# proposed pipeline across KY



## kyfred (Dec 23, 2009)

We received a call last night from a guy wanting us to give permission for a survey on our farm for a proposed route for a natural gas pipeline to carry natural gas liquids from the fracking fields in PA to go to the Gulf area refineries to be processed im guessing for export. Bluegrass energy and Williams company is looking to build the pipeline. Anyone else had any contact or dealings with the companys?


----------



## NewBerlinBaler (May 30, 2011)

I worked almost 30 years in the natural gas pipeline industry. Kentucky is already full of transmission lines that for years moved natural gas from the fields of Lousianna & Texas to markets in the northeastern US. Looks like it's starting to flow the other way now. Texas Gas Transmission in Owensboro (part of the Williams Group) and Columbia Gas Transmission are two of the big pipeline operators in your state. NGLs (Natural Gas Liquids) are nasty, volatile, chemical laden and dangerous. I'd tell them to move the NGLs south via an existing line or at least add a line for this product in one of their existing right-of-ways. Not sure about Kentucky but here in Pennsylvania, eminent domain can be used only if the purpose is to serve the public. In other words, if the pipeline delivered product to residents elsewhere in Kentucky - or even another state, they could take your land. However, if the product ultimately goes overseas, they won't fly as it doesn't serve the "greater good". Good luck, whatever you decide.


----------



## kyfred (Dec 23, 2009)

I talked to a lawyer yesterday and she said they can't do eminent domain on this one. When the guy met with me yesterday he said it will be moving polyethylene which is different than what I have been able to find on the internet. I guess it sounds safer. He said its going to Lousiana to be processed into plastic and not exported. Also some of the farmers in our area have been told different things about what it will transport. I think if it ever goes in people will probably never know what is going through it until it leaks. The guy said it will create jobs, I laughed and said not for anyone around where we live. The jobs that I have seen created in the last few years in our area a lot of the workers are not from the U.S.


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

I looked at a number of pipelines that they wanted to re-purpose and flow North to South with the NGL's. Lot's of problems with the concept as they were older pipelines. The NGL's are where the money is and we have the facilities to use them down here. There were some proposals to take a couple of Ethylene Crackers up north out of mothballs and both Shell and Dow are looking at building some new ones but I haven't been following it lately. The issue is that they have been re-injecting it back because of the lack of transport facilities. New crackers and pipelines will likely be the answer. It DOES have the potential to reinvigorate manufacturing in the US with the lower cost feedstocks and create a HUGE number of jobs. Unfortunately, new manufacturing is not labor intensive for the traditional manufacturing workers, it takes a different breed to tend and maintain the high levels of automation in the new types of plants. I see labor shortages all over the world because people either don't want to work, travel, have an inflated idea of their value, or expect to have everything handed to them on a silver platter. There are lots of jobs for those who want them.

Pipelines, with today's technology and metallurgy, are very safe. I see pipelines today safely transporting stuff we would have left in the ground years ago. I really don't worry about new pipelines, but I don't like to see them re-purposed......way too many problems.


----------



## kyfred (Dec 23, 2009)

So today 8:15pm another guy came from the company that is wanting to survey our farm for a possible pipeline tells me that if it would go through I could get a natural gas tap. I ask how it would put out natural gas if the pipeline had polyethelene going through it like the other guy said. The first guy is supposed to be here tomorrow to get a signature. I'm curious to see what he has to say now.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Just get everything in writing Fred....and let your attorney look at everything.

Regards, Mike


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

There are a number of places around me that were given free gas connections years ago. It is still possible if you are talking about a DISTRIBUTION line. It's not normally the case with a TRANSMISSION line that will likely be used to transport NGL's. Also remember that an NGL line has a greater safety zone around it because it burns a lot hotter than Natural Gas.

Pipelines are typically safe and most pipeline companies are responsible because they have to live with the rules established by FERC (one of the more reasonable federal agencies). However, it sounds to me like you are dealing with Land-men who, in my opinion, rank below politicians and used car salesmen in terms of truthfulness. Like Mike said Freddy, "get it in writing and have an attorney look at it".

At this point in time they likely do not have the route established (only points A & B) and they are just grabbing land. Most leases will be registered at the county courthouse. Check the land around you. If you can see a line being developed, it can be profitable to be the holdout in the middle.


----------



## FCF (Apr 23, 2010)

Got an email from Kentucky Waterways Alliance about the NGL pipeline, of course they are against it. I'm not taking sides but you may want to see what they have to say about it in the link below.

http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/308948/1e8a6303b2/1474565497/43a4341180/


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

Interesting....I've worked with both Boardwalk and Williams in the past and both are decent companies. I'll have to dig up my notes as they are reversing the flow of an existing South-to-North NG line. I'm not sure it's the same one we looked at (different company then). It had a number of problems though. First it was built in the late '40 and the metallurgy/pipe was not fully documented (typical of old pipelines), had the potential for lots of stress corrosion cracking, thermal stresses around the compressor stations, and had a number of places where there were folks living within the new exclusion zones. As I recall, they were going to run it as a liquid with much lower pressure to get around the issues, but then it was pretty uneconomical. This may be another extreme case of "optimism bias". I see it all the time and have been guilty of it myself.....


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

I don't blame folks in the bluegrass for being against this pipeline.....why would they want it? I hope it can be stopped....the key is raising enough hell from the get go.

Regards, Mike


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Things happen.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/weather-not-problematic-for-ri/15692755

Regards, Mike


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

True, but there is a vast amount of difference between a well and a pipeline. Pipelines are heavily regulated here in the US and continuously monitored. Yes, s**t happens, but because of exclusion zones, metallurgy, and the monitoring there are very few fatalities when it does. Wells are also usually pretty safe, you never know what's really down there, but because of technology we have a much better idea what to expect than in the past. Nothing is perfect though and unfortunately like any other human endeavor, there WILL be incidents. The only way to make an activity perfectly safe is to not do it....then you are probably going to fall victim to the law of unintended consequences, a visit from a black swan, or some other misfortune.

Unfortunately our economy is built on the cheap energy that comes from hydrocarbons. For years we built the facilities close to the sources or the transportation hubs down here on the Gulf Coast. What few refineries exist elsewhere have either been shut down or are uneconomical usually because of transportation costs. Pennsylvania used to be the center of the oil industry, Sunoco shut down Marcus Hook, Delta bought the refinery in Trainer, and I'm not sure what's left in South Philly. Other than a couple of little ones, the industry is no longer there. You want diesel for your tractor? More than likely it'll come from the Gulf Coast via pipeline, same with the heating oil a lot of folks use to get through your NE winters. Trucking the stuff is unreliable and expensive.

With fracking (that no body likes) we opened up vast reserves of shale gas, parts of the US are going through economic booms, and the price of gas has dropped which gives us new sources of cheap energy. Unfortunately, its located in areas not served by pipelines, so to take advantage of it we need to build pipelines. Also unfortunately, the nice "natural gas" that some use to heat their houses and generate electricity is not the same stuff that comes out of the ground. It usually has to be cleaned before it becomes "pipeline quality" that can be safely transported, distributed, and used. What's left over from the "cleaning" usually has value as well and there are hundreds of products that can be derived from the liquids, fractions, and impurities. They travel via pipeline as well.

Environmentalists and democrats hate the oil and gas companies.Both for different reasons, and they put out a huge amount of misinformation to push their agendas. The oil and gas companies tend to sugar-coat issues as a counterbalance. The reality however, is we still have very cheap energy (relative to the rest of the world) because of them and I haven't seen a combine with windmill power yet.....maybe nuclear power would work....Nah, they hate that too. That cheap energy unfortunately relies on wells, pipelines, refineries, processing plants, etc. No one wants them in their backyard, but everyone wants the cheap energy they enable. At some point, you gotta make a decision on what you are willing to live with to continue getting the cheap energy. It probably won't last forever, but in the meanwhile, no one has come up with a better solution.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

All those are good reasons.....but that particular area of KY is pristine farmland.....best in the South....so if it was my land that they wanted to come thru I would be fighting it to no end....especially after reading about the type of outfits that were being employed for the pipelines. There are other ways to do things....maybe not the cheapest for oil and gas companies, but considering the profits that are realized by these companies, I say dig deeper.....find alternatives.

Regards, Mike


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Mike120 said:


> Environmentalists and democrats hate the oil and gas companies.Both for different reasons, and they put out a huge amount of misinformation to push their agendas. The oil and gas companies tend to sugar-coat issues as a counterbalance. The reality however, is we still have very cheap energy (relative to the rest of the world) because of them and I haven't seen a combine with windmill power yet.....maybe nuclear power would work....Nah, they hate that too. That cheap energy unfortunately relies on wells, pipelines, refineries, processing plants, etc. No one wants them in their backyard, but everyone wants the cheap energy they enable. At some point, you gotta make a decision on what you are willing to live with to continue getting the cheap energy. It probably won't last forever, but in the meanwhile, no one has come up with a better solution.


The left certainly hates most corporations it seems with the petroleum industry taking the brunt of it.

I have a friend that leans toward the left and he was going off on the obscene profits the oil industry makes, I simply pointed out that it was only a few percent of the billions or more they have to invest, of course leaning towards the left he immediately ignored something that doesn't go with his agenda, like math for example.

Discussion got a little more heated then I told him if he hates the oil companies that much he should quit using gasoline, diesel and natural gas and that would really show em. Then he could simply drill his own oil well in the back yard, place the refinery in the side yard and the storage tanks in the front yard, that shut em up pretty quick.


----------



## Bonfire (Oct 21, 2012)

Vol said:


> All those are good reasons.....but that particular area of KY is pristine farmland.....best in the South....so if it was my land that they wanted to come thru I would be fighting it to no end....especially after reading about the type of outfits that were being employed for the pipelines. There are other ways to do things....maybe not the cheapest for oil and gas companies, but considering the profits that are realized by these companies, I say dig deeper.....find alternatives.
> 
> Regards, Mike


I think that part of KY could continue to be pristine farm land, but with a pipeline underneath it. The landowner will be paid damages, a $ amount per stick laid , and the outfit will have a specified easement width (30'?) in which to work. The outfit crosses the line, you can drop the hammer on them (I like it when they ask to turn a truck around. No, go to the next road). Yea, stuff happens. I have family with multiple pipelines crossing the farm. Some since the mid 80's. No problems thus far. I would hold out to the end. Reap as much value as I could.


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

Vol said:


> All those are good reasons.....but that particular area of KY is pristine farmland.....best in the South....so if it was my land that they wanted to come thru I would be fighting it to no end....especially after reading about the type of outfits that were being employed for the pipelines. There are other ways to do things....maybe not the cheapest for oil and gas companies, but considering the profits that are realized by these companies, I say dig deeper.....find alternatives.
> 
> Regards, Mike


Most problems between humans are caused by mis-communication. Admittedly one can encounter sociopaths and folks that are just plain evil, but fortunately, they are in the extreme minority. I believe that the vast majority wants to do good by their fellow man. The problem is that "good" is a relative term and what's good for me may, not be good for you. The definition of "good" is also largely driven by expectations which are, for the most part, driven by perceptions, and.....Perceptions are reality, but are they really?

considering the profits that are realized by these companies

In 2011, Exxon took in $433.5 billion in revenues from its oil business,. But what Exxon calls "cost of goods sold," which includes the cost of the oil it extracted as well as certain production and manufacturing expenses, ate up $304 billion of those revenues, and operating costs consumed another $75.4 billion. Factor in the $31 billion income tax check Exxon wrote to various world governments (a number equal to 75% of its profits), and a host of other, smaller costs. Even when you add in Exxon's $15.3 billion of "income from affiliates," and a $2.8 billion "gain on sale of assets," and Exxon ended up with "only" $41 billion on the bottom line. When you consider that $41 billion is less than 10% of the revenues that Exxon started with, it turns out that Exxon isn't really all that profitable. Ford Motor manages to earn a profit margin of better than 13% on its cars and trucks.

especially after reading about the type of outfits that were being employed for the pipelines

Most contractors rely on repeat business just like custom balers do. If they do badly, for any reason, they go to the top of the owner's "s**t list" until he has gone through all of their competitors. When they reach the bottom, they get to try again. It's a tough business and it's not that profitable either. They also try to hire locally because it's very costly to feed and house their workers and it comes directly off their bottom line. For the most part, those "outfits" are your neighbors who have the same love of the location and land you do.

When dealing with contractors there has to be a meeting of the minds on a common definition of "good". In the contracting world "good" is defined by a specification. Contractors follow specs 'cause it makes their life much easier. Sadly many people don't want to take the time or expend the effort to agree a common "spec" with a contractor. It's much easier to do a lot of hand waving and blame the contractor because he couldn't read your mind. Active owners, who work with the contractors, contribute much more than 50% of a successful project.

That particular area of KY is pristine farmland

ALL farmland is pristine.....some is just more pristine than others. I've seen beautiful farms and farmland all around the world. The common ingredient is the people who work the land, nurture the soil, grow the crops and love the place where they are. Some of it has pipelines under it, some doesn't. You really can't tell from the surface. Putting in a pipeline is like performing surgery. The skill of the surgeon often determines the amount of scarring, but it always starts with a common understanding of "good".


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Spinning....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/exxon-mobil-profit-world-record_n_2598502.html

Regards, Mike


----------

