IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v50y2016icp253-263.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A tale of two states: Development and regulation of coal bed methane extraction in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Cronshaw, Ian
  • Quentin Grafton, R.

Abstract

The paper reviews coal bed methane developments and their regulation in the states of Queensland and New South Wales, Australia. Queensland, like Pennsylvania in terms of shale gas developments in the US, has adopted a ‘go grow’ and a learning-by-doing approach to gas extraction. In Queensland, this approach has supported the rapid development of coal-bed methane as an energy source for domestic use, and since 2014, for export markets. By contrast, New South Wales has adopted a ‘go slow’ approach akin to that followed by New York State in terms of shale gas, but for coal-bed methane extraction. The different pathways followed by the two states allows for a comparison of regulatory change, why regulations have differed, and their benefits and costs. Differences are explained by: (1) the dynamic and fragile nature of a ‘social licence’; (2) the nature of the local concerns in the two states; and (3) how and why individuals and communities might support resource developments that impose environmental and other risks. Overall, the study offers a guide as to how and why resource policies have developed differently in neighbouring.

Suggested Citation

  • Cronshaw, Ian & Quentin Grafton, R., 2016. "A tale of two states: Development and regulation of coal bed methane extraction in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 253-263.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:50:y:2016:i:c:p:253-263
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.10.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420716300769
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.10.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Owen, John R. & Kemp, Deanna, 2013. "Social licence and mining: A critical perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 29-35.
    2. Parsons, Richard & Lacey, Justine & Moffat, Kieren, 2014. "Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice: How the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 83-90.
    3. Measham, Thomas & Fleming, David & Schandl, Heinz, 2015. "A Conceptual Model of the Socioeconomic Impacts of Unconventional Fossil Fuel Extraction," MPRA Paper 68523, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Nov 2015.
    4. R. Quentin Grafton & N. Ross Lambie, 2014. "Australia's Liquefied Natural Gas Sector: Past Developments, Current Challenges and Ways Forward," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 47(4), pages 509-522, December.
    5. Fleming, David A. & Measham, Thomas G., 2015. "Local economic impacts of an unconventional energy boom: the coal seam gas industry in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(1), January.
    6. Zhang, Airong & Moffat, Kieren, 2015. "A balancing act: The role of benefits, impacts and confidence in governance in predicting acceptance of mining in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 25-34.
    7. Blohm, Andrew & Peichel, Jeremy & Smith, Caroline & Kougentakis, Alexandra, 2012. "The significance of regulation and land use patterns on natural gas resource estimates in the Marcellus shale," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 358-369.
    8. Moffat, Kieren & Zhang, Airong, 2014. "The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 61-70.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liu, Lu & Zhao, Qiuhong & Bi, Yanlin, 2020. "Why rent-seeking behavior may exist in Chinese mining safety production inspection system and how to alleviate it: A tripartite game analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    2. McCrea, Dr Rod & Walton, Dr Andrea & Jeanneret, Ms Talia, 2020. "An opportunity to say no: Comparing local community attitudes toward onshore unconventional gas development in pre-approval and operational phases," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    3. Drew, Joseph & Dollery, Brian Edward & Blackwell, Boyd Dirk, 2018. "A square deal? Mining costs, mining royalties and local government in New South Wales, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 113-122.
    4. Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Adamson, David & Wheeler, Sarah Ann, 2020. "Is social licence a response to government and market failures? Evidence from the literature," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    5. Marcos-Martinez, Raymundo & Measham, Thomas G. & Fleming-Muñoz, David A., 2019. "Economic impacts of early unconventional gas mining: Lessons from the coal seam gas industry in New South Wales, Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 338-346.
    6. Valle de Souza, Simone & Dollery, Brian & Blackwell, Boyd, 2018. "An empirical analysis of mining costs and mining royalties in Queensland local government," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 656-662.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.
    2. Alberto Diantini & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Tim Edwards Powers & Daniele Codato & Giuseppe Della Fera & Marco Heredia-R & Francesco Facchinelli & Edoardo Crescini & Massimo De Marchi, 2020. "Is this a Real Choice? Critical Exploration of the Social License to Operate in the Oil Extraction Context of the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    3. Heffron, Raphael J. & Downes, Lauren & Ramirez Rodriguez, Oscar M. & McCauley, Darren, 2021. "The emergence of the ‘social licence to operate’ in the extractive industries?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    4. Xu, Min & Liu, Yong & Cui, Caiyun & Xia, Bo & Ke, Yongjian & Skitmore, Martin, 2023. "Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    5. Bowles, Paul & MacPhail, Fiona & Tetreault, Darcy, 2019. "Social licence versus procedural justice: Competing narratives of (Il)legitimacy at the San Xavier mine, Mexico," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 157-165.
    6. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz & Kural, Orhan, 2020. "The effects of the mining operation activities permit process on the mining sector in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    7. Richert, Claire & Rogers, Abbie & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Measuring the extent of a Social License to Operate: The influence of marine biodiversity offsets in the oil and gas sector in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 121-129.
    8. Stuart, Alice & Bond, Alan & Franco, Aldina M.A. & Baker, Julia & Gerrard, Chris & Danino, Vittoria & Jones, Kylie, 2023. "Conceptualising social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    9. John Colton & Kenneth Corscadden & Stewart Fast & Monica Gattinger & Joel Gehman & Martha Hall Findlay & Dylan Morgan & Judith Sayers & Jennifer Winter & Adonis Yatchew, 2016. "Energy Projects, Social Licence, Public Acceptance and Regulatory Systems in Canada: A White Paper," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(20), May.
    10. Leeuwerik, R.N.C. & Rozemeijer, M.J.C. & van Leeuwen, J., 2021. "Conceptualizing the interaction of context, process and status in the Social License to operate: The case of marine diamond mining in Namibia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    11. Brueckner, Martin & Eabrasu, Marian, 2018. "Pinning down the social license to operate (SLO): The problem of normative complexity," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 217-226.
    12. Amoako, Kwame Oduro & Lord, Beverley R. & Dixon, Keith, 2021. "Narrative accounting for mining in Ghana: An old defence against a new threat?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    13. Bice, Sara & Brueckner, Martin & Pforr, Christof, 2017. "Putting social license to operate on the map: A social, actuarial and political risk and licensing model (SAP Model)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 46-55.
    14. Omotehinse, Adeyinka O. & De Tomi, Giorgio, 2020. "Managing the challenges of obtaining a social license to operate in the pre-mining phase: A focus on the oil sands communities in Ondo State, Nigeria," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    15. Woźniak, Justyna & Jurczyk, Weronika, 2022. "SLO in CSR perspective - A comparative case study from Poland (2018–2020)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    16. W. Eberhard Falck, 2016. "Social licencing in mining—between ethical dilemmas and economic risk management," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 29(2), pages 97-104, December.
    17. Costanza, Jennifer Noel, 2016. "Mining Conflict and the Politics of Obtaining a Social License: Insight from Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 97-113.
    18. Demajorovic, Jacques & Lopes, Juliana Campos & Santiago, Ana Lucia Frezzatti, 2019. "The Samarco dam disaster: A grave challenge to social license to operate discourse," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 273-282.
    19. James A. Pollard & David C. Rose, 2019. "Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 473-487, February.
    20. Smits, Coco C.A. & van Leeuwen, Judith & van Tatenhove, Jan P.M., 2017. "Oil and gas development in Greenland: A social license to operate, trust and legitimacy in environmental governance," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 109-116.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:50:y:2016:i:c:p:253-263. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.