I posted a recent thread where I stated that I think the Oil Industry is the key to the whole Y2K problem, not the electrical utilities. Don't get me wrong, I think electricity and power may be a significant problem. But the real achilles heel seems to be in oil, which will no doubt severely compound the electric companies problems if the Oil problems are as bad as it now seems.

In making that post and the subsequent follow ups...I heard the polly's calling me crazy. They claim I provided no documentation, and insinuated that I was either lying, or crazy. Well guess what folks?

I'm bbbaaaaacccccckkkkk... and guess what I brought with me?

You polly's and MORON SKEPTICS who demanded proof... you wanted names? Well, I found a few folks willing to put their names and rear-ends on the line. Yes...they've come forward...stating their name and their company... SO...now folks you can go for it. Why not call them up and ask them on the phone. Be warned, you may have to wait on hold a while. Course, they also may be fired by the time you get someone to answer the phone. But here goes:

Embedded Systems - the problem is real

Laypeople may think that if they can't see an obvious computer or a date display, equipment is not exposed to risk from Year 2000. Listen to the voice of experience in the following reports.: Jay Abshier, Manager of the Corporate Year 2000 Office of Texaco has reported these investigations into embedded systems: Four Alcoa Steel Plants : 50% of control systems will fail North Sea Expro (Shell-Exxon JV) Platform, Pipeline and Gas Plants systems identified, 12% failure rate BP Refinery, Grangemouth, UK systems identified, couldn't find vendor for 20 assessed, 3 will fail, 2 will cause shutdown

Shell in Scotland has sponsored a video that shows four tests. The tests were performed by Capelrig Millennium Test Centre. One test showed how the system controlling an oil rig pump would start at high tide at 23:00 on 31.12.99. The system would roll over to 01.01.100 and the pump would discharge continually (i.e. would continue pumping in 100 years) instead of pumping for only two hours, until it was no longer high tide. Consequences: the oil rig would float. An oil rig typically has 8000-10000 embedded systems.

At Hawaiian Electric Company (HECo), the Y2K project team identified significant problems with its energy management system (EMS). EMS is the 'brains' of the power distribution system at all electric companies. This system is used to remotely control transmission system breakers, coordinate power generation schedules, compensate for large transmission line breaks, and provide protection against voltage, current and frequency transients. HECo and their EMS system vendor determined that EMS would crash on the rollover to 01/01/2000. This would have, in turn, resulted in HECo's transmission network crashing, and by default, a major power outage and loss of all generating capacity.

Several companies manufacture varieties of programmable thermostats. In a test of three different examples, two of the three stopped working when the year was changed to 2000. One recorded the date as 1900. Of the two that stopped working, one could not be restarted.

Here's some more goodies...

A midwestern US fossil facility was testing a boiler feedwater control loop for date rollover to Year 2000. The control console date was set in a fashion similar to testing a PC - it was changed to 12/31/99, 23:58, and then powered down. A few minutes later, it was powered back up - with the only resultant problem being the year shown as 1980 (a typical older BIOS response). The logic loop (PLC and other instrumentation) continued to function normally. Boiler levels were simulated up and down to drive feedwater regulating valves; again, no problem. Then, the technicians reset the console clock to 12/31/99, 23:58, and did NOT power down. When the clock rolled over to 01/01/2000, there was no problem. The technicians powered down the console and then restarted it - and guess what happened? The console rebooted with a date of 01/04/80, the downstream PLC (which had not been powered down) apparently saw this as a significant mismatch with it's own clock (time as a function of integers rather than actual date), and interpreted this condition as a gross control failure. The feedwater regulating valves were driven shut, and the boiler trip logic was initiated (the 'failsafe' condition for the boiler). In a 'live' situation, the plant would have tripped.

Ron Quiggins of Shell Services gives examples of possible failure scenarios which include: * PLCs "locking up" due to a year field overflowing. * Historical log function in a SCADA system providing corrupted entries around mid-night, log record terminated. * Fiscal metering system for a gas pipeline that will not work into the next century. * Sewage outflow controller found to misinterpret the tide-table beyond 12/31/99 * MW Electrical Generator Date advanced to 12/31/99 for a test. 20 seconds after 2000, temperature of stator cooling water read high - failed safe.

What are the alternative actions a company can take to deal with these problems: 1. Do nothing and keep running: this is totally unpredictable, and leads to the possibility of a operation shutdown or major catastrophe. 2. Do nothing except plan a shut-down at the end of 31-Dec-1999: this is also totally unpredictable, and could lead to restart difficulties and health, safety and environment compromises. 3. Delay action until more is known about the problem: this is a tradeoff on value of more knowledge versus less time and resources. Consequences range from temporary unplanned shutdown to prolonged shutdown.

And then... how about you're old buddy...

Peter de Jager talked recently with an executive of a company that makes a volatile gasVwho told de Jager how his plant discovered the seriousness of faulty embedded chips. The plant found a chip that failed when the date was moved forward. When the chip failed, it shut off a valve that would have shut down the cooling system. A cooling system shutdown, the executive said, would have caused an explosion. 'That was great news,' de Jager said. 'Because they checked - there will be no explosion. They're replacing the chips.'"

YEH, RIGHT PETER... FOLKS, PAY NO ATTENTION TO PETER AND HIS BUDDIES BEHIND THE CURTAIN...JUST PAY ATTENTION TO THE GREAT AND BENIFICENT WIZARD OF OZ AND HIS FACE ON THE BIG SCREEN.

Is Peter completely insane? OR has he just always been this stupid. Surely someone with any intelligence level at all would do further checking...talk to the actually field hands and low level managers to find out the real scoop. It's like I kept hearing over and over from my contacts, not just in the oil biz but also in the electric utility field... the boys in the ivory castles don't know what's going on. They only want to hear the positives...and if they hear a negative...off with the messenger's head... "go away, son, you bother me" as W.C. Fields used to say.

OH, I'm not the only one reporting that ... as you see the stories above... remember guys like Bruce Beach also heard the same stories. We hear these over and over, quietly from the soldiers on the front lines of Y2K remediation...these are the guys who really know more than the boys in the corporate castles.

Now...the polly's will come back and try to belittle this one some more...but truth is truth and time will tell all...if the solar storms don't do it to us first.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999

Answers

Oooopppsss, I almost forgot...

Check out Stan Deyo's website where I picked up a big chunk of this information that you just read.

http://buddyebsen.com/standeyo/News_Files/Newsletters/News040699.html

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

R.C., I am extremely grateful for your tremendous efforts in bringing TRUTH to the subject of y2k. I have printed out your comments and given them to friends and relatives that are having difficulty understanding the ramifications of y2k.

PLEASE pay NO ATTENTION to the folks who insist on disrupting this excellent forum. They will be GONE soon.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

Ray,

Thanks for your comments. It's good to know that some people are able to use the information and that I am not posting in vain.

However, I just wonder if we may get either an early foretaste of Y2K with solar storms knocking out power grids, or perhaps even hurricanes or quakes that could really underscore the need for personal preparation by everyone, everywhere. Then of course, we could also get one of those planet busters that fries a lot of folks... There's alot more than just Y2K to be stocking up emergency preparations for.

So, Ray, even if you have trouble convincing folks about Y2K... hey, just tell them about all the other converging trends... US Weather Bureau is predicting the worst Hurricane season ever. I just posted an article from Stan Deyo...about the sun...but he is the pioneer on El Nino and La Nina... he's now calling for massive drought in the midwest next year...and super wet conditions on the west coast... So feel free to check out the link below to get his address and check out his site thoroughly... it's a great Y2K preparation website.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

R.C., one of the first sites that I visited when researching y2k was Noah's Ark hosted by Stan and Holly Deyo. At that time it had a wealth of information. I guess I have neglected to return for sometime now and it appears that I have missed out on some good info. I will make it a point to start going back on a regular basis.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

Great post RC, as a chappie on the front line myself I am under no illusions as to what is likely to happen at my data centre at rollover (and I will be on duty) - it won't be pretty.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 27, 1999.

If you want to read the original interview with Jay Abshier, it was in a Wired article, "This Is Not a Test" back in April.

Another part of your research was in a CIO magazine article last July, Apocalypse Soon

Another part of it (HECO) is from Rick Cowles site, Description of Hawaiian Electric Company Y2K Findings - Energy Management System from 1997.

Looks like a bunch of old news to me.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), June 27, 1999.

Once again, thanks RC. You are right about Beach. All he showed is that their will be a 25% embedded chip failure in chemical plants which of course directly affects oil production. North had another post on this yesterday on his links site.

The sun is of course entering a phase that everyone agrees will be the most volitile ever. Even CBS did a piece saying the coming solar storms could make y2k a non-event. For your info, the Pope has been saying for years that sun activity would be tied to his elevation as the winner of the communist-capitalist-catholic millennial endgame. See Malachi Martin's "The Keys of this Blood". Martin is a Jesuit scholar.

The following is an email I received from Geri Guidetti:

Dear Friends:

I am writing to you early this summer because I expect that events surrounding the year 2000 computer crisis will begin to unfold rapidly after Labor Day, a short time from now. I believe these events will accelerate quickly this fall and begin to negatively impact our lives and businesses in many ways this year, and then peak some time next year. I sense that we really have only this brief moment of time leftfrom now until early Septemberto prepare ourselves, and to help others prepare for what appears to be a long time of troubles. It may be too late after September. Ill tell you why, below. Will You Have Enough to Eat and Drink Next Year? Whether or not you have enough to eat and drink next year may very well depend on what you do between now and Labor Day. Why? Because it will become increasingly obvious to all Americans between Labor Day and December 31st that its too late to fix all of the computer systems critical to life as we now know it, and that it is too late to prepare even a substantial fraction of Americans for the risks this poses to their well-being. Once these truths sink in for even 20% of the population, preparedness will turn increasingly aggressive. There will not be enough food, not enough seed, not enough water to stock American homes for even a few weeks of supply disruptions. It is generally agreed that the average supermarket has about 2-3 days supply of basic food items in the store itself. Computer and telecommunications dependent, just-in-time stocking has done away with big warehouses behind each store. The backs of supermarkets are essentially no more than the stores temporary staging areas for goods delivered daily by truck from regional distribution centers. How much food is available in the entire U.S. pipeline? Processors to distribution centers to trucks to store shelves? On May 21st, John Koskinen, Chair of the Presidents Council on Year 2000 Conversion, reported on a meeting with food industry representatives. He claimed, ...our food supply system typically includes a 60-day inventory. Mike Heschel, a VP at Kroger Co., one of the leading U.S. food retailers, told the U.S. Senate, At any given moment, Kroger typically has about 35-36 days of inventory in the system. In some categories, we have up to three months of inventory in the system. Kroger calls their inventory safety stock which provides a cushion in times of unusual demand such as severe weather. They go on to emphasize, however, that ...unless there is widespread hoarding or excessive stockpiling, 1/1/2000 will be a routine shopping day. (During winter storms in which safety stock cannot be delivered to the backs of stores for several days, the shelves are bare within two days. If trucking is down in Y2K, it is irrelevant how many days of inventory lie in regional distribution centers. The stores will be virtually empty in two days. If electricity is down, the store will be closed within one dayafter the emergency generators run out of fuel and the refrigerators/freezers die. January first should not be a problem. Its the next 365 or more that I am worried about.) Then theres that warning against hoarding and stockpiling. There is every reason to believe that there will be widespread stockpiling this falluntil it is stopped by authoritiesbecause so many people are completely unprepared. If stockpiling isnt stopped, there will simply not be enough supplies available for the current, daily needs of Americans! There simply is not enough food in the nations inventory for everyone to stock up for even a couple of weeks of interruptions. There might have been if folks had prepared gradually over the past year, but it is too late for that. If you dont have the food you need by Labor Day, you may lose your right to stock up , at any price, even if you could find enough. How likely are we to have real food shortages? The truth is, we are only one growing season, one harvest, away from food shortages, even starvation, in any year. If anything interrupts the flow of oil, gas, electricity or water to this nations factory farmers, food processors, distributors and transporters, we face food shortages or worse. Modern agriculture depends on oiloil or gas for fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides; oil products to run tractors, combines and trucks. Its literally oil to fork. The senior programmers are already telling us that it is too late for all oil and gas companies and refineries to become compliant. It is too late for several foreign oil suppliers on whom we depend. I get telephone calls from customers who work in the oil and gas industries. They are moving to rural farm land. They have bought our seed and books. They know. Our government and military know and are making contingency plans.

What Does The Military Have To Do With It? On April 23, 1999, a full-page ad appeared in USA Today. Headline: What Can You Expect At Midnight, December 31, 1999? A National Guard That Wont Miss a Beat....As we approach the year 2000, you will hear more and more about the millennium bug...As the millennium draws closer, Americas National Guard will meet the challenges of Y2K with the professionalism and devotion America expects of us. The Guard has fought fires, floods, hurricanes and two world wars. Were your neighbors and friends in towns and cities all over America. Well be there to answer the call of our country and communities; today, at midnight on December 31, 1999 and into the next millennium. Being Americans at their best. And from the National Guards own web page: So, what can Americans expect some of the difficulties to be? Well, they range from minor inconveniences to major disruptions....Large segments of our nations electric power grid could fail, causing massive blackouts. Water distribution systems could fail. Distribution of vital petroleum and natural gas could be hampered if electronically controlled pipelines malfunction. Even our financial well-being might be affected if automated payroll systems malfunction, banks close and ATM cards fail to work....All of these possibilities, and many more, might affect our lives for months, if not years, into the 21st century. The Millennium Bug is a global problem of immense dimension. (Emphasis is mine. Please note ...for months, if not years... This is a far cry from the presidents Council and FEMAs insistence that we need prepare for the equivalent of a winter storm or a long weekend.)

A Department of Defense memorandum entitled, DoD Year 2000 (Y2K) Support to Civil Authorities, addressed to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and virtually all of the Defense agencies and heads, and signed by the Departments Y2K point man, John Hamre, defines the Y2K transition period as 1 September 1999 through 31 March 2000 and the Departments response priorities during that time. It notes DoDs recognition that Y2K responses will be unique: .... past DoD responses typically have been applied to localized acute situations, most of which have not been simultaneous. By contrast the Y2K problem has the potential to involve a large number of events that occur over broad geographic areas, within a short time frame. What will its priorities be during the Y2K transition? Priority 1 National security issues. Among the assignments that would take priority to Y2K responses are ongoing or imminent military and intelligence operations, conduct of nuclear command and control, support to the National Command Authority and maintenance of Defense and commercial infrastructures essential to support these missions. Priority 2 speaks to resource allocation, including ...the Reserve Components....Responses to requests for consumable or irrecoverable resources in this category must be approved by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff or his designated representative. Priority 3 Maintenance of domestic public health and safety. Such activities may include ..Maintenance of emergency services (e.g., fire, ambulance, police, hospitals, and related communications)...Maintenance of air traffic, rail, port, and ship navigation systems (e.g. Air Traffic Control System....Food distribution...Support to public information dissemination (press, television, and radio). Priority 4 Maintenance of the economy and the Nations quality of life. These activities include, for example: Support to other Federal Agencies...Support to local mass transit systems...In case of multiple, systemic or seemingly equal priority requests from FEMA and the State Department for domestic or foreign disaster assistance , decisions will be made by the Secretary of Defense... It closes with: This policy memo is the first in a series designed to ensure the Departments ability to effectively respond to the many and varied demands that may be placed upon it during the Y2K date transition period. I solicit your active and continuous support as we prepare to meet these potential challenges. Well, domestic public health and safety, including food distribution, made it to Priority 3. I expect water falls under this priority, too. We can only live without water for 3 days. Water, and waste water treatment, are two of the scariest , most unaccounted for systems in the Y2K readiness puzzle. (As I wrote this, a customer called. In his city of Van Nuys, California, 4 million gallons of raw sewage has just flowed into Balboa Park through a manhole cover. Cause? The water reclamation plant was conducting a Y2K test. It failed. They are using tanker trucks and big vacuums to suck up the sewage. I have just confirmed that his story is true. Sadly, it is likely a mere hint of things to come.) Current survey data, and the shocking lack of data and regulatory oversight, point to disruptions in safe drinking water and defective waste treatment for many communities even if there is electricity available to pump it! One estimate is that 30 million Americans will be without water in Y2K! Given that you can only live for 3 days without water, please make an alternative water supply your top priority. If there are more water and other problems than a mobilized National Guard can respond to, you will essentially be on your own. Youll need a bare minimum of one gallon a day for each member of your family. How many days you may need it for is entirely unknown. Personally, I would not be without at least 3 weeks worth per person. We are planning for much longer in our home. Just after Labor Day, many more Americans will begin to learn the truth about our vulnerabilities from some key trigger event(s), from stories that surface from businesses testing faulty repaired systems, from contingency plans being discussed in state capitals, or from the minutes of meetings at utility companies in communities across America. Once they do, the dominoes thinking by the general public will begin in earnest. It will be like assembling a gigantic, 1500-piece jigsaw puzzle. At first, it will be very slow going. The straight, outer edges of the puzzle will be assembled, and the magnitude of the challenge will begin to sink in. Then a few pieces will be found that fit together correctly. Then more, until patterns begin to emerge, key areas of the puzzle are assembled, and their interrelationships with other areas become more clear. Soon its easy to see the big picture. Soon. But it will be too late for them to prepare. The inevitable public panic, ensured by the poor handling of the truth by our leaders, will begin. Runs on banks and stores may, to maintain the peace and day-to-day supplies, have to be controlled. Life is likely to be very different this fall and winter from anything we are used to. God bless us all. As for the future of The Ark Institute, the availability of our Non-hybrid Seed Survival Packages, books, and free educational publications will be in as much jeopardy for Y2K disruptions as any other prepared business, family, institution or individual in the U.S. We have upgraded or replaced computers and software, and have an alternative electric supply, but we have no real control over book publishers, paper and ink production, miscellaneous vendors, the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, gasoline supplies, etc. Come winter and spring of the year 2000, I expect we will either be insanely busy getting our non-hybrid seed and books out to the growing number of distressed families and communities, OR our work will be so interrupted by failed infrastructure and services that we are unable to respond, in a timely manner, to requests for help. We expect we will have plenty of non-hybrid seedvegetables, corns and wheat available. Getting it to those who need it may be the difficult part. We are preparing for the worst, as the risks of not preparing or under-preparing are simply too high, in our view. If difficult times emerge, The Ark Institute will shift to contingency plans and survival mode as will thousands of businesses and prepared Americansuntil we get to the other side of this time of troubles. Please rest assured that we will be trying, despite the challenges, to be available to all of our customersby computer, telephone and traditional mailto fulfill our mission of disseminating educational materials and non-hybrid seeds for self-sufficiency. Please note that I have informed our staff that this may require hand addressed mailings to all of our customers. We expect the Post Office computer systems to have difficulties, perhaps preventing the forwarding of mail. If you expect to change your address in the next few months, let us know if/where you want us to send our Updates or other correspondence. Please note that The Ark Institute does not share, sell, or rent its mailing list to anyone, so your location information will remain confidential with us. Period. One early impact of the impending events on the Institute will likely be on my free gardening and food preservation seminars. I expect I will not be doing any after December of this year unless Y2K effects are unexpectedly minor, and until I judge it safe to travel again. In fact, I could foresee a few scenarios that would force me to give up doing seminars as soon as October of 1999.. I will continue to do as many of these as I can this summer, and will post the latest series at the bottom of this letter. Please take advantage of them now, if you can. They will all continue to be FREE for the remainder of this year. Encourage as many in your community to attend as you can, as the more knowledgeable your neighbors and friends are, the better your entire community will do in a moderate or worst case Y2K scenario.

Are You Ready? If anything in the year 2000 disrupts or prevents the timely planting of crops for seed--seed to grow our food for 2001-- then there will be global food shortages, perhaps worse, in the year 2001. Virtually no one will have stored food for two years. Local communities need to have the non-hybrid seed and know-how to raise their food locally. Prepared individuals and families will be resources to their communities. The Ark Institute is available to you now, to help you prepare before the great panic begins. We have excellent supplies of our Non-hybrid Seed Survival Packagesall new, fresh seed this season. It will store 3-5 years or more! Details are included. It is excellent seed stock that you will be able to depend on next year and not only feed your family and friends, but save the seed for the year 2001. Non-hybrid vegetable seed is your only intermediate and long-term food security solution. You can only store so much food, and then you must find more. If a moderate to worst case scenario is realizedand 10% of computer experts believe it will be a worst case, 45% a moderate casethen you must have the means to continue to feed yourself and your family, perhaps year after year. We have added important new self-reliance books to our list, including a package of three excellent books on food preservation. Please, learn how to do these things this year and become a resource for others next year. Well help you all we can. Greater self-reliance will be a blessing for so many. You can play an important role in that. Please click through to the Institute's web site at: http://www.arkinstitute.com Finally, I see our seeds as being similar to the loaves and fishes of the Bible. A mere handful of seeds can be miraculously transformed, enabling you to feed many, many people. The seeds will multiply, and you can give them away. Small miracles. Do that! Become an important resource, a botanical ark for your community in the year(s) ahead. We have plenty of fresh seed now. We are growing the same seed packages in Arks gardens right now, and the plants are beautiful! We are already harvesting preserving our snow peas for next year. We are currently shipping our seed packages and books the same day we receive your order. This will not be the case once the panic begins. Please, if you are not prepared as well as you would like to be, now is the time. Thank you, and may God bless you in the challenging times ahead......Geri Guidetti Geris Upcoming SeminarsMore to be Announced this Summer! June 26 & 27, Hara Arena, Dayton, Ohio. Y2K Preparedness Expo. Geri will speak for one hour, at 12 Noon on both Saturday and Sunday. Free lectures by preparedness experts all day, 9-5. Call 888-850-9066 for more details. July 6 & 7, The Hyatt Regency Columbus, 350 North High Street, Columbus, OH This will be a FREE, multi-hour, intensive presentation on Survival Food Gardening and Preservation by Geri Guidetti, and then Food Storage by expert Jim Rhoades from PermaPak Foods. To assure that we will have a room large enough to seat all who want to attend, you must register by calling 888-320-3663. July 15 & 16, The Westin Hotel, 50 South Capital Ave., Indianapolis, IN This will be the same as the July 6 & 7 seminar, above. Again, please register to assure we will have reserved a room and seats enough to fit the crowd. This has been a very popular seminar. Call toll free: 888-320-3663. September 18 & 19, in Wisconsin Dells, WI. Geri Guidetti will make an hour-long presentation Terminator Seeds: Their Threat to Global Food Supplyat the Wisconsin Natural Foods Associates (WNFA)Convention. I am scheduled to speak on Sunday at 8:10 A.M.! For more information, contact WNFA at 1102 S. 89th Street, West Allis, WI 53214-2823 414-774-8995 December 4 & 5, Y2K Preparedness Expo, Cincinnati, Ohio. More details will be posted at The Ark Institutes Web site on this one. Or write to Ark for details. Given the uncertainties of life at this late date, I would not recommend that you save all of your shopping for preparedness items for this Expo.

======================================================================

-- bb (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 27, 1999.

Bob or ?????, never hurts to consolidate and bring forth for further review and enlightment this important information.

Got a PROBLEM with that?????

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

No Ray, but I do have a problem with you. You and your ilk trot out 2 year old information and present it like it's fresh news. I'm sure at HECO they have been sitting around for 2 years wringing their hands crying "woe is us" and preparing for the blackout. Do ya think maybe they've been fixing the problems they found? Before you go calling me a Polly, I'm far from it, but non-thinking extremists like you are a bigger problem then the polly's. Try some actual thought before you chime in on every doom post, you might find it refreshing.

Oh well, your mind is as closed as my gun safe. Wish I had more time to play, but it's off to the range for me...gonna bring the 9mm, .357 and 12 gauge. What fun.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), June 27, 1999.

Bob-O, sorry your SO upset but it does not change the fact that these PROBLEMS exist and CONTINUE to EXIST. I'll be THANKING the folks that bring them to our ATTENTION so try and accept this.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

OK, they checked and tested and found problems in numerous systems. As expected. Isn't this what remediation is all about? As Bob asked, are these companies *fixing* the problems they've found, or are they just sitting around idly, waiting to fail? Anyone who assumes they're just sitting around should explain why they think so, since otherwise it's hard to imagine. Why would they have gone to the trouble to investigate if they had no plans to do anything about what they found?

I suppose RC is trying to show more than just the fact that problems existed as expected. Perhaps underlying this partial laundry list of what the testing actually uncovered, is the implication that their examination of their physical plants is far from complete. And that therefore, we've only observed the tip of the iceberg. But this *can* be like claiming that if you get a flat tire, this is therefore an indication that your engine is about to fail as well.

Unfortunately, this list completely fails to address the actual coverage of the investigation. Just how exhaustive was it? If it wasn't complete, which systems were *not* checked, and why? Just how does a record of successful investigation lead RC to the conclusion that these efforts prove failure?

RC's presentation bothers me in this way. As an analogy, let's say that optimists claim that automobiles are a workable form of transportation. Someone like RC will come along and claim that the optimists said that there were NEVER any fatal accidents (which nobody ever said). Then he provides documentation of several actual deaths. Therefore (he argues) the optimists were wrong. Therefore (he concludes) automobiles DON'T WORK as transportation. QED. Some people might have problems with this line of reasoning.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

Correct Flint. Along with Bob showing us that this information is dated it begs the question that how many of these problems have already been remediated?

-- Joe Six-Pack (Average@Joe.Blow), June 27, 1999.

I seem to recall that in RC's earlier (first?) post on the subject, RC indicated that he(she?) had firsthand reports about oil patch embedded systems problems:

1. from people on the scene 2. saying those problems are widespread 3. at the present time 4. and their company managements currently stifle reports thereon

Some people may have been interested in independent confirmation of the kinds of assertions that RC made. But, in this thread, RC posts

1. Old information 2. from company managements.

I could care less what pollys think about that, but it does not seem to me to be independent confirmation of the kinds of assertions made in the earlier thread.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), June 27, 1999.

Joe Six-Pack,

Gee, how many of the problems do *you* think have been remediated?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 27, 1999.

I have talked to recruiters from the major trucking outfits and diesel driving instructors in the last two weeks who have told me that some of the large trucking companies are in the process of setting up regional refueling stations for their fleets and stockpiling diesel fuel. The reason for this is purely Y2K induced fears of fuel shortages after the first of the year. My wife and I had decided to buy a truck and go owner operator team driving over the road, and I have been in training at career trucking of Tyler Tx. foir the last three weeks, which is why you haven't heard much out of me lately. After hearing the recruiters and trucking reps assesment of the situation reguarding potential fuel shortages we have revamped our plans and now will drive for a major carrier using their truck.

All of the recruiters I have talked to say most if not all independents will likely go under next year through fuel cost and unavailability next year, and the large companies who have stockpiled fuel will be in position to swallow up small fleets and their business. The company I am leaning towards right now is USA trucking, and they have constructed four regional terminals so far, with a fifth under construction. These companies are utterly dependent on a constant fuel supply, and if they think it's worth millions of dollars to prepare you can bet they have done the homework to back it up.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), June 27, 1999.

-- Joe Six-Pack commented:

"Correct Flint. Along with Bob showing us that this information is dated it begs the question that how many of these problems have already been remediated?"

Joe, do you know how many of these problems have been corrected?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

Jerry:

While I agree with the implications behind your questions, I think they're off the point a little bit. Yes, we know that companies are not inclined to publicize their problems. They're also not inclined to ignore them either. Real problems tend to see the light of publicity only after they're corrected. I think RC is trying to say that the *existence* of multiple problems we know about, even if now fixed, implies that there are other problems not yet fixed, which are being kept confidential. And this might be true, how would we know? Especially if we reject all readiness statements from management as self-serving (which they surely are), but have no external source for this same information. So once again, we're left in the dark and must draw conclusions based on sheer guesswork. Welcome to y2k, eh?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

Gordon, (and to Ray who blandly asked the same question as Gordon),

My answer to how many problems have been remediated would be about as relevant as your assumption to how many problems have not been remediated.

-- Joe Six-Pack (Average@Joe.Blow), June 27, 1999.

Flint commented:

" I think RC is trying to say that the *existence* of multiple problems we know about, even if now fixed, implies that there are other problems not yet fixed, which are being kept confidential. "

Flint, this is rather presumptous on your part. Does ANYONE know if these problems have been corrected? How about YOU Flint, do you know for a FACT that they have been corrected??

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

forget something Ray?

Love, The Ray Clean-up Crew

-- The Ray Clean-up Crew (leaveThe@htmlTo.TheExperts), June 27, 1999.

Ray:

No, I don't know if they've been fixed. That's why I said "if" now fixed. Nor do you know how many haven't been fixed. I know there is a tendency to keep pending fixes confidential, but only a tendency. All we've really been told here is that remediation efforts uncovered problems. Which shouldn't surprise anyone.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

-- Joe Six-Pack commented:

"My answer to how many problems have been remediated would be about as relevant as your assumption to how many problems have not been remediated. "

Joe, the consequences of not have these CATASTROPHIC problems corrected cannot be understated. I rest my case.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

Flint, please see my response to Joe above>

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

Ray:

You're quite right. Which is why it doesn't seem all that unreasonable to speculate that maybe someone is actually doing something about them.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

Ray said "Joe, the consequences of not have these CATASTROPHIC problems corrected cannot be understated. I rest my case."

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'll assume that you made a typo and meant to say that the "consequences of not having these CATASTROPHIC problems corrected cannot be understated..."

True, but it is all conjecture. Therefore we know no more than we did before RC started this thread.

-- Joe Six-Pack (Average@Joe.Blow), June 27, 1999.

Joe, sorry can't Yada anymore !!

I have RESTED my case.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

"and super wet conditions on the west coast"
*groan* can it get any wetter? One huge mudslide slithering into the ocean. Slippery slope anybody? Thanks RC.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 27, 1999.

No one here has a corner on Truth. Y2k has not arrived yet, it will arrive, and then we will know the truth as it unfolds.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), June 27, 1999.

Barb commented:

"No one here has a corner on Truth. Y2k has not arrived yet, it will arrive, and then we will know the truth as it unfolds. "

Barb, you've heard that old expression "Wake Up and Smell the Roses" I suspect. y2k HAS ARRIVED !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

I tend to agree with 'both' sides of this particular issue going on in this thread, but, one thing stood out to me. Flint said, "Yes, we know that companies are not inclined to publicize their problems. They're also not inclined to ignore them either." This is disturbing to me, based upon the high number of fix-on-failure contingency plans ALONE (was it Chevron oil? or am I mistaken). I believe that just the opposite is in fact more truthful and realistic. We shouldn't even be having this discussion if Flint's assertion had merit. This is nearly July, and we are being fluffed with far too many statements of, "We *will* be done by January". Hamasaki pointed out the reality of corporate 'broomies' quite nicely and any of us who have ever worked in a corporate setting (at 'any' level) knows this to be true more often than not. Anyone willing to place blind faith in the corporate board room's ability to honestly and truthfully be dealing with the complex issues that Y2K creates...is foolishly snoozing in La-La Land.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 27, 1999.

You are ALSO welcome to replace each and every reference to 'corporations' with the term 'Federal Government' and I will have made my other 'rabid dog at the gate' statement as well, with a minimal amount of valuable key board time.......off to pack more rice, and can more wonderful meat recipes, -wink-, thanks for the tips....you know who you are little buddy!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 27, 1999.

Will:

You raise a valid and useful point, which shouldn't be simplified beyond utility. Many organizations have made the decision *not* to remediate some (or all) of their noncompliances. Some of these organizations (like Chevron) actually assessed the functional nature of their noncompliances and made the decision that a subset of these was simply not worth the cost of fixing. And indeed there are trivial or cosmetic noncompliances out there such that the problems can have no impact. And it's important to differentiate between problems and impacts.

Another group of organizations (mostly small businesses) has given remediation considerable thought, and decided that the cost of making repairs will probably be less than the cost of recovering from whatever might go wrong later. They may be in trouble if they're wrong, but likely they know their operations well enough to assess their degree of reliance on computers in the first place. Many small businesses (1-5 people) can do without the computers within their jurisdiction to remediate entirely, if necessary.

Then there's a group of organizations which simply cannot afford to do complete remediation -- the cost of doing so would put them out of business anyway. They can only pray that they can cope with whatever faces them later. If it kills them, oh well, exhaustive remediation would have killed them anyway. So they try to identify and fix the big ones as best they can, and let the rest slide.

Finally, there's the group (of unknown scope) who have simply made the wrong decision, and whose survival as a result of this decision is problematic. They may or may not be able to fix on failure effectively, and they'll find out the hard way. Not a wise gamble.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

Flint, Joe Six-Pack, Bob:

Regardless of how 'old' or repeated information or data might be, you still can't sweep common sense under the rug.

R.C. has presented an excellent thread for the second time, and you guys just can't keep on beating around the bush forever.

(1) y2k problems are real and pervasive (oil platform domain 10,000 systems, SCADA, DCS, EDI, you name it. PLCs alone are a nightmare)

(2) y2k problems are dead serious (many are show stoppers, directly or indirectly, safety hazards, productivity enhancers, etc)

(3) accordingly, the "burden of proof" is with whoever has the responsibility of detecting y2k flaws and achieving compliance. It defies common sense to put it the other way around.

(4) in the absence of widespread compliance claims, things look bad (Cap Gemini, Gartner Group, IEEE, Chevron, etc.) particularly in view of the fact that both nationally (SMB) and internationally many many companies and governments are way way behind (some haven't gotten beyond the awareness stage for Crisssake)

(5) it is absolutely invalid and outright dangerous to say what Flint has said two posts above, i.e, "it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to speculate that maybe someone is doing something about these... (life and death problems many times, deeply affecting the economy)

Flint, I guess you don't 'speculate' about the condition of your brakes and steering once your mechanic tells you that unless fixed they won't function properly, do you?

(6) Flint, although big corporations "have gone in the trouble" to check these things out as you say, many times they have decided not to correct them because they are either too cumbersome, or too expensive, consequently pushing everyone (including themselves) into Fix-on-Failure scenarios.

Guys, please just try to peep outside the cocoon you seem to be living in and instead of nit-picking with academic chit-chat (in the best of cases and just to be polite) please help out others to prepare in time. The more people adequately prepared, the better, even for yourselves.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 27, 1999.

George:

To make a good argument, you should try being more coherent. If my mechanic said my brakes or steering were about to fail, just why would it be "invalid and outright dangerous" to speculate that I might have them repaired?

You read about the situation we've found (some time back), and you claim that anyone who even suspects that anyone is doing anything about it is fast asleep! Every point you make is the same -- that remediators are actually doing nothing whatsoever! Someone needs to wake up here, for sure.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

Nikoli - I spoke with a timber mill manager last week. He said that he had come across the county's plan for y2k emergency contingencies and was surprised that his company's fuel tanks (used primarily for trucking) were listed among sources for emergency fuel. Wonder how many private storage sites will be "surprised" in a similar manner.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), June 27, 1999.

Well Flint, your response was well thought out, beautifully written, flawless in it's detail, and full of excuses for WHY THE JOB HASN'T BEEN COMPLETED. It also assumed thoroughness which is your most dangerous assumption, as usual. I've been 'cleaning up after' adults who consider themselves to be thorough, on the job, for years. I doubt I'll be able to do that in this case, and you? You've been preparing for how long now? You have stated you intend to remove your money from the banking system...when? And yet, here you are, once again, spewing statements of faith and hope that the entire world has been diligently, thoroughly, competently handling the most far reaching, complex problem with the largest potential for disaster in history. Take your show on the road, if Barnum and Bailey haven't folded yet. Keep holding up those hoops and cracking your whip.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 27, 1999.

Flint:

Many times you slice ideas so thin that you miss the whole point.

Flint, my friend, in the event that your mechanic said that your steering or brakes were to fail unless duly repaired and tested, YES it would be invalid and outright dangerous to 'speculate' that you would have them repaired. Because it would be absolutely essential to ENSURE that you would have them repaired. And as a matter of fact that is the reason why cars need to pass their "mechanical fitness test" every so often. Otherwise you are NOT allowed to drive you car around. We are talking about your safety and everybody else's (life/death/injury). Same as in y2k.

Is is that difficult to understand?

Flint, as I have expressed here and through private e-mails between us two, it is obvious that you have a priviliged and talented mind. I admire you in many ways, your stamina, your perfect English (you remind me of Allan Greenspan somehow), your strength and energy.

But on y2k matters you can sometimes be deaf enough and blind enough to act as if you were dumb.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 27, 1999.

Where is your "cut-off date", Flint? The date that even you will agree that it becomes too late to expect anything other than a meltdown?

6 months to go. Nobody is ready, just Working On It. What date can you point to in the half-year that remains and say, "Yeah, if a miracle does not occur between now and then, hang it up."???

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), June 27, 1999.

Jack:

What RC has posted says that the oil industry investigated and found some problems. They've been doing this for a couple of years now. Nothing in what RC posted says that they either have or have not done anything about these problems. However, we can look at 10Q reports from the affected organizations, and see that they've spent large amounts. George considers it preposterous to suggest that any part of this money went into fixing these problems, but I don't agree. And if any soul in these organizations *has* repaired what absolutely must be repaired, then there is a distinct difference between these companings having found problems when they looked (as the posted material says), and these companies being "in trouble" as RC concludes baselessly.

The whole notion of a "cut-off date" is based on several false assumptions: That no remediation is being done, that it will be impossible to cope with whatever problems were missed, that there is some definable line (other than viability of the business itself) between "ready" and "not ready", that no useful work can be done after rollover (giving us a fixed drop-dead date), that anyone who hasn't completed remediation will die, etc.

As work continues, and problems are fixed (or deliberately ignored as cosmetic), organizations improve the state of their future health. I should certainly hope that they ALL continue to "work on it" so long as any identifiable, significant problems remain. It seems highly unlikely that *any* large organization will reach 100% remediation, probably for a decade. The question is whether enough will come close enough.

There's been a slow 'miracle' happening all around us for several years. Like the development of a baby inside a womb. And yes, all indications are that that baby will be born prematurely. But the difference between one day premature and two months premature is significant. And how large that difference will be, we don't know.

I firmly believe that if rollover happened tomorrow, there would be no 'meltdown'. There would be hassles everywhere, many of them serious. There would be numerous bankruptcies. Government services would be visibly curtailed. Power might be locally unreliable, etc. Six months from now, I expect all of these things, but not quite so intense. And 18 months from now, I *still* expect all of these, but by that time very mild and perhaps no longer newsworthy.

For several years, y2k problems have been gradually fading away like a bad paint job. At what point do you draw a line and say, "at this instant, the paint is NOT faded, and in the next instant, it IS?"

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

Oh, BTW, Hello Flint!

Jonathan

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), June 27, 1999.

So much for cutting and pasting from Word 97...but darn it, I NEED my spell checker! :) :)

Jonathan

-A computer glitch yadda yadda. :)

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), June 27, 1999.

I sat across from Ron Quiggins from Shell during lunch at an Embedded System & Process Control conference in Houston last spring. I played the dumb female, and said "Gee, it seems like there's a potential for a lot of safety hazards, if you try to remediate a working rig." He said I was right. Too many safety hazards. You'd have to shut down the rig first to remediate. Then the only thing you'd have to worry about was angry stockholders because of money not being generated. I haven't heard of too many rigs being shut down for remediation lately. Sure sounded like a "fix on failure" situation to me.

Next day, same conference, had drinks with the guy heading Amoco's Intl Y2K program. Drinks lead to dinner. He corroborated what Quiggins told me previous day and gave me additional detail on interconnection and problems with pipelines connected to rigs ... particularly in North Sea.

I moved from Houston in October. Just before I left, I tried to share some technical embedded system info with a friend in the oil business. 3rd generation oil guy. Lots of rigs and wells. Privately held $400+ million company. His brother's company went public 2 yrs ago - $600 million+. As of October '98 [8 months ago] ... they were doing NOTHING. He told me in his Texas twang, "Don't you worry about that Y2K thing. My son and I saw something on 60 Minutes about that. Bill Gates is gonna fix it." As of January '99 they still weren't attempting to remediate embedded systems. Haven't talked to him since then.

Ran into same problem with other guys I knew who were independent oil producers. That's why I got outa Dodge. I lived thru the recession in mid-80's when oil prices tanked and bankruptcies were rampant. I saw RE values plummet by over 50%. I didn't want to go thru that again.

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), June 27, 1999.

The opening post in this thread refers to an earlier thread which can be found at:

www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0010Vc

In the earlier thread, RC did not simply assert that the oil industry is in trouble, but in such serious trouble that we should, for example: "Expect a near complete stoppage in crude oil pumping on Jan 1, 2000." And furthermore, RC's assessments in that post are reportedly based on numerous first hand, on the scene, sources. The assertion of such sources was the foundation on which the rest of the initial post was based. I have no idea whether or not that assertion is accurate, but RC's post beginning this thread does not support that crucial aspect of the the initial thread, nor does it support some of RC's assessments in that thread, such as the one I quoted here. /p/ Does it matter? To each their own.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), June 27, 1999.

That was the wrong link, this is the right one:

www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000xLU

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), June 27, 1999.

As an important additional side matter in oil & gas production, there are lots of BIG problems in the following three areas, rarely touched upon by anyone in the business because of its prohibitive costs I4ve been told:

(1) cementing, fracturing and acidizing operations

(2) laboratory and testing equipment

(3) bottom-hole wire line services

Anybody care to comment?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 27, 1999.

Nikoli,

WHY would you go into a Hard industry, and One that will be Most inpacted by an Oil shortage? ( not to mention an industry that requiers you to be numb on both ends ) ?

Long hauling loads is a dead end job, IMHO...( 10 years hauling extra-legal loads on I-5, 20, 199, 197, and up and down 101 between Garbervill, and Coss-bay Or. )

Don't get me wrong, you can build a truck driveing job into a carreer, but I'm afraid, Not this year.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 27, 1999.

CT, I was looking for something in which I would be able to constructively help other people if things do go south, while simultaneously remaining employed after the rollover. Factoring in the likelihood of a global depression, massive unemployment, fuel shortages, and food shortages, I figured trucking with a MAJOR carrier would be the best way to go. The trucks will be the last things running, because the food has to be delivered, and even if there are severe fuel shortages what is available will go to this effort.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), June 27, 1999.

forgot: I also want to be able to travel and see firsthand what is going on, minus the gov. spin, and in a worst case scenario I'll have a fully fueled semi as a bug out vehicle. That gives me a couple thousand miles range and a hell of a payload.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), June 27, 1999.

George,

Since your's is the last and its short and my response is short I'll address your's first.

You are indeed correct. I've heard those aspects mentioned in the past also...and you're correct its not talked about very much but it also raises very valid issues and simply shows the tremendous depth of the problems that the oil industry is facing.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

The polly spin here is just amazing. I can hardly believe what I am reading. Not that I have not read similar stuff before, but this thread really brings the point home. Its as basic as this:

CASE 1: No reported Y2K problems are found. POLLY SPIN: Good news! See, there are no problems.

CASE 2: Y2K problems are reported. POLLY SPIN: Good news! They have been found, they are being fixed.

The possibility that MAYBE, given the late date here (almost JULY!), and that problems are still being discovered (or, like that sewage spill the other week, shall we say "becoming noticable"), that the fixes will not be done in time is NEVER even in a polly's thought process, apparently. I mean, to think such a thing immediately classifies one as a foolish doomer, right?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 27, 1999.

Nikoli,

If I were younger ( 18?....LOL ) I would do it again. I'm not, so I'm more carefull, good luck, you might need it. Unless you are carrying your Goods with you, you are flipping a coin, 1000 mi. of fuel aint much ( 12 hrs.? )

What if you have a break-down? ( been there far from home ), and didn't like it. Ever had some fun loveing people climb up on your truck, just cause your in their neighborhood? How about the guy that wants to know if you have some cash?

Things wern't so good 10 years ago, Think they will be better Next year?

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 27, 1999.

CT, where's your sense of adventure? LOL Seriously USA is giving me a new freightliner conventional so breakdowns won't be much of a problem. As for getting into the wrong neighborhoods in the midst of civil unrest, momma didn't raise no fool. If things get to the point of martial law and massive food shortages I would imagine all trucks will travel in escorted convoys anyway. Then there is also the CAR-15 laying on the dash and the M-14 in the sleeper, and a couple of gunports in the trailer with some shotgun riders would go a long ways towards discouraging misbehavior. I think it will be a great way to go into the next millenium, and tons of excitement to boot. You only live once, might as well enjoy it.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), June 27, 1999.

Nikoli,

My sense of adventure was years ago, been there, done that ( a 10-22, running Stingers, and a 30 round clip on the dash works wounders )

Don't wander to far from home,

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 27, 1999.

To Jerry, Jerry stated: "And furthermore, RC's assessments in that post are reportedly based on numerous first hand, on the scene, sources. The assertion of such sources was the foundation on which the rest of the initial post was based. I have no idea whether or not that assertion is accurate, but RC's post beginning this thread does not support that crucial aspect of the the initial thread, nor does it support some of RC's assessments in that thread, such as the one I quoted here. /p/ Does it matter? To each their own." My response. The point I raised was and I quote myself below: "You polly's and MORON SKEPTICS who demanded proof... you wanted names? Well, I found a few folks willing to put their names and rear- ends on the line. Yes...they've come forward...stating their name and their company... SO...now folks you can go for it."

Well, I posted some names of folks who've stated much the same as my sources have stated. Did it matter to any of you? NO! But there were those of you who wanted "names" and I posted some. My point was to simply underscore that my sources were not the only ones talking about some of these issues. Now, in other words, even these spinmeisters are admitting to some of the points that certain members of this forum were doubting. This should at least give pause to those wishing to denigrate my sources as being idiots who didn't have a clue about the oil business.

Now, I'm hearing the complaints that "this is old news"... WELL GUESS WHAT BOYS AND GIRLS IT MAY BE OLD NEWS...BUT IT STILL ISN'T FIXED. MY SOURCES ARE STATING THE SAME THINGS THAT THEY'VE BEEN STATING...AND THEY ARE SAYING THEY CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO FIX ALL THE CRITICAL SYSTEMS IN TIME, OR EVEN COME CLOSE...TO AVOID MASSIVE DISRUPTIONS FOR EXTENDED TIME PERIODS.

Now, boys and girls... if you were a middle level manager...what would you tell the top brass if faced with having to provide such news? Would you tell the whole story, convey the whole horrible picture or might you gloss over it to try and keep your job til the chickens come home to roost on New Years? Now, boys and girls... if you were heading up a large Fortune 500 company with stockholders to answer to...would you tell them you're company won't make it? Would You? If you did, what would be the ramifications? What if you wanted to keep your job? Stock prices can fire CEOs and Presidents of companies by the reporting figures on the bottom line. IF, you know that someday the bottom line figures are gonna get you fired do you broadcast the news well in advance of the necessary date? NO.

That folks should at least give you some inkling of what is going on behind closed doors in the corporate world. You're not gonna get the full facts made public until its too late. Why? Too many in the position to hold the information have a distinct motivation for not letting you know sooner rather than later. It's called money and self- preservation. Oh, and while you're at it, mix in a little hope and wishful thinking too. That explains a lot of why the silence regarding many of these critical issues. But, alas, this is just a portion of the many different reasons why Y2K will be more than just a bump in the road.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

To the King,

Great Point...

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

RC - **********Now, I'm hearing the complaints that "this is old news"... WELL GUESS WHAT BOYS AND GIRLS IT MAY BE OLD NEWS...BUT IT STILL ISN'T FIXED. MY SOURCES ARE STATING THE SAME THINGS THAT THEY'VE BEEN STATING...AND THEY ARE SAYING THEY CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO FIX ALL THE CRITICAL SYSTEMS IN TIME, OR EVEN COME CLOSE...TO AVOID MASSIVE DISRUPTIONS FOR EXTENDED TIME PERIODS. ********

you go thru all that trouble for us - and this is the best quotable quotes you can come up with? I am making the rather bold assumption that you contacted these folks recently (like in the last 1-4 weeks) and the best they could do for you is give you all that old news - and not a status updated? Unless of course I am to infer from your indignation that you really did mean that these folks had done nothing since they made the original comments.

oh boy - my brain waves are twisting like pretzels on that logic run.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a flame - guess it is somewhat. I for one would like to see something a little more recent. Call up your buddies again - and ask them specifically how far along they are from when they made their initial report, okay - then let us know what you find out.

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 27, 1999.

Bob said

"I'm sure at HECO they have been sitting around for 2 years wringing their hands crying "woe is us" and preparing for the blackout."

Bob,

Do you think they are on top of thins in Sudan, Libya, Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Panama, Brazil, and all those other pesky little countries that trade with the USA and supply us with OIL and other essentials...

Get a f#$%ing grip BOB!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 27, 1999.

King:

The good news is the (implied) degree of actual testing and remediation. If we want to avoid major breakdowns and significant economic impact, this is what we *must* do to prevent it.

To me, it really doesn't matter whether such investigation fails to turn up problems, or whether it uncovers problems which are subsequently repaired. What matters is that the investigation and repairs are *sufficient*.

There seem to be three dangers here: (1) The investigations aren't thorough enough; (2) The necessary repairs, once identified, are not being made; (3) The existance of potentially fatal problems at some facilities, even if fixed, bode ill for other similar facilities which aren't being touched at all.

For the first, I'm afraid we must trust in the competence of the technicians and engineers. Usually (not always) they know what they're doing.

For the second, we need better data. RC implies that upper management is hiding these problems, and as I said earlier, it isn't in the best interests of any company to publicize their problems. But keeping known fatal problems confidential doesn't imply that they aren't being addressed. Even the most myopic bean counter can see that the cost of fixing the problem *must* be *far* less than the cost of total breakdown.

The third danger (at least to me) is the real one. I admit I have no feel for the number of critical facilities worldwide that simply aren't being examined by anyone. Nobody is keeping track of this, and we tend to see reports about commission (things happening) and no reports about omission (things not happening). If we have good reason to believe that there are potentially fatal noncompliances out there (and we do), AND good reason to believe that these exist in places where nobody is bothering to check (and we just don't know), then we have real problems.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

Cheryl,

Seeing how the Pollys haven't yet responded to your post, I thought maybe I'd save them the trouble... It really is a great post, but here's what I expect them to say:

"Oh, here's just another anecdotal case." [Never mind that you named Quiggins... and of course it's still anecdotal...after all, I'll bet you didn't shove a microphone in his face and get it all on video tape...even if you did...videotape can be faked and edited.]

"Now, you didn't name the Amoco individual. This is just more hearsay." [Yes indeed, its just anecdotal...no, doubt they think you're lying or exaggerating...Wow, this skepticism thing can be fun]

"Cheryl must be another troll"...yada, yada, ...

"Cheryl is actually R.C. in disguise."

"This is just hearsay and not admissable in the court of Y2K forum law. Please provide written, verifiable documentation to back up your claims. Otherwise we suspect you're...."

OKAY... I'm done playing the Polly role now... I guess I'm just not that good at it...and it does get boring after a bit.

Cheryl, your post brought back some memories and sounds like much the same things that I have heard from numerous sources.

For instance: "Gee, it seems like there's a potential for a lot of safety hazards, if you try to remediate a working rig." He said I was right. Too many safety hazards. You'd have to shut down the rig first to remediate."

Yes, indeed. My sources said the same thing. Also you continued:

"Then the only thing you'd have to worry about was angry stockholders because of money not being generated."

That was pretty much the same theme song I keep hearing over and over from my sources. "It's the stockholders, stupid."

Sounds like some of the clients that one of my consultant sources was talking about...to the "t"... I mean he told me that same thing word for word. This client was out in West Texas though, not Houston. Maybe this seems to be a prevalent feeling throughout much of Texas oil country and not just the folks I know. Or maybe it's just a popular excuse that everyone thinks will be taken humorously and will get them off the hook. In my one consultant source who stated the exact same excuse from one client...the client was looking for a reason to say "no" to remediation recommendations.

Then you stated: "Ran into same problem with other guys I knew who were independent oil producers."

Me: Yeh, and they're a dime a dozen. Nice fellas for the most part, but boy have they been "clueless in Seattle" when it comes to Y2K and understanding it.

Cheryl... thanks for your post, I think it speaks volumes... and simply underscores again what my people have been saying also...

Would you care to enlighten us with any more anecdotal testimony? Some of us would like to hear any further thoughts or comments from your connections in the oil industry while in Texas.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

Cheryl and RC:

Can you give a ballpark estimate as to the difference in cost between a controlled shutdown and repair today, as opposed to an unplanned shutdown and repair later? What I'm asking is, if these outfits stick their heads in the sand and pretend nothing bad will happen, and it *does* happen, how much *extra* will they end up spending? And under uncontrolled breakdowns, how long (if ever) would it take to get back up and running?

I'm taking it for granted here that some people are going to get some very unpleasant surprises. It may cost them the business. Hell, they may also be criminally liable. But how quickly can someone else bring their oil back online?

Andy's implication that governments that are propped up by oil incomes won't take steps to protect that prop, astounds me. I wonder what kind of governments will replace them.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

To: Just me,

I am making the rather bold assumption that you contacted these folks recently (like in the last 1-4 weeks) and the best they could do for you is give you all that old news - and not a status updated? Unless of course I am to infer from your indignation that you really did mean that these folks had done nothing since they made the original comments."

You must be a johnny-come-lately here, or just dense. I'm not sure which. My sources on this have been ongoing for the past 2 years. The point is that for most of these instances... IT WAS TOO LATE last year. Far too late. EVEN FOR MISSION CRITICAL SYSTEMS. Now, whether or not I've talked to some of my contacts in the last 4 hours or 4 days or 4 weeks is simply immaterial. What you don't understand is that nothing is really changing, here. There is still some remediation going on, but not enough to alter the overall outcome. Remediation continues to run into the same bugaboos.

Now, let me clarify...my sources had nothing to do with discovering that post. I stumbled across those comments accidentally while looking for something else.

As I have stated, the industry as a whole is not getting the job done and it is too late to get the job done. Remediation efforts are not going to be sufficient to prevent serious industry disruptions for extended periods of time. It's not just me having these conversations with folks in the know, either... see Cheryl's post above for her comments with Shell's Quiggins...and the Amoco Y2K honcho plus the choice comments from smaller Texas Oil Barrons waiting for Bill Gates to ride to the rescue. That really is indeed the mentality floating around in some oil industry circles... still! They're in denial!

See Cheryl's post for her anecdotal stories. Face it pardner, you're being lied to by the corporate spinmeisters while the elite media dozes during siesta.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

Flint:

Let me first respond to your comment to the King of Spain in which you stated:

"There seem to be three dangers here: (1) The investigations aren't thorough enough; (2) The necessary repairs, once identified, are not being made; (3) The existance of potentially fatal problems at some facilities, even if fixed, bode ill for other similar facilities which aren't being touched at all."

Me: You forgot three more dangers (4) They've decided not to repair all systems because: (a) not all systems can be fixed in time, or (b) it would create more problems for current quarter profits, or (c)there was an early miscalculation that failure to fix would not be a serious problem. There's probably more excuses than that but at least there's three that I can come up with spontaneously. My assessment of the variety of sources I've spoken suggests that no facility is actually fixed or ready, or will be ready and maintain normal operations.

(5) There are too many critical systems to be fixed in the amount of time that remains and some parts to remediate will not be ready in time.

(6) Many smaller oil firms out in the fields "still don't get it" and refuse to spend money to fix it or they're waiting on Bill Gates.

Now there are 3 extra dangers that are rather unsettling to consider but nevertheless, they are real. Remember, some of these folks are just good old-boys but a little "hardheaded" and remain unconvinced to let their money do the walking. Don't ask me how many of those are still out there with that mentality. My sources only tell me that they still know of some folks, even at this late date. Go figure? It beats me as to why... I guess you could classify them as true pollyanas that are simply tightwads... or else they're just pretending and trying to keep their operations secret. That too could be possible in some cases.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

Flint:

I can't speak for Cheryl, but... regarding your questions about costs involved ...Oh, I wouldn't have any idea on the dollar amounts between those options. I'm not a bean counter. And of course for what aspect in the industry. Everything is different... pipelines versus wells, versus refining, etc.

Either way, its gonna cost them business. These companies are so driven by current quarter profits that its hard for them to manage long term problems of such magnitude as Y2K. I suspect that the criminal liability aspect hasn't even entered their minds.

Regarding uncontrolled breakdowns, timewise. It would depend upon which aspect of the industry you're talking about and under what conditions. IF the power grid is down then such circumstances would make some restoration projects next to impossible. There are too many variables for me to make any comparisons on costs even if I knew the basics costs. I would suspect that it would be a real challenge even for the corporate bean counters.

One thing to consider, regarding refining...the danger of explosions in an unforeseen stoppage. This risk however, is still always present even if you intentionally shut down, but at a somewhat reduced levels of risk.

Now you ask how long it would take to get the oil back up and online. Well, if its a bankrupt business...then it depends on 1. are we in martial law? 2. If not in martial law...what's the state of the court system? Under current situations... I'd suspect a while before a court might allow someone to tap into those natural resource assets. 3. What about a buy-out prior to bankruptcy? Well, is the banking system compliant and up and going? Hmm... questions questions.. based on what kind of assumptions? Are those assumptions valid or invalid? More questions.

SO...let's assume a company is simply still solvent...then what is the time frame?

Regarding how quickly oil can be brought back on line? It depends on which aspect of the business and upon the individual characteristics of the well, and the status of the pipelines, and whether or not there is power and phones... In a worst case scenario...as I stated my initial thread from a week ago it might be a year or more before they can get some order out of chaos. It's also possible that, IF there is little disruption elsewhere, and the fail rates are far less than 1 %... (and there's some indications that fail rates on embedded systems will be substantially higher than that)... AND IF, IF the weather is mild thoughout much of America's refining processes...then refining might be substantially restored within a few days... but then there is the pipeline factor...and the oil well problems. Oil wells could be an entirely different set of circumstances. It may well be that new wells would have to be drilled. That could take some time... possibly a month to 6 months to get sufficient production restored... maybe less maybe more... yeesh...there are just too many variables to know how to call it other than to give a wide shotgun range as I did in my initial post. And that was a "guesstimate" for a wide range of scenarios, from the bump in the road all the way to NEARLY TEOTWAWKI. I come down somewhere in the middle but certainly wouldn't rule out a worse case scenario. The bottom line brings me back to my initial assertion that it may well be that the real achilles heal to theY2K problem is the oil industry and not the power industry.

Now Flint, you also stated: "Andy's implication that governments that are propped up by oil incomes won't take steps to protect that prop, astounds me. I wonder what kind of governments will replace them."

Well, it seems that some governments were caught asleep at the switch on this one, I suppose. Perhaps some thought that Y2K was simply an international scam by the bankers, or the imperialistic Americans. Also, in countries like Saudi Arabia... not a lot of people to begin with, lots of chips and few folks residing there to solve the problem. Saudi's biggest danger is not its oil but its water supply. I don't have any contacts on this...but I read on some Y2k website, (Maybe Gary North's??) an article that indicated that the Saudi's desalinization plant was so loaded with embedded systems that there was no way they were going to make the deadline on assessment and remediation. That was earlier this year I think. I'm not sure, though... but I would suspect that while oil is a concern, drinking water is of still greater concern. Right now, the Saudi's depend on these plants to convert seawater from the Gulf into safe drinking water as otherwise, there is a shortage of water in that nation.

Saudi Arabia is just another one of the wild cards in the deck. All I know is that ... the prudent person should be concerned enough to be taking some precautions and preparations for himself/herself and family. Hey, it might something else besides Y2K that recquires using flashlights, batteries and stored up foods.

One fallacy that some pollys may try to link me to is that I'm a TEOTWAWKI. I'm not. I'm only saying that there could be serious disruptions for quite awhile, not the end of human life, nor caveman status... But it might become a way of life more like 50 years ago for a while. Yipes, no TV? Hmmm... maybe not so bad after all?

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

RC:

Excellent reply, just what I was hoping for. What a mess. Too many variables. Huge swings (a few days to a year) depending on too many details, all of them unguessable. I admit this matches my picture of y2k extremely well.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

RC: ************You must be a johnny-come-lately here,*********

yep - the term newbie also applies

********** or just dense. I'm not sure which.*********

that's two for two -

and that brings me to my dilemma. Much of what you are stating in this post are assumptions and leaps of logic - that I am having a difficult time following. (see the two points above that you made rather succinctly).

please help me to cross the raging river of doubt and join you in your leap of logic (faith?) on the following. Remember, I am new, dense and just the average joe (jane?) on the street.

The point is that for most of these instances... IT WAS TOO LATE last year. Far too late. EVEN FOR MISSION CRITICAL SYSTEMS.

Why?

Now, whether or not I've talked to some of my contacts in the last 4 hours or 4 days or 4 weeks is simply immaterial.

If your information is only 4 weeks old...convince me.

What you don't understand is that nothing is really changing, here.

okay - explain it to me slowly -

There is still some remediation going on, but not enough to alter the overall outcome. Remediation continues to run into the same bugaboos.

some? Did all the ITs go on coffee break or summer vacation?

Now, let me clarify...my sources had nothing to do with discovering that post. I stumbled across those comments accidentally while looking for something else.

so you really did not name your sources, but someone else's?

As I have stated, the industry as a whole is not getting the job done and it is too late to get the job done.

that's a mighty big leap. please clarify.

Remediation efforts are not going to be sufficient to prevent serious industry disruptions for extended periods of time.

define serious. define extended periods of time. toss in some dollar figures to lost sales etc...

It's not just me having these conversations with folks in the know, either... see Cheryl's post above for her comments with Shell's Quiggins...and the Amoco Y2K honcho plus the choice comments from smaller Texas Oil Barrons waiting for Bill Gates to ride to the rescue. That really is indeed the mentality floating around in some oil industry circles... still! They're in denial!

I accepted Cheryl's post at face value - dinner conversation about the topic of the century. Anecdotal etc... not the same as what you are trying to establish.

just(ignorant)me

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 27, 1999.

oops - seems that Mr. Flint is quicker than me. He asks many of the same things - and so much better. I am a little more educated now...but still in the dark.

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 27, 1999.

Just me:

See my first thread at:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000xLU

Maybe that will explain some of the blanks for you that were covered in that thread.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 28, 1999.

Just me: a quick bit of advice. In three days, it will be *JULY 1999*. If you are going to insist on reading the past two years (or more) of information about Y2K (as many of us have been doing)....you really better get your ass in gear. At this late date, the Kings and Queens of 'essays' are wasting time. "Times up class. BRRRRRING. Please place your pencils on your desks and pass your papers to the front of the room". Anybody new to this problem had better have some common sense, a nose for bull-shit and a whole bunch of 'gut feeling'....or you will find yourself deaf, dumb, and blind as you are sucked into the stampede. Need 'proof' of that? Just keep reading all of the brilliant essays, proof will be arriving any day now....lookie what the Nation's capitol is about to do!!!!!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 28, 1999.

Here's another reason I left Houston ...

Y2K petrochemical warnings sounded Houston-area plants race computer driven clock to prevent disaster

HOUSTON CHRONICLE - CHEMICAL PLANTS http://www.chron.com/content/story.html/page1/195526 February 13, 1999 - By BILL DAWSON Houston Chronicle EnvironmentWriter

As the nation's petrochemical capital, Houston faces a unique array of potential problems, ranging from the catastrophic to the merely troublesome, because oil and chemical plants are controlled with thousands of computer chips that may be vulnerable to the much publicized Year 2000 bug.

Industry officials are racing the clock to identify and correct plant systems containing date-sensitive chips that won't read 2000 properly. At the same time, companies are reviewing and refining their contingency plans in case they don't find all the problem chips and the computer glitch causes an emergency.

With a flood of recent reports on the Y2K bug's threat in other computerized areas of modern life, the additional specter of fires, explosions and toxic clouds at petrochemical plants might seem like premillennial jitters or technophobia.

In this case, however, the warnings are coming from people and groups more noted for their expertise in the industry's complex workings than for any tendency toward doomsaying, and who are taking care to distinguish their concern from alarm.

"It's not a hoax," said Ray Skinner, area director of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Houston South office. "It's a real issue and something that's very, very important."

Other examples:

( The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which counts the United States and 28 other nations as members, declared in December through its Working Group on Chemical Accidents that the possibility of problems caused by the Y2K bug is "a serious problem which must be addressed immediately."

( The U.S. Chemical Safety and Accident Investigation Board, a new nonregulatory agency, has been drafting a report to Congress on the need to head off Y2K problems. "This is a problem that touches everybody, but I don't think there's a reason to be panicked," said Dr. Sam Manan, a Texas A&M University expert on chemical safety participating in the report's preparation.

( The Oil & Gas Journal, a leading trade periodical, last fall called the Y2K bug, including its safety ramifications, a "problem of unprecedented scope for (the) petroleum industry."

( An OSHA memo advises industry officials to evaluate devices including alarms, air monitors, hazard-communication databases, generators and underground tank monitors for possible Y2K problems. "Fixing the problem may be painstaking and labor intensive," it says. "Not fixing it may be worse."

Industry officials not only are trying to prevent problems in their own plant systems, but also are alert to the disastrous potential if the Y2K bug somehow cuts off electric power to their facilities for an extended period ...

EXCELLENT ARTICLE - Wish I had time to print out the whole thing. But time is limited this AM

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), June 28, 1999.

Here's a post I made on another forum last year.

Mar 12 1998 11:41AM ET

I went out to dinner with the plant manager [engineering background] of a gas transmission company [Beaumont TX] earlier this past week, who thanked me for "saving his company". This guy had supervised the building of the plant 10yrs previously.

They didn't know they had a Y2K problem. After reading my report [which cited various points of vulerability] he went back to the plant, with my report in hand, met with his people - and found out they did have a problem!

He called up the $20 mil engineering/consulting company that does a lot of their work. Asked about potential Y2K problems. Answer: "No problem". The plant manager then cited specific examples he found in his plant, after seeing them referenced in my report. He asked the CEO of this engineering/consulting company to run some tests.

Next phone conversation plant manager asked, "Will how did the tests turn out?" He told me "There was dead silence on the other end of the phone." They DID have Y2K problems in areas they hadn't thought of.

It amazes me, that I'm a girl with NO engineering background. Yet, here I am ... educating engineers! This is really a complex issue, when even engineers have difficulty understanding where problems lie.

HERE'S SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE REPORT I GAVE HIM. (It's a long report.)

Automation Component Compliance Database Vendor names removed

Real-world Examples of Manufacturing Y2K Exposures

XXXXX Real Time Clock ModuleXXX - Non-Compliant The clock does not correctly roll over to the Year 2000. This is a critical error that can only be corrected by upgrading to a compliant product. Also, the product uses two-digit years. Since the code was written for two-digit years, it will have to be checked for compliance if it is going to be transported to the new product. Do not perform subtract or divide functions with two-digit years because the result can be calculated wrong. The product will have to be replaced because it will fail when the year changes to 2000. If the product is replaced, make sure that the new product can correctly handle the functionality of the old product, including custom code. The custom code may have to be modified or rewritten for the new product.

XXXXX 4.11 on Windows 3.x - Non-Compliant Known problems with historical trending, SPC & the vendor logger. These functions will fail on 2000-01-01. ( Historical Sub-System: Several issues exist here. The historical trend wizard only deals with a two-digit year and limits entry to a value between 81 and 99. An entry for the year as 00 is invalid. The problems with this were patched in version 5.6A. Extreme care should be exercised if one attempts to advance the data on a functional system since the sub-system will automatically delete log files over a designated age. Advancing the date even momentarily may result in the loss of all your data. ( SPC: Two issues here. SPC will not create a new data file in the year 2000 until XXXXX is restarted. After XXXXX is restarted, SPC will have no problems creating new files. Also, leap year day is not seen as a valid ate by SPC. ( YYYYY: Windows 3 will roll the year from 99 to 100. This results in a formatting error when displaying the YYYYY files. All the data is shifted one space which results in an illegible date/time stamp. ( ZZZZZ: - must be upgraded if historical trending is enabled or SPC is used. Also, the problem with the vendor logger can also cause some systems to fail where subsystems may be reading the formatted data, parsing the records and inserting them into database. XXXXX Analyze Software - Non-Compliant Analyze Software only recognizes the last two digits of the year and assumes that the year is in the 20th century. This means that there will be a failure at the end of the year 1999. Dates will be recognized as 1900 instead of 2000. This is a critical error that can only be fixed by upgrading to a compliant product. Analyze Software was discontinued five years ago. Users will need to upgrade to a compliant software offering. Vendor recommends I----n, C---s or G---s. XXXXX Robot ControllerXX - Non-Compliant BIOS will not recognize dates past December 31, 1999 11:59:59PM. Machine clock will reset to a date in 1980. Time will be incorrect. DOS files Date/Time stamp will be incorrect. The severity of the problem will depend on how, if at all, dates are used by the robot. This product was formerly sold by C----i M---n. Correction options will be determined on a case by case basis. If dates are not used by the robot, no corrective action may be required. Otherwise, manually resetting the date or a BIOS upgrade may be options. XXXXX Calibrator/XXX - Non-Compliant Model XXX calibrator will not perform date functions correctly after 1999-12-31. Customers need to request firmware upgrades. This could perhaps be accomplished during annual recalibration/recertification. XXXXX MAX1 Control Systems - Non-Compliant DPU's display year 2000 as 100. Controller Files display the year 2000 as 128. Trending must be restarted. Vendor CS will provide support for all its systems. To date, no formal statement has been issued. However, some minor cosmetic problems have been found. Methods of correcting these problems are being developed and tested. There have been no fatal errors found in these systems. XXXXX Gas Analyzer/1600 - Non-Compliant The 1600 series does not see the year 2000 as a leap year. Also, the first character in the date for years 2000-2009 is being assigned incorrectly. The product line has been discontinued, so there will be no fix available from the vendor. Correction options will be determined on a case by case basis. If the known date problems are not serious for a particular application, no upgrade may be necessary. The user will, however, have to reset the clock manually on 2000-02-29. If the known problems must be corrected, the only way to do so is to upgrade to a compliant product. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

P.S. I've never been a paid consultant. Though travel expenses have been paid when I've been asked to speak at conferences. Spent over $10,000 of my own money researching and trying to educate so this d*mn problem could get fixed on time. Finally gave up trying. So many in key positions - just didn't care. Or refused to listen.

Figured it was better to use my time and money to start making preps to protect my family - instead of "trying to save the world".

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), June 28, 1999.

Flint & RC,

RC postulated the following about oil wells: "Oil wells could be an entirely different set of circumstances. It may well be that new wells would have to be drilled. That could take some time... possibly a month to 6 months to get sufficient production restored... maybe less maybe more... yeesh...there are just too many variables to know how to call it"

I personally can't see this happening in a 6 month or year time span. The drilling rigs/companies/geologists/workforce don't exit any longer in sufficient numbers, inorder to start pumping oil in any real quantities to make up for deficits of imported oil. Here's the latest report out of Houston on the status of rigs in the U.S.

June 27, 1999 HOUSTON (AP) The number of rigs actively exploring for oil and natural gas in the United States has slipped by three 563.

Of the rigs running nationwide last week, 110 were exploring for oil and 453 for gas, Houston-based Baker Huges Inc. reported Friday. During the same week last year, 823 rigs were operating in the United States.

Baker Huges has kept track of the count since 1944. The tally peaked at 4,530 on Dec. 28, 1981, during the height of the oil boom, but has set several record lows this year, bottoming out at 498 on April 9.

Of the major oil- and gas-producing states, Texas rose by six and New Mexico and Wyoming gained one rig each.

Oklahoma lost four rigs, Alaska and Louisiana lost one each and California's tally remained unchanged.

Cheryl's assessment of the "Oil men" in Texas is completely accurate. They're a bunch of good ol' boys (personally know a lot of them). They basically haven't a clue about Y2k, anymore than the general populace, and those that have heard of it more than likely think its a lot of "hype". Boy, how many times have I heard that from people in this area!

Hope this info helps. I have no idea what types of Y2k problems can happen at the well-head, but would be very interested if anyone out there is familiar enough with the technology that it takes to operate a well, could chime in with that information.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), June 28, 1999.

Will Continue: ***********Anybody new to this problem had better have some common sense, a nose for bull-shit and a whole bunch of 'gut feeling'....or you will find yourself deaf, dumb, and blind as you are sucked into the stampede. Need 'proof' of that? Just keep reading all of the brilliant essays, proof will be arriving any day now....lookie what the Nation's capitol is about to do!!!!! ************

guess the weekend was worse than I thought - it's monday morn, been properly medicated (caffiene) - and I totally agree w/you. I have been doing my homework - for over a year now. Been prepping for at least 2 years (much more seriously for the last 9 months).

I was primarily frustrated over the "old news" - I no longer care what folks thought or said 12-18-24-36 months ago. The "I told you so" crowd is covering that angle. I was merely asking for a current posture of the old quoter. But that's okay, I got over whatever bee was in my weekend bonnet - and am ready to move on.

I have plenty of common sense, gut feelings and interpretive abilities - that is why I have prepped to the extent I have.

my sincerest apologies to all I flamed over the weekend. Will get a better grip on reality and refrain from doing so in the future.

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 28, 1999.

No - what's frustrating, "just me" - is that the "old news" remains valid, remains accurate _ as a training and example tool_ even now.

See, the polly's replying above were so quick to jump on the fact (which is probably true) that these specific problems were fixed. True - these specific problems were most likely fixed. BUT - the fact remains that they were specific, credible, actual "shutdown" problems. Let us assume they were fixed - in the places (refineries, wells, offshore facilities) where the original story placed them.

Okay - those three or four facilities have those three or four problems solved. The fact remains that EVERY other oil production, processing, and storage facility remains vunerable to equal or similar problems. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Flint (above) is absolutely correct - we don't know (and can't realistically guess) at what the "residue" of failure will be: 1%, 5% or 20% missed or skipped - in areas that were checked and remediated. (Residue will be a function of how thoroughly the systems were tested.)

Now, many millions have been spent finding and fixing these kind of problems. Not all will be fixed, and none will be fixed in areas where no one has been looking. So, what is the effect in areas and systems left completely alone? How many systems (companies) are doing nothing? (From the API - it seems some 25% are either not remediating at all, or simply not responding to the government's surveys. Hint, hint.)

What troubles me is that this index (large numbers of people and companies not remediating) is now getting validated by antedote and evidence like Cheryl and RC indicate. Rather than assume (as the polly's do) that anything "not said" means "every is fixed"; it appears more realistic (unfortunately) that anything "not tested" is something "likely to fail".

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 28, 1999.

Robert: **************What troubles me is that this index (large numbers of people and companies not remediating) is now getting validated by antedote and evidence like Cheryl and RC indicate. Rather than assume (as the polly's do) that anything "not said" means "every is fixed"; it appears more realistic (unfortunately) that anything "not tested" is something "likely to fail". **********

yeah - that's what I meant to say. Wish I had a college education to say things that way.

Not tested = likely to fail (not guaranteed - just more likely than the stuff already tested)

get it? got it? good.

thanks!

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 28, 1999.

Robert, Robert, Robert

When you were in college, did some professor make you write this 1000 times on the blackboard?

"All known data points are anomalies. Valid conclusions can only be drawn by making self-serving assumptions about data we lack."

So you read about successful testing in three facilities. And you go ahead and state FLAT OUT that EVERY facility you haven't read about must not be tested. You start with the assumption that every successful test is accompanied by a press release. THEN, you assume that no press releases exist that you haven't seen. THEREFORE, nobody has tested jack squat unless Robert Cook has seen the press release. Robert, this is stupid.

Now, I wasn't aware that the API had published any survey of oil companies. Can you provide a reference? I've seen such surveys applied to ALL companies, and others applied to small businesses. You wouldn't make the freshman mistake of drawing conclusions about apples because oranges were surveyed, now would you?

["Rather than assume (as the polly's do) that anything "not said" means "every is fixed"; it appears more realistic (unfortunately) that anything "not tested" is something "likely to fail".]

Robert, surely this is beneath you. "Not said" means "not known". Now I pointed out above your penchant for drawing conclusions almost exclusively on the basis of what you don't know, by insisting that everything you DO know about is an exception and doesn't count. Great engineering there, for sure. But nobody has said not known means fixed. I know my own company is remediated and tested, but we put out no press releases. Now that you know about us, you can chalk it up as another anomaly and carry on, right?

I do agree that untested means likely to fail, in light of what we've found where we *have* tested. I just reject your consistent assumption that no press release means untested.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 28, 1999.

To Cary Mc:

Thanks for your posting and the AP article. I wasn't aware of how drastic the declines had become, but I did know that this segment was in decline for sometime.

Perhaps I should apologize and admit that perhaps I was trying to be a bit "pollyistic" in my comments. I would like to hope for the best. Funny thing, though, for some reason folks like you keep coming along and pointing out more disturbing fresh data. This has become a 2 year trend that has not seemed to bottom out yet.

You are more than likely correct, that if, IF, IF these disruptions are extensive in nature within the oil fields then it may take even longer than a year to get things back to 1999 levels.

Also, I want to thank you for mentioning your experiences with the oil industry.

Finally, I want to thank you again for your suggestion for hearing from oil field workers themselves. I think it would be good to start a thread dedicated for the purpose of listening to just oil field workers. The purpose would be for them to post their observations on the status of Y2K remediation on the systems for which they have first hand knowledge themselves. Let them tell us what progress they are seeing...and what non-progress they might be seeing, if any.

So, again, thank you Cary Mc for your very important post.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 29, 1999.

Cheryl,

Thanks again. Another superb post of important information. I hope you will feel free to share more insights with us on the oil industry situation and or any other aspects of Y2K. You provide thoughtful and insightful posts.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 29, 1999.

To all:

I just picked up a post from another thread above from a Grady Bennett. This is purely anecdotal from another oil field worker but I thought it helpful to re-post it on this thread. It came: fromhttp://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0010sn

"I have been associated with oil rigs for years and I can tell you that there are imbedded chips in every major oil rig offshore that the companies are not even thinking of repairing until they fail. Expect major oil-refining-delivering problems. If you don't think this is going to have a major impact on our economy within the first few days after Y2K (you especially, Da Judge), then you are in for one huge eye-opening experience!"

Here again, is someone else claiming the same thing that I have been hearing from my own face-to-face sources from around the country.

I think I'll start a separate thread for these folks out in the fields to simply report what they're seeing...and hopefully the rest of us will stay off the thread and just observe their comments without "butting" in. Perhaps such a thread can give us a little better grasp of the current Y2K status in the all-important oil industry.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 29, 1999.

Cheryl has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she does not know anything about current conditions in the oil industry.

Cheryl - equipment is idle all over the US right now - oil prices are down. You can remediate all you blame well please - the rigs aren't working. If you like I will even pick up a link later to an article from WORKBOAT, if I can find their web address, where they are bemoaning the lack of work in the oil patch area.

Use your brains people, they aren't capping wells just to drill new ones that cost more because they are deeper! Even my wifes cousin, who OWNS part of the small drilling company he works for, is worried about getting laid off.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

Paul Davis,

Cheryl is referencing the decline in the amount of equipment available now. The amount of systems available for operation are what is being discussed here... Alot of companies have indeed already gone belly up in the last 18 years. You only show your ignorance. I had not realized the extent of the decline, but the AP story tells us how many drilling rigs are actually operating, not oil wells. We are speaking here of the ability to drill new wells. The amount of available equipment has been steadily declining. That was the whole point of the post. When active drilling rig numbers are as low as they are now and have been for the last several years, it tells us that a lot of those companies have gone belly up, and a lot of equipment from those companies is no longer in service or being adequately maintained. I know something about this...my family is in the oil business, and I used to climb all over the old stuff years ago as kid to get to fishin holes. That stuff sits around unused and exposed out in the elements during bankruptcy proceedings and a lot of it becomes worthless. I could take you out to areas where I grew up and show you some of this rusting equipment that is no longer capable of functioning ever again. Why don't you go somewhere else to play Paul? Don't I hear your mother calling you? :-)

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 29, 1999.

Robert Cook,

You stated: "Rather than assume (as the polly's do) that anything "not said" means "every is fixed"; it appears more realistic (unfortunately) that anything "not tested" is something "likely to fail"."

I'm not sure that I fully understand your intent here but allow me to reiterate an earlier point in a different thread. In the case of the oil industry ...whether it be in oil field equipment, scada on pipelines or in the refineries...a lot of equipment is not being tested because they can't. The problem is that what testing has been done has been finding substantially higher incidents of failure. On a percentage basis, and based on the large volumes of embedded chips on systems...many critical systems have not been remediated and because the quantities are so high...we can calculate that if only 1 per cent of 1,000 chips on a system fail...that 1% will shut that one system down...than could shut down the entire operation, whether it be a rig, refinery or a pipeline. It's not like you have one system controlled by a handful of chips. There are extremely numerous systems with hundreds or thousands of chips in one system of many, many systems in a plant and any one of those systems having a failure of just one of a thousand could shut down the whole plant. It only takes one in most cases to ball the whole thing up. Now, maybe this is the point you were trying to make. I couldn't tell from your post if you were agreeing or disagreeing with this assessment. I kind of thought you were agreeing but I just couldn't tell for sure.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 29, 1999.

Sorry justme..........reality is where my 'grip' comes from. Honesty is often uncomfortable, I've just never been able to smooth it over very well, especially if 'smoothing' burns precious daylight, as is the case here. I'll never be voted Miss Congeniality......who cares? This isn't exactly a popular subject and my skin has grown quite thick! It's an armour thang, ya know? Good-luck and stock up on that gas........

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 29, 1999.

Paul Davis,

<Cheryl has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she does not know anything about current conditions in the oil industry.>

You're wrong. I was aware of this before many in the oil industry knew what was happening. I left Houston cause I didn't want to go thru another recession like the mid-80's.

Last year a very good friend who owned an oil supply company sold his company for $42 million cash to an Austrian company. He anticipated the downturn well before many. His customers were BIGGIES in the industry. CEOS were good personal friends and golfing buddies with him.

He pushed the deal thru with the Austrian company very quickly. Within 2 months of the closing, he told me "Thank g*d I did it then. If I tried to sell now I'd probably get 40% less."

When I told my friend that I could forward my embedded system to him for new owners. He said, "Don't bother. It's their problem now. Not mine. Glad I did a straight cash deal."

I had a house guest last night. That's why I indicated earlier I wouldn't be able to post during the day. I had to get my place ready.

House guest was previously with OSHA and is now with a major publicly-traded oil and gas exploration company - not one that I mentioned before. Safety risks and lack of remediation on rigs were again confirmed. I was told that the biggest problems were with oil refineries.

This particular company also spun off their exploration company, which merged with another exploration company. I was told that both are not Y2K OK, and with the merger of both of these companies problem only gets worse.

Sorry, but I don't have much time to post these days. My energy and time is mostly focused on working on my house, gardening and basic preps ... and enjoying life before the sh*t hits the fan. I don't have much more "1st hand" info to share on oil industry.

My life has changed much since I left Houston. I used to have a maid come in twice a week. Now I do all the work myself. Used to go to black-tie dinners. Now I pick fresh food from my garden. Designer clothes have been sold at consignment shops and/or in storage. All I wear are t-shirts, shorts or levis. No more manicures these days. I really do enjoy the simplicity of life these days.

Good luck everyone.

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), June 29, 1999.

I'm agreeing with you - in general. And agreeing also with Sir Flint of the hardnosed - even though he doesn't think he agrees with me. Ah well.

Look again at Mr. K's statement: 9 out of 10 report they will be done by Sept 99, the rest are scheduled to finish in the last quarter of 99. BUT only 93% responded to the survey. HOWEVER - this means that we can expect (if ALL finish in time) that only .90 reported x .93 responding means that ONLY .84 PLAN to finish in time.

(This sefl-reported data is substantially higher than the previous three reports: in the last API report, only 80% responded, and only 83% of those reported that they even had plans completed. Total "readiness rate: .80 x .83 = .664, or 66%)

Questions open to discuss: how many of the non-reported companies are actually doing repairs? Don't know. Certainly these companies don't care enough to respond. How effective are the actual remediation and testing programs? Can't tell. Judging from the verbal comments above - I don't think many of the responding companies actually are demanding that their company does a thorough job. After all - the only thing Koskinian reported was the precentages of companies who responded, and the number who "expected" to finish before Sept. Will these do the remediation and testing jobs right? Don't know, and nobody is auditing them. How many of the those "finishing" between Sept and Dec actually will miss completing their repairs, and how much of those not finishing will actually complete? Don't know.

And he doesn't know the answer to these questions either. That is the reason, Flint, I believe that even "reported" tests and "reported" completion rates need to be viewed with a degree of skeptism. Not complete disbelief - RC - just skeptism.

The Y2K problem can be completely eliminated in any given process if investigation and testing are thorough enough. My concern is that the required thoroughness has seldom (apparently) been reached.

What I differ from you on RC is that I expect that even self-reported remediation means that the company DID go look for problems, did eliminate the problems they found, and did test the repaired after they finished, and finally did actually re-repair the problems "left over" after the first few rounds test(s). Therefore, based on the (admittedly) self-reported numbers from the API, I'd expect that these 84% of the US industry can expect to find only residual problems. Most of these residual problems can most likely be fixed in less than 2-3 weeks, and so not substantially shut down US production and processsing and transportation completely. A substantial fraction of these residual fialures will be "short-timers" also - some as short as 2-4 hours of lost production, some as long as 2-4 days of out-of-service.

HOWEVER - this still leaves an almost 100% chance of complete failure in those systems NOT remediated and tested - as confirmed above with RC's and Cheryl's observations. Further, those systems not remediated and tested will most likely be down for LONG times - 2-4 months in some cases, few will likely be available any sooner than 2-4 weeks, given the multiple alarms and restarts expected under manual controls and lack of automation and regulatory units. Also, the same rate of "residual" problems which plagued the "remediated" units, will return even more so, in "emergency rediated" units.

This condition of "emergency remediation" will be exaggerated by political and econmic pressure in overseas fileds and units, which will be further slowed in repair efforts by delays in getting and shipping parts, programs, and people to the right places. Expect, therefore, even more impact (2 months certainly, 4-6 months perhaps) in recovering those facilities not remediated overseas.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 29, 1999.

The embedded "chip" problem is a scam. There is no problem.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 29, 1999.

Keep up the good work RC. I like your clear description of one of the causes of what I call the "digital winter".

Rgds from New Zealand, where it will be summer over the millennium transition.

-- Bob Barbour (r.barbour@waikato.ac.nz), June 29, 1999.

Let's give Cherri a big applause for her brilliant offering of expertise. 'clap, clap'.

-- Reality (awareness@none.com), June 29, 1999.

i really want to know more about the subcription

-- ekene (ekene350@yahoo.com.au), November 02, 2003.