Economic Impacts of the Adani Carmichael Coal Project Assessment

Task

1. Select an energy project that has been controversial in the past five years. This may be a current (proposed) project with active controversy, or a historical project. While Australian projects are encouraged, you may select any worldwide project. You may not select the same project that you contributed to in the Group Presentation.
2. Select a single analytical domain that interests you from the list below:
   • Environmental impact (including climate, water, land, and ecosystems)
   • Technological viability (technology readiness, scalability, innovation risks)
   • Economic impact (distribution of costs and benefits)
   • Policy settings (alignment or conflict with regulatory frameworks)
   • Ethical considerations (should this be undertaken, and why)
3. Identify and analyse the number of angles (arguments) relevant to your selected domain. You will need to research and properly cite information relevant to each angle in your assessment. Critically, you may notice that some angles will use different/competing information (including data) that may not agree. Your analysis should critically analyse evidence behind, and stakeholders for, each angle associated with your domain, identifying where evidence has been stretched or incorrectly applied to generate support for the angle. This process should avoid "for and against" framing, which often conflates multiple angles.
4. Conclude with a clear recommendation on how the project should proceed to best manage the number of angles identified. This recommendation should be supported by suggestions as to how legitimate concerns (from angles critical of the project) can be ethically managed.

Your report is limited to a maximum of 5000 words, and must include proper academic references (Vancouver style) for each piece of evidence included.

Assessment Summary

The assessment required students to select a controversial energy project from the past five yearseither ongoing or historicaland analyse it from a specific analytical domain. The goal was to evaluate complex stakeholder perspectives and competing evidence within one domain while developing a balanced, evidence-based recommendation.

Key requirements included:

• Choosing one controversial energy project (preferably Australian, but global options acceptable).
• Selecting one analytical domain:
  • Environmental impact
  • Technological viability
  • Economic impact
  • Policy settings
  • Ethical considerations
• Identifying and analysing multiple angles (arguments) within the chosen domain.
• Critically evaluating the evidence and stakeholder interests supporting each angle.
• Avoiding simple “for or against” framing and instead focusing on competing perspectives and data validity.
• Providing a conclusion and recommendation on how the project should proceed, including ethical management of legitimate concerns.
• Citing all evidence using the Vancouver referencing style.

The expected outcome was a 5,000-word analytical report that demonstrated critical thinking, research depth, and ethical awareness in policy and energy decision-making contexts.

Mentor’s Step-by-Step Guidance Process

The academic mentor guided the student through a systematic research and writing process, ensuring each stage aligned with the assessment requirements and learning objectives.

1. Topic Selection and Scope Definition:

   The mentor began by helping the student shortlist potential energy projects with recent controversysuch as the Adani Carmichael Coal Project or Dakota Access Pipelinefocusing on projects with diverse stakeholder opinions and accessible data. Together, they evaluated feasibility, data availability, and relevance before finalizing the topic.

2. Choosing the Analytical Domain:

   The mentor encouraged the student to select an analytical domain that matched both their academic interest and the project’s relevance. For instance, the economic impact domain was chosen to explore the cost–benefit distribution and its effect on communities, investors, and government policy.

3. Research and Evidence Collection:

   Under guidance, the student conducted comprehensive research using academic journals, government reports, and environmental assessments. The mentor emphasized cross-verifying data sources and identifying bias or exaggeration in public claims made by different stakeholders (e.g., industry groups vs. environmental activists).

4. Structuring the Report:

   The mentor helped the student break down the report into clear, analytical sections:

   • Introduction: Overview of the project and domain relevance.
   • Identification of Angles: Presentation of multiple stakeholder arguments.
   • Critical Analysis: Evaluation of evidence, data credibility, and stakeholder motivations.
   • Synthesis and Discussion: Integrating insights to highlight overlaps, contradictions, and ethical implications.
   • Conclusion and Recommendations: Offering balanced, actionable solutions for ethical management of concerns.

5. Critical Evaluation and Academic Writing:

   The mentor provided feedback on analytical depth, ensuring that the student moved beyond description to critical interpretationfor example, identifying how economic forecasts might be manipulated to justify development, or how social costs are undervalued.

6. Referencing and Compliance:

   Guidance was given on applying Vancouver referencing style accurately and maintaining academic integrity by avoiding bias or plagiarism.

Final Outcome and Learning Achievements

By following the mentor’s structured approach, the student successfully developed a well-researched and critically informed policy analysis report. The final submission:

• Presented a multi-perspective evaluation of the selected energy project.
• Demonstrated understanding of how evidence, policy, and ethics intersect in energy decision-making.
• Offered a realistic and ethically responsible recommendation for managing stakeholder concerns.
• Reflected strong analytical reasoning, argument coherence, and professional report writing standards.

Learning Objectives Covered:

• Critical evaluation of evidence and stakeholder motivations.
• Application of ethical reasoning in complex policy scenarios.
• Integration of multidisciplinary perspectives in energy analysis.
• Development of structured academic writing and referencing skills.

Get Inspired by This Sample But Stay Original

Looking for guidance on how to structure and write your assignment? You can download this sample solution to understand the correct formatting, analytical approach, and referencing style. It’s an excellent resource to help you improve your academic writing and research skills.

However, please remember this sample is strictly for reference and study purposes only. Submitting it as your own work may lead to plagiarism penalties from your university.

If you need a fresh, plagiarism-free, and custom-written assignment, our team of expert academic writers is here to help. Each solution is crafted from scratch based on your specific topic, requirements, and academic guidelines ensuring high quality, originality, and timely delivery.

Why Order a Fresh Assignment?

• 100% original, plagiarism-free content written from scratch
• Structured as per your university guidelines and marking rubric
• Backed by credible research and accurate referencing
• Delivered on time with guaranteed confidentiality

Take the smart step use the sample to learn, and order a personalized solution to excel with confidence.

Download Sample Solution  Order Fresh Assignment