Continuing coverage of the sham perpetuated by Factfinder Myth's of Oil.

[ I just hope this formats better than the last time I tried.]

Specifically Myth #3...

for more follow up... let's revisit the claim by Factfinder in his Myth #3...

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. Sometimes process sensors and wiring are placed in harsh environments, but these aren't electronic circuits with date sensitive "chips" - the electronics are usually remote for sensors in harsh environments. Even sensors would not be placed where they couldn't be accessed unless they were considered expendable. I have investigated the products of a number of companies producing equipment and sensors for oil wells and offshore oil platforms, and have yet to find an example of an embedded system with date functions that would be used in an inaccessible location. 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.

==============

My Response:

#1 --- see the thread just recently posted by Laura from a Y2K community briefing in Phoenix

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001nqL

I'll post a snippet: "For your edification:

The speaker was Paul Oaves He is the Vice President of Public Affairs and Special Projects for Tosco Marketing Company. Tosco is the company which operates through the Circle K, 76, and Exxon brands in Arizona. "

Now this fellow got pinned down on this very issue of "downhole embedded systems" He acknowledges the very fact that Factfinder attempts to refute. Here's a transcript of the audio tape that Laura made of that meeting.

--------

L. But, thats different than the embedded chip problem. You can look at natural disastersthose all come and go, and we can deal with those; but this is an embedded chip problem. You know theres a problem with those embedded chips, and I know there are someor, may I ask you, what percentage of the embedded chips are in a somewhat or at least difficult...

RB. Inaccessible

P. I would say that theres probably a lot of them that are downhole problems. (ia) but they know what those chips are.

L. What percentage?

P. Every last one of them. We know who made them and what model they are.

P. Then what we do..we take a sample of them and we make an umbrella, close down that oilwell and rework the well four or five (ia) pull the chip out (ia) if it doesnt fail, theres no reason to believe the rest of them of that model and that manufacturer (ia).

L. If it does fail, how long does it take to get back up.

P. (ia )Baker Hughes (ia) gets around to it(ia) I dont know ..(ia) 24 hrs.

----

Comments-- I went into more detail on Laura's thread but here you see that this fellow admits there is such a thing as downhole embeddeds and that there are problems. I have one remediator telling me that many chips are irreplaceable. The Baker Hughes Inc. website lists many items that are now related as obsolete and no longer available. One designer-remediator told me that the problem is that because most failed applications were a totally customized someone will have to redesign a new replacement system. In many if not most cases, the failed system has no schematic available either thru loss of paperwork or no schematic was kept. Also since installation, many times the production platform will have added newer features to the mix requiring a new solution. The old failed system usually can't simply be replaced with a new one off the shelf. Custom designs to match new configurations can take5 to 6 months for one man, one project. Therefore, it's not a simple 24-hour solution to be expected. Also even before the Taiwan quakes, backlogs in chip orders were stacked well into the year 2001 at this time. My contacts in especially West Texas were telling me that some key chips were ...now get this...back in Dec of 1998, some backorders were not expected to be filled until 1st or 2nd quarter of year 2000. It's now been pushed out nearly a year further now as of last check earlier this summer before the Taiwan quake. I don't know how that quake status has directly affected further remediation. But again, my sources say that remediation efforts were simply cut short by most of their key major clients...who'd simply given up and had gone to a FOF policy.

So Factfinder... here's one of your industry people confirming again what I've already stated. I will bet you could get Laura to send you an audio tape copy of that meeting if you asked her nicely...that is if you wish to simply verify what she states is what he indeed stated.

BUT... let's shift gears to my

#2 point.

The DOWNHOLE MONITORING SYSTEM you cited:... from Baker Hughes Inc. by the way the URL is not the same URL for Baker Hughes and Centrilift. You may have gone to some sort of other co's referral site that is perhaps mirroring Centrilift OR they've modified the original Centrilift to remarket it.?

Here is the correct URL... http://www.bakerhughes.com/y2k/mby2k.htm

On the left hand panel select Product Disclosure information ...then the larger right panel will change to allow you to select from the various Baker Hughes subsidiaries... Select Centrilift... this will bring up the main index page for each of the affected systems that Centrilift markets. Scroll down about 3/4ths of the way...to see the following and look in the 3rd column from the left for model number...

Oil Dynamics (ODI) DHS-5000 Down Hole Monitoring System

Centrilift: Oil Dynamics (ODI)

Descriptions brief: Downhole Monitoring Tools & Control Products w/ Microprocessors

In the 4th column from the left you will find that column is "compliance status" for this model see their comments:

Compliance status: Non-compliant with Millennium Date Change - Operational Changes Required, Potential Data Integrity Concern.

In the last column --- Last date modified --- the last date that anything was posted on an item...we find the following for DHS 5000:

September 9, 1999. Note: Centrilift does not plan to make any product design changes in order to meet Y2K standards

Now let's click on the model number html link and go inside to find out more on this.

Year 2000 Product Compliance Information & Readiness Disclosure

Baker Hughes Incorporated

Centrilift

Centrilift - DHS-5000 Down Hole Monitoring System

September 9, 1999

"Non-compliant with Millennium Date Change - Operational Changes Required, Potential Data Integrity Concern"

This letter is designated as a Baker Hughes Year 2000 Product Readiness Disclosure that complies with the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Act (S 2392) passed by the United States Congress on October 19, 1998. As such, this statement is subject to the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act which may reduce your legal rights regarding your use of this statement.

This disclosure is applicable to the Oil Dynamics (ODI) DHS-5000 Down Hole Monitoring System, (hereinafter referred to as the "Product").

As noted in the following paragraphs and subject to the stated exceptions, Baker Hughes has determined that this Product is not "Century Date Compliant". No warranties, express or implied, are provided with regard to year 2000 compliance for the Product. Baker Hughes expressly disclaims any warranty relating to the Products year 2000 compliance, including but not limited to the warranty more particularly described in the Additional Information set forth at the end of this disclosure.

Exceptions

This disclosure does not apply to (1) the Down Hole Monitoring Tools with Microprocessors including the Oil Cooled VFC w/ 1802 Series Controls; Electrospeed VFC w/ 1802 Series Controls; Integrated Communications Module (ICM); Vortex Motor Controller (model VMC-100); Vortex Motor Controller (model VMC-200); Vortex Back Spin Relay; and Vortex Remote Terminal Unit which are covered under a separate disclosure; (2) any models of the Product which have customized configurations, which models are identified with an SE in the part number. In order to certify compliance of any special customized configurations, independent research will be necessary and is available on a time and materials basis.

Disclosure

The Product was internally evaluated for possible problems associated with operating in and after the year 2000. The: evaluation took three general areas into consideration : (1) clock chips that might malfunction at or after the year 2000; (2) internal electronic logic which is hard-wired on logic boards that might incorrectly handle dates and leap years after the year 2000; and (3) software that contains embedded code which itself makes improper assumptions about month and year formats and leap year dates occurring after 1999.

The evaluation confirmed that the Product contains a real time clock. The internal clock is used to date-stamp shut-down events and record the time, day, month, and year of the event. The event log can be transmitted via a communication link. The data format for the year register is two digits and there is no century representation through the internal clock or the date stamp.

The internal clock chip has a battery back-up to ensure continued operation of the clock in the event of a loss of power. The events are recorded on a thermal printer output, or transmitted via communication link. Events are not stored in non-volatile memory. No other date-based processing occurs within the product.

Contingency Statement

Based upon our internal evaluation, it was determined that (1) the Product does not account for leap years; and (2) because the Product uses a two-digit year register, century date data requested from the Product after the Year 2000 rollover will indicate a year of "00". The Product will continue to operate correctly through the change of the century with no adverse effect attributed to the processing of dates occurring after December 31, 1999.However, the integrity of the data acquisition event logs may be affected if the interfacing programs do not interpret the correct century and there may be inconvenience or potentially misrepresented data due to the fact that the year may be extrapolated to an incorrect year.

.

Centrilift plans to continue to sell this product "as is" with no warranties, express or implied, provided with regard to year 2000 compliance. Centrilift does not intend to make any design changes to the product in order to meet Y2K standards.

Let's review that exceptions #2 again ... This disclosure does not apply to:

2) any models of the Product which have customized configurations, which models are identified with an SE in the part number. In order to certify compliance of any special customized configurations, independent research will be necessary and is available on a time and materials basis.

THE PROBLEM --- Most of these applications are heavily customized...and ALLLLL ...let me repeat...

AAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL BETS ARE OFF ON CUSTOMIZATIONS... Customizations are a pandora's box of potential Y2K nightmares... this particular item is no exception.

The following exceptions statement applies to many other "COMPLIANT" parts at Centrilift.

This disclosure does not apply to (1) the Electrospeed Variable Frequency Controller with 1802 Series Controls or the ICS products which are covered under a separate disclosure; and (2) any models of the Product which have customized configurations, which are identified with an SE in the part number. In order to certify compliance of any special customized configurations, independent research will be necessary and is available on a time and materials basis.

So the above is just another example...only this one claiming to be compliant on the shelf, but when placed within any possible customizations ALL BETS ARE OFF.

This exception seems to apply to about any customization aspect:

"This disclosure also does not apply to any models of the Product which have customized configurations. In order to certify compliance of any special customized configurations, independent research will be necessary and is available on a time and materials basis."

This caveat applies to many of the Baker Tools systems also involving similar applications of embeddeds in "inaccessable" locations... inaccessable for all practical purposes such as ...

"FLOW CONTROL".. in which we find a special exception for electronic systems and are told to see Remotely Actuated Products Part 1 ... where in we also get notice of further exceptions and especially of older more obsolete models which were NOT evaluated for compliance even if they are still being used in the fields. We are also told to see Remotely Actuated Products Part 2 for more exceptions.

Here's more information on this issue from Baker Tools:

from their section ---

Surface Data Acquisition Systems PC Interface Cards and Software Portable Surface Interface Units Pressure and Temperature Sensors

You want Part 1

click on scroll down to:

4. Pressure and Temperature Sensors

Panex Corporation: Model 2130AD Downhole Pressure Gauge Model 2225 Series Downhole Pressure Gauge Model 2500 and Model 2500A Series Downhole Memory Module Model 2525/2635 and 2525A Series Downhole Pressure/Flow Gauge Model 2550/2575 and Model 2650/2575 Series Downhole Pressure/Flow Gauge Model 2550/2575 QD Series Downhole Pressure/Flow Gauge Model 2550/2575A Series Downhole Pressure/Flow Gauge Model 3250A QD Series Downhole Pressure Gauge Model 3250B Series Downhole Pressure Gauge Model 3550/3575 Series Downhole Pressure Gauge

Y2K Compliant Disclosure from vendor. The above products are Y2K compliant by default; no time or date keeping functions utilized.

As noted in the following paragraphs and subject to the stated exceptions, Baker Oil Tools does not designate all models of the Surface Data Acquisition Systems, PC Interface Cards and Software, Portable Surface Interface Units, and Pressure / Temperature Sensors, as "Century Date Compliant."

4. Pressure and Temperature Sensors

Downhole Pressure / Temperature Gauges CWL 300

Compliance not evaluated.

CWL 1000 (Some models, see table below)

Y2K compliant by default; no time or date functions utilized.

Vanguard Downhole Pressure / Temperature Gauge

Compliance not evaluated.

Pathfinder Downhole Pressure / Temperature Gauge

Compliance not evaluated.

Geophysical Research Corporation Pressure/Temperature Gauge

Compliance not evaluated.

Downhole Memory Gauges DMR 312

Compliance not evaluated.

DMR 314

Compliance not evaluated.

Surface Pressure Gauges SP370

Compliance not evaluated.

SP380

Compliance not evaluated.

As noted in the following paragraphs and subject to the stated exceptions, Baker Oil Tools does not designate any of these products as "Century Date Compliant."

The products listed are Obsolete. They are no longer manufactured, marketed, or supported by Baker Oil Tools. These products will not be modified or repaired by Baker Oil tools to comply as "Century Date Compliant." This statement provides no warranty or guarantee, either express or implied, regarding the compliance or non-compliance of this product or its supporting technologies. Obsolete products may have been appropriately reciprocated with upgrades or new product versions. Check with your local sales representative for particulars.

Pressure and Temperature Sensors Obsolete Product Obsolete Product No. New Product New Product No. CWL 300 Downhole Pressure / Temperature Gauge 305-08-9001 305-08-9002 Upgrade is available CWL 1000 Downhole Pressure / Temperature Gauge 305-08-9105 305-08-9110 305-08-9200 305-08-9201 305-08-9202 305-08-9210 CWL 1000 Downhole Pressure / Temperature Gauge 305-08-0100 305-08-0500 305-08-1000 Vanguard Downhole Pressure / Temperature Gauge 305-17-0001 305-17-0002 305-17-0003 Replacement available upon request. Pathfinder Downhole Pressure / Temperature Gauge 305-17-1000 Replacement available upon request. Geophysical Research Corporation Downhole Pressure / Temperature Gauge Model QPG-825-15 No replacement DMR 312 Downhole Memory Gauge 305-06-0000 305-06-5011 305-06-5014 305-06-5016 305-06-5017 305-06-5511 305-06-5014 305-06-5514 305-06-5517 No replacement DMR 314 Downhole Memory Gauge 305-06-6014 No replacement SP370 Surface Pressure Gauge 305-07-7001 No replacement SP380 Surface Pressure Gauge 305-07-8002 No replacement

Did you notice how many have "No replacment" availability????????????????????

Oh by the way... notice the date of their last update on disclosure Nov 8, 1999... fairly recent wouldn't you say? That's only 10 days ago.

Onward to more items ---

Safety Systems, Safety Systems: Sub-surface Safety Systems: Surface

1. Safety Systems: Sub-surface

7 T-Series Safety Valves

Downhole Subsurface Controlled Valves Wireline Safety Valves Tubing Mounted Safety Valves Safety Valve Nipples Surface Controlled Flapper Safety Valves Electro-Mechanical Valves Miscellaneous

7 T-Series Hangers

Single String Tubing Hangers Dual String Tubing Hangers Triple String Tubing Hangers Pack-Off Tubing Hangers Miscellaneous

2. Safety Systems: Surface

7 Actuators Pneumatic

Linear Non-Latching Pneumatic Actuators Linear Latching Pneumatic Actuators Rotary Pneumatic Actuators

7 Actuators Hydraulic

Linear Non-Latching Hydraulic Actuators Linear Latching Hydraulic Actuators Rotary Hydraulic Actuators Line Pressure Operated Hydraulic Actuators Miscellaneous Hydraulic Actuators

7 Actuators Accessory Components

Linear Non-Latching Actuator Accessories Linear Latching Actuator Accessories Rotary Actuator Accessories 3-Way Valve Actuator Accessories 2-Way Valve Actuator Accessories Blowout Prevention Devices Tubing Miscellaneous

7 Pilot and Sensor Devices

Stick Type, Low Instrument Pressure Pilots High Instrument Pressure Hydraulic Pilots DA Controllers DE Pilots "D" Series Pilots Miscellaneous

7 Measurement and Control

Surface Manifold Miscellaneous

7 Miscellaneous

Baker Oil Tools has determined that the Safety Systems products and components specified above do not process date and time logic in their operation and are therefore not affected by the millennium date change or leap year.

Exception

This disclosure does not apply to the following products, whose Y2K compliance is designated as Obsolete:

Safety Systems: Sub-surface

Time Cycle Control Electrical

Measurement and Control Flow Meters Information Processor (Digital Signal) Fluid Property Sensors Telecommunication Remote Power Supplies

Obsolete products are not supported, and therefore will not be modified or repaired to comply with this disclosure. Obsolete products may have been appropriately reciprocated (either retrofitted or replaced) with upgrades or new product versions. In addition, a third party who is unrelated to Baker Oil Tools or any other Baker Hughes Incorporated entity now markets these products. Check with your local sales representative for particulars.

Third party vendors, who have certified that the products are compliant, supply the following products. Although these products contain electronic components, the products do not process date and time in their operation and are therefore not affected by the millennium date change or leap year.

Safety Systems: Surface

Panels Hydraulic Single Well Hydraulic Panels Multi-Wells Hydraulic Panels

Panels Pneumatic Single Well Pneumatic Panels Multi-Wells Pneumatic Panels Pump C Pneumatic Panels Platform C Pneumatic Panels

Panels Hydraulic/Pneumatic Single Well Hydraulic/Pneumatic Panels Multi-Wells Hydraulic/Pneumatic Panels

Panels - Miscellaneous Miscellaneous

Disclosure

The Product was internally evaluated for possible problems associated with operating in the year 2000. The evaluation took three general areas into consideration: (1) clock chips that might malfunction at or after year 2000, (2) internal electronic logic which is hard-wired on logic boards that might incorrectly handle dates and leap years after the year 2000, and (3) software that contains embedded code which itself makes improper assumptions about month and year formats and leap year dates occurring after 1999.

Based upon Baker Oil Tools evaluation, these products do not contain electronic components or an internal clock, subject to any stated exceptions. Therefore, these products and their operation as delivered by Baker Oil Tools will not be affected by the millennium date change or the leap year dates occurring during and after 2000.

The Following Disclaimer exception seems to apply to many if not most embedded systems listed by Baker ...

Exception (2)

This disclosure also does not apply to any models of the Product which have customized configurations. In order to certify compliance of any special customized configurations, independent research will be necessary and is available on a time and materials basis.

One other point... regarding Baker... they had a bunch of systems sitting in a status of non-compliant awaiting vendor information. Well apparently the vendor finally got around to notifying them that the items in question don't process dates. Now why would it take a company 8 or 9 months to respond with such simple fact. There's no research needed really... or shouldn't be needed. The only thing I can speculate on is that this vendor waited until the last minute for liability purposes. After all, they more than likely cannot know for sure whether they received from a manufacturer dated fielded chips as substitutes in various orders as a remedy to avoid a back order of non-dated chips which was a prevalent practice in that industry until recently. This had been a significant unknown for many in the oil industry. There is some reflection of this visible in Baker's products from other vendors if you recognize what is between the lines.

We've now provided a comment from a VP at Tosco oil who asserts the problem of downhole embeddeds exists, yet he doesn't think it will take too long to fix. Of course he's not a tech nor engineer so how does he know the time frame. The embeddeds downhole issue is not a deep dark secret in the industry. Any good Oil Co. Spinmeister should at least be aware of it...and this fellow has been made aware of it. He knows about it. He acknowledged it.

Now, regarding Baker Hughes. We've now pointed out again how Factfinder has slandered the truth yet once again. FF conveeeeennnnniently left out a few key points.

#1. Most large oilwell systems are specifically customized and each well is unique to itself and thus the systems are customized accordingly. When customized these chips can be MADE vulnerable to rollover problems by being linked with other systems within the unit and the programming that will shut the system down. This is indeed possible if not likely in certain customized programs. Baker admits this in its caveat warnings and warranty exclusions.

#2. We had cited many other items besides the ones FF chose.

#3. Many items that Baker notes as compliant... are only compliant under certain circumstances... as we noted. Primary factor is again the issue of application into a customized system.

#4. The problem of manufacturers putting some date fielded chips in as a substitute to avoid a backorder situation. In most cases Vendors have no idea or no record that it occured. It was never an issue until the last couple of years.

#5. The notion of these chips as being "inaccessable" can lead folks to misunderstand that the term means from a practical standpoint they are not reachable. That term is sometimes bandied about in the industry using its own little 'language' within a language. Some here have tried to play that game of defining what "is" is. I don't have time for that kind of gamesmanship.

A final thought with the readers here. In all of this hoopla and merry-go-round activity with FF and his Pollyanna Moron Society associates I'm afraid that certain aspects of my position have been blurred by the twisted distortions.

We're not saying that all embeddeds systems will fail. We're not saying that all embedded downhole well systems will fail. We're simply saying that at the minimum we can expect enough significant failures to significantly reduce oil supplies next year. This is based upon simple mathematics. We have noted that the percentage of failures is much, much higher than has been publicly reported for the oil industry. (each industry results do vary and the oil industry uses theirs in unique ways)

We think/estimate that, based upon the math of fail rates running upwards of 7% (some of the larger systems running 20-25%) should be sufficiently high enough to knock out and disrupt enough crude supply to reduce outputs by at least the same 2.2% reductions that we saw in 1973-74 arab oil embargo. It could be that we'll see a 10% loss. We may even see a 20 or 30% loss. In theory, we could see an 80% loss... well technically 100% if the pipelines themselves go down/stay down or the refineries go down indefinitely. For now, I've focused on crude oil production levels and because about 20% of US Domestic wells have NO Embedded systems... this percentage is therefore Y2K compliant and safe... question is can we get it from the well to the gas station as refined fuel?

I've not taken a doomer's TEOTWAWKI viewpoint. It's not gonna be the end of the world. But the risks of problems are real and serious. Things indeed seem to be more likely to be extremely serious and perhaps severe. Is it inevitable? NO. Will it be a non-event? NO. There will be problems. Many will be serious many will be minor. Some may also be critically severe and lead to massive cascading effects. We don't know. But it's foolish to argue no problems and to argue that there is no embedded problems in oil wells or that there even are embedded problems in oil wells.

We've shown in our series of posts that all of Factfinders claims which claim that I am promoting oil "myths" is false. He claims it's a myth that the oil co's won't be compliant or make it. They've already admitted that they won't make it. He's even admitted that there may be problems but he wants to argue what the definition of "is" is. We've also shown from his own post that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is in salt domes and that salt is a contaminate that is not easily refined out of crude. It will not be like turning on a spigot. It also reduces refining efficiency because of the diminished and lowered quality of the crude. It will also take some amount of time for the machinations of Congress and the bureaucracy to get the oil moving. In 1990, I think it took about 6 months maybe 5 or 5 and a half. Finally here and in the previous 3 threads we posted all of the Baker products that are non compliant or have problems many of which are in "inaccessable areas"

Furthermore, Factfinder is saying we've failed to prove #3. In addition to the above, we earlier cited URL addresses and so did the Linkmeister to various industry websites that expose and prove that Factfinder is indeed twisting, distorting and perhaps lying. Factfinder, are you indeed lying.

To Factfinder:

You don't seem to wish to acknowledge these key statements from industry sources and websites. You either deliberately choose to ignore them or you've seen them and thereby are choosing to lie about it because it would seem that you're on a mission to deceive and defraud as many as possible. We've offered the proof. Your not man enough to admit it and probably never will be because you're incapable of it.

I'm finished dealing with you. It's been an exercise in futility talking with someone as intellectually as dishonest as yourself. I have too many other things left to do before rollover to waste my time any further with you.

Folks,

Time is growing short. I don't have the time to deal with idiots like Factfinder. I don't know if I'll have the time or opportunity to post here very much now before the holidays. If I can, I will make one more sweep of my contacts before long and dependent on what I hear I may post a final update. I hope that it will have some good news but I wouldn't hold my breath. At least we can hope for warm weather...that would be a help to us all as a mitigating factor.

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

Answers

Rats, sorry folks the charts still didn't come out right. You'll just have to go to the Baker website to see them all neat in their tables

The information from there is here on the thread but its just not as easy to read... all run together.

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

It seems you can't even interpret what you're reading very well.

It's fairly obvious from this exchange that "downhole" does not mean inaccessible. He states they will pull the chip!

"P. I would say that theres probably a lot of them that are downhole problems. (ia) but they know what those chips are.

L. What percentage?

P. Every last one of them. We know who made them and what model they are.

P. Then what we do..we take a sample of them and we make an umbrella, close down that oilwell and rework the well four or five (ia) pull the chip out (ia) if it doesnt fail, theres no reason to believe the rest of them of that model and that manufacturer (ia). "

And here they state that the product will continue to operate correctly except for some logging problems. Said logging problems, if known to be occurring, can be fixed by a human with a brain.

"The Product will continue to operate correctly through the change of the century with no adverse effect attributed to the processing of dates occurring after December 31, 1999.However, the integrity of the data acquisition event logs may be affected if the interfacing programs do not interpret the correct century and there may be inconvenience or potentially misrepresented data due to the fact that the year may be extrapolated to an incorrect year. "

-- The Polly Moron Society (proudtobe@member.now), November 19, 1999.

To all:

For a pertinent discussion on the "inaccessibility" issue amongst R.C., myself, and others, please see the "Exposed for its Sham--Fact Finder's Oil Mythology, Part 3" thread (initiated by R.C.) below.

(R.C. -- what do I get for the plug?)

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

R.C.- Thank you, thank you, thank you. and you, Laura. This is the kind of hard evidence I've been waiting for. How I wish this kind of evidence had been out there two years ago. Factfinder, you're the guy Way said would "burn in hell". Thanks to your kind, no one's ready. I've been preparing for two years but what good is that when everyone around me believes statements from the likes of you. Hope you're satisfied!

-- Wishy Washy Doomer (polly@ismy.friend), November 19, 1999.

rc,

it may be futile trying to convince factfinder of the facts, but please try to understand that your posts (and even FFs) do so much to illuminate whats going on for 'the rest of us'.

the oil industry, and all its related eqpt and computerization, is a bit much to fully comprehend for people not in that industry. but reading both of your posts makes it much easier.

thanks much for the time you spend posting. it helps confirm our preps and helps keep us going (us meaning me and family).

good luck to you and everyone in the coming year.

lou

-- lou (lanny1@ix.netcom.com), November 19, 1999.

R.C. ** Read your Threads...Just wanted to say thank-you for your time and effort. I appreciate your tenacity!!!! ;-)

-- tenacious~!!!!! (karlacalif@aol.com), November 19, 1999.

Yes, thanks RC

A note that Factfinder is saying over on the debunker's forum that RC know just enough words to impress the "outsider". I may be an "outsider", but obviously RC knows a hell of a lot about what he's talking about. Again, "Factfinder" uses mainly self-reported PR releases from the various companies to make his point.

I can't understand what is driving these debunkers to spend their lives trying to make us see the Polly Vision. What a waste of time. They think it's a game and points are "scored" if they screw with us in some way.

Mental midgets - IQ of room temperature - who knows????

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), November 19, 1999.

For more on the embedded chip problems in the Oil/Gas industry ... go to .... World Oil ...(it's an industry newsletter) ... to archives ... to April 1998 ... to the article .... Will the Millinium Bug Give Your Operations the Flu? It is worth a read, gives a good amount of background info on the problems facing the industry and gives the 30% figure ... namely that if oil producers tried to fix the embedded chip problems then (4/98), only 30% would be fixed by Jan. 1, 2000. What really amazed me though was that this was the only Y2K article I found over the Jan '98 thru Nov '99 period that appeared in World Oil!

-- Lee Barber (LeeeeeeB@webtv.net), November 19, 1999.

Dear FactFinder,

R.C. is right. I would love to send you a copy of the tape, and you don't even have to ask me nice. All I ask is that you listen to it objectively.

E-mail (Ladylogic46@aol.com) or call me at (602)331-8564.

-- Laura (Ladylogic46@aol.com), November 19, 1999.

R.C.

Have you read Dale Way's article???

Let me first state I don't have any idea what a down-hole monitor does. But I can read a report and understand it.

OBSERVATION #1 - The down hole device does not perform date calculations. It merely time stamps whatever events are associate with its process.

This means that the device has a short window where it is vulnerable - right at the rollover. (See the Dale Way paper for a description - there is no "delta-time" comparison in this device.)

OBSERVATION #2: The RTC of this device and whatever system clocks (if any) it uses are compatible and the discreet device will continue to perform its process AFTER the rollover with no disruptions at the device level. (This is clearly stated in the vendor analysis)

OBSERVATION #3: The date/time stamping are not critical to the operation of the device, AT THE DEVICE LEVEL. At the device level this device will record 00 for the year and continue to run and operate its process control functions. (Didn't you read that before you posted???) This device can only be a problem at the application level. Therefore the date can (optionally) be communicated via a com port to an application level program. I do not know if the process being controlled requires this transfer of date or not. Do you?? Unless they put this remote device "down-hole", and then put the computer it communicates with right beside it, then the communication medium SHOULD transport the date to an application program somewhere. This somewhere might be "down hole", but also (more likely) will be located somewhere more accessible. Do you know where the application program resides???

OBSERVATION #3: This is not a problem at the device. I MIGHT be a problem at the interconnected computer, IF the application program retrieves the date, AND IF the date is used for a "delta-time" calculation, AND IF the application program does not compensate for the lack of century info.

This in no way proves this device and its interconnected system has a problem. In fact, if you really understood what you were reading and posting you would KNOW that this is only a POSSIBLE problem. Yet you present this a proof-positive of a 100% certainty of failure. You also present this "certain failure" as a proof positive example of a "down hole failure". There is absoloutely NO proof positive that even IF there is a problem that it would be located down hole. Either you just don't understand or YOU are the one who is misleading.

There is still a very good chance (without knowledge of the specific application I'd say at least 50-50) that there is NO problem here.

With the information you've presented, I can't make any determination on the compliance of the device and its interconnected system - other than to say the potential exists and more info should be obtained.

(PS: Do you do testing and remediation for a living???)

-- cl@sky.com (cl_sky@excite.com), November 19, 1999.

For all who were impressed by these long threads, please understand that they do not point to certain failures. A device that has 2 digits for a date can, and in a lot of instances WILL work properly. In the case of the device in this post, the only failure can be external to the actual device, and then ONLY if the external computer doesn't properly handle the 00 year designation.

I would encourage all to very carefully re-read the Dale Way article, and then read the Y2K/RTC article by Dallas Semiconductor. (Somewhere on this forum there are links to both articles.)

RC has tried to present this device as a much bigger problem than the facts allow you to conclude. There may in fact be a problem with the system this device is connected with, but RC has not given enough information to make that determination one way or another. He should read the articles as well.

-- cl@sky.com (cl_sky@excite.com), November 19, 1999.

Cl@sky:

My bullshit meter does register a serious signal, but it's not coming from RC. I've got to figure that FactFinder has now worn out his handle and will have to show up with a new one (such as Cl@sky).

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), November 19, 1999.

Steve,

Nice try. Go to Cowles board and do some searching. You will see FF and I making posts regarding our testing efforts. If you note, he works in generation plants and I work predominantly in T&D. By the sounds of things you can take your peculiar meter to NYC and the Brooklyn museum will exhibit it as "art".

-- cl@sky.com (cl_sky@excite.com), November 19, 1999.

Sorry Dave, typed the wrong name. aaaaa

-- cl@sky.com (cl_sky@excite.com), November 19, 1999.

It is becoming more and more apparent to me that no one knows what will happen because the testing has not been adequate. I think Mr. Way was saying that the clock problem on embedded chips would not be a long term problem provided that application programs are interpreting it correctly. Based on what I am reading. it appears that there has not been much testing in the oil industry of how all of the software elements will work together after 1/1/2000.

-- Danny (dcox@ix.netcom.com), November 19, 1999.

There is one more thing I would like to add. I don't think anyone on this forum understands how all of the software components in a refinery or oil field work together. Thus, the information that RC is getting from people in the industry who have been working on these problems over the last year or two carries quite a bit of weight with me.

-- Danny (dcox@ix.netcom.com), November 19, 1999.

--cl

I am truly amazed that you are so optomistic about "...at least 50- 50) that there is NO problem"

this is a true poly!!

If your doctor told you that you had a 50-50 chance of surviving past jan.1,2000 would you think that was great?

If he told you and 100 of your friends the same thing, would you think maybe 50 would die? or be thrilled that 50 would make it?

It's because of odds like this we MUST prepare for the worst!!

thanks RC, I know you spent alot of time and effort to load our guns, and I, just like you hope we don't have to use them.

one more thing RC,TEOTWAWKI does not mean "END OF THE WORLD". AS WE KNOW IT is the key point. It WILL be different.

there is no one so blind, as he who will not see.

-- bob brock (bb@myhouse.com), November 19, 1999.

BTW doesn't it seem very unusual that FactFinder has the same initials "FF" as Fred Flintstone, who had a pet named Dino, that now is part of our OIL RESERVE!!!! Of course, I could be wrong, but what's the odds? 50-50?

-- bob brock (bb@myhouse.com), November 19, 1999.

bob:

We're all willing to see, but on this one we're all staring into the fog. In two months we should be able to start assessing the fallout. Our original exposure (before remediation) is unknown because nobody was in a position to collect or collate the data. By now, after remediation, our exposure is equally unknown but less. R.C has made it clear that the *potential* for real problems has always been large. But this is always true of potentials.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 19, 1999.

Bob,

My point is that RC's attempt to overwhelmed with volume of "facts" actually didn't even provide enough evidence for me to "whelmed". With the lack of real info, 50/50 is the most precise I would attempt to guess. If I were remediating this device, more investigation would have been necessary to take it beyond the "don't know/can't tell" status. And yet RC presented it as gospel and people "bought it".

Some relevant questions that would have to be answered BEFORE making the rash judgements that RC did:

1. Is the device connected to an external computer that uses the date?

2. If so, where is the computer located and can it be reached to be tested/remediated?

3. Is the date used in an application that performs "delta-time" calculations?

4. If yes, does the results of the delta-time calculation directly impact the process controls algorithm, or is it used for non- critical, administrative/tracking/trending/analysis functions?

RC ignored these issues, and everyone bought it because of the volume. He may eventually be proven right, but not because of a sound analysis of the facts he presented here.

4.

-- cl@sky.com (cl_sky@excite.com), November 19, 1999.