Measuring the destruction and recuperation of the natural gas pipeline system at Oregon’s Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub

Barbara Payne, MPA

doi:10.5055/jem.0676

Authors

Barbara Payne, MPA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9962-6163

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0676

Keywords:

persuasive, expository, descriptive, urgent, disaster

Abstract

Portland has become a hot spot for geological discussions over the last few years. The event that has everyone talking, and preparing for, is the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake.

Cascadia is categorized as a catastrophic natural, seismic event, where the Juan De Fuca plate and the North American plate subduct off the Northwest coast, causing a violent response in the zone between the two plates. Geological history has shown us that every 200- 300 years, a major seismic event occurs in this area of the Pacific; in current disaster discussions in the emergency management industry, where this author has resided for the last 6 years, it is not a matter of if, but a matter of when. The Cascadia event will cause a massive earthquake, affecting millions of lives and costing just as much if not more.

Currently, there is no model that exists to equate for all of the following: damages to pipes, restoration, and disruption, and maximum thresholds for utility usage. The models and plans discussed in this paper will cast a needed spotlight for establishing a new model combining these elements and more.

It is vital that efforts be made to calculate, beyond a base percentage rate of recovery, what Oregon and the region will lose and what it will take regain a “back to business” level of operations, economically, structurally, and environmentally. Many calls were placed with nonprofit energy stewards to determine these statistics, but no current information was available, or easy to attain, further emphasizing a need for real-time utility data.

Author Biography

Barbara Payne, MPA

Emergency Management Specialist, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region IX, Oakland, California

References

US Census Bureau: Portland population. Available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/portlandcityoregon. Accessed March 2017.

Beebe C: Metro News, Portland Region nears 2.4 million residents growing by 41,000 last year. 2016. Available at www.oregonmetro.gov/news.com. Accessed March 2018.

Kay S: The Big One. The New Yorker, July 28, 2015.

University of Colorado Boulder: GRAPHIC-Juan de Fuca plate. Available at https://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/Resources/WUSTectonics/PacNW/juan_de_Fuca_general.html. Accessed July 2017.

Pacific Northwest Seismic Network: Available at https://pnsn.org/outreach/about-earthquakes/plate-tectonics. Accessed November 2018.

Burns S: Professor Emeritus, Geology. Portland: Portland State University, 2017.

Payne B: The Cascadia Quake vs. the State of Oregon: Legal Moves Necessary to Implement Mitigation Strategies. Portland: Portland State University, 2017.

Wang Y, Bartlett SF, Miles SB: Earthquake Risk Study for Oregon’s Critical Infrastructure Hub, Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals, State of Oregon. Portland: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 2012.

Portland Parks and Recreation Department (PPR): Care of author, employed with the city of Portland parks and recreation department, Portland, Oregon, Feb.-Oct. 2017.

US Census Bureau: Oregon population. Available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/OR/PST045221. Accessed March 2017.

Chen WW, Shih B, Chen Y-C, et al.: Seismic response of natural gas and water pipelines in the Ji-Ji earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 2002; 22: 1209-1214.

Reuters: The top costliest disasters in the world. 2011. Available at www.reuters.com/video/watch/id17818205. Accessed May 2019.

Michigan Environmental Council: Available at http://www.environmentalcouncil.org/when_our_rivers_caught_fire. Accessed January 2020.

Farhangi H: The Path of the Smart Grid, IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 2010; 8(1): 18-28.

Lanzano G, Salzano E, Santucci de Magistris F, et al.: Seismic vulnerability of natural gas pipelines. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2013; 117: 73-80.

Baker RW, Lokhandwala K: Natural gas processing with membranes: An overview. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2008; 47: 2109-2121.

Department of Homeland Security: Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) and Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) Guide. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2018. Available at www.fema.gov. Accessed May 2018.

Saling M, Stuhr ML: Performance of interdependent lifelines in the pacific northwest resulting from an earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone: A Portland example, congress on technical advancement, first congress on technical advancement. 2017. Available at www.ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784481028. Accessed April 2017.

Danko P: Appeal of Portland’s fossil fuel terminal ban sets up coalition duel. Available at www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/01/26/appeal-of-portlands-fossil-fuel-terminal-ban-sets.html. Accessed January 26, 2017.

Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission-OSSPAC: CEI hub mitigation strategies: Increasing fuel resilience to survive Cascadia. Available at www.oregon.gov. Accessed December 31, 2019.

Earthquake and Regional Impact Analysis: Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals, State of Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 2018. Available at www.oregongeology.gov. Accessed February 2018.

Payne B: The Cost of Doing Nothing: Cascadia vs. the Tohoku Earthquake of 2011. Portland: Portland State University, 2017.

Wang Y, Yu Q: A resilience engineering framework: Adapting to extreme events. In Second International Conference on Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management, 13-16 July 2014. University of Liverpool, UK.

City Club of Portland: Big steps before the big one: How the Portland area can bounce back after a major earthquake. Available at www.pdxcityclub.org. Accessed February 14, 2017.

State of California Seismic Retrofit Program: 1992. Available at www.buildingincalifornia.com/earthquake-retrofitting-2. Accessed March 2019.

Elliot D: Fukushima Impacts and Implications. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Oregon Fuel Action Plan, Oregon Department of Energy: Available at www.oregon.gov. Accessed October 2017.

Hallegatte S: Modeling the role of inventories and heterogeneity in the assessment of the economic costs of natural disasters. Risk Anal. 2014; 34(1): 152-167.

Greenburg M, Lahr M, Mantell N: Understanding the economic costs and benefits of catastrophes and their aftermath: A review and suggestions for the US Federal government. Risk Anal. 2007; 27(1): 83-96.

Rose A: Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster Prev Manag. 2004; 13(4): 307-314.

Rose A, Benavides J, Chang SE, et al.: The regional economic impact of an earthquake: Direct and indirect effects of electricity lifeline disruptions. J Regional Sci. 1997; 37(3): 437-458.

Stockton P: Resilience for black sky days, supplementing reliability metrics for extraordinary and hazardous events, a report for the national association of regulatory commissioners with support. The US Department of Energy, February 2014. Available at www.pubs/naruc.org/pub.cfm?id=536F42EE-2354-D714-518FEC79033665CD. Accessed March 2018.

Kousky C: Informing climate adaptation: A review of the economic costs of natural disasters. Energy Econ. 2014; 46: 576-592.

University of Buffalo, Earthquake Study: Available at http://mceer.buffalo.edu. Accessed August 2019.

Oregon State Assurance Plan, Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals: 2012. Available at www.oregon.gov. Accessed March 2018.

Henry D, Ramirez-Marquez J: Generic metrics and quantitative approaches for system resilience as a function of time. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2011; 99: 114-122.