Reassessing Energy Security and the Trans-Asean Natural Gas Pipeline Network in Southeast Asia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulators within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have heavily promoted investment in natural gas infrastructure to meet burgeoning demand for energy. By 2030, some analysts expect Southeast Asia to become "the Persian Gulf of Gas" and responsible for one-quarter of the world's gas production and use. Perhaps no single project is more emblematic of the region's view of energy security and policy than the Trans-ASEAN natural gas pipeline (TAGP) system, a proposed network of natural gas pipelines to connect the gas reserves in the Gulf of Thailand, Indonesia, Myanmar and the Philippines to the rest of the region. Advocates of the TAGP expect it to promote economic development, earn foreign exchange, mitigate the risks of climate change, and enhance regional energy security. Drawing from field research and research interviews, however, this article takes a critical look at the region's drive towards the TAGP and ASEAN's approach to energy security as a whole. The article argues that plans for the TAGP rest on too simple a notion of energy security: secure access to fuel. This conception of energy security ignores important additional dimensions related to availability, affordability, efficiency and environmental and social stewardship. In contrast, the paper concludes that the TAGP is insufficient, expensive, inefficient, and environmentally and socially destructive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it