also, is expected to undergo major changes within the next 20 years. Gibson said slurrying a technique whereby iron ore is suspended in water to be pumped aboard and off ships-is already being used today at an offshore terminal in Australia. He said he expects this technique will be extended to other commodities, to decrease the amount of time and money required to transfer these cargoes from shore to ship and from ship to shore.

It would be worthwhile to examine briefly some of the possibilities if the United States does not construct needed superports. One obvious alternative is to continue shipments, in ever greater quantities, to nearby foreign points and then transship it to the United States in smaller vessels.

A number of groups are exploring possibilities to do just that. There is considerable interest in establishing additional redistribution terminals in the Bahamas or the Canadian maritime provinces to supply growing U.S. needs. In addition to possessing natural attributes close in shore for protected deepwater terminals they also have the backing and active encouragement of the Bahamas government and Canadian provincial governments.

Roger M. Jones, president of Jones, Bardelmeier & Co. Ltd., ocean bulk shipping consultants headquartered in Nassau, Bahamas, believes there is a strong possibility of such developments. In a speech before the Propeller Club in New Orleans on Feb. 22, 1972, Jones said: "Certainly oil companies are going to look hard at sites where the controlling government entity not only is seeking such a terminal for its jurisdiction but will aid and assist companies interested in establishing such a facility to secure the necessary clearances to permit a project to go ahead without delays and uncertainties."

If such facilities are constructed

The Environment— A Major Concern

General concern about the quality of America's environment has surfaced quite naturally in discussions about superport development. Some fervent conservationists would be content if no supertanker were ever berthed near the U.S. coast, no matter what the economic consequences. On the other side of the fence, there are those who won't even give lip service to environmental considerations. They see nothing wrong with doing things the way they've always been done.

Somewhere there must be a middle ground which permits both environmental protection and technological progress. There is no possibility of a guarantee that there will not be oil spills. Nevertheless, as technology has created supertankers it can also create protection systems that will greatly reduce the likelihood of massive spills.

A scale model of a superport design based on a study for MARAD

by Soros Associates illustrates one such method. A feature of the model is a complete system of buoyant barriers which would be raised from the sea floor around each loading or unloading tanker. This would insure total containment of an accidental oil spill while a ship is at the terminal.

Other methods of reducing the danger of oil spills will certainly be adopted in areas where oil imports are concentrated. Examples of such likely methods are shore based radar traffic control systems to minimize collision risk and special regulation and inspection of pollution control devices on ships transporting oil.

Nevertheless, initial efforts to construct a superport off the East Coast of the U.S. have thus far met solid opposition because of the possibility of massive oil spills. The very idea of supertankers carrying up to 2.5 million barrels of oil sailing close to U.S. shorelines stirred waves of protest.

Three East Coast sites have been mentioned as possibilities-at Delaware Bay, Machiasport, Me. and Montauk Point, N.Y. However, at this writing none seems close to becoming a reality. Delaware and the Delaware Valley region represent the major oil refining area of the northeastern part of the U.S. now dependent upon crude oil imports. The region is also a major market or transshipment point for large quantities of other bulk products.

Researchers have warned that unless a method was devised to provide for accommodation of supertankers the area would suffer catastrophic economic effects. But the only legislative response from Delaware thus far was a law prohibiting such a port.

In Louisiana the situation has been quite different. The case for a Louisiana superport and its unique approach toward the environmental problem are covered in the following section.

writing in the March 1972 issue of World Ports, he warned: "We are either going to have bigger, more capable ports, or we are going to have to pay the price in an under-developed standard of living, higher costs for commodities and less employment for our work force."

Experts generally agree that, though physically possible in most cases, it simply is not feasible economically to deepen channels at most existing U.S. ports to handle the great vessels now being constructed. Estimates to perform such work and then maintain the channels are astronomical. For example, one study indicated that the cost to deepen by 10 feet the present 40-foot Delaware channel would approximate a billion dollars. To attain a depth of 60 to 80

deep draft ships around the world.

also, is expected to undergo major changes within the next 20 years. Gibson said slurrying a technique whereby iron ore is suspended in water to be pumped aboard and off ships-is already being used today at an offshore terminal in Australia. He said he expects this technique will be extended to other commodities, to decrease the amount of time and money required to transfer these cargoes from shore to ship and from ship to shore.

It would be worthwhile to examine briefly some of the possibilities if the United States does not construct needed superports. One obvious alternative is to continue shipments, in ever greater quantities, to nearby foreign points and then transship it to the United States in smaller vessels.

A number of groups are exploring possibilities to do just that. There is considerable interest in establishing additional redistribution terminals in the Bahamas or the Canadian maritime provinces to supply growing U.S. needs. In addition to possessing natural attributes close in shore for protected deepwater terminals they also have the backing and active encouragement of the Bahamas government and Canadian provincial governments.

Roger M. Jones, president of Jones, Bardelmeier & Co. Ltd., ocean bulk shipping consultants headquartered in Nassau, Bahamas, believes there is a strong possibility of such developments. In a speech before the Propeller Club in New Orleans on Feb. 22, 1972, Jones said: "Certainly oil companies are going to look hard at sites where the controlling government entity not only is seeking such a terminal for its jurisdiction but will aid and assist companies interested in establishing such a facility to secure the necessary clearances to permit a project to go ahead without delays and uncertainties."

If such facilities are constructed

and U.S. terminals are not, the economic repercussions can be vast and long term. In addition to higher import costs, there would be great danger that the nation could lose its competitiveness in important export markets, such as coal. Another major danger is the possibility of relocation of industry outside the U.S. and the concomitant outflow of capital from this nation.

It's no secret that heavy industry tends to locate where raw materials are least expensive. If faced with competitive disadvantages due to heavier transportation costs, many bulk producing and using industries in the U.S. may find it economically feasible and perhaps necessary to reestablish plants in foreign areas which can accommodate super ships.

The Environment— A Major Concern

General concern about the quality of America's environment has surfaced quite naturally in discussions about superport development. Some fervent conservationists would be content if no supertanker were ever berthed near the U.S. coast, no matter what the economic consequences. On the other side of the fence, there are those who won't even give lip service to environmental considerations. They see nothing wrong with doing things the way they've always been done.

Somewhere there must be a middle ground which permits both environmental protection and technological progress. There is no possibility of a guarantee that there will not be oil spills. Nevertheless, as technology has created supertankers it can also create protection systems that will greatly reduce the likelihood of massive spills.

A scale model of a superport design based on a study for MARAD

by Soros Associates illustrates one such method. A feature of the model is a complete system of buoyant barriers which would be raised from the sea floor around each loading or unloading tanker. This would insure total containment of an accidental oil spill while a ship is at the terminal.

Other methods of reducing the danger of oil spills will certainly be adopted in areas where oil imports are concentrated. Examples of such likely methods are shore based radar traffic control systems to minimize collision risk and special regulation and inspection of pollution control devices on ships transporting oil.

Nevertheless, initial efforts to construct a superport off the East Coast of the U.S. have thus far met solid opposition because of the possibility of massive oil spills. The very idea of supertankers carrying up to 2.5 million barrels of oil sailing close to U.S. shorelines stirred waves of protest.

Three East Coast sites have been mentioned as possibilities at Delaware Bay, Machiasport, Me. and Montauk Point, N.Y. However, at this writing none seems close to becoming a reality. Delaware and the Delaware Valley region represent the major oil refining area of the northeastern part of the U.S. now dependent upon crude oil imports. The region is also a major market or transshipment point for large quantities of other bulk products.

Researchers have warned that unless a method was devised to provide for accommodation of supertankers the area would suffer catastrophic economic effects. But the only legislative response from Delaware thus far was a law prohibiting such a port.

In Louisiana the situation has been quite different. The case for a Louisiana superport and its unique approach toward the environmental problem are covered in the following section.

by GILLIS W. LONG Chaman Louisiana Superport Task Force

Louisiana's quest for a superport began in earnest with the appoint ment of this task orce and mom the outset the Lousiana Super port Task Force has moved the statewide concern for this pro ject.

As task force work progressed it became read apparent that one of the most ita questions concerning Ste ocation 2009 of the Get coast a genera and on the Lo sana coast cula is the questor of the 2n 1707233ta mpact of a superport

ca.

23 2000sed Delaware sa aclin on the East coast. were fe neec seth mmediate 2013 Tre of the whole eastern part of our nation, recent 150 7aught hat complete ew.commenta mpact stuces and CYNECTCOT esuit 17 me zeam 2 iect. 10 matter Townmcal sound moor

SUPIC

ties. Even more important is Louisiana's unique position of supplying crude to refineries throughout mid-continent USA, as far north as Detroit. A major pipeline network, beginning in St. James Parish and capable of transporting up to 1.2 million barrels of crude oil per day as far north as the Great Lakes, is operating at less than onehalf capacity for lack of crude supplies.

Although primary investment in refining facilities in Texas is greater, the addition of out-of-state refineries served from Louisiana to our primary investment figures catapults Louisiana into the leading position based on the need for a Phase One superport facility.

Perhaps less well-defined, but equally important to Louisiana's case for a superport, is the degree of support we have found for a Louisiana location. Without question, one of the most significant factors in our rapid progress has been the widespread and vocal support from every segment of our state; everyone from our governor and leaders of labor and industry, to the complete spectrum

of private citizens concerned with the future of our state. To this very important base of support, this vital project also received the commitment of Louisiana's experienced and knowledgeable congressional delegation.

Support has also come from oil industry representatives, based on the need for such a facility and the way in which Louisiana was approaching the superport subject. In all, the case for a Louisiana superport has been strengthened by public and private endorsements, and indeed, has been built on a foundation of firm support that has been uncommon in our state.

Based on the experience of the task force and the achievement of its initial goals, a series of new goals can be established to bring this project closer to fruition.

teams presently working at Louisiana State University to establish the parameters of their efforts;

2. The Authority should begin work to secure the required federal funding to complete remaining studies;

3. The Authority should select a consultant by Aug. 1, 1972 to initiate pre-engineering work leading to the selection of a site and determination of the type of facility to be built;

4. The Authority should continue and accelerate the cooperation among Louisiana and other Mississippi Valley states to secure a superport facility off Louisiana's shoreline.

Over the course of a number of meetings with the various involved federal agencies in Washington, I came away with the distinct feeling that the dream of a Louisiana superport is near reality. Although there is much more work to be done, I believe that by continuing the positive action program initiated by the task force, we will see a Louisiana superport before the end of 1976.