Pipeline Safety Different Pathways to a Common Goal New Orleans, Louisiana November 4 th & 5 th, 2010.

Pipeline SafetyDifferent Pathways to a Common Goal

New 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.”

What PHMSA’s Data Shows2005 - 2009 Data - All pipeline types

What PHMSA’s Data Shows2005 - 2009 Data – Hazardous Liquid Pipelines

What PHMSA’s Data Shows2005 - 2009 Data – Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines

What PHMSA’s Data Shows2005 - 2009 Data – Gas Distribution Pipelines

2008 Reported Natural Gas Pipeline Excavation Incidents from Different Sources

• PHMSA – 154 nationally• Common Ground Alliance – 63,000 nationally• Texas Railroad Commission – 11,947 Texas only

Is excavation damage a bigger deal than PHMSA data portrays?

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

2007 2008 2009

Distribution 49% 45% 51%Service/Drop 49% 53% 47%Transmission 2% 1% 2%Gathering 0% 0% 0%

Virginia Damage

Minnesota Damages

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