Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by brandon on October 11, 2014 at 2:35pm

Assuming the psi of the ET Rover Pipeline is industry standard.  which is about 1400 psi, the safe distance away should be about ~ 1000'     Now remember folks this is a radius, not a diameter.  Radius is only half way across a circle/blast site.  That is 2000' diameter !!!       a half mile is 2640'  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on October 11, 2014 at 4:33pm

Natural Gas Pipeline explosions are uncommon ..... but when they do occur, the results can be catastrophic for those within and adjacent to that blast radius.

Check out the '2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion' ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion

Although Pipelines explosions are uncommon, they do occur .... the potential for such an explosion is real .... and should be taken into account when purchasing property .... or in negotiating a ROW for a pipeline.

Personally, I would not wish to live within 1100' of a pipeline; and the older the pipeline, the greater the associated risk .... and there are a lot of old pipelines out there; some of which have had the pressures at which the gas they transport increased to accommodate the new production.

There are two ways to increase the capacity of a pipeline system; one is to increase the number or the diameter of the pipelines .... the other way is to purchase additional compressor capacity (thus increasing line pressure). Guess which way is by far the cheapest; and the greater the pressure the greater the risk .... and the more danger associated with any failure.

All IMHO,

                  JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jason irvine on October 11, 2014 at 5:57pm

I wonder how big the "BURN" radius is for a gas station, car fire, or your neighbors house burning. Firstly there is a big difference between the blast radius and burn radius. And we live by dangers all the time and just like gas lines, all the above are uncommon occurences. It's like swimming in the ocean, yes sharks bite but your more likely to die on your way to the beach.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on October 11, 2014 at 6:51pm

We all make our choices and take our chances; there are finite risks associated with various decisions we choose in life.

However, Insurers and Mortgage companies are likely to look at encumbrances such as a pipeline easement; they are not likely to look at whether we decide to head off on vacation and swim in the ocean.

A pipeline easement is recorded at your County Courthouse; it becomes public record.

Apples and Oranges ... Chalk and Cheese.

It would be naïve to think that the presence of a pipeline, and all risks associated with it should not be taken into consideration in locating a residence or in calculation of ROW compensation.

JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Philip Thackray on October 12, 2014 at 2:14am

This is interesting.  Here in Southern Butler County, PA, NiSource (Columbia Pipeline) has a large pipeline going East that starts at the XTO Hicks Road Cryogenic plant in Penn Township.  NiSource wants to connect the Mark West Blue Stone plant on Hartmann Road, Forward Township to the line that leaves the XTO Hicks Road plant.

One of the proposed routes goes across about 1300 feet of my property.  The blast radius consideration adds another dimension to any negotiation.  This property is farmland now but is highly developable.  I am curious to see if proximity to a gas line will affect the rate or availability of homeowners insurance for any future residence.  I do not know the diameter or pressure of the proposed pipeline.

Phil

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jerry lee nichols on October 12, 2014 at 3:40am

In 1998 in Monroe County Ohio a large gas pipeline blew in April I think. It actually blew a 300 FT plus hill nearly in half and it lit up half the county during a fog event ( at least where I lived). It was very impressive to see what an explosion of this type could do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lynn on October 12, 2014 at 6:48am

I hear all the concerns now but it makes me wonder why there was so little concern in the past.  I'm thinking specifically about areas like Canfield  where houses were built in the last 10 to 15 years within 50' of pipeline right of ways.  It's not like the mortgage co's and banks did not know the right of ways were there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on October 12, 2014 at 1:17pm

RE: “I hear all the concerns now but it makes me wonder why there was so little concern in the past.”

 

That is an interesting point.

There are likely multiple reasons why Natural Gas Pipeline Safety was not a concern held by the average landowner; reasons such as:

 

1. It was in neither the interest of the Industry nor Government to bring safety concerns to the public’s attention. Industry receives considerable push-back from people who do not wish to have their properties (and lives) disturbed, without safety considerations adding to those concerns. If safety and the negative potential effects on adjoining land were given greater import, required compensation would be increased (to the financial detriment of Industry). Governments are in a position in which they consider it in the interests of the ‘greater good’ to assist in the build out of infrastructure. The Federal Government gives interstate pipelines the enormous stick known as Condemnation under Eminent Domain. State Governments vary in how they cooperate with Industry; in some states (such as Pennsylvania), there is very little Industry oversight (some oversight of Public Utilities, virtually none of gathering lines, etc.). It can be argued that Industry has very little desire to educate the public of potential risks and decline of property value ….. it can be argued that Government (likewise) sees little benefit in educating the public.

 

2). The more Pipelines constructed, the greater the cumulative risk. The greater volume of Natural Gas carried the greater the risks. The larger the diameter of the individual pipes and number of parallel pipes, the greater the risks. The higher the pressure in the pipelines, the greater the risks. The transition from small lower pressure gathering lines that traditionally carried the Natural Gas from shallow (2000-3000’ deep)  tight sand wells to larger diameter/higher pressure gathering lines carrying high volumes of Shale Gas from deep (7000’ – 10,000’) Marcellus and Utica wells increases the risks. The Marcellus/Utica is seeing an unprecedented build out of new infrastructure; yet we are only at the beginning .

 

3). The presence of older (40 – 60 year old) pipelines belonging to the aging portion of our infrastructure greatly increases the risks. Additional connection to and increased pressures resulting from newly installed additional compressor capacity exacerbates the situation.

 

4). Events such as the '2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion' have been a wake up call; some of us have heard that call …. and have not gone back to sleep.

 

The old adage that “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link” immediately comes to mind.

If one were to be cynical one would describe the current and building situation as a ’House of Cards’; one that is increasing in height …. with little attention given to the stability of the base.

 

I do not intend to sound alarmist; if attention is given to the situation, there will never be need for alarm.

I am first, landowner and pro-landowner.

Next, I am pro-Industry.

We need the Natural Gas …. and we need the Pipelines necessary to transport that Natural Gas.

 

I argue that we need to educate the public, so that they can be part of the process and be empowered to make educated decisions.

Ignoring realities will not (in the long term) serve us well (not Industry, not Government and certainly not the public).

I hope that our respective State regulatory agencies wake up and first educate themselves …. and then educate us.

 

All IMHO,

                    JS

• ▶ Reply