On February 5, 2026, construction crews working near Poteet Intermediate School in Texas¹struck a natural gas line. Students and staff were evacuated as a precaution, and utility crews secured the damaged line within hours. By midday, classes had resumed.

There was no explosion and no injuries. The event was contained and resolved.

Under slightly different conditions the outcome could have been far more serious. Delayed detection, gas migration into a structure, or the presence of an ignition source could have shifted the trajectory entirely. Events like this illustrate how major gas incidents often begin with circumstances that initially appear routine.

Excavation Damage Is Common. Escalation Is Contextual.

Excavation damage remains the leading cause of life-threatening gas distribution incidents, according to PHMSA’s annual incident data.² The scale of exposure is reflected in the Common Ground Alliance’s (CGA) 2024 DIRT Report,³ which documented 196,977 underground utility damages in a single year - 74,208 of them involving natural gas infrastructure, representing 38% of total reported damages. For utility operators, this volume creates an impossible math problem: it is physically and financially impossible to provide onsite oversight for every excavation. When resources are spread thin across thousands of tickets, the risk of a high-consequence strike remains hidden in the noise.

Most of these incidents do not escalate into fires or explosions. However, the absence of ignition does not eliminate risk. Each strike introduces a compromised asset, a potential release pathway, and a limited window to prevent escalation. The differentiator in safety isn't just identifying where the consequences are high, it’s identifying which specific tickets have the highest likelihood of resulting in a strike.

The Gas Risk Escalation Path

Major incidents follow a progression. By focusing on predictive likelihood, operators can intervene at the earliest possible stage.

1. Latent Vulnerability
Risk is often concentrated before excavation begins. Aging infrastructure, incomplete records, high excavation density, prior damage history, and population exposure all influence damage potential. These variables are measurable. When analyzed collectively, they help identify where a future strike would carry elevated risk, even before work starts.

2. Initiating Event
An excavation strike introduces the triggering condition. While most operators can identify their "high consequence" areas, the real differentiator is the ability to predict the likelihood of a strike occurring on a specific ticket. By ranking the probability of damage across thousands of daily notifications, operators can move beyond general awareness to targeted prevention.

3. Escalation Conditions
Once a line is compromised, the outcome depends on compounding factors such as gas pressure, soil composition, migration pathways, proximity to enclosed structures, atmospheric conditions, ignition sources, and response time. Predicting the likelihood and consequence of a strike in these specific environments allows operators to prioritize oversight where escalation potential is greatest.

4. Interruption or Ignition
At this stage, trajectory diverges. Rapid detection, coordinated communication, and effective isolation can interrupt escalation. By focusing resources on the tickets with the highest strike probability in high-consequence zones, operators can interrupt the path to ignition before the first shovelful of dirt is moved.

Building on the Industry’s Foundation

The industry has made meaningful progress in improving damage prevention. PHMSA reporting has increased transparency around causes and consequences, and CGA’s Damage Information Reporting Tool has provided valuable insight into how underground utility damages occur.

These efforts have strengthened compliance and accountability across the ecosystem. They also provide a strong data foundation for advancing prevention strategies.

The next evolution in damage prevention is not just understanding where a strike would be most severe; it’s identifying which specific tickets among hundreds of daily conflicts are statistically most likely to result in damage.

That means asking:

Which specific excavation tickets carry the highest probability of a strike?
Where are high-consequence populations exposed?
Where have near misses clustered historically?
Where do environmental or operational conditions amplify impact?

This approach shifts the focus from documenting incidents to prioritizing the likelihood of occurrence, allowing you to tackle the biggest problems with the resources you have available.

From Compliance to Intelligence-Driven Prevention

Traditional damage prevention programs emphasize process adherence. Notification systems, marking accuracy, tolerance zones, and emergency response protocols are essential components of safety.

However, two excavation projects that follow identical procedures may carry very different strike probabilities. Location, asset condition, contractor history, surrounding development, and prior damage frequency all influence whether a strike will actually occur.

Not every ticket carries equal probability. Not every high-consequence area is equally likely to see a strike today.

By analyzing risk dynamically rather than statically, operators can prioritize oversight, mitigation efforts, and intervention resources where consequence would be greatest. Near misses, when treated as data rather than isolated events, help illuminate these patterns.

Every Major Incident Has a Prehistory

The Poteet strike will not be remembered as a catastrophic event. Yet it mirrors the early conditions seen in incidents that have resulted in significant damage and loss.

An excavation strike.
A gas release.
A populated setting.

The difference was timely interruption.

Every major gas incident has a prehistory composed of small signals and contextual risk factors that were present before escalation occurred. Urbint allows utilities to see this prehistory by predicting the likelihood of damage on every ticket. By identifying which high-consequence tickets are most likely to fail, operators can transition from reactive compliance to proactive, high-impact damage prevention.

Explore how Urbint Damage Prevention enables utilities to anticipate risk and proactively reduce high-impact incidents.