Oil/Gas are the real problems in Y2k?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Hi,

I just discovered this board on a link from a Gary North forum. I've never paid much attention to Y2K web forums, so I'm not completely familiar with some of your terms like trolling, but I think I get the picture. I am posting here because I do have some information that I think you may find pertinent, but before I do allow me to present my background as it may have a bearing on credibility, which many of you seem to require. (And I would, too if I were you)

I'm middle-aged and been around the horn awhile. My career has been in PR/Advertising/Marketing-Sales... as well as in broadcasting as a news reporter, editor, news anchor. At one time I worked with Rush Limbaugh before he became a "somebody". He was a news-director at an all-news station at the time. A few years later, because of my PR/Ad and News Media background I found myself involved as a consultant for the political campaign of a now former President of the United States as part of the travelling White House staff (political side). That means I've rubbed shoulders with some people in high places in the past.

More background: I grew up in an area that was "oil country" in a family involved in the oil industry. I also know a lot of people in the oil & gas industry.

I've been tracking the Y2K situation since late 1997, though I do remember discussions about it as early as the late 1980s. So, I'm not a newcomer to the scene. I've been diligently searching like many of you for any information and clues that will indicate what direction Y2K will actually take. I'll not bore you with a history of my early thoughts and research...other than to say my opinions see-sawed back and forth as to whether it was gonna be No Big Deal or A serious set back to society. (No, I am not a TEOTWAKI believer) What follows is a compilation of my reporter instincts to get the full behind the scenes story. In doing so, anonymity of sources is mandatory. These folks who confided to me, fear for their jobs if what they told me was made public. Whether it is justified or not, it was necessary for me to accept those conditions in order to get the full story from them.

Having said all of that, the very first inklings on hard first-hand data came from my conversations last year with folks I know in the Oil industry. Here's what I heard from one close relative who works in mid-level management for a major oil company in the refining division:

#1. Virtually all large Oil Wellheads are at severe risk to embedded chip problems. This is the first threat to the oil supply. This does not apply to small "stripper" wells as it was never economically viable to convert the operations to the expensive computerized systems. Also "stripper" wells supply very little oil to the industry.

#2. Transport of crude oil from the wells to refineries is at risk in the pipeline systems via SCADA embedded chip systems worldwide.

#3. Refining operations of crude oil is at risk due to 4 possible complicating problems: a--software. b--hardware=especially embedded systems. c-- loss of electricity (more on this later). d-- loss of telecommunications in the refineries and also on the delivery systems.

Let's look at #1. in detail...the oil wells. Most larger oil wells, especially those owned by the major oil companies (the majors)have been modernized with extensive embedded chip systems. Now I've had a chance to discuss this with oil industry computer engineers that are embedded systems specialists working on changing out the rigs systems and also the pipeline and pumping stations SCADA systems. The real problems lie primarily in the Alaska, West Texas and the Gulf Coast fields where most rigs are LOADED with embedded systems. Engineers that I spoke with indicated that preliminary testing of systems that they could actually access was running between 10 and 25% dependant upon a variety of factors. I was told that most systems are inaccessible except under extraordinary circumstances, especially off-shore oil wells with depths of several thousand feet under sea level. Most oil well systems are now considered impractical to test and or replace. One consulting engineer told me last December that many new customers field managers still didn't know what the term Y2K even meant, and they didn't think their operations had any computer connections what so ever. (these old boys didn't have a clue what embedded systems were). So this particular source tells me that the oil field industry throughout much of Texas and the Gulf Coast is in the dark about what they're up against. Those clients that were having assessments performed did not have a desire to assess or test embedded systems that were not easily accessed. If it was down in the "hole" forget it. Furthermore, most systems are in sealed systems and once opened can't be fixed in part because schematics are usually not available and or parts are further sealed and coated for further protection thereby making identification of key components virtually impossible. The bottom line= Most embedded systems were never and are never going to be checked or tested for Y2K compliance. Its a virtual impossibility PLUS...even if they did, most likely the parts to replace them will no longer be available and it's now become very difficult to find anyone who can supply a replacement system before 1/1/2000. Some easier testing was done on more accessible systems which are usually newer...and the fail rates have run to 25% in some areas. Overall, these sources estimate that based on prior limited testing, they are expecting a 10 to 20% ratio of failure, or multiple embedded systems going down on each oil well. There will be no parts to fix them and no replacement systems available for quite a long while. These sources tell me that the major oil companies have adopted a FOF policy (fix on fail) because it is the only affordable and practical approach, plus there's no time to get it all fixed anyway. Keep in mind also that these fellows said that even if it's only a .1 or one-tenth of 1% fail rate on embedded chips within a system there a lot of embedded systems on each well that is still enough to shut down virtually every large well in the USA, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States plus most off-shore platforms. I didn't even mention the nightmares that confound such a situation IF the electricity is out and or the phones don't work. That only compounds the problem. Remember too, that for much of the oil industry this will occur in the dead of winter in regions where freezing temperatures will play havoc. Also, when a well goes down, for the length's of time like in Y2k... chances are new wells will have to be drilled to get back to the oil, especially if it is an old well that was using water injection techniques. So wells are extremely vulnerable to shut downs.

BOTTOM LINE on Oil Wells: Expect a near complete stoppage in crude oil pumping on Jan 1, 2000.

#2. SCADA Oil Pipelines (also true for natural gas). The same that was said about the well heads and embedded systems is true for the pipelines. It's just too complicated and the major companies decided to adopt the FOF policy and wait to see what breaks down and then try to fix it. Another consideration is loss of electricity for any significant length of time.

#3. Refining. The larger refineries are also loaded with embedded systems creating similar problems just like the larger oil wells. Many of these are again inside sealed lines and would require major renovations to test and replace components. Also, opening embedded systems even if compliant is like putting humpty-dumpty back together again and most likely would require replacement even if found to be compliant. So, most refineries are not getting adequate checks and testing of embedded chips and systems just like their wellhead counter parts. This is not as critical a factor for smaller, older refineries that have not been upgraded like the larger refineries.

Another significant problem for some refineries in North America is the loss of electricity in freezing weather. This is now thought to be a major concern, espcially for refineries in the middle parts of the U.S. Why? because when ambient temperatures fall below 40 degrees Fahrenheit the crude oil gels inside the lines and clogs the system. This creates, among other things a significant safety hazard with risks of explosions. Equally disastrous is that once the process has clogged the systems, production ceases and a "turnaround" begins once the temperatures return to a steady temperature above 40 degrees. Now, this temperature factor is no problem normally because electricity is used to heat the pipelines and keep the oil warm enough to not gel up and clog the system. IF the electricity goes down on January 1, 2000 in refineries in the midwest or the northeast and the areas are experiencing normal winter temperatures, the loss of electricity for even an hour could be devastating if not dangerous. Therefore, my sources tell me that debates/discussions have developed as to possible preventative measures that might pre-empt such problems. The only alternative (if electricity is to be lost) is to shut the refining operations down, or at least partially stop operations. These options however could carry even greater safety risks of explosions. One particular source tells me that these options have never been tried before at his refinery and there is quite a debate going as to whether the risk of explosion is worth the benefit. The benefit is that by shutting down prematurely or partially idling by clearing the oil lines, any power loss temporarily and then being restored could enable production to resume relatively quickly. IF, however, power is lost for 3 days... then, even a restoration of power will be a moot issue as most likely a 3 day outage will necessitate a "turnaround" maintenance program that usually takes about 90 days. BUT this would be predicated upon temperatures soaring back well above 40 degrees. This source indicated that if the power is out for 3 days or more it will likely be March before they can begin a turnaround and another 30-90 days after that before production could resume.

Now the weather factor could also affect much of refining operations as far south as northern Texas and along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana. So, the largest chunk of US refining operations are at serious risk for extended interruptions of production that might last up to 6 months or longer. And that is if the electricity is off only briefly or is sporadic for only a handful of days. IF electricity is unreliable for extended periods til warm weather returns then there will likely be little oil refining production in the US for most of the year 2000...because until a refineries electricity source remains stable and trustworthy, there can be repeated lengthy production interruptions lasting far longer than the outage as more turnarounds to clean out the systems is required. So if its 3 months or 6 months of rolling brownouts or sporadic interruptions, refining will be most likely significantly hampered.

Bottom line on Refining: Don't count on much gasoline or other petroleum products for the 1st quarter of 2000 and perhaps continuing thoughout much or all of 2000. IF the grid goes down and stays down for a long time... then it will be a LONG time before you get gasoline. KEEP IN MIND... this is ALL CONTINGENT UPON EVEN GETTING CRUDE OIL TO THE REFINERY IN THE FIRST PLACE...which is highly doubtful.

Now, I've not even touched on the problems of the Foreign oil and non-compliant tankers. I don't have good first-hand source reports on this. I can only rely upon what I've read from internet sources. These reports do not appear to be good either. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region along with Venzuela are in as bad a shape as we are. The tanker issue may well further complicate the import picture as well.

Overall Conclusions on Oil:

OPTIMISTIC case: (Power stays up--and NO outages anywhere and the Phone systems have little or no problems) IF Oil Wells experience breakdowns far lower than current testing indicates then there may be only a small drop in crude supplies, and little or no refining disruptions... meaning small shortages and A LOT HIGHER PRICES... best guess... 50 cents to a dollar more per gallon (?)

Middle of Road case: (Power failures for 3 days with rolling brownouts thru January and early February, and normal winter temps everywhere) expect U.S. Crude oil production to drop by half or more. Expect many if not most refineries in the US to shut down for extended periods until April or May when normal operations could resume in refineries IF the oil wells are fixed. We'll assume that they are at this point. Then expect serious shortages and rationing of fuel for the first 6 months of 2000.

Bad Case: (Power failures but not total loss of grid, brownouts roll on through spring and summer... phone service becomes unreliable for first 6 months). Expect little to no crude production, period. No importation of oil in significant quantities either for the first 6 months. This means refineries will sit idle til they have product to refine. If the embedded systems run a 25% fail rate as some research has indicated in past testing, and power is unreliable then chip system manufacturers will be unable to make replacements. New wells would have to be drilled and systems converted to manual...but still electricity is required to get it to the refinery. Likely then to not see much crude oil til late 2000, and then about 90 days more before refining can catch up. This all assumes that foreign oil and tankers also can be brought back around this fast also. Therefore, figure on about 1 year of very little fuel for transportation except for emergency services, military and bare minimum industry needs. Very little available for consumers, most likely.

Worst case scenario... (power grid gone, can't restart. Phones gone due to power losses.)... NO oil, no gas. Get a horse. Til the power grid comes back up there just won't be any fuel. Time frame: 1 to 10 years??? [If the power grid is down and stays down for a year and then several years of rolling brownouts and blackouts].

Will it be no big deal? Or will it be a return to the lifestyle of 100 years ago? While, no one knows for certain, the odds would tend to favor a scenario that is more than just a bump in the road. More than likely, the Oil Industry going down will severely impact the power grid...and may well take down the power grid, despite power plants stocking up on coal. Why? because, a lot of power plants run on fuel oil. Not to mention diesel trains not having fuel, nor trucks that carry consumer foods and goods. Yikes! Now do you see why things could all hinge upon oil rather than electricity???

Final thoughts on this post:

Now in my investigations over the past year, I've also researched the electricity situation conducting interviews with not only the Corporate elites but more so with the boys in the field, running down those embedded systems. But that's another sad story for another time. Same also for the phone companies.

Meanwhile, based solely upon the oil industry vulnerabilities, the oil problems could well bring down the system irregardless of the utilities. Keep this in mind as you ponder the Y2K problem. It does certainly seem to me that Y2K will trigger an oil shortage that will rival and likely exceed the 1974 oil embargo crisis. Remember it triggered a terrible recession. Think about what all this might do under current circumstances of 1999.

RC



-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 15, 1999

Answers

One point that I forgot to address is the little problem of inventory stockpiling. Some skeptics might suggest that the industry could solve the problem of stockpiling. My sources tell me within the industry that stockpiling inventories would cost companies big money. Oil companies have followed the Wal Mart lead and have gone to JIT deliveries (Just in Time=JIT). Why? in part because they pay far less in inventory taxes. But more importantly are the new, stricter EPA laws that have outlawed much of the industries previous storage capacity. This means that the oil industry doesn't have facilities to backstock extra inventory. Most refineries are lucky to have a 2 or 3 day inventory of product on hand at any given time. Plus capacity is nearly matched by demand and usage. There is very little extra capacity to store up extra product. Hope this helps clarify someone's thoughts before it can be brought up and posted.

R.C.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 15, 1999.


oil in russia data or if the link doesn`t work http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/russia.html

-- bud (bud @computersedge.com), June 15, 1999.

Sorry the link didn`t work..anyway "..4 large fields in Western Siberia account for over one half of output." I wouldn`t like to assume that russia`s oil production is toast,looking forward to our more optimistic forum members analyzing R.C.`s post with special attention to russia.

-- bud (bud @computersedge.com), June 15, 1999.

Bud,

Try this. I think you a stray ".com" got stuck at the end of your url.

---Alexi


oil in russia data or if the link doesn`t work http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/russia.html



-- Alexi (Alexi@not-in-the-dark.com), June 15, 1999.

RC, I think you are a "TEOTWAKI" and you just dont know it. If we hit even your "middle road case or bad case" study, we will have lost the life we now know.

The thing I keep in mind is..... there are too many people who cant just "go back to living like we did a 100 yrs ago", too many people. The people who lived a 100 yrs ago were physical hard working people, now we sit at a desk and have to "exercise" to get any physical fitness at all; They we self-sacrifising, We are self-centered; They were not LAZY, we are very lazy (y2k proves it, we should not have procrastinated fixing it); They raised athority respecting children, we raise children....... well I wont go there (just look at our public schools and you'll get the picture)

Anyway my point is......We can't go back to living as we did 100 yrs ago because we are not the same people, we have a different moral code, we have different skills, and different tools.

Think about this... if we as Americans only lose one family member to the desaster that may happen, I think we would be doing good. I can think of quite a few in my family that has very poor health, my father is 83 (hopefully we can get him to come here but its like taking a farmer away from his farm, literally), my father-in-law is diabetic, my brother has canser.......many people will sit down and not want to go on, not want to struggle to rebuild America.

Hope I am wrong.

Praying for the best, preparing for the worst.

-- bulldog (sniffin@around.com), June 15, 1999.



RC - A chilling account, thank you. I'm wondering how old your information is. My impression has been that there was a great deal of concern last fall based on embedded systems not being sufficiently analyzed at that time, and that the industry as a whole now feels (tell us) that embedded systems are not really a concern. So where in this time spectrum of Y2K analysis does your information come from?

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 15, 1999.

Interesting story, RC. Like C4I, you threw in just a FEW facts to sound credible. Unfortunately, the conclusions drawn (as well as the information from your sources) were TOTALLY off. I could spend all day correcting what you've said, but I'd prefer to listen to Yardeni's T-200 conference. Perhaps someone else with 20 years of experience in the oil industry would like to respond, and I'll fill in any blanks missed another time.

Anita

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), June 15, 1999.


I think one of the most important points of R.C.`s post is the long recovery time of congealed oil in pipes,Brooks even if the embedded systems aren`t esp. vulnerable how many failures would it take to permit a pipeline to freeze up? Anybody have any historical data on major pipeline freezes?

-- bud (bud@computersedge.com), June 15, 1999.

RC: Yes, a chilling account. If your conclusions are valid, they fortell a frightful scenario.

Many manufacturing facilities, recognizing the need to maintain production under the most dire of potential circumstances, have provisions for their own electrical power. With respect to a reineries need to maintain minimum temperatures in their pipelines for the movement of oil, would they not have a self-sufficient source for "emergency electrical power? My last location with IBM was at the Boulder, Colorado plant. IBM has a 100,000 gallon diesel storage capacity at the facility, with emergency power capabilities to assure continued operations of significant duration.

In the case of a refinery, would they not have emergency generating capacity? It would seem they have access to as much available fuel as they might need.....

Comments?

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), June 15, 1999.


The major oil company I work for has made the decision to fix on failure at its West Coast refineries. They've tested and replaced what they could determine was defective, but there are some embedded systems that would essentially require dismantling the plant to get to.

Since dismantling and rebuilding a plant would require years, there simply is not enough time to do so, and it would obviously be economically devastating to the bottom line. Since we have no proof that we would find problem systems, it's a no-brainer. Cross our fingers and hope for the best. Most systems are designed to shut down on failure, so we're hopeful that any glitches just cause a temporary stoppage until the problem is identified.

The problem R.C. identified is real, and I'll look forward to Anita's efforts to debunk it.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), June 15, 1999.



Thank you, R.C. racambab, for taking the time to research, interview, and type your thoughts for our pit-in-stomach edification.

One of the reasons we haven't bugged out (besides not having the $$ to move to the country) is we have a storage apt by a Hospital. They may be pretty desperate for nursing assistance and if so at least we'll be assured a place to eat and shower in exchange for back-breaking labor. We have a sterling employment record with their home health component from years ago ...

Walk to work, best bet, unless civil unrest burns/slaughters us first. Or the gas lines explode and cause uncontrollable fires and whole-mega-area burndown a la Kobe.
But the Hospital is at a staging area where we have assurances the National Guard will be positioned. A tiny glimmer of hope. The Hospital will be a shell for MASH-like primitive triage.

Amazing how many things are run/made/depend on oil in some form or another.
This scenario does portend many many ppl dying. The carrying capacity is going to stagger to its knees and millions will slide off the crutch.

The End Of The World As We Know It.

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 15, 1999.


RC,

Anita = TROLL.

Now you get the picture.

Suggest not responding to it or it will grow worse. They feed on contention. When one of them finds bating to work it draws all the others into the frey.

Thank you for your post. Please tell us what you know about the other areas as well (as time and patience permit).

-- -. (dit@dot.dash), June 15, 1999.


Anita,

You say that you could spend "all day" correcting what R.C. said. I insist that you PLEASE DO THAT in the interest of all y2kers.

Anita, do not let the occassion pass by. This is a golden opportunity for you (and whoever else) wishes to join you, to DISprove what R.C. has stated. Maybe Flint, Poole, Decker and Mr. Brooks can help you out, as they are used to dig into things with research-oriented attitudes also.

From my part let me add some facts that that R.C. forgot, or did not know :

(1) Vendor dependency Without plenty of good tubing, casing, sucker rods, pumps, flowmeters, Samson post load transducers, acidizing - cementing - fracturing trucks and equipment (literally infected with time- dependent chips), highly sophisticated, intelligent pigging operations, PUMP-OFF controllers for Crissake!!, electrosubmergible ESP pumps, corrosion detectors, etc., etc., etc., the oil and gas industry is TOAST.

(2) Reservoir management software, fully date-dependent, fully non- compliant as of this date, without which the oil and gas industry is TOAST. (Because no, vendors do not always come through!)

(3) Lab equipment and analytical chemistry and testing equipment is fully date-dependent and heavily non-compliant, without which the oil and gas industry is TOAST (please see : www.willitwork.com and vendor 2000.com)

(4) Oil wells are also gas wells, O.Kay? In many, many parts of the world, including US territory, electrical power is generated by burning gas, natural gas. Now then, without electrical power, gas wells cannot produce gas many times, and without gas, fossil-fueled power plants cannot produce power. It is the mother of all vicious circles. We are talking about roughly 50% of the world's power plants, spread out everywhere, including Brazil, Russia, Argentina, you name it.

So Anita, Flint, Decker, Mr.Brooks, Poole et al please address this side of the y2k problem so that we can all benefit from this debate. Thank you so much.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 15, 1999.


RC: regarding your optimistic assessment . . .

I too hope that "some" oil will be pumping, at least domestically. Maybe we can use newer pumps to reach our famous strategic reserve! With current pumping capacity, we get - what, 20 percent of daily usage? :) However, my best-case hope doesn't start with an increase of 50 cents per gallon. Remember California this spring. A couple of refineries went off line and boom - gas prices rose 60 cents per gallon within a month (at least in N.Calif.). Now, we are a closed system here and cannot easily import gas from other states because of environmental laws. OK, so replace "environmental laws" with "Y2K" and everybody else is in our position, too. Add more than just a couple of refinery closures and watch gas prices skyrocket. Try $4 - $5 per gallon to start - isn't that close to what Europeans pay now? Anybody bought an SUV lately? It'll be up on blocks at those prices. I'm thinking that IF we can afford it and IF any gas is available, it will be rationed. We had ration cards before in this country and we will probably have them again. I "hope" enough gas can be set aside for public transit, and I am looking up bus schedules. Otherwise, I have no transportation apart from shank's mare to get me to work, which is 10 miles from my home.

This is my own cock-eyed optimistic assessment. I don't believe in a "10" level TEOTWAWKI, either.

-- Margaret (janssm@aol.com), June 15, 1999.


Thanks for the sobering assessment R.C.,

Mountain bike and repair kit... yep. Maybe Ashton and Leska can supply the Prozac?

With the oil refineries down here in NorCal we found the "quick" way to ration was skyrocketing gas prices. Oil companies loved it and it has been a slow process to drop back to "normal" price levels even with a steady supply again. Expect higher prices, if the supply is reduced... at the very least.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.



R.C. Thank you very much for your detailed report on some of the problems in the oil industry, which confirms other reports I have read. Anyone who reads it and isn't worried about the economy collapsing in a "Second Great Depression" (if not something much worse) is beyond hope. I do have one question, though: how can you *not* consider this information grounds for a TEOTWAWKI scenario? Surely even an economic disaster like the great depression would qualify as TEOTWAWKI, at least for those who think the good times will never end.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), June 15, 1999.

oooooooooooooo, no Prozac! We recommend a natural portable unlimited something else to stay jolly ... ;^)

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 15, 1999.

Our family has decided on the following plans.

Our home (20 miles from town) will house all none working members who will work the garden, take care of animals, make bread and can foods. Home in town will be used for all working members. Members in town will go to country home on weekends. Food for in town members will be packed and sent with them when they return on Monday mornings.

Perhaps others could consider forming this type of arrangement if not family members maybe friends.

We have a total of 18 people. Twelve adults, five teenagers, one toddler. Teenagers will be do home schooling. All vehicles (13) will have full tanks plus each home in town will have eight five gallon cans full. Our home has a rather large supply already. Hopefully this arrangement will work out.

-- Grandma (no@email.com), June 15, 1999.


This response is for Dave Walden:

Yes, Dave. Refineries are an interruptible service for the utility providers and have their own on-site source of energy in the event the grid fails (for ANY reason.)

Here's a link that will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about refineries and what they do. If you strictly want information on electrical dependencies, do a find on ELECTRIC POWER. I'm going back to Yardeni now.

Anita

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), June 15, 1999.


He's "been tracking the Y2K situation since late 1997", yet "just discovered this board on a link from a Gary North forum". How humiliating !

-- ct vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), June 15, 1999.

Anita,

Your response to Dave Walden is INCORRECT. Refineries DO NOT have their "own on-site source of energy in the event that the power grid fails".

What refineries DO have sometimes, not ALWAYS, just sometimes, is their own source of power generation, which needs FUEL to burn. And NO, refineries DO NOT have their own source of fuel, thus they do not have their own source of energy. They just have some storage capacity which usually does not exceed three days of normal fuel consumption, after which they need to bring in fuel by truck (if and when trucks have fuel). At any rate, even if fuel could be brought in by truck, CHAOS would be the right word to define that scenario, with productivity (sounds like an oxymoron in that case) close to zero, naught, double 00, whatever.

Is it that hard to understand the systemic interdependencies that consumer society has developed in order to mantain the current standards of living and ways of life? Can't you see it isn't the chicken and it isn't the egg simply because it's the chicken AND the egg?

Oh, and don't forget that almost 60% of crude oil is imported into the US, from places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, which has to be loaded, transported and safely unloaded and distributed to refineries before it gets there.

Anita, Poole, Flint. Decker et al, please answer my previous thread on things that R.C. forgot to mention. Thank you for your help in clarifying the y2k debate. Please keep up the hard work.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 15, 1999.


Could some of you in the know please address the question of Alaskan oil after y2k. I just don't see us recieving tankers from the mid-east or even Venezuela after 1/1/00. And what about Mexican oil?

Please check this thread from today and respond there

"Wildfire Threatens Alaska Oil Pipeline Pump Station"

Thanks

-- MidwestMike_ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 15, 1999.


George rambles on....'Your response to Dave Walden is INCORRECT. Refineries DO NOT have their "own on-site source of energy in the event that the power grid fails".'

George is dead wrong. I am in the business and know what I am talking about. I can look out of one of the side windows of the building i am sitting in right now and see the bloody power plant that produces the energy for the refinery that I can see out of the very same window.

As far as fuel supply, there are plenty of options.

And this talk about things freezing up at 40 degrees F is plain stupid. The reason we put oil in our cars is because it also does not freeze at the same temperature as water. I can start the engine on my car at MINUS 20 to 30 F and the oil has still not frozen. Yes, it slows down a bit as it gets colder but not to the extent that some doombrooders would have you all believe.

Also, in many companies, they have tested the embedded chips and contacted the suppliers. They do have replacement parts on hand. The norm in the oil / refining industry is that there will be continuing maintenance required and new engineering solutions are often implemented. Things break down all the time but they are managed.........

Where do some of you get the inane idea that a breakdown in one or even many components will shut down operations?? Obviously this line of thinking comes from people that are intent on stirring up fear and have little or no experience in the oil industry.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), June 15, 1999.


RC - either you are trying to see how many you can suck into your brand of TEOTW, or you are badly misinformed. I don't much care which. I am going to point up just a couple of your major errors, and then drop it.

------------------------------------------------------------- I was told that most systems are inaccessible except under extraordinary circumstances, especially off-shore oil wells with depths of several thousand feet under sea level.

The same that was said about the well heads and embedded systems is true for the pipelines.

The larger refineries are also loaded with embedded systems creating similar problems just like the larger oil wells. Many of these are again inside sealed lines and would require major renovations to test and replace components.

Engineers that I spoke with indicated that preliminary testing of systems that they could actually access was running between 10 and 25% dependant upon a variety of factors.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Look here, this guy is just Bruce Beach revisited. This stuff has been hashed over a thousand times here, and found lacking in substance every time. Third party info and rumor just does not cut the mustard any more.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.


Well, drat, I forgot that this board takes anything between <> as HTML code.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.

yeah, and fixing stuff like this is iffy..... let's hope..

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 15, 1999.

Lets try this again.

RC - either you are trying to see how many you can suck into your brand of TEOTW, or you are badly misinformed. I don't much care which. I am going to point up just a couple of your major errors, and then drop it.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I was told that most systems are inaccessible except under extraordinary circumstances, especially off-shore oil wells with depths of several thousand feet under sea level.

[ABSOLUTE BALONEY - IN OTHER WORDS, HOW DO YOU REPAIR OR REPLACE A BAD COMPONENT RIGHT NOW! You do not drill a new well because a 50 cent component on a circuit board fails. PERIOD]

The same that was said about the well heads and embedded systems is true for the pipelines.

[Again, pure BS. COMPONENTS FAIL. PROVISION IS MADE TO REPLACE THEM. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THEY ARE. EVEN THE SPACE TELESCOPE HAD A PROVISION TO REPLACE FAULTY PARTS.]

The larger refineries are also loaded with embedded systems creating similar problems just like the larger oil wells. Many of these are again inside sealed lines and would require major renovations to test and replace components.

[Like the others, this is not true. You do not build a new refinery just because a circuit board quits. And who is putting circuit boards in pipes? Sensors, yes, but circuit boards? I know of no one who would do such a thing - there is no reason for it.]

Engineers that I spoke with indicated that preliminary testing of systems that they could actually access was running between 10 and 25% dependant upon a variety of factors.

[I can't make sense out of this sentence. Does he mean they are only testing 10 to 25% of the systems they CAN reach, or does he mean that 10 to 25% are failing? And just saying failure is meaningless in this sort of scenario anyway - logging a bad date is failure, shutting down everything in sight is also a failure, so it becomes important to distinguish between modes. Anyhow, the rate being reported throughout industry is running much, much lower than 10% failure rates.] -------------------------------------------------------------

Look here, this guy is just Bruce Beach revisited. This stuff has been hashed over a thousand times here, and found lacking in substance every time. Third party info and rumor just does not cut the mustard any more.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.


Europeans do pay $4-$5 per gallon, but they have adapted to it. Their vehicles are smaller, and they generally have more extensive transit and rail passenger services. The American auto industry is very dependent on the profits from light trucks, including SUVs and mini-vans. If sales of those drop, the industry is going to be badly hurt.

Keep in mind that domestic oil production has been declining since the 1970s; we are going to become more dependent on foreign oil even if we get through Y2K. World production as a whole will probably peak and start declining in ten to fifteen years. At that point every nation that imports oil will be scrambling to bid up the price just to maintain their supply.

-- Paul DiMaria (p_dimaria@hotmail.com), June 15, 1999.


Gee I hope you are wrong R.C. Production ag is heavily dependent upon petroleum products. Petroleum makes up the biggest part of ag inputs. It is used to run heavy equipment, to power pumps for irrigation, to run machines that control climate for livestock. Petroleum by-products are used in pesticides, etc. You get the picture...

Ethanol production would take a while to get up and running, but would seem the only alternative we have. Plow horses and oxen have become rare breeds and take years to train.

No fuel = no crop or severely reduced yield and no way to get any crop to urban markets. Get the picture?

Also, you can bet with the squewed priorities we have that electricity to ag will be the first area cut. People tend to forget that our top-heavy modern civilization is greatly "value added." Everything still rests on a slim foundation of the production of raw resources and even that level is interdependent.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), June 15, 1999.


Craig,

Are you blind, deaf, or just plain dumb?

The power plant that you say you can see right out of your window needs fuel. I guess that even you realize that Craig. Then you go on to say that as far as fuel is concerned "there are plenty of options". There are NOT, which was precisely my point two posts above. Without power, crude oil stops churning into the refinery because compressor stations along the feed duct also stop, and as from that instant the refinery depends exclusively on its STORED fuel to keep running and to stop pipes, tubing, from freezing, IF, IF it still is able to run smoothly. I've been in a couple of places where it couldn't, by the way.

So Craig could you please expand upon precisely which are the "plenty options" available for fueling power plants? If you don't, which you can't because there aren't any, it means that refineries are TOAST in the event of sustained power outage (more than three cumulative days, average, many times less, such as is the case in Brazil, Russia, etc.).

I imagine that you could argue back by saying that you don't care about anyplace else except your own little plant (although you don't even know what it really takes to keep it running) just as if you lived alone inside a coconut or a jar of mayonaisse. And by the way, bombing these other countries wouldn't help any either.

As a side note, it's easy to get the Craigs of this world to post stupid ideas. But where are the other guys?? What type of agenda is keeping you busy right now? Come on, there ain't anything more important than y2k. There is no other subject matter that matters more right now.

P.S.: Thank you Ms.Brooks for your e-mail. And, by the way, don't underestimate yourself. As you can see, you probably know much better than the "experts" around this post.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 15, 1999.


Craig -- you doofus. They're talking about UNREFINED CRUDE oil. As the poster said, it GELs (not freezes) at (say) 40 degrees. Your REFINED motor oil stays fluid at lower temperatures because it is REFINED. Get it?

-- A (A@AisA.com), June 15, 1999.

George.....give your fingers a rest bozo........

Virtually any experts you can find agree that power outages will only be localized and of a short duration. Even if an area lost power for more than 3 days, most places are equipped with alternate sources of power. If not, they go out of production until the power comes back on.......they're not permanently toast!

As far as fuel goes, don't tell me what we have or don't have here Bonehead......I'm staring at a five million ton pile of coke out my window. Not to mention the normal fuel reserves.

Get off your 'life is a chain....if one link breaks we're all gonna die' soapbox and onto the far more accurate 'life is a network.....we can sustain multiple breaks and still function well' realistic picture.

Certainly there will be problems.....however, there have always been problems. Y2k is a problem to be managed.....and in most cases is being managed. In those places where it is not, there will be serious problems and some companies will go out of business.......just like real life already gives us.

It's been hashed over a million times.....the embedded chip problem is manageable....electricity will likely flow uninterrupted in most cases.

What are you planning on doing this new years. Running around naked on Main Street shouting 'We're all gonna die, we're all gonna die and then kiss your naked butt goodbye'.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), June 15, 1999.


A.....

I'm familiar with UNREFINED crude oil......that's what we have here before it's refined.

And it does not cause problems at 40F.......As a matter of fact, things run the best when the temperature is below freezing. Until it gets way below freezing, it is not a problem. Furthermore, how many refineries whose production will affect the USA are located in areas where those low temperatures are a problem?

Yeah....don't you just hate those Minus 30 temperatures they have in Saudi........and of course we have all heard about those famous Venezuelan Eskimos.......

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), June 15, 1999.


Another word for GELs is congeals (see my post above).

A poster above mentioned that most of the population is not in a situation where they can adopt a 100-years-ago lifestyle. That simply means that if technology crashes so that we are time-warped back 100 years, that most of the population will not survive. (And for all of you that don't like my posts and attitude, you'll be happy to know that I'm afraid that could quite possibly include me.)

-- A (A@AisA.com), June 15, 1999.


Paul, that was a timely observation re: "The American auto industry is very dependent on the profits from light trucks, including SUVs and mini-vans. If sales of those drop, the industry is going to be badly hurt."

I just saw in today's WSJ Section C a little blurb about how GM announced it is pulling back again on small cars and emphasizing trucks more than before. Seems nobody cares about mileage any more. Are we repeating 1972? We want more and bigger and sloppier. Efficiency is too small and doesn't sell.

(I'm shopping for a bicycle. If things don't go TEOTWAWKI at least I will get some exercise.)

-- Margaret (janssm@aol.com), June 15, 1999.


Craig -- seems to me that at least some crude comes from or is REFINED in places where it gets to 40 degrees. IN WINTER. Not every refinery is in, e.g., Richmond, California or Torrance/Long Beach, California

-- A (A@AisA.com), June 15, 1999.

The petroleum delivery system is probably in serious difficulty, but not for the embedded chip problem as described by RC. In this respect, Paul is right. If there is no real time clock, then there is no y2k problem, and if there is a real time clock, then there IS going to be a way to set the date and the time, and it is not going to require well shutdown to change clock settings.

I have worked with and supervised some stupid engineers, but none so stupid as to put a device that might requires adjustment at the botom of the sea.

But what is really scary is the original Beach piece about pipeline systems. In this piece, Beach described a pipeline several thousand miles so long having pumping stations every fifty miles of so, with the electricity for each pumping station supplied by a different generating plant. It obviously works well for the very highly reliable electrical supply system that we now have. But how will anything be pumped over this system in the presence of rolling brownouts and blackouts?

But it all may be moot. Without banks, nothing works.

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), June 15, 1999.


Evidence, evidence, that's what everybody wants, and yet I don't think anyone really has any other than what you yourself or immediate co-workers see, and for that you need to be in the information processing technology. Whatever I read on the Net I just assume its rumor, nothing more nothing less. I'm in the IS industry, but I can only judge by what I've seen and worked on. If I was to enter the information here then its only rumor to all of you. The people not involved in the techi industries (not a put down) can only go on rumor so cut the guy some slack. At the end we'll all make our own decisions.

Justthinkin

-- justthinkin com (y2k@justthinkin.com), June 15, 1999.


Craig -- everything works better colder? -- you are an idiot. Much crude is so heavy (viscous) they got to steam heat it (so it will flow) to get it out of the ground.

-- A (A@AisA.com), June 15, 1999.

And ya your right 'A' at minus 30 or 40 degrees in Canada crude don't flow baby. If that were the case your roads would flow like rivers in hot weather.

Justthinkin

-- justthinkin com (y2k@justhinkin.com), June 15, 1999.


Did not Chevron admit months ago that they will not be 100% by the turnover? The possibilities for problems are staggering.

-- rb (phxbanks@webtv.net), June 15, 1999.

Margaret,

Yes, it may be like 1972 again. The auto companies love SUVs because they make more money per vehicle; they can't increase the number of vehicles they sell because the market is pretty saturated. If oil production gets back to normal sometime in 2000, they will go back to that strategy because they have to.

In ten years or so, however, a lot of the oil left in the world will be coming from the areas around the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. There are a whole tier of unfriendly countries in between: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, plus the big wild card, Russia. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis are going to be selling what they have to the highest bidder, assuming someone (maybe the U.S.?) hasn't seized them first. There are challenges beyond Y2K.

-- Paul DiMaria (p_dimaria@hotmail.com), June 15, 1999.


I have different information on the ease of starting engines at minus 40 deg F. (= minus 40 deg. C.)

I've read many accounts of the construction of the Alaska Highway (my uncle was involved in its design, BTW) and of the DEW Line (now extinct, I believe.) Many mention the fact that in extreme subzero weather diesel trucks had to leave their engines running 24 hours a day to keep the lubricating oil from getting so viscous that auxiliary power would be needed to start them.

In Timmins, Ontario, every parking meter is accompanied by an electric outlet. Resident's install block heaters on their cars. This is not an affectation. In deep winter any car without a block heater can't be sure of starting after a few hours parked in the open.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), June 15, 1999.


Here's a link to an April Wired article on Texaco and Y2K:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.04/texaco_pr.html

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 15, 1999.


A.......

I didn't say everything works better colder. I merely stated a fact that overall things do run better here when it is colder...TO A POINT. I am refuting the 40 degrees F as being a problem temperature and saying that the real problem temperatures don't start until you get down to maybe 10 to 20 degrees F, and there are very few refineries located in place where the temperature drops that low. Even in places where it gets to minus 40 and colder (like here) we find a way to get things to function.

Industry has been designed that most problems can be managed. Certainly there will be problems, but you serve no purpose with your 'we're all gonna die' attitude.........

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), June 15, 1999.


Yeah Tom.......that's right....

At MINUS 40 those things are indeed true.......not a PLUS 40 as the doombrooders would have us believe.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), June 15, 1999.


Allow me to remind you of another problem if natural gas stops flowing and that is how do you blead the lines of air. Can you imagine the amount of air that would get into the lines and how many little old ladies will have trouble to relight their pilot light on their furnaces. And hoping that they have pilot lights to relight, if not then we just might witness some houses on a moon launch.

Justthinkin

-- justthink com (y2k@justthinkin.com), June 15, 1999.


Great article Linkmeister.

Yes, reporters always get the story wrong, but engineers are always way too optimistic about finishing their projects on time.

My favorite part of the article is the end where the interdependency with the electrical system is considered by the engineer. It's almost like he's thinking it through as the reporter raises the question: Yeah, I guess we will go off the grid and fire up our generator before rollover.

Just being safe.

Water, water, food...

Water, water, food...

Water, water, food...

-- nothere nothere (nothere@nothere.com), June 15, 1999.


R.C.:

I'm a TEOTWAWKI, 11 on a scale of 1-10, Infomagic Doppelganger. However, I'm curious as to why, altho I know why you must maintain your sources' anonymity, you include yourself in the anonymous net? You must realize how we, some of whom have pored over y2k posts for over 2 years now, NEED to be able to evaluate the reporter, if not the source. The fact that you haven't revealed who you are, specifically, on your INITIAL post, already puts your material's acceptance in jeopardy. The least we need to see at this point is a verifiable ID of who you are. I, for one, personally, would weigh your post in as much more significant in my 'facts melting pot.'

Please get me off the fence -- show me you are real.

Tnx,

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), June 15, 1999.


Bulldog,

You stated: "RC, I think you are a "TEOTWAKI" and you just dont know it."

My Response: Oh, I typoed that incorrectly in my initial post...should've been TEOTWAWKI. Sorry, I was in a hurry.

Now, the TEOTWAWKI notion is dependent upon how you define it. I define it as the end of the human species. In other words, back to the caves with bear skin togas, ala Fred Flinstone. No, I don't see that as happening. Yes, the Y2K worst case scenario that I mentioned in the initial post might well set us back 100 years, but for only a relatively short amount of time, maybe a decade, but then again maybe it would spur rapid development of alternative discoveries that were heretofore surpressed by big $$$ trying to keep patents a secret. Who knows, were just speculating here, which is probably immaterial.

I suspect that we'll more than likely see a middle case scenario but the wild card is how the citizenry and government will handle it. Will it be a time for martial law? Perhaps. If so, that's another wild card that really muddies the water in trying to figure out how long things will remain bad. I definitely don't see a pollyana scenario if those chips are SHUTTING DOWN SYSTEMS in the oil fields during testing as my eyewitness sources have described. Up to 25% fail rate but that's only on very limited basis. As most companies don't want to mess with it. More on all of this in further specific responses to other posters.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 15, 1999.


Yak Yak Yak

Hey spoonman, knowing that you are in Albertachuk the gas and power had better not fail eh? -40 and you would not be worrying about the oil thickining unless you have a wood stove.

One time in Yellowknife the oil line into the trailer froze it was so dam cold. Doesn't take to long for it to get real chilly.

Anyway here is some real information on the oil industry.

The Oil Industry and the Year 2000 Problem
http://www.iea.org/ieay2k/y2khome.htm#Table of Contents

The International Energy Agency is the energy forum for 24 Member countries. IEA Member governments are committed to taking joint measures to meet oil supply emergencies. They have also agreed to share energy information, to co-ordinate their energy policies and to co-operate in the development of rational energy programmes. These provisions are embodied in the Agreement on an International Energy Program, which established the Agency in 1974. Decision of the Council of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to establish an International Energy Agency.

Executive Summary

This paper reports on the current state of Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness in the oil industry. Detailing numerous examples encountered during testing, it demonstrates that the industry is not immune to the Y2K phenomenon.

This paper should help policy makers appreciate the scope and depth of the Y2K problem as they consider whether additional measures are warranted at the government or international level. In particular, policy makers are invited to consider whether there is a risk that business specific events might collectively take on systematic importance and whether collective contingency plans should be put in place to mitigate such risk. The IEA, as an energy security agent of its 24 member countries is prepared to address any such risk.

Preliminary Findings http://www.iea.org/ieay2k/html/prefind.htm

Support Infrastructure Could Cause Problems

Like any other part of the economy, the oil industry is heavily dependent on the electricity, telecommunications and water utilities. Given that these are highly complex, it is not unreasonable to expect that the oil industry will suffer some difficulties as a result of Y2K problems occurring in these sectors. Many oil refineries have their own electricity generating plants and it may therefore be possible to escape some of the worst consequences of electricity utility failures. However, some impact on the oil industry of utility related failures does appear inevitable.

Offshore Oil Production Most at Risk

Offshore oil platforms and rigs contain complex equipment and finding all systems that may be susceptible to Y2K problems is likely to be prove difficult. Furthermore, since many of these systems are difficult to reach, not least because some of them are submerged, they inevitably present oil companies with awkward testing difficulties. The pipelines from these offshore platforms to onshore processing and collection facilities also add to the difficulties caused by offshore oil production. Onshore oil production facilities and pipelines are somewhat easier to check for Y2K compliance than their offshore counterparts.

Annex A: Examples of Y2K Problems in the Oil Industry http://www.iea.org/ieay2k/html/ annexa.htm

Annex A: Examples of Y2K Problems in the Oil Industry

The scale of the Y2K problem is highlighted by Shell Expro's finding that it alone has at least 50,000 microchips in devices operating in the North Sea.

Tests by Shell in Scotland, uncovered a problem in an oil rig pump. In a simulation, one hour after pumping started at 23:00 (high tide) on 31.12.1999 the system rolled over to 01.01.100. As a result of this anomalous date the pump discharged continuously, instead of for the programmed two hour period, causing the oil rig to float as the tide receded.

Shell Services identified a problem with a fiscal metering system monitoring a gas pipeline which will fail in the millennium if left uncorrected. Fiscal metering of oil and gas production is widely used by host countries in support of taxation accounting. The impact of such a failure is unknown. It remains to be seen whether production would automatically be terminated, or could simply continue without being recorded.

Ascent Logic Corporation, a risk management technology firm in San Jose California, has inspected Y2K projects at several oil companies with embedded chips on the sea floor that control wellheads. "Most of those chips will shut down on January 1st 2000" says Ascent President and CEO Larry McArthur. "The question now is, is there enough diving capacity and time remaining to get a significant portion of these replaced?"

The oil industry is also affected by the Y2K readiness of its customers. Shell Expro notes that it is not enough for it to be Y2K compliant; if its main gas customer (British Gas for example) is not also compliant, a bottleneck might arise in the physical supply chain.

Despite the detailed examples of Y2K problems encountered in the oil industry, the Oil and Gas Journal (February 15th 1999) has drawn attention to the fact that embedded computer chips are proving to be less of a Year 2000 threat to the oil and gas industry than was previously thought. A director of a major oil company is quoted as saying "companies have not found nearly as many of these systems to be non-compliant as was anticipated when we started." However, looking for a few non-compliant systems represents basically the same managerial challenge as looking for a large number, with similar resource implications.

Shipping and Ports

The UK International Group of Protection & Indemnity Club (UK P& amp;I Club), a non-profit protection and indemnity mutual insurance organisation, conducted a survey of its members and found their awareness of Y2K problems to be generally low. It also found that there was little co-operation within the shipping industry in dealing with the issue. A director at P&I has stated that "There is a great deal of interdependence on Year 2000 issues throughout the shipping and transportation industry." He continues "It is not enough for systems to work within a ship. They have to be integrated with other vessels, port installations and far-flung supply chains."

Shell has devoted considerable resources to ensuring that its tanker fleet is compliant. Their findings indicate that their largest and most automated ships contain dozens of embedded processors. Worryingly, the original suppliers of the processors informed Shell that less than 10 per cent were likely to be non-Y2K compliant. However, detailed tests conducted by an outside contractor found that over 20 per cent of the shipboard systems were non-compliant and in addition approximately a further 10 per cent were suspect as regards date-related failure or malfunction. Thus the 10 % level of non-compliance quoted by the original suppliers was very optimistic by comparison to the 20 to 30 % failure rate found by the detailed independent survey. This example clearly illustrates the implications of relying upon manufacturers' guarantees alone.

By mid-1998 Shell had located around 3,000 embedded chips on its 50 vessels, equating to some 60 chips per ship on average. Tests on one of their Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC) built in 1996 resulted in the discovery of failures in seven areas, including radar system mapping, ballast monitoring and ship's performance monitoring. According to Shell, "Not one of these failures would stop the ship, but they might if they all happened together." Similar tests on a Shell gas carrier built in the early 1970's resulted in systems failures governing equipment for unloading the cargo and navigation. Shell estimated that it would be spending up to $20,000 per ship to ensure that its tankers were Y2K compliant by its self-imposed December 31st 1998 deadline.

Separate estimates prepared by marine insurers appear to support Shell's findings on the number of faulty embedded chips. The insurers' estimates suggest that there may be more than 50 embedded chips in an average modern ship and that between 20% and 30% may not be millennium compliant. A survey of marine manufacturers conducted by the US Coastguard found 20% of the embedded chips tested were non-Y2K compliant. Whilst a recent report by London's Entropy Management Limited suggests that in big tankers and carriers, there may be more than 100 embedded chips per vessel. Uses for these chips reportedly range from controlling the operation of engine rooms to navigation, communications and cargo management systems. Entropy estimates that up to 20% of these chips could fail because of millennium problems.

Evidence prepared by The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners ("Intertanko") responsible for approximately 70 per cent of all the petroleum and petroleum products imported by the US highlights several additional problems to those identified by Shell's contractor (see above). Intertanko reports problems in alarm systems and strength and stability monitors. Noting that "Within our industry, there have already been reports of documented Y2K failures of ship main control, radar mapping, ballast monitoring, cargo loading, engine room vibration and ship performance monitoring systems." The radar mapping problem results from the fact that charts are dated and the radar system is unlikely to opt for an incorrectly dated map.

Currently the world's third largest charterer of tankers, BP, commands considerable influence in the industry. It is adopting a tough attitude with regard to the Y2K readiness of its charters. As from the 1st January 1999 it is refusing to employ vessels managed by companies that have not met BP's requirements on the Y2K issue. In May 1998 BP wrote to the 650 companies that it had chartered tankers from during the preceding two years requesting information about their state of Y2K readiness. It was made clear to the companies that failure to respond to the questionnaire would result in termination of charter dealings with BP. Although the questionnaire was very simple, comprising only 12 questions, half of which required the response yes or no, only 25% were initially returned. This 25% did however represent 50% - 60% of BP's charter requirements. Subsequent warning letters raised the response rate to around 50%, or 75% of BP's usage. The interesting point to note from this example is that half of all the companies that BP had used in the previous two years were unable or unwilling to satisfy them that their tankers were Y2K compliant. As a consequence these companies have lost tanker chartering business equivalent to a quarter of BP's annual requirements. The Y2K effect therefore has had a direct impact on the finances of many tanker chartering companies by early 1999.

The US Senate's survey of major transportation agencies and companies in September 1998 obtained a similar response rate to BP's. Of the 32 maritime shippers, major airlines, airports, railroads, trucking companies and city transit agencies surveyed, only 16 responded, despite over 100 telephone calls offering assistance. BP is clearly therefore not alone in being unable to receive guarantees of Y2K compliance from the transport industry.

AEA technologies, formerly part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, has more than 100 consultants working on Y2K projects around the world. Clients include owners of tankers and passenger liners. AEA Technologies has observed real failures ? with verified evidence ? of embedded processor systems in ships, including:

Radar mapping

Ballast monitoring

Cargo loading

Ship performance monitoring

Engine room vibration monitor

Service aid for ship control systems

Ship main control systems.

In addition to the Y2K problem, the tanker fleet may also face date- related difficulties associated with the Global Positioning System (GPS). This network of satellites allows planes, trains and ships to identify their precise location. Systems manufactured before 1994 will reach the end of their built-in calendars at midnight, Greenwich Mean Time, on August 22nd 1999. At this point they will rollover and the calendar will restart, operating for approximately 20 years (1024 weeks to be exact). Some people expect logistical errors on this date.

A GPS receiver determines its position by triangulating the difference in the time it takes for signals from two GPS satellites to reach it, a matter of milliseconds. The only time the week would enter into the calculation is as the system rolls over from Week 1023 to Week 0. A GPS receiver that is not prepared for the date rollover would think that the one or both of the satellites had taken 18 years to send a signal that should have taken less than a second. The US Federal Aviation Administration, a major user of GPS data, has upgraded its systems to handle the system rollover, as have airlines.

Refining

A recent report by Dow Jones Newswires (also carried by the Associated Press in Singapore) indicates that China's refineries may be at risk from the Y2K problem. A senior official of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), speaking on condition of anonymity, stated in a telephone interview that the Y2K problem "will lead to unimaginable results for CNPC." CNPC operates 46% of China's total crude oil refining capacity and was one of 18 state-owned enterprises recently told by China's State Council to address the Y2K problem with immediate effect. The anonymous CNPC official believes that the operation of 48 of the CNPC's 50 kinds of computer-based refining facilities and equipment will be affected in some way. He added that "once affected, the refining units will be out of control". China Petroleum News reported that the Y2K problem will affect about 30% of CNPC's 24,188 computer-based geological sensors and other equipment used in crude oil production and refining.

The scale of the problem facing refineries is illustrated by the following quote from Shell's website: "Major facilities like refineries and chemical plants are operated using highly sophisticated control technology. There may be thousands of embedded computer chips in the plant run with several layers of networks. In an extreme case, if safety-critical criteria at a plant cannot be met, then the plant can be shut down. But what happens, for example, to the continuous gas supply from North Sea fields into Britain ? a stream heavily controlled by IT (information technology) systems? Will it just be switched off if the safety-critical issues are not resolved?" This quotation emphasises both the scale of the problem at a refinery level and the interdependence of offshore production in the North Sea.

Power Generation

In Sweden a number of problems have already been found in nuclear power stations. At the three-reactor Forsmark station maintenance personnel found that the plant's data system was unable to recognise the first two digits of the year 2000 and that this would have resulted in an automatic shutdown. Vattenfall, the owner of the Forsmark station, has been working on the Y2K problem since 1996.

In the US a Midwestern electricity utility ran a test for Y2K compliance. When the clock turned over to the year 2000, a safety system mistakenly detected dangerous operating conditions and the power generators shut down. It took programmers three days to fix the problem. When they re-ran the test a different sector failed, again shutting down the system.

A technical advisor to Pacific Northwest has noted that as of November 23rd 1998 some 65 nuclear reactors in the former Soviet Union were not Y2K ready. Lack of time and money mean that Russia is facing particular difficulties in preparing for the problems associated with the new millennium.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 15, 1999.


Brooks -

You asked: "RC - A chilling account, thank you. I'm wondering how old your information is."

It's a mix timewise, but primarily dating from last December at the earliest (though I had earlier as well) to less than 30 days old.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 15, 1999.


Dave,

You ask a good question: "In the case of a refinery, would they not have emergency generating capacity? It would seem they have access to as much available fuel as they might need..... "

My response: I asked the same question of my sources, as when growing up I lived in the shadow of one of the larger refineries in the US. They did and still do have a "powerhouse"... but with regards to electricity, it only supplies electricity for lighting and the computers. It doesn't supply the massive amounts of juice in the actual line operations involving temperature maintenance inside the lines.

Regarding fossil fuel. Of course they have access to it, but regarding the specific process (of keeping the crude oil inside the lines from gelling at ambient temperatures that are above freezing but below +40 degrees) the systems are constructed to be kept warm using electricity. Remember you can't use the open flame of natural gas or crude oil refined products or else...you run the risk of a "kaboom" ... i.e. "toast city".

My sources state that most refineries do not have the back-up electrical power capabilities for keeping the lines warm. Also, I have one source who is one of the management team members tasked with Y2K preparations and planning. This person was chosen to oversee and do the primary engineering research on contingency planning. Gee, does that phrase sound familiar? This person tells me that in his conferences with local power company reps, even if they had power generation for those lines the problem would be (and still is even with their "powerhouse" that provides light and joice for the computers) a problem with uhmmm I've forgotten the word he used...but I understand the problem is something like the risk of a power surge or "spike" of some sort that could blow out the "powerhouse" also. They are taking steps to protect against it but are told that there is no guarantees against damage being inflicted if the local power co goes down. Sorry for those who want more on this, but the detailed information discussed on this was some time back and I didn't take specific notes in that conversation.

Don't know that I really answered the question to your satisfaction but the end result is that refineries that are "at-risk" of cold weather suffer extra potential problems and unlike a regular company, refineries have limited options.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 15, 1999.


TROLL ALERT :

Craig, Poole, Flint, Decker, Davis, Anita, etc.:

If you guys are not trolls, you sure look, sound and smell like them.

You haven't answered any of the many relevant questions posted on this thread, you have beaten around the bush, you have tried to divert the subject to dead-end streets, you have tried to confuse less knowledgeable people on this forum, you have tried to do harm (on purpose or not on purpose, come 2000 it'll be the same you know) by trying to convince people that are trying to prepare themselves from not doing so.

If you are honest, you should be ashamed of yourselves, acknowledge your mistakes, and start thinking on the guys that don't yet GET IT.

If you are dishonest, get the hell out of here and go to debunk your own asses somewhere else.

Flint, I still envy your rhetoric and your English. Flint, you have a bright analytical brain. The only problem is that you reach the wrong conclusions, just like a super-duper computer with a y2k problem.

FLINT: It is not the chicken. It is not the egg. It is the chicken AND AND AND (did I say "and"?) the egg.

Get it? Guess not.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 16, 1999.


To all,

Re: Refinery Electrical Supply Sourcing.

Refineries as a rule, do have small electrical generation capacity to power lighting and control room computers. I cannot state categorically that no refinery has the capability to generate all their electrical needs, I have yet to meet or know of any refineries in the colder climates that have their own on-site source of electrical generation capacity that is capable of providing the necessary heat to keep pipelines warm enough for the crude oil to not gel at temperatures below a +40 degrees (ambient). I have one particular key source who is the leader on a managment team designated to solve this and other Y2K related problems in one particular refinery. This person is a close relative and indeed "knows" what he's talking about. Indeed, my father retired from a major oil company working also for a large refinery. He had the experiences of being called out in the middle of the night for an emergency when power went down and the refinery was frantically trying to correct the problems. Usually when this occurs and the crude "gels" and clogs the pipes... it results in a 90 day "turnaround" that commences once power is restored. In this case of Y2k... a 30 day black out would mean another 90 days after electricity is restored before the turnaround can be completed. Now, that is an average. It's possible that it could be sooner, or later... dependant upon how smooth the "turnaround" process is.

As I stated in an earlier rebuttal posting to someone... a chief of concern of this one Y2K planner at the particular refinery is also the "powerhouse" which does provide electricity for lighting the plant at night. They are worried about it's interaction with the local power company if the power company goes down...fearful that it might damage the "powerhouse" also and shut it down. After his meeting with the local power co officials, he was advised that they could not guarantee his oil company that there would be no damage in such a power black out.

Also, these power officials advised him and his company that it is highly probable that there will be at least a 3 day power black out... nationwide in the grid! That is the assessment BUT...nobody knows for sure. They also indicated there was a good likelihood that the grid will stay down for 3 to maybe 4 weeks, as things stood in mid April. He was advised that this estimate might change dramatically either way in future quarterly estimates. My source asked the power co. reps what they based that upon and they replied that is was based on a government assessment, but did not elaborate further. My source assumed (perhaps incorrectly that it was either FEMA or GAO or DoD. I had heard this mentioned by a couple of state officials in a far western state in my conversations with them back in early February. These sources stated that they heard this in a presentation by Y2K Czar John Koskinen's representative for that region as part of an all-day seminar on Y2K preparations for state/local gov't agencies. Additionally, I also heard this at about the same time from a businessman who told him that 2 of his regular customers who are Marines told him essentially the same thing regarding power grid going down' These officers told him they had just been advised that their units would begin Y2K training for civilian control under various possible contingencies including Y2k. Is this true? I have known the businessman, who is not up to speed, (or was not at the time) on Y2k. Their message to him shocked him. He thought everything was hunky dory now, from what those officers told him, he thinks somehting is fishy with the gov't stories on Y2k. So what is going on?

I am not sure what is transpiring. I have no axe to grind. I'm not sure what's going on with regard to all specific details on all subjects... but certainly my contacts and also the data that I've seen tells me that Y2k is not going to be a BITR.



-- R.C, (racambab@mailcity.ocm), June 16, 1999.


I'm retiring for the night folks. Sorry I couldn't get to everone who asked me to. I will try to respond to all on Wednesday if anyone wants to know or cares.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 16, 1999.

R.C. If you have not seen the link below you should read it. It will confirm alot of what you say in regards to power failure and major plants. I have heard that plants are going to shut down rather than take the risk of power failure.

****Industrial Chemical Safety Report****

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 16, 1999.


To Brian,

You bring up a good point regarding pre-empting problems by shutting down. The one source I have at a major oil company who is coordinating the Y2K contingency efforts for one particular refinery says his team is evaluating all options including pre-emptive shutdowns or partial shutdowns. A pre-emptive shutdown will cost the company a lot of money IF there turns out to be no power failures. IF there is a power failure and it there is oil in the lines and the temps are below 40 degrees Farenheit then the problem will be more expensive. The middle ground of a partial shutdown, might seem on the surface to be the most advantageous. This source tells me that a partial shutdown is "fraught with dangers" and may be too risky from a safety standpoint. So they are not sure yet what they will do. Other sources tell me that other refining operations elsewhere in areas vulnerable to temps at or below the +40 degrees mark are also evaluating similar operations but as one source put it: "each refinery is unique unto itself and what is viable for one may not be (so viable) for another (facility)." This source is coming from a Texas-based facility where it is possible that temperatures could get cold enough to cause problems if a Siberian express weather system plunges far south.

More on the electric supply factor for refineries. One major company has beena attempting to buy extra portable generators mounted on trucks to assist in emergency back ups, however, they have not been able to find anyone with inventory to match their specs. Apparently FEMA has been in touch with them and stated that in a worst case scenario the government/FEMA would have a supply available of those specific types of generators needed to assist refiners in a high priority basis if needed. My source (as the attempted buyer along w/ the purchasing agent) believed that from conversations with one generator manufacturer that the government had bought up all remaining production capacity for that manufacturer in order to be able to control and ration the product on the order of greatest need for the benefit of government. Can't prove it, the manuf'r rep stated that he couldn't comment on the question of whether the gov't had purchased their remaining supply.

Bottom line: Everyone is looking for alternative solutions to minimize impact but right now, there does not seem to be a magic bullet solution for the cold weather refineries regarding pipeline warmth.

-- (racambab@mailcity.com), June 16, 1999.


ANYONE SITTING ON THE FENCE ? Then keep reading.

R.C., your thread has presented issues of utmost y2k importance. Your many postings have addressed key, often overlooked, sides of y2k.

Congratulations for your effort and help in presenting all y2kers first hand information on oil, gas and power generation problems come year 2000. Your information and data matches what my first-hand sources and experience indicate. I have also tried to enrich the debate with related input which, as pertinent as it is, still remains un-answered by the supposed "experts" on this forum (please read my comments on oil-field consequences, imports-dependency, etc.)

You have been accused of disguising as Paul Beach, a well-documented engineer who a couple of months ago presented information on this forum which agrees with yours. And with mine by the way. Actually, come to think of it, R.C., Paul Beach and myself could be the very same person, according to pollies. Sure, it's a world-wide conspiracy (I don't live in the US) to get Americans to buy power generators, solar panels, and to store fuel. Yeah, that way we would benefit some way or other, according to pollies. Sure, it's a new marketing technique by which the International Chamber of Gen Set Manufacturers increase sluggish sales in America. And we are their salesreps. Get it?

So people that are still sitting on the fence trying to make up their minds on whether to prepare or not and how much, please be aware that what R.C. is explaining to all of us also agrees with several other reliable sources. The flip side is that we may all be international agents of a world-wide conspiracy to increase power generator sales, as if we did not have anything better to do than to invest our time and effort in such course of action.

Best regards

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 16, 1999.


Sorry, made a mistake. It is not "Paul Beach", it's "BRUCE Beach"

The real Paul is "Paul Davis" the supposed y2k "expert" that says that R.C. and Bruce Beach are the same person. Well, they're not. They just share the same information from different sources, just like me, which makes our analyses even more valid.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 16, 1999.


I submit that anyone who has remained anonymous in not only the postings here (RC), but more importantly, the many unmaned sources for the information (oil execs, elec reps, pipeline engineers, "insiders", etc) are COWARDS, if not criminal, if they refuse to put their own careers on the line when what we are talking about here are problems, which if they pan out, will put the very lives of numerous citizens (their own neighbors and families, no less)at risk. We are talking the deaths of thousands, if not in the millions, if some of these systems stop functioning. My God, where are the people who love their neighbors enough, AND believe in their sources and facts enough, to shout out loud just what the hell they know about the risks, instead of worrying about their own careers!!!!! If RC and the sources are not willing to come forward with documents and names and dates of meetings, etc. etc. then we do not have to trust them (as one man wrote earlier) and we can say they are at least cowards. What does the Talmud say: He who saves the life of one is like he saved the whole world? So, if these scared sources really think they KNOW things that will expose the risks to safety and life of millions of others, they MUST be willing to speak out, or loose all respect. Call it preaching, call it whatever. I call it cowardice and extreme indifference to human life, if in the light of the extreme seriousness of the issues, they refuse to go public with all their information and knowledge.....

Come out of this ridiculous y2k closet! Remember, this is the TIME BOMB forum. You would sit in a theater and just walk away if you knew the bomb was ticking and certain (or even likely) to go off?????

-- walter Skold (wskold@lazrus.org), June 16, 1999.


Walter, what you are seeing is the result of two decades of vicious downsizing. Ppl are no longer seen as value, just cuttable expenses. Automate! Eliminate the ppl! The secretaries & computer programmers who are the vital glue that keep a company running have been repeatedly trashed, replaced, relegated to temps, robotized, computerized, voice-mailized, dumped on, overloaded, and are extinct in their former capacities, etc.

Fear of job loss, the expendable bin, personal difficulties, has bred a culture where "seen that, heard that, been there" underlying fear is paramount. Altruism is not rewarded.

The root CAUSES of Y2K have not been remediated. Therefore, it will happen.

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 16, 1999.


Yes, A&L, what you say about the way ppl have been treated is true. That still doesn't address the point: if people are really fearful of what y2k failures can mean for the planet, what on earth is one persons one little job in comparison to the Truth? Of course loosing that job may be havoc for that one family, but what on earth do they think compounded silence re: y2k is going to cause????

Maybe I am wrong, but A person who thinks they see a tidal wave coming should not worry about keeping their job in the snack bar on the beach! You shout O my God, get to higher ground. So, instead of putting their collective fingers in the dikes of y2k remediation and community alertness and planning, these people are going to be silent as the whole ocean threatens to flood them?

-- Walter Skold (wskold@lazrus.org), June 16, 1999.


R.C. -- thank you for your time posting this thread. Very interesting.

Walter -- This is why the Paul Milne's of the world are so rare. Yes, you are right, in principle. I also believe we have reached a stage where people need to be willing to get out there with whatever they *really know*. If it costs them their job, so be it. This thread is indeed suggesting that thousands or millions of people may lose their lives this winter due to the oil/energy situation alone. Even if that is only speculation, to the degree those with the knowledge believe it to be the simple *truth*, they have a moral obligation, IMO, to take risks.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 16, 1999.


Walter, we agree with you, have wondered the same thing, have watched various folks try to alert, met with zzzzzzzzzzz, get flamed, fired, ignored, exhausted, zzzzzzzzz. Death of Paul Revere by a thousand zzzzs. Been watching several ppl retreat with "What will be will be" quiet defeatism. Could tell some interesting stories but we too are fading away zzzzzzzzz talking to the brick wall gets boring zzzzzzz even if it is about the imminent TEOTWAWKI zzzzzzzz but God is listening and responding: much more rewarding than ppl! zzzzzzzz zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz We're gonna buzzz off the boring and stay with the Soaring

```````````````````````````````````

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 16, 1999.


A&L, another aspect is that if they 'came out' with their identities, the sources would then be at risk, and the flow of information, such as it is, would dry up.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), June 16, 1999.

RC is not protecting HIS job; he's citing others (including relatives) who've confided in him on the basis of confidentiality. Outing them would do us no good, and would shut off the flow of any further information from them, or through RC.

For now, this is about as good as we're going to get from the few "insiders" we are fortunate to hear from. We'll have to judge the quality of their information by the presentation itself, as it squares (or doesn't) with what we (and our posting colleagues) already know.

Also, RC stated "No, I am not a TEOTWAKI believer", although others wondered whether his definition of TEO... matched our own.

Thank you, RC, for one of the best recent threads, and let us encourage more RCs to come forward in their areas of knowledge.

-- lurker4now (not@thistime.hmm), June 16, 1999.


Hey folks, you've got to understand somethings about my posts.

1. My sources spoke and relayed information in total confidence. Why? They want to keep their jobs. They have been told to keep quiet. These folks who know a few facts don't have the big picture.

2. Most only know their own situation. They don't know about all the competitors. Most of the competitors won't spill their guts... YET these oil companies are cooperating. In one case Oil Co "A" did join forces with Oil Co. "B" and had one consulting team check the operations of 2 similar refineries that had basically the same layout and design. It made sense. But, this consulting team didn't learn all the secrets of Co "A" because Co "A" didn't trust them to keep certain proprietary secrets from Co "B" and vice versa, I'm sure. Therefore, most of my sources know the picture in their own little world. Now, there are a few that know more than others. Source #5 at Oil Company "A's" refinery doesn't know what's going in out in the oil fields of Company "C" and vice versa with the field hands at Co "C" knowing about what #5 knows at Co "A".

Now, surprisingly enough, most workers don't really see the big picture. They only know what's going on in the little world that is right in front of them that they can see and touch. Therefore, these folks in most cases know less than you who are now reading this. In the real world out there, the typical worker at a plant or in the field has now heard of Y2K but has not bothered to really investigate it. Therefore they are essentially "Clueless in Seattle."

#3. Folks that actually do know something, for the most part figure that in order for them to survive, they've got to keep quiet. In most cases they have some pieces of the puzzle and not enough to be taken seriously by anyone in the media even if they should try to be a Paul Revere of Y2K. What good would it do them to come forward and lose precious income as they continue to make needed preparations when they would only be crucified as a certified "nut" or "chicken-little"?

#4. Because of some far-ranging travels in the past 12 months that have taken all over the western two-thirds of the nation, I've had a chance to meet a wide ranging group of folks. Some just happened to be in the oil business. I also met with folks in the Electricity and Phone business. Those folks tell of their own little world nightmares with Y2K testing. Then there are the huge majority of others that I met who had no clue about Y2K. So please understand, I was meeting with a few thousand people during my travels as a speaker in the last year. Some came up afterwards to talk with me about various subjects. Many would come up and tell me they're career background. When I met someone in the oil,power or phone industry I'd just ask them what they knew about Y2K and their companies activities. I would get remarkable answers although most who actually knew anything would look around first before answering.

So as a result, I'm one of those rare folks who has had a chance to put together some of the pieces of the puzzle.

So, I'm a little like Bruce Beach. In fact, I he and I have corresponded. We met some of the same people. I know one embedded systems expert who did later talk with Bruce. Bruce met more of the in-the-know crowd than I did (regarding embedded systems)...but he didn't know about some of the items that I've shared here, until I shared those with him then. HOWEVER, FOR THE RECORD, LET ME STATE THAT I AM NOT BRUCE BEACH.

Now, regarding my identity. I have relatives still in the industry and were my identity to become known, my family would suffer as a result, and for what? What good would it do for me to come forward? I'd get crucified in the media for nothing, no matter how much documentation I presented. I could unload a whole trainload of documents and secret video tapes of clandestine conspiratorial meetings and I can tell you that material would never see the light of day in the press. Why? Because of money? It's all about money. Keep the status quo going as long as possible. "We've got quarterly earnings estimates to uphold, don't ya know?" Then there is the matter of advertising dollars getting pulled and lawsuits, etc. etc.

No, it would do no good for me to come forward and tell what I know. Bruce Beach did and look what happened to him? He's been villified by many. Is anyone listening? Some, yes. Enough to have any impact on the inevitable outcome, whatever it may be? No! This is another part of the equation as well... I don't know for sure what specifically will happen because there are just too many interconnections and too many variables. I'll give you one example: Weather. How am I gonna predict the weather for 1/1/2000 in Chicago, or in Cleveland or Dallas or New Orleans...all areas vulnerable to a Siberian Freight train that could cool those refinery oil lines down below +40. It's possible that weather may the most critical factor as to whether or not oil inventories remain steady or non-existent which in turn could affect the local power plants that run on diesel fuel, or the diesel trains which in turn could affect ... etc etc.

Bottom line is this... the best I can do is what I'm doing and nothing more. I'm not out trying to sell something or make a buck on Y2K. I'm telling you what I know first hand, which contains eyewitness testimony for the most part from folks on the scene, most of whom don't know the other people that I've talked with who've also shared information. Some folks, I sought out. Other folks came to me. Still others were happen-chance meetings. These were but a small sliver of a minority of folks I've met this past year in my business travels. All persons were told that as a former news reporter, I still honored the "code" of not naming off-the-record sources. Therefore, I heard what I wouldn't have heard otherwise, in most cases. Some told me things anyway... but those things while being important were not necessarily by themselves significant.

SO, I will remain unswayed by the demands that I go public. Frankly those of you who are critical of my doing so, would do exactly as I've done here now, if you were actually in my shoes and have seen what I've seen in the past and realize that this is one of those cases where falling on one's sword helps no one, period and only compounds problems for others, including family, so why bother?

I may continue to post what I learn, if it is significant but I can only do so if my identity remains unknown, otherwise the information sources will indeed dry up and we'll all being flying blind. But then again, why should I continue to post here to folks who wish to tar and feather for being anonymous? I'm not here for the recognition nor for the psychological thrills as some might suspect (trolling? I'm still not completely clear on the meaning of that term...but if I understand it correctly, I'm not here trolling).

Anyway, believe it or not... what I've stated is what I have heard and been told and or read from data documents first hand.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 16, 1999.


To Craig,

Let me specically address one item you repeatedly kept harping on in various posts and to which I just addressed generically because of the crushing volume of threads to respond to. Among other things you stated:

"And it does not cause problems at 40F.......As a matter of fact, things run the best when the temperature is below freezing. Until it gets way below freezing, it is not a problem. Furthermore, how many refineries whose production will affect the USA are located in areas where those low temperatures are a problem?"

Let me state quite specifically to you Craig. First of all, Do you work for an oil refinery? Do you? Of course not. So how do you know? I've got news for you. I've got relatives who do work for oil companies in refineries. These people tell the same story. One of these is my father with 40 years in the business. I remember as a kid there were rare instances where he'd get called out in the middle of the night to head to the refinery, (which we could see and hear from our house, btw) to help assist in trying to restart the system because the power had been tripped and went down and they had to get the system restarted fast because it was below 40 degrees and they didn't want crude to gel and cause a big turnaround. Turnarounds are no fun. 12 hour days, 7 days a week for 90 days, and sometimes longer. There was one summer as a kid I remember that a spring turnaround didn't turnaround...and my father worked for 6 months without a day off. He missed a lot of little league games that year. BTW, while in turnaround... no gasoline is being made...so there's no $$$ coming in to the company either. Nobody is happy for those kinds of turnarounds.

Now, my father doesn't have access to the internet so he's not going to come on and confirm anything, not that it would matter to you. You wouldn't accept it anyway. So why bother.

My point is that the crude gels and fouls up the system requiring a shut down once the ambient temperature is at 40 degrees or lower for an exteneded time. I'm not sure how much time it takes to create the mess it varies with the weather conditions, I'm told but it could be within minutes to an hour or so dependant on the situation. It's very rare in real life that power is out in the winter-time for that long. Such a large customer is usually the first to get restored in outages anyway. It is cost prohibitive for refineries to have their own complete power system for everything but I am now told that there are a few facilities that do share their own power plant because they are close together... this is on the Gulf Coast and do they do not rely on power co's alone...however, they're generating plants are still hooked to the grid and will sell excess power to the grid. Are they Y2K compliant themselves? I don't know. This was mentioned to me by one source but he was not aware of the particulars nor knew anyone there at those facilities...just that they had their own full capacity. This area is far to the south, though and would likely not be affected by cold weather anyway.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 16, 1999.


To Lurker,

Thanks you state the case very well and you are absolutely correct.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 16, 1999.


Thanks, RCracambab (we had another RC on here who we miss greatly). Don't worry about the detractors. Trolls have flamed us too for not naming our sources. Just shows you they haven't been in the position to learn NOT to name sources ...

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 16, 1999.

Some forgotten posts to respond to:

George: thanks for your defense of my posts. One comment you made though regarding me forgetting some things. Actually, I left out a lot of material and other points in part because I just had too much to post. Thanks for the assist.

Someone else asked the Alaska pipeline situation. I don't have a good answer for that for which I can provide testimony from people on the scene. I didn't make it up to Alaska and I have not talked with anyone from there. My information is based on written statements and articles by others. It would seem that from what I've read, (and this has been some time ago) that the lines are indeed kept warm by electricity and are very vulnerable to power outages despite what I'm sure must be obvious redundancies to prevent an ecology disaster. But I can't say that with any measure of certainty or confidence. Sorry, but that is the best that I can do.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 16, 1999.


Interesting thread. A few notes:

1. RC is mainly documenting the situation in the domestic oil industry, which is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world, where 60% of our crude originates.

2. Even if RC were to reveal sources, dates, etc., this would only edify those of us who already GI; the others have proven time and again that they will not accept bad news.

3. I see that Paul Davis has posted links to this thread on both of the polly sites encouraging dissenting views. Where are the they?

-- a (a@a.a), June 16, 1999.


A@a.a or anyone,

You stated about Paul Davis:.

"I see that Paul Davis has posted links to this thread on both of the polly sites encouraging dissenting views"

Anyone able to tell me the url's for those sites? I'd love to see what is being sad by these pollys. Thanks

-- Lou (lounkcrn@hotmail.com), June 17, 1999.


R.C. -- Accept your answer and your reasons. Thanks.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 17, 1999.

R.C.

Yes, thank you for inside information. I have posted such on the board from time to time also.

I look forward to further details as they are available.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), June 17, 1999.


R.C. Partially accept your answer....I was not trying to tar and feather you, and for the record, I too am an ex-reporter, so I know what you are saying about confidentiality. The point is, what about your sources? You admited that they want to keep their jobs, and said that we'd all do the same in your shoes. It may be true that most of the sources do not understand the big picture, so their "coming out" would be useless. But there MUST be people that you and Bruce know, who DO understand the risks, and DO understand that our nation and world are not taking sufficient risk mitigation action, who also realize that their voice could have a profound affect (I said COULD, not would) on the public debate AND the public response if they joined others in the know and came forward with facts and warnings. Well, at the end of the millennium, they, and you and I, will have to look in our mirror and judge for ourselves if we have done the best with what we know (or think we know :) )

Your answer was detailed. No need to rehash the issues. Wish you would appeal to some of your sources to in some way go public. If the scenarios turn out horrible, they will perhaps be unemployed next year anyway!

Agreed. It is a colossal drag talking about "bad" news and potential disasters when the birds are singing, the sky is warm, the market is up, and fear secretly rules the day in many peoples' hearts. Keep up the good reporting, even if you stay anonymous.

-- walter skold (wskold@lazrus.org), June 17, 1999.


FWIW, the original post is now also at eaglesup.com.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), June 17, 1999.

See also...

IEAs Y2K Oil Supply & Ripple Effects (United Nations Web-site)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000y8B



-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 17, 1999.


RC,

I appreciate your efforts more than you can know. This level of insider-based documentation is so difficult to find. I consider your post and responses to questions one of the most important things I've read in months of study.

One question: Davis? perhaps, made the comment that you don't have to drill a new well if a 50-cent part goes bad. This makes a lot of sense to me. Could you please explain why the plants aren't designed to be easier to fix, than to have to replace chips buried in concrete at 500 ft under water (or some such thing)? Are the chips so incredibly reliable that fixes are rarely needed--therefore, it doesn't have to be easy to fix?

Also RC, a "troll" is a person who frequents a list for the emotional jollies of flaming the faithful of that list. So, for example, a fundamentalist Christian troll might sign onto an atheist discussion group and repeatedly tell them they are going to Hell. An atheist troll might intrude in a religious discussion and say they are stupid and weak. A homophobe troll might join a gay/lesbian forum and make "queer" jokes, etc. You get the picture.

But you can disagree without flaming. That makes for intelligent discussion. Some of the people disagreeing with you, if their comments were made without nastiness, would not be considered "trolling". And you would definitely not be a troll on any discussion group, because true trolling requires nastiness or sarcasm, regardless of your views.

Thanks again for your excellent efforts.

Rick Stahlhut

-- Rick Stahlhut (stahlhut@net-link.net), June 18, 1999.


To Rick S.

These consultants tell me that every well and every application has a uniquely different set of circumstances and problems so that I just can't give a simple standard answer because, there really is none.

I never could get a simple straight answer from them either on this question.

Your questions about parts replacement problems really brings up a different set of sub-problems. Replacing an embedded chip system is unlike replacing a valve or other mechanical device. These are usually systems within systems within systems...some are sealed with epoxy for weatherizing protection... and this brings up a whole litany of other factors that would relate to answering the question.

In short, these engineers can't seem to condense down an answer that covers it all, because the answer for what happens on one well may be totally different on another one, and while I suspect there may be a more generally series of categories... like the sealing of circuit systems and chips within its black box which then winds up in part of another larger black-box system which has its own sections some of which, or none of which may be coated...and this then becomes part of a larger system that also is part of many black boxes within an even larger black box. Some systems are sealed for protection and therefore that creates a whole different set of variables, especially if schematics are lost, or the original designer is no longer identifiable, unknown or dead or fired and gone. Maybe you can get the picture just by citing this one branch of the answers. And there are many other branches. Talk about complex? You bet.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 18, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ