The market is anxiously awaiting today's OPEC meeting at its Secretariat headquarters in Vienna.

But I'm not.

We have a virtual guarantee that the policy to extend the cap/cut in production will continue.

But that's not the real issue.

The combination of analyst angst prior to such a continuation and the slowly building production levels among U.S. operators is providing a short-term pause in the rise of oil prices.

Even with the 1.6% pullback over the past two trading sessions, WTI (West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark crude rate for futures contracts cut in New York) is still up by more than 2% for the week and a hefty 7.2% for the month.

In short, there is little genuine risk of a cascading pricing curve setting in because there are simply no underlying factors to justify such a move.

But volatility in a rather narrow range remains a possibility.

Nonetheless, today's extension will not be entirely good news.

Achieving a level playing field is sometimes all in the eye of the beholder.

You see, an ongoing issue that has perplexed both oil and natural gas investors and shareholders alike has found its way into the advisories I'm providing to my global investing clients here in Paris.

It involves the ability to value actual assets following a wave of serious corruption revelations.

All of these involve putting a price on trades once oil moves into the wider market.

It all started a month ago when, on the same day, two revelations hit, both centering on continuing legal challenges in trading exchange transactions.

Both connect to oil and may prove to be merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to oil trading scandals.

My wife, Marina, and I are headed to Paris to present to a group of major energy investors.

Unfortunately, in what is becoming an all-too-frequent scenario, a major development upon my departure has completely revised the risk management discussion I planned on presenting.

Edgerton, Wis., is a small community of fewer than 6,000 people southeast of Madison, the state capital.

A few years ago, the management of its local hospital looked around for ways to reduce rising heating and cooling costs.

The facility was just opening, and the hospital needed ways to contain expenses.

What it came up with may just be a model that could be applied throughout the country.

Edgerton Hospital decided to use an innovative form of energy that has been around for over a millennium. And so far, the results have been impressive.

Last month marked five years since the hospital has opened. Thus far, the amount of money it has saved in natural gas costs has already paid for the about $850,000 cost of the system…

Six years ahead of schedule.

Beginning this month, the building is saving $15,000 in energy with prospects that the total savings may be improving.

In an increasing number of regions in the United States, solar (and wind) power can produce electricity at the same cost – or lower – than more traditional fuels, like coal or natural gas.

We call it reaching "grid parity" here in the business.

The catch, however, is what happens when government subsidies are removed from the calculation.

That's why what happened at the end of September in the UK may be a sign of things to come across the pond here in the United States.

See, the British just brought a new solar power project online without relying on subsidies. Only the market will dictate what this power plant gets paid.

With all the focus directed to solar and wind power, it's often overlooked that renewables also include turning biomass into biofuels.

And the latter has one decisive advantage over solar or wind (or geothermal for that matter)…

Biomass remains the only renewable source that can be turned directly into liquid fuel.

That makes biofuels the only "renewable" power source that can directly fuel today's cars, planes, and ships.

But how that translates into what we see in the marketplace has been a source of friction for years. This involves the system created 12 years ago that mandates how much ethanol must be mixed in the gasoline sold at retail nationwide.

That policy has been a political football, pitting oil-producing states – who want as much petroleum-based product in gasoline as possible – against agricultural states – who want as much biofuel as possible to be used.

The former states claim the mandated biofuel in gasoline restrains oil drilling. The latter regard the standards as a necessary support for farmers.

That fight is now coming to a head, but it looks like biofuel farmers and companies are safe.

Almost from the start of modern trading of futures contracts in the early 1980s, there's been an expected trading connection between crude oil and natural gas.

Of course, the parallel between the two had tacitly existed much earlier.

It was usually calculated in "Btu equivalences," meaning that the convenience of moving from gas to oil (or vice versa) was summarized by how much heat energy each could generate (measured in British thermal units – Btu).

That both energy resources happened to be drilled in essentially the same way and, even more so, tended to be found together only accentuated the equivalence.

Given these factors, market prices often changed in lockstep.

But over the past two decades, the traditional assumptions underlying this connection have been predicated on a factor that's quickly going away…

Which is why I now see oil and gas prices diverging.