Found this in my Inbox this morning . . .

Y2K People Finding People - http://www.webpal.org/list.htm

Don't know what to make of it. Here are the actual quotes:

News item=======>

U.S. crude oil and gasoline stockpiles close to their lowest levels since 1997, ``this is an urgent supply issue,'' Evans said.

My comment=====>

Wait! Wait! Wait! I have been saying there is an oil glut! What happened to that? What happened to all those gigantic stockpiles by governments and big corporations leading up to Y2K? The ones that were driving up the prices at the end of the year?

News Item=========>

New York, Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose 5 percent to the highest price since the Persian Gulf War in 1991,

My comment=======> No kidding! But wait! The explanation is that it is all OPEC machinations and shenanigans. Nothing to do with Y2K.

And my long awaited report from Russia? Sorry. The Russian Information Office email is down because of Y2K. No kidding. That is what they themselves say. And won't be fixed for maybe a month. Yeah.

News Item========>

Crude oil for February delivery rose $1.33 to $28.02 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest closing price since Jan. 16, 1991 and biggest one-day gain since March. Oil rose 16 percent this week. Trading ended early today and the exchange will be closed Monday for the Martin Luther King holiday. ``We're going to have a supply deficit over the first quarter, probably on the order of 3 million barrels a day worldwide, about 4 percent of demand,'' said Tim Evans, senior energy analyst at Pegasus Econometric Group in New York. Oil prices will reach ``at least $30 a barrel in early February.''

My comment========>

Gee, weren't many of the Y2K doomers saying to look out for something like this in about February? Life does take strange turns.

News Item=======>

Production shortfalls will have to be made up by draining inventories further, and with U.S. crude oil and gasoline stockpiles close to their lowest levels since 1997, ``this is an urgent supply issue,'' Evans said.

My comment========>

Production shortfalls? What production shortfalls? Surely not those that I have reported before? Were those really serious enough to cause this problem? And if we are so short, how come we are shipping oil from the U.S. to Europe, and diverting from the Mid-East to Europe? It DOES give me reason to keep watching.

News item=======>

Energy prices, which account for about a tenth of the price index, rose 1.4 percent in December after being unchanged in November. Gasoline costs increased 4.1 percent, the report said. Since December 1998, prices at the pump increased 30.1 percent, the biggest rise since a 36.8 percent surge in 1990 -- the year when the Persian Gulf crisis began.

My comment=========>

I would call a 30% price jump - significant. Some people have written to me (one from Colorado) saying prices have not gone up in their area. So there may be local market variations, if you live next to a local market oil field for example.

News item========>

Cold temperatures, continued refinery problems, and a clear OPEC consensus on production are all combining this morning to send futures prices and cash values appreciably higher.

My comment========>

Continued refinery problems? The news announcements last week was that the refineries were cutting back because of the oil glut and over supply. What refinery problems? Surely not Y2K? Cold weather? Gee, I am even getting that wrong. Last week, I thought everyone was talking about how unseasonably warm it was.

U.S. Markets are closed on Monday. Word is to look at Tuesday. I would say give it until Thursday for a real trend to be apparant. Watching. Watching. Watching. Listening, Listening, Listening. Where is that fat lady? ========================== Another strange thing happening. Not just with my subscribers. But on a number of lists that I am watching. People are having trouble downloading URLs. Sporadic. Some get them. Some don't. I suspect that it is Y2K. The one's having problems may be several hops from the backbone, and through gateways and routers that are having problems. Anyway, many of you got to the URL that I sent out last time, but so many didn't that I will not post URLs today and will post the whole message for the last one.

Here it is----------------->

Russia raises nuclear threat Ian Traynor in Moscow Friday January 14, 2000

Russia has revised its defence doctrine to make it easier to press the nuclear button in an international crisis, while unequivocally declaring the west a hostile power that must be resisted. A new national security strategy decreed by the acting president, Vladimir Putin, on Monday and to be published today marks a radical shift in Russia's view of the world. It ushers in a policy of "expanded nuclear containment" while pledging to resist western attempts to dominate the globe.

The strategic shift lowers the threshold at which Russia may resort to nuclear weapons and is the first foreign policy move that Mr Putin has taken since replacing Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin on New Year's Eve.

Mr Yeltsin's strategy, decreed in December 1997, declared that nuclear weapons could only be used "in the case of a threat to the very existence of the Russian Federation as a sovereign state". The new document states that the use of nuclear weapons is necessary "to repel armed aggression if all other means of resolving a crisis situation have been exhausted or turn out to be ineffective". The new strategy substantially eases the constraints on resort to the nuclear option. This has been partly triggered by the fact that Russia still commands a large nuclear arsenal, but its conventional forces lack combat readiness.

"These are very substantial changes," said a military affairs expert, Sergei Sorkut. "The emphasis on nuclear weapons has changed. They can now be used in crisis situations."

The Putin strategy takes a much more confrontational position towards the west, a policy overhaul sparked by Nato's expansion into former Warsaw Pact countries and by the US-led war against the former Yugoslavia last year.

Whereas the 1997 strategy spoke of "partnership" with the west and decreed that there was no threat of military aggression to Russia, the new paper says that two "mutually exclusive tendencies" are now locked in combat on the globe.

It says that the "multi-polar world" promoted by Mr Yelt sin, who sought to enlist India and China as allies, is in conflict with "the west led by the US" which aims to use its military might to dominate world affairs.

It is not clear what the new strategy may mean for Nato's Partnership for Peace pact, agreed to appease Russia during negotiations to admit Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to the alliance. Moscow froze its participation last year in protest at the Nato war in Kosovo although more than 3,000 Russian troops are serving in the Nato-led peacekeeping force.

Russian commentary on the leaked 21-page document said it made it clear that "the term 'partnership' has been consigned to the past". The radical departure in nuclear doctrine, said Moscow analysts, represented an "entirely logical development" enshrining a new policy of "expanded nuclear containment".

"Russia will not only use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack, but in response to a conventional attack when there is no other way out."

The hostile tone appears to seal a drawn-out process of disenchantment with the west.

A new Russian military doctrine, dovetailing with the Putin national security strategy, is expected to be endorsed by the acting president in February, said Sergei Ivanov, a close Putin ally and secretary of the Kremlin's influential security council.

A draft of the military doc trine, published last October, also attacked the US and Nato but attracted much adverse comment in Moscow and many thought it would be toned down.

Monday's decree by Mr Putin confirms that this will not happen, although Mr Ivanov said changes to the military doctrine would still be "necessary".

On a more conciliatory note, however, Igor Sergeyev, the defence minister, said he was confident that the new parliament in Moscow, due to convene this month, would soon ratify the Start-2 arms control treaty with the US.

Mr Putin is known to support ratification and he wants parliament to act before Russia's presidential election on March 26, a contest that he is widely expected to win.

The timing of the adoption of the security strategy this week and the military doctrine next month also represents electioneering by Mr Putin, whose central message to voters is that he will restore Russia to its great-power status.

The new strategy also places greater emphasis on the threats to Russia from separatism, terrorism and organised crime, and, in an indirect reference to the war in Chechnya, delivers a more forthright assertion of when Russia may deploy armed forces domestically "in strict accordance with the constitution".

========================== One reader writes:=======>

I read the Ian Traynor article and it was as I expected until I reached the third and fourth paragraph from the end--

> ..."On a more conciliatory note, however, Igor Sergeyev, the Defense minister, said he was confident that the new Parliament in Moscow, due to convene this month, would soon ratify the Start-2 arms control treaty with the US..."

Bruce, it's been over a year since Russia unveiled the Topol-M ICBM. It's accurate within 3o feet of target. It's COMPLIANT with Start-2 because it has only one warhead.

With the Start-2 treaty, Russia's nuclear ca[pability will be INCREASED.

Gee, and I wonder why after all those harsh words, Putinin SUPPORTS ratification of the treaty, and fast.!

So, on a "conciliatory note" they may pay back the West/NATO ? Sounds like they plan on it.

Bruce replies========>

It is like a giant chess game. And I don't feel qualified to play with the masters.

=============== Then there is the information this week about the new 17 New DOD US national Weapons of Mass Destruction Defense Teams.

Just way to much happening to cover it all.

==================== How to get rid of readers? Don't say what they want to hear. Yep, they are leaving by the bunches.

Actually, I try to keep a balance here. Some say - "Just tell it like it is", but if one does that or rather, if I were to candidly speak from my paradigm, I would lose almost all my readers.

Now, this is obviously not a matter of revenue. Because there is no revenue. Actual or sought. But it is a matter of purpose. Because the purpose is education and one can't go faster than the hearers are willing to hear.

Peace and love, Bruce Beach survival@webpal.org

______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to Y2KFIND-unsubscribe@listbot.com Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb

-- Paranoia Will (Destroy_Y@BlackCopters.com), January 15, 2000

Answers

Isn't Bruce Beach the guy who buried busses in Ontario, originally to serve as bomb shelters, more recently to serve as y2k bunkers? I wonder how many people moved in?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), January 15, 2000.

Lars, You're right Bruce Beach is the guy. 42 buses buried under 6 feet of concrete about an hour from Metro Toronto. Last I heard, he didn't have too many people in his compound. He got an awful lot of media ("Hey look at this nut!") attention in December. Both Canadian & American. I have no idea where he gets the money to fund this project - saw it on TeeVee, something like that isn't constructed and furnished for nothin'!

-- Paranoia Will (Destroy_Y@BlackCopters.com), January 15, 2000.

Interesting post. Inconsistencies in gas/oil reports? Go figure...Think Bruce has a bus for me and my dogs? heh.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 15, 2000.

I saw on of the TV reports on the shelter. It was constructed 20 years ago as a failout shelter.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 15, 2000.

If you want to check out his site, go to:

http://www.webpal.org/ArkTwo

and then you can click on whatever you want...maps, pictures, etc.

-- Margo (margos@bigisland.com), January 15, 2000.