• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

Big Bend - Trans-Peco pipeline proposal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mr-roboto
  • Start date Start date
Been going on for a while. Courts sided with th PL and gave them iminate domain. The rub is the PL will benefit the PL by shipping product into Mexico without benefit to the land owners. That and be an eye sore! Still, the battle goes on...
 
I found a map of the proposed natural gas pipeline. It will come very close to the western border of Big Bend Ranch State Park and the Chinati State Park area. That is a very desolate, environmentally delicate and an arid portion of West Texas.

5mbd0.jpg


It seems from what I have read so far is that locals are frustrated with what they're calling a lack of transparency from the company....Energy Transfer Partners that is it.

Among the main concerns is the confusion from ETP on which agency will provide regulatory oversight for the pipeline....this question hinges on whether the pipeline is designated as "interstate" or "intrastate."

The interstate means that the pipeline is crossing an international border (into Mexico), which would require a Presidential Permit, triggering more rigorous Federal guidelines for the pipeline's construction/operation/maintenance.

The intrastate interpretation would require a T-4 form from the TRC (Texas Railroad Commission) , the standard application for a permit to own and operate a pipeline through Texas.

RB
 
Without reading one word other than what's here, I know what kind of designation ETP wants and I know how they'll go about trying to get it - lotsa bucks into lotsa folks "campaign chests," well-paid positions on Boards of Directors, etc., etc., etc. Same ol' same ol'.

Buncha **** crooks with their hands out. Makes me wanna slap somebody, hard!
Grrrrrrrr!!!!!
 
It's almost impossible to stop an intrastate pipeline in Texas and that is what you are looking at. I have always asked why Keystone was so important environmentally and the one in my back yard is not. My drinking and water for livestock is as important as anyone else's.

What I have seen is that cities have clout and can cause problems for pipelines but land owners are not so lucky. The land owners will get a right of way check but its peanuts compared to drilling. Maybe $3/foot but they do it by rods.
 
Do a little research and see how much money ETP has given to recent political campaigns. It is Texas politicians who have opened the door for this to happen.
 
I've seen Ed comment on this in other venues. I'm not very familiar with the Trans Pecos line, but until a year or so ago, I followed the Keystone fairly closely. A lot of people don't know that the southern parts of the Keystone pipeline are already under construction. The only part that needs Obamas' approval is the connection over the border. The pipeline has other benefits than just collection oil sands from Canada.

I'm in agreement with building the pipeline, but I do not like the land condemnation process that is used in Texas to be able to do it. Property owners pretty much get run over in the process.
 
I'm in agreement with building the pipeline, but I do not like the land condemnation process that is used in Texas to be able to do it. Property owners pretty much get run over in the process.

The pipelines are usually buried and after a few years the land will return to original. Land owners will get access again and they graze right over the pipelines.

What is really irksome is the compressor stations and those that burn impurities. Some are as bright as small cities and if they put it within 30 miles of the telescope they will render it useless. All land owners within 10 miles will hear it and lose a bit of the stars. Nothing flows through these pipelines without being compressed.
 
I'm in agreement with building the pipeline, but I do not like the land condemnation process that is used in Texas to be able to do it. Property owners pretty much get run over in the process.

Yes, in Texas, pipeline companies are legally allowed to use eminent domain to seize almost all private land if an agreement isn't reached with individual landowners. Donald Trump is also a big advocate in using ED for his various real estate transaction too.

wary.gif


ETP sent out surveyors which were caught trespassing on a ranch near Marfa...anyway gas is expected to start flowing by end of 2017.

RB
 
Yeah, they give you a token payment for the land they steal. You do have the right to graze it once it is complete. You also get to:

Pay the taxes on it.
Put up with their constant access to "their" easement, trucks driving over etc.
Hear from them about acceptable things you can do on what once was your land. Planning a prescriptive burn? They will have something to say about that.
Deal with their constant demands for expanded use such as adding cathodic protection systems and powerlines to feed them.

Its a raw deal but it is Tx., and the fix is in for energy companies. Fight it. Best way might to be to try to influence some of the prostitutes our valiant legislators consult with.
 
What is really irksome is the compressor stations and those that burn impurities. Some are as bright as small cities and if they put it within 30 miles of the telescope they will render it useless. All land owners within 10 miles will hear it and lose a bit of the stars. Nothing flows through these pipelines without being compressed.

There will be no compressor stations along the line. All compression will be in Coyanosa, TX. I am right in the middle of this since I live in Alpine.
 
Couple of points here. The reported trespassing event happened in the very early days of the project. It was a site survey crew checking if there were structures that needed to be avoided at a later date. They went through unlocked, unmarked gates and ended up in the wrong fenced place. Human error on their part, not a malicious action by the company. Biased news sources have rehashed the same story every few months making it look like an ongoing issue.

Those 'token payments' amount to very close to the value of the land in question, and in the cases of second or third generation ranchers the payment far exceeds what they paid for their entire ranch. The folks involved get to keep the land. How would you like it if someone paid you more for your home that you bought it for, dug a trench, backfilled, then planted native plants to restore the land. Then let you continue to own it and live there? The hooplah about the company screwing over landowners is bogus.

In no case at all is the company taking land along the route. They are buying easement access. The current owner retains ownership and possession.

If you check the scale of that map and state park boundaries you will see that what is being called "very close" is more than 45 miles away. It is even farther to Chinati, over 60 miles. The anti pipeline crowd is calling that close. It would be like prohibiting a pipeline west of Fort Worth because it is too close to Dallas city limits. Every foot of pipeline will be on private land save for where it crosses under highway easements.

The question of interstate versus intrastate was settled at the beginning of the project. The transfer station at the river is a separated entity from the pipeline, much as a bridge is to a road. The pipeline is under jurisdiction of the TRC. Again, antis keep raising this as an issue when it has already been settled.

For a good portion of its length this new line will parallel an existing one as well as an old rail line. The rails have been updated allowing the company to transport sections of pipe over them. Nearly every affected landowner has gleefully accepted money for nothing and signed on. A few holdouts are pushing court action but so far only a few filings have been made.

Now for the good news. Early on Mexico published their plan for where the gas will go. Two electrical plants will consume the majority of it. Today one is a coal burner. Since they have no clean air act in Mexico they buy our country's low grade coal that is too dirty to burn here. They have no scrubbers either like our coal plants do. The second plant currently burns fuel oil. Our country phased that fuel out in the sixties and seventies to clean up our air. According to a study these two plants account for 80% of visible particulate pollution in Big Bend National Park. While the entire amount will no go away at project completion most of it will. We will have significantly cleaner air and cleared skies when this is all completed.

Big Bend Conservation Alliance has no qualms about recirculating false information to keep anger and fear stoked amongst anti pipeline folks. One such story was how this would cause sever light pollution and impair the observatory at Fort Davis. The story was dropped after they were asked to explain how a buried steel pipe will cause light pollution. It still makes the rounds on social media.

This pipeline is bringing benefits to Big Bend, tapping a market for producers to sell natural gas, providing the city of Presidio with a way to place a natural gas utility service for their homes and businesses. Marfa already has that from the old pipeline, Alpine will have the option to add a utility service too.

Speaking of that old pipeline, where was the protesting sixty years ago when it was buried here?

More good than bad will come from this and if rich dudes make a profit along the way so what? Isn't that how they got rich in the first place? Through initiative and risk?

Anyone who rants about the evil big energy business is invited to stop directly supporting that business with your hard earned money. Stop buying gasoline, propane, natural gas and electricity. After all those purchases are funding this project.
 
Last edited:
In no case at all is the company taking land along the route. They are buying easement access. The current owner retains ownership and possession.

This was the process used in this area to collect and transmit the Barnett Shale gas. In E Texas where the southern section of the Keystone XL was being built, the land was condemned. I wonder what the circumstances are that lead to the difference in handling.

FWIW, I've not got any complaints about the gas business here in Tarrant County. I make a very small amount of money from the wells, but I don't see where I suffer any significant inconvenience from them. I do like having the light come on when I flip the switch in my house and something has to power those generators. I do not see the lighting problems at the well heads or compressor stations that have been brought up and except when they are drilling, I've experienced no noise. My house is less than 200 yards from a well head and sits exactly on top of a fracked well. The gas industry is quite literally in my back yard.
 
Thanks for that Ed. It's good to hear a local perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Check out this map @

http://transpecospipelinefacts.com/assets/waha_transpecos_county_maps_overview--low-res-.pdf

Most of the TPP pipeline and especially the portion that goes over south over Cibolo Creek and into Chinati Mountains area is untouched wilderness.

RB

Just doing some quick reading would make someone believe that this pipeline was going right through the middle of Santa Elena Canyon and it would be suspended 40' in the air for all to see. Thank you for posting the map of the route which in reality shows it going through mostly the middle of nowhere.

Thanks for that Ed. It's good to hear a local perspective.

I agree, thank you Ed!
 
You nailed it Ed, I might add they can stop buying plastics, only buy "organically" grown foods that were farmed by mule or oxen pulled plows, and any chemical they use in their daily lives. Pipelines are the safest , least impactful way to transport gas and oil, this pipe might pump 5000 barrels an hour, if you used trucks at 14,000 gals per truck =360 trucks per day, 365 days per year until the fields run dry. Which one do you think will have the least impact? I do have issues personally with ED being used in these instances, I think it's un American but the SCOTUS has ruled on this. MY experience is that a oil and gas company rarely uses ED to get access, it is the last, and I mean last resort, they usually pay more than a fair price for the access or go around the property that is not willing to come to reasonable agreement, if possible.
 
Couple of points here. The reported trespassing event happened in the very early days of the project. It was a site survey crew checking if there were structures that needed to be avoided at a later date. They went through unlocked, unmarked gates and ended up in the wrong fenced place. Human error on their part, not a malicious action by the company. Biased news sources have rehashed the same story every few months making it look like an ongoing issue.

Those 'token payments' amount to very close to the value of the land in question, and in the cases of second or third generation ranchers the payment far exceeds what they paid for their entire ranch. The folks involved get to keep the land. How would you like it if someone paid you more for your home that you bought it for, dug a trench, backfilled, then planted native plants to restore the land. Then let you continue to own it and live there? The hooplah about the company screwing over landowners is bogus.

In no case at all is the company taking land along the route. They are buying easement access. The current owner retains ownership and possession.

If you check the scale of that map and state park boundaries you will see that what is being called "very close" is more than 45 miles away. It is even farther to Chinati, over 60 miles. The anti pipeline crowd is calling that close. It would be like prohibiting a pipeline west of Fort Worth because it is too close to Dallas city limits. Every foot of pipeline will be on private land save for where it crosses under highway easements.

The question of interstate versus intrastate was settled at the beginning of the project. The transfer station at the river is a separated entity from the pipeline, much as a bridge is to a road. The pipeline is under jurisdiction of the TRC. Again, antis keep raising this as an issue when it has already been settled.

For a good portion of its length this new line will parallel an existing one as well as an old rail line. The rails have been updated allowing the company to transport sections of pipe over them. Nearly every affected landowner has gleefully accepted money for nothing and signed on. A few holdouts are pushing court action but so far only a few filings have been made.

Now for the good news. Early on Mexico published their plan for where the gas will go. Two electrical plants will consume the majority of it. Today one is a coal burner. Since they have no clean air act in Mexico they buy our country's low grade coal that is too dirty to burn here. They have no scrubbers either like our coal plants do. The second plant currently burns fuel oil. Our country phased that fuel out in the sixties and seventies to clean up our air. According to a study these two plants account for 80% of visible particulate pollution in Big Bend National Park. While the entire amount will no go away at project completion most of it will. We will have significantly cleaner air and cleared skies when this is all completed.

Big Bend Conservation Alliance has no qualms about recirculating false information to keep anger and fear stoked amongst anti pipeline folks. One such story was how this would cause sever light pollution and impair the observatory at Fort Davis. The story was dropped after they were asked to explain how a buried steel pipe will cause light pollution. It still makes the rounds on social media.

This pipeline is bringing benefits to Big Bend, tapping a market for producers to sell natural gas, providing the city of Presidio with a way to place a natural gas utility service for their homes and businesses. Marfa already has that from the old pipeline, Alpine will have the option to add a utility service too.

Speaking of that old pipeline, where was the protesting sixty years ago when it was buried here?

More good than bad will come from this and if rich dudes make a profit along the way so what? Isn't that how they got rich in the first place? Through initiative and risk?

Anyone who rants about the evil big energy business is invited to stop directly supporting that business with your hard earned money. Stop buying gasoline, propane, natural gas and electricity. After all those purchases are funding this project.

well said Ed
 
OK first, what I though was a existing pipeline shown on the RRC GIS viewer is actually the proposed pipeline. 42 inch diameter pipe is a big pipeline.

second, was there any protest over that great big solar farm north east of presidio? 135 acres cleared and leveled and covered with 45,000 photovoltaic on 9000 steel piles?

or any protest about the solar farm three times bigger going in by Fort Stockton?
 
or any protest about the solar farm three times bigger going in by Fort Stockton?

icon_shrug.gif


I don't know the specifics of that solar farm, but a solar farm does not have the potential to cause a massive explosion, emit a sulfur odor or have it's pipeline network cross many miles of private property including an environmentally sensitive eco-zone.

RB
 
The Ivanpah plant which is built on environmentally sensitive ground (is there any other kind) is killing birds in the thousands, has caused problems with aviation, is costing a fortune to produce electricity while significantly missing production targets and still needs natural gas to operate. Perhaps we should truck the gas to the site?
 
Some segments just want power to appear by magic, some segments believe in unicorns. Fact is the cells are made mostly from petroleum, your motorcycle will produce more sulfur than that pipeline.

I do have some concern with crossing private property but only when Emminent Domain is used, after an owner refuses the money from the pipeline company. Normally when property owners have a major issue they band together and the pipeline does not happen. This does happen it just does not make the news as often.

icon_shrug.gif


I don't know the specifics of that solar farm, but a solar farm does not have the potential to cause a massive explosion, emit a sulfur odor or have it's pipeline network cross many miles of private property including an environmentally sensitive eco-zone.

RB
 
I don't care about California, I was referring to the solar farm this pipeline will be going past on way to border.

speaking of sulfur, did you know the largest sodium sulfur battery in America is located in Presidio? it is capable of putting out 4 million watts for 8 hours and weighs 640,000 pounds.
 
Back
Top