Importantly, cases such as the one recently lodged by the Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) could lead to suppliers being responsible for offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions up to and including end use.

Earlier this year, the QCC lodged an objection with the Land and Resources Tribunal of Queensland against Xstrata and a proposed open-cut coal mine. The central issue was the mine’s greenhouse emissions and emissions from use of the coal. The Queensland Conservation Council sought an amendment that would require Xstrata to offset 100 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from the mine’s operation, as well as emissions resulting from the use of the coal. The case was closely watched by the mining and petroleum industries as well as conservation groups as it set a precedent for the treatment of emissions by Australian coal mining developments and regulators. The result will affect all downstream users and transporters, including pipelines.

Pipeline blow downs for maintenance and leaks are also a source of greenhouse gas emissions. For gas pipelines this is especially topical, as methane is twenty times as potent as a greenhouse gas as CO2. The Australian pipeline industry will come under scrutiny for these emissions as pipelines have in other countries such as the United States. With the energy used to pump oil or compress gas being a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, the pipeline industry may see rapidly shifting goal posts in industry best practice and regulatory protocols.

According to greenhouse gas expert Dr Fred Turatti from URS Australia, this type of case could have far-reaching industry implications.

Article continues below…

“Imagine the implications if energy producers were made responsible for emissions from the end use of energy they produce. For example, imagine a gas-supply company being responsible for emissions from the use of their gas in our homes. This kind of change will have huge implications for investment across the energy industry,” he said.

In reality, little can be done to prevent an objection being lodged but steps can be taken by organisations to minimise the risk of objection, including:

* Inclusive consultation throughout the approvals process including potential objectors and NGOs; * In-depth understanding and communication of the measures used to minimise GHG emissions including: * Assessing the potential GHG savings from each measure; * Promoting energy efficiency news stories; and, * Participating in Energy Efficiency Opportunity program and promoting results. * Investigating purchases of GHG offsets – though not all are viable options: * Green power schemes; * Greenhouse Friendly diesel fuel; * Forestry based offsets; and, * Voluntary markets – for example GGAS. * Prepare position and scenario studies internally for an eventual price on carbon emissions. There are sufficient details available on potential scheme designs to allow this.

• Engage in the cost of carbon debate – prepare submissions and speak to the appropriate government bodies.