Here's the old oil post that my comments are based on.

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

As a former journalist I am growing more and more skeptical of RC.'s claims, including the explanations as to why people in the industry are becoming "tight-lipped" Since he has never, it seems, violated the trust of the sources he claims to have (which, remember, are in some cases family members and old friends), it is highly unlikely that these people would now all of a sudden not be willing to share with him what is going on. Sorry RC., like your posts, but I am growing skeptical. There is scant evidence presented in your posting, and the reasons you cite for not being able to present the evidence, and now, even the sources for the suppossed evidence, seem to me to be shaky.

This is not an attack so let's extinguish the flames before they start....What does anyone else make of his reasons for not being able to cite/provide more evidence, even more suppossed "inside" information?

-- Walter S (wsvnsk2@juno.com), January 13, 2000

Answers

* * * 20000113 Thursday

Walt: Patience. Give the guy some slack for a bit?

The hard hats have _probably_ been admonished by _management_ to not speak unspeakable things at the risk of losing their jobs. (Cab driver in New England lost her job for blowing the Y2K whistle on her employers "glitches.")

It's easy to castigate when your "fat" (e.g., family and livelihood) won't be at risk in a potential firestorm if someone else blows a whistle before it's time.

Your boasting of your journalistic prowess. Why don't YOU do a little investigative journalism and ferret the straight scoop for us and the world? Do _they_ teach "investigative journalism" any more?

Regards, Bob Mangus

* * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus1@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.

If you read the archives, you'll find many, many posts from people in a variety of industries and companies (and, by the tenor/wording of their posts, probably legitimate) stating that their company/utility/entire industry/whatever was definately "going down" and most didn't say "gradually over the first two months of 2000" but said "on Jan. 1".

Yet, that obviously didn't happen.

Something to consider.

-- John H Krempasky (johnk@dmv.com), January 13, 2000.

Sure, if you like coming to conclusions, and then finding some anecdotes and opinions to back you up, whatever.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.

Hey, Walter!

Welcome to the "RC Skeptics Club". We meet the 2nd and 4th Thursdays in the back room at the Legion. See ya tonight?

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Another mind-numbingly inane coment from j Canuck.

Again, nothing of substance, just disparagement.

Walter - use your skills and do some digging. Also, Harry Schultz recently postulated that we here only about 30% of what is really going on. IMHO that figure is much much less.

Oil is a competitive industry believe it or not - you will have to play Detective. Sure, in 6 months oil could be at $50+ due to y2k effects, the markets won't lie. In the meantime it will take time for the markets to adjust -

Have you any idea of the power of these companies? the money they have? PR depts. and Senators in their pockets.

Please get ***real*** Walter.

How many more times do you so-called intelligent folks on this board need to have these basics explained to you?

BTW - the globe, daily star, inquirer etc. etc. - the rags that Canuck reads every day - are now ALL owned by the same folks.

same goes for the Media - on a larger scale...

so WTF do you expect???

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

Walter,

You say you're a former journalist. Is it your position that the media is currently active in investigating the true causes of any trouble? From my perspective in viewing many of the articles posted here it is clear that "investigative" reporting is becoming a lost art. Most articles simply restate the spin put out by PR people.

What do your sources behind the scenes say? Can you report anything of value?

It was difficult prior to the rollover to aquire information regarding Y2k. Do you think it would be easier NOW if problems are indeed occuring? My logical conclusion is that if these people talked openly prior to the rollover and have now become "tight-lipped" this isn't a good sign.

Because you suggest you are a former reporter I'm sure you understand better than most the desire of a source to remain confidential. Read any paper in the U.S. and you'll find quotes from "an anonymous government source" or "a confidential report". Does this make the information any less credible?

However, I must confess I am a skeptic regarding EVERYTHING and I don't simply buy something out right. I look for clarification and cooberation.

I don't really care what caused the trouble at "plant x", if it is or is not directly related to Y2k etc. I want to be able to understand the end result and the possible economic harm it may cause.

I'm just going to keep my eyes open and thank RC for sharing thoughts regarding the current situations.

It would be great if you, with your background, could offer more than simply your skepticism. I've got plenty of my own. Any chance you can start digging a little?

Thanks,

Mike

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

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

John H Krempasky,

Not as new around here as you pretend to be??

-- hmmmm? (haha@not.com), January 13, 2000.

Posted @ the Legion. Three Blind Mice in need of a Pivot Man " Inquire With-in "

-- John boy (What a Hoot@the .legion), January 13, 2000.

It seems we have to allow some time for this to play out. Anyone who has ever worked in a big company knows that only a few may know what is happening in regard to any particular problem. I know that crude futures are back up near $27. Let's watch the prices and see what happens. RC admits that he doesn't have any solid information. He posts because quite a few prople, including me, wany to hear what he is thinking.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Andy - we do seem to be following each other around today.

I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, huh? Me and my closed little mind reading the NWO shills masquerading as newspaper and broadcasrt editors. You and your band of conspiracy hunters frantically searching for the thread that will unravel the great big NWO/Illuminati/UN/One World secret master plan.

Let's return to the dressing rooms and wait for the Zamboni to clear the ice. Deal?

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Walter,

Thank you for your post. Though R.C. sounds so good, logical and methodical in his/her posts it still concerns me that the reporter remains anonymous while using anonymous backgound sources.

Has R.C. been right on the nose with the big posts? Andy's right - we probably won't know except through the trailing indicator of the market itself. It won't lie.

-- Darby (DarbyII@AOL.com), January 13, 2000.

Speaking of the oil market check out recent price moves - UP!

LINK

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

Hmmmm....

Um, there are archives extending back to 1998 on the TB 2000 page at the bottom. I've read a couple for amusement..particularly utilities.

(Amazing how no one noticed the nuke SCRAMs day after day after day in May 1999).

First time I ever looked here was 12/30/99ish, I swear :-)

-- John H Krempasky (johnk@dmv.com), January 13, 2000.

Canuck,

I know RC from private correspondence. He's a genuine, good-hearted person simply trying to provide both a heads-up [pre-y2k] and rationalisation [post].

That's all.

If you had read ###ALL### his posts you would see that he has repeatedly explained exactly _why_ he was handling his posts the way he has done. I did the same pretty much with my VISA posts. I have contacts but I'm not going to jeopardise their jobs over this. A 9/10 has been averted. The iron triangle is up. We are all still here to see if it stays up.

He doesn't deserve this constant ***hounding***.

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

Great posts, eveybody!!

-- ImSo (happy@prepped.com), January 13, 2000.

I don't think there is ANYONE that contributes to this forum that has put in as much energy or PASSION as RC!!! He TOTALLY believes what he writes. NO ONE that does this is spreading B.S. He may get bad information, but he is telling it as he sees it. I doubt if close friends and family would lie to him. Just as I might tell you something that turns out to be wrong, doesn't mean I lie.

-- bob (bb@myhouse.com), January 13, 2000.

Thanks, RC for your posts. Keep 'em coming!

Regardless of embedded chips, oil-based life on earth is limited:

http://www.hydrogen.org/News/a970703e.htm

World oil production to peak in three years HyWeb, 97-07-01: World crude oil production is likely to peak in three years only according to recent studies by Petroconsultants, a swiss based consultancy with a world-wide reputation in mineral oil industry. This is due to principle reasons of depletion of ultimately recoverable reserves. Even if there is enough oil for the next decades, the world is running out of cheap oil. Discoveries of new oil fields is three times less than current production. This is in sharp contrast to statements by Esso AG on the occasion of the presentation of their recent study Vldorado 97": Neither we, nor our grandchildren, nor their grandchildren will live to see the end of the oil era." This is the conclusion of Karl-Heinz Schult- Bornemann, head of press and information, Esso, from the study. Esso, nonetheless, mainly argues with a simple extrapolation of the past into the future. Dr. Eberhard Jochem, Director of the German research institution for systems and innovation research (Fraunhofer Institut f|r Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung), essentially confirmed the statements by Petroconsultants on the symposium Obliged to the future" in Munich, Germany, on the occasion of the 85th anniversary of Dr. Ludwig Bvlkow. He especially warned of naively believing the published figures on known reserves. There are strategic interests, he said, that make it seem advantageous to claim larger reserves than existing.

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Andy:

OK - thanks for keeping the volume down.

My case has not been against RC the person, rather it was to point out the double standard on TB. Dan the Power Man got "hounded" and then satisfied an neutral observer that he was indeed who he claimed to be. RC was asked to do the same thing and you and a few other regulars got on my case.

Anyway, it's time to let this one go. Neither of us is going to change any minds at this point in time. You can tell RC that the dogs have been called off (kind of a reverse Montgomery Burns' "release the hounds") [g]

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Thank you Johnny - I stick up for my cyber-buddies!

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

Andy -

RC's got me pissed off again.

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

"Did you notice the embedded systems problem is growing? Look at these reports!"

Likening your opponents in debate to holocaust deniers is beyond the pale.....

Wouldn't you agree?

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

"I've been inside 7 major technology related news stories in my life and only one "journalist" ever got any of them any where near right. That was a reporter for the NY Times when Robert Morris released the first INTERNET virus."

"Journalists" have currently decided that "nothing happened". One "journalist" recently wrote there were only 70 problems around the world. (Two days ago there were 84 known lawsuits in the US alone.) "Journalists" swallowed the spin and, as a result, we did not get the anticipated panics.

RC is examining the information in his sector of the economy and trying to separate spin from unknowns and "ground truth" and what that implies for the future. Hell of a lot more valuable than what a "journalist" reports.

-- ng (cantproviedeemail@none.com), January 14, 2000.

Likening your opponents in debate to holocaust deniers is beyond the pale.....

Wouldn't you agree?

Not if it's true, as in the case of the Pollies.

-- (hal@gostek.org), January 14, 2000.

Johnny - the comment was valid and not said lightly. You need to reevaluate your motives.

We've been through this all before with double-decker and old git.

Lets just move on.

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

Andy -

If you can't draw the distinction between someone who is denying the existence of large embedded problems in the oil industry and someone who is denying the Holocaust, then ..... I can't reach you.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 14, 2000.

You misunderstood RC and my own comments.

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