Louisiana superport studies

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

EP _RT
RE IM,@NARY REC MENDATIONS
ND A N LY

:-su
RT

T A -N.
f6r,
NTIER, ..RESOURCES
10 IS@,ANA STATE V N I V E R:SITY B AT 0 N -
-ROV

Publication No. LSU-SG-72-03.

Price $5.00

Make checks paya6le to LSU Foundation

Order from the
Center for Wetland Resources
Coastal Studies Building
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803

-j

LOUISIANA SUPERPORT STUDIES

Report No. 1

Preliminary Recommendations
and Data Analysis

Publication No. LSU-SG-72-03

Center for Wetland Resources
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

August 1972

U . S. , DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER

2234 SOUTH HOPSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

Property of CSC Library

This work is a result of research sponsored in part
by NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce,
under Grant #2-35231. The U.S. Government is

authorized to produce and distribute reprints for
governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright
notation that may appear hereon.

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE

BATON ROUGE - LOUISIANA - 70803
Center for Wetland Resources
r44 COASTAL STUDIES INSTITUTE- OFFICE Of SEA GRANT DEVELOPMENT4DEPARTMENT OF MARINE SCIXNCRS
2 August 1972

Mr. P. J. Mills, Acting Secretary
Board of Commissioners of the
Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority
29th Floor, International Trade Mart
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Dear Mr. Mills:

I am pleased to submit Report No. 1 in a series of Louisiana Superport Studies. The
report documents initial data analysis activities and provides preliminary recommen-
dations concerning the development of a deep water port for Louisiana.
The study was sponsored by the Louisiana Superport Task Force--the predecessor of the
Authority--and, in part, by NOAA Office of Sea Grant, U. S. Department of Commerce.
The work was directed by the Center for Wetland Resources of Louisiana State Univer-
sity at Baton Rouge and conducted during the period 1 January 1972 - 15 June 1972.
University personnel from the Center, the College of Business Administration, the
College of Engineering, and the Law Center contributed to the study. Dr. James H.
Stone served as project director and coordinator. The legal section of the report
was prepared by Messrs. Marc J. Hershman, Armin J. Moeller and H. Gary Knight; the
economics section, by Dr. David B. Johnson; the environmental section, by Drs. Sher-
wood M. Gagliano and John W. Day, Jr.; the engineering section, by Dr. Charles A.
Whitehurst, Dr. David Modlin, Mr. W. T. Durbin and Mr. Greg Matherne. Technical
support and information provided by the staffs of the Louisiana Superport Task Force,
the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, the Louisiana State Planning
Office,.the Louisiana Register of State Land Office, and the Lower Mississippi River
Field Facility of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is gratefully acknowledged.
In addition to preliminary reco ndations, an outline of proposed future studies
is included in the report. Budget and scheduling estimates for these studies are
also provided. Much of the material--in draft form--was previously supplied the
Louisiana Superport Task Force and partially incorporated in its June 1972 report
entitled A Superport for Louisiana.
We are especially pleased to assist the Authority in achieving its assigned objec-
tives. The LSU Center for Wetland Resources is dedicated to the application of
university capabilities in the solution of practical coastal and floodplain problems
and the encouragement of cooperative university-government-industry programs. The
development of a Louisiana Superport can provide an important--and ideal--mechanism
to demonstrate the effectiveness of such cooperation in maximizing benefits for the
people of Louisiana and the nation.

Sincerely

Jack R. Van L
TA N.

Director
Center for Wetland Resources
jM

General Table of Contents

Page

I. Letter of Transmittal

II. Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
by James H. Stone
Department of Marine Sciences
Center for Wetland Resources
Louisiana State University

III. Legal Aspects of a Superport Off Louisiana"s Coast . . . . . . . . . 11-146
by Marc J. Hershman
H. Gary Knight
Armin J. Moeller, Jr.
Sea Grant Legal Program
Louisiana State University

IV. Preliminary Economic Considerations of a Louisiana Superport . . . . 147-280
by David B. Johnson
Department of Economics
Louisiana State University

V. Environmental Aspects of a Superport Off the Louisiana Coast . . . . 281-317
by Sherwood M. Gagliano
John W. Day, Jr.
Department of Marine Sciences
Louisiana State University

VI. Selected Engineering Aspects of a Superport . . . . . . . . . . . . 318-419
by Charles A. Whitehurst
Warren T. Durbin, Jr.
Department of Engineering Research
Greg Matherne
David Modlin
Department of Civil Engineering
Louisiana State University

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

We believe that a Superport* can be effectively located off

the coast of Louisiana between Bayou LaFourche and Southwest Pass.

This general location offers the economic advantages of close proxi-

mity to the Mississippi River and other inland waterways and water

depths sufficient to handle superships**. We also believe that this

project, if carefully conceived, can be implemented between 1976-78

in such a way that environmental constraints and stresses will be

minimal.

PREMISES

Before discussing the rationale leading to the above conclusions,

the specific site, and recommendations for that site, it is necessary

to state explicitly that these preliminary recommendations are based

on readily available data. No field investigations or monitoring

programs were conducted and, as a result, the data ba@se for certain

areas is incomplete. Additional baseline data must be gathered over

the next two years. For this study we assumed the following:

1. An oil and gas shortage exists in the United States.

2. Oil refineries in Louisiana will need to import additional crude

oil and gas by about 1975.

3. Superships will be increasingly employed in world trade.

*"Superport" and "deepwater port" are considered to be synonymous
terms and are defined as facilities which are capable of receiving
superships and handling their cargoes and related needs.
**Ships with a minimum dead weight tonnage (DWT) rating of 200,000
and drafts up to 90 feet.

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Louisiana should create a governmental agency to deal specifically

with Superport (or equivalently, deepwater port) problems as a

means of establishing appropriate plans and objectives, such as

suitable environmental safeguards and controls.

2. The Superport should be located in waters equal to or greater

than 100 feet in depth between Bayou LaFourche and Southwest Pass.

3. To obtain maximum economic advantage for Louisiana, the Superport

should be constructed as soon as possible.

4. The Superport should be, initially, only an oil-receiving terminal,

and only one such terminal should be developed off Louisiana.

5. The environmental and engineering design of the Superport should

be adequate to incorporate the flow of all types of commodities

at a later time. Crude oil might be better handled at a (initially

constructed) separate and distinct terminal, but this terminal

should be contiguous to future terminals receiving other commodities.

6. Work must begin immediately in the.following areas:

a) Formulation of an Environmental Protection Plan as specified

according to Louisiana Revised Statute 34:3101-3114.

b) Clarification of the legal aspects of port operations.on the

high seas and seabeds beyond the state's jurisdiction.

c) Acquisition of accurate petroleum-flow data and study of

these under varying assumptions.

d) Acquisition of other commodity-flaw data.

e) Determination of comparative costs of port construction,

operation, maintenance, and finances.

f) Determination of potential economic impact of a Superport

on future state revenues and economic development within

Louisiana.

g) Initiation of field investigation of various environmental

factors such as currents, meteorology, and soil foundations.

h) Initiation of computer model studies of types of Superport

structures (such as semisubmerged platforms) or breakwater

systems.

RATIONALE FOR RECONMENDATIONS

Basis for Recommendation 1.

Louisiana should create a governmental agency to deal specifically

with Superport (or equivalently, deepwater port) problems as a

means of establishing appropriate plans and objectives, such as

suitable environmental safeguards and controls.

We believe that some state control is necessary. If port operations

are outside the state's jurisdiction, it might be necessary for legal

restrictions to apply at the point at which the pipelines enter state

jurisdiction. State control ensures that additional Superpoirts or

deepwater ports are not established in an unprofitable and random

manner, and that meaningful environmental controls are established'.

(See also the legal section of this report.) Also, state control would,

it is hoped, ensure multiple use and rational conservation of the

resources of the coastal wetlands.

We do not believe that a Superport designated as an oil terminal is

simply another oil platform. For example, the projected flow of oil

through one port has been placed at approximately four million barrels

per day, or about one and one half billion barrels per year. This

volume of oil is of the same order of magnitude as the total 1968

production from both onshore and offshore Louisiana. If we assume

accidental spillage during operations at rates between 0.001%* and

0.00004%**, then the respective losses amount to approximately

15,000 or 600 barrels (2100 or 84 long tons) of oil per year. We

do not know whether the coastal and estuarine waters off Louisiana

can assimilate this oil without degrading the environ ment, nor do

these figures take into account the possibility of a massive spill.

The probability of occurrence of a massive spill at any one time is

probably quite small, but operations over 10 to 20 years will proba-

bly greatly increase the possibility of an accident. We believe that

the development of several sites would increase the likelihood of a

massive spill and of massive damage to coastal wetlands.

*From: Arthur, D. R. (1968), "The biological problems of littoral
pollution by oil and emulsifiers." In symposium proceedings of "The
Biological Effects of Oil.Pollution on Littoral Communities." Editors:
J. D. Carthy and D. R. Arthur. Published by the Field Studies Council,
9 Devereux Court Strand, London, W.C. 2.

**From: Dedera, D. (1972), "Port Valdez: Victim of Progress or
Model for the Future." Oceans 5(3)-,1:33-43.

It is our view that the project would be greatly expedited if the

environmental problems are met forthright and "head-on." If the

designers of the Superport properly plan for environment protection,

criteria will be developed for evaluating the environmental impact

and for preserving renewable resources which provide food for man

and recycle essential nutrients for all life processes. Once such

criteria are developed, they should minimize federal delays because

the criteria will be valid as required by federal law. Furthermore,

environmental interests should favorably recognize the demonstration

of good intent, the identification of and work on environmental

unknowns, and the development of techniques for evaluating the

environmental impact of future projects.

Basis for Recommendation 2.

The Superport should be located in waters equal to or greater

than 100 feet in depth between Bayou LaFourche and Southwest

Pass.

The second recommendation is based on a preliminary critique of what

we consider to be the major stresses and constraints of a Superport

development at various locations off the Louisiana coast. We define

a constraint as "any process or condition which acts as a limiting

factor or an encumbrance to the particular project." We define

stress as "any effect which the particular project would have on the

environment." Constraints can be natural and culturally induced,

and both types are considered in our evaluation.

A primary constraint to Superport development is distance fr,om the

shoreline to water depths greater than or equal to 100 feet. This

requirement is best satisfied in the area between Bayou LaFourche

and Southwest Pass. Other areas, such as East Bay and Garden Island

Bay, have adequate water depths close to shore but are ruled out

because of poor foundation conditions--as indicated by mud lumps,

subsurface folds and slumping.

The coastal area west of Bayou LaFourche is considered unsuitable

because required water depths do not occur close to shore and the

area accounts for only 4% of ocean-going commodity flow in the

Central Gulf region. Approximately 78% of ocean-going traffic in

the Central Gulf flows on the Mississippi River; hence economic

constraints favor an area close to the Mississippi River.

Two major environmental stresses associated with a Superport concern

possible oil spill damage and the utilization of coastal wetlands

and estuaries as support facility areas. Some of the world's most

productive estuaries lie north of the recommended area, but we

believe that the surface water circulation here is more favorable

than elsewhere because of the prevailing westerly set. We have not,

as yet, delineated those specific areas that always, or almost

always, have westerly currents so that any potential oil spill will

not be carried into the estuaries. We further recommend that the

support facilities and activities for the port be confined to narrow

zones parallel or close to existing canals, waterways and trans-

coastal corridors.

Basis for Recommendation 3.

To obtain maximum economic advantage for Louisiana, the Superport

should be constructed as soon as possible.

Our data suggest that Louisiana may have a distinct short-term (10-15

years) advantage over Texas in terms of exporting crude oil by water.

For example, Louisiana currently sends more than twice as much crude

to the East Coast by water than does Texas; but, because of declining

reserves, it is probable that an increasing proportion of this export

oil will be allocated to Louisiana and Texas refineries. This predic-

tion implies that outbound shipments of Louisiana-produced crude oil,

now a major export from the Gulf, will eventually decline and the

area will become a net importer.

Basis for Recommendation 4.

The Superport should be, initially, only an oil-receiving terminal,

and only one such terminal should be developed off Louisiana.

If the projected petroleum needs for the United States are correct and

must be met by increasing the importation of foreign oil by means of

superships, then it is logical to assume that the first U. S. Superport

will necessarily be an oil-receiving terminal. Also, crude oil is

presently the predominant commodity utilizing superships for transport.

In addition, preliminary analyses of wave data suggest that a break-

water system will be necessary for port operations involving off-loading

of commodities other than oil. Since an oil terminal, such as single-

point mooring system, does not require a breakwater, the costs for such

a terminal would be considerably less than for a multi-commodity facility.

Any Superport or deepwater terminal developed to handle a particular

commodity will tend to become the predominant economic activity in

that area, thus creating a situation not of multiple use but of

exclusive use. For example, such a port would require extensive

safety and anchorage fairways which would take precedence over other

activities in the area. Environmental controls and safeguards will

probably require significant expenditures, and it is our belief that

such controls will be more effective and cumulatively less expensive

if only one terminal is developed. In summary, because of possible

environmental impacts and effects on other activities, the number of

such facilities should be highly restricted.

Basis for Recommendation 5. .

The environmental and engineering design of the Superport should

be adequate to incorporate the flow of all types of commodities

at a later time. Crude oil might be better handled at a

(initially constructed) separate and distinct terminal, but

this terminal should be contiguous to future terminals receiving

other commodities.

The bases supporting recommendations 1 and 4 are applicable here.

We assume that the deepwater port will initially be an oil terminal,

but we also assume that other commodities, such as slurried ores

and dry bulk, will eventually be shipped by means of superships.

This assumption means that the deepwater port should ultimately

handle all types of cargo. Consequently, it is logical from both an

economic and an environmental viewpoint to plan for this in the

initial stages. In addition, our economic analysis indicates that

the present commodity flows outbound from the Port of New Orleans

are amenable to transport by superships. For example, 72% of out-

bound commodities are made up of crude petroleum, farm products,

and petroleum products and the major imports are metallic ores. All

of these could easily be transported by superships.

Basis for Recommendation 6.

Work must begin immediately in the following areas:

a) Formulation of an Environmental Protection Plan as specified

according to Louisiana Revised Statute 34:3101-3114.

b) Clarification of the legal aspects of port operations on the

high seas and seabeds beyond the state's jurisdiction.

c) Acquisition of accurate petroleum-flow data and study of

these under varying assumptions.

d) Acquisition of other commodity-flow data.

e) Determination of comparative costs of port construction,

operation, maintenance, and finances.

f) Determination of potential impact of a Superport on future

state revenues and economic development within Louisiana.

g) Initiation of field investigation of various environmental

factors such as currents, meteorology, and soil foundations.

h) Initiation of computer model studies of types of Superport

structures (such as semisubmerged platforms) or breakwater

systems.

It is essential that the continuity of research effort be maintained.

We estimate that work required for the development of a deepwater

port can be accomplished within the time frame and costs presented

below:

COST PER FISCAL YEAR

STUDY AREA TOTAL COST* F 73 F 74 F 75

Legal 30 30 -- --

Economic 100 40 40 20

Engineering Design
Evaluation** 150 50 50 50

Environmental 450 200 150 100

730 320 240 170

*In thousands of dollars

**Evaluation of structural design at proposed ports, pumping stations,
pipelines, anchoring facilities. Funds required for the actual
preparation of these designs are not included.

LEGAL ASPECTS OF A SUPERPORT OFF LOUISIANA'S COAST

by:

Marc J. Hershman

II H. Gary Knight
Armin J. Moeller, Jr.

Sea Grant Legal Program
Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge

LEGAL ASPECTS OF A SUPERPORT OFF LOUISIANA'S COAST

Table of Contents

Page
Summary Table of Contents:

I. Legal Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

II. State, Local and Environmental
Aspects of a Gulf of Mexico
Superport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

III. International and State-Federal
Aspects of a Gulf of Mexico
Superport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

IV. Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Act
of 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Detailed Table of Contents:

I. Legal Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

A. State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

B. Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

C. Federal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

D. International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

II. State, Local and Environmental
Aspects of a Gulf of Mexico
Superport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

B. The Port System of Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1. Ports Created by Statute . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2. Constitutional Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3. Uncertainties within the Port System 30

Page

4. Dominant Features of Louisiana Ports . . . . . 37

5. Characteristics of Selected Port Systems . . . 42

C. The Superport Concept: State vs. Local Interest . . . 47

1. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

2. Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3. Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

D. Critical Issues Facing Superport Development . . . . . 58

1. Operational Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . 58

2. Extent of Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3. Federal-State Relations . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4. Economic Protection for Existing
Deep Water Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5. Environmental Protection . . . . . . . . . . . 63

E. Resolving the Critical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

1. State Control Over Superport
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

2. Powers of the Superport Authority 71

3. Administrative Structure for
Superport Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4. Protecting Existing Deepwater Ports . . . . . 75

5. The Environmental Protection Plan . . . . . . 76

F. Issues Requiring Further Research and Analysis . . . . 79

1. Interstate Commerce and Taxation . . . . . . . 79

2. Coastal Zone Management and Planning . . . . . 84

3. Implementing the Environmental Protection
Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4. Comparative Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Page
III. International and State-Federal Aspects of a
Gulf of Mexico Superport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

B. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

1. Site Within Three Miles of the
Coastline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

2. Site Between Three and Twelve Miles from
Coastline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

3. Site Beyond the Limit of the Territorial
Sea (Whether Three or Twelve Miles) . . . 93

a. The High Seas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

b. The Continental Shelf . . . . . . . . . . 99

1) Jurisdiction to Construct . . . . . . 100

2) Jurisdiction to Regulate . . . . . . . 108

C. Related Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

1. Foreign Policy Interests of
the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

2. State-Federal Submerged Lands Litigation
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

3. Withdrawal of Areas Adjacent to the
Superport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

4. International and Federal Pollution Laws . . . 120

5. Navigation Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

IV. Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Act of 1972 . . . i . . . . . . . 121

Section 3101. Object; purpose of act . . . . . . . . . . 122

Section 3102. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Section 3103. Jurisdiction; domicile . . . . . . . . . . 125

Section 3104. Board of commissioners; qualifications;
selections; terms; vacancies;
compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Page
Section 3105. Duties of board; officers; rules;
meetings; quorum . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Section 3106. Annual reports; revenues dedicated
to the Authority; revenue surplus;
audit; central listing of employees
and investment of idle funds . . . . . 129

Section 3107. Executive director; selection; duties;
employees; compensation . . . . . . . 130

Section 3108. Acquisition of sites; lease of state-
owned waterbottoms . . . . . . . . . . 131

Section 3109. Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Section 3110. Protection of deepwater ports . . . . . . 135

Section 3111. Public contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Section 3112. Bonds; procedure for issuance . . . . . . 137

Section 3113. Environmental Protection Plan . . . . . . 140

Section 3114. Coordination and Cooperation . . . . . . . 145

I. Legal Recommendations

Legal recommendations are given in four categories: A. State,

B. Environmental, C. Federal and D. International. Each category

begins with a general statement of the problem, followed by recom-

m.endations for its legal solution.

A. State

If a superport facility is constructed within three miles of

the Louisiana coastline, Louisiana's jurisdiction would be nearly

absolute since the Submerged Lands Act granted the coastal states of

the United States title to the submerged lands lying within three miles

of the coastline. The only significant state-federal legal problem

in this area is the need for compliance with the navigational rules

and procedures promulgated by the Coast Guard and the necessity to

obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to erect a

structure in the navigable waters of the United States. These and

related matters will be discussed in Section C.

Present state law relative to port, harbor and terminal

operations is typical of that found in most other states. Authority

over individual port operations is decentralized at the parish (county)

level. Members of the board of commissioners, the governing authority

of the individual ports, vary from representatives of port-related

businesses in the largest port, New Orleans, to members of town councils

and police juries in the less significant districts. Almost without

exception commissioners are either appointed or nominated by local

interests.

Article 14, Section 31 of the Constitution of the State of

Louisiana has provided a relatively simple procedure for the creation

of.new port districts. Only a majority vote of the Legislature is

required. The decade of the sixties saw a proliferation of these

politically popular entities until there are now approximately

thirty-six in Louisiana. Many, however, can be more realistically

referred to as "paper ports." The concept of a unified Department

of Transportation encompassing a Division of State Ports has not yet

been seriously considered in Louisiana.

It is clear that the state has title to all submerged lands

within three miles of the coastline. However, it is possible to

interpret Article 14, Section 31 as delegating jurisdiction over the

use of submerged lands to present or future port districts. La. R.S.

49:6 provides that the jurisdiction of a coastal parish extends gulf-

ward to the limit of the state's jurisdiction and in at least two

statutes a port district's jurisdiction has been made coextensive with

the jurisdiction of the coastal parish. This situation could result

in multiple superport developments both economically unsound and

destructive of the state's delicate coastal and marshland ecosystem.

Recommendations

1. Louisiana should create a statewide authority with

exclusive jurisdiction to promote, plan, develop, construct, operate,

maintain, and disassemble a Superport consisting of a structure, series

of structures, or any facility necessary or useful to superport

operations.

2. The goals of the Superport Authority should be:

a. To promote, in addition to port operations, scientific,

recreational, and all other uses of a Superport which would be in the

public interest;

b. To accommodate and plan for the technological innova-

tions occurring in the worldwide and domestic shippingindustry to

increase Superport efficiency and the flow of commerce through it;

c. To protect environmental values and Louisiana's unique

coastal marshland ecosystem through the adoption of an Environmental

Protection Plan;

d. To assert and protect Louisiana's economic, social,

environmental, and political interests in any Superport development in

proximity to the Louisiana coastline.

3. The minimum legal requirements necessary for successful

Superport Authority development and operation are:

a. Protection of the state's existing investment in deep-

water ports;

b. The smallest Board of Commissioners politically

acceptable which adequately provides for effective statewide repre-

sentation;

c. Recognition of the policy-making role of the Board of

Commissioners;

d. Gubernatorial appointment of Commissioners to assure

that Superport development reflects current state policy;

1) Flexibility in appointment procedures in order that

the Governor has the power to choose those candidates with the highest

personal qualifications;

2) Short terms not in excess of five years to infuse

the Board with fresh ideas and leadership in accordance with evolving

state policy;

e. The need for a qualified Executive Director to be the

highest executive officer within the Authority;

1) The Executive Director should be selected by the

Board of Commissioners and serve at their pleasure;

2) In the initial stages of Superport development, the

Executive Director should be experienced to handle the promotional

effort; later, a professional executive director will be necessary to

direct operations;

f. An annual report to the Governor showing the scope of

activities and financial condition of the Authority;

g. A procedure for the acquisition of state-owned sub-

merged lands by the Authority under long-term lease for developipent

of Superport facilities;

h. A general grant of authority to do all things necessary

or useful for Superport development including the powers delegated by

Article 14, Section 31 of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana

to port, harbor and terminal districts;

i. Dedication of all revenues derived from Superport

operations to the Authority to assist financing and payment of Authority

expenses;

J. Adherence to present Public Contract laws of the state;

k. Transfer of any surplus, after payment of all Authority

expenses, to the General Fund;

1. The adoption of an Environmental Protection Plan as

integral part of Superport development without which such development

cannot proceed.

B. Environmental

The coastal plain and marshlands of Louisiana is one of the

most biologically productive areas in the world and encompasses over

7,000,000 acres of wetlands and waterbottoms. The recreational

benefits of our state's hunters and fishermen are immeasurable. The

direct economic benefits to derivative industries (fishing, shrimping,

oyster, trapping, etc.) run into hundreds of millions of dollars

annually. These renewable resources are distinguished from extractive

resources (oil, gas, sulfur, etc.) by the fact that they are naturally

dependent upon Louisiana's delicate coastal and marshland ecosystem.

Recent gains in harvests of living resources suggest that Louisiana

may not have yet reached its optimum yield.

The legislatures of Delaware and Maine have restricted off-

shore Superports adjacent to the coasts of those states. In many other

locations along U.S. coasts, strong demands are being made for pro-

tecting the coastal environment.

Federal and State law provide authority for protection of the

environment but controls are not centralized in one agency and standards

and criteria are uncertain and changing. The many different regulatory

programs must be viewed from the perspective of a coastal Louisiana

Superport operation and integrated into a specific environmental pro-

tection program. The program could reflect and anticipate new

environmental protection procedures specifically suited for Louisiana's

coastal environment.

Funds for environmental surveillance, monitoring, and enforce-

ment are insufficient and normally dependent upon yearly appropriations

from general funds of state and federal government. Mechanisms are

needed to build into the operating costs of the Port costs associated

with environmental protection.

To protect Louisiana's unique coastal zone, build in environ-

mental planning and evaluation at the outset, provide a mechanism for

integrating the many regulatory programs which anticipate new environ-

mental protection needs, and provide a firm financial base for the

protection of the environment, a specific Environmental Protection Plan

should be in existence at all times which will insure protection of

the coastal environment.

Recommendations

1. It shall be the mandatory duty of the Suoerport Authority

to promulgate an Environmental Protection Plan (hereinafter referred

to as Plan) which plan shall be created by the Executive Director,

Wild Life and Fisheries Director and the Director of the LSU Center

for Wetland Resources.

2. The Executive Director shall be charged with the responsi-

bility of following the requirements of the Plan in carrying out all

aspects of Superport development.

3. The best talent available in Louisiana shall be charged

with creating the Plan. Environmental groups and other interested

parties shall have the opportunity to provide input for the Plan.

4. The Plan shall be promulgated under the rule-making pro-

cedures of the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act (La. R.S. 49:

951-966).

5. The Plan shall provide for amendments at any time to

reflect changes in Superport development or operations.

6. All costs in developing and carrying out the Plan shall be

considered an internal cost of Superport development and operations.

7. The Plan should consider

a. An inventory of all stresses on the environment which

can be reasonably expected in pursuing Superport development;

b. Environmental data affecting site selection;

c. How facility design might minimize potential environ-

mental damage;

d. What methods of operation would minimize environmental

damage;

e. A monitoring program to detect new stresses;

f. Compensating the coastal environment for areas lost to

Superport development;

g. Analyzing all ongoing environmental programs to avoid

duplication and enhance coordination and cooperation.

C. Federal

In granting to states title to the submerged lands within three

miles of the coastline the Federal Government did retain a "naviga-

tional servitude," and thus compliance with navigational rules and

procedures of the Federal Government including the duty to obtain a

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to erect a structure in

navigable waters is required. As an additional requirement the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that an environ-

mental impact statement be submitted whenever any major federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment is involved.

The Maritime Administration and the Corps of Engineers, except

for the above regulatory requirements, are without legal authority to

operate ports or develop a comprehensive national ports policy. The

United States presently claims only a three mile wide territorial sea.

Nevertheless, a twelve mile territorial sea may become international

law in the very near future. Should this occur and Congress so wishes,

it could delegate to some federal agency the authority to administer

a Superport located between 3 and 12 miles from the coastline in a

manner similar to the Department of Interior's administration of con-

tinental shelf lands for extractive resource use.

Recommendations

1. To assert Louisiana's interest in any Superport development

in proximity to the Louisiana coast, the Authority should be empowered

to negotiate and enter into contracts with divisions of the Federal

Government or other states of the United States concerning Superport

development, including jurisdictional aspects of the location of the

Superport, sharing of revenues derived from the operation of a Superport,

and promulgation and enforcement of regulations governing Superport

operations.

D. International

There is no definitive statement of authority as to who, if

anyone, has the jurisdiction to construct and operate a Superport

beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (presently three miles for

the U.S., twelve for most other nations). The Outer Continental Shelf

Lands Act has been thought to restrict United States jurisdiction to

exploration and extraction of natural resources from the seabed and

subsoil. The question of jurisdiction appears to have arisen at this

time in few coastal nations. In Belgium, bills introduced in parlia-

ment to unilaterally create such jurisdiction were rejected by the

Conseil d'Etat which reasoned that installations not used for the

exploration or exploitation of natural resources of the continental

shelf did not come under Belgian jurisdiction. Serious questions also

arise concerning National policy on this issue in view of the pending

Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

The possibility exists that a specific superport site could be

encompassed by the provisions of Article 9 of the Territorial Sea

Convention describing roadsteads. Nevertheless, international authority

for this approach is lacking.

Recorunendat ions

1. The Louisiana Superport Authority should seek close liaison

with the Department of State with a view toward determining the potential

effect of current international law of the sea negotiations on the

willingness of the State Department to accede to an unprecedented use

of the high seas and seabed off the Nation's coast. The Authority

should also encourage the United States Government to seek international

agreement authorizing construction of superport-type facilities on

the high seas and seabed.

2. The Louisiana Superport Authority should seek close liaison

with, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, and

other interested Federal agencies, with a view toward negotiating

suitable legal arrangements for location of the superport on outer

'continental shelf lands. To this end, the Superport Authority should

be empowered to negotiate and enter into agreements with the Federal

government concerning jurisdiction, operating regulations, division

of revenues, and related matters.

3. The Louisiana Superport Authority should seek issuance of

a Presidential Proclamation pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf

Lands Act withdrawing from mineral development an appropriate area

surrounding the superport facility. Review of the system of "shipping

safety fairways" should also be undertaken with a view toward pre-

serving safety of navigation in the area.

4. The Louisiana Superport Authority should follow closely

and study developments at the international level concerning protection

of the marine environment and should ensure that the superport facility

complies with any international standards adopted for the protection

of the marine environment.

II. State, Local and Environmental Aspects of a Gulf of Mexico Superport

A. Introduction

The possibility of developing a Louisiana superport first

became evident in August 1971,when an unknown corporation applied for

a lease of state waterbottoms as a superport site. 1 Many questions

were raised by concerned groups over such an unprecedented use of
state waterbottoms.2 Complicating these questions was the assertion

by a local port authority that it had jurisdiction over the proposed

superport site and would require any lessee to submit to whatever
charges or regulations it might impose. 3 The entry of a second

bidder for the site raised new questions as to the potential value

of a superport site and whether the best interests of the state required

the immediate leasing of state waterbottoms for this purpose. In

response to the many unanswered questions and the developing contro-
versy the Gov ernor created an advisory committee to study the problem.4

Despite strong objections from the local port authority offi-

cials the committee found present state law to be inadequate and new

legislation required. The outgrowth of their recommendations and the

subsequent efforts of the Louisiana Superport Task Force was the

enactment of the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority Act of 1972.

1See notes 51 and 52, p2st.
2See note 51, Letters from the Port of New Orleans, Gulf South
Research Institute, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Plaquemines Parish Commis-
sion Council, State Planning Office, Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries
Commission and the Loiiisiana Intracoastal Seaway Association to Ellen
Bryan Moore, Register of State Lands, September 1970-December 1970.
3See note 64, post.
4See note 54, post.

Several major legal areas which must be understood in con-

sidering any proposed Louisiana superport are (1) the present port

system of Louisiana; (2) the controversy over state versus local con-

trol of a Louisiana superport; (3) critical issues which face Louisiana

superport development; (4) the resolution of these critical issues

and (5) issues requiring further research. and analysis.

B. The Port System of Louisiana

There are thirty-six port commissions or port, harbor and

terminal districts in Louisiana. The Board of Commissioners of the

Port of New Orleans, which is the oldest, was created by legislative
act in 1896.5 Until 1952 only five additional port authorities had

been created including the major deepwater ports of Greater Baton

Rouge and Lake Charles. Since 1954 new port authorities have been

created at almost every session of the legislature. Invariably, each

new port authority established by statute or constitutional amendment

provides for (a) a board of commissioners appointed by local interests

and (b) jurisdiction analogous to parish, ward, or municipal boundaries.

1. Ports Created by Statute

Most Louisiana port authorities have been created by

statute. Article 14, Section 31 gives the legislature, by majority

vote, the right to create port, harbor and terminal districts. The

section has been amended twice since its creation in 1924 to expand

5La. Acts 1896, No. 70. Act was never codified as part of the
Revised Statutes.

the powers which could be delegated by the legislature to such statu-

torily created ports. It authorizes the legislature to create port,

harbor and terminal districtg as political subdivisions of the state

possessing full corporate powers; to fix their territorial limits; to

provide for their organization and government, and to define the duties,

powers, and jurisdiction of their governing authorities. Powers which

the legislature may delegate to the port, harbor and terminal district

include the following: authority to own, construct, operate, and

maintain docks, wharves, sheds, elevators, and all other property

necessary or useful for port, harbor and terminal purposes; to dredge

and maintain shipways, channels, slips, turning basins; to establish,

operate, and maintain in cooperation with the federal government, the

state and other public bodies navigable waterway systems; to acquire

by right of eminent domain, purchase, lease or donation, the land that

may be necessary for the business of such district; to acquire by pur-

chase or lease industrial plant sites and necessary appurtenances; to

acquire and construct industrial plant buildings within the district;

to lease or sub-lease for commercial purposes, lands or buildings

owned, acquired or leased; to borrow from any person or corporation

using or renting any land, dock, warehouse, or any facility of such

district and to construct an improvement thereon, agreeing that the

loan shall be liquidated by deducting from the rent, dock, wharf or

toll charges payable for such property a stipulated percentage; to

collect tolls and fees; to borrow funds for the business of the dis-

trict; to levy and collect taxes; to mortgage properties constructed

or acquired and/or pledge any lease or leases and rent, income and

other advantages arising out of any lease or leases granted, assigned

or subleased by the district. The legislature can also delegate to

port, harbor and terminal districts the power to incur debt and

issue bonds for its needs in the manner provided by the Constitution

and laws of the state. If the enumerated powers are found insufficient

Article 14, Section 31 further authorizes the legislature ". . . to

empower the governing authority of said districts to do any and all

things necessary or proper for the government, regulation, development

and control of the business of such port, harbor and terminal districts
116

2. Constitutional Ports

The authority of ten port commissions is found in whole

or in part in the state constitution. These are: the Board of
Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans,7 Lake Charles Harbor and
Terminal District,8 Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission,9 Greater

6The powers mentioned are not a complete listing of the powers
found in Article 14, Section 31 of the Louisiana Constitution, as
amended in 1968.
7La. Constitution 1921, Art VI, Sec. 16.1, 16.2, 17(1954); Art VI-A,
Sec. 1, 5; Art XIV, Sec. 30, 31(1956). The Port of New Orleans was
first recognized in the 1913 Louisiana Constitution in Article 321.
Subsequently, Act No. 69 of 1920 formally recognized the Board as a
constitutional board. This recognition was carried forward in the
Constitution of 1921 which is still in effect.
8La. Constitution 1921, Art XIV, Sec. 30.2, 31(1968).
9La. Constitution 1921, Art VI, Sec. 29, 29.1-29.4(1956).

Ouachita Port Commission, 10 Lake Providence Port Commission, 11 South
Louisiana Port Commission, 12 Avoyelles Parish Port Commission, 13
Concordia Parish Port Commission, 14 Rapides Parish Port Commission, 15
and Caddo-Bossier Parishes Port Commission. 16

The powers of such constitutional ports are in most

instances similar to those ports created by statute. The chief

advantage of constitutional status is insulation from legislative

change. Establishing a new port authority in the state Constitution

is a formidable task. A constitutional amendment requires the approval

of two-thirds of the members of both houses of the legislature and

approval by a majority of the voters at the next general election.

Since a port proposal normally generates only local interest, state-

wide voter support in most instances is uncertain.

3. Uncertainties within the Port System

Several critical issues have arisen in recent years con-

cerning the status of constitutional ports. One dispute arose over

10 La. Constitution 1921, Art VI, Sec. 31(1968).
11 La. Constitution 1921, Art VI, Sec. 33(1966).
12 La. Constitution 1921, Art VI, Sec. 33.1(1960).
13 La. Constitution 1921, Art VI, Sec. 35(1960).
14 La. Constitution 1921, Art VI, Sec. 34(1966).
15 La. Constitution 1921, Art VI, Sec. 39(1966).
16 La. Constitution 1921, Art VI, Sec. 31(1966).

the question of whether a constitutional amendment17 which ratified

and confirmed the act of the 1924 legislature creating the Lake

Charles Harbor and Terminal District, made it a constitutional port.

In Joe J. Tritico v. Board of Commissioners of Lake Charles Harbor

and Terminal District 134 So. 2d 401 (3rd Cir. 1961), the Court of

Appeals held that the terms "ratified" and "confirmed" are not the
equivalent of "to make part of" or "to incorporate into." 18 There-

fore, the amendment validating and ratifying the statute creating
the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District 19 did not make the act

creating the district a part of the Constitution.

The authority of some constitutional port commissions to

exercise the powers granted by the constitutional amendments creating
them has been questioned. One writer 20 has suggested that certain

constitutional port commissions including the South Louisiana, Rapides,

and Caddo-Bossier Port Commissions cannot function completely because

no enabling legislation was passed to permit them to perform all of

their functions. However, the last sentence of Article VI, Section

17 La. Constitution 1921, Art XIV, Sec. 31(1924); La. Acts 1924,
No. 55.
18 See State ex. rel. Saunders v. Kohnke, 109 La. 838, 33 So.
793(1903); Pede v. City of New Orleans, 199 La. 76, 5 So. 2d 508 at
521(1941).
19 La. R.S. 34:201-212(1924); La. Acts 1924, No. 67.
20 E. Stiegman, Ports of Louisiana 2(1965) (Available from the
Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans).

33.1 of the Louisiana Constitution creating the South Louisiana Port

Commission states that the constitutional amendment shall be self-

operative, and "no further Legislation shall be required to effect the

same." Subsection P of Article VI, Section 39 of the Louisiana Con-

stitution creating the Rapides Parish Port Commission and the same

subsection of Article VI, Section 32 creating the Caddo-Bossier

Parishes Port Commission provide that all sections of the Constitutional

amendment are self-operative and "shall require no further or other

legislation" except that authorized in subsection G. Subsection G

provides the commission with the power to "regulate the commerce and

traffic,within the port area in such manner as may, in its judgment,

be for the best interests of the state." The subsection enumerates
several specific grants of authority 21 and further provides that

21 To improve understanding of this point subsection G is reproduced
in its entirety:
Th.e commission shall regulate the commerce and traffic w1thin. such.
port area in such a manner as may, in its judgment, be for the best
interests of the state. It shall have charge of and administer public
wharves, docks, sheds and landings. It shall have authority to con-
struct or acquire and equip wharves and landings and other structures
useful for the commerce of the port area and provide mechanical facilities
therefor; to erect sheds or other structures on said wharves and landings;
to provide light, water, police protection and other services for its
facilities as it may deem advisable; to construct or acquire, maintain
and operate basins, locks, canals, warehouses and elevators; to charge
for the use of all facilities administered by it, and for all services
rendered by it; to establish such fees, rates, tariffs or other charges
as it may deem fit; to establish harbor lines within the port area by
agreement with the United States Corps of Engineers; and to construct,
own, and operate and maintain terminal rail facilities and other common
carrier rail facilities for the purpose of rendering rail transportation
to and from the facilities to be erected, owned and operated by the
commission in both intrastate and interstate commerce. The legislature
may confer additional powers upon the commission not inconsistent with
the provisions hereof; provided, however, that it shall not impair any
contracts lawfully entered into by the commission. Title to all
property and improvements thereon operated by the commission shall vest
in the state of Louisiana.

lithe Legislature may confer additional powers upon the commission not

inconsistent with the provisions hereof. . ." The correct interpre-

tation of subsection G in light of subsection P would seem to be that

(a) the port commission enjoys the authority to regulate the commerce

and traffic within the port area in whatever manner it considers to

be in the best interests of the state; (b) specific grants of power

are delegated to the port commission under subsection G but are not

an exclusive listing of the port commission's powers, and (c) the

legislature may confer additional powers upon the commission not incon-

sistent with the constitutional amendment creating the commission. It

would appear that port commissions created with language similar to

that found in subsection P do not require enabling legislation to

exercise any of the extensive powers specifically delegated to them

and will require only legislativ@@ approval for future grants of addi-

tional powers clearly not granted. The scheme of subsections P and G

appears to be primarily designed to avoid the necessity of proceeding

by constitutional amendment should additional powers be required.

One advantage to being a constitutional port authority is

the protection afforded its jurisdiction due to the difficult procedure

for amending the state constitution, and the inability of the legis-

lature to encroach upon it by creating overlapping port, harbor and

terminal districts. However, the recent establishment of numerous

port, harbor and terminal districts appears to have created juris-

dictional conflicts between them and older port authorities.

The most critical jurisdictional conflict involves the

Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, the St. Bernard

Port, Harbor and Terminal District and the Greater Jefferson Port

Commission.. The jurisdiction of the Port of New Orleans was estab-

lished by Act 70 of 1896 and included the parishes of Orleans,
Jefferson, and St. Bernard. 22 Whether or not this statute has been

incorporated into the state Constitution to give the port's juris-

diction constitutional status is uncertain. However, the constitu-

tional protection afforded the Board of Commissioners of the Port of

New Orleans in Article 14, Section 31 prohibiting any delegation of

authority which "shall add to or detract from the provisions of the

Constitution of the State of Louisiana relative to the Board of

Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans. strengthens its argu-

ment in favor of constitutional jurisdiction.

22 The preamble to the Act recited,various ills associated with port
activities in the vicinity of New Orleans and the unfavorable effects
of competition among the "threeparishes" in the area. The preamble
declared it to be the purpose of the act to consolidate the three
parishes into one port commission. Section 1 indirectly defines the
Port of New Orleans jurisdiction by providing for "said Board to consist
of five members who shall be citizens of the United States and reside
within the Port limits of New Orleans in the parishes of Orleans,
Jefferson, or St. Bernard. . ." Louisiana jurisprudence has recognized
the Board of Commissioner's three parish jurisdiction in several cases.
See State ex. rel. Tallant v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of
New Orleans, 161 La. 361, 108 So. 770(.1926); Duffy v. City of New
Orleans, 49 La. Ann. 114, 21 So. 179(.1896).

Louisiana's Attorney-General has acknowledged that Act 70 of 1896
gives the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans jurisdiction
over the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard. See La. Op.
Atty.-Gen. 1946-48, p. 38.

The challenge posed by the Greater Jefferson Port Comis-

sion and the St. Bernard Port, Harbor and Terminal District can be

illustrated by using the latter as an example. According to R.S.

34:1701 it shall have territorial limits coextensive with the

Parish of St. Bernard, Louisiana, as presently constituted, less and

except that portion of the Parish occupied by the Mississippi River

and the Mississippi River batture and levee." Section 1705 further

states "Nothing herein contained shall add to or detract from the

present provisions of the Constitution and laws of the state rela-

tive to the board of commissioners of the port of New Orleans, the

rights under all of said provisions being preserved, and in the event

of any conflict between the provisions relative to the board of

commissioners of the port of New Orleans, the latter shall prevail."

The implication of these two sections would seem to be that the

territorial jurisdiction of the Port of New Orleans is restricted in

St. Bernard Parish to "that portion of the parish occupied by the

Mississippi River and the Mississippi River batture and levee." If

the territorial jurisdiction provided for the Board of Commissioners

of the Port of New Orleans in Act 70 of 1896 has any present day

validity, such a geographical division of jurisdiction between the two

port authorities is of doubtful legal effect. It can be argued that

the reasons given in the preamble for the passage of Act 70 of 1896

and its reference to the "traffic of the Port" could be construed to

limit the jurisdiction of the Port of New Orleans within St. Bernard

Parish to the only avenue of waterborne commerce existing at the time,

i.e., the Mississippi River. Nevertheless, such a view appears to be

erroneous for two reasons. The port limits have been equated with that

area within which members of the Board of Commissioners of the Port

of New Orleans must reside. A member appointed from St. Bernard

Parish is certainly not required to reside in "that portion of the

parish occupied by the Mississippi River and the Mississippi River

batture and levee." Since he clearly can be chosen from anywhere in

St. Bernard Parish it would seem that the St. Bernard Port, Harbor

and Terminal District is devoid of any authority in St. Bernard
Parish if Act 70 of 1896 has any present-day validity. 23 The same

arguments apply with equal force against the purported jurisdiction
of the Greater Jefferson Port Commission. 24

Similar jurisdictional problems have arisen between existing

inland port authorities. The Red River Waterway Commission was created
by statute 25 in 1965 with the object and purpose of establishing,

operating, and maintaining a navigable waterway system extending from

the vicinity of the confluence of the Red River, the Old River, and

23 Article VI, Section 17 of the Louisiana Constitution which pre-
sently provides for the selection and qualification of the Board of
Commissioners speaks only of prospective members "residing in the parishes
in which the Port Area is located. . ." Whether such reference to the
"Port Area" is sufficient to incorporate into the.Constitution the
jurisdiction originally conferred by Act 70 of 1896 is a question
insusceptible of determination through existing authority.
24 La. R.S. 34:2021-2025(1966).
25 La. R.S. 34:2301-2317(1965).

the Atchafalaya River northwestward in the Red River Valley, encom-

passing the parishes of Avoyelles, Rapides, Natchitoches, Red River,

Grant, Bossier, and Caddo. The Commission also was authorized to

acquire, construct, operate, and maintain various port and related

facilities. The delegation of such powers seems to place its terri-

torial jurisdiction in direct conflict with the constitutionally
created jurisdiction of the Caddo-Bossier Port Commission, 26 the
Avoyelles Parish Port Commission, 27 and the Rapides Port Commission. 28
In 1966, Grant Parish established by statute 29 its own port commission.

Consequently, it is difficult to perceive any role for the Red River

Waterway Commission in light of existing independent port commissions.

It is a reasonable assumption that litigation seeking to resolve these

conflicts has been avoided thus far because of the inactivity of the

affected port commissions.

4. Dominant Features of Louisiana Ports

An analysis of Louisiana's port commissions and port,

harbor and terminal districts would be incomplete without a discussion
of certain features common to all of the state's port authorities. 30

26 See note 16, supra.
27 See note 13, supra.
28 See note 15, supra.
29 La. R.S. 34:2351-2357(1966); La. Acts 1966, No. 49.
30 The authors of this work acknowledge the substantial contribution
of Mr. Emero S. Stiegman's comparative analysis of the common features
of Louisiana ports in his report, "Ports of Louisiana." Mr. Stiegman's
approach to this area is generally followed in Section II(B)(4).

Article 14, Section 31 of the Louisiana Constitution

authorizes the legislature to create port, harbor and terminal districts

as political subdivisions of the state of Louisiana possessing full

corporate powers. Many constitutional port authorities have been

established as political subdivisions possessing full corporate powers.

Litigation has arisen as to whether the benefits and immunities con-

ferred upon a state agency are applicable to an authority which

possesses such corporate powers. The jurisprudence indicates that

port commissions and districts will be characterized as state agencies
entitled to such benefits and immunities. 31 In line with this reason-

ing the state Supreme Court in Miller, Royal Indemnity Co., Intervener

v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, 1942, 199 La.

1071, 7 So. 2d 355, held that the Board of Commissioners of the Port

of New Orleans being an "agency of the state" was performing purely

administrative functions and was not a "corporation," and consequently

denied to an injured employee of a lessee to which the board had leased

wharves the right to sue in tort. The court pointed out that the

board was not operating for profit or performing a "proprietary

function" in leasing wharves.

The number of commissioners composing the governing board

31 State ex. rel. Tallant v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of
New Orleans, 1926, 161 La. 361, 108 So. 770 held the Board of Commissioners
of the Port of New Orleans to be a "state agency" administering public
property for the benefit of the port.

of a port authority varies, but usually numbers 5, 7 or 9. Three

port commissions have eleven members and Greater Baton Rouge has

ten. While the Greater Baton Rouge exception is understandable since

the port area encompasses four parishes, it is interesting to note

that the two newest port, harbor and terminal districts, Union and

Morehouse, have eleven member boards.

The commissioners' term of office is generally 5 or 6

years. The Morgan City Harbor and Terminal District members serve

for 9 years. Since the Plaquemines Port, Harbor-and Terminal District

governing body is the Plaquemines Parish Commission Council, the length

of their terms and number of Commissioners is determined by the laws

relating to the Plaquemines Parish Commission Council. With only two

exceptions the law provides that the members shall serve without compen-
sation and will receive only a reasonable travel allowance. 32

The power of the Governor to appoint members to existing

port commissions has been severely restricted. This is the result of

the "Jones Committee" formed by the legislature in 1965 for the purpose

of formulating a policy to reduce the powers of the Governor in order

to permit legislation to be introduced in the 1966 Legislative Session

to allow the Governor to succeed himself for a second term. Its

32 The exceptions are the members of the Plaquemines Port, Harbor
and Terminal District (La. R.S. 34:1351-1365[1970]) who receive compen-
sation as parish commission council members and members of the Greater
Lafourche Port Commission (La. R.S. 1651-1660[1968]) who receive $10.00
per them with reasonable travel allowance.

recommendations to remove from the Governor the power to make numerous

appointments to port commissions and districts were subsequently enacted
into law by statute and constitutional amendment. 33 The Governor still

has the right to appoint.one or more members to the following port

commissions: The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans,

the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District, the Greater Baton Rouge

Port Commission, the Morgan City Harbor and Terminal District, the

South Louisiana Port Commission, the Greater Lafourche Port Commission,

Red River Waterway Commission, and the Grant Parish Port Commission.

Even this right is more apparent than real. The Ports of New Orleans,

Lake Charles, and Greater Bator. Rouge actually select their members

through nominating organizations. These nominating organizations

recommend a limited number of nominees. In the case of the Port of New

Orleans, the Governor could consistently bypass the nominees of a dis-

favored nominating organization. However, under the procedure employed

by the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District, vacancies are rotated

among the nominating organizations with only one organization submitting

33 La. Acts 1966, No. 446; La. Acts 1966, No. 543. Port authorities
affected by the reduction of the governor's power to appoint port authority
members were: New Iberia Port District; Jennings Navigation District;
Greater Ouachita Port Commission; Greater Krotz Springs Port Commission;
Lake Providence Port Commission; Delcambre Port Commission; St. Bernard
Port, Harbor and Terminal District; Avoyelles Parish Port Commission;
Columbia Port Commission; Livingston-Tangipahoa Parishes Port Commission;
St. Tammany Parish Port Commission; Greater Jefferson Port Commission;
Jonesville Port Commission; Caddo-Bossier Parishes Port Commission and
Rapides Parish Port Commission.

nominees for each vacancy. The Governor must fill the vacancy from

among the nominees submitted. Consequently, it is impossible for the

Governor in such instances to avoid appointing a nominee of the special

interest group represented by the nominating organization.

With respect to taxation practically all port commissions

have the authority to levy an ad valorem tax ranging in amount from

2 1/2 mills, 3 mills, 5 mills, to 10 mills. In addition, Act 43 of

1969 gave authority to all port, harbor and terminal districts to levy

a special ad valorem tax not in excess of ten mills on the dollar of

assessed valuation, provided the levy of the tax and issuance of the

bonds are approved at an election in the district. In four cases the

law specifically prohibits the levying of any ad valorem tax. In at

least two cases the law is silent as to the right of taxation. Of

those commissions authorized to tax, 10 may do so only by an election
in the district, and 11 may levy the tax without any form of election. 34

The right to issue bonds exists in all except one instance.

In some cases issuance must be approved by the Board of Liquidation of

State Debt. Applicable law requires some port commissions to seek

approval by an election before issuing any bonds. Other cases require

the approval of the State Bond and Tax Board.

The right to issue bonds is often accompanied by a limit

on the bonded indebtedness that the port authority can assume. This

appears to be especially true of the larger port commissions. The Board

34 E. Stiegman, Ports of Louisiana 3(1965).

of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans is limited to $95 million. 35

The Greater Lafourche Port Commission, one of the newest and most active

port authorities, is limited to $25 million. Others restricted by law

are limited to smaller amounts.

Only three port authorities are required by law to file an

annual report with the Governor. In seven other cases the law required
that a report be filled with the governing authority of the parish. 36

5. Characteristics of Selected Port Systems

The authority to construct works of internal improvement

and promote, develop, construct, maintain, and operate all harbors and

seaports within the state of Alabama has been delegated to the Alabama
State Docks Department (hereinafter referred to as Department). 37 The

Department consists of a director of state docks and a state docks

advisory committee. The advisory committee can "act only in an advisory

capacity with reference to any matters coming before or concerning the
department." 38 The director of state docks is the chief executive

officer of the department. A general manager appointed by the director

is responsible for the management of the facilities under the control of

the department. In addition there is a general manager for operations

35 La. Constitution 1921, Art VI, Sec. 16.5(1958).
36 E. Stiegman, Ports of Louisiana 4(1965).
37 Code of Ala. Tit. 38, Sec. 1(2526) and (9) (1955).
38 Code of Ala. Tit. 38, Sec. 1(9) (1955).

appointed by the director who performs such duties as may be assigned

to him by the director in connection with the administration, operation,

management'. construction, and maintenance of the facilities under the

jurisdiction of the state docks department.

The state docks advisory committee consists of one member

from Mobile County and one member from each of the congressional dis-

tricts in the state. All are appointed by the governor with the advice

and consent of the state senate for four year terms. To qualify for such

a position the law requires that the prospective appointee be of good

character and be possessed of ability and experience which would qualify

him to advise in the operation of the facilities and activities coming

under the jurisdiction of the department.

Alabama's state-wide port authority illustrates the strong

influence of politics and geography in fashioning a state legal regime

to handle port activities. With its limited coastline the only commer-

cially important port in Alabama is the port of Mobile. The geography

of the coastline in conjunction with the shallow coastal waters makes

the development of other coastal ports impractical. This combination

of factors has resulted in a state-wide authority which permits the

predominant non-coastal area of the state to share in the control and

prosperity of the port of Mobile.

North Carolina has established a state ports authority

Vito develop and improve the harbors or seaports at Wilmington, Morehead

City and Southport, North Carolina, and such other places, including

inland ports and facilities, as may be deemed feasible for a more

expeditious and efficient handling of water-borne commerce...." 39 it

has.been given extensive powers similar to those delegated to Louisiana

ports. The North Carolina Port Authority is governed by a board of

nine members. The Governor appoints all members for six year terms

which "membership thereof shall be selected from the state at large ....

so as to fairly represent each section of the state and all of the

,40
business, agricultural, and industrial interests of the state. The

members of the Authority are not entitled to compensation "but shall

be reimbursed for their actual expenses necessarily incurred in the
performance of their duties." 41 The Authority is empowered to issue

negotiable revenue bonds but such bonds cannot "constitute a debt of

the State of North Carolina or a pledge of the faith and credit of the
state." 42

North Carolina has gone one step further than Alabama in

operating a state-wide authority by transferring the state port authority
in 1971 to the Department of Transportation and Highway Safety. 43 However,

the state port authority continues to exercise all its prescribed stat-

utory powers independently of the head of the principal department except

that management functions are performed under the direction and super-

vision of the head of the Department of Transportation and Highway Safety.

39 Gen. Stat. of N.C. Ch. 143-216(1961).
40 Gen. Stat. of N.C. Ch. 143-216(1961).
41 Gen. Stat. of N.C. Ch. 143-216(1961).
42 Gen. Stat. of N.C. Ch. 143-219(1945).
43 Gen. Stat. of N.C. Ch. 143A-107(1971).

The operation of the Port of Boston by the state of Massa-

chusetts differs significantly from the above two instances. State law

provides for the Port of Boston Commission (hereinafter known as Commis-

sion) to consist of five members appointed by the Governor with the
advice and consent of an advisory council. 44 The governor designates

one commission member as chairman. The commissioners serve five year

terms. The Commission is in administrative charge of the port of Boston

and is responsible for making all necessary plans for its development.

The members serve without compensation but are reimbursed for their

necessary expenses incurred in connection with travel in the discharge

of their official duties. They may appoint and remove a director at

their pleasure.

Each vacancy on the commission is filled in the following
manner: 45 Shortly before the expiration of the term of a member or

within ten days after any other vacancy occurs, the chairman of the

commission addresses a communication to each of the organizations repre-

sented on the advisory council calling upon each organization to submit

within fifteen days the names of not more than three persons to fill

such vacancy. The Commission then certifies the names submitted and

the governor selects a candidate to fill the vacancy.
The advisory council@6 which plays a critical role in the

44 Anno. Laws of Mass. C.6, Sec. 53(1953).
45 Anno. Laws of Mass. C.6, Sec. 53(1953).
46 Anno. Laws of Mass. C.6, Sec. 53A(1953).

nominating process for commission members,is composed of the mayor of

the city of Boston and twenty other members, each of which represents

an organization with an economic interest in the port. Each organi-

zation appoints its own representative. All appointments are for a

term of four years.

The advisory council is charged with reviewing the activ-

ities of the Port of Boston Commission and interesting itself in ways
and means of advancing the interest of the port of Boston. 47 It is

empowered to require the appearance at its meetings of the director of

the port or other commission officials and has access to the records

of the Commission. It is required to make an annual report to the

governor of its activities and-accomplishments.

The advisory council approach of Massachusetts resembles

the nominating council procedure of the Board of Commissioners of the

Port of New Orleans. At least one generalization may be drawn from the

similarity. The port areas of both cities account for the dominant

share of water-borne commerce of their respective states. These well-

established ports have the backing of established commercial interest

groups with a tradition of involvement in maritime affairs. Such

interest groups were available in the two cities to take an active

role in port development. Furthermore, the utilization of these interest

groups in a policy-making role has apparently thwarted the development

47 Anno. Laws of Mass. C.6, Sec. 53A(1953).

of unwanted state-wide authorities which local interests fear would

subordinate them to broader state-wide interests. Hence, the advisory

council and/or nominating organization procedure appears to be an

effective instrument for (a) instilling professional business management

into port operations and (b) preventing state takeover of local port

operations.

The Alabama, North Carolina, and Massachusetts examples

provide some insight into the varying legal arrangements under which

the different port authorities operate. Unfortunately, the examples

offer only a very limited view of the existing arrangements under

which United States ports operate. Appropriate comparative studies

of existing legal arrangements for United States and foreign port

systems must be done in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses

of Louisiana's approach to superport development.

C. The Superport Concept: State versus Local Interest

1. History

In the late 1960's local officials of Plaquemines Parish

were the first to recognize the potential for a superport located in
the vicinity of the mouth of the Mississippi River. 48 In 1970

Plaquemines Parish officials were successful in having the state legis-

lature amend the statute governing the Plaquemines Port, Harbor and

48 Times-Picayune (New Orleans), April 20, 1972, at sec. 1, p. 2,
col. 4; Morning Advocate (Baton Rouge), December 1, 1971, at 9-B,
col. 3.

Terminal District to give it "territorial limits coextensive with the
parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana." 49 Innocuous as the amendment may
have appeared, it had the effect through another statute 50 of extending

the boundaries of such coastal, parish-wide port authorities to the

gulfward limit of the state's boundary. Consequently, the jurisdiction

of the Plaquemines Port, Harbor and Terminal District had been extended

to the gulfward limit of the state's boundary off of Plaquemines Parish

which includes the area around the mouth of the Mississippi River.

Following this undiscovered coup by Plaquemines officials,

Deep Water Sites, Inc., a mysterious corporation whose ownership has
been the subject of controversy, 51 submitted an application 52 to the

waterbottoms for use as superport sites. They finally narrowed their

choice to one tract in Garden Island Bay near the mouth of the Mississippi

49 La. R.S. 34:1351(1970).
50 La. R.S. 49:6(1964).
5'Morning Advocate, December 3, 1971, at 21-A, col. 1; Morning
Advocate, December 1, 1971, at 9-B, col. 2.
52 The records of the State Land Office indicate that William J.
Kihneman, attorney for Deep Water Sites, Inc., originally requested
applications for nine tracts covering 5,760 acres of waterbottoms on
August 17, 1970. The second application for the single tract in
Garden Island Bay was made on October 5, 1970.

River. After bids were opened for the Garden Island Bay site
another corporation 53 submitted a surprise offer. This triggered a

controversy between the Register of State Lands and officials of

Plaquemines Parish relative to each party's rights concerning state

waterbottoms off of Plaquemines Parish. The resulting publicity and

questions raised by interested parties resulted in the Governor issuing
an executive order 54 creating an advisory committee to study leasing

procedures and the superport concept. Out of the advisory committee's

recommendations and the continuing controversy between the Register of

State Lands and Plaquemines Parish developed two legal issues on which

the positions of the parties were irreconcilable: (1) the authority
under Act 59 of 1970 55 to lease state waterbottoms for superport

purposes; (2) the jurisdiction of the Plaquemines Port, Harbor and

Terminal District over state waterbottoms.

2. Legal Issues

Local officials of Plaquemines parish have claimed

that Act 59 of 1970 provides an adequate legal basis for the lease

53 International Tank Terminal, Ltd. See Morning Advocate, December
1, 1971, at 9-B, col. 3.
54 Executive Order No. 86, May 24, 1971. The executive order
specifically appoints an advisory committee "to study leasing procedures
and make recommendations to the Register of State Lands.
55 La. R.S. 41:1262-1270(1970).

of state waterbottoms to public or private groups for the construction

and operation of a superport. The statute authorizes the Register

of State Lands to lease "the bodies of any lakes, bays or coves or

other navigable waters and beds thereof for the purpose of granting

to the lessee the right to erect and use on the leased premises tanks'

and facilities for the receipt, storage, transportation and shipment
of oil, goods, wares and merchandise. 56 Assuming one complies with

the procedural formalities required by the act its broad language could

be construed as a means to lease waterbottoms for a superport facility.

Nevertheless, the statute raises three critical issues which make its

usefulness for superport purposes doubtful: (1) disputes concerning

its original sponsorship and intent; (2) the omission of any reference

to port operations in the statute; (3) the discretion reserved to-the

It is unclear who the primary sponsors of Act 59,of

1970 were. For this reason it is unclear what the original intent

of the Act was. How one resolves this question depends upon.the

credibility one attributes to the parties involved. The Register of

State Lands and her assistants contend that the Act was a State Land

Office bill introduced at their request. Since the State Land Office.

56 La. R.S. 41:1262(1970).

does not employ a full-time attorney the actual drafter of the legis-

lation is unknown. The State Land Office asserts that the legis-

lation was intended to assist the offshore oil and gas industry in

acquiring sites for such things as compressor stations and temporary

storage facilities. They argue that the broad language of the legis-

lation was designed to avoid the need for subsequent amendment as

technological changes requires the oil and gas industry to lease off-

shore sites for requirements unforeseen at the time of its passage.

The State Land Office further points out that the Attorney-General's

Office warned them on several occasions prior to 1970 that the lease

of offshore sites to the oil and gas industry was without legal basis

under Act 73 of 1944 (La. R.S. 41:1262 prior to its amendment by Act
59 of 1970) and suggested remedial legislation. 57 This view is

supported by the language of Act 73 of 1944 since it authorized only

the lease of lands. Only leases for support facility sites in aid

of the oil and gas industry have been granted under either act. A

State Lands Office memorandum dated April 28, 1970 seems to reflect

their motive to assist the offshore oil and gas industry in amending

La. R.S. 41:1262 et seq., since it indicated that any future discussions

with the Attorney-General of Louisiana should cover the need for "further

utilization" of state waterbottoms through La. R.S. 41:1262, in light

57 Conversations with Mr. Ory Poret, Assistant Register of State
Lands, March, 1972.

of the fact that on several occasions the State Land Office had already

used the original statute to grant pumping station and compressor
station leases on state waterbottoms. 58

Local officials of Plaquemines Parish contend that they

assisted in drafting the legislation and are therefore privy to its

intent, one aspect of which was to permit the leasing of state water-
bottoms for superport development. 59 They dispute the Register's

assertion that it was solely State Land Office legislation, it could

never be determined to the point of legal certainty and consequently

the broad language of the statute should control.

Opponents of the lease admit that the broad language of

La. R.S. 41:1262 encompasses many of the activities incidental to the

operation of a superport. In the absence of convincing proof as to

the intent of the act, the broad language should control. However,

they point out that this overlooks the purpose for which certain

interests now desire to lease state waterbottoms. The purpose for

which the lease is sought is to operate a superport. The broad

language of the statute permits the leasing of state waterbottoms for

many incidents of port operations and various piecemeal port activities.

The statute, however, does not intimate in any of its sections that it

58 The records of the State Land Office confirm the granting of
such unauthorized leases in line with its prior utilization of La.
R.S. 41:1262-1270(1944).
59 See note 53, supra.

authorizes private or public groups to lease state-owned waterbottoms

for the purpose would seem to be in direct conflict with the existing

legal regime governing Louisiana ports as the Register of State Lands

would, in effect, be creating new port authorities with the acceptance

of each lease bid. Those opposing the lease assert that the legis-

lature did not intend through Act 59 of 1970 to delegate its authority

to create ports to the State Land Office.

Irrespective of the conflicting claims of the adversary

parties, the Register of State Lands is vested with the discretionary

authority to accept or reject all bids. Section 1262 provides that the

of the term "may" confers upon the Register discretionary power to lease

or not to lease. If the legislature had intended for the Register to

be under an affirmative duty to lease, the term "shall" would have been

used. In addition, section 1265 states that the Register of State

Lands "shall have the right to reject all bids."

The state Attorney-General's position throughout the

controversy appears to be uncertain. In reply to the question posed

by the Register of the State Land Office as to whether a surface lease

could legally be granted on state waterbottoms in Garden Island Bay

pursuant to Act 59 of 1970, the Attorney-General's office replied
affirmatively. 60 When the Governor issued an executive order appointing

60 Letter from Melvin L. Bellar, Assistant Attorney-General, to
Ellen Bryan Moore, Register of State Lands, February 3, 1971.

an advisory committee to study the problem in light of the questions

raised by the proposed lease, a legal committee was formed and included
the same Assistant Attorney-General 61 who had written the opinion

affirming the Register's right to grant a surface lease under Act 59

of 1970. After numerous meetings with interested parties the Assistant

Attorney General and other members of the committee concluded on

November 23, 1971 that present Louisiana laws were not sufficient to

authorize the leasing of state waterbottoms for deepwater ports.

Irrespective of the merits of Act 59 of 1970 as a procedure

to lease state waterbottoms for superport development Louisiana has un-

wittingly surrendered its territorial jurisdiction over some proposed

superport sites to certain coastal port authorities. The Plaquemines
Port, Harbor and Terminal District is only an example. 62 Any coastal

port authority which has jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of

a coastal parish or any coastal port authority which can persuade the

legislature to grant it such jurisdiction, can take advantage of La.

R.S. 49:6 which extends the jurisdiction of coastal parishes to the

61 Melvin L. Bellar; Report of the Legal Committee of the Governor's
Superport Advisory Committee, November 23, 1971. (Available from the
Office of-the Secretary of State.)
62 There are at least two other coastal port authorities which
have parish-wide jurisdiction: Terrebonne Port Commission (La. R.S.
34:2201-2205) and St. Bernard Port, Harbor and Terminal District (La.
R.S. 34:1701-1715).

outer gulfward boundary of the state. Therefore, by relating the

jurisdiction of the port authority to parish boundaries the jurisdiction

of such coastal port authorities is extended to the gulfward limit of

the state's boundary.

3. Policy Issues

The attitude of the Plaquemines Port, Harbor and Terminal

District and the broader legal questions mentioned above raise several

policy issues concerning superport development such as: (1) the ability

of the state to receive fair value for the lease of state waterbottoms

as a superport site; (2) the question of whether state or local control

can most effectively advance the interests of Louisiana in superport

development.

The present conflict between the authority of the Register

of State Lands to lease state waterbottoms and the power of certain port

authorities to exercise control over the lessee's activities makes it

questionable whether the state can realize the potential value of

the waterbottoms. The state's ownership of waterbottoms having

depths.greater than sixty-five feet near the vicinity of the mouth of

the Mississippi River can be analogized to the discovery of a

valuable natural resource in limited supply. Bathgraphic maps of

the Gulf of Mexico indicate that Louisiana is the only state having

deep waterbottoms within the limits of the state's jurisdiction. It

is difficult to speculate upon the actual value 63 of the lease interest

in such waterbottoms to a private lessee interested in developing a

superport facility or the potential revenues from a state operated

superport. Nevertheless, it is improbable that the state could realize

the actual market value of its lease interest if the prospective

lessee must figure into his lease bid the uncertainties of dealing

with a local port authority possessing the power to impose unlimited

onerous conditions. The Plaquemines Port, Harbor and Terminal District
has indicated to the Register of State Lands 64 that they would require

any lessee to submit plans and specifications of the proposed facility

for their approval, to secure a permit from the parish for

construction, and to comply with whatever regulations they may

establish. In addition, they reiterate their right under'the

statute creating the district to charge fees to each vessel arriving

in ballast or carrying cargo of any kind. They further suggest that

63 Deep Water Sites, Inc.'s bid for the Garden Island Bay tract
was five dollars per acre and one and one eight cents per ton of cargo
handled. International Tank Terminal, Ltd.'s bid was three dollars and
thirty cents per acre and five cents per ton. The five cents per ton
bid is significant when one considers that super tankers and other bulk
cargo carriers would be discharging 100,000 or more tons of liquid or
dry bulk energy cargoes at a time. Each such discharge would provide
$5,000 in revenue to the state's general fund. The willingness of a
bidder to offer such terms in the face of the obvious legal obstacles
to superport development existing at that time would seem to indicate
that the value of state waterbottoms as superport sites has not yet been
fully recognized by public officials.
64 Letter from Chalin 0. Perez, President, Plaquemines Parish
Commission Council, to Ellen Bryan Moore, Register of State Lands,
March 19, 1971.

it would be "highly inappropriate" for the state to grant a lease

subject to its jurisdiction without its "concurrence and consent"
to such a facility. 65

Local officials of Plaquemines Parish have argued that

the Plaquemines Port, Harbor and Terminal District could develop a

superport at an earlier date and more efficiently than any state
agency. 66 They cite frequent examples of bureaucratic inertia in

state government and the state capital's distance from the coastal

area (over 100 miles in places) as reasons in favor of the local

approach. However, those who argue in favor of the state approach

point out that many coastal port authorities are nothing more than
11paper ports." 67 In their judgment, local port authorities clearly

do not possess the expertise to do even preliminary superport planning

nor do they have the financial resources necessary to build their own

superport. They further point out that the present situation could

lead to disastrous competition between numerous inadequate superport

developments sponsored by the different coastal port authorities

which would be economically unsound, environmentally unsafe, and

possibly hazardous to navigation.

65 See note 63, supra. .
66 Times-Picayune, April 20, 1972, at sec. 1, p. 2, col. 4;
States-Item (New Orleans), April 17, 1972, at 1, col. 3.
67 The Plaquemines Port, Harbor and Terminal District for example,
does not have any port facilities in operation at this time.

D. Critical Issues Facing Superport Development

The question of state versus local control is perhaps the most

critical issue facing superport development in Louisiana. Regardless

of how it is resolved some agency will be authorized to pursue Louisiana's

superport interests. Numerous issues have arisen with respect to the

needs of such an agency in order to pursue Louisiana's superport interests

effectively.

1. Operational Flexibility

A critical issue is the need for flexibility in the legal

framework of the agency designated to advance Louisiana's superport

interests. We are faced with an area of rapidly changing technology.

Superships are altering traditional world-wide shipping patterns. These

changes will require the state agency to frequently alter its staff

requirements in order to acquire the expertise necessary to exploit new

developments to Louisiana's advantage. Emphasis must be placed on pro-

viding the agency with the flexibility to hire a professional director

of the highest order of competence and a professional staff of his

choosing to direct Louisiana's superport efforts. This will require that

managerial powers and organizational structure more closely resemble

that of a large corporation than a typical state agency. The pay scale

for the director and his staff must also be flexible in order that the

agency can bargain for the best talent available.

2. Extent of Authority

A critical issue that Louisiana must face is the extent of

authority to be delegated to the state agency. It is known that any

offshore superport development will require certain onshore support

facilities such as tank farms, compressor stations, depots, pipelines,

etc. The agency must be authorized to negotiate with municipalities,

parishes, and all other local political subdivisions to acquire the

necessary facilities and enter agreements with such bodies to supply

necessary services. Similarly the agency must be empowered to negotiate

agreements with other state agencies which have interests in the coastal

zone in order to effectively coordinate their efforts.

3. Federal-State Relations

At the federal level it is critical that Louisiana desig-

nate a state agency to negotiate and enter agreements with the federal

government or any of its agencies relative to superport development,

operation, and control. The Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over
all navigable waters for certain purposes; 68 the Coast Guard has the
power to promulgate regulations necessary for the safety of navigation; 69
the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 70 requires an environ-

mental impact statement for any action significantly affecting the

68 33 U.S.C. 403(1964) [originally enacted as Act of March 3,
1899, ch. 425, 30 Stat. 1152].
69 14 U.S.C. 2 (originally enacted as Act of August 4, 1949, ch.
393, 63 Stat. 496).
70 42 U.S.C. 4321 (originally enacted as Act of January 1, 1970,
83 Stat. 852).

quality of the human environment. It is evident from these few

examples that for Louisiana to protect and advance its interests

in a Louisiana superport the agency must be empowered to negotiate

and enter into agreements with the federal government and its agencies.

The need for such authority is especially critical in light of the

fact that present data suggests that it is likely the initial super-
port facility will be located between 8 and 12 miles 71 off the

Louisiana coast, clearly beyond state jurisdiction. Consequently,

the state may literally have to "negotiate" its way into superport

development, operation, and control as no other basis for state

authority exists beyond three nautical.miles from Louisiana's coast-

line.

The critical federal-state relationship for Louisiana

superport development demands that the state agency must have exclusive

authority to manage Louisiana's superport interests. The coastal port

authorities referred to above were established as political subdivisions

of the state. At present each would be a state agency authorized to

negotiate any agreements with the federal government relating to port

activities within their jurisdiction. Such fragmentation of authority

would make it impossible to advance the overall state interest in

superport development, operation and control. This will permit Louisiana

71 Morning Advocate, May 2, 1972 at 1-A, col. 5.

to speak with one unified voice and avoid the pitfalls of subdivisions

of the state competing against each other.

The state agency must also be empowered to negotiate any

agreements with international agencies regarding superport development

and undertake an active role in any international organization which may

be established to further international understanding relative to the

development and operation of superports and superships. The United

States is presently bound by international agreements regulating the
pollution of the sea. 72 The recent worldwide environmental conference
in Stockholm 73 indicates that international regulation and restriction

of various uses of the high seas will increase. Such regulations will

affect any Louisiana superport either because of stresses in inter-

national waters created by its operation in coastal waters or because

its location will be beyond the territorial sea and within the 3uris-

of the international community. Consequently, the importance of

empowering the agency to undertake an appropriate role in the inter-

national community concerned with superport affairs cannot be over-

estimated.

72 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of
the Sea by Oil, (done May 12, 1954, 12 UST 2989; TIAS 4900; 327 UNTS3
in force December 8, 1961); Convention on the High Seas (done April 29,
1958, 13 UST 2312; TIAS 5200; 450 UNTS 82 in force Sept. 30, 1962).
There are at least two recent treaties to which the U.S. is a party,
but they are not yet in force.
73 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, June 12-25,
1972, Stockholm, Sweden.

4. Economic Protection for Existing Deepwater Ports

A critical issue which could present serious political,

economii--, and legal difficulties is the need for economic protection

of the state's existing deepwater ports. The three deepwater ports

of New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Lake Charles rank first, fourth, and

tenth in the Mississippi River Valley and the Gulf Region in the dollar
value of cargo handled. 74 The bonds of the Ports of New Orleans and
Baton Rouge are backed by the full faith and credit of the state. 75 The

Port of New Orleans has approximately 95 million dollars in bonds out-

standing (principal and interest to maturity), and the Port of Greater

Baton Rouge has approximately 43 million dollars in bonded indebtedness
outstanding. 76 If a Louisiana superport were to divert significant

amounts of cargo presently handled by the three deepwater ports, the

loss of revenues could jeopardize the payment of existing port bonds.

Since the bonds carry the full faith and credit of the state, the state

would.have to assume the unanticipated burden. The state further assists

the Port of New Orleans with $500,000 annually from the state gasoline
tax; 77 the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District receives 1/20 of

74 "Waterborne Commerce of the United States," 1969, Dept. of the
Army, Corps of Engineers.
75 La. Constitution 1921, Art.VI, Sec. 16.5(1958); Op. Atty. Gen.
1932-1934, p. 677. La. Constitution 1921, Art.VI, Sec. 29(1952), secs.
29.1 and 29.4(1956).
76 Figures supplied by the State Treasurer's office, April 1, 1972.
77 La. Constitution 1921, Art.VI-A, Sec. 5(1952).

one cent from the same source. The value of this assistance would be

to some degree negated by the state's establishment of a strong rival.

The need is to identify those cargoes which could be

handled most efficiently by a superport; those cargoes that can be

handled most efficiently at existing deepwater ports; those cargoes

critical to the continued prosperity of existing deepwater ports, and

those cargoes critical to the economic health of a Louisiana superport.

Policies will have to be developed for overlapping areas with the twin

aims of preserving the economic integrity of existing deepwater ports

and providing a sound economic base for superport development.

Obviously, there are no simple solutions to what might develop into a

complex commodity-by-commodity analysis and bargaining between two

adversary interests.

5. Environmental Protection

Perhaps the most critical issue of all is the question of

whether a legal regime can be established to protect Louisiana's

coastal environment while superport development proceeds. There are

at least four predictable stresses on the coastal environment flowing

from superport development. Recent history has shown that there is a

risk of some catastrophic event occurring such as a major oil spill
caused by shipwreck or collision, major explosion or fire, etc. 78

78 Notable examples of such events are the Torrey Canyon oil spill
off the coast of Great Britain and the Ocean Eagle spill in San Juan
harbor.

Another stress is that which results from day-to-day operations

causing pollution of varying degrees of seriousness. Negligent or

careless operational procedures, faulty equipment, improper personnel

training invariably result in continuing stresses on the environment

immediately surrounding the facility. A third and serious stress on

the coastal environment results when the facility itself is emplaced in

the near shore environment. This could result in a direct elimination

of habitats for living resources. It eliminates the area for tradi-

tional commercial and recreational purposes in exchange for its exclusive

use for port and harbor purposes. Each addition or expansion to the

port facility continues the encroachment upon the natural coastal environ-

ment. A fourth stress and perhaps the most serious relates to the

stresses imposed by onshore ancillary facilities serving the superport.

These include pipelines, barge loading and offloading points, compressor

and pumping stations, oil and other liquid cargo tank farms and other

storage facilities. In addition, industrial, commercial, and residential

development will be generated by superport activities@--all of which

create considerable stress on Louisiana's coastal environment. This

environment, mostly marsh and low-lying plains, is subject to flooding,

subsidence, and hurricane damage. Great expenditures of funds will be

needed to provide minimal protection against these risks.

When the superport issue was raised in other states, the major

concern was potential environmental damage. Delaware recently passed a

coastal zoning law 79 which declared that offshore bulk product transfer

facilities represent a significant danger of pollution to the coastal

zone and generate pressure for the construction of industrial plants in

the coastal zone, which construction is declared to be against public

policy. For these reasons, Delaware prohibited bulk product transfer

facilities in their coastal zone. Because of the proximity of deepwater

bays to the coast of Maine, numerous disputes have arisen regarding the

placement of superports in coastal waters which would serve refineries
to be located on Maine's scenic coast. 80 To avoid such disputes as have

79 Vol. 58, Ch. 175, Laws of Delaware, Approved June 28, 1971.
Approval of this law met with considerable attention in the press and
government and industrial circles throughout the country. At a time when
most coastal states were doing considerable planning, inventorying of
coastal resources, and holding many meetings and conferences, Delaware
took a bold step to implement one of the recommendations of the Governor's
Task Force on Marine and Coastal Affairs. That report recommended against
approval at the present time of any deepwater port facility or offshore
island in the lower Delaware Bay. See "Coastal Zone Management for
Delaware," Governor's Task Force on Marine and Coastal Affairs, 40 p.,
February 18, 1971, at p.3-1. It was recently stressed by a key Delaware
state official that the issue of whether the state would consider a
Superport facility was receiving further study. "Remarks of Austin H.
Heller, Secretary, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, State of Delaware, to Sea Grant Association, University of Wis-
consin, October 12, 1971 at p. 6.
80 The Maine Site Selection Law, 38 Maine Stat. Sec. 481(1970), was
recently used to deny a construction permit to an industrial developer,
Maine Clean Fuels, Inc., who applied for a permit to construct a $150,000,
000 refinery on tiny, uninhabited Sears Island in Penobscot Bay, Maine.
Supertankers were to supply the refinery with 150,000 barrels of oil daily.
See "Environmental Agency in Maine Completes Hearings on Refinery," New
York Times April 18, 1971, p. 66, col. 3. The Coastal Conveyance of Petro-
leum Act (Act 572 of 1970) mandated the Maine Environmental Improvement
Commission to establish regulations for the transfer of oil and other
petroleum products between vessels and onshore facilities and between
different vessels within the jurisdiction of the state.

arisen in Delaware and Maine, a wise course for Louisiana would be

the full consideration of environmental matters at the outset of

superport planning.

All levels of government have laws and regulations for

environmental protection. Many of these deal with similar environ-

mental issues and occur at varying times during the development program.

To the Louisiana citizen concerned with general environmental protection

from the port operation, there is little opportunity for effective

participation, and the morass of individual, special purpose regulations

makes it difficult for one to see the overall environmental protection

program. Similarly, for the port authority itself, there is a need to

integrate the varying governmental requirements so that duplications

in data-gathering and monitoring can be avoided and a long term

environmental protection program formulated. For these reasons the

authority needs to disclose at an early date in its operation its blue-

print for environmental protection. This should be done at the same

time as its blueprint for port development.

One critical issue relates to paying the costs of environ-

mental protection associated with a superport. Often, environmental

protection programs suffer from inadequate financing because they are

subjected to an annual battle for appropriations with a legislative

body. Whatever the scale of the environmental protection program to be

developed, it must be provided with a continuing source of revenue.

Unless the people of Louisiana are willing to assume this additional

burden, the funds necessary to operate an effective environmental

protection program must come from the users of the facility.

Another critical issue relates to the qualification and

affiliation of those who develop and control the environmental pro-

tection program. The program's leaders bear the burden of establishing

the program's credibility. The credibility of the program depends

,on the role played by recognized environmental scientists and insti-

tutions. Their efforts must not be totally controlled by those whose

responsibilities are primarily commercial and developmental. The

environmental protection program must be pursued in a spirit of co-

ordination and cooperation with other interested public and private

groups. The lines of communication must always be open to the accept-

ance of new ideas from any source. Additionally, the program must be

pursued within the overall perspective that environmental protection

from stresses imposed by a superport is but one aspect of environ-

mental protection from all stresses which are continually created by

development in the coastal zone. Specific consideration should be

given to broad-based coastal zone management efforts and state-wide

transportation planning programs.

E. Resolving the Critical Issues

The Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Act* was designed to avoid

the shortcomings of the present Louisiana ports system, resolve the

*Reprinted in its entirety in Section IV of this Chapter.

present conflicts in state law which prevent superport development,

and provide a legal regime by which Louisiana could develop, operate,

and assert its interest in any superport development in proximity

to the Louisiana coast for the benefit of all its citizens. The

objects of the statute are set out in section 3101 of La. R.S. 34:

3101-3114. Subsection A states that the purpose of the Act is to

create a new political subdivision of the state possessing full

corporate powers to "promote, plan, finance, develop, construct, con-

trol, operate, manage, maintain, and modify a deep draft harbor and

terminal" for ....... the loading and unloading of vessels carrying

liquid or dry bulk and energy cargoes." Additional objects provided

for in subsection B are to promote the prosperity of existing Louisiana

port authorities and interstate, national, and international trade;

to promote scientific, recreational, and all other uses of the deep

draft harbor and terminal in the public interest; to accomodate and

plan for the technological innovations occurring in the worldwide

and domestic shipping industry to increase efficiency and the flow of

commerce through the deep draft harbor and terminal outside the state

of Louisiana.

1. State Control Over Superport Development

The Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Act resolves the

critical issue of state versus local control concerning Louisiana

superport development in favor of state level control. Since Louisiana

does not have an agency with any supervisory power over the thirty-six

local port authorities, the Act provides for the creation of a new

state agency to be known as the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal

Authority (hereinafter referred to as Authority). The Authority is

established as an Article 14, Section 31 port, harbor and terminal

district. This approach was taken because the Authority could be

created expeditiously by the legislature as compared to the slower

constitutional amendment process.

The problem of the jurisdiction of local port

authorities is resolved by Sections 3103 (Jurisdiction; domicile),

3109 (Powers) and 3108 (Acquisition of sites; lease of state-owned

waterbottoms). Subsection 3103(A) grants to the Authority "exclusive

jurisdiction over the Authority Development Program within the coastal

waters of Louisiana." The Authority Development Program is defined

in Section 3102(2) to mean all phases of planning, development, and

operation through which a deep draft harbor and terminal may proceed.

Section 3102(l) defines a deep draft harbor and terminal as the

structure emplaced in coastal waters which is designed to accommodate

the cargo or passengers of the new generation of deep-draft ships.

Coastal waters are defined as those waters extending three nautical

miles or beyond to the extent of the state's jurisdiction as measured

from the state's coastline. Section 3103 was designed to pre-empt

whatever rights local port authorities may have possessed in coastal

waters for the limited purpose of superport development. It is noted

that no constitutional question arises as the local port authorities

with jurisdiction in Louisiana's coastal parishes were all created

by statute.

Section 3108 resolves the problem of the separation

of the state's interest in its waterbottoms from its interest in

operating a port by making it the mandatory duty of the Register of

State Lands to lease state waterbottoms in the Gulf of Mexico which

are selected by the Authority as sites for the deep draft harbor and

terminal. Section 3108 (B) provides that the selected tracts shall

be leased by the register of state lands for five dollars per acre per

annum. The proceeds arising from such leases become part of the

state's general fund. The Authority is thereby placed in a position

to realize the maximum value of the waterbottoms to be leased for

superport purposes. If the Authority develops and operates its own

superport, Section 3108 guarantees it the capacity to acquire the

necessary sites at a nominal price. If the Authority believes that

it is in the best interests of Louisiana to sublease such waterbottoms

to private groups for superport purposes, it is empowered to negotiate

a sublease for the best possible price. The lease bids offered for the

tract in Garden Island Bay are illustrative of what may be the actual
market value of such leases. 81

Section 3108(E) prohibits the Authority from engaging

in the exploration or development of oil, gas, or other minerals (as

controlled by the State Mineral Board) or the cultivation of living

marine resources (regulated by the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries

81 see note 63, supra.

Commission) on waterbottoms leased as superport sites.

2. Powers of the Superport Authority

The powers delegated to the Authority consolidate its

position as Louisiana's exclusive agent for superport development.

Section 3109(A) vests the Authority with the "exclusive and plenary

authority to do any and all things necessary or proper for the Authority

to promote, plan, finance, develop, construct, control, operate, manage,

maintain, and modify the Authority Development Program." Section 3109(C)

grants the Authority "all powers capable of being delegated by the

legislature under Article 14, Section 31" of the state Constitution.

Subsection F authorizes the Authority to lease or sublease lands leased

from the state and to negotiate and enter into agreements with any

public or private individual or corporation for the construction and

operation of a petroleum terminal. The power of the Authority to lease

or sublease to private groups for the development of other types of

superport facilities is implied from Subsections A and C.

The critical authority to negotiate intrastate, inter-

state, federalstate, and international agreements is provided by

Section 3109(B). In order to assert Louisiana's interest "in any Deep

Draft Harbor and Terminal development in proximity to the Louisiana

coast, the Authority is empowered to negotiate with and enter into

contracts, compacts or other agreements with agencies, bureaus or other

divisions of the federal government or other states of the United

States concerning the Authority Development Program, including juris-

dictional aspects of the location of the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal,

sharing of revenues derived from the operation of the Deep Draft

Harbor and Terminal and promulgation and enforcement of regulations

governing Authority operations." In conjunction with the general

authority provided by subsection A, the section is designed to provide

sufficient power for the Authority to enter into any forseeable inter-

governmental relationship which may arise. In addition, Section 3110

(B) authorizes intrastate agreements to permit the parties to "engage

jointly in the exercise of any power, the making of any improvements

which each of the participating authorities may exercise or undertake

individually under any provision of general or special law."

3. Administrative Structure for.Superport Operations

To resolve the critical issue of representation

Section 3104 of the Act provides for a nine member board of commis-

sioners, representing all geographic regions of the state. Subsection

B provides that two members shall be selected from each of the state's

three Public Service Commission districts. One of these must be a

recognized environmentalist. One member shall be selected from the

state at large. The other two shall be selected from a list of

nominees submitted by the three deepwater ports, with each deepwater

port recommending two nominees. Once a final determination is reached

as to the location of the deep draft harbor and terminal, the first

vacancy occurring on the board shall be filled by appointment of one

of three nominees submitted by the governing authority of the parish,

offshore from which the deep draft harbor and terminal is located. In

case of dispute as to whether the superport is located off of more than

one parish, both parishes may submit three nominees each, the

Governor making the appointment from the two lists of nominees sub-

mitted. The qualifications required of members are purposefully

general to provide the flexibility to adjust to changing requirements

as to the type of individual which might be needed as a board member.

Subsection A speaks only of "their demonstrated experience in civic

leadership and their stature and ability to act effectively for the

best interests of Louisiana." Subsection C provides each member with

a five year term except for initial appointees whose terms are corres-

pondingly abbreviated to provide for an average of two vacancies per

year. Such frequent vacancies should permit a new governor to put

into effect any policy changes that he may desire furing his first

term in office.

The critical issue of flexibility for successful

Authority operation is resolved by the delineation of the roles of the

board of commissioners and the executive director in Sections 3105

and 3107. The board is made the governing body of the Authority

11with full power to promulgate rules and regulations for maintenance

and operation of said Authority."

Section 3105(B) provides that the Board shall

formulate general policy and decide upon all matters relating to the

Authority Development Program. It also adopts the annual operating

and capital budget. Perhaps the most significant subsection in

explaining the board's powers is subsection F which provides that the

board shall meet at least once every sixty days "or upon the written

request of the president.11 While the board of commissioners is

vested with ultimate authority, the experience of similar boards

indicates that the infrequency of meetings will provide the board

with no more than an opportunity to formulate general policy and

oversee obvious deficiencies in operation.

Section 3107 provides for a strong executive director

to resolve the shortcomings incidental to the part-time nature of the

board's role. The board of commissioners shall select the executive

director. The statute places no restrictions on the salary or other

terms of employment that the board may offer an applicant. The

executive director shall exercise all control over the executive

functions and the general operation of the Authority. All employees

shall be responsible to the executive director "who shall organize

them in the most efficient manner to accomplish the purposes of the

Authority...." Clearly, the executive director will be responsible

to the board for the results of Authority operations as he is provided

with the means to achieve the purposes for which the Authority was

created. Because he is responsible for the overall performance of the

Authority he serves at the pleasure of the board.

Section 3106(B) resolves the critical issue of

Authority financing. Since Authority operation more closely resembles

the operation of a large private corporation than most state agencies,

reliable sources of revenues are required. In order for the Authority

to take advantage of new opportunities and bind itself to future obli-

gations, all revenues generated by the Authority are dedicated to it

to be used to further the purpose of the Act. However, any revenues

remaining at the end of a fiscal year after the satisfaction of all

Authority obligations and expenses and the creation of adequate

reserves for contingencies shall be considered surplus, to be trans-

ferred to the state's general fund. To assist in the initial planning

work of the Authority, an appropriation of $350,000 from the state's

general fund has been provided for 1972-73 fiscal year.

4. Protecting Existing Deepwater Ports

Section 3110 was designed to ameliorate the potential

conflict between existing deepwater ports and the Authority and provide

mechanisms for the resolution of future problems in the area. Sub-

section A recognizes the need to prevent impairment of port bonds and

the existing Authority and functions performed by established Louisiana

ports. Acknowledging these facts subsection A further provides that

the "power and authority of the various existing port authorities

established pursuant to Article 14, Section 31 of the Louisiana Consti-

tution, and others, established by specific constitutional provision are

not to be diminished by the jurisdiction and powers exercised by the

Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority except as provided in this Act."

Subsection B permits the Authority to enter into contract agreements

with existing port authorities and engage jointly in the exercise of

any power which either authority may have exercised individually.

Subsections C and D indicate that the Authority is

primarily empowered to develop a deep draft harbor and terminal to

handle bulk cargoes. This is supported by Section 3101(A) which explains

the object of the Act as "to provide the necessary facilities for

docking, loading and unloading of vessels carrying liquid or dry

bulk and energy cargoes." Subsection D prohibits the Authority from

handling break-bulk or general cargo '.'without the prior written

agreement of the Three Deepwater Ports, which agreement, among other

provisions, may provide for use of existing port facilities, rates,

wharfage fees and other matters of mutual interest." Subsection C

requires that the Authority consider the economic impact on the deep-

water ports in enacting its rates and charges for bulk cargo. It

further requires that such.charges and rates be compensatory, i.e.

cover the costs of the services rendered.

5. The Environmental Protection Plan

Section 3113 resolves the critical issue of environ-

mental protection by creating an Environmental Protection Plan (known

hereinafter as Plan). The Plan is defined in Section 3102 to mean "a

written document prepared in conformity with this law, which shall be

a regulation.of the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority which

establishes those steps to be followed to insure the protection of the

environment whroughout all phases of the Authority Development Program."

Section 3113 spells out the details of the Plan and requires the

executive director to follow the Plan "in all respects" in carrying out

any aspect of the Authority Development Program.

The Plan shall be formulated by the Director of the Louis-

iana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, the Director of the Louisiana

State University Center for Wetland Resources, and the Executive Director

of the Authority. The Plan must be promulgated within a reasonable

time after the appointment of the executive director but no later

than eighteen months after the effective date of the Act. It is to

be promulgated by the executive director under the rule-making pro-
cedures of the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act. 82 It may be

-amended at any time in accordance with the provisions of the Adminis-

trative Procedure Act to reflect changes in the Authority Development

Program. The three directors who formulate the Plan or any interested

person can initiate changes.

The three directors in formulating the Plan are

charged with the duty to make every effort to reach a consensus. In

case of disagreement each shall proffer his proposed Plan or amendment

to the board of commissioners for its consideration. After receiving

and studying the recommendations submitted, the board of commissioners

shall decide which plan or combination of plans shall be adopted and

promulgated. To assure that environmental interests do have a voice

on the board of directors, Section 3104(B) provides that one of the

members selected from the three Public Service Commission Districts

11shall be selected for his primary interest in protecting the unique

coastal environment of Louisiana."

To resolve the problem of adequate financing for

environmental protection, Section 3113(G) makes the Plan an integral

82 La. R.S. 49:951-966(1966).

part of the Authority Development Program. Costs incurred to develop

the initial Plan or amendments shall be considered an internal cost

of the Authority Development Program to the same extent as economic,

engineering, and promotional programs are considered costs. The

three directors must agree on the appropriate level of funding for

the Plan and carry out its requirements.

In order to maximize the effectiveness and credibility

of the Plan, Section 3113(H) directs the three directors to seek out

the best talent available to perform the studies and surveys necessary

to develop the Plan and carry out its requirements. It further pro-

vides that to the extent possible, University-based, public, and

private researchers in Louisiana shall be utilized. The results of all

research done in connection with the Plan shall be available to any

interested person.

The actual Plan must contain a series of specific

provisions as set out in Section 3113(J). If it is impossible to set

forth these provisions due to uncertainties in the Authority Develop-

ment Program, the Plan must state the uncertainties which do exist at

the time the Plan is promulgated and why the uncertainties make the

inclusion of such provisions premature. Otherwise, the Plan must

consider under a separate chapter each of the following: (1) An inven-

tory of all stresses on the environment which can be reasonably ex-

pected in pursuing superport development; (2) environmental factors

affecting site location; (3) facility design and how it might minimize

potential environmental damage; (4) the methods of operation which

would minimize environmental damage; (5) a monitoring program to

detect new stresses; (6) compensation to the coastal environment

for areas lost to superport development; (7) analysis of all ongoing

environmental programs to avoid duplication. Consideration of these

factors is essential in order to provide any measure of environmental

protection. However, their inclusion in the Act is illustrative only;

changes in superport technology and use will bring the need for

changes in the regulations and research priorities of the Plan.

F. Issues Requiring Further Research and Analysis

1. Interstate Commerce and Taxation

Louisiana's economic stake in a deep draft harbor and

terminal off its coast goes far beyond the possibility of lease or

operational revenues, and beyond the superport's economic effects on

employment, waterborne commerce, transportation savings; etc. Louis-

iana must also take into account the social and economic costs to

state and local governments associated with such an enterprise. A

deep draft harbor and terminal will invariably bring with it demands

for additional public works such as improved highways to adjacent

coastal areas, new canals to connect the superport with existing in-

land waterways, and other transportation facilities which will be

necessary to move superport bulk cargoes inland. Expenditures will be

necessary to protect against the increased risks of flooding, subsi-

dence, and hurricane damage in the coastal zone due to superport related

development. Costs associated with environmental stresses can be ex-

pected. In light of the necessary support facilities which must be

built in the coastal zone and the growth which can be expected to

parallel superport development, state and local agencies will be

required to increase the services which they supply in the coastal
zone of Louisiana. 83 Although an increased tax base can be anticipated

for certain localities, it is not clear that increased tax revenues

will offset increased public services dollar for dollar. Nor is it

clear that the same governmental unit benefiting from the tax increase

has the equal burden of providing the services. Inequities abound in
the property tax system, as is evident by current court cases. 84 T e

question ultimately will become who shall bear the burden of the in-

creased costs of governmental services brought on by the deep draft

harbor and terminal: the users of the superport or the taxpayers of

Louisiana?

The state's options regarding this burden differ with

the location of the superport. If the facility is located within the

state's territorial jurisdiction, i.e. coastal waters, then the state

may take such costs into consideration in negotiating the price for the

lease of state waterbottoms. In addition the state has the opportunity

83 Foreign Deep Water Port Developments, Volume I, "A Selective
Overview of Economics, Engineering, and Environmental Factors," published
by Institute for Water Resources (IWR), Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers.
84 Morning Advocate, June 30, 1972, at 1-A, col. 7.

to impose the traditional variety of taxes suited to such a facility

subject to constitutional limitations.

It appears more likely than not that the first super-
port will be beyond Louisiana's jurisdiction. 85 Without a federal-state

agreement designating Louisiana as operator of the superport facility

and granting the state a share of the lease and/or operating revenues'.

Louisiana would be unable to receive any revenues from the facility.

Louisiana's responsibilities and financial burden attributable to the

superport would not be diminished since the need for onshore support

faciliti6s, transportation corridors, and general governmental services

in the coastal zone would be unchanged.

The argument of prospective users of the superport

located beyond the state's jurisdiction will be that the superport itself

is clearly beyond the state's power to tax since it is outside of the

state's jurisdiction. Absent a special federal-state agreement as

indicated above, this argument is incontrovertible. They will also argue

that coastal support facilities and pipelines are exempt from state and

local taxation because they are engaged in interstate commerce. The

operation of a superport oil terminal would be a typical example. The

oil would be discharged from supertankers into undersea pipelines which

would transport the oil to an inland tank farm. To maintain the pipeline's

operation through Louisiana only compressor and pumping stations would be

85 See note 71, supra.

required. As needed, the oil could then be pumped out of the tank

farm and into an interstate pipeline to refineries in other states.

The petroleum companies can argue that the oil pipeline and support

facilities are used exclusively in interstate commerce and are thus

subject to the well-settled doctrine that Congress has the exclusive

power under the Commerce Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8, cl. 3) to regulate

interstate commerce and even where Congress has failed to act on the

subject in the area of taxation, the power granted to it requires

that interstate commerce be free from any direct restrictions or
impositions by the states. 86 This view is accepted by Louisiana

jurisprudence. In a similar situation the First Circuit Court of

Appeals held in Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Mouton, 228 So. 2d 718 (1st

Cir. 1969) that a pipeline company engaged in picking up petroleum

products in Louisiana and discharging products in Louisiana,

but never discharging in Louisiana products picked up in Louisiana

(which company also was qualified to do business, file suit, appoint

agents, and exercise eminent domain in Louisiana) was not subject to

Louisiana franchise taxes payable for the privilege of doing business

in Louisiana.

This view raises serious questions. Due to its

proximity to favorable superport sites, Louisiana's coastal zone could

not avoid becoming the location for pipelines and onshore support

86
Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S.
450, 79 S. Ct. 357, 3 L. Ed. 2d 421, 67 A.L.R. 2d 1292(19@_9).

facilities for any superport constructed off of Louisiana's coast.

A rigid interpretation of the Commerce Clause in this instance would

have the effect of making Louisiana the insurer and protector of the

pipelines and onshore facilities, as well as the responsible guardian

against potential environmental damage, without being able to realize

anything for the risks undertaken or costs incurred.

Another view of the relationship of state taxation

to the Commerce Clause holds that a state tax can be exacted even

against a.business engaged exclusively in interstate commerce provided

the tax is compensation for the protection of local activities. In

line with this reasoning, Memphis Natural Gas v. Stone, 335 U.S. 80,

58 S. Ct. 1475 (1948), held that a foreign gas corporation operating

a pipeline through Mississippi and engaged exclusively in interstate

commerce was liable for a "franchise or excise tax" imposed on every

corporation equal to $1.50 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof of the

capital used, invested, or employed in the exercise of any power,

privilege, or right enjoyed by such corporation. Even the First

Circuit Court of Appeals in Colonial Pipeline v. Mouton, 228 So. 2d 718

Ust Cir. 1969), recognized that some taxes against a company engaged

exclusively in interstate commerce are valid such as ad valorem taxes

(Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U.S. 688, 15 S. Ct. 268, 39

L. Ed. 311); a use tax (Hanneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577,

57 S. Ct. 524, 81 L. Ed. 814); and an income tax (properly apportioned

under Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S.

450, 79 S. Ct. 357, 3 L. Ed. 2d 421, 67 A.L.R. 2d 1292). In this complex

area of the law where decisions often turn on such fact determinations

as whether the activity is actually interstate commerce or whether

there are sufficient local activities to justify taxation, no clear

cut answers are available. Additional research is required including

the education of public officials concerning their options in this

area.

2. Coastal Zone Management and Planning

It is probable that a coastal zone management act, or
land use management act, will soon be passed by Congress. 87 The

Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources, created

by Act 35 of 1971, has been charged with the development of a coastal

zone management plan for the state. Coordination and cooperation must

be sought between those charged with formulating the Superport Authority

Development Program and those who will be responsible for coastal zone

management as their interests are complementary.

Special attention must be directed to providing a legal

framework in which new uses of the coastal zone can be accomodated

while the traditional users such as fishermen., oysterman, navigators,

87 S. 3507 (National Coastal Zone Management Act) was unanimously
passed by the Senate. HR 14146 (companion coastal zone management
measure) awaits House floor action (as of July 8, 1972). HR 7211
(National Land Policy, Planning and Management Act) awaits action by
the Rules Committee and S 632 (to establish a national land use policy)
has been reported by the Senate Interior Committee. S 2401 (the
National Resource Lands Management Act) awaits action.

etc., are protected and long-term values of the region sustained.

To a certain extent this will involve the ranking of priorities

for use when multiple uses are incompatible through an analysis

of environmental, economic, social, and political criteria. Where

the shared use of available resources is feasible, the Superport

Authority Development Program must formulate those regulations which

will assure open access to the resources and provide for their most

efficient shared use.

In certain instances the Act seeks to assure traditional

coastal zone users that the advent of superport development will not

result in a net loss to them. Section 3113(K) makes clear that the

authority of the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission to

protect fish and game will not be diminished in any way. Section

3109(C)(4) provides that if state waterbottoms are taken for superport

purposes on which there has been granted an oyster lease by the Louis-

iana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, the private oyster lessee must
be reimbursed by the Authority for the actual market value of the lease. 88

88 This section clarifies the point that the oyster lessee must
be compensated for the actual market value of the lease rather than
the value of one year's crop of oysters or a similar restrictive
standard.

As the outlines of superport development emerge and the user conflicts

can be more accurately identified, additional research will be necessary

in order to draft new regulations to deal with these complex issues.

Another critical aspect of coastal zone management is

planning the growth and inter-relationships of all modes of trans-

portation in Louisiana's coastal zone. Since the Superport development

will tend to generate pipelines, additional barge and land traffic, and

other spin-off developments, it is essential that the Superport pro-

gram be an integral part of general transportation planning for the

coastal zone, under the overall umbrella of coastal zone management

principles. Research needs to be done in determining the specific

mechanisms for insuring that such cooperation and coordination comes

about.

3. Implementing the Environmental Protection Plan

The Environmental Protection Plan is a regulation of the

Authority which can be amended to meet the changes of both the Authority

Development Program and the local, state, and federal regulations deal-

ing with environmental protection. Numerous regulations exist dealing

with environmental impact statements, construction in navigable waters,

oil pollution, safety, and others. As the specifics of the Superport

Development Program progress, environmental considerations must be

dealt with at each stage. Meeting these requirements for regulations

will necessitate research into specific rules to be promulgated for

dealing with matters as they arise over the coming years.

4. Comparative Studies.

Much can be gained from a systematic review of the

experience of other jurisdictions in dealing with major deep water

port developments and in the organization of a statewide system for

waterborne commerce. Research is needed in the experience of other

deep water ports of the world--notably those in Japan, the Netherlands

and France. Understanding how other states of the United States have

handled port systems may assist Louisiana in developing a more coordin-

ated and comprehensive approach to water transportation--avoiding much

of the politics and unnecessary competition found today.

III. International and State-Federal Aspects of a Gulf of Mexico

Superport

A. Introduction

Because legal rules applicable to the conduct of activities

in the ocean change as one moves seaward from the coastline, it is

relevant to a discussion of international legal issues concerning

Superport siting whether the location is (1) less than three miles

from the coastline, (2) between three and twelve miles from the coast-

line, or (3) beyond twelve miles from the coast. This will in turn

depend upon the location of the baseline from which the breadth of the

territorial sea is measured.

If the superport were to be located entirely within the

three miles of the coast (the present breadth of the territorial sea

claimed by the United States) then there are few international legal

issues which. arise--certainly none concerning competence of the coastal

state to make whatever use of its territorial waters and underlying

seabed it sees fit. However, if the location were beyond the three

mile limit, the seabed would today be classified as continental shelf

and the superjacent waters as high seas. It will thus be necessary to

examine the legal regime applicable to those two areas of ocean

space.

As will be noted post the United States has proposed an

international agreement fixing the breadth of the territorial sea at

twelve miles. Even considering that the twelve mile limit might be

in effect at the time of completion of any superport, the area beyond

twelve miles would still be subject to the regimes of the continental

shelf and the high seas.

B. Alternatives

The major problems are whether the construction of such a

facility is consistent with the rights appertaining to coastal states

either under customary international law or through international

agreements and, if such rights exist, the extent to which the coastal

state would be able to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over activities

conducted thereon.

1. Site Within Three Miles of the Coastline

Within the limit of the territorial sea, the juris-

diction of the coastal state is virtually absolute. The Convention on

the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 89 provides:

The sovereignty of a State extends, beyond
its land territory and its internal waters to a belt of
sea adjacent to its coast, described as the territorial
sea (Art. l[lD.

The sovereignty of a coastal State extends to
the air space over the territorial sea as well as to
its bed and subsoil (Art. 2).

Thus, within the territorial sea, the coastal state may make use of

the seabed or water column it desires, subject only to the rights of

innocent passage and entry in distress. The construction of a super-

port fac'ility would clearly fall within the scope of coastal state

competence.

Further, there are no significant state-Federal legal
problems in this area since pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act 90

coastal states in the United States were granted title to the submerged
lands lying within three miles of the coastline. 91 However, the

Federal Government did retain a "navigational servitude" in the Submerged

89 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone
(done April 29, 1958, 15 U.S.T. 1606 (1964), T.I.A.S. No. 5639, 516
U.N.T.S. 205, in force September 10, 1964) (Territorial Sea Convention
hereinafter). The United States is a party to the Territorial Sea
Convention.
90 43 U.S.C. Secs. 1301-15(1964) (originally enacted as Act of May
22, 1953, ch. 65, 67 Stat. 29).
91 This is an oversimplification. In fact, Florida (Gulf Coast)
and Texas acquired, pursuant to the Act and subsequent litigation, three
marine leagues of submerged lands. All other states, including Louisiana,
were limited to three geographical miles, however. On the relation of
the state-Federal submerged lands controversy to the superport, see
Section C.2, post.

Lands Act and thus,, even though the superport might be situated

entirely within three miles of Louisiana's coastline, compliance

with navigational rules and procedures of the Federal Government,

including the duty to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers to erect a structure in navigable waters of the United

States, will be applicable.

Finally, and as will be discussed in Section C.2,

post, the "coastline" of Louisiana, from which the three mile limit

is to be measured, has not finally been determined. The outcome of

that litigation will, therefore, have an effect on the legal regime

applicable to the superport.

2. Site Between Three and Twelve Miles from the Coastline

As if the state-Federal boundary uncertainties were

not enough, the question of the breadth of the territorial sea is not

subject to an agreed international norm at the present time either. In

the traditional Western European and United States view a breadth of

three miles was regarded as the maximum permissible under customary

rules of international law, but in the light of the large number of

claims to six, twelve, and even 200 miles, it can no longer be said
that any particular breadth is universally accepted. 92 Evidence does

suggest that the distance of twelve miles is emerging as a rule of

92 The latest State Department tabulation shows 32% of coastal
states claiming three miles, 56% claiming four to twelve miles (42%
claiming exactly 12 miles), and 12% claiming in excess of twelve miles.

customary law for the breadth of the territorial sea, and the United

States has publically advocated international agreement on that

breadth. In a speech delivered in February,1970, John R. Stevenson,

Legal Advisor to the Department of State, noted:

we believe the time is right for the conclusion
of a new international treaty fixing the limitation
of the territorial sea at 12 miles, and providing
for freedom of transit through and over international
straits and carefully defined preferential fishing
rights for coastal States on the high seas.93
At the July-August, 1971 meeting of the United Nations Seabed Committee, 94

the United States Government submitted "Draft Articles on the Breadth

of the Territorial Sea, Straits, and Fisheries," which provide for a

twelve mile maximum for territorial sea breadth, "free" (vis-a-vis the

present regime of "innocent") passage through international straits,
and a system of preferential fishing rights for coastal states. 95

Comments made by delegations of other nations at the July-August, 1971

93 Stevenson, International Law and the Oceans," 62 Dept. State
Bull. 339, 342(1970). See also, "U.S. Outlines Position on Limit of
Territorial Sea," 62 Dept. State Bull. 343(1970).
94 United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed
and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction (Seabed
Committee hereinafter), established by U.N. General Assembly Resolution
2467A (21 December 1968). The Seabed Committee originally had 42
members, but membership was expanded to 86 in December, 1970 (G.A. Res.
2750C [XXV]), and to 91 in December, 1971. The Seabed Committee is
acting as a preparatory group for the Third United Nations Conference
on the Law of the Sea, scheduled for 1973 (see note 96 post).
95 U.N. Doc. A/Ac.138/SC.II/L.4 (30 July 1971).

meeting of the Seabed Committee, as well as statistical surveys, show

overwhelming support (far above the 2/3 majority needed for adoption

of treaty articles at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law
of the Sea) 96 for the twelve mile limit. However, the United States

offer of acquiesence in a twelve mile limit is coupled to controversial

proposals concerning passage through straits and preferential fishing

rights which may endanger the prospects for agreement on the maximum

breadth for the territorial sea. Even so, it seems likely that by

1980 the twelve mile maximum will be international law, either through

development of a customary international law rule on the subject or

.through international agreement. If such an international law standard

establishing 12 miles as a maximum breadth should exist, the United

States Government would still have to domestically adopt that limit for

it to be applicable to this Nation.

Thus, if the superport were located between the three

and twelve mile limits, two possibilities exist:

(1) If the territorial sea of the United States is

extended to twelve miles, then the same analysis given in Section B.1,

supra, is applicable. In short, no significant international legal

96 In December, 1970, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
Resolution 2750C calling for a Third United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea to be held sometime during 1973 unless postponed by the
twenty seventh session of the General Assembly in 1972 on grounds of
insufficient progress of preparatory work. The issues to be dealt with
at the 1973 Conference include "the regimes of .... the territorial sea
(including the question of its breadth and the question of international
straits) and contiguous zone."

problems will arise. This is not the case, as will be noted later,

with respect to state-Federal problems.

(2) If the territorial sea of the United States

remains at three miles, then the analysis given in Section B.3, post,

will be applicable. As will be noted, substantial international and

state-Federal legal questions arise in this situation.

3. Site Beyond the Limit of the Territorial Sea

(Whether Three or Twelve Miles)

If the superport facility must utilize the water

column (high seas) or the seabed (continental shelf) beyond the terri-

torial sea, then it is necessary to examine the legal regime of these

areas to determine legal feasibility.

a. The-High Seas

The situation of use of the high seas is governed
by the Convention on the High Seas 97 which provides that although "no

State may validly purport to subject any part of (the high seas) to
its sovereignty," 98 nonetheless the concept of freedom of the high seas

contemplates use of the area for such undertakings as navigation, fish-

ing, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, overflight, and

97 Convention on the High Seas (done April 29, 1958, 15 U.S.T.
2312 (1962) T.I.A.S. No. 5200, 450 U.N.T.S. 82, in force September 30,
1962). The United States is a party to the Convention on the High Seas.
98 Id., Art. 2

others which are recognized by the general principles of international
law." 99 These uses are conditioned on the principle that they shall

"be exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of
other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas." 100

Two sub-issues are thus presented: (1) is the

construction of a superport facility a permitted use within the concept

of freedom of the high seas; and (2) can such a facility exist consistent

with the "interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of

the high seas?" The equally relevant and significant issue of whether

the coastal state would have the power to regulate activities taking

place on a superport located outside the limit of the territorial sea

(assuming it had the power to locate it there in the first instance)

will be discussed in Section B.3.b., post, relating to jurisdictional

aspects of the continental shelf.

As to the first issue, the matter is made difficult

by the absence of precedent. Certainly uses other than the four enumer-

ated in the Convention on the High Seas have been made, particularly the

construction of offshore oil platforms. However, the latter practice is

99 Id.
100 Id.

specifically authorized by the Convention on the Continental Shelf. 101

No solace can be derived from the existence of giant petroleum storage

tanks located beyond the territorial sea, such as those in the Persian

Gulf and elsewhere, for they are directly related to the exploitation

of petroleum resources from the adjacent submerged lands and thus fall

within the structures permitted under the Continental Shelf Convention

as 11necessary for (continental shelf) exploration and the exploitation
of its natural resources." 102 The superport envisioned for the coast

of Louisiana would be essentially an "import" device and would not be

a necessary concomitant of petroleum, natural gas, or sulphur pro-

duction from the continental shelf underlying the Gulf of Mexico.

Since we are here dealing with an entirely new phe-

nomenon, the catch phrase "other (uses) which are recognized by the

general principles of international law" is also of little help. A

well established ocean space use such as scientific research may come

101 Convention on the Continental Shelf (done April 29, 1958, 15
U.S.T. 471 (1964), T.I.A.S. No. 5578, 499 U.N.T.S. 311, in force June
10, 1964 ("Continental Shelf Convention" hereinafter). The United
States is a party to the Continental Shelf Convention. Article 5
provides that subject to certain conditions "the coastal State is
entitled to construct and maintain or operate on the continental shelf
installations and other devices necessary for its exploration and the
exploitation of its natural resources." (Emphasis added.)
102 See note 101 supra.

under this category, but there is no history of usage concerning

superports which would qualify them under the quoted provision.

International law, however, is and always has con-

sisted of an evolving set of norms. As new technological advances

are made, especially in the oceans, new norms emerge and are subse-

quently codified. Many of the initial moves toward new legal regimes

were accomplished by "unilateral action," and this is a recognized

form of initiation of a customary rule of international law. The

doctrine of the continental shelf itself stemmed in part from a
unilateral declaration by the United States--the Truman Proclamation. 103

Thus, it is not hard to argue that, given justifications as compelling

103 Pres. Proc. No. 2667, 3 C.F.R. 1943-1948 Comp., at 67 (1945);
13 Dept. State Bull. 485 (September 30, 1945):
The Government of the United States regards the natural
resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf
beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the
United States as appertaining to the United States, subject to
its jurisdiction and control.

as those outlined in the Truman Proclamation, 104 the United States

would be as justified today as it was in 1945 in unilaterally de-

claring that superport facility construction is a reasonable use of

the high seas. If no protests were forthcoming from other nations,

and this relates to the second sub-issue, the rule would be well on

its way to international acceptance. In the unlikely event of

104 The justification for the Proclamation is contained in perambu-
latory paragraphs as follows:
WHEREAS the Government of the United States of America,
aware of the long range world-wide need for new sources of petroleum
and other minerals, holds the view that efforts to discover and
made available new supplies of these resources should be encouraged;
and

WHEREAS its competent experts are of the opinion that such
resources underlie many parts of the continental shelf off the coasts
of the United States of America, and that with modern technological
progress their utilization is already practicable or will become so
at an early date; and
WHEREAS recognized jurisdiction over these is required in
the interest of their conservation and prudent utilization when
and as development is undertaken; and

WHEREAS it is the view of the Government of the United
States that the exercise of jurisdiction over the natural resources
of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf by the contiguous
nation is reasonable and just, since the effectiveness of measures
to utilize or conserve these resources would be contingent upon
cooperation and protection from the shore, since the continental
shelf may be regarded as an extension of the land-mass of the coastal
nation and thus-naturally appurtenant to it, since these resources
frequently form a seaward extension of a pool or deposit lying
within the territory, and since self-protection compels the coastal
nation to keep close watch over activities off its shores which are
of the nature necessary for utilization of these resources;

protest, modifications in the regime might have to be made. 105

The basis for such an argument is obvious--since

navigation is one of the oldest recognized freedoms of the high seas;

since technological development in ship construction now requires

drafts only found in deeper offshore waters; and since port facilities

are a.sine qua non to the exercise of the freedom of navigation;

therefore, port facilities constructed on the high seas are an accept-

able use of that area. The argument should be developed in more

detail, but these are the essential elements of the case.

One negative factor must be considered in this

regard. The International Law Commission ("I.L.C.") which acted as

the preparatory body for the 1958 United Nations Conference on the Law

of the Sea from which the Continental Shelf Convention emerged, stated

in its commentary to the draft article permitting structures for the

purpose of exploiting the natural resources of the continental shelf:

To lay down... that the exploration and exploitation
of the continental shelf must never result in any
interference whatsoever with navigation and fishing
might result in many cases in rendering somewhat
nominal both the sovereign rights of exploration and
exploitation and the very purpose of the articles
as adopted. The case is clearly one of assessment of
the relative importance of the interest involved.

105 In this regard, one might suggest that if, as required by
Article 9 of the Territorial Sea Convention for roadsteads and by
Article 5 of the Continental Shelf Convention for mineral resource
exploitation structures, appropriate notice is given, safety regu-
lations adopted and enforced, and operations conducted with due regard
to navigation in the area, there would be little if any ground for
objection by other nations.

Interference, even if substantial, with navigation and
fishing might, in some cases, be justified. On the
other hand, interference even on an insignificant
scale would be unjustified if unrelated to reasonably
conceived requirements of exploration and exploita-
tion of the continental shelf.106 (Emphasis added.)

One view is that a well reasoned and cogent set of justifications for

unilateral action would outweigh the pronouncements of the I.L.C. made

some sixteen years ago without benefit of knowledge of the tremendous

developments in the construction of ocean-going tankers which was to

107
come.

b. The Continental Shelf

There are two principal issues to be

raised and discussed in connection with the use of the continental

shelf for superport purposes. First, does the coastal nation have the

jurisdiction to construct the facility (an issue considered in the

last section in terms of the high seas)? Second, if it does, and if

such a facility is constructed, does the coastal nation have jurisdiction

to regulate activities thereon (i.e., to apply its civil and criminal

law, special regulations, etc.)?

106,, Report of the International Law Commission to the General
Assembly, "Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 11 (1956),
at 299 (U.N. Doc. A/3159).
107 The only significant potential interference with other nations'
use of the area would be in the realm of fishing. However, in view of
the lack of factual complaints about offshore oil exploitation structures
in the area (juridical protests are, of course, non-existent because of
the permissive language of Article 5 of the Continental Shelf Convention),
it seems unlikely that a single installation would generate any concern.
among foreign fishing nations about interference with their fishing
activities.

Preliminarily it should be noted that some

observers feel the jurisdictional questions surrounding superport

location are entirely related to the high seas. They consider the

use of the seabed to be so incidental that no jurisdictional question

arises in regard thereto. Were the facility simply a floating

structure, temporarily anchored to the ocean floor, one might agree.

That would, of course, present all the problems of classifying the

facility as a "vessel" and its workers as "seamen." Our view, however,

in light of the fact that such a superport is more likely to be perman-

ently affixed to the seabed and that the area of submerged land will

thereby be permanently excluded from other possible uses, is that

this consists in a use of the continental shelf. Accordingly, it is

believed appropriate to analyze the issues involved in utilizing the

continental shelf for purposes of a superport.

1) Jurisdiction to Construct

Internationally, the use of the continental

shelf is governed by the customary international law doctrine of the

continental shelf and, for states party thereto, by the Continental
Shelf Convention. 108 The latter is quite explicit in terms of the uses

of the seabed covered. Articles 2 and 5 confer on coastal states

parties thereto exclusive sovereign rights "for the purpose of exploring

it and exploiting its natural resources," including the right "to

108 Note 101, supra.

100

construct and maintain or operate on the continental shelf instal-

lations and other devices necessary for its exploration and the ex-
ploitation of its natural resources." 109 A logical interpretation

of these provisions utilizing the maxim inclusio unius est exclusio

alterius would lead to the conclusion that only natural resource

extractive activities are within the exclusive purview of the coastal

state since these are the only rights conferred by the Continental

Shelf Convention, and that other used (if permitted at all) are

therefore open to all nations on an inclusive basis under the tradi-

tional doctrine of the freedom of the high seas. Indeed, the repre-

sentative of Belgium in a letter to the Secretary General of the

United Nations raising this very issue before the United Nations

Seabed Committee observed:

It follows clearly from these provisions that an instal-
lation which is not used for the exploration or exploi-
tation of the natural resources of the continental shelf
does not come under the jurisdiction of the coastal
State. This would apply to an artificial structure the
only purpose of which is to serve as a port. . .

In the event that structures of this kind were to be
built, they could not be included within any jurisdiction
under the existing international law.110

109 Note 101 supra Arts. 2(l, 2) and 5(2).
110 U.N. Doc. A/Ac.138/35 (3 May 1971). The letter requested
inclusion on the agenda of the United Nations Seabed Committee of an
item concerning the question of "Jurisdiction over artificial islands,
or artificial installations on the high seas." The letter stated:
The Belgian Government received a proposal from a private
source for the offshore construction, more than twenty-$even
kilometres from the Belgian coast, of an artificial port for
the unloading of heavy tankers. The proposed site is on the
Belgian continental shelf.

101

The question dealt with in the Belgian situation is more pertinent

to the issue of jurisdiction to regulate than to jurisdiction to

construct and, accordingly, further discussion thereof is postponed

until Section B.3.b.2, dealing with regulatory jurisdiction.

The interpretation of the customary inter-

national law rules relating to the continental shelf presents a

somewhat more difficult problem of analysis for those rules are less

well defined than the rights conferred by the Convention. The most

precise formulation of the doctrine was given by the International

Court of Justice in 1969 in its decision in the North Sea Continental

ill
Shelf Cases as follows:

the most fundamental of all the rules of law
relating to the continental shelf, enshrined in
Article 2 of the 1958 Geneva Convention, though
quite independent of it, (is) . . . that the rights
of the coastal State in respect of the area of
continental shelf that constitutes a natural
prolongation of its land territory into and under the
sea exists ipso facto and ab initio, by virtue of
its sovereignty over the land, and as an extension
of it in an exercise of sovereign rights for the
purpose of exploring the seabed and exploiting its
natural resources . . . (This right) is "exclusive"
in the sense that if the coastal State does not choose
to explore or exploit the areas of shelf appertaining
to it, that is its own affair, but no one else may do
so without its express consent.112

If the Court's pronouncement is authoritative

(and it must be remembered that the issue before the Court was neither

ill North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, (1969) I.C.J. 3.
112 Id., para. 19 of the majority opinion.

102

the seaward extent of the continental shelf nor the nature of coastal

states' rights therein, but rather the delimitation of lateral shelf

boundaries between adjacent countries) then one can also logically

conclude that the rights of the coastal state apply only with respect

to the exploration for and exploitation of the natural resources of

the area and that other uses must be made on an inclusive basis.

The argument may be advanced that the term

11natural resources" should be liberally interpreted to include

virtually any use of the seabed and subsoil, for the seabed itself is

a resource of value in the economic sense if any commer cial or

governmental enterprise depends upon the use, either permanently or

temporarily, of some portion thereof. It is believed that this approach

is inconsistent with the intent of the framers of the Continental

Shelf Convention (as well as the practice with respect to the conti-

nental shelf which has evolved into the rules of customary international

law concerning it), for states up until recently--and most particularly

in 1958 when the Convention was drafted--have been concerned exclusively

with the extraction of petroleum, natural gas, sulphur, some hard

minerals, and certain species of sedentary fishes, and not with any of

the newer uses of the seabed which are now gaining public attention.

Further, the Continental Shelf Convention specifically defines "natural

resources" as consisting of:

the mineral and other non-living resources
of the seabed and subsoil together with

103

living organisms belonging to sedentary
species . . . 113

It is unknown at present whether the Belgian delegate's suggestion

for international resolution of the issue will be acted upon favorably.

However, at least one formal proposal submitted to the United Nations

Seabed Committee envisions giving coastal states the authority needed

to make such "other" uses of their continental shelves. Dr. Arvid

Pardo, in his "Draft Ocean Space Treaty" which was submitted to the
United Nations Seabed Committee meeting on 23 August 1971, 114 proposes

inclusion of the following provision:

Art. 62. Subject to the provisions of this
Convention, the coastal state may construct,
on or under the seabed of national ocean space
[from the coastline to 200 miles seaward thereof]
habitats, installations, equipment and devices
for peaceful purposes provided that
Art. 63. The coastal state may construct, and
maintain or operate in national ocean space
artificial islands, floating harbours or other
installations for peaceful purposes, anchored
to the seabed, provided that . . . .

The provisos relate to the establishment of safety zones and the like.

Should a provision such as Dr. Pardo's be adopted at the 1973

Conference, the matter would be clear.

113 Convention on the Continental Shelf, note 101 supra, Art. 2(4).
114 "Draft Ocean Space Treaty: Working Paper Submitted by
Malta," U.N. Doc. A/AC.138/53 (23 August 1971).

104

Domestically, there are a number of factors

bearing on the question of jurisdiction to construct, all turning

more or less on the feasibility and basis for unilateral action.

This route seems to be required in view of the unanimity of opinion

on the question of expressly permitted uses of the continental shelf.

First, there is the judicial pronouncement
in the case of United States v. Ray. 115 In this decision, the United

States Court of Appeals upheld an injunction requested by the United

States Government to prevent certain entrepreneurs from constructing

an artificial island attached to coral reefs on the continental shelf

off the coast of Florida and outside the limits of territorial waters.

Although the Government had framed its request for injunctive relief

in the form of a trespass allegation, the Court suggested that the

allegation was inaccurately framed and that what was in fact sought

was "restraint from interference with rights to an area which apper-

tains to the United States and which under national and international
law is subject not only to its jurisdiction but its control as well. 116

The Court coupled these "rights," and the "vital interests" of the

United States in preventing infringement of those rights, and found

the result sufficient to warrant injunctive relief. It must be conceded,

115 United States v. Ray, 423 F. 2d 16 (5 Cir. 1970). Lower court
opinion 294 F. Supp. 532 (S.D. Fla. 1969).
116 United States v. Ray, 423 F. 2d 16, 22 (5 Cir. 1970).

105

however, that the case is not of definitive import on the issue of

non-extractive uses of the seabed since the affected seabed area was

coral, a living resource within the definition in the Convention on
the Continental Shelf, 117 and thus did not hold that the coastal
state had exclusive rights with respect to non-extractive uses. 118

However, the classification of the interest of the coastal state in

terms of "rights," and the utilization of the "vital interests"

doctrine compels one to believe that executive and legislative, as

well as judicial.organs of government are likely to respond in the

same fashion. In view, however, of the adversary litigative process

which accompanied it, and the request of the Department of Justice

117 Article 2M of the Continental Shelf Conventions provides:

The natural resources referred to in these articles
consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the
sea-bed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging
to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at
the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the
sea-bed or are unable to move except in constant physical
contact with the sea-bed or the subsoil.
118 In fact, the Court specifically states
(The evidence) fully establishes that the structures
herein involved interfere with the exclusive rights of the
United States under the Convention to explore the Continental
Shelf and exploit its natural resources. Under the circum-
stances we do not decide what the result would be if the
structures did not interfere with the rights of the United
States as recognized by the Convention, our decision being
limited to the particular facts of this case. (Emphasis
added.) This language was modified from that of the slip
opinion at the specific request of the Department of Justice
in order that United States' rights in its continental shelf
not be overstated.

106

for revision of the original slip opinion which, in the opinion of

Justice, overstated the nature of United States rights in its

continental shelf area, it can hardly be said that Ray represents

any definitive view of the United States Government on the question

of non-extractive uses of the continental shelf. There is only one

other decision which discusses the issue, viz., Ministre de'Etat

charg6 de la D4fense nationale et Ministre.de 1'Equipement et du

Longement v. Starr et British Commonwealth Insurance Co., 1970 Revue

Generale de Droit International Public 1114 (Conseil D'Etat, December
7, 1970) an analysis of which 119 quotes the French court as holding

that "(t)he littoral State enjoys rights over the continental shelf

which are exclusive and independent of any occupation, but these

rights are limited to the aims fixed by the (Continental Shelf)

Convention and defined in France by the Law of December 30, 1968.

The continental shelf thus does not form part of the national terri-

tory. This ends at the limit of the territorial waters." There has

not been an opportunity to review the actual text of the decision,

but if the review is accurate there now exists another national court

decision to support the Ray analysis, albeit Ray has implicit value

for asserting jurisdiction for non-extractive purposes.

One basis for a unilateral declaration or

act of the Truman Proclamation variety is found in Section 3(a) of

119
See 3 Journal of Maritime Law and Comerce 189 (1971).

107

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 120 the vehicle under which

the United States administers its outer continental shelf lands.

That section provides:

It is hereby declared to be the policy
of the United States that the subsoil and seabed of
the outer Continental Shelf appertain to the United
States and are subject to its jurisdiction, control,
and power of disposition as provided in this Act.

Elsewhere in the Act, as in the Truman Proclamation and the Continental

Shelf Convention, jurisdiction is stated in terms of the natural

resources of the seabed and subsoil. In the quoted provision, however,

it is the seabed and subsoil itself which is said to come under United

States "jurisdiction, control, and power of disposition." Granted, the

Act speaks only of oil, gas, sulphur, and other minerals in its

"disposition" provisions, but one can argue that there is more juris-

diction here than simply control over resource extractive activities.

In the last analysis, however, and barring

adoption of a Pardo type proposal, sara, the United States would have

to be taking unilateral action (or perhaps action in concert with

other nations equally situated) just as in the case of the high seas

use.

2) Jurisdiction to Regulate

Assuming the superport is constructed,

120 43 U.S.C. Secs. 1331-43 (1964) )originally enacted as Act of
August 7, 1953, ch. 345, 67 Stat. 462).

108

the second issue is whether or not the adjacent coastal nation has

the requisite jurisdiction to regulate activities undertaken there.

This is obviously of some importance, since although the United States

retains jurisdiction over its nationals wherever situated, some special

basis of jurisdiction would have to be found for non-U.S. nationals

working on the facility.

Since, as noted above, the Belgian

Government has apparently taken a closer look at this issue than other

nations, it is appropriate to return to that source for a moment.

Speaking at the July-August, 1971

meeting of the United Nations Seabed Committee, Alfred van der Essen,

the Belgian delegate, emphasized the difficulties involved in using a

portion of the continental shelf for construction of a superport:

In Belgium, bills introduced into parliament
were first submitted to the Conseil d'Etat for a legal
opinion on their content. The bill, which had become the
law of 13 June 1969 on the Belgian continental shelf, had
therefore been studied by that authority. The opinion of
the Conseil d'Etat was that an installation which was not
used for the exploration or exploitation of the natural
resources of the continental shelf did not come under
Belgian jurisdiction. Belgium could take legal action
against its own nationals, who could always be brought
before the court of their place of domicile for an offense
committed outside the territory. That, however, was not
the case for foreigners, who might well be numerous among
the staff of an artificial port.121 (Emphasis added.)

The Belgian Council of State recommended
modifying an earlier version of the Belgian law of 13 June 1969 on the

121 U.N. Doc. A/AC.138/SC.II/SR.4-23 at 66 et seg.

109

basis that it asserted more jurisdiction than was permissible under

international law. The earlier draft, embodying many of the princi-

ples of the Continental Shelf Convention (to which Belgium is not a

party), was modified to make it clear that Belgium was only asserting

jurisdiction over structures on the continental shelf designed for

the exploration or exploitation of its natural resources and not for

any broader purpose. This change, which was in accord with what the

government stated to be the purpose of the law, and which was in

accord with the preliminary article of the law setting forth this

purpose, was made in order to delete language which would have

literally given Belgium jurisdiction over all permanent installations

situated on the high seas on the Belgian continental shelf.

One can readily disagree with this

conclusion in view of the provisions of Article 9 of the Territorial

Sea Convention dealing with readsteads. There is inferential authority

in the Territorial Sea Convention for the use of areas of the high

seas for port-like activities:

Roadsteads which are normally used for the loading,
unloading and anchoring of ships, and which would
otherwise be situated wholly or partly outside the
outer limit of the territorial sea, are included
in the territorial sea. (Art. 9)122

By giving territorial sea status to such areas, coastal state competence

to regulate activities undertaken there would clearly be accorded.

122 A roadstead is "(a) sheltered, offshore anchorage area for
ships." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969)
at 1122.

110

However, it can only inferred from this language that the coastal

state has the authority to construct a superport facility for it is

unknown whether the term "roadsteads" as used in the Territorial Sea

Convention includes the modern concept of a superport.

The only relevant comment in the legis-

lative history of the Territorial Sea Convention is that of the United

States delegate who stated that "(t)he purpose of (Article 9) was to

ensure that the coastal State could exercise police powers and general
jurisdiction in its roadsteads . . ." 123 There would appear to be

two arguments which might support the use of the water column outside

the territorial sea for superport purposes: (1) superports are, in

function, identical to roadsteads, and therefore the coastal state has

territorial sea jurisdiction following their construction (this begs

the question of initial jurisdiction to construct, of course); or

(2) although not identical, their functions are sufficiently analogous

that the framers of the provision could be considered to have envisioned

technological advances which would produce more sophisticated and

complex "roadsteads," so long as the same basic purposes were served

(such roadsteads have been delimited in the Gulf of Mexico in connection
with the delimitation of shipping safety fairways). 124

123 111 Official Records, United Nations Conference on the Law of
the Sea 143 (1958), U.N. Doc. A/CONF.13/39.
124 See Knight, "Shipping Safety Fairways: Conflict Amelioration
in the Gulf of Mexico," 1 J. Maritime L. & Comm. 1 (1969).

ill

In a personal communication to the

authors, Alfred van der Essen disputed this contention, arguing

that the French work "rade" as used in Article 9 has a definite and

precise meaning of an extent of sea enclosed in part by land, more

or less elevated, which offers to cargo vessels shelter and other
port facilities. 125 This is at variance with definition quoted
above 126 in its requirement of land enclosure. Further, Webster's
New World Dictionary 127 and the Oxford Dictionary of English Ety-
mology 128 make reference respectively to "a protected place near

shore" and "sheltered water where ships may ride," thus leaving open

the possibility of extension of definition through technological

advancement without having to tie the area to land enclosure.

We are of the opinion, in view of the

legislative history of the Territorial Sea Convention and recent

technological advances in port construction, that a superport facility

could be validly assimilated to a roadstead and that territorial sea

jurisdiction would therefore be applicable under Article 9.

An important ancillary issue relates to

the fact that although the State of Louisiana is championing the case

125 Letter from Alfred van der Essen to H. Gary Knight, March 30,
1972.
126 Note 122 supra.
127 Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (1964)
at 1259.
128 The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966) at 770.

112

for location of a superport off the mouth of the Mississippi River,

if the facility is built beyond the three mile limit it will be on
submerged lands subject to Federal jurisdiction. 129 The Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Act provides in Section 4(a)(1) that the

"Wonstitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the

United States" are to be applicable to the outer continental shelf

and to structures erected thereon for resource extractive purposes.

Interestingly, Section 4(a)(2), which provides that "(t)o the

extent they are applicable and not inconsistent with this Act or with

other Federal laws and regulations of the Secretary (of the Interior)

. . . the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent State as of the

effective date of this Act are hereby declared to be the law" for

the seabed and for artificial islands and fixed structures, the latter

not being conditioned on relation to resource extractive activities.

Thus an argument can be made for appli-

cation of Louisiana law to facilities not designed for resource

extractive purposes. In view of the overall legislative intent of the

Act, however, it is not believed that this gives Louisiana or any other

state a particularly strong argument to jurisdiction over continental

shelf activities, particularly when the law is limited to that in

force as of "the effective date of this Act."

129 Even if the United States should adopt a twelve mile limit for
its territorial sea, the boundary line between Federal and Louisiana
submerged lands will remain at three miles, for the Submerged Lands Act
speaks in terms of the fixed distance (three geographical miles), not
in terms of the breadth of the territorial sea. See also Section C.2.
post.

113

In light of the above analysis, we are

of the opinion that although a strict interpretation of existing

international law affords no express authority to either construct

or to regulate activities on a superport facility, nonetheless there

are no express prohibitions and, accordingly, carefully structured

unilateral action to effect such a user of the high seas and the

continental shelf should not meet with protest and should afford the

United States the jurisdiction it requires to carry.out this proposed

project.

C. Related Issues

There remain for consideration a number of ancillary, but

important, issues.

1. Foreign Policy Interests of the United States

The possible effect of a unilateral use of the seabed

and water column for superport purposes on current law of the sea

negotiations is not likely to be overlooked by the United States

Government. Preliminary inquiries of members of the Executive Branch

indicate that such a project would probably be viewed primarily as a

new use of the high seas, and not as a use of the seabed in the sense

contemplated in the Continental Shelf Convention. Although areas of

seabed would be occupied to the exclusion of other uses, nonetheless

it does not (in this view) constitute the type of extractive enterprise

which was the genesis of the Truman Proclamation of 1945 and, subse-

quently, the Continental Shelf Convention.

We have some doubts, however, whether the State Department

would approve wholeheartedly any such project in view of the delicate

114

nature of the current law of the sea deliberations at the United

Nations. By analogy, the State Department has adamantly opposed the

construction of straight baselines along areas of the United States

coast which are entirely suitable for such treatment on the grounds

that to do so would prejudice our international negotiating position

on certain questions relating to the delimitation of straight base-

lines by outlying archipelago nations and the breadth of the terri-

torial sea. Further, the Department of Defense is quite concerned

with a loosely defined phenomenon called "creeping jurisdiction"

through which a coastal state purportedly acquires steadily increasing

jurisdiction or competence over adjacent ocean space areas until such

time as that jurisdiction approaches or reaches the level of a

territorial sea claim.

The construction of a facility using the seabed and high

seas in a manner heretofore not contemplated would seem to be parallel

to such unilateral acts or declarations as the delimitation of straight

baselines, and also a type of additional jurisdictional claim involved

in the "creeping jurisdiction" hypothesis.

Thus, it is possible that,when the Corps of Engineers

circulates its notice of application for a permit to erect a structure

in navigable waters, the State Department or the Department of Defense

might file a letter of objection, or suggest imposition of certain

conditions with respect to the project.

2. State-Federal Submerged Lands Litigation Issues

The determination of where the seaward limit of

115

the territorial sea is depends on the location of the "baseline."

The provisions for delimiting the baseline are contained, for inter-

national purposes, in the Territorial Sea Convention. In United
States v. California 130 the United States Supreme Court adopted the

standards in the Territorial Sea Convention for purposes of delimiting

the boundary between the Federal Government and the several coastal

states in the submerged lands controversy. The location of the base-

line off the Louisiana coast has not yet been finally determined in

all places. It is likely that the Special Master now hearing the case

will submit his report to the Court in the fall or winter, 1972, and

that a final decision can be obtained before mid-1973. Until this

decision is available, it will not be possible to know precisely the

location of the superport in relation to the territorial sea boundary.

Thus it will be necessary to follow closely this domestic litigation,

as it is affected by international agreements and standards.

It should be noted that extension of the territorial sea

of the United States to a twelve mile breadth will have no effect on

the location of the state-Federal boundary, because the Submerged

Lands Act specifies "three geographical miles" as the area under state

jurisdiction and makes no reference to the breadth of the territorial

sea.

130 381 U.S. 139 (1965).

116

A further aspect of the state-Federal submerged lands

controversy is the substantial ill-will generated on both sides over

a long period of time. This is particularly pronounced in Louisiana's

case. Thus, it is likely that the representatives of the Justice

Department, who handle the litigation for the Federal Government,

will view dimly any proposals to give Louisiana any form of juris-

diction on outer continental shelf lands, even for superport purposes

unrelated to natural resource extraction. There is, of course, no

reason why an appropriate agreement could not be negotiated, taking

into consideration the economic impact (both beneficial and detrimental)

of the facility on Louisiana and the interest of the Federal Government,

through its Maritime Administration, in having a deep draft superport

in the Gulf of Mexico. Nonetheless, the negotiations will have to be

approached from the realities of domestic law, viz., that the Federal

government has exclusive jurisdiction over activities conducted beyond

the three mile limit and Louisiana has no legal right, title, or

interest in this area. On the other hand, both the Federal Government

and Louisiana stand to benefit substantially from a superport located

off the mouth of the Mississippi River, and appropriate concessions by

both parties can bring about realization of those benefits.

Finally, a technical point on the relative positions of

Texas and Florida concerning limits of offshore jurisdiction is

appropriate. As a result of litigation following enactment of the

Submerged Lands Act, Texas and Florida were granted three marine

leagues of submerged lands, other states receiving only three goegraphical

117

miles. The issue is whether Texas and Florida have, in the lands

granted to them beyond the three mile limit, rights to construct a

superport facility. Our opinion is that they do not--that they

stand no better in this area than any of the other coastal states

of the United States.

The basis for this assertion is as follows:

(1) The United States, through the Submerged Lands Act,

could only grant to the several states in 1953 what title or juris-

diction it then had. In 1953, the United States had full sovereignty

within three miles; but beyond that had only the right, under the

customary international law doctrine of the continental shelf (the

Continental Shelf Convention did not enter into force until 1964),

to explore for and exploit the natural resources of the seabed and

subsoil. In the area between three miles and three leagues, the

United States possessed no other rights vis-a-vis other nations.

(2) Thus, although the Submerged Lands Act purported to grant

full title (including title to fish and for any other purpose), nothing

additional (to continental shelf rights) were granted to Texas and

Florida in the three mile to three league area because the United

States did not have it to grant.

.(3) Accordingly, jurisdiction to construct a superport in

the area between three miles and three leagues off the coast of Texas

and Florida lies with the United States, not with those states.

This is, of course, only one opinion. The issue is currently

being litigated in Original No. 54 before the United States Supreme

118

Court on the issue of fishing rights in the three mile to three league

area. Determination on that issue will be dispositive of the super-

port issue, however, for the legal basis of the arguments is the same.

3. Withdrawal of Areas Adjacent to the Superport

The continental shelf resources off the coasts of this

Nation are administered under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

It is possible that an internal conflict could arise between the

desire to utilize a given area for, say, the production of petroleum

and natural gas, and the need to use the same area for a superport.

The administration of outer continental shelf ("OCS") lands is rife
with such conflicts. 131 Certainly the future plans of the Department

of the Interior for leasing outer continental shelf lands for the

extraction of oil, gas, sulphur, and other minerals should be carefully

checked in siting the superport. Although considering that the relative-

ly small area required for a superport would probably permit directional

drilling to recover petroleum or natural gas resources beneath it, the

desirability of having the fewest possible offshore structures within

several miles of the facility would indicate the desirability also of

withdrawing the immediate and surrounding area of the site selected

from leasing pursuant to the Act which provides:

The President of the United States may, from
time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the
unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf. (Sec. 1341(a)).

131 See, e.g., Study of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands of the
United States, Sections 4.74-4.78.

119

one such withdrawal, for the purposes of creating a National Park,
has already been effected. 132

Of course, if the superport is located within three miles

of the baseline, jurisdiction over the seabed lies with the State of

Louisiana, and appropriate arrangements would have to be made through

the leasing agencies of that State.

4. International and Federal Pollution Laws

The United States is party to several international

agreements concerning prevention of pollution at sea. Federal statutes

on this subject would also be applicable to United States citizens oper-

ating a superport, even if situated outside the territorial sea. The

activities conducted at any such facility would, therefore, need to be

performed in compliance with all international agreements and National

laws governing pollution prevention.

5. Navigation Interests

The creation of a superport off the mouth of the Mississippi

River will undoubtedly result in increased shipping tonnage utilizing

132 Pres. Proc. No. 3339, 3 C.F.R., 1959-1963 Comp., p. 71 (1960);
25 Fed. Reg. 2352. The proclamation withdrew from disposition under
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act certain submerged lands off the
Florida coast in order to create the Key Largo Coral Reef Preserve.
It is worthy of note in considering the likelihood of international
protest to the construction of a superport that this withdrawal by
President Eisenhower came prior to the date upon which the Continental
Shelf Convention came into force. Since the customary uses of the
shelf were exclusively theretofore for the extraction of oil and gas,
a new use was clearly being made. No protests were received to the
action.

120

the Gulf of Mexico. This will serve to exacerbate the existing

conflict between navigation interests and the erection of structures
for the production of oil and gas in the Gulf. 133 The existing

system of shipping safety fairways has not proven particularly effective
in preventing accidental collisions. 134 It may, therefore, be necessary

to assert some proprietary rights in areas of high seas in order to

protect the international community's interest in safe navigation by

designating certain corridors as mandatory routes for shipping. The

present system does not require navigation in the fairways, but simply

uses the technique of advising mariners that the designated lanes do

not contain structures. If traffic density increases substantially,

this system will probably have to be abandoned in favor of a mandatory

routing system. This, of course, runs counter to traditional concepts

of freedom of the high seas, but there is substantial support for the

creation of "property" rights on the seas where the variety and density
of uses of ocean space present conflict situations. 135

IV. Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Act of 1972 (La. R.S. Title 34,

Chap. 35)

133 See Knight, note 124 supra.
134 Id. at 18-19.
135 See, e.g., Christy, "Fishery Problems and the U.S. Draft Article,"
paper presented to the Fourth Annual Sea Grant Conference, October 13, 1971
(mimeographed) 1-9; Christy, "The Ownership of Ocean Resources," paper
presented to the Annual Convention of the Izaak Walton League of America,
July 8, 1971 (mimeographed).

121

�3101. Object; purpose of act

A. It is the object and purpose of this Act to provide for

the creation of a political subdivision of the state of Louisiana,

possessing full corporate powers, known as the Deep Draft Harbor

and Terminal Authority, hereinafter referred to as the "Authority,"

to promote, plan, finance, develop, construct, control, operate,

manage, maintain and modify a deep draft harbor and terminal within

the jurisdiction of said Authority and in order to provide the

necessary facilities for docking, loading and unloading of vessels

carrying liquid or dry bulk and energy cargoes. It is hereby declared

to be in the public interest that this Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal

Authority be created as a political subdivision of the state of

Louisiana.

B. It is further the object and purpose of this Act:

1. To promote the economic industrial wellbeing of the

existing port authorities of the state of Louisiana and to promote

interstate, national and international trade for the state of Louisiana,

its subdivisions and the area served by the Mississippi River and its

tributaries, and to provide that existing ports take such steps indi-

vidually and collectively to assure the maintenance of the economic

wellbeing of each port authority, as well as the whole;

2. To promote the industrial and petrochemical base of the

Mississippi Valley Region of the United States by providing adequate

deep draft port facilities for the handling of the cargoes of deep

draft vessels;

122

3. To promote, in addition to port operations, scientific,

recreational and all other uses of the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal

which shall be in the public interest;

4. To accommodate and plan for the technological innovations

occurring in the worldwide and domestic shipping industry to increase

efficiency and the flow of commerce through the Deep Draft Harbor

and Terminal;

5. To protect environmental values and Louisiana's unique

coastal marshland ecosystem through the adoption of an Environmental

Protection Plan;

6. To assert and protect Louisiana's economic, social and

environmental interests in the development of any Deep Draft Harbor

outside the state of Louisiana where such development may have an

impact upon the state of Louisiana;

7. To constitute the authority as a political subdivision

of the state of Louisiana and such functions exercised by the board

empowered herein shall be deemed to be held as governmental functions

of the state of Louisiana, as the exercise of the powers granted

herein will, in all respects, be to the benefit of the people of the

state, for the increase of their commerce and prosperity and for the

improvement of the economic condition;

8. To assure that the Authority shall not be required to

pay any taxes or assessments on any property acquired or used by it

under the provisions of the Act or upon the income therefrom, and

any bonds issued hereunder shall be serviced from the income of said

123

facility and shall be exempt from taxation by the state of Louisiana,

and by any municipal or political subdivision of the state.

�3102. Definitions

For the purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall

apply:

(1) "Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal" means a structure, or

series of structures or facility of any type emplaced in coastal

waters and designed to accommodate the cargo or passengers of deep

draft vessels whose draft is greater than the depths of typical

inland harbors and waterways commonly used by ocean going traffic

during the first half of the twentieth century, including all those

structures and favilities functionally related thereto and necessary

or useful to the operation thereof whether landward or seaward of the

main structure or facility itself.

(2) "Authority Development Program" means all the phases of

growth and development through which the concept of a Deep Draft

Harbor and Terminal may go, including but not limited to promoting

the concept, raising funds to support the program, planning the uses

of the facility, selecting a site for the physical facility and

support facilities, designing the structures, constructing the facility

and the support facilities, operating and maintaining the facility,

expanding or renovating the facility, modification and retirement of

the facility, and any other phases through wich Authority development

may proceed.

(3) "Environmental Protection Plan" means a written document,

124

prepared in conformity with this law, which shall be a regulation of

the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority which establishes those

steps to be followed to insure the protection of the environment

throughout all phases of the Authority Development Program.

(4) "Three Deepwater Ports" means the Board of Commissioners

of the Port of New Orleans, the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission and

the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District.

(5) "Three directors" means the director of the Louisiana

Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, the director of the Louisiana State

University Center for Wetland Resources and the Executive Director

as created herein.

(6) "Facility" means any structure or improvement actively

used on a regular basis in waterborne commerce.

(7) "Coastal waters of Louisiana" means those waters ex-

tending three nautical miles from the coastline, or beyond to the

extent of the jurisdiction of the state of Louisiana.

Nothing contained herein shall be construed to affect

Louisiana's claim to it's tidelands or the location of Louisiana's

coastline as interpreted by the State of Louisiana.

�3103. Jurisdiction; domicile

A. The Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the

Authority Development Program within the coastal waters of Louisiana.

The jurisdiction of the Authority shall not include or extend to the

taking, control or operation of existing, proposed or future facilities

of existing port authorities except by mutual agreement.

125

B. The Authority shall have the right to acquire by lease or

purchase waterbottoms inside and outside of the territorial limits

of the state of Louisiana for use in the construction, operation or

maintenance.of the facilities functionally required, related,

necessary or useful to the operation of the Authority.

C. The domicile of the Authority shall be in the city of New

Orleans; however, by appropriate act of the board of commissioners

the domicile may be relocated to an appropriate location within the

structures and facilities constructed or acquired by the Authority.

�3104. Board of commissioners; qualifications; selection;

terms; vacancies; compensation

A. The Authority shall be governed by a board of commissioners

consisting of nine members chosen on the basis of their demonstrated

experience in civic leadership and their stature and ability to act

effectively for the best interests of Louisiana.

B. All commissioners shall be appointed by the governor. Two

shall be selected from a list of nominees submitted by Louisiana's

Three Deepwater Ports, with each Deepwater Port recommending two

nominees.

Two shall be selected from each of the three Public Service

Commission Districts in the state of Louisiana.

One of the members selected from the three Public Service

Commission Districts shall be selected for his primary interest in

protecting the unique coastal environment of Louisiana.

One member shall be selected from the State at large.

126

Once a final determination is made as to the location of

the deep draft harbor and terminal, the first vacancy occurring on

the board shall be filled by appointment of a resident of a parish

in which, or offshore from which, the deep draft harbor and terminal

is to be located. This appointment shall be from a list of three

names to be submitted by the governing authority of the Parish in

which, or offshore from which, the deep draft harbor and terminal is

to be located. If the deep draft harbor and terminal is located in,

or offshore from, more than one parish, then the governing authority

of each such parish shall submit to the Governor a list of three names

and from the lists so submitted the Governor shall select said

appointee.

C. Each of the nine commissioners shall serve a five year term,

except the initial appointees.

A commissioner may not serve more than two consecutive five

year terms on the board of commissioners.

The first nine appointments shall be for terms of one member

for one year, two for two years, two for three years, two for four

years, and two for five years. The governor shall exercise his

discretion as to which nominees to appoint to the initial shortened

terms. Thereafter, all commissioners appointey as herein provided

shall serve five year terms.

D. All vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term in the

same manner as the appointment originally made, except as herein

provided. A commissioner may be removed by the governor for just cause.

127

E. The members of the board of commissioners shall serve

without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for travel expenses

incurred in attending meetings, at rates and standards as promulgated

by the American Automobile Association or a comparable recognized

standard.

�3105. Duties of Board; officers; rules; meetings; quorum

A. The board of commissioners shall be the governing body of

the Authority with full power to promulgate rules and regulations

for the maintenance and operation of said Authority.

B. The board of commissioners shall be a governing body of

laymen. It shall formulate general policy. It shall decide upon all

matter relating to the Authority Development Program. It shall adopt

an annual operating and capital budget.

C. The commissioners shall elect a president annual from among

themselves.

D. The executive director, as chosen by the commissioners,

shall be the secretary of the board.

E. The board of commissioners shall prescribe its own rules,

which shall be adopted and promulgated in accordance with law.

F. The board of commissioners shall meet at least once every

sixty days or upon the written request of three members, or upon the

written request of the president.

G. All matters to be acted upon by the board of commissioners

shall require the affirmative vote of at least five commissioners,

with the exception that the affirmative vote of not less than six

128

commissioners shall be required to select the executive director.

�3106. Annual reports; revenues dedicated to Authority;

revenue surplus; audit; central listing of employees

and investment of idle funds

A. The board of commissioners shall make an annual report to

the governor showing all receipts and disbursements of the board;

the number of arrivals and departures of vessels and their tonnage;

the exports and imports passing through the Authority; the general

condition of the Authority and its structures, facilities and other

properties; and make such recommendations for its development,

welfare and management as may seem advisable.

B. All revenues generated by the Authority are hereby dedicated

to the Authority to be used to further the purpose of this Act sub-

ject to the limitations stated herein.

Any revenues of the Authority derived from any source whatsoever

remaining at the end of each fiscal year, after the payment and satis-

faction of all obligations of the Authority under the terms of/any

resolution or resolutions authorizing the issuance of bonds hereunder,

and after paying all expenses of operating and maintaining the

Authority, providing for renewal or replacement thereof, providing

adequate reserves for continuous operation of the Authority, providing

for the acquisition or construction of improvements to such facilities

and the purchase of equipment and furnishings therefore, shall be

considered as surplus. Said surplus shall be turned over to the

general fund of the state of Louisiana for the use and benefit of

its citizens.

129

C. The fiscal affairs of the Authority shall not be subject

in any respect, to the authority, control or supervision of any

regulating body of the state or any political subdivision thereof,

but its books and records shall be subject to audit annually by the

legislative auditor and its employees shall be listed on the central

listing of state employees and it shall invest its idle funds in

accordance with the Investment of Idle Funds Act and it shall be

subject to the provisions of the Code of Ethics.

�3107. Executive director; selection; duties; employees;

compensation

A. The board of commissioners shall select an executive

director who shall exercise all control over all executive functions

and the general operation of the Authority. The executive director

shall serve at the pleasure of the board. All employees of the

Authority shall be responsible to.the executive director who shall

organize the personnel employed by the Authority in the most efficient

manner to accomplish the purposes of the Authority as provided in

the Chapter and by regulations established by the Authority's board.

B. The executive director, in addition to his usual functions,

shall be secretary to the board of commissioners. The board of

commissioners shall fix the compensation of the executive director.

C. Within six months after operation of the Port Authority has

commenced, the executive director, with the advice and consent of the

Board of Commissioners of the Port Authority, shall submit a plan of

Classified Civil Service for all employees of the Authority except

130

the board of commissioners, the executive director, an assistant

executive director, an executive secretary to the executive director,

and professional employees hired on a contract basis.

�3108. Acquisition of sites; lease of stateowned waterbottoms

A. To enable the Authority to perform the work herein provided,

the state of Louisiana, acting by and through the register of state

lands, is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to grant to the

Authority a lease on stateowned waterbottoms in the Gulf of Mexico

which are selected by the Authority as sites for the Deep Draft

Harbor and Terminal; provided, however, that the mineral rights on

any and all state lands shall be reserved to the state of Louisiana.

Upon receipt of a request from the governing body of the

Authority describing the lands to be leased by the Authority, it is

hereby made the mandatory duty of the register of state lands to

issue a certificate of title evidencing the lease of the land to

the Authority as described in the request.

B. The register of state lands shall lease the selected tracts

to the Authority for five dollars per acre per annum.

C. All such leases shall be for a term of forty years, but the

legislature may reevaluate the rental payments upward or downward to

reflect changing economic conditions.

D. All proceeds arising from the sale of such leases of state-

owned waterbottoms shall be paid by the Authority to the state treasurer

and shall become part of the general fund of the state of Louisiana.

E. Nothing in this Part is intended to authorize the Authority to

131

lease stateowned waterbottoms for the exploration, development and

production of oil, gas, sulphur or other minerals or for the culti-

vation or production of marine resources or detract from the authority

of the state mineral board and/or Louisiana Wild.Life and Fisheries

Commission to lease for such purposes. However, tracts once leased

to the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority may not be leased by

the state mineral board or the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries

Commission without the express consent of the Authority, unless it

can be shown by the state mineral board or the Louisiana Wild Life

and Fisheries Commission, by clear and convincing evidence, that

such lease or leases will not adversely affect present or future

Authority operations.

93109. Powers

A. The Authority shall be vested with exclusive and plenary

authority to do any and all things necessary or proper for the

Authority to promote, plan, finance, develop, construct, control,

operate, manage, maintain and modify the Authority Development

Program.

B. To assert Louisiana's interest in any Deep Draft Harbor

and Terminal development in proximity to the Louisiana coast, the

Authority is empowered to negotiate with and enter into contracts,

compacts or other agreements with agencies, bureaus or other divisions

of the federal government or other states of the United States con-

cerning the Authority Development Program, including jurisdictional

aspects of the location of the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal, sharing

132

of revenues derived from the operation of the Deep Draft Harbor and

Terminal, and promulgation and enforcement of regulations governing

Authority operations.

C. The Authority is granted all powers capable of being delegated

by the legislature under Article XIV, Section 31 of the Constitution

of the state, including but not limited to authority:

1. To own, construct, operate, maintain and lease docks,

wharves, sheds, elevators, pipelines, pumping stations and facilities,

storage facilities, housing and food facilities, heliport, locks,

slips, laterals, basins, warehouses and all other property, structures,

equipment and facilities, including belt and connecting lines of

railroads and works of public improvement necessary or useful for

Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal purposes.

2. To dredge and maintain shipways, channels, slips, basins

and turning basins.

3. To establish, operate and maintain in cooperation with

the federal government, the state of Louisiana and its various agencies,

subdivisions and public bodies, navigable waterway systems.

4. To acquire by expropriation any real property in fee,

leaving the ownership of any minerals or mineral rights in the former

owners, and the prescription of nonuse shall not run against said

minerals or mineral rights. In the event of expropriation, the compen-

sation to be paid shall be the actual market value of the property

at the time of taking. In the event of the acquisition of a servitude,

or use of any stateowned waterbottoms on which there has been granted

133

an oyster lease by the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission,

the private oyster lessee shall be reimbursed by the Authority for

the actual market value of said lease.

5. To borrow from any person or corporation using or

renting any land or dock or warehouse or any facility of the Authority

such.sums as shall be necessary to improve the same according to plans

and specifications approved by the Authority, and to erect and con-

struct such improvement, and agree that the loan therefore shall be

liquidated by deducting from the rent, dock, wharf or toll charges

payable for such property, a percentage thereof to be agreed on,

subject, however, to any covenants or agreements made with the holders

of revenue bonds issued under the authority set forth in Section 3108

of this Chapter.

6. To collect tolls and fees.

7. To borrow funds for the business of the Authority.

8. To select an official journal for the publication of

the official acts of the Authority.

9. To mortgage properties constructed or acquired by said

Authority and to mortgage and pledge any lease or leases and the

rents, income and other advantages arising out of any lease or leases

granted, assigned or subleased by the Authority.

D. The Authority is hereby empowered to take all necessary

steps to protect Louisiana's unique coastal environment from any

short-term or long-term damage or harm which might occur from any

aspect of the Authority Development Program.

134

E. The Authority may contract with any agency, public or

private, to provide for public utilities on such terms as are

agreed upon by the Authority and the respective utilities for the

financing, construction and extension of sewerage, water,,drainage,

electricity, gas and other necessary public utilities in and through

said development.

F. Said authority may lease or sublease lands leased from

the State of Louisiana and is authorized to negotiate and enter

contracts or agreements with any public or private individual, or

corporation, for the construction and operation of a petroleum

terminal as an interstate common carrier.

�3110. Protection of deepwater ports

A. To prevent impairment of the bonds of the Three Deepwater

Ports which are backed by the full faith and credit of the state,

and to recognize the existing authority of and functions performed

by the established ports and harbors of Louisiana, it is hereby

recognized that the function, power and authority of the various

existing port authorities established pursuant to Article 14, Section

31 of the Louisiana Constitution, and others established by specific

Constitutional provision are not to be diminished by the jurisdiction

and powers exercised by the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority

except as provided in this Act.

B. The Authority may enter into intergovernmental contract

agreements with existing port authorities, individually, or with any

other parish, city, municipality or subdivision of the state, and may

135

engage jointly in the exercise of any power, the making of any

improvements which each of the participating authorities may

exercise or undertake individually under any provision of general

or special law.

C. The Authority, in establishing or enacting its rates

and charges for bulk cargo shall consider the overall economic

impact on the economy of the Three Deepwater Ports, and its charges

and rates shall be compensatory.

D. The Authority shall not engage in the handling of break

bulk or general cargo without the prior written agreement of the

Three Deepwater Ports, which agreement, among other provisions, may

provide for use of existing port facilities, rates, wharfage fees

and other matters of mutual interest.

�3111. Public contracts

A. All public works exceeding the sum of ten thousand dollars,

including both labor and materials, to be performed by the Authority

shall be governed by Louisiana Revised Statutes 38:2211, et seq.

However, this provision shall not apply in cases of extreme public

emergency, but in such case notice of such public emergency shall be

published in the official journal of the Authority within ten days

thereof.

B. Where the Authority deems it advisable and in the public

interest to purchase machinery, equipment or vehicles of certain

makes, kinds or types, the advertisement may specify the makes,

kinds or types and, after the advertising, the Authority may purchase

those makes, kinds or types, but they shall not pay more than the

136

actual market price for the machinery, equipment or vehicles.

�3112. Bonds; procedure for issuance

A. The Authority is hereby authorized to incur debt and issue

bonds for its needs in the manner herein provided.

B. The Authority is granted the power to incur debt and issue

bonds by any of the means authorized by the Constitution and laws of

the State of Louisiana, including but without limiting the generality

of the foregoing Article XIV, section 31, and Article XIV, section 1,

and paragraphs (b.2) and (b.3) of the Louisiana Constitution.

C. Any revenue producing wharf, dock, warehouse, elevator,

industrial facility or other structure owned by or to be acquired by

the Authority from proceeds of bonds issued by it is hereby declared

to be a revenue producing public utility as that term is used and

defined by the Constitution and laws of the state in connection with

the issuance of revenue bonds of political subdivisions of the state.

D. As an additional grant of authority beyond other provisions

of the Constitution, the Authority is authorized, with the approval

of the state bond and tax board, to issue negotiable bonds for any

purpose within their delegated authority, and to pledge for the pay-

ment of the principal and interest of such negotiable bonds the

income and revenues derived or to be derived from the properties and

facilities maintained and operated by them or received by the Authority

from other sources.

E. Such negotiable bonds may be further secured by a conventional

mortgage upon any or all of the property constructed or acquired, or to

be constructed or acquired by them.

137

F. To further secure such negotiable bonds the Authority may

apply in whole or part any money received by gift, grant, donation or

otherwise from the United States, the state of Louisiana, or any

political subdivision thereof, unless otherwise provided by terms of

the gift, devise, donation or similar grant.

G. Such bonds shall be authorized by a resolution of the board

of commissioners of the Authority and shall be of such series, bear

such date or dates, mature at such time or times not exceeding forty

years from their respective dates, bear interest at such rate or

rates per annum, payable at such time or times, be in such denominations,

be in such form either coupon or full registered without coupons, carry

such registration and exchangeability privilege, be payable in such

medium of payment and at such place or places, be subject to such

terms of redemption not exceeding 105% of the principal amount thereof,

and be entitled to such priority on the revenues of the Authority as

such resolution or resolutions may provide. The bonds shall be signed

by such officers as the Authority shall determine, and coupon bonds

shall have attached thereto interest coupons bearing the facsimile

signatures of such officer or officers of the Authority as it shall

designate. Any such bonds may be issued and delivered, notwithstanding

that one or more of the officers signing such bonds or the officers

whose facsimile signature or signatures may be upon the coupons shall

have ceased to be such officer or officers at the time such bonds

shall actually have been delivered. Said bonds shall be sold for not

less than par and accrued interest to the highest bidder at a public

138

sale after advertisement by the Authority at least seven days in

advance of the date of sale, in newspapers or financial journals

published at such places as the Authority may determine, reserving

to the Authority the right to reject any and all bids and to re-

advertise for bids. If, after advertisement as hereinabove provided,

no bids are received, or if such bids as are received are considered

in the discretion of the board of commissioners of the Authority to

be unsatisfactory, then and in that event the board of commissioners

may publicly negotiate for the sale of such bonds without further

advertisement. No proceedings in respect to the issuance of any

such bonds shall be necessary except such as are contemplated by

this Section.

H. For a period of thirty days from the date of publication of

the resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds hereunder, any persons

in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the

resolution and the legality of the bond issue for any cause after

which time no one shall have any cause or right of action to contest

the legality of said resolution or of the bonds authorized thereby

for any cause whatsoever. If no suit, action or proceeding is begun

contesting the validity of the bond issue within the thirty days

herein prescribed, the authority to issue the bonds and to provide

for the payment thereof, and the legality thereof and all of the

provisions-of the resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds shall

be conclusively presumed, and no court shall have authority to inquire

into such matters.

139

I. Such bonds shall have all the qualities of negotiable

instruments under the law merchant and the Negotiable Instruments

Law of the state of Louisiana, and shall be exempt from income and

all other taxation of the state of Louisiana.

J. No bonds as herein described shall be authorized, issued or

sold except in accordance with specific authorizations hereafter

granted by the legislature for each issue.

�3113. Environmental Protection Plan

A. Throughout all aspects of the Authority Development Program

there shall be in existence an Environmental Protection Plan, the

details of which shall be followed in all respects by the executive

director in carrying out any aspect of the Authority Development

Program.

B. The Environmental Protection Plan shall be formulated by

the three directors, as herein defined, with the advice and consent

of the board of commissioners of the Authority.

C. The Environmental Protection Plan shall be promulgated by

the executive director under the rule-making procedures of the

Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act of La. R.S. 49:951-49:966.

D. The Environmental Protection Plan shall be promulgated

within a reasonable time after the appointment of the executive

director, but in no event more than eighteen months after the effective

date of this Act. An acting executive director or a temporary executive

director may fulfill this function if a permanent executive director is

not as yet appointed.

140

E. The Environmental Protection Plan may be amended at any

time in accordance with the provisions of the Louisiana Administrative

Procedure Act, to reflect changes in the Authority Development Program.

Initiation for changes may come from any of the three directors or

any interested person.

F. In preparing the Environmental Protection Plan, or any

amendment thereto, at any time during the Authority Development

Program, the three directors shall make every effort to reach a con-

sensus. If they are unable to agree, each shall proffer his proposed

Environmental Protection Plan and present it to the board of commis-

sioners for its consideration. Each of the three directors shall

present detailed comments to the board of commissioners, with recom-

mendations as to the best Environmental Protection Plan. After receiving

and studying the recommendations, the board of commissioners shall

decide which plan or combination of plans shall be adopted and promul-

gated.

G. The Environmental Protection Plan shall be an integral part

of the Authority Development Program. Costs incurred to develop the

initial plan, or any amendments to it, shall be considered an internal

cost of the Authority Development Program and shall be considered a

cost to the same extent that economic, engineering or promotional

programs are considered costs. The three directors shall agree on the

appropriate level of funding for the developing of the Authority

Environmental Protection Plan, prepare any amendments thereto, and carry

out the requirements of the Plan. To the extent possible, federal funds

141

shall be sought to assist in this effort.

H. The best talent available shall be sought to perform the

studies and surveys necessary to develop an Environmental Protection

Plan and carry out its requirements in accordance with this Act.

To the extent possible, University-based, public and private re-

searchers in Louisiana shall be utilized. In all cases, the research

in support of the Environmental Protection Plan shall be coordinated

by agreement of the three directors. The results of all research

done in support of the Environmental Protection Plan shall be open

to the public and available to any interested person.

I. The Environmental Protection Plan shall contain specific

provisions implementing Subsection J below. If specific provisions

cannot be set forth due to uncertainties in the Authority Development

Program, then the Environmental Protection Plan shall state in specific

terms the uncertainties which do exist at the time the plan is pro-

mulgated., and why the uncertainties would make the inclusion of

specific provisions in the plan premature. The Authority Environmental

Protection Plan shall contain a separate chapter for each of the Para-

graphs of Subsection J below and any other chapters necessary to meet

the requirements of this Act.

J. The Environmental Protection Plan shall:

(1) Summarize the salient feature of an inventory of all

potential and actual stresses on the natural and human environment

which can be reasonably expected to occur in pursuing the Authority

Development Program. Consideration shall be given to stresses which

142

have occurred in other parts of the country and the world where

similar functional operations were being performed. Consideration

shall be given to the peculiarities of Louisiana's coastal environ-

ment. The inventory of potential and actual stresses shall include

a prediction of the stress on the coastal environment of major

accidents which could logically be expected to occur throughtout

the Authority Development Program, even though all precautions

against such accidents have been taken.

(2) Describe the essential features of existing environ-

mental data upon which the selection of a site for a Deep Draft

Harbor and Terminal may be based. Indicate how this data has been

analyzed and compared with the inventory of potential and actual

stresses required in the above Paragraph so that the site selected

will result in the least total stress on the environment. Indicate

how economic considerations are compared with the assessed total stress

on the environment to arrive at the best economic-ecologic formula

for determination of a site for the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal.

State the location and availability of the environmental data upon

which these determinations are based.

(3) State how the Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal facility

design minimizes potential environmental damage, considers environ-

mental factors as a positive part of the design, and controls long-

term development so that growth and additions to the Deep Draft Harbor

and Terminal do not result in random growth or in gradual environmental

deterioration.

143

(4) Present details of how the operational aspects of

the Authority Developme nt Program will be conducted so as to mini-

mize environmental problems, including but not limited to a monitor-

ing program by the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission;

establishment of constructional and operational guidelines for

environmental protection; strong enforcement provisions, and mechan-

isms to insure cleanup of accidental spills by technical means,

with a surety bond to insure performance. The plan shall consider

the circumstances which may justify the temporary cessation of the

port activities.

(5) Provide procedures for the funding of projects to

be paid for by the Authority to the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries

Commission or any agency designated by the governor which shall

compensate the coastal environment for loss that may be sustained

through the stresses on the environment created by the Authority

Development Program.

(6) Analyze ongoing programs of the federal, state and

local governments designed to protect the coastal environment and

to insure that there is no unnecessary duplication of effort and

to insure that cooperation and coordination of environmental pro-

tection measures are achieved. The opinion of all agencies with a

responsibility for monitoring the coastal environment shall be

sought with regard to this Environmental Protection Plan prior to

its promulgation, to determine if there are incompatibilities between

specific provisions of this measure and the requirements of other

rules and regulations.

144

K. Nothing in this Section is intended to diminish in any

way the authority of the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission.

�3114. Coordination and cooperation

A. It is the policy of this Act that the Authority Develop-

ment Program be pursued so that there is full coordination and cooper-

ation between agencies and groups that have complementing or over-

lapping interests and the Authority. It is not the policy of the

Act that the Authority Developmgnt--Pro'gram. be pursued independently

and with a view toward narrow, short-term interests.

B. The board of Commissioners shall take affirmative steps

to fully coordinate all aspects of the Authority Development Program

with the Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources

(Act No. 35 of 1971) or its successor group, which is charged with

the develcpment of a coastal zone management plan for the state.

C. The board of commissioners shall take affirmative steps

to insure that the Authority Development Program is coordinated into

the planning programs of other modes of transportation, to include

rail, road, waterway, air and pipeline, so that there is a long-term

and orderly pursuit of transportation services in the coastal zone

which are interrelated and coordinated so as to achieve the most

efficient and economical transportation program that is feasible and

that will be least destructive of other values in the state.

D. The board of commissioners shall insure that the appropriate

federal agencies which are required by federal law to plan or regulate

transportation facilities or programs are consulted regularly and are

145

fully involved in the Authority Development Program where appropriate.

Section 2. If any provision or item of this Act or the

application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not

affect other provisions, items or applications of this Act which can

be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications,

and to this end the provisions of this Act are hereby declared

severable.

Section 3. All laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith

are hereby repealed.

146

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS OF LOUISIANA SUPERPORT

by:

David B. Johnson

Department of Economics
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge

147

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS OF A LOUISIANA SUPERPORT

Table of Contents

Page
I. Economic Summary and Recommendations

A. General Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

B. Louisiana Superport Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

C. Central Gulf Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

D. Central Gulf Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

2. Impact of Crude Imports on Louisiana . . . . . . . 163
E. Where Should a Gulf Superport be Located? . . . . . . . 166

F. Location in Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

1. Commodity Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

2. Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

3. Up River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

G. Economic Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

H. Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

II. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

III. The Superships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

A. Some Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

B. Capital Costs and Complementary Facilities . . . . . . 185

C. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

IV. The Superports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

A. The U. S. Lag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 i

148

Page
B. Reasons for Caution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

V. Petroleum and Superports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

B. Inter-PAD District Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

1. Crude Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

a. Production and Refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

b. Transportation of Crude Oil . . . . . . . . . . . 202

1) General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

2) Movement of Crude by Water . . . . . . . . . . 207

3) Movement of Crude by Pipeline . . . . . . . . 207

2. Petroleum Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

a. Foreign Imports and Exports . . . . . . . . . . . 210

b. Petroleum Product Movements Within the U.S. . . . 213

1) General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

2) Shipment of Products by Water . . . . . . . . 213

3) Shipment by Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

4) Summary of Inter-PAD Movements . . . . . . . . 216

c. Water Transport of Crude Oil and Refined

Products by PAD District 3 States . . . . . . . . 216

1) General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

2) Movement of Crude Oil and Refined Products

by Coastwise Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

a) Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

b) Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

149

Page

3) Movement of Crude Oil and Refined

Products by Internal Waterways . . . . . . . . 222

a) Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

b) Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

4) Total Water Movements of Oil and Oil

Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

5) Pipeline Movement of Crude Oil by States 229

d. An Overview of U.S. Petroleum Sources and

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

1) General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

2) Regional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

3) Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

VI. Commodity Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

A. Dry Bulk Supertankers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

B. New Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

C. Commodity Flows in the Central Gulf Area . . . . . . . . 255

1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

2. Commodity Flow Data for Central Gulf Area . . . . . . 257

a. Port of Lake Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

1) Petroleum Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

2) Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

3) Crude Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

4) Farm Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

b. Mississippi; New Orleans to Mouth of Passes 261

1) Crude Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

150

Page
2) Farm Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

3) Petroleum Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

4) Metallic Ores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

c. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet . . . . . . . . . 261

1) Primary Metal Products . . . . . . . . . . . 268

2) Non-Metallic Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

3) Metallic Ores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

4) Waste and Scrap Materials . . . . . . . . . . 268

d. Mobile, Pascagoula, and Gulfport . . . . . . . . 268

1) Metallic Ores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

2) Petroleum and Coal Products . . . . . . . . . 268

3) Farm Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

4) Crude Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

e. Total Central Gulf Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

1) Crude Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

2) Farm Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

3) Metallic Ores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

4) Petroleum and Coal Products . . . . . . . . . 272

5) Non-Metallic Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

6) Food and Kindred Products . . . . . . . . . . 276

D. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
1. Net Exporter . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

2. Total Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

3. Location of Superport in Central Gulf Region . . . . 278

a. Considering Commodity Flows in Central

Gulf Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

151

Page
b. Considering Both Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

1) Texas Superport and Commodity Flows . . . . . 279

2) Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

152

List of _fL&ures

Figure Page

1 Size of World's Largest Tanker, 1956-1980 . . . . . . . . . . 174

2 Growth of Large Merchant Ships Over 200,000 DWT
in the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

3 Average Construction Cost Per 20,000 Deadweight Ton
by Size of Ship, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

4 Water Transportation Cost Per Ton From Persian Gulf to
U.S. North Atlantic Coast, by Size of Tanker, 1970 . . . . . 180

5 Petroleum Administration for Defense (PAD) Districts
and Bureau of Mines Refining Districts . . . . . . . . . . . 199

6 Movements of Crude Oil to Refineries Across PAD District
Borders, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

7 Comparison of District 3 States and Districts 1, 2,
and 4 and 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

8 Movement of Crude Oil Across PAD District Borders by
Tanker or Barge, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

9 Crude Oil Movement Across PAD District Borders by
Pipeline, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 209

10 Movement of Petroleum Products Into the United States and
Among PAD Districts by Water and Pipeline, 1970 . . . . . . . 211

11 Movement of Petroleum Products Among PAD Districts by Water,
1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 214

12 Movement of Petroleum Products Among PAD Districts by
Pipeline, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

13 Comparison of District 3 States and Districts 1,2,4, and
5 as Suppliers of Total Crude Oil to Refineries in Other
Areas, 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

14 Net Water Movement of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products from
PAD District 3 States to PAD Districts 1 and 2 by Water in
Short Tons, 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

15 Comparison of District 3 States as Shippers of Crude Oil
by Water to Districts 1 and 2, 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

153

Figure Page

16 Comparison of District 3 States and District 4 and 5
as Suppliers of Crude Oil to Districts 1 and 2 by
Pipeline, 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

17 Free World International Flow of Petroleum, 1970 . . . . . . . 239

18 Reserves of Crude Oil and Natural Gas Liquids at End of
Year, 1965-1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

19 Louisiana Crude Oil and Condensate Production, 1965-1970 . . . 243

20 Crude Oil Reserves/Production in the United States and
Louisiana, 1947-1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

21 Texas and Louisiana as a Percentage of the United States
in Production and Reserves of Crude Oil, 1947-1970 . . . . . . 245

22 Louisiana Natural and Casinghead Gas Products, 1965-1970 . . . 246

23 Reserves of Natural Gas at End of Year, 1965-1970 . . . . . . 247

24 Natural Gas Reserves/Production in the United States and
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

25 Natural Gas Liquids Reserves/Production in the United
States and Louisiana, 1947-1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

26 Texas and Louisiana as a Percentage of the United States
in Production and Reserves of Natural Gas Liquids,
1947-1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

154

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Some Comparative Tanker Characteristics, 1971
Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

.2, Transportation Costs Per Ton of Crude Oil, Persian
Gulf-U.S. North Atlantic, by Size of Ship, 1970 . . . . . . . 179

3 Estimated Annual Savings on Crude Oil Imports Alternative
Deep-Draft Proposals, North Atlantic Coast, 1980 . . . . . . 181

4 Estimated Annual Savings on Iron Ore Imports Alternative
Deep-Draft Proposals, North Atlantic Coast, 1980 . . . . . . 183

5 Estimated Annual Savings on Coal Exports Alternative
Deep-Draft Proposals, North Atlantic Coast, 1980 . . . . . . 184

6 Crude Oil Balance for the United States, 1970 . . . . . . . . 201

7 Major Oil Producing States as Suppliers of Crude Oil to
Refineries Intrastate, Interstate-Intradistrict and
Interstate-Interdistrict, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

8 Total Movement of Petroleum Products Into the United
States and Among PAD Districts by Pipeline and Water, 1970. . 212

9 Coastwise Movement from PAD District 3 to the East Coast
States, Crude Oil and Oil Products, 1969 . . . . . . . . . . 220

10 Oil and Oil Products from PAD District 3 States by
Internal Water Transportation to PAD Districts 1 and 2,
1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

11 Net Movement of Oil and Oil Products from PAD District 3
States to PAD Districts 1 and 2 by Water, 1969 . . . . . . . 226

12 Crude Oil and Refined Product Imports into the United
States, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

13 Oceangoing Freight Traffic, 1970, Lake Charles . . . . . . . 258

155

Table Page
14 Oceangoing Freight Traffic, 1970, Mississippi River;
New Orleans to Mouth of Passes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

15 Oceangoing Freight Traffic, 1970, Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

16 Oceangoing Freight Traffic, 1970, Mobile, Pasagoula,
and Gulfport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

17 Oceangoing Freight Traffic, 1970, Central Gulf Area . . . . . 273

156

List of Charts

Chart Page

.1 Oceangoing Commodity Flows by Two-Digit Commodity
Clasifications, Foreign and Coastwise, Port of Lake
Charles - by Percentages, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

2 Oceangoing Commodity Flows (Upbound and Downbound) by
Two-Digit Commodity Classifications, Foreign and
Coastwise, on Mississippi River from New Orleans to
Mouth of Passes, by Percentages, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

3 Oceangoing Commodity Flows (Upbound and Downbound) by
Two-Digit Commodity Classifications, Foreign and
Coastwise, on Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, by
Percentages, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

4 Oceangoing Commodity Flows by Two-Digit Commodity
Classifications, Foreign and Coastwise, from Ports
of Mobile, Pascagoula, and Gulfport, by Percentages,
1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

5 Oceangoing Commodity Flows by Two-Digit Commodity
Classifications, Foreign and Coastwise, for Immediate
Serviceable Area (Lake Charles, Louisiana to Mobile,
Alabama), by Percentages, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

157

I. Economic Summary and Recommendations

A. General Statement

While some 50 deep-draft ports are currently in operation, under

construction, or in the planning stages, not one is located in the

United States. Almost all ocean ports in the U.S. have drafts ranging

from 35 to 45 feet, a fact which limits their use by fully loaded

vessels to those in the range of 50,000 to 80,000 dwt. Hence, the

United States, which in absolute terms is the largest trading nation

in the world, is presently unable to take advantage of the economies

of scale provided by the superships.

There is an indisputable worldwide trend toward larger oceangoing

vessels. The world's largest tanker in 1956 was less than 60,000 dwt;

in 1970 the largest tanker was 326,000 dwt; in 1972 the world's

largest tanker is 373,000 dwt. Construction is presently underway on

a 477,000 dwt tanker, and there are plans for a 1,000,000 dwt ship in 1980.

Unless there is some catalectic lessening of international trade, such

as that which occurred in the 1930's, one can expect the number of

supertankers to increase. Most data, however, seem to indicate that,

with few exceptions, the maximum size of vessels constructed during

this century will be about 500,000 dwt, which requires a draft of

approximately 100-110 feet. Hence, considerable capital should not be

invested in constructing a deep-draft port with channel capacity greater

than 110 feet.

B. Louisiana Superport Study

This study was completed in less than 12 weeks of one-half time

allocation; it is the beginning phase of a more intensive study to be

completed within the next year. There were few attempts at data

projections since the immediate need was to determine data on existing

158

flows and phenomena. The study contains data on superships, superports,

and recent economic and political trends affecting American superport

development and utilization. It examines petroleum and crude flows

within and among Petroleum Administration Districts as well as the U.S.

energy crisis, particularly as it affects Louisiana. Commodity flow

data are also presented for the Central Gulf region.

Very few recommendations for a Louisiana superport can be given with

an acceptable degree of confidence at this stage in the analysis. Much

additional information must be obtained from numerous sources, and the

data must be integrated in some meaningful way. Although a brief

summary of the study is presented below, the reader is strongly advised

to read the entire report since the summary could be misinterpreted

if the assumptions, qualifications and extensions are ignored.

C. Central Gulf Exports

While most discussion on superport development seems to have centered

around imports, any argument for a complete Louisiana superport must

include export considerations. Unlike the East Coast, which is

primarily an importer of goods, the Gulf Coast is primarily an exporter.

Approximately 73 percent of total commodity flows in 1970 in the Central

Gulf area were outbound shipments.

The next important question is: Are these outbound commodity flows

amenable to supership transit? A cursory glance at the commodity flows

must yield a definite affirmative answer. Superships transport bulk

commodities, and the Central Gulf region exports bulk commodities. Crude

petroleum, the major outbound commodity, accounts for more than 20 percent

of total commodity flows in the Central Gulf region. Next most important

are farm products, which account for slightly less than 15 percent of

159

total commodity flows. The third most significant export is petroleum

products, which comprise nearly 15 percent of total volume. Together

these three commodity classifications account for approximately

50 percent of total volume of shipments (inbound plus outbound) and

72 percent of outbound commodities. All of these are bulk commodities

and therefore, it would appear, constitute an excellent base for

utilization of a Gulf superport.

A more intensive analysis, however, does restrain some of the

initial enthusiasm. First, petroleum products and crude, which

constitute 35 percent of total oceangoing volume, are transported to

the East Coast. Since there is no deep-draft facility there, it is

not possible to transport petroleum in supertankers. Canadian deep-

draft facilities are available in the North Atlantic area, but

petroleum transshipped through these ports is subject to the vagaries

of Canadian taxation and quantity restrictions. Economic realities

may eventually prevail, and an East Coast superport may be constructed.

In this eventuality, an offshore deep-draft facility in the Gulf might

be desirable for shipments of crude and possibly products to the East

Coast.

Shipments of Louisiana crude to the East Coast will be limited to the

short run, presumably not much longer than 10 years. Because of declining

crude reserves and increased environmental constraints in relation to the

demand, an increasing proportion of Louisiana and adjacent offshore crude

production will be allocated to Louisiana and Texas refineries. Hence

outbound shipments of Louisiana-produced crude petroleum, which is

currently the major export in the Central Gulf region, can be expected

to decline in importance within the next few years and to be negligible

within 10 years.

160

The strategic proximity of the Central Gulf region to the inland

waterways has resulted in this region's being the major exporter of farm

products. While farm products are generally considered to be bulk

commodities, there has been little shipment of farm products in superships.

Perhaps this is because the United States is the world's major exporter

of farm products and superships cannot enter U.S. ports. If farm products

can be shipped economically in large bulk carriers, there is a strong

economic argument for constructing-a deep-draft dry and liquid bulk

terminal near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Combination dry-liquid

bulk ships could possibly be used to export farm products or coal to

Europe or Asia and to return with crude or ores.

D. Central Gulf Imports

1. General

Although the Central Gulf Coast is primarily an exporter of

commodities, the most reliable long-run utilization of a Central Gulf

superport may involve its imports. Metallic and non-metallic ores

comprise approximately 20 percent of the area's total commodity flows.

This flow will be increased considerably if the proposed steel mills

are eventually located on the Mississippi River, and a superport

capable of transshipping dry or slurried ore would be an effective

inducement to mills to locate in this region. Although large ore

ships are not nearly so numerous as petroleum tankers, the development

of the ore/oil (0/0) ships and the ore/bulk/oil carriers (O/B/0)

and the MARCONAFLO method (loading and discharging granular bulk material

as slurry but shipping it as solids) should increase the economic

potential of superships in this commodity area. A Louisiana superport

capable of handling ores should have a significant impact on Louisiana's

economy inasmuch as mills will be attracted to this area and mills are

161

generally more labor intensive than petroleum refineries.

. Whereas metallic ores are presently the major commodity imported, the

most important import commodities in the long run may be crude petroleum

and natural gas. The facts that crude petroleum is currently the Central

Gulf area's major export and that it is expected to become a major import

within 10 years are indicative of the increasing shortage of available

domestic crude supplies. It is estimated that more than 50 percent of

U.S. crude requirements will be imported by 1985. Presumably, the

West Coast will be serviced by the Alaskan fields, the East Coast by

Middle East crude imported through its (future) superport, and the

Midwest and South by Gulf c rude and imports.

Any long projection of future demand for crude oil is fraught with

many difficulties. As crude becomes more scarce, its relative price

will increase, thus inducing some industries and individuals to shift

from crude consumption to other sources of energy such as coal or

nuclear power. It is difficult to assess this price-induced effort on

future quantity demanded an on induced technological developments in

other energy fields. It is correct to state, however, that if

Americans do not wish to pay greatly increased prices for petroleum

products and thus be forced to significantly curtail their consumption

of petroleum-related pr oducts, foreign imports will have to be greatly

increased within this decade. This is a short and simplistic

interpretation of the "energy" crisis.

The effect of this "energy crisis" on the utilization of a Louisiana

superport is even more difficult to assess. First, there are problems

of forecasting aggregate demand and supply_for energy and, in particular,

for petroleum and the cross-elasticities of demand (supply) of petroleum

substitutes. In addition, there is the difficulty of predicting what

162

other regions are going to do with their port and refining capacity.

At the present time, the East Coast refines less than 30 percent of

its total product consumption, and it has not made a substantial increase

in its refinery capacity since 1957. If the East Coast were to reverse

this trend by increasing its refining capacity, and if it were to

couple this with the construction of a superport, the utilization of a

Central Gulf superport would be much less. If refining capacity were

not increased and an East Coast superport were not constructed, the

Gulf area and the Midwest would have to provide refined products to

the East Coast. Since the Gulf area could not provide the crude to

meet the input demands of the refineries, the strategic location of

Louisiana in regard to pipeline and water transportation suggests that

a Louisiana liquid bulk superport would be economically attractive.

This deep-draft port would function as a substitute for declining Gulf-

area crude supplies and could utilize some of the existing pipeline

and water related facilities for redistribution to the Midwest and

East Coast. A detailed breakdown of existing crude and product flows

among PAD districts as well as a Louisiana-Texas comparison is provided

in the complete report.

2. Impact of Crude Imports on Louisiana

A reciprocal analysis to the above suggests that the construction

of a deep-draft facility is likely to result in a net relative redistribution

of refining capacity and industrial consumers of petroleum and petroleum-

related products to the Central Gulf area in general and to the state where

the superport is located in particular. While other regions have

specialized in manufacturing, transportation or services, Louisiana seems to

possess a comparative advantage in the refining of crude and the transportation

of petroleum products.

Louisiana ranks fourth among states in exporting the burden of state
163

taxation to individuals residing outside the state.I This is due primarily

to the heavy reliance of the state (approximately 36 percent of state-

generated revenues in 1970) upon severance taxes, royalties and bonuses.

As the source of this revenue becomes depleted, Louisiana citizens or

industries will have to bear a greater tax burden, state expenditures will

have to be cut, or both. If the burden is significantly shifted to

industry, this will at the margin, negatively affect the location of new

firms and industries in the state and curtail the expansion of those

presently located in the state. Hence, it is desirable to increase the

industrial tax base of Louisiana so that the rates for both individuals

and industry may be reasonable.

There are many factors which determine the spatial distribution of

industrial plants. Two significant variables are proximity to consumer

market and proximity to source of raw materials. Because Louisiana is

located a considerable distance from the major consumer markets, its

proximity to the source of raw materials-primarily water, crude

petroleum and natural gas-has had a significant impact on the economic

development of the state. The depletion of Louisiana's crude and

natural gas supplies within the next 10 years, therefore, does not

present an entirely optimistic forecast for future economic development

or, indeed, for retaining that which has been made. From the viewpoint

of crude petroleum imports, therefore, the superport offers the advantage

of a reasonably close substitute for those domestic crude sources which

will be depleted.

ICharles E. McLure, Jr., "The Interstate Exporting of State and
Local Taxes: Estimates for 1962," National Tax Journal (March, 1967),
pp. 49-77. It was estimated that approximately 32 percent of Louisiana's
tax burden was borne by non-residents.

164

The bulk liquid superport does not assure economic development of the

state because the crude or natural gas could be transshipped through

Louisiana to other states with relatively little economic impact on

Louisiana. The location of refineries and related industries will depend

upon such primary factors as conditions in the labor market, financial

inducements, taxes, transportation costs, and availability of cooperating

resources and upon such secondary factors as quality and safety of

-educational institutions, quality of government, climate, recreational

facilities, etc. Louisiana, however, could obtain some revenue if it

levied a small tax on these imports, subject to the constraint that

oil companies could shift their imports to facilities in other states.

Most importantly, while the superport will not assure economic

development, it does provide the potential for such development.

The above analysis assumes that the East Coast will not increase

its refining capacity and will not construct a superport. If it does

both of these, the potential of a Louisiana superport will be lessened.

If Texas and Alabama construct superports, the potential of a Louisiana

location will be decreased even more. The East Coast will probably

obtain a superport within 10 years, a fact which, by itself, will not be

too damaging to Louisiana prospects unless it is coupled with tremendous

expansion in refining capacity. If Texas and other Gulf states construct

superports, however, the advantages of a Louisiana superport will be

reduced considerably. Additional studies must be made, but is is possible,

depending upon what happens on the East Coast, that liquid-bulk superports

constructed offshore of both Texas and Louisiana would be feasible.

Holding other variables constant, however, the major advantages will accrue

to the state which is first to have its superport operational.

165

E. Where Should a Gulf Superport be Located?

A question of paramount importance is: If a superport is to be

constructed in the Gulf, where should it be located? Unfortunately, we did

not have time to determine commodity flows in the entire Gulf area.

However, if only the Central Gulf region (Lake Charles, Louisiana, to

Mobile, Alabama) is considered, the superport should be located in close

proximity to the Mississippi River because 78 percent of all oceangoing

volume in this region travels to the Gulf on the river. Other factors

have to be considered, of course, but the predominance of the

Mississippi River and its tributaries cannot be overlooked.

Although commodity flow data for the Texas coast have not yet been

analyzed, we did present a thorough and unique analysis of the relative

waterborne flows of crude and petroleum products for Texas and Louisiana.

Texas ships, by coastwise vessels to the East Coast, 60 percent of the

outbound petroleum, whereas Louisiana ships only 35 percent of the

total. Louisiana, however, ships 64 percent of Gulf crude to the East

Coast by water,-while Texas sends only 31 percent. Louisiana accounts

for a larger percentage (57 percent) of oil and oil products shipped

to the Midwest and the East by inland waterways than Texas (40 percent).

Texas, however, sends more than twice as much crude oil by pipeline to

the Midwest as Louisiana and slightly more to the East Coast than Louisiana.

As long as the Gulf area supplies crude to the East Coast, Louisiana

has an advantage over Texas if the East Coast constructs a superport to

receive large tankers. This is a relatively short-run advantage, however,

as the East Coast will become increasingly dependent upon foreign suppliers.

Mixed conclusions are reached if one examines the long run. Louisiana

is closer to the mass consumption markets of the Midwest and the East than

is Texas; its strategic location on the internal waterway system is a

166

major advantage. Louisiana has a pipeline distribution system to the

Midwest and the East, but Texas ships much more by pipeline to both the

Midwest and the East Coast than does Louisiana. Texas also has a much

larger refining capacity, and it appears to be running out of crude

supplies more quickly than Louisiana. While Texas' reserves and

production of crude and natural gas are greater than Louisiana's, its

rate of decrease in both reserves and production is greater than

Louisiana's. Therefore, Texas may make the argument that it "needs"

the crude imports more than Louisiana and the superport should be

located off its coast. More thorough studies need to be made to reach

a more definite conclusion.

F. Location in Louisiana

1. Commodity Service - One of the most difficult decisions concerning

the Louisiana superport is related to the type of commodities it would

service. It appears that the liquid bulk terminal would be economically

viable in itself and would provide the potential for increased economic

development in the state. The feasibility of a structure encompassing dry

bulk or other commodities is much less certain. One solution is to con-

struct the liquid terminal now and make additions for dry bulk later.

This is one possibility, but it partially ignores the problem. The

decision as to whether the additions would be made to accomodate dry

bulk commodities would probably affect the design of the liquid structure.

More importantly, the location of the oil terminal to be constructed now

may be dependent upon the question of future commodity additions to the

superport. If no commodity additions are planned, the oil terminal may

be most efficiently located in one area, say below Grand Isle, whereas

if commodity additions are planned, the oil terminal should be located

closer to the Mississippi River. Hence, the type of superport which is

expected to emerge in the future will be a significant input into the
167

location decision of the superport today. The discussion below summarizes

total commodity flows and their implications for a locational decision.

Different conclusions would be reached if the superport were exclusively

a liquid bulk terminal.

2. Offshore - In the Central Gulf region, Lake Charles contributes

less than 4 percent to the Gulf oceangoing trade, the Gulfport-Pascagoula-

Mobile ports contribute 15 percent, Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MRGO)

traffic constitutes 2 percent, and the Mississippi River contributes

78 percent. Obviously, the commodity flows in the Central Gulf region

suggest that the superport should be located near the Mississippi River

if it is to service dry bulk as well as liquid commodities. Since the

Gulfport, Pascagoula and Mobile ports, as well as the MRGO, are on the

east side of the mouth of the Mississippi River, an east.side location

is slightly preferable. One problem is the relatively low utilization

of the MRGO by oceangoing vessels. One would think that its shorter

course and straighter channel would encourage oceangoing ships to use it,

but less than 2 percent do. This may be caused by the 36-foot depth

of the MRGO as compared to the 40-foot controlling depth of the

Mississippi, the lockage delays or the reduced vessel speed which is

necessary on the MRGO. If the reasons for this low utilization affect

oceangoing vessels but not shuttle barges, the argument for an east side

superport location is made stronger.

3. Up River - If the technical problems could be solved, the optimal

economic location for a complete superport would probably be on the

Mississippi River somewhere below New Orleans.

The offshore facility would present some economic problems. First,

employee transportation to and from the port would be expensive; second,

industrial, financial, and recreational facilities would-not be readily

168

available; third, and most significant, port-adjacent industrial

development would be impossible. Europeans are discovering that a major

advantage of a superport is its attraction of industries which import

raw materials and export processed goods. An industrial park comprising

such industries, located adjacent to the superport, would have a very

beneficial effect on Louisiana's economy.

An offshore location, however, would preclude such adjacent developments

and would force these industries to locate where suitable land and labor

could be found. This implies transshipment from the land location to the

superport which, at the.margin, would retard this related industrial

development. Thus, there exist some economic arguments for a superport

location on the Mississippi River south of New Orleans. Although the

costs and technical feasibility have not been studied, this location

would provide greater access to the resources of New Orleans and would

permit industrial parks to be developed immediately adjacent to the port.

G. Economic Impact

Many individuals think of an economic study of a superport in terms of

an economic impact study. Unfortunately, there are no professional

tools available to enable one to evaluate the economic impact of any

project. If one were to aggregate the results of all economic impact

studies conducted in any one year, they would surely total to more than

the gross national product of the United States. Hence, economic impact

statements must be approached with considerable caution. Certain

qualitative remarks were made in this report which indicate the direction,

but not the magnitude, of some economic impact variables. It might be

worthwhile in the next phase, however, to determine the net amount of

primary income generated by the superport; that is, the amount of

wages and income paid to workers, technicians, etc.., directly employed

169

by the superport, plus those workers employed by new industries

which might locate in Louisiana because of the superport. Any attempt

to derive secondary income generation is, in large part, pure speculation.

H. Future Research

A considerable amount of additional research is required before any

specific recommendations can be made. Recommended areas of research

are listed below:

(1) Petroleum Related Research

a. Intensive study and projections of long-term petroleum
balance in the Gulf region under varying assumptions.

1) East Coast superport constructed but no significant
increases in East Coast refining capacity.

2) East Coast superport constructed and East Coast refining
capacity increased significantly.

3) East Coast superport not constructed and East Coast
refining capacity not increased significantly.

4) Effects of competing Gulf superports

b. Development of flow data by method of transportation for
petroleum crude and products leaving Texas and Louisiana.
We simulated these movements in this study, but their
accuracy should be verified by survey data, if possible.
Projected flow data by transportation mode.

c. Location of trunk pipelines in Texas and Louisiana, their
capacity, usage and destination. Costs of integrating this
pipeline distribution network with a superport should be
determined.

d. Data on optimal loading/discharging rates, pipeline trans-
shipment facilities, storage facilities, etc.

e. Intentions of major oil companies regarding usage of the
superport, size of ships they will use, etc.

(2) Commodity Flow Related Research

a. Completion of comparative commodity flow studies for the
Gulf region.

b. Projection of comparative commodity flow data for the
Gulf region.

170

c. Feasibility of transporting farm products in large bulk
vessels and the required complementary facilities.

d. Destinations of farm products and origins of metallic and
non-metallic ores.

e. Superport and its relationship to an international free-
trade zone.

f. LASH and SEABEE utilization of superport.

(3). Effect of alternative superport facilities on economic develop-
ment of state and on other state ports.

(4) Superport Construction, Operation and Maintenance

a. Costs of constructing alternative types of superports.

b. Source of labor and transportation of superport employees.

c. Ship repair facilities on superport.

d. Storage facilities on superport versus onshore storage facilities.

(5) Finances

a. Port tariffs and total revenue generated.

b. State.tax revenues generated.

c. Method of financing construction.

171

II. Introduction

Twenty years ago oceangoing commerce was carried in two basic types

of ships: the 16,000 dwt (T-2) tanker and the tramp steamer, primarily
World War II Liberty Ships. 2 In 1956, the world's largest tanker was

only 56,089 dwt. Then two major.world developments occurred which

initiated the era of superships:

(1) Increase in International Trade - The phenomenal growth in

international trade following World War II increased the size

of the market for oceangoing vessels. This, in turn, encouraged

ship owners, operators and builders to find ways to take

advantage of the economies of scale in construction, operation

and maintenance of larger ships.

(2) Closing of Suez Canal - Although there existed a general long-run

trend toward larger ships prior to 1956, the closing of the

Suez Canal in 1956 provided the impetus for a more rapid rate

of growth. The rapid economic development of Europe during

the 196Vs and the resulting need for oil from the Middle

East meant that tankers of 20,000 dwt making the 11,000 mile

trip to Europe were simply too costly. If this same trip were

2The initials dwt represent deadweight tonnage--more accurately,
gross dead weight tonnage. Basically, the deadweight tonnage of a ship
is the most meaningful figure for estimating the amount of cargo
tonnage the ship can carry. Since the dwt value is inclusive of crew,
provisions, stores, fresh water, fuel oil in tanks, etc., it is estimated
that 96 percent-97 percent of the listed deadweight tonnage figure is
available for cargo. For example, a 100,000 dwt tanker could carry
approximately 96,000-97,000 dwt of crude oil.

172

made in 100,000 dwt or 200,000 dwt tankers, the costs would
be comparable to those on the Suez route. 3

Hence, post-war increase in world trade, European dependence on oil

imports and the closing of the Suez Canal provided the original impetus
for the development of large-deep-draft vessels.4
III. The Sugerships5

A. Some Statistics

Figure 1 shows comparative sizes of the "world's largest tanker"

in different years. The world's largest tanker in 1956 was less than

60,000 dwt; in 1970 the largest tanker was 326,000 dwt; in 1972 the

world's largest tanker is the 373,000 dwt Nisseki Maru. Construction

is presently underway- on a 477,000 dwt tanker, and there are plans

for a 1,000,000 dwt ship in 1980. Figure 2 is a distribution over time

3It has been estimated that Middle East-Europe transportation in
a 70,000 dwt ship costs 52 cents per barrel, while the same trip in a
200,000 dwt ship costs 40 cents. Even if the Suez Canal were to open
today at its present drafts, it would be more efficient to transport
petroleum around the Cape in large tankers. ("Gargantuan Tankers:
Privileged or Burdened," by Captain Edward Oliver, Proceedings, U.S.
Naval Institute, September, 1970.)
4Many but not all of the problems pertaining to deep-draft ports
would be alleviated if marine technologists could develop shallow-draft
supertankers. Supposedly the Dutch are pursuing this concept because of
the depth constraints of most of their ports, excluding Rotterdam.
Additionally, the marine architects who developed LASH are reported to
be working on a new kind of giant ship (.250,000 dwt) to carry oil, ore,
and coal,and are designed so that they will be able to enter the majority
of American ports with present draft constraints.
5Once "superships" were thought to be those of 80,000 dwt; now this
descriptive term is applied by some only to 326,000 ton Bantry Bay class
ships. A more reasonable usage includes all ships greater than 200,000
dwt.

173

Figure 1 (1,000.,000?)

Size of World's Largest Tanker
1956-ig8o (500,000-construction
starting
1972)

Size of World's
Largest Tankers

350,000

(326,000)
300,000

250,000

200,000 (2o6,ooo)

150,000

(130,250)

(7-08,590)
100,000 (lo4,520)
(85,515)

(56,089)
50,000 . I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1
1956 58 6o 62 64 66 68 70 1980

Year

i74

500

Figure 2

GROWTH OF LARGE MERCHANT SHIPS
OVER 200,000 DWT IN THE WORLD

Number
Of
Ships

300
273

250

Source: Maritime Adminstration
U.S. Department of Commerce
1976 Projection Given by
Roger M. Jones. President
200 JONTP@S, BARDELMEIER and CO., LTD.
Ocean Bulk Shipping Consultants

150 132

100

2
0.

1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 Under 1976
Construction Estimate
or on
Order
175 12-31-70

of ships over 200,000 dwt; the estimate for 1976 is based on ships

under construction or on order at the end of 1971. In 1966 there was

only one ship of 200,000 dwt or -larger, while in 1970 there were 132;

in 1972 there are 273; and by 1976 there will be nearly 500 ships

greater than 200,000 dwt and 1000 ships 100,000 dwt or larger.

Table 1 summarizes some salient characteristics of tankers. Rows

(1) and (2) show the relationship between dwt and cargo dwt, while raw
(3) relates the approximate draft to ship size. 6 The most interesting

characteristics, however, are in rows (4), (5), and (6).

First, speed does not vary with size of ship, and so there is no

sacrifice in time en route for large tankers. Second, crew size increases

slightly on larger tankers, but a 450,000-ton tanker, which is 2,250 per-

cent larger than a 20,000 dwt tanker, requires a crew only 28 percent

larger. Row (6)--construction costs-has been graphed in Figure 3 to

show clearly that average construction costs per 20,000 dwt decrease

rapidly and then begin to flatten out at about 300,000 dwt. The

average construction cost per 20,000 dwt when ship size is also 20,000

dwt is $13 million, while the average construction cost per 20,000 dwt

when ship size is 450,000 dwt is $3.19 million.

The power required to.propel a vessel does not increase directly

with ship size. A 200,000-ton ship requires only 50 percent more power

than a 100,000-ton ship, while a 300,000 tonner requires only a doubling

in the required power. Because fuel consumption rises in proportion to

6Allowances for squat, freshwater buoyancy loss, motion in the sea
and a safety factor requires channel depths 5 to 10 feet greater than
the draft.

176

TABLE 1

SOME COMPARATIVE TANKER CHARACTERISTICS, 1971 ESTIKATES

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1) dwt 20*000 67,000 135,000 210,000 285,000 365,000 450,000

2) Cargo dwt 19,200 64,200 129,500 201,400 273,000 350,000 431,500

3) Draft (Feet) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

4) Speed (Loaded) 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 15.5 15.5 15.5

5) Crew Size 25 25 25 30 32 32 32

6) Construction Cost 1 13.0 23.6 35.6 46.3 55.1 63.0 71.8

lMillions of Dollars [cost estimates per ship are based on construction of three ships in each class]

Source: Personal correspondence with Chief, Division of Ports, U.S. Maritime Administration.

Figure 3
Average Construction Cost Per
20,000 Deadweight Ton by
Size of Ship
1972

Millions
Of
Dollars

1.5

(13-0)

(7-04)

(5.27)-
5

(4.41)

(3.87)
(3.45)
(3-1-9)

0 go 67 100 135 200' 300 365 4oo 500
Size of Ships in Thousands of dwt.

Source: Table 1

178

engine output, which increases less than proportionally to ship size,

a 300,000-ton ship at a given speed is more economical than six 50,000

tonners. Obviously, such economies of scale must be reflected in real

transportation savings.

The Maritime Administration has calculated the comparative costs

of transporting a ton of crude from the Persian Gulf to the U.S. North

Atlantic by various sizes of ships as indicated in Table 2.

Table 2

Transportation Costs Per Ton of Crude Oil,
Persian Gulf - U.S. North Atlantic
By Size of Ship
1970

Cost Per Ton Size of Ship
$17.9 25,000
12.6 47,000
10.5 80,000
5.7 250,000
5.2 500,000

Data in Table 2 are shown graphically in Figure 4. Once again the

average cost curve tends to flatten out in the 300,000 dwt-500,000 dwt

7
range.

The most intensive study of superport and supertanker economies was

done for an East Coast location. Table 3 shows estimated cost and savings

on projected 1980 oil imports from the Persian Gulf and Libya to the

Atlantic Coast under various alternatives. Alternatives A and B are

variants of developing the Delaware River Harbor. The other alternatives

involve superport redistribution terminals. As shown in the last column,

7Most marine professionals believe that in the near future few
ships will be constructed larger than 500,000 dwt.

179

Figure 4
Water Transportation Cost Per Ton
from Persian Gulf to U.S. North
(17-9) Atlantic Coast, by Size of Tanker,
1970

(12.6)

(10-5)
10

4-'
0 5 (5-7)

0 :Z5 @7 80 100 200 2@O 300 4oo 5'00

Size of Ships in Thousands of dwt

Source: Plotted from Data Provided by
U.S. Maritime Administrati--n

180

Table 3

Estimated Annual Savings on Crude Oil Imports
Alternative Deep-Draft Proposals
North Atlantic Coast, 1980

Total Unit Transport Projected Annual Savings
Costs for 1980a, b for 1980
Liquid Bulk ($/IT) (millions of dollars)
Alternatives Ship Size Imported from Imported from
Descriptions/Depth dwt Persian Gulf Libya Persian Gulf Libya Total

A. Dela. River, Unchanged 40' 35,000 25.98 - 8.67 - -0- -0- -0-
N.Y./N.J., Unchanged 35' 25,000 - 29.26 - 9.86 -0- -0- -0-
B. Dela. River Dredged 50' 80,000 16.58 - 5.65 - 94 45 139
N.Y./N.J., Unchanged 45' 65,000 - 18.08 - 6.16 56 19 75
F@ C. 1) Montauk Transferc 75'
00 To Dela. River 250,000 10.99 - 4.86 -
F@ To N.Y./N.J. 250,000 - 10.77 - 4.64 242 83 325
2) Machiasport Transfer: 75'
To Dela. River 250,000 11.49 - 5.25 - 233 73 306
To N.Y./N.J. 250,000 - 11.71 - 5.44
3) Lower Dela. Bay Transfer: 75'
To Dela. River 250,000 10.66 - 4.56 - 246 89 335
To*N.Y./N.J. 250,000 - 10.62 - 4.53
D. Open Sea-Off N.J. Transfer: 85'
To Dela. River 250,000 14.05 - 7.97 - 195 22 217
To N.Y./N.J. 250,000 - 14.02 - 7.94
E. Nova Scotia Transfer:d 75'
To Dela. River 250,000 11.25 - 5.02 -
To N.Y./N.J. 250,000 - 11.38 - 5.15 236 79 315

Notes
a. All ocean freight rates based on U.S. flag bulk carriers including construction subsidy
b. Total transport costs calculated to tidewater oil refineries at Perth Amboy, N.J., and Marcus Hook, Pa.
c. Shuttle voyage rates for all U.S. transshipment locations based on 40,000 dwt U.S. flag oceangoing barges
d. Shuttle voyage rates based on 47,000 dwt foreign-flag tankers
Source: "Deep Draft Vessel Port Capability on the U.S. North Atlantic Coast," Maritime Study, 1971

the transportation savings on the.250,000 dwt ships using these deep-

draft facilities range from $217 million to $335 million. Tables 4

and 5 present the alternative dollar savings for iron ore imports from

Liberia and Australia and coal exports to Japan and Europe. All cost

data were computed on total system costs, including ocean freight rates,

transfer and transshipment costs and inland transportation. However,

the cost data may have,omitted inventory costs, and the Commerce

Department's projections of future petroleum imports appear to be some-

what exaggerated. Because of the differential commodity flows in the

Gulf Coast region, the annual savings in transportation costs would not

be as significant, but these tables do present a relative indication of

the economies inherent in supership transportation, and they show the

further analysis which must be done for the proposed Gulf Coast superport.

Although superships may appear to be more economical than smaller

ships, their operating characteristics may, according to some individuals,

make them more dangerous, and thus more costly. Some studies have

suggested that a T-2 tanker of 17,000 dwt can come to a "crash stop"

within 0.5 mile in 5 minutes but that a 200,000 dwt tanker would take

2.5 miles and 21 minutes; and a 400,000 tonner would take 5 miles and
30 minutes to stop.8 Experience with the six 326,000 dwt tankers (Bantry

Bay class) under long-term charter to Gulf Oil Corporation has suggested

81, Gargantuan Tankers: Privileged or Burdened," by Captain Edward F.
Oliver, in Proceedings, U.S. Naval Institute, September 1970.

182

Table 4

Estimated Annual Savings on Iron Ore Imports
Alternative Deep-Draft Proposals
North Atlantic Coast, 1980
Total Unit Trans 9 ort Proj@ected Annual Savings
Costs for 1980 for 1980
($/IT) (millions of dollars)
Alternatives Dry Bulk Ship Imported from Imported from
Descriptions/Depth Size dwt Liberia Australia Liberia Australia Total

A. Baltimore Unchanged 40,000 8.59, - 22.77 - -0- -0- -0-
Delaware River Unchanged 40' 35,000 - 9.10 24.18 -0- -0- -0-
B. Baltimore Dredged 50' 80,000 6.06 - 15.76 - 13 18 31
Delaware River Dredged 50, 80,000 - 6.06 - 15.76 15 21 36
C. 1) Montauk Transfer: 75'
00 To Baltimore 250,000 6.27 - 11.68 -
To Dela. River 250,000 - 6.27 - 11.68 26 59 85
2) Machiasport Transfer: 75'
To Baltimore 250,000 7.23 - 12.77 - 16 54 70
To Dela. River 250,000 - 7.23 - 12.77
3) Lower Dela. Bay Transfer: 75'
To Baltimore 250,000 6.22 - 11.68 - 30 62 92
To Dela. River 250,000 - 5.57 - 11.68
D. Open Sea-Off Chesapeake Bay: 85'
To Baltimore 250,000 6.91 - 12.32 - 16 54 70
To Dela. River 250,000 - 7.57 - 12.98
E. Nova Scotia Transfer b : 75'
To Baltimore 250,00 6.29 - 11.82 - 26 58 84
To Dela. River 250,000 - 6.29 - 11.82

Notes
a. Total transport costs calculated to tidewater steel plants at Sparrows Point, Md., and Fairless, Pa.
b. Thuttle voyage rates based on 50,000 dwt foreign-flat ore carriers
Source: "Deep Draft Vessel Port Capability on the U.S. North Atlantic Coast," Maritime Study, 1971

Table 5
Estimated Annual Savings on Coal Exports
Alternative Deep:-Draft Proposals
North Atlantic Coast, 1980
Total Unit Transport Projected Annual Savings
Costs for 1980a for 1980
($/LT) (millions of dollars)
Alternatives Dry Bulk Ship
Descriptions/Depth Size d.w.t. Exported to Exported to
Japan Europe Japan Europe Total
A. Hampton Rds. Unchanged 45' 56,000 23.23b 14.18 -0- -0- -0-

B. Hampton Rds. Dredged 55' 140,000 22.85 12.67 13 30 43

C. 1) Montauk Transfer: 75' 250,000 18.86 .11.25 153 59 212
From Hampton Rds.

2) Machiasport Transfer:75' 250,000 19.74 12.10 122 42 164
From Hampton Rds.
00

3) Lower Delaware Bay
Transfer: 75' 250,000 18.21 10.70 176 70 246

D. Open Sea-Off Chesapeake
Bay: 85' 250,000 19.20 11.70 141 50 191
From Hampton Rds.
E. Nova Scotia Transfer c 75' 250,000 20.02 12.30 112 38 150
From Hampton Rds.

Notes
a. Unit costs include inland rail cost through Hampton Roads
b. Via Panama Canal
c. Shuttle voyage rates based on 40,000 d.w.t. U.S. flag barges

Source:
"Deep Draft Vessel Port Capability on the U.S. North Atlantic Coast", Maritime Study, 1971

less drastic differences. This company has found that these tankers,

fully laden and moving at top speed, can come to a full stop in 1.75 miles;

at half-speed they can come to a full stop in 1 mile. In ballast

condition they come to a full stop in 1.6 miles and 12 minutes. The

company has also found its ships to be relatively stable during inclement

weather. Because of their size and cost it is economically feasible to

install such sophisticated navigational aids as radar, Bow Swing

Indicator, and Doppler Sonar Device.

These Bantry Bay class tankers provide considerable protection

against routine oil pollution because they contain crude/water separators

which permit the crude-contaminated ballast to settle to the bottom and

to be recovered. Smaller tankers have even been integrated into the

supertankers' recovery system, with the result that dirty ballast from

the shuttle tankers can be pumped ashore and stored for later removal
and separation by the supertankers.9 Additionally, the movement of a

given volume of cargo in a 300,000-ton vessel instead of 50,000 tonners

means that shipping lane and channel congestion will be reduced by nearly

600 percent.

B. Capital Costs and Complementary Facilities - whereas smaller tramp

steamers can be considered as separate units of oceanic transportation,

supertankers are an integral part of a comprehensive land-sea transportation

system. They cannot be analyzed apart from their complementary onshore and

offshore facilities.

9"Mammoth Tankers Operation," Paper presented by W. C. Brodhead,
15th Annual Tanker Conference, April 29, 1970.

185

The capital costs of these mammoth ships are great; interest on

the capital investment for a 450,000-ton tanker is approximately
$20,000 per day. 10 Hence each day these ships lie idle in port costs
$20,000 in real capital costs forgone. 11

Supertankers are not unique in this "time value of capital" concept.

For example, four ships of 100,000 dwt entail a greater capital outlay

than one 400,000-ton tanker. Hence, the time value costs of the 4 smallet

ships lying idle are greater in total than the capital costs of the

supertanker's idle time. The important consideration is that the four

100,000-ton tankers need not enter the loading or discharge terminal

at the same time, and after 100,000 tons are unloaded from a ship it

may leave; the 400,000 tonner, however, is non-divisible, and the entire

400,000 dwt capacity must remain idle while the last 100,000 tons are

being unloaded. This non-divisibility of the supertanker presents

some rather specific economic problems and important economic tradeoffs.

The large-amount of non-divisible capital invested in a supertanker

would suggest that port time be minimized. In order to minimize port

time, however, very expensive high-rate loading and unloading facilities

would have to be constructed; high-capacity and expensive transshipment

10 Assuming a 10 percent cost of capital.
11 Economists and accountants are constantly debating the inter-
pretation of costs; i.e., accountants would calculate the loss on the
basis of the recorded costs of constructing that particular ship which is
lying idle. The economist, however, would calculate the loss on the
basis of capital replacement costs, which, during periods of inflation,
would be considerably greater. The cost figures used here are based on 1971
estimates by the Maritime Administration. A more economically meaningful
estimate would be based on the total revenue equivalent (less operating
cost) forgone by the shipper because of the idle time. This estimate,
however, could not be obtained in time for publication.,

186

facilities would have to be provided, etc. For example, the unloading

rate at the offshore facility could conceivably be such that a 400,000

dwt ship need spend only 3 hours at the terminal. But the construction

and operating costs of this high-rate unloading facility may be

considerably greater than the opportunity costs of keeping the

supertankers in port for another day. It would not be feasible to

construct a high-rate unloading facility costing $100 million annually

in order to reduce turnaround time 24 hours for 20 ship calls per year
at a capital time saving value of only $400,000. 12 Hence, the objective

is to optimize--not minimize--the loading/unloading rate, with the

optimal size increasing in relation to size of ships visiting the

terminal and the number of ship visits, as well as many other variables.

Once the cargo is discharged, there must be a place to store it or

means to transship it. If no storage facilities exist at an offshore

facility, the unloading rate is limited by capacity of the transshipment

system. In the case of liquid bulks and slurries the transshipment

vehicle may be a pipeline. The maximum-size of submarine pipelines

(of appreciable length) constructed to date is 48 inches although a

54-inch line is under study for the Persian Gulf. These large pipelines

are considerably more costly to construct and to pump than smaller

pipelines. This is important for a Louisiana offshore port may lie

relatively close to the shoreline but be a considerable distance from

an economically viable ground base for storage and related secondary

facilities.

The longer the pipeline distance the greater is the economic

12 $20,000 per day per ship times 20 ship visits.

187

argument for offshore storage capability, because such storage will

permit a continuous rather than surging flow to the onshore facility.

This will thus permit the use of a smaller pipeline and also retain

an optimal loading/unloading rate. Storage, however, is costly. Not

only must the storage faci lities be constructed and maintained, but

the value of materials stored pending further processing must also

be considered. The opportunity costs of storing a product instead of

maintaining a steady throughput to more quickly recover embodied costs

are known as inventory costs. A recognized problem of supertankers is

that they increase inventory costs because they induce sporadic flows

requiring storage. Consider a refinery which uses 50,000 tons of crude

stock per day. A 50,000 dwt ton tanker could deliver that amount each

day, and virtually no inventory would be required. A supertanker,

however, might deliver 500,000 dwt every 10 days, which would necessitate

an average inventory of 50,000 tons of crude. Most studies we have seen

may have omitted these inventory costs but the lack of detailed presen-

tations makes such assessments difficult.

A second, equally important argument for storage facilities at a

Louisiana offshore port relates to its comparative advantage for trans-

shipment by barges or oceangoing vessels. Such transshipments

necessitate at least temporary storage facilities.

C. Summary - It is evident that large ships exhibit economies of

scale without causing insurmountable problems of safety and environmental

damage. However, analysis of supership economics must regard these

vessels not as isolated units, but as integral parts of an international

transportation system extending from shipping points in producing

countries to points of consumption in others. The brief discussion of

the problems raised by supertankers suggests that storage facilities
188

be constructed on, or in close proximity to, the superport and that

further research efforts should be devoted to an analysis of the

interrelationships among the most immediate complementary facilities,

including loading/unloading rates, storage at the deep-draft port, and

the alternative means and costs of transshipment to intermediate

onshore locations.
IV. The Superports 13
A. The U.S. Lag - Some 50 deep-draft ports are currently in

operation, under construction or in the planning stages. Not one of

these ports, however, is located in the United States which, in absolute

volumes, is the largest trading nation in the world. This means that the

U.S. is currently unable to take advantage of economies afforded by the

larger and more efficient ships. Most ports in the U.S. have drafts

ranging from 30 to 45 feet, which limits their use by fully loaded

vessels to those in range of 50,000-80,000 dwt. Only the ports of

Long Beach, Los Angeles and Puget Sound can accommodate 100,000-ton

ships.

Why has the United States lagged behind other countries,in

developing deep-draft.capability? One answer is that international

trade of the United States, while large in absolute volume and value,

constitutes only 5 percent of U.S. gross national product. Hence,

U.S. ditizens and their political representatives are not as interested in

13 Superport is a misnomer because the most relevant consideration
at this point in time is not the size of the port but the maximum-draft
vessel which it will accommodate, Hence, a superport may be a large
offshore island complex complete with multipurpose storage, repair and
unloading facilities, or it may merely be a single point mooring device
with a flexible pipeline attached to it.

189

or as affected by international trade as Europenas. Second, U. S. ports

are numerous and each one jealously guards its own interests. If the

Corps of Engineers proposed to deepen the channel in one port, say on the

upper East Coast, all neighboring ports would demand similar improvements,

and they would exert sufficient political pressure to stop any project

which would give another port a competitive advantage.

Third, bureaucratic red tape has been a probable deterrent. One

group interested in constructing an offshore terminal in Maine found

that it had to obtain 27 separate licenses, permits, concurrences and
approvals. 14

Where deep-draft ports have been proposed, such as the transfer

terminal in Delaware Bay, they have been successfully opposed by environ-

mental groups. The Commerce Department has estimated that the Delaware

Bay port would cost $210 million but would provide transportation savings
of $335 million in the first year alone. 15 Deep-draft ports proposed

for Machiasport, Maine, and Montauk Point, New York, were estimated to

cost $312 million and $278 million, and to realize annual transportation

savings of $305 million and $325 million, respectively. Thus each facility

would "pay for itself" in one year or less. This means not that port reven-

ues in one year would be sufficient to pay the costs of deep-draft

facilities, but that the total savings among all entities--including

14,, Offshore Bulk Redistribution Terminals", Roger M. Jones, speech
presented at the Propeller Club Meeting, Port of New Orleans, Feb. 22, 1972.
15 See Tables 3, 4, 5.

190

consumers--in the entire system, would equal construction costs within

one year of operation. Such optimistic predictions must be viewed

critically inasmuch as the details have not been provided by the Maritime

Administration. Such items as inventory costs seem to have been

omitted, and the projections of future petroleum imports are on the high

side of the forecasting range. At the very least, however, such estimates

do suggest the potential of net real savings. Nevertheless, both the

Machiasport and the Montauk projects seemed to be stalled.

At present, Canada has in existence or under development, five

ports which will be able to handle ships larger than 200,000 dwt. A

recent decision by the Canadian government to tax all crude imports,

has temporarily discouraged oil companies from importing crude through

Canadian deep-draft ports for transshipment to the United States. However,

the eastern U.S. region may soon be confronted by a situation in which

a major portion of its crude supplies will be funneled through Canadian

ports.

The lethargic development of deep-draft ports in the U.S. has

produced some interesting anomalies. As part of its efforts to rebuild

the U.S. Merchant Fleet, the Maritime Administration is seriously

considering subsidies for construction of ships which will be unable

to enter any U.S. port. Also, the Manhattan--once the "largest ship

in the world"--was named after a borough whose harbors it cannot enter

fully laden.

While the United States' incentives to construct deep-draft ports

are less than those of most European countries, the total lack of such

ports in this country poses a potentially serious economic problem,

191

particularly since the lag times in planning, design and construction

indicate that a port concept which is approved this year would not be

operational until about 1980; the exact lag time would depend on the

type of port selected. As pointed out below, the increasing reliance

of the United States upon foreign sources for certain bulk raw materials

and its increasing exports of coal and farm products suggest that

deep-draft ports, limited in number, will be economically advantageous.

B. Reasons for Caution - Certain factors afgue against the hasty

development of such ports. First, the Canadian East Coast deep-draft

ports may relieve some of the pressures created by the U.S. northeast

corridor's demand for crude imports. Second, owing to the lack of

deep-draft ports in the United States, shipping companies have developed

new techniques which are currently becoming operational. These new

shipping developments may negatively affect future utilization of a

superport.

The LASH and SEABEE concepts, in which fully laden lighters or

barges may be loaded on a mother ship, are particularly relevant for a
potential Gulf superport 16 since these systems have numerous advantages

over other more traditional methods of oceanic transportation. They

are particularly well-suited for incoming or outgoing foreign trade

serviced by the inland waterway system terminating at the Gulf. Barges

16 The LASH (Lighter Aboard Ship) pioneered by the Central Gulf and the
SEABEE, developed by Lykes, are oceanic transportation systems in which
numerous barges can be loaded onto the mother ship. The LASH system is
currently operating with 400 barges and two mother ships, each carrying
80 barges; the SEABEE system is currently operating with 246 barges and
three mother ships, each carrying 38 barges.

192

may be loaded and unloaded in open stream or any sheltered water; a

port need not be used. The barges serve as warehouses for both the

shipper and receiver. Also, both systems possess economies of scale for

oceangoing voyage and divisibility for inland water transportation in

the United States and Europe. Neither LASH nor SEABEE systems would need

to use a superport because their mother ships do not require deep drafts.

The extensive development of these systems could negatively affect a

.Gulf superport unless (a) the shipping companies decide that the

superport is a convenient barge loading/unloading terminal for their

mother ships or (b) the mother ships grow in size sufficiently to require

the channel depths or shelter of a deep-draft port.

An additional factor that could negatively affect future superport

utilization is development of seagoing barges which may divert much of

the Gulf-Atlantic coastwise traffic from a superport.

The major negative factors, however, are due not to technological

changes but to social, political and economic changes occurring in this

country. The environmental movement is likely to discourage further

major improvements in the inland waterway system, thus slowing the growth
in foreign-bound inland waterway shipments to Gulf Coast ports. 17 One

such example is the currently stalemated Tombigbee project.

17 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has subsidized a forth-
coming "citizens' guide" on "How to Stop Army Corps of Engineers' Water
Development Projects."

193

Many economists have argued that the Corps of Engineers has used an

artificially low discount rate in evaluating water resource projects, thus

making them seem more beneficial than they would be if a more realistic

(i.e. higher) discount rate were employed. The argument is based on the

contention that private corporations will discount future revenues

(representing future benefits to the public) by their cost of capital,

say 10 percent, in examining the feasibility of a capital project, and

the project will be approved only if this discounted income (benefit)

stream is greater than capital costs. The Corps, on the other hand,

uses a lower rate, say 5 percent, in discounting the estimated benefits

from its projects. This implies that the nation's resources which

yield a 10 percent rate of return (or an even higher rate, if corpor ate

taxes are considered),are being sacrificed for projects in which the

rate of return is 5 percent. Economists have charged that this

constitutes a misallocation of resources into excess water-related

projects and away from investments in more beneficial private projects.

The U.S. Water Resources Council has recommended to Congress the

establishment of a 7 percent discount rate and a projected increase to

10 percent. While Congress may not adopt this recommendation in the

current session, the basic analytical arguments, as distinct from the

occasional emotional arguments used in support of it, are economically

sound.

Related to, but separate from, the discount rate debate is the

initiation of waterway user charges. It is alleged that waterway users

have received an implicit subsidy from government construction and

maintenance of waterway facilities which makes inland waterway transportation

194

appear to be cheaper than it really is. Waterway rates are artificially

low because of this subsidy, and thus traffic is diverted from railroads

and trucking companies, where the subsidy is much less. Hence, the

proposal is to employ user charges which would aid the market in

efficiently dividing the traffic among modes of transportation. The

National Water Commission will make its recommendations on user charges

in May.

Any decision-making process relating to the construction of a

superport in the Gulf region, particularly one located near the

Mississippi River, must consider the future effects of these three

developments. While there is cause for concern about the environment,

the current "crisis attitude" may diminish when the public becomes

aware of the costs, in terms of forgone goods and services, of attempting

to maintain an environmental status quo. Hence, the environmental

proposals for curtailing water development projects may have short-run

but not long-run political success. Despite the damages which will be

suffered by some groups, the basic economic arguments pertai ning to

discount rate evaluation and to user charges are valid and can be expected

to prevail in the long run.

Since a major advantage of a superport off the coast of Louisiana

is its connection with the inland waterway system, factors resulting in

diversion of traffic away from the inland waterways justify the closest

scrutiny. If recommendations for increased user charges, and possibly

the discount rate, are adopted, a shipper of bulk farm products in

Illinois or Ohio might find it more economical to ship via rail to

East Coast ports rather than to use the inland waterways to a Gulf port.

195

Another extremely important variable in the super.port analysis is

the number of deep-draft ports which will be developed elsewhere in the

United States. If superports were constructed on both the West and

East Coasts, their net effect on the Louisiana superport might be either

trade creation or trade diversion. A West Coast superport will have

little immediate effect in either direction, although realization of

the land bridge concept discussed below could change that. An East

Coast superport (superports?), however, would have marked effects on the

volume and direction of commodity flows on the.Gulf Coast as well as on

the East and Hidwest sections of the country.

Despite the relatively short distances between the North Atlantic

and the Gulf Coast, superships would be more efficient in these coast-.

wise movements than conventional shallow-draft vessels and considerably
more efficient than land surface transportation. 18,19

Since the Gulf region exports lakge quantities of crude petroleum

products to the East Coast, the construction of an East Coast as well

as a Gulf superport may increase the short-run volume of coastwise

shipments from the Gulf superport.

18 According to one qualified maritime expert, a 130,000 dwt bulk
carrier can transport one ton of cargo 6,500 miles for $2.00, whereas
the railroad can haul the same ton 200 miles. R. P. Holubowicz, "The
Other Revolution," Proceedings, U.S. Naval Institute, October, 1970.
19 These savings in transportation costs are reduced greatly by the
requirement set forth by the Jones Act (1936), in which cargo moving
between U.S. ports must be carried in U.S.-built ships. If this uneconomi-
cal law is not repealed, exceptions may be made for inter-superport traffic.
One exception already has been made for a Norwegian tanker to transport.
cargo from Alaska to Seattle.

196

On the other hand, there would be some trade diversion. The East

coast is closer to Europe and the Middle East than is the Gulf and,

more significantly, the populous East Coast is the major consumption

center in the United States. Hence, bulk commodities destined for the

East Coast or the Midwest would be funneled through the East Coast

rather than a Gulf Coast superport. This will also affect the flow of

petroleum crude oil and products. While an East Coast superport would

increase the volume of petroleum shipped through a Gulf superport in the

short run, the long-run decline in crude production in the Gulf region

and the increased demand for petroleum products imply that it will be

more economical for new refineries to be constructed in the East. These

could be supplied with crude from the Middle East transshipped through

the East Coast superport. This redistribution of refinery capacity

not only would have a detrimental effect on revenues of a Louisiana

superport, but would also have a significant negative impact on the

State's economy.

While an East Coast superport would probably have net negative

effects on a Louisiana superport, some trade-creating effects would

result from increased coastwise traffic. The establishment of competing

superports in the Gulf, however, could result only in trade diversion.

Every state on the Gulf Coast is presently studying the feasibility of

locating a superport off its shores, and there is a distinct possibility

that an interstate poker game is in the offing. If only one other

superport is built in the Gulf, even a single point mooring device,

it would have a significant impact on the potentials of the Louisiana

superport. Although a regional commission of representatives from all

197

Gulf Coast states may produce more problems for Louisiana than it would

solve, a strong argument in its favor is that coordinated effort may

avoid the construction of two, three or four superports in the Gulf

region.

While there appears to be considerable economic potential for a

superport in the Gulf, a number of general constraints must be

considered. Unfortunately, resources were not available for a

thorough investigation of each of these. More detailed evaluations of

petroleum crude and product flows as well as general commodity flows

in the immediate region of a Louisiana superport are presented below.

V. Petroleum and Superports

A. Introduction - Among industrialized nations the United States

has been fortunate in that it has been able to supply the bulk of its

petroleum energy requirements from domestic production. Because neither

population nor oil production is evenly distributed within the U.S.,

considerable quantities of crude oil and petroleum products are shipped

relatively long distrances between points of production, refining and

consumption. The country has been divided into five geographical areas,

called Petroleum Administration for Defense (PAD) districts for the

purpose of locating refining operations. Some of these are further sub-

divided into Bureau of Mines Refining districts. These districts are

shown in Figure 5.

The East Coast and the Midwest, PAD Districts 1 and 2, respectively,
are the most populous and have the greatest demand for petroleum products. 20

20 Approximately 40 percent of national consumption of petroleum is
in District 1.

198

Figure 5.

PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION FOR DEFENSE (PAD) DISTRICTS

4*491#.

'WONT. mE.
N. OAK. AAINN.

IDAHO I
-5 All-
14 MICH ".v @iss.
017c/. iloska, S. OAK. c.
WIS.
ond Howah) low& C'
NEBR, ILL,
V. UTAN I IND. IIOHIO DEL.
CALIF. COLO.
KANS. I MO.
.f-j
TENN.
oz.
ARK. % 5.c.
ALA.
miss., GA.

TEX LA.

FLA.

BUREAU OF WNES REFINNNG DISTRICTS

WAS##. ON StNgOTA
Isc pA
MONT
H ME.
ORL'O. 00
N. OAK
9 TA so
.1\ MAN
0 -0'
Y MICH 'J
NO
S. DAX.
WIS.
Wyo. 0, low
k EV e L, ILL
C.) 11Z 1 ;@4. c'- I . p
f 4A,
0%, EL -
COLO.
'N V
V A.
KANS. 0 K1.
CALIF.
N.C.
rENN
ARIZ. 0 OKLA.
-, S.C.
A Al A
\r
ARK
@40411SIAN4 GA.
rfXAS INL.AND L&- !'4)@14AIVD
rL

LOUISIANA
GULF COAST
TEXAS
GULF COAST

199

District 3, which includes New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas,

Mississippi and Alabama, contains the largest share of crude oil production.

Because of this, large amounts of crude oil are shipped from District 3

to both Districts I and 2, and large amounts of products are shipped from

District 3 to District 1. These large movements of crude oil and

petroleum products constitute a production and distribution system into

which additional shipments of imported oil must be integrated.

Each of the major flows is discussed below.

B. Inter-PAD District Flows

1. Crude Oil. Crude oil is the basic raw material for petroleum

products, and its movement to refineries marks the first stage in the

conversion to finished consumer products.

a. Production and Refining. Table 6 shows the 1970 crude oil

balance for each PAD District and for the United States as a whole. The

surpluses and deficits are accommodated by transport to or from other

districts or foreign countries. The total production and the oil

received at refineries differ slightly because of variations in stocks

on hand.

The total refinery receipts of crude oil in the U.S. in

1970 were 3,973,255,000 barrels-(42-gallon size). Of this, 3,492,414,000

barrels (87.9 percent) were from domestic production and 480,841,000 barrels

(12.1 percent) were imported.

As can be seen, District 3 is a major source of crude oil

for refineries in other areas, while Districts 1, 2, and 5 are crude

deficit areas.

District 1 (the East Coast) has very little production of

crude oil. Because demand for petroleum products is very high in this

200

Table 6

Crude Oil Balance for the United States, 1970

Crude Oil (1000 42 Gal. Barrels)
PAD DISTRICT
1 2 3 4 5 Total
Total Crude Oil 11,411 426,777 2,735,205 246,317 457,740 3,517,450
Produced
(Inc. Lease
Condensate)

Crude Oil Prod.
and Received at
a
U.S. Refineries 13,083 414,407 2,361,067 243,985 459,872 3,492,414

Crude Oil Rec.
at Refineries in
District 472,022 1,151,948 1,593,737 143,661 611,887 3,973,255

District Deficit 458,939 737,541 152,015 1,348,495

District Surplus 767,330 100,324 867,654

Foreign Imports 211,403 113,559 0 17,175 138,704 480,841

From Other Dist. 247,548 630,880 3,980 135 13,750 896,293

To Other Dist. 12 6,898 771,310 117,634 439 896,293

Net Input 458,939 737,541 152,015 1,348,495

Net Output 767,330 100,324 867,654

Net Balance Even Even Even Even Even Even

aThese totals differ slightly from the production totals because of changes in
stocks of crude on hand.

Source: Mineral Industry Surveys, Bureau of Mines, Crude Oil, Refined
Products, and Natural-Gas Liquids, 1970. Final Summary

201

district, refinery production, in absolute but not relative terms, is

quite high. Slightly over one-half of the crude oil required for

refining comes from District 3, and most of the balance is imported.

District 2 (Midwest) has a fairly large amount of production,

but the refining industry is even larger and so this district has the

largest crude oil deficit. The inland location precludes direct imports

by tanker except through Great Lakes ports. Hence, imports are fairly

low and the deficit is filled from District 3.

District 3 (South-Southwest) has both the largest production

and the largest refining industry, but production exceeds refining

substantially, and so this district is a major supplier of crude oil

to Districts 1 and 2.

District 4 (Mountain States) has moderate production and a

small refining industry so that it has a small net surplus of crude.

District 5 (West Coast) has a substantial crude deficit

even though production is fairly high. Imports are used to fill the

deficit.

b. Transportation of Crude Oil.

1) General. Crude oil balances of production and

refining and total crude movements among PAD Districts are set forth in

Table 7 and Figure 6. Figure 7 shows a comparison of District 3 states
as suppliers of crude to Districts 1 and 2. 21

21 The basic data were obtained from Mineral Industry Surveys, but
all tables and figures were compiled by author.

202

Table 7

Major Oil-Producing States as Suppliers of Crude Oil To Refineries
Intrastate, Interstate-IntraDistrict and Interstate@InterDistrict, 1970
(1000 Barrel Units)

Interstate Receipts From
U.S. Tot
IntSt PAD IuterSt.
Location of Rec.of Dist. Ill. Dist. 2 Ala-Ark Dist. 3 Dist. 4 Dist. 5 To
Refinery Crude I Mich. Kansas Okla. Total Miss La. N. Mex. Texas Total Wyoming Total Total

District 1 6,373 6,698 363 0 976 6,056 14,980 128,219 544 93,842 237,585 0 3,555 352 254,246

District 2 256,006 12 35,053 20,860 82,767 151,503 11,716 169,532 54,301 295,324 530,873 78,905 99,995 0 782,383

District 3
Total 1,194,118 0 1 2 833 836 25,819 247,615 54,653 67,552 395,639 0 3,144 0 399,619

Ala. 1,342 0 0 0 0 0 3,975 1,092 0 0 5,067 0 0 0 5,067
Ark. 15,865 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,730 0 13,784 16,514 0 0 0 16,514
La. 355,361 0 0 0 29 29 21,804 0 0 53,768 75,572 0 0 0 75,601
Miss. 12,353 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,749 0 0 55,749 0 0 0 55,749
N. Hex. 14,790 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Tex. 794,407 0 1 2 804 807 40 188,044 54,653 0 242,737. 0 3,143 0 246,687

District 4 69,159 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 42 0 42 39,889 57,192 87 57,327

District 5 390,138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29810 0 2,810 0 10,940 69,295 83,045
Calif. 378,771 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,810 0 2,810 0 10,940 60,814 74,564

U.S. TOT. 1,915,794 6,710 35,417 20,862 84,576 158,401 52,515 545,366 112,350 4569718 1,166,949 118,794 174,826 69,734 1,576,620

Intrastate
Receipts 6,373 29,261 76,161 118,560 256,006 299560 355,361 14,790 794,407 19194,118 45,579 69,159 290,138 1,9159794

Total U.S.
Receipts
From U.S.
Production 13,083 64,678 979023 203,136 414,407 82,075 900,727 127,140 1,251,125 2,361,067 164,373 243,985 459,872 3,492,414

Source: Mineral Industry Survey, Bureau of Mines.

Figure 6

Movements of Crude Oil to Refineries

Across PAD District Borders 1970
17,175 113,559
(Imports) (1000 Barrels) (Imports)

IV II
R 143,661 6 R 1,151,948

P 243,985 P 414,407
99,995

%0
CO Ln
0 1-@ q 0. @4
00
Cn 61 In

V I

R 611,887 R 472,022
P 459,872 352 P 13,083

138,704 CIO 211,403
(Imports) 01@ (Imports)
IPCN

R 1,593,737

P 2,361,067

Source: Mineral Industry Surveys, Crude Petroleum; Petroleum Products and
Natural Gas Liquids: 1970 (Final Summary), Bureau of Mines.

R = Received at Refineries

P = Received at Refineries in the U.S. from production in the District

204

Imports - Table 6 and Figure 6 show the flows of crude oil

imports into the various PAD districts. All except District 3 import

some crude oil. District 1 imports as much as 40 percent of its total

crude requirements, or 211,403,000 barrels. District 5 is the second

largest importer, with imports of 138,704,000 barrels or approximately

23 percent of total.

Internal Flows - Figure 6 and Table 7 show that the major

Anternal flows of crude oil within the United States are from District 3

to District 1 and that even larger flows are from District 3 to

District 2. Table 7 shows the amounts of crude oil sent interstate from

each of the major producing states to each of the PAD districts. It also

shows the oil refined in the state of origin for each District and for

certain states within Districts. As graphically shown in Figure 7,

Texas and Louisiana are the two largest oil producing states. Louisiana

,sent 128.2 million barrels to District 1, while Texas sent 93.8 million

barrels to District 1; Louisiana sent 169.5 million barrels to

District 2, while Texas sent 295.3 million barrels. In aggregate

amounts, Texas surpasses all other states as a supplier of crude to

other districts, but does so by receiving substantial amounts of crude
from Louisiana 22 and New Mexico to replace the production sent

north and east.

Louisiana surpasses Texas as a supplier of crude oil to

other states when all interstate shipments are considered. Louisiana

was a net exporter of 432 million barrels to other states, while

22 As can be seen in Figure 7, Louisiana exported 188 million
barrels to Texas, while Texas exported 53.7 million to Louisiana.
Hence, Louisiana was a net exporter of crude to Texas of 134.3 million
barrels.

205

Figure 7

Comparison of District 3 States

And Districts 1, 2, and 4& 5 as

Suppliers of Crude Oil to Refineries

in Other Areas. 1970

4,5 99,995 2 1

'Po

New Alabama
Arkansas
Mexico Mississipp
F CO
CV

53,768
Texas Louisiana
188,044

In thousands of 42-gal. barrels
All movements under 10,000 units omitted

Source: Mineral Industry Surveys, Bureau of Mines

206

Texas was a net exporter of 214 million barrels. Even though crude

production is larger in Texas than in Louisiana, Louisiana ships out a

larger share of its somewhat smaller production, whereas Texas refines

a substantial amount of its own crude production and that which it

receives from other states.

2) Movement of Crude by Water. Figure 8 shows the

flows of crude oil by water transportation into and among the PAD

districts. Where coastal water shipment is available (Gulf Coast to

East Coast), it dominates as the prime transportation method.

Mississippi River barges are a minor means of transporting crude oil to

Districts 1 and 2. They cannot compete with pipelines for this service,

but some crude enters District 1 from District 2 on the Ohio River.

Imports arriving in District 5 are divided almost equally between pipelines

and water transport, but almost all those arriving in District 1 are

carried by water.

3) Movement of Crude by Pipeline. Figure 9 shows

approximate flows of crude oil into the United States and among

PAD districts by pipeline. These figures are derived by substracting

the flows moving by water in Figure 8 from the total flows of Figure 6

and rounding to the nearest million barrels. This procedure assumes that

movements by other means are minor and seem to be supported by data
published by the Bureau of Mines. 23

23 Mineral Industry Surveys, Bureau of Mines, Crude Petroleum,
Petroleum Products, and Natural Gas Liquids, 1970, Final Summary,

207

Figure 8

Movement of Crude Oil

Across PAD District Borders by

Tanker or Barge, 1970

IV (1000 Barrels) II

A+

Ln
O@
10
Cn

V I

ba
$4
0
pq

4J
P-4 CL $4
CL 0
A od
Ci

\\-.Coastwis

Source: Mineral Industry Surveys, Bureau of Mines.

208

Figure 9

Crude Oil Movement Across PAD District

Borders
17,175 By Pipeline, 1970 113,559
(Foreign Imports) (Foreign Imports)
(1000 Barrels)

IV II

1003000

Oil
V

74,313 31,751
(Foreign imports) (Foreign Imports)

Approximate data derived by subtracting the movements by water from total
C)

movements to refineries. In general,other movements are negligible.

Figures for imports by pipeline are exact.

209

The major flows by pipeline are the massive movements

of crude into District 2 from Districts 3 and 4. Together these

represent over one-half of all crude oil refined in District 2.

The foreign import data, which are exact, show inland

imports by pipeline.to Districts 2 and 4. Additionally, about half of

all District 5 imports are by pipeline. This is the only substantial

exception to the rule that crude oil shipments by pipeline are minimal

where coastal water transport is available.

. 2. Petroleum Products. The United States imports large

amounts of petroleum products because its refineries do not produce

enough to meet its internal demands.

Considerable quantities of the petroleum products consumed in

the United States are produced at some distance from consumption centers.

This causes much movement of petroleum products among the various PAD

districts.

Figure 10 and Table 8 show the pattern of shipments into and
out of the various PAD districts in 1970. 24 District 3 had a substantial

surplus of petroleum products and shipped large amounts to Districts 1

and 2 to balance their very large deficits.

a. Foreiga Imports and Exports. Table 8 and Figure 10

show that the East Coast and the West Coast are the two districts

accounting for most of the petroleum product imports. The largest single

product imported is 509.9 million barrels of residual fuel oil into

District 1. This is over 70 percent of all product imports into the

U.S. Total U.S. exports of petroleum products were 89,467,000 barrels.

24 These values are the sum of water and pipeline movements from
Bureau of Mines Statistics.

210

Figure 10

Movement of Petroleum Products

Into the United States and Among PAD Districts
3,192b by Water and Pipeline, 1970 17,335b

(1000 Barrels)

IV II

7,658

00
Ln 4
rl@
Go @4
Cn 4
01
4 4
a, %0 41
CV 0%

1694

b J@g
17,021 624,459ab

III

10,490b

Source: Mineral Industry Surveys.
0

Notes
'mIncludes 509,916,000 barrels of residual fuel oil.
bAll import figures exclude bonded fuels.

211

Table 8

Total Movement of Petroleum Products Into the
United States and Among PAD DISTRICTS by Pipeline and Water, 1970

(1000 Barrel Units)
Receiving District
I II III IV V Totals

I - 43,769 0 0 0 43,769

11 31,719 - 26,194 0 0 57,913
4
W
.rq
In 111 1,011,322 195,327 - 9,799 21,565 1,238,013

IV 0 7,658 0 - 18,158 25,816

V 1,694 0 0 0 - 1,694

Sub-
Total 1,044,735 246,754 26,194- 9,799 39,723 1,367,205

Importsa 624,459b 17,335 10,490 3,192 17,021 672,497

TOTAL 1,669,194 264,089 36,684 12,991 56,744 2,039,702

Notes

a
Import figures exclude bonded fuels.
bIncludes 509,916,000 barrels of residual fuel oil.

Source: Mineral Industry Survey, Bureau of Mines

212

The Bureau of Mines does not break these down by districts.

b. Petroleum Product Movements Within the United States

1) General. Figure 10 shows that petroleum products

are shipped from one district to another in much the same pattern as

for crude oil. There are some significant differences, however.

District 3 sends most of its interdistrict crude exports to District 2,

while it sends most of its interdistrict oil product exports to

District 1. This difference is a result of the relatively small refinery

capacity in relation to demand existing in District 1, while District 2

has refinery capacity almost equal to product demand. This has important

implications for superport location and utilization.

2) Shipments of Products by Water. Figure 11 illustrates

the movement of petroleum products from one PAD district to another by

tanker or barge in 1970. Most of the flows are fairly small, but

considerable amounts of products go up the Mississippi River to both the

Midwest and the East Coast from District 3. The only significant flow

is the 461,623,000 barrels which moved by coastwise tanker from the

Gulf Coast to the East Coast. This is almost one-half of all petroleum

products shipped from District 3 to District 1.

3) Shipments by Pipeline. The second major method for

shipping petroleum products is by pipeline. Figure 12 shows these flows

among the PAD districts. Once again, most of the flows are relatively

minor except for those from District 3 to Districts 1 and 2. Each of

these flows is somewhat larger than its corresponding water transport

flow, shown in Figure 11. Pipelines seem to compete well with coastal

tankers for shipments of products, although they are not important for

crude oil.
213

Figure 11

Movement of Petroleum Products

Among PAD Districts by Water, 1970.

IV (1000 Barrel Units)

Oi to-4 -41
A t")
A a%

23,230

V Op
Cj

1694

Source: Mineral Industry Surveys: Bureau of Mines

214

Figure 12

Movement of Petroleum Products

Among PAD Districts by Pipeline,1970

(1000 Barrel Units)

IV II

7,658

41%
00 w
Ln

00 w

v,
N
V tc;%

(05

Source: Mineral Industry Surveys, Bureau of Mines

215

3. Summary of Inter-PAD Movements. The reader should now be

acquainted with the inter-district movement of crude oil and oil products.

District 3 is a major supplier of both crude and products to Districts 1

and 2. District 3 ships approximately 237.6 million barrels of crude to

District 1 almost all of which is shipped in coastwise vessels; it also

ships 1,011.3 million barrels of products to District 1, of which

461.6 million barrels are shipped coastwise. The remaining product

shipments to District 1 from District 3 are by pipelines. Hence, about

700 million barrels of oil (crude and products) are shipped annually

on coastwise vessels from the Gulf region. If a superport were to be

located in the Gulf, these 700 million barrels could be shipped more

cheaply, provided that a superport were also located on the East Coast.

Movements of crude by internal waterways are only 17.7 million barrels

and go to District 2, whereas product movements on barges are 77.9 million

to District 2 and 23.2 million to District 1. Although these movements

are not very significant at the present time, they could increase if

District 1 were to begin importing more crude from the Middle East and

the Midwest were to receive the Gulf crude. However, it must be

recognized that pipelines are more efficient for transporting both crude

and products to the Midwest.

Approximately 513.0 million barrels of crude and 117.0 million

barrels of products flow in pipelines from District 3 to District 2.

c. Water Transport of Crude Oil and Refined Products by
PAD District 3 States

1) General. Whereas the previous sections analyzed

the movement of crude and products among PAD districts, it was considered

desirable to further segment these movements by states, in order to

216

establish comparative patterns of transportation to the East and

Midwest, (e.g., originating in Texas, as compared to Louisiana). Such

an analysis would be an important input into the locational analysis of a

superport.

We spent considerable time attempting to gather the necessary

statistics. Unfortunately, after much searching, correspondence and

personal visits to the Department of Interior, the American Petroleum

Institute and the National Petroleum Council, it was determined that

such data do not exist. In fact, the Department of Interior had forseen

a need for such data and had requested the oil companies to provide them.

Because of the complex nature of distribution and redistribution of

products, however, the oil companies were unable to comply with this

request.

We therefore requested the refineries located in Louisiana to

provide us with data on the movement of crude and refined products into

and out of Louisiana. Unfortunately, at the time this report was

prepared we had received information from only three companies, one of

which said that the data sought was proprietary and could not be released.

We cannot publish the data we received from the other two companies

because (1) they would be seriously incomplete, and (2) with data from

only two companies, such publication would violate our pledge of

confidentiality.

Hence, we decided to use the less satisfactory alternative of

reconstructing data contained in the "Waterborne Commerce Statistics"

published by the Army Corps of Engineers to show the water, but not

pipeline, movements by states.

217

2) Movement of Crude Oil and Refined Products by
Coastwise Vessels

Figure 13 is a summary of movements of total crude

oil among PAD district 3 and between PAD district 3 states and the other

PAD districts. This information is useful, but we wanted to know how much

was being shipped by water and how much by pipelines. The total

movement of crude and products out of PAD district 3 is made up of two

basic components. First, there are coastwise shipments by tanker from

Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi to the East Coast states and,

second, there are shipments internally on the Mississippi River and its

tributaries, and on the Intracoastal Waterway into Florida.

a. Methodology

Table 9 shows the net coastwise movements of

crude oil and the major refined products originating from each of the

25
producing states in PAD district 3 . Each state is assumed to have a

net contribution to the pool of oils shipped into District 1 (East Coast).

Because each state both contributes to and receives from the pool, the
net contribution is more relevant for District 1 outbound movements. 26

25 New Mexico and Arkansas., which are located in District 3, are
excluded in this analysis because they do not have coastwise shipments.
26 The following three sections employ unique methodologies to
obtain petroleum crude and products flows by states. To our knowledge,
these are the only data which exist for origin of state movements for
petroleum crude and products. We welcome all criticisms and suggestions.

218

Figure 13

Comparison of District 3 States

and Districts 1, 2, 4, & 5 as Suppliers

of Total Crude Oil to Refineries in Other

Areas
1969 a,b,c

Thousands of Short Tons

4, 5 (110,275) 2 1
16,386

00 00

'00
Cn C*4
New Alabama
@0
00 Arkansas
Mexico Mississip

(39,197)
5,824
Texas Louisiana
(196,134)
29,143

Source- Minerals Yearbook 1969, Bureau of Mines
Notes
TT-uthousands of short tons, calculated 6.73 barrels/ton
bAll movements under 10,000 units omitted
cParenthesized figures in thousands of 42-gallon barrels

219

Table 9

Coastwise Movement from PAD District 3 to the East Coast States
Crude Oil and Oil Products
1969
Short Tons

Area: Texas Louisiana Ala.-Miss. Total Net
Shipping to
Commodity Flow (short tons) East Coast

1311 Crude Shipments 13,322,278 18,842,012 1,635,347
Petroleum Receipts 4,165,829 0 0
Net 9,156,449 18,842,012 1,635,34T 29,633,808
% 30.9% 63.6% 5.5%
2911 Gasoline Shipments 15,608,178 3,606,471 806,006
Receipts 211,376 35.405 28,132
Net 15,396,802 3,571,066 777,874 19,745,742
% 78.0% 18.1% 3.9%
2912 Jet Fuel Shipments 2,848,840 1,349,662 272,294
Receipts 92,982 0 0
Net 2,755,858 1,349,662 272,294 4,337,814
% 63.0% 30.8% 6.2%
2913 Kerosene Shipments 1,036,741 254,472 39,170
Receipts 0 0 59,696
Net 1,036,741 254,472 -20,526 1,270,687
% 80.3% 19.7% _0%
2914 Distillate Shipments 16,948,349 5,736,875 777,570
Fuel Oil Receipts 0 0 74,608
Net 16,948,349 5,736,875 702,962 23,388,186
% 72.5% 24.5% 3.0%
2915 Residual Shipments 4,657,740 102,788 171,808
Fuel Oil Receipts 214,750 104,640 185,835
Net 4,442,990 -1,852 -14,027 4,427,111
% 100.0% 0% 0%
2916 Lubricate Shipments 1,631,849 450,400 796
Oils Receipts 125,248 43,244 80
Net 1,506,601 407,156 716 1,914,473
% 78.7% 21.3% 0%
2917 Naphtha Shipments 894,137 38,383 1,753
Receipts 186,073 14,523 0
Net 708,064 23,860 1,75T 733,677
% 96.5% 3.3% 0.2%
2918 Asphalt Shipments 678,960 359,940 113,580
Receipts 40,482 0 0
Net 638,478 359,940 113,58T 1,111,998
% 57.4% 32.4% 10.2%
2920 Coke Shipments 0 21 341
(Oil & Coal) Receipts 18 0 0-
Net -18 21 341 344
% 0% 5.8% 94.2%
2921 Liquid Shipments 75,389 85,551 6
Gases Receipts 13,062 0 0
Net 62,327 85,551 6 147,884
% 42.1% 57.9% 0.0%
2951 Asphalt Shipments 93 233 0
Bldg. Mater. Receipts 0 0 0 -
Net 93 233 0 326
% 28.5% 71.5% 0.0%
2991 Petro- Shipments 87,785 93,652 702
leum Products Receipts 12,521 45,269 0
n.e.c. -Net 75,264 48,383 702 124,349
% 60.5% 38.9% 0.6%
TOTALS 52,727,998 30,677,379 3,471,022 86,876,399
Total % 60.7% 35.3% 4.0%
Source: Computed from basic data contained in Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. -
1969, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

220

Perhaps an example will clarify this rather complicated procedure.

Take commodity 1311, crude petroleum. Texas shipped, by coastwise vessels,

13,322,278 short tons but received 4,165,829 short tons, resulting in a

net contribution of crude to District 1 of 9,156,449 tons or 30.9 percent

of total District 3 crude shipped to District 1. Louisiana, on the

other hand, shipped 18,842,012 tons by coastwise vessels and received no

incoming shipments, and so it is concluded that Louisiana contributed

63.6 percent of District 3 movements to District 1.

In a few cases, e.g., kerosene movements from Alabama and

Mississippi, a state's net contribution is negative. In such instances,

the total pool is considered to be contributed by the other states

(Texas and Louisiana). All withdrawls from the total pool are assumed to

be derived from the contributing states in proportion to their contri-

butions to the other pool. In the case of kerosene, Alabama and

Mississippi were net consumers of -20,526 tons, and it was assumed that

of this amount 80 percent came from Texas and 19.7 percent from

Louisiana; so the net relative contributions of these two states to

shipments to the East Coast are not distorted. In the far right-hand

column are the total net shipments from the Gulf Coast to the East

Coast for each commodity.

b) Results

The grand total of coastwise shipments of

petroleum crude and products from District 3 Gulf Coast states to the

East Coast states was 86,876,399 short tons. Texas shipped 52,727,998

or 60.7 percent of the total, whereas Louisiana shipped 30,677,379 tons

or 35.3 percent of the total. Alabama and Mississippi shipped 3,471,022

tons or 4.0 percent of the total. Louisiana shipped a greater percentage

of crude (63.6 percent) than Texas (30.9 percent), but Texas shipped a
221

greater amount of all petroleum products, except liquid gases and

asphalt materials, than Louisiana.

3) Movement of Crude Oil and Refined Products by
Internal Waterways

a. Methodology

Inasmuch as the methodology of generating these

data is unique and affects the quality of Table 11, the reader should

familiarize himself with our procedures so that he may exercise proper

discretion in interpreting the results. However, the reader who wishes

a cursory overview may skip this section since it contains no substantial

remarks or conclusions.

Table 10 shows the movement of crude oil and refined products in

1969 by barge on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and on the Mississippi

River. The data were calculated from Waterborne Commerce of the

United States, 1969 by taking the net flows of crude oil and refined

products at the points where state borders or divisions of waterways are

crosses. For example, the flows up the Mississippi River were calculated

by adding together the inbound/upbound traffic and the upbound/through

traffic and subtracting therefrom the sum of the downbound/outbound

traffic and the downbound/through traffic in the segment of the river

from Baton Rouge to the mouth of the Ohio River. This calculation yields

the net northbound river traffic passing Baton Rouge on the Mississippi

and the traffic entering the Mississippi at the upper end of the

Atchafalaya River and the Morgan City-Port Allen routes. This procedure

yields the closest possible approximation to the net flow entering the

midwestern PAD district 2 from PAD district 3.

Flows across state borders were calculated for the Gulf

Intracoastal Waterway in a similar manner. The data were used to give net

222

Table 10

Oil and Oil Products From PAD District 3 States by Internal Water Transportation
to PAD Districts 1 and 2, 1969

Area Texas Louisiana Ala-Miss Total
Commodity Flow (Shor tTons) (Short Tons) (Short Toqs) (Short Tons
1311 Crude Petro- To RiverA 0 2,066,481 64,351 2,130,832
leum To Fla.b 0 0 204,524 204,524
Total 0 2,066,481 268,875 2,335,356
% 0% 96.98% 3.02% 100.0%
2911 Gasoline To River 2,358,191 4,666,574 0 7,004,765
To Fla. 471,897 941 814 0 1,413,711
Total 2,810,088 5,608:388 0 8,418,476
% 33-38% 66.62% 0% 100.0%
2912 Jet Fuel To River 198,933 334,829 0 533,762
To Fla. 86,060 144 850 244,723 475,633
Total 284,993 479:679 244,723 1,009,395
% 28.2% 47.5% 24.2% 99.9%
2913 Kerosene To River 335,133 286,519 0 621,652
To Fla. 7,049 6,026 - 0 13,075
Total 342,182 292,545 C@ 634,727
% 53.91% 46.09% 0% 100.0%
2914 Distillate To River 544,597 213,894 0 758,491
Fuel Oil To Fla. 90,513 35,550 0 126,063
Total 635,110 249,444 0 884,554
% 71.80% 28.20% 0% 100.0%
2915 Residual To River 1,065,141 0 0 1,065,141
Fuel Oil To Fla. 130,404 0 0 130,404
Total 1,195,545 0 0 1,195,545
% 100.0% 0% 0% 100.0%
2916 Lubricating To River 582,862 9,959 0 592,821
Oils To Fla. 61,823 1'056 0 62,879
Total 644,685 11,015 0 655,700
% 98.32% 1.68% 0 100.0%
2917 Naphtha Petro- To River 651,457 122,613 0 774,070
leum Solvents To Fla. 35,440 6,670 0 42,110
Total 686,897 129,283 0 816,180
% 84.16% 15.84% 0% 100.0%
2918 Asphalt Tar To River 224,492 407,168 0 631,660
and Pitch To Fla. 14,608 26 495 0 41,103
Total 239,100 433:663 0 672,763
% 35.54% 64.46% 0% 100.0%
2920 Coke To River 0 0 0 0
(oil & coal) To Fla. 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0
% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2921 Liquefied Gases To River 2,789 484,633 0 487,422
To Fla. 470 81,636 0 j2_,106
Total 3,259 566,269 0 569,528
% 0.57% 99.43% 0% looao%
2951 Asphalt Build- To River 0 0 0 0
ing Materials To Fla. 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0
% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2991 Pet. Prod To River 33,031 43,081 0 76,112
n.e.c. To Fla. 0 0 0 0
Total 33,031 43,081 0 76,112
% 43.40% 56.60% 0% 100.0%
River TOT. 5,976,626 8,635,751 64,351 14,676,728
River % 40.72% 58.84% .44% 100.0%
Fla. TOT. 898,264 1,244,097 449,247 2,591,608
Fla. % 34.66% 48.00% 17.33% 99.99%
GRAND TOTALS 6,874,890 9,879,848 513,598 17,268,336
% of GRAND TOTAL 39.8% 57.2% 3.0% 100.0%
' To River: Means net shipments leaving the Gulf Coast PAD District 3 states on
b the Mississippi River.
To Florida: Means net shipments leaving the Gulf Coast PAD District 3 states on
0
z the Intracoastal to Florida.
"I

Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1969 - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

223

eastbound movement between the Sabine River and the Calcasieu River

(proxy for movements between Texas and Louisiana), New Orleans and

Mobile (proxy for movements between Louisiana and Alabama) and between

Mobile and Pensacola (proxy for movements between Alabama and Florida).

In order to determine each state's shipments of crude oil by

barge, we added the net barge movements into Texas from Louisiana and

the net barge movement up the Mississippi River (Table 10). This gave

a net outward movement of crude oil from Louisiana, but we could not

determine which originated in Louisiana and which originated in the other

states. We could ascertain that Alabama and Mississippi were net

contributors to the pool, and the rest was assumed to come from Louisiana

since Texas was a net importer. These contributions to the pool moved

by barge were then converted to percentages for Louisiana and for Alabama

and Mississippi. It was calculated that 96 of 98 percent of the total

pool originated in Louisiana and that 3.02 percent came from Alabama and

Mississippi. These percentages were applied to the net flow up the

Mississippi to determine each state's contribution.

In a few cases, e.g., liquid petroleum gases, both Texas and

Louisiana contributed to a pool which was sent to markets in Alabam&-

Mississippi and further up the Mississippi. Allocation of each of these

flows to Texas and Louisiana was made according to each state's contribution

to these two flows. If Alabama and Mississippi were a net importer from

this pool, the remaining flow into Florida maintained the same allocation

as the original larger flow into Alabama-Mississippi from Louisiana, and

Alabama and Mississippi were assumed to contribute nothing to the net flow

into Florida.

224

b. Results

As might be expected, Louisiana accounted-for

a larger percentage of oil and oil products shipped to Districts 1 and 2

via the inland water system (including Intracoastal) than either Texas or

Alabama-Mississippi. According to our generated statistics in Table 10,

57.2 percent of oil and products shipped from PAD district 3 on the

,inland waterways to PAD districts 1 and 2 originated in Louisiana, while

Texas shipped 39.8 percent and Alabama-Mississippi shipped 3.0 percent

of total flows. This positive differential in favor of Louisiana is

particularly impressive for shipment of crude and liquefied gases.

A further breakdown shows that Louisiana shipments on the

Mississippi River were 58.8 percent, while Texas shipments accounted for

40.7 percent; 48.0 percent of Intracoastal shipments into Florida

originated in Louisiana, 34.7 percent in Texas and 17.3 percent in

Alabama and Mississippi.

Hence, one must conclude that Louisiana's surplus of crude and

its advantageous location in proximity to the inland waterway system has

made it the major inland waterway exporter of oil and oil products to

oil-deficient regions on the East Coast and in the Midwest.

4) Total Water Movements of Oil and Oil Products. Table 11

integrates and summarizes the data presented in Tables 9 and 10, and it

compares Tex as, Louisiana and Alabama-Mississippi as suppliers of crude

oil and refined products by water transportation. As can be seen in

Table 11, Louisiana is far more important than Texas as a direct supplier,

via water, of crude oil to Districts 1 and 2 (Louisiana: 65.4 percent;

Texas: 28.6 percent). With the exception of liquefied petroleum and

asphalt materials, however, Texas is more significant as a supplier, via

225

Table 11

Net Movement of Oil and Oil Products from PAD District 3
States to PAD Districts 1 and 2 by Water
1969

Area Texas L uisiana Ala-Miss Total
-Iiu
Commodity Flow (Short Tons)

1311 Crude Petro- River 0 2,066,481 64,351 2,130,832
leum Waterway 0 0 204,524 204,@24
Coastwise 9,156,449 18,842,012 1,635,347 29,633,808
Total 9,156,449 20,908,493 1,904,222 31,969,164
% 28.6% 65.4% 6.0% 100.0%
2911 Gasoline River 2,338,191 4,666,574 0 7,004,765
Waterway 471,897 941,814 0 1,413,711
Coastwise 15,396,802 3,571,066 777,874 19,745,742
Total 18,206,890 9,179,454 777,874 28,164,218
% 64.6% 32.6% 3.0% 100.0%
2912 Jet Fuel River 198,933 334,829 0 533,762
Waterway 86,060 144,850 244,723 475,633
Coastwise 2,755,858 1,349,662 272,294 4,377,814
Total 3,040,851 1,829,341 517,017 5,387,209
% 56.45% 33.96% 9.50% 100.01%
2913 Kerosene River 335,133 286,519 0 621,652
Waterway 7,049 6,026 0 13,075
Coastwise 1,020,362 250,325 0 1,270,687
Total 1,362,544 542,870 0 1,905,414
% 71.51% 28.49% 0% 100.0%
2914 Distillate River 544,597 213,894 0 758,491
Fuel Oil Waterway 90,513 35,550 0 126,063
Coastwise 16,948,349 5,736,875 702,962 23,388,186
Total 17,583,459 5,986,319 702,962 24,272,740
% 72.44% 24.66% 2.90% 100.0%
2915 Residual River 1,065,141 0 0 1,065,141
Fuel Oil Waterway 130,404 0 0 130,404
Coastwise 4,427,111 0 0 4,427,111
Total 5,622,656 0 0 5,622,656
% 100% 0% 0% 100%
2916 Lubricating River 582,862 9,959 0 592,821
Oils Waterway 61,823 1,056 0 62,879
Coastwise 1,506,601 407,156 716 1,914,473
Total 2,151,286 418,171 716 2,570,173
% 83.70% 16.27% .032 100.0%
2917 Naphtha Petro- River 651,457 122,613 0 774,070
leum Solvents Waterway 35,440 6,670 0 42,110
Coastwise 708,064 23,860 1,753 733,677
Total 1,394,961 153,143 1,753 1,549,857
% 90.01% 9.88% .11% 100.0%
2918 Asphalt Tar River 224,492 407,168 0 631,660
and Pitch Waterway 14,608 26,495 0 41,103
Coastwise 638,478 359,940 113,580 1,111,998
Total 877,578 793,603 113,580 1,784,761
% 49.17% 44.47% 6.36% 100.0%
2920 Coke River 0 0 0 0
Waterway 0 0 0 0
Coastwise 0 20 324 344
Total 0 20 324 344
% 0% 5.8% 94.2% 100%
2921 Liquefied River 2,789 484,633 0 487,422
Petro. Gases Waterway 470 81,636 0 82,106
Coastwise 62,327 85,551 6 147,884
Total 65,586 651,820 6 717,412
% 9.14% 90.86% 0% 100.0%
2951 Asphalt Bldg River 0 0 0 0
Materials Waterway 0 0 0 0
Coastwise 93 233 0 326
Total 93 233 0 326
% 28.53% 71.47% 0% 100.0%
2991 Petroleum Prod. River 33,031 43,081 0 76,112
n.e.c. Waterway 0 0 0 0
Coastwise 75,264 48,383 702 124,349
Total 108,295 91,464 ___T02 200,461
% 54.02% 45.62% .35% 99.99%
Grand Total Coastwise & Int. 59,570,648 40,554,931 4,019,156 104,144,735
State % 57.20% 38.94% 3.86% 100.00%
Source:, Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1969 - U.S. Corps of Engineers.

226

water, of petroleum products.

In total shipments, Texas accounts for approximately 60 million

tons of 57 percent of the total, while Louisiana generates 41 million

tons of 39 percent of the total. As mentioned above, Louisiana predominates

as a supplier via the Mississippi and the Intracoastal Waterway, while

Texas dominates the coastwise shipping, which is the larger of the two.

A pictorial summary of our generated data is presented in Figure 14.

In a superport evaluation one must consider that Louisiana

does predominate as a shipper (by water) of crude oil. This means that in

the relatively short run (10 years), a Louisiana location is preferable

27
to a Texas location for the shipment of crude to the East Coast In the

long run, however, as Louisiana's crude supplies become depleted this

relative advantage over Texas becomes more tenuous. Of course, within ten

years the Gulf area will be importing crude oil from the Middle East

if a superport is located here. Louisiana may have a slight edge

over Texas because it is located closer to the East Coast which is

deficient in crude and refinery capacity, and it is located on the internal

waterway system.

In terms of product shipments, the comparative advantages are

much less clear. First, Texas shippers of oil products could utilize a

Louisiana superport without backhauling, whereas Louisiana shippers would have

to backhaul. Second, Texas does dominate product shipments at the current

27 In fact, it is interesting to note the large crude movement by
water under present conditions without a superport. This is suggestive
of the economics of water shipment of liquid bulks, which would be even
greater if superports were located in the Gulf and on the East Coast.

227

FIGURE 14

Net Water Movement of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products
from PAD DISTRICT 3 States to PAD DISTRICTS 1 and 2
by WAter in'Short Tons
1969

PAD 2

PAD 1

MISS. AIA.
00

TEXAS
IA.

2 6 mii.
Y4 W-4

-po

YI)

time, but the location of a superport off the coast of Louisiana might

alter the relative distribution of refineries in the Gulf region. Third,

Louisiana possesses a geographical advantage in relation to the inland

waterways which cannot be altered. This would become quite significant

if the East Coast were to expand its refining capacity and construct a

superport because the Gulf Coast states would then begin to ship to the

Midwest, in which case the Mississippi waterways, and consequently

Louisiana, would play a more important role.

5) Pipeline Movement of Crude Oil by States.

While paragraph 4 compared the water moverents of

petroleum crude and products by states, it omitted a discussion of

pipeline movements by state. The only data available on state origins

of crude shipments were total crude shipments by state, which are

shown graphically in Figure 13. The numbers in parenthesis are thousands

of 42-gallon barrels as reported in the Bureau of Mines, Mineral Yearbook,
1969. 28 The Bureau of Mines data were reported in barrels and the

Waterborne Commerce data were reported in short tons; so we converted all

data to tonnage.

As shown in Figure 13 Louisiana shipped 14.1 million tons to

District 1 and 20.3 million tons to District 2; Texas sent 10.4 million

tons to District 1 and 40.3 million tons to District 2. These data alone

are not important since a more recent comparison is provided in Figure 7.

They are important, however, inasmuch as they provide the total 1969

movements, from which we can subtract the net water movements to obtain

28 The data in Figure 13 vary from the data in Figure 7 in that the
former are 1969 data and the latter are 1970 data.

229

the residual movements which are by pipelines. Figure 15 shows the total

water movements, by states, obtained from row 1, Table 12. As indicated

in Figure 15, Louisiana sent 18.8 million tons by water to District 1 and

2.1 million to District 2, whereas Texas sent 9.2 million tons to

District 1 and nothing by water to District 2. Shipments to District 1

were by coastwise vessels primarily whereas movements to District 2

were on internal waterways.

Taking the water movements shown in Figure 15 and subtracting

from the total movements shown in Figure 13 yields net crude movements

by pipelines as indicated in Figure 16. All derived pipeline flows,

except one, seem reasonable. The questionable figure is the -4.0 million

tons between Louisiana and District 1. We know that no such movements

occurred for a negative movement means that District 1 sent crude to

Louisiana, which is absurd.

There are four possible causes for this discrepancy:

0 The basic data on each district's crude receipt were

receipts at refineries in that district. Hence, crude

might have been shipped by water from Louisiana and then

transshipped to District 2.

0 The crude was shipped to District 1 and burned directly in

power plants. This is the most probable cause of the discrepancy.

0 The crude loaded on tankers in Louisiana was shipped by pipeline

from Texas.

0 Our methodology of generating water movements was incorrect

or arithmetic mistakes were made.

230

Figure 15

Comparison of District 3 States

as Shippers of Crude Oil by

Water to Districts I and 2

1969

Thousands of Short Tons

Dist 2 Dist 1

%0 Co

C4
Alabama
Texas Arkansas
Mississippi

Louisiana

Source: Manipulation of Data From Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1969

231

TAME 12

CRUDE 21L AND REFINED PRODUCT IMPORTS INTO THE UNITED STATES, 1970

LATIN AMERICA- MIDDLE EAST- PUERTO RICO
CANADA CARIBBEAN EUROPE AFRICA FAR EAST VIRGIN ISLANDS TOTAL
Thou- Thou- Thou- Thou- Thou- Thou- Thou-
sands of sands of sands of sands of sands of sands of sands of
Barrels Percentage Barrels Percentage Barrels Percentage Barrels Percentage Barrels Percentaite Barrels Percentage Barrels

Rela- Over- Rela- Over- Rela- Over- Rela- Over- Rela- Over- Rela- Over-
I FOREIGN CRUDE OIL tive all tive all tive all tive all tive all tive all
District 1 31,751 12.95 6.55 97,643 T2 . 0-2 7 0 . 2-0 82,009 77.18 16.97 211,403
District 2 115,613 47.14 23.92 115,613
District 3
District 4 17,573 7.16 3.64 17,573
District 5 80,321 32.75 16.62 8,465 7.98 1.76 24,248 22.82 5.02 25,670 100.00 5.31 138,704
TOTAL 245,258 100.00 50.75 106,108 100.00 21.96 106,257 100.00 21.99 25,670 100.00 5.31 483,293

II REFINED PRODUCTS
District 1 8,587 24.91 1.12 509,232 91.55 66.64 64,219 99.46 8.40 2,671 37.07 .34 133 14.29 .02 96,873 96.20 12.68 681,716
District 2 17,364 50.37 2.27 1,959 .35 .26 19,323
District 3 17,471 3.14 2.29 347 .54 .05 121 1.68 .02 3,822 3.80 .50 21,761
District 4 3,192 9.26 .42 3,192
District 5 5,329 15.46 .70 27,567 4.96 3.61 4,413 61.25 .58 798 85.71 .10 38,107
TOTAL 34,472 100.00 4.51 556,229 100.00 72.80 64,566 100.00 8.45 7,205 100.00 .94 931 100.00 .12 100,695 100.00 13.18 764,099

III CRUDE AND REFINED
(I + II)
District 1 40,338 14.42 3.23 606,875 91.62 48.65 64,219 99.46 5.15 84,680 74.63 6.79 133 .50 .01 96,873 96.20 7.77 893,119
District 2 132,977 47.54 10.66 1,959 .30 .16 134,936
District 3 17,471 2.64 1.40 347 .54 .03 121 .11 .01 3,822 3.80 .31 21,761
District 4 20,765 7.42 1.66 20,765
District 5 85,650 30.62 6.87 36,032 5.44 2.89 28,661 25.26 2.30 26,468 99.50 2.12 176,811

TOTAL 279,7013 100.00 22.42 662,337 100.00 53.10 64,566 100.00 5.18 113,462 100.00 9.10 26,601 100.00 2.13 100,695 100.00 8.08 lt247,392

Taken From- U.S. Deepwater Port Study "Annex I-B Crude Petroleum and Petroleum products," Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., Washington, D. C., February, 1972.
Source: Foreifvn,Crude Oil: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Indust Surveys, "Monthly Petroleum Statement" December, 1970, prepared by
the D Sion of Fossil Fuels, March 23, 1970, table 15.
Refined Produrts, American Petroleum Institute, Division of Statistics and Economics, Weekly Statistical Bulletin, March 26, 1971.
Note: Data on Foreign Crude Oil for 1971 are now available from March 21, 1972, Mineral Industry Surveys
Data an Refined Products will be published in April, 1972,by the American Petroleum Institute.

Figure 16

Comparison of District 3 States

and Districts 4 & 5 as Suppliers of

Crude Oil to Districts I and 2 by

Pipeline

1969

Thousands of Short Tons

Dist. 4,5 Dist. 2 Dist. 1
16,386

-5A

New
rkansas
114
Mexico 0 Alabama
Mississip

a,
%0
cl@
co
VA

Texas ouisiana.

Source: Data derived by subtracting shipments by water from "Waterborne
Commerce of the United States"from Bureau of Mines Data on Refinery
Recipts.

233

In any case, the conclusion we must reach is that Louisiana

transmits relatively little crude to District 1 by pipeline, 'While it

sends 18.3 million tons to District 2 by pipeline. Texas sends

approximately 1.3 million tons of crude to District I by pipeline and

40.3 million tons of crude to District 2 by pipeline. Hence, while

District 3 ships relatively small amounts of crude to District I by

pipeline, Texas ships by pipeline more than Louisiana. Second, Texas

sends twice as much by pipeline to District 2 as Louisiana does.

The importance of these data is that they present the existing

comparative transportation modes of shipping crude and petroleum product

from the Gulf Coast to the East and the Midwest. The location of the

superport can be expected to alter these transportation modes and the

location of superports in other parts of the country such as the East

Coast can be expected to alter the demand patterns. Knowledge of the

present transportation modes are important, however, for two reasons.

First, during the initial years the port may be utilized as an export

facility for outbound liquids. Second, the superport will have to be

integrated into the existing patterns of transportation. That state

or area which possesses the most rational modes of transportation to.the

most deficient areas will be enabled to present the more convincing

arguments to government officials and investors. A relevant point is

that Texas ships considerably mote crude and products to the East

Coast and the Midwest than does Louisiana, even though Louisiana

supplies Texas with a considerable amount of crude. Further research

must be conducted to determine the underlying reasons for the

seemingly overwhelming advantage possessed by Texas. Perhaps the

reason is that Louisiana's advantage is coastwise and internal waterway

234

transportation. If so, the cost trends of these two modes must be

investigated further.

d. An Overview of U.S. Petroleum Sources and Demand

1) General. The future supply and demand of

petroleum in the United States will have an impact on any superport

located in the Gulf. Therefore, a discussion of the supply and

demand conditions in the United States and Louisiana is pertinent.

U.S. energy consumption is expected to increase at about

4.2 percent per year between 1972 and 1985, assuming that no major

changes are made in government policies in respect to leasing of

federal lands, environmental controls, tax rates and regulations.

In 1970 domestic energy supplies satisfied 88 percent of U.S. energy

consumption. Because domestic supplies of energy are projected to

increase approximately 2.6 percent per year during the 1972-1985 period,

which is a lower rate of increase than for consumption demand, the
nation will become increasingly dependent on imported supplies. 29

In 1970 domestic supplies of petroleum liquids, consisting of

crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids, totaled 11.3 million

barrels a day (BD), which was 31 percent of total energy consumption.

29 One problem with all projections such as these is that they
cannot adequately consider the effect which price changes will have on
quantity demanded. Presumably, relative decreases in supply would
result in higher prices, which would decrease the quantity demanded
in the future.

235

Despite the addition of the North Slope discovery and the new discoveries

expected during 1971-1985, total U.S. production in 1985 is estimated to

'be only 11.1 million BD. Since domestic sources of petroleum liquids will

remain relatively constant while consumption demand will be increasing,

it is estimated that by 1985 imports will account for 57 percent of

total petroleum consumption. This would mean that approximately 11 million
BD is to be imported, requiring 350 tankers, each of 250,000 dwt. 30

Except for residual fuel oil and uncontrolled products such as

fuel for bonded aircraft and vessel bunkers, it is assumed that most

of the refined imports would be crude oil requiring processing in

domestic refineries. While 4 percent of gas supplies was imported.in
1970, about 28 percent is projected to be imported in 1985. 31

The difficulties of estimating future domestic petroleum demand

and supply are fairly well known. Estimation of future imports is even

more uncertain. First, the United States has imposed a quota restriction

applicable to all PAD districts, except District 5, of 12.2 percent of

domestic production, and a tariff of 10.5 cents per barrel. District 5

30 The Department of Commerce has estimated that in 1985 foreign
imports will account for two-thirds of U.S. petroleum supply, resulting in
the importation of 14 million barrels per day, and would require 500 tankers
of 250,000 dwt. Source: Prepared release of talk presented by Andrew E.
Gibson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Maritime Affairs, to the 60th
Annual Convention of the American Association of Port Authorities at
Portland, Maine, September 29, 1971. No sources or details were given in
the news release.
31 Projections of energy supply and demand are very complicated procedures
and cannot be examined in detail. One of the best sources of such projections
is the National Petroleum Council, an officially established industry
advisory board to the Secretary of the Interior. Also, consult the publi-
cations of the Interior Department, including the periodic mineral industry
surveys and the annual compendium published by the American Petroleum
Institute entitled Petroleum Facts and Figures.

236

has a more confusing restriction; it is expressed in such a way that

imports of crude oil may be increased proportionally to local production.

However, many exceptions to these import restrictions have been made and

economic realities should eventually force their removal.

Table 12 shows the origin of crude oil and refined products

imports into the United States. Absolute volumes and percentage

relationships are shown. The percentage column has two components:

0 Percentages which indicate the position of each PAD district

relative to other PAD districts for each product and each

country. For example, District 1 imports 12.95 percent of

total U.S. crude oil obtained from Canada.

0 Overall percentages, which relate each district's imports

from each country to total U.S. imports of that product.

For example, District I imports from Canada are 6.55 percent

of total U.S. crude imports.

Table 12 indicates that more than 50 percent of current crude

imports come from Canada and are mainly sent to Districts 2 and 5.

Imports of crude from Latin America, principally Venezuela, are sent

to District 1 and account for approximately 22 percent of total crude

imports. District 1 imports almost 40 percent of its crude (17 percent

of total U.S. crude imports) from the Middle East. Surprisingly,

District 5 imports from the Middle East 17 percent of its imports.

The United States imports more refined products than crude.

Total petroleum product imports are 764, million barrels, and total crude

imports are 483 million barrels. District 1 imports from Latin America

account for 67 percent of total U.S. petroleum product imports.

237

Approximately 75 percent of U.S. petroleum imports comes from

the Western Hemisphere, principally Canada and Venezuela. Supertankers

would have no effect on the imports from Canada since they move by

pipelines. Whether the imports from Venezuela, which are water shipments,

would justify supertanker utilization is unknown.

Production in Canada and Venezuela, however, is not expected to

keep pace with the rising U.S., Canadian and Latin American requirements.

Hence, most of the increased U.S. imports will probably come from the

Eastern Hemisphere.

The relative political instability in the Middle East makes

future imports from this region uncertain. Another problem arises from

the fact that most petroleum-exporting countries have formed an organi-

zation known as OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries),

which has the maximization of income from oil exports as its primary

objective. In 1971 this organization "negotiated" a 50 cents per

barrel price increase (to $1.45) which will cost the oil companies,

and hence the consumer, nearly $12 billion between 1971 and 1975. In

addition, there is some concern that Eastern Hemisphere reserves may not

be sufficient to meet European and American requirements much beyond the

year 2000,.

Figure 17 summarizes the flow of free-world international

petroleum in 1970. Note that no international petroleum enters or leaves

the Gulf Coast area.

2) Regional Analysis. Although the United States will

become increasingly dependent upon foreign imports of crude in the future,

the most salient point for this analysis is the existing differential

regional balance of crude production and refining capacity. As noted above,

238

Figure 17
FREE WORLD INTERNATIONAL FLOW OF PETROLEUM 1970

C-1

947
EXPORTI @EXPORTS TO FREE WORLD
19 7 1,070

5
Ll

4
EXPORTS E PORTS
1, 4

P RTS
8

4,749

UMM WATM 5,875
0EPAMOU OF TM WVW@
OFFICI OF OIL AND GAS
ESTIMATED

Reproduced from "Analysis of World Tank Ship Fleet 1970,11 Sun Oil Company, August, 1971.

District 1, the East Coast, is deficient in both crude production and

refining capacity. Approximately 60 percent of the District 1 supply of

crude comes from other districts, primarily District 3, and the balance

is imported. District l's refinery output in 1970 represented only 21 percent

of its product consumption. In fact, the last new refineries built

on the East Coast were completed in 1957, and no substantial additions

to these plants have been made within the past 10 years. Hence,

these simple observations suggest that the East Coast critically needs

a deep-draft port facility and a great increase in refinery capacity,

unless the citizens of that area are willing to pay a higher price for

petroleum to cover the additional transportation costs. Merely

constructing a superport, without increasing the refinery capacity,

would not improve the crude import situation of District 1, since the

.crude oil would have to be shipped to other districts for refining.

District 5, the West Coast, has been a net oil demander for

many years and in 1970 imported approximately 20 percent of its

consumption, with one-half of the imports coming overland from Canada.

If crude oil production on the Alaskan North Slope is consistent with

current estimates, most of that area's annual output could be absorbed

by the West Coast within 10 years. This means that Districts 1 and 2

could not rely on the North Slope to supply to meet their demands. They

would be forced to rely on Gulf Coast crude or on foreign imports.

District 3 has large surpluses of crude oil, which has been

sent primarily to the Midwest, and refined products, which have gone

largely to the East Coast. A glance at the Louisiana pattern indicates

that Louisiana could become an importer of crude within 10 years or

possibly sooner.

Figure 18 shows the reserves of crude oil and natural gas

240

Figure 18

RESERVES OF CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS AT END OF YEAR
1965-1970
40

31 Total U.S. Crude

AAA Van^

6
@4

@4
S\ Total Louisiana
r4 Crude
9 w
r4
r4
5
South Louisiana Crude

4 0

r4
r-4
m -H
3
w Total Louisiana Natural Gas Liquids
m
(D
2 P4

North Louisiana Crude
ot&l @uisian@a@@@@
O'@ @@@C@rude

-0-
0 1
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

Year

241

liquids for the U.S. and Louisiana. U.S. reserves were steadily

decreasing until the North Slope discovery was made, which caused a

significant increase. Figure 19 shows Louisiana crude oil and condensate

production. Most interesting is Figure 20, which shows the ratio of crude

oil reserves to crude production in the United States and Louisiana. As

can be seen, the reserves/production ratios for both the U.S. and

Louisiana have been decreasing, with Louisiana's ratio decreasing faster

than that of the U.S. overall. Hence, while Louisiana's crude reserves

have been increasing, production has been increasing even more rapidly

as a result of the growing demands for petroleum by Districts 1 and 2.

Figure 21 shows the comparative positions, over time, of Texas

and Louisiana relative to total United States production and reserves

of crude oil. Louisiana's production and reserves, as a percentage of

U.S. production and reserves has been increasing, while Texas'

production and reserves have been undergoing a relative decline.

Figures 22 and 23 indicate Louisiana's natural gas production

and U.S. and Louisiana natural gas reserves. Figure 24 displays the

reserve/production ratio for the United States and Louisiana over time.

While both ratios are decreasing rapidly, Louisiana's ratio is decreasing

most rapidly. A similar conclusion is reached for natural gas liquids,

as shown in Figure 25. Figure 26 shows Texas and Louisiana production and

reserves, over time, as percentages of U.S. production and reserves.

Texas reserves and production, while greater than Louisiana's in relation

to U.S. production and reserves, have been decreasing while Louisiana's

ratio has been increasing.

242

Figure 19

LOUISIANA CRUDE OIT, AND CONDENSATE PRODUCTION
goo 1965-1970 10 (911.472.273)

8o6

Total
Louisiana

700

6oo

5 0 0

0
.ri

400

4@
Offshore Total
300 18

200

Source: Louisiana Department of
Conservation, Annual oil
100 and Gas Reports

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

Year

243

Figure 20

Crude Oil
Reserves/Production
in the
United States and Louisiana
1947-1970

12 (With Alaska
Discovery)

43
(Without Alaska
Discovery)

M
0
PrI
0
.A

4@ United States

Louisiana

0
48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70
Year

Source: Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquids and Natural Gas
in the United States and Canada and United States Production
Capacity as of December 31, 1970.
Vol. 25, May 1971
American Gas Association Inc.
American Petroleum Institute
Canadian Petroleum Association
244

Figure 21

TEXAS AND LOUISIANA
AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES
IN PRODUCTION AND RESERVES OF CRUDE OIL
1947-1970

70 Texas Production
Texas Reserves
Louisiana Productiou

Louisiana Reserves

- 0-L
L
50
Tex. Production
4-@
(Without Alaska
-Lr-
Reserves)

4o
CD Tex. Reserves

0 ....

CD
30

La. Production
P4

20 (Without Alaska
Reserves)

La. Reserves

0
48 50 52 54 56 58 6o 62 64 66 68 70

Year

Source: Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquids and Natural Gas
in the United States and Canada and United States Production
Capacity as of Decenber 31, 1970.
Vol. 25, May 1971
American Gas Association Inc.
American Petroleum Institute
Canadian Petroleum Association

245

Figure 22

LOUISIANA NATURAL AND CASINGHEAD GAS PRODUCTION
1965-1970

7.0 -

Louisiana Totals

6.o -
4@

South Louisiana
0 0
.,i L--
Cr\

5.0 f4-1 1,0
0 (7\
r-4

0
.ri
-4 -H
@4
Source: Louisiana Dept. of
4.o Ll- Conservation
0 Annual Oil and
Gas Reports
0 rd
.ri r-
r-A

0
3.0 Z\D
.H
4-@
0 Cd
0
.H
-p
C-)
P

2.0 Total Offshore

1.0
0 Worth Louisiana

0 --------- - - - -
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

Year

246

Figure 23

Reserves of Natural Gas at End of Year
1965-1970

300

U.S. Totals
28o

260
01\

UN
WN
1-4
cc
.rA
In
100 A
P
-d: Louisiana Totals

0
80

South Louisiana

6o 0

,4 Source: Reserves of Crude Oil,
Natural Gas Liquids, and
Natural Gas in the United
4o States and Canada and
United States Productive
Capacity as of Dec. 31,1970

North Louisiana

V
0 1
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

Year

247

Figure 24

Natural Gas
Reserves/Production
in the
United States and Louisiana
1947-1970

0
.H 25
4-1

0
f@

U.S.
20

0
.H
4-3

(Without Alaska
La Discovery)

United States

Louisiana

0 1 f I I I I I I I I I 1 1
48 50 52 54 56 58 6o 62 64 66 68 70

Year

Source: Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Gas Liquids, and Natural
Gas in the United States and Canada, and United States
Production Capacity as of December 31,1970, American Petroleum
Institute and American Gas Association

248

Figure 25

Natural Gas Liquids
Reserves/Production
in the
United States and Louisiana
2o 1947-1970

U.S.

15 La.

4-3

rd
0
f@ 10

cc
P@

United States

Louisiana

I[] ]list [[--III It
48 50 52 54 56 58 6o 62 64 66 68 70

Year

249

Figure 26

TEXAS AND LOUISIANA
AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES
IN PRODUCTION AND RESERVES OF NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS
1947-1970

Tex. Reserves
. \_r -1 1
60

50 Tex. Production
a)

La. Production

20
La. Reserves

Texas Production
Texas Reserves .....
10 Louisiana Production

Louisiana Reserves

0 1 . . I . L I . 1 1
48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70

Year

Source: Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquids and Natural Gas
Tex. /1,

in the United States and Canada and United States Production
Capacity as of December 31,1970.
Vol. 25, May 1971
American Gas Association Inc.
American Petroleum Institute
Canadian Petroleum Association

250

3) Summary. Total reserves of crude oil and natural

gas liquids in the United States have been decreasing since 1965. The

North Slope discovery in Alaska, however, has resulted in a significant

increase in such reserves. The reserve/production ratio for the U.S.

has been decreasing since 1958, but once again the North Slope discovery

has increased this ratio to its 1966 level.

Louisiana's reserves of crude have increased slightly, but its

production has increased even faster, so that Louisiana's reserve/

production ratio has decreased by approximately 50 percent in the past

12 years. Louisiana's reserve/production ratios of natural gas and

natural gas liquids have decreased by an even faster rate. Texas has

much greater production and reserves than Louisiana, but in relation

to national data, Texas is experiencing a long-term decline, while

Louisiana is experiencing a long-term increase. A similar situation

exists for natural gas liquids. Hence, the reserve/production ratios

of the U.S., Texas and Louisiana are all decreasing, but Texas ratios

are decreasing more rapidly than the U.S. ratios, and Louisiana's ratios

are decreasing less rapidly. These downward trends could be reversed

if dramatic new discoveries of reserves were to occur, or if economic

conditions and incentives were to change. However, within the next

10 years the loss of Gulf Coast crude will require importation

of crude from the Eastern Hemisphere if the Gulf region is to continue

serving Districts 1 and 2. This could occur more quickly if the East

Coast does not construct a superport or increase its refinery capacity

and Louisiana and Texas refineries are required to meet this deficit.

If the East Coast does not build a superport and increase its

refinery capacity, the Gulf area would supply most of the crude and refined

251

products for the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. Since the

labor, management, financial and refining resources as well as existing

transportation patterns favor the Gulf area, this would be a viable
alternative. 32

For transshipments of crude oil and products to the Midwest and

the East, a Louisiana superport location has a comparative advantage over

a Texas location for water shipments but if one takes differential volumes

in pipeline shipments as indicative of real economies, Texas appears to have

an advantage.

If a superport and increased refining capacity are constructed on

the East Coast, the feasibility of a Louisiana superport in terms of

petroleum usage would be considerably diminished. Howeverl in the short

run, crude movements from the Gulf Coast to the East Coast could be made

from the Louisiana superport to the East Coast superport. If a superport

is established on the East Coast, and one is not constructed on the

Gulf Coast, the refining capacity would probably follow, and there would

probably be a relative redistribution of refining capacity away from the

Gulf region and to the northeast.

VI. Commodity Movements

A. Dry Bulk Supertankers-while petroleum tankers have been the focus

of most discussions relating to large ships and deep-draft ports, the

utilization of such ships and ports for commodity transportation should

not be ignored, particularly in an analysis of a Louisiana superport.

32 Another alternative would be to construct refineries at the source
of foreign crude, but few officials view this favorably because of the
domestic and foreign political repercussions.

252

Most important of these commodities are the dry bulk cargoes such as iron

ore, coal, bauxite, and grains. A composite of two independent projects

completed for the Maritime Administration forecasts dry bulk imports to

reach 90 million long tons by 1982, representing a 2.5 percent annual

increase, and exports to increase at 3 percent per year, reaching 145 million
-long tons in 1982. 33

Although very large crude oil tankers have received most of the

,attention, there have been some dramatic developments among bulk cargo

ships as well. During the 1950's ship owners wanted vessels which could

transport oil from the Persian Gulf to Europe and then return via the

United States with a load of ore. This resulted in the ore/oil ship

(0/0), which can be loaded with either oil or ore, (both cargoes cannot

be carried simultaneously). In the early 1960's the ore/bulk/oil

(O/B/0) carrier was introduced. This is a triple-purpose ship but,

again, not all three cargoes can be carried simultaneously. Three years

ago the average size of the 90 O/B/O ships on order was 120,000 dwt.

In 1972, there were two 0/0 ships greater than 200,000 dwt in service

and approximately 20 on order.

The economies of shipping dry bulk commodities in these large ships

are almost as great as those obtained in liquid bulk supertankers. Some

examples of savings estimates are cited:

33 Two independent forecasts completed for the Maritime Administration
are: (1) Forecast of U.S. Oceanborne Foreign Trade in Dry Bulk Commodities,
Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc., MA-4533, Mar@c_hl�_69. (2) Projection
of Principle U.S. Dry Bulk Commodity Seaborne Imports and Exports for
1975 and 198@_,MA-4534. Composite estimate made by J.A. Higgins and
J.J. Garvey, Naval Engineers Journal, December, 1970.

253

Mining Company Executive - "When you go from a 66,000-ton
vessel to a 160,000 tonner, you cut $2 a ton from the cost
of shipping ore from Seven Islands, Quebec, to Japan."34

"In the trade from Peru to Japan just 16 years ago, iron
ore was being handled in Liberty Ships at a cost of
approximately $16 a ton. Today, this trade is carried in
a 106,500 dwt vessel at slightly less than $3.75 a ton. By
next year (1971), the same company will be using three
0/0 carriers of approximately 130,000 dwt, which will
reduce the Peru-Japan iron ore transportation cost to
approximately $3.25 per ton ... Present designs for a
150,000 tonner will further reduce cost to $2.90 per
ton."35 Since the shipping company could pair off oil
shipments with ore on the return trip, the actual cost
of transporting Peru ore to Japan will be less than a $1.

"The savings in overall operating costs in transporting
slurry ore using 250,000 dwt vessels is 50 percent of
conventional methods.1,36

B. New Developments - new developments in oceanic shipping and

complementary facilities in recent years have greatly increased the

feasibility of bulk shipments in large vessels, as illustrated by the

following examples:

0 A new barge-conveyor belt system has been constructed
to transport coal from Union county, Kentucky, on a
107mile-j2n& single-belt conveyor to the Ohio River
where it is.loaded onto 15 barge tows to be transported
to the Cumberland River. About seven million tons of
coal will be transported annually.

0 Another development in coal transportation involves the
conversion of coal to coal slurry. Peabody Coal
Company reduces coal to lumps of 3/8 inch or less, and
these lumps are then fed to rod mills, where, after
being mixed with water, they are crushed to a fine

34 Iron Age, July 31, 1969, p. 81.
35 R. P. Holobowicz, "The Other Revolution", Proceedings, U.S. Naval
Institute, October, 1970.
36 Surveyor, August, 1970.

254

powder. The resulting slurry is then moved through an
18-inch pipeline more than 270 miles to a power station
on the Colorado River in southern Nevada.

0 The San Francisco-based Marcona Corporation has developed
a method (called Marconaflo) of loading and discharging
granular bulk material as a slurry but shipping it as
solids. The slurry is prepared by application of water
under high pressure through Marconaflo jets installed in
the floors of storage tanks. The resulting slurry is
pumped into the vessel's hold, where the solids settle
and the water is discharged. The non-shifting cargo
contains less than 10 percent water, and when the ship
arrives at its destination the cargo is reslurried and
pumped ashore. Slurried ore is presently being
transported in 42,000 and 52,000 dwt ships. One off-
shore facility is presently operating at Waipipi,
New Zealand, and others are planned or under construction.
According to one estimate, the cost of cargo-handling with
the slurried method is approximately one-tenth the cost
of handling dry cargo. A 200,000 dwt slurry supertanker
is being constructed, and there are projections for more.

The Marconaflo process may encourage the development of
regional steel mills because it will provide low-cost
transportation of iron ore to coast-based mills. This
process has important implications for a Louisiana
superport because metallic ores are the third most
important oceangoing commodity (by volume) shipped in
the middle Gulf area.

C. Commodity Flows in the Central Gulf area -

1. General. One of the most significant inputs to a superport

analysis will be oceangoing commodity flow data. These data which will

indicate the major commodities in Gulf-oceanic transportation, their

,volumes and relative importance, are very significant as decision variables

in view of Louisiana's strategic location near the entrance to almost

18,000 miles of inland waterways. We originally planned to develop four

sets of commodity flow data: one for the middle Gulf Coast area which

would be most immediately serviced by a Louisiana superport, one for the

west Gulf, primarily the Texas coast, one for the east Gulf or the

Florida coast and a general one for the entire Gulf Coast. This would

255

have enabled decision-makers to view alternative flows through a Louisiana

superport, given that Texas or Florida also developed a superport. It

would also have enabled decision-makers on the Gulf Coast and in Washington

to compare the basic flows which might be attracted to alternative superports

located in the west, central or east areas of the Gulf. Unfortunately, within

the limited time available to prepare this report we found that the

numerous data manipulations could not be accomplished. Hence, we

concentrated on presenting commodity flow data for the Central Gulf area

comprising the immediate superport service area, extending from Lake
Charles, Louisiana, to Mobile Alabama. 37 If a Louisiana superport is

constructed, it is expected that it will service a wider area depending,

of course, on what the other Gulf Coast states do, and this point must be

retained while reading the following analyses.

The commodity flow data are presented as clearly as possible. Classes

of commodities having relatively small volumes are grouped together or

included as "other commodities." The data are presented in three ways:

(1) absolute volumes in short tons are given in tabular form for each

major port, river or outlet on the Central Gulf Coast, and an aggregate

summary for the entire area is presented in Table 17; (2) a relative

distribution of two-digit commodity flows for each port, river or

outlet as well as for the entire area (Chart 5), and (3) an integrated

outline summary of total volume and percentage ranking for each port,

river or outlet, with major two-digit commodity flows to indicate

37
We note our original, but unrealized, goals because we believe
they should be accomplished in future research.

256

direction of movement and a brief listing of the most important four-digit

commodities under each major two-digit commodity classification.

All basic data were obtained from "Waterborne Commerce Statistics"

for 1970. Computations, charts and tables were compiled by the author.

2,. Commodity Flow Data for Central Gulf Area

a. Port of Lake Charles

(Refer to: Table 13, Chart 1)

Total Volume: 5,304,591 tons
Percent: 4.0%38

Major Commodities

1) Petroleum Products

a) Volume: 2,290 115 tons
b) Percent: 43%3@
c) Direction of Movement:
Coastwise to East Coast
d) Remarks: Gasoline and distillate fuel oils
accounted for two-thirds of petroleum shipments

2) Chemicals

a) Volume: 847,615 tons
b) Percent: 16%
c) Direction of Movement:
Approximately one-third was domestic coastwise
and two-thirds foreign. All were outgoing
except 14,500 tons of incoming fertilizer.

3) Crude Petroleum

a) Volume; 838,839 tons
b) Percent: 16%
c) Direction of Movement:
Coastwise shipments to East Coast

38
This reflects Lake Charles oceangoing volume as a percentage of
total oceangoing volume in the immediate superport serviceable area:
(Lake Charles to Mobile).
39 This reflects the ratio of petroleum product movements to all
product movements for Lake Charles.

257

Table 13

OCEANGOING FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1970
(Short Tons)

Lake Charles

3or4
2 Digit Digit Foreign Domestic Coastwise
Code Code Commodity Total Imports Exports Receipts Shipments

Total 5,304,591

01 FARM PRODUCTS
0103 Corn
0107 Wheat 13,841 13,841
0111 Soybeans
Other 541,643 2 502,488 39,153

10 METALLIC ORES
1011 Iron Ore &
Conc.
1051 Aluminum
Ores, Conc.
1061 Manganese
Ores, Conc.
Other 3,260 3,260

11 1121 COAL & LIGNITE
13 1311 CRUDE PETROLEUM 838,839 838,839
16 NON-MEVALLIC MIN.
EXC. FUELS
1471 Phosphate Rock
1492 Sulphur, Dry
1493 Sulphur, Liq.
Other 159,272 156,319 1,185 1,768

20 FOOD & KINDRED
PROD.
204 GRAIN MILL PROD. 7,089 4,814 2,275
2061 Sugar
.2062 Molasses
Other 12,894 2,237 3,285 9 @7,363
26 PULP & PAPER
PROD.
2611 Pulp 20,163 20,163
2631 Paper &
Paperboard 100,806 100,525 281
Other 4,326 3,666 49 611

Continued next page

258

Continuation of

Table 13

OCEANGOING FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1970
(Short Tons)

Lake Charles

3or4
2 Digit Digit Foreign Domestic Coastwise
Code Code Commodity Total Imports -E orts Rqbeipts Shipments

28 CHEMICALS & ALLIED PROD.
281 Basic Chemicals 768,055 767 401,389 514 '275,385
287 Fertilizers & Mat. 34,858 13,896 14,500 6,462
Other 44,702 44,422 280

29 PETROLEUM & COAL PROD.
2911 Gasoline 983,814 14,489 969,325
2912 Jet Fuel 282,867 282,867
2913 Kerosene 157,851 11 157,840
2914 Distillate Fuel Oil 465,427 465,427
2915 Residual Fuel Oil 133,853 14,455 119,398
2916 Lubricating Oil &
Greases 167,815 40,065 127,750
Other 98,488 5,969 2,672 89,847

33 PRIMARY METAL PROD.
Iron & Steel, Prim.
Iron & Steel Shapes, 824 824
Exc. Sheets
Iron & Steel Plates,
Sheets
Other 398,224 19 398,195 10
34 FABRICATED METAL PROD.)
35 MACHINERY, EXC. ELEC. )
36 ELECTRICAL MACH. SUPP.) 27,544 27,009 89 252 194
& EQUIP,
37 T&MISPORTATION EQUIP.
40 WASTE & SCRAP MATERIAL
4011 Iron & Steel Scrap
Other
OTHER C011MODITIES 38,136 8,040 22,067 8,029

259

Chart 1

OCEANGOING COMMODITY FLOWS BY TWO-DIGIT COMMODITY CLASSIFICATIONS,
FOREIGN AND COASTWISE, PORT OF LAKE CHARLES--BY PERCENTAGES, 1970

Code Commodity

01 Farm Products (.74 c.w.; 9.73 for.)

10 Metallic Ores (--c.w.; .06 for.)

11 Coal and lignite

13 Crude Petroleum (15.81 e.w.; -- for.)
14 Non-metallic Minerals (.03 c.w.; 2.97 for.)

20 Food and Kindred (.18 c.w.; .19 for.)
Products
26 Pulp and Paper Products EZZA (.01 c.w.; 2.35 for.)

2B Chemicals and Allied (5-60 c.w.; 10.38 for.)
Products
29 Petroleum and Coal (42-03 c.w.; 1.14 for.)
Products
33 Primary Metal Products c.w.; 7.53 for.)

34 Fabricated Metal
Products
35 Machinery (Except 2
Electrical) 01 c.w.; .51 forj
36 Electrical Machinery, :2
Equip. and Supp.
37 Transportation Equip. Z Foreign OIZZZZZ00
4o Waste and Scrap Mater.
Other Commodities .15 c.w.; .57 for.) Coastwise

2 .6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 4o 42 44 46 48 50 100
Percentages of Total Oceangoing Commodities
260

4) Farm Products

a) Volume: 516,000 tons
b) Percent: 10%
c) Direction of Movement:
Primarily foreign exports

b. Mississippi River: New Orleans to Mouth of Passes

(Refer to: Table 14, Chart 2)

Total Volume: 93,822,477 tons
Percent: 78%

Major Commodities

1) Crude Petroleum

a) Volume: 22,224,602
b) Percent: 24%
c) Direction of Movement:
Outbound coastwise shipments to East Coast

2) Farm Products

a) Volume: 21,170,494 tons
b) Percent: 23%
c) Direction of Movement:
Primarily foreign exports of soybeans and corn

3) Petroleum Products

a) Volume: 17,076,544 tons
b) Percent: 13%
c) Direction of Movement:
Primarily gasoline and kerosene destined for the
East Coast

4) Metallic Ores

a) Volume: 9,411,498 tons
b) Percent: 10%
c) Direction of Movement:
Dominant commodity was foreign imports of
aluminum ores (7.2 million tons)

c. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet

(Refer to: Table 15, Chart 3)

Total Volume: 2,659,173
Percent: 2%

261

Table 14

OCEANGOING FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1970
(Short Tons)

.Mississippi River - New Orleans to Mouth of Passes

3or4
2 Digit Digit Foreign Domestic Coastwise
Code Code Commodity Total Upbound Downbound Upbound Downbound

Total 93,822,028

01 FARM PRODUCTS 21,170,494
0103 Corn 10,495,606 2,944 10,388,190 154,472
0107 Wheat 1,891,521 1,872,418 19,103
0111 Soybeans 7,987,572 7,982,351 5,221
Other 795,795 458,364 280,059 952 56,420
10 *METALLIC ORES
1011 Iron Ore &
Conc. 675,218 675,122 96 3
1051 Aluminum
Ores, Conc. 7,210,121 7,210,055 66
1061 Manganese
Ores, Conc. 842,732 839,674 2,274 784
Other 683,427 657,730 25,697

11 1121 COAL & LIGNITE 4,007,537 361 302,647 3,704,529
13 1311 CRUDE PETROLEUM 22,224,602 182,621 518,547 53,936 21,469,498

14 NON-METALLIC MIN.
EXC. FUELS
1471 Phosphate Rock 3,455,985 55,295 1,401 3,399,289
1492 Sulphur, Dry 809,759 809,754 5
1493 Sulphur, Liq. 1,539,239 1,539,239
Other 867,153 320,834 169,288 43,597 333,434

20 FOOD & KINDRED
PROD.
204 GRAIN MILL PROD. 2,830,786 4,653 2,808,978 9,343 7,812
2061 Sugar 1,582,361 1,518,544 268 56,978 6,571
ZQ62 Molasses 805,676 792,370 1,166 11,977 163
Other 1,372,008 166,213 1,104,560 20,550 80,685
26 PULP & PAPER
PROD.
2611 Pulp 503,985 503,740 245 5,701
Paper &
2631 Paperboard 367,672 38,352 313,088 40 16,192
Other 30,547 22,921 4,789 33 2,804

Continued next page

262

Continuation of

Table 14

OCEANGOING FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1970
(Short Tons)

Mississippi River-New Orleans to Mouth of Passes

3or4
2 Digit Digit Foreign Domestic Coastwise
Code Code Commodity Total Upbound Downbound Upbound Downbound

28 CHEMICALS & ALLIED PROD.
281 Basic Chemicals 3,139,627 254,274 2,231,726 115,879 537,748
287 Fertilizers & Mat. 842,624 39,811 254,227 285,194 263,392
Other 390,032 37,659 335,682 5,407 11,284

29 PETROLEUM & COAL PROD.
2911 Gasoline 3,123'503 153 50,578 3,072,772
2912 Jet Fuel 455:906 455,906
2913 Kerosene 806,817 69,399 9,192 14,149 714,077
2914 Distillate Fuel Oil5,128,579 135,967 363 45,253 4,946,996
2915 Residual Fuel Oil 29011,436 717,473 150,881 206,367 936,715
2916 Lubricating Oil &
Greases 355 145 418,049 68,731 277,430
Other 549,948 1,081 76,392 122,690 349,785
33 PRIMARY METAL PROD.
3314 Iron & Steel, Prim.1,173,804 6,060 1,167,255 489
3315 Iron & Steel Shapes,
Exc. Sheets 498,738 438,196 40,074 1,222 19,246
3316 Iron & Steel Plates,
Sheets 1,020,150 549,941 465,469
Other 1,004,606 582,594 408,432 1,856
34 FABRICATED METAL PROD.)
35 MACHINERY, EXC. ELEC. )
36 ELECTRICAL MACH. SUPP.)
& EQUIP.
37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIP. )679,748 329,693 279,123 10,943 592989
40 WASTE & SCRAP MATERIAL
4011 Iron & Steel Scrap 419,114 738 418,159 217
Other 76,652 22,674 53,026 387 565
OTHER COMMODITIES 757,541 494,145 196,129 18,896 48,371

263

Chart 2
OCEANGOING COMMODITY FLOW (UPBOUND AND DMBOUND) BY TWO-DIGIT COMMODITY CIASSIFICATIONS
FOREIaN AND COASTWISE, ON MISSISSIPPI RIVER FROM NEW ORLEANS TO MOUTH
OF PASSES, BY PERCENTAGES, 1970

Code Commodity

01 Farm Products - - - - - - - (.24 c.w.; 22-32 for.)
10 Metallic Ores (--c.w.; 10.03 for.)
11 Coal and Lignite (3-95 c.w.; .32,for.)
13 Crude Petroleum .. ..... S (22.94 c.w.; .75 for.)
14 Non-metallic Minerals (5.66 c.w.; 1.44 for.)
20 Food and Kindred Products (.21 c.w.; 6.82 for.)
26 Pulp and Paper Products (.02 c.w.; .94 for.)
28 Chemicals and Allied (1-30 c.w.; 3.36 for.)
Products
29 Petroleum and Coal (12.01 c.w.; 1.69 for.)
Products
33 Primary Metal Products (.03 c.w.; 3.91 for.)
34 Fabricated Metal Products

35 Machinery (Except !3
Electrical)
36 Electrical Machinery, (.08 c.w.; .65 for.)
Equipment & Supplies
37 Transportation Equipment Foreign XNk%N1'N%N
4o Waste and Scrap Materials c.w.; .53 for.)
Coastwise
Other Commodities zi (.07 c.w.; .74 for.)

30 32 34 36 38 4o 42 44 46
2 4 6 8 lo 14 3.6 18 20 22 24 26 28 48 50 100

Percentages of Total Oceangoing Commodities

Table 15,

OCEANGOING FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1970
(Short Tons)

Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet

3br4
2 Digit Digit Foreign Domestic Coastwise
Code Code Commodity Total Upbound Downbound Upbound D2wnbound

Total 2,659,173

01 FARM PRODUCTS
0103 Corn 34,739 23,084 2,378 9,277
0107 Wheat 5,290 5,290
0111 Soybeans 54,115 54,115
Other 25,815 20,011 2,945 939 1,920
10 METALLIC ORES
1011 Iron Ore &
Cone. 3 3
1051 Aluminum
Ores, Cone. 156,708 140,476 16,232
1061 Manganese
Ores, Cone. 136,187 134,077 2,110
Other 31,428 24,852 6,576
11 1211 COAL & LIGNITE 202,949 202,943 6

13 1311 CRUDE PETROLEUM

14 NON-METALLIC MIN.
EXC. FUELS
1471 Phosphate Rock 34,617 34,617
1492 Sulphur, Dry 17 15 2
1493 Sulphur, Liq.
Other 401,433 383,891 5,344 10,864 1,334

20 FOOD & KINDRED
PROD.
204 GRAIN MILL PROD. 23,373 420 22,697 161 95
2061 Sugar 238,013 214,414 23,596 3
2062 Molasses
Other 46,919 3,653 17,840 11,273 14,153

26 PULP & PAPER
PROD.
2611 Pulp 5,701 5,700 1
2631 Paper &
Paperboard 20,527 3,258 17,129 40 100
Other 971 10 328 7 626

Continued next page

265

Continuation of

Table 15

.OCEANGOING FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1970
(Short Tons)

Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet

3or4
2 Digit Digit Foreign Domestic Coastwise
Code Code Commodity Total Upbound Downbound Upbound_ Downbound

28 CHEMICALS & ALLIED PROD.
281 Basic Chemicals 187,922 130,185 56,958 683 96
287 Fertilizers & Mat. 98,041 89,617 2' 111 6,223 90
Other 13,403 1,826 9:453 101 2,023

29 PETROLEUM & COAL PROD.
2911 Gasoline 25 25
2912 Jet Fuel
2913 Kerosene 3 3
2914 Distillate Fuel Oil
2915 Residual Fuel Oil 20,122 20,122
2916 Lubricating Oil &
Greases 4,746 4,542 14 190
Other 3,225 51 @2,920 6 248
33 PRIMARY METAL PROD.
3314 Iron & Steel, Prim. 54,934 23 54,897 14
3315 Iron & Steel Shapes, 159692 8,753 6,828 ill
Exc. Sheets
3316 Iron & Steel Plates,
Sheets 9,988 5,758 4,230
Other 480,065 92,158 385,470 265 2,172
34 FABRICATED METAL PROD.)
35 MACHINERY9 EXC. ELEC. )
36 ELECTRICAL MACH. SUPP.)
& EQUIP.
37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIP. @6,166 3,810 11,033 4,134 7,189,

40 WASTE & SCRAP MATERIAL
4011 Iron & Steel Scrap 271,195 271,023 172
Other 34,599 10,291 249127 149 32
OTHER COMMODITIES 20,241 8,853 2,753 4,010 49625

266

Chart 3

OCEANGOING COMMODITY FLOWS (UPBOUND AND DOWNBOUND) BY TWO-DIGIT COMMODITY CLASSIFICATIONS,
FOREIGN AND COASTWISE, ON MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET , BY PERCENTAGES, 1970

Code Commodity

01 Fam Products (.46 c.w.; 4.06 for.)
10 Metallic Ores F772-7777,"721212F77A77 (.61 c.w.; 11.58 for.)
11 Coal and Lignite (--c.w.; 7.63 for.)

13 Crude Petroleum

14 Non-Metallic Minerals (.46 c.w.; 15-94 for.)

20 Food and Kindred Products 'r'r'7'r'r'77777zz= (1-71 c.w.; 9.89 for.)

26 Pulp and Paper Products (.02 c.w.; .99 for.)

28 Chemicals and Allied
Products (.35 c.w.; 10-91 for.)
29 Petroleum and Coal (.o2 c.w.; i.o6 for.)
Products
33 Primary Metal Products (.09 c.w.; 21.00 for.)

34 Fabricated Metal Products

35 Machinery (Except 20
Electrical)
36 Electrioal Machinery,. (.43 c.w.; .56 for.)
Equipment & Supplies
37 Transportation Equipment Foreign

4o Waste and Scrap Materials (.02 c.w.; 11.48 for.)
Other Commodities (.32 c.w.; .44 for.) Coastwise

10
2 1-2 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 100
Percentages of Total Oceangoing Commodities
267

Major Commodities

1) Primary Metal Products

a) Volume: 560,769
b) Percent: 21%
c) Direction of Movement:
Foreign exports

2) Non-Metallic Minerals

a) Volume: 436,067 tons
b) Percent: 16%
c) Direction of Movement:
Foreign imports

3) Metallic Ores

a) Volume: 324,326 tons
b) Percent: 12%
c) Direction of Movement:
Major components were foreign imports of
140,476 tons and 134,077 tons of manganese ores

4) Waste and Scrap Materials

a) Volume: 305,794 tons
b) Percent: 11%
c) Direction of Movement:
More than 271,000 tons of iron and steel scrap
were exported

d. Mobile, Pascagoula and Gulfport

(Refer to: Table 16, Chart 4)
Total Volume: 17,905,046 tons
Percent: 15%

Major Commodities

1) Metallic Ores

a) Volume: 7,924,567 tons
b) Percent: 44%
c) Direction of Movement:
Foreign imports of iron ore (5.3 million tons)
and aluminum ores (2.4 million tons)

2) Petroleum and Coal Products

a) Volume: 2-365,284 tons
b) Percent: 13%
c) Direction of Movement:
Major flows were coastwise shipments to East Coast
of gasoline and fuel oil

268

Table 16

OCEANGOING FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1970
(Short Tons)

Mobile, Pascagoula and Gulfport

3or4
2 Digit Digit Foreign Domestic Coastwise
Code Code Commodity Total Imports Exports Receipts Shipments

Total 17,905,046

01 FARM PRODUCTS
0103 Corn 381,259 279,283 101,976
0107 Wheat 166,421 64,552 101,869
0111 Soybeans 816,407 799,313 17,094
Other 594,069 375,732 205,505 20 12,812

10 METALLIC ORES
1011 Iron Ore &
Conc. 5,360,306 5,360,306
1051 Aluminum
Ores, Conc. 2,436,888 2,436,888
1061 Manganese
Ores, Conc. 60,941 60,941
Other 66,432 61,072 5,360
11 1121 COAL & LIGNITE 343,587 16 343,521 50
13 1311 CRUDE PETROLEUM 1,371,330 57,130 27,422 1,286,778
14 NON-METALLIC MIN.
EXC. FUELS
1471 Phosphate Rock 307,776 307,776
1492 Sulphur, Dry
1493 Sulphur, Liq.
Other 232,506 17,852 212,962 1,692

20 FOOD & KINDRED
PROD.
204 GRAIN MILL PROD. 547,956 75,492 441,738 2,852 27,874
2061 Sugar
2062 Molasses 79,578 79,578
Other 103,266 30,058 52,756 8,168 12,284

26 PULP & PAPER
PROD.
2611 Pulp 122,441 74,185 48,256
2631 Paper & 193,778 7,801 169,903 16,074
Paperboard
Other 3,461 1,063 775 14 1,609

Continued next page

269

Continuation of

Table 16

OCEANGOING FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1970
(Short Tons)
Mobiles Pascagoula and Gulfport
3or4
2 Digit Digit Foreign Domestic Coastwise
Code Code Commodity Total Imports Exports Receipts Shipments

28 CHEMICALS & ALLIED PROD.
281 Basic Chemicals 422,330 41,128 369,463 6,836 4,903
287 Fertilizers & Mat. 153,604 2,029 151,233 342
Other 32,094 2,443 27,866 1,785

29 PETROLEUM & COAL PROD.
2911 Gasoline 637,060 637,060
2912 Jet Fuel 307,975 307,975
2913 Kerosene 39,764 39,764
2914 Distillate Fuel Oil 821,926 23 821,903
2915 Residual Fuel Oil 436,413 167,242 19,231 9,884 240,056
2916 Lubricating Oil &
Greases 528 502 26
Other 121,618 384 1,558 119,676
33 PRIMARY METAL PROD.
Iron & Steel, Prim. 189,384 189,384
Iron & Steel Shapes, 49,148 46,310 1,712 1,126
Exc. Sheets
Iron & Steel Plates,
Sheets 133,725 46,357 85,818 1,550
Other 951,607 114,305 814,837 22,465
34 FABRICATED METAL PROD.)
35 MACHINERY, EXC. ELEC. )
36 ELECTRICAL MACH. SUPP.)
& EQUIP. )118,770 39,958 19,268 1,080 58,464
37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIP.
40 14ASTE & SCRAP MATERIAL
4011 Iron & Steel Scrap 77,384 54 77,330
Other 13,501 5,910 7,443 148
OTHER CO@LMODITIES 209,813 78,655 84,535 692 45,931

270

Chart 4

OCEANGOING COMMODITY PLOWS BY TWO-DIGIT COMMODITY CLASSIFICATIONS,
FOREIGN AND COASTWISE, FROM PORTS OF MOBILE, PASCAGOUTA, AND GULFPORT, BY PERCENTAGES, 1970

Code Commodity

01 Farm Products (1-31 c.w.; 9.63 for.)

10 Metallic Ores '01'ezzzz@ezzzzzzz.'zz (--c.w.; 44.26 for.)

11 Coal and Lignite (--c.w.; 1.92 for.)

13 Crude Petroleum (7-34 c.w.; .32 for.)
14 Non-Metallic Minerals (1-73 c.w.; 1.29 for.)

20 Food and Kindred Products (.28 c.w.; 3.79 for.)

26 Pulp and Paper Products (.10 c.w.; 1.68 for.)
28 Chemicals and Allied (.08 c.w.; 3.32 for.)
Products
29 Petroleum and Coal (12.16 c.w.; 1.05 for.)
Products
33 Primary Metal Products 77 7 77 777721 (.15 c.w.; 7.26 for.)

34 Fabricated Metal Products

35 Machinery (Except
Electrical)
36 Electrical Machinery, (.33 c.w.; .33 for.)
Equipment & Supplies
37 Transportation Equipment in Foreign
4o Waste and Scrap Materials 2 (--c.w.; .51 for.) Coastwise
other Commodities (.26 c.w.; .91 for.)

2 4 6 8 io 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 100
Percentages of Total Oceangoing Commodities
271

3) Farm Products

a) Volume: 1,958,156 tons
b) Percent: 11%
c) Direction of Movement:
Major movements were exporfs of corn and soybeans

4) Crude Petroleum

a) Volume: 1,371,330 tons
b) Percent: 8%
c) Direction of Movement:
Shipments of crude to East Coast

e. Total Central Gulf Area

(Lake Charles, Louisiana to Mobile, Alabama)

(Refer to: Table 17, Chart 5)

Total Volume: 119,691,267 tons
Percent: 100%

Major Commodities

1) Crude Petroleum

a) Volume: 24,434,771 tons
b) Percent: 20%
c) Direction of Movement:
About all shipments were coastwise deliveries
to the East Coast

2) Farm Products

a) Volume: 23,804,073 tons
b) Percent: 20%
c) Direction of Movement:
Major commodities are exports of corn and soybeans

3) Metallic Ores

a) Volume: 17,663,651 tons
b) Percent: 15%
c) Direction of Movement:
Imports of manganese, iron ore and aluminum

4) Petroleum and Coal Products

a) Volume: 17,524,063 tons
b) Percent: 15%
c) Direction of Movement:
Primarily coastwise shipments of fuel oil and
gasoline to the East Coast

272

Table 17

OCEANGOING FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1970
(Short Tons)

Central Gulf Area

2 3 or 4
Digit Digit @Foreign Domestic Coastwise
Code Code Commodity Upbound Downbound Upbound Downbound Total

01 FARM PRODUCTS 880,137 22,402,728 1,911 519,297 23,804,073
03 Corn 26,028 10,619,851 265,725 10,911,604
07 Wheat 1,956,101 120,972 2,077,073
11 Soybeans 8,835,779 22,315 8,858,094
Other 854,109 990,997 1,911 110,285 1,957,302
10 METALLIC ORES l7j604,456 42,179 16,232 784 17,663,651
11 Iron Ore &
Conc. 6,035,431 96 6,035,527
51 Aluminum
Ores, Conc. 9,787,419 66 16,232 9,803,717
61 Manganese
Ores, Conc. 1,034,692 4,384 784 1,039,860
Other 746,914 37,633 784,547
11 21 COAL & LIGNITE 377 849,111 3,704,585 4,554,073
13 11 CRUDE PETROLEUM 239,751 518,547 81,358 23,595,115 24,434,771
14 NON-METALLIC MIN.
EXC. FUELS 968 808 1,199,949 3,761,526 1,877,474 7,807,757
71 Phosphate Rock 89,912 1,401 3,707,065 30798,378
92 Sulphur, Dry 809,769 7 809,776
93 Sulphur, Liq. 1,539,239 1,539,239
Other 878,896 388,779 54,461 338,228 1,660,364
20 FOOD & KINDRED
PROD. 2,887,632 4,458,099 144,907 159,278 7,649,916

4 GRAIN MILL PROD. 80,565 3,278,224 12,356 38,056 3,409,201
61 Sugar 1,732,958 268 80,574 6,574 1,820,374
62 Molasses 871,948 1,166 11,977 163 885,254
Other 202,161 1,178,441 40,000 114,485 1;535,087

26 PULP & PAPER
PROD. 147,590 1,188,062 183 38,543 1,374,378
11 Pulp 74,185 577,859 246 652,290
31 Paper & 49,411 600,645 80 32,647 682,783
Paperboard
Other 23,994 9,558 103 5,650 39,305

Continued next page

273

Continuation of

Table 17

OCEANGOING FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1970
(Short Tons)

Central Gulf Area

2 3 or 4
Digit Digit Foreign Domestic Coastwise
Code Code Commodity Upbound Downbound Upbound Downbound Total

28 CHEMICALS & ALLIED PROD. 599,739 3,988,426 435,337 1,103,790 6,127,292
1 Basic Chemicals 426,354 3,149,536 123,912 181,132 4,517,934
7 Fertilizers & Mat. 131,457 421,467 305,917 270,286 1,129,127
Other 41,928 417,423 5,508 15,372 480,231
29 PETROLEUM & COAL PROD. 1,111,864 744,333 534,833 15,133,033 17,524,063
11 Gasoline 178 65,067 4,679,157 4,744,402
12 Jet Fuel 1,046,748 1,046,748
13- Kerosene 69,399 9,206 14,149 911,681 1,004,435
14 Distillate Fuel Oil 135,967 385 45,253 6,234,326 6,415,931
15 Residual Fuel Oil 904,837 184,567 216,251 1,296j169 2,601,824
16 Lubricating Oil &
Greases 145 463,158 68,745 405,396 937,444
Other 1,516 86,839 125,368 559.,556 773,279
33 PRIMARY METAL PROD. 1,891,298 4,022,601 3,343 63,647 5,980,889
14- Iron & Steel, Prim. 6,083 1,411,536 503 1,418,,122
15 Iron & Steel Shapes,
Exc. Sheets 494,083 48,614 1,222 20,483 564,402
16 Iron & Steel Plates,
Sheets 602,056 555,517 6,290 1,163,863
Other 789,076 2,006,934 2,121 @36,371 2,834,502
34 FABRICATED METAL PROD.)
35 MACHINERY, EXC. ELEC. )
36 ELECTRICAL MACH. SUPP.) 400,470 309,513 16,409 125,836 852,228
EQUIP.
37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIP.
40 WASTE & SCRAP MATERIAL 39,667 851,108 925 745 892,445
11 Iron & Steel Scrap 792 766,512 389 767,693
Other 38,875 84,596 536 745 124,752
OTHER COMMODITIES 589,693 305,484 23,598 106,956 1,025,M

Total 27,361,482 40,880,140 5,020,562 46,429,083119,691,267

274

Chart 5

OCEANGOING COMMODITY FLOWS BY TWO-DIGIT COMMODITY CLASSIFICATIONS,
FOREIGN AND CQASTWISE, FOR IMMEDIATE SERVICEABLE AREA
(LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA, TO MOBILE, ALABAMA,) BY PERCENTAGES 1970

Code Commodity

01 Farm Products r7Z777-77R (.44 c.w.; 19.44 for.)

10 Metallic Ores (.02 c.w.; 14-75 for.)

11 Coal and Lignite (3-10 c.w.; .71 for.)
13 Crude Petroleum rIF - - _7 - (19.78 c.w.; .63 for.)

14 Non-Metallic Minerals dE.AEX-_- (4-71 c.w.; 1.82 for.)

20 Food and Kindred Products 7Y.F.0777M (.26 c.w.; 6.14 for.)

26 Pulp and Paper Products (.03 c.w.; 1.13 for.)
28 Chemicals and Allied (1.29 c.w.; 3.83 for.)
Products
29 'Petroleum and Coal Products (13.08 c.w.; 1.55 for.)
33 Primary Metal Products (.05 c.w.; 4.94 for.)

34 Fabricated MAtal Products

35 Machinery (Pxcept
Electrical)
36 Electrical Machinery, (.12 c.w.; .59 for.)
Equipment & Supplies
37 Transportation Equipment Foreign
40 Waste and Scrap Materials (--c.w.; .74 for.)
Coastwise
Other Commodities (.11 c.w.; .75 for.)

4' 6 8 lo 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 CO ' @_2 1;4' 46 48 100

Percentages of Total Oceangoing Commodities
275

5) Non-Metallic Minerals

a) Volume: 7,807,757 tons
b) Percent: 7%
c) Direction of Movement:
Importation of phosphate rock (3.7 million tons)
and exportation of liquid sulfur (1.5 million tons)

6) Food and Kindred Products

a) Volume: 7,649,916 tons
b) Percent: 6%
c) Direction of Movement:
Exports of grain mill products (3.2 million tons)
and imports of sugar (1.8 million tons)

D. Summary and Conclusions

L The central Gulf area is primarily a net exporter of

commodities to the East Coast and the world. Approximately 73 percent

(87.3 million tons) of total commodity flows are outbound shipments

whereas 27 percent (32.4 million tons) are inbound. Approximately

57 percent (68.2 million tons) are foreign shipments while 43 percent

(51.5 million tons) are domestic coastwise shipments. The major outbound

commodities are crude petroleum, which is shipped almost entirely to

the U.S. East Coast, and farm products from the Midwest, which are shipped

via the Central Gulf ports to Europe and Asia. Outbound commodities of

secondary importance are petroleum products, transported primarily to

the East Coast, and grain mill products, shipped to Europe and Asia.

Together these total approximately 19 percent of total commodity flows.

Imports are primarily metallic and non-metallic ores, which together

constitute approximately 20 percent of the area's total commodity flows.

Hence, the Central Gulf area is "exporting" petroleum crude, petroleum

products, grains and other farm products and importing minerals.

This is a desirable commodity mix for a superport since the

276

commodities of greatest volume are liquid and dry bulk. Because the

greatest economies are realized in bulk superships and almost all large

ships are bulk carriers, the advantages of the Gulf region are obvious.

Perhaps even more important is the fact the Central Gulf exports liquid

bulks and farm products and imports ores. A detailed study of the

destination of farm products not having been completed, it.may be

possible to use O/B/O or oil/slurry/ore ships to export farm products to

Asia and to return with ores from Australia, or to ship farm products to

Europe or Africa and return with African crude to the East Coast. The

trade routes and technology will have to be examined more thoroughly,

but the fact that the major exports and imports in the Central Gulf region

are bulk commodities indicates some potential for a Central Gulf superport.

One of the most difficult decisions concerning the Louisiana

superport is related to the type of commodities it will service. It

appears that the liquid bulk terminal will be economically viable in

itself and will provide the potential for increased economic development

in the state. The feasibility of a structure encompassing dry bulk or

other commodities is much less certain. One answer is that the liquid

terminal should be constructed now and additions can be made for dry

bulk at a later date. This is one possibility but it partially ignores

the problem. If future additions are to be made to accomodate dry bulk

commodities, the type of liquid structure will probably be different than

if no further additions are planned. More importantly, the location of the

oil terminal to be constructed now may be dependent upon the question of

future commodity additions to the superport. If no commodity additions

are planned, the oil terminal may be most efficiently located in one area,

say below Grand Isle, whereas if commodity additions are planned, the oil

terminal should be located closer to the Mississippi River. Hence, the

277

type of superport which is expected to emerge in the future will be a

significant input into the location decision of the superport today.

The discussion below summarizes total commodity flows and their impli-

cations for a locational decision. Different conclusions would be

reached if the superport were exclusively a liquid bulk terminal.

2. Total.volume of Gulf traffic flowing on the Mississippi

from New Orleans to the mouth of the passes is 93,822,028 tons (Table 15)

while the comparable traffic on the Gulf Outlet is only 2,659,173 tons

(Table 16). This is a very considerable difference in volume, especially

in view of the fact that the MRGO is 40 miles shorter. It is not

immediately clear why so many shippers prefer the river to the MRGO.

The controlling depth on the Mississippi River is 40 feet, while that

on the MRGO is only 36 feet. Approximately 1000 ships using the

Mississippi route had drafts between 36 feet and 40 feet, so this would

account for some of the river's differential movements. Also, the lockage

delay may have deterred some ships or part of the traffic may have

originated or terminated at ports or piers of the Mississippi below

New Orleans, in which case the MRGO would have involved some backhauling.

-But these factors cannot explain a difference of 91 million tons.

Further research must uncover the reasons favoring the Mississippi River;

if there are long-run economic or transit and piloting problems, they

would suggest that the superport should be located close to the mouth

of the Mississippi.

3. Location of Superport in Central Gulf Region

a. Considering commodity flows in Central Gulf region.

The flow of oceangoing commodities entering and

leaving the Central Gulf area on the Mississippi River constitute more

than 78 percent of total oceangoing volume in the Central Gulf area.

278

Mobile, Pascagoula, and Gulfport account for approximately 15 percent of

Central Gulf traffic, of which nearly one-half (or 8 million tons)

is receipts of foreign metallic ores. Lake Charles accounts for less

than 5 percent of oceangoing Central Gulf traffic. Hence, considerin.&

only the Central Gulf area, the superport should be located close to the

mouth of the Mississippi to minimize time and distance in transshipments

of the predominant commodity flows on the Mississippi River. The

existence of the MRGO and the metallic ore trade in the ports of

Pascagoula, Gulfport and Mobile might suggest that the superport be

located east of the mouth. However, relatively large shuttle vessels,

using the Mississippi River would have to travel south and west to enter

Southwest Pass, which is the only one capable of handling such ships.

Another area for future research is the type of shuttle vessels

which will be employed. If they are river barges, they could use the

MRGO or the North or South passes, and this would be an argument for

an eastside location. This would place the superport in closer

proximity to the Mississippi and Alabama ports and to the Intracoastal

Waterway.

If shuttle barges are used primarily, will they find it attractive

to use the MRGO? Obviously, the oceangoing vessels have not. If the

barges do find it attractive and if the lockage rates and capacity on

the MRGO - Industrial Canal permit the increased flows, an east side

superport location, from purely a transshipment point of view, looks

attractive. However, the reasons for the infrequent utilization of

the MRGO by larger vessels will have to be determined before this

question can be answered.

b. Considering other factors

1. Texas Superport and Commodity Flows

Since a commodity flow analysis was not completed

279

for other Gulf areas, the volume and type of commodity flows which could

be channeled through the Louisiana superport from (to) these areas

are unknown. Obviously, petroleum crude and petroleum products

constitute a major factor, and some of these flows could be transshipped

through the Louisiana superport. If Texas does not construct a

superport, this would argue for a superport located west of the mouth.

2. Pipelines

Since petroleum as well as slurried ores can

utilize pipelines as a means of transshipments, their present location,

capacity, and usage should be determined. The relative costs of

transshipments by pipelines and waterways will also have to be determined.

While we have some data on the locational patterns of pipelines in

Louisiana, they were insufficient to develop a meaningful general

pattern. Additional data were being procured as this report was being

written.

280

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF A SUPERPORT OFF THE LOUISIANA COAST

by:
Sherwood M. Gagliano
John W. Day, Jr.

Department of Marine Sciences

Center for Wetland Resources

Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge

281

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF A SUPERPORT OFF THE LOUISIANA COAST

Table of Contents

Page

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

II. Major Factors Related to Site Selection

Bathymetry and Legal Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Currents and Circulation Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Possible Sites in the Vicinity of the Lower Delta . . . . . 295

III. Relationships to Estuarine Zone

Environmental Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Canals, Waterways and Trans-coastal Corridors . . . . . . . 299

Biological Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

Massive Oil Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

IV. Other Environmental Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314

V. Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

282

List of Figgres

Page
Figure 1. The Louisiana Coastal Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Figure 2. Bathymetry and lines of legal jurisdiction
along the Louisiana continental margin. Contours
in feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290

Figure 3. Dominant current systems along the Louisiana coast 291

Figure 4. Areas of mudlump development at major distributary
mouths, Mississippi River Delta . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Figure 5. Submarine topography of upper slope on the Mississippi
Delta platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

Figure 6. Major areas of consideration for Superport location
in the vicinity of the lower Mississippi River Delta 296

Figure 7. Environmental management areas of the Louisiana
coastal zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 298

Figure 8. Canals, waterways and trans-coastal corridors . . . . . . 301

Figure 9. Comparison of production of benthic plants, phyto-
plankton, and detritus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Figure 10. Diagram of marsh-estuary system showing components
and pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

283

List of Tables

Page

Table 1. Production and value of major commercial estua rine-
dependent fisheries by environmental management area 303

Table 2. Primary production in Barataria Bay area of Louisiana
in g org/m2/year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

284

ENVIRONMENT

I. Introduction

The location, design, construction, operation, and future

development of a proposed Superport facility along the Louisiana coast

(Figure 1) depends on the best fit between social, economic, political

and environmental considerations. In this preliminary evaluation we are

concerned with identifying the most critical factors and organizing them

in order to facilitate further planning and analysis. This section of

the report emphasizes environmental aspects of the problem. However,

related land use and political and economic factors are also examined.

Environmental problems must be considered in every phase of development-

from site selection to facility operation. All probable stresses on

natural and human environments, as well as constraints imposed on the

project by environmental factors, must be evaluated.

Environmental stresses are defined as pressures on scenic and

historic resources and on biological productivity of existing natural

environments (i.e., drainage of a fisheries nursery area, destruction

of an archeological site, or water pollution in an oyster growing area).

Environmental constraints are those factors related to existing

environments which limit or preclude certain types of land use or

development (i.e., flood prone areas or poor foundation conditions).

The region also offers certain environmental opportunities. These are

unique features of the coastal landscape which make it ideally suited

for a specific kind of land use or development (i.e., natural levee

ridges as highway right-of-ways, or barrier islands as recreation areas).

285

Alexandri

BATON
R 0 G EE
Yw
w
A
A
/ LAKE
00 *NrcHARrRA1N
(0 Lake
Charles pp/. NEW ORIE

LAKE
LAKE DA, Corf Morgan City k-
BAY

IIA .1mw

ArCAMPALAYA

GRAND
ISLIE
4f 8AY

Fig. 1. The Louisiana coastal area.

Our task then is to identify those stresses, constraints and

opportunities relating to the proposed Superport and to show their

distribution in the study area. In the analysis equal emphasis must

also be given to those factors related to onshore support activities

and transportation/utility links with onshore facilities.

Natural stresses associated with the offshore structure include:

(1) dredging and other site preparation and construction activities,

(2) maintenance dredging after the facility is in operation, (3) possible

massive spills, and (4) possible operational leakages. Land links

involving pipelines, utilities, and possible over-water highways intro-

duce additional environmental problems. Social and cultural stresses

associated with the offshore structure itself are probably limited to

disruption of fishing activities. Primary constraints which enter into

selection of the site are the (1) distance offshore to water depths of

100 feet, (2) sea-bottom foundation problems, and (3) vulnerability to

storm generated surges and winds. Secondary constraints critical to

facility design, construction and operation are primarily intensity and

temporal variation of fog, wind, currents, and waves. Density or spacing

of existing offshore structures and the location of primary fishing

grounds must also be considered in site selection.

Secondary stresses imposed on onshore areas may well be more

important than those associated with the offshore structure itself. For

example, it is probable that support activities will require moving

large numbers of people into flood-prone areas in the gulfward fringes

of the coastal zone. Because land areas well-suited for urban and

industrial development are extremely limited in this region, pressure

287

to initiate wetland reclamation projects must be carefully monitored.

Such projects encroach into areas of high biological productivity and

very poor foundation conditions. Secondary onshore activities may thus

produce stresses on the natural environment and social/economic burdens

for people moving into the coastal zone. Social burdens include high

risk to hurricane storm surge hazards, as well as drainage and foundation

problems. Other stresses related to population increase in the gulfward

fringes of the coastal zone include problems of sewage treatment, storm

runoff removal, solid waste disposal, and a need for additional power-

generating stations. Furthermore, the requirements for additional

navigation channels to move cargo and supplies in an orderly fashion

between the offshore structure and onshore support facilities may result

in environmental damage. Routing of pipelines and utilities through

estuarine areas between the offshore platform and onshore support

facilities may also create major environmental problems.

288

300T
'4,
z
4

i. 0111,
10 4K ,@.pNCHE MORGAN CITY
co Y
4 -A
-3
'-30
40 HOUMA

0
A T C A FA A
bAy .4
-10
-50

-40-
3 ILE LIMIT

@7_50 60

60
%,12-MILE LIMIT
j IERRE bCr 14 t
-70 -30
0 0
-80 0
-60 3-.
-70 0

-90 -80 -
-90

-100 1 _100
__90 -11 0
10 - 120 so
I 10 -120 -130 60
130 ------- -140 so
0 90
------------ -ISO' --Too -110
0______-12O
9 - I
930 920 -130
-140 -150

Fig. 2. Bathymetry and lines of legal jurisdiction along the Louisiana continental margin. Contours in feet.

II. Major Factors Related to Site Selection

Bathymetry and Legal Jurisdictions

One of the most important constraints for locating a major off-

shore structure is the distance to deep water. Figure 2 depicts the

bathymetry of the Louisiana continental margin and location of the 3-mile

and 12-mile lines, representing aspects of state and federal jurisdictions.

From the map it is readily apparent that the most favorable locations

for an offshore port are in southeastern Louisiana where deep water is

reasonably close to the shore and where it lies within the legal juris-

diction of the United States. For this reason it seems that areas east

of about 90' 15' W longitude should receive primary considerations.

Current and Circulation Patterns

Although currents and water circulation in the vicinity of the

Louisiana coast are complex and have not been studied in detail, a map

of the general pattern has been compiled from various published and

unpublished sources. As shown in Figure 3, the circulation pattern

presents both opportunities and constraints for various site locations.

On the one hand the westward drift of the Mississippi River effluent

plume would provide a natural flushing mechanism if a spill were to

occur at some location immediately south or west of the delta. On the

other hand, there would be a high risk to the Breton Sound seed oyster

and estuary areas if the facility were located on the east side of the

delta. Conditions would in general be unfavorable in the summer and

autumn during coinciding low water stage and prevailing southeast winds.

Slope and Foundation Conditions

From the standpoint of water depth, legal jurisdiction and

289

WESTERN CURRENT (winter & summer)

EASTERN CURRENT (summer) r)
Zt.
RIVER INPUT AND LITTORAL DRIFT
LA
UNMIXED AREAS

9 10 20 3,0 @O 50
A
MILES 0<@
PONTC

G
0/1
+ CO

100 FATHOM LINE

F
94* 93* 92 91o 90o

Fig. 3. Dominant current systems along the Louisiana coast.

proximity to inland waterways, the most logical location for the pro-

posed Superport facility is in the lower delta near South or Southwest

passes. Unfortunately, relatively steep sea bed slopes and very poor

foundation conditions of this area present major engineering problems.

One indication of foundation instability is the occurrence of

mudlumps in the vicinity of active Mississippi River distributary mouths

(Figure 4). Detailed studies indicated that mudlumps are actually sur-

face expressions of massive subsurface diapiric folds and thrust faults

resulting from deposition of thick localized masses of heavier bar

sediments directly upon lighter, plastic clays. These mudlumps are

found in the immediate vicinity of active distributary mouths where

sediment deposition is rapid. Fold amplitudes of 500 feet and vertical

displacement in excess of 350 feet have been documented at South Pass

(Morgan et al., 1963). Areas of known mudlump occurrence define a

45, mile long arc extending from Pass a Loutre to Southwest Pass (Figure 4).

A second and related type of instability involves massive sub-

marine slumping along the upper slope of the delta platform (Figure 5).

Such sea floor slides, occurring in the poorly consolidated delta front

and prodelta clays, are believed initiated by wave generated vertical

differential pressures acting on the bottom. As a result of this pro-

cess a number of pipelines have been broken and drilling platforms

toppled. The best documented cases occurred in South Pass Block 70

during the passage of Hurricane Camille. Storm waves initiated a massive

sea-floor slide and two platforms (in 320 and 325 feet of water) were

toppled and displaced (Bea, 1971). A number of similar accidents have

been reported in the lower delta. It thus appears that a zone of

292

30' 15' 89

0
G ULF OF
po
M E X I C 0

-7,

15' 15'

\-0 f. t h

CARDEN ISLAND
WEST EAST B A Y
B A Y BAy
29,- S.Uth 29'

S.
0 5 10

Stotute Miles

30' 15' 89,

Fig. 4. Areas of mud'LIFLLLY developmc@i,tt at major distributary mouths,
!`-ississippi River delta. (After"Horgan, Coleman, and Gagliano, 1968).

293

.0
RED
B

29*04'

EAST GARDEN I
WEST SAY BAY
SAY

28*56

130

0 2 3

M I

CONTOUR INTERVAL 6 FEET

89' 16'
-@:89'20'

'80
Fig. 5. Submarine topography of upper slope on the Mississippi Delta platfo

instablity and very poor foundation conditions extends outward from

the mudlump area to water depths of about 400 feet. This area should

not be completely ruled out as a possible port site; however, foundation

conditions are generally very poor.

Possible Sites in the Vicinity of the Lower Delta

Although analysis of environmental data has not progressed to

the point where a specific site can be recommended, the relative merits

of large coastal sectors in the vicinity of the lower delta can be

evaluated on the basis of the major factors previously discussed. Four

major sectors are identified in Figure 6. A fifth area for consider-

ation, Chandeleur Sound and vicinity, lies beyond the map margin.

The Chandeleur area has a broad shoal shelf and can probably be

ruled out because of the great distance to the 100-foot contour. In

the Breton and Main Pass areas current patterns are unfavorable.

Foundation conditions rule out most, if not all, of the South Pass area.

Hence from preliminary analysis, the West Delta seems to have a favorable

combination of factors for further consideration.

295

LOCATION OF THE 3 MILE LINE MAY VARY POINTE A
STATE-FEDERAL LITIGATION CONCERNIN /G r
SLIGHTLY DEPENDING ON OUTCOME OF cob
TITLE TO SUBMERGED LANDS. G LA HACHE ra antl Go.ler IsItind
1P
SOUNDINGS IN FEET .,,BRETON
B r e 0 IN 11.9
Port SOP ur S011 'f-
\06 ,=I5IIII oe".
Breton Islaed* k,

Golden tAeodo- BARATARIA .15 EmPire -50
BA Y k-
Vs

m
Venice

P SS

Grand Isle

-50
ffead of
.---3-MILE LIMIT P...'s

Part fourchon

-100 *% GARDEN Cy
ISLAN
WEST .BA BA Y
12-MILE LIMIT-&,/' EAST BA Y

i 50 /*
WEST DELTA -100
Al E X 0 SOUTH PASS./
6

X
90* 30' 89*

Fig. 6. Major areas of consideration for Superport location in the vacinity of the lower
Mississippi River Delta. ko

III. Relationships to Estuarine Zone

Environmental Management Areas

From the standpoint of renewable resources and scenery or

esthetics it is useful to identify the major environmental management

units in the Louisiana coastal zone.

As shown in Figure 7, the coastal zone can be segmented into

fourteen management areas. Four of these are large, fresh water basins

dominated by extensive swamps, shallow, muddy rounded lakes-and fresh

marsh. Eight major estuarine management regions can also be defined.

Salinities, in general, range from brackish to saline. These areas are

characterized by extensive stands of transitional and saline marshes,

innumerable shallow ponds and lakes, and large shallow bays with

irregular shorelines. The Grand-White unit, although classified as

estuarine, is dominated by fresh marsh and large freshwater lakes and is

managed as a reservoir for southwestexn Louisiana's rice farming dis-

trict. These estuarine management areas are biologically the most

productive places in Louisiana and represent the state's most important

renewable resource.

Two controlled delta building units are indicated in Figure 7.

Under present conditions these are freshwater bays and marshes in close

proximity to active distributary outlets of the Mississippi and Atcha-

falaya rivers. In such places delta building processes are usually the

rule. Both areas have tremendous potential for land building and

environmental management.

It should be noted that each of the environmental management areas

297

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AREAS
7-

MAJOR BARRIER ISLANDS & BEACHES

MAJOR ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT AREAS
MAJOR FRESH WATER BASIN MANAGEMENT AREAS 'P,:-
E3 CONTROLLED DELTA BUIDING AREAS

PONTCHARTRAIN.
-MAUREPAS.

BORGN
SABI
ASI EU

G R'.

C)
00 4i

tbUNNt

V L F 0 F
? 10 20 30 .0 so G

94* 93* 92* 916 90*
1 1 1 1 1
Fig. 7. Environmental management area,% of the Louisiana coastal zone.

is a large complex natural system. Each is highly productive and repre-

sents a major resource. Historic studies have documented that seg-

mentation of such systems through construction of embankments, canals,

or other man-made features is usually detrimental, causing deterioration

of the natural elements of the system and a decline in productivity.

It should be stated in the strongest possible terms that the integrity

of these environmental management areas should not be violated.

Canals, Waterways and Trans-coastal Corridors

One of the most critical problems affecting location of a Super-

port is the impact of onshore support facilities and connecting links.

Obviously, the port cannot exist in isolation but must be tied to its

customers and land based support units by elaborate transportation and

communication links. Some observers have visualized such links as being

contained within a single "umbilical cord," and others view them as

nebulous, flexible ties consisting of pipelines and air- and water

borne shuttles. The latter view is closer to reality. The environmental

problem is further complicated by the fact that Superport customers would

be removed from the immediate coast. The markets for crude oil are the

refineries bordering the Mississippi between Baton Rouge, and New Orleans

and other areas far inland. Existing ports such as New Orleans, Lake

Charles and Baton Rouge may serve as transshipment points. The problem,

then,is threefold-

1. To provide onshore service facilities in the coastal zone

with the least amount of environmental impact

2. To route pipelines through the estuarine management areas

without destroying their integrity

299

3. To provide links to inland navigation channels without

destroying the estuarine management areas.

Figure 8 shows the existing web of canals, natural waterways and trans-

coastal corridors in south Louisiana. Major natural corridors extending

through the estuarine zone to the coast are defined by the natural

levee ridges and channels of active and abandoned distributaries of the

.Mississippi River, notably Bayou Teche, Bayous du Large-Calliou-

Terrebonne, Bayou Lafourche, and the Mississippi River.

The relatively high, firm land of the natural-levee ridges and

proximity to navigation channels resulted in early settlement and

development of these corridors, and they still provide the major links

between inland areas. and the coast. Secondary links have been created

by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the Barataria Waterway, the Houma

Navigation Channel, the Atchafalaya River outlet, Freshwater Bayou,

and the Calcasieu and Sabine river channels. Although these secondary

links (canals) are important for shipping, they should not be confused

with the natural transcoastal corridors. Foundation conditions are

generally very.poor in the vicinity of these canals, and there are

definite constraints to development. Inasmuch as most of the canals

bisect major estuarine management units, development along their banks

would result in-stresses on important habitats.

Therefore, another principal guideline for Superport develop-

ment is to confine all support activities and onshore links to narrow

zones parallel and in close proximity to existing canals, waterways, and

transcoastal corridors (Figure 8). Ultimate limits of corridor develop-

ment must be defined, and all pipelines, highways, power lines, and

300

CANALS, WATERWAYS AND TRANS-COASTAL CORRIDORS

NATURAL TRANS-COASTAL CORRIDORS
Z

MAJOR NATURAL WATERWAYS

lp
MAJOR CANALS

PORT AREAS

:.,PORT OF BATON ROUGE

CENTRO
C A R TRAIN
0 ...........
le t
LAKE CHARLES . . . . ....... .TO
"'X ..
OAS,
VVATE#
h, 0
P RT
F NEW OR EANS
'0
...........
.. . .......

'p,
40t.- HOUMA
ATC"'@'

HOUMA 1-4 A V. 4
I C H A 14 N E L
m .0 G L) L F 0 F 64 6 .0. PORT FOURCHO
C 0

94* 930 920 91* 90,
e4'0'j
L

Fig. 8. Canals, waterways and trans-coastal corridors.

land-based facilities must be confined to these corridors.

Biological Productivity

Assuming that the most probable sites for the Superport

facility are in the West Delta, we may then consider probable impact

on adjacent environmental management areas. A West Delta port location

would create numerous stresses on the Salvador-Barataria area. From

the standpoint of fauna and flora this is believed to be the single

most productive part of the Louisiana coastal zone. One measure of

this productivity is the commercial fisheries catch; and, as shown

in Table 1, the combined Des Allemands and Salvador-Barataria areas

show the greatest yield in pounds per acre of harvest.

Some of the more important physical parameters and biotic com-

ponents influencing the ecology of this estuarine system and maintaining

its high level of productivity include (1) input of solar radiation,

which maintains high mean water temperatures; (2) high annual rainfall;

(3) high volume of fresh water and nutrients from the Mississippi River

discharge vla the gulf; (4) daily tidal flushing; and (5) annual variation

in mean gulf level. The mild climatic regime allows year-round

primary production and longer growing seasons for seasonal organisms.

Mississippi River discharge indirectly influences the salinity of

the estuary-and is the main external source of nutrients. Tidal

flushin g is very important in all estuaries, for it moves nutrients,

detritus, and many small planktonic organisms. The importance of the

tide is also evident in the marsh. At the edges of tide-affected

streams and ponds, the biomass of both grasses and biological consumers

is very high. This biomass decreases with distance from the water.

302

Table 1: Production and value of major commercial estuarine-dependent fisheries by environmentaf
management areas. Data based on five-year (1963-67) average annual harvests and 1967
exvessel prices. (William N. Lindall et al.,1972)

Environmental
Management I4J
Areas aw
-@4wa
0M ca Cd
w 421 9 w ;-,
41 0 1-4 00 0 C: ,ca
$4 .4 0 Q10 -H -ao -4 'a 1-1 qu
Cd -41 C:J 1-4 TO 14 0 Cd Cd @-4 4
ZMw 0 -4 >co 4J 44 44 a) 2
U0,a0 H 41 w M0 ce
Cd Cd $4 z
M $4 W $4
0M $4 0 Cd Q) 0) 2 Cd w Cd 0
Species a.Z PQ .4 La PQ > E@ PQ -@c co U

Menhaden
Production2 159.33 30.20 335.83 64.80 28-30 41.10 12.40 41.10 713.06
Value3 2.26 0.43 4.77 0.92 0.40 0.58 0.18 0.58 10.12

Shrimp
Production 18.30 3.70 20.00 22.91 2.00 3.20 0.50 2.90 73.51
Value 6.64 1.34 7.25 8.31 0.73 1.17 0.19 1.05 26.68

Croaker
Production 4.33 1.20 4.93 7.63 1.10 2.11 0.30 2.11 23.71
Value 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.14 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.42

Oyster
Production 4.68 0.00 4.14 0.85 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.29 9.97
Value 2.06 0.00 1.82 0.37 0.00 0.005 0.00 0.13 4.39

Blue Crab
Production 3.66 0.03 2.46 1.12 0.28 0.06 0.04 0.62 8.27
Value 0.32 0.003 0.22 0.10 0.03 0.005 0.005 0.05 0.73

Spat
Production 0.57 0.23 0.85 1.58 0.22 0.53 0.11 0.53 4.62
Value 0.01 0.004 0.01 0.03 0.004 0.02 0.002 0.01 0.08

Catfish & Bullheads
Production 0.16 0.00 1.94 0.41 1.79 0.07 0.22 0.003 4.59
Value 0.03 0.00 0.33 0.07 0.30 0.01 0.04 0.001 0.78

Seatrout
Production 1.41 0.21 1.08 0.31 0.18 0.42 0.08 0.42 4.11
Value 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.003 0.02 0.19

Red Drum
Production 0.23 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.53
Value 0.04 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.003 0.09

Total
Production2 192.68 35-59 371.35 99.74 33.87 47.50 13.65 47.99 842.37
Valud 11.50 1.81 14.55 9.97 1.50 1.84 0.43 1.88 43.48
Estuarine Water4 1764 163 314 419 153 323. 13 134 3283
Production, lbs/acrel09.2 218.3 1182.6 238.0 221.4 147.1 1050.0 358.1 256.6
Value, dollars/acre 6.5 11.1 46.3 23.8 9.8 5.7 33.1 14.0 13.2

1. Management areas grouped because of the nature of the primary fish catch data.
2. Millions of pounds
3. Millions of dollars
4. Thousands of acres
En \on en al
m t
vi@ agement
M
Area

Sp ecies

303

Estuarine salt marsh systems are naturally eutrophic, high

net-yield systems. They are very much open systems. A diagram of

the major populations and energy flows is shown in Figure 9. Heavy

lines in the figure indicate the importance of organic detritus to

the system. As indicated in Figure 10 and.Table 2, the most important

unit of primary production is the marsh grass. Of lesser importance

is primary production by ben thic plants and phytoplankton. Little

marsh grass is consumed 'alive; most is broken down into detritus

by microbial and physical processes. This detritus dominates the

lower levels of the estuarine food web,.both in the marsh and in open

water. Thus the production, movement and consumption of detritus are

of extreme importance. Within the estuary, probably the most critical

and certainly the most productive area is the boundary zone between

tide-affected waters and the marsh (i.e., this excludes areas around

isolated marsh ponds). Production of Spartina alterniflora in this

zone in Barataria Bay is the highest that has ever been measured for
a salt marsh (net production = 2800 g dry wt/m2/yr). This production

is about 50 percent higher than that in the interior marsh (Table 2).

Detritus levels in the sediments are highest near shore. 8tanding

crops of animals are highest in the marsh and on the water bottoms

adjacent to the shore. Tidal flushing and maintenance of the proper

amount of marsh-water interface are probably the two most important

factors maintaining high productivity in these shore areas.

Another major factor affecting the productivity of salt marshes

is the high rate of evapotranspiration. Recent findings indicate that

productivity of emergent plants generally increases as their ability

304

4-
eo 00

BE NT Hb
3- P H Y T 0 P L A N K T 0 N

0 /00 0 Ile
y
C4 0 000 11.10 0 000 00
E
Ile lee 10.11` If I'lleel. .1 e
11000 Oe 0 0. If 0 0 e /0
/0 le Ile Ile Ile 1101.1 Ile
e/OOO,
.............................
III` "le", I` "Ielf"Oll OlOld OlOle
ell. Ole"
2- .... OJO/OOOO" "el'O 11 tell,
0 00
"0'"1111111 1;111111
0 0 0 "Oll Ile le 11 eel, I` I` A 0 1` 1` 11 Ile "10 0 ell "Ill e Il eel 0 0 Ir Ole Il 0 Ile I` ....
','000 If Oj-
I` I e 1111 Ile Ile 111` ell 0 1` 1 e I` " eeee 1110 If 10 Il 0 Ill Ole Il 1111 11 "O"Ifeeell
"O,O'OOI`I`lO. 10 01. 11111"Ifelex ell 1. 0',
11010.11, eleelle 1.1.1010"10. If Ill If Oe"O'."If
0 0 0 0 0 0'If '0 e 0 ee 0 "1 "1 " "I 'f , Of Or .... le. ."0. 1
I"110,01111
S ........
"I'd 0 11 ell 0 -e- 0' "' D E T R I T U Ole Ote"Oll.
"'; ............
01 ......
000
0 0 0 'It, "" 'ev 000000 Ile 0. 0. eel OIle..". 11 OlOO 0 000. 0
I ", 000 0/ O"Oll"Oe 101111J. Oll Ile Oeeel.
e 0
0
;00;0;;0;. 'Ile 110. 0.1.0000.-0. 0
.100 eel 00 "1 "'Ool
............ e "Ole"11004-0000
11'000 00 lee. 1101.1. 010,11, 0 Oleo 1"00. 11, 0 0000 "I'll
Oleoreeeel. . gleglo ....... ........ ,eIlOll .................. 1.0 0 110 OOe
Ir 0 0 "Oe.-OO Ile " 0 0 0 @0 0 0 Oe 000.10. 0
00 000 0 eel Ole 114 Od 0
Ile-Feele"11110. eel .............
10. Old 00. & 11.0.1. 0, l"111000. 0. J 0000
0"1"0., e,eeOOeOOO 0.110 el 0011.10 110 0 1100.1.111 ell..
10, , Il "" Ol"O.-eelf -00
11.10 Ile 0 000e. .1.
OPOO, 00 0 00 I'lleelf. . 000000. 01. Od J J
11 .1111.11 , , 0.- 0
"0 11 Ol If 111", 1111 Ile ee 10,1110 0000 0 00 eele.,
Ooeed ell', '00",
00'0 00' ........ 1. If
"Ped-J-011010, "'Oe Ole lee I ell 0 110 lee Ile Ile eel, Ile "O.-Ooe "I I'lle 111000.
e
"Old eel e000000 Oll Ole 0 0'0'0 . I'd "Olee '"Oe 000 I'll Ill J
'000e0ell, 0
000 Ile
eOOOO1eOeO1OO Ole. I, 1100le... Olle.111. '0000
'0001,
...............

i F M A M i i A S 0 N D
month

SEASONAL GROSS P R 0 D U C T 10 N
B 4EN

Fig. 9. Comparison of production of benthic plants, phytoplankton,,
and detritus.

305

MARSH MUSKRAT INSECTS
0
rotycHAEVES
BIRDS
DEAD STANDING
S&CT CRASS
GRASSES MUD CRAG

BLUE CRABS

SNAILS TOP CA

DETRITUS

MEIOFAUNA
MUSSUS

RACCOO DISS
EPIPHYTES ORG

EXPORT FROM MARS
MI
L.) mass ppy
0 somm"musells a ORO

DITRITU SHRIMP
OYSTERS

ZOOPI,

PRi CANN

WRITUS m
SACT ME)OSENT"os "
9.1almic nORA SACT

00 pHyToplANK10" WATER
SEDIMENT
HERB

EXPORT FROM SYV-EM
otem showiUg CORIPOnOnts and paLthwayse
Fig. 10. DiWOM If ma"h"t'ary 6

Table 2: Primary production in Barataria Bay area of Louisiana
in g org/m2/year

Producer Gross Net

Grass

Streamside 13,171 2,800

Inland 11,628 1,950

Phytoplankton 354.4 188.4

Benthic plants 328.2 149.2

This table of primary production in the Louisiana salt marsh points
out the importance of the rooted plants to an estuarine ecosystem.
(Preliminary data from Day et al., 1972)

to utilize water increases (Penman, 1970). From this standpoint a

salt marsh has the best of two worlds, combining pulsation of tides

to bathe its roots with an ever-changing supply of water and nutrients

and an emergent foliage to allow free gas exchange. This situation

results in loss of water at rates approaching the theoretical evapo-

transpiration potential for the locality. A complicating factor'in

more arid regions is lethal buildup of salt derived from seawater,

but in humid Louisiana this is not a problem.

There can be high standing crops and productivity of animal

populations because of the high percentage of seasonal inhabitants.

Organisms such as shrimp, crabs, and fish use the estuary as a

nursery area when food is plentiful and when temperature and salinity

conditions are optimal. When conditions are suboptimal these forms

can move offshore. Also, critical times during the life cycle, such

307

as early larval development, can be spent in areas where conditions are

relatively stable.

Birds are another important group of migrants Carnivorous

birds such as egrets and herons normally move south during the winter,

when animal populations are low. Herbivores such as ducks migrate

into the coastal areas during the winter when growth of benthic vege-

tation is at a maximum.

. Below are listed some of the more important mechanisms maintain-

ing the productivity of the estuarine zone and possible stresses related

to construction and operation of a deepwater port facility.

1. Tidal flushing includes movement of water, nutrients,

detritus, and organisms. Direct and indirect develop-

ment poses the most serious threats to water movement.

The diking and draining of land or the dredging of new

canals can alter water movements, allow intrusion of

saline waters into fresher areas, and change tidal

coverage of the marshes. Major salinity change asso-

ciated with the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet is a

good example of an adverse environmental effect-that

can result from such projects.

2. The most important unit of primary production is that

of the marsh grasses. Constructing a deepwater port

facility poses the most serious and irreversible threat

to marsh grasses. Because the facility itself would be

located offshore, it would-not directly affect the

marshes. However, the destruction of marshes caused

368

by construction of pipeline and navigation channels,

and the possible draining of marsh for back-up facili-

ties, could have serious effects on the ecology of the

area. When marsh is converted to open water by canal

construction, the biological yield per unit area

decreases because benthic plants and phytoplankton

are less productive than the.marsh grasses (Table 2).

Yield might be even less in navigation channels as a

result of higher turbidity levels created by frequent

boat traffic and may be completely lost from "reclaimed"

land. There is also the possibility of massive oil

spills and chronic, low-level spills, which would have

a detrimental effect on the entire marsh community.

3. Possible changes in production, movement, and consump-

tion of detritus should be considered. Because the main

source of detritus in estuaries is marsh grass, anything

affecting the grasses would alter the production of

detritus. Beside destruction of the source of detritus

(i.e., marsh grass), the other most serious threat

'would be the inhibition of the breakdown of marsh grass

into detritus. This production is intimately associated

with microbial and physical processes. Because this

transformation is microbially mediated, any deleterious

effect on microbial flora would have important implica-

tions. Perhaps the most likely cause of this happening

is through a massive oil spill. There is also the

309

possibility that oil-coated or oil-saturated detrital

particles would be less palatable to detritivores. All

these possibilities need further investigation.

Maintenance of the optimum amount of marsh-water zone

is critical. Drainage and current patterns in the marsh

zone have developed in response to small differences in

elevation. Manmade canals which cut across different

drainage units alter these current and drainage patterns,

and spoil banks retard flow of water across some marsh

areas. If the greater volume of water flow is changed

from natural to manmade channels, water exchange along

much marsh edge would be lessened. Water exchange seems

to be the main factor in enriching the marsh edge. Thus

a decrease in water exchange would result in lower pro-

ductivity. Even in open waters, submerged spoil banks

can alter current patterns. Because this most produc-

tive area is adjacent to the water's edge, it would also

be most affected by a massive oil spill.

5. A Superport facility alone would not affect migrat-

ing organisms unless it were very near one of the major

passes into the bay systems. It is not known whether

a massive oil spill would be more damaging during large

migrations than during others. Poorly placed channels

or canals where spoil banks cross shallow bays would

come nearly or completely to the surface and might affect

migration into certain areas.

310

Massive Oil Spills

Data on the effects of major oil spills or the effects of spilled

oil on biological systems are somewhat fragmentary and contradictory.

The most intensively studied oil spills are the Tory Canyon wreck and

the oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel. Both of these accidents

occurred in areas characterized by rugged coasts with cliffs and

pocket beaches. No study has been made of the effects of a major oil

spill in a broad, shallow, salt-marsh estuarine system such as the

Louisiana coast. In the two major well blowouts off coastal Louisiana.

(Chevron spill, March 1970, Murray, Smith, and Sonu, 1970; Shell spill,

January 1971, Watson, Terry, and Buckmeier, 1971), the greater part of

the spilled oil was swept away from the marshes by currents.

Interpretation of data concerning the effects of oil on vari-

ous components of the biota are varied. Mackin and Hopkins (1962)

found no evidence that oil affected oysters in coastal Louisiana

waters. Reports indicate that no long-term damage resulted from the

Santa Barbara or Tory Canyon incidents (Smith, 1968). Blumer et al.

(1970) reported the effects of a spill of No. 2 fuel oil in Buzzards

Bay, Massachusetts, an estuary bordered by marsh (see also Blumer and

Sass, 1972). They found that the composition and concentration of oil

in the sediments remained nearly unchanged for four months after the

spill. They found oil in whole oysters and in the adductor muscle

of the scallop. Further, they concluded that a presumably biochemical

modification leads to a gradual depletion of straight chain, and to a

lesser extent branched chain, hydrocarbons. The more toxic aromatic

hydrocarbons were retained in the organisms several months after the

311

spill. Mitchell (1972) indicated that the water-soluble fraction of

crude oil (10% oil) was not toxic to bluegill or catfish but caused

64% mortality to small crustaceans (Daphnia) and a 50% reduction of the

cell division rate of a marine diatom. Many workers have shown-that

commercial oil emulsifiers are much more toxic than crude oil alone,

and that emulsifi6r-crude oil mixture is more toxic than either alone.

As previously emphasized, one of the most important processes

in the estuary is the conversion of marsh grasses to detritus. Microbes

and meiobenthic organisms play a major role in this conversion. Any

effects of oil on this conversion could be seriously detrimental. It

has also been reported that oil will adhere to particulate matter in

the water (Mackin and Hopkins, 1962). Most of the detritus exported

from the marshes is very small. If these detrital particles were coated

with oil, the oil would move very easily into the biota.

Scenic, Historic, and Archeological Resources

The Des Allemands-Barataria estuarine management area is an

aesthetically pleasing coastal wetlands area.close to the heavily

populated greater New Orleans urban center. As such it is a major

recreation resource. The center of the estuary provides -direct

access, through inland waterways, to the Gulf from the New Orleans

area. The.Grand Isle part of this management area is the only major

Gulf shore development in the state. The area is steeped in historic

lore and abounds in prehistoric Indian village sites. As a part of

the Mississippi deltaic plain, one of the largest delta systems in

the world, it is an important and unique natural wonder. The vast

areas of shallow lakes and bays, extensive marshes and swamps, o ak

312

covered natural levee ridges and sandy gulf barriers, and the abun-

dance of migratory waterfowl and indigenous birds, animals and marine

life give the region a unique character and present great opportunities

for recreation. Sports fishing and hunting are well known, and the

beauty of this area's sinuous waterways and picturesque fishing

villages provide-other attractions.

313

IV. Other Environmental Considerations

Final selection of the site must be based on a comprehensive inven-

tory of existing environmental data. The inventory should be the basis

for evaluation of stresses imposed on the environment by construction,

operation, and future development of the Superport. It is also

required for assessing constraints imposed by foundation conditions,

storm vulnerability, waves, currents, fog. The site selected should

have the least possible number of known stresses and constraints, and

the choice should not be based on economic considerations alone.

The total impact of environmental stresses, both primary and

secondary, must be evaluated so that adequate compensatory measures

can be provided. The traditional cost-benefit analysis is not appro-

priate. Evaluation should be based on primary biological productivity,

or perhaps on acres of specific types of habitat affected by the develop-

ment.

The facility design must minimize potential environmental damage.-

Seasonal changes in the intensity of natural phenomena must be con-

sidered in the design. However, environmental factors should be

utilized in a positive manner wherever possible. For example, pre-

vailing currents may be used as a natural flushing mechanism to move

leakage and/or accidental spills away from the coast. Long-term

restrictions must be included in the facility development plan. Once

established, the Superport cannot be allowed to grow in a random

manner. Case studies of existing projects clearly demonstrate that

such development can only result in gradual environmental deterioration.

314

Restrictions on land links, size and location of support facilities,

and other constructions that may either directly or indirectly serve

the port facility must be included in the original proposal.

Facility operation must be conducted in a manner that will mini-

mize environmental problems. The operation must be monitored by pro-

fessional scientists. Monitoring should be conducted before, during

and after construction in order to establish ecological baseline data

necessary for evaluating environmental stresses and impact. It is

assumed that these monitoring operations will be conducted by the

Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission and other authorized

state and federal agencies. However, the authority and enforcement

provisions of these agencies should be reviewed in reference to the

Superport and responsibilities should be clearly defined. The

enforcement provisions, along with mechanisms to insure cleanup of

accidental spills by technical means with a surety bond to guarantee

performance, are important environmental considerations. Compensa-

tory provisions should be written into the plan, based on a realistic

assessment of primary and secondary stresses created by the Super-

port development. Measures might include creating marshland preserves--

in any portion of the state's coastal zone--designed and managed such

that the environment will be enhanced and biological productivity

optimized. New marshlands might be built through controlled diversions

near the mouth of the river. New land created through deltaic processes

in shallow bays near the mouth of the Atchafalaya River might be placed

under the control of a publicly owned wetland management trust. Sup-

plementary freshwater injection or delivery systems might be constructed

315

for use in estuarine management programs. Manmade barrier islands

might be built along the shores of large lakes and bays to reduce

erosion and diversify natural habitats. These and many other proposals

should be evaluated and selected projects implemented with funds

derived from Superport revenues.

Careful consideration of environmental factors throughout the

design, construction and operation phases of the project and the judicious

use of compensatory provisions can insure that the Louisiana deepwater

port will be of both economic and environmental benefit to the people

of this state.

316

V. Selected References

Bea, R. G., 1971, How Sea Floor Slides Affect Offshore Structures.
Oil and Gas Journal, Nov. 1971, pp. 88-92.

Blumer, M., G. Souza, and J. Sass, 1970, Hydrocarbon pollution of
edible shellfish by an oil spill. Marine Biol2ya, 5:195-202.

Blumer, M. and J. Sass, 1972, Hydrocarbon pollution of edible
shellfish by an oil spill. Science, V. 176(4039):1120-1122.

Day, J., W.J@ Smith, P. Wagner and W. Stowe, 1972, Community
Structure and Energy Flow in Salt Marsh and Shallow Bay Estuarine
System in Louisiana. Department of Marine Science, Center for
Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Mackin, J. and S. Hopkins, 1962, Studies-on oyster mortality in
relation to natural environments and to oil fields in Louisiana.
Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci., University of Texas, 7:1-126.

Mitchell, D. M., 1972, "The susceptibility of bluegill sunfish and
channel catfish to crude oil and oil emulsifiers," unpublished
MS thesis, LSU, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Morgan, James P., James M. Coleman and S.M. Gagliano, "Mudlumps:
Diapiric Structures in Mississippi Delta Sediments," reprinted
from "Diapirism and Diapirs-Memoir No. 8," The Amer. Assoc.
Pet. Geol., 1968.

Murray, S. P., W. G. Smith, and C. J. Sonu, 1970, Oceanographic
Observations and Theoretical Analysis of Oil Slicks During the
Chevron Spill, March 1970, Coastal Studies Institute, LSU,
Technical Report No. 87.

Penman, H. L., 1970, The Water Cycle, Scientific,American, v. 233(3):
89-108.

Shepard, Francis-P., 1955, Delta Front Valleys Bordering the Mississippi
Distributaries, Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., V. 66:1489-1498.

Smith, J. E. (Ed.), "Torrey Canyon, Pollution and Marine Life;" A
report by the Plymouth Laboratory of the Marine Biological
Association of the United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Watson, J. A., S. A. Terry, and F. J. Buckmeier, Oceanographic and
Remote-Sensing Survey in the Vicinity of the Shell Spill, Gulf of
Mexico, January 1971, Final Report. Texas Instruments Incorporated,
Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-01-
0017.

317

SELECTED ENGINEERING ASPECTS-OF A SUPERPORT

by:

Charles A. Whitehurst

Warren T. Durbin, Jr.
Greg Matherne

David Modlin

Division of Engineering Research

and

Department of Civil Engineering
Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge

318

SELECT ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF A SUPERPORT

Table of Contents
Page
Part I. Engineering Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

Part II. Literature Survey of Superport Structures . . . . . . . . 329

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

A. Single point mooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

B. Floating platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

C. Rigid platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

D. Manmade island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

II. Types of Terminal Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

A. Single point mooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

1. Floating buoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

a. Cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

b. Supporting subsystems . . . . . . . . . . 336

c. Support personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

d. Ship-to-shore/base interface services . . 336

e. Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

f. General environmental impact . . . . . . 336

g. Engineering subsystems . . . . . . . . . 336

h. Site limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

2. Articulated column . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

a. Cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

b. Supporting subsystems . . . . . . . . . . 337

c. Support personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

d. Ship-to-shore/base interface services 339

319

Page

e. Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

f. General environmental impact . . . . . . . 339

g. Engineering subsystems . . . . . . . . . . 339

h. Site limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

B. Floating platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

1. Small Semisubmerged platform . . . . . . . . . 340

a. Cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

b. Supporting subsystems . . . ... . . . . . 342

c. Support personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

d. Ship-to-shore/base interface services 343

e. Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

f. General environmental impact . . . . . . . 343

g. Engineering subsystems . . . . . . . . . . 343

h. Site limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

2. Large semisubmerged platform . . . . . . . . . 344

a. Cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

b. Supporting subsystems . . . . . . . . . . 347

C. Support personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

d. Ship-to-shore/base interface services 348

e. Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348

f. General environmental impact . . . . . . . 350

g. Engineering subsystems . . . . . . . . . . 350

h. Site limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

3. Displacement hull platform . . . . . . . . . . 351

C. Rigid platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

320

Page
1. Small platform on piles . . . . . . . . . . . 352

a. Cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

b. Supporting subsystems . . . . . . . . . . 353

C. Support personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

d. Ship-to-shore/base interface services . - 353

e. Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

f. General environmental impact . . . . . . 353

g. Engineering subsystems . . . . . . . . . 353

h. Site limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

2. Large platform on piles . . . . . . . . . . . 353

3. Storage tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

D. Manmade island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

III. CRm2arison of Structural Types . . . . . . . . . . . 356

A. Single point moorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

B. Floating platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

C. Rigid platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

D. Manmade island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

IV. Possible Multiuse Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

V. Engineering Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

VI. Annotated Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

Part III. Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381

A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381

B. The Mississippi River Corridor . . . . . . . . . 383

II. Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

A. The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

321

Page
B. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

1. Highway transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

2. Railway transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

3. Water transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

4. Pipe line transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

C. Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388

D. Assumptions for the programing model . . . . . . 391

III. Purpose and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
A. Purpose .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 393

B. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

1. Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394

2. Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394

3. Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394

IV. Solution Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395

V. The Data List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

VI. The Model: Basic Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
A. Programming . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 398

B. Parameters affecting the "Operational Model" 406

1. Special problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406

VII. Potential Benefits Derived from the Transportation

Analysis of the Superport . . . . . . . . . . o 407

VIII. Appendix

A-1. Deep Water Access: Maximum Ship Size . . . . . 409

A-2. Mississippi River Navigation System . . . . . . 410

322

Page
A-3. Inland Freight Tonnage on the Mississippi

River System and the Gulf Intracoastal

Waterway, 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

A-4. Waterborne Commerce of the United

States, 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412

A-5. Shifts in Domestic Transportation of Crude

Petroleum and Petroleum Products . . . . . . . 414

A-6. Direct Economic Costs and Savings in

Transporting Future U.S. Crude Oil

Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

A-7. Freight Tonnage Percent by Modes of

Transportation for 1980 in the United

States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418

A-8. Work Plan for a Study of the Feasibility of

an Offshore Terminal in the Texas Gulf

Coast Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

323

List of Figures

Figure Page
1 Single Point Mooring Buoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

2 Articulated Column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

3 Small Semisubmerged Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

4 Large Semisubmerged Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

5 Module Sections Which Comprise
Semisubmerged Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346

6 Storage Tank Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

324

List of Tables

Table Page
1 Locations and Characteristics of Single
Point Mooring Systems Presently in Use . . . . . . . 331

2 Quantities and Costs of 200 x 200-ft Module
in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

325

Part I. ENGINEERING RECOMbENDATIONS

Floating buoys, articulated columns, and small platforms can handle liquid

and slurried cargo only. Because a buoy or column can be installed at a cost

of a few million dollars, the lower cost puts these structures in the reach

of individual companies when the need for supertankerservice arises. For

very large quantities, a small platform, costing from $20 to $60 million,

would be better suited to state participation.

If the proposed port must also transfer and store bulk solids and liquids,

containerized cargo, and general cargo, then a major structure will be

required. According to present knowledge, man-made islands or platforms

on piers are unacceptable for 100-foot depths and the bottom conditions

prevalent along the Louisiana coast. Therefore, extensive investigations of

both large semisubmerged platforms and large storage tanks (in the 100- to

200-acre sizes) should be carried out. Once the structure type has been

chosen, the feasibility of the additional uses can be evaluated.

The superport structures study group feels that a large semisubmerged

platform composed of modules of approximately 1 acre in size should be given

serious consideration. The initial port could be a terminal for oil and gas

and should be composed of several modules. This first-stage port, which could

conceivably be only 2 or 3 acres, should amount to about 10 percent of the

final 200-acre superport cost, and yet it would satisfy current and immediate

future (3-5 years) needs. The several modules constituting the initial port

would provide a means of studying module design and the feasibility of semi-

submerged platforms. It should be composed of several modules to permit a

study of the joint design. As necessary, modifications can be made to modules

326

used in future additions.

An advantage of modular construction is that the module can be fabri-

cated at a shipyard and towed to the assembly site. This would greatly

reduce offshore construction and would hold down costs. As the.need arises

for the port to handle additional types of cargo, modules can be added to

provide more platform areas. Anchor techniques could be changed as the total

structure developed.

A platform built on piles would probably prove to be unfeasible for

the bottom existing along the coast. A semisubmerged platform is secured

to the bottom by mass anchors which are embedded in the bottom. The load-

bearing area of these anchors could be made large to reduce any sinking or

shifting tendency. The upward force exerted on the anchors by the platform

would help in this respect. If the semisubmerged platform cannot be

anchored, then a structure such as a large concrete storage platform should

be considered. This could also be modular and would have a load-bearing area

essentially as large as that of the platform.

At this stage of study, several areas of basic research associated with

a superport can be defined. An extensive study of the soils mechanics of

the sediment in the construction area should be made. The ability of the

bottom to hold and support anchoring systems of various structures must be

determined. The type of structure selected will depend heavily on these

results.

Another research area is a model study of possible structure types. Scale

models of the various structures should be prepared and subjected to sea state

and weather conditions which can be expected in the Gulf. Attempts should be

made to simulate bottom conditions so that the model tests can include the

327

anchoring systems.

A final study subject is the wave barriers that would be required to

protect docked ships and the structure. Possible barrier types would include

rigid structures such as piling, floating structures, and new concepts such

as a perimeter of air bubbles. The air bubbles in the latter case would be

emitted from the bottom along the barrier line. The emerging bubbles would

tend.to disrupt incoming waves.

328

Part II. LITERATURE SURVEY OF SUPERPORT STRUCTURE

I. Introduction

This survey of available information on superport structures, made

by the LSIJ Division of Engineering Research, was limited to the classi-

fication of offshore ship terminals that could be constructed in

Louisiana coastal waters. The structural types listed below and

described in the following section are extant, are being designed, or

have been proposed:

A. Single-point mooring

1. Floating buoy
2. Articulated column

B. Floating platform

1. Small semisubmerged platform
2. Large semisubmerged platform
3. Displacement hull

C. Rigid platform

1. Small platform on piles
2. Large platform on piles
3. Storage tank

D. Manmade island

Besides a general classification and description of the structural

types and their appurtenant subsystems, their advantages and disadvan-

tages are compared in Section III. The possibility of a multi-use

terminal is broached in Section IV. Some foreseen engineering problems,

stemming from the geology of the coast, are mentioned in Section V, azid

are followed by recommendations for further investigations and a

bibliography.

II. Types of Terminal Structures

A. Single-point mooring

329

A single-point mooring structure is characterized by single-line

mooring of a ship to the terminal. The ship heading varies with the

wind and the current, the ship seeking a position of least resistance.

Such a terminal can serve only one ship at a time. It is also limited

to liquid and slurried cargoes. A positive aspect to single-point

mooring terminals is the great reduction in danger from ship collisions

or other mishaps in crowded channels and harbors, and the correlative

minimization of water pollution resulting from such collisions.

1. Floating buoy

A large floating buoy positioned by several flexible lines

anchored to fixed points on the bottom is another type of terminal

structure. The cargo is transferred through flexible pipelines attached

to a 360* swivel head on the buoy to allow complete rotation of the

ship about the buoy. Submarine pipelines carry the cargo between the

buoy and subsurface, floating, or onshore storage areas. Shore-based

pumping stations can also interface the terminal directly with in-

land customers, or the terminal may serve as a transfer buffer between

supertankers and smaller tankers. Some terminals are capable of

handling five different cargoes simultaneously (existing terminals

are listed in Table 1). A typical installation is shown in Figure 1.

Special characteristics of the floating buoy terminal are

as follows:

a. Cargo

The cargoes are limited to liquids, such as crude or

refined petroleum, cryogens, asphalt, molasses, wine, and vegetable

oils, and slurried solids, such as salt, iron ore, limestone, coal,

330

TABLE 1

LOCATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SINGLE POINT
MOORING SYSTEMS PRESENTLY IN USE

Size of
Year CountKy Location Owner Number & Size of Hoses Tankers dwt.
1959 Malaysia Muri Shell 2 x 8" + 1 x 6" 32,000
1959 Malaysia Miri Shell 2 x 8" + 1 x 6" 32,000
1959 Malaysia Miri Shell 2 x 8" + 1 x 6" 32,000
1959 Malaysia Miri Shell 2 x 12" 32,000
1962 Malaysia Port Dickson Saell 3 x 12" 90,000
1962 Japan Niigata Shell 3 x 12" 90,000
1962 Japan Yokkaichi Shell 2 x 16" 90,000
1962 Japan Yokkaichi Shell 2 x 16" 90,000
1963 Oman Mina-al-Fahal Shell 1 x 8" + 1 x 8" reserve 165,000
1965 Libya Ras-es-Sider Oasis 3 x 16" 100,000
1965 Qatar Halul Shell 2 x 16" 100,000
1965 Gabon Fort Gentil Shell 2 x 16" 100,000
1966 Spain Huelva Gulf 2 x 16" 100,000
1966 Oman Saih-el-Malih Shell 2 x 16" + 2 x 8" 165,000
1966 Oman Saih-el-Malih Shell 2 x 16" + 2 x 8" 165,000
1967 Gabon Port Gentil Shell 2 x 16" 100,000
1968 Egypt Ras el Shaqiq Wepco 2 x 16" 100,000
1968 Cabinda CAB. 702 Area K Gulf 2 x 16" 100,000
1968 Libya Zuetina Occidental I x 24" 100,000
1968 Venezuela Moron CVP I x 16" + 1 x 16" reserve 100,000
1968 Libya Zuetina Occidental 1 x 24" + 1 x 24" reserve 150,000
1968 Libya Zuetina Occidental 1 x 24" + 1 x 24" reserve 150,000
1968 Nigeria Forcados Shell 2 x 20" 200,000
1968 Nigeria Forcados Shell 2 x 20" 200,000
1968 Trucial Fateh Field Continental 2 x 16" 150,000
1968 Brazil Tramandei Petrobras 2 x 16" 105,000
1969 South Africa Reunion Rocks Duban Shell-BP-Mobil 2 x 24" 200,000
1969 Canada Mispec Point Irving Oil Co 1 x 24" + 1 x 16" 350 000
1969 Libya Ras Lanuf Mobil Oil 2 x 24" 255:000
1969 Italy Taranto Shell Auxiliary buoy for 300,000
floating hoses -
convent mooring
1969 Libya Ras-es-Sider Oasis 2 x 24" 255,000
1970 England Humber River Continental 1 x 24" 210,000

Table 1--Continued

Size of
Year Country Location Owner Number & Size of Hoses Tankers dvt

1970 Italy Porto Torres Sardoil 2 X 20" 255,000
1970 Iran Cyrusfield Ipac 2 x 16"
Permanent mooring ror a
storage barge capable of
storing 900,000 bbl.
1970 Saudi Arabia Zuluf Aramco 2 x 24", 1 x 16"
Permanent mooring for a
storage tanker of
250,000 dwt
1970 Saudi Arabia Zuluf Aramco, 2 x 24" 450,000
1970 Australia Botany Bay M.S.B. of N.S.W. 3 x 12" 120,000
1970 Brazil Tramandai Petrobras I x 24" 200,000
1970 Nigeria Escravos Gulf 2 x 24" 300,000
1970 Norway North Sea in Phillips Under buoy: I x 20" - 60,000
Li 230 f t water depth Floating: initially
I x 6" hose line
11970 Norway North Sea in Phillips Under buoy: 1 x, 20" - 150,000
230 ft water depth Floating: initially
I x 6" hose line
1971 Taiwan Kaohsiung C.P.C. 2 x 20" .250,000
1971 Borneo Brunei Shell .2x 20" 250,000
1971 Chile Quintero Bay Enap 2 x 20" 209,000
1971 Dominican Santo Domingo Refineria 2 x 16" 150,000
Republic Dominicana 1 x 12"
1971 Ecudor Esmeraldas Gulf/Texaco 2 x 20" 100,000
1971 Ecudor Esmeraldas Gulf/Texaco 1 x 24", 1 x 20" 100,000
1971 Trinidad Galeata Port Amoco 2 x 20" 250,000
1971 Nigeria Forcados Shell 2 x 24" 375,000
1971 Nigeria Boni Shell 2 x 24" 375,000
1971 Nigeria Boni Shell 2 x 24" 375,000
1971 Indonesia Balikpappan Union Oil of Calif. 2 x 20", 1 x 16" 250,000

Table I-Continued

Size of
Year Country Location Owner Number & Size of Hoses Tankers dwt

1971 Denmark North Sea in 150 Gulf Denmark Underbuoy: I x 12" 70,000
ft waterdepth Floating: 1 x 6"
1971 U.A.R. Alexandria E.G.P.C. 2 x 24" 250,000
1971 U.A.R. Alexandria E.G.P.C. 2 x 24" 250,000
1971 U.A.R. Alexandria E.G.P.C. 2 x 20" 120,000
1971 U.A.R. Alexandria E.G.P.C. 2 x 20" 120,000
1971 U.A.R. Alexandria E-G.P-C 2 x 20" 120,000
1971 U.A.R. Suez E.G.P.C. 2 x. 24" 250,000
1971 U.A.R. Suez E.G.P.C. 2 x 24" 250,000
1971 U.A.R. Suez E.G.P.C. 2 x 20" 120,000
1971 Tanzania Dar-Es-Salaam East African 2 x 24" 100,000
1971 Spain Tarragona Shell 2 x 24" 60,000
(fixed
mooring)
1961 Spanish Sahara El Aaiun C.E.P.S.A.
1962 West Germany West German Navy
1963 Japan Oita Kyushu Oil Corp.
1963 Spanish Guinea Bata C.E.P.S.A.
1964 Korea Ulsan Korea Oil Corp.
1965 Japan Chiba Maruzen Oil Corp
1967 Japan Koshiba U.S. Army
1967 Philippines Subic Bay U.S. Navy
1967 Taiwan Tai-Chung U.S. Air Force
1967 E.Pakistan Chittagong Chittagong Port Trust
1967 Nigeria Lagos Nidogas
1968 Korea Yosu Honam Oil Refin.
1968 Korea Ulsan Korea Oil Corp.
1968 Taiwan Kaohsiung Chinese Pet. Corp.
1968 Japan Hakozaki U.S. Army
1968 Taiwan Tal-Chung U.S. Air Force
1968 Nigeria Escravos Gulf Oil
1968 Japan Hakodate Asia Oil Corp.

Table 1--Continued

.. ......I...... Size of
Year Country Location Owner 'Number & Size of Hoses Tankers dwt

1969 Japan Toyama Japan Sea Oil Co.
1970 Indonesia Pangkalan Pertamina
1970 Argentina Puerto Rosales YPF
1970 China Singapore Esso
1970 Okinawa Tengan U.S. Army
1970 Persian Gulf Iman Hasan SIRIP
1970 Okinawa Toyo Gasoline
1970 Japan Himeji Idemitsu Oil
1970 Morocco Mohammedia RAPC
1971 New Zealand Waipipi Point Marcona Corp.
1971 Nigeria Oua Iboe Mobil Oil Corp.
1971 Java Sea IIAPCO
1972 New Zealand Taharoa New Zealand Steel Corp.
1972 Das Island British Petroleum
1972 Java Sea ARCO
1972 Uum Said Qatar Petroleum

FIGURE I SINGLE-POINT MOORING BUOY

335

alumina, bauxite, laterite ores, and base metal concentrates, or other

bulk liquids or slurries.

b. Supporting subsystems

A pumping system (with or without storage). and a small

launch to assist in mooring tankers are necessary,.

c. Support personnel

A small crew is needed to operate the launch and main-

tain pumps, lines, and swivel connections.

d. Ship-to-shore/base interface services

None are provided except limited transfer of tanker crev:@

men to and from shore.

e. Cost

The cost depends on the depth under the terminal. For

a depth of 100 feet, the installed cost of the buoy-and Loses. comes to

$1,000,000. The added cost of storage will depend on the volume and

storage system.

f. General environmental impact

The bottom area would be minimally, disrupted during the

installation of the buoy and pipelines. Other impact would depend on

the storage or transfer system.

g. Engineering subsystems

No other structures, machinery, or life support systems

are required.

h. Site limitations

The bottom must hold the anchor points of the buoy with

a tanker moored in rough seas. Loading and unloading are possible -also

336

in rough water, while conventional terminals require breakwaters or

natural protection against waves.

2. Articulated column

The articulated column is characterized by a cylindrical

tower that extends from a universal joint on the ocean floor to a

height of about 50 feet above the water surface. Such a terminal

would serve as a single-point anchorage for the loading and unloading

of liquids and slurries in much the same way as a floating buoy operates.

Included, however, are special features, such as living quarters for a

small mooring and maintenance crew in the upper section of the column,

a heliport on top, and cargo storage in the lower part of the column.

The flexible transfer lines and swivel mooring used for floating buoys

apply also to the articulated column. A typical installation is shown

in Figure 2. The only current example, in the Bay of Biscay, has been

used successfully since 1968. It was installed 18 miles offshore in

330 feet of water. It is designed for 65-foot waves with 16-second

periods and water velocities of 2.7 feet per second combined with winds

up to 135 mph.

Other characteristics of articulated columns are as follows:

a. Cargo

The cargo limitations are the same as for floating

buoys (liquids and slurries).

b. Supporting subsystems

Pumping facilities for liquids and slurries are needed,

along with a small launch-for use in mooring tankers. The storage

system may be offshore (submerged or floating) or onshore. To some

337

FIGURE 2 ARTICULATED COLUMN

338

extent storage may be provided in the column.

c. Support personnel

A small on-site crew is needed to operate the launch

and provide maintenance on the terminal.

d. Ship-to-shore/base interface services

Limited tanker crew accommodations and terminal-to-shore

transfer may be provided. In addition, ships can take on supplies

previously transported to the terminal by small boat and helicopter.

Minor loading and unloading equipment would be located on the platform

for this purpose.

e. Cost

The cost would depend on the water depth. The terminal

in the Bay of Biscay cost about $1,500,000 (330 feet of water).

Storage capacity is not included. Such a terminal would be more

economical than floating buoys at depths of more than 200 feet.

f. General environmental impact

The base for the t-ower would occupy about 5,000 square

feet of ocean floor. Permanent disruption of this area andany area

used for submerged storage would result. However, as with a floating

buoy, any disruption at 100 feet or deeper is very minor.

g. Engineering subsystems

Needed are essential life-support systems such as

electrical power, fresh water, food storage and preparation, ship-to-

terminal and terminal-to-shore communication, evacuation facilities,

and living quarters for the tower crew. In addition, systems are

required for material handling, equipment and machinery decks, universal

339

joint lubrication, ballasting to maintain stability, instrumentation

to monitor the column, etc.

h. Site limitations

These terminals can be designed for nearly any sea state

and depths up to 1500 feet. The bottom area must be capable of

supporting the base.

B. Floating Platform

This type of terminal consists of a platform ranging in area from

one to several hundred acres. It is supported by buoyant force and is

anchored by lines to fixed points on the ocean bottom. Ships are moored

with a fixed heading by multiple lines.

1. Small semisubmerged platform

The small semisubmerged terminal is shown schematically in

Figure 3. The platform is supported on columns attached to a submerged

buoyant menber. It is high enough above the surface to avoid wave action

under.the worst seas and to permit easy cargo transfer. The buoyant

member is set below the active depth of the water. The only portions

of the structure subject to wave energy are the narrow columns con-

necting the platform and the buoyant member. This arrangement provides

a very stable platform when the buoyant member is anchored to the

bottom. Even though the water surface changes with tides and wave

motion, the small variations in displacement volume of the columns

have little effect. Thus there is very little tendency for the plat-

form to move.

The small semisubmerged platform is characterized as one

which has an area on the order of a few acres. Intended to handle

340

FIGURE 3 SMALL SEMISUBMERGED PLATFORM

liquid and slurried cargoes only, it would be functionally similar to

the articulated column except that ship mooring would be on a fixed

heading and cargo transfer could be faster. Structures of this type

have been used successfully for mobile, stable drilling rigs where deep

water made it unfeasible to use fixed or jack-up platforms.

Other characteristics of small semisubmersible platforms are as

follows:

a. Cargo

Same as for single-point mooring terminals.

b. Supporting subsystems

A storage capacity of 1,500,000 barrels is possible, the

structure itself is used as a tank. Pumping and pipeline systems are

needed in conjunction with loading, unloading, and storage of cargo.

Conventional loading arms and service cranes are used on this structure

for hose hook-up and loading of ship's supplies, spare parts, etc. A

ballast system with pumps and tanks throughout the structure is used to

maintain the required draft and shift the center of gravity during

loading and unloading. Other needed fluid systems are compressed air,

fresh water, oil bunkers, and lubricating oil. The compressed air is

used for pneumatic fenders and normal marine service air requirements.

A freshwater generation system, such as an evaporator, is needed to

supply ships and the platform.

c. Support personnel

Three eight-man shifts are needed for operation and

general maintenance of the terminal. One man per shift serves as cook,

steward, etc,; two per shift control the ballast and cargo flaw, keep

342

the engine-room watch, and handle radio communications; and five per

shift dock the tankers and barges, operate the loading arms, load the

tankers with fresh water, fuel oil, lubricants, and stores.

d. Ship-to-shore/base interface services

These are generally the same as for articulated columns

except that interface services can be carried out more quickly and

conveniently. Fresh water, lube oil, bunkering, stores, spares, and

minor maintenance services can be easily afforded supertankers.

e. Cost

The cost is estimated at $10 to 50 million. The plat-

form can be designed to hold approximately one million barrels of crude

in the structure itself. Therefore, the need for additional storage

area is not a factor, as it is with single-point mooring terminals.

f. General environmental impact

Distrubances during construction or from the structure

itself-would be comparable to single-point mooring terminals. The

advantage of this and every other offshore terminal is that any spills

or pollution will occur offshore, not in inland waterways and harbors,

thus reducing the chance of disrupting the wildlife and fish breeding

grounds. If spilling occurs, the pollutant can be contained and cleaned

up before it can cause damage. Any offshore port should have a means

of cleaning up pollution from spills.

g. Engineering subsystems

Engineering subsystem would be the same as for articu-

lated columns, but they would be more sophisticated in design and output

343

because the needs would be greater.

h. Site limitations

Small floating terminals may be located anywhere as

long as the bottom will support and hold the anchor points. The depth

is limited by the excessive dead load stresses in long anchor lines.

A practical limit would probably be 400 feet. Loading and unloading

operations can be carried on in sea states up to 6 feet.

2. Large semisubmerged platform

Schematics of a typical large platform are shown in Figures

4 and 5. The area ranges from 50 to 150 acres. This type of terminal

is intended to be comparable to a conventional port, with all its inter-

face services and cargo handling ability. It would have sufficient

space for bulk storage of ore, grain, coal, etc., a warehouse area for

general and containerized cargo, offices and housing, and possibly an

aircraft landing strip. This requires a multideck structure so that

warehouses, housing, offices, cafeterias, mechanical equipment, etc.,

may be located below the top deck. The bulk storage, loading equipment,

and runway space would be situated on the top deck.

Terminals of this type and size exist at present. However,

airports as large as 1,000 acres (FLAIR Concept) have been proposed

and are being considered. Hawaii is considering the possibility of

floating an entire exposition or city on platforms similar to the ones

proposed for FLAIR. The use of this type structure as a major ship port

(expressed in several literature references) appears to be an excellent

concept.

Large platforms would probably be composed of modules of

344

TT-rrw

jig

41
tx

FIGURE 4 LARGE X
, SEMISUBIIERGED PLATFO&

FIGURE 5 MODULE SECTIONS WHICH COMPRISE SEMISUBMERGED PLATFORMS

4400'

200t
T

1600'

9001 1600'

lot

346

about 1 acre that would be constructed at a shipyard, floated to the

terminal site, and connected with other modules to form any desired

platform size. A schematic of a module for the FLAIR airport concept

is shown in Figure 5. Other module designs lend themselves more

directly to liquid storage capacity in structural and buoyant members.

Other identifying characteristics are:

a. Cargo

All types of cargo could be handled at a terminal of

this type. Additional storage area can be added when it is required.

b. Supporting subsystems

All subsystems required for the support of a shore-based

port are also needed for this type of terminal, but unique requirements

arise from its offshore location. These include a tugboat fleet,

navigation buoys, breakwaters, a shore base, a support community, a

weather station, an evacuation system, and a transportation system. The

shore base would include businesses and residences that would normally

serve the needs of a large port and the families residing in the area.

The transportation system would include terminal-to-shore ferrying of

people, cargo, and supplies (air and surface), and terminal-to-user

distribution and receiving of cargo shipped in bulk. Cargo may be

transferred by pipelines, barges, small ships, hovercraft, and aircraft.

c. Support personnel

This terminal would require the same personnel as a

shore-based or inland port of the same relative size, with the addition

of operations and maintenance people to operate special subsystems

unique to offshore ports. These personnel would include a management

347

staff, communication technicians, machine and electrical shop technicians,

food service workers, dock workers,, tugboat crews, janitors, medical

personnel, operation and maintenance technicians, divers for underwater

maintenance, mechanics, ship maintena nce and service personnel, buoy

tenders, secretarial and clerical staffs, public relations representatives,

etc.

d. Ship-to-shore/base interface services

Ship unloading and loading systems of the offshore

terminal would include derricks and cranes, ore conveyors, liquid and

slurry pumps, and equipment for containerized cargo. Storage space

would be available for all types of cargo. The transfer to shore and

final destinations would be accomplished by barges, small tankers and

cargo ships, air-cushion vehicles, aircraft, pipelines, and mechanical,

pneumatic, and fluid conveyor systems. The pipelines could possibly

occupy one quadrant of a transportation tube or tunnel (as discussed

in Reference No. 19), while the conveyors, communication lines, and a

rapid transit train (monorail, conventional, or pneumatic) could be

located at the other three quadrants.

The terminal-to-ship services would include the supplying

of fresh water, fuel and lubricants, spare parts, ship's stores, and

maintenance and repair.

e. Costs

In Reference No. 4, the module sections for the FLAIR air-

port are discussed. A table from this reference is reproduced here

as Table 2. It shows that, for each 200-foot x 200-foot platform

section, the estimated cost is $1,500,000. A 100-acre platform for

348

TABLE 2

QUANTITIES AND COSTS OF
200 x 200-ft MODULE IN PLACE

Unit
Item Material Unit Quantity Price $ Total, $

6-in. wearing surface Reinforced concrete (cast in place) sq- yd- 4,444 7.00 31,108.00

14-in. deck panels Prestressed concrete (precast) sq. yd. 4,444 50.00 222,200.00

Deck framing colmns and diagonals Structural steel ton 864 400.00 345,600.00

Buoyancy chamber domes Prestressed concrete (precast) sq. yd- 10,500 45.00 472,500.00

Buoyancy chamber walls Reinforced concrete (cast in place) cu. yd. 3,000 120.00 360,000.00

Mooring cables Zinc-coated marine cable lin. ft. 1,020 6.00 6,120.00

J, Mass anchor "box" Reinforced concrete (cast in place) cu. yd. 260 120.00 31,200.00

Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000.00

Transportation & assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,800.00

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,537,528.00

the FLAIR design would cost $165,000,000. (Other designs will probably

cost about the same.) The installation of a terminal on the FLAIR plat-

form would cost an additional $150,000,000, for a total cost of

$315,000,000.

f. General environmental impact

Disruption resulting from construction and maintenance

of a large terminal would cover several hundred acres. However, in

100 feet of water it would probably not be a serious environmental

threat. The land area near the terminal required for the construction

of the shore base and support community would be a greater problem,

depending on the location.

The terminal and shore base should have a pollution

control and cleanup system to reduce or eliminate the danger of pollu-

tion.

g. Engineering subsystems

All systems needed for life support and operation of

conventional shore-based ports are also necessary for large offshore

terminals. Additional systems, such as freshwater and power generators,

that are unique to the offshore ports are needed. The required

engineering subsystems include electrical power generation; fresh-

water generation; communications; transportation (air and water) for

personnel, cargo, and supplies; extensive living quarters; a medical

infirmary; rest rooms, showers, and laundry service; waste disposal;

a weather station; an office complex; machine, electrical, and

carpenter shops; warehouses; cargo handling equipment, such as fork-

lifts and carriers; emergency systems, including fire detection and

350

fighting equipment and personnel evacuation; heating and air condition-

ing; auxiliary utilities such as compressed air and fuel; food

preparation and storage; pumping systems for platform ballasting, cargo

handling, and water and air distribution; a small helicopter/airplane

terminal for persons and cargo; fender systems for ships and barges;

cathodic protection against corrosion; and personal services such as

recreation, sundries shops, barber shops, etc.

h. Site limitations

The practical depth limit is about 200 feet. The design

sea state will be an extremely important economic factor; therefore, the

more sheltered the site, the lower the cost. The local bottom area

must be able to support the massive concrete anchors used to moor the

modules. (Each anchor would weigh 200-300 tons submerged.)

3. Displacement hull platform

This type of platform is supported by an anchored displace-

ment hull, such as a barge (or barges) . The buoyant member floats at

the water surface and thus must rise and fall with tides and waves, a

condition which makes this type of structure unstable and undesirable

as a ship terminal. However, it could be used in conjunction with a

single-point floating buoy for the handling of liquids and slurries.

In this case, the displacement hull could serve as a storage area. The

Pazargod, in the Arabian Gulf, is of this type. With a capacity of

900,000 barrels, it serves as a collection point for crude oil produced

in the Cyrus Field. Supertankers are loaded through the mooring buoy,

to which the barge is permanently tied.

Other characteristics of displacement hull terminals are

351

similar to those of other platform terminals (depending on size).

C. Rigid Platform

The rigid platform has an area ranging from 1 acre to several

hundred acres and is supported by a rigid structure fixed to the ocean

floor. This would generally be a platform on pilings but could also

involve a huge storage tank extending from the ocean floor to above the

water surface. The above-water portion would serve as a platform

terminal. As with floating platforms, ship mooring would be multipoint

with fixed heading.

1. Small platform on piles

The small platform on piles is similar to the small semi-

submerged platform, except that the supports are rigid rather than

buoyant. As with other small platforms, the cargo is limited to liquids

and slurries. Terminals of this type have been constructed and operated

satisfactorily in depths up to 100 feet. However, the problems

encountered in driving piles at this depth are extreme. One such

terminal was constructed in Bantry Bay, Ireland, in 100 feet of water.

The hollow steel piles were 220 feet long and 40 inches in diameter.

If the piles were not braced after emplacement, they soon broke off at

the mud line. In spite of this problem, the terminal was completed.

The entire project cost $25,000,000. A similar terminal is proposed

in the North Sea off the island of Helgoland, near the coast of Holstein,

West Germany. A slightly larger terminal is planned near New Brunswick,

Canada, at a cost of $60,000,000, which includes an onshore 4,500,000-

barrel tank farm and a trestle from the platform to shore.

Other characteristics of small platforms on piles are as

follows:

352

a. Cargo

The cargo is limited to liquids and slurries as described

for single-point mooring terminals and other small platforms.

b. Supporting subsystems

Same as for small semisubmerged platforms.

c. Support personnel

Same as for small semisubmerged platforms.

d. Ship-to-shore/base interface services

Same as for small semisubmerged platforms.

e. Cost

Estimated at $15 to 60 million in 100 feet of water.

f. General environmental impact

Same as for small semisubmerged platforms.

g. Engineering subsystems

Same as for small semisubmerged platforms and comparable

to those of offshore drilling and production rigs.

h. Site limitations

The maximum depth is 100 feet. The bottom must be stable

enough to support piles. Better bottom conditions are required for this

type of structure than for floating terminals.

2. Large platform on piles

Similar to large semisubmerged platforms, large platforms

on piles are intended as major ports for the handling of all types of

cargo. The size would probably range from 50 to 200 acres. No existing

or proposed structure of this type was found in the literature. It

would probably be unfeasible to use this type structure as a major port

353

in water deeper than 100 feet because of the cost of driving piles.

Other costs would be comparable to those of large semisubmerged plat-

forms. From the waterline up, the types are comparable.

3. Storage tank

An existing structure of the storage tank type is shown

schematically in Figure 6. It is an island, constructed of concrete

and steel, which contains liquid storage space. Water fills unused

space through the bottom. The stored oil above the water is removed

or added to from the top. The intrusion of water into the tank elimin-

ates extremely high hydrodynamic forces that would result if the tank

were partially full. A platform area on the top of the tank is used for

loading and unloading facilities and other features of small platform

terminals.

A structure of this type in 154 feet of water near Dubai has

a capacity of 500,000 barrels. This terminal uses a single-point

mooring buoy for tankers. Its total cost of $25,000,000 includes the

following facilities: flow station, living quarters, pipeline and pumps,

storage tank, offloading pumps and pipelines, offloading buoys, meters

and provers, design costs, and mobilization and miscellaneous costs.

Another structure, scheduled for completion in 1972 at a

cost of $20,000,000, will be a 21-acre artificial island in 164 feet of

water in the Norwegian North Sea. It will store 1,000,000 barrels.

Included in the cost are an oil and seawater separation system, living

quarters, heliport, and tanker loading facilities.

Other characteristics of storage tanks are similar to those

354

355

of small platforms and oscillating towers. It is possible, however,

that much larger platforms, using this type of structure and comparable

to other large platforms, could be designed.

D. Manmade Island

Manmade islands are earth islands,100 to 300 acres in area, that

are composed of dredge material. Conventional piers and dolphins are

used for cargo transfer and anchorage. This type of terminal would

probably be considered unacceptable for the proposed Louisiana super-

port because of the enormous amount of dredging and a probable

restriction to depths of 50 to 75 feet. A terminal of this type pro-

posed for the Delaware Bay bulk terminal to export coal would have

covered 300 acres and cost $160,000,000. Coal was to have been shuttled

to the island on barges for storage and transfer to super bulk carriers.

The project was rejected by the Delaware legislature for environmental

reasons.

III. Comparison of Structural Types

A. Single-Point Mooring

In general, single-point mooring terminals are less costly and

can be used in more severe sea states than others. Because ship

maneuvering and mooring are much easier, there is less danger of mishaps.

However, the types of cargo are limited to liquids and slurries, and

ship-to-port interface services and supplies are lacking. The articu-

lated column has advantages over the floating buoy: the column can

provide limited interface services, handle larger quantities of cargo,

and house a mooring crew. The buoy, however, is less costly and can

easily be relocated. An oil company could easily afford one in the

Gulf.

356

B. Floating Platform

A small platform, as compared to a single-point mooring terminal,

has a higher transfer rate, built-in storage capacity for liquids, and

more and better ship-to-port interface services. The disadvantage is

an increase in cost. Small platforms cost less than large platforms,

but they are limited in types and quantities of cargo.

Floating platforms, as compared to rigid platforms, have fewer

site limitations. Their platform height, size, and storage capacity

may be easily varied through modular construction and assembly. At a

100-foot depth, *he cost of either a rigid or floating terminal would

be the same. However, a floating platform may, with some difficulty,

be relocated, module by module. A rigid platform would have to be

completely dismantled for moving. Semisubmerged floating platforms and

rigid platforms are comparable in stability. Displacement floating

platforms have the serious disadvantage of instability.

C. Rigid Platform

In comparison to other alternatives, rigid platforms on piles

require better foundations in the ocean floor to support the piles.

Rigid platforms built on large storage tanks would possibly have the

fewest site limitations, the greatest storage capacity, the best

stability, and the lowest cost. However, such advantages are only

estimations and will require some basic research, especially on bottom

requirements.

D. Manmade Island

Manmade island terminals, compared to others, cause considerable

disturbance to the local environment of the construction site and in

357

the areas from which dredge material is obtained. A depth limit of 50

to 75 feet would require cutting of approach channels to deeper water.

Because ships would probably be moored to extension piers instead of

the island proper, interface services would not be as convenient as

with large platforms. The possible advantages of manmade islands are

the greater surface areas and complete stability.

IV. Possible Multiuse Structure

Any one of the structures discussed could probably be made more

economical if it were designed for more than one purpose. At a

relatively small increase in cost, a large platform terminal can also

carry a major airport. The platform, in this case, would have two

main decks, the top deck serving as landing strips and air terminal,

and the lower deck as the ship terminal. Another feasibility would be

the inclusion of a large marine science laboratory or educational

facility such as the Flower Gardens Ocean Research Center proposed for

the Texas coast.

Other purposes that should be studied for inclusion are nuclear

power plants and seawater desalting facilities. Along with the enormous

supply of domestic electric power, fresh water could be obtained by

distillation of seawater used for cooling in the power plant. This

11piggyback" arrangement should prove to be economical because the

desalting operation would use waste heat from power generation. It

would also eliminate the need for smaller, more expensive systems

needed to supply the freshwater and electrical needs of the platform,

and the Atomic Energy Commis:�ion might be considered as a possible

source of funds.

358

V. Engineering Problems

The design and construction of a superport off the mouth of the

Mississippi River will involve problems in foundation engineering

brought aboutby the unique geology of the Louisiana coast. This

region has been extensively studied and evaluated by geologists and

mineralogists. Some engineering interpretations of the foundation

conditions have been made by oil companies for construction of drilling

rigs. However, most of the information, in its present form, either

is unusable by foundation experts or is so unresolved that only

difficulties can be predicted.

The extensive deposits of organic silts and soft clays in this area

are extremely unstable, from the standpoint of both dimensional

stability and strength.

In addition to the problems of settlement prediction, pile length

determination, and anchor systems design, there will be the unique

phenomenon of Mississippi mudlumps. These small clay islands and sub-

merged mounds apparently are uplifted during slow horizontal slumping

and downward pressure of overlying deposits. Historically, they have

occurred in conjunction with the more active sediment-laden river

passes. Because the times and locations of mudlump building are not

predictable (in engineering terms), a thorough study would have to be

made to identify the problem, its causes, and its remedies. In

addition, methods of predicting horizontal movements would be needed

before construction.

359

VI. Annotated Bibliography of Available References on Offshore

Terminals (Ports)

Preamble

This bibliography presents a summary of the literature available

to reviewers which appears to have some value to the superport study

group. A brief description of the contents of each paper is given. A

subject index is presented in the following section for quick reference.

Subject Index -- Listed Alphabetically

Airports, Floating 4

Articulated Columns 36, 37

Coastal Law 23, 26

Concrete Construction 40, 41, 48

Design Theory 8, 15, 16, 17, 21,
22, 27, 28, 30, 33,
35, 37, 42

Displacement Hulls 28, 46

Finite Elements Methods 42

Fixed Platform 3

Hose and Pumping Systems 20

Manmade Islands 6, 10, 35

Model Testing of Offshore Structures 7, 13, 29, 30, 32, 38

Modular Structures 4

Nuclear Plant Construction
Offshore 2

Oil Terminals 3, 5, 11, 14, 24, 25,
40, 45

Ore Slurrying 1

Pipelines 32, 43, 44

360

Port and Harbor Development 49

Semisubmersible, Large 43, 31

Semisubmersible, Small 28, 31, 47

Single-Point Mooring Systems ll@ 1119 14, 36, 37

Site Selection 35, 39

Storage Systems 5, 24, 25, 36, 37,
40, 41

Systems Design 16, 17, 18, 19, 35

Tankers 9, 11, 12

1. SUPERTANKER LOADS ORE SLURRY AT SEA
no author
(Ocean Industry, August 1971, pp. 7-9)

This article discusses the Marconaflo system, developed by

Marcona Corp. of San Francisco, which involves the loading of ship

cargoes of bulk minerals in liquid or slurry forms, removal of the

water for the voyage, and reslurrying the cargo for unloading at the

destination. A single-point mooring buoy is connected to a storage

facility by a 12-inch pipeline and a pumping station. System can

be used to mine ores of marginal value where a deepwater port is

not available. Numerous materials have been tested, including coal,

salt, alumina, bauxite, laterite areas, and base metal concentrates.

2. FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NEAR REALITY
no author
(.Ocean Industry, September 1971, p. 60)

This article discusses a planned joint venture between

Westinghouse and Tenneco corporations in which floating nuclear

power plants will be built on an assembly line basis. The floating

361

platforms which will support the plants will be 400 feet square and

will have a steel honeycomb structure to assure watertight security.

The entire plant will weigh 150,000 tons and will produce 1,200,000

kilowatts. These platforms will be anchored in a stable manmade

lagoon and will draw about 30 feet of water. This type of structure

could possibly be used in the design of a superport.

3. CONSTRUCTING TANKER TERMINAL IN 100 FEET OF WATER
Fox, Vincent Scott
(Civil Engineering - ASCE, June 1970, pp. 63-65)

The existing supertanker terminal at Bantry Bay, Ireland,

constructed in 1967 for the Gulf Oil Company as a crude oil terminal,

is discussed. This port can handle tankers of 326,000 tons capacity

and more. It is 1100 feet offshore and in 100 feet of water. The

platform is on piles of hollow steel 220 feet long and 40 inches in

diameter. During construction, the piles would break off at the

mud line in 35 to 70 days if they were left unbraced. This was

attributed to their length and the wave action. The terminal is

connected to shore by a pipeline. During construction, a Bailey

bridge was used to connect the platform with the shore.. This

facility cost approximately $25 million. The article discusses

the problems encountered during construction, including sea state.

4. FLOATING AIRPORT
Weidlinger, Paul
(Ocean Industry, May 1970, pp. 47-49)

The plat form proposed in this article has an area of 1000 acres

and is composed of 200-foot-square modules. The cost per module is

about $1 million. Total estimated cost of the airport is $1.1 to

$1.4 billion. A typical cross section of the platform is shown on

362

the attached sketch, and a cost breakdown on each module is given.

The concept used is that of a platform positioned high enough so

that the deck will not be awash under the most severe sea conditions

and buoyancy chambers placed deep enough to be below the wave base

to minimize the buoyant volume of the structure subjected to wave

motion. Includes a good reference section.

5. A $20 MILLION 'ISLAND' FOR EKOFISH
no author
(Ocean Industry, July 1971, p. 21)

Discusses a proposed one million barrel crude oil storage

system. This tank will be constructed of prestressed concrete and

will cost about $20 million. It will be towed to its location after

construction is complete. It will then be submerged slowly until it

rests on bottom. The top surface of the artificial island will

occupy about 21 acres.

6. HELIGOLAND PREPARES FOR 800,000-TON SUPERTANKERS

(Ocean Industry, August 1969, pp. 46-47, 52)

This article discusses the proposed superport facility at

Heligoland, off the coast of West Germany. This port will he a

long manmade island of prestressed concrete. The article mainly

offers supporting discussion for the building of superports and

says little about the actual construction of this facility.

7. DESIGNING HIGHLY STABLE FLOATING PLATFORMS
Carrive and Julien
(Ocean Industry, August 1969, pp. 48-52)

This article discusses a series of tests dealing with the

stabilization of rolling and pitching in single and multilegged

floating structures. Models were constructed and tested in a

363

swell tank. A free-body diagram showing the pressures exerted

on a leg and buoyant body is given. In these studies, platforms

of up to 5,000 tons have been stabilized. It is anticipated that

in future work platforms as large as 20,000 tons will be stabilized.

Some of the pressure analysis used in these studies may be useful

in investigations of proposed superport structures.

8. DESIGNING PLATFORMS FOR MINIMUM MOTION
Hooft, Jan P.
(Ocean Industry, December 1970, p. 27)

A new method for calculating vertical motions of semisub-

mersible platforms is presented. Scientists and engineers at the

Netherlands Ship Model Basin, Waningen, Holland, have developed a

method of accurately predicting verticle motions of semisubmersible

platforms. Results of model studies in wave and current basins

have varied the prediction equations presented in the article.

9. BOOM IN TANKERS AHEAD
Tucker, A. J.
(Ocean Industry, January 1970, pp. 35-59)

Trends in tanker size and size distribution of the world fleet

are discussed. Facts (such as, "There are only nine ports in the

world where the 225 ships of more than 200,000 dwt can enter fully

laden") are presented. None of the ports is in the western

hemisphere. An artist's conception of a typical single-point mooring

buoy terminal is shown. Also shown is an onshore receiving base

for an offshore LNG*terminal. Some economic aspects of using

larger tankers are presented. *Liquid Natural Gas.

10. ZAPATA PLANS DELAWARE BAY BULK TERMINAL
no author
(Ocean Industry, March 1971)

364

This article discusses, in general, the proposed deepwater port

in Delaware Bay. The port would handle bulk carriers up to 250,000

dwt and would cost about $160 million. Ther terminal would be

built on a 300-acre island composed of material dredged from

Delaware Bay. The proposed terminal would receive and store coal

in bulk quantities until it could be loaded on supercarriers for

export to other ports.

ll.- CONOCO TANKERS BRING FOUR IMPOIRTANT INNOVATIONS
no author
(Ocean Industry, June 1971, p. 34)

An example of the trends in ship sizes is given, and a brief

discussion of the loading atid unloading facility Conoco has built

in England is presented. This terminal is a single-point mooring

system consisting of a 120-ton monobuoy, a 5-mile-long pipeline,

and a 1-million-barrel storage tank complex at Tetney, on the

Lincolnshire coast. This facility cost $16,800,000.

12. CAN WE DELAY THE NEXT MAJOR TANKER DISASTER"
Ranker, M. B. F.
(Ocean Industry, June 1971, pp. 35-39)

Graphical illustrations are presented which show the trend in

tanker size. A tanker of 1 million dwt.is predicted for the future.

The depths of major existing ports and the typical drafts of

various ship sizes are shown. Some problems associated with larger

vessels are presented which may be important in the design and

location of a superport. An extensive bibliography is given at the

end of the article.

13. MODEL BASIN WITH WINDSTORMS
d'Angremond, K.
(Ocean Industry, June 1971, p. 50)

365

This article briefly discusses the wave generator system used

at the Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Delft, Holland. A schematic

of the mechanical wave generator is shown. Waves can be produced

by (1) wind only, (2) wind and regular wave train, and (3) a pro-

grammed wave generator. A bibliography is given.

14. ELF-ERAP ADDS STORAGE SYSTEM TO OSCILLATING PLATFORM
no author
(Ocean Industry, November 1969, pp. 79-80)

This article describes the proposed 440,350-bbl underwater

storage tank to be added to the existing ELF-ERAP offshore tanker

terminal system. The mooring platform is attached to the ocean

floor through a pivot which allows the platform to oscillate with

water motion. The tank will be constructed at a drydock and

floated to a site near the platform in the Bay of Biscay. The

tank will then be sunk and connected to the platform by pipeline.

15. WIND FORCES.ON STRUCTURES, FINAL REPORT OF THE TASK COMMITTEE ON
WIND FORCES, COMMITTEE ON LOADS AND STRESSES, STRUCTURAL DIVISION,
ASCE, Paper No. 3269, pp. 1124-1198.

This report assembles, correlates, and summarizes existing

information on the factors that determine wind forces on structures.

It is intended to be a compact source of information in a form that

will be of practical use to civil engineers. No new research is

presented, but an evaluation of existing data in comprehensive

form has probably not been published previously.

16. SYSTEMS APPROACH TO PETROLEUM PORT SITE SELECTION
Gaithan and Sides
(Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, Proceedings of the
ASCE, August, 1969, pp. 359-412)

This paper examines in successive steps (1) the basic systems

366

engineering approach; (-2) the elements of petroleum trans-

portation systems; (3) systems engineering applied to petroleum

port site selection; and (4) a mathematical model for choosing one

port site from among several candidates.

17. OPTIMUM SIZE SEAPORT
Plumlee, Carl H.
(Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, Proceedings of the
ASCE, August 1966, pp. 1-24)

The writer examines three principal areas of study that are

related to the solution of the problem of sizing seaports. These

are:

(a) Investigation of the patterns of ship traffic at seaports;

(b) Determination of a theoretical relationship, in a seaport,

between the average number of ships present and the number of

berths available that will minimize the combined costs of idle

facilities ashore and afloat; and

of berths of a port and the number of berths that will minimize

the combined costs of idle port facilities and of ships waiting

for a berth.

18. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE FLOWER GARDENS RESEARCH CENTER
Howell, John R., et al.
(Report to NASA/ASEE Systems Design Institute by Researchers at the
University of Houston, NASA Grant NGT 44-005-114, Sept. 1971, 356 pp.)

This report details the preliminary design of an offshore

structure to be used as a research center. The structure is a

fixed ridged platform designed to include working areas, living areas,

docking areas, waste disposal areas, etc. Also included in this

report are discussions of logistics and onshore support facilities.

367

A systematic design approach is used and each step is discussed in

detail.

19. PORT AND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM; PHASE 1 - DESIGN GUIDELINES WORK
REPORT
Prepared by the Architecture Research Center, College of
Architecture and Environmental Design, Texas A&M University
(August 1971, 140 pp.)

All aspects to be considered in a port analysis, such as types,

location, administration, transportation, cargo handling, labor,

support industry, safety, and finance, are presented in this report.

The design and construction steps are discussed in detail. In

addition, there are sections devoted to trends in ships and harbors,

existing and new port concepts, and an in-depth bibliography. New

ideas are given, such as a floating airport-ship port combination

where the upper of two decks is an airport and the lower is devot.ed

to shipping. Another idea is a transportation tunnel concept where

a tube houses a monorail train, pipelines, and container conveyor

lines.

20. SELECTION OF HOSE SYSTEMS FOR SPM TANKER TERMINALS
Ziccardi, John J.
(Paper #OTC-1152, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

Proper,selection of surface and subsurface hose types can assume

dependable terminal utilization. Improper selection can result in

unnecessary tanker delay, drowning or starving storage capacity, and

decreases in production.

Operational and environmental conditions must be studied and

all available hose designs considered before an SPM hose system can

be finalized. This paper reviews these factors by following

simplified calculations for a hypothetical SPM terminal. It shows

368

how to select and combine individual hose designs into an efficient,

effective, and economical SPM hose system.

21. ANALYSIS OF PEAK MOORING FORCE CAUSED BY SLOW VESSEL DRIFT
OSCILLATION IN RANDOM SEAS
Hsu and Blankarn
(Paper #OTC-1159, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

Results of investigations into offshore mooring problems offer

conflicting indications of the relative merits of various mooring

systems. Little attention has been devoted to the effects of slow

vessel drift oscillation in random or irregular seas. It is this

phenomenon which is the prime subject of the present paper.

22. WAVE-EXCITING FORCES AND MOMENTS ON AN OCEAN PLATFORM
Kim and Chou
(Paper #OTC-1180, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

This article describes a new method of predicting the wave-

exciting forces and moments acting on an ocean platform restrained

in oblique seas. Procedures are based on strip theory. In this

study, the two-dimensional method developed by Frank is extended

to the calculation of wave forces and moments, and the strip method

devised by Grim is applied to obtain the three-dimensional forces

and moments.

A bibliography of seven references is given.

23. COASTAL REGION LAW: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
O'Connor, Dennis M.
(Paper #OTC-1183, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

This article presents a legal definition of coastal regions

and discusses a coastal region law study which was conducted at

the University of Miami. A systematic and comprehenisve outline

to he followed in a study of coastal region law is given. A

bibliography of ten references is included.

369

24. KRAZZAN DUBAI I: DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION
Chamberlin, R. S.
(Paper #OTC-1192, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

The Khazzan Dubai #1 is a 500,000-gallon underwater oil storage

tank placed in service in December 1969. This paper discusses the

research and development programs which were carried out before this

innovation could be effected. These include tests of crude and salt

water, handling of sludge, model test work, and development of

construction and installation techniques. Some operational con-

siderations are also discussed.

25. DUBAI KHAZZAN -- PIONEER OF LARGE UNDERSEA STORAGE SYSTEMS
Curtis and Shepler
(Paper #OTC-1193, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

This article discusses the studies undertaken in the design and

construction of the revolutionary Dubai Khazzan storage system.

Economic comparison charts and other illustrations are given. The

studies discussed include the feasibility study, tank description,

oceanographic and weather environment, site location, piling systems,

soil analysis, installation, and operational studies. A schematic

of the tank is included in the illustrations.

26. ADMIRALTY LAW AND ITS EFFECT ON OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT
Bluestein, Ed, Jr.
(Paper #OTC-1212, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

An introduction to selected phases of the law of admiralty as

it relates to offshore technological development is presented for

the technologist.

27. LIMITED MOTION OFFSHORE PLATFOB14S
Mironer, Levine, and Orthlieb
(Paper #OTC-1217, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

After a brief introductory review of the applicability of one

370

degree of freedom oscillation theory to ocean-wave-excited systems,

this paper develops simple equations for th.e heave and pitch natural

frequencies of the platform in terms of its physical properties and

hydrodynamic mass coefficients. The equations are then nondimen-

sionalized using appropriate dimensionless scaling coefficients

which generalize all results to a family of dynamically similar

platforms. The concluding Portion of this paper presents the

results of model tank tests of a 12.5-inch-diameter jack-up platform

to determine its hydrodynamic mass coefficients, which are then

used to calculate the pitch and heave natural frequencies of a

specific family of platforms as a function of separation distance.

28. APPLICATION AND RESEARCH IN AMMI HARBOR, DOCKING, AND FLOATING
FACILITIES
Amirkian, Toproe, and Erzurumly
(Paper #OTC-1232, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

This paper describes the uses of the AMMI framing system in

barges and floating craft, pontoons, deepwater port facilities, and

offshore installations. The general features of framing, fabrication,

assembly, transportation, and installation of these various structures

are discussed. Typical results obtained from recent laboratory

research regarding the static and fatigue behavior of steel decks

with biserrated ribs are also reported. It is shown that the static

response of these structures can be adequately predicted analytically,

and that their fatigue behavior is satisfactory.

29. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF BREAKING WAVE PRESSURES
Weggel and Maxwell
(Paper #OTC-1244, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

The results of a laboratory investigation of the impact

pressures that often result when waves break against coastal

371

structures. are presented. Pressure measurements were taken to

obtain the instantaneous spatial pressure distribution. These

data were compared to presently used distributions and were found

to have a different shape. A bibliography of fifteen references

is given.

30. FORCE DUE TO WAVES ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES., THEORY AND EXPERIMENT
Herbich and Shank
(.Paper #OTC-1245, Offshore Technology Conference, April 22-24, 1970)

The existing theories on wave forces on large submerged

structures are briefly reviewed and their inadequacy for design

purposes is discussed.

Several models of simple geometric structures were installed

in a two-dimensional wave tank. The magnitude of the vertical and

horizontal loads on the structure (such as undersea oil storage

tanks) by wave action was determined experimentally.

A comparison between forces caused by regular and irregular

waves was made. It is concluded that forces resulting from waves

are highly variable, but the results presented may be sufficient

for preliminary designs.

31. A SEMISUBMERGED STABLE PLATFORM AS AN OFFSHORE PORT
Hooper and Frankel
(Paper #OTC-1331, Offshore Technology Conference, April 19-21, 1971)

Although the concept of the floating stable platform originated

as a means to lighten supertankers for the eastern seaboard

refineries, its application as a transshipment point for offshore

crude is worth considerable attention in the industry. Competing

systems include island terminals, monomoors, and telescoping support

platforms. Report presents results of comparative analysis which

372

was performed to determine the most effective system; considerations

included socio-political acceptability, as well as economic feasi-

bility. In most tests the stable platform emerged as the most

desirable alternative. This artificial harbor can be attractive

for bulk oil; but also, with very little imagination, one can

envision it as a material storage platform for the offshore industry,

the upper deck (of approximately 4 acres) warehousing pipe, stores,

and supplies for a whole offshore field. Furthermore, it would be

possible for this platform to serve similarly as a transfer station

for dry bulk cargoes or containers feeding into a secondary distri-

bution system to the mainline. The functional advantages of the

stable platform are apparent, but the operational characteristics and

overall economics make it noteworthy.

32. LIFE AND DRAG FORCES ON A SUBNERGED CIRCULAR CYLINDER
Beattie, Brown, and Webb
(Paper #OTC-1358, Offshore Technology Conference, April 19-21, 1971)

In the design of pipelines which traverse the bed of a flowing

stream, hydrodynamic lift and drag forces must be considered.

Insufficient strength can result in pipeline rupture owing to drag.

Insufficient weighting can lead to oscillation and fatigue caused

by lift forces.

Accordingly, an experimental study was undertaken to measure

and correlate lift and drag forces. The study was conducted in a

water tunnel using pipes ranging in diameter from 6 to 30 inches.

Pipes were tested in an "as received" condition and in an artifi-

cially roughened condition intended to simulate a concrete jacket.

373

33. COMPUTER SIMULATION AS A TOOL FOR EVALUATING OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION
ALTERNATIVE
McCarron
(Paper #OTC-1359, Offshore Technology Conference, April 19-21, 1971)

This article discussed the use of a Monte Carlo procedure to

predict weather conditions. This program has been used to evaluate

bids on pipeline projects in the Gulf of Mexico, and results compared

favorably with actual costs.

Time and cost required for offshore operations are often

influenced by the weather. Whenever comparisons are made between

alternate construction bids, weather effects must be considered.

There is no simple, deterministic method which will provide accurate

answers to such problems. However, by use of historical weather

data it is possible to obtain a probabilistic solution. Based on

this, a rational evaluation of alternatives can be made.

34. OFFSHORE BERTHS WITH MULTIPLE ORIENTATION
Soros and Koman
(Paper #OTC-1366, Offshore Technology Conference, April 19-21, 1971)

Offshore berths of various types for loading and unloading

minerals, constructed in recent years or now under construction, are

reviewed. Designs developed to cope with unsatisfactory fixed

orientation berths are illustrated with two breast-off type berths

(one for loading, one for unloading) requiring warping of the

vessel and a breast-on type offshore berth for the vessel stationary

during loading.

374

35. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A MANMADE ISLAND FOR A SEAWATER DESALTING AND
POWER PLANT
Spriggs,
(Paper #QTC-1369, Offshore Technology Conference, April 19-21, 1971)

This paper is a review of the Bolsa Island Project, which was

a feasibility and economic study for a. large seawater desalination

and power facility. This study was divided into four phases and

included considerable analysis, field work, model testing, and

conceptual design.

The island was designed as a free-standing structure situated

in 5 fathoms of water; usuable surface area amounted to 36 acres.

This paper summarizes the efforts in site selection, design

concepts, plant facilities, wave analysis model studies, criteria,

stability analysis, filter blanket, compaction of fill, alternate

concepts, causeway, environmental considerations, and cost estimates.

36. VARIOUS USES FOR THE ARTICULATED COLUMN ELFOCEAN, A NEW CONCEPT
Chassy, Frankhauser, and Picard
(Paper #OTC-1392, Offshore Technology conference, April 19-21, 1971)

This article gives a full description of articulated platforms

and discusses their construction and installation. Various uses

are presented, and a comparison is made with monomooring buoys.

The paper states that the columns become economically comparative

at 54-meter depths. It also states that the apparent limit to

mono buoys is 100 meters, whereas articulated columns can be used

in up to 400 meters. Various studies which have been carried out

on the columns are discussed.

375

37. ELFOCEAN -- FULL SCALE TESTS AND MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Blazy, J. P., Quichaud, C., Sagot, A., and Leturcq, M.
(Paper #OTC-1401, Offshore Technology Conference, April 19-21, 1971)

This article discusses and presents data which have been

obtained from the existing ELFOCEAN platform since it was installed

in 1968. A mathematical model is developed and a comparison of

experimental and calculated results is given.

38. OFFSHORE STRUCTURE MODEL TESTING FACILITY
Tam. W.-A.
(Paper #OTC-1406, Offshore Technology Conference, April 19-21,.1971)

The author discusses an existing model testing facility which

is capable of generating 18-inch- to 20-inch-high waves up to 40

feet long. The tank is 250 feet x 33 feet and 18 feet deep. A

discussion is given to justify model testing as opposed to mathe-

matical models. Other aspects of model testing and operation of the

facility are given.

39. SITE SURVEYING FOR OCEAN FLOOR STRUCTURES
Hironaka, M. C.
(ASME paper #71-UnT-8, Sept. 19023, 1971)

This paper identifies more than 20 site parameters significant

to designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining a sea floor

structure; outlines a site survey and selecti on procedure; and

identifies equipment available for conducting on-site tests for

foundation engineering parameters as part of the site survey.

Twenty references are cited.

376

40. CONTROLLED SINKING OF LARGE CONCRETE OCEAN STRUCTURES
Gerwick, Ben C., Jr.
(ASME paper #71-UnT-6, Sept. 19-23, 1971)

Methods of sinking large concrete structures to be used as

underwater oil storage, habitats, and mining chambers are discussed.

It states that in most cases the best method is to pull the structure

down while there is a positive buoyant force on it.

41. UNDERWATER CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
Gerwick, Ben C., Jr.
(ASME paper #71-WA/UnT-8, ASME Winter Annual Meeting, No. 28-Dec. 2,
1971)

Paper discusses the four basic methods of underwater concrete

cons-ruction: tremie, bucket, grout-intruded aggregate, and grouting.

It lists the parameters which must be considered in selecting the

proper method to be used in a given case.

Y42s APPLICATION OF THE FINITE-ELEMENT METHOD FOR ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION
OF SUBMARINE STRUCTURES
Vinson, T. J., and Yates, D. N.
(ASME paper #71-WA/UnT-7, presented at the ASME Winter Annual
Meeting, Nov. 28-Dec. 2, 1971)

The authors discuss the use of finite-element analysis for

optimizing submarine structures. The techniques presented may be

applicable to underwater superport structures and tanks.

43. LARGE-DIAMETER SUBMARINE PIPELINES FOR TANKER TERMINALS
Small, S. W.
(ASME paper #71-UnT-1, September 19-23, 1971)

Discussed in this paper are planning, design, and construction

of large-diameter submarine tanker-loading lines. Geologic,

oceanographic, and meteorologic conditions are described, and the

377

importance of environmental conditions is emphasized in a discussion

of submarine pipelines design. Discussed in detail is construction

by the bottom pull method, which appears to be the most likely method

for making future installations of large-diameter lines.

44. FORCES ON SUBMARINE PIPELINES FROM STEADY CURRENTS
Jones, Warren T.
(ASME paper #71-UnT-3, Sept. 19-23, 1971)

Paper reviews the hydrodynamics of forces on a submerged body

in a steady flow and of turbulent boundary layers. Dimensional

analysis is used to formulate three methods of data reduction.

Cylinder surface roughness, bottom roughness, cylinder diameter,

height above bottom, and water velocity are varied in experiments

conducted to measure the lift and drag forces.

45. CANADA WILL GET $60 MILLION SUPERTANKER PORTS & TERMINAL
no author
(Ocean Industry, December 1971)

Article briefly discusses terminal to be built in the Bay of

Fundy. The terminal will include docking at three berths, unloading

and loading facilities, onshore storage, and elaborate safeguards

for environmental protection. It will handle 300,000 dwt ships and

will have throughput capacity of 300,000 barrels. Onshore storage

will be 4.5 million barrels.

46. LARGEST FLOATING STORAGE BARGE
no author
(Ocean Industry, November 1971)

This article briefly discusses a floating storage barge of

900,000 barrels capacity. It is moored to an SBM terminal.

47. FLOATING OCEAN PLATFORMS
no author
(Ocean Industry, November 1971)

378

This article discusses scale model testing of a semisub-

mersible stable platform constructed of concrete. Tests were

carried out at the Naval Undersea Research-and Development Center,

San Diego, Calif. Article states that one pound of structure will

support several pounds of cargo.

48. UNDERWATER CONCRETING
Barlow, P. G. R., et al.
(Technical Report TRCS-3, The Concrete Society, London, 1971)

This report describes and gives guidance on the methods commonly

in use for placing concrete underwater, together with notes on con-

crete mix design and formwork for this work.

49. FOREIGN DEEP WATER PORT DEVELOPMENTS
de Frondeville, et al.
(IWR Report 71-11, Vols. I, II, & III, Submitted to the Institute for
Water Resources, Corps of Engineers, December 1971)

The subjects covered in this report are as follows:

General: Examine the interrelationships among engineering, environmental,

socio-economic, and political aspects of port development; identify

socio-economic and environmental consequences of port deepening; and

present the positive and negative aspects of each approach.

Specific: For each approach considered and selected, present the lessons

learned and future plans; and further outline rationale of decision to

develop a deepwater port; port management structure and funding;

socio-economic impact; environmental appraisal, prevention, and

correction; and engineering solutions.

Subjects: Area screening of the United Kingdom, Japan (receiving ports),

Australia, and the Persian Gulf (loading ports); and individual ports at

Le Havre and Dunkirk, France; Antwerp, Belgium; Amsterdam and Rotterdam,

the Netherlands; Bantry Bay, Ireland; and Port Cartier, Canada.

379

Part III. MODEL

I. Introduction

A. Background

The movement of people and goods is fundamental to growth

and development of a region. River and canal transportation has ma de

many of the major inland cities in the United States: to name a few,

New Orleans and Raton Rouge, Louisiana; Memphis, Tennessee; and Saint

Louis, Missouri. Their port activity continues to create additional

wealth in the urban areas through added employment and capital flow.

Growth and expansion of inland waterways transportation

have resulted in construction of new terminals for handling of freight

to and from barges, and for exchange of freight between water carriers

and other modes of transportation at ports throughout the United

States. Each mode of transportation (water, rail, highway, and

pipeline) acts as an economic' stimulant to the others. The need for

low costdelivery of raw materials determines and supports distribution

patterns among these individual modes, and encourages the development

of innovations such as the Lash (Lighter aboard ship) , Seabee and

piggyback carriers.

More than 50 percent of all domestic freight shipments

and nearly 100 percent of all foreign trade cargoes require more than

one form of transportation. Rail and highway commerce is generally

greater where water traffic is heavy than where there is no access to

waterborne traffic. Thus barge-to-rail, barge-to-truck, barge-to-

pipeline, and other transportation combinations are vital to the-

commercial and industrial development of the United States.

380

Port development is measured in terms of size, complexity,

cost and, most Important, in terms of its significance for maintaining

essential trade. Exports and imports move by vessel to ports where

they may be distributed to other modes of transportation. Transfer

to other adjacent and remote areas enable these areas to grow economi-

cally. According to the Gulf South Research Institute, "In 1956 the

port of Baton Rouge handled 13,947,105 tons of cargo, and in 1966

handled 34,104,315 tons of cargo, an increase of 180%. Each ship adds

approximately $100,000 to local earnings." The Institute estimated in

1966 that past activities added 220 million dollars to regional
income. 1 This contributed almost $5.5 million to Louisiana sales and
income taxes and $2.3 million to municipal and local sales taxes. 2

Progress in the technology of shipping, not only in terms

of greater size but also speed, greatly affects existing ports.

(Supertankers of 326,000 dead weight tons (dwt) are now in service; a

477,000 dwt vessel is entering production; and 800,000 dwt vessels

are in the research stage. Nearly 300 ships of the 100,000 dwt class

are in service., and by 1974 this number will be doubled (see Appendix
A-1). 3 The increase in vessel drafts has forced ports formerly estab-

lished at the heads of estuaries or inland waterways to seek deeper

1Long-Range Financial Requirements of the Port of Baton Rouge,
Gulf South Research Institute Noi EL-226.
2TRANSPORTATION REPORT NO. 2, Water Transportation in the Capital
Region (July 1968), Capital Region Planning Commission.
3SUPERPORT, Arthur P. Little, Institute of Water Resources.

381

waters. Supplemental locations are being sought by these ports to

serve the larger, deeper draft ships carrying petroleum, ore, and

industrial raw materials.

Port development planning starts with an appraisal of the

ships to be accommodated. Is the port to be designed for deep-draft

tankers, ore carriers, or passenger ships? Can portions of the port

be designed for smaller coasters, packet boats, or other comparatively

shallow-draft vessels? These questions are best answered from a calcu-

lated projection of the future traffic to be served. An overall

transportation survey of the region to be served is needed as a prelude

to port planning.

Most ports have several functional systems involving

different types of ships, cargoes, and ancillary transportation, and

characteristics are different at various locations within the port.

Some ports are of a predominately industrial type, particularly where

the principal industry is a pulp or paper plant, oil refinery, petro-

chemical plant, or steel mill. Different types of cargoes may require

different handling facilities. However, all types are adaptable and

need access to waterborne shipping. The integration of inland transport

operations with the dock system for vessels involves careful planning.

Provisions must be made for rail, pipeline, and trucking terminals,

containerized cargo facilities, and Aher methods of product movement.

It is therefore necessary to be able to forecast the portions of the

ships' cargoes which will move by the various individual modes of

transportation.

382

B. The Mississippi River Corridor

The Mississippi River provides an avenue for transportation

which supplies a major portion of the central United States with goods

and products (see Appendix A-2, A-3). In 1969, products moved via the
Mississippi River (see Appendix A-4) totalled 229,479,806 tons.4

Because of this access to the interior United States, ports
have developed at strategic points along the river, as have inlan@

distribution systems. (See Appendix A-2; ports shown are those con-

sidered in this study.) These transportation systems in turn have

increased the amounts of products handled by the ports.

The transportation modes operating at the ports compete

with and, at the same time, complement each other in the movement of

products to and from areas served by the port. For example, both

railroads and barges may carry bulk ore, or barges may carry rail cars

loaded with ore. Factors in transportation of commodities are the

cost of transferring products from one mode to another versus the use

of containerization. Such trade-offs are especially significant at

ports where large quantities of products of several types are ware-

housed for distribution.

A Louisiana Superport could significantly affect operations

of existing ports and established cargo-handling practices by increasing

4Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 2, Waterways
and Harbbrs, Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System, Antelles, 1969.

383

amounts of certain commodities to be handled.

A strategically placed superport facility could become a

catalyst for industrially developing areas; infusion of capital for

development could lead to new industrial-urban centers. This would

change the actual distribution of goods and products along the Missis-

sippi River in terms of quantities shipped and modes by which they

are shipped (see Table, Appendix A-5). A superport serving large

vessels (which are replacing the-smaller, shallower draft vessels that
can serve inland ports),5 would necessitate transshipment facilities

for moving goods and raw materials inland (see Appendix A-6).

Larger ships are replacing smaller ships at an increasing

rate (Arthur D. Little states, "By 1975, bulk carriers will make up

one-third of the bulk carrier tonnage; since the end of World War II, the

deadweight of the largest tanker afloat has been multiplied by ten (10)
every twenty (20) years and its draft about doubled in the process1l).6

It is this aspect of goods' distribution by particular

transportation modes that concerns this investigation: how the develop-

ment of a superport will affect product distribution to modes of

transportation and how this distribution will affect the transportation

modes operating along the Mississippi River.

5Superport, Arthur D. Little, Institute of Water Resources.
6Ibid.

384

11. Problem Definition

A. The Problem

The purpose of this research is to study the mechanics by

which products and raw materials move along the Mississippi River

corridor. Such information will help to ascertain the deficiencies,

if any, that transportation facilities operating within the corridor

might experience owing to the development of a superport off the

Louis iana coast.

B. Scope

The development of a superport is dependent upon the

economy of the region it would serve, the type and quantity of products

it would handle, the available labor force' its location, its utili-

zation as a point of transshipment, the various modes of transportation

serving it, and the supply-demand characteristics of the region.

This analysis is concerned with the corridor served by

the Mississippi River and the products and modes operating within the

corridor. Because the Mississippi River serves the central United

States with import-export goods and movement of goods internally, the

location of a superport off the Louisiana coast would be influential

both in this product movement and in the modes that move the products.

The study area will include the Mississippi River transportation

corridor and all major ports from Saint Louis, Missouri, to the mouth

of the passes. Saint Louis is set as the northern boundary because

the areas above it are.more readily served from the northern United

States (Great Lakes Region, Appendix A-2 and A-3) , and the quantity

of product flow significantly decreased beyond that point.

385

The Interstate Commerce Commission has a standard classi-

fication for coding commodities'. This coding consists of 16 classes

of specific commodities (i.e., group 01 - Farm Products) which will be

condensed for use in the programming model. In this analysis the

products shall be classified as bulk, liquid (crude petroleum, all

others), containerized, or requiring cold storage.

Owing to such factors as shipping costs, available modes

of transportation, types and quantities of products, availability of

shipping space in a particular mode, the manner in which the product

is "Packaged,"the methods by which a product is capable of being

transported (i.e., liquids by pipeline, barge, truck, or rail tank

cars), the product may be shipped from origin to destination by more

than one mode.

By analyzing the parameters outlined above at several stages

between origins and destinations, one can simulate the product classes

and the quantity of each that will be transported by a particular mode.

By determining the demand placed upon the different modes at different

stages along the Mississippi River corridor, one may define a range of

transportation facilities that.should be incorporated with a superport

in order to facilitate the expected increased in transportation demands.

Once the estimated transportation demands have been analyzed, the

deficiencies, if any, in existing facilities can be ascertained, and

the planning necessary to obviate the anticipated deficits may be

initiated.

A mathematical programming model will be developed to

simulate existing product allocation to p,,.-.:t-.`cu'1ar modes at each port.

386

The modes to be studied within the corridor shall include:

1. Highway transport - tractor trailers, types 251, 252, and
352,7 as classified by the Interstate Commerce Commission

(these are tractor trailers with one or more rear axles).

These three carriers account for 68% of all highway ton
miles.8
2. Railroad transport 9 -- box, flat, gondola, hopper (,open

and covered top), refrigerator, rack, and tank cars.

3. Water transport ships of 80,000 deadweight tons (.dwt) and

less traveling the Mississippi River to Baton Rouge (.no
other ships will use the Mississippi),and barges 10__ hopper,

covered dry cargo, tank, and deck barges, both oceangoing

and inland.

4. Pipeline transport -- crude collector lines used mainly for

taking petroleum from the wellhead to a refinery or pro-

cessing facility, and product lines, which carry almost

any liquefied material.

7Shifts in Petroleum Transportation, Highway Research Record #82,
Freight Transportation, publication 1267, 1965.
8Highway Ton Miles, Highway Research Record #82, Freight Trans-
portation, publication 1267, 1965.
9Yearbook of Railroad Facts, Association of Western Railroads, 1966.
10 Big Load Afloat, The American Waterways Operators, Inc., U. S.
Inland Water Transportation Resources.

387

This will be based upon the following:

1. The cost of shipping a particular type of product by a

particular mode.

2. The quantity of a particular class of product to be shipped

at a particular port.

3. The modes by which a class of product can be shipped

(liquids by pipeline, barge, rail, and highway tank cars).

4. The modes of transportation available at a particular port.

5. The available space in a particular mode for receiving a

particular type of product.

6. The way in which a type of product is packaged (bulk, cold

storage, in tanks, containerized).

7. The cost of transferring a product from one mode of trans-

portation to another (transshipment).

8. The number of trips per mode per year; the average number

of units (i.e., rail cars per train); and the average number of tons

per unit.

C. Approach

At any specific port it will be necessary to determine what

types of products will be allocated to individual modes of transportation.

This will be simulated through the use of a programming model.

The initial model will function as follows: It will be

assumed that a product is being shipped by the least-cost mode for_
moving it (cost/ton-mi/product type), subject to the constraints that

each port places upon its movement (i.e., modes available, available

space on the mode, and those parameters named in the previous section).

388

The products that each port handles each year will be

classified as bulk, liquid-crude petroleum and any other liquefied

material, containerized, or requiring cold storage. It will be deter-

mined that there are "a" tons of bulk, "b" tons of crude petroleum,

tic" tons of liquefied material, "d" tons of containerized products, and

Ifell tons of products requiring cold storage. Also, the modes available

at each port will be determined (crude pipeline, product pipeline, rail,

highway, and barge service, each having a specified available shipping

capa city given in tons/year). The costs of shipping these products

are known (national mean for each type of product/mode type will be

used) at this port.

The products will be coded with reference not only to class,

but also to the means by which they can be shipped. Assume that a liquid

is to be allocated to a mode: It is coded, say Ll, for crude petroleum;

it would be coded further to show that it can be transported by rail

tank car, tank barge, crude petroleum line, and truck tank trailer.

The model will then analyze the factors and, based upon the

least cost of transporting a product, will allocate all or part of

that product to one or more of the available modes. This allocation

will be given by the number of tons of that product class. The process

will be iterated for each of the product classes at a port, and the

cumulative total for each mode, in terms of the number of tons of

product types allocated to it, will be determined. For example,

2,474,000 barrels of crude oil passed through the Baton Rouge capital
region. 11 With 55 gallons per barrel, and each gallon weighing

11 PiReline Transportation in the Capital Region, Transportation
Report Number 7, Capital Region Planning Commission, 1968.

389

approximately 57 lb. per gallon, the total tons are

(2,474,000) x (55) (57) 3$000,000.
2240 lb/ton

The division 2240 lb/ton, is the standard shipping long

ton. It is calculated then that approximately 3,000,000 tons of crude

oil is (or was) carried by pipeline through Baton Rouge.

The product allocations developed by the programming model

will be compared to actual figures for a particular year to determine

the accuracy of the model. This allocation will be iterated for each

port under consideration within the Mississippi River corridor.

Once the model is operating accurately, a second phase will

be initiated as follows:

The changes in shipping (size of ships using the Mississippi

River), the increase flow of goods caused by the development of the

superport, and economic growth projections for the next twenty years

will be added to the model, and the process described above will be

repeated. At each port, these changes and the growth in product flow

anticipated could result in a condition of under-capacity with respect

to the transportation facilities that now exist (Appendix A-7). The

allocation of products to modes will, however, be implemented, and

all products will be allocated to the available modes at each port

without regard, initially, to exceeding the available tonnage capabilities

of a particular mode. After the allocation has been made to a mode,

it will be compared to the available shipping capabilities, indicating

where deficiencies exist and the order of magnitude of that deficiency.

390

This Process will be iterated at each stage, and all discrepancies along

the Mississippi corridor will be pointed out.

The total requirements placed upon the transportation system

will be a good indicator of the future traffic to be served by the

superport and of the volume of that traffic. It will also indicate the

predicted quantities and types of cargo that the superport would handle.

D. Assumptions for the Programming Model

General

1. The superport will be built off the coast of Louisiana,

and the modes accessible to it from the coast will be barge, pipeline, and

shipping (.large and small ships).

2. The superport will be the only point of transshipment for

ships over 80,000 dwt.

3. The superport will handle all product types that are

presently shipped along the Mississippi River (import-export commodities).

4. The only ships that will be sailing the Mississippi

are those of 80,000 dwt and less, and they will not go beyond Baton

Rouge.

5. Existing ports under study shall continue to handle the

same products that they presently do (for the purpose of calibrating

the programming model). Once the model is developed, projected product

increases and new products (i.e., because of new train route to Baton

Rouge from Illinois, a future influx of bulk corn for export is

expected) may change some of the input data.

6. The cost coefficients used in the initial model will be

the national mean for rail, highway, pipeline, water transportation,

391

and transshipment for cargo (i.e., mean transshipment cost for ship
of 300,000 dwt is $8.50/ton of commodity). 12

7. The allocation of products, the number of trips by

specific modes of transportation, the amount of products handled by a

port, and the quantity of products transported by a particular mode

will be based upon annual data.

8. Products will be shipped by the least-cost method.

9. The supply-demand of certain.commodities at particular

ports will remain unchanged initially but will increase within the

next 20 years (_an assumption based on the national expected growth).

Transportation Modes - Parameters

1. Highway transport--tractor trailer, types 251, 252
and 352 13 as coded by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

2. Railroad transport

a. Box cars, general and special service

b. Flat cars

c. Hopper cars: open and covered top

d. Refrigerated cars

e. Rack cars

f. Tank cars

12 Superport, Arthur D. Little, Institute of Water Resources.
13 Highway Ton Miles, Highway Research Record, Number 32, Freight
Transportation, pub. 1267, 1965.

392

Railroads will carry a national mean average of 1,685
tons per train, and the mean number of cars will be 70. 14

3. Water transport
a. Barge traffic 15

i. Hopper barges; 1500 ton capacity

ii. Open hopper barges; 1500 ton capacity

iii. Covered dry cargo barges; 1500 ton capacity

iv. Tank barges; 1500 ton capacity

v. Deck barges; 1500 ton capacity

The average number of barges per tow shall be

fifteen (15).
4. Pipeline transport 16

a. Crude collector lines; carry only crude

b. Product lines; carry only liquid or a liquefied

commodity

III. Purpose and Objectives

A. Purpose

Because of Louisiana's location with respect to commodity flow

along the Mississippi River corridor and the Gulf of Mexico, it is

14 Yearbooks of Railroad Facts, Association of Western Railroads,
1966.
15 Big Load Afloat, The American Waterways Operators, Inc., U. S.
Inland Water Transportation Resources, 1966.
16 Pipeline Transportation in the Capital Region, Capital Region
Planning Commission, Transportation Report No. 7, 1968.

393

in a position, functionally, of being the main transshipment point for

products imported and exported by the central United States. The

development of a superport within the state will exert a major influence

upon the transportation systems operating along the Mississippi. The

superport would have to be planned to handle the quantities of products
shipped along this corridor (,presently 229,479,806 tons) 17 and the

traffic operating along this corridor as well as projected increases

in traffic and commodity flows.

B. Objectives:

The model being developed will determine the following:

1. The existing types and quantities of products allocated

to particular modes at the ports under study

2. The allocation of estimated future volumes of products in

the corridor

3. The deficiencies, if any, that would result from the pro-

jected commodity allocation to modes of transportation

By determining these factors, transportation facilities can

be planned which would be capable of handling the commodity flow anti-

cipated in the Mississippi River corridor. Model outputs will indicat e

which modes now existing along the Mississippi River corridor would

have a capacity deficiency as a result of increased demand. This

17 Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 2, Waterways and
Harbor, Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System & Antilles, 1969.

394

information can be used by private industries as well as state

governments for planning the construction of additional transportation

facilities in the corridor.

The state could use the information for identifying poten-

tial growth areas resulting from the density and availability of

existing and/or planned modes of transportation and commodities. This

information could be used by the state as an inducement to industries

to locate in the corridor.

IV. Solution Method

From the initial assumption that the superport will be built, certain

conceptual ideas of its influences evolve. For the purpose of this

study, it is assumed that the port will operate as shown in Appendix 8.

The initial step in optimizing the performance of a physical system

(transportation systems, in this case) is to represent the system in

an abstract or symbolic form known as a mathematical programming model.

.The model generally consists of:

A. An objective function which defines the total system utility

in terms of independent parameters affecting its behavior

B. A set of constraint equations which defines the range of

variation for each of the parameters

Solution of the problem through the use of optimization techniques

constitutes the second step. In this particular study we will be

maximizing the product allocation to the modes of transportation. It

will be of the form:

SUM PRODUCT ALLOCATION TO MODES < TOTAL

395

COMMODITY FLOW THROUGH A PORT

(:barge) + (.rail) + (pipeline) + (highway) < b TONS

The constraints will consist of the following:

A. Modal

1. Number of trips per year

2. Quantities of commodities shipped per year

3. Ton-miles per mode per year

4. Modes available at the particular port

5. The number of units (rail cars, barges) and their average

load per unit at a particular port per year

6. Cost per ton-mile for shipping a particular commodity per

year

B. Commodity

1. The commodities handled by particular ports

2. The quantities of those commodities handled per year

3. The means (modes) that a commodity can be shipped by

This model will be used at each of the ports under study to deter-

mine the total product allocation to the modes operating along the

Mississippi River corridor.

V. The Data List

Data are being collected concerning the modes of transportation,

the ports under study along the Mississippi River corridor, the products

handled by each of these ports, the products and quantity of products

shipped by particular modes, the costs involved in shipping a particular

product by a specific mode, the average quantity (number of tons)

396

shipped by a particular mode in a single trip (1.e., train load, barge

load), and the number of ton-miles per mode on an annual basis.

All data which are available from governmental and private

associations are collected on an annual basis. It would be practically

impossible to handle any smaller time interval; and, even if it were

possible, there would be no control within the model that would

guarantee that in a specific time period, say a week or a month, a

specific quantity of products would be shipped through a particular

port or by a particular mode. In addition, the annual period is more

stable and predictable with respect to projections of future traffic

volumes. This approach is analogous to urban transportation planning;

commodities are substituted for persons and vehicles.

Data have been collected from the following sources:

1. Interstate Commerce Commission

2. Army Corps of Engineers

3. Specific ports under study

4. National associations for the individual modes

a. Railroad

b. Barge and shipping

c. Pipeline

d. Highway

VI. The Model: Basic Formulation

The aim of this section is to present the underlying logic and

the mathematical model that will be used to analyze the transportation

segment of the product distribution systems operating along the Missis-

sippi River corridor.

397

A. Programming

Extensive literature now exists on programming techniques,

covering both. theoretical foundations and applications. The techniques

are, in general terms, a means of solving maximization or minimization

problems in which some or all of the variables are under the influence

of constraints; that is, variables entering into the general function

(the "objective function"), which is to be maximized or minimized,

also may appear in one or more additional equations or inequalities

which are interpreted as constraints on the system.

A programming model for the allocation of product classes to

given modes of transportation will be formulated. The objective is to

simulate this product allocation to modes of transportation currently

operating along the Mississippi River corridor.

A network with the nodes defined as points of convergence

of transportation systems will be selected along the Mississippi River.

The computational complexity and available data make it necessary to

select a relatively small number of product-generating areas for study.

Given the available modes serving the nodes selected, direct costs and

other operating characteristics of the available modes between each

possible pair of nodes, and the existing commodity demand, it is

possible to distribute this demand among the modes by means of a pro-

gramming model, in such a manner as to minimize total direct shipping

costs while meeting a series of availability constraints, balance

equations, and demand requirements. Optimal assignment will be under-

stood to be that which can be carried out at least cost.

The model will study product flow inonedirection at a time

398

(i.e., downriver), but is developed to handle product flow in any

direction (though not simultaneously).

For the remainder of this study the following notation will

be adopted. Superscripts K and L will refer to origins or destinations,

i.e., they are locations; subscript h refers to product class; sub-

script i to mode type; and subscript m indicates modal unit type (i.e.,

rail box cars).

The unknowns (all with reference to the time period selected

for analysis) are:

Unknowns:

K
'XL the total quantity of product class h. allocated to
h im

mode i, modal unit type m, originating at node K to

be shipped to node L.

KT L
h im, qr total quantity of product h transshipped from mode

i, modal unit type m to mode q, modal unit type

r at node K. (This is transshipment that occurs by

modes operating within the study corridor.)

% L unsatisfied transshipment demand due to unavailable
h

modal space for the transshipped product h at node K.

(U implies that some of the commodity classes to be

transshipped may have to be warehoused at node K due

to unavailable modal space.)

399

KfL unsatisfied product demand for product h at node K
h

(not enough available product h to meet the demand

at node--supply on the modes insufficient--products

removed from modes).

KdL unsatisfied product demand at node K. This is the
h

number of tons of product h not allocated to the

modes at node K.

KTL
h im, ac products h transshipped from mode j, modal unit m

to mode a, modal unit type c at node K. These

products either are destined for distribution out-

side the study corridor or were brought to node K

from outside the study corridor to be shipped from

node K to node L.

K L
hAim the unused (thus available) modal tonnage for product

h on mode i, modal unit type m.

KeL the quantity of product class h removed from mode
h im

i, modal unit type m at node K.

Relevant Parameters:

KBL
total quantity of product class h available for
h

shipment to node L and originating at node K. This

400

quantity is those products brought to node K from

outside the study area and are destined for flow,

within the study corridor, in one direction only

(i.e., downstream, from Baton Rouge to New Orleans

or for export, but not to any upstream destination.

KRL total demand for product class h at node K. This
h

is total demand for products that would be removed

from the modes to be distributed outside the study

corridor.

hSim total available modal capacity for product h on

mode i, modal unit type m.

KQL the cost of transshipment of product class h on mode
h im, qr
i, modal unit type m, to mode q, modal unit type r

at node K.

KPL
added costs due to product h not being shipped by
h im

mode i, modal unit type m at node K. This includes

wharfage,inventory costs, storage, etc.

hVim average number of tons of commodity class h carried
by mode i per modal unit type m (i.e., 1500 tons/

hopper barge.

401

W im average number of modal units type m per trip for
mode i (i.e., the average number of barges per tow).

Kz L the number of trips made by mode i between any two
im

nodes K and L.

K L Revenue lost due to an inadequate quantity (supply)
hgim

of product h on mode i, modal unit type m at node K.

KC L the cost of transporting product class h by mode i,
h im

modal unit type m, from node K to node L. This cost

is only the cost of actual shipment.

The Model

The working model for the remainder of the study is set forth

in this section. By the systematic compounding of more assumptions

into the basic structure, a so-called "Master Model" is developed. An

"Operational Model" will be developed from the additional factors to be

discussed in subsequent sections.

Conceptual Model

Objective Function

K L K L K L K L
Min: Z Z E E C x T,m
K h i m h im h im + 'I M' hQim, qr h qr

KQL KTL + KPL KdL
k h im , h im, ac
I m qr h im h im

402

+ KPL KL1L K L K L
him h im + hgim hfim

Subject to: (at each node K)

1. KBL
E KXL
KdL 0
h h h

K K L K L
hRL he,m hfim 0

K L K L KTL
K Jim heim h im, ac

K L Ke L + K
Zi M' hXim i m h im I m h im, q r

+ E KAL S. K n-l n = 1, 2, ..., N
m h im h im

1 1 K L
KXL + K L Z
T V W < i
I h im ( hVim Wim h im, qr h im im

6. A, X, e, T, d, f > 0

The objective function seeks to minimize total costs, where this

cost is composed of four elements: first, that of shipping products

between nodes K and L; second, that of transshipment costs at node K;

third, that of lost revenue due to insufficient supply of a particular

commodity h on mode i; and fourth, storage and inventory costs as a

result of product h not allocated to mode i because of lack of modal

space. The total cost is cumulative at each node, adding the cost of

all preceding shipments from all preceding nodes.

403

Explanation of Constraints

It will be assumed, for the sake of simplicity, that "leakage"

(.unforeseen demand requiring extra modal units at a particular node)

will not occur. Leakage would require the entering of surplus modes
(.i.e., extra rail cars, barges) from outside the study corridor. 18

Constraint The first constraint indicates all products brought

from outside the study corridor to node K for

shipment in a particular direction within the study

corridor (i.e., downstream). The second summation

indicates all of those products class h of the

quantity B that have been allocated to mode i, modal

unit type m at node K for shipment to node L. The

third summation indicates the unsatisfied product

demand at node K. This is the inbound quantity

constraint (.into the system) at node K. The unful-

filled demand is the balancing item.

Constraint The first summation indicates the total demand at

node K for products to be removed from the system

to be distributed outside the study corridor. The

second summation indicates those products that are

removed from the system to satisfy the demand R.

The third summation is the unsatisfied demand at

node K, which is the balancing item.

18 A detailed explanation of "leakage" can be found in Domestic
Airline Efficiency, Ronald E. Miller, Appendix B, M.I.T. Press, 1963.

404

Constraint (3) The first summation indicates those products added

to the system from outside the study corridor. The

second summation indicates those products removed

from the system to be distributed outside the study

corridor. The sum of these two summations is

external transshipment,of products. This is a

definitional item.

Constraint (4) The first summation is all products that have been

added to the system; the second summation those

products removed from the system; the third summation

is those products that have been transshipped

(internal transshipment--between modes operating

within the study corridor); the fourth summation is

any unused tonnage on a particular mode. The sum

of these variables must equal the total available

tonnage on a particular mode.

Constraint (5) The first summation indicates the number of trips

required by mode i to ship those products allocated

to it between any two nodes K and L. The second

summation indicates the number of trips required by

mode i to ship those products transshipped to it

between any two nodes K and L. The sum of these two

must be less than or equal to the total number of

trips made by mode i between any two nodes K and L.

Constraint (6) A negative value for any of the unknowns would be

meaningless, and is therefore not allowed.

405

B. Parameters Affecting the "Operational Model"

The data that will be used will be for two time periods,

base year and design year. The base year 1970 (latest data collected

for all modes and ports under study), will be used in the initial

phase of the study. The model developed will be used to simulate the

existing product allocation at each of the ports under study. The

second phase will be to estimate future demands on the transportation

systems in the corridor resulting from the construction of the super-

port off the coast of Louisiana. The results of the model for the

projected time period will provide material for comparison of overall

requirements upon individual modes of transportation. This information

will also indicate the optimal allocation of commodities to modes of

transportation based on projected demand conditions and established

"target values" as a guide to long-range planning.

1. Special Problems

The general model that has been presented in this section

will be made more specific in further sections.

A number of problems have arisen during the initial data

collection phase. Most of these problems require decisions that

clarify the exact meaning of terms in the formulation. While they do

not alter the basic philosophy or function of the model, they should

be investigated and discussed at length in order to sharpen the precise

meaning of the model. As an example, look at unfilled demand.
The unfilled demand term d K appears in both the
h im

objective function and the constraints. It is proper to assume that

an individual mode (i.e., rail) will consider lost revenue as a cost

406

which should be avoided or at least minimized, and the increased cost

associated with additional facilities would be weighed against revenue

lost to competition and perhaps public confidence or modal reputation

(i.e., the plight of railroads today). But, our problem will be posed,

initially, as that of moving all present demand at the least cost.

Therefore, the constraints and objective function will have this term
dK removed.
h im

It is in the light of the above discussion that the

11operational model" will be developed as Section III of this study.

Data Sources and Projections will also be discussed in Section III.

VII. Potential Benefits Derived from the Transportation Analysis of the

Superport

The benefits that can be derived from the information generated

by this analysis are many. The demand on the transportation systems,

in terms of volumes and types of traffic, could stimulate the development

of a comprehensive policy for the use of waterway resources, not only

along the Mississippi River corridor but also along its tributaries.

A reasonable estimate could be made of the facilities required

to upgrade safety standards along the waterways in view of the greater

traffic load that would be generated by the superport.

The study could indicate feasible locations for new industrial,

petrochemical, and other economic units (i.e., 11new towns").

The study could determine what new facilities in existing ports

would be required to facilitate the expected changes and growth in

commodity movement resulting from the development of a superport.

The output could define a reasonable range of transportation

407

and commodity handling facilities for the superport on an annual basis.

This would be an indicator of the labor force requirements within the

next 20 years.

The output generated by the model in terms of quantity of

cargo will establish the amount of capital flow through particular

ports, and thus, through economic analysis, the economic impact to a

particular area could be ascertained.

These benefits are but a few which could be derivedeither

directly or indirectly,'from this analysis.

408

Appendix A-1

DEEP WATER ACCESS
MAXIMUM SHIP SIZE

Port Approximate Maximum Ship Size in dwt

Current Planned Potential
Amsterdam, Netherlands 90,000 150,000 150,000

Antwerp, Belgium 80,000 125,000 125,000

Dunkirk, France 125,000 300,000 750,000

Le Havre, France 250,000 500,000 1,000,000

Rotterdam Europort, Netherlands 250,000 300,000 350,000

Rotterdam Botlek, Netherlands 80,000 80,000 80,000

Source: Under Contract No. DACW 31-71-C-0044, issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore District, on 8 December 1970,.the Institute of Water Resources, Alexandria,
Virginia, commissioned Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) to conduct an interpretive study
o! the development and operation experience at selected foreign deep water ports

MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM
67

Minneap lis

- - - - - - - - - - -

Sioux City
Chicago
ItI Pittsburgh

ItI

St. Louis

Cairo

At. cu 0

Memphis
-0- fluntsville

t&4
0
RED Q 0

Ca
Vicksburg t

Baton
Rouge

Houston N w Orleans

G GULF OF NEXIC0

APPENDIX A-2

410

APPENDIX A-3

Minneapolis St. Pau I
nn. 0
C'. *a
Mi
18 D. Minn. 0

......... .
. .........
............
Ir, 0*
0
0
Uj ...
>
15 0
0

Louisville, KY.
..........
St. Louis 0-
Mo.

1000

CL
-j:@. mernph is,Tenn.
lp
lp

0
... Million
tons
500

4 Baton Rougej

10 0
New Orleans,
or
U L
C MorganCit a.
P, 0
art Al
0
Route

r
0
0
W1
10 0 yj rn i
GULF INTRACOASTAL --------- WATERWAY

01mi

Inland Freight Tonnage on the Mississippi River System and the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 1964

411

APPENDIX A-4

WATERBORNE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, 1969
Comparative Statement of net total traffic on the Mississippi River from Minneapolis,
Minn., to the mouth 6f Passes, calendar years 1960-1969
(Net traffic)

Foreign and coastwise traffic
Inland Grand
Year Foreign Coastwise Total Traffic Total
Import Export Receipts Shipments

1960 11,284,08C 12,583,743 1,348,657 20,645,079 45,8615559 82,48,6,236 128,347,795
1961 10,837,966 14,513,556 '-,436,260 22,463,932 49,251,714 87,136,590 136,388,304
1962 12,01,642 18,329,147 1,246,146 25,714,120 57,921,055 91,976,547 149,897,602
1963 11.081,881 20,327,138 1,886,276 26,483,985 59,779,280 98,028,011 157,807,291
1964 11,125,233 14,196,427 L,815,967 25,880,479 63,018,106 101,635,626 164,653,732
1965 13,030,981 22,723,637 2,342,818 26,051,783 64,149,219 112,003,222 176,152,441
1966 14,479,240 24,916,783 3,116,983 32,043,680 74,556,686 119,393,719 193,950,405
1967 13,846,632 26,571,602 3,273,853 @8,057,547 81,749,634 131,354,912 213,104,546
1968 14,635,265 25,633,969 3,836,775 36,482,728 80,588,737 138,573,494 219,162,231
1969 15,938,845 26,569,874 3,885,325 35,433,653 31,827,697 147,652,109 229,479,806-

Ton-miles (000 omitted)

1960 1,821,474 1,883,926 184,098 3,000,349 6,889,847 33,372,686 40,262,533
1961 1,843,849 2,188,470 183,842 3,269,496 7,485,657 35,348,802 42,734,459
1962 2,223,058 2,779,861 161,593 3,141,180 8,305,692 39,295,631, 47,601,323
1963 1,928,435 3,023,807 469,184 3,264,521 8,685,947 41,648,544 50,334,491
1964 1,976,453 3,601,084 470,649 3,106,279 9,154,465 46,134,295 55,288,760
1965 .2,333,375 3,269,573 548,559 2,958,304 9,100,811 50,924,426 60,025,236
1966 2,560,659 3,660,847 605,427 3,567,950 10,394,883 57,399,627 67,794,510
1967 2,446,887 3,796,204 636,974 4,222,649 11,102,714 63,112,317 74,215,031
1968 2,494,355 3,673,252 694,407 -4,224,619 11,086,633 66,768,804 77,855,437
1969 2,694,786 3,903,262 673,583 3,891,332, 11,162,963 69,793,057 80,956,020

412

APPENDIX A-4 (continued)

Comparative statement of net total traffic on the Mississippi River System,*
Calendar years 1960-1969

(Net traffic)

Foreign and coastwise traffic
Inland Grand
Year Foreign Coastwise Total Traffic Total
Import Export Receipts Shipments

1960 11,284,080 12,583,743 1,348,657 20,645,079 45,861,559 188,097,922 233,959,481
1961 10,837,966 14,513,556 1,436,260 22,463,932 49,251,714 190,367,806 240,219,520
1962 12,631,642 18,329,147 1,246,146 25,714,120 57,921,055 200,040,501 257,961,556
1963 11,081,881 20,327,138 1,886,276 26,483,985 59,779,280 211,540,238 271,319,518
1964 11,125,233 24,196,427 1,815,967 25,880,479 63,018,106 226,474,828 289,492,934
1965 13,030,981 22,723,637 2,342,818 26,051,783 64,149,219 Z37,630,872 301,780,091
1966 14,479,240 24,916,783 3,116,983 32,043,680 74,556,686 247,199,721 321,756,407
19674, 13,846,632 26,571,602 3,273,853 38,057,547 81,749,634 Z58,367,224 340,116,858
1968*w 14,635,265 25,633,969 3,836,845 36,482,728 80,588,807 270,557,281 351,146,088
1969 15,938,845, 26,569,874 3,885,325 35,433,653 81,827,697 286,803,513 368,631,210

Ton-miles (OGJ omitted)

1960 1,821,474 1,883,926 184,098 3,000,349 6,889,847 62,366,i.L4 69,256,561
1961 1,843,849 2,188,470 183,842 3,269,496 7,585,657 64,839,942 72,325,599
1962 2,223,058 2,779,861 161,593 3,141,180 8,305,692 70,999,266 79,304,958
1963 1,828,435 3,023,807 534,341 3,308,495 8,795,078 73,520,069 82,315,147
1964 1,976,453 3,601,493 529,981 3,152,816 9,260,743 80,087,305 89,348,048
1965 2,333,376 3,260,819 613,689 2,978,433 9,186,317 87,407,020 9.6,593,337
1966 2,560,659 3,661,160 670,791 3,612,901 10,505,511 95,870,451 106,375,962
1967 2,446,887 3,796,208 637,518 4,233,733 11,104,342 103,474,600 114,578,942
1968 2,494,355 3,673,383 748,445 4,258,216 11,174.-@399 109,1641714 120,339,113
1969 2,694,786 3,903,262 673,583 3,891,332 11,162,963 114,032,045 125,195,008

Includes the main channels and all tributaries of the Mississippi, Illinois
Missouri, and Ohio Rivers.
Inland traffic and grand total figures revised.

413

APPENDIX A-5

SHIFTS IN DOMESTIC TRANSPORTATION OF CRUDE PETROLEUM AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS'
Total Crude Pipelines Water Carriers Trucks b Railroads
Year and Products Tons Percent Tons Percent Tons Percent Tons Percent
Carried Carried of Total Carried of Total Carried of Total Carried of Total
1938 354,420,630 139,220,962 39.28 137,728,491 38.86 20,538,060 5.80 56,933,147 16.06
1939 377,204,272 147,534,686 39.11 148,054,469 39.25 21,557,650 5.72 60,057,437 15.92
1940 385,742,696 153,502,082 39.79 149,594,453 38.78 21,849,000 5.67 60,797,161 15.76
1941 421,133,971 170,684,472 40.53 152,430,794 36.20 28,695,020 6.81 69,323,685 16.46
1942 426,905,706 175,486,660 41.11 120,076,511 28.13 49,524,400 11.60 81,818,135 19.16
1943 473,733,623 196,391,443 41.46 115,995,425 24.49 76,471,500 16.14 84,875,255 17.91
1944 539,713,995 244,001,439 45.21 117,688,301 21.81 99,048,800 18.35 78,975,455 14.63
1945 546,386,683 240,749,492 44.06 142,498,332 26.08 96,135,600 17.60 67,003,259 12.26
1946 545,329,125 222,266,138 40.76 172,513,605 31.64 88,852,600 16.29 61,696,782 11.31
1947 619,209,392 237,879,554 38.42 209,087,669 33.77 105,603,500 17.05 66,638,669 10.76
4- 1948 686,273,830 262,452,531 38.24 237,516,329 34.61 120,897,800 17.62 65,407,170 9.53
1949 665,368,815 261,023,757 39.23 229,928,665 34.56 126,217,294 18.97 48,199,099 7.2'4
1950 731,282,314 283,853,383 38.82 252,765,749 34.57 145,780,986 19.93 48,882,196 6.68
1951 805,457,356 324,631,081 40.30 267,417,940 33.20 163,566,274 20.31 49,842,061 6.19
1952 831,289,595 337,426,840 40.59 274,913,642 33.07 171,744,588 20.66 47,204,525 5.68

1953 862,695,394 359,142,335 41.63 273,476,440 31.70 184,625,431 21.40 45,451,188 5.27
1954 876,949,886 373,327,262 42.57 268,524,812 30.62 192,564,326 21.96 42,533,486 4.85
1955 960,808,391 412,533,395 42.94 284,007,134 29.56 222,604,360 23.17 41,663,502 4.33
1956 1,014,930,276 441,386,180 43.49 297,826,330 29.34 235,960,622 23.25 39,757,144 3.92
1957 1,019,854,162 441,078,169 43.25 299,800,463 29.40 242,331,559 23.76 36,643,971 3.59

1958 1,017,179,215 443,027,566 42.57 298,656,025 29.36 252,024,743 24.78 33,470,881 3.29
1959 1,074,375,041 464,290,959 43.22 310,098,034 28.86 266,642,261 24.82 33,343,787 3.10
1960 1,089,137,729 468,409,682 43.01 318,295,654 29.22 270,375,253 24.83 32,057,140 2.94
1961 1,110,450,480 484,170,055 43.60 322,695,527 29.06 273,619,665 24.64 29,964,233 2.70
1962 1,158,752,236 502,464,600 43.36 329,734,358 28.46 297,698,196 25.69 28,855,082 2.49
a in tons of 2,000 lb; data from Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
b Amounts carried by trucks are estimates.

APPENDIX A-5 (continued)

SHIFTS IN DOMESTIC TRANSPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL a
Total Pipelines Water Carriers Trucksb Railroads
Year Crude Oil Tons Percent Tons Percent Tons Percent Tons Percent
Carried Carried of Total Carried of Total Carried of Total Carried of Total
1938 180,508,947 128,175,000 71.01 46,173,283 25.58 2,115,000 1.17 4,045,664 2.24
1939 190,464,264 135,270,000 71.02 47,045,281 24.70 2,220,000 1.17 5,928,983 3.11
1940 196,197,117 140,985,000 71.86 47,927,090 24.43 2,250,000 1.14 5,035,027 2.57
1941 212,796,708 156,300,000 73.45 46,224,034 21.72 2,955,000 1.39 7,317,674 3.44
1942 220,834,215 159,255,000 72.12 35,299,423 15.98 5,100,000 2.31 21,179,792 9.59

1943 240,730,423 176,835,000 73.46 31,129,833 12.93 7,875,000 3.27 24,890,590 10.34
1944 267,468,834 208,560,000 77.98 32,371,496 12.10 10,200,000 3.81 16,337,338 6.11
1945 274,078,434 205,185,000 74.86 48,477,658 17.69 9,900,000 3.61 10,515,776 3.84
1946 265,601,728 193,545,000 72.87 56,287,368 21.19 9,150,000 3.45 6,619,360 2.49
1947 292,501,482 204,375,000 69.87 67,333,281 23.02 10,875,000 3.72 9,918,201 3.39

1948 322,991,312 221,198,250 68.48 75,126,140 23.26 12,450,000 3.86 14,216,922 4.40
1949 297,351,940 215,051,700 72.32 64,219,078 21.60 12,997,800 4.37 5,083,362 1.71
1950 318,280,275 231,198,150 72.64 67,551,132 21.22 15,012,459 4.72 4,518,534 1.42
1951 357,492,665 263,394,600 73.68 72,497,833 20.28 16,843,980 4.71 4,756,252 1.33
1952 365,081,250 269,105,100 73.71 74,812,548 20.49 17,686,179 4.85 3,477,423 0.95

1953 376,860,595 283,379,400 75.19 70,585,701 18.73 19,012,642 5.05 3,882,852 1.03
1954 372,447,048 284,438,700 76.37 64,572,121 17.34 19,830,186 5.32 3,606,041 0.97
1955 398,877,036 310,042,950 77.73 63,081,850 15.81 22,923,695 5.75 2,828,541 0.71
1956 421,673,677 327,846,900 77.75 67,335,912 15.97 24,299,117 5.76 2,191,748 0.52
1957 421,369,673 320,277,900 76.01 74,090,233 17.58 24,955,193 5.92 2,046,347 0.49

1958 402,173,215 307,059,000 76.35 67,965,254 16.90 25,953,401 6.45 1,195,560 0.30
1959 429,754,500 327,697,000 76.25 73,067,560 17.00 27,458,698 6.39 1,531,242 0.36
1960 432,318,282 328,449,000 75.97 74,137,775 17.15 27,843,120 6.44 1,888,387 0.44
1961 441,820,196 333,318,300 75.44 78,297,176 17.72 28,177,237 6.38 2,027,483 0.46
1962 452,024,545 338,642,644 74.92 80,969,520 17.91 30,656,834 6.78 1,755,547 0.39

aIn tons of 2,000 1b; data from Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
bAmounts carried by trucks are estimates.

APPENDIX A-5
(continued) a
SHIFTS IN DOMESTIC TRANSPORTATION OF REFINED PRODUCTS
Total
Year Refined Pipelinesb Water Carriers Trucksc Railroads
Products Tons Percent Tons Percent Tons Percent Tons Percent
Carried Carried of Total Carried of Total Carried of Total Carried of Total
Y9_38 173,911,713 ll,'0__4_5_,_962 6.35 91,555,208 52.65 18,423,060 10.59 52,887,483 30.41
1939 186,740,008 12,264,686 6.57 101,009,188 54.09 19,337,680 10.36 54,128,454 28.98
1940 189,545,579 12,517,082 6.60 101,667,363 53.64 19,599,000 10.34 55,762,134 29.42
1941 208,337,263 14,384,472 6.90 106,206,760 50.98 25,740,020 12.36 62,006,011 29.76
1942 206,071,491 16,231,660 7.88 84,777,088 41.14 44,424,400 21.56 60,638,343 29.42

1943 233,003,200 19,556,443 8.39 84,865,592 36.42 68,596,500 29.44 59,984,665 25.75
1944 272,245,161 35,441,439 13.02 85,316,805 31.34 88,848,800 32.63 62,638,117 23.01
1945 272,308,249 35,564,492 13.06 94,020,674 34.53 86,235,600 31.67 56,487,483 20.74
1946 279,727,397 28,721,138 10.27 116,226,237 41.55 79,702,600 28.49 55,077,422 19.69
1947 326,707,910 33,504,554 10.26 141,754,388 43.39 94,728,500 28.99 56,720,468 17.36

1948 363,282,518 41,254,281 11.36 162,390,189 44.70 108,447,800 29.85 51,190,248 14.09
1949 368,016,875 45,972,057 12.49 165,709,587 45.03 113,219,494 30.76 43,115,737 11.72
1950 413,062,039 52,655,233 12.75 185,214,617 44.85 130,768,527 31.66 44,363,662 10.74
1951 447,964,691 61,236,481 13.67 194,920,107 43.51 146,722,294 32.76 45,085,809 10.06.
1952 466,208,345 68,321,740 14.66 200,101,094 42.92 154,058,409 33.04 43,727,102 9.38

1953 485,834,799 75,762,935 15.59 202,890,739 41.76 165,612,789 34.09 41,568,336 8.56
1954 504,502,838 88,888,562 17.62 203,952,691 40.43 172,734,140 34.24 38,927,445 7.71
1955 561,931,355 102,490,445 18.24 220,925,284 39.32 199,680,665 35.53 38,834,961 6.91
1956 593,256,599 113,539,280 19.14 230,490,418 38.85 211,661,505 35.68 37,565,396 6.33
1957 598,484,489 120,800,269 20.19 225,710,230 37.71 217,376,366 36.32 34,597,624 5.78

1958 615,006,000 125,968,566 20.48 230,690,771 37.51 226,071,342 36.76 32,275,321 5.25
1959 644,620,541 136,593,959 21.19 237,030,474 36.77 239,183,563 37.10 31,812,545 4.94
1960 656,819,447 139,960,682 21.31 244,157,879 37.17 242,532,133 36.93 30,168,753 4.59
1961 668,630,284 150,851,755 22.56 244,399,351 36.55 245,442,428 36.71 27,936,750 4.18
1962 706,727,691 163,821,956 23.18 248,764,838 35.20 267,041,362 37.78 27,099,535 3.84

aIn tons of 2,000 lb; data from Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
bProducts pipelines move light oils only--gasoline, kerosene, distillate, jet fuel and L.P.G.
cAmounts carried by trucks are estimates.

Appendix A-6
DIRECT ECONOMIC COSTS AND SAVINGS IN TRANSPORTING

FUTURE U. S. CRUDE OIL REQUIREMENTS

1969 1975 1980 1985

Oceanborne Imported Crude Oil Forecast 78 183 365 574

Crude Oil Supply From Short-Haul Sources
Not Requiring Deep Draft Tankers 23 54 109 172

Crude Oil Supply From Long-Haul Sources 54 128 255 401

Annual Transport Cost Using 80,000 dwt.
Vessels at $10/ton or 546 1,281 2,555 4,013

Annual Transported Cost Using 300,000
dwt. vessels with trans-shipment at
$8.50/ton 464 1,088 2,172 3,415

Annual Transport Reduction of 300,000
dwt vessels with trans-shipment
over 80,000 dwt 82 193 383 603

Annual Transport Costs Using 30,000 dwt
vessels without trans-shipment at
$6.50/ton 355 833 1,661 2,612

Annual Transport Reduction of 300,000
dwt. vessels without trans-shipment over
300,000 dwt with trans-shipment ill 255 511 806

Annual Transport Cost Reduction of 300,000
dwt vessels without trans-shipment over
80,000 dwt. vessels 191 488 894 1,406

NOTE: tons and dollars in millions
SOURCE: Superport, Arthur D. Little, Institute of Water Resources

417

Appendix A-7 FREIGHT TONNAGE PER CENT BY MODES OF

TRANSPORTATION FOR 1980 IN THE UNITED STATES

MODE % CARRIED NO. OF TON MILES

Air Freight 0.2 2.7 Billion Ton Miles

Inland Waterways 15.1 260.0 Billion Ton Miles

Oil Pipelines 20.5 353.0 Billion Ton Miles

Highway 21.7 373.0 Billion Ton Miles

Rail 42.5 732.0 Billion Ton Miles

SOURCE.- '.,Rail Transportation in the Capital Region, Transportation Report #5,
August 1968

NOTE: Air freight not a factor in this study

418

INLAND PORTS
ON MISS.

PIPELINES AND
UTILITIES FROM
PORT- BARGE IR-lularvAl SHORE OTHER PORTS WITH
SHALLOW CHANNEL

ROUTES OF
STANDARD SIZE SHIPS
OFFSHORE TERMINAL
41
FOR VERY LARGE SHIPS.

PORT PORT

OCEAN ROUTES FOR LARGE SHIPS
(OVER 80,000 DWT)
I

OFFSHORE TERMINAL
FOR VERY LARGE SHIPS

ORE

Appendix A-8. Conceptual operations of an offshore terminal
from: Work plan for a study of the feasibility of an offshore terminal in the
Texas Gulf Coast Region: Research Division, Texas Engineering Experiment
IS

Station, Texas A&M University, 1971.

.11811111111111111111
3 6668 00002278-2 -