John Cotter - Flinders Hyder - National Land Access - The impacts between industries and the lessons for a consistent approach


Published on

John Cotter delivered the presentation at the 2014 Land Access Forum.

The 5th annual Land Access Forum brought together Government departments, coal, CSG, UCG mining and exploration companies, mining and petroleum industry associations, landholders, law firms and consultants to discuss the new and emerging regulatory reforms, practicalities, challenges, and future directions of land access.

For more information about the event, please visit:

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

John Cotter - Flinders Hyder - National Land Access - The impacts between industries and the lessons for a consistent approach

  2. 2. CONTENTS  Context  Enterprise Planning  Project Strategy  Project Governance  Scoping  Project Key  Project Plans The Key Contacts from Flinders Hyder for this report are: John Cotter Director (07) 3221 1371 (+61) 438 338 171 Inherent Limitations This presentation of project approach is given subject to the written terms of Flinders Hyder engagement. This presentation has been prepared as outlined in the Context section. The services provided in connection with this engagement comprise an advisory engagement which is not subject to Australian Standards on Review or Assurance Engagements, and consequently no opinions or conclusions intended to convey assurance have been expressed. The observations in this presentation are based on a qualitative study and the reported results reflect a perception of the client only to the extent of the workshop conducted and with the client’s approved representatives sample of management and selected members. Any projection to the wider management and stakeholders is subject to the level of bias in the method of workshop outcomes. No warranty of completeness, accuracy or reliability is given in relation to the statements and representations made by, and the information and documentation provided by management and selected workshop members consulted as part of the process. Flinders Hyder have indicated within this presentation the sources of the information provided. We have not sought to independently verify those sources unless otherwise noted within the presentation. Flinders Hyder is under no obligation in any circumstance to update this presentation, in either oral or written form, for events occurring after the presentation has been issued in final form. The findings in this presentation have been formed on the above basis. Third Party Reliance This presentation has been prepared in accordance with the terms of Flinders Hyder engagement dated 27-8-14. Other than our responsibility to the conference, neither John Cotter nor any member or employee of Flinders Hyder undertakes responsibility arising in any way from reliance placed by a third party on this presentation. Any reliance placed is that party’s sole responsibility. This slide pack is provided solely for the benefit of the parties identified in the contract and are not to be copied, quoted or referred to in whole or in part without Flinders Hyder prior written consent. Flinders Hyder accepts no responsibility to anyone other than the parties identified in the engagement letter/contract for the information contained in this presentation.
  3. 3. BACKGROUND  Flinders Hyder is a leading provider of project and professional services through environment, project management and community relations.  Recent projects include  Aurizon National Land Access Framework  Arrow Energy EPC Corridor Preparation and Framework  QGC (BG-Group) Bowen Basin Exploration
  4. 4. THE MARKET – NATIONAL FRAMEWORKS  Behaviours  Contractors  Design  Corporate Risk  Compensation  Industry benchmarks
  5. 5. METHODOLOGY – FLINDERS NAVIGATE  Using a risk based approach we defined the short and longer term goals of the business at the levels of the organisation  Adopted from the Investment Logic Standards of Victoria Treasury
  6. 6. OBJECTIVES  Risk - Enterprise  Internal Risk Control / Contracting Strategies through Risk Based Approach  Risk Mitigation Tools / Messages  Commercialisation & Internal Design Approach  Converting land and community into an effective route selection / site selection process; industry differences  Contracting Documentation  General commitments and interface descriptions  Risk allocation  Contractor / Operator Approach  Assessment of Critical Management Plans  Land Access Management Plan (Template provided)  QA Tools – Integration of Tools to Contractor Tools (Critical to Success)
  7. 7. WHY BOARDS ARE NERVOUS ABOUT LAND Adopted from Nous Group 2014
  8. 8. PRACTICAL APPROACH PHASES ACTIVITIES PHASE 1 Process Analysis Existing Situation  Desktop study of Reports and Compliance Manual  Enterprise analysis Staff Attitude  Individual interviews to determine existing process, attitudes to early engagement and readiness for change Early Engagement  Brainstorming workshop Planning  Conceptual planning for early engagement model  Identify skill sets PHASE 2 Review Risk Workshop  Risk matrix  Key drivers and personnel Risk Management Tool  Quantitative and Qualitative Probability Based Risk Model consistent with Corporate Risk profile  Price assumptions and behaviour tools through risk mitigation  Conversion of unplanned risk into planned and managed risk Engagement Model  Finalise model PHASE 3 Culture and Change Communication Plan  Key messages  Communication tools  Rewards – KPIs  Communication callateral Training  Identify training required Evaluation  Determine success  Benefits realisation reporting
  9. 9. RISK BASED ASSESSMENT (EXAMPLE) Key Risk Description Consequence Likelihood Risk Mitigation Strategies Delays in land access 1 Landholders consult lawyers who actively frustrate process Insignificant Almost Certain • Prepare information packages for landholders that explain the process • Ensure adequate legal resources and templates of responses to teams 2 The landholders negative perceptions of compensation (time) affects the timeliness of land access negotiations during construction Medium Almost Certain • Implement a land access compensation framework and company wide policy • Ensure community benefits and messages are consistent from enterprise to each project • Improve compensation position across company to ensure consistency 3 Landholders group to collectively bargain or stall project Major Almost Certain • Approach group through Community Engagement Team as soon as possible to try and reach agreement • Negotiate quick wins on group concerns and react quickly to address grievances. 4 Failure to forward plan resulting in cross messages and separate land access meetings Medium Almost Certain • Development of Land Access Strategy, Land Access Compensation Framework and Land Acquisition Management Plans (LAMP) • Develop Enterprise Approach to resourcing and management • Change Project Management Guidelines to include LAMP 5 Commitments in field made my uncoordinated parties. Major Almost Certain • Complete an LAMP and resourcing strategy as dictated by overarching land access strategy • Utilisation of land management tool (CMS) to capture and prioritise key landholders
  10. 10. Key Risk Description Consequence Likelihood Risk Mitigation Strategies Delays in land access 6 Inaccurate instructions or incomplete data leads to poor decision making, interactions with wrong landholders or ineffective planning Minor Likely • Produce and implement manual of Land Access Framework • Utilisation of a prioritisation tool for landholder meetings including a mandatory risk assessment of stakeholders Reputation 7 Failure to comply with HSSE policies results in a major injury or fatality of an employee or landholder Major Rare • Diligent reporting of all threats and issues management through a single landholder hotline • Ensure all employees are aware of the policies and have training • Align KPIs to framework • Develop a process of educating landholders about safety requirements 8 Landholders will use media and publish compensation frameworks (competing against commercial payments rather than compensation). Minor Almost Certain • Publish a land access framework and engage a public engagement strategy on fairness of framework • Outline key messages on compensation approach Quality of Project Delivery 9 Failure to close Environmental conditions / compulsory acquisition and or judicial review Major Likely • Implement tracking systems and records of conversations • External review of application process • Develop stronger ties with landholders and lawyers to avoid adverse legal actions
  11. 11. Almost Certain H H E E E Likely M H H E E Possible L M H E E Unlikely L L M H E Rare L L M H H Insignificant Minor Medium Major Severe 1 2 34 5 7 8 6 9
  13. 13. WORKFLOW PLANNING Plan Land Access Request Land Access First Call to Introduce Project Evaluate Site Negotiate Access Finalise Agreement Undertake Field Survey Works Finalise & Monitor Access Request Land Access First Call to Introduce Project Evaluate Site Negotiate Access Finalise Agreement  Conduct Title Search  Establish CMS Entry  Complete GIS Check and Issue Property Map  Draft Initial Landholder Packs  Landholder Information Packs  Make Initial contact with the landholder  Provide landholder with information kit via mail  Establish a time to meet  Conduct assessment of compensation liabilities  Draft final agreement  Third Party Legal Assessments  Fill out property evaluation form  Conduct site inspection and issues register  Confirm project field requirements  Bank Authorities and occupier details  Undertake final signing  Authorised signing bodies  Arrange landholder set-up payment forms  Provide final landholder executed copy  Issue to project team for field access Plan Land Access Request Land Access First Call to Introduce Project Evaluate Site Negotiate Access Finalise Agreement Land Access Process Interval 1 Interval 2 Interval 3 Interval 4  Request Form is satisfactory  Initial Landholder Contact  Landholder Risk & First Meeting  Access Planning complete  Agreement of Compensation, legal & field Access
  14. 14. STAKEHOLDER MAPPING Requestors Those in the business that request land access Service Providers Those in the business that provide a service to support Land Access end to end End Users Those in the business that will perform activities once access has been granted Network Land Access Stakeholders Capital Projects Operations ERE / Cultural Heritage GIS HSSE Legal / Finance Community & Stakeholder Relations Community & Stakeholder Relations EIS Consultants Contractors Third Party Cultural Heritage Survey & Geotechnical Consultants
  15. 15. ENGINEERING PLANNING Field Access Agreement Land Access Request Project Commencement Induction of Team to Golden Rules Appoint your Land Access Officer Conduct your Landholder Risk Assessment Complete the Land Access Request Form Conduct your Land Access Review Send Package to Landholder Confirm Project Requirements of Work Order Negotiate with Landholder Complete Agreement with Landholder and Third Parties Conduct Site Briefing, Golden Rules and Conditions of Entry Conduct Site Activities Complete Field Studies Project Director Land Access Checklist
  16. 16. REVIEW OF THE MARKET Land Access Risk Review Competing with Resource Companies ALA - Base Land Compensation Grazing Land: 50% of $ / Ha x Size of Impact Cultivation land: 75% of $ / Ha * Size of Impact Nil Loss in Value Nil Loss in Business Land Area Impacted Land Value Considerations Business Impact Considerations Deliverclarityonthefunctionalresponsibilitiesandensure consistencyofapproachwhendealingwithstakeholdersthrougha consistentmessageandequitableindustrybasedapproachtoland access. Land Access Compensation Grazing Land: 50% of $ / Ha x Size of Impact Cultivation land: 75% of $ / Ha * Size of Impact Project Impact on Potential Purchase Disruption to Lifestyle All Other Impacts and Costs Heads of Compensation because of the potential impact of future rail corridor Disruption to Lifestyle (Quiet Enjoyment of Property) Loss in Value due to construction disturbance and previous projects (brownfield legacy) Professional Services Land holder business loss and employee loss (in time) due to facilitation of land access
  17. 17. UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMERCIALS 1 Activity Square Metres of Impact (SIZE) Relevant Head of Compensation No of Impacts Size of Impact (Units of Measure) Time (Months) Total Comments Qty of HA $/HA Type 35Geotech Pads (42 Core Holes) of 10m wide by 10m (100sqm/10,000) 100 Loss in surface of land 35 0.35 $ 1,000.00 $ 350.00 Grazing 12Months $ 175.00 5kilometers of access tracks 4metres wide with 10m of disturbance for dust (15,000x 10m / 10,000) 50,000 Loss in surface of land 1 5 $ 1,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Grazing 12Months $ 2,500.00 35Geotech Pads (42 Core Holes) 100 Loss in value of property 42 0.42 $ 1,000.00 $ 420.00 Grazing 12Months $ 210.00 1km of Access Tracks impact on operations (1,000x 10m / 10,000) 10,000 Disturbance 1 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Cropping 14Months $ 750.00 $ - $ - Business Impacts Low Impact (Access without Consent) 0 $250 12Months $ - Low Impact (Access that results in complant) 0 $500 12Months $ - High Impact (Access that results in business loss in time i.e. mustering of cattle) 0 $1,200 12Months $ - High Impact (Access that results in loss in business revenue or loss in stock / crop / weeds) 0 $1,500 12Months $ - Landholder Business Mangement Disturbance 5 3 $ 100.00 12Months $ 1,500.00 5,135.00$ Compensation Rate Physical Disturbance Landholder Business Mangement (Risk Impact)
  18. 18. MOVING LAND TO A UNDERSTOOD CONTRACT Arrow Energy - Corridor Risk Assessment (Land / Community / Environment / Cultural Heritage) 27-08-14 9:36 Qualitative Risk Assessment ProjectCyce RiskID I D Risk Name Description Internal Workshop Notes Risk Descriptors (Arrow System) Prima ry Risk Owne r Second ary Risk Influen cer Conse quence Likeliho od Normal Risk Rating Arrow Risk Score Comment s (Tender Criteria) Desired Outcomes Quant itative Asses sment ? Risk Mitigation N PV Ca pe x Dela y Reputati on Quantitati ve Risk Assessme nt Resultant Risk Level after Mitigation Tender Assessment Planned Risk or Unplanne d Risk? Systematic Risk Mitigation Tools In Place at ITT Cost Estimate Consequ ence Likelihoo d Rating Basis of Cost Calculation Delay Costs Other Costs Units Occurren ce Base Estimate Optimistic Most Likely Pessimistic Timing Duration Construc tion/ Operatio nal Costs Loss of Revenue Based on Pessimistic Against Total Project Value Against Total Project Value Against Total Project Value Assum ed Rate Phase Weeks $A'000s/ week $A'000s/ week $A'000s $A'000s % % % % Expect ed Value CONTRACTOR TENDER RESPONSE Risk Allocation Mitigation Risk Pricing (Pool) EPCM ARROW EPCM ARROW EPCM ARROW 5 KPIs PER REGION RISK POOL Reported TD MIN MAX DRAW DOWN % % % % $A $A KPI Score Lowest Highest Incentives
  19. 19. GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS (EXAMPLES)  Land acquisition  The Principal’s preferred approach is to negotiate with landholders and their representatives in order to reach an agreed outcome to acquire the land or an interest in the land, or obtain access to the land required for the Project.  For land affected by the Pipeline, the Principal is the agency acquiring the land or easements over the land. The Principal will negotiate and secure options to procure the nominated 30m construction easement over the majority of the alignment and other portions of land required to accommodate the design.  The Principal is negotiating with the owners of the Mines for a construction easement that is exempt from the onerous requirements of that mine’s SSE. For the purpose of submitting a Tender, Tenderers should assume that access to this section of the Pipeline easement is the same as for any other landowner.  The Principal has contacted all affected landholders and is in ongoing discussions to secure the necessary easements or interests.  The Contractor will require parcels of land in addition to those negotiated by the Principal for the purposes of construction camp establishment, laydown areas, miscellaneous storage areas, turnaround areas and the like. The Contractor must notify in this tender the size, duration and layouts of the camps and laydown yards required.
  20. 20. CONTRACTOR APPROACH  Critical Project Plans  The Project Plans generally listed in tender deemed to be "Critical Project Plans" and must be approved by Arrow should included (in accordance with the Review Procedure before the Contractor accesses the Site) a Land Access Management Plan.  This allows a clear understanding of the QA systems and an auditable method for tracking non-compliances
  21. 21. EXAMPLE PRE-START LIST CONSTRUCTION PRE-START VERIFICATION CHECKLIST Sheet: 1 of 4 Revision: 0 Date: 20/01/2011 Form No.: ARROW-CON- FRM- 000001 VC No.: _______-________-_________ VC Preparation Date Works Within the RoW Works Outside the RoW Activity Commencement Date From KP: To KP: Description: Activity Completion Date RoW Boundary Left: Right: Boundary Size: Project Component Export Line, Gas Collection Header, Others: Pls specify Engineer and Contact No.: Supervisor and Contact No.: Description of Activities
  22. 22. EXAMPLE SIGNOFF CONDITIONS ITP REF. INSPECTION / APPROVAL ACTIVITY RECORD ‘s VERIFYING Conforming / Required Not Applic able PRINT NAME (Responsible Person) SIGN DATE COMMENTS 1.0 Company & Third Party Approvals 1.01 Ground Disturbance Activity Approval Provided by Arrow (Application 60 Business Days in Advance of Works) Original Documents Project Engineer 1.02 Permit to Enter Provided by Arrow (Application 60 Business Days in Advance of Works) Original Documents Project Engineer 1.03 Advance Notification provided to Arrow Correspondenc e Construction Manager 2.0 Social Performance 2.01 Social Performance has been notified of planned activities. Correspondenc e Social Performance 2.02 Access roads in and out of area been checked for impacts on community (in cases where use is not been canvassed in EIS, agreement with Arrow Social Performance team needs to be applied. Social Performance 2.03 Discussion Held with Communications and Land Liaison Team Representative Meeting Records Social Performance 2.04 Dilapidation Survey carried out Report Social Performance 2.05 Landowner Line Lists sourced from Arrow LLL Social Performance 3.0 Environment 3.01 Pre-construction Environmental Checklist Attached Copy Environment Rep. 3.02 Site walk through & Environmental Checklist hand over meeting with Project Engineer Pre-start record or signed VC Environment Rep. 4.0 Construction 4.01 DBYD, received and current. Service Location / Potholing has been undertaken Record Project Engineer 4.02 Approved Construction Method Statement (CMS) for each activity (latest revision) Copy Project Engineer 4.03 Approved ITP for each Activity Copy Project Engineer 4.04 Draft Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS/JSEA) Copy Project Engineer 4.05 Traffic Management Plan / Traffic Control Plan / Permit in place Copy Project Engineer 4.06 Current Drawings (Issued for Construction) Copy Project Engineer 4.07 Pre-construction survey Dwg Project Engineer 4.08 Police, Fire and Ambulance services been informed Notice Social Performance 4.09 Third Party Approval obtained, Conditioned complied with and been Notified. Copy Project Engineer 4.10 Supervisors’ Package Completed and Verified Work Package Engineer / Supervisor 4.11 Limits of clearing/stripping set out Dwg Engineer / Supervisor 5.0 Safety 5.01 HSSE Management Plan Copy HSSE Rep. 5.02 Delivery of Safety Equipment & Signage On site Engineer/Supervisor