Pipeline right of way
To the Editor,
As a representative for Williams Northwest Pipeline, which has been safely and reliably transporting natural gas to the Pacific Northwest for more than 50 years, I'd like to respond to Brenda Lexa's letter ("The Bottom Line") regarding why the company has chosen, in some areas, not to follow its existing pipeline right of way on the proposed Blue Bridge Pipeline.
With any proposed pipeline project, Williams consults with engineering and construction firms to obtain an opinion on whether we can safely and reliably build a pipeline in a particular area. Ideally, we prefer to follow our existing pipeline right of way where feasible because this is usually the most cost-efficient option. In analyzing the area around the West Fork, we have determined there is not a feasible crossing near the existing right of way or at any other potential location near the right of way. New construction is not recommended due to the sheer canyon slopes and the steep and rocky conditions of the canyon. Williams' existing 26-inch pipeline occupies the only feasible easement across the West Fork, which is why we have made the decision to reroute the proposed pipeline. This will add costs to the project, but we are confident the reroute will allow us to construct the proposed pipeline safely and reliably in order to ensure the long-term stability and integrity of our pipeline.
Ms. Lexa also raises the issue of the pipeline wall thickness. The thickness of the pipe is determined by federal guidelines which are based on population density. Thicker pipe is also installed under water body crossings and highways. Although Williams has not completed a full analysis of the pipeline route, pipe of equal or greater wall thickness will be required on the route around the West Fork of Major Creek.
Jeremiah Ross
Salt Lake City
|
