The Fallacies of Factfinder Mythology Part 3 In Factfinder's earlier thread:

Factfinder attempts to smear and distort the truth and reality of the Y2K status of the oil industry. He does so by attempting to propose the notion that we've promoted "Myths". Because of the length his posted thread it is impractical for me to present a manageable response on that thread. It is also difficult to address them all on one thread. SO we already focused on his "myth #1 & 2" in previous threads. These were not myths at all but rather FACTs...facts that Factfinder doesn't wish to face. Now this is not the final thread in response to Factfinder. There will be one other thread dealing with a specific round of charges made by Factfinder that will be refuted. [Warning: This is a LONG thread and for the first time, I'm posting all of the Baker products that I could find that are rated by Baker as non-compliant systems. Remember these are systems that Baker sells to the oil industry. I'm not sure how well this html conversion will take...some items may be lost during posting.] Factfinder's Myth #3 and his "challenge" follows. Myth #3: "There are thousands of embedded systems deep inside oil wells and in inaccessible locations on offshore oil platforms that are not Y2K compliant." Fact: Engineers don't place equipment that can fail in inaccessible locations unless the equipment is considered expendable, since eventually the equipment WILL fail and must be repaired or replaced. So here's the "Inaccessible Embedded System Challenge": 1. Provide the manufacturer, model number, and confirming product information for an inaccessible device with date functions used deep inside oil wells, OR in offshore oil platforms, as a part of normal operations (this excludes exploratory probes where the devices are considered "expendible"). To be "inaccessible", this device must not be retrievable, repairable, or replaceable. To have "date functions", his device must have date functions within the electronics of the device, date functions performed by interfacing equipment that can be accessed do not count. 2. Provide evidence that at least one thousand of these devices are in use by the oil industry inside of oil wells and/or in inaccessible locations on/under/inside offshore oil platforms. If you provide the manufacturer contact information (link, telephone number, etc.) and I can get confirmation of quantities from the manufacturer, that's fine. 3. The devices must be non-Y2K compliant - no, I take that back...lets not make this too hard....the devices can even be Y2K compliant. I'm not even going to require that the devices be important to operations. I don't care what color the unicorn is, I just want to see it:} The Reward: Your personal satisfaction in presenting the facts regarding "inaccessible embedded systems" and Y2K. Send the information to me at the address below. Following confirmation with the manufacturer, I will humbly admit my error and acknowledge the first individual to identify a device meeting the evidence requirements of 1 and 2 above. If I'm mistaken, it would be worth eating a little humble pie to learn the true facts about "inaccessible embedded systems with date functions from hell that will doom us all." But we all know deep down that I'm not mistaken on this one, don't we..... ------------------------------- End of Factfinder's Myth #3 point ---------- RESPONSE: We've been around and around on this one before, Factfinder. We discussed this on the thread over a month ago. Where were you? http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001apB Now before we get into the heart of the data... again, Factfinder, you've taken to twisting and distorting what has been said regarding these systems. The point we've made repeatedly is that many of these are inaccessable or not easily accessable while others refer to them as inaccessable because for all practical reasons because they are inaccessable from a budgetary standpoint. Others are accessable but sealed in such a manner that they are not remediable. Period! Here again, you've simply twisted the facts. Here is my very first statement on the issue: "are inaccessible except under extraordinary circumstances, especially off-shore oil wells with depths of several thousand feet under sea level." http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000xLU Notice my phrase "except under extraordinary circumstances..." Yeah, retrievable yet not practical nor cost-effective for purposes of retrieval and testing. That has been the whole point all along which is what we've said repeatedly. However, this kind of tactical usage by yourself is what I would expect of the Nazi's. It's this same style and attempt to "brainwash" people to one's views by twisting and distorting of someone else's statements. It is despicable behaviour and I find it reprehensible on your part but it certainly enlightens us to realize where you're coming from. In fact, some items that could require remediation would require a cessation of the well itself which (dependant upon circumstances) can force the well to be shut down permanently and a new hole drilled. SO...my statements did not state that embedded systems were inaccessable in the sense of a NASA space probe like Pioneer that is now moving beyond our solar system...or even of satellites or hardware on the moon. Technically, those too are accessable but under extreme conditions. So too with certain elements of an oil well, especially those at the bottom of the ocean floor, both on oil platforms and also on oil pipelines. Summary: Your attempt to define this 1. IEA website at http://www.iea.org/ieay2k/homepage.htm Where the IEA states that with oil platforms running as much as 10,000 chip systems and it costs about $500,000 per dive for any repair work. If you have a problem go argue with this folks, okay? #2. Baker Hughes Inc. Baker Hughes Inc. one of the premier outfitters of embedded systems to the oil industry. Their website says it all and its updated regularly as needed...with a lot of updates in October...and November last date that I noted on their website was November 8, 1999 in regards to one product that I'll save for a separate thread devoted solely to that particular product. Baker hughes is a conglomerate of subsidiary companies under the Baker Hughes banner and website. The URL you see below is for the last time we had this discussion. It is as relevant then as now. For all of the lurkers reading this....GO back to the Baker Hughes Inc. thread and take a look at just a sample of some of the data... or better yet, go explore the Baker Hughes website. The thread from about a month ago on this same stupid question that Factfinder refuses to acknowledge. (He didn't bother to really explore the site either. http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001apB Baker Hughes Inc http://www.bakerhughes.com/

Baker Hughes is a leading supplier of reservoir-centered products, services, and systems to the worldwide oil and gas industry, and a leading supplier of separation technologies to the worldwide process industries. Baker Hughes creates value for oil and gas producers by providing life-of-the-field geoscience information services and downhole technologies from the earliest stages of discovery through enhanced recovery from mature fields.  Reservoir Modeling  Seismic and petrophysical data, reservoir imaging, and 4-D time-lapse monitoring  Well Placement and Construction  Extended-reach and horizontal drilling, wireline logging and measurement-while-drilling, geosteering, and multilateral completions  Production Management  Well stimulation, electrical submersible pumping, specialty chemicals, and downhole oil/water separation Today Baker Hughes is a company serving the worldwide petroleum and continuous process industries. Through its eight oilfield service companies, Baker Hughes provides products and services for exploration, drilling, completion and production of oil and gas wells. Its process company provides equipment and services for a variety of process applications. The company has continually improved its technology and market position through nearly 30 acquisitions and divestitures. Baker Hughes' annual revenues are approximately $6.3 billion. Corporate headquarters are in Houston , Texas, and the Company employs about 30,000 people worldwide. Operating Entities Covered By This Disclosure: Baker Hughes Incorporated, a Delaware corporation ("BHI"), is comprised of the following operating divisions and subsidiaries that are addressed by this statement: Baker Oil Tools, Baker Petrolite Corporation (formerly Baker Performance Chemicals Incorporated), Hughes Christensen, Centrilift, Western Geophysical, Baker Atlas (formerly Western Atlas Logging Services), Baker Hughes INTEQ, E&P Solutions (formed by the combination of Baker Hughes Solutions and Western Atlas E&P Services), and Baker Process (formed by the combination of EIMCO, Bird Machine Company, and Baker Hughes Process Systems). As the new millennium approaches, the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem poses serious threats to companies all around the world - including BHI, its clients and its vendors. In response, BHI has initiated the Y2k Program to combat this problems' impending challenges. This website has been created to outline the Y2k Programs' approach to the problem and to provide status on the Program.

SEC 10Q - YEAR 2000 ISSUE Filed August 1999 Forward-Looking Statements Regarding the Year 2000 Issue The words "expect," "believe," "will," "estimate," "target" and similar expressions are intended to identify Forward-Looking Statements in "Year 2000Issue." Although the Company expects that it will complete various phases of its Year 2000 Program Plan (the "Program Plan") as described below, including (without limitation) the specific remedial and corrective aspects of the program or the contingency plans described below, there be no assurance that the Company will be successful in completing each and every aspect of the Program Plan and, if successful, within the expected schedules described below. Factors that could affect the Company's implementation of its Program Plan include unforeseen difficulties in remediating a specific problem due to the complexity of hardware and software, the inability of third parties to adequately address their own year 2000 issues, including vendors, contractors, financial institutions, U.S. and foreign governments and customers, the delay in completion of a phase of the Program Plan necessary to begin a later phase, the discovery of a greater number of hardware and software systems or technologies with material year 2000 issues than the Company presently anticipates, and the lack of alternatives that the Company previously believed existed. Known Material Y2K Non-compliant Hardware and Software: The following are certain hardware and software that are material to the Company's business that the Company knows is or was not in Y2K compliance. The failure to remediate any of this hardware or software or develop an appropriate contingency plan could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business. INTEQ / Baker Petrolites Polymers division: INTEQ and the Polymers division of Baker Petrolite are implementing SAP R/3for domestic operations during 1999. INTEQ has delayed remediation of its existing payroll system, and the Polymers division of Baker Petrolite has delayed implementation of its business applications systems that SAP R/3 will replace, pending the implementation of SAP R/3. Contingencies for these operational areas are being evaluated, and the Company expects to implement a contingency plan if the SAP implementation is not timely. Older versions of INTEQ's PC-based surface data acquisition systems are notY2K compliant. The software is in the process of being remediated. The noncompliant PC hardware cannot be economically remediated, and the purchase of new, higher grade personal computers is required to replace the noncompliant equipment. This remediation began in 1997 with the replacement of personal computers being phased in and is expected to be completed by late 1999. INTEQ has released for distribution Y2K compliant products for its well planning and surface logging products. INTEQ has also released a Y2K compliant version of its MSS Surface software that supports its measurement while drilling, surface logging system and RigLink products and services. Finally, INTEQ has released a Y2K compliant version of its survey product line (SSP). Baker Atlas: Baker Atlas' bonded inventory control module was not Y2K compliant. Baker Atlas rewrote this module that tracks assets that are used in international waters that may be exempt from import duties. Western Geophysical: The Company's Western Geophysical operating division relies heavily upon Global Positioning System ("GPS") equipment that the U.S. Navy operates. The noncompliance of this equipment is a known problem outside the control of the Company that affects other businesses, the government, the military services and individuals that rely upon GPS services, including most of the Company's competitors. Based upon information obtained from the U.S. government, this system was remediated during early 1999. The Company is not aware of any contingency system that its GPS receivers can utilize if the government's GPS remediation efforts were somehow unsuccessful. A failure to correct the Y2Kproblems of this equipment could have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations. Western Geophysical uses a seismic acquisition synchronizer as part of its marine seismic data acquisition services. This product was not Y2K compliant. The Company has completed an upgrade remediation plan for this equipment. [Editor Alert:--- NOTE THE FOLLOWING]------- Western Geophysical has discovered two seismic data acquisition systems used on its marine vessels that have components that are not Y2K compliant. One system is used on nine vessels, and the other system is used on eight vessels. A single third party manufacturer makes both systems. The manufacturer has created a Y2K compliant version of the first of these systems, which Western Geophysical expects to obtain and install in August 1999. The manufacturer has advised Western Geophysical that it will not bring the second of these two systems into Y2K compliance. Western Geophysical is negotiating with the manufacturer to license the source code to this second system for Western Geophysical to remediate this system itself by late 1999. Additionally, contingency plans for both of these systems are being developed. -----[End of Editor Alert]------------- Baker Process: Baker Process is implementing a new business application system to replace its existing systems, which are not Y2K compliant. This system includes financial, purchasing, inventory management, and manufacturing functionality. Baker Process' North American operations are now utilizing this new system. The Company expects Baker Process to complete the implementation of the new system outside of North America by late 1999. The Baker Process operating division provides mechanical equipment that, in some cases, has been customized at the request of the customer to include control panels and circuit boards. The Company obtained these control panels and circuit boards from third-party vendors at the request of various customers. The Company researches the Y2K compliance status of these boards when its customers request it to do so. The Y2K status of these boards is often dependent upon the purchase date and serial number of the product. The warranties from the Company or its subcontractors have, in many instances, lapsed with respect to these panels and circuit boards. Baker Petrolite: Baker Petrolite operates a system that controls treater truck scheduling and customer invoicing. This system was not Y2K compliant. Baker Petrolite has now completed remediation of this system. Baker Petrolite has been unable to obtain assurances from its payroll service provider that certain custom processing services will be Y2K compliant. The Company is performing testing services with this vendor to determine whether the vendor's services as applicable to the Company will be Y2K compliant. The Company expects that this testing and any resulting remediation will be completed by September 30, 1999. E&P Services: E&P Services' oil and gas accounting system is not Y2K compliant. E&P Services expects to obtain an upgrade to this system from its third party vendor to bring this system into compliance by September 30, 1999. E&P Services obtains oil and gas interpretation systems from third party vendors. E&P Services is testing these systems to determine whether they are Y2Kcompliant. Most Reasonable Worst Case Scenario: The Company's customers ordinarily contract for helicopter and fixed-wing air transport services to transport Company personnel and equipment to customer oil and gas operations sites. Often these services are provided by smaller aircraft operators. The Company believes that many of these operators have not yet adequately addressed their Y2K compliance needs. If a material number of these operators experience flight disruptions because of Y2K non-compliance, the Company's customers could have difficulties in obtaining transport services, which in turn, could delay the Company in providing its products and services to its customers. The Company is developing contingency plans for this problem and contacting these air transport service providers to enhance their awareness ofY2K issues and promote their Y2K compliance. Certain of the Company's divisions and corporate operations are in the process of upgrading their network and personal computer based hardware and software, including hardware and software of general application, to be Y2Kcompliant. Likewise, certain of the Company's divisions and corporate operations are in the process of upgrading hardware and software that operate facilities, particularly foreign facilities, to be Y2K compliant. While the Company does not believe that the failure of any one of these systems alone would materially and adversely affect the Company's operations, a failure to upgrade a substantial number of these systems would have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company expects that it will have upgraded a substantial number of these systems by the end of 1999. ----[Editor's comment-- Note that they don't use the word "ALL" and note when -- by the End of 1999. I wonder what the percent is that will be upgraded? How many won't make it and what is the significance?]---------- Based upon the status of the Company's Y2K compliance effort to date and those facts and circumstances known to the Company, the Company believes that the most reasonably likely worst case scenario as a result of Y2K noncompliance would be as follows:  the Company's INTEQ division (and to a lesser extent, its Baker Atlas division) is unable to complete deployment of Y2K compliant data acquisition systems by December 31, 1999;  Baker Process is unable to complete implementation of Y2K compliant business systems by the end of the fourth quarter of 1999;  the infrastructure in certain international locations such as countries in Latin America, the Middle and Far East and Africa, would experience failures in utility service because the utility service providers are not Y2K compliant; and --- [Ed Alert: Utilities problems overseas?? ]-----  critical vendors of the Company fail to perform because they are not Y2K compliant. The occurrence of any or all of these events could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position. Although the occurrence of these events is what the Company believes is the most reasonably likely worst case scenario, these events may or may not occur, and the Company cannot predict what will actually occur. Other events might occur that also could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position. Okay boys and girls... Let's show Factfinder some of the various products and systems that are from Baker Hughes subsidiaries that are non-compliant... I didn't include these before because of a desire to "cut corners" and keep the thread length more readable...but seeing how Factfinder just can't accept the facts it's time to roll them out. Division Name Product Line Product Compliance Status Last Date Modified Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System ECLIPS Logging Tool Acquisition Software Product and Services Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System CASE System and Supported Products and Services Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Computerized Logging System (CLS) Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System HOIST Cased-Hole Logging System and Supported Products and Services Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Dia-Log Software Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System LogTech Software Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Microline System and Supported Products and Services Compliance to be Determined; Evaluation in Progress April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Jupiter Software / Bison Software Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System RCOR Rotary Coring System and Supported Products and Services Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System TOMEX System and Supported Products and Services Non-Compliant; Remediation in Progress April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Seismic Logging System (SLS) Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Acutec System and Supported Products and Services Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software WDS Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software eXpress Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software Seislink Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software Petroleum Workbench Compliance to be Determined; Evaluation in Progress May 4, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software Recall Compliance to be Determined; Evaluation in Progress May 4, 1999 Last updated August 19, 1999. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Name Product Line Product Compliance Status Last Date Modified Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System ECLIPS Logging Tool Acquisition Software Product and Services Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System CASE System and Supported Products and Services Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Computerized Logging System (CLS) Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System HOIST Cased-Hole Logging System and Supported Products and Services Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Dia-Log Software Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System LogTech Software Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Microline System and Supported Products and Services Compliance to be Determined; Evaluation in Progress April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Jupiter Software / Bison Software Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System RCOR Rotary Coring System and Supported Products and Services Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System TOMEX System and Supported Products and Services Non-Compliant; Remediation in Progress April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Seismic Logging System (SLS) Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Acutec System and Supported Products and Services Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software WDS Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software eXpress Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software Seislink Century Date Compliant August 6, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software Petroleum Workbench Compliance to be Determined; Evaluation in Progress May 4, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software Recall Compliance to be Determined; Evaluation in Progress May 4, 1999 Last updated August 19, 1999. Baker Hughes International -- http://www.bakerhughes.com/y2k/mby2k.htm Y2K Readiness Disclosure These Product Disclosures provide documentation on the status of compliance assessments, remediation, and testing activities for each of the Baker Hughes product and service lines. These disclosures are intended to serve as the Certificate of Compliance for products designated as Century Date Compliant. (See attached Warranty section for a definition of this designation.)

Baker Atlas Baker Hughes INTEQ Baker Oil Tools Baker Petrolite Baker Process Centrilift E&P Solutions Hughes Christensen Baker Hughes Mining Tools Western Geophysical Baker Atlas http://www.bakerhughes.com/y2k/mby2k.htm Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Microline System and Supported Products and Services Compliance to be Determined; Evaluation in Progress April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System TOMEX System and Supported Products and Services Non-Compliant; Remediation in Progress April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software Petroleum Workbench Compliance to be Determined; Evaluation in Progress May 4, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software Recall Compliance to be Determined; Evaluation in Progress May 4, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Computerized Logging System (CLS) Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Dia-Log Software Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System LogTech Software Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Microline System and Supported Products and Services Compliance to be Determined; Evaluation in Progress April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Data Acquisition System Acutec System and Supported Products and Services Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Baker Atlas Geoscience Software WDS Obsolete; Compliance Not Evaluated April 26, 1999 Last Updated August 19, 1999 ________________________________________________________ Baker Hughes INTEQ http://www.bakerhughes.com/y2k/mby2k.htm Inteq Surface Logging Systems (SLS) DMS/XL base (Low-end system) Obsolete; Replacement Available June 2, 1999 Inteq Measurement While Drilling (MWD) TR400 Obsolete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Measurement While Drilling (MWD) TR700/ T series Obsolete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Measurement While Drilling (MWD) TR2300/ M series Obsolete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Measurement While Drilling (MWD) TR1000/P series Obsolete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Measurement While Drilling (MWD) Navitrak/N series Obsolete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Measurement While Drilling (MWD) DrillByte for MWD Obsolete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Measurement While Drilling (MWD) MSS1.X Obsolete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Measurement While Drilling (MWD) MSS2.X Obsolete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Measurement While Drilling (MWD) MSS3.X Obsolete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Measurement While Drilling (MWD) Riglink 1.1.1 or lower Obselete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Survey Systems RIGSTEMP Obsolete; Replacement Available September 22, 1999 Inteq Survey Systems BackCalculation Obsolete; Replacement Available September 22, 1999 Inteq Survey Systems EC Wellpath Obsolete; Replacement Available September 22, 1999 Inteq Survey Systems EMS v.3.5, v.4.0 Obsolete; Replacement Available September 22, 1999 Inteq Survey Systems Seeker v.2.06 Obsolete; Replacement Available September 22, 1999 Inteq Drilling Information Systems DEAP Obsolete; Replacement Available (DEAPTEQ) September 22, 1999 Inteq Drilling Information Systems DDS Obsolete; Replacement Available (DEAPTEQ) September 22, 1999 Inteq Drilling Information Systems DDS Lite Obsolete; Replacement Available (DEAPTEQ) September 22, 1999 Inteq Drilling Information Systems RES Obsolete; Replacement Available (DEAPTEQ) September 22, 1999 Inteq Drilling Information Systems

NOTE TO FORUM READERS... There is much more to this section but I'm cutting it off here so that it will hopefully post okay. See part 4 Drilling Engineering Application Suite - Part No. DOS 743500025PD320 Obsolete; Replacement Available (DEAPTEQ) September 22, 1999 Inteq Drilling Information Systems Drilling Engineering Application Suite - Part No. UNIX 743500025PU320 Obsolete; Replacement Available (DEAPTEQ) September 22, 1999 Inteq Embedded Technologies Embedded Technologies - Parts consist of 8 item(s) Obsolete; Compliance not Evaluated 8 Items September 22, 1999 Inteq Coring Systems Gamma Trak I Obselete; Replacement Available September 22, 1999 Inteq Drilling Systems Technologies - OrientXPress (Application Software) Maniac.exe [PN 77754] Compliance To Be Determined; Evaluation in Progress June 2, 1999 Inteq Drilling Systems Technologies - SDD (Straight Hole Drilling Device) Hardware DHE DEC sdd decoding software Ver. 1.2 1988-1996 (BHI) Obselete; Replacement Available July 29, 1999 Inteq Drilling Systems Technologies - SDD (Straight Hole Drilling Device) Hardware Inverter MICROMASTER (Siemens) Obselete; Compliance not Evaluated June 2, 1999 Inteq Drilling Systems Technologies - SDD (Straight Hole Drilling Device) Hardware COMPAQ SLT 386 s/20 Obselete; Compliance not Evaluated June 2, 1999 Last Updated by the company -- October 7, 1999 ___________________________________________________________

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

Answers

Sorry folks, for some reason this didn't transfer the format correctly from the Baker Hughes Inc website listings of non-compliant systems. This thread is only one of three necessary to get them all listed. That is quite a few pieces of non-compliant product. Now maybe you will understand why I've taken such umbrage at the likes of these self-righteous hypocrites like Factfinder and Hoffmeister, Cherri, and the associated Polly company of "Morons-R-Us." When you know you're right and you see people who are either mentally/emotionally unbalanced or are simply espousing evil elements in an evil manner, at some point you have to recognize it and wake some folks up that are sound asleep. There will be more to come

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

R.C.

I have so far had the time to only skim your materials, so this question could already have been answered. If so, my apologies.

Anyway, here goes:

Why would anyone place a chip that conceivably could fail at any time in a place that is so enormously difficult and expensive to access? From a business perspective this makes absolutely no sense.

R.C., what am I missing here?

By the way, thanks for all the work you've done in addressing this.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 18, 1999.

eve:

- Poor design

- Planned obsolesce

- No other way would work (satelites for instance)

-- a (a@a.a), November 18, 1999.

Eve,

"Fact: Engineers don't place equipment that can fail in inaccessible locations unless the equipment is considered expendable, since eventually the equipment WILL fail and must be repaired or replaced. " NOT a fact!!!

[snip]

"You be the engineer - ask yourself this - does it make sense to put a device whose operation is critical to day to day operations in a place where it can never be fixed or replace, or ever seen again, when most certainly it will eventually fail? Most engineers would answer no - unless the device were expendable, wouldn't cause a serious problem upon failure, and you had plenty of backups. "

YES!!! it makes sense if that is the core premise of your Business Plan.

Sorry, FactFinder, you make a great case for a straw-man argument.

Fact : Italian and German companies who manufacture saugage-making machines, who sell those machines in the US, who hire and fire and pay engineers, do in fact, direct those same engineers to build into those machines NON-EXPENDABLE components DESIGNED to prematurely fail, so that the owners of the machines, [especially if those owners are in the US or another country] have to either :

a) buy proprietary replacement components from the OEM in Europe, or

b) have components made by a local machine shop.

POINT ? your question about "would an engineer do such a nasty thing" is a canard. [of course he would if he wants to keep his job!]

ask the REAL question:

Do companies direct their engineers to design, build, install and do other things that might seem 'unthinkable' to an outsider, but which, in fact, are done specifically to screw their customers in various and ingenious ways so that the customer will, in fact, have GREATER down time than they might otherwise have had, if they owned and operated someone elses machines?

The answer is YES!!!

your attempt to use a ton of bandwidth to mislead and confuse is silly;

any observant person knows that many companies survive ONLY because of the ingenious ways that they screw [hook] their customers with prematurely obsolescent parts.

[it's the same with tobacco and drugs; once the 'hook' is in, they've gotcha...]

would the makers and installers of oilfield downhole equipment be any different?

I doubt it.

Analyze what you read, folks, all that glitters ain't gold.

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), November 15, 1999.

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), November 18, 1999.

Guys, please bear with me on this:

You bring up some good points and interesting perspectives. But...

Are you asking me to believe that, as we speak, oil companies are and have been dropping half a million a pop on deep sea dives whenever they have to repair or replace a single bad "difficult-to-access" chip? And that they know and accept this as a natural part of their budget and maintenance operations? I'm still somewhat incredulous.

Talk me through this one, guys.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 18, 1999.

eve

You can keep asking, but doubt if you'll get a straight answer.

Buried in R.C.'s post is FactFinder's statement:

Myth #3: "There are thousands of embedded systems deep inside oil wells and in inaccessible locations on offshore oil platforms that are not Y2K compliant."

All he asked is an example of one of these "inaccessible" embedded systems with date problems.

What he got was an attempt to bury the question. Assuming one of these Baker Hughes components did satisfy the question, it would have been a fairly simple task to state the example.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 18, 1999.

Eve, I believe your question was already answered in the affirmative. That's simply the way things work. RC made that clear.

-- (brett@miklos.org), November 18, 1999.

eve,

Nope, not asking you to believe that.

But it can make very good economic sense to put electronics in a hole or at the bottome of the ocean. Depends on the anticipated life of the electronics, the anticipated life of the well, and how much it costs to put in a new well if the old one goes out.

Now, this cleverly calulated economic sense doesn't make sense in a Y2K situation, so the half-a-megabuck dives are simply not taken. It's called fix on failure, eve.

-- engineer, but (not@petroleum.engr), November 18, 1999.

"Why would anyone place a chip that conceivably could fail at any time in a place that is so enormously difficult and expensive to access? From a business perspective this makes absolutely no sense."

Ever hear of geosynchronous satellites?

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 18, 1999.

Hoff,

Good point. I'll be waiting...

brett,

As I skimmed R.C.'s post, I saw no such answer. But I may have missed it, or misunderstood it. Can you cut and paste for me?

engineer,

Although I agree that it could, in theory, make economic sense in some situations, I have to believe that this would be the exception to the rule.

My reason for this is that an enormous amount of time and money must go into drilling a new well. And if "lots" of electronics (the chip and whatever might accompany it) were involved it would imply that, by that very fact, "lots" of things could go wrong. And to stuff all that down a hole under the sea that is for all practical purposes inaccessible, when there is any possibility at all to stretch the lines and set the electronics up in a relatively accessible position, appears to put the company in a high risk situation needlessly, and thus simply defies good business sense. Now I know next to nothing about electronics as well as the petroleum industry, so go easy on me, fellas, but I'm still having a hard time buying this.

Thanks,

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 18, 1999.

Eve,

Business makes those kinds of decisions all the time. Talk to the mechanic who works on your car about designing engines so that routine maintenance is extrememly difficult.

Years ago (about 30-40) my father, a QC engineer with a defense manufacturer, told me about designed obsolescence. I doubted that anyone would deliberately plan a product to fail, but now I know he was right.

Business can be very short-sighted under normal circumstances. When it comes to y2k, it seems a good many of them will be blind-sided. Some of the devices that will fail may have been the only choice available at the time. Or the cost of the other brand may have been excessive, or there may have been a super bargain a buyer couldn't refuse.

Anyway, we probably shouldn't be too hard on the engineers who didn't anticipate the date problem at a time when it was not being widely acknowledged.

Hoping the pollies are right.

Gene

-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), November 18, 1999.

Eve,

It doesn't matter what you think, or I think on where embeddeds should or should not be placed. More often than not, when a well goes down and loses pressure it simply has to be replaced anyway. So the placing embeddeds where they cannot be accessed was not anticipated to be a problem...until the Y2K factor came along.

Most of the sub dives are primarily used for pipeline repairs though and for general maintenance on a platform or platforms.

By the way, Eve, if you go to the Baker Hughes website and dig into their product catalogue listings of parts and systems you will find a much easier to read description of a large number of non-compliant embedded systems. I don't need to elaborate. The data speaks for itself. You just have to read it carefully to realize which items are compliant and which are not and which are compliant on the shelf but are caveated in regards to customized installation aspects.

Also, there are others here, such as I think "just another engineer" and some other oil engineers who've posted in the past confirming the answer affirmatively to the question you raised.

Again, whether you wish to reject my claim or not is immaterial. Believe it or not as you wish. It is still a fact. We've presented the evidence, documented with real hard lists of systems, including downhole systems... from the Baker Hughes site. I've got one more post that is going to deal with Factfinder on the Downhole system he tried to cite incorrectly as being invalid. I'll get to it within the next day or so, as my schedule permits.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), November 19, 1999.

R.C. -

Since you seem to be on the board tonight, could you answer the questions I posed on Factfinder's new html version (of his original thread)??

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

Translation from R.C.:

No, I don't know if any of these devices are "downhole" or inaccessible. I just dumped as much cut and paste as I could find to bury the question.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 19, 1999.

Gene,

I understand your point, but my question assumes that the user has some measure of control over where the product is placed. This is a different situation. Is my assumption invalid?

And your comment about business' short-sightedness doesn't seem to apply, because through trial and error over the years, at least, the expectation would be that a poor chip placement (e.g.) would have been remediated (given my assumption in my first paragraph).

Your other comments are appreciated, but these seem like exceptional circumstances. I'm trying to stay focused on what the norm would be.

Thanks,

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 19, 1999.

R.C.:

I think you're missing my point as well.

Now I haven't read the Baker Hughes site yet, but if does not address the amount of user control in the placement of its products, then it really has nothing to do with my question.

To get a clearer indication of my point, please read my response to Gene, above. But I'll try for further clarification.

I'm trying to establish a connection: If management has some measure of control over the placement of its product (e.g., the chip), it would be under pressure to behave in a certain, rational way to avoid disruption, losses, failures.

Given the above, it is reasonable to assume that in the usual case, (of course there are exceptions, as some of you have already pointed out) management will pick the optimal placement. And the optimal placement should in most cases be an accessible placement.

If this is true, it must be considered whenever the reader is presented with a "fact" about so-called inaccessibility. That "fact" may be obvious by itself, and yours may well be, but that is not my point. In the y2k issue, we are literally bombarded with many assertions dressed up to look like facts, from all over. Thus, any information from other quarters that might speak to the veracity of asserted "facts" should be welcomed with open arms.

R.C., you told me that "it doesn't matter what I think or what you think on where embeddeds should or should not be placed."

On the contrary, I 've tried to show you that it matters very much in our efforts to make some sense of this.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 19, 1999.

Hoff:

(Sigh) I'm beginning to see what you mean. I'll give them a couple more days with this before I throw in the towel.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 19, 1999.

Eve,

It you seem to be questioning the reality of the situation. Your questioning doesn't make it go away. It's real, its there and its a fact. Embedded systems are in a wide variety of places within a well because that is where they need to be to get the job done that Mgmt wants. Oil mgmt wanted automated wells so it would have to pay high union wages to a crew of workers designated to maintain a well. It's a matter of economics. No one was counting on nor even aware of a Y2K problem when management made the decisions to go automated many years ago.

IF you just can't believe that people would do what they've done then guess what ... don't beleive it. Go on your merry way and enjoy life. I'm not here to prove anything to you. There's now tons of archived info here and elsewhere on this issue.

In 6 weeks you'll begin to see the picture more clearly but you may never understand the WHY? None of us will necessarily understand the why as long as we're alive down here.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), November 19, 1999.

R.C.,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me, even though we may not have "connected" on this.

Please don't take my last post to Hoff as a knock at you. I posted it out of frustration before I saw your last post. You did hit on a good point when you hinted at management's desire for quick, expedient solutions. Maybe my basic question, though, will always be just one of those puzzling things we'll never get to the "bottom" of (actually no pun intended).

Talk to you later,

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 19, 1999.