally steel, would be 526,000 tons.
Senator PEPPER. How was it contemplated that those 526,000 tons of steel should be used? Were you contemplating steel barges?
Mr. PARTEN. Steel barges; yes, sir.
Senator PEPPER. Is it not admitted that you do not need steel barges to haul crude oil, that wooden barges are all right for that?
Mr. PARTEN. No, sir.
Mr. PARTEN. No, sir; I think that all experts are in agreement that you should not haul other than high flash-point oils of over 150° F. flash in wooden barges. This crude oil will flash at much lower temperature.
Senator PEPPER. Crude oil and gasoline, in your opinion, should be moved in steel barges?
Mr. PARTEN. I do not want to be misunderstood. There are some heavy crudes that will come into the category of grade E oils, but there is a very nominal supply of that crude in the Southwest.
Representative RIVERS. Where is it located ?
Mr. PARTEN. Smackover, Ark., would, I think, come into that category. _There is also a small amount of production around Humble, Tex., and Sourlake.
Representative RIVERS. What about Mississippi crude? Mr. PARTEN. Mississippi would not come in that category. Senator PEPPER. What percentage of the 1,400,000 barrels per day, which is the minimum requirement of the east coast, as I understand it, is the type of petroleum product that can be moved in wooden barges?
Mr. PARTEN. Your residual fuel would be by far your biggest component part of it.
Senator PEPPER. What would be the quantity of that?
Mr. PARTEN. We are consuming in the vicinity of 400,000 barrels a day of residual fuel oil on the eastern seaboard. I would say 450,000 barrels a day.
Senator PEPPER. That is the kind of oil that can be moved in wooden barges?
Mr. PARTEN. That is correct; that kind of oil can be moved in wooden barges.
Senator PEPPER. Have you made a calculation of that shipment?
Mr. PARTEN. That was the 200,000-barrel figure I gave you in my statement, assuming it is to be moved from Texas ports to New York by wooden barge, and it shows the steel requirements.
Senator PEPPER. Do you mean across Florida ?
Senator PEPPER. Two hundred thousand barrels from Texas points to Port St. Joe, and then from Port St. Joe to Jacksonville by pipe line. Why not 400,000 barrels to Port St. Joe instead of 200,000?
Mr. PARTEN. Senator, we could calculate that, but the net effect of that figure, I think you will find from the statemest, because of the inefficiency of the use of steel, would indicate that it is not a feasible operation, and I would strengthen that by saying this: That this 24-inch pipe line that is designed to go to New York can have only 50,000 horsepower added to it to step up its movement from 300,000 barrels of crude a day to 400,000 barrels of crude a day, and we can make from that crude 60 percent of fuel oil.
Senator PEPPER. Could you make fuel oil from this other oil ?
Mr. PARTEN. This other oil is fuel oil. It is the residual fuel oil that I was speaking of that would come across to Florida by wooden barge, cross Florida by pipe line, and then go up the Atlantic intracoastal canal. That would be residual fuel oil, but the steel would be inefficiently used.
Senator PEPPER. The only steel going into that operation would be the steel going into the pipe line, the steel going into the engines that propelled the tugs, the piping, and so forth, and a certain quantity of steel in the framework of the barge?
Mr. PARTEN. No, Senator. This residual fuel oil must be heated in order to handle it; therefore, these wooden barges must have coils made of steel pipe, and they must have connections for steam at the
unloading ports. The terminals where transshipments are made must be equipped with steamheating power with which to heat this residual fuel oil for unloading; then, the pipe line to carry that big body of residual fuel oil across Florida would have to be a 24-inch pipe line.
There would have to be a pumping station about every 15 miles, with a heater at each pumping station to keep that oil at a temperature of 150° F.-I mean the oil stream in the pipe line.
Then, you would have to have a like terminal at Jacksonville and another such terminal at Norfolk. That is all detailed in my statement.
Senator PEPPER. Suppose you used this pipe line. In the first place, one of the speakers here said that there were some used pipe lines in the Texas oil fields that could be used in this Florida operation. I do not know whether or not you have had a chance to examine Mr. Germany's statement. He said they had been trying to get somebody in the Government to let them put down pipe lines across Florida. There would be, I believe, two 10-inch pipe lines.
But suppose we took the pipe you contemplate using in some of these other projects and laid one 10-inch or two 10-inch or three 10-inch or one 24-inch or two 24-inch lines across that strip of two-hundred-odd miles from Port St. Joe, the terminus of this Gulf canal, to Jacksonville, which is the point on the east coast canal. Suppose you put your steel pipe lines between those points, and you then multiplied your wooden barges on either end of that pipe line. Do you mean to say that for a given quantity-suppose you had it in such large quantity that you would save duplication of overhead-say, 400,000 barrels a day-you could not move as economically, in terms of steel, that way as you can move it through the new pipe lines that you propose ?
Mr. PARTEN. Senator, most authorities would say that any pipe line to pump bunker “C” oil across Florida is not practical or feasible. Any pipe line across Florida to handle that heavy residual fuel must be heated.
I spoke of a 24-inch pipe line in my original statement.
Mr. PARTEN. To carry 200,000 barrels a day across Florida would require the maximum pressure that that line is designed to stand. It would require heating to 150° temperature at every pumping station. It would require a pumping station about every 15 miles.
A 10-inch pipe line to carry that same type of material would carry only about 20,000 barrels per day. So it would take ten 10-inch pipe lines to do the work of that one 24-inch line. So that 20,000 barrels a day with a 10-inch line would be the maximum.
Senator PEPPER. If you had the lines all together, would you not have an economy in pumping facilities?
Mr. PARTEN. No, sir.
Mr. PARTEN. No, sir. These pumps on that line, handling that heavy oil, would all be run in their own right.
Senator PEPPER. Suppose you have one 10-inch line and have a pump moving oil through that 10-inch line. If you place another 10inch line right by it, do you have to double pump?
Mr. PARTEN. Yes.
Mr. PARTEN. You would have to triple it.
Senator PEPPER. Everything is in addition? You could not use any part of the first operation?
Mr. PARTEN. That is correct.
Senator PEPPER. Suppose you had a 20-inch pipe line instead of two 10-inch lines. Would it take twice as many pumping facilities to pump the oil ?
Mr. PARTEN. No, sir; it would not take as much. When you increase the diameter of your pipe, you greatly increase your carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of a pipe line increases not in relationship to the diameter of the pipe but approximately as to the square of the diameter. In other words, if you compare a 10-inch pipe with a 20-inch pipe, your carrying capacity in the two lines is measured in the ratio that 10 squared is to 20 squared.
Senator PEPPER. Here is the question I want to ask: Assuming that you want to transport 400,000 barrels per day of the type of oil that can be transported on a wooden barge and through a pipe line from the Gulf area, where it exists, to the east coast, where it is needed. Have you made a comparison of the quantity of steel required in that operation as compared with the amount of steel required in building a pipe line from point of origin to point of destination?
Mr. Parten. I am going to ask Mr. McLaughlin, who is head of the pipe-line phase of our work, to answer that question for you, Senator.
, Senator PEPPER. Very well.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Senator, I believe that the comparison that Mr. Parten has made here this morning in his statement, on the basis of 200,000 barrels, shows that the total steel required is 380,000 tons.
Senator PEPPER. For what?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. This is from the Gulf coast to Port St. Joe, then across by way of a 24-inch pipe line to Jacksonville, and then on to the New York area.
If you were to increase that to 400,000 barrels a day—
Senator PEPPER. Pardon me. That is the amount of steel that would be required in order to use wooden barges?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir.
Senator PEPPER. And wooden tugs with the appropriate propelling machinery!
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. And your terminal facilities.
Taking it by pipe line, how much steel would be required to get the same 200,000 barrels?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. In the first place, I should make it clear, with respect to this residual fuel, that when Mr. Parten made the statement that we do not consider it practical to pump residual oil through pipe lines, that was not confined to Florida; we consider that it is impractical to pump residual fuel at any location, when you get outside the refinery terminal, where you have plenty of free steam. We do not take the view that it is not practical in just your area; it is impractical in any area.
Senator PEPPER. The answer is that you cannot move residual fuel through a pipe line?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. You can, but you have to have your heating systems about every 15 or 20 miles apart, depending on the location. In other words, when you get into the northern climate, where you have a much greater temperature variation than in Florida, you have a worse problem than you have along the Florida coast.
Senator PEPPER. Then, if you had a canal across Florida that was of the same dimensions as the inland waterway along the Gulf coast and along the Atlantic seaboard, you could move the entire 400,000 barrels per day of this bunker “C” oil from the point of origin to point of destination?
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Senator, I do not know anything about waterways. I know nothing about waterways.
Mr. PARTEN. Senator, I think I can answer that question. Physically we could do it.
Senator PEPPER. But if you were moving it properly and economically from Port Arthur to Port St. Joe and there were a canal that went on the rest of the way, I suppose you could move it east of Port St. Joe?
Mr. PARTEN. That is true, but where you get into difficulty on this canal movement is primarily in transshipping. When you have to unload and reload, unload and reload again, and then unload and reload again, you are getting into a lot of trouble.
Senator PEPPER. Every time you unload and reload it takes time? Mr. PARTEN. It takes steel.
Senator PEPPER. All right. Suppose you did not have to unload and reload at all a wooden barge from Port Arthur, Tex., to Norfolk, Va. Would there be any economy?
Mr. PARTEN. That would help us.
Senator PEPPER. Is not that what this proposes to make possible? A continuous shipment from Port Arthur to Norfolk, Va.? Is not that what this bill does?
Mr. PARTEN. It is my understanding that the bill does not provide for a protected waterway all the way.
Senator PEPPER. It does for every part of the journey except from Port St. Joe to Withlacoochee Bay ?
Mr. PARTEN. That is my understanding.
Senator PEPPER. That is the only break. So if you get safely past that point-that is a question of fact--and if you had the canal across
— Florida of the same dimensions as the other parts of this inland waterway, so that barges could move along continuously, it would then be possible by that method to get 400,000 barrels of bunker "C" oil a day from Port Arthur, Tex., or points nearby, to the east coast of the United States?
Mr. PARTEN. Physically it would be; but from the standpoint of steel efficiency it would not be justified.
Senator PEPPER. Justified in comparison with what other method ? You have already said that you cannot carry that amount of fuel oil through a pipe line. So what other method are you contemplating in the alternative?
Mr. PARTEN. Here is the difficulty you get into
Senator PEPPER. Would you answer that question, please? You said that it was not an economical use of steel to use it in wooden barges in which to transport bunker “C” oil from Port Arthur, Tex., to