Residents of the State of Kentucky are not happy with energy company Kinder Morgan’s plans to re-purpose a 1940s pipeline over 900 miles to carry natural gas liquids from the fracking zones in Ohio and Pennsylvania across Kentucky to the nation’s petrochemical hub in Louisiana and Texas.
Quite apart from the fact that this pipeline passes through residential areas and under natural water supplies, there is caution from the government as to whether or not the pipes are in good enough condition to handle the change.
The Courier-Journal reports:
“Margie Hines, who owns a farm less than a mile from the pipeline near Danville in Boyle County, was moved to write to the federal energy commission, urging denial of the proposal.
Her worries include a segment of pipeline suspended over the Dix River as it flows into Herrington Lake. The lake supplies drinking water in her county and at least two others. “If there’s a leak there, it gets into our water supply,” she said.
The company has said it would move that stretch of pipe underground and in its application promises to minimize any threats to the environment.
Promises aren’t enough for Louisville attorney Tom FitzGerald, director of the Kentucky Resources Council. He’s calling for a full-blown environmental impact study to thoroughly review all the concerns, including the pipeline’s age and the ability to withstand the stress of reversing its flow after so many decades.
“We do not believe re-purposing a 70-year-old line (to carry) more hazardous liquids is in the public’s interest,” he said.”
This company is the second in the last two years to suggest moving natural gas liquids via old pipelines.
It may seem like a good solution to a problem that is plaguing many gas companies, but would it be more beneficial in the long term to set up a new infrastructure for the job, rather than risking pollution through using outdated pipelines?
The tools of infrastructure management can be applied to assist communities with these debates, including business case and the whole of life cost analysis.
There are a number of worldwide examples of environmental or drinking water source pollution that has occurred (for a variety of reasons) where the total cost of the disruption and subsequent clean-up is many multiples of any economic benefit from the activity that caused the issue.
The assessment of risk of pollution, mitigation measures proposed and associated risk cost around these pipeline reuse proposals will be part of the decision mix that determines whether approval is given.
Leave a Reply