Metgasco’s legal bid to have the licence reinstated was renewed last week after the OCSG completed a review of its original decision and saw fit to continue the suspension.

The OCSG supplied Metgasco with written material supporting its renewed suspension, with the company raising concerns that the regulator’s definition of “effective consultation” kept shifting.

“That material demonstrates that there has been a seismic shift in the OCSG’s interpretation of ‘effective consultation’, which we consider does not accord with its own guidelines,” Metgasco said in a statement on Friday morning.

“Metgasco believes the OCSG’s new material provides no justifiable basis for its claim that community consultation was inadequate or that Metgasco had failed to honour its approval obligations.”

Metgasco managing director Peter Henderson reiterated the company’s frustrations, suggesting that the NSW government was gauging its claims of the lack of effective consultation on the protests of those who had no interest in consultation.

“Metgasco strongly believes that it has complied with the OCSG guidelines on community consultation,” Henderson said.

“The company’s proposed consultation program was specified in its drilling review of environmental factors application lodged in March 2013 and approved by the OCSG in February 2014.

“The OCSG did not communicate any concerns about community consultation until a few days before the drilling rig was to be mobilised.

“We are also concerned that the justification for the suspension keeps changing.

“The most recent decision by the OCSG cites new and different reasons to the original 14 May letter.

“The prime reasons for the suspension decision appear to have little to do with Metgasco’s efforts to consult in good faith with the local community but rather a concern about protests by activists who demonstrably have no interest in consultation.

“Metgasco would like to work constructively with the government on community consultation as soon as possible but with the government continuing to alter the definition of ‘effective consultation’, Metgasco has no alternative than to seek court action to protect shareholder interests and have the suspension lifted.”

In addition, Henderson expressed concerns that the “notice to produce” issued to the government by the court on the company’s behalf had resulted in only a handful of basic documents being handed over, some of which were written by Metgasco itself.