Many of you looked at the evidence, the data and concluded that Y2K was a serious threat. You then prepared for problems. When the rollover came at the New Year and the lights stayed on, the water/sewer and phone systems still worked, the TV/radio media outlets didn't flicker it seemed as though Y2K was a non-event. No one was reporting any problems in the major news media. Very few problems were even reported on the web. Embeddeds were apparently no big problem, right?

We'd all been conditioned to think that if Y2K was to be a threat to us that the collapse must begin at the stroke of midnight. It didn't happen. The pollies went ballistic with the "nya-nya-nya-nya-nyah's" and the crowing of "I was right" began. But the question I raise now is: were we all wrong? Is that all there is to Y2K? Reminds me of the Peggy Lee song, "Is that all there is my, friend, then let's keep dancing." So, is it all to be just dancing in the streets, for the wicked old Y2K witch is dead? The pollies who post here would like for you to think so and to pack up and go home.

The problem here is that we expected too much too soon. Everyone of course now knows that the embedded systems held up just fine. No problemo. This is only partially been proven true. There were no obvious known, and reported problems on rollover. Or were there? It seems that there were indeed many embedded systems problems that did start malfunctioning. Some became obvious and known to the operators but only the operators. Still others, it seems, did malfunction and started a corrupting chain of events that are still hidden and unknown to us all. How do we know this? Let's examine just a small portion of the reports that have slowly trickled in to us.

To grasp what is happening let's just look at the oil and natural gas sectors for their embedded systems factors as well as the nuclear power industry, and also other manufacturing systems.

First, let's look at nuclear power. Earlier Mike (noemail) posted a thread of information with a list of all the nuclear plant problems since the rollover. As Mike notes, we have 20 plants reporting problems. Some are quite serious but fortunately it seems there have been no injuries or threats to public health, at least not yet. Still, the incident levels tell us that not all is well with these plants.

Here's a recap of the Nuke problems... by Mike @ noemail http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002I6z

So, this alone tells me that it is impossible to think that none of these problems were related to Y2K. In fact, as I recall, at least 3 were later admitted to be "small" problems due to the rollover.

Second, let's look at the oil industry. While oil well information is virtually non-existent except for occaisional rumors. Oil well information has always been more of a private matter so it should come as no surprise that we'll have trouble getting relevant information one way or the other in light of the current public perception that Y2K is no longer a big deal. Oil well problems can remain on the QT for some period of time. Pipeline data has been a little more forthcoming. Colonial Pipeline reported at least one problem. I can't remember now if that was the one by the NY Ports or elsewhere.

We learned Wednesday that Iraq has had oil pipeline problems and oil production for the first full week in Iraq was down by TWO-THIRDS!!! Of course they admitted they were non-compliant and that they wouldn't make it. They've admitted that they rolled back their clocks by 4 years. Apparently it did not buy them much extra time with shipped production through it's pipeline to Turkey experiencing problems. Here's the URL for this story: [ note: a big thanks to Downstreamer for his oil forum providing the central point for posting oil related problems ]

Iraq admits it turned back its clocks 4 years on it's big pipeline Still having problems though. http://pub3.ezboard.com/fdownstreamventurespetroleummarkets.showMessage?topicID=38.topic

Next we see a thread recently posted by Rick regarding the production loss problems http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002IsX

"Subject : Iraqi oil exports plunge in first week of the year. Date : Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:20:11 PST From : C-afp@clari.net (AFP) OIL & GAS JOURNEL BAGHDAD, Jan 12 (AFP) - Iraqi oil exports plunged in the week ending January 7 to just over a third of the previous week's level, United Nations figures issued Wednesday showed. Exports totalled 6.9 million barrels worth an estimated 151 million dollars for the first week of the new year. It was a sharp contrast with the previous week's exports of 18.6 million barrels"

So we've got a bit of a problem with Iraq. Okay, no big deal right? Of course, in and of itself it's no big deal. But what else is there?

Here's a summary of the early Oil Refinery problems that were reported... keep in mind most have been kept hidden which means they have been manageable and certainly not catastrophic to human life.

Cash Oil markets react to a string of oil refinery problems 1/4/00 ---These were the initial reports that showed up after rollover thru the following Tuesday.

http://pub3.ezboard.com/fdownstreamventurespetroleummarkets.showMessage?topicID=20.topic

"CASH MARKETS SEE STRONG DEMAND IN RESPONSE TO REFINERY WOES The Gulf and New York spot markets saw plenty of buying demand on just about everything on the fuel menu today with two refinery problems impacting the Gulf arena. First, a Sunday power outage knocked out operations at Motiva's 220,000 b/d Norco, La. refinery. Spot sources tell OPIS that full production won't be realized for about ten days even though a Shell source said that restart efforts would be completed by the weekend. Also, Gulf sources say that Coastal has a FCC problem at its 103,000 b/d Corpus Christi refinery and these events had refiner buying cropping that knocked the gasoline discount in the Gulf down to 4.6cts off the Feb. print. In the Midwest, spot sources say that Equilon's 310,000 b/d Wood River, Ill. refinery has been reduced to 100,000 b/d output due to an unspecified crude unit problem. That news sparked robust buying in the Chicago market where 1st cycle gasoline went to 2cts over the NYMEX. The problems in the Gulf had a ripple effect in NY where less bbl are coming up the Colonial pipeline and sent both jet and kero prices soaring. Traders say that jet was sold in the Harbor at 10.3cts over the futures print, while kero sold at 12.5cts over. There are reports that cargoes from the St. Croix refiner co-owned by PDVSA and Hess were being diverted from the Gulf and are now heading for Europe, and that's creating another product squeeze along the same lines seen last week"

http://pub3.ezboard.com/fdownstreamventurespetroleummarkets.showMessage?topicID=72.topic

By Peter Rosenthal, Bridge News New York--Jan 6--NYMEX oil futures fell despite a spate of refinery downtime that will limit fuel supplies over the next few weeks.

Shell's Motiva refinery --- Deleware -- fire http://pub3.ezboard.com/fdownstreamventurespetroleummarkets.showMessage?topicID=79.topic

Coastal's Refinery at Eagle Point NJ problems http://pub3.ezboard.com/fdownstreamventurespetroleummarkets.showMessage?topicID=36.topic

Pennzoil to shut permanently shut down refinery. http://pub3.ezboard.com/fdownstreamventurespetroleummarkets.showMessage?topicID=64.topic

And the latest refinery problem posted just today (Wed) for a Tosco Refinery in Rodeo, CA. http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002IkN

If you will recall these threads or investigate them you will realize that there have been some significant problems developing in the oil business. Gasoline trading prices have remained relatively firm at a time when prices should be going down. We've got "excess" supply, or we supposedly have excess supply. In addition to this we have refineries experiencing slowdowns and production shrinkage due to these production problems. This should mean that less crude oil is being utilized...which combined with extra crude stocks should mean that Oil prices should be tumbling? RIGHT? Well, they did a quick tumble early on and then have rebounded with renewed vigor in the face of bearish news. HOW COME??? What is wrong with this picture? Why aren't the Crude and Gasoline prices taking the proverbial swan dive? I mean come on now, crude should now be hovering around the $20.00 pb mark by now one would think. Gasoline should have dropped at retail by 20 cents or more perhaps if all was well? Something is NOT QUITE RIGHT here folks. It just doesn't quite add up. What is it? What is going on here?

I can't document this, but I suspect some folks "inside" the markets have access to a lot more data than we're geting and have realized that the oil industry is having far greater production problems than the industry wishes to admit publicly.

Now why should they be having these problems all of a sudden? Not only do we have accidents and incidents, but we have refineries supposedly deliberately scaling back for a whole year to meet demand. Like in Asia for example? Why? Why, when Asia's demand for oil has been upticking. Singapore's Shell and Exxon refineries are cutting back to less than half of capacity. Could it be because they're expecting to have less oil to process? Or are they really experiencing severe glitches from Y2K but refuse to admit it and set off a perceived "panic" of their stock valuations? At the minimum, it gives cause for questions. Were these factors isolated. we might be justified in just brushing it off but this isn't isolated.

US refiners are also having capacity cutbacks. Mostly due to glitches and problems already publicized. I've not seen the number tallies but I wonder if the known problems and their production losses compose the sum total for overall capacity reduction or are there other refineries operating at less than peak levels.

Now the alternate objection might be that the refineries are cutting back because of excess capacity. True we supposedly have this huge glut in the off-season for consumption. Yet, refineries produce better and more efficiently when running as close to peak capacity as possible (and of course lowering overall production costs of gas) so we have that flip side.

The real smoking gun on this is why hasn't the price plummetted? I again, suspect, in part based upon the published reports plus the contacts inside the system that indicates greater production problems than is being publicized. Remember also, with the mild weather, this is not the time for such a heavy volume of problems to develope. Normally if there are this many problems in January it is due to severe cold weather affecting refineries in cold weather regions. BUT the weather has provided March-like temperatures across much of the central portions of the country, from the Rockies to the East Coast. So take away the weather factor and we would normally not expect this level of refinery difficulties at this time of the year.

Also note we have Pennzoil/Quaker State announcing that they are shutting down a refinery permanently! http://pub3.ezboard.com/fdownstreamventurespetroleummarkets.showMessage?topicID=64.topic

Now the reason cited for the prices not doing the swan dive is supposedly OPEC's Saudi Arabia quietly indicating that OPEC will maintain tight production controls. This supposedly set off the short-traders. But was that the real reason or a "cover" reason prompting the shorts to cover positions and run?

NOW LET US SWITCH GEARS TO NATURAL GAS.... Have you noticed the spate of Natural Gas explosions in the last 2 days? Check out these links...

Niles Illinois Gas exposion

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Igj

Story posted by Homer about Natural Gas industry problems... and you talk about a laundry list... and note how coincidental that problems just cropped up on Jan 1. But as we ALLLLLLL knowwwww ... it could not be possibly related at all to Y2K now could it? Of course not... nahhhh couldn't be Y2K...it just isn't permitted.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002If

Another gas explosion in Colorado http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Ifb

Here's two Nat gas explosions from yesterday in Europe http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002I8f

Then also on Wedneday 2, count em 2 ammonia explosions in 2 different food processing plants in 2 different states and 2 different companies. Here's the link: 2 Ammonia explosions-- one in Wisconsin the other in Michigan http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002IfU

So now you may ask, What's your point? I ask you in return, what seems to be a common thread? There are actually 2 points here:

Point 1.

Process control problems is the answer. Process controls that are ruled by the infamous large scale embedded systems, especially SCADA systems. We seem to be having a spate of related problems, related to Y2K even though not officially admitted.

Point 2.

We see this as a string of events that is now escalating slowly in an upward trend although in the last 2 days, the natural gas issue seems to have moved out of slow gear.

So then what are we to conclude?

We should conclude that the embedded's problem is not a non-event. It is real, and problems are happening and the frequency in certain areas of industry seems to be increasing in size and scope. Some of the embedded's experts warned us of this. Other's had felt that we'd see problems fromt the beginning. Where the instant problem folks erred is in the assumption that obvious problems at the start would be made public immediately and would be severe. In that issue, they were wrong. Others insisted that while yes the rollover would kick problems into gear, those issues would take a while to develope into problems. Most of us failed to really grasp the differences. We all knew that embeddeds would be a problem after rollover but we figured the worst would occur at rollover.

Well, rollover proved to not be catastrophic to the infrastructure per se but the corruption of data began. The embedded systems buffers are filling up now and when the buffers are overloaded this then becomes the window for cascading failures, perhaps as the time advances from January to February and month end data is called for. This is the primary time to determine how severe the problems will be. How much corruption and destruction is taking place silently and totally unknown to the folks that monitor it. We don't know. But we do know that so far some of these known problems are creating more than a BITR. It is just that we don't realize yet that we're at least on the first bounce or jump.

I put all of this material into one thread so you can see for yourself that we've got a track record building up and so far Y2k already is more than a BITR in my book. It's already up to a 1 category and moving towards 2 quickly...with plenty of time IMHO to reach yet a 4 or 5 level problem. We'll know more about this by the end of the first week in February IF we can get the information pried out of the oil industry. I don't think it is realistic to expect much in the way of admissions from the oil industry about problems until they become impossible to screen from the public.

So, if you've been feeling cheated, or misled or guilty thinking you were so wrong, just hang loose, it may turn out you were more right than it now seems. Indeed there were/are/will be more Y2k problems yet to come. We only wonder how severe or minimal will the remainder be. The moral is -- don't despair nor celebrate victory.

"It's the top of the first inning and the pitcher wind's and fires a slow curveball down the middle of the plate, swung on and missed strike one."

-- RC (racambab@mailcity.com), January 13, 2000

Answers

Oh, I almost forgot.

This list I've compiled is not complete. I know there are more that have been filed. I just don't have them noted in my files. If you know of another report related to embeddeds systems processing whether in oil, natural gas, nukes, manufacturing or what ever, please provide us with a link to that report and a brief headline explanation of the link. This way we can provide a more comprehensive tally on one thread for follow up comparisons later. I figure it can help us get a better handle on analyzing what is going on by providing a convenient thread resource.

Thanks

-- RC (racambab@mailcity.com), January 13, 2000.

Interesting that the ways in which the public could find out about potential Bug problems are obvious infrastructure problems, government services, product price increases, and company earnings reports. The rise in oil prices (which began months ago) could be an indicator of hidden information.

Also interesting is the impact that higher oil prices might have on other parts of the system. It's primarily responsible for the rising inflation indicators coming out to the markets now. It's impacted the airline industry already. If your conjectures are headed in the right direction, RC, oil could be a very powerful Achilles heel of "the system".

-- Chuck (cestin@aa.net), January 13, 2000.

Several points regarding R.C.'s post.

1. He has not subtracted the "normal" failure rate for January and thus not demonstrated a Y2K link (e.g. the 20 Nuke problems).

2. The Iraqis said their oil was flowing. The problem was that the Turkish port of Ceyhan had imposed a week long gap. This is therefore not an Iragi problem. That week has passed, I assume the oil is freely flowing again.

3. The Tosco refinery problem with excess burning also happened pre rollover and was a power glitch. Nothing to do with internal Y2K issues.

4. There is nothing to suggest the small number of US oil refinery problems won't last more than a few weeks (as stated in the press releases above). The number of problems reported is still in your "exceedingly optimistic" category.

5. Explain to me how a refinery can cutback production if it's embedded chips are causing problems. One assumes that embedded problems would shutdown key components in the production line. If a refinery is temporarily producing 100000 barrels per day instead of 300000 then how are these 100000 b/d getting past the problem chips?

6. What is this buffer overflow in embedded chips? How do you know this is a key design feature of oil embeddeds? You never mentioned it before in pre-rollover posts. It cannot be a feature of real time processing chips which constantly send info to central computers and why would an embedded chip buffer up timed out information for weeks?

It is total nonsense, it is another Y2K myth like the secret second clock and wholly date dependant chips.

The rollover brought no catastrophe. The real potential problem was simultaneous catastrophic failures. That will now not happen. Glitches may still happen and be fixed on failure. These problems will be staggered rather than simultaneous (or forced to be staggered such as Iraq's 4-year rollback). Remediation still continues and we have the general infrastructure in place to allow fast and efficient remediation.

Y2K is beginning to set in the western sky.

Regards,

Shuggy.

-- Shuggy (shimei123@yahoo.co.uk), January 13, 2000.

John,

"With no context, ALL of the glitch listings you cite in previous posts are of no value."

The posts are a compilation of reports of problems pulled to one thread for future reference for those who may wish to have a central location for referral. I was not about to paste out all of those reports and double the size of the post. If you are unfamiliar with the materials, as is obviously the case then hey the links are there, go look it up for yourself.

Regarding your whining about folks searching the newswires. You're right no one should be doing this. The only reason its being done is because Morons like you demand it before granting credibility. Hypocritical? Pathological, or simply Intellectually Disingenuous? Which one fits you? Perhaps all 3?

What is amazing about idiotic pollymorons like yourself who demand sources and links. So we provide newswire stories. Then we get castigated for obsessively scouring the newswires night and day. It really becomes a catch-22 scenario that the pollymorons have tried to foist upon those searching for the truth. Demanding sources and links and when provided the ad hominem attacks begin. The truth is that not one single pollyana wants the facts or the truth.

Regarding your smart a** remarks about the nuclear factor...

The claims from the nitwit polllies are that there are/were no embedded systems problems. Zilch! The citations are simply pointing out that this is incorrect. It points out how these problems are experiencing an increase in frequency no matter how large or small. My point has been that embeddeds are indeed acting up and the trend is showing increasing faults.

By the way explosions and injuries are not minor incidents in my book. Neither are evacuations. And we have been seeing this in the last couple of days. Perhaps in your opinion those things are minor. If so, you are in the minority. Lives could well be at stake here.

Your kind of rationale is the same kind that denied the holocaust was occuring or ever did occur.

How sad.

-- RC (racambab@mailcity.com), January 13, 2000.

Copied from previous thread:

Ok, guys. I pulled an old report at (almost) random. Went back two years, and picked the closest date to today. Got Jan 9th, 1998. It's here, btw. Now, I may have miscounted, but I got 23 at zero power for that day. I didn't bother counting the number below 100%.

Tell you what, you go digging. Start here, and let me know if anyone finds a day with more than 40 offline.

And just to be perverse, I checked Jan 12th, 1998. Yep, still counted 23 plants at zero power. Heck, I'm more curious as to where the reports for the 10th and 11th are. Weekend, maybe?

No one seemed to want to answer that. Now, I'm not about to claim the nukes had no problems. But ON BALANCE with the previous years, I'd say they were doing well. I do believe, RC, that this is what John meant. Without comparing the data to earlier (and hopefully, normal) situations, it's a little like looking at the Apollo 1 fire and declaring all of NASA, before, since, and current, to be completely incompetent. Keep your eyes open and realize no one is going to willingly admit to y2k errors, but try to keep some sense of perspective, as well. If nothing else, keep posting the glitches.

-- harl (harlanquin@aol.hell), January 13, 2000.

Shuggy

#1. I take it that your comment assumes that you are challenging the officials who admitted they were Y2K related problems? Deny if you wish, but the facts remain Nukes have been having Y2k related problems and those involve embedded systems failures, whether minor or major.

#2... The pipeline comment was posted to show that yes clocks were turned back. That report was not directly referencing problems in the pipeline per se but as part of its overall problems. Perhaps I should have edited that to be more precise. The comments regarding natural suspension of an oil shipment was only a fraction of the the lost volume for the week. In other words, Iraq was indeed experiencing a production deficit unrelated to the shipment suspension.

#3. Tosco... And of course you believe that it was not Y2K related because of their internal power glitch. Did it ever dawn on you that this is one of those plants suffering thru remediation? And just what do you suppose caused their power glitch pre-rollover? Oh, of course, it couldn't be due to testing now could it? No, of course not. Well I wouldn't want to confuse you any further now by challenging a paradigm.

#4. My friend.. my point is that it is not a small number... it is larger and growing larger. Few refineries have been reporting their problems which in most cases have been intermittent but increasing in frequency. Now will that translate into deeper problems? In some cases, the trend seems to be yes, but its still too early to delineate how much or the depth of potential problems other than when safety issues are involved i.e. explosions you could destroy a refinery or put it out of production for months. It all depends. Remember 9 refineries is 10% of the total. A loss of 4 or 5 (depending on which ones) for even a couple or three weeks can impact the markets substantially in this era of tight capacity to demand.

#5. Intermittent problems in which the process is shut down but quickly remediated, only to be snagged again a short time later as the remediation was only temporary and the process repeats itself.

#6. See my final report projections for 1999 for the link to the TAVA report which really goes to explain more of both #5 & 6 in regards to the embeddeds and buffering and cache. Also re-review Paula Gordon's post of the 11th... http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002HzT

Here Paula quotes one of these engineers involved in the NIST Report. Now if I have a program that does not recognize year 2000 it will search for the date (Year) for a period of time. If it does not find it then a loop is created and placed in the buffer. Now comes the problem. When the buffer is full the system can shutdown, be degraded or begin to act up. The concern is that it could take hours, days, even weeks before the buffer is full.

Simple Example: A fire alarm panel each day at midnight registers the date in this format- Month Day Year- Now on Dec 31, 1999 at midnight it does not recognize year 2000. So it attempts to complete the command "store date".

When this fails over a period of time a loop is created in the buffer. This continues for two weeks. At the end of two weeks the buffer is full. No place to send the command so the system shutdown, becomes degraded, or begins to send out erroneous commands.

Concerns

Shutdown the system and restarting could clear the buffer and then the process restarts again.

Degraded systems could fail when needed the most.

Programs that are running on erroneous commands are sent out, i.e., open valve to 30 percent rather than 10 percent at the temperature of 70 degrees.

Shuggy, read the data, read the problems from the TAVA boys who were out there fixing the problems at Chevron and Tosco... YOU READ THAT TAVA REPORT then come back and prove to me that their experiences are wrong. What they describe and what the engineer above describes IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW in many refineries (but not all -- not all refers are wired with embeddeds -- just the bigger ones primarily.)

Any of these embedded glitches could be enough to induce an explosion if not handled carefully and quickly when it finally dumps. I know... I've got a close relative right now who's sweating bullets over this one...his life is hanging on the line. SO DON'T GIVE ME YOUR Bull S**t about how you know more than these guys who've been trained and got their lives riding on the line. MORON!

Lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

-- RC (racambab@mailcity.com), January 13, 2000.

Harl,

The point of my post was all embeddeds issues related and not the severity of events to date. I've merely pointed out that embeddeds failures are real and they are happening in a variety of areas and industries but particularly oil and gas and the frequency seems to be rising along with an increase perhaps in intensity... BUT

John was ignoring the issue in and contending that is don't know what is Y2K related or not, therefore lets see how many plants shut down in January and determine what is normal and that will tell us whether an abnormally high count over the average would indicate that maybe some of these are Y2K related.

My point was that it's been ADMITTED that several of these were already Y2K related...making the issue John attempts to raise as moot. My point being that embeddeds are what tripped the problems. The whole thread is focused to embeddeds rearing their ugly little heads despite denials from the polly's that there are no embedded problems.

Then I further substantiate that in the oil and gas sectors the incident trend frequency is rising and perhaps even the intensity of the problem.

This was the whole thrust of my post. What we have here is part of another ongoing battle by disinformation agents posing as "pollies" to attempt to deter the focus from the real issue being presented whether myself or some other poster.

Frankly I've begun to realize the very pathological nature of these people. They are indeed mental or borderline mental cases. IF these yo yo's think Y2K is a non event that is passed, they have no logical reason for being here.. they only have an illogical and pathological reason. Or else as someone earlier stated, they are being paid to come here and disrupt.

-- RC (racambab@mailcity.com), January 13, 2000.

RC, this is good. Thanks!

-- nothing (better@to.do), January 13, 2000.

Ok, yes, I got that, RC. "Embedded failures are real they are happening...." And I appreciate the information. Do you have any additional info on the nuke failures that were admitted to be y2k errors? Other than the Japanese plants, I've heard zilch, there.

I'm not about to comment on petrochemicals, I'll leave all of that to you. (MUCH appreciated, btw) I've no experience in them, and haven't studied the supply chain (safety issues, JIT schedules, health impacts, comparative costs, ect), so the best I could add there would be common sense. I know just enough about the nuclear industry to be moderately dangerous. And to be able to spot the blatant opinion spouted as fact, such as Spider's comment on that earlier thread above that, "This is the most hot shutdowns and scrams that have ever happened. This is not normal."

That's utter and complete bs, and could only be a true statement if you added "this hour" to his first sentence.

Damn, damn, damn. I am Very interested in knowing what embedded issues the NPP's were having. Which officials admitted they were related? What problems did they have? Where the heck can I get more information? (Oh, and any lurking USN NPPO's, feel free to chime in here, too.)

Back to your reply, I really doubt John or Shuggy are being paid to be here, and I damn well know I'm not. I'm also under no such delusion as, "Y2K is a non event." I already know better, I'm just trying to gauge how big the impact is going to be. As for 'borderline mental case'... Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but some of my co- workers would agree with you. I told them to prepare back in '98.

My purpose was to point out that the thread you cited originally as to the nuke problems, http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a- fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002I6z, DOESN'T contain any evidence that they were the result of embedded failures. And compared to earlier time frames, the nukes are doing amazingly well. There were 3 plants on that list that I'd want more info on, but I haven't seen it. Is it possible you meant to link to a thread I didn't catch?

Oh, and taking a look at "Mr. Sane"s comments, I think you might want to change that quote above to:

You can post the information, but you can't make them think.

Thanks,

-- harl (harlanquin@aol.hell), January 13, 2000.

Hey, John, let me save you a lot of potential "work", OK?

Go to your local video store, and when the guy behind the counter goes to hand you the latest "Young Boys in Love" video, say, "No, I need to rent something *different* this week. *Really* different. It's for my work. Do you have a copy of the Monty Python 'Dead Parrot' skit?"

Then, take it home, and study it.

Study it until you can say it with *conviction*: "It's not dead, it's just resting!"

Then, once you've burned The Message into your very soul (er, "soul"), change "dead" to "broken", and "resting" to "operating normally".

Once you've mastered that, you'll have distilled your "message" to its essence, and save gallons of virtual ink in the process.

(Of course, if you're billing by the hour, you miiiiight find the higer efficiency to be somewhat counterproductive...)

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), January 13, 2000.

Thank you again RC for your continued investigative analysis.

I have been looking for info on "glitches" in other areas of the world like Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Nigeria, Ecuador, Venezuela etc.

The above countries were already stressed pre-Y2K plus non-Y2K issues are seriously impacting them (banking, corruption, miltary rule, civil disorder). Any Y2K issues could be the straw that breaks the camels back.

In Shalespeare's play Julius Ceasar, the soothsayer advises Ceasar to "beware of the Ides of March." Ceasar responded "but the Ides of March are upon us". The soothsayer answered, "Yes but the Ides are not yet over."

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), January 13, 2000.

Geez, Ron, what are you billing by, the word? Add some information, or a question, or an observation, even. Something vaguely close to 'embedded systems,' maybe?

-- harl (harlanquin@aol.hell), January 13, 2000.

Ron -

Too funny!

-- Me (me@me.me), January 13, 2000.

John, In all due respect, Carl Jenkins was far from "ranting" on his post. Please look up the definition of rant: THIS IS RANTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not. See? =)

I understand you were making a point, and I respect your view, but you accuse Jenkins of overblowing something when you yourself overblow your point with your reference to Jenkins. Thanks much. =)

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

OK folks I live in a big oil production town and I have lots of friends in the industry. I will talk to them and report back to this forum asap. But currently nothing out of the ordinary has happened here. Your comments are well taken and you make some very valid points about increasing in frequency. So I'll be back.

jusththinkin com

-- justthinkin com (justtthinkin@y2k.com), January 13, 2000.

Thanks, RC.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Thanks R.C.

-- Mike Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Hey CAPT Polly,

Why don't you tell us what you -really- think? =)

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Capt. Polly was a troll. Looks like he was deleted. Good riddance!!

-- (sickof@these.trolls), January 13, 2000.

Please keep the updates and info. coming RC.

beej

-- beej (beej@ppbbs.com), January 13, 2000.

I certainly can see the points of all of you who have posted a response to RC's original message. I don't think it's time for either side of the Y2K issue to declare victory yet. This is somethinkg that won't be fully realized for months or years.

Those of you who think that the rollover from 12/31/99 to 01/01/00 was the all telling event don't understand the magnitude of the problem. Those of you who think the world is going to end are correct but it's not going to be the Y2K bug that does it.

It's still too early to start statisticalizing failures, two weeks do not a trend make. At least, not a reliable trend, but let's wait and see what time brings us and patiently wait for undeniable proof that we have or have not beaten the Y2K computer bug.

PJ

-- PJ (patiently@waitingforthetruth.com), January 13, 2000.

I'll leave the bickering to you folks with larger cranial capacities than I have. But please, RC; it really rubs me the wrong way when people say "no probemo". The word is "problema" With an "a".

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), January 13, 2000.

Does anyone know where statistics reporting on nuclear plant technical difficulties (USA and overseas also if possible)for Jan 1997 , Jan 1998, and Jan 1999 can be found on a week by week basis? These numbers could then be compared to Jan 2000 week to week to see any variances from the norm show up. Hopefully less or no change, but a realistic comparison.No doubt some organization has these stats.

-- james r clark (jrclk@webtv.net), January 13, 2000.

Thanks RC, your detractors are forgettable, don't waste your time debating them.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 13, 2000.

Thanks for the update RC.

Ron, "It's a latent parrott!" Great analogy, skit to polly denial! Love it! heh.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

RC, ;-)

Thanks for the posts!!

Hey CAPT Shmuck <<<<"kick the mental cripple.">>>> You are one scary %$&*!!!!!!!!

-- (karlacalif@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

cpr alert!!

-- i smell him (a@mile.away), January 13, 2000.

1. sysops - why was my post to CAPT deleted?

2. this is the latest from Bruce Beach...

"There is supposedly an oil glut, left over from Y2K stockpiling by governments and giant corporations. But oil prices are rising. Refineries are being taken off line, supposedly Y2K unrelated. But gasoline prices are rising. Refineries are cutting back on production (again supposedly Y2K unrelated) when they run most efficiently at full production. But gasoline prices are rising. Europe supposedly doesn't have a problem But oil is being diverted to Europe both from the mid-east and the U.S. and oil prices are rising. There has been no report about the Siberian pipeline that I have heard and oil prices are rising in Europe. The weather has been warm cutting down the seasonal demand for heating oil and oil prices are rising The good weather has made refinery production much easier but refinery production is cutting back and gasoline prices are rising This list goes on and on.

To an economist it does not make sense. More product available is not supposed to lead to higher prices. OPEC is powerful, but not THAT powerful. I just do not understand, unless some people, some where, understand some thing, that rest of us don't know about - yet."

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 13, 2000.

RC, the verbal abuse of others only detracts from your credibility. The best response to verbal abuse is to ignore it.

I don't know much about the oil refineries, but I've been in the data processing world as a system programmer for about 28 years.

Experience has taught me that problems can take a long time to surface, as they are often data sensitive. Anybody who feels that all the problems are over, after a couple of smooth weeks, hasn't got much data processing experience.

The remediation that's been done to date has undoubtedly introduced new system errors. Those will not appear to be Y2K related, but will have been induced by the fixes during remediation. These too may take a while to appear. Of course, this does not apply to imbedded chips.

As to those talking about rising fuel prices, I can state that they have been very stable here in the midwest. I have not seen any increases since the beginning of the holiday season.

If we make it through the first quarter without major problems, I'll breathe a sigh of relief, but it's too early to declare a victory now.

As to the data you've provided, I can only say that the nuke data is unconvincing at this time if you compare it to last year. I'll investigate your other reports. You may be right or wrong in your assumptions, but at least you are providing information that is hard to find elsewhere. Keep sending it.

Please stop all the flaming. It only hurts your cause.

Thanks... Kenque Kenque

-- Kenque (kenque@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

R.C.,

I don't deny there have been Y2K problems in various places with embedded chips. My contention with you is that the peak for failures has now passed yet you say it hasn't and offer no proof for it.

All the embeddeds which measure based on time intervals of seconds and milliseconds would have failed immediately (and I still stand by my claim that most did NOT use dates to calculate time intervals and many would only have glitched at rollover and been okay thereafter).

I doubt there are any embeddeds which wait over a week to measure some physical parameter such processing I suspect is more to do with refinery stats and is done by the PCs and mainframes above.

Your responses:

1. I don't deny Nukes have had problems. I haven't seen any Chernobyls or 3-Mile islands, that is the main point.

3. Tosco had a power failure. That is an issue with the electricity supplier and nothing to do with refining oil.

4. Okay, one week ago, you cited 3 out of 97 US oil refineries as having problems. How many are there now?

5. How do you know this?

6. The only TAVA example I see of delayed bugs is the equipment which passed its Y2K test and one month later gave the date as "Jan 34". What I do not see is:

a. Was it a mission critical bug or just a display problem? b. Was it fixed and now happily humming away? c. What proportion of problems encountered were delayed bugs? 1%? 10%?

You also have not demonstrated that this alleged buffer overflow bug has anything to do with oil embeddeds for the original thread didn't have it in mind.

And as a programmer, the idea that software would store commands it deems as illegal and unacceptable is frankly crap. If a program cannot process a command it dumps it - full stop, I work with embedded software which does this all the time. Note, a program may store commands it does not have the resources to currently process but that refers to commands it has not parsed yet.

The onus is on the system above to them retransmit the command or perhaps the receiving program may send an error message back up.

R.C., if there are people out there who have "got their lives riding on the lines" I doubt very much they risk being there - better to be elsewhere and alive. Unless you are talking about the normal day to day risks of the oil business which have NOTHING to do with Y2K.

This horse sees no water in the trough.

Shuggy.

-- Shuggy (shimei123@yahoo.co.uk), January 14, 2000.

Ok Shug

"I work with embedded software which does this all the time..."

Where?

Which type of embeddded systems? i.e. which ***Industry*** and don't BS us again by saying they are all essentially the same. They aren't.

LSES?

Or piss-ant ones?

Refineries?

Chemical plants?

Nuke plants?

or BT?

You seem to think your logic will apply to all systems in all countries in all industries designed by a myriad of folks most of whom are now out of business.

Answers please.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.

Andy,

I work with long distance communications protocol drivers on chips. And, yes, I do think logic has got a lot to do with this.

Many software engineering techniques are universal due to their proven efficiency gains and I have seen them at work in other software areas not related to communications.

One simple example. If you wanted to measure something every 10 milliseconds what would you do?

If the time is stored as years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and milliseconds then you have six subtractions to do followed by converting five of them into milliseconds and adding them together to get the total elapsed time in milliseconds.

Or, store the time elapsed as milliseconds in say a 16-bit counter which wraps round about every 65 seconds. Subtract the two numbers to get your elapsed time.

Or (and most likely), when one measurement is done, reset a counter to zero and increment it every millisecond and when it reaches 10 redo the measurement.

The latter two techniques are not only Y2K-proof but less intensive on chip resources.

You tell me which technique a software engineer is most likely to use.

Shuggy.

-- Shuggy (shimei123@yahoo.co.uk), January 14, 2000.

I work with long distance communications protocol drivers on chips. And, yes, I do think logic has got a lot to do with this.

####### I thought so. You know ***nothing*** about LSES's in refining, chemical, electrical, nuke plants. Do you know anything abouts SCADA? About how s/w techniques have been used in all corners of the world? No. #######

Many software engineering techniques are universal due to their proven efficiency gains and I have seen them at work in other software areas not related to communications.

####### Many s/w techniques are only *universal* because trainee programmers in many cases are too lazy to come up with more efficient techniques. They are taught what works and hence some techniques are getting on for 20/30/40 yrs old. The North Sea platforms were built 25 yrs ago. Do you know what techniques were used then? I doubt it. Similarly refineries in the USA, just like airline s/w systems, have been patched and patched over patches. Management admitted before rollover that they wouldn't try and track down embeddeds. Too costly, and it would mean shutdowns to do it right. So they have gambled - in most cases they did either nothing or the bare minimum they could get away with. They are now in fix on necessity mode. Those countries in many cases that did nothing have turned the clocks back where they could get away with it. This is ***not good***. #######

One simple example. If you wanted to measure something every 10 milliseconds what would you do?

####### This is not the point. The point is what did Joe Bloggs in Indonesia do. And the guy selling systems designed in Japan to ME producers. And guys like Flint who also was in the chip business. Show me 10 progs. and I'll show you 10 ways of doing things. #######

If the time is stored as years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and milliseconds then you have six subtractions to do followed by converting five of them into milliseconds and adding them together to get the total elapsed time in milliseconds.

####### Fine. This is one way. But wait, it seems that young Hirohito has done it the following way... #######

Or, store the time elapsed as milliseconds in say a 16-bit counter which wraps round about every 65 seconds. Subtract the two numbers to get your elapsed time.

####### Well done H. But how did your buddy Tatsuo do it? And was it documented? With locations in the plant? With chip name, manufacturer and serial code? Is that provider still in business? After 25 yrs? #######

Or (and most likely), when one measurement is done, reset a counter to zero and increment it every millisecond and when it reaches 10 redo the measurement.

####### Yawn. So what.You miss the point... #######

The latter two techniques are not only Y2K-proof but less intensive on chip resources.

####### 25 yrs ago y2k wasn't on the horizon. Not even 5 yrs ago. think about it fer crissakes! #######

You tell me which technique a software engineer is most likely to use.

####### I think you might, just possibly, get my point by now. You've shot yourself several times in the foot already. #######

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.

That should be seven subtractions and six conversions, but I think I have made my point.

If anyone says that the date stuff is already there on a seperate date chip then I say that first "date" chip is a misnomer. It is a chip offering data on time parameters.

Also, the time chip does not use the YYMMDDHHMMSS format as its basic unit of time measurement, it uses clock ticks. If any other program asks for the time elapsed in milliseconds the time chip will not go through this complicated YYMMDDHHMMSS date processing I mentioned, it will calculate the elapsed clock ticks and convert to milliseconds.

In fact, some time chips I doubt even provide that service. One other scenario is that various programs will be interrupted at fixed time intervals and all their internal counters appropriately incremented.

Dates are for humans, milliseconds are for chips.

Shuggy.

-- Shuggy (shimei123@yahoo.co.uk), January 14, 2000.

Shu you are obsessed with minutiae. This is good in your profession. You still miss what I have been trying to convey.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.

I think you miss my point, Andy.

What I have mentioned are proven techniques. All you have to say in your defense is that some unknown programmer X would have used such hair brained techniques and that's that. Not a very convincing argument.

The 25-year old chip argument reinforces my case for in those days CPU and memory resources were even more scarce and doing over-complicated calculations was an even more stupid thing to do.

Shuggy.

-- Shuggy (shimei123@yahoo.co.uk), January 14, 2000.

I think you miss my point, Andy.

####### I give up. #######

What I have mentioned are proven techniques. All you have to say in your defense is that some unknown programmer X would have used such hair brained techniques and that's that. Not a very convincing argument.

####### Again I give up. #######

The 25-year old chip argument reinforces my case for in those days CPU and memory resources were even more scarce and doing over- complicated calculations was an even more stupid thing to do.

####### Quite. #######

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.

Andy,

You can cling to your belief in these inefficient programmers in far flung countries without proof. The oil is still flowing.

Remember also that time chips are not made especially for oil LSES, they are bought off the shelf and used in a wide range of applications worldwide. That is why I can speak with a degree of confidence with generality.

Shuggy.

-- Shuggy (shimei123@yahoo.co.uk), January 14, 2000.

Sure hope that young programmers, technicians, and engineers are good at "workarounds" because the senior/knowledgeable guys are coming down with the "flu" (or whatever that is) and won't be available precisely when they are most needed during the Jan-Feb time frame.

Glitches are getting worse. So is the flu.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), January 14, 2000.

Shug,

A few days ago it was reported that a spy satellite went out for 3 hours.

Now it seems it was 3 days.

In a few months it will no doubt be 3 weeks.

Extrapolate forward - you are a CEO of an Oil Company.

You have shareholders.

Are you going to announce to world.org that x percent of your paltforms/refineries/pipelines are up the kazoo becuase of Mysterious Glitches.

I think not.

Now Shuggy you tried to take apart RC on the basis that you know what you are talking about. you no doubt do in your own minute field, in your own application/indutry, in one country.

I've tried ***patiently*** to point out the obvious.

Which you refuse to ___ GET___ ...

I'll let the reader, If he hasn't topped him/herself by now, figure out who is making any sense here.

CAPT troll...

As I said before, WTF are u doing here? It's a done deal, right?

You continue to out yourself as an obsessive/compulsive, trying to score brownie points with your buddies.

Stick around then and wise up.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.

Who was it that just said "oil is still flowing"?

Funny that. Allegedly huge stockpiles, unseasonably warm weather, and

wait for it

wait for it

lo and behold

OIL UP ***AGAIN*** overnight

I wonder why???

Link at

http://www.mrci.com/qpnight.htm

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.

Andy,

How many of the 97 U.S. oil refineries are currently shut down?

Also, what is your *revised* worst case scenario?

I revised mine, I thought at worst we could have a 1970s style energy crisis (that doesn't mean I though it would happen, I just stretched my credulity to a worst case scenario).

Oil prices? I might believe you when they get up to $60 a barrel.

As for conspiracies of silence. Great! We had this conspiracy stuff pre-rollover being applied to the electric and water utilities and guess what? The water and electricity continued to flow.

Give me a reason why I should evaluate the flow of oil differently. Heck, even the supposedly WORST countries such as Iraq as still flowing!

Shuggy.

-- Shuggy (shimei123@yahoo.co.uk), January 14, 2000.

Hey Shuggy,

Don't take my word for it... the price continues to climb. I have 112 call options in crude and unleaded - if it goes to $60 I will buy you a pint. Or 112 x $25 x 42,000. You can't say I'm not generous.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.

Shuggy, I believe, said gasoline historically went up after Christmas and New Year....up here in Alberta where we drill and refine the stuff, prices went up well before Christmas and are starting to go down at the pumps - seems a bit of a reversal of History??

The exploration activity has picked up considerably as money flows downward at the beginning of the quarter from the large companies and the weather turns colder. In many places it has been too warm for the big service/drilling rigs to access wells.

-- Laurane (familyties@rttinc.com), January 14, 2000.

Bottom line - nearly all oil experts were expecting a decrease - including Downstreamer.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.

NEW YORK, Jan 13 - Crude oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) were sharply stronger in early trade on bullish comments from Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali al-Naimi, who said OPEC may hold production curbs throughout the year 2000.

By 10:50 a.m. (1530 GMT), front month crude futures were 62 cents up at $26.90 a barrel, after opening firmly in positive territory. Products were also stronger, with heating oil up 0.83 cent at 69.30 cents a gallon, and unleaded gasoline up 0.83 cent at 72.10 cents a gallon.

``There's a lot of fund buying, mostly supported by the recent comments out of OPEC,'' said one floor trader. ``People are believing the talk about extended cutbacks.''

After a surprise meeting with Venezuelan Oil Minister Ali Rodriguez in Amsterdam Wednesday, Saudi Oil Minister Naimi said that, at crude's current levels, there is no need for OPEC to lift production cutbacks. He added that the curbs could continue for the rest of the year, past the previously set March deadline.

Suggestions about extended OPEC supply curbs have fed the market since early in the week, pulling crude futures off lows of around $24.00 a barrel Monday. Traders said crude has a firm chance of reaching the contract high of $27.15 a barrel, a nine-year high hit November 22, in trade today, provided it breaks a band of resistance at $26.85/$26.90 a barrel.

The bullish upturn in the market comes despite large U.S. inventory builds reported for last week in government data Wednesday, showing crude stocks up 3.1 million barrels and gasoline stocks up 2.2 million barrels.

Traders said the market had expected the builds to some degree because ``Y2K pre-stocking'' had reduced the need to draw off primary stocks for the week, allowing the bullish OPEC sentiment to trigger a technical rally.

``Y2K pre-stocking explains the numbers and that is why the market shrugged it off,'' said one analyst. ``This is a futures market, and the players are looking to the future trends right now, not the old ones. Right now the future is OPEC.''

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.

Top.

Check out oil price action today.

I rest my briefcase.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 14, 2000.

Yeah, I figured the sysops wouldn't want anyone pointing out the obvious. Fuck you very much, sysops! :)

The simple fact of the matter is that embedded problems of the sort that RC discusses would SHUT DOWN refineries. Not slow them, not reduce production -- SHUT THEM DOWN. Not happening. The fact that refineries are still producing means that the embedded errors he's describing are NOT happening.

Observing that a bunch of refineries are running at less than full capacity is also not indicative of anything. No refinery runs at full capacity for any length of time. They just DON'T do it.

Finally, increasing oil prices are indicative of tightened supply, and Andy knows it, even though he doesn't want to admit it. OPEC noticed low prices and an oil glut, so it naturally moved to reduce production. Lowered production means tightened supply. Tightened supply means higher prices for crude. Higher prices for crude get passed on to the pump INSTANTLY.

Maybe some pollies were saying that oil prices would remain low. Not me. Further, you've got a long way to go before you or RC prove that embeddeds have anything whatsoever to do with increasing oil prices. But proving things has never been a real concern for doomers, has it?

-- CAPT Polly T. Roll (laughingloudly@you.org), January 17, 2000.

OK you numbskull, perhaps you could explain the following points to us all.

Remember, unlike you, Dick Moody is a ***trader*** and also has lots of contacts in the oil biz.

He directly contradicts your puerile guesses - read what he has to say

======================================================================

Thanks Downstreamer, Can you add to the list, does this pretty much sum things up so far or are there any other specific incidents you know about?

On embeddeds - I'm no expert, I'm an Operations IT guy and know only BAL [Assembler] - so I'm listening and reading - some folks say embedded problems may take time to surface, so I'm personally waiting and watching.

As far as disclosure - I've said many times that oil companies simply *will not* disclose anything adverse {much like banks, airlines, whoever] unless they have to for legal/safety/sueing reasons. That's why I truly believe that any incidents that make it to the media feeds may be only [you guess] 10-30% of what is occurring.

As i said i'd like to document known problems - I'll let other detectives like yourself who know the business inside out tell us if these "incidents" are normal or not.

One thing.

We were told before rollover that there were production stockpiles in many cases. That there would be no production shortfalls.

Now suddenly we hear that there is a 4% shortfall.

Well some say 1973 was a 4% shortfall!...!!! That shortfall, caused by OPEC, caused a major recession.

So now we have a 4% shortfall [and IMHO if they admit to 4% you can bet it will be higher!] coupled with much anecdotal evidence that there are ***REAL*** problems behind the scenes.

Heres some info from the esteemed Dick Moody on the price action...

======================================================================

Are you a fire and brimstone Oil Fundamentalist?

If you are then say it with me now...

"Say Haaalllaaylloooooooyaaahhhhhh, brother and sisters in greasy grime of the sinful and wicked black-gold/Texas Tea persuasion."

"Do ya see the light yet? Well we're gonna give it to ya, whether you want it or not...and you'll have the chance to give back as we pass the collection plate around in jus' a little bit So make sure you have those options (calls and puts) ready and get ready to repent. Say Halleloooyah, Amen"

Now that I have you wondering what I meant by fundamentals of oil... let me say that it really wasn't the above...but it sounded good didn't it? I wanted to comment on the latest run up in Crude oil pricing but from a "Fundamentalist" as opposed to a Technicians perspective (Say hallelooyah :-)

One thing that has amazed me about the current run up is how the big boys hung on to their positions over a 3 day holiday weekend. Usually, the boys will square their positions ahead of a holiday and go home with no chips on the table except for hedged positions by producers. So it seems to me that these big boys got some balls to the wall in their thinking here. They really have gotten bold. They don't get that way unless they know something is up. Something is up indeed. What is it? Well, it's not OPEC! That's a for certain.

Downstreamer and Gordon both, you both know the old adage buy the rumor sell the fact. Well, its been well known since long before rollover that OPEC was not going to change its position about oil production curbs. There has been real solidarity there. The market has already ridden OPEC's actions for the price move it can bring. OPEC's solidarity took the market to $25.00 and that is about as much as it can ummph it. OPEC could change that equation on the notion of further cutbacks than current levels or in the face of rising demand that is higher than was expected. In other wordsfurther OPEC aspects must include a further change in numbers from the current status quo to affect market pricing. So if it is not OPEC just agreeing to continue then what is it? An upcoming war? (one rumor has that as a notion)

I see it as technical disruptions of supplies. Now how could that be? Well, remember we're in warm weather across much if not most of the country. Record warm temps are being set across much of the midwest. These warm temps mean refineries should not be experiencing problems in January. The only real problems seen in January in years past has been related to severe cold weather which can play havoc on oil refineries. We don't have severe weather affecting refineries this yearso what's the problem? The problem is sudden, unexpected "glitches" fires, mechanical problems, etc

I suspect its like some of those Y2K fellows have been saying all along those embedded chips will take some time for their problems to show up. Now, what really leads me to think this, besides talking with a couple of other brokersincluding one who has oil clients. Take a look at the following from a wire story on Friday about pricing

===============================================

Gulf Coast gasoline is moving up with the NYMEX, but also because of very strong buying from at least two refineries. Those companies have chased prompt unleaded gasoline to where it is only discounted by 2.25cts gal off the NYMEX. With NYMEX unleaded up 1.68cts gal to 72.95cts gal at midmorning, the cash price was at 70.75cts gal.

==============================================

Okay, so what's going on here, huh? Frankly, it looks to me like these refineries couldn't make enough gas to meet their already agreed to contracts with wholesalers, so now these guys have to scramble to come up with real product. Well what happened to their big reserves they'd set back for Y2K??? I mean everybody in the biz stashed some inventory for Y2K, right?

Apparently these 2 refineries (and I've heard there's others too) have had some really serious production problems. Enough problems that now they can't meet even the lesser demands of this off season. Their situation is desperate enough that they're paying about any price to grab product so they can meet the contracts. NOW FOLKS, this is an act of some modicum of desperation, IMHO.

According to this, these boys gave up most of their profit margin to buy on the open market, just to make those contracts. This tells me these guys have some serious problems and its showing. We've been hearing of rumors in the market that a lot of Gulf Coast refineries are having some significant problems.

NOW match this to the possibility that certain other facilities in Venezuela, Nigeria, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, UAE, North Sea, etc ect. are also having enough problems to slice just a bit off each countries production. [this is what I've been saying all along - Andy]

Gee, now there could amount to some serious concernbut it might really help an OPEC member think about making up for it by jawboning the price of oil up by simply talking about holding the line. They obviously don't want to announce problems because that would affect their companies' stock price valuationswhich is as if not more important than the price of Crude oil. So it is a real game of cat and mouse.

Frankly, I figure the problems are small to moderate and rather irritating and peskily interfering with production intermittently.

Nowif it were just refineries though, that would not life up crude. After all, if refineries are having problemsless demand for crude oil, right? And folks, remember, we've supposedly got a glut of crude supply built up for Y2K, right?

So therefore with an overhang of crude and refineries being unable to use more Means less demand for crude right? Also factor in the unusually warm springlike weather over most of the nation record warm temps again much of the week across the midwestand long range forecasters saying it should continue for another 10 dayswell that too should be bearish news for oil. I mean those elements are soooo bearish and the only positive aspect is old news about OPEC hanging on to production quotas for another 6 months??? Oh and of course persistent production problems at refineries. (not to mention refineries overseas anouncing cutbacks as demand rises) plus one oil refer announces permanent shut down?? Hmmm. Something just doesn't quite add up, now does it?

Well, I mentioned that among some of my old contacts is one broker who has a couple of oil clients one of whom is telling him there are some serious problems out there. The other does not know much...seems to be kinda out of the loop...is more in tune with nature and the golf course and local pubs than the markets, after all that guy's primarily a hedger. The other guy who says there are some serious problems indicates most are related to Y2K in refining but he's heard of some pipeline and well problems too. If I'm gathering it right, it's so far been just a lot of nuisance stuff that in enough minor quantities have had some spillover impacts affecting production. I don't know this for a fact, but that's some of the heavy duty rumoring going on. I'm sure some of its true because even if its just smoke remember, where there's smoke there's fire. Except in the case of stinkbombs.

Could it be that Y2K is really alive and a threat? Nahhhh it couldn't be. Or could it?

One thing is for sure Oil is poised for a wild ride again this year. Buckle up and have your tickets ready to show your conductor, the train will be pulling out of the station shortly.

"say Hallelooyahh"

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

Andy>> "OK you numbskull, perhaps you could explain the following points to us all."

O-tay, numbskull. I try real hard to make nice-nice talk wit' you. I go reeeeeal slow so maybe you unnerstand dis time, numbskull. :) Andy>> "Remember, unlike you, Dick Moody is a ***trader*** and also has lots of contacts in the oil biz. He directly contradicts your puerile guesses - read what he has to say"

Well, now, Andy, I don't think I said whether or not I was a trader, so perhaps you should save YOUR puerile guesses so I don't have to contradict them, hmmm? :)

Andy>> "On embeddeds - I'm no expert, I'm an Operations IT guy and know only BAL [Assembler] - so I'm listening and reading - some folks say embedded problems may take time to surface, so I'm personally waiting and watching."

Yeah. The guy admits up front that he knows nothing about embeddeds. So we can pretty much discount the rest of this part.

Andy>> "Now suddenly we hear that there is a 4% shortfall. Well some say 1973 was a 4% shortfall!...!!! That shortfall, caused by OPEC, caused a major recession."

That's RIDICULOUS. If this guy believes that the Arab oil embargo added up to a 4% shortfall, then he's neither a reliable trader OR a realistic student of petroleum economics. He's simply trying to draw an ugly picture. And you've bought that picture, Andy.

Andy>> "So now we have a 4% shortfall [and IMHO if they admit to 4% you can bet it will be higher!] coupled with much anecdotal evidence that there are ***REAL*** problems behind the scenes."

Anecdotal evidence is often meaningless.

Andy>> One thing that has amazed me about the current run up is how the big boys hung on to their positions over a 3 day holiday weekend. Usually, the boys will square their positions ahead of a holiday and go home with no chips on the table except for hedged positions by producers. So it seems to me that these big boys got some balls to the wall in their thinking here. They really have gotten bold. They don't get that way unless they know something is up. Something is up indeed. What is it? Well, it's not OPEC! That's a for certain.

Bull. They KNOW, as do I, that an oil glut will be followed by declining production and a concomitant series of price increases. Seems the only one here who doesn't know that is you, Andy.

Andy>> "Downstreamer and Gordon both, you both know the old adage buy the rumor sell the fact. Well, its been well known since long before rollover that OPEC was not going to change its position about oil production curbs. There has been real solidarity there. The market has already ridden OPEC's actions for the price move it can bring. OPEC's solidarity took the market to $25.00 and that is about as much as it can ummph it."

Ridiculous. OPEC can take it higher, if it tries. For example, consider the economic effect of a partial embargo.

Andy>> "OPEC could change that equation on the notion of further cutbacks than current levels or in the face of rising demand that is higher than was expected. In other wordsfurther OPEC aspects must include a further change in numbers from the current status quo to affect market pricing. So if it is not OPEC just agreeing to continue then what is it? An upcoming war? (one rumor has that as a notion)"

War, huh? Guess that doggone embedded problem wasn't enough? If it's a potential war that's driving prices, Andy, then it's NOT Y2K. Try repeating that to yourself.

Andy>>> "These warm temps mean refineries should not be experiencing problems in January."

Illogical. Refineries can suffer from a host of problems that have nothing to do with the weather. What a laugher!

Andy>> "The problem is sudden, unexpected "glitches" fires, mechanical problems, etc."

Unproven assertion. Remember, he said "anecdotal" evidence. That's as good as no evidence at all.

Andy>> "I suspect its like some of those Y2K fellows have been saying all along those embedded chips will take some time for their problems to show up."

That's funny! The guy admits he knows nothing about embeddeds, and admits he has nothing but anecdotal evidence to go on, but he makes this assertion and you BELIEVE him? Go ahead, Andy, PLEASE get into the oil futures market. I want very badly to take your money. :)

Andy>> "Okay, so what's going on here, huh? Frankly, it looks to me like these refineries couldn't make enough gas to meet their already agreed to contracts with wholesalers, so now these guys have to scramble to come up with real product. Well what happened to their big reserves they'd set back for Y2K??? I mean everybody in the biz stashed some inventory for Y2K, right?"

I heard those rumors, but I never believed them. Guess that move made me some money, pal. Hey, Andy! Maybe your hero's the one making the puerile guesses! :)

Andy>> "Frankly, I figure the problems are small to moderate and rather irritating and peskily interfering with production intermittently."

Didn't read that part, did you, Andy?

Andy>> "Nowif it were just refineries though, that would not life up crude. After all, if refineries are having problemsless demand for crude oil, right? And folks, remember, we've supposedly got a glut of crude supply built up for Y2K, right?"

I heard it, but I never believed it. Now I will take some profits. :)

Andy>> "The other guy who says there are some serious problems indicates most are related to Y2K in refining but he's heard of some pipeline and well problems too. If I'm gathering it right, it's so far been just a lot of nuisance stuff that in enough minor quantities have had some spillover impacts affecting production."

Anecdotal. Unproven. Nameless sources are not verifiable or trustworthy. The fact that this guy has guessed wrong does not change the fact that I guessed RIGHT. Sorry, Andy.

Andy>> "Could it be that Y2K is really alive and a threat? Nahhhh it couldn't be. Or could it?"

Yeah. Like I'm going to believe some third-rate oil trader who knows nothing about technology. Follow him if you like, Andy, but I'll take your money AND his.

Have a nice day. :)

-- CAPT Polly T. Roll (laughingloudly@you.org), January 19, 2000.