Gas pipeline would bore beneath Colorado River

[webby]

RIFLE — The Bargath LLC pipeline company has proposed a 22-mile gas pipeline that would run from the Divide Creek area under the Colorado River to processing facilities near Parachute.

Bargath, also known as Williams Midstream, is being split off from Williams Production RMT in a deal that will take effect in early January, according to Williams spokeswoman Donna Gray.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is seeking public comments on the pipeline proposal, according to BLM spokesman Dave Boyd. Comments are due Jan. 20, 2012.

The Kokopelli Phase II pipeline is to be a buried 16-inch line that would run from a compressor station in Dry Hollow, south of Silt, to a compressor in Rulison, near Anvil Points on the north side of the river, according to the BLM.

The pipeline would cross 7.6 miles of BLM-managed lands, less than a mile of Forest Service land, and nearly 14 miles of private property.

“The pipeline would be bored under the Colorado River to avoid impacts to the riverbed, aquatic wildlife and the adjacent riparian ecosystem,” stated the BLM release.

Boyd, contacted by email, told the Post Independent that “boring the river has been done before in this area multiple times.” He said Encana Oil & Gas (USA) was the most recent energy company to do so, under the Una Bridge near Parachute, on private property.

Williams is also proposing to install two six-inch water lines along a 4.1-mile section of the proposed Kokopelli trench to reduce water truck traffic in the areas involved, according to the BLM release.

Gray said the company hopes to begin construction of the pipeline next spring, if the necessary permits are issued.

She wrote in an email that the pipeline is primarily intended to carry gas gathered from Williams wells in the Kokopelli Field south of Silt. The pipeline could also carry gas from other operators' wells.

The proposal and an explanatory map are available online at http://tinyurl.com/BLMpipeline (case-sensitive shortened web address).

Written comments to the BLM are to be sent to the Colorado River Valley Field Office, 2300 River Frontage Road, Silt, CO, 81652.

[Andy H.]

I haven't read the proposal but it appears we're talking about a natural gas pipeline that would be bored under "the Colorado River to avoid impacts to the riverbed, aquatic wildlife and the adjacent riparian ecosystem.”

And they're also talking installing some water lines while they're at it that will decrease water truck traffic.

Does anyone have an alternative that would be more environmentally sound than the proposal?

Thanks,

-AH

[yetigonecrazy]

1. Eat vegan
2. Listen to an iPod in a Prius
3. Attend the _______________ [insert hip cause here] Festival

[lmyers]

I am always skeptical of burying pipelines under rivers. Steel pipes don't last forever and have to be maintained. If they are not, they eventually start leaking....and we usually don't find out they are leaking until it has already done irreparable damage.

Here are a couple of recent examples (granted they are oil, not gas):

Benzene in Sand Creek measured at 400 times amount tolerated by national drinking water standards, EPA tests show - The Denver Post

More on leaky oil pipelines | The Wildlife News

[cayo 2]

I can't even imagine getting drinking water under the best of conditions from below Sand Creek confluence [ had no idea Aurora did ] that has to be the nastiest creek in the state. I guess the downstream towns have little choice ,at least it gets diluted by Front Range creeks. That refinery blew up once when it was Conoco, knocked pictures of the wall across town like a mini earthquake.

I don't know about this particular pipeline,but in general as the most profitable oil/natural gas is running out the aging pipes require more maintenance .The less profitable the oil/gas the less they want to spend on maintenance so things go from bad to worse unless heavily regulated.This pipe sounds hard to maintain if and when that situation arises.

[Osseous]

Who said it would be steel?

[SALRVRRT]

The proposal says it will be steel.
With private land on both sides of the river it'll be hard to beat.

[j.tipton]

I suggest if anyone is interested in pipeline construction, to google 'natural gas pipeline construction & environmental regulations.'

I worked as an environmental inspector & FERC monitor on 2 major NG pipeline projects. The reg's are heavy for all aspects, and buring the pipe is what they DO. They pipe is coated for corrosion. Often using cement casing, to sink the pipe, under the river. OR, bore a hole, & thread the pipe thru it. Larger rivers in the East have been crossed, many places.

N.G. pipelines are connected from Canada, Alaska, & the San Juan Basin. They go thousands of miles, to Texas, the Mid-west & East Coast. Just think of WHERE your N.G. line comes from, into your house?

My limited field work showed me that N.G. pipeline construction is less invasive than many other types of energy production. (ie. dams). I have Not Read this proposal.
I am just saying that for N.G. pipeline to cross under a river is standard procedure (vs. having the pipe above the ground). Check out the Reg's. The Pipe Co's are held to the Clean Air & Water Act, etc.

Here's a link that shows about all aspect of NG pipeline construction.

http://corridoreis.anl.gov/documents...VS_TM_08_5.pdf

oh, and the pipelines go across all kinds of private land. The pipeline Co has contracts, reg's to follow, etc. The land owner gets paid. Yes, their are Screw Ups, and the Pipe Co pays heavily to Fix It. Nothing is perfect, but that is how Pipelines transport Natural Gas to our homes & businesses. All Across the USA.

peace, JT