Pros And Cons Of Coal Seam Gas Mining In Australia

Coal Seam Gas (CSG) mining in Australia has developed quickly since 1995 and is estimated to deliver one half of Australia’s total gas production by the mid-2020s. Most of the production will be exported as Natural liquefied natural gas (LNG) which is expected to have exported 16 million tonnes by 2015. However, minerals are limited resources meaning that once they are extracted they vanish making the extraction unmaintainable. Nonetheless, it can become convenient extracting exhaustible resources because it can maintain its standard of living as long as the economic rents of the reserves are reinvested in a useful capital. Additionally, producing income for government and delivering an instrument for handling the quantity of extraction of

Nonetheless, the implementation and expansion of CSG has also contributed economic benefits and job opportunities were in QLD there has been granted 18,000 job positions. However, the disadvantages of this is that once the project is over people lose their jobs while the government gains billions of dollars in taxes (Chen & Randall 2013, pp. 1-3). Moreover, Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to the expectancy that companies should display some sort of responsibility for the community and environmental impacts. In Australia, unconventional gas actions are part of the CSG but shale and tight gas reserves are progressively increasing their market share and has been added to the states domestic stocks. Nevertheless, on a political level unconventional gas has increased concerns among different communities, especially the ones with a larger population because if their property is situated on an area that has subsurface minerals then the government owns it automatically. This makes communities feel like their rights and voices are being

Essentially because the state has the responsibility to construct relations between civil society and public authority and intervening when crucial relationships emerges. Furthermore, scholars argue that state bureaucrats are seen as being skilled for preparing general long-term plans with capitalist groups and self-interested social groups. But, there are other sceptics that argues that state officials do not have the requisites to solve social problems and they just use their legal power to help on specific interests or class sections. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that some state actions have solved issues (Evans et al. 1985, pp. 7-15). This can be applied to NSW Northern River territory case study when in May of 2014 the NSW government interfered and suspended Metgasco’s legal license to function. The main argument was that the corporation failed on checking with the community if they agreed on the drilling and fracking of the soil. Also, internally ‘behind the scenes’ NSW was in the middle of a state election and they were concerned of losing seats in the Northern Rivers due to the uprise of the community and different interest groups (Curran 2017, pp. 431-432). Metgasco took the NSW government to the supreme court claiming compensation over the decision for blocking their license at Bentley. It also wanted governmental help on stopping