Arjenne  Plaizier  –  University  of  Sydney,  Department  of  Media  and  Communications  

Paper  for  the  Australian  Political  Studies  Association  Annual  Conference  2013  

 

Coal  Seam  Gas  and  a  Social  License  to  Operate  –  a  

transformation  needed?    

 

1.  Introduction  

 

Coal  seam  gas  (CSG),  a  process  where  gas  is  extracted  by  drilling  a  

well  through  rock  strata,  has  been  able  to  attract  significant  attention  

from  politicians,  the  media,  environmentalists  and  farmers.  Although  

the  industry  is  relatively  new  to  Australia1,  it  has  quickly  grown  into  a  

controversial  and  emotive  issue.  Unanswered  questions  about  

environmental  impacts,  human  health,  landowners’  rights  and  industry  

regulation  have  further  fired  up  the  debate.  Governments  have  

responded  with  new  regulation,  moratoriums,  a  national  partnership  

agreement  and  various  reports.  The  debate  about  the  relevance  of  CSG  

for  the  Australian  economy  and  the  effects  of  the  industry  on  the  

environment  has,  however,  still  not  settled.  CSG  companies  have  been  

dealing  with  strong  resistance  from  environmental  groups  and  

communities  and  have,  as  a  result,  cancelled  or  suspended  several  gas  

projects2.      

1 From 200 cumulative existing wells in 2000 to 3780 cumulative approved wells in 2014 (ABC News Online 2012). 2 For example: AGL’s suspension of the Camden project and Santos’ cancellation of the projects in Parks and New England.

One  of  the  ways  the  coal  seam  gas  industry  has  tried  to  deal  with  

opposition  and  legitimize  its  operations  is  by  negotiating  a  so-­‐called  

social  license  to  operate  (SLO)  from  the  communities  where  the  

extraction  of  the  gas  takes  place.  Unlike  legally  binding  contracts  that  

come  with  specified  obligations  and  conditions,  a  SLO  is  an  unwritten  

social  contract  that  does  not  necessarily  specify  the  precise  expectations  

of  both  sides  of  the  contract.  The  idea  is  that  the  company  obtains  the  

SLO  after  it  has  acquired  the  acceptance  of  the  local  community  and  

other  stakeholders  for  the  gas  extractions  to  take  place.  There  are  no  

specific  rules  about  how  a  company  should  demonstrate  that  it  has  

received  such  acceptance.  It  could  either  refer  to  explicit  support  or  to  

reduced  opposition.    

This  paper  aims  to  explore  the  politics  of  engagement  around  the  

SLO.  It  will  examine  the  communication  strategies  that  are  currently  

applied  by  the  CSG  industry  and  will  address  some  of  the  commonly  

made  mistakes.  The  analysis  falls  into  two  categories.  The  first  will  look  

at  the  issues  that  need  to  be  addressed.  The  second  part  will  be  

exploring  the  communication  tactics  that  are  required  for  a  meaningful  

conclusion  of  the  SLO  process.    

 

2.  The  content  of  SLO  discussions  

 

Discussions  and  negotiations  surrounding  the  SLO  normally  cover  

an  array  of  topics.  This  paper  aims  to  make  recommendations  for  CSG  

companies  about  the  matters  that  should  be  the  focus  of  the  SLO  

discussions  and  negotiations.  These  recommendations  are  based  on  the  

theory  of  agenda  setting  and  the  concept  of  priming.    

McCombs  et  al.  (1997)  argue  that  there  are  two  levels  of  agenda  

setting.  The  traditional  theory  of  agenda  setting  refers  to  the  influence  

of  the  mass  media  on  what  the  public  should  be  thinking  about;  issues  

that  are  prominent  in  the  media  become  prominent  for  the  public.  By  

making  certain  issues  more  salient  than  others,  the  media  influences  

what  the  public  considers  important  (issue  salience).  The  second  level  of  

agenda  setting  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  media  can  also  influence  how  

we  look  at  these  issues.  Each  issue  has  a  number  of  attributes  and  

depending  on  which  attributes  are  reported  in  the  media,  publics  are  

not  only  influenced  on  what  to  think  about  but  also  on  how  to  think  

about  these  issues  (attribute  salience).  The  issue  of  CSG  has  a  wide  

variety  of  attributes.  CSG  explorations  affect  rights  of  landowners,  water  

quality,  human  health,  the  local  and  national  economy,  employment,  

etc.  Second  level  agenda  setting  for  the  issue  of  CSG  would  look  at  what  

attributes  are  presented  in  the  media.  It  would  identify  the  influence  of  

the  media  in  telling  the  public  how  to  think  about  CSG  (see  Balmas  and  

Sheafer,  2010).  Through  both  levels  of  agenda  setting,  the  media  plays  

an  important  role  in  shaping  political  reality.    

The  second  level  of  agenda  setting  comes  rather  close  to  the  

theory  of  framing.  Framing  theory  assumes  that  how  we  will  interpret  

any  given  message  will  not  only  depend  on  what  is  being  communicated  

but  also  on  how  it  is  communicated.  How  the  information  on  any  issue  is  

understood  and  interpreted  will  depend  on  the  frame  that  was  used  by  

the  communicator.  Both  framing  and  second-­‐level  agenda  setting  are  

concerned  with  how  issues  are  depicted  in  the  media,  both  focus  on  

most  salient  aspects  (see  Weaver  2007).  Scheufele  (2007)  has  argued  

that  both  theories  have  distinct  theoretical  boundaries  and  operate  via  

different  cognitive  processes  and  cannot  be  integrated.  Scheufele  &  

Iyengar  (2011)  argue  that  the  loose  definition  of  framing  has  taken  away  

the  focus  on  the  presentation  of  the  facts.  Increasingly,  informational  

and  other  persuasive  features  of  messages  are  brought  under  the  

framing  umbrella.  By  including  different  persuasive  elements  into  the  

concept  of  framing,  it  is  no  longer  clear  what  effects  are  caused  by  the  

presentation  of  the  facts  and  what  effects  are  due  to  the  persuasive  

content  of  the  message.  We  believe  that  the  influence  of  the  media  over  

how  the  public  perceives  CSG  can  be  better  explained  through  the  

theory  of  agenda  setting  than  framing.  The  media  reports  about  CSG  

seem  to  focus  on  very  different  aspects/attributes  of  CSG.  The  effect  of  

the  media  reports  does  not  so  much  depend  on  the  presentation  of  the  

issue  but  on  what  attribute  of  the  issue  was  highlighted.    

A  concept  closely  related  to  agenda  setting,  is  the  concept  of  

priming.  By  giving  more  attention  to  certain  issues  the  media  influences  

the  standard  by  which  governments,  policies  and  politicians  are  judged.  

In  other  words;  the  media  provides  the  public  with  a  benchmark  by  

which  it  is  to  evaluate  policies  and  politicians.  No  policy  or  politician  can  

be  considered  favourably  if  the  benchmark  is  not  addressed  or  is  not  

addressed  sufficiently.  

In  order  to  get  a  good  understanding  of  what  attributes  of  CSG  are  

most  salient  in  the  media,  we  conducted  a  Factiva  search  for  articles  

containing  "coal  seam  gas"  in  either  the  headline  or  lead  paragraph  in  

the  following  newspapers:  The  Australian,  The  Australian  Financial  

Review,  The  Age  and  the  Sydney  Morning  Herald.  We  confined  our  

search  to  the  period  of  1  January  2011  until  1  July  2013  (i.e.  a  period  of  

two  and  a  half  years).  This  search  query  resulted  in  a  little  over  1000  

articles.  We  randomly  chose  a  total  of  100  articles  by  analysing  each  

tenth  report.  This  paper  did  not  aim  to  compare  coverage  across  these  

different  newspapers  but  to  capture  the  general  approach  in  reporting  

about  coal  seam  gas.  We  analysed  each  selected  article  by  comparing  

the  content  to  the  list  of  attributes  we  had  identified  earlier3.  The  results  

are  attached  as  Appendix  1.  The  two  main  finding  are  as  follows.  Firstly,  

we  can  see  that  at  the  start  of  the  selected  period,  the  focus  of  the  

reports  was  about  the  relevance  of  CSG  to  the  Australian  economy  and  

the  employment  it  created  (see  chart  2,  Appendix  1).  However,  at  the  

end  of  2011,  we  detected  a  change  in  the  media  reporting  with  another  

attribute  becoming  more  dominant;  the  attribute  of  

environment/health.  This  attribute  included  reports  on  concerns  about  

the  water  supply  (including  possible  contamination  and  the  effect  of  CSG  

on  the  available  quantities  of  water),  the  effects  of  CSG  on  the  

environment  (including  air  pollution),  and  the  closeness  of  CSG  to  dairy  

farms,  vineyards  and  agriculture  land.  At  the  end  of  2011,  the  media  

reports  on  the  effect  of  CSG  on  the  economy  and  employment  almost  

disappeared  with  environment/health  becoming  the  dominant  

attribute4.  Secondly,  the  analysis  shows  that  over  the  selected  period  of  

two  and  a  half  years,  environment/health  was  the  overall  dominant  

attribute.  It  was  used  significantly  more  often  than  any  of  the  other  

attributes.  This  implies  that,  according  to  the  theory  of  agenda  setting,  

people  will  mostly  think  about  the  environment/health  when  presented  

3 Each attribute was coded 0 = not present, 1 = present or 2 = outstanding focus 4 This research will not aim to explain the sudden change that took place at the end of 2011. Further research should aim to confirm this change and could subsequently try to explain it. Such explanation could take into account the effect of the involvement of Alan Jones into the debate. Jones addressed the National Press club with strong anti-coal seam gas arguments on 19 October 2011; around the same time this sample of news articles shows a significant change in the dominant attribute.

with  the  issue  of  CSG.  The  media  has  made  this  attribute  the  most  

salient  into  people’s  minds.  Following  the  concept  of  priming,  this  means  

that  communities  will  benchmark  a  CSG  company  against  its  arguments  

and  contributions  to  the  environment/health  attribute.  When  a  CSG  

company  engages  with  a  community  to  obtain  a  SLO,  it  will  need  to  

present  the  community  with  compelling  evidence  and  arguments  about  

the  effects  of  CSG  on  human  health  and  the  environment.  Companies  

cannot  simply  address  these  concerns  with  arguments  about  other  

attributes  of  CSG  (for  example  through  highlighting  the  economic  

benefits  of  the  explorations).  This  does  not  mean  that  there  is  no  point  

in  presenting  audiences  with  arguments  that  are  linked  with  other  

attributes.  On  the  contrary,  this  can  be  very  meaningful.  However,  every  

communication  strategy  will  need  to  have  a  strong  focus  on  

environment/health.  If  these  would  be  left  out,  CSG  companies  would  

essentially  neglect  to  compete  in  the  space  that  matters  the  most.    

 

3.  SLO  and  tactics  

 

The  second  part  of  this  paper  aims  to  come  to  recommendations  

about  the  communication  strategies  before  and  during  the  process  of  

the  SLO  discussions.  We  will  argue  that  the  coal  seam  gas  industry  and  

the  individual  companies  need  to  (a)  get  more  involved  in  the  public  

debate  and  (b)  have  to  engage  at  a  deeper  level  with  the  Australian  

public  and  with  the  communities  that  have  been  or  will  be  affected  by  

coal  seam  gas.    

 

3.a   CSG  and  the  public  debate  

 

As  we  have  seen  above,  the  mainstream  media  predominantly  

reports  on  the  attributes  of  the  environment/health.  These  reports  are  

generally  obliging  to  the  anti-­‐coal  seam  gas  lobby  and  critical  of  the  CSG  

industry.  The  other  prevalent  attributes  (land  owners  rights,  community  

concerns)  are  also  more  aligned  with  arguments  against  coal  seam  gas  

extractions.  Taylor  et  al.  (2013)  came  to  a  similar  conclusion:  

 

“The  media  plays  a  pivotal  role  in  framing  the  CSG  debate.  On  

balance,  media  reporting  appears  to  be  more  anti-­‐CSG  than  pro-­‐

CSG,  most  likely  because  this  is  the  side  of  the  debate  that  makes  

a  better  story  and  garners  more  interest.  There  is  also  likely  to  be  

far  more  opportunities  to  identify  negative  stories,  with  the  

widespread  ‘threat’  of  CSG  across  many  communities”  (Taylor  et  

al.  2013,  p.  18)    

 

The  public  debate,  through  the  reports  in  the  mainstream  media,  does  

not  seem  to  have  a  considerable  presence  of  arguments  that  put  

forward  the  benefits  of  coal  seam  gas.  There  could  be  a  variety  of  

reasons  for  this.  Firstly,  it  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  dominant  

media  frame  does  not  fit  with  the  message  of  the  CSG  industry  (see  also  

Taylor  et  al.  2013).  News  reports  that  do  not  resonate  with  dominant  

frames  are  less  likely  to  be  published  or  have  an  impact  on  people’s  

perspectives.  Secondly,  the  absence  of  pro-­‐CSG  arguments  in  the  public  

debate  is  probably  also  caused  by  the  nonappearance  of  the  industry  in  

the  public  debate.  Presidents  and  CEOs  of  CSG  companies  are  relatively  

unknown  and  the  industry  organization  has  not  become  a  well-­‐known,  

reputable  presence  in  the  debate  either.  Most  of  the  efforts  of  the  CSG  

industry  seem  to  take  place  outside  the  public’s  view  and  thus  cannot  

become  part  of  the  public  debate.  This  strategy  does  not  fit  well  with  the  

strategies  employed  by  the  opponents  of  CSG  explorations.  Their  tactics  

have  been  very  visual,  well  reported  and  their  message  is  affixed  in  the  

public  debate.  If  the  CSG  industry  seeks  to  influence  the  public  debate,  it  

needs  to  aspire  a  more  prominent  place  in  it.  It  should  care  about  the  

fact  that  the  public  debate  about  CSG  is  not  complete:  the  arguments  of  

the  industry  are,  as  it  stands,  not  sufficiently  represented.    

 

3.b   CSG  and  engagement  with  communities  

 

As  mentioned  above,  this  paper  is  interested  in  the  politics  of  

engagement  around  the  issue  of  CSG,  including  the  engagement  with  

affected  communities.  Community  engagement  is  currently  parked  in  

the  SLO  process.  Amongst  academics  there  is  some  scepticism  about  the  

concept  of  a  SLO  and  the  motive  for  engagement.  Owen  and  Kemp  

(2013)  argue  that  although  the  SLO  has  increased  the  awareness  that  

companies  need  to  pay  attention  to  stakeholders,  there  is  a  link  

between  the  idea  of  a  social  licence  to  operate  and  the  industry’s  

survival  instinct.  They  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  merely  a  company’s  

response  to  “disguise  or  silence”  opposition  and  that  there  is  no  real  

intention  to  properly  understand  concerns  of  communities  or  to  build  

long  lasting  relationships.  Others  have  taken  a  more  positive  and  

constructive  stance  towards  the  concept  of  an  SLO.  Nelson  and  Scoble  

(2006)  used  mining  industry  surveys  to  identify  success  factors  for  

earning  a  social  license.  These  factors  include  maintaining  a  positive  

corporate  reputation,  understanding  local  culture,  educating  

stakeholders  about  the  project  and  ensuring  open  communication  

among  all  stakeholders.  Despite  some  differences  in  approach  and  

opinions  amongst  scholars,  there  is  agreement  that  open  

communication  between  the  parties  involved  is  beneficial  for  the  SLO.  

Either  because  it  is  essential  for  the  SLO  to  succeed  (Nelson  and  Scoble,  

2006)  or  to  get  a  better  understanding  of  the  expectations  of  the  

community  involved  (Owen  and  Kemp  2013).    

We  will  argue  that  open  or  two-­‐way  communication  will  be  one  of  

the  strategies  to  address  the  overarching  concern  of  trust,  or  lack  of  

trust  between  the  various  stakeholders  in  the  debate.  The  

Commonwealth  Scientific  and  Industrial  Research  Organisation  (CSIRO)  

argues  that  trust  plays  a  critical  role  in  facilitating  a  social  license  to  

operate.  The  Chief  Scientists  &  Engineer  of  NSW,  Professor  Mary  O’Kane  

has  given  trust  a  central  role  as  well.  Her  report  identified  the  issue  of  

trust  as  one  of  the  biggest  concerns  surrounding  the  CSG  industry  (NSW  

Chief  Scientist  Report  2013  and  ABC  Lateline  2013).  Taylor  et  al.  (2013)  

mention  the  following  regarding  trust:    

 

“Trust,  or  lack  thereof,  lies  at  the  heart  of  much  of  the  CSG  debate  

and  has  the  potential  to  thwart  attempts  to  ease  community  

concerns  about  any  issue  (..).  There  is  evidence  of  a  severe  lack  of  

trust  from  parts  of  the  community  in  relation  to  the  lack  of  proper  

data  and  evidence,  beliefs  of  biased  data  and  a  distrust  of  proper  

regulation  methods  (and  ‘keeping  promises’),  trust  in  the  science,  

in  the  government  and  politicians,  trust  in  the  operators,  and  

social  trust.”  

 

This  paper  aims  to  identify  communication  techniques  that  could  

address  the  issue  of  lack  of  trust.  Mayhew  (1997)  argues  that  the  system  

of  trust  between  the  communicator  and  the  publics  receiving  the  

communication  can  only  stay  intact  if  publics  are  provided  the  

opportunity  to  demand  clarification,  specification  or  evidence  of  claims  

and  arguments  at  two-­‐sided  public  forums.  This  idea  of  two-­‐way  

communication  has  not  been  sufficiently  developed  by  CSG  companies.  

The  current  strategies  seem  to  be  aimed  at  minimizing  risks  and  less  on  

developing  genuine,  trust  based  relationships  with  its  stakeholders.  

Most  companies  rely  on  their  (one-­‐way)  PR  or  media  relations  strategies  

to  communicate  with  their  target  publics.  These  one-­‐sided  tactics  do  not  

give  target  audiences  the  chance  to  ask  questions  or  request  clarification  

and  evidence.  The  tactics  used  by  most  CSG  companies  do  not  only  fail  

to  address  concerns  of  target  publics,  they  also  risk  fueling  distrust  and  

can  damage  the  reputation  of  the  industry.  Paterson  (2013)  makes  a  

similar  argument  where  he  posits  that  CSG  companies  should  strive  for  

transparency  for  their  own  benefit.  Methods  that  are  based  on  denial,  

defense  and  deflection  will  not  be  in  the  best  interest  of  the  company  

whereas  transparency  builds  credibility  and  trust.    

Most  CSG  companies  have  dedicated  considerable  attention  to  

their  websites.  They  are  visually  appealing  and  contain  links  to  

information  about  the  company  and  the  industry.  Their  websites  do  not  

seem  to  be  aimed  at  engagement.  Although  websites  play  an  important  

role  in  the  one-­‐way  communication  tactics  of  organisations,  they  can  

also  serve  as  a  starting  point  of  discussions  and  conversations  (for  

example  through  links  with  social  media  or  the  creation  of  discussion  

forums).  However,  four  large  CSG  companies  that  operate  in  Australia  

(Arrow,  Santos,  AGL  and  Origin  through  Australia  Pacific  LNG)  have  not  

exploited  that  possibility  sufficiently.  Most  parts  of  these  websites  

contain  static  web  content  with  a  large  collection  of  facts,  figures  and  

scientific  research  about  CSG  but  do  not  aim  for  engagement.    

Santos’  website  has  a  section  called  “Community  Blog”.  Despite  

the  impression  the  name  of  this  section  might  give,  the  blog  is  solely  

used  to  post  articles  and  news  in  favour  of  the  industry  and  company.  

The  posts  have  not  been  able  to  generate  any  debate  amongst  the  

visitors  of  the  website5.  AGL  has  a  section  called  “Online  Community”.  

Participation  in  this  section  requires  previous  registration  with  AGL  and  

contains  a  similar  style  of  posts  as  Santos’  “Community  Blog”.  None  of  

the  posts  are  critical  of  the  industry;  none  of  the  posts  have  been  able  to  

generate  comments.  Arrow  has  probably  made  some  better  use  of  its  

website.  It  shows  how  it  has  engaged  with  communities  in  the  past.  The  

section  on  community  engagement  provides  information  on  previously  

held  community  meetings,  the  questions  that  were  asked  and  the  

responses  given  by  Arrow.  It  is  a  good  resource  for  communities  to  get  a  

better  understanding  of  the  process  of  extracting  coal  seam  gas.  

Although  the  company  has  an  online  engagement  policy6,  the  website  

does  not  have  any  links  to  spaces  where  such  online  engagement  could  

take  place.  The  overall  conclusion  is  that  the  websites  are  primarily  used  

5 Santos has a portal dedicated to providing up to date information (including results of sample testing of groundwater level monitoring, groundwater quality monitoring and surface water monitoring for areas close to Santos’ mining activities (http://www.santoswaterportal.com.au/water-monitoring-map.aspx [Accessed 20 September 2013]) 6 http://www.arrowenergy.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/2326/117508_Arrow_Energy_Online_Engagement_Policy.pdf [Accessed 18 September 2013]

as  one-­‐way  communication  tactics.  The  lack  of  interest  to  participate  or  

comment  (if  and  where  possible)  proves  that  this  kind  of  tactic  is  not  

able  to  attract  visitors  or  interest  in  the  content  of  the  website.  The  

websites’  main  function  seems  to  be  to  provide  information  that  puts  

the  industry  and  the  particular  company  in  a  positive  light.  That  alone  

will  not  be  enough  to  convince  the  Australian  public  and  affected  

communities.  People,  particularly  those  who  are  politically  engaged,  

rarely  change  their  minds  based  on  facts,  even  if  they  are  presented  by  a  

credible  source  (Keohane  2010).  Paterson  (2013)  has  made  a  similar  

observation.  He  argues  that  CSG  companies  have  to  change  their  

communication  strategies  because  “hearts  and  minds  will  not  be  won  by  

facts  alone”.  One-­‐way  communication  tactics  that  are  solely  focussed  on  

providing  information  will  not  be  able  to  swing  opinion  in  the  favour  of  

the  CSG-­‐industry.    

Due  to  the  mainly  one-­‐sided  communication  techniques,  some  

dissociation  between  the  communication  by  CSG  companies  and  the  

public’s  concerns  has  come  to  exist.  With  dissociation  we  mean  that  the  

communication  of  the  CSG  companies  fails  to  understand  and  address  

publics’  concerns  and  issues.  CSG  companies  should  give  more  weight  to  

two-­‐way  communication  like  community  meetings  and  forums7  but  also  

by  making  better  use  of  the  various  online  discussion  forums  and  social  

media8.  CSG  companies  have  so  far  taken  a  rather  cautious  approach.  If  

their  communication  tactics  include  online  elements,  these  usually  

7 Through the use of these tactics they can gain credibility and trust of the respective communities (see also Agyeman et al. 2007). 8 Natural Coal Seam Gas (www.naturalcoalseamgas.com.au) has a twitter feed on its website. The feed is however, dominated by tweets from the organization itself. The link “join the conversation” leads to a closed twitter account of a person who works for the Australian Production and Petroleum Association (APPEA).

mirror  the  ones  that  are  deployed  offline  and  are  mostly  used  for  

marketing  purposes  (see  also  Mullard  2010).  This  is  understandable,  

since  the  industry  has  learned  that  managing  stakeholder  relations  can  

be  a  delicate  affair.  The  introduction  of  online  communication  tactics  is  

probably  perceived  as  losing  even  more  control  of  that  already  fragile  

process.  However,  the  public’s  perception  on  how  to  use  and  engage  

with  information  has  changed.  It  has  grown  accustomed  to  the  idea  of  

open,  two-­‐way  communication  through  the  use  of  social  media,  blogs  

and  other  interactive  platforms.  Furthermore,  the  industry’s  opponents  

have  not  only  used  the  Internet  to  connect  and  organize,  it  also  serves  as  

one  of  their  most  effective  communication  tactics.  A  communication  

strategy  that  refrains  from  competing  in  a  sphere  that  has  been  so  

effective  for  the  anti-­‐CSG  lobby  cannot  be  successful.  We  argue  that  CSG  

companies  should  explore  the  opportunities  of  using  the  Internet  for  

two-­‐way  communication  with  their  stakeholders.  This  is  one  of  the  ways  

they  could  build  trust  and  come  to  a  mutual  understanding  of  concerns  

and  issues.    

 

4.   Conclusion  

 

This  paper  focused  on  the  politics  of  engagement  around  the  issue  

of  CSG.  It  first  tried  to  come  to  recommendations  about  the  issues  that  

need  to  be  address  by  the  CSG-­‐industry.  The  analysis  shows  that  the  

selected  media  outlets  reported  mostly  on  the  attribute  of  

environment/health.  This  attribute  has  been  made  most  salient  in  

people’s  minds  when  thinking  about  CSG.  The  Australian  public  and  

communities  will  benchmark  the  CSG  industry  and  its  opponents  against  

the  arguments  they  make  about  these  attributes  of  CSG.    The  public  

debate  about  CSG  is  currently  dominated  by  the  arguments  of  anti-­‐CSG  

lobby.  The  industry  needs  to  start  seeking  a  stronger  presence  in  the  

debate  and  contribute  to  the  environment/health  attribute.  The  industry  

organization  and  company  leaders  need  to  become  more  visible.  If  the  

industry  does  not  seek  a  place  in  the  debate,  it  cannot  expect  the  public  

opinion  to  swing  in  its  favour.  Finally,  we  addressed  the  engagement  

between  companies  and  their  stakeholders.  The  SLO  –  with  its  

community  engagement  –  is  able  to  attend  to  community  concerns  and  

the  lack  of  trust  between  parties  concerned.  CSG  companies  should  

however  not  assume  that  the  SLO  or  the  current  practice  around  the  

SLO  is  all  it  needs  for  its  projects  to  succeed.  As  we  have  seen  above,  

many  of  the  communication  tactics  employed  before  and  during  the  SLO  

are  one-­‐way  communication  tactics.  These  tactics  are  less  effective  for  

the  purpose  of  influencing  public  opinion  or  building  trust.  CSG  

companies  should  further  explore  the  use  of  two-­‐way  open  forums  and  

the  Internet  to  implement  new  possibilities  of  engagement.  As  

commented  by  Tim  Duddy  (farmer  and  anti-­‐CSG  activist)  a  sustainable  

growth  of  the  industry  will  require  a  “complete  metamorphoses  of  the  

practices”  that  have  been  put  in  place  (ABC  Lateline  2013).  We  

recommend  the  industry  to  start  working  on  such  a  metamorphoses.    

 

Appendix  1  –  Attributes  of  CSG  reported  in  the  media  

 

 

 

Chart  1  

 

 

Chart  2  

Bibliography/References  

 

ABC  Lateline  (2013),  CSG  Industry  Needs  to  Build  Community  Trust,  31  

July  2013  -­‐  http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3815548.htm  

[Accessed  10  September  2013]  

 

ABC  News  Online  (2012),  Coal  Seam  Gas  by  the  Numbers,  April  2012  -­‐  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/coal-­‐seam-­‐gas-­‐by-­‐the-­‐numbers/  

[Accessed  30  August  2013]  

 

Agyeman,  J.  (2007),  “The  climate-­‐justice  link:  communicating  risk  with  

low-­‐income  and  minority  audiences”,  Creating  a  Climate  for  Change,  

Cambridge  University  Press,  Cambridge,  UK  

 

Balmas,  M.  and  Sheafer,  T.  (2010),  Candidate  Image  in  election  

Campaigns:  Attribute  Agenda  Setting,  Affective  Priming,  and  Voting  

Intentions,  International  Journal  of  Public  Opinion  Research,  22  (2),  pp.  

204-­‐229  

 

CSIRO  website  -­‐  http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-­‐

Structure/Flagships/Minerals-­‐Down-­‐Under-­‐Flagship/mineral-­‐

futures/Project-­‐Social-­‐licence.aspx  [Accessed  11  September  2013]  

 

International  Institute  for  Environment  and  Development  (2002),  

Mining,  Minerals  and  Sustainable  Development,  London,  UK  -­‐  

http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/HC_RL_FS_2002.pdf  [Accessed  

10  September  2013]  

Keohane,  J.  (2010),  “How  facts  backfire”,  Boston  Globe,  July  2010,  

Weblink:  

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_f

acts_backfire/,  [Accessed  22  September  2013]  

 

Lamberts,  R.  (2013),  To  change  anti-­‐science  activists'  minds,  go  

beyond  science,  The  Conversation,  http://theconversation.com/to-­‐

change-­‐anti-­‐science-­‐activists-­‐minds-­‐go-­‐beyond-­‐science-­‐18519  [accessed  

28  September  2013]  

 

Mayhew,  L.  (1997),  The  New  Public,  Cambridge  University  Press,  

Cambridge,  UK  

 

Mullard,  Z.  (2010),  The  Application  of  Social  Media  in  the  Mining  

Industry,  University  of  British  Columbia,  

https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/28933/ubc_2010_fall_mull

ard_zoe.pdf?sequence=1  [Accessed  18  September  2013]  

 

Nelson,  J.  and  Scoble,  M.  (2006),  Social  License  to  Operate  Mines:  Issues  

of  Situational  Analysis  and  Process,  Department  of  mining  Engineering,  

University  of  British  Columbia,  Vancouver.  

 

NSW  Chief  Scientist  &  Engineer  Report  (2013),  Initial  report  on  the  

Independent  Review  of  Coal  Seam  Gas  Activities  in  NSW,  NSW  

Government  -­‐  

http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/312

46/130730_1046_CSE-­‐CSG-­‐July-­‐report.pdf  [Accessed  11  September]  

 

Owen,  P.  and  Kemp,  D.  (2013),  Social  licence  and  mining:  A  critical  

perspective,  Resources  Policy,  38  (1),  pp.  29–35  

 

Paterson,  D.  (2013),  Coal  seam  gas  industry  has  to  work  harder  to  win  

over  critics,  Sydney  Morning  Herald  21  August  2013  -­‐  

http://www.smh.com.au/business/coal-­‐seam-­‐gas-­‐industry-­‐has-­‐to-­‐work-­‐

harder-­‐to-­‐win-­‐over-­‐critics-­‐20130820-­‐2s99z.html  [Accessed  18  

September  2013]  

 

D.  A  Scheufele  &  S.  Iyengar  (2011),  The  State  of  Framing  Research:  A  Call  

for  New  Directions,  Stanford  University  -­‐  

pcl.stanford.edu/research/2011/scheufele-­‐framing.pdf  [Accessed  9  

September  2013]  

 

Scheufele,  D.  and  Tewksbury,  D.  (2007),  Framing,  Agenda  Setting,  and  

Priming:  The  Evolution  of  Three  Media  Effects  Models,  Journal  of  

Communication,  57  (2007),  pp.  9-­‐20  

 

Taylor,  M,  Sandy,  N,  &  Raphael,  B.  (2013).  Background  paper  on  

community  concerns  in  relation  to  coal  seam  gas.  University  of  Western  

Sydney  -­‐  

http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/317

89/Community-­‐Concerns-­‐in-­‐relation-­‐to-­‐Coal-­‐Seam-­‐Gas_Taylor,-­‐Sandy-­‐

and-­‐Raphael_UWS.pdf  [Accessed  9  September  2013]  

 

Weaver,  D.H.  (2007),  Thoughts  on  Agenda  Setting,  Framing,  and  

Priming,  Journal  of  Communication,  57  (1),  pp.  142-­‐147