Peter de Jager has a new article ("Doomsday Avoided") out on his Year2000.com site in which he defends his recent comments about the severity of Y2K-induced problems.

Link is: http://www.year2000.com/archive/y2ky2kdoomsday.html

[apologies if this didn't come out as a hotlink - I haven't figured out how to do it yet :)]

Excerpted below is the part of the article relevant to the concerns of this forum.

[Snip]

Throughout all of this, my primary concern was with the Iron Triangle. The three industries which must operate daily, or very quickly society begins to unravel at the seams. They are, in no particular order; Finance, Telecommunications and Power companies.

[Snip]

Finally? The big bugaboo, the power industry. I wish I was as confident here as I am with the other two points of the triangle. The statements, reports and press releases from this industry are wishy washy, confusing and misleading.

On one hand, we have dozens of power stations already working in the Year 2000 by advancing their clocks. On the other hand, we have statements offering little assurance e.g. from the Canadian Electrical Association "Most entities report nothing which would have opened a circuit (cut off power)." Implying obliquely, I think, that "Some entities reported problems which did cut off power?????" Which is it? Are there problems or aren't there?

The answer may be hidden in some of the off-the-record conversations which go something like this "Peter, we didn't find ANYTHING which would have cut off power but the lawyers won't let us say that since it comes across as a guarantee that we'll have power that day! So we have to suggest we did find problems!"

[End Snip]

Any comments?

Mike

-- Anonymous, March 05, 1999

Answers

Mike,

I like this lines in his article :

[Snip]

Which is it? Are there problems or aren't there? The answer may be hidden in some of the off-the-record conversations which go something like this "Peter, we didn't find ANYTHING which would have cut off power but the lawyers won't let us say that since it comes across as a guarantee that we'll have power that day! So we have to suggest we did find problems!"

This obstacle of lawyers is evident in all industries. I know of banks, payroll companies, government agencies, insurance companies, water companies, etc., etc., etc. who have told me privately that they're done, complete, finished but cannot announce this good news because of the lawyers.

And then there is the media for whom (and this is an admitted generalization) good news is not good copy.

It is this private information, more than anything which is available in the public press, which compels me to state "we've broken the back of Y2K."

[End Snip]

Nobody can guarantee a problem free rollover. Stockpiling is more news than y2k-readiness of a power plant. Does open communication exist anyway ? What about hidden agenda's ?

-- Anonymous, March 05, 1999

I am sitting here in a fairly large and influential organization in the power industry. I can tell you that I have not even been able to understand what is really going on. The methodologies that I have seen being performed are suspect. If I cannot figure out what is going on in the same building, how can Peter de Jager know? The wording of the internal press releases mimics what comes out in the paper; "safety systems have not been found to fail" seems like a purposeful spin, because not only is it consistent across the industry, but it also avoids the other issues. Power must stay on. Safety systems are not the only important element. I admire Peter de Jager's courage, and I am convinced that even if he accidentally says the Y2K is not as big a deal as it turns out to be, that he will be able to explain his actions; however, I don't believe that from my perspective, I can avoid making as many preparations as I can in the time that remains. By this I mean doing whatever I see will be helpful to protect my family and my community. If this were to include taking out all of my money (which, for me it doesn't) I would most definitely do it! If it means that I need to stock up 200 gallons of water to protect my family (which I don't think it does) then I would do it! I won't let Peter de Jager's perception be mine without having more knowledge of Peter's history of predicting Y2K like scenarios in the past. Especially when I am staring down the barrel of a gun right here where I work (hopefully its not loaded, should I risk it?)

-- Anonymous, March 05, 1999

I can't speak for Canadian businesses, but here in the U.S. of A. we have had as law since Oct 19 the "Year 2000 Readiness and Disclosure Act", which protects any business from subsequent litigation for Y2K statements that they have made, as long as they follow certain guidelines (the main one: such statements have to be literally labeled as "Y2K READINESS DISCLOSURE").

The bottom line is this: any U.S. business that honestly believes that it is ready for 2000 can say so without fear of being sued if it turns out that they are wrong. However, the Act does not protect such statements if they are knowingly false (i.e., fraudulent).

Now, what does this tell you about the state of Y2K readiness?

-- Anonymous, March 05, 1999