Your excellent comments on "pipeline economics lessons" (OGJ, Sept. 3, 2001, p. 17) highlight the Trans-Alaska Pipeline's many truly remarkable technological and environmental achievements. Thank you for pointing these out at a time when environmental questions are being raised regarding the industry's expanding activity in the Arctic.
That the pipeline has operated with minimal environmental impact over the past is a tribute to the men who designed and built this "wonder of the world." I was fortunate to know some of the members of the Williams Bros. groups of companies who participated in TAPS. However, I can also assure you that the cost escalation was, in many respects, technologically driven. Had the lengthy regulatory delay not forced and enabled re-examination of the original project, we would almost certainly have had an ecological disaster of unfathomable proportions. The original scope did not adequately account for undertaking such an effort in permafrost and transitional environments. My knowledge, obtained in the military, led me to the conclusion that US arctic construction expertise at the time was less than that possessed within the Soviet Union. And, over the years, we have shuddered at Russia's dismal environmental record. Had a major pipe rupture occurred as a result of inexperienced design or soil erosion and flow stresses we would never have reaped the full benefits of North Slope oil, or in the future, that of other potential developments. In my mind, it was $8 billion very, very well spent.
Finally, you may wish the bears "went elsewhere," but that is a comment which will bring blood to the eyes of any environmentalist and swing many environmental moderates against oil and gas activities. The Journal should be above such inflammatory remarks.
Again, I compliment you for pointing out some of TAPS's achievements and thank you for your attention.
Gerard E. d'Aquin
President
Con-Sul Inc.
Tulsa
