1. Pipeline Safety Different Pathways to a Common Goal New Orleans, Louisiana November 4 th & 5 th, 2010

2. Is excavation damage really a big deal, or do pipeline companies just like to blame someone else?

3. Citizens concerned with pipeline safety lose trust when pipeline officials discussing transmission pipeline incidents continually say: “By far the number one cause of incidents are third- party damage.”

4. What PHMSA’s Data Shows 2005 - 2009 Data - All pipeline types

5. What PHMSA’s Data Shows 2005 - 2009 Data – Hazardous Liquid Pipelines

6. What PHMSA’s Data Shows 2005 - 2009 Data – Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines

7. What PHMSA’s Data Shows 2005 - 2009 Data – Gas Distribution Pipelines

8. 2008 Reported Natural Gas Pipeline Excavation Incidents from Different Sources PHMSA – 154 nationally Common Ground Alliance – 63,000 nationally Texas Railroad Commission – 11,947 Texas only Is excavation damage a bigger deal than PHMSA data portrays?

9. Lack of comprehensive, publicly available data calls into question every conclusion stated about excavation damage and damage prevention program effectiveness

10. Common Ground Alliance Events on Different Types of Gas Pipelines 200720082009 Distribution49%45%51% Service/Drop49%53%47% Transmission2%1%2% Gathering0%

11. Virginia Damage

12. Minnesota Damages

14. Difficulties Getting Stronger Programs Without Adequate Data Everybody blames someone else Can’t convince decision makers there is a problem Can’t target limited money where it will be most effective Different types of underground utilities have different levels of interest/commitment

15. Other Barriers That Need to be Overcome The groups hitting underground utilities tend to be pretty powerful with state legislatures The fox should not be in charge of the henhouse Need measurable outcomes for damage prevention programs