Kiss your as**s goodby. Another excellent Paul Milne post.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

For Shell UK, beating the Bug is critical to all of our operations from the North Sea to the forecourt. And my remarks this afternoon will reflect that important reality. Put simply, it is not good enough just to get it right upstream, if we fail to overcome equally important challenges downstream. For example, ensuring marine terminal operations are not affected is critical to both parts of the oil and gas business. I can tell you this - if anyone gets it wrong, no journalist is going to be too bothered about the distinction between upstream and downstream! ( This is an astonishing statement. he makes absolutely clear that ALL facets of the operation will have to work properly for the whole thing to function seamlessly. It does not matter if you can pump oil if it can not be shipped or distributed and vice versa. On TOP of that, it is horribly frightening to hear him say that it will not make a heck of a lot of difference which end goes. if it goes, we are completely enscrewed.) So, both sides of the business can learn from each other. We only have one go at getting this right, so its important that experience and expertise in one area of our operations is shared and made widely available to others. ( When he says that we only have ONE go at this, he is NOt saying that we have ONE go BEFORE the deadline AND have a bunch of attempts at FOF afterwards. There is ONE go. It has to be done right the first time. frankly, in light of IT history, it is ridiculous on it's face to think that it will be anywhere NEAR adequately done the first crack out of the chute.) At the outset, we asked ourselves, "what will happen if we adopt a wait and see approach?" As much as we all like flexible deadlines, we quickly realised that the Millenium Bug doesn't give us that luxury! ( Again, reiterating that not having it doen right the first time is tantamount to overall failure. Only someone utterly ignorant of IT history could POSSIBLY conclude that it will be adequately accomplished the first time.) There is an old saying that no man is an island. We cannot insulate ourselves from what's happening outside Shell. We must ensure that critical supply chains are not broken and that the basic infrastructure on which our business depends is not affected. ( A complete admission that their own compliance is MOOT. It is MEANINGLESS if their dependencies fail. ) A typical offshore platform or onshore gas plant uses 50-100 "embedded systems." These are sets of electronic code used to control equipment which are effectively sealed, and cannot be altered by the users. These systems contain anything up to 10,000 individual microchips. We have found that up to half of these systems are critical in terms of production and the impact of our activities on the environment. ( Up to 5000 of the 10,000 are CRITCAL. There is no way on this green earth that in the time they had, they were able to remediate *enough* of those CRITICAL embedded systems. Not physically possible. They admit that in at least some of the cases they are relying on vendor 'assurances' for CRITICAL systems. We have seen time and time again over the course of the last two years when vendor assurances have not only been wrong but out-and-out lies. Additionally, it is infantile to believe that of the systems that DID need to be replaced, that the necessary chips were all available and that they had the ability to replace them in time. Absolutely INFANTILE to believe that.) This is perhaps the least discussed aspect of the Millenium Bug problem. In Upstream oil and gas we are particularly vulnerable to third parties' Year 2000 problems because so many of our operations are contracted out. Mobile drilling, Subsea Engineering, Seismic Operations and Platform Maintenance are all services which we, and many large oil and gas companies, no longer provide internally. ( What don't people understand about this admission to a particular vulnerability. There is no overall leadership or guidance. 100's of entities upon which Shell is dependent ALL have to be up to snuff at the same time. It is a no-brainer to see that this is impossible in light of the history of Infromation technology results.) =========================== Anybody with even a modicum of intellectual honesty and common sense understands that at a BARE MINIMUM the potential results of a failure would be catastrophic. Please note that people like alan dechert have repeatedly said that Y2K is a myth, a hoax, that nothing significant can possibly go wrong and that anyone who says so not only knows that it is a lie but they are intentionally lying. It should be plain that people like dechert are unquestionably 'insane'. Not mistaken. Not of a different opinion based upon the evidence, flat out stark raving INSANE. It is incomprehensible to read this report from Shell and even contemplate that there could be no economic impact because enough is going to get done. It is going down and it is going down hard. People like alan dechert and bks can mumble all they want. They are totally irrational and intentionally ignorant of the FACTS and the EVIDENCE. And this is just ONE Oil company. Most of them are in the same shape with a myriad of dependencies out of their control. Keep on thinking that all is well. All is not well. We are going down in a big big way. Kiss your asses good-bye. http://www.shell.co.uk/news/speech/spe_beatbug.htm -- Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Ed (ed@lizzardranch.com), December 17, 1999

Answers

http://www.shell.co.uk/news/speech/spe_beatbug.htm

-- new stuff please (oldpost@april1998.com), December 17, 1999.

Ed, Good Post.

At this point, those that can understand the ramifications do, those that can't DWGI. A shame, not looking forward "at all" to what I anticipate. Wouldn't it have been so much better if "everyone" had been give a "heads up" even as little as a year ago? Damn, manipulation, spin, PR, legally accepted statements, etc. etc. I'm not happy with how my friends, and especially my family, are in for a whole new way of "looking at things" will be altered shortly.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), December 17, 1999.


Actually, this is relevant for exactly the reason that it is from 1998. Look at how the honesty of the early game dissipated. Greenspan, Bennett, de Jager, and so on have just come through all of this believing that goody perceptions and (nyuk nyuk) good old- fashioned know-how will make the day, rather than simply remaining honest about it.

Perception management is Job One for everyone today. In 1998, it was reality management that ruled.

-- Brett (savvydad@netins.net), December 17, 1999.


FWIW,

I've read some internal and confidential comments from a high level insider within a major oil co....who has one of the top experts in the oil embeddeds issue. This fellow that I read makes the Shell article and Paul Milne look like pollies!!!! Can you believe someone that high up and deep inside is that much more doomer than Milne?

Amazing. I wish I could get a hold of it and post it.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), December 17, 1999.


Good post there Ed, thanks. Anyone remember the Piper Alpha platform disaster? Or was it Cormorant Alpha? I can never remember. In any event, he's completely right. Some of these projects (offshore platforms and undersea pipes) can go horribly bad if mistakes are made. Rebuilding them would be a timeline of years, not FOF days or months.

Ah yes, good old interdependencies.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.



One way to reach pollyannas is to tell them clearly and slowly about the potential problems involving distribution of petroleum from overseas. They might scoff about the power grid and the banking system, but they DO realize that oil shortages can directly affect their cruising potential. At least it makes them think a little... but only a little... then they go back to sleep. ZZZZZZZZ.....

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), December 17, 1999.

Gordon, it was Piper Alpha. :)

-- number six (!@!.com), December 17, 1999.

Ah yes, what would the pessimists do without R.C. and his "sources"?

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

Thanks Ed - have posted this on the gold forums to see what the brainiacs have to say :o)

Johnny Canuck... you'll only believe the "sources" when you're paying 10 bucks a gallon (US$ eq.)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 17, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ