http://www.canoe.ca/MoneyOil/mw_crudeoil6.html

Crude Oil

U.S. West Coast fuel prices continue to surge

By KERM YERMAN

U.S. West Coast fuel prices continued to firm on Thursday as refinery repairs and increasingly slim supplies hiked up regional prices.

Traders said a number of planned repairs to refineries had sent prices higher in recent days. Recent inventory data that pointed to lower than average U.S. gasoline stocks also helped send prices higher.

******************

It's over. We don't have to prove that there are shortages. We don't have to prove that outages are contributing to shortages. It's a fact. It's not all OPEC.

The only thing that needs proving is the ultimate cause of a certain percentage of the outages (they can't all be Y2k, right?). And how do we get our hands on that data? Probably nobody in the world has that data except for a very few, if any, of the powerful wheelers and dealers.

Nevertheless, the signs are all there in aggregate - something is wrong and it never has been like this in our lifetime. And when did it all start?

The prosecution rests.

-- paul leblanc (bronyaur@gis.net), February 25, 2000

Answers

You can bet Clinton and his spin doctors know whats comming.

-- David Whitelaw (Dande53484@aol.com), February 26, 2000.

Here is a related link to Downstreamer's forum about a Panic expected in next week's oil prices. Panic Week in Crude

-- Susie (Susie0884@aol.com), February 26, 2000.

Sorry, I can never get those really long URL's to work in a link, so this will hopefully take you to the forum where you can scroll down to the thread by Bruce. Interesting article, by the way, Paul.

http://server5.ezboard.com/fdownstreamventurespetroleummarkets.html

-- Susie (Susie0884@aol.com), February 26, 2000.

as a matter of fact, i saw kosky rearing his ugly head again last night. let me see if i can get it right--he made some strange statement regarding the fact that people were aggregating "raw data" on glitches which would lead you to believe there were lots of Y2K errors (which made me think he is watching all these boards/they are probably more efficient than his own)-- then he twisted it somehow to say they were glad to see all the errors and totally discounted it as if the boards were incorrect.

i'm sorry i can't get it right but i think what he was doing (and i saw an article do the same thing with the airplane incidences yesterday) was acknowledging that they know about the "raw data" being tracked but that somehow we don't have our assumptions/analysis correct. maybe this is the newest trend for the spin meisters and it is has such a twist it is hard to describe. damn they are smart, them paid liars.

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), February 26, 2000.

Panic week in crude

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), February 26, 2000.

"...acknowledging that they know about the "raw data" being tracked but that somehow we don't have our assumptions/analysis correct."

Kind of like "Yes, he had sex with a subordinate; yes, he lied about it under oath in the context of a civil court case; yes, others have been removed from office or even jailed for either one of those two offenses; but no, he's not guilty of any wrongdoing." If there's one thing this administration is good at, it's correcting faulty assumptions/analysis of raw data.

-- Markus Archus (apxov@mail.com), February 26, 2000.

I read the text of Koskinen's briefing . The following exerpt may be what you are referring to.

QUESTION: Why have you been reluctant to release the details of the 50-100 glitches that you found during the New Year rollover?

KOSKINEN: Most of that is out. The stuff that we've been able to confirm is already out. We had a report a couple weeks ago from the International Y2K Cooperation Center that Bruce McConnell, on detail for the U.S., has been running and that listed all of the confirmed ones, which have been about 50. There was a study released in England with about 90-100 issues. All of the glitches that we found that we could confirm we continually put out through that weekend. We have not released the raw data because a lot of the stuff that we got in turned out not to be confirmed and in fact turned out to be erroneous. There were reports of wide scale shortages in particular areas and then when you tracked them down it turned out that those were anecdotal and someone had called in, but we couldn't confirm them. So, there is a lot of unconfirmed raw data that we've felt there is no point in cluttering everyone's lives up with, but as you may recall, by the time we got to Saturday afternoon, January 1st, we were delighted to find anything that didn't work. Some of my friends in the concerned area were saying well, we'll never know what happened because they've put a tight lid on it all. Quite the contrary. We were delighted that Saturday and Sunday to find and report and share with you all of the information, even about minor problems because they did validate the fact that this was a real issue and if we hadn't done the work we would have had a lot more of those. So, basically we think that anything of any significance is out in the public domain.

While Koskinen was desparately searching for a few glitches to justify his role, I expect that this forum will twist the failure to find many into a coverup.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 26, 2000.

Yes, LL and I agree--outings contribute to shortages.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 26, 2000.