Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Just curious why it is cost prohibitive? First off, that's not very convincing as I would hope one day when the pipes are abandoned they are reclaimed. If this is admitting they don't plan on doing that...well..amo for the environmentalists. Second, they have to make a right of way, which involves all manner of tree cutting, clearing, leveling, property issues...how is it more expensive to use what is already there? They have to dig a ditch anyway, why not remove the old pipe at that time? Sounds like it is done for anyway.
|
Depending on the width of the existing right of way you may not have room for a second trench. In a large scale pipeline construction you build an assembly line of trench digging, welding, nde, rolling into the ditch, and covering. So you significantly disrupt the process by trying to reclaim ditch.
With pigging and cleaning the line along with atmospheric monitoring of the line you ensure that no contaminates are left. Most pipeline right of way is down to just pickup access not crane access so like peanut said above the impact of removal is significant.
The only argument I could see in favour of rip and reuse is that you don't disrupt a second right of way but letting the existing one grow in is actually very quick reclamation. Then you have questions around is the current ROW suitable given modern environmental and design standards.
Leaving a clean pipe in the ground is an environmentally suitable reclamation of the land.