The defendant of Bohai oil pollution case will pay 40% more than 12 million yuan for the claim amount

The process and the ending of the protection of the fishermen in the two provinces are different, but the common problem is the obstruction of the judicial relief channels and the loss of compensation mechanism for marine oil Pollution Damage-Our correspondent Zhang Ruidan |　　Wen twists and turns for many years Bohai Oil pollution case, finally in the recent draw a full stop. Four years ago, in the Bohai Sea, a "oil rat" oil spill caused by the incident, with a tanker oil spill superimposed, affected the two provinces of Hebei province fishermen. November 18, under the auspices of Tianjin Maritime Court, six fishermen and defendants in Leting County, Hebei Province, China Sea Development Co., Ltd. (CSCL Development), China Shipping Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CNOOC), Sinopec Corp (hereinafter referred to as PetroChina), Shengli Oilfield branch of PetroChina Co., Ltd. (　　Under the name of Shengli oilfield) signed a conciliation agreement. The defendant will pay more than 12 million yuan, accounting for about 40% of the amount claimed by six fishermen.　　Among them, the CNOOC took out 700,000 yuan, the rest of the remaining by Sinopec and its subordinate Shengli oilfield to pay.　　Fisherman Lu Yuepo said that it could not cover all their economic losses, but could only choose to accept it because it could not afford it. In Shandong Dongying and Yantai, there are fishermen to safeguard their rights.　　The process and outcome of fishermen's rights protection are different, but the common problems are the lack of judicial relief channels and the loss of compensation mechanism for marine oil pollution damage. Coincidentally, occurred in the July 2010 Dalian Xingang Pipeline explosion accident, resulting in a large amount of oil leakage in Dalian Petrochemical Branch, the relevant sea aquaculture losses, fishermen have several petitions rights (related reports see the 37th issue of 2010 "Dalian Oil Pollution without compensation").　　So far, the damaged fishermen in Dalian are still trudging through the long claims road. Two oil spills in March 2006, the fishermen in Leting County, Hebei province, discovered that their farms were floating in large quantities of crude oil, sweeping the beaches.　　In early April, the oil spill reached its peak, and shellfish and clams, which were farmed by nearby fishermen, died.　　After investigation found that the oil has two sources: from June 2005 to December, Wang Yujiang, Liu Linbin and other people in shengli oil field offshore oil production plant on the seabed oil pipeline drilling hole, resulting in oil leakage; in December, in the vicinity of the sea, CNOOC tanker under the "Daqing No. 91st" Tanker delivery occurred in the cabin crack, large oil spill. It was not until March 13, 2006 that the Shengli oil field officially found the source of the spill and halted crude oil loss. However, the Victory oil field did not choose to report the situation at that time.　　On the same day, the North Sea branch of the State Oceanic Administration, the law enforcement officers in Shandong Long I. Sea to detect oil pollution incidents, found the oil spill. According to the report of the Tangshan People's government on the situation of crude oil pollution in the sea area of our city, the whole Tangshan coast and tidal flat are contaminated by crude oil, and the fishery loss of the local livestock and fishery department is 785 million yuan. Among them, the loss of the fishery in leting amounted to 248 million yuan.　　In addition to large areas of Hebei, Shandong Dongying and Yantai part of the farms are also contaminated with varying degrees. Between 2006 and 2007, Wang Yujiang, Liu Linbin and othersFollowing the sentence.　　However, the impact of the superposition of the two oil spill incidents has not been eliminated. In Yantai hardest hit Long I. County, the local government quickly statistics losses to the CNOOC oil tanker claims. China Sea Development Board office a staff member said, because the evidence is difficult, finally in the Ministry of Communications, local government and Shandong Province Maritime Bureau communication, the development of the China Sea to pay 36 million yuan compensation, of which 30 million yuan by the Shandong Provincial Maritime Bureau to the Yantai Fishery Bureau, the remaining 6 million yuan directly to pay the Yantai fishery In fact, the amount of compensation claimed by fishermen is far greater than $36 million, the source said. "In Dongying, commissioned by the local government, the Ministry of Agriculture on the source of oil spills, the impact of sea areas and losses were identified."　　In the case of local government mediation, Dongying fishermen sued Shengli oil field in Qingdao Maritime Court in the spring of 2007. And the Lu Yuepo, Newyi, Gao Weihua, Chenchangjiang, Ann, Han Wanjiang Six fishermen commissioned the Ministry of Agriculture in the Yellow Sea fishery eco-Environmental Monitoring Center, the results of their six economic losses amounted to more than 30 million yuan.　　Six fishermen commissioned the Beijing municipal law firm lawyer Xia Jun, sued to Tianjin Maritime court, to the development of China Sea, CNOOC, Sinopec, Shengli Oilfield and CNOOC (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CNOOC) and other defendants claim. The problem of proving the burden of proof fishermen first face the problem. Xia Jun said that the only evidence at the time, in addition to the Tangshan municipal government Situation Report, only the original state Environmental Protection administration in March 2007, China's Coastal waters Environmental Quality Bulletin of the disclosure of the information: "From February 2006 to July, due to the Bohai Sea tanker accidents and oil spills in the offshore oil spill impact, Crude oil pollution occurred in Long I. of Shandong Province and Qinhuangdao area in Hebei province. "In September 2008, the case turned into a turnaround. Xia Jun learned that the State Oceanic administration of the Shengli oil spill formed a "case investigation end report." After several setbacks, the Tianjin Maritime Court obtained the report.　　The report points out the impact of oil spill, of which "there are 3 anomalous areas to the east of Hebei Leting", according to the analysis of oil fingerprint identification, the characteristics of these oil slick areas and oil spill in the Shengli oilfield consistent.　　December 2008, Lu Yuepo and other six Leting fishermen for the plaintiff's "Bohai pollution case" in Tianjin Maritime Court session.　　Yantai Fishery Association of Shandong Province also represents 808 local units and individuals, will be the development of China Sea, Sinopec, CNOOC sued to Qingdao Maritime court, to seek compensation for loss of more than 350 million yuan. Sinopec became the only defendant in the case in August 2009 when the Yantai Fishery Association withdrew its lawsuit against the development of China Sea and CNOOC. People familiar with the matter said that the withdrawal of CNOOC was due to insufficient evidence, and the withdrawal of the development of China Sea, then with the development of the Chinese sea has been through the local government of Shandong coordinated payment of 36 million yuan. But how the money was allocated to the damaged fishermen has not been publicly stated.　　Many fishermen claim that they have not received any compensation payments. November 2009, the Qingdao Maritime Court dismissed the Yantai Fishery Association's lawsuit request. The court found that the plaintiffCan not prove that the defendant has a tort, there is no evidence that the loss of the plaintiff and oil spill causal relationship, and that the oil spill accident by a third party intentionally stolen oil caused by the third party responsible for the loss of compensation, the defendant should not be liable for compensation. In April 2009 and August, Tianjin Maritime Court held two cases of Hebei Leting County fishermen's claim.　　The plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit against CNOOC because CNOOC proved that it had nothing to do with pollution. China Sea and China Sea oil tankers believe that the surrounding area of the oil spill is irrelevant to themselves, the fault lies in Sinopec and Shengli oilfield.　　Then the two think, CNOOC may also be the perpetrator, even if the oil spill pollution is the result of the successful oil spill, but also "oil rats" to steal oil, responsibility is not in their own.　　The North Sea branch of the State Oceanic administration of the "Case Investigation End Report" pointed out that Sinopec in the incident after the accident did not comply with the provisions of the Marine Environmental Protection Act of timely reporting, the fine of 50,000 yuan, and the oil spill caused by pollution of the marine environment, a fine of 200,000 yuan. Xia Jun said: "Sinopec and Shengli oil field in the case of oil spill pollution accidents and fishery production losses, have a certain fault, but whether it should be for criminals to steal oil from the consequences of all the costs, the existing" Marine environmental protection Law "does not clearly stipulate, inevitably brought the application of the law dispute. "November 18, 2010, under the coordination of the Tianjin Maritime Court, four of the defendants agreed to mediate."　　A week later, six Leting fishermen "helpless" to accept the "Shichong"-a total of more than 12 million yuan "final compensation", on the premise of admitting that four of the defendants and oil "not" "not liable", and in the future may not propose "any form of claims and litigation." Lack of compensation mechanism for oil pollution damage in fact, the "Tort Liability Act" of July 1, 2010 has clearly stipulated that "the damage caused by the third person's fault pollution of the environment, the victim can request compensation from the polluters, or to the third person to seek compensation." When the polluters pay compensation, they have the right to recover from the third person.　　Xia Jun that, if the case can fully implement the principle of no-fault liability and advance Payment principle, "will greatly improve the environmental pollution compensation liability system." Ocean University, president of the School of Law and Law, Xu Xiangmin the reporter said that even if the "Tort liability law" has not been promulgated, the relevant laws do not exist fundamental "deficiencies", can be fully applicable to the "general rules of the Civil Code" and the relevant judicial interpretation of the provisions of tort liability, the defendant compensation for "The problem is not to take the law seriously, nor to take the interests of the people seriously."　　"The relevant laws of China have already stipulated that the system of compensation for oil pollution which is generally applied to compulsory insurance and compensation Fund as the main body in the world is very slow." At the level of insurance system, the regulations on marine environment pollution Damage to marine engineering construction projects stipulate clearly that "the marine oil and gas exploration and Development Unit shall handle the civil liability insurance for pollution damage", and the former state Environmental Protection administration and China Insurance Regulatory Commission jointly issued the guidance opinions on environmental pollution liability insurance in 2008, But environmental responsibilityThe system still lacks substantive action. In addition, China has only acceded to the International Convention on Civil Liability for oil pollution damage, but is free from the establishment of the international Oil Pollution Damage Compensation fund. The industry generally believes that the opposition of the relevant central enterprises is the main reason why China has not joined the fund.　　The domestic Oil Pollution Damage Compensation fund system only in some places to try, the national "Ship Oil Pollution Damage Compensation Fund collection and use of management measures" is still in preparation, China's three major oil companies are said to be more negative reaction. Shortly before the case of the Hebei Leting Fishermen's claim, the Qingdao Maritime Court ruled on the Dongying fishermen's claim that the defendant was "not responsible" for the pollution loss of the farmers, but at the same time asked the defendant to "compensate" the farmers "about 34 million economic losses of 70%",　　However, no legal provisions have been made to explain why the compensation for the judgment was not invoked. ' It's a bizarre verdict that doesn't look like a judicial verdict, ' says an informed legal person. ' It's like a Wei file. ' "Compensation, compensation, the difference between the words, the meaning is very different." "He believes that the result is more of a compromise under the local government's demand for stability-one that does not identify the oil company's responsibilities and tries to" settle "the dispute.