These days Regulatory Approvals require safety plans, risk assessments, Environmental Management Plans and Cultural Heritage Management Plans, amongst all of the other boxes requiring a tick. Permits and licences are being withheld until tenure issues are finalised. More and more, the onus is upon the proponent of a project to complete most, if not all tenure issues prior to granting of a permit or licence to construct, without the assistance of the compulsory process.

This may seem fair when private enterprise seeks the use of private land, and acquiring easements by agreement is the preferred method. It simply involves two parties working together towards a mutually satisfactory solution. Being realistic though - ‘there’s at least one in every crowd’ - and in those cases where agreement cannot be reached, the compulsory process has to be relied on to ensure a project can be completed.

There are significant political implications when a Minister provides compulsory acquisition powers to private companies. It can be perceived that the government is helping big business to beat poor landowners into submission by allowing compulsory acquisition. Needless to say, it helps to know when the next State election is when planning timelines and incorporating an element for compulsory acquisition.

Financial closure of a project also depends on a whole spectrum of detail being in place, but if there is no tenure, chances are a proponent won’t achieve financial closure for the project. Financiers want clarity in respect of tenure, due to the unknown lead time associated with dealing with ‘the human factor’, as it has the potential to hold up construction and timely delivery of the project.

What’s the solution? Planning, strategy and applying appropriate resources to manage landholder issues.

To illustrate the level of resources used on land access for pipeline projects, an estimate of the costs associated with land and easement acquisition to the average onshore gas pipeline project in Australia is typically no more than 1 per cent to 2 per cent of the total project cost. A recent project had land access costs as low as 0.1 per cent of total project budget, yet it posed one of the greatest risks to critical path time lines.

With the recent focus on a youth policy within APIA and the next generation of pipeliners being encouraged to enter into future planning for the industry, it is probably an appropriate juncture to have a philosophical discussion as to how the industry want to interact with the broader public and manage community perception of the impacts of projects on landholders. Times have changed, and the industry generally handles these types of issues well, but a bit of strategy at this point could go a long way to securing a long term industry reputation that will assist projects well into the future.

One of the recent success stories of APIA is the introduction of the APIA/VFF (Victorian Farmers Federation) Pipeline Easement Guidelines. From experience, it is possible to say with confidence that the use of the Guidelines has already helped pave the way to a smooth negotiation process on several significant transmission projects in Victoria.

The guidelines aren’t overly onerous and really do not tie into anything that would not ordinarily be done. However, it does give the landowners confidence that the process being implemented is something that is fair and transparent, and has previously been scrutinised and agreed to by their peak body.

The question is: Is it necessary to produce a national set of landowner/easement guidelines? If the industry wants to take a uniform approach to its interface with the broader public, some effort should be made in this direction. The main issue with a national set of guidelines is that every state and territory is covered by different legislation and regulation with its own idiosyncrasies. Either the guidelines would need to be of a very general nature, thereby diluting their usefulness or alternatively would require a version specific to each state, which would be a worthwhile long-term investment in future projects, and the overall public perception of the industry. A lot of money and effort has been spent in recent times by companies on public and investor relations. With vertical integration, the current catch cry of the gas industry at the moment, companies are very sensitive to the potential impact of upstream projects, and how they can reflect on retail business and share price, so it is desirable to invest towards ensuring good relationships with landholders affected by their infrastructure.

Landholders have long memories. Areas that have been worked in include some that have a long history of pipeline and other activities such as seismic, drilling and production. In these areas a farmer can recall with a great level of detail what happened over twenty or thirty years ago when someone else put a pipe across their land. They will say that a contractor either did a good job or they didn’t, and any new contractor is likely to be treated according to how the landholders were treated in the past. The Aussie bush telegraph is a mighty powerful communication device stretching right across the country, so it is important to be aware that reputation travels from project to project.

This is particularly true of districts that have become gas provinces, such as Port Campbell, Roma/Wallumbilla or Dongara, where exploration, production and many pipeline projects have affected the locals repeatedly for an extended period of time. These landowners will not tolerate anything other than the highest attention to detail in construction and reinstatement.

So what do landholders want? Sometimes it’s pretty simple - a bit of good old fashioned please and thank you, not to mention leaving the site in its original condition. Sometimes it will be much more complex and involve designing pipelines to fit with existing or future land use or significant compensation packages. Whatever the requirements are, the industry needs to treat them with due respect and care, while still achieving the smooth and economic construction of new projects.

In summary, the challenge will always be to achieve a balance between the political, social, financial and time pressures of projects, and to come out of it with a sensible mix. When wanting to build and operate a pipeline, landowner relations should form a part of early project planning, allowing enough time to achieve easement acquisitions and follow through on commitments. When this is achieved, operation and maintenance crews will appreciate the ongoing cooperation of the landholders for the next thirty or more years.