The plan is believed to be looking at classing different areas of the state according to land use and then working those classifications into the permitting process.

Seven regions are being considered under the plan, with the first two – New England North West and the Upper Hunter – familiar to anyone keeping an eye on the NSW CSG scene.

Notably, the New England region covers Santos’ CSG permits near the Narrabri forest which it bought from Eastern Star Gas last year and which have been the cause of headaches for the company ever since.

Meanwhile to the southeast of the region, the Liverpool Plains was the scene of a standoff between Santos, the Caroona Coal Action Group and independent MP Tony Windsor over plans to drill a pilot well before the Namoi water catchment study was concluded.

In the Upper Hunter, AGL Energy has been causing consternation with its land-grab in the region, with the local wine industry increasingly worried about its activity.

No doubt the series of six monthly meetings between pro and anti-CSG drilling bodies which took place from June last year would have been interesting.

The plan itself is part of a broader review into NSW CSG in a process begun by the previous Labor government and nobody has accused the current government of a lack of consultation with key stakeholders on the issue, with 12 peak bodies consulted and reportedly up to 50 people in any given meeting.

Opponents to CSG drilling, such as Nature Conservation Council of NSW and the Greens, have called for “no-go” zones to be included in the plans, where no drilling, CSG or otherwise, would be able to take place, much to the ire of pro-development groups such as the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association.

It argues applications for drilling should be decided on a case by case basis, rather than a blanket ban being applied.

At this stage, the NSW government is not saying how the plan would work with its permitting system, with a spokesperson for the NSW Planning Department telling ILN's sister publication EnergyNewsPremium it hoped to have a firm plan in place by the end of a two-month public consultation period.

The department said the plans were due to be released “soon”, with various aspects of it to be signed off on by the NSW government.

While the draft plans are still off the public record, the main point of difference between environmental groups and pro-industry groups seems to be the establishment of no-go zones for mining or CSG activity.

APPEA eastern chief Rick Wilkinson, who attended the last two meetings of the stakeholder group, told ENP the establishment of no-go zones would be short-sighted.

“I think it sets a dangerous precedent and what we’re saying is that it should be outcome-focused,” he said.

“We really have to answer what it is we’re trying to protect and then put the right gateway processes in place to protect them rather than use a rather blunt instrument in no-go zones.”

Wilkinson said the two areas under review had the potential to set the scene for the treatment of CSG in other parts of NSW.

“I think they [New England and the Hunter Valley] bring to a head a lot of the issues around how the petroleum industry works with the wider community,” he said.

“Especially when there’s intensive cultivation and when there are material tourist industries around at the same time, so again that sets a very high benchmark.”

He’s worried the prospect of no-go zones will not only stigmatise the industry further but add layers of red tape to an already heavily-regulated sector.

Wilkinson pointed to the constant evolution of drilling and completion technologies and techniques which had opened up new areas of exploration over the past 15 years and questioned whether a no-go zone today might be one 15 years from now.

“I don’t know what technology will present in 15 years’ time,” he said.

“What may seem like a no-go zone today, which may be unreachable with current technology, may be easily doable in another 15 years.

The problem with a no-go zone, in his eyes, is the industry would have to prove the technology works and then go through bureaucratic hoops and hurdles to have the no-go zone repealed.

His argument is that potential legislation should establish the challenges and risks associated with petroleum exploration in a given area, which would give a definite goal for the petroleum industry to overcome.

While it would still have to prove the technology would work before being given exploration permits over the area, it wouldn’t have to work to undo the sometimes tangled mess of that legislation.

Of course, some will argue certain areas of the Upper Hunter and New England are too precious to be worth the risk on the promise of technological advancement.

Stewart Ewen of the Hunter Valley Protection Alliance and spokesperson for the Hunter Valley Wine Industry Association says while he doesn’t hold specific opinion on CSG development in Australia, trying to develop another industry in the Hunter Valley is madness.

“The upper Hunter has been decimated over the last decade by the coal industry and now we have the coal seam gas industry getting into the region,” he tells ENP.

“What we’re trying to do is draw a line in the sand and say our region has been developed enough.

“We’re not being anti-energy but there’s a need to get the balance right.”

He says the review process is supposed to be made public in December but fears the timeline could be pushed out as late as April, as the government speaks to all relevant stakeholders and gathers all the evidence before formulating the plan.

“The whole thing’s been put into a ministerial box and is getting pushed out, which is not only frustrating for people like ourselves but for the mining companies as well,” he says.

“While we’re mindful that the government should have all the information before going to public review, we’re also aware that time is rushing by and the social impact of delays are huge.”

But the impacts wouldn’t only be social, according to Ewen.

They’d be economic too, as the bad press surrounding the CSG industry starts to bite one of the valley’s economic lifelines.

“Add to that the fear of potential contamination to our product, the price of the product just gets decimated,” he says.

“If customers get the idea that the area you’re growing in could be contaminated, even if it wouldn’t be … the price goes down quite dramatically.

“Obviously people are hearing about the problems this industry could potentially cause in terms of aquifers, so it definitely has the potential to concern potential customers.”

He makes the point that the Hunter has already been impacted by the coal industry and adding the CSG industry into the mix would not only add social pressures but make the Hunter a less attractive place to visit for potential tourists.

“If you start to overlay even more industrial activities over that, it definitely has the potential to very quickly drive people away,” Ewen says.

All the arguments from each side of the debate have been made to the NSW government and what remains is public consultation and cabinet approval.

While the delay in implementation is proving frustrating for all sides, they begrudgingly accept the government wants to get this right.

The strident arguments made by both sides point to the importance of the two emotionally charged regions in New England and the Upper Hunter.

The opposing sides know if they can win New England and the Upper Hunter, the rest of the state is likely to follow.