Sorry but when it comes to making links I have no clue. Would anyone care to do it please. www.usagold.com/cpmforum also would anyone care to comment on the report?

-- David Whitelaw (dande53484@aol.com), March 07, 2000

Answers

No, they didn't.

The WSJ stated:

The market drew further support from a suspension of oil exports from Nigeria and a decision by Norway's state-owned oil company, Statoil, to slash production because of bad weather.

A spokeswoman for Royal Dutch/Shell Group said the company's Nigerian subsidiary -- by far the largest producer in Nigeria -- has suspended liftings of crude oil from two of its terminals because of a disruption caused by a strike.

No mention of "Y2k" or "Computer Glitches" whatsoever. Somebody having fun with y'all.

-- Hoff (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), March 07, 2000.

Hoff thanks for your input guess the story over at GICC is incorrect then.

-- David Whitelaw (dande53484@aol.com), March 07, 2000.

David -- the reference you have is to a post on a "gold bug" forum, made by an unidentified poster, who also reports that Clinton is planning to ration gas.

Getting your information from such sources is like relying on our own Hawk as your sole source of aviation technology news. Not that Hawk's posts are not appreciated, but he'd definitely not unbiased.

I didn't see anything in the WSJ talking about computer glitches affecting oil production and/or increasing the price of oil. All of the mainstream press blame the current price increase on a deliberte decision by OPEC to cut production for the purpose of driving up the price of oil. Indeed, there would seem to be a substantial amount of unused but available capacity at this time.

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), March 07, 2000.

David,

Dow Jones Link

From what I can see on the USAGold site, the only mention of the WSJ is in a post by a user that says that a story in Section C of the WSJ says production problems in Norway and Nigeria are due to "computer glitches". In my copy of the WSJ, the story says that Norway is falling below even it's self-imposed production cut due to bad weather in the North Sea and that Nigeria is having production problems due to strikes and terrorism. There is no mention of computer glitches.

The Dow Jones link contains a story on the current oil crunch. It also contains no reference to computer problems. It seem likely to me that, if such problems were a major factor, we'd be seeing a lot of stories from even the mainstream press by this time.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 07, 2000.

Thanks guys. Guess thats what I get for wandering away from this forum. Someone please shorten my leash. LOL

-- David Whitelaw (dande53484@aol.com), March 07, 2000.

Here is a picture. As you can see April crude was trading just a little over $23/BBL at the end of the year. Right after the rollover to present, April Crude is up about $11/BBL or about 48%.

Just a coincidence?

-- - (x@xxx.com), March 07, 2000.

Yep. No Y2K problems with oil. $35/barrel crude is "Business as Usual", right Hoffy? $2.50 gas predicted for this summer, all 'cause those nasty Arabs throttled back, huh Hoff? And when the price increase poleaxes the entire world economy, it won't have anything to do with Y2K right Hoffy?

How high do oil prices have to rise before you lamebrained pollies make the connection?

-- (@ .), March 07, 2000.

40% increase in 60 days, yep, happens all the time. Particularly when there's no military mess pending, underway or just finito in the Middle East.

Let's see steel increase 40% in same time frame.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 07, 2000.

Gee, "lamebrained pollies" seems a little harsh...

There's no doubt that the price of oil has been rising since January 1st so, by definition, it's a Y2K event because...well, it's happening in the year 2000.

What I haven't seen is ANY evidence that the rise in oil price is due to Y2K related computer problems. It seems like a reasonable question to ask since you seem to be saying this is the case. If so, can you provide some evidence this is actually the case?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 07, 2000.

Well, why hasn't steel increased 40%? They're presumably as infested with embeddeds as any other heavy industry, aren't they?

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), March 07, 2000.

Jim Cooke, I've got your problem solved: let's drop the Y2K acronym and replace it by "SHSIOAAFOUOSMBACDCAUTY2K" which stands for

Statistically High Significant Incidence Of Accidents And Failures Of Unknown Origin Some Months Before And After The Century Date Change Absolutely Unrelated To Y2K" .

Happy now?

Take care Jim

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), March 07, 2000.

Actually, I've seen nothing suggesting that there is a "Statistically High Significant Incidence Of Accidents And Failures Of Unknown Origin Some Months Before And After The Century Date Change" in the oil industry or anywhere else, whether related to Y2K or not.

Thinks seem to be running about at well (or as poorly) as they ever do. If the world ever runs out of computer glitches, for example, I'll really believe it's the End Of The World As I Know It!

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), March 07, 2000.

How high do oil prices have to rise before you lamebrained pollies make the connection?

It's not the price of oil. Oil has gone through the roof before, long before "Y2k".

How about demonstrating that the current price of crude oil is in any way linked to an inability to produce, and not due to OPEC?

How about just one example of a Y2k embedded system failure in oil production causing this increase?

None of which changes the fact that somebody was passing off deliberate misstatements, which was the reason I originally responded here.

George

Glad to see ya here, bud!

Maybe one day soon we can, umm, reminisce about some previous discussions, eh?

-- Hoff (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), March 07, 2000.

George,

In honor of my dear departed stat professor, I'd have to change the start to "Statistically Significant" and drop the "High" :^)

Along the lines of statistics, my moldy old prof drilled one thing into me - correlation does not prove causation. Even if we accept that there are more problems after the rollover than before (something I'm not prepared to do without more evidence), we still need to show some evidence that Y2K was the cause. I've asked this question repeatedly and have not received a satisfactory answer yet - although some people seem to think that "lamebrained polly" is sufficient.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 07, 2000.

got carpooling plans?> Sure. Thought ya did.

Surely wanna know.... that 150.00/mo that will be consumed by higher gas prices.... guess I won't be spending that $150 on durables or consumables like I otherwise would have?

Lucky that the majority of American drivers ride Nissan Altimas which get 30+ MPG and not SUVs or trucks.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 07, 2000.