 |
| Blog |
 |
| Archive |
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
| To find an archived article, simply click on Index and scroll the subject titles, or do a Ctrl-F search |
TALLRITE BLOG
You can write to me at blog2-at-tallrite-dot-com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| For some reason, this site displays better in Internet Explorer than in Mozilla Firefox | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| November 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #141 - 26th November 2006 [600+2300=2900]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nigerian Oil Industry
in Costly Disarray The oil industry in Nigeria is in disarray. In terms of its enormous proven reserves (36 billion barrels) it lies in 10th place in the world. With a production capability of 2½ million barrels a day (more or less steadfastly since I first worked there way back in the 1970s), it should be the world's 12th biggest producer. But, due to the dreadful security situation, it's only able to produce around 75% of this, which at around $60/b represents a daily shortfall in revenue of some $35m. Wells and fields are being voluntarily shut in by the producing companies either because they have been attacked by militants and criminals or attacks are threatened. Big companies like Shell and Chevron, the bulk of whose production takes place onshore or in the swamps, are especially vulnerable to direct assault compared to, say, Exxon-Mobil most of whose production is offshore. The companies refuse to restore production until they are reasonably confident there will not be a problem. In most jurisdictions, if your property is attacked by outlaw elements, you call the police. Not in Nigeria. Because calling the police almost certainly leads to lethal force, often augmented by army units, and that lethal force may not stop at the installation that's been attacked. There have been instances of the state forces then moving on to attack the village where the outlaws live, killing men, women and children and then burning it to the ground. In the court of international public opinion, it is the capitalistic greedy imperialistic rich multinational oil company that gets blamed for ordering the massacre to protect its profits, not the out-of-control police and army . So the oil companies won't ask for help; they take it on the chin (and the balance sheet). The security issue is pervasive in the oilfields. Whilst, as noted, fields located onshore and in the swamps are especially vulnerable because they are easily accessible, the hugely more expensive offshore operations are not immune. For if the fields themselves are not being attacked, the workers are, which almost amounts to the same thing. And it all adds up to a huge cost premium that the oil industry has to bear, in addition to losing that 25% of its production potential. Less skilled black workers from the locality are attacked without compunction, and if necessary murdered, simply because they have jobs and therefore (a pittance of) money for the taking. The hours of darkness are the most dangerous. Therefore, they understandably don't want to set out for work before daybreak and want to be safely home by nightfall. This places a major constraint on the hours available for work and thus imposes a big premium for getting the work done. For the skilled (often white) workers, the risk
is kidnap. They are being kidnapped almost daily (though only
a few make the
international headlines). The reason is simple: ransom.
And despite official denials by employers, negotiations with the
kidnappers nearly always take place, money changes hands and the
captives are freed unharmed. They are in fact treated quite
well by their abductors, not only because they are worth nothing
dead, but because there's nothing personal about the kidnaps - it's
pure business. And lucrative business. The going rate
for an expatriate worker is $500,000. That's US dollars, not
Nigeria Naira (NN130=$1). This risk in turn fosters a huge and expensive
private security infrastructure to protect each expatriate worker,
while each worker in turn demands ever higher remuneration to stay
in the country.
Nigeria's oilfields are located in the Niger Delta, with roughly half on either side of the river (map). Thus Warri and Port Harcourt have grown up as the country's major oil towns, where workers live, and from where supplies are warehoused to be dispatched to the oilfields, whether overland by truck, or by watercraft through the swamps, or by supply boat to offshore locations. However, in recent years, Warri has become so dangerous that it can scarcely fulfill its role any longer. Port Harcourt (PH), in the centre of what the 1960s secessionists used to call Biafra, is becoming the sole oil service centre, taking over much of Warri's business. But even PH is struggling. It's main seaport is no longer safe from attack, so offshore supplies are now arranged though Onne, 30 km south east of PH. Onne was set up a few years ago as an international Free Zone for the industry both within Nigeria itself and along the West African coast. But while the Onne facility itself is well protected from intruders, it is not without problems because the waters beyond are crawling with pirates in fast boats. There is a green buoy some ten kilometres offshore. To avoid the pirates, ships wishing to enter Onne must arrive there at 8 am precisely, to be piloted, in full daylight, up the Bonny River (part of the Niger Delta) and into Onne port, tying up at maybe 10 am. If they're not ready to sail again by 4 pm, ie well within daylight hours, they're stuck in Onne for the night. Coming or going, they must ensure that in the darkness of night, they are far out to sea, beyond easy reach of the pirates. Meanwhile, with only six working hours available to offload and reload, and the stevedores anxious to get home well before dark, it is impossible to run a normal, efficient logistics operation. Once again, this translates into higher costs for the industry. Then there's Port Harcourt's international airport. For some months, it has been shut down after a fire and due to potholes in the main runway, which remain unrepaired. The rumour is going round that the President's son plans to start an airline in January and would like to use PH airport as its exclusive base. Therefore, current users are being obliged to get used to making other arrangements, so as to pave the way for the new airline. The story may be apocryphal, but people are certainly having to learn to do without PH airport - though again, at a cost. For oilfield operations, Owerri has stepped forward because it has a big runway at its Imo Airport. Owerri was Nigeria's major oil town in the 1960s, but was gradually overshadowed as the more conveniently situated PH grew, 120 km to the south. Thus to bring oil workers to offshore or other distant locations, they must today pick up a helicopter in Owerri, fly the 30 minutes or so to Port Harcourt, refuel and then fly offshore, and the same for the reverse journey. Those extra helicopter journeys add significantly to the cost of moving people. Then there is the perennial corruption problem, where people have their hand out at almost every step of the supply chain. Sometimes it is blatant bribes, sometimes kick-backs or commissions, sometimes the use of “agents” to arrange things, sometimes the hiring of unnecessary extra staff. Whatever form it manifests itself in, corruption amounts to a hefty additional tax on doing business. Of course it's not just Nigeria. The Africa Union estimates that Africa as a whole loses $148 billion a year, or a quarter of its entire GDP, to corruption; which is why in 2003 it drew up a “Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption”. Nevertheless, though similar countries such as Uganda and Tanzania ratified the Convention some two years ago, Nigeria has to date failed to do so. So what does this all add up to, what's the net result? Here's a typical example.
But in Nigeria, you must also cope with the unparalleled security issues, concomitant wage inflation, inefficient logistics forced by external factors, and of course endemic corruption. So add 75%. You need to budget $375,000/day for that jack-up rig. Nigeria is a hard and hazard place to do business. Only the most dedicated and robust need apply. Yet, at $60/bbl big money is nevertheless being made. The curse of Nigerian oil, however, is the manner in which the proceeds are distributed. The companies pay heavy taxes and royalties (“Government Take”) on what they produce, leaving them a margin of just a dollar, regardless of how the oil price climbs, as this chart based on Shell data shows. These taxes and royalties go to the Federal Government which is responsible for spending and redistributing them. Since the birth of the Nigerian independence in 1960, very little has been spent or redistributed in the direction of the oil producing areas. As I described in a previous post, the bulk goes to benefit the (Muslim) north who provide most of the leadership and into the pockets of Nigeria's so-called “big men”. For decades, the local people in the oil-producing provinces thought that penury was their natural, feudal lot. But no longer. They now ask, perfectly reasonably,
Most dare not rage at the government which is of course the party that is guilty of withholding their patrimony, because they will be simply gunned down. Therefore, they rage at the oil companies because, though they scrupulously obey the law to the letter, they are a soft touch and won't shoot, even though those companies, notwithstanding occasional slip-ups, have always done their utmost to be benign neighbours and employers of local people. 70% of the population lives on less than $1/day, and if you travel around the Nigerian oilfields in the Niger Delta, you have to conclude that's where the 70% are. Until the Federal government introduces equity (as if!) to the distribution of oil proceeds, ie directs a lot more than the current nominal 2% to the oil-producing regions, the Nigerian oil industry will remain in disarray, or get worse. I am very grateful to my first-hand
sources for much of this post; ____________________________ Late Note (May 2007):
Defending Your Home, With Force In 1999 in England, Tony Martin a Norfolk farmer who lived alone, shot dead a teenager (with several previous convictions) who, with another man, broke into his home at night to burgle it. Mr Martin had been burgled many times before, so was lying in wait and fired his gun at the intruders as they were trying to escape. The teenager died; the other man escaped with a bullet in the groin. When Mr Martin was sentenced to life for murder, public opinion was outraged. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to five years for manslaughter and he was freed on licence after serving nearly 3½. In 2004, Padraig Nally, a Co Mayo farmer who was living alone, shot dead an intruder (with a dozen prior convictions for burglary etc) who seemed to be looking for stuff to steal. Mr Nally shot the man once, then beat him with a stick, and as he tried to escape he reloaded and shot him again. Mr Nally, too, was convicted of manslaughter, is currently serving a six year sentence, and public opinion is outraged. As the law in Ireland and Britain currently stands, if your home is invaded, you are supposed in the first instance to avail of any opportunity to retreat and only as a last resort may you use “reasonable force” (an undefined term) to protect your family and home. Also, you can't own a gun without a licence, which you'll be granted only for hunting and certainly not self-protection. Oh, and if you do injure the intruder, he may well be able to secure state funding to sue you for damages. This is what the surviving intruder to Mr Martin's farm did, since, as mentioned, he had been wounded in the groin. He was a career criminal serving time for drug-dealing when a judge gave him permission to sue, with potential damages of £15,000. He dropped the case only when Mr Martin claimed counter-damages. This is all madness.
Americans utterly fail to see the logic of this. They have a quite straightforward philosophy. If someone enters your property uninvited, he leaves his human rights at the gate. You are at liberty to take whatever action you deem appropriate. Thump him with a baseball bat if you wish, or a five-iron. Set a booby-trap. If you have a gun (which most do) you can shoot him. No law-enforcement officer or court is going to take the intruder's side in such an encounter. The result? A far lower rate of household burglaries in the US than in UK and Ireland, for the simple reason that would-be intruders fear the hostile reception that may be waiting for them.
I remember watching a TV investigative documentary not long ago, featuring the ghastly Janet Street-Porter. She was trying to track down some dodgy characters, first in England then in America.
The American way is the way it should be. No unwanted intruder should expect to enter your house and expect to leave again other than in an ambulance. It is encouraging therefore, that at long last Ireland's rottweiler Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has promised to rebalance the law to allow householders to repel intruders. He hedged around this a bit, adding things like “... this would not amount to a ‘007 licence to kill’”, whilst other have commented along the lines that “there should be a minimum level of threat before the use of force becomes acceptable ... violence should be imminent and life-threatening to justify a lethal response.” However, it seems pretty clear that that is precisely what the new law is intended to permit, ie robust force if the householder thinks the threat so warrants, and rightly so. Talk of “reasonableness” and “proportionality” is ridiculous. If once you decide to use force, it should be unreasonable, disproportionate and overwhelming, so as to make absolutely sure that you win and the intruder loses, not the other way round. You are not looking for a “fair” result but a decisive victory. The only remaining piece of the legal jigsaw is a right for householders to keep a gun for self-protection. But perhaps, here in Europe, that's asking too much for now (which is not to say householders shouldn't buy a gun anyway). I look forward to the enactment of Mr McDowell's new law in the near future, as well as something similar in the UK. It is bound to result in a fall in residential burglaries to approach American levels (currently around 30 per thousand households, down from the 50 in the 1996 in the chart above). If people want to force themselves into your home, you have a moral right - indeed a duty - whatever the law says, to protect your family, yourself and your property, using force to the extent you deem appropriate.
Irishman Richard Corrigan is an excellent and successful chef but a dreadful poser. Last June, he shot to fame for winning a TV Competition to cook the starter in a four-course dinner for 300 hosted by the Queen to celebrate her 80th birthday. (Smoked salmon with Irish soda bread, woodland sorrel and wild cress, if you want to know). Since then, he seems never to have been off our TV screens and newspapers pontificating about this and that, and also wandering far from the culinary field in his punditry. Only last week, we was on the panel of Ireland's “Questions and Answers” programme (its equivalent of the BBC's better-known “Question Time”), where only one of the questions concerned food: “Does Richard Corrigan think he is promoting Irish food and tourism when he criticises Irish food products?”. Behind this question are various erudite remarks he has recently uttered. For example, Irish
“Why would you put shit in your mouth?” he asked on TV earlier this year, in typical vein(/vain). These are the emotional witterings of an ignoramus. Why? Because he never attaches any factual or quantitative information to them. What do these kind of remarks actually mean? How, quantitatively, do such Irish products compare with those produced elsewhere? How - if at all - does this affect the nutritional value of the food? Does he mean it will poison you? And what about the taste, how many people prefer Irish food to competitor food? Take just the last question. I have never met anyone, Irish or not, who didn't totally rave about the flavour of Ireland's “crap” sausages, unparalleled by any other country. Riots break out when anyone produces a big dish of Irish cocktail sausages. Try it. Maybe they have too much salt, fat and bread and the only pork meat is hooves, scrotums and eyeballs; perhaps they're not very nutritional and they contribute to your cholesterol problem. But by God, they're delicious! Any poll would corroborate this, but Mr Corrigan doesn't want to know this lest it challenge his prejudice. As a skilled, experienced chef, he relentlessly tells us he is an expert on flavour, but frankly this is a diversion. The only experts on food flavour are in fact the consumers, and it is consumers (Irish and many others) who are freely choosing, in vast numbers, to patronise Irish rashers, sausages, pasta sauce and chicken. They do it because they like what they buy, they accept the price and they trust the regulatory authorities to ensure the food is safe to eat. Mr Corrigan should spend more time in the kitchen where his undoubted expertise lies, and less swanking about looking for TV cameras for his unsubstantiated nonsense.
Week 141's Letters to the Press Two letters this week; neither made it into print. The Sunday Times wrote to me to say the one about atheist Richard Dawkins, based on last week's post would be published, but in the end it wasn't. I thought the anti-Catholic sentiment expressed in the Saddam Hussein letter would endear it to the Irish Times, but no; I think I am blacklisted there again.
Quote: “"Today is the beginning of a new history. The doors of peace have been opened and Nepal has entered a new era ... Nepal has set an example in ending the bloody conflict though dialogue.” Girija Prasad Koirala, prime minister of
Nepal,
Quote: “You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed. You have shown yourself to have no respect for life or liberty. The world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done.” The last words of
Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB agent, Mr Ltvinenko
dictated them just before he died The Kremlin denies any responsibility. Quote: “My intention was to assassinate Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.” Multiple murderer
Michael Stone Sentenced in 1989 to
684 (!) years for the murders of six Catholics, Having now
re-offended, He will leave prison in a coffin. Photo of the Week
The cast of
The Mikado take a final curtain call
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| See the Archive and Blogroll at top left and right, for your convenience | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ISSUE #140 - 19th November 2006 [758]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Measure Yourself Before Drink-Driving As a Podcast Ireland kills almost 400 people on its roads each year. Though detailed statistical data and analysis are sparse to non-existent, the largest group of victims is men under 30, and alcohol is a feature in well over half of accidents. Naturally, young men under the influence of drink is a major demographic among the mortalities. There are legal limits to the amount of allowable alcohol in your system when driving, and they are notable both in people's ignorance of them and in the lack of enforcement. In Ireland, the limits are
These are similar to the limits in the UK and Australia, and some 60% higher than those in most of mainland Europe. The lack of knowledge about drink-driving and the law is astonishing, as is the nation's singular aversion to do anything serious about the drink-driving problem. The methodology of enforcement is simple. The police ask drivers to blow into an electronic breathalyzer that measures alcohol content, and a heavy penalty follows if the reading is over the limit. Where to do this? Why at accident blackspots (mainly narrow, winding rural roads, much favoured by young men in fast cars) and outside pubs and clubs at closing time. But in Ireland, despite fanfare about the recent introduction of random breath-testing, this has been concentrated
The unspoken reason for avoiding the pubs is that police cars parked outside at 11 pm would undoubtedly drive away a great deal of trade, whereas very many Irish legislators are themselves owners or investors in lucrative pubs. Nevertheless, everyone pays pious lip-service to the zero-tolerance mantra, “don't drink and drive”. Thus it was that when Tipperary councillor Michael Fitzgerald (50), who has a previous drink-driving conviction, recently said he sees nothing wrong with motorists (including himself) having “three or four pints” before getting behind the wheel, his enraged party-leader immediately decided to withdraw the whip (ie suspend him). Mr Fitzgerald wanted to make the point that for many rural people for whom public transport is non-existent, driving to the pub for a few pints is their sole social outlet, without which they would be prisoners in their homes. The air-waves filled with indignation at the councillor's effrontery: he should obey the law, any drink was wrong, he's setting a dreadful example to the young. A front-bench spokesman declared that a zero alcohol limit would now be his party's policy. All based on ignorance of the law and how the body deals with alcohol, which is different for every individual. In similar vein, a zero limit is ridiculous because a zero measurement is only as good as the sensitivity of the machine. Your blood-alcohol level at any given moment is a function of five factors.
Clearly, a bottle of whiskey will put me over the limit - or will it? If I down it in an hour, it certainly will. But if I take a thimbleful with my cornflakes every morning till the bottle's empty, it won't. If chunky giant Arnold Schwarzenegger scoffs a can of lager, he's going to have a lower reading than the elfin Wynona Ryder would. The truth is that, without actually measuring it, there is no way you can know or calculate your blood-alcohol level. This puts you in the curious position that you can only find out when a policeman stops you, tells you and prosecutes you. It's like driving a car without a speedometer and only knowing you've broken the speed limit when the cops pull you over. Thus few people are aware that a drink-drive limit of
80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of
blood is in fact quite generous.
A decade ago, I was living in Perth (Australia), where nearly every pub and restaurant had its own breathalyzer on the wall on the way out. You inserted a dollar and out popped a straw, which you would use to blow into the machine and get a digital reading. From this, you knew whether you could drive home, or needed to wait an hour or two or should get a taxi. I found - to my surprise - that I could have two pints of beer and share a bottle of wine with my wife over dinner, and still be well within the limit. In Ireland, the UK or continental Europe I have never seen a breathalyzer in a pub, and I think it is partly because it might suggest drink-driving is OK. Also, the police sometimes disapprove of a pub installation; maybe they find it unsporting.
And, because of human psychology, it is essential to keep it on your person rather than leaving it in the car. Imagine a cold, wet February night (OK, August night if you're Australian). You've had a great time out on the town with your friends and now it's time to go home. You and your date get your coats, wrap up well and rush into the night to get into the car parked a hundred metres down the road. You then test yourselves. You're both over the limit. What are you going to do? Are you really going to race back in the rain to the pub (which is preparing to close and all your pals have now left) to wait an hour before taking another reading? Or are you going to phone for a taxi on a busy Saturday night and sit shivering in your car hoping it will eventually show up? Or are you going to say, dammit, I'll just drive slowly and carefully, keeping an eye out for the fuzz? Alternatively, when the
breathalyzer sits quietly in your pocket, you can take unobtrusive
readings as the evening progresses, and decide in good time whether
to switch to Pepsi or to keep boozing This is the little device I have carried in my pocket on nights out for the past five or six years. It sits snugly in the palm of my hand or my top pocket, and at only €40 is pretty much bottom of the range, yet perfectly adequate. Extreme precision is not required since I want to ensure I am well below the limit, not a bare 5% below. But I just must ensure I haven't drunk anything for the previous 30 minutes as otherwise I'm not measuring the alcohol in my system but in my mouth. Of course, it is true that one sip of alcohol impairs your driving ability and to that extent you shouldn't get into your car at all. But the law does allow a measure of latitude and imposes a limit based on accident statistics (gained in other jurisdictions). So if you do decide to drink-drive, measuring yourself is the only way you can ensure you remain within the law. One other thing, people who measure themselves are already taking conscious steps to behave in a responsible manner. They should be encouraged. And that Tipperary councillor should buy his own breathalyzer. I don't know whether his drinking sessions are long or short, but he might find that his “three or four pints” leaves him comfortably within the drink-drive limit.
911 In Plane Site As a Podcast I was recently lent an interesting DVD, “911 In Plane Site”. It is an hour-long documentary made for TV and shown in America not long before the 2004 presidential election (I wonder why). Its central thesis is that all four attacks by civilian aircraft on September 11th 2001 were frauds perpetrated by the US Government. Before you scoff, let me outline the documentary's case.
Assuming the video footage is not faked (which some claim it is), Dave Vonkleist, the presenter, is to be commended for presenting pieces of evidence that raise a number of serious questions with no glib answers. However, far from seeking rational explanations, he immediately goes off the tracks in making a giant leap to conspiracy. That is his only attempt to explain the anomalies. The US airforce must have sent its own planes to crash into key buildings. In collusion with Mr Silverstein (clearly part of the Jewish cabal trying to control the world), US secret services set demolition explosives in the WTC to help things along. They removed evidence and suppressed video of all the crashes to hide the truth. And, by implication, the CIA, FBI, USAF or whatever are so internally disciplined that not a word of the plot has leaked out to this day, despite the dozens if not hundreds of operatives that must have been involved to ensure such a complex, wide-ranging operation ran so smoothly and to plan. Makes you wonder how they ever allowed those Abu Ghraib photos to slip past their iron security. Substituting three flights with other aircraft is one thing. But Mr Vonkleist spares not a word about the original flights 11, 175 and 77, with all passengers and crews lost. Their fate clearly does not interest him; they just disappeared. Perhaps they were flown to a secret airbase, where the CIA gassed everyone on board and quietly incinerated the bodies, baggage and planes. And, once again, not a hint of this has leaked out. You've got to admire the CIA's impregnable omertà. Pity they couldn't extend that to their infamous rendition flights. Then there is Lucius Cassius Longinus's famous question, “cui bono?”, who benefits? Well I suppose it is those born-again, amoral, ruthless, neocon, Zionist, bloodthirsty warmongers Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who needed an excuse because God told them to ignite a new killing crusade against Muslims. And what better way to do God's will than by murdering some 3,000 of your own innocent, God-fearing citizens within a few months of taking office having been elected by those citizens. There are two types of court of law where prosecutors and defenders make their case to juries.
Yes, the documentary raises interesting, and in some cases troubling, questions. But if you want to be convinced there was not a conspiracy, watch it and follow the so-called logical trail it tries to lead you along by the nose.
DawQuinn: Atheism Nil, God 1 As a Podcast - Part 1 of 2 I mention on the right-hand panel that I have started reading “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, a distinguished biology professor, who has carved out an additional career for himself as an articulate professional atheist. As a practicing Catholic, I reckon it's healthy to have my beliefs challenged. The professor is a wonderful man to listen to in terms of his mellifluous voice, flowing English, carefully explained arguments. However, because he subscribes to the modern post-Christian values of leftish atheism that nearly all the bien-pensants in the media so love, not to mention many/most political leaders in Europe, for whom the practice of (the Christian) religion is, frankly, an embarrassment, he is never seriously confronted. Perhaps like that charlatan Noam Chomsky, he ensures that he always has an easy ride; I don't know. The closest I have seen to challenge is this ten-minute interview by Jeremy Paxman, the BBC's noted rottweiler who is usually sneeringly merciless in eviscerating politicians who want to dodge difficult issues. Yet he is decidedly soft on Mr Dawkins. (It is rather typical, in the discussion of how excessive religious zeal can be lethal for humankind, Bush and fundamentalist US Christians are trotted out as the examples, with not a word about Kohmeini, Osama, Ahmedinejad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Wahhabism, etc, for whom - unlike Christianity or Judaism or Sikhism or Hinduism - wielding the sword in the name of God is the central, driving philosophy.)
However In October, Prof Dawkins came to Ireland on the standard book-promotion tour, which naturally include a number of radio intervie | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In
today's international market place, a standard jack-up offshore rig,
able to work in, say, a hundred metres of water depth, will command
in the order of $100,000 per day.
To this you need to add about the same again to cover the cost of
boats, helicopters, numerous specialist services and supervision, to
give a so-called 
