Experts can also cause confusion: see this as an example

Comments on John Quiggin, John Rolfe, Martine Maron and Samantha Hepburn "Controversial Watermark coal mine approved for New South Wales: experts respond", 11/07/2015

There seems some potential errors, inconsistencies, confusion or something that may need clarification in the article and the introduction, otherwise they may be misleading. For example, in the introduction, there is the following paragraph:

"In an economic analysis the mine, proposed by Chinese mining company Shenhua, was valued at A$1.3-1.6 billion. The mine is expected to produce up to 10 million tonnes of coal each year over the its 30-year lifetime."

What does the value of A$1.3-1.6 billion mean, given John Quiggin states that the company's analysis was based on a coal price of A$140 a tonne? It is inconsistent with the sentence following it, that is, up to 10 million tonnes of coal each year over the next 30-year lifetime. What does 10 million tonnes coal value and how much the total would be for 30 years of production at that level?

Secondly, in the section of John Rolfe, the very first sentence reads "The potential development of the Shenhua coal mine for coal-fired power plants in China expose the differences between aspirational goals and what is happening in reality." That sentence is also misleading in connection with what was followed and also in terms of China's commitment to emissions targets and its energy use/growth.

China has committed to reduction in its fossil fuel intensity of GDP very significantly by 2020 and by 2030. It also commit to the target of peak fossil fuel use or emissions by 2030. They are very ambitious targets. Those target can be seen by the presentation of an energy expert and adviser to the Chinese government at the recent China Update (10/07/2015) at the ANU. It may also be in the book that the China Update released/published as the main outputs of this year's update. Those commitment, however, do not conflict or contradict to some absolute increase in its fossil fuel use by 2030.

In the third paragraph in that section, the following sentence is also misleading and does not reflect accurately what China has committed to as I have outlined above :"The World Energy Outlook 2014, summarised by Ian Cronshaw, predicted that total global energy use will increase by almost 40% to 2040." I assume it is about to say China's energy use and particularly emissions to increase too. In contrary, China has committed to the target of peaking of its fossil fuel use by 2030, meaning its fossil fuel use will not increase after 2030. The mention of 2040 confuses the readers.

The fourth paragraph is itself contraction with each other in logic: "While the share of renewable energies grows, and the share of fossil fuels falls over that time period, the absolute share of fossil fuels is predicted to increase." What does it mean when the share of fossil fuels falls and the 'absolute share' of fossil fuels is predicted to increase? It is illogical.

The following paragraph is also confusing in the context of the mining will have a lifetime of 30 years (as opposed to China's commitment to reduce emissions absolutely from 2030) and the commission of the mining is at least a few years away:

"Would the development of the Shenhua coal mine lead to an increase in global greenhouse emissions? The answer depends on whether the coal contributes to a growth in coal consumption, or whether it is part of the substitution story. Both scenarios are plausible but uncertain."

While John Quiggin's broad analysis is appealing, there is also some confusion in his section. For example, the second paragraph reads: "This is based on the high price for metallurgical coal that prevailed when the project was proposed. The boom in such coal derived from a massive multi-year construction boom experienced in China. In the last two years of construction the boom, has slowed and there is now a substantial risk of a disorderly collapse."

What does the last sentence mean? Isn't it confusing, at say the least? This mine has not started yet, has it? The author and/or the editor have left the readers with confusion.

In the section with Martine Maron, we can see the high arts of an environmentalist for doing nothing and allowing nothing to change, as reflected in the following paragraph:

"The Shenhua offset proposal does a bit of both: it plans to restore woodland and protect some existing habitat. The bottom line is that clearing 771 hectares of woodland means there will be even less of this threatened ecosystem than there was before. Offsets can help, but the only sure-fire way to recover threatened ecosystems is to avoid losing them the first place."

The reading of the last section with Samantha Hepburn also further reinforce the ambiguity the authors use to cause confusion.

After argument back and forth including "The approval includes strong water usage conditions – Shenhua is only entitled to use 0.09% of available groundwater; it must complete water, biodiversity and rehabilitation management plans prior to mining and any impact on groundwater allocated for agricultural purposes; it must complete annual compliance updates and; should an impact on agricultural interests be proven, would be required to provide compensation."
Then it ends with the following paragraph:

"The jobs, economic growth and community funding generated by Shenhua, including for example, an upgrade of the maternity ward of the Gunnedah hospital, donations to aged care and renovations to the Gunnedah town hall are important but cannot act as a substitute for rigorous protection of a groundwater system that supports such a strong and established agricultural industry."
Readers are left with impressions that the mine should probably not go ahead.

PS: I think the feasibility of the mine is highly questionable, given that the analysis of the mine by the applicant was based on very high coal prices that have been a past thing and now the coal prices are much lower than those. Although it is likely that coal prices will bounce back higher, it is unlikely to see its high days in the past. China's economy has been in transition and its future demand for coal is also unlikely to be as predicted in the past when the Chinese economy was red hot with annual growth was double digits. Further, as some of the experts stated, there are also hurdles for the applicant to get over before it can plan when to start the mining, should coal prices can be high enough for the mine to open. It can be years away assuming the applicant is still interested in moving forward with the mining project.

Quoted numbers or not: not necessarily everyone is correct

Comments on Dylan McConnell "How much does wind energy cost? Debunking the myths", 23/06/2015 

While two people have quite different figures, it is unclear which one is more reliable and accurate after reading this article. It seems to me this article is not without its own shortcomings. For example, are all the quoted favourable figures really all reliable and accurate in the first Place?

I must however confess that I have not read the other piece to which this article is debating. But it may be reasonably expected that piece should also contain some quoted figures as opposed all figures coming from that author alone.

Shale gas and a US manufacturing renaissance?

Comments on Alexander Liddington-Cox “Can America step up to a manufacturing renaissance?” 10/01/2013, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/US-manufacturing-shale-gas-GE-China-pd20121227-3D368?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot

The shale gas advantage to the US remains to be seen, given that energy is internationally traded goods. If shale gas could make the US advantageous internationally, many countries could subsidise their energy sector too to the degree that the only advantage to the US is its intrinsic values of the shale gas.

How much is that relative to the size of the US economy, particularly in the international context when there are huge differences in labour costs even after taking account of differences in labour productivity?

Would that suggest a US manufacturing renaissance?

The answer is likely to be negative as long as a bit of simple reasoning is applied.

Putin's opportunity created by the west

Comments on STRATFOR “Putin finds opportunity in Libya”, 28/03/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Putin-finds-opportunity-in-Libya-pd20110328-FD682?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot

Although many people in the west support the military operations including bombing government ground limitary facilities, assets and troops, it may eventually turn out to be disastrous for the world as a whole including the west countries.

Libya and many other middle east and Africa countries are likely to experience much more instabilities and unrest. Civil wars as well as anarky are likely to occur in some of those countries.

World oil price will be much higher than otherwise.

Further, the influence and power of the US in the middle east and Africa is likely to diminish rapidly once those governments recognise that the US will give them away and not only switch supports to oppositions but also to facilitate military operations in support of oppositions, they will consider alternative powers for support.

Russia, China, India and Germany are likely to feel the void if the US loses its influence.

The US president was prudent in his hesitation of military actions, but eventually was hijacked by the French and the Brit leaders acted to divert their own domestic woes and overwhelmed by some US interest groups that seemed to have misjudged the situations in the middle east and the Arab world for short term gains, but at the expense of the US long term interests in the region and the world.

Interesting time lies ahead!

Global energy security needs greater global cooperation

Comments on Andrew Kennedy “Rethinking energy security in China”, 6/06/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/06/06/rethinking-energy-security-in-china/
I agree completely that a multilateral approach to energy interdependence is the best way forward for China.

China's rapid industrialisation and urbanisation process has further exposed problems in world energy in terms of efficiency and over reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels and will continue to do so, as well as energy security.

Globalisation requires strengthening global institutions and cooperation more effectively.

Energy is an important part in global cooperation. It has the potential of rivalries and conflicts and Iraq has probably been a case study.

Frankel's proposal on "Gulfs in America’s energy security"

Comments on Jeffrey Frankel “Gulfs in America’s energy security, and the Louisiana oil blowout”, 26/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/26/gulfs-in-americas-energy-security-and-the-louisiana-oil-blowout/

An interesting proposal and point.

For the proposal to be more valuable and relevant, it would be useful to also calculate the costs of that proposal under reasonable and plausible assumptions and probabilities for different scenarios.

Alternatively, instead of preparing for the emergent scenarios, it would be better to develop strategies that promote cooperation, peace and stability in the world to prevent them from occurring.

Imagine all the world major and large countries are to do the same as Professor Frankel proposes, what a world will that be?

A collective security mechanism and system is better than the situation of prison’s dilemma and everyone considering only his own interest.

So, it is an issue and question of cost and benefit analysis, and choices, after all.

PS: I made the following second comments:
The point I was making is:

Jeffrey Frankel raises and attempts to answer the following question "what larger implications should we draw for domestic oil drilling?"
To me, the implications he draws do not appear to be large enough.
From a more strategic or higher level, a different set of implications can be drawn.

ALP's bizarre energy policy

Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “Our energy through Chinese eyes”, 14/10/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au//bs.nsf/Article/Climate-Change-Beijing-Penny-Wong-Carbon-Conferenc-pd20091014-WSRGZ?OpenDocument

It is so interesting to see that the ALP's stubbornness and ignorance on nuclear power.

It shows that the ALP is not really interested how to successfully managing the Australian economy and enhance the nation’s welfare.

Unfortunately for Rudd, it also shows his lack of leadership and narrowness in his thinking and mind.

They put ideology above rationality to such an extreme!

Does anyone believe them to be rational?

Whatever they say in terms of economic conservatism, it is hypocrisy.

Renewable energy has a bright future in Australia

Comments on Paul Kelly, Editor-at-large for The Australian “Renewable energy target initiative is mad, bad tokenism”, 19 /08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25949700-12250,00.html

Paul Kelly is a well respected commentator in Australia and is mostly balanced in his comments. What he says should be listened to very carefully. However, although I hate to say this, I may have to disagree with him on this issue.

I think some comments make sense that the energy consumption worldwide is unsustainable and the market has been unable to price the true costs of energy consumption. It is a market failure in the global scale. Energy consumption is underpriced for two main reasons, one is that fossil fuels, like oil, gas and coal are limited resources and not renewable, current level of consumption means sooner or later they will be gone, but the market does not take that into account.

The other major failure is the carbon emissions into the atmosphere to form greenhouse gases. This means there is a very big negative externality of fossil fuel consumption.

In this context, to develop and use more renewable energies is a correction of the significant and known market failures. Yes, it is difficult to price fossil fuel from long term sustainability point of view, although the price for limiting carbon emissions may be easier to determine. Nevertheless, renewable energies are likely to be competitive if all the costs of fossil fuels are considered.

Australia has a huge advantage over most other countries in developing renewable energies. It has one of the lowest population per land unit. Most of its vast land enjoys excellent sunshine all year round. It is surrounded by sea from all sides. So there are the most enviable natural conditions in Australia to develop renewable energies.

Further, Australia has also been in the forefront of solar energy technologies. It was reported that California will use an Australian firm’s solar technology to construct a large scale solar energy base. So why don’t we put that technology into good use and improve Australia’s energy consumption and contribute to the global effort to combat global warming?

The Australian Industry Group submission, the Business Council of Australia, the Productivity Commission submission and the Ross Garnaut argument, well all respectable, seem all miss the point of market failures, or at least have not take the full account of them. Besides, the AI and BCA are business focused and there is self interest involved.