A Challenge For Andy!

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

In the thread "Trucking", I stated that I expected, worst-case, to lose about 10% of foreign oil supplies due to Y2K problems (and that was WORST-case). Andy took me to task as follows:


He said, "never mind refining," then included "refineries" at the end of the list, so we'll exclude those. I'd challenge Andy

-- to provide an example of a well head that could fail due to a Y2K bug. Make and model.

-- to provide an example of a pipeline that could fail due to a Y2K bug; again, a specific example is desired.

-- to provide an example of how a Y2K bug could shut down a port or a ship (these aren't essential; if he'll just answer the first two, I'll be satisfied).

Let's see if, just once, Andy can answer a specific set of questions with specific answers. And PS:

Remember 1973-4?

You mean when OPEC embargoed ALL oil shipments to the United States, and the worst effect was that we had to wait in gas lines?

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999


Mr. Poole:

If you would take the time to do your OWN research, you could answer your OWN questions. For instance, I just read this morning that the cranes at some docks will not work. I also read that NW Airlines has been working for 8 years on their y2k problems. They commented that there were thousands of bugs in their systems, and they were 80% done. We spend way to much time looking up DETAILS for people that are either to damn lazy to do it for themselves, or do not the the ability to process information in their SKULL. If you don't uderstand "cranes won't work" spend YOUR TIME looking it up! If you want to know the details of "thousands of bugs" YOU pick up the phone and call them! The clock is ticking, we don't have time for BS anymore.

-- SCOTTY (BLehman202@aol.com), May 05, 1999.

Stephen, there has been sufficient discussion and citations of freighters and oil tankers having between 100-200 embedded chips in their electronics, of chips in vessel traffic controls in rivers, canals and harbors, of chips and noncompliant programs involved in the extraction and transportation of crude oil in foreign countries, so I won't attempt to argue those points.

Now, those gas lines you so blithely mention caused numerous assaults and shootings because Americans just are not used to waiting in line for gas. When a gas station ran out of gas, angry motorists still in line vandalized stations and ripped out pumps. A new crime wave arose--gas siphoning. Gas was siphoned from ambulances and fire trucks, causing emergencies to turn into tragedies. A new industry took off--manufacture of locking gas caps.

In addition, you fail to take into account that the US has gone from importing about one-third of its total oil needs in the mid-70s to just over one-half today. We are much more dependent on foreign oil imports than we were in the seventies. Please read the following item:


According to the "Short-Term Energy Outlook," just released by the Energy Information Administration, notwithstanding assumptions of slower economic growth, U.S. petroleum demand is expected to increase in 1999 by over 500,000 barrels per day, or 2.9%, from 1998 levels. Much of this growth is expected as a result of increases in demand for heating oil and other weather-sensitive products (e.g., propane and heavy fuel oil), based on an assumed return to normal weather patterns, as well as continued growth in transportation demand. U.S. petroleum demand is expected to rise by an additional 300,000 barrels per day in 2000. U.S. net imports of petroleum 2000 are forecast to account for 52% of total U.S. petroleum demand, up from an estimated 50% in 1998. The report also notes that electricity demand is expected to increase 1.6% over 1998 levels while it is projected to increase by 2.2% in 2000. The document can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub.

Natural shortages of oil and natural gas may soon lead to substantially higher prices for the gasoline, plastics, medicines, fertilizer, rubber and many other things that are made from oil and natural gas.


Conclusion: a) people are more violent and less tolerant than they were in the 70s; and b) we are more dependent than ever on foreign oil. Therefore, it's safe to say that any reduction in the availability of gasoline will result in some social unrest--the greater the reduction, the greater the social unrest. (See news reports from California, where organized rallies are being held to protest the price of gas at over $2/gallon.)

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 05, 1999.

Scotty, Scotty:

"I just read..." Where? I understand that this is NOT a research paper, but we still need ALL of us to cite our sources. I for one, will tend to read something and get a different take, from the numbers, or other info in the document, than for instance Flint, or you.

GADS, I'm being pushed into even SOUNDING like Flint. AH, WELL. it's not such a bad place to be, the middle ground.


-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 05, 1999.

Chuck: Did not mean to offend anyone. IT's just that I am getting sick of these denial butt heads, that are to lazy, or stupid, to find info on their own. Most of us spend hours everyday researching the issues. I say, let the butt heads do the same. Let them read all the news clippings, let them read Scary Gary, let them read Ed, Cory, Paul, Ko- skin-em, et al. I agree that opinions will differ, as well they should. That is exactly why these butt heads should go searching for themselves. I do not have the time to sit down and document, hyperlink, cut and paste everything I read. On the other hand, I am not going to post something on this forum that I know is a lie. Again if I offend ya Chuck I'm sorry! The Steelers will still kick some Brownie butt though. :)

-- SCOTTY (BLehman202@aol.com), May 05, 1999.

Chuck; Forgot to answer your question. DUH! Cranes at ports; See Michael Hyatt.com ... news, also Senate report dated 3-22-99... NW airlines; see y2knewswire.com

-- SCOTTY (BLehman202@aol.com), May 05, 1999.

Some Oil Education  World Oil Archive: April '98 Will the millennium bug give your operations the flu?


Will the millennium bug give your operations the flu?

Don't take the head-in-the-sand approach toward potential computer strangling of production operations. Time-contingent process controllers must be evaluated for year 2000 date stamp limitations and their implications for safety, the environment and operations

Scott M. Shemwell, Jerry Dake and Bruce Friedman, MCI Systemhouse, Houston, Texas

Human history is replete with mystical and religious concerns over the end of a millennium. Armageddon or end-of-the-world scenarios are typical refrains. This time, oil and gas producers may face a more identifiable plague. Then again, Jan. 1, 2000, may come uneventfully  as has every thousand-year transition of the past.

For more than 15 years, the oil and gas industry has expended a massive effort to re-invent itself. We all know that none of our firms would be competitive in today's market, if we had not made these hard decisions. A linchpin of the industry's success has been the reduction of the corporate cost structure through the use of technology and process re- engineering, much of it computerized. All of this work is potentially at risk, if serious loss of production is sustained as a result of unplanned computer shutdowns in many segments of the business, all at the same time.


As we close on the first 100 years of the "information age," we are faced with a legacy from the medieval computer past. In the computing dark ages, processing power, memory and hard disk space were an expensive premium. Like the wizard Merlin, programmers of that bygone era concocted software brews, the recipes of which now are, more often than not, non-existing. They certainly did not take one important fact into consideration.

No one expected that some legacy software, with roots often over 30 years old, still would be in general use today. Further, as these recipes or programming techniques were taught to modern-day wizards, they, too, adopted the same incantations. Therefore, even new software programs may have the same limitations.

How the problem started. Today, we live in a world in which computer software is fundamental to our very way of life. Computers are everywhere  from mighty mainframes, high-performance workstations and PCs, to games, toys and even automobiles and household appliances. Many software programs driving our business functions have one thing in common  limitations of the past dictated that the variable calendar year be represented by two digits instead of four, e.g., 1966 would be expressed as 66 and 1998 would be 98. This was an efficient method and did not present any problems initially. This date stamp limitation is the so-called "millennium bug."

A simple example. As one example, consider a simple problem. An oil and gas market researcher is interested in the buying patterns of his forecourt customers. He commissions a survey and asks 100,000 individuals a series of questions, one of which is their date of birth. In his analysis, he correlates age to a number of other variables, builds a profile of his customers and uses this profile as part of his next-generation product planning. Sound familiar? Well it should, because it happens every day.

What if our hypothetical researcher conducts the same survey in January 2000? If his statistical software calculated the year by the last two digits (00), he may find three types of error:

  1. He will discover that individuals born in 1960 are not 40 years old, but minus 60, e.g., 00- 60= - 60. The astute researcher will see this problem immediately and adjust accordingly to this inconvenience.
  2. Any calculations involving the age of respondents such as "percentage of population over 30 years old" will be incorrect. This mistake may be more difficult to find and rectify, because age may be a variable in several processes. However, this is still largely a further inconvenience.
  3. Age, or calculations made from age, may be the basis for more sophisticated analyses errors that may not be readily apparent to the researcher, such as what might occur with matrix algebra. When multiplied by 100,000 samples, this error may impact the validity of the analysis seriously. Business decisions made on the basis of these analyses are likely to be inaccurate and fail.
A serious problem. Our example is straightforward, relatively simple, and most errors can be detected and compensated for easily. The real world is seldom simple, and the stakes may be a good deal higher. What if, instead of an off-line market research project, our system was one or all of the thousands of embedded or "computer on a chip" process controllers on an offshore platform, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system or distribution pipeline? What is the impact of these three error types cascading throughout multiple-intertwined and mutually dependent on- line systems?

An offshore platform may have 10,000 or more embedded silicon chips governing all automated and even some manual processes. Many of these systems are subsurface or underwater and physically difficult to access.


Unlike the software of a marketing system, the embedded logic on a silicon chip is entombed deep in the system and not easily ascertained. Any given Distributed Control System (DCS) or Process Logic Controller (PLC) computer board has many chips, and their interdependencies on each other, and on other system components, make them difficult to analyze and repair,
Addressing these issues will require a cross-functional team. It should comprise individuals who are knowledgeable about the engineering processes in question and their relationship to other processes, the equipment involved and its level of automation, process control systems, and year 2000 hardware and software issues. Reporting to an oversight committee and the executive sponsor, this team will inventory the functional processes and control systems associated with those operations. It will then contact the control system manufacturer (or access commercially available databases) to attempt to ascertain year 2000 compliance for the devices in question.

With this baseline assessment, management can determine which systems are mission-critical from the standpoint of safety, environment and business operations. Systems that are deemed to be critical will require action plans to ensure that those processes are dealt with appropriately. This may require switching to manual operation or a planned shutdown. Plans also can be implemented for systems that are determined to be non- mission-critical but may malfunction, too.

Large organizations should prototype each process, so that this knowledge can be distributed to global operations in a cost-effective, timely manner. Multiple parallel teams can be used as required, since it is unlikely that a single team can physically assess all systems in less than 24 months. Moreover, local engineering knowledge will be required, because many processes, while similar, are not exactly the same worldwide.

Some remediation can be accomplished during planned maintenance. But operators must expect that due to work volumes and time shortages, the contingency planning process probably will drive millennium bug resolution. Complex systems that include equipment belonging to multiple organizations further complicate the problem, because it is important to completely understand what signal is sent by each electronic device. For example, a smelting plant in New Zealand lost several months of production, because one of its controllers did not recognize the leap year and shut down when it received an electronic signal that was different than the expected date, March 1.

Computer chips are becoming ubiquitous, with over 7 billion manufactured in 1996, alone. The millennium bug not only can infect production processes, but also every on- and off-line process in the oil and gas value chain, from seismic acquisition to the pumps at the gas station.


The year 2000 software problem is real. Many computer industry pundits estimate that fixing the problem will require hundreds of billions of dollars, and a few place that figure substantially higher. This is an important issue, but it need not be Armageddon. As with our market research example, many failures will be just an inconvenience; others may be more serious. There are many uncertainties, but what we do know is that failures in process control and monitoring systems can shut down facilities, damage the environment and jeopardize safety. Management's fiduciary responsibility to corporate stakeholders suggests that we develop an understanding of our situation, initiate a remediation strategy with contingency plans, and implement those plans that are relevant to our specific situation.

On a Friday night less than two years from now, a tsunami will build in the Pacific and roll westward through all major hydrocarbon producing fields before reaching Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. We know the exact date, not to mention the hour, minute and second. We do not know its size. As with all tidal waves, it is safer to take precautions and move out to sea, where its arrival may not even be noticed. Disaster strikes those who are unprepared and caught near shore. There is little time left to mobilize, so to speak, and move the world's huge oil and gas fleet to the safety of the sea.& nbsp;  WO

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 05, 1999.

I am amazed that anyone has the stones to post one year old info; most of which has been debunked.

-- (.`.`@.`.`), May 05, 1999.

The American Petroleum Institute has built a database of oil and gas equipment which has been tested and found to be either compliant or non-compliant. They are not sharing this information with non-members of API, which would include all the foreign and state-run oil companies. You know, the ones who help us import 52% of the oil this country uses every day...

Read about it here

-- Doug (Doug@work.now), May 05, 1999.

Stephen my computer-retarded friend,

I don't have to back up my statements for the likes of you. By asking me to back up my statements you are basically saying I am a liar. I take umbrage at that. You have a keyboard and a search engine - DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. I am not here to provide you with hot links. they would be wasted on you - THAT is patently obvious. From my dealings with you so far on this forum - I am not impressed.

A few points you would do well to consider :-

1. Your web site.

You purport to be a Christian. Your web site consistently poo-poos the seriousness of y2k, ridicules people, generally portrays anyone who takes the possible danger of y2k seriously as whackos.


Less well informed fellow Christians may stumble on to your site and take it as Gospel.

Hope you can sleep well at night knowing what you MAY cause. As I've said before, we are all hoping for minimal effects here, however IMHO the situation is bordering on catastrophic WORLDWIDE.

2. You refused to post my piece on your web site because I would not supply you with an example of a verified embedded chip problem.

You know very well that many people have tried to do this on Michael Theroux's Boerderlands site - and failed to get past the stringent conditions laid down.

Stephen - don't play games with me old son.

You Sir are a rampant Hypocrite, at least Mr. Theroux had the decency to publish my piece on his site as an effort to provide some "balance" to his misguided view of y2k as some sort of con trick.

3. The oil embargo which you casually dismiss.

Ever heard of guns me old son? Remember those killed while argueing over petrol?

Is this more proof of your "Christianity?"

4. That's all.

You are a complete fraud, and worse, a dangerous one.

By all means stick around on this forum, you might learn something but I suspect your EGO would prohibit THAT process.

I'm not wasting any more time with you.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

In other words, you can merely post anything Andy wishes and when someone ask you for name, rank and serial number, they must go to the video tapes and "do their own research".

OTOH, when they post **anyting** you people don't "like", you dismiss it as "spin", "lying", "odd ball examples", "happy face".

Enjoy your little closed minded society whilst you search for your next big "issue" from Kosovar to terrorism to algore2000isms.

Thank God I'm

Knot Andy

-- Knot Andy (Knot.andy@willnotanswer.com), May 05, 1999.

Knot true at all,

See the other threads, I simply asked Stephen to put a little more balance on his site. But oh no, can't do that, have to play these silly games first.

I doubt if you've looked at the site - if you had you would realise why I'm getting so het up over this.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

I thank God everyday I'm not Andy.......

-- b (b@b.b), May 05, 1999.

Andy, Eater Of the Dead: (I love Crichton!)

It's real simple -- provide one example, just one! Since there are billions of these embedded chips out there and millions upon millions are ready to fail at the stroke of midnight, someone of your obviously superior intellect should have no trouble coming up with a single, real example! You are not paying for Poole's site so you have no say in what goes on it! He is giving you the chance to post something to it, if you are man enough to take the challenge. I would say that it is put up or shut up time!

-- do you see (howstupid@you.look), May 05, 1999.

Isn't it Rob that has a few threads, called the "failure list," or something like that? Just dig it up out of the archive. I think Drew at CBN also has it posted. Should be at least a hunderd examples by now. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 05, 1999.


Andy says: "Stephen my computer-retarded friend,

I don't have to back up my statements for the likes of you. By asking me to back up my statements you are basically saying I am a liar. I take umbrage at that. You have a keyboard and a search engine - DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH."

I guess its ok for doomers to challenge pollys, but not the other way around. what a wonderful doublestandard.

-- (.`.`@.`.`), May 05, 1999.

@ above,

not a double-standard as you well know. I originally issued a challenge to poole, he squirmed his way out of it by asking me to provide an embedded chip failure so that he and Michael Theroux could take it apart.

I'm not playing that game.

Poole is now asking me to provide links - well it's not my job to enter into these games with poole. There are umpteen links that I could give him referencing what he wants to know. Several other people have already done that on this particular thread. Sysman just gave an area for poole to look in. Go to the gary North archives and look at the industry commentary from the petroleum, shipping, rail and embedded chip experts. it's all there as he well knows.

Whats the point?

Of more concern to me is the rubbish on his site and the adverse influence he has over y2k-ill-informed people that take it in.

That's irresponsibe and dangerous.

But all you ostriches that thank God every day that you are not me, I can sleep at night.

Hope you can too.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

Your response as usual, is: BS BS and MORE BS

Typical of the Double Standard here. As for the "costing lives" problem, that is sheer hypocrisy from a Fear Pusher who talks about "extra eaters:.


-- Knot Andy (KnotAndy@answerthequestion.com), May 05, 1999.

Knot a chance - no more games - he can do his own research.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

I'm not a "fear-pusher" I am a realist. I have dealt with my fear long ago - sounds like you have not done that yet.

And it's "useless eaters" - coined by that arhcon Henry Kissinger.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

"I am amazed that anyone has the stones to post one year old info; most of which has been debunked.

-- (.`.`@.`.`), May 05, 1999."


Why don't you educate us and share some of YOUR info. Please, point out exactly which info above has been "debunked." If you can't, then your comments above are groundless and your post was nothing more than a personal attack which makes it useless.

C'mon, provide us with YOUR facts. Use YOUR facts to debunk that year old info.

Just because you say it don't make it so and that goes both ways.

Mike ===============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 05, 1999.

I guess I will use the standard doomer excuse; "You have a keyboard and a search engine - DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH"

-- (.`.`@.`.`), May 05, 1999.

At first, I thought you guys were just too lazy to go find some failures. Now, I know that you're just too mad. Jeez, do I have to do everything around here... <:)=

Y2K List of Failures Part 4

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 05, 1999.


I expected the usual handwaving, charges of "laziness" and so on. Thanks for not disappointing me. But just for the record, I've read too many things to count in the past year or two (some of the reports you've indicated among them). They're old stories with very few hard details -- and some of these examples have since been proven apocryphal.

Do you know how one of these stories actually begins? Here's a common scenario.

A Y2K Consultant who's looking for work will say, "Whizzerwidgets may have a Y2K bug, and if so, they could cause all Whizzer production to cease."

(Unspoken: "you need to hire me to check them all.")

(Also unspoken, but earnestly hoped for: "now the public is going to be nervous about Whizzers, so you'd better hire me!"[g].)

(Small detail which I won't get into: the vendor who makes the Whizzerwidgets has already insisted that they won't fail due to a Y2K bug, but the Consultant claims that the vendor can't be trusted. "You need to hire ME to check them anyway, 'cuz I'm an EXPURT and they're not.")

The Consultant's report will be filled with doom statistics: there are 1,000,000 Whizzerwidgets in service worldwide. Only 10% of these have been verified as "compliant."

(As usual, no standard definition is given for this tre chic buzzword. If you're hip and informed, you'll just sortof know what "compliant" means; right?)

Milne, North, Hyatt, or one of the other Prophets of Doom hears about it (usually because the Consultant will feed the story to them to increase public concern about Whizzers -- further guaranteeing job security[g]) and the fable is circulated.

Over the next several days, the story is repeated so often that people begin accepting it as fact. The "coulds" are slowly permutated into "probably wills." In time, they become "almost definitely, so Houston, we have a problem."

(In the interim, there's a run on Whizzers or Whizzer substitutes amongst Doomlits, but we'll ignore that, too.[g])

After a month or so, it's such an accepted fact that the immediate reaction to anyone who questions it is, "why, you must be an unwashed bumpkin (or lazy, or uninformed, or [insert ad hominem attack here]) to even ask such a thing!"

(Which pretty much sums up the response that you just gave me, right? [g])

But no one will provide specific examples of problems that will definitely shut off the flow of oil.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999.


Typical response: deluge the clueless with links that most won't bother to follow (more than the first or second, anyway) -- and none of which answer my question. Most of that information is old, and a good bit has since been disproven or disputed, which makes me wonder why you'd even post it.

Andy said that well-heads, pipelines, and ports could be "non-compliant" and stop the flow of oil. I wanted him to name some examples, to explain HOW these things could stop the flow of oil.

I think it's pretty obvious that he can't do that; the best he can do is continue to hurl invectives.

(Andy: what would you say if there was no Y2K, and my site was instead aimed at those occasional fringe Christian groups who are convinced that Jesus is returning on a particular date? If I were to warn them not to get carried away and sell their homes and move into the wilderness, you'd say I was doing THEM a public service.)

By the way, I always get a kick out of that old Chrysler plant story. Did you know that, when I was with Heilig Meyers back in the late 80's, the Store Systems Support Group was getting at least one call per day from a panicked store manager who was locked out of his building by an alarm system? But of course, that's not Y2K-related, so it won't appear in the Y2K archives . .. . :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999.

Your statements above explain a lot about your mindset Stephen - you've given yourself away.

All the talk about widgits and sales of product - that's what you think y2k is all about isn't it - a gigantic con game by North and Hamasaki and Hyatt to feather their nests.

Dear oh dear. You're more far gone than I thought.

"Andy said that well-heads, pipelines, and ports could be "non- compliant" and stop the flow of oil. I wanted him to name some examples, to explain HOW these things could stop the flow of oil.

I think it's pretty obvious that he can't do that; the best he can do is continue to hurl invectives."

If you call telling you that you are an egotistical arrogant dangerous menace to the Christian community, then yes, you are right.

As for proof, you have ample proof on this page IF you care to look.

As Prometheus said most eloquently on another thread "you can lead a nag to water but you cannot make him drink".

That about sums you up. Your mind is made up. Just a bunch of shysters out to make a buck.

You are so naieve I'm embarrased at myself for bothering to answer you.

Go ahead.

Refine your site - spread the word - you're providing such a "Christian" service it wants to make me puke.

Sleep well.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

Sorry Stephen,

I thought you wanted ONE example. You didn't say it had to be a CURRENT example. Why do you insist on "well-heads, pipelines, and ports?" Nothing about these in the news for the past few days? I'll be back, let me wonder over to dogpile...

"deluge the clueless with links that most won't bother to follow" - Speak for yourself. I'm concerned about this issue. I DO FOLLOW most links here. I guess you don't. Maybe you should start.

"it's pretty obvious that he can't do that" - It's pretty obvious that you can not find ONE COMPLIANT refinery. If you have one, please SHOW ME. I don't care if it's new, old, or rumor.

"But of course, that's not Y2K-related" - Maybe, just maybe, some of it is. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 05, 1999.

"If you call telling you that you are an egotistical arrogant dangerous menace to the Christian community, then yes, you are right."

Andy, your sum knowledge of wellheads and pipelines easily matches your knowledge of almost everything you've talked about. We can only be impressed. Now, how about enlightening us about the refineries and airliners, OK?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

Incidentally, anyone who has any questions about the content of my Website can see it by clicking here.

Don't let Andy or anyone else tell you what it's like; why not see for yourself?

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999.


Why do you insist on "well-heads, pipelines, and ports?"

Uh ... read the initial challenge. That's what Andy said. I asked him to back it up.

I can't name a single oil refinery that's "compliant," probably because no one can provide a single, standardized definition of just what "compliant" means.

Do remember, Sysman ol' buddy, that one the things to which I specifically take exception is the standard Doomlit metric: "non-compliance == disaster."

I don't agree with that metric, nor with the assumptions that underlay it.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999.

Are you casting aspersions again Flint:)

Not on this thread but I will be posting on ALL of the above in future episodes. Stay tuned :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

Truly, Stephen, it's hopeless.

Andy has no examples. Just like he had no example of Y2k failures causing "corrupt" data propogating to eventually crash the banking system.

It's all part of the "burden of proof" reasoning. It allows him to state anything, and forces those in disagreement to "prove he's wrong".

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 05, 1999.


I just checked out your site. It sucks.

-- Brian M. McGuire, non-CET (bmcguire@worldnet.att.net), May 05, 1999.

Gee Hoff...since Andy couldn't think of any problems...that means there will be no problems? Wow! Someone call Koskinen! Have Andy flown to Washington! Maybe he can "not be able to think of any problems" overseas as well! Y2K must be a $50 trillion hoax!

One problem...if they were so stupid to "fall for it", how could they have been smart enough to fix it?

The logic of you pollyannas never ceases to amaze me...

-- a (a@a.a), May 05, 1999.


I think I actually agree with you. Whatever they got, we've got one better! Oh yea, how about THIS then! That's NOTHIN' - take a look at THIS!!!!! So why do we continue to argue? Which leads to the next question... Why are the Pollys still here? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 05, 1999.

Come come Flint, you're not dragging up THAT again. I think anyonw who reads the Banking threads will acknowledge that there is a very real dangers and a very real spin being put out by the authorities. And, you may not have noticed, but it's not y2k yet. Just what banking failures do you expect to be seeing now? I can assure you that whatever failures that are occuring now will just be a drop in the ocean at rollover. I'm so gald you have such faith in the pakistanis and indians and chinese and koreans and brits and italians and greeks and aussies etc. etc. to get their collective asses together.

Because I bloody well don't. the Uk is already talking of shutting down 12 major financial institutions AHEAD of rollover.

And just WHY is CitiGroup spending over $1,000,000,000.00 on code- chasing.

It must be silly season. No other explanation.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.


It's not that I can't post links to problems it's that I don't want to play pooles' games on this thread. Another time another place.

And Washington, I'm a freelance and can fly out at a moment's notice. Maybe I can hook up with Bill and he can show me a few "places" around town.

I'll even bring my own humidor!!!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.


First, that was Hoff about banking, not me. Though it'd take a jaundiced view indeed not to see that you got thoroughly drubbed on that one.

Second, those 12 institutions are stockbrokers, not banks. And they haven't been closed down yet.

Third you can't have it both ways about Citigroup. That big number shows two things: They had big problems, and they addressed them. That's what remediation is all about. Just because it isn't cheap doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Face it, you're grasping at straws. We'll keep our eye on those stockbrokers, though. Their accounts might actually have to be reassigned.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

No, 'a', never said there would be no problems. Far from it.

The specific question on banks was "corrupt" data, propogating from one system to the next.

Like this thread, all I asked for was one reasonable example. That's it. Is that unreasonable? I mean, if you postulate a theory that massive numbers of these errors are going to collapse the entire banking system, one would think you'd have at least one example in mind.


See post on the other thread as to "why".

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 05, 1999.

Mr Poole said, "You mean when OPEC embargoed ALL oil shipments to the United States, and the worst effect was that we had to wait in gas lines?"

Mr Poole, you need to study your history a little better. In 1973-74 we imported approximately 30% of our oil. The reduction that resulted in gas lines was ONLY 5%! Today we import approximately 57% of our oil. Think about it!

-- none (none@none.none), May 05, 1999.

Experts warn of Y2K trade upheaval

Each nation's problem will become a global one



WASHINGTON -- Experts on the millennium computer bug warned Congress last week that international commerce and trade may face serious disruptions early next year because of computer failures in foreign countries.

Painting an alarming but uncertain picture, a National Intelligence Council officer and a State Department watchdog told a special Senate oversight panel on Friday that many foreign nations are not prepared.

"It is becoming increasingly clear that there will be Y2K-related problems in virtually very corner of the globe," Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers, inspector general of the Department of State, told a hearing of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem.

"Faced with a relentless and unforgiving deadline, countries have to make difficult decisions concerning the use of scarce resources to fix a problem that has not yet occurred," she said. Many computer programs use two digits to identify the year. Those systems will recognize "00" as 1900 rather than 2000. Without upgrading, the systems could fail on Jan. 1, 2000.

The international transportation sector is particularly vulnerable, she and Lawrence K. Gershwin, National Intelligence Council officer for science and technology, said. "Global linkages in telecommunications, financial systems, the manufacturing supply chain, oil supplies, trade and worldwide shipping and air transportation will virtually guarantee that Y2K problems will not be isolated to individual countries," Mr. Gershwin said.

Among the difficulties the two officials outlined:

Both the Panama and Suez canals face the risk of disrupted operations should traffic management systems or ship steering mechanisms fail. Panama officials say no ships will be allowed into the canal on Dec. 31. A Norwegian firm is working now on fixing the Suez Canal's traffic system.

China probably will experience failures in several areas, including transportation and power generation. An estimated 90% of software used in China, even by government offices and state-owned enterprises, is pirated, making it very difficult to approach vendors for fixes. China is planning to conduct a nationwide aviation test. Senior officials have been ordered to fly on New Year's Day.

Central and Eastern Europe are believed to face vulnerabilities in Soviet-designed nuclear power plants, though Western experts do not know what specific problems they may have. Many vendors of the software and equipment stopped operating after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Russia Gazprom natural gas pipeline network is susceptible to potential Y2K outages. It supplies nearly 50% of the total energy consumed by Russia. While Gazprom has backup plans, it is unclear whether these measures are sufficient to deal with the scale of problems that could occur.

Major oil-producing nations are behind in fixing their Y2K problems. Oil production and distribution is largely in the hands of multinational corporations, but the sector's use of information technology is highly intensive.


-- none (none@none.none), May 05, 1999.


You seem to forget that on the Banking thread I gave a VERY detailes example explaining how imported data could do great damage.

True or not?


Andy: First, that was Hoff about banking, not me. Though it'd take a jaundiced view indeed not to see that you got thoroughly drubbed on that one.

@@@@@@@ I beg to differ Flint. Au contraire, I think I explained to anyone with an open mind just what all the Bankers are worried about. Anyone reading this might do well to investigate for themselves. @@@@@@@

Second, those 12 institutions are stockbrokers, not banks. And they haven't been closed down yet.

@@@@@@@ You're twisting my words again. I said 12 MAJOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. OK?

They may not be shut down yet Flint but I can assure you that the damage has been done in the UK confidence-wise, and don't tell me the markets are all a matter of confidence and psychology. @@@@@@@

Third you can't have it both ways about Citigroup. That big number shows two things: They had big problems, and they addressed them. That's what remediation is all about. Just because it isn't cheap doesn't mean it isn't possible.

@@@@@@@ Precisely!!! The 19 largest godzilla banks in Japan have spent roughly the same amount. BOY those Japanese Programmers must be GOOD, shame we can't get 'em over here.

NO - the fact is other countries started late, do not have enough resources now, underestimated the problem, have not allowed sufficient time for testing - the list goes on.

Case in point - The Euro. What a waste of resources that can never be retrieved. Done deal. manpower gone. It's not coincidental about the UK institutions - and, incidentally, there are Banks rumoured to be on the list too.

That's why our watchdog in the UK who has TEETH, as opposed to the scaredy-cats in DeeCee is fully prepared to JUMP when he needs to (Unless Blair gets to him :)) )@@@@@@@

Face it, you're grasping at straws. We'll keep our eye on those stockbrokers, though. Their accounts might actually have to be reassigned.

@@@@@@@ I do not need to grasp at any straws. We are all potentially gonna drown. I know it - that's why I am preparing. Within the next seven months I'll be ready for any eventuality. I'll leave the straws for you Flint - you're gonna need them not me pal. @@@@@@@

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

For YOU, Mr. Poole:

Experts predict year-2000 gas lines

By Jason Schultz


Year-2000 computer experts predict skyrocketing gasoline prices and long lines of frazzled motorists come January, when computers with the millennium bug disrupt the steady stream of foreign oil that supplies U.S. gas stations.

Oil shortages "will potentially be the major source of economic disruption in this country," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican and chairman of a Senate Special Committee on the Year- 2000 Problem.

Computer failures are expected at oil refineries and ports in Venezuela, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, which provide 43.5 percent of all U.S. petroleum imports, petroleum industry experts say.

The oil shortages of 1973 and 1974 were caused by a 5 percent reduction in foreign imports, which then made up 30 percent of all oil consumption by Americans, said Harrison Fox, an analyst for the House Government Reform subcommittee on government management, information and technology.

But now foreign oil imports amount to 60 percent of American consumption and disruption of oil supplies from Venezuela alone could reduce imports by at least 5 percent, Mr. Fox said.

Venezuela supplies the United States with 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, or 16.2 percent of total imports.

At least 20 percent to 35 percent of process controls at Venezuela's six refineries have bad computer chips that won't function, said Lou Marcoccio, chief researcher for the Gartner Group. These refineries process oil into gasoline for U.S. service station chains.

Oil companies in Venezuela "have no focus and just started awareness six months ago," Mr. Marcoccio said.

The main American petroleum companies in Venezuela are BP-Amoco, Shell, Conoco and Citgo, which is partially owned by the Venezuelan government.

Ron Quiggins of Shell, who served on the American Petroleum Institute's year-2000 task force, said he was unaware of the problems in Venezuela. Other companies declined to respond to inquiries.

Saudi Arabia and Mexico, which provide another 2.7 million barrels of oil a day to the United States, also have millions of tainted computer chips embedded in refinery machinery, oil tankers and port equipment.

The built-in glitch prevents the computers from reading dates correctly because only the last two digits of the year have been recorded.

Carl Garrison, owner of the Superior SI computer firm, said he is more concerned about the ability of oil companies to ship their products in oil tankers next year.

Bad computer chips could cause pumps and navigation computers on oil tankers around the world to malfunction, also delaying 5 percent to 10 percent of all oil shipments to the United States for weeks.

Even minor disruptions in the oil supply chain that are quickly fixed after Jan. 1 would send ripples all the way to America's gas pumps, Mr. Garrison said, because gas stations rely on "just-in-time" deliveries of gasoline to keep running instead of stockpiling reserves.

"For the first few weeks of 2000, you'll probably see gas prices shoot up drastically," said Bruce Webster, who runs the D.C.-based Y2K Group, a major year-2000 watchdog organization. "I would not be surprised to see a 50 percent rise in prices."

-- none (none@none.none), May 05, 1999.

Err, no, I believe you gave a rather bogus example, cribbed from someone else, who later asked you not to use it again.

Heck, Andy, I gave you the fact that imported data can cause problems. Happens every day. And it's handled.

No, the question was how could Y2k cause a massive increase in these errors, and more importantly, how these would propogate thru the banking system. You couldn't even come up with a Y2k related problem, much less how it would propogate. As I said over there, just saying it's Y2k doesn't cut it, without back up. Just like saying non-compliant Well-Heads and Pipelines can stop delivery doesn't cut it, without some examples.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 05, 1999.

Flint: are there two flint@mindspring.com's? I could have sworn I saw one by that name posting that he was going to remove all his money from the bank. Jaundiced indeed. Oh yeah, that's right, odds vs. stakes, etc. etc. :)

Andy: Why have you decided to remain in a population center nursing the mainframes during rollover? Is it because that's the last place the NWO stormtroopers will think to look for you? :)

-- a (a@a.a), May 05, 1999.


Whenever you refer to the EFT example that I created, please note that "No Spam Please" created it and that I created it for the limited example of showing how invalid data could pass edit checking at a single interface, not the more extensive example of error propagation for which you incorrectly used it.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 05, 1999.

Mr Poole said, "You mean when OPEC embargoed ALL oil shipments to the United States, and the worst effect was that we had to wait in gas lines?"

Mr Poole, you need to study your history a little better. In 1973-74 we imported approximately 30% of our oil. The reduction that resulted in gas lines was ONLY 5%! Today we import approximately 57% of our oil. Think about it!

-- none (none@none.none), May 05, 1999.

From another thread, young Poole refuses to budge from hiss 10% prediction:-

So you are still sticking with ten per cent Stephen? You are a complete idiot to make such a statement - worse, to try and defend it.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

And incidentally -- I do stand by the 10% figure. I'm not going to try to defend it, either. Let's just wait and see next year. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 05, 1999.

So you see none, you can provide poole with the simplest of statistics which any fool can see are quite horrifying for the USA, and the horse will still not drink the water.

It's beyond comprehension the way the CET-mind works.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

none: I predict a 500% increase in gas prices here and abroad. Tell Decker to run those numbers in his Speak&Spell.

-- a (a@a.a), May 05, 1999.

Don't worry No Spam I believe that I credited you on at least one if not two threads on this point. I know that you did not create the example to suit my purposes - the fact is however just that type of problem is eminently able to cause havoc in the way I described in the Banking threads. Bad data will cause problems in weird ways, depending on a host of factors. It is THE major worry of Bankers (other than Bank Runs) - but of course they're not going to broadcast this fact.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.


ROTFLMAO! "Andy: Why have you decided to remain in a population center nursing the mainframes during rollover? Is it because that's the last place the NWO stormtroopers will think to look for you? :)"

Good one!

I dunno.

The money's excellent now.

I feel a sense of responsibility.

I suppose I just want to see first hand what happens at a major site at rollover that interfaces literally worldwide in a realtime environment.

However, I'm on an at-will contract, so who knows, I may change my mind nearer the time if all the signs start saying "get out of dodge".

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.

"Err, no, I believe you gave a rather bogus example, cribbed from someone else, who later asked you not to use it again."

I've always admitted that this example came from another thread.

Before posting to csy2k I elicited banking programmers to contact me via this forum.

I then asked No Spam for permission to use his example and he agreed to it at the time. The rest is history.

Now you know damn well that this is all on record in the archives, as was your jibe at the time at me using No Spam's example.

Now YOU are being VERY disingenuous here pal.

What say you?

You are making me out to be a fraud to a casual reader.

Sheesh! This is below you.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 05, 1999.


Why didn't you credit me earlier in this current thread when you wrote:


You seem to forget that on the Banking thread I gave a VERY detailes example explaining how imported data could do great damage.


My recollection is that out of the several times you've used my example, only once did you credit me without my specifically requesting that you do so but on the other occasions you gave the impression that you had originated it.

For instance, in your earlier posting on this thread, you could have written (note the difference in italics), "... on the Banking thread was a VERY detaile[d] example explaining how imported data could do great damage". But your actual wording suggests that you, rather than someone else, authored the example.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 05, 1999.

Good God No Spam are you accusing me of plagiarism? I specifically asked your permission at the time and you gave it. If I've stepped on your intellectual toes then I apologise, that was not my intention. My intention was to have a rational discourse on the problem of imported data - which, I believe was achieved. This has occurred over several threads both here and on csy2k.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 06, 1999.

Imported data infecting compliant programs greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

http://flash.oregonlive.com/cgi-bin/or_nview.pl?/home1/... Don

Mazziotti, the state's chief information officer: If we receive a virus through a sneeze, it can affect us," he said Friday at a House committee hearing. "It's the same with data crossing electronic boundaries. If it's not compliant with Y2K, we can inherit the code problem from that system -- and that can corrupt our own system." . . . .

Is it possible to explain this process for non-programer types?

Thanks, Les

-- Les (llweil@razorlogic.com), January 28, 1999


I've worked on a lot of data imports and exports in my time so I'll give it a shot.

First, we have data moving from one computer application to another. Do you download data from your bank in order to balance your checkbook? That data contains the date the bank processed the check.

Second, there are different ways to represent a specific date within the data. Perhaps the date in the bank data is represented in YYMMDD order. Another option is for it to be stored in MMDDYY format. Today's date in YYMMDD format is 990128 and in MMDDYY format it's 012899. So, the same date in each case but 2 different ways to store it.

Now, just so long as the application that is receiving the data is programmed to interpret the date format correctly everything is hunky dory. But now let's say the bank updated their application to include the century in the date but the application receiving the data has not been updated to recognize the banks new format. The bank sends the date in CCYYMMDD format but the application receiving the data is still programmed to process a date in YYMMDD format.

It's hard to say what can happen at that point. Some programs would stop cold, others might pick off the CCYYMM portions of the date and treat it like a date in YYMMDD format. This is a very simple example of how data exchanges could be impacted.

Another data exchange might not include dates at all but still pass bad data that was summarized incorrectly due to a Y2K problem on the system on which the data originated. This is probably the kind of error to which Mr Mazziotti was referring. This is the old Garbage-In- Garbage-Out problem but you can't solve it until you realize the garbage is piling up.

[No true Year 2000 success story can be reported until the year 2000]

-- Bob Benson (appysys@inreach.com), January 28, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

This is oversimplified but here goes anyway.

Computers store information in files (these 'databases' typically containing lists of transactions, customers, and various other records important to the organization).

When two or more computers exchange information, they must first agree on what that infomation will look like (the 'format' of the data). For example, one computer ('A) might pass another computer ('B') the infomation "8190072399012311170512207". Both computers agree that this information represents a transaction on an account and both agree that the data breaks down as follows: "819007" is the account number to which the transaction is applied, "23" is a transaction code (lets say a 'debit' to the account, "9901231117" is understood as a date and time code (Jan 23, 1999 at 11:23am) and "0512207" is the dollar amount, understood to be $5,122.07

Now ignore the date field above because I'm not trying to contrive an example 'Y2K' failure. The real point I'm trying to make is that, in many cases, computer A passes this data to computer B and computer B trusts the data it received from computer A and acts accordingly. It has no real way of knowing whether the data computer A passed it is valid - it simply accepts the data it is passed and processes the transaction accordingly.

Have you ever punched in "300" minutes into your microwave oven when you really meant "30" minutes? Computer A (you) pass the data (300 minutes) to computer B (your microwave) and the microwave didn't question you about it - it happily accepts your command and turns your baked potato into a smoldering cinder.

In reality, transaction records are much more complex and some safeguards are usually, though not always, built in. But the bottom line is that whenever two computers 'trust each other' at some level and one of them begins spewing erroneous data, it can cause problems at the other computer. The nature and consequences of those problems are highly unique to the specific situation. Frequently, just like your baked potato/cinder, you wont know there has been a problem until much later when the smoke alarm goes off.

This is why the people who are in charge of 'fixed' systems are very concerned about the other external systems which 'feed' information to their computer. (i.e. those systems over which they have no direct control)

Computers are not brains, they only blindly follow the commands that are given to them. Like your microwave, they couldn't care less what you really intended. Whether the mistake was made by a 'fat-fingered' clerk or an errant piece of software on a remote computer, the end result is the same - a transaction gets processed which should not have been.

The problem with Y2K is scale. The sheer volume and number of transactions that many computers exchange with each other means that one errant computer can do a lot more damage a lot quicker than one fat fingered clerk.

Hope this helps

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), January 29, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Thanks Arnie, a great explaination to a situation concerning us all. If you were from Hobokin NJ ,they would say "Ya done Good " Thanks again for your info .

-- Newton (newbie@y2kdumb.com), January 29, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Try this one out, put out to csy2k and not proven wrong, thanks to No Spam please for the legwork on this one... :)

Example -- Bank A (unremediated Bank of Potsylvania) sends Bank B (allegedly compliant ANZ Bank) a funds transfer with the following data:

Date: 2000-01-06 Time: 09:00:00 Type of transaction: Transfer checking-to-checking Source account: Bank A account number 123-456- 789 Destination account: Bank B account number 987-654-321 Amount: $5,435.43

Looks okay. All field data correctly formatted, all numeric fields within bounds. Date is in ISO format with four-digit year. Bank A account 123-456-789 had to have sufficient funds in order for the transfer software to send the transfer request. All fields and parameters pass EDI checks.

Except --- What is not apparent in the transfer data is that Bank A account 123-456-789 was incorrectly credited on 2000-01-06 at 08:31:00 with interest in the amount of $5,555.55 instead of the correct amount, $5.55, because of a Y2k bug. Thus its available balance at 09:00:00 is $5,550.00 larger than it should be. At 08:00:00 the Bank A account's correct balance was $321.00, and at 08:59:59 its balance should have been $326.55, quite insufficient for a transfer of $5,435.43 out of it. But because of that not-yet- detected Y2k bug, that Bank A account's balance appeared to have been $5,876.55 at the time the transfer was requested, and thus was deemed to have had sufficient funds.

Oh, and the Bank A account owner wasn't trying to get away with ill- gotten gains -- she didn't yet know that her account balance was so high, and she was trying to transfer merely $5.43 (an automated request to pay a monthly bill). A Y2k bug related to the other Y2k bug caused her requested transfer amount to be changed from $5.43 to $5,435.43!

To recap the amounts:

Bank A account 123-456-789 balance as of 08:00:00 = $321.00 Correct interest amount to credit at 08:31:00 = $5.55 Correct account balance at 08:59:59 = $326.55 Correct transfer amount at 09:00:00 = $5.43 Correct account balance at 09:00:01 = $321.12

Actual (incorrect) interest amount credited at 08:31:00 = $5,555.55 Actual (incorrect) account balance at 08:59:59 = $5,876.55 Actual (incorrect) transfer amount at 09:00:00 = $5,435.43 Actual (incorrect) account balance at 09:00:01 = $441.12

Bank B account 987-654-321 is credited with $5,430.00 too much as a result of the Y2K bugs. Bank A account 123-456-789 winds up with $120.00 too much as a result of the Y2K bugs. In the given example, Bank A was not Y2K-compliant. Bank B was Y2K- compliant, but now has incorrect data not detectable by edit-checking of the transfer from Bank A.

Bank B's database is now corrupted - yes or no? It has inaccurate data.

Bank A's database is now corrupted - yes or no? It also has inaccurate data.

To further mudddy the waters the account at Bank B has an automatic order to post 20% of incoming funds to charity at unremediated bank C. Obviously the wrong amount gets sent, and who knows what Bank C will do with the data. It will be an almight mess to manually trace back and fix all transaction flows through back office intervention. Multiply this back office intervention at all entities world-wide and you have chaos.

Bank C's database is now corrupted - yes or no? It has inaccurate data.

And so on. Inaccuracies beget inaccuracies.

What does Bank C do with the data? Who knows.

Gives it to the Charity :)

This is the tip of the iceberg.

In many cases transactions will not complete due to, for example, insufficient funds.

If this happens with sufficient magnitude - i.e. mass declines in the credit card world, the inability to trust the validity of data, the banking system will collapse.


The scenario I envision for allegedly compliant bank B (ANZ) at rollover is as follows:-

Bank B will have EDI software in place. This software will allow data into bank B from non-compliant entities word-wide that is correctly formatted and parametered but corrupt. The possibilities are staggering.

Does anyone dispute this - and if so, why?

If this corrupt data can somehow be weeded out then there will be no problem - I accept this.

Can anyone tell me how this can be achieved, at all financial entities, word-wide, in the <180 working days left before rollover (less in most other countries.)???

Now if the type of transaction I described at Bank B runs into serious numbers in terms of quantity of transactions, bank B is in serious trouble. It will process inaccurate data and may fire off this data to umpteen other different financial entities, which will all be facing exactly the same problem, at the same time, world-wide. Databases will be corrupted world-wide. These umpteen other entities may or may not be compliant - they may or may not be processing with faulty date arithmetic - therefore the validity of data throught the world financial system will be suspect.

Result = cross-contamination/infection.

Result = distrust of data accuracy.

Result = Meltdown. Grid-lock. Deadly embrace. No more Banking system.


-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 06, 1999.

As you can see No Spam, I credited you, and have done several times. Is this revenge for my MeerKat jibes? :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 06, 1999.

Stephen has asked, on numerous occasions, for a definition of 'compliant' and I gave him one which he said was a 'nice try.'

I, OTOH, think it fits, just by inserting a few words here and there, which he was reluctant to do; for his own reasons.

>>>compliant: [a computer which is] ready or disposed to comply, perform what is due, complete, [without being altered from its present programming] OR, [a computer which is] adapt/ed/ to a rule, or to necessity, to perform what is due, complete [without failure related to the problem which it was adapted to compensate for].<<<

The thread, titled Trucking, is: http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000mzA

In the same thread, Tom Carey quoted:

[[Stephen M. Poole, CET replies: "We're going in circles because some folks want to keep bringing the "iron triangle" into it -- telephones, in this case. There's no reason to believe that the phone system won't keep working in 2000."

A curious response.]]

Indeed! A curious response! And what, may I ask, is your source of information which allows you to say, in so many words, that the phone system will NOT experience problems in that time period?

This is for you Stephen. Others may comment, of course, but I would like to know how Stephen comes to the conclusion that the phone system will "keep working in 2000."

You seem to keep asking, "How do you know it will fail?" I am asking you, "How do you know it will work?"

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), May 06, 1999.

No spam please says:

"Why didn't you credit me earlier in this current thread.."

"My recollection is that out of the several times you've used my example, only once did you credit me without my specifically requesting that you do so.."


-- Shut up already (and@grow.up), May 06, 1999.


Look, I'm no happier than you are at the US's dependence on foreign oil. But remember, we are specifically talking about Y2K (and its effects on the oil supply) here.

In 1973-74 we imported approximately 30% of our oil. The reduction that resulted in gas lines was ONLY 5%! Today we import approximately 57% of our oil. Think about it!

I've seen the same figures on Doomlit Web sites, and they leave out a few little details.[g] (For one thing, we export some of our own oil, too -- crazy but true! -- so the NET imports are not quite as high as claimed.)

In 1973-74, we had no appreciable petroleum in reserve, and yet, our actual per-capita consumption was about the same as today. (Big gas-guzzlin' cars and all that[g].) Therefore, a 5% reduction in imports in 1973 prompted quasi-draconian measures, and there was a noticeable impact at the local gas station.

We currently have around 520 million barrels in the Strategic Reserve, which someone has correctly pointed out is about a 60 day supply. If you reduce foreign imports by only a few percent (remember, I'm using 10% as a WORST-CASE figure), the Strategic Reserve would easily fill in the shortfall until capped wells here in the States could be put back into production.

The biggest effect on the consumer is that prices would go up. I don't agree with the 500% claimed by the Doomlits, but yes, it would go up. That's the price we'd pay for independence from foreign oil, period, Y2K or not.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 06, 1999.


And one other thing. From your giant Cut-and-Paste above:

Year-2000 computer experts ... [emphasis mine]

There's the problem in a nutshell. It's not enough for these shamans just to predict bank failures; they're into oil, food, and electricity (and probably Chocolate Futures), too.

Not ONE SINGLE PREDICTION OF DOOM from these prophets has panned out yet, so why in the world do you believe them here?

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 06, 1999.

Do you have ANY IDEA how difficult it is to put capped wells in the USA back in production.

You are looking at all this in isolation poole, a luxury we won't have in 2000.

It's pointless trying to explain things to you.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 06, 1999.

Mr. Poole:

Somewhere back a few eons ago there was a discussion of capped well restart on csy2k. The consensus of the oil patch rats that came out from under the woodwork was that it would take upwards of a year to re-drill and put the wells into production. the basic reason is that the wells that are capped are NOT simply closed off with a valve. they are SEALED with about a hundred feet of concrete, among other things. Having watched this process in a few school yards in the Cleveland area, I can attest to the presence of a couple of cement trucks for a couple days for each well. (And, yes, we have our share of oil wells in NE-Ohio)


-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 06, 1999.

I was going to stay out of this one, but that "EXPERTS PREDICT GAS SHORTAGE" line is just too good to pass up!

I JUST HAVE TO KNOW ONE THING. Were these the ENERGY EXPERTS who gave seminars all over the country about THE ENTIRE WORLD being TOTALLY OUT of OIL by 1990 during 1971 - 1975? OR were they the ECONOMIC EXPERTS who gave seminars all over the country from 1976 - 1982 telling us the price of GAS by 1995 would be AT LEAST $5.00 per gallon. I JUST HAVE TO KNOW - WHICH GROUP OF IDIOTS HAS COME BACK FOR Y2K? IS IT EHRLICH? THAT NUT SAID THE WORLD WAS DOOMED BACK IN THE 60'S!



Look here guys, I would not be a bit surprised to see the price of gas fly up and down for the first half of next year. After all, gas prices seem to increase on rumor. And rumors there will be in plenty next year. But any shortage other than local and temporary is gonna surprise the heck out of me.

And watch out for the self proclaimed OIL EXPERTS! They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, with a track record going back 40 years, that they DON'T HAVE A CLUE.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 06, 1999.


You have no idea how I've come to loathe the term "expert" since the advent of Y2K. :)


The consensus of the oil patch rats that came out from under the woodwork was that it would take upwards of a year to re-drill and put the wells into production. the basic reason is that the wells ... are SEALED with about a hundred feet of concrete, among other things.

First: I'm talking about a decrease in imports of (WORST CASE) 10%. Therefore, all we need from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is that 10% (actually, if we were to stop exporting temporarily, we wouldn't even need that much). Therefore, that "60 days" would be greatly extended because we need only replace the shortfall. Right?

Second: that 10% drop would be temporary. The Doomlits assume that it'll be sustained ad infinitum, probably because of their general assumption that, as long as the computers are dead, you're out of luck. In fact, there'll be workarounds. They won't work in all cases, but with each passing day, that 10% will slowly improve.

Third: while the "concrete plug" (or equivalent) is probably the most common, not all idle wells are actually "capped" that way. Some are indeed -- Doomlit insistence notwithstanding -- simply switched off (I confirmed that by talking to my own oil "experts" *gack*[g] in Texas).

See? This would be a fluid situation (no pun intended[g]), and straightline extrapolation doesn't apply. Yes, it probably would take a long time to get ALL US wells opened back up. But each day, a handful of wells would go online, so we'd be taking a bit less of the SPR, while at the same time, each day, imports are improving a wee bit -- all of which would further serve to extend the SPR.

If you consider these mitigating factors, then, the SPR would be adequate to get us through the crisis. The worst effect would be modestly higher prices, which would eventually settle down -- just as they did after the OPEC embargo of '73/74.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 06, 1999.

Andy, No Spam can speak for himself(her?).

And again, remember the fact that imported data errors was never in question, and did not have to be demonstrated. It was what type of Y2K related errors could cause a massive increase, and how would they propogate through the banking system, outside of the two directly involved. The author of the example clearly states it should not be used as an example of propogation.

And yes, the fact you had to come to this forum and request examples is relevant. You positioned yourself as an expert in Banking systems, proposing a theory, based on your experience, of how Y2k would collapse the Banking systems. You originally used the example of currency translations being the "Achilles heel", but dropped it when I questioned how Y2k would cause incorrect data. You obviously had no real example in mind when creating this theory, just a general "well, because it's Y2k". Just ain't good enough anymore.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 06, 1999.

Sorry I overreacted Andy. I'm menstrating this week.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 06, 1999.

Well, the preceding poster got the capitalization right, I see. That narrows down the suspects.

- - - -


Okay, that was the "once". Show us the others.

- - - - -

Shut up already,

Had this been an isolated matter, I wouldn't be complaining. But Andy frequently posts misinformation in general, and in particular misuses my example even after I requested that he not do so.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 06, 1999.

Stephen knows nothing about the oil industry. The notion that oil producers have vast production capacity in "capped" or switched-off oil wells is nonsense. Yes, it is possible to do this to an oil well, but as long as the well is able to produce oil profitably, the operator will do so.

This may be as little as two barrels of oil per day. The state commissions governing the oil and gas industry require that non-producing wells be permanently plugged.

The cost of re-entering and drilling out a plugged well varies by well depth, but it couldn't be done for less than $50,000 and probably would average three times that amount. Nobody is going to spend that kind of money to re-establish a two barrel a day well.

-- Doug (Doug@work.now), May 06, 1999.

Thank you Chuck, this is what I was getting at, without power and infrastructure uncapping a well will be a nightmare. Even with everything in place it's no picnic.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 06, 1999.

Paul -- Agree with you about oil "experts". According to them, we should long have been out of oil, period. However, that is also why Poole's post is unreliable in its "certainty". Rumor plus genuine Y2K problems plus potential interconnections with other Y2K industry exposures could lead to one week (?), one month (?) or one year (?) of more-or-less chaos in the oil markets.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 06, 1999.

No Spam,

Any respect for you I may have had has gone.

I give up.

You SPECIFICALLY gave me permission to use your example. I credited you with it ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, the first being in the original Banking thread. Another time in the archives when you gave mepermission. That's two. And the credit above (last month) that's three. I also credited you at least twice in the csy2k discussions. And I think there may even be one or two more in our archives...

"Thanks to No Spam for the legwork on this one..." were my exact words in Apil 1999.

So you still think I'm trying to steal your work?

I believe you owe me an apology.


You had a moan at me a couple of times after you had made a fool of yourself over the MeerKat censorship issues as I believe most people will extrapolate to you're getting your undies in a loop now over THIS assinine matter.

Well NO SPAM - you are now back to Meerkat in my mind and you can go fuck yourself.

I'm out of this thread - Hoff, we will meet again. Again, your behaviour is beneath contempt too on this one.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 06, 1999.

And by the way poole petrol in the UK is currently circa $10 a gallon, more in Germany. That's over ten times more expensive than the USA. If the USA had to pay these prices there would be riots and the gubbmint knows it. Hence the "protect the oil at all costs" pushes.

I'm glad that so many personally knowledgeable oil folks waded in this this joke of a thread - they've simply proven what we all know poole - you don't know what you're talking about.

Take Doug's last statement. It knocks your last statement to smithereens. Poole, you have no idead how the US public will react when their are petrol shotages COMBINED with rolling blackouts/a possible market crash/banking problems/runs/ general shortages and infrastructure problems - the list goes on.

But don't worry your feeble mind trying to understand all this - just take it as a given, go ahead refining your web site ('cos that's the only refining you think you know about) - you have a digital savvy flock to protect from all us hucksters.

Sleep well.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 06, 1999.



Strawman argument re original context. You've used it in an inappropriate _different_ context. Once I realized the difference, I requested that you not use it.

BTW, have you ever admitted that the supposed 8:33 military intervention anti-Clinton propaganda ratio was bogus, or that you didn't bother checking the facts before trumpeting it in this forum?

How about acknowledging that you've recommended that people not vote in state and national elections (thereby making your own votes more powerful)?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 06, 1999.

"We're looking at a world situation where we face unknown and unintended consequences," US Undersecretary of State Bonnie Cohen told the committee this morning. "We focus on power, telecommunications and water systems...the kinds of things you need to keep the infrastructure of a company running."

Committee Chairman Robert Bennett, R-Utah, asked a senior Commerce Department official whether there were any areas in the world that might be particularly susceptible to terrorist attack by criminals wanting to take advantage of problems the glitch might cause -- and whether that kind of terrorism risk exists.

"I am concerned that (for) people who don't have our best interests at heart...Y2K may be an opportunity to do this," said Michael J. Copps, assistant secretary for trade development in the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration. He did not name any locations that might be more susceptible.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, a member of the Year 2000 committee, said he was especially concerned about a lack of readiness in eastern Russia and Siberia, and the potential pollution and economic problems that could be caused by that region's military buildup and oil pipelines.

"As an Alaskan, I'm quite worried about eastern Russia," Stevens said. "I'm worried as chair of the Appropriations Committee -- we have not really estimated the cost. We haven't seen an analysis of what needs are going to be through next year."

Stevens added that in Russia, where the government cannot even pay its armed forces, "they don't have the money to pay for Y2K." He said that oil pipeline leaks and ruptures could result, as well as military breakdowns.

According to Committee Ranking Democrat Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the US depends on much of its oil supply on countries that mostly are far behind on their Year 2000 compliance efforts. The top five oil exporters to the US are Venezuela (16.2 percent), Canada (15.5 percent), Saudi Arabia (14.4 percent), Mexico (12.9 percent) and Nigeria (7.3 percent). Except for Canada, these countries are between six months to 24 months behind on their compliance efforts, Dodd said.

Ok let's see, of the top five, let's add up those not in the nest so to speak, Venezuela 16.2% + Saudia Arabia 14.4% (anybody heard anything about Bin Laudin [sp?}lately?), Nigeria 7.3% If the old biochips are functioning that's about 37.9%

snip- You dont miss the water until the well goes dry, is a very old saying that almost everyone knows. But what most Americans still to not know is that the Panama Canal is now controlled by China and that they CAN CLOSE THE CANAL TO AMERICAN SHIPS. end snip-- So much for the *guaranteed* security of Venezuelas' supply

Saudia Arabia... Let's see the distance from Saudia to Allah is about one infra-broke Russia So let's see along with the rest of the middle east supply that just about adds up to 20+% of unstable supply .

Just what do we know about Nigeria anyway


So...if Saudi and Nigeria don't send oil it's about the same effect as the embargo at its peak. That's without accounting for:

* any other dependent countries on Saudi and Nigeria

* any other countries having trouble producing (Venezuela, for example, has just completed planning).

* any other countries being unable to ship oil

* other similar problems in other industries (refining, rail, process problems).

end snip-http://www.y2k-links.com/garynorth/3823.htm

Well I guess I'm just gonna have to get one more spare 26" tube and repair kit. Ever Take a history class Mr Poole, how come? Since it's a bunch of old crap, it can't have any revelance on the "moment" right? WWII couldn't have been important it's old news. Vietnam was a bed time story. Look, some darn fools from the State Dept. made the comments to the US Senate. Is there some conspiresy goin on or hare ur what? I think you,ve got a little dough on your cookie cutter, if ya know what I mean!

-- spun@lright (
mikeymac@uswest.net), May 06, 1999.

-- spun@lright (
mikeymac@uswest.net), May 06, 1999.


-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 06, 1999.

Look, besides Andy and a few others nobody seems to be interested in your intellect your conclusions. The title of this thread is "bomb" not lollipop. Why don't you start your own y2k poka dot board and impress people there?

-- tired of you (laffing@you.CET), May 06, 1999.

later Meerkat and CET, sleep well, nighty night, don't let the nukes byte :)

wankers the pair of you :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 07, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ