Now watch the conspiracy flakes denounce the winners. Note that the oil is to be returned to the reserves. This will deliver Heating Oil to the markets where needed and end the game of the speculators.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/185479_oilbids_05bus.html 11 bidders getting strategic oil

10/05/2000

Associated Press

WASHINGTON  The Energy Department announced agreements Wednesday with 11 companies and brokers to take 30 million barrels of oil from the government's emergency reserve with deliveries to be completed by the end of November.

The 11 bidders agreed to return a like amount of crude, plus a 1.56 million barrel premium, late next year. No money was exchanged.

"These companies offered the best value in terms of restocking the strategic reserve a year from now," said Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.

Last month, President Clinton ordered the release of the oil from the federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve on the Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast. Mr. Clinton said he decided on the release because of concern over tight supplies this winter and to boost the stocks of home heating oil.

Critics, including GOP presidential nominee George W. Bush, have accused Mr. Clinton of releasing the oil to help Vice President Al Gore in the tight presidential race.

Speaking earlier Wednesday at the National Press Club, Mr. Richardson dismissed those charges.

"Politics was not a factor. Charges of political pandering are simply untrue," he said, arguing that the oil was a good policy decision to ease the risk of winter home heating oil supply problems.

He said the oil could provide an additional 3 million to 5 million barrels of heating oil.

No money is being exchanged in what has been characterized as a temporary "swap" of government oil for crude to be returned to the reserve next year. The Energy Department did not release the number of bids it received or any other details.

Under the contractual agreements the 11 bidders will return 31.56 million barrels of oil to the government reserve between August and November of next year.

The companies are gambling that prices will decline, which means they benefit because they will be returning cheaper oil.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil, currently 571 million barrels, is kept in salt domes along the Gulf Coast straddling the Texas-Louisiana border.

Most of the released oil  24.05 million barrels  will come from the reserve's West Hackberry storage facility in Louisiana; 3.05 million barrels will come from the Bryan Mound storage facility in Texas.

Both are capable of discharging up to 1 million barrels a day, said a senior Energy Department official.

The remaining 2.9 million barrels are coming from the Bayou Choctaw storage facility in Louisiana.

The bidders, which included oil companies, middlemen and brokers, were:

Marathon Ashland Petroleum, Houston, 3.9 million barrels; Euell Energy, Aurora, Colo., 3 million barrels; BP Oil Supply Co., Warrenville, Ill., 6 million barrels; Elf Trading Inc., Houston, 1 million barrels;

Equiva Trading Co., Houston, 2.5 million barrels; Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, New York, 2 million barrels; Vitol S.A. Inc., Houston, 1.6 million barrels; Valero Marketing and Supply Co., San Antonio, 1 million barrels;

Burhany Energy Enterprises Inc., Tallahassee, Fla., 3 million barrels; Lance Stroud Enterprises Inc., New York, 4 million barrels; and Hess Energy Inc., New York, 2 million barrels.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 05, 2000

Answers

Who cares? Just let us know when the price of gas goes down.

-- (fillups@too.expensive), October 05, 2000.

Paula "the ungetter" Gordon, is back.Still poking the dead horse.

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage? topicID=12523.topic&index=11

-- ff (fula@gas.k), October 05, 2000.

It "The Paula"'s thread anywhere near the "Moon Landings a Hoax?" thread (http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage? topicID=12575.topic ) OR the announcement from the Fearless Leader that EYR 1-18 is "ready". Better hurry, he is moaning about having to set all the clocks in his hovel back.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 05, 2000.

NEVER MIND. I found it. There was a space in the URL given above. I SEE. ONLY "THE PAULA".......A "STUDENT" OF COVERUPs, FIASCOES, Catastrophes like "THE PAULA" is "properly equipped" to analyze the world of Petroleum Refineries (NOT!!!!!). http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage? topicID=12523.topic&index=11 I have long been a student of the policy process. I have also been a student of bureaupathology, as well as healthy and unhealthy organizational cultures. I have studied fiascoes, catastrophes and their aftermath, coverups, whistleblowing, and ethics and values in the public and private sectors. I find that the understanding that I have acquired of these topics has been invaluable to me in trying to understanding Y2K and the public and private sector policy process.

Believe it or not, the September 12, 2000 report issued by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), falls short of providing any kind of definitive understanding of the problem; it falls short of providing any kind of complete assessment of Federal efforts. The September report was extremely narrowly focused on Y2K as a computer systems problem, with attention primarily to Federal computer systems. Even GAO in this report has failed to demonstrate a grasp of the issues involved and the shortcomings of the approach taken by the Federal government. They also missed some of the major achievements of the Federal government, not to mention the role played by multi-national corporations abroad.

The report provides an incomplete assessment of what has happened and hardly any awareness of what is continuing to happen.

Regarding what continues to happen, all I can tell you at this point in time, is that I have been in contact with experts who work in the field who have reported back to me independently of one another, the nature of the problems that are continuing to occur. The problems they report are in accord with the kinds of problems that the IEE in the UK has reported on and that the International Energy Agency (IEA) and others predicted. (For IEA's predictions, see the Appendix of the John Koskinen Q&A piece at my website noted below.) Reports from other sources are confirming that the same kinds of problems have occurred and are occurring. (I consider the Grassroots Information Coordination Center to be the best ongoing source of information concerning infrastructure problems, including those that are or could be related to Y2K and embedded systems.)

Even if, by some miracle, all engineers with embedded systems expertise were of one mind concerning current problems and if significant numbers came forward to share their concerns, that would not necessarily have any influence on Federal policy. Interest in the topic on the part of individuals in roles of public responsibility seems to be at an all time low. In addition, there is a dearth of expertise in all parts of the government when it comes to problems associated with complex integrated systems breakdown and Y2K. With the possible exception of GAO, those few who were visibly tracking and assessing such concerns are apparently no longer being tasked to do so.

It is also currently politically incorrect in most all quarters of the government to be interested in this topic. Indeed, continuing to show interest in Y2K opens people up to ridicule. It also can be a source of embarrassment to those who had a responsibility for addressing the problem. People, in and out of government, who know about the ongoing problems and who risk coming forward may also be accused of having hidden agendas, being uninformed, or being harbingers of doom, or all three. Few people that I know who had anything to do with Y2K over the past several years seem to be willing or inclined to place themselves in such a professional risky position. Indeed, few can afford to do so, if doing so means jeopardizing their career and professional standing.

I know of no one in the Federal government presently who can be characterized in the following way:

~ as having responsibility for identifying, tracking, assessing and/or addressing ongoing Y2K-related complex system breakdown problems;

~ as having expertise in the area of complex system breakdown problems as they relate to Y2K and embedded systems; and at the same time

~ as having the authority, opportunity, inclination, and/or invitation to share the expertise they have with policymakers and others in roles of public responsibility, including Members of Congress.

If anyone knows of individuals in the Federal government who are exceptions to this generalization, I hope you will provide me their names.

I know of very few people in government who have continued to show even fleeting interest in these matters. Even if one were to identify persons in academia. professional associations, and the private sector willing to speak up about these concerns, there is a serious question regarding who if anyone in a role of public responsibility would listen to them or take them seriously. I have heard of no one who in a role of major public responsibility and influence who has questioned the termination of Federal Y2K efforts early in the year. The termination of Federal efforts has been accepted in most quarters without question. Certainly the mainstream media, which was never appeared to be up to the task of understanding the technical aspects of the problem, were among those who have accepted without question the termination of Federal efforts. With few exceptions, they seem to assume that Federal efforts were adequately informed and based on a sound understanding of the technological aspects of Y2K-related problems.

I don't expect people whose knowledge of the Federal government comes in indirect ways or from academic studies or media reports to find my characterization plausible. I can only tell you that I have not only been a student of government for over thirty years, I have worked in a wide array of Federal agencies and Departments, including on projects for the White House and in the Executive Office of the President. I have typically worked on cutting edge issues, issues surrounded by controversy, including the energy crisis of 1974. I tried to spell out much of my perspective in the various parts of my White Paper and in the monthly Comments that I posted to Russ Kelly's site and my own website. My perspective is also further clarified in the Q & A piece involving Mr. Koskinen on my website and in my April comments on the "Recent Programs" on my website at www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keype ople/gordon
(The appendix of the Q&A piece contains to energy sector predictions from IEA mentioned above.)

I know people are very busy and don't have a chance to spend a lot of time reading, and don't always read very carefully when they do look at such work. I have tried to do my best to share my perspective. I have continued to post from time to time on various discussion groups. I have not taken the time to do more extensive writing in recent months. Other matters are requiring my attention.

At this point in time, I am interested in shedding light on what has happened and what is continuing to happen. One of my objectives is to help people in and out of government understand that the approach taken to Y2K by the Federal government has not only been incomplete, it could be characterized as "public policy Russian Roulette". We have been very, very lucky that no Bhopals or Chernobyls, or other major technological disasters have occurred, especially given the fact that remediation in high hazard sectors was by no means 100%. These are the kinds of problems that I have been most deeply concerned about from the outset, which for me was May of 1998. At that time, I was deeply concerned to find how few in government appeared to be at all sensitive to these concerns, including Mr. Koskinen. I took a briefing team to EPA to brief them. They did not know about embedded systems in June of 1998. The same team briefed Senator Bennett's Committee staff. Numerous other contacts were made and many public programs, including two conferences in July and November of 1999 were held.

In a phone conversation I had with Mr. Koskinen in June of 1998, he said that he was going to wait until Spring of 1999 when assessments would be completed to determine a course of action then. I did everything I could to help dissuade him from waiting until Spring of 1999 to evolve a comprehensive approach to addressing Y2K and embedded systems challenges. Such a comprehensive approach included putting adequate emergency preparedness measures in place.

At this point in time, of course, owing to the extraordinary efforts of thousands, owing to the widespread implementation of contingency plans and other initiatives that were carried out (many behind the scenes), and owing to considerable good fortune, worst case scenarios did not unfold and, in my view, are not about to unfold. Challenges currently facing us are of a totally different character. It seems to me now that scenarios involving mid-range impacts would be the worst case that might unfold over the next six months. I do not consider this a prognosis of doom. A "4 or 5" on the impact scale does not constitute a forecast of doom to anyone I know who is familiar with the impact scale. The particular impact scale that I am referring to is described in Part 1 of the White Paper on my website.

At the present time, because of the mid-range impacts that could result along with other reasons, I am interested in doing what I can to help shed light on what has been happening and what is continuing to happen.

I believe that it would help if factors that are playing a causal role in the problems that are unfolding were acknowledged, understood, and addressed. It is hard to bring adequate resources and attention to bear on problems when it is not possible to discuss openly the nature and scope of the problems, the need to address them, and the ways and means of addressing them.

I am also interested in doing what I can to help shed light on the public policy process relating to Y2K and embedded systems challenges so that other challenges having technological components and having psychosocial dimensions to them will be addressed in a far wiser and far less risky way.

As time permits, I am continuing to keep a hand in these matters. I think that getting the attention of a few, conscientious individuals in roles of public responsibility could be most helpful at point in time. These individuals need to have both time and interest, as well as sufficient longevity in their office or position, to consider in a fuller way what has actually been going on and how that should be informing policy and action.



-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 05, 2000.

So, we see from the bs threads posted below about "refineries", that the FLAKES AND LOONIES of Y2k /AWL Impacts are concocting more HORSE MANURE AS THE PRICE OF AWL........GOES TO $30/BBL.

NOW.........the REAL QUESTION about "THE PAULA" is re: "methodology".

TO WIT: does she deduce or induce her "findings" using

A. A CHRYSTAL BALL

B. TEA LEAVES

C. OR THE WESTERGAARD "WHAT EVER COMES IN OVER THE TRANSOM" method where HEARSAY,,,,,,,,RUMOR,,,,,,,QUESSWORK,,,,,,,,COLLEGE DORM BS.....and .........LACK OF CREDENTIALS SERVE TO GET THE JOB DONE ????

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 05, 2000.

How can I break this to you, Cpr....IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Regardless of what Paula Gordon's opinion on Y2k is, it doesn't matter. No matter what Paula believes, it will not alter public policy on Y2k because there is no public policy anymore in regards to Y2k.

Y2K IS OVER!

-- a (voice@of.reason), October 05, 2000.