February 2001 threads on ezboard addressing Y2K-related embedded control system connections to energy sector and other problems

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) : One Thread

There are a number of interesting exchanges going on on ezboard. A range of different points of view are being shared. They complement nicely the threads currently on GICC. These exchanges may be of particular interest to those exploring Y2K-related embedded control system connections in the energy sector as well as some other sectors.

I include them here for your interest and information.

[ENER] The Facts - California Non-Functional Power http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=22377.topic&index=11

[SCI] An Engineer's Views: Ongoing Y2K Problems http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=22044.topic

[UTIL] Go Ahead Tell Me Y2k Wasn't Real... http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=22022.topic

[ENER] Rick Cowles on the Calif Energy Crisis http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=21718.topic

...Where Will We End Up On the Y2K Scale http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=21122.topic

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), February 03, 2001

Answers

Enough already! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Thirteen months later.....

Did we not learn anything about the folly of accepting unamed sources as credible 'experts'. Pre-y2k Paula and RC had everyone stirred up into a frenzy on these supposed y2k industry 'experts'. If these contentions are viable how come not a single NAMED source is citing a single verifiable y2k embedded problem??!?. Heres a challege to all: cite a single verifiable embedded y2k prob and/or a single NAMED industry source. Post it right here.

I see Paula is playing the same game. RC faded into oblivion when we learned his unnamed oil industry sources were mostly people he met on his book tour. And the type of person who would buy into his whacky exterrestrial religious contentions would buy into any conspiracy/gloom&doom senario.

Refining runs are averaging the highest rates EVER. The energy shortages are caused by other factors. Thirteen months later, I can't believe I'm still asking for this, but all you y2k kooks:

PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Can you not admit that you were dead-assed wrong?

-- Unnamed source (Unnamedsource @hotmail.com), February 03, 2001.


Thirteen months later, I can't believe I'm still asking for this, but all you y2k kooks:

PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Can you not admit that you were dead-assed wrong?

I'm not a kook but I will answer this question.
Not that a person with this much venom could
ever accept the truth if it was presented to
them. Nor do I expect this to shut up the dead-
assed wrong ignorant extremists.

Here are a few of the hundreds of reported
Y2K embedded chip problems that occurred:



-- spider (spider0@usa.net), February 04, 2001.

Award BIOS 4.50G fails readiness test

The Millennium Problem in Embedded Systems

Federal Y2K glitches compiled

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), February 04, 2001.


It's one thing to say that devices have failed, which is true. Many of the devices in your list were known problems before the rollover.

It is quite another thing to say that our current energy and/or economic problems are due to any of these failures.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 05, 2001.


It is quite another thing to say that our current energy and/or economic problems are due to any of these failures.

The smoking gun concerning electrical energy has
yet to appear. The Y2K connection to the oil
crisis is a lot stronger:
SEC reports from Mobil in 1999 predict Y2K problems
with refining, production and distribution of
petroleum. These predictions have been borne out
in the year 2000 with massive refinery Force Majeures,
(sp?) explosions and double financial losses from
these problems. This led to an increase in fuel
prices which have a direct effect on the economy.

Many of the current bankruptcies and chapter 11
problems in the US are from corporations that had
reported Y2K problems. Japan had a 20% increase
in bankruptcies in the year 2000. Royal Dalton,
Whirlpool, Hersheys, Fruit of the Loom, Xerox
and many others got hit hard by the bug.

Don't go asking for links Buddy. You should have
been reading TB2000 and this forum for the last
2 years if you were really interested.

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), February 05, 2001.



Don't go asking for links Buddy. You should have been reading TB2000 and this forum for the last 2 years if you were really interested.

Now that's funny. I spent the last two years debunking the misinformation that was being posted on TB2000. Where were you?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 05, 2001.


Links? I've got links.

This filing by Mobil doesn't say what you say it does:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/67182/0000067182-99-000006-inde x.html

and here is their statement from their first 10-Q of 2000.

YEAR 2000 ISSUE

The Year 2000 issue resulted from computer programs being written using two digits rather than four to define a specific year, leading to the potential for problems during transition to the year 2000. ExxonMobil's preparation work for the Year 2000 rollover spanned several years. The scope of this work encompassed business information systems, infrastructure and technical and field systems, including systems utilizing embedded technology, such as micro-controllers. ExxonMobil completed preparation work in 1999, and the rollover occurred with no significant events or operational impacts. The total cost to the corporation of achieving Year 2000 compliant systems was approximately $410 million pre-tax, primarily over the 1997-1999 timeframe. Total expenditures in 1999 were approximately $120 million pre-tax.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/0000930661-00-000656-inde x.html

Notice what they said?

ExxonMobil completed preparation work in 1999, and the rollover occurred with no significant events or operational impacts.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 05, 2001.


sorry, that was their 10-K, not 10-Q

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 05, 2001.

Good post Buddy. I'll get back to you after
some research. I have both hard copy and
digital to look through.

-- spider (spidr0@usa.net), February 05, 2001.

The following is hand transcribed from hard copy.

Report to the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem,
U.S. Senate
May 1999
YEAR 2000 COMPUTING CRISIS
Readiness of the Oil and Gas Industries

Oil and Gas Industries Are Vulnerable to Year 2000 Failures

The oil and gas industries are dependent on computer control systems and embedded systems that are susceptible to Year 2000 failures. The industriesí analysis has shown that Year 2000 failures can occur at many links in the chain of oil and gas operations. The oil and gas industries rely on computer monitoring and control systems, including supervisory control and data acquisition systems (SCADA) and embedded devices. SCADA systems monitor and control remote terminal units and equipment that may also have date-sensitive embedded systems.

Virtually all of the SCADA systems and many of the devices use embedded microprocessors and systems that may have, or are known to have, Year 2000 problems. All phases of the petroleum production cycle--oil and gas extraction, refining, transportation, and delivery--use control systems and equipment that are subject to Year 2000 failures.

An initial report from the US Office of Pipeline Safety
concerning the Bellingham fire stated that the
supervisory control and data acquisition system,
which control the pipeline may have inhibited the
operators from controlling the problem.

Chevron declared in their 1999 10-Q SEC
filings "because of the scope ov Chevron's operations,
the company believes it is impractical to eliminate all
potential Year 2000 problems before they arise. . . .
Such interruptions could delay manufacturing and
delivery of refined products . . . The company could
also face interruptions in its ability to produce crude
oil and natural gas.

In 1999 Mobil declared that "year 2000 . . . could have
a material effect on Mobil's results of operations."
failure of one or more systems could "trigger a cascade
of other failures for Year 2000 reasons."

As for present denials of any Y2K problem, the head of
Swiss Re America, Heidi Hutter, said that she believes that
most insurance policies do not cover problems stemming
from the millennium bug.

Here are some good related topics from the TB2000 archive.

IEA plans for emergency oil sales if Y2K crisis

Refining and Y2k Failures from the IEA

Oil industry problems from an insider

The Actual Refinery Situation in the U.S.A.

The Oil Industry and the Y2K Problem: IEA

And from GICC

Refinery outages push gasoline prices

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), February 05, 2001.



Spider, Spider, Spider

It does no good to post something from May 1999 that talked about hypothetical problems. Many of the "may happens" and "mights" of Y2K never did happen.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 06, 2001.


There are various kinds of evidence. What constitutes evidence of Y2K-related embedded control system problems for one person, however, does not constitute evidence for another. Some of the kinds of evidence include: 1) Documented failures of specific kinds of systems or system modules (for numerous specific examples, see IEE case studies at http://www.iee.org.uk/2000risk/Casebook/casebook.htm There are at least 60 categories of cases involving embedded systems faults in The Institution of Electrical Engineers' (IEE) Embedded Systems Fault Casebook detailed there.) 2) Failures known to people working on embedded control systems that have not been documented and are not likely to be documented except by those exercising whistleblowing perogatives and risking legal repercussions and/or loss of their livelihood (for some excellent recent examples, see threads since December 2000, threads relating to embedded control system problems on GICC and ezboard; for older threads see the archived material and references to additional material available through GICC threads. These have been posted on other threads. Some have been posted on this thread. Anyone who is looking for the archived material should feel free to e-mail me if they do not already have these URLs.) 3) Documented problems that were predicted in unremediated systems or system modules (for some excellent recent examples, also see threads since December 2000 threads relating to embedded control system problems on GICC and ezboard; for older threads see archival material available through GICC threads. 4) Problems that were predicted in unremediated systems or system modules that have not been documented and are not likely to be documented except by those exercising whistleblowing perogatives and risking legal action and loss of one's livelihood (same as before: for some excellent recent examples and references, also see threads since December 2000 relating to embedded control system problems on GICC and ezboard; for older threads see archival material available through GICC threads as noted previously) There are relatively few people who are coming forward to share what they know. There are major disincentives for doing so including the fact that by doing so, one can place his or her job in jeopardy. For a longer discussion of the reasons why there has been so little attention paid to ongoing problems, see the following items all of which can be found on my website at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon ~ April 12, 2000 presentation ~ John Koskinen Question & Answers piece, including the extensive appendices ~ my White Paper If one regards the form of evidence mentioned in #1 as being without merit, then it seems unlikely that any of the other three kinds of evidence would be at all compelling. Of particular interest when it comes to the postings during January 2001 and through the present, is that there is an abundance of new information and observations coming out in these threads, information and observations that further help those who are researching the issue to put together the pieces of the puzzle. There are more names of companies that are having problems mentioned; and there are more people who are willing to talk about what is happening, particularly on an "off the record" basis. Some are posting using pseudonyms and real e-mail addresses. Others are using both pseudonyms and false e- mail addresses. A few are using their own names and valid addresses. When possible, individuals desiring first hand information may wish to contact some of these those people who have frontline experience and to see what they have to say. Regarding statements of the International Energy Agency, they also said that they expected that problems would occur after the rollover that would not be traceable to embedded problems. There is an explanation for how that could be: When a malfunction or minor failure or set of malfunctions or failures triggers other large or small problems, it may not be possible to sort out what happened when and what systems played the critical role.

Regarding the form of evidence know as "circumstantial evidence", an example can be given: If you have a doubling of the costs of pipeline explosions in the year 2000 (which was the case) and if an increase in pipeline explosions was expected and/or predicted owing to embedded control system malfunctions or failures (which also was the case), and if you have instances of explosions before or after the rollover that were linked to embedded control system or other Y2K- related problems, then one is on fairly sound ground in assuming that at least some of the pipeline explosions that occurred in the year 2000 were Y2K-related, especially in light of the fact that

1) they were predicted and/or expected,

2) those on the frontlines are reporting the causes as they know them to be, and/or

3) there are no other more plausible causal factors that have been or can be identified.

It can take a Sherlock Holmes kind of approach to sort out this kind of evidence, and piece it together. It requires sifting through evidence from all the four different categories I have noted above. When independent reports from different sources come to light as they are now at an increasing pace, the basis for considering the strongest evidence, including the strongest circumstantial evidence becomes all the more compelling.

The Sherlock Holmes mode of inquiry is one that few people take to naturally and which few people are trained in. Add to this the technical complexity of Y2K-related embedded control system problems and there are bound to be very few people who recognize or know about the growing body of hard evidence as well as the growing body of compelling circumstantial evidence that both now exist.

I hope these comments might be helpful to others trying to put together the pieces of the puzzle.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), February 06, 2001.


Sherlock Holmes? By that I assume you mean deductive reasoning.

Sorry, but you are no Sherlock Holmes.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 06, 2001.


Elementary...my dear friend! Elementary....

-- Guess who (Guess who@baker_street.net), February 06, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ