A Harris, post: 397968, member: 81 wrote: What happened in NE Texas could not be held back, mostly because the previous easements held an expansion ryder to increase size as their needs grow.
I would imagine that would be the case with this new facility.
No, the Trans-Pecos Pipeline only runs for about 143 miles from Ft. Stockton to the Rio Grande about 12 miles upstream from Presidio. Insofar as I'm aware, virtually none of the pipeline is laid in existing easements with second-line rights. It all a brand new scar across one of the most scenic parts of Texas to make some Mexican billionaire even richer and provide temporary employment for some Dallas billionaire's yard and pool guys, metaphorically speaking.
[USER=3]@Kent McMillan[/USER]
I never said that this pipeline was following existing easements as in "this new route" does not go anywhere near that statement.
I would recommend to examine the easements for this new pipeline, most modern age easements include the right for expansion.
It would be very likely that once this one is in place others will be lain along the same path.
Most of the locals were so glad to get thousands of dollars per rod they were stumbling over one another on the way to the bank.
The ones who signed up too quickly for much less are still complaining.
That was for the addition of two 42in pipelines following the route of a pipeline passing thru northern Louisianan thru Texas to cross the Red River near Wichita Falls, Texas.
There is already talk of another addition to the original cross country pipeline that comes from the southwest thru Cass County that crosses the Texas-Arkansas border east of Cass, Texas.
Presently it has 4 pipelines with easements that total 150ft wide.
One pipeline is for poison gas.
Areas in Cass County are filled with so called closed pipelines that are poorly mapped and rest unmarked under forests and pasture and raw overgrown wastes.
IMO, we got too many pipelines already and I object to any new ones.
A Harris, post: 397991, member: 81 wrote: [USER=3]@Kent McMillan[/USER]
IMO, we got too many pipelines already and I object to any new ones.
I don't object to pipelines per se. I object to giving any corporation rights of eminent domain when the taking of the property isn't for a public purpose and I particularly object to letting a Mexican pipeline company trash the Big Bend landscape without any real thought or sensible restraint.
Kent McMillan, post: 397963, member: 3 wrote: i'm going to make the educated guess that you aren't familiar with the sort of scars that building pipelines leave in rocky terrain. [ . . . ]
I'm quite familiar with pipeline scars in rocky terrain and agree they're much more visible than pipelines buried in soil, and will remain so possibly forever. I didn't mention it because my post was getting too long. I guess I should have said "compared to the viewshed degradation caused by railroads and powerlines." And this line will have only one compressor station at the start of the line. According to the TPPP website, "The preliminary pipeline route will follow existing power lines and railroads where feasible in order to reduce the pipelineÛªs impact on the surrounding areas." Here's a photo of construction underway:
So I think the "visual blight" aspect of the pipeline is a bit overblown. But, your vociferous opposition to the pipeline has piqued my interest so I've spent a few minutes surfing, and, you're right, Mr. McMillan, this project is a boondoggle meant to benefit an already fabulously rich Mexican tycoon.
Mike Marks, post: 397948, member: 1108 wrote: I'm having a bit of trouble with the actual damage angle. I've worked on NG pipelines (compressor station sites) and seen many thousands of miles of petroleum pipelines adjacent to major road corridors (not odd how near a road is a great place to route pipelines) and live near many gasoline and jet fuel lines. Once construction is completed the pipeline's presence fades into the landscape, except for airplane recon postmile placards, "do not dig here " signs, and a few above ground valve stations or whatever. Pretty innocuous, don't you think?
It's pick your poison. The fugacity of petroleum raw materials means they'll be transported wherever the market and refining capacity for them exists. That 700,000 gallons/day of oil is going to get to SouthEastern region (and Mexico apparently, international borders don't matter), by pipeline, truck, or barge. That translates to 70 trucks a day times route time every day, maybe 210 trucks on the road at any time. Or 23 railroad DT-111s on the rails 24/7 for maybe 75 tank cars moving every day. Both consume much more fuel than pipeline transport, which only has to maintain pressure and is the clear winner concerning global warming emissions cost for transport. Barging is out of the question, no oceanic access.
And I'm skeptical Big Bend is somehow a super magical place; my sister camped and hiked there last Fall and said it was nice, but nothing compared to the other places she's visited in CONUS and overseas. Lots of those other places are crisscrossed with pipelines and the eco damage is nearly nil, compared to vast solar and wind operations covering the deserts and ridges and their concomitant high tension power line corridors which lose 6% in transmission losses nationally. And traditional electric plants can perform near 24/7, solar and wind are dark at night or when the wind is calm, so peaker plants (natural gas, nuclear and/or coal) will sill be needed.
I'm thinking the Big Bend pipeline is rational.
I will
Respectfully disagree. Big Bend is a special place. Probably one of the best float trips in NA also. Folks that I know and knew from many places in the US take annual
Trips in the winter months
Mike Marks, post: 398062, member: 1108 wrote: I'm quite familiar with pipeline scars in rocky terrain and agree they're much more visible than pipelines buried in soil, and will remain so possibly forever.
So I think the "visual blight" aspect of the pipeline is a bit overblown. .
Well, if one considers the actual route of the pipeline and, in particular, the areas where it will be most visible to the most visitors to the Big Bend, he will realize that the photo above is deceptively misrepresentative.
Here, for example is a very visible section of the pipeline route that goes over a rocky hill, easily visible from Highway 90 between Alpine and Marfa. The route is the red line North of Toronto Creek:
It's obvious that absolutely zero consideration was given to the blight that tearing up that mountainside will create.
Here's a 42" Mexican pipeline salute alongside Hwy 67 South of Marfa and right in front of Elephant Rock.
Much of the most visible parts of the pipeline in fact don't run through the flats. Here's the route as it crosses Hwy 67 entering the rocky hills.
Robert Hill, post: 398079, member: 378 wrote: I will
Respectfully disagree. Big Bend is a special place. Probably one of the best float trips in NA also. Folks that I know and knew from many places in the US take annual
Trips in the winter months
Yes, you can quantify the economic value of keeping Big Bend unspoiled and that is what is effectively being donated to a couple of billionaires for their pipeline project.
BTW, for anyone who wants to view the route of the pipeline across Brewster and Presidio Counties, I've attached the route as digitized from the route map on the pipeline company's website. The file has a "txt" extension that needs to be removed to view in Google Earth.
paden cash, post: 397951, member: 20 wrote: Ruh-roh...somebody is disagreeing with the noted internet debater extraordinaire Kent "The Fencepost" McMillan. This post could turn into another long winded affair like Handling inaccuracy and the positions of existing monuments ...only time will tell. 😉
I was a lot disappointed that he didn't jump in on that one. I would have loved to see him trade barbs with the "dippy idiot". I'm sure the moderators wouldn't agree, though.
Andy Nold, post: 398127, member: 7 wrote: I was a lot disappointed that he didn't jump in on that one. I would have loved to see him trade barbs with the "dippy idiot". I'm sure the moderators wouldn't agree, though.
I don't think Kent and that fella from Singapore even speak anywhere near the same language. As with any worthy warrior, I'm sure Kent picks opponents that present a challenge. It's no wonder Kent didn't chime in... the proceedings probably bored him to tears.
Mike Marks, post: 398062, member: 1108 wrote: this project is a boondoggle meant to benefit an already fabulously rich Mexican tycoon.
The people of Presidio, Ojinaga and the general area will be able to tap into natural gas where average lows in December through February are below 40å¡. I'd think Kent would know that elevated, dry climates cool off at night. It's my understanding that a new plant for processing produce is being built near the gas line to take advantage of the new fuel. Not many jobs there, but I'm sure some of the locals would appreciate a change of pace. Some of the families I have worked with in that area the past were primarily goatherds and might like the opportunity for a better job. What's the phrase I'm looking for, economic biggotry?
I am not working on this pipeline but I have done some work on gathering lines that lead to the WAHA compressor station where this line begins.
Andy Nold, post: 398130, member: 7 wrote: The people of Presidio, Ojinaga and the general area will be able to tap into natural gas where average lows in December through February are below 40å¡. I'd think Kent would know that elevated, dry climates cool off at night.
I'm pretty sure that anyone who has spent any time in Presidio, Texas knows that the problem there isn't the Heating season, but the Cooling season. Here's a link to climate data for various cities in West Texas.
Average Annual
Heating Degree Days
Base temp = 65å¡F
Fort Davis TX 2779
El Paso TX 2565
Alpine TX 2464
Candelaria TX 1814
Del Rio TX 1551
Presidio TX 1517
Installing the hundred-plus miles of gas lines necessary to service a town of 4,000, few of whom probably have gas appliances to begin with, makes no sense at all. It's obviously a fantasy being bandied about to obscure the real purpose of the pipeline to Mexico.
I know you have to stick arrows in it, but natural gas access to the area is a legitimate benefit. I realize it is not driving the train, but it does exit.
Andy Nold, post: 398130, member: 7 wrote: Not many jobs there, but I'm sure some of the locals would appreciate a change of pace. Some of the families I have worked with in that area the past were primarily goatherds and might like the opportunity for a better job.
The myth that the gypsy work force that builds pipelines will be a major economic boost to an area is obviously false. Pipelines typically require specific skills, such as certified welders and even then only for the duration of construction. In the Presidio area, anyone who told you that the main source of their income was raising goats was probably lying to put you off the scent.
What Presidio has going for it includes the warm Winter, the fact that Ojinaga is across the river, and the fact that Fort Leaton and a few other things make it a stop on the tour of the Big Bend. Turning it into another ole bidness armpit like Odessa would destroy what it has already and replace it with nothing. What would follow? Low-Level Radioactive Waste Dumps?
Andy Nold, post: 398146, member: 7 wrote: I know you have to stick arrows in it, but natural gas access to the area is a legitimate benefit.
It's silly to mention it, though, considering how little demand there would be for natural gas and how much it would cost once the costs of serving Presidio were factored into the slender customer base. All you have to do is look at the pipe line route that veers away from Presidio to see what a minor priority the 4,000 people who live in Presidio (and more than 24,000 in Ojinaga) are for the Mexican billionaire.
Since air conditioning is the main consumer of energy in Presidio, electricity makes quite a bit more sense than natural gas, with electric heating already in use. Add in the fact that West Texas has tremendous capacity for production of electricity from renewable sources and it's bizarre to be piping natural gas to Presidio. As best I can recall, the public water supply already comes preheated for most of the year.
