Using Structural Topic Modeling to Explore the Role of Framing in Shaping the Debate on Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals in Oregon

The drastic increase in domestic production of natural gas due to the fracking boom prompted efforts to develop a robust infrastructure in the U.S. to export natural gas. Given environmental concerns over increased fossil fuel development, significant opposition mobilized to "keep it [fossil fuels] in the ground" by acting to prevent not only natural gas production but also its transportation via pipelines and shipping via export terminals. Our analysis focuses on the latter component, specifically examining the long history of proposed liquefied natural gas infrastructure in two coastal communities in Oregon. Members of the public engaged in the formal siting processes and mobilized both opposition and support. We examine their use of collective action frames in both comments at public hearings and letters to the editor in local newspapers (N = 4618) over the 16 years that these proposals were under consideration, quantifying the dynamic nature of framing using computational text analysis. We find that both groups vary their use of framing over time and by venue, reacting to exogenous events (e.g., September 11th, Fukushima) and tailor their messages to the context (e.g., an in-person hearing or a letter to the editor). Opponents concentrated on potential threats, initially emphasizing local impacts like tanker and pipeline safety but eventually focusing on climate concerns. Supporters, meanwhile, stressed the economic benefits of the projects but alternated their specific framing based on venue-focusing on employment when talking to regulatory agencies and community economic benefits in letters. While this juxtaposition of economic benefits and environmental threats was a key part of public discourse, opponents also expanded their framing to questions of local sovereignty and governance, allowing a broader coalition to develop and ultimately succeeding in defeating the proposals.