Increasing Pipeline Safety Through Shared Planning

1
Increasing Pipeline Safety Through Shared
Planning

• Pipeline Safety Trust Conference
• New Orleans, Louisiana
• 930 a.m. Session, November 16, 2007

2
Topic The need for policies affecting the
siting, width and other characteristics of new
pipeline rights-of-way (ROW)
3
Presented by Joseph Rust Affected Landowner,
REX East Natural Gas Pipeline, Greensburg
(Decatur County), Indiana
4
Background Most landowners affected by the REX
East natural gas pipeline received initial
notification of the project from REX in June 2006
via first class mail.
5

• Summary of Project From www.rexpipeline.com
• Pipeline Route from REX website

6

• REX Open Houses Were Ineffective, Even Harmful.

7
(No Transcript)
8

• Our Pipeline Path Apparently Changed

9
(No Transcript)
10

• Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Path In Indiana

11

• Various Reasons For Southern Route Given By REX
  At Different Times
• The Real Reason May Well Have To Do With Waiver
  REX Received From PHMSA.
• Approximately 90 percent of the Rockies Express
  pipeline will be located in Class 1 areas in a
  common right-of-way with other pipelines.

12

• REX Changed The Formula But Wasnt Challenged By
  FERC
• In their application of April 30, 2007, REX
  stated A majority of the pipeline (over 50)
  will parallel existing utility corridor
  right-of-wayThe majority of the route83,
  traverses Class 1 (rural and agricultural)
  areas. (Pg. 16)
• What happened and what are the consequences?
• Indiana Regulatory Agencies Were Not Aware of the
  Project

13

• Some Pipeline Path Changes Were Made Behind
  Closed Doors
• REX Refused to Negotiate a Satisfactory
  Mitigation Agreement with Agricultural Interests
  In A Timely Manner
• REX Did Not Do Their Homework
• REX Assumed the Process That Worked West of the
  Mississippi Would Work East of It

14

• Poor Upfront Research Has Caused Numerous Changes
  
• Communications With Landowners in the Field Are
  Poor

15
What Can We Learn From This and Help Future
Pipelines Proceed More Efficiently?

• Any route following existing pipelines should
  proceed as today, subject to investigation in 6
  below.
• Any new pipeline going into virgin territory
  needs to follow a different pre-routing
  procedure, including direct involvement of the
  federal, state and local government agencies,
  including agricultural interests, before a
  pipeline route is pre-filed.

16

• Having all hearings open to public in this
  pre-route time would eliminate the mistrust.
  Encourage Area Planning and Zoning Boards and
  County Commissioners to participate. Cast a wide
  net.
• FERC should be in charge of the pre-routing
  process and insure relevant agencies are engaged,
  not just notify them.
• D.O.T. (PHMSA) and FERC should work together, not
  act like safety, routing and environmental
  concerns are somehow separate concepts. Neither
  the public, nor state and local authorities, see
  them as separate, nor should PHMSA and FERC.
  This is bureaucracy at its worst.

17

• Before virgin routes are proposed, FERC should
  determine whether existing pipelines are in need
  of replacement with more modern, larger, and
  safer lines.
• Granting waivers should be a rare exception.
• Realistic pipeline and compressor station
  setbacks need to be developed by D.O.T. in
  conjunction with state pipeline safety agencies.
• Educate First Responders and disaster
  preparedness agencies what they must plan for in
  case of a leak or rupture.

18
Summary

• Better pre-planning groundwork will eliminate
  most of the mistrust and misunderstandings that
  exist today, and will allow natural gas to flow
  in the best interests of the U.S., resulting in
  lower costs and safer conditions for all.

19
Thank YouI am available for questionsJoseph
Rust9597 E. Co. Rd. 550 NGreensburg, IN
47240joerust_at_dishmail.net