Ideosphere Forum
From owner-fx-propose@ideosphere.com Sat Sep  8 11:47:54 2018
Received: from ideosphere.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w88FlsbY014733
	for <fx-propose-outgoing@ideosphere.com>; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 11:47:54 -0400
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id w88FlsaF014732
	for fx-propose-outgoing; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 11:47:54 -0400
Received: from smtpq1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.57.96])
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w88FlroV014725
	for <fx-propose@ideosphere.com>; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 11:47:53 -0400
Received: from [212.54.57.80] (helo=smtp1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net)
	by smtpq1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
	(envelope-from <chrisran.bma@virgin.net>)
	id 1fyfSi-0007Da-Fx
	for fx-propose@ideosphere.com; Sat, 08 Sep 2018 17:47:52 +0200
Received: from oxbe12.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net ([172.25.160.143])
	by smtp1.tb.ukmail.iss.as9143.net with ESMTP
	id yfSifEBpuzHwxyfSif4M0q; Sat, 08 Sep 2018 17:47:52 +0200
X-Env-Mailfrom: chrisran.bma@virgin.net
X-Env-Rcptto: fx-propose@ideosphere.com
X-SourceIP: 172.25.160.143
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=e+XXtph/ c=1 sm=1 tr=0
 a=pVlFXI3Q25jgZXAaIqG4JA==:117 a=HLtA4s0OuSIA:10 a=x7bEGLp0ZPQA:10
 a=4bWn1NP9-asA:10 a=-3uM3KCiH00Tk-yehyAA:9 a=TNsknhDd8ss0ofN8:21
 a=AOGhqXAkGgdzGrPL:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=NmI5_SDEKy8VIhXyacgA:9
 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10
X-Authenticated-Sender: chrisran.bma@virgin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=virgin.net;
	s=meg.feb2017; t=1536421672;
	bh=t5lSOA5PaVQSe/5A7sZvN6nS/8VDJH1znc3SHlO3100=;
	h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject;
	b=duz4iHdoWyctxx0oF1Cu+pegt2oF0raFTAOzwE72U7lLVlIv/R1lVlKvLO5nkuA7d
	 v0RGjgFAbXOkVDSzMh7zhDjN0TmiTJ4kXzhK2DjCqX+tzOYpYknn0BnzoGMDeY5gcA
	 CDoyBquj5V7Oiq8Qm5ipxl2KLOQ1FTUP2WLktBLE2P2OnegooW2+kGyOaiE+fgkXv8
	 LM2M2tiR7kY8EEFfyRAL5cckSQWpJ+JV2Xd3vKBTa9jZj2YHEUImDokHa3YEuVKll6
	 avhSdybFhlivmi59KJzrp0aLCS3GrCDRZnwR4VOLiXHoqnOz5Hy8Fd+jacDG6grvL6
	 18WcyZ1Jsg2BA==
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 16:47:52 +0100 (BST)
From: "chrisran.bma e-mail" <chrisran.bma@virgin.net>
To: fx-propose@ideosphere.com
Message-ID: <1280586879.1124483.1536421672434@mail2.virginmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <44507018.737479.1535210960068@mail2.virginmedia.com>
References: <201808211101.w7LB1Irg032555@ideosphere.com>
 <1962341932.728169.1535121623052@mail2.virginmedia.com>
 <CAAra84SYojfAtkxG4U=qdJAgDiJE3SsbfK9Xi=j9zyqN1wn-MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1346423088.733984.1535133982709@mail2.virginmedia.com>
 <DDCFE320-4DEA-4BFF-9CAF-C1DFBED12EF6@gmail.com>
 <600830460.728305.1535149205307@mail2.virginmedia.com>
 <CAAra84SwbYYuotS3JAEwPC0JChxisYiiEvJhMdnRvXr+F6cLoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <44507018.737479.1535210960068@mail2.virginmedia.com>
Subject: Re: fx-propose: Proposal: 'POIL30'
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1124482_1686476400.1536421672424"
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.8.3-Rev48
X-Originating-IP: 92.3.12.0
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfE/MtmoIJItGDIxcxsvVr26kmGcc8ZrlSHreXg0rQ0PmqOtxLN6nc44p2hDhtsyyUz1qjvtasjbEZtZ+C4P55g/FeB9Xl1kDtDwXM0cgZ2oGkLxGO1I7
 u3DlxpXkY0Ky6KkhJbP3JBaxBARlEi1WbM2RDYUXqDQ/wagxnDpCVq1WF5ld0dyTpdhEabh79F4hkQIy8Cg4VHi+54xYggdSdrI=
Sender: owner-fx-propose@ideosphere.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: fx-propose@ideosphere.com

 
 So, any comments on whether the following is viable or if it would be preferable to provide greater certainty about judging by just using oil production being over 5% below the peak year?

Anyone willing to offer to be judge?

Regards

Chris

> 
>     This is a scaled claim that will pay (10*(peak year-2020)) capped at or between 0 and 100. The peak year is defined as year with  highest worldwide annual total of oil production according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
> 
>     The claim should not be judged until one of the following four options occurs and then it should be judged.
> 
>     A. 1. There is a subsequent year with worldwide annual total of oil production being over 5% below the peak year, and 2. This is not the year following the peak year, and 3. This is not due to temporary freak circumstances, and 4. There is widespread agreement amongst experts that there will be further falls in worldwide annual total of oil production.
> 
>     or
> 
>     B. 1. There are four years of declines in worldwide annual total of oil production in a four or five consecutive year period, and 2. The end year of that period has worldwide total of oil production over 2% below the latest year before the period starts that is not affected by temporary freak circumstances, and 3. None of the years in the period are affected by temporary freak circumstances, and 4. There is widespread agreement amongst experts that there will be further falls in worldwide annual total of oil production.
> 
>     or
> 
>     C. There is a subsequent year with worldwide annual total of oil production being over 10% below the peak year, and 2. This is not the year following the peak year, and 3. This is not due to temporary freak circumstances. Experts expecting rises in oil production have no effect under this C clause.
> 
>     or
> 
>     D. 2030 or subsequent year has highest worldwide annual total oil production.
> 
> 
>     The precise meaning of 'temporary freak circumstances' is at the judges discretion but should be expected to include things like natural disasters, terrorist action on oil production/refining or other facilities, wars that are significantly more widespread than previous years, pandemics, or government action like bans/rationing possibly taxes etc provided that the circumstances are expected to last 18 months or less and have highly significant impact on oil production.
> 
>     Anything approaching normal operation of the market like OPEC deciding to pump less because they want to drive the prices up should not count as temporary freak circumstances unless it is clearly in response to some other freak event.
> 
>     Temporary freak circumstances can turn out to last a little longer than 18 months without ceasing to be temporary. A maximum of 3 consecutive calendar (or whatever annual period BP Statistical Review of World Energy uses) years can be below 95% of the peak year due to temporary freak circumstances and not be used to cause the claim to be judged.
> 
>     The judge has discretion on how and when to decide the temporary freak circumstances have ceased to have impact and may shorten the maximum 3 consecutive calendar (or whatever annual period BP Statistical Review of World Energy uses) year period. The 3 consecutive calendar year period should not be extended to 4 or more years unless there is a completely separate temporary freak event.
> 
>     If the BP Statistical Review of World Energy ceases to be produced then the judge should add a statement indicating a replacement source that is preferably similarly authoritative.
> 
>     'Widespread agreement amongst experts that there will be further falls in worldwide annual oil production totals' will depend on sources available at that time and the judge has discretion on how to interpret this.
> 
>     It is possible the claim will need to be kept open past the due date to see if a new peak is reached per D, or to see if oil production or expectations declines in order to satisfy A, B or C above or to see if circumstances remain temporary freak circumstances.
> 


 

Back to regular message display

All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL