Michael Downing's unscientific idea regarding the Shenhua's Watermark coal mine

Comments on Michael Downing's arguments in his comments on "Shenhua mine’s water uncertainty means we should proceed with caution", 24/07/2015

Why take the figure of a "best estimate" of the cost for rehabilitation of a mine site and double it and apply a license fee to accumulate that figure, as you argued? Why double the best estimate? Is that a scientific approach, or an arbitrary impost?

Isn't your argument a layer of more red types?

Further, isn't it the case that the responsibility for rehabilitation of a mine is for the miner to do? If that is the case, are you advocate that the responsibility of rehabilitation be transferred to the government that would impose the extra license fee?

Technologies versus economics on resource productivity

Comments on Nick Florin et al "Resource productivity: four ways Australia can keep the good times rolling", 8/07/2015

Resource productivity is a relatively new term or concept, or at least to many economists, I suppose.

While it may be implied or internalised, the article does not discussion price signals or cost signals reasonably clearly as it perhaps should. Ultimately, the increase in the so called resource productivity must be reflected in economic terms, whether it is through better accounting of externalities associated with low resource productivity, or others.

The concept of resource productivity should be integrated with the framework of the total factor productivity as used in measure productivity by most people concerned.

Not every technology or technique will be adopted and economics is a factor in terms of adoption of technologies and techniques.

Effective mining tax rates across countries

Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Kevin Rudd to backflip on mining tax rate”, 27/05/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/kevin-rudd-to-backflip-on-mining-tax-rate/story-fn5eo6td-1225871786155

If what the graph (copied from the article and attached below) shows is true, it means the effective tax rate on mining is already higher than most large producers for mineral and at the middle for petroleum, bearing in mind that some large oil producing countries are not shown.

Then what is the point to have the RSPT and why does Australia move to an even higher mining tax country?

While minerals are immobile, mining production is capital intensive. So why did those leading economists who issued a statement yesterday note this? Professional negligence, or economic incompetent?

A strategic game that Rio can't win

Comments on st_sem的日志 "力拓“抛弃”中国市场 中方损失更大", 24/07/2009, http://www.pinggu.name/space-994566-do-blog-id-16670.html

This is a purely argument based on logic and does not reflect my personal view. I hope both China and Rio can settle their differences and have a fair and cooperative relationship.

The reason for a logic argument was that I saw that article had some problems in terms of fear unnecessarily.

The worst thing is to have unfair games and I personnally don't like that, no matter which side tries to take advantages of the other. I support a fair game.

如果澳大利亚政府支持力托，为什么中国政府不采取合适对策？
不要被力托小计吓住。他的损失要比中方大得多。
买东西比卖东西容易。中方要长期抵制力托，它受得了么？
在战略上中方有优势，不要害怕，要敢于和它都到底。
最终胜利是属于中方的。
干吧，干到底。把它斗倒。