160 likes | 281 Views
Pipeline Safety Different Pathways to a Common Goal New Orleans, Louisiana November 4 th & 5 th , 2010. Is excavation damage really a big deal, or do pipeline companies just like to blame someone else?.
E N D
Pipeline SafetyDifferent Pathways to a Common GoalNew Orleans, LouisianaNovember 4th & 5th, 2010
Is excavation damage really a big deal, or do pipeline companies just like to blame someone else?
Citizens concerned with pipeline safety lose trust when pipeline officials discussing transmission pipeline incidents continually say: “By far the number one cause of incidents are third-party damage.”
2005 - 2009 Data - All pipeline types What PHMSA’s Data Shows
What PHMSA’s Data Shows 2005 - 2009 Data – Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
What PHMSA’s Data Shows 2005 - 2009 Data – Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines
What PHMSA’s Data Shows 2005 - 2009 Data – Gas Distribution Pipelines
2008 Reported Natural Gas Pipeline Excavation Incidents from Different Sources Is excavation damage a bigger deal than PHMSA data portrays? • PHMSA – 154 nationally • Common Ground Alliance – 63,000 nationally • Texas Railroad Commission – 11,947 Texas only
Lack of comprehensive, publicly available data calls into question every conclusion stated about excavation damage and damage prevention program effectiveness
Common Ground AllianceEvents on Different Types of Gas Pipelines
Difficulties Getting Stronger Programs Without Adequate Data • Everybody blames someone else • Can’t convince decision makers there is a problem • Can’t target limited money where it will be most effective • Different types of underground utilities have different levels of interest/commitment
Other Barriers That Need to be Overcome • The groups hitting underground utilities tend to be pretty powerful with state legislatures • The fox should not be in charge of the henhouse • Need measurable outcomes for damage prevention programs