|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 6, 2008 18:48:16 GMT -5
Include our Aldermen in this too......
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 6, 2008 18:53:38 GMT -5
Include our Aldermen in this too...... Agreed.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 6, 2008 19:29:14 GMT -5
I'm just wondering if Kinder Morgan were to agree to replacing the pipelines at this site isn't it opening a can of worms? Is this site more imporatant than any of the other miles of pipelines winding through not only our district but the Chicago area? Of course, it is to US.......it's worth a shot but I don't know how productive it will be.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 6, 2008 20:31:09 GMT -5
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced the "lead author" should even be Arch (no offense). It might just be perceived as Arch knocking on the door again, but this time with a band of "dissenters". I really think it has to come from someone else if it is to be taken seriously. Again, no offense Arch, and I hope you know what I mean or what I'm trying to convey. Folks, My $0.02 - Easy on the formal letters and petitions for now... we can come to that if and when needed. In my experience, and informal conversation with the SB members should precede this. Lobbying for this is more likely to aligh each individual before we ask the SB to act as a body. If we get formal from the git-go, human instincts are to view it as an attack, and get defensive. Let's see if we can get some one-on-one meetings with SB members and chat. My thinking is that we should get Kinder-Morgan to step up for this, and I believe the way to do this is to systematically get the citizens, SB, City of Aurora, Mayor, Senators, Congressmen, Obama... to agree that it is important, and then put pressure in unison to at least study the feasibility of making changes in the pipeline network near the HS. If our approach is to make this the SB's problem, I can guarantee we will fail. Lets informally align first and see what everyone feels. Cheers. Player, I agree...this is an even better approach and I also agree the aldermen should be included. Now, how do we collectively do this? Who is going to take the lead? If we do this, it needs to be very organized and thought out. What are the next steps? Can you outline it as you see it playing out? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 6, 2008 20:33:00 GMT -5
I'm just wondering if Kinder Morgan were to agree to replacing the pipelines at this site isn't it opening a can of worms? Is this site more imporatant than any of the other miles of pipelines winding through not only our district but the Chicago area? Of course, it is to US.......it's worth a shot but I don't know how productive it will be. That is one of those things I warned Arch about. Just because we ask, doesn't mean we'll get it. We have to be willing to resign ourselves to that fact or it can and will get messy...again.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 6, 2008 20:51:51 GMT -5
I wonder how many families who will have children go to Metea who might be interested in sending a letter to the district or signing a petition. My concern is the use of the Carlsbad accident. There are a lot of differences between what happened there and our circumstances here. It really is like comparing apples to oranges. Any time you use that type of sensationalism, it does kind of turn people away. I really believe the pipes near Metea with the maintenance system and inspections are safe. I also agree that replacing them and adding the valves would be better. My kids will go there and this is exactly how I feel. I'm comfortable with sending them there as I am with them driving, riding anywhere and getting into a car accident. Both chances, in my opinion are slim, but not out of the realm of possibility. I certainly wouldn't turn away the offer if the pipes were replaced and valves put in. I do feel safe with it as is, as well, though. ditto - I've recently contacted a few sb members about this, no responses yet - I'm comfortable with the site safety as-is, but an increase im safety would be a bonus - if nothing else, I think someone (KM?) should tell us the expected life span of the pipes & what the replacement plan looks like - if they know when they will be replacing the pipes & that's some time soon, moving them and/or adding the valves could possibly added as part of that effort
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 6, 2008 21:07:29 GMT -5
Folks, My $0.02 - Easy on the formal letters and petitions for now... we can come to that if and when needed. In my experience, and informal conversation with the SB members should precede this. Lobbying for this is more likely to aligh each individual before we ask the SB to act as a body. If we get formal from the git-go, human instincts are to view it as an attack, and get defensive. Let's see if we can get some one-on-one meetings with SB members and chat. My thinking is that we should get Kinder-Morgan to step up for this, and I believe the way to do this is to systematically get the citizens, SB, City of Aurora, Mayor, Senators, Congressmen, Obama... to agree that it is important, and then put pressure in unison to at least study the feasibility of making changes in the pipeline network near the HS. If our approach is to make this the SB's problem, I can guarantee we will fail. Lets informally align first and see what everyone feels. Cheers. Player, I agree...this is an even better approach and I also agree the aldermen should be included. Now, how do we collectively do this? Who is going to take the lead? If we do this, it needs to be very organized and thought out. What are the next steps? Can you outline it as you see it playing out? Thanks. I am a great believer in individual communication as opposed to organizational communication. So at the initial stage, I would advocate against forming an organization like CFO or NSFOC. Maybe later. To come to a point where we an bring all we can to bear on the issue - this cannot be made "somebody elses problem". Various community members have relationships with the key influencers in like SB, aldermen, mayor, etc. All need to be approached with a broad plan, and be asked for their input. This will help drive a sense of ownership and their advice will be invaluable - after all they are real politicians with charisma, relationships, clout and experience etc. Even if they decline to get involved, they will likely offer good advice. The hope is that one of these parties will pick the cause up and provide leadership. Many stand to gain by taking a lead in this. The SB will get good PR and help heal the district. Elected officials will be assisted in their re-election bids. Career politicians will have a notch in their gunbelt. I personally would advocate K-M and ask them to participate as a member of this community as well. Lets see what they do. There are some concrete steps I am investigating to get this started, but its too early to discuss these in public. I will create a written (Powerpoint, probably) plan to socialize in my infinite spare time. (Right now I am stuck in Minneapolis airport negotiating for Twins domination over MVHS). Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 6, 2008 23:36:15 GMT -5
I'll see if I can contact my fav Aurora Alderman...It helps that I work with him.....
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 7, 2008 8:29:25 GMT -5
I'll see if I can contact my fav Aurora Alderman...It helps that I work with him..... Folks, I did a little digging into replacement costs, and found this article. www.corrosioncost.com/infrastructure/gasliquid/index.htmAn excerpt from it: For all natural gas pipeline companies, the total investment in 1998 was $63.1 billion, from which total revenue of $13.6 billion was generated. For liquid pipeline companies, the investment was $30.2 billion, from which revenue of $6.9 billion was generated. At an estimated replacement cost of $643,800 per km ($1,117,000 per mi), the asset replacement value of the transmission pipeline system in the United States is $541 billion. I suspect the numbers are low as they are likely 10 years old, but still... its the first ballpark number I have seen. For us, MVHS needs about 1/3 of a mile of replacement, roughly, so my very high level estimate is about $500K to remediate the straws. Thjis is not outrageous, given how much we throw around in pocket change in this District. The peace of mind this would buy is immeasurable. Now if only we could convince the SB, City and K-M to chip in towards the cost and all be heroes... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 7, 2008 8:40:04 GMT -5
I'll see if I can contact my fav Aurora Alderman...It helps that I work with him..... Folks, I did a little digging into replacement costs, and found this article. www.corrosioncost.com/infrastructure/gasliquid/index.htmAn excerpt from it: For all natural gas pipeline companies, the total investment in 1998 was $63.1 billion, from which total revenue of $13.6 billion was generated. For liquid pipeline companies, the investment was $30.2 billion, from which revenue of $6.9 billion was generated. At an estimated replacement cost of $643,800 per km ($1,117,000 per mi), the asset replacement value of the transmission pipeline system in the United States is $541 billion. I suspect the numbers are low as they are likely 10 years old, but still... its the first ballpark number I have seen. For us, MVHS needs about 1/3 of a mile of replacement, roughly, so my very high level estimate is about $500K to remediate the pipelines. Thjis is not outrageous, given how much we throw around in pocket change in this District. The peace of mind this would buy is immeasurable. Now if only we could convince the SB, City and K-M to chip in towards the cost and all be heroes... Cheers. While we're talking about replacing the pipes, is there any reason to not try to get them moved to the far east end of the property, too? However, This would cost more than just replacing the pipes, as additional digging & site work would be required (and some additional pipe would be needed).
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 7, 2008 8:43:01 GMT -5
Wow, I was thinking in the $billions to fix this. I hope you are correct player. Thanks for the research. Can't remember what arch said about the useful life of these pipelines but since the school is going to be here for a long time and to me, this is the best time to fix this, it might be worth investigating.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 7, 2008 9:02:42 GMT -5
Wow, I was thinking in the $billions to fix this. I hope you are correct player. Thanks for the research. Can't remember what arch said about the useful life of these pipelines but since the school is going to be here for a long time and to me, this is the best time to fix this, it might be worth investigating. Pipes before 1950 or so have 4 times the failure rates of pipes later than that, from what I have researched. Our oldest pipe is circa 1951. So its about 60 years old now. K-M is going to be subject to far stricter scrutiny as the HS is in a Class 1 zone , i.e. highly populous, so the integrity of the pipeline has to be checked by actually stopping the gas flow, which is due for 2008. My proposition is why not replace the pipes when you have the flow stopped? Don't know about rerouting the pipes... worth asking. Cheers.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 7, 2008 9:08:13 GMT -5
BTW, apologies to the board for explicitly using the p-word instead of an euphemism like straws - but in my mind we are actually discussing something constructive here, as opposed to play the blame game.
I'll revert back to straws if that is the consensus.
Cheers.
ETA: Fixed some words.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 7, 2008 9:22:22 GMT -5
I think that was fixed. You can use the p-word.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 7, 2008 11:12:42 GMT -5
I've just been told that the person in 204 that knows the most about pipelines is Todd Depaul todd_depaul@ipsd.org - I was invited to contact him directly, but we definitely don't want to inundate him. Should I send the modified arch letter to him?
|
|