Proposed pipe line

[Puddlefish]

There are a crapload of pipelines already in the ground. Google "US pipeline map." Looks like there are already a few pipelines crossing the AT. How is a pipeline all that any worse than the hundreds of road crossings?

I'd rather see the discussion be about the pipeline integrity, or maybe some sort of multi company co-op usage of the pipeline. For all I know they already do that, rather than have seven or eight of the big oil companies each building their own pipelines. I'd hope that reforestation is also part of the deal, or do they need to keep it clear of tree roots?

The fuel is going to cross the AT one way or another. Endless semi trucks ferrying it, or through a pipe. Which has the least long term impact.

[MuddyWaters]

There are a crapload of pipelines already in the ground. Google "US pipeline map." Looks like there are already a few pipelines crossing the AT. How is a pipeline all that any worse than the hundreds of road crossings?

I'd rather see the discussion be about the pipeline integrity, or maybe some sort of multi company co-op usage of the pipeline. For all I know they already do that, rather than have seven or eight of the big oil companies each building their own pipelines. I'd hope that reforestation is also part of the deal, or do they need to keep it clear of tree roots?

The fuel is going to cross the AT one way or another. Endless semi trucks ferrying it, or through a pipe. Which has the least long term impact.

WHy not route pipeline near road where accessible and has no impact?

Because it costs more $, and its all about someone makeing profit. Nothing is built(sans government works) , except to make profit.

[FreeGoldRush]

WHy not route pipeline near road where accessible and has no impact?

Because it costs more $, and its all about someone makeing profit. Nothing is built(sans government works) , except to make profit.

Profit margins on commodities are extremely low. The extra dollars would show up in higher energy bills and higher costs in the retail products produced or delivered with that energy. It always amazes me how people use this broad brush to discuss the cost of something and pretend they are immune to those costs.

If you honestly prefer a life where people don't earn a living by profiting, then please explain which of the thousands of societies in history would have suited you better.

[colorado_rob]

Because it costs more $, and its all about someone makeing profit. Nothing is built(sans government works) , except to make profit.

And, what, pray tell, is wrong with a system that rewards profit? If not for profit driven innovation and building, where would we be?

It's called capitalism, our economic system in America and many other places. Didn't a great statesman once say: "Capitalism is the worst economic system Ever, except for everything else".

Here we go, rants and raves about how are system is broken.....

[MuddyWaters]

And, what, pray tell, is wrong with a system that rewards profit? If not for profit driven innovation and building, where would we be?

It's called capitalism, our economic system in America and many other places. Didn't a great statesman once say: "Capitalism is the worst economic system Ever, except for everything else".

Here we go, rants and raves about how are system is broken.....

Where did I say anything was wrong with making a profit?
I didnt.

But what you have is situation where goverment has to decide WHO gets to make a profit by sacrificing something thats important to others.
Is there an alternative....there surely is. Is it less profitable...almost surely.

The point is...dont think there arent options...people go after the MOST profitable first.

Should we pay more to save some things.................Yes, we should.

[Lone Wolf]

pipe lines, rail lines, power lines. the AT crosses dozens of these. what's the problem

[Puddlefish]

WHy not route pipeline near road where accessible and has no impact?

Because it costs more $, and its all about someone makeing profit. Nothing is built(sans government works) , except to make profit.

Seems reasonable. The highest profit might not be the best overall environmental choice however, at which point they'll just continue with the endless semis hauling fuel. It all comes down to people are going to consume, it's not like we're going to limit the population. Let's balance the environmental impact of a pipeline with that of alternate means, maybe strike a balance. I don't claim to know which method is better at this point.

I'd just like to avoid another instance of "Loving the AT to death." It's not like most people on the trail make much of an effort not to erode the trail with their pole tips, cutting their own personal path around puddles and obstacles. I wouldn't shocked if the total of hiker caused erosion far exceeds the damage that this pipeline would cause.

[colorado_rob]

Where did I say anything was wrong with making a profit?
I didnt.

But what you have is situation where goverment has to decide WHO gets to make a profit by sacrificing something thats important to others.
Is there an alternative....there surely is. Is it less profitable...almost surely.

The point is...dont think there arent options...people go after the MOST profitable first.

Should we pay more to save some things.................Yes, we should.

Woops, my bad, I read beyond your words. And I agree with your last sentence.

[pilgrimskywheel]

pipe lines, rail lines, power lines. the AT crosses dozens of these. what's the problem

The problem is that the ATC spends 3 million dollars per annum tilting at these windmills - 2 million of which it pays itself - all of which is donated by suckers like me. I don't really mind them - I do understand that the wilderness was set aside to be a place free of man made things though too, and I'd like to see it preserved where possible and within reason. Clearly, we do need power too.

[FreeGoldRush]

Is there an alternative....there surely is.

Please tell me what it is already and how much it will cost us. The suspense is killing me.

[gpburdelljr]

Please tell me what it is already and how much it will cost us. The suspense is killing me.

Alternatives are discussed in section 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/...6-eis/DEIS.pdf

[rafe]

Power line clear cuts are ugly. I imagine pipe line clear cuts are just as ugly. I think it's worth resisting them.

[FreeGoldRush]

Alternatives are discussed in section 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/...6-eis/DEIS.pdf

It's 781 pages of gibberish. I'm not that smart. What's your opinion on the alternatives?

[Malto]

WHy not route pipeline near road where accessible and has no impact?

Because it costs more $, and its all about someone makeing profit. Nothing is built(sans government works) , except to make profit.

Here is what the report linked above said about the option of colocating near roads.

"While there are no federal restrictions for placement of natural gas pipelines adjacent to,but outside of the right-of-way, the highway alternative route would likely present numerous andsubstantive construction challenges, including traversing roadway overpasses and underpasses,large interchanges, elevated sections of roadway including bridges, areas congested withdevelopment and homes, and narrow valleys where the most suitable terrain (i.e., flat) is alreadypartially or fully encumbered by the roadway.
Nevertheless, we asked Mountain Valley to explore a route alternative that followedhighways. Mountain Valley came up with a conceptual alternative route following interstatehighways where feasible due to their generally wider rights-of-way corridors and medians thatwould start at the Webster Interconnect in Wetzel County, West Virginia following U.SHighway 250 and head generally southeast, following U.S. Highway 19, Interstate 79, Interstate77, U.S. Highway 58, and U.S. Highway 29 to Mountain Valley’s proposed terminus at theTransco Station 165 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia (see figure 3.4.1-1).
The highway alternative route would be over 95 percent collocated with existinghighways compared to only about 7 percent6 for the proposed route. However, the highwayalternative route would be about 446 miles long and affect about 6,751 acres, in comparison tothe 301 mile long proposed MVP pipeline route that would affect about 4,556 acres. Thehighway alternative would cross 2,144 parcels, including 21 miles of FS lands, while theproposed route would cross 1,495 parcels, and just over 3 miles of the Jefferson National Forest.The construction right-of-way for the highway alternative would be within 50 feet of 255residences, while the proposed route would be near 63 residences. The highway alternative routewould cross 199 perennial waterbodies, while the proposed route would cross 97. About 209miles of the highway alternative route would cross side slopes and 351 miles would havelandslide potential, while about 123 miles of the proposed route would cross side slopes with 200miles of landslide potential.7
Based on the above, it is clear that the highway alternative does not provide a significantenvironmental advantage and is not considered further. "

[eggymane]

I'd rather see the discussion be about the pipeline integrity, or maybe some sort of multi company co-op usage of the pipeline. For all I know they already do that, rather than have seven or eight of the big oil companies each building their own pipelines. I'd hope that reforestation is also part of the deal, or do they need to keep it clear of tree roots.

That is already largely how pipelines work. The pipeline companies the public is familiar with like Columbia, Piedmont, Southern Star, Magellan, Williams- just to name a few- are consolidated shipping. Drilling companies who extract the oil pay the pipeline companies to ship the oil through their pipelines. So in that instance, it is about as consolidated as it can get.

Reforestation, unfortunately, is not part of the deal- actually, keeping it clear of everything but maintained grass is how it will always stay until that line is abandoned. They have to keep the Right Of Way clear to be able to get back in for maintainance and quick access in case there is a leak or some other emergency.

[RockDoc]

How about a story about the hypocrisy of heater-hugging folks protesting energy pipelines?

There are already hundreds if not thousands of these crossing the AT, in every state... oh, but there's no protesting those (because the areas are easily reclaimed and beautifully vegetated)?

Non-issue, non-story in a sane world. If the EIS is in order, put the damn pipeline through.

[bobgessner57]

The Mountain Valley Pipeline is planned to bring fracked natural gas from West Virginia to Pittsylvania County, Va where it terminates and ties into other pipelines including the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline which is planned to run from Pittsylvania south more or less parallel to I 95 to Pembroke, NC, passing near my home. The ACP is of interest to me as is the MVP. The pr people are promoting the ACP as necessary for jobs, and power generation in eastern NC. The ACP is to be a 36 inch high pressure transmission line carrying more gas per day than the entire state of NC consumes in a typical day. The reality is that much of the gas is likely to be shunted into other pipelines leading to ports in Chesapeake, VA, Wilmington, NC and Savannah, GA for export. Both of these pipelines will acquire much of the necessary easements by eminent domain "condemnation" if landowners don't willingly sell. The gas is transmitted under high pressure (about 1,400 lbs) and is not readily accessible to the communities along the route to use for their economic development.

Based on what I am learning about the ACP I am against the project and also the MVP since it will be feeding the ACP. If it can be demonstrated that either or both projects are truly needed for the good of the people who will be impacted by the projects I will be happy to reconsider. However, it appears that this is a short sighted venture that serves to boost profits for the pipeline owners and their clients. It does not demonstrate "public good" for the affected communities whether they be farmers, small town businesses, hikers, or others along the route. It appears to primarily benefit Wall Street.

As to the arguments about just another easement across the trail; I don't buy it. Each new road, cell tower, pipeline or power cut further reduces the experience of the trail. The trail is a fragile band of wildland offering the illusion of wilderness. I value my access to the trail as I can't easily afford frequent trips to the more remote expanses in the western US and Canada, etc. I don't see why the public should suffer the cost, in this case a degraded AT, and the considerable impacts to landowners along the pipeline routes to boost revenues for corporate fatcats.

[pilgrimskywheel]

The ACP is to be a 36 inch high pressure transmission line carrying more gas per day than the entire state of NC consumes in a typical day. The reality is that much of the gas is likely to be shunted into other pipelines leading to ports in Chesapeake, VA, Wilmington, NC and Savannah, GA for export. Both of these pipelines will acquire much of the necessary easements by eminent domain "condemnation" if landowners don't willingly sell. The gas is transmitted under high pressure (about 1,400 lbs) and is not readily accessible to the communities along the route to use for their economic development.

Oh. So it's totally safe then? NBD! They let people actually just stroll up to an item like that? You'd think we'd go to Threat Level Red or something.

[rocketsocks]

It's a natural resource, pretty much a nessasary evil.

[pilgrimskywheel]

It's a natural resource, pretty much a nessasary evil.

Malum in se.