Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-propose: Proposal: 'POIL30'

Author: chrisran.bma e-mail
Conversation: fx-propose: Proposal: 'POIL30' ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-propose ( prev | next )
In-Reply-To: Sam Fentress's post
Date: Fri Aug 24, 2018 04:21 pm
Sam Fentress
chrisran.bma e-mailchrisran.bma e-mail




Hi.

1. Should I include a statement like

"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 unusual circumstances unless it is clearly in response to some other freak event."

Would that help clarify or add confusion? Any other examples of things I could add either as examples of what would be freak events or should not be treated as freak events?

2 Period

If I added a statement

"The judge has discretion to decide whether and when the temporary unusual circumstances ceased to be affecting oil production to earlier than the end of the three year period but not to extend the period to more than the three years."

Would this help and/or is fixed 2 years better and/or can you suggest better?

3. I am thinking I should change "temporary unusual circumstances" to 'temporary freak circumstances' every time it occurs because for what I am envisioning potentially being an issue, freak seems the more appropriate word to use and unusual too common. Sensible or different suggestions?

4. Suppose some sort of cap was to be introduced and this lead to a year of bumper oil production before the cap starts to apply. Do I need to change the claim so that production has to decline to 95% of normal level rather than to just 95% of peak level? How should normal be defined (annual usage if unaffected?) or should I just give judge discretion on how and whether to apply it? Is this too unlikely to be necessary?

Thanks again and Regards

Chris




> On 24 August 2018 at 20:15 Sam Fentress <sfentress@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just changing the short description is fine -- I should have simplified my message after I realized that was the most logical solution.
>
> I feel like the "temporary unusual circumstances" are the sketchiest part of the claim. I recognize the tension between not wanting a single freak event to cause "peak oil" to be called incorrectly, but also not wanting to force the claim to wait 3 years past the actual event. But it seems like this is something that can *only* be recognized in hindsight, and the definition of a "freak event" is going to be so subjective (does OPEC pumping less because they want to drive the prices up count as a "freak event?")
>
> I feel like this is going to require a non-subjective waiting time. Either the full 3 years or shortening it now to 2 years.
>
> Sam
>
>

source



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