effects of these ships; memories of the Argo Mer- 
chant oil spill and other recent accidents are still 
strong. 
Decisions about how to transport Alaskan oil will 
have important implications. Even if a major West 
Coast terminal and pipeline are built, by the early 
1980s close to half of the total U.S. domestic ocean- 
borne transportation of petroleum will be for Alas- 
kan crude. Yet, without a West Coast pipeline, re- 
quiring use of the Panama Canal, the Alaskan trade 
could rise to as much as two-thirds of the total 
domestic ocean movement of oil by the early part of 
the next decade.’ Furthermore, the cost of using 
the Canal option certainly will be much higher. 
There are two major options for West Coast ter- 
minals and pipelines: the Northern Tier pipeline 
from Port Angeles, Wash., or an alternative site 
near Puget Sound, Wash., to Clearbrook, Minn.; 
and the Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) pipeline from 
Long Beach, Calif., to Midland, Tex. All of the 
proposals are controversial.’ 
The Sohio proposal is an interesting current 
example of the siting process for onshore tanker 
facilities. As in the case of other facilities, the com- 
pany made basic decisions about what project and 
site to propose. In this case, the proposal was ap- 
proved by both the Interior Department (which con- 
trols the public lands over which the new sections 
of pipeline would be built) and the California Coastal 
Commission. Sohio’s problem has been getting ap- 
proval from California’s Air Resources Board, which 
is concerned about how evaporating hydrocarbons 
from the terminal would add to Southern California’s 
air pollution problems. The Air Board has said that 
Sohio can build the proposed facility at Long Beach 
only if it takes. steps to reduce air pollution from 
certain other sources in the Los Angeles area, at an 
estimated $100 million cost. 
This is not simply a case of a State agency trying 
to block a project seen by many as being in the 
national interest. The Air Board is acting under the 
Federal Clean Air Act, which sets strict standards 
when new projects are to be allowed in areas with 
high air pollution; it also is acting in what it sees 
as the clear interest of the State and region. The 
board is investigating alternative sites where the air 
pollution is less severe. The views of local residents 
will come into play if the State proposes alternative 
sites in relatively undeveloped areas. 
166 From calculations based on data from: U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Maritime Administration, Office of Policy and Plans. 
The U.S.-Flag Tanker Fleet and Domestic Carriage Requirements 
—An Assessment of Fleet Adequacy. Washington, D.C., October 
21, 1976. 
167 Tbid., pp. 25-34. ° 
168 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Oi] Trans- 
portation by Tankers: An Analysis of Marine Pollution and 
Safety Measures. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 
July 1975, pp. 13, 24. 
Another tanker subject that is receiving consider- 
able attention is the matter of deepwater ports, that 
is, ports in water deep enough to accommodate 
today’s supertankers. The need for such facilities is 
particularly strong along the East and Gulf coasts, 
although there is some argument in favor of sites 
in neighboring areas of the East coast (Canada and 
the Bahamas). In 1974 some 80 percent of all U.S. 
oil imports were landed along these two coasts, and 
this percentage is expected to continue. In this age 
of supertankers, the maximum size tanker which 
can be accommodated fully laden at most East and 
Gulf coast ports is 55,000 deadweight tons.*** How- 
ever, in 1975 more than three-fourths of the total 
world tanker capacity was in vessels exceeding that 
tonnage. 
Given this situation, one option is to continue to 
use “lightering” techniques, where large ships anchor 
offshore and the oil is offloaded onto smaller ships 
or barges which can carry it into port. But this is 
costly and can add to the oil spill problem. Another 
option is to build deepwater ports, either by expand- 
ing existing ports through dredging or building ports 
offshore. 
Expansion of existing ports probably will be most 
feasible along the West Coast, which already has 
several fairly deep ports.17° There also have been 
proposals to expand the ports of Galveston and 
Corpus Christi, but both of these projects would 
require massive dredging in order to make the now 
shallow channels deep enough for supertankers. 
This has led to interest in offshore deepwater ports. 
Issues and Processes Regarding Offshore 
Deepwater Ports ‘ 
Generally an offshore deepwater port is a single 
buoy or some similar unit anchored several miles 
off a coast. The supertanker is tied up to the unit, 
and the oil is shipped ashore through underwater 
pipelines that connect the unit with the coast.'" 
In the early 1970s, it was found that while there 
was sufficient legal authority to site offshore units 
within the 3-mile limit (though many agencies would 
be involved), it was not clear whether there was any 
authority to site them outside the 3-mile line or what 
the procedures for doing so might be. 
Such concern led to the passage of the Deepwater 
Port Act of 1974, one of whose purposes is to 
“authorize and regulate the location, ownership, 
construction, and operation of deepwater ports in 
waters beyond the territorial limits of the United 
169 Sun Shipbuilding Company. World Tank Ship Fleet. Ap- 
pendix Table 5B, 1975. 
170 Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit. note 168, p. 24. 
171 For a good discussion of the technology and some recent 
proposals see: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 
Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy Systems. Washington, D.C., 
Government Printing Office, November 1976, particularly pp. 
173-196. 
IvV-74 
