OPEC says it can - now will it?

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

It appears that OPEC has some new spokespeople this week and they have reversed earlier press releases stating that they will decrease output to the US and Europe next month (March.)

This sets them up for either meeting expectations, or failing, if they actually have production or flow control problems, as rumored.

Clearly, they have stated they are leaning toward boosting production. At the end of March, assuming they formulate such a plan, it will either be too little, too late, or it will be an amount that will test them. If they can actually produce, then they will have to produce immediately, and prove it, or their weakness will be exposed for all to see.

Well, they will have had several months to fix the problems beginning from January 1, so maybe they will actually be able to do it. I'll grant you that it's, "not over" by any stretch and they could actually fix the problems and meet expectations. But there's nothing like proving it to satisfy critics and curiosity.

Still, reality can get messy, and a few more arguments between Venezuela and the US, or between Iraq and the US could muddy it up and make it look like they are holding back purposely, when they just might not be able to produce. So how would we actually know one way or the other, assuming this political football gets tossed into the game again? We could even see a war again, and then we see some very muddied waters, indeed.

Back to square one. We never really know. All we see is the end results and we have to back engineer the true and actual cause as best we can.

Black Box QA testing is a very nice analogy to this problem. We see the problem on the display, we know the module and memory register that fails, but we don't necessarily know what causes it. Only the engineer who steps through the code with the debugger can know that.

The other day I found a problem with our random number generator (it wasn't generating random numbers each time you used it). All I knew is that it wasn't reliable, and I could show you steps to reproduce the problem. But I didn't know why it wasn't reliable. It turned out to be a weird problem with the generator needing an extra loop to slow it down so that it could do the math to find the next number before having to output it. Okay. Who woulda figured that one out without digging into the code line by line and watching the debugger output, doing research on the random number generator function, and finding this bizarre requirement that it needs on super fast machines?

There is a difference between observing outer problems and connecting them to internal failures as cause. That's the only point I want to make. It does apply to the oil crisis too.

Add all the layers of politics and economics and, "normal" well and refinery problems to the oil crisis mix and it becomes almost impossible to know what is actually going down to the observation of the outsider. We are all guessing based upon data that can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

And the data is not all there in any one, handy location. All the data is not there at all, as far as I can see. Nobody seems to have the historical benchmark failure tables to compare with today's apparently escalated failure rate. As much as I admire Marcia's work I do think the benchmark table is flawed because of the source (internet media) changing so rapidly and drastically since the early nineties.

For our argument here, the only way to prove OPEC can actually produce the goods is if they actually do. There is no excuse, war or otherwise, if they don't produce and produce soon. And if refineries keep failing in large numbers well into the year we can only assume something is very wrong with our energy picture on planet earth now. If so, it's academic as to what the real problem is. It will be a mini-TEOTWAWKI no matter what we think, no matter what we say, no matter how positive and optimistic we are. This spring is put up or shut up time for OPEC. They got what they wanted, they've announced their intention to boost output, and now they have to prove that the elusive extra 2 million barrels per day can be produced.

My guess is that they can, but that they might need more time to get there. But that does not mean I have complete faith that they can do it. I do have a doubt. I also have more serious doubts about non-OPEC countries like Azerbaijan and Iraq having serious, serious problems that OPEC may not be able to cover. I have serious doubts about Clark Oil and others actually getting functional soon. World output and world refining just may not be able to cover the astronomical leap in usage levels any more.

Not to get off track, but why the hell did Camelot allow this to happen? Where are the alternative energy sources that Jimmy Carter told us we needed? I've been a Carter critic in the past, but not about energy. Every bimbo president since then has acted as if oil is an infinite resource that we can pour forth in any amounts we want - forever - just because we are mighty. That is a fundamental logic flaw that is so incredible and so huge that it defies description. It may be coming home to roost.

I also think that the bimbo presidents that got us out of recession did it with credit, and that the bubble of credit is a serious problem that is equal to and tantamount to the oil problem. I also think it reflects the same "TYPE" of thinking that the lack of alternative energy source reflects - short term fixes that rob the savings account and put you into debt, hoping that gambling will fix your future problems. I don't buy it. Something is not feeling right about it. Maybe we are at the end of the line for gambling as a way of life.

-- paul leblanc (bronyaur@gis.net), February 19, 2000

Answers

Paul, Reagan killed the alternative energy initiatives of the Carter era.

I think there may be one more variable that could make figuring out the OPEC situation, and that is their capacity for oil storage and whether there is a stockpile that could be shipped irrespective of refinery malfunctions and, of course, assuming no consequential problems at the loading facilities. If so, any impacts from refinery problems will be that much more difficult to recognize.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), February 19, 2000.


>Every bimbo president since then has acted as if oil is an infinite resource that we can pour forth in any amounts we want - forever - just because we are mighty.

I agree with you. Here's another way to look at the problem, though. "The Market" determines the research that will get funded. An example: until recently, SUVs were selling well, and a mammoth SUV was expected to sell even better.

Not so in mid-February, with gas prices averaging $1.50. If gas prices continue to increase, smaller vehicles will begin selling well again, and there will be more funds available for development of battery-powered cars and alternative fuels. Mass transit systems plans that were scrapped in various cities will be dusted off and again put before the voters. If gas goes to $2.00/gal, many of these proposals could pass.

Clinton is a good example of government by the numbers. Many of his decisons were made based on popular opinion. Although it would have been in our best interests to be working to lesson our dependence on foreign oil, it hasn't been "popular," so not much has been done.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), February 19, 2000.


My dear Mr. LeBlanc,

Sir it is good to see you here ( I don't ever think I have seen a post of you's here before). LOL...But I surely have at c.s.y2k!

I bid you welcome sir. I thik that you will find a "better" quality of critisum here, if such is extende to your observations on a given subject.

There are few of Bob Brock's caliber here. And none with the myopic pride of ignorance that said individual seem to revel in.

I do hope you will return again sir.

"Ass for me....I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 19, 2000.


Shakey, You probably didn't intend to change your sig. tag to ass for me? But, it is a good one, so maybe you could throw it in once in awhile just to see if we're paying attention.

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), February 19, 2000.

Lets not give old Shakey a hard time ;)

-- zooper (scared@of.spam), February 19, 2000.


My Dear Mr. Ruok,

Sir...I can infer several things from your "confused" posting. One of them being that you have little command of the english language. Another, that you do not re-read your postings (after you have typed them). And secondly; that you are an expert in the subject of @$$. Be it a part of the ananomy or the draft animal kind! And leastly,but not insignifant! That it is you who changes their posting handles.

In either case, you where WRONG about the two week time frame for embedd systems. Might I suggest that you "take" time out and watch an old flick...Say "Police acadamy 2".

But in any case...You are famous for doing what you say you will never do!

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 19, 2000.


Shakey:

I could easily be wrong, but I seem to remember that RUOK is of the Ms/Miss/Mrs persuasion. I enjoy your posts!

-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), February 19, 2000.


My Dear Mistress Jeanne,

I stand corrected ( it was I who did not re-reead my posting close enough). I do thank you for clarifying (causing me to re-read my posting again).

Mistress Rouk; Please acept my sincere apology. My only excuse was one of making "snap asumptions". And in no way excuses my verbally snappish reply to you. I again..Apologize Mistress. I do hope that you will acept it.

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 19, 2000.


~~~~~~~~Thanks for the Shakey Welcome, Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~

These are truly extraordinary times, and the good folks (sic) over at csy2k (sic) have a lot to learn about allowing possibilities to be openly examined. Not one of them, not ONCE has ever shown the ability to openly admit that failing embeddeds *could* be responsible for *some* of the loss of refinery and pipeline productivity since January 1. Doesn't even matter if Texas propane is rationed because of, "pay metering" and "brine" (ie., over pumping) problems. Doesn't matter if it's only a bit after rollover when it happened. Doesn't matter, Shake! Nothing matters except holding their position. Nothing.

But they will have to pay more for gas and diesel too this summer. Every time they do it will be a constant reminder of how something huge changed right after the rollover. Just a coincidence, of course!

-- paul leblanc (bronyaur@gis.net), February 19, 2000.


Wow. My first flame in a year and a half on TB2000 (using the handle RUOK) and I don't get it.

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), February 19, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ