within a corridor yet to be defined.

Canada's posture on a common corridor concept is certainly reasonable but it applies only to pipelines which would otherwise go through Northern Canada for one reason or another. It certainly cannot be construed to suggest that Canada's requirements with regard to a common corridor dictate that Alaskan oil and gas serve the same markets.

The advantages of a common corridor most frequently cited by proponents of the Trans-Canadian system are twofold--minimum disruption of the environment and savings, presumably from shared facilities. Parallel systems, that is, transportation systems which have generally the same origin and the same destination might benefit from these cited advantages. The pertinent question, however, is whether these advantages are sufficiently compelling to divert North Slope crude oil production from the West Coast to the Midwest.

The maximum economic benefit of a common corridor in its true sense has been estimated to be $500 million assuming savings accruing from joint communication systems, joint use of haul roads, construction surfaces, access road, construction camps and certain construction equipment. Assuming the savings would be "shared" with the gas pipeline project, it amounts to a savings of approximately $250 million out of about $7 billion, or 3%--an amount insufficient to offset the higher total costs of the longer Trans-Canadian route compared with the total cost of TAPS and tankers.

As noted earlier, there are a number of reasons why both an oil and gas pipeline cannot, in a timely fashion, be built simultaneously through Canada. Furthermore, the preferable route and construction mode for a hot oil line would probably be somewhat different in certain areas from the most desirable route for a cold gas line. Consequently, the common corridor would need to be at least ten miles wide and, in some areas, even wider. If this common corridor concept were construed to mean common right-of-way and, hence, it was presumed that both lines could be built together by simply dropping two pipes in the same ditch, then the advantages cited with regard to environmental disruption and economic savings might appear to be more significant than they

are.

In summary, the environmental hazards to which TAPS will be exposed have been well defined through exhaustive studies costing millions of dollars. Detailed design and engineering work aimed at providing essential environmental safeguards to successfully cope with these hazards are nearly complete and will cost many more millions. The design criteria have been thoroughly examined by the U. S. Department of the Interior which has spent nine million dollars to review the TAPS project. In many cases more stringent design criteria were developed in order to satisfy the concerns of the Interior Department's technical experts who were charged with assessing the environmental impact of the TAPS proposal. Finally, the efforts of the environmentalists who have opposed TAPS contributed to making concern for ecology a primary criterion in all facets of the project's development.

OTHER ISSUES

Shipbuilding and Merchant Marine Considerations

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (The Jones Act) requires that cargoes shipped between U. S. ports be carried in U. S. Flag vessels. Consequently, if North Slope oil is routed through Alaska to Valdez and then to West Coast ports, U. S. Flag tankers would have to be utilized. It has been estimated that up to $1.6 billion would have to be spent on U. S. Flag tankers if TAPS throughput reached two million barrels per day. Delivery of some U. S. Flag tankers, ordered before the prolonged delay, has been taken and others are on order. The Maritime Administration has estimated that planned construction would generate 73,480 man-years of labor in shipyards and supporting industries, and that fleet maintenance would generate 770 man-years of employment annually. Moreover, approximately 3,000 man-years of Maritime Union crews and support services would be needed to operate this tanker fleet.

Wider Right-of-Way Requirements

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 provides for a right-of-way width of 25 feet on either side of the pipe, an adequate width for the construction of a pipeline in 1920. At that time, the ditch was dug by hand, or with mules and a "slip". Pipe was strung from special mule-drawn wagons, joined by gangs of men with tongs who turned the pipe into the threads of the previous joint and then lowered it into the ditch with a hoist which straddled the ditch.

Modern construction techniques, which would be employed on TAPS, require considerably more right-of-way. The planned construction sequence for TAPS (or for a line through Canada) includes the following phases.

The first operation is clearance of right-of-way, followed by such grading as may be necessary. To be able to work on the tundra, or in areas where permafrost is present, it will be necessary to lay down a construction pad of gravel to insulate the permafrost and to maintain support for the equipment which will be moving along the line. The gravel pad will average two or three feet in thickness and will be approximately seventy feet wide.

In areas where the pipe is to be buried, ditching equipment will prepare the excavation near one edge of the construction pad. The work on a pipeline is done principally from one side of the line with the ditch spoil mounded on the other side. Following the ditching operation which includes some minor shaping and padding operations, stringing trucks hauling four lengths of pipe will traverse the construction pad and pipe will be unloaded with cranes or "boomed" equipment. This equipment must lift a "joint" of pipe and deposit it a few feet from the ditch. After bending to conform to the contours of the terrain and welding the joints, the pipe is placed in the ditch. The integrity of the pipe coating is maintained by wrapping the area at the weld with a mastic tape to prevent corrosion. The ditch is then backfilled.

Where the pipe is to be placed above ground, it will be put on piling bents or horizontal beams attached to piles (approximately sixty feet apart) to support the line.

The above ground line will be insulated, wrapped with a protective metal shield and set on above ground supports. Erosion control, clean-up and revegetation of the right-of-way follow after the line is properly tested. During various phases of the construction operation, space must be allowed for ancillary equipment operation and for the passage of vehicles. Extremes of terrain may require even more right-of-way in specific areas to permit orderly construction.

The above description greatly oversimplifies the intricate and massive operations necessary, but provides perhaps a better understanding of the work to be done. The same work, the same care and concern for human safety and environmental damage must be made on either route.

The necessary right-of-way width to permit construction of modern largediameter pipelines in accordance with environmental stipulations will vary with the type of pipeline to be constructed and the terrain to be crossed. Consequently, appropriate discretion in establishing right-of-way widths is essential.

95-903 - 73 - pt. 4 - 15