Deleted duplicate post.
Last edited by nsherry61; 12-19-2016 at 09:41.
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
I say, let'em put the pipeline in as long as they agree to a significant annual payment to the ATC (and or other appropriate non-profits) for conservation and trail maintenance, etc. If they don't want to pay, hell no. Share the profits or don't play!
I expect the pipeline right of way would be significantly less ugly than a power line right of way. Heck, they could probably even put it underground for the few hundred yards as it crosses the trail?
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
With few exceptions, gas pipelines are typically underground.Originally Posted by nsherry61
I have a sneaky suspicion that certain agencies - let's call them Don Quixote and Sancho Panza for propriety's sake - will share your sentiments exactly. Somebody is about to break their commitments and sell out. "Sorry, but we tried - heck we spent everything you gave us and still lost! Oh well, hows about a free spaghetti dinner with meatballs as a consolation prize?" Tilting at windmills is hard work!
only in as much as it's finite, or rather the rate a which it is being made vs. how much is being consumed...humans are doomed, just a matter of time.
In the event the pipeline is not profitable, would you then want the ATC to fund the difference.
So much for fragile Alpine foliage
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Lets just go ahead and pave the AT and be done with...it
Getting lost is a way to find yourself.
Alpine areas are areas above the tree line. This isn't in an alpine area.
Sorry, I clearly misstated my thoughts. Screw "profit sharing" call it a lease and demand money for 99 years whether the pipeline is profitable or not.
I also have to admit that I didn't evaluate the route. My assumption is that it should be able to be routed through a less than fragile or pristine area, whatever that means along the highway that is the AT.
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
With wind and solar powered escalators.
Just to help get a visual of current petrochemical pipelines already in existence:
united_states_pipelines_map.jpg
"I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list." - S. Sontag
Its not the pipelines themselves that I have issue with, its more the assurances by the petroleum industry and pipeline management companies that do not seem to live up to expectations when there are failures. The recent failure in the Yellowstone River being a fair example of this and the damage these failures cause to the surface environments and aquifers beneath them which are affected forever.
There are really no solutions for this, though if congress would opt for a backbone and restrict the impressive exemptions the oil and gas industries enjoy to bypass environmental laws, I would be inclined to believe the assurances. As it stands now, I don't given the history. That said, I doubt if there is much anyone can do to prevent a pipeline from going through protected wilderness areas, sensitive habitats, national parks, or through the back yards of America.
What, if any, environmental law does the oil and gas industry have exemptions for?
Another non-issue pipeline
With in excess of 400 road crossings and who knows how many existing power line and existing pipeline crossings, how is the ACP a big problem?
As to the comments related to routing to NC and Tidewater (southeastern) VA, the main line roughly paralleling I-95 into eastern NC is intended to bring gas to portions of NC where it is not now available, so clearly an increase over the amount of gas currently consumed in NC is expected. The spur crossing over to Tidewater augments currently available supplies in a large and rapidly growing metropolitan region now, so much demand is already there.
Near to the location where the spur to Tidewater departs, Dominion Resources has built a huge gas-fired electric plant, in part to replace generating capacity from many closed coal generation plants, including one in Tidewater.
There are thankfully few comparisons to the protests going on up in North Dakota. There, the Standing Rock tribe has refused to participate in literally hundreds of planning and impact meetings over the recent years, cites danger to a water intake which was scheduled to be moved as part of the plan to begin with, ignores current risks related to crude oil trains passing over the Missouri via an old railroad bridge close to the reservation, and complains about the route which doesn't even cross their reservation. And before anybody else argues that the 1851 treaty which the US broke gave them the land crossed by the pipeline, please step to the front of the line with the deed to your home and every square inch of real estate you own, ready to hand it over to the Native American tribe of your choice. Then, and only then, does support of the Standing Rock tribe's claims under the 1851 treaty have any meaning.
AO
It's a problem because its just one more huge swath cut thru the wilderness to ruin the wilderness. The line needs to be drawn. Plus they fly the pipeline with planes to inspect it. Just what you need while on a hike in nature, getting buzzed by a plane.
Not a wilderness area
Where the ACP route crosses the AT is not a designated wilderness area. Excepting the narrow corridors of the Blue Ridge Parkway and that of the AT itself, which are units of the National Park system, the portion of the Blue Ridge Mountains crossed by the ACP is within the Jefferson National Forest. By statute and historical usage, NF lands are designated as "multi-use" lands, where recreational use is only one of many approved uses, including mining, oil and gas production, and logging. Even the NP units in the area are crossed by hundreds of roads, power lines, and pipelines already. The incremental impact of one more is so close to zero it's hard to measure.
And those airplane trips are safety inspections and are going more to drones and away from fixed-wing aircraft. Surely a safety inspection of a pipeline isn't problematic.
Within just a few miles of the proposed crossing lie I-64 and the CSX rail line crossing the AT at Rockfish Gap. Not a lot of wilderness there, either. The fact of the matter is that the AT goes through a densely populated and largely developed area where there are far more often than not signs of mankind close at hand, within line of sight, or within earshot.
AO
I’ve read all 56 post (so far) on here and have not seen anyone that will actually have to deal with this particular pipeline being in their “backyard”. I live in the middle of several of the seriously proposed routes. I’m not going to get all “political” on this issue, but like any of this type of issue both side are bending some of the facts to their favor.
Just a couple un-bent facts.
Most of the Oil & Gas pipelines in the US are over 20 years old, and some currently in operation are over 40. Someone on here brought up the Yellowstone spill. That pipeline was over 20 years old, built with 20 year old technology. This new pipeline utilizes the latest technology, regardless of what some of the anti-pipeline folks publish.
In this part of Virginia (Montgomery and Giles County) nearly all of the road right of ways follow creek and riverbeds. Not an optimal place for a pipeline.
People around here are pretty well split like this 33% absolutely oppose any pipeline anywhere, 20% say not in my back yard and 47% either don’t know about it or just don’t care. (No, I did not take a scientific poll, just what I hear actually living here. So this is my opinion of the atmosphere surrounding this issue.) I have been to some of the meetings that the anti-pipeline people have had in the area. I have also been to a couple the meetings that the proponents have had. They both have some very valid points and concerns.
I know the area where the proposed line will cross the AT (at least a well as Tipi Walter knows the Slick rock). The latest and maybe not published AT crossing looks to be just north of Symms Gap (nobo mile 646 +/-). For those of you that have been through there, you may remember that area is already a big grass field. So in theory, once the line is completed the impact at the actual crossing should be minimal. There is also a 100 year old fruit tree grove about 500 or 600 yards south of the crossing. One of my worries is that this is going to be a good place to stage equipment, materials and supplies that could create more damage than the line installation itself.
Yes, there will be another wide swath going up and down the mountains that we will have to look at. There is no arguing that.
One of the things that I have not seen discussed is what are the hikers are to do when construction is underway? That area is on the ridge with not many good options for a re-route, even a temporary one. I’m going up there on my New Years hike and look around that whole area. (If the weather isn’t horrible) I never looked at it with the idea of a pipeline crossing there. I also plan to attend the next public meeting by the proponents and address this crossing and some of the complications that this will have on hikers that may not have been brought up before.
Ok, those of you so inclined my now get out your flamethrowers, I don’t mind. Where I live I am surrounded by some uber liberal Virginia Tech faculty and honestly compared to some of them even the best debaters here can’t hold a candle to them. Just know, that I most likely will not respond. I have said my piece.
If I get any real news concerning the crossings location, or anything else relevant to the AT, I will post an update.
V8
______
/l ,[____],
l---L -OlllllllO-
()_) ()_)--o-)_)
Considering how much petro products a hiker is using these days. When was the last time you saw a guy ride his horse to the trail wore flannel shirt wool pants w leather boots, w. wood frame canvas backpack ,canvas tent felt hat.
Congress exempted the Oil and Gas industries from:
Safe Drinking Water Act, exemption provided in 1974 with respect to Fracking and underground injection of hazardous chemicals.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, exemption provided in 1988 when Congress agreed not to apply oil and gas wastes to RCRA standards.
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, this act requires companies to report the release of significant levels of toxic substances to EPA. In 1986 Congress exempted gas/oil industry from this act, which benefits petroleum mostly and reduces notification when benzine and Toluene among other chemicals are injected/spilled.
Clean Water Act, (stormwater discharge rule and discharge into surface water among other sections) in 1987 Congress created an exemption for gas and oil industry that prohibits other industries from uncontrolled run off from well pads, pipelines, and other processing, transportation, and acquisition (drilling) operations. Congress also provided a full permit exemption without penalty in 2005 when stormwater discharge permitting process became law.
Clean Air Act, Congress exempted gas and oil industry from air pollution control equipment as it regulated other industries with aggregate (small facilities grouped together that can release an aggregate amount of hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere).
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act that holds most industries responsible for cleaning up hazardous wastes and started the "superfund" trust fund through taxation of petroleum and chemical industries. Congress exempted the petroleum and chemical industries, abolishing the tax on petroleum industry and funds the program now through General Revenues (read common tax payers) which has resulted in underfunding and inability to clean up sites. Further, Superfund regulations allow potentially responsible parties to be held liable for clean up costs, however the law was written to exclude oil and natural gas industries.
National Environmental Policy Act, passed in 1969, Congress exempted oil and gas industries in 2005 from required environmental impact statements of any facilities and transportation systems.
Something to think about.
Posting Permissions
