At the PJBD meeting of June, 1952, the United States Section outlined the proposals in further detail. Congress has authorized $40 million for the construction of an 8-inch pipeline. Half of this amount has been appropriated for the present fiscal year. The pipeline could carry 24 thousand barrels of petroleum products per day. In the event of war the full amount would probably be needed for military operations in Alaska; in peacetime the United States would be willing to allow Canada to tap the line for military petroleum needs in the Yukon. Without the pipeline, petroleum for Alaska must be taken by tanker to Whittier and by rail north. The inadequacy of these transportation arrangements will soon result in a petroleum deficit in Alaska which would become very serious in the event of war.

In addition to the pipeline, the United States intends to build new docking facilities in Haines, to make some improvements in that part of the Haines road which lies on United States territory, and to install pumping stations. There would probably be one pumping station in Canada, manned by about 24 men (civilians) and two small stations (manned by one or two men) which could be expanded in an emergency to increase the flow. The Canadian portion of the line is 284 miles long and would cost about $12 million. The right of way would be 50 feet wide and about 21 additional acres for pumping stations would be needed.

The United States Section of the PJBD gave a categorical assurance that the operation of the pipeline along the Haines Road would not require the winter maintenance of that highway except in an emergency.

The United States Section of the PJBD originally asked for a Canadian reply to their proposals within two weeks in order that bids might be invited from contractors by July 15 and construction begun by September 1. The Canadian Section explained that a final Canadian reply would require some time since the United States proposals raised difficult problems involving many departments of Government as well as Provincial authorities.

No mention was made to the U.S. Section of the possibility of Canada undertaking the construction of the Canadian section of the pipeline. Canadian construction and ownership would have advantages from the point of view of sovereignty. It is suggested that costs of the Canadian section might be amortized over a period of years by charging on a user basis. Canadian ownership of part of the line, together with some system of joint control, would also put Canada in a better position to influence the use of the line, either in relation to Canadian commercial facilities for the transportation of petroleum. products, or for the use of Canadian supplies of petroleum from the Alberta oilfields, the possibility of which was mentioned in the course of the meetings at Whitehorse.

L.D. W[ILGRESS]