IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Permitting a new mine: Insights from the community debate

Listed author(s):
  • Campbell, Gary
  • Roberts, Mark
Registered author(s):

    When a mining company selects a site for development, the company begins a dialogue with the local community about receiving the necessary approvals for the mining permits. The dialogue focuses on how well the company can use science and technology to manage risk to the local environment, and on how much economic benefit will be gained by the local community for accepting the risk. A useful approach to better understand how the debate affects the outcome of the permitting effort is to use the method of "discourse communities and analysis". This paper analyzes two efforts by Kennecott (Rio Tinto) and one by Exxon to develop base metal mine sites in the Upper Midwest of the USA. As the three case studies show, the local pro- and anti-mining discourse community members will not be changing their basic positions as the permitting of a new mine is debated. Accordingly, both communities are trying to convince undecided stakeholders rather than talking to each other. Both sides are using ever more sophisticated media methods to communicate their message to the undecided residents of the community. By winning the support of the majority of the undecided residents, political pressure can be used to sway the decision.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Resources Policy.

    Volume (Year): 35 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 3 (September)
    Pages: 210-217

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:35:y:2010:i:3:p:210-217
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:35:y:2010:i:3:p:210-217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.