Ideosphere Forum
From Mon Sep 10 10:46:22 2018
Received: from (localhost [])
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w8AEkMLO031643
	for <>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:46:22 -0400
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id w8AEkMXh031642
	for fx-propose-outgoing; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:46:22 -0400
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w8AEkLvQ031637
	for <>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:46:22 -0400
Received: from [] (
	by with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
	(envelope-from <>)
	id 1fzNSG-00076Z-Q2
	for; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:46:20 +0200
Received: from ([])
	by with ESMTP
	id zNSGfJj2DkgSjzNSGfXPTB; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:46:20 +0200
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=Y5cpTSWN c=1 sm=1 tr=0
 a=pVlFXI3Q25jgZXAaIqG4JA==:117 a=Ecd-46Li79YA:10 a=x7bEGLp0ZPQA:10
 a=efqEXIF6KRQA:10 a=bDD8gXxeAAAA:8 a=BTpS8kUrXrW9GRKkIyEA:9
 a=nbzqIzTlbRyyeHoE:21 a=qhq7ibEifmz5csdy:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
 a=mMCA6Uke52HtxMSA:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=lm6Uw9oQFzZpIm_PJXzd:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;
	s=meg.feb2017; t=1536590780;
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:46:20 +0100 (BST)
From: "chrisran.bma e-mail" <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: fx-propose: Proposal: 'POIL30'
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.8.3-Rev48
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfH9sCwVk6vhcW169Gs8Uw/192fZGrc4jmHAYotLEkgkO2sIY96cPfZ5f3nqnLpVdAFHfqhpHkprx80orw0CAum3pdmeePLKXgGz0ckM4hPSNerV6iCjv
Precedence: bulk


Thanks for the offer and comments.

No particular scenario in mind, just don't want something 'temporary' to trigger judgement. I doubt any government action would be likely to be temporary but you never know. If it is intended to be short term, then you should wait longer before rendering judgement. The "provided that the circumstances are expected to last 18 months or less and have highly significant impact on oil production" was meant to apply to the whole list.

If you want, I could add something like:

"Government action like bans/rationing possibly taxes should be expected to last more than 18 months unless there is clear evidence that it is intended to be a short term measure. Note also that if this government action is a short term measure while politicians work out implications and other aspects of a different measure like a ban then this should be considered part of long term action and not a temporary measure.


Suppose governments ramp up taxes on oil products to deal with climate change (long term issue) and this is followed by oil producers funding a coup and toppling the offending governments and reversing the tax increases. The increased taxes should initially be considered a long term action unless there is clear evidence that it is intended to be a short term measure. If a full calendar year not immediately following the peak year shows oil production below 95% of peak then, when this is published, the claim should be judged as per the wording. If the coup(s) happen before the data leading to a true judgement is published then, the judge might want to consider whether circumstances of high taxes were 'temporary freak circumstances'. I would regard the taxes as something 'approaching normal operation of the market' and therefore unlikely to qualify.

However, there might be other circumstances where 'temporary freak circumstances' needs further explanation. The word freak is mainly there just to imply unusual circumstances that have significant impact on oil production but it also excludes things 'approaching normal operation of the market'. The temporary decision should mainly be based on whether it is intended or expected to last 18 months or less. If this isn't clear the judge doesn't have to make an immediate decision. If there is new peak or no circumstances requiring judgement if it is not temporary freak circumstances then the decision doesn't have to be made. Usually it will be clearer whether it was a temporary effect later. However, if still unclear and decision is needed the judge has discretion but might decide to look at monthly data and see if more than an 18 consecutive month period has monthly oil production numbers that are generally below 95% of same month in the peak period in order to decide if it is temporary.

Unlike the increased taxes, coup(s) could well be 'temporary freak circumstances'. e.g. the coup(s) may reverse the taxes but have other downward effects on demand.

If taxes cause production to fall below 95% of peak starting in July 2024 but whole of 2024 (and previous years) stay above 95% of peak, then no judgement re 2024 numbers. Coup(s) in March 2025 is considered 'temporary freak circumstances' due to demand effects of the coup(s). If temporary demand effect of coup(s) and counter coup(s) cause oil production to remain below 95% of peak, then 2025, 2026 and 2027 might stay below 95% of peak without a judgement being given but if 2028 is below 95% of peak then the coup(s) and any counter coup(s) are no longer temporary. If there are no other temporary freak circumstances then after 2028 data is published, judgement should then be made.

If the coup(s) were in November 2025 and record equalling November production numbers plus record equalling December production numbers plus the actual production for the year to October 2025 would still leave oil production for 2025 below 95% of peak oil production: Then if it can be observed that: 1. 2025 actually turned out to be below 95% of peak production and 2. 2024 is not the peak year and 3. This is not due to temporary freak circumstances of taxes because taxes are normal not freak and nor is it due to temporary freak circumstances of coup(s) because it is the taxes and other events before the coup(s) not the coup(s) that did it, then judgement can be made. The judge has discretion to use a different method rather than using record month production numbers as indicated above if the judge considers it more appropriate.

Does this help or add confusion? Is it all needed or getting too long? (My view: While a lot of it may seem like repetition of what is already in the claim perhaps it is useful to try to show what is meant rather than leaving the wording open to different interpretations.)

Any further examples or better clarification that would be useful?

Best Regards


> On 10 September 2018 at 01:41 Michael Cowley <> wrote:
>     I'd consider judging this (4309), but I'd like more clarification on what you were going for in this part of your "freak circumstances" examples: 
>     "government action like bans/rationing possibly taxes etc"
>     Is there a specific scenario you had in mind here? I assume the world collectively deciding to tax petroleum back into the ground to combat climate change (ah ha ha) would count here only if it was a temporary circumstance (ie the oil producers fund a coup and topple the offending governments), but if it was sustained collective action then it would not count?
>     cheers
>     Mike

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