NORFOLK, Neb. -- Black Hills Energy has been meeting with landowners along the likely route of a new natural gas pipeline that supporters say will ease the capacity problem at Norfolk.
Regulators have a approved a 50-mile line that will run from the Northern Natural Gas interstate pipeline at Bancroft. It would allow the area to receive natural gas from multiple pipelines to serve existing and future customers, especially businesses.
The line will supply natural gas to Houston-based Tejas Tubular Products among other customers, the Norfolk Daily News reported (http://bit.ly/1jZi20r ). Tejas Tubular has said it plans to build a plant next year near Nucor Steel that would bring about 200 new jobs to the area.
Pipeline construction is expected to begin as soon as weather permits in spring 2015. Gas should be flowing by November 2015.
Easements from landowners are being negotiated for 20 feet on each side of the line plus 35 feet of temporary easement during construction. Black Hills Energy wants to bury the line down 5 feet and will work with counties to ensure a 3-foot minimum under the bottom of a ditch and at least 10 feet under a creek bed.
Most of the line will be north of and parallel to Nebraska Highway 51 and U.S. Highway 275, Black Hills Energy officials have said.
"In the coming weeks, we'll continue to talk with landowners and work on finalizing the route," said Jeff Sylvester, vice president for gas operations in Nebraska. "There are surveyors out in the area, and we'd like to remind people to be aware of them as they're driving in the area."
Black Hills Energy has said the pipeline cost hasn't been determined, but it has also said there will be no immediate effect on current gas rates.
The Norfolk City Council has agreed to commit $3.6 million from the city's state economic development program toward the gas line, and the Nebraska Department of Economic Development will invest $1.4 million in the project.
Tejas Tubular plans to apply for state incentives under the Nebraska Advantage Act, according to Gov. Dave Heineman's office.
No comments:
Post a Comment