I see that ExxonMobil is going to relocate its 12-inch crude oil pipeline that runs under streams to as much as 50 feet in depth.
I also notice in The Billings Gazette that they have agreed to pay $1,600,000 as a fine for their oil spill that went into the Yellowstone River last year and that they have a lawsuit pending from a group of riverfront property owners who are seeking tens of thousands in damages over allegations that the company failed to properly clean up after the spill.
I realize that it is too late to undo the damage that has already been done. However, instead of replacing the pipeline underground, why don't they just obtain government permission to suspend the pipeline beneath a bridge in areas where a bridge is close by or, as an alternative, to erect several concrete or steel pillars in other streams to hold the pipeline on a supporting cable where no bridge is close by? '
Of course they would have to surround the pipe with possibly an inch of insulation in doing so.
If they did this, they could save themselves some repair and installation costs and could easily detect any possible leaks in the future.
Their doing this would give the landowners increased confidence and would save the company a considerable amount of money.