Forgot your password?
New user?
Revised definitions of products
The OG secretariat will coordinate the answer from the Oslo Group to InterEnerStat before the dead-line of 15 March. If you have any remarks or additional sugggestion regarding the proposed revised definitions, please use the comment option below before 6 March.
At the beginning of the document you will find the notes and comments from Mr. Simmons explaining what he has done and raising a few questions.
Regarding the presentation, you will find for each revised definition the original definition and the decisions taken in October.
The format agreed in Paris is:
A definition, if necessary, explanations and, when needed, some specific remarks.
Revised definitions of products
Comments from Mr. Graeme Brown, Australian Bureau of Statistics (11-03-09)
Comments from Mr. Hans Pouwelse, Statistics Netherlands (13-03-09)
Comments from Mr. Thomas Olsen, Statistics Denmark (16-03-09)
Comments from Mr. Paul Westin, Swedish Energy Agency (16-03-09)
Coal products by Graeme Brown, ABS
Posted by
Jun
at
2009-03-04 12:49 PM
On page 13 the definition of Coal is given and the explanation places the various types of coal into a hierarchical structure (like a sub-classification). The definitions of these various types of coal are then given. My concern is two fold:
the definitions do not follow the principle of mutually exclusiveness and exhaustiveness; and
some definitions are very loose.
On the first concern, consider Hard coal and Black coal, which I expected would cover all types of coal. In summary, Hard coal is high rank (whatever that means) and has a gross calorific value > 24 mJ/kg and a mean random reflectance of vitrinite of > 0.6. Brown coal is low rank and has a gross calorific value < 24 mJ/kg and a mean random reflectance of vitrinite of < 0.6 (and is also non-agglomerating, a criteria not addressed for Hard coal, but let's ignore that). So how is a coal product which possesses only some of these criteria be classified? For example, if a coal product is low rank, has a gross calorific value > 24 mJ/kg and a mean random reflectance of vitrinite of < 0.6, then it doesn't qualify as either Hard coal or Brown coal as it doesn't satisfy all the criteria.
My second concern is shown by the explanation for Anthracite. It states "It usually has less than 10% volatile matter, a high carbon content (about 86-98% carbon) and is non-agglomerating". Perhaps I have been a statistician too long, but terms such as 'usually' and 'about' are too imprecise for me as a definition. When is it possible for a coal product to be greater than 10% or outside the carbon content range and still qualify as Anthracite?
the definitions do not follow the principle of mutually exclusiveness and exhaustiveness; and
some definitions are very loose.
On the first concern, consider Hard coal and Black coal, which I expected would cover all types of coal. In summary, Hard coal is high rank (whatever that means) and has a gross calorific value > 24 mJ/kg and a mean random reflectance of vitrinite of > 0.6. Brown coal is low rank and has a gross calorific value < 24 mJ/kg and a mean random reflectance of vitrinite of < 0.6 (and is also non-agglomerating, a criteria not addressed for Hard coal, but let's ignore that). So how is a coal product which possesses only some of these criteria be classified? For example, if a coal product is low rank, has a gross calorific value > 24 mJ/kg and a mean random reflectance of vitrinite of < 0.6, then it doesn't qualify as either Hard coal or Brown coal as it doesn't satisfy all the criteria.
My second concern is shown by the explanation for Anthracite. It states "It usually has less than 10% volatile matter, a high carbon content (about 86-98% carbon) and is non-agglomerating". Perhaps I have been a statistician too long, but terms such as 'usually' and 'about' are too imprecise for me as a definition. When is it possible for a coal product to be greater than 10% or outside the carbon content range and still qualify as Anthracite?
Draft report from OG4
Expert Group meeting on Energy Balances
Martin Howley