FR 2025-02665

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. has submitted a request to plug and abandon a pressure recovery well in their Webb Storage Field located in Grant County, Oklahoma. The project, according to the document, is a part of Southern Star's effort to improve the integrity of their storage facilities, as outlined in their Storage Integrity Management Plan. The projected cost for this initiative is $700,000, with the aim of addressing well integrity issues that potentially could affect the safety and effectiveness of the storage field.

General Summary

The document, published by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), outlines what Southern Star intends to do with Webb Well 214. Essentially, it is a formal notice calling for public engagement and participation in Southern Star's proposed abandonment project. The document also details how members of the public can engage in the process by filing protests, intervening, or commenting on the project before the April 11, 2025 deadline. This participation can be conducted electronically or through traditional mailing methods.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the primary issues is the lack of transparency regarding the estimated cost of $700,000 for the project. The document does not break down the expenses or provide insights into how Southern Star arrived at this figure. This lack of detail can lead stakeholders to question the validity or necessity of the cost involved. Additionally, the document does not mention any competitive alternatives considered for carrying out the abandonment, which might suggest a lack of due diligence or favoritism in project planning.

The language used throughout the document could deter public participation. Packed with legal jargon and regulatory references, it might be difficult for the general public to navigate or understand fully, thus discouraging meaningful engagement. Furthermore, the reliance on electronic submissions for interventions and protests raises concerns about accessibility. Not everyone has the requisite internet access or technical capabilities, which might exclude certain individuals or communities from participating.

Moreover, there is scant information about the potential impact of plugging and abandoning Webb Well 214 on the local environment or economy. These factors are significant for the stakeholders, especially the community directly affected, who might have concerns about ecological changes or economic ramifications.

Broader Public and Stakeholder Impact

Broadly, the document emphasizes the importance of regulating and maintaining integrity within natural gas storage facilities, which is crucial for community safety and environmental protection. By addressing well integrity issues, Southern Star may help prevent potential hazards that could arise from compromised storage units.

For specific stakeholders, such as residents of Grant County, Oklahoma, or landowners near the Webb Storage Field, the document raises practical concerns about environmental security, property values, and community health. These groups are encouraged to participate in the review process to ensure their voices and concerns are heard and considered.

However, the complex procedural requirements for protests and interventions might hinder such participation. It's imperative that FERC ensures clear, accessible avenues for involvement, particularly for those who may be most affected by the project's outcomes.

In conclusion, while the project proposal seeks to address critical infrastructure issues, the document could be improved by offering greater transparency, simplifying participation processes, and considering community impacts more thoroughly. This would foster better public understanding and engagement, ultimately leading to decisions that reflect the interests and well-being of all stakeholders.

The document under discussion revolves around a regulatory filing by Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., concerning a project related to the plugging and abandonment of Webb Well 214. There is a notable financial reference within the document, detailing the estimated cost of the project.

Financial Overview

The estimated cost for the project is $700,000. This figure is articulated without a breakdown of the expenses that contribute to this total. It serves as a summary figure within the notice but lacks detailed financial analysis or comparative budgetary information that would better elucidate why this amount has been chosen.

Connection to Identified Issues

1. Lack of Detailed Financial Justification: The document provides a single estimated cost figure without a breakdown or explanation of how the $700,000 amount is derived. This can lead stakeholders to question the basis for this estimate. In regulatory filings, it's often beneficial to include more explicit explanations or justifications for financial estimates to foster transparency and trust.

2. Potential Competitive Concerns: Without detailed financial documentation or mention of alternative assessments, there could be concerns about whether this cost has been vetted against other potential solutions or approaches. For example, the document does not discuss comparing costs with similar projects or exploring less costly alternative methods for achieving the same objective.

3. Impact on Public Participation: The complexity of the language and the requirement for electronic submissions could pose a barrier for public involvement, indirectly impacting how financial decisions like these are scrutinized by the community. If fewer community members participate due to these barriers, there is less opportunity for financial figures like the $700,000 estimate to be publicly questioned or debated.

Financial allocations play a crucial role in how projects like this proceed, and transparency in these allocations can significantly impact community trust and participation in regulatory processes. While the document outlines a specific monetary figure, additional clarity and context about this estimate could enhance understanding and ensure stakeholders feel confident in the financial decisions being made.