[quickie]

8月31日是康菲石油完成封堵溢油源并清理油污的最后期限。然而，这已经不可能。该公司昨日承认，在蓬莱19-3油田C平台北侧发现9处海底油污渗漏点。由于一直未得到有效遏制，此次溢油总量已经增加至2500桶。

http://i0.sinaimg.cn/dy/c/2011-08-22/1313957817_AQMZRF.jpg
蓬莱19-3油田溢油事故回顾

面对康菲石油的懈怠敷衍，上周五，国家海洋局牵头国土资源部、环境保护部、交通运输部、农业部、安监总局、国家能源局等部门组成联合调查组，彻查事故缘由，对其影响和损失进行评估。联合调查组成立伊始即明确要求，康菲石油必须尽快偿还“旧债”并保证不出现新的损害。

在溢油尚未阻断之际，公众关心的赔偿问题也难有定论。此前，有传言称，国家海洋局拟就渤海湾漏油事故向中海油与康菲石油发起上亿元索赔。该局旋即予以否认。不过，国家海洋局北海分局已公告，向全社会公开选聘法律服务团队，为生态索赔诉讼作准备。

康菲石油何以能如此轻慢？国家海洋局有关负责人在接受中国青年报记者采访时称，康菲公司将责任推诿于自然条件，借口由于地层自然裂缝溢出原油，不愿采取积极有效的措施去封堵。另外，该公司熟知我国法律法规和相关政策，知道溢油处置措施不力和瞒报事故并不会遭受像欧美国家那样严重的处罚，对其经济利益影响有限。

事态不断恶化
蓬莱19-3油田，位于山东半岛北部的渤海中，距山东省龙口市仅48海里，属于特大型整装油田。该油田由中海油和美国康菲石油公司的全资子公司康菲中国石油合作开发，作业方为康菲中国，是国内建成的最大海上油气田。6月，该油田B、C平台分别发生溢油事故。至今难见了局。

对于实情，康菲石油颇多伪饰。起初，面对执法单位的问询，该公司先是宣称不掌握具体情况，后又以传真形式承认，蓬莱19-34油田C平台C20井在钻井作业中发生小型井涌事故。不过，事故已经得到了控制。

一个月之后，该公司又表示，溢油点之一B平台附近偶尔有微量油花断续渗出，渗出量每日不超过几公升，因此偶尔造成海面少量油膜。不过，一套围油收集装置已安装到位，以控制和收集这些渗油。

时至现在，康菲石油再次变脸，称在蓬莱19-3油田C平台北侧15米范围内发现9处海底油污渗漏点。国家海洋局北海分局已经证实这种说法。

据悉，8月19日，“中国海监15”船、“中国海监18”船和“海监B-3807”飞机巡航监视发现，蓬莱19-3油田海域有3处油膜覆盖区域，油膜长度从5公里到10公里不等，宽度50米到100米，分布的海域范围达1.35平方公里，总体呈现银灰色和彩虹色、局部呈兰/棕色。

经取样分析，蓬莱19-3油田附近海域表层海水石油类浓度平均为53.0ug/L，较前几日监测结果有所升高。C平台附近海底油污清理现场海水环境受到石油类污染，石油类浓度较前几日有所升高。

监管软弱无力

7月5日，国家海洋局召开媒体通报会，向社会公布了蓬莱19-3油田溢油事故情况。会上，该局还要求康菲公司要尽快确定并封堵B平台附近溢油源，同时抓紧时间将C平台泄漏的海底油污清理完毕，上述工作应在今年8月31日前完成。然而，这一要求并未得到认真对待。

经过多日监察，国家海洋局发现，康菲石油采取的溢油处置措施大多是临时性的、补救性的，并不能彻底有效地消除溢油风险，再次发生溢油的可能性随时存在，对渤海海洋生态环境构成巨大威胁。故此，该局于7月13日责令康菲石油立即停止B、C平台的油气生产作业活动，采取一切有效措施彻底排查并切断溢油源，彻底排查并消除再次发生溢油的风险。在溢油源未切断、溢油风险未消除前，不得恢复作业。

同时，国家海洋局北海分局责成康菲公司向公众和政府作出说明，并向公众道歉。

8月16日，国家海洋局海洋环境保护司再次约谈康菲公司主要负责人，了解事故处理进展状况，并再次督促其严格按照法律法规的规定和国家海洋局的限期要求，于8月31日前封堵B平台附近溢油源，清理完毕C平台泄漏的海底油污。

经过此番督促后，康菲石油却于8月19日告知国家海洋局，在蓬莱19-3油田C平台北侧发现9处海底油污渗漏点。同一日，国家海洋局牵头国土资源部等7部委组成联合调查组，以求共同应对。

联合调查组在听取了情况汇报后明确要求，康菲石油必须不折不扣地采取有效措施彻底排查并切断溢油源，彻底排查并消除再次发生溢油的风险，并保证不再造成新的海洋环境损害，对已经造成的损害要切实负起责任。

联合调查组还提出，调查期间，康菲石油必须积极配合调查工作，无条件地保存好原始数据和资料，并随时按照联合调查组的要求提供相关原始数据和资料。同时，联合调查组强调，康菲公司必须根据法律的有关规定，及时向社会公众公布溢油事故的相关信息，特别是溢油事故的全过程及造成的影响和损害。

赔偿遥遥无期

7月5日的通报会上，国家海洋局称，因为渤海溢油事件，责任主体康菲石油面临最高20万元的行政执法处罚以及生态索赔。此语引起社会舆论大哗。诸多评论以为惩罚过轻。此后，国家海洋局积极筹备生态索赔。

日前，有媒体报道称，国家海洋局拟就渤海湾漏油事故向中海油与康菲石油发起上亿元索赔。中国青年报记者就此事求证国家海洋局相关负责人，该负责人表示，由于蓬莱19-3油田仍处于溢油状态，损害还在扩大，因此尚难以科学评估出赔偿额度。此前，国家海洋局从未向任何媒体公布渤海溢油索赔金额，“渤海溢油索赔上亿元”报道不实。不过，国家海洋局当下正在按有关程序积极进行这一工作。

据悉，国家海洋局北海分局将代表国家依据相关法律法规的规定，向溢油事故责任方提起海洋生态损害索赔诉讼，并向全社会公开选聘法律服务团队代理此案。北海分局称，将邀请国内法学和海洋专家组成专家考评组，对报名应聘者进行初步审查，从中选取不少于5家应聘机构，进入正式选评范围。对进入正式选评范围的法律服务机构，采取现场集中考评、综合评分的方法，按考评得分结果，推荐由一家主体办理机构、3家到4家辅助办理机构组成的法律服务团队。
法律界则从公益诉讼入手干预。北京华城律师事务所律师贾方义已经向青岛海事法院、天津海事法院以及海南省高级人民法院提起诉讼，要求中海油和康菲石油设立100亿元的赔偿基金，进行生态赔偿和生态恢复。他还向北京市第一中级人民法院提出诉讼，状告国家海洋局行政不作为。

“我国的环境法虽然不落后，但在操作层面上对环境污染责任方进行评估，人为浮动很大。”中国海事仲裁委员会仲裁员莫世健提出，在中国的环境污染责任评定中，公众扮演的一直是走过场的角色，更加剧了环境污染的惩治力度低下。

截至目前，康菲公司公开道歉两次。康菲石油中国有限公司总裁司徒瑞表示，“康菲对此次事件非常重视。我们将全力以赴，并将采取措施确保不再发生此类事件。”不过，对于8月底是否能彻底封堵，该公司却不置可否。

康菲公司认为蓬莱油田9处渗漏点油污为油泥残余

针对国家海洋局公布渤海蓬莱19-3油田出现9处海底新油污渗漏点，康菲中国昨天公布这些渗漏点详情，并解释正在做样品检测，溢出物可能是油基泥浆(简称油泥)或原油，若为油基泥浆则只是清理难度加大的问题。但记者了解到，若为原油，麻烦就大了。

这是继蓬莱19-3油田B平台出现新渗漏点后，C平台又出现新渗漏点。

15米区域内现9新渗漏点

康菲认为渗油来源是油泥残余

20日，国家海洋局方面表示，在北海分局监督督促下，康菲当日承认在C平台西北侧发现9处海底油污渗漏点。康菲中国昨日公布：这些渗漏点的地点，是位于C平台以北约15米的海底，范围是一个直径15米范围的区域，康菲正密切监测并做样品检测，正在制定计划来停止渗油。

康菲中国称，他们认为这些渗油的来源是6月17日泄漏出的油泥残余，这些残留的油泥与浅层泥沙混合在了一起。但样品还在分析中。康菲中国企业传播及企业社会责任总监薛东明称，样品分析结果若为油泥，则只是继续清理泥沙的问题；若是原油，康菲方面还需继续寻找原因。

至于C平台海底是否也有断层，康菲中国未给出明确答案。之前B平台附近溢油，正是海底断层导致，而海地断层溢油全球罕见，中国首次遇到，处置难度大。

油田海域现3处油膜覆盖带

海洋局责令康菲防止发生更大事故

对于新的渗漏点，国家海洋局北海分局称：已责成康菲采取有效措施迅速、彻底查清海底油污渗漏原因，彻底切断海底渗漏源，防止发生更大的安全事故和溢油风险。

而8月19日，蓬莱19－3油田海域出现3处油膜覆盖区域，油膜长度从5公里到10公里不等，宽度50米到100米，分布的海域范围达1.35平方公里。

对此，薛东明解释，这是因为当日天气好转，潜水人员下水清理海底油泥次数增加到57次，清理过程中导致较多的油污从海底溢出。

据了解，这些油膜是“中国海监15”“中国海监18”船和“海监B－3807”飞机巡航监视发现的，油膜总体呈现银灰色和彩虹色、局部呈蓝／棕色。

19日，蓬莱19－3油田附近海域表层海水石油类浓度也较前几日监测结果有所升高。C平台附近海底油污清理现场海水环境受到石油类污染，石油类浓度较前几日有所升高，不过当天未发现新油污登陆。

对此，康菲仍表示，计划在8月底前完成所有剩余油基泥浆的清理。

公益诉讼是否立案今出结果
发起者称不立案就上诉并向最高法院申诉

今天，由律师贾方义(笔名博浪沙)发起的，针对中海油、康菲的公益诉讼是否立案将有结果。昨天，贾方义的助手郭乘希表示，截至昨日，三地法院尚未答复是否立案，仅表示在讨论。山东烟台和北京的多人已联系贾方义要求加入这起公益诉讼。

根据国内规定，法院在接到诉状7个工作日内要给出是否立案的答复，8月9日，贾方义助手将诉状寄送海南省高院、青岛海事法院和天津海事法院，根据快递回执，截至12日，三地法院均已收到诉状。照此推算，今日三地法院将最终决定是否立案。

该诉讼请求包括要求两被告立即成立100亿元的赔偿基金等内容。鉴于之前曾有法院不立案，也不告知递交诉状方的情况，贾方义表示，已要求法院给出是否立案的书面决定，若不立案，会再上诉，并向最高法院申诉。

7部委组成溢油联合调查组

要求中海油督促康菲采取强有力的措施

昨天，国家海洋局官方网站的消息称，为彻底查明蓬莱19-3油田溢油事故原因、影响和损失，国家海洋局联合国土资源部、环境保护部、交通运输部、农业部、安监总局、国家能源局等部门组成联合调查组。其中渔民水产损失是否与渤海溢油有关由农业部鉴定。

8月19日下午，联合调查组在京召开会议，分别听取康菲中国和中海油总公司关于蓬莱19-3油田溢油事故情况汇报。

联合调查组明确要求，康菲必须采取有效措施彻底排查并切断溢油源，彻底排查并消除再次发生溢油的风险，并保证不再造成新的海洋环境损害，对已经造成的损害要切实负起责任。

对于中海油，联合调查组认为，其对蓬莱19-3油田生产负有监管责任，同时又是康菲的合作者。联合调查组要求中海油督促康菲，采取强有力的措施尽快实现“彻底排查溢油风险点、彻底封堵溢油源”。

[quickie]

来自中国青年报

[topset]

引用框（quickie ＠ 08-22-2011 - 14:45）

康菲石油何以能如此轻慢？国家海洋局有关负责人在接受中国青年报记者采访时称，康菲公司将责任推诿于自然条件，借口由于地层自然裂缝溢出原油，不愿采取积极有效的措施去封堵。另外，该公司熟知我国法律法规和相关政策，知道溢油处置措施不力和瞒报事故并不会遭受像欧美国家那样严重的处罚，对其经济利益影响有限。

这不是睁眼说瞎话嘛。“地层自然裂缝”？地层自然裂缝专门在康菲的井周围漏油?

[ytlee]

引用框（topset ＠ 08-23-2011 - 22:46）

这不是睁眼说瞎话嘛。“地层自然裂缝”？地层自然裂缝专门在康菲的井周围漏油?

If you are an oil & gas professional, you shouldn't make such statement without knowing the facts.

Natural oil seepage from the ocean floor is common in GoM. Petroleum industry started when people found usage for seepage from outcrop.

[topset]

引用框（ytlee ＠ 08-24-2011 - 21:08）

引用框（topset ＠ 08-23-2011 - 22:46）

这不是睁眼说瞎话嘛。“地层自然裂缝”？地层自然裂缝专门在康菲的井周围漏油?

If you are an oil & gas professional, you shouldn't make such statement without knowing the facts.

Natural oil seepage from the ocean floor is common in GoM. Petroleum industry started when people found usage for seepage from outcrop.

我是一个oil & gas professional，在业界做的还不错。

我完全同意有natural oil seepage存在。但是有两点：
这些seepage很多是从很浅的地层中流出的，很多都不是我们常规意义上的可开发的油藏。
更重要的一点，这中seepage在海底的分布比较随机。

像康菲这种十个渗油点都在井周围几米范围内，还要硬说是随机的seepage，这不是睁眼说瞎话吗?

我认为是他们的完井本来就有问题，周围有注入井，导致压力过高，cement出了问题。

之前他们出过一个"小事故"，但是没有具体信息。我觉得跟压力和井控有关。

我预言他们八月底解决不了问题，周围还会不断有seepage。

最后的解决方案我就不说了。

[ytlee]

引用框（topset ＠ 08-24-2011 - 11:05）

引用框（ytlee ＠ 08-24-2011 - 21:08）

引用框（topset ＠ 08-23-2011 - 22:46）

这不是睁眼说瞎话嘛。“地层自然裂缝”？地层自然裂缝专门在康菲的井周围漏油?

If you are an oil & gas professional, you shouldn't make such statement without knowing the facts.

Natural oil seepage from the ocean floor is common in GoM. Petroleum industry started when people found usage for seepage from outcrop.

我是一个oil & gas professional，在业界做的还不错。

我完全同意有natural oil seepage存在。但是有两点：
这些seepage很多是从很浅的地层中流出的，很多都不是我们常规意义上的可开发的油藏。
更重要的一点，这中seepage在海底的分布比较随机。

像康菲这种十个渗油点都在井周围几米范围内，还要硬说是随机的seepage，这不是睁眼说瞎话吗?

我认为是他们的完井本来就有问题，周围有注入井，导致压力过高，cement出了问题。

之前他们出过一个"小事故"，但是没有具体信息。我觉得跟压力和井控有关。

我预言他们八月底解决不了问题，周围还会不断有seepage。

最后的解决方案我就不说了。

Do you have evident (like ROV survey picture) showing oil coming out from 十个渗油点都在井周围几米范围内. If they are overcharged the reservoir, you should see more oil. If it had bad cement job, you should see even more and more oil, not less.

Although I'm no longer working for CoP and do not have access to the data, I still have many colleagues (include few forum members) working for CoP Houston campus. CoP has very high HSE standing and I'm sure CoP in China follows the same standard. I'm sure they are working on finding the source as their first priority. The last thing they needed is having layman pouring fuel on this incident. As oil & gas professions, we should let the scientists do the job and learn from the findings. Pounding the digital drum is counter-productive.

[largegoat]

断层漏油不像井点漏油那样容易找到确切漏油位置，堵起来来比较难啊

[candle]

引用框（largegoat ＠ 08-25-2011 - 15:03）

断层漏油不像井点漏油那样容易找到确切漏油位置，堵起来来比较难啊

PL-19-3的储层埋深多少?

我记得那里的出砂问题很严重，所以应该是非固结地层。这样的地层产生大规模的纵向断层几率很小吧。能延伸到地表附近吗?

断层即便存在也是几十万年了吧，为啥早不漏，晚不漏，偏偏等到现在漏呢?

[topset]

中新网北京8月26日电(记者 阮煜琳)渤海蓬莱19-3油田溢油范围仍在扩大。国家海洋局北海分局最新监测显示，蓬莱19-3油田C平台附近仍有油花持续溢出，附近海域发现油带。截至目前，在康菲公司作业的蓬莱19-3油田C平台附近先后共发现渗漏点16个。

http://www.chinanews...6/3287539.shtml

[ytlee]

The same release said"含油基泥浆".

[zhangxuewei]

把漏油归结于自然条件的说法不负责任
康菲已经被国家海洋局责令停注停钻停产了

[akabc47]

哇，回来看，topset说的非常准！对你的崇拜如滔滔江水。。。。

ytlee，你实在是太爱抬杠了，从来就没有听过别人的意见。

[roc999]

引用框（ytlee ＠ 08-24-2011 - 07:08）

引用框（topset ＠ 08-23-2011 - 22:46）

这不是睁眼说瞎话嘛。“地层自然裂缝”？地层自然裂缝专门在康菲的井周围漏油?

If you are an oil & gas professional, you shouldn't make such statement without knowing the facts.

Natural oil seepage from the ocean floor is common in GoM. Petroleum industry started when people found usage for seepage from outcrop.

You must be joking. The keyword is "专门". Why this natural seepage comes out exactly when CoP is developing this field. Not earlier?

Where is the social responsibility of CoP?

[ytlee]

At this time, we, as outsiders are speculating.

the leakage may be
1. from the previous spill of drilling fluid.
2. from the leakage due to possible frac by overpressure
3. nature seepage.
4. others

From the press release, the collected sample said to be drilling fluid. So unless you have access to the collected sample and data, you can't discard what has been published.

As for frac due to overpressure, the news releases said the field has been shut down for a while now. If the reservoir is over pressured, the spill should be continuing until the excess pressure is gone. So far, I don't see official news saying the spill is still ongoing. This is the reason and only reason I'm against shuting off the field. Only contineous production can reduce the excess pressure.

As for CoP social responsibility, you are correct that CoP should continue working on finding out te origin of the spill. They should conduct extensive ROV check for the subsea intrastructure integrity. The China government should follow US lead, put together a team to investigate and conduct the ROV survey. Actions speak louder than words. As outsiders, (ie you and me) should restraint the speculation. Without the disruption from the laymen, CoP & the China may get to the source of the spill faster. We, as oilfield workers, may learn a lesson, like we do from BP spill.

It is the same stand I have for the BP incident which has a major financial impact on my company and myself personally. This is the same stand I suggested to fellow forum members.

[roc999]

Exactly as you said, there may be many possible reasons.
Then my question is why did CoP jump on to the conclusion of nature seepage so quickly? Why not just blame god?

Natural seepage is probably the least likely among all the possibilities. Why there was no serious seepage before CoP's operation? Did CoP's operation create/reactivate seepage pathway? Did CoP's operation fraced the seal? What was the pressure changes in the reservoir?

引用框（ytlee ＠ 10-01-2011 - 12:26）

At this time, we, as outsiders are speculating.

the leakage may be
1. from the previous spill of drilling fluid.
2. from the leakage due to possible frac by overpressure
3. nature seepage.
4. others

From the press release, the collected sample said to be drilling fluid. So unless you have access to the collected sample and data, you can't discard what has been published.

As for frac due to overpressure, the news releases said the field has been shut down for a while now. If the reservoir is over pressured, the spill should be continuing until the excess pressure is gone. So far, I don't see official news saying the spill is still ongoing. This is the reason and only reason I'm against shuting off the field. Only contineous production can reduce the excess pressure.

As for CoP social responsibility, you are correct that CoP should continue working on finding out te origin of the spill. They should conduct extensive ROV check for the subsea intrastructure integrity. The China government should follow US lead, put together a team to investigate and conduct the ROV survey. Actions speak louder than words. As outsiders, (ie you and me) should restraint the speculation. Without the disruption from the laymen, CoP & the China may get to the source of the spill faster. We, as oilfield workers, may learn a lesson, like we do from BP spill.

It is the same stand I have for the BP incident which has a major financial impact on my company and myself personally. This is the same stand I suggested to fellow forum members.

[ytlee]

The follow statement is from the link http://www.chinanews...6/3287539.shtml posted by Topset and I quote "康菲公司在8月25日承认蓬莱19-3油田C平台附近海床又发现新的油污(含油基泥浆)渗漏点，这些渗漏点与前几日发现的渗漏点为同一来源". CoP said this urrent incident is the leftover from previous C平台 drilling spill incident. Drilling mud was discharged from C平台 to the sea. According to my source, CoP already takes responsibility of the drilling incident. So far several releases identified the drilling mud as the source. As I suggested, if the source is really drilling mud, a simple finger print comparision of the drilling sample would confirm whether CoP telling te truth or not . So far, I head a lot of noises from china but no release regarding finger print.

[roc999]

“海地断层溢油全球罕见，中国首次遇到，处置难度大”

CoP is just unlucky. Hard to believe.

[ytlee]

引用框（roc999 ＠ 10-02-2011 - 08:59）

“海地断层溢油全球罕见，中国首次遇到，处置难度大”

CoP is just unlucky. Hard to believe.

If 海地断层溢油 is the source for this incident, CoP has a bigger problem that subsea structure failure. SUbsea structure can be fixed when the source is identified. On the other hand, 海地断层溢油 may force CoP/China to abandon the field.


I'm no expert on "海地断层溢油", here is an article published in 2008 http://tomnelson.blo...r-accounts.html

seepage is more common that what you quoted. In fact, oil seepage is how oil was originally discovered by human.


To your earlier question "why did CoP jump on to the conclusion of nature seepage so quickly?"

I speculate the following reasons:

1. they were forced to come up with a reason.
2. speculating
3. try to pass te blame
4. none of the above
5. all of the above

I also believe you are jumping to conclusion that CoP did wrong and I speculated that the reasons I stated above applied to you and other forum members.

Frankly speculations will do no good but slow down the remedial process.

Let me use another BP incident. I was working as a consultant at BP on a south america project. The day I left BP was the day thunder horse tilted. When I left BP4 building, hundred people rushed in. The noises and commotions was so unreal. I can only use "stampe" to describe it. Thunder horse used the concept design software which I was the interface developer. So naturelly, I was interested to find out what went wrong. The design contractor build a scaled model in their 1200 old katy office to study the issues. The model was on the ground floor and the public can see it. The topside was hanging on the ceiling and the tension cables spread out to the floor. It occupied a very good size conference room I was working for another oil company and was in the same building. I walked by it every day for 14 months. At the very beginning, there were so many speculations, BP literally ran out of resource trying to chase each suggestion. The design team spent so much time on answering laymen questions, they didn't have time to run the proper analysis. Only when the general public lost interest and speculation died down, the design team had time to walk thru the hurricane recovery procedure to come up with the finding.

[roc999]

1. When did the unlucky "seepage" start?
2. What are the odds for a seepage to start exactly during the short period of time when ConocoPhillips is operating the field? Let me see ...(a few years of CoP operation time) / (a few millions of years geological time) = zero, nada.
3. Odds of arrogant Americans trying to pass the blame ? Is ice cold?


On the side note, honestly, I am sick and tired of seeing some CoP associates to talk like a lawyer to defend ConocoPhillips with some lame excuses. I work for American company too and I sell my professional service to my employer for price. I can not speak for others, however, it will take much more money than what I got in paycheck for me to do this type of dirty PR work for it, which is apparently not in my job description.

[ytlee]

Roc999. If i understood your logic, even the seepage occured thousands years ago, in geological time, a thousand year is still zero. therefore no different if the seepage occurs today or thousand year ago. CoP being johnny on spot is on hook for the incident.

Second, I worked for CoP, that was at least 4 years ago. I have no tie to CoP china. I do not get paid for standing up for them. Other than a possible lession learned from this incident, I don't have any gain nor responsibility for this incident. I also don't have any ties to the service companies nor the chinese companies. I have not received any spill data nor information other than news releases. I draw my observations from these public news releases. I stand up for CoP as a working oilfield worker, nothing more and nothing less. I don't believe that my posts are passing the buck nor arrogant. I'm sorry that you felt that way but I don't owe you any apologies. May be you examine this incident as geoscientist instead of a chinese being victimized by foreigner, you may not have the slighted feeling.

On the other hand, I'm deep offended that your post implied that I sell out to defend CoP and talked like a lawyer. If you sell out yourself for a price, that is your business. Character is very important to me. For the past 30+ years, I walked away from companies and clients when the project conflicted with my life goals and moral responsibilities. I don't comprise my integrity as an oil worker. Therefore even my position in this incident is not popular as yours and other forum members. I wouldn't do it otherwise.