that a very substantial increase in imports of petroleum be accommodated 

 over the next critical 15 years. This means that we will need, in the very 

 near term, deep-water facilities to ofTload the large tankers needed to 

 handle the anticipated tonnage safely and economically. 



As our dependence on foreign crude increases, more and more tanker 

 traffic will enter U.S. ports. Foreign flag tankers of 200,000 dwt are com- 

 mon today, an increasing number of 300,000 dwt tankers are in service, 

 and several in the 500,000 dwt range are imder construction. These large 

 tankers reduce sea-leg transportation costs markedly. Only one U.S. port 

 (San Pedro, California) can handle a tanker as large as 120,000 dwt, al- 

 though Seattle, Washington, could be adapted, and Machiasport, Maine, 

 though undeveloped, has the requisite depth as does Eastport. Though 

 Long Beach, California, is deepening its main channel to 62 feet, which 

 could accommodate 200,000 dwt tankers, dredging present ports on the 

 East Coast to suitable depths is either impossible or presents many 

 drawbacks. 



Deep-water oil terminals that can accommodate large tankers are one 

 alternative to dredging present ports and could be financed by private in- 

 dustry. Government action would be needed in regulating siting and in 

 protecting the ocean environment. Three deep-water oil terminals are 

 presently under active consideration — Sea Dock near Freeport, Texas; 

 Loop, near Grande Isle, Louisiana; and one off Delaware. Most of the 

 deep-water facilities built in many locations around the world use single 

 point moorings (SPM) and provide a capacity for a 24-hour turnaround 

 for any size oil tanker. An advantage of SPM's is that they enable tankers 

 to ride out storms with a minimum of risk. 



There has been considerable attention given to the alternative of super- 

 ports to handle a variety of bulk commodities. These could be sited on 

 manmade islands ofTshore or sited on coastal lands. If superports are used 

 in place of specialized oil terminals, most of the tonnage passing through 

 such a superport, at least in the beginning, would be crude oil and refined 

 petroleum products. Since such a large percentage of superport tonnage 

 would be liquid petroleum needing special handling facilities, NACOA 

 believes it would probably be preferable, at least initially, to use deep- 

 water oil terminals independently of superports. Such an arrangement 

 also has the advantage of n:iaking oil tenninals, because of their relative 

 simplicity, available at an earlier date — an important consideration — and 

 could be financed by the petroleum industry. Also, problems of coloca- 

 tion are avoided. 



The combination of SPM's and accelerated offshore leasing offers the 

 shortest lead time for increasing crude oil capacity. We believe that pro- 

 vision of terminal facilities is vital. NACOA therefore recommends that: 

 as a quick fix the United States have at least one deep-water single-point 



20 



