« PreviousContinue »
Norfolk, Va., if you could negotiate that open stretch of the Gulf, between Port St. Joe and Withlacoochee Bay and if you had a barge canal that could carry these barges across Florida. I want to know in comparison with what other method that is not an economical use of steel.
Mr. PARTEN. I would say that it would not be an economical use of steel to deliver 400,000 barrels a day.
Senator PEPPER.' In comparison with what other method ?
Senator PEPPER. You have already said that you cannot transport that type of oil through a pipe line.
Mr. PARTEN. To the center of consumption on the eastern seaboard, which is about New York.
Senator PEPPER. Mr. McLaughlin said you cannot use a pipe line for transporting this type of oil, even across Florida.
Mr. PARTEN. Fifty percent or better of that crude that we are putting through that pipe line will, when refined, be this kind of fuel oil. Fifty percent or better will be this kind of fuel oil.
Senator PEPPER. If you do not transport this bunker “C” oil that we said could be transported in the barges—400,000 barrels a day if you had a canal across Florida-how else will you move it?
Mr. PARTEN. By tank car.
Senator PEPPER. Do you mean that it takes more steel to use wooden barges from Port Arthur, Tex., across the Florida Barge Canal, assuming it to exist, to Norfolk, Va., than it does to transport that same oil from Port Arthur, Tex., to Virginia by tank car?
Mr. PARTEN. Senator, I think we have not understood each other. I might clarify my position by saying this: We have serious doubt about the wisdom of transshipping supplies north of the Chesapeake under present conditions. In fact, we know that it would constitute an inefficient use of steel. But if you had that canal-if you had a protected waterway all the way around-I would not say that it would be an efficient use of steel, but I have doubts about it because of the enormous horsepower that is involved in barge movement. I think you would be thoroughly justified in moving in that way the supply that was used at points south of Chesapeake Bay, and possibly you could go beyond, so long as you could go by barge. But if you get to the center of consumption, which is New York and the upper eastern seaboard, you would have to ship it by tanker, because there is no protected waterway between Norfolk and New York.
Senator PEPPER. You are assuming that the barges could not negotiate the distance between Norfolk and New York? The cargo would have to be transshipped at Norfolk?
Mr. PARTEN. If you were sending it to New York, you would have to transship it at Norfolk.
Senator PEPPER. What about Philadelphia ?
Mr. PARTEN. You could ship to Philadelphia, because there is a protected waterway to Philadelphia. But I think that that would be taking coals to Newcastle, because Philadelphia is the biggest refining area on the east coast and is making fuel oil and carrying it north.
Senator PEPPER. You would not want to ship to Philadelphia any of this bunker “C” oil ?
Mr. PARTEN. No, sir; Philadelphia is shipping north.
Senator PEPPER. Suppose this question that we are trying to decide here in this hearing did not exist at all because it had been solved years ago by the Congress. Suppose there was a continuous protected waterway from Port Arthur, Tex., to Norfolk, Va., and that it was a waterway 12 feet deep and 125 feet wide all the way. Then suppose you were the oil administrator and had facing you this problem that exists on the east coast of the United States. Would you make the fullest possible use of that inland waterway?
Mr. PARTEN. I certainly would, sir.
Senator PEPPER. Would it materially contribute to the solution of your problem?
Mr. PARTEN. It would. Senator PEPPER. So, if that is what this bill proposes to do, and if these facilities did exist, there would be a material contribution: to the solution of your problem?
Mr. PARTEN. I would say that if they existed, they would be a material contribution.
Senator PEPPER. As a matter of fact, you always personally favored the Florida Ship Canal for that same reason?
Mr. PARTEN. I have, sir; that has been my personal opinion.
Senator PEPPER. But in the making of calculations you have gone on the assumption and have had to think in terms of what could be provided in 12 months. Since you understand that this could not be built in 12 months, you do not take it into consideration, though if you were petroleum administrator you would be very glad to have it?
Mr. PARTEN. Yes, sir. If we had a protected waterway to Norfolk, it would please me greatly.
Senator Bailey. The Chief of Engineers said yesterday that we could not hope to get a canal through Florida within 3 years. That is the condition we are dealing with.
Are there other questions? Representative RIVERS. May I ask a few questions, Mr. Chairman? Senator BAILEY. Certainly. Representative RIVERS. Major, I am the author of that iniquitous Tinsley amendment which you spoke about a while ago. I was interested to hear you state that there were not sufficient reserves in the Tinsley area. "Is that correct, sir?
Mr. PARTEN. Mr. Allen, who is here, can help us out on that point.
Senator BAILEY. The Major did not say anything about its being iniquitous.
Representative RIVERS. Well, I think that if the truth could be had, that would be found out.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. ALLEN, ASSISTANT DEPUTY
PETROLEUM COORDINATOR FOR WAR
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Robert E. Allen. I am Assistant Deputy Petroleum Coordinator for War. I want to thank you for the courteous attention you have given our department this morning.
If we are at this time to touch upon the subject of reserves and production problems generally, I should like to introduce Mr. Schilthuis, Assistant Director of Production in our office, who has at his fingertips quite a few facts and figures regarding not only Mississippi but also other States.
Senator BAILEY. We want all the light we can get, but a question was asked by the Representative.
You asked a question?
Representative RIVERS. Yes, sir. They have not got together on who can give the answer. [Laughter.]
Senator BAILEY. That is all right.
Representative RIVERS. I understood the Major to say—I may have been wrong—that he opposed the Tinsley pipe line—and when I say "he" I mean his office-because there were not sufficient reserves.
Mr. PARTEN. On two grounds: First, there are not sufficient reserves to take a pipe line over that course, in our opinion; second, it would constitute an inefficient use of steel.
Representative RIVERS. Let us talk about the reserves.
Mr. PARTEN. Mr. Schilthuis is very familiar with the daily production and the reserves in that field; I think he can answer any question for you. STATEMENT OF RALPH J. SCHILTHUIS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
PRODUCTION, OFFICE OF THE COORDINATOR OF PETROLEUM
Mr. SCHILTHUIS. The Tinsley field as of the first of the year 1942 had a reserve rf around 80,000,000 barrels, and the Tinsley field's production has mounted rather rapidly through the year 1911, reaching a peak of 95,000 barrels a day in April 1942. It is our estimate that the production from that point on will decline, simply because that is the nature of oil fields. You cannot maintain the production of an oil field after it has reached a certain stage of completion; the production will diminish thereafter.
I might say, first, that in May 1942 production was approximately 85,000 barrels daily; in June it was approximately 82,000 barrels daily. It is our estimate that by the first of the year 1943 the daily production will have diminished to 45,000 barrels daily, by the first of the year 1944 to 25,000 barrels daily, and that it will continue to diminish thereafter.
Representative RIVERS. Are there other fields in that area that could be developed ?
Mr. SCHILTHUIS. At this time there are only four other fields, I think, in Mississippi, that are of any great importance. They are not capable of producing any great quantity of oil.
Representative RIVERS. Suppose a pipe line were built from the east coast-I have in mind from Charleston or Savannah-to Tinsley and that the available supply at Tinsley were to be diminished so that the pipe line could not be operated profitably. How far would you have to go to get crude to the East, if your line were carried in the direction of Louisiana, for instance?
Mr. SCHILTHUIS. I am not familiar with the exact distance, but you would have to go north and south Louisiana and possibly even into Texas-east Texas.
Representative RIVERS. Let us say Longview. How far would you have to go to get to Longview? That is where this other line goes.
Mr. SCHILTHUIS. I think probably Major Parten could give you more exact information on those distances than I can.
Mr. PARTEN. It would be roughly 300 miles.
Representatives RIVERS. Someone said not 200. That is why I asked you.
Mr. Chairman, I shall ask just one more question. I think the people who have different views ought to be allowed to expound those views and to expand upon them for the benefit of the committee.
I notice here a letter to Mr. Vincent G. Shinkle, who I understand is an engineer. You people would know him; I do not know much about his engineering ability, but I understand that he is a good engineer.
Mr. PARTEN. I do not know Mr. Shinkle.
Representative RIVERS. This is a letter from Mr. H. M. Morse, who is State oil and gas supervisor. He states:
At the present time we have seven known salt domes in Mississippi: One in Warren County had a considerable showing of oil and gas with further prospecting being carried on by the Magnolia Petroleum Co.; two in Hinds County with a showing of gas and some oil on both; two in Lamar County with a showing of oil on one and a showing of gas on the other, with the prospect of more wells being drilled on one of these salt domes.
So it looks as though someone feels there is quite a bit of oil, if only it is gone after. I just throw this out because I understand you are an expert on this.
Mr. SCHILTHUIS. I do not mean to say that there is no possibility of the discovery of additional fields.
Representative RIVERS. If you have one well and pump all the oil out, it runs dry pretty soon.
Mr. PARTEN. But you cannot lay pipe lines on the basis of wildcat discoveries.
Representative RIVERS. Well, sir, you could certainly depend more on the testimony of experts than you can on the testimony of laymen. I assume this man is an expert; I do not know.
Mr. PARTEN. We think undoubtedly that Mississippi deserves a pipe line.
Representative RIVERS. From where to where?
Mr. PARTEN. But it would be a pipe line to the Mississippi River, with barge outlet.
I might say, in that connection, that there were two companies last fall that made application to our office to lay a pipe line out of Tinsley field. One of them applied for a pipe line to go south to Baton Rouge; the other applied for a pipe line to go to Memphis. Both of them withdraw their applications when they saw the heavy decline that set in. Due to the 95,000 barrels per day production in the Tinsley field, our industrial pipe-line engineering committee on April 2 recommended an 8-inch pipe line, to be built out of secondhand pipe, to be built to Memphis, to serve that field.
Representative RIVERS. That would be very foolish, because that just parallels the Mississippi, cloes it not?
Mr. PARTEN. It will constitute a saving in transportation to the east coast. A great percentage of that oil out of Tinsley to date has gone to the east coast by tank car and, to some extent, by barge. The great percentage of that oil is going to the east coast.
Representative RIVERS. I understand that Tinsley crude can be burned by the Navy ships.
Senator MAYBANK. I might add that an admiral in the Navy recommended this line, due to congestion at Charleston.
Representative RIVERS. Would you excuse me, Senator?
Representative RIVERS. So, the Navy took every bit of crude it could pipe through the line to Charleston. There is a large Navy Yard at Charleston, and they are launching destroyers two at a time there. The Navy taking all the crude it could pump there for its ships, it would certainly relieve the supplying of crude to the Navy in some other part of the country and would even make it available for civilian consumption.
Mr. PARTEN. That naval supply can be furnished more efficiently in terms of the use of steel than by this method.
Representative RIVERS. That line looks like it goes over every mountain in the eastern United States.
Mr. PARTEN. On the contrary; you would be surprised about that line. From Longview, Tex., to where that line crosses the Mississippi there is a variation of 200 feet.
Representative RIVERS. This line here would not vary 2 inches from Mississippi to Texas.
Mr. PARTEN. I am not comparing it with this line. Of course, this line here, when it crosses the Allegheny Mountains, will cross rugged country.
Representative RIVERS. How long is that, sir?
Representative RIVERS. If you took this Tinsley line and ran it from Longview, Tex., to Charleston, S. C., along the inland waterways, it would not be 1,400 miles? You would save about 700 miles?
Mr. PARTEN. I am sorry; I do not have that.
Mr. McLAUGHLIN. It would be about 1,000 miles. Then you would have to transship out of there. If you go 400 miles farther on the proposed route, you would go right up to the refining centers, where your crude is delivered, without transshipment.
Representative RIVERS. The variation of temperature on this line from Tinsley would be very little, would it not?
Mr. PARTEN. The variation of temperature?
Representative RIVERS. You would not be faced with mountain climate or mountain temperature?
Mr. PARTEN. No, sir; you would not have mountain temperature there, but the temperature of crude oil is not a serious problem.
Representative RIVERS. I understood the major to say that some crudes had to be heated every few miles.
Mr. PARTEN. No, sir; I was talking about residual fuel oil. Representative RIVERS. I just think it is a mistake to oppose this line.
Mr. PARTEN. On that point I should like to add for the record our calculations of steel efficiency. Of course, the size of the line is not given.
Representative RIVERS. The size of what line ?