One would not think they would need that much space to bury a line 4-6 feet deep but they seem to be a freak show of sorts for installing simple lines. 30 is plenty of room but you never know
If they go outside of the permanent easement I would ask for damage payments.
What if the line is replaced with a larger inside diameter pipe than currently existing? Technically this is not a true replacement , but an upgraded capacity line ....? Could this be construed as an additional line , opening your "no additional lines" agreement to some renegotiation?
As far as workspace goes ,I have a row agreement with Markwest that gives them 100' during construction with a 75' actual row. I also have workspace agreements where it would cross the road that measure 50'x100' for staging pipe , etc.
I think a good o&g lawyer should be in the cards. As you know , I also have an old Tennessee Gas (now Kinder Morgan) line through my place as well. No word of any changes to it thus far , but forseeable I think.
I see , your line is a utility line delivering gas to homes , etc. The one here is supposed to be pretty big and I believe it is a high volume trunk line. Two different animals I assume. Good luck to you and please keep us posted!
I would certainly ask for something in writing spelling out exactly what they are going to do and why. If it is a Fed mandate for upgraded standards they must have some paperwork to that effect. You have asked them for a written proposal for the pipe yard and...... funny how "put that in writing" seems to change things all of a sudden. lol
If they are just upgrading the line for more capacity I would think this may open up as Trapper notes "additional lines".
I know nothing about pipeline construction but a 36" pipe is pretty big. 30' may indeed be enough room for construction . My guess is that some additional room may be needed one side or the other. Maybe not - again I would require some paperwork on this before they turn a shovel full of dirt.
Cynic that I am - it is entirely possible that they are indeed going to install a larger capacity line and know that will reopen portions of the existing ROW agreement.
The original agreement dates from 1956 - existing pipe certainly is a bit old-
likely needs to be replaced, so my above statement may just be cynical.
I would keep a gimlet eye on the entire operation! lol
For those who know from experience, a 36" line replacement project will require a substantial amount of material to be removed from the excavation. Large equipment is also required.
Think about it, 4 feet of cover, for the pipe itself, 3 feet deeper at a minimum, that is seven feet of material x width (following OSHA trenching requirements or shoring) plus pipe string out - welding work area, is a lot of material and width needed. The size of equipment, amount of dirt material, ditch width, every inch of the original (1956 30 foot plus 45 temporary) 75 foot wide easement is needed, IMO this is cutting it very tight. The only other option is to directionaly drill (bore) under the property and slide the pipe through the bore hole. This can be done also, less surface disturbance.
From reading above, the population increase has potentially made this a High Consequence (49CFR192 HC) area and is getting some upgrade attention.
You can spell out the soil / subsoil separation (double ditch method) re-seeding requirements, soil test, lime and fertilizer, replant trees / damages, etc.
Very interesting report James, thank for posting it,