Page 29: of Maritime Reporter Magazine (January 1973)

Delaware Bay Terminal— (Continued from page 29) as it is far less economical to run small vessels over so long a voyage. It takes nearly the same crew to man a large as a small tanker. The approximate dimensions of tankers of various cargo capacities follow:

Deadweight'

Tons Length Beam Draft (DWT) (Ft) (Ft) (Ft) 16,000 503 68 30 (T-2) 80,735 818 125 43 124,379 870 138 52 249,360 1,085 170 65 (VLCC)

The T-2 listed above was a deep-draft ship when the Delaware River channel was pre- pared. By the end of 1971, there were 162 oil tankers of 200,000 dwt or upward and many on order. Generally speaking, smaller ships are older and less reliable. They will also become fewer, retiring for age and inefficiency as the construction effort continues toward larger vessels.

According to the Philadelphia Maritime Ex- change, 2,157 oil tankers delivered oil to the

Delaware River refineries in 1971. About 22 tankers per month lightered in Delaware Bay, requiring up to four barging operations each.

None of these bankers could be considered "deep-draft" ships today.

If the size of delivering tankers were to re- main unchanged, with oil demand rising, the number of arriving vessels could triple by 1985. It is almost inconceivable that present operating methods previously described could be safely expanded

Philadelphia.

A deepwater terminal, permitting delivery of oil in greater quantity per tanker using these Very Large Cargo Carriers (VLCC), would sharply reduce tankers in Delaware Bay to perhaps three per day. There would be no rise in lightering nor river traffic—all dis- charge occurring into the terminal end of a pipeline.

Though it seems obvious that a deepwater terminal is essential for the best interest of the

Delaware Valley area, there is much opposi- tion ito the idea. The deepwater terminal has been vehemently opposed by the citizenry of the lower Delaware Bay area, and the state of Delaware has enacted interim legislation prohibiting industrial use of the Delaware side of the bay. However, a special study group has been set up by Governor Peterson to con- sider the matter further.

The environmentalists in opposition hold that the problem should be solved in other ways. For example, at some time in the future, man must find other and less polluting sources of energy to supplant the oil he is using at an accelerating rate. Since oil reserves are not unlimited, more efficient use should be made of the oil available. Environmentalists see al- leviating the problems in satisfying oil de- mands as postponing the need to dedicate seri- ous efforts to solar energy or to harnessing the tides or the winds. (Nuclear power does not turn the environmentalist on.)

The environmentalists may very well be right, but even if the effort began today, there is a great time lapse before the desired new energy sources could reach practical utility.

Meanwhile, the American public shows no sign of giving up the automobile, the air-con- ditioner or any of the hundreds of appliances that are now totally accepted. Oil will likely remain a prime source of energy throughout the rest of the century.

Another objection raised is that the quantity involved in a single large ship is a hazard.

Aside from reducing the exposure of the same quantity delivered in smaller lots, there is some validity to that criticism. However, it is not generally known that to offset such risk, an international agreement was reached two years ago compelling limitations on the size and arrangement of individual tanks in super- tankers to limit, assuming severe damage from collision or stranding, the amount of oil that might be released.

There are also those who would have the deepwater terminal located elsewhere. The

New Jersey side of the Delaware Bay has been mentioned as an alternative site, but is actual- ly rather shallow and tremendously more dredging would be required. Only a few other locations on the East Coast are practical for preparation of an adequate channel. Some of these other locations also involve extensive transshipment of the product from terminal to point of industrial use, with attendant ex- pense and increased environmental risk.

An arrangement proposed lately is to locate the terminal offshore in tjie open ocean. The writer is of the view that this is prompted by desperation. It is perhaps possible to ac- complish such a project if enough money and time are expended. However, the physical forces to be faced there are 'tremendous and man's knowledge of the sea and seabed im- perfect.

One scheme which is receiving considerable attention calls for the creation of an artificial island eight miles out in the ocean "behind" a 12,000-foot breakwater. Aptly dubbed the "Way Out Port" (Newsweek, July 31, 1972), the cost seems underestimated at one billion dollars. Assuming some rudimentary propor- tions for this breakwater, say 120 feet high with sides sloping at 45 degrees, the magni- tude of this undertaking can be discerned. It is comparable to moving the Great Pyramid of Cheops twice—approximately two billion cubic feet of material, provided that each load is so precisely positioned before dumping that there is no wasted effort. The artificial island is an equally substantial structure with storage tank areas, berths for small tankers, pipelines underwater, and a "permanent" deepwater pier.

How the seas would deal with such a man- made obstruction is not given to precise de- termination, although computer technology and model testing may offer insight. Silting might occur at an accelerated rate requiring continual dredging to maintain the depth, or the "harbor" might be subject to heavy wave action in some sea states. Against the uncer- tainty, certain assumptions would have to be made that hopefully would never be exceeded, and the engineering predicated upon that esti- mate.

Not only is the first cost likely to be exorbi- tant, but the operating expense as well. Oper- ations offshore in this location would be haz- ardous for the personnel employed there and for the ships and aircraft required to support them, as the wage level would reflect. There would be a built-in collection of problems due to the inaccessible location. To name a few: accommodations; personnel to clean accom- modations; food storage, preparation and serv- ice ; replenishment and transfer during heavy weather and periods of low visibility; mainte- nance personnel in residence; components to endure continued exposure to the corrosive salt atmosphere. These problems, involving a 24-hour watch on isolated duty, would be virtually eliminated in a location permitting personnel to drive to and from work daily, maintenance crew to be available on call, and provisions to be delivered to the galley door.

The site mentioned would restrict other shipping entering and departing the Delaware, increasing 'the chance of collision.

A terminal is essential to the future of the nation and of the Delaware Valley area, but to put it offshore is to invite a host of undesir- able conditions that ought fto be avoided. Those who regard an offshore location as an environ- mental benefit or a financially practical choice should be compelled to spend next January on a North Atlantic weather station to develop a little respect for the energy of the sea.

Some local opposition can perhaps be ascrib- ed to an indiscriminate use of terms. What is most required is a "terminal" or "reception fa- cility," not a deepwater "port," as it is often called. "Port" conveys the idea of a maritime/ industrial complex drawing seamen of all na- tions. The resort towns along the shore cer- tainly do not relish such a prospect. The sup- porters of the "terminal" might do well to avoid "port" and clarify the true scale of the required activity—essentially a funnel into which oil cargoes -will be delivered.

The opposition should realize that a deep- water terminal in the Delaware Bay could be readily designed to enclose the entire vessel during the transfer of cargo ashore. Any spil- lage would be confined to the terminal basin, which could be fitted with skimming devices or other means of precluding any release of oil to the waters of the bay.

The number of deep draft arrivals would be few enough to permit compelling other ves- sel traffic to stand well clear while the giants make their entrance. A modern harbor control facility to insure these ships stay in the deep channel or to deny them entrance during pe- riods of adverse weather or limited visibility would be part of the operation.

To have some insight to the risks involved, opponents of the deepwater terminal should examine the Bantry Bay terminal, on the west coast of Ireland, made practical by the natural depths in that location. The Gulf Oil Com- pany has, over the past three of four years, successfully moved some 300 million barrels of oil in ships of 326,000 dwt in and out of

Bantry Bay, without incident.

Summing up. The system under which way the oil is being delivered now in the Delaware is the consequence of constraints imposed by a channel insufficient to today's ships and which cannot realistically be deepened. If that system must continue, with rising demands for oil, the chances for error are certain to in- crease. The only real prospect of relieving the situation is a deepwater terminal, and the most plausible location is inside the bay.

It would therefore be tragic if a well-meant but misguided attempt to protect the natural state of the Delaware Bay should, by opposing the deepwater project, actually increase the likelihood of pollution casualties. It would be folly to reach the wrong answer for the right reasons.

The citizens of Delaware and New Jersey should, instead of opposing, support the con- cept. However, approval should only be given when the particulars have been fully developed covering the safe movement of vessels and the transfer of their cargoes, minimizing the pollu- tion risk. Overall, a modern deepwater ter- minal in the protected waters of Delaware Bay offers the most effective means of having the oil and of improving the environment of the

Delaware Valley.

January 1, 1973 31