To my ‘woke’ countrymen, I ask that you please enlighten me as to how the Oban deal is binding, no matter what a foreigner is suggested as suggesting; but is this what he is really suggesting?

“Ceremonial Signing is Binding” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “OBAN Energies President Satpal Dhunna has said Peter Krieger, he company’s non-executive chairman, signed a heads of agreement with the Bahamas government during a ‘ceremonial’ at the Office of the Prime Minister three weeks ago, because he, Dhunna, could not make it.

In a March 7 letter addressed to the Office of the Prime Minister, Mr. Dhunna said he signed ‘the original counterparts’ of the heads of agreement ‘for and on behalf of Oban Energies’ in Nassau prior to his return to London.

‘As I am unable to return for the ceremonial signing scheduled for February 19, 2018, Peter Krieger, non-executive chairman, attended under the consent of Oban Energies, including but not limited to its members, the ceremonial signing for and behalf of Oban Energies LLC’, Mr. Dhunna’s letter notes.

‘Oban Energies…hereby considers itself bound by the head of agreement and is fully committed to progressing the project in accordance therewith.”

So he could not make himself available for the ceremonial signing of a possible multibillion dollar deal and note the use of the word; possible because as the agreement is currently drafted nothing has been finalized yet to the best of my knowledge, no matter what is who has what to say; I do stand to be corrected but as the president of Oban states “Oban Energies…hereby considers itself bound by the heads of agreement and is fully committed to progressing the project in accordance therewith” exactly what does this mean?

“According to the heads of agreement, once Oban has completed the EIA [environmental impact assessment], the government, upon receipt of it, has 60 days to offer feedback”,  it is true that the government cannot cancel the deal but could this possibly mean that the project could not proceed without the government’s approval upon the successful submittal of an adequate environmental impact assessment report?  If this is what this means then those that would suggest that the ‘deal is sealed’ are being less than honest with the people of the country, simple.

I do have concerns about the project and the first question that I would like to ask of Prime Minister, the Hon. Hubert Minnis is if the two previous prime ministers, in the Hon. Hubert Ingraham and the Hon. Perry Christie, by my research, turned this deal down for various reasons; what makes him feel that he has the ‘magic touch’ to actually make this deal a success, I am sure he will address this point when he gives his contribution in the House of Assembly and addresses this matter.

We patiently or impatiently wait.

END

 

 

“Darville: Oban HOA cause for concern – Govt. can’t terminate agreement based on impact report” – The Nassau Guardian”

Excerpt from this article; “Former Minister of Grand Bahama Dr. Michael Darville said yesterday that he has ‘great concern’ with certain provisions contained in a heads of agreement the government signed with Oban Energies to build a multibillion dollar refinery on Grand Bahama.

Darville, who served under the Christie administration, which agreed to the project in principle, said that fact that the agreement was signed without an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a major issue.

According to the heads of agreement, which was tabled in the House of Assembly on Thursday night, ‘the government shall not have the right to terminate these heads of agreement based upon any EIA reports, but instead shall work with the developer to mitigate any concerns.’

I have great concerns about it,’ he said regarding that clause.”

Beside to point out the fact that many do not really care about the opinion of Dr. Darville on this matter and many other matters, I would also like to point out that Senator Darville’s comments seem to serve to do nothing more than to mislead the public at this point, as they are incomplete but then this can also be associated with the incomplete thought process associated with many in the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP); as a political organization and as a government.

For some reason or the other, Dr. Darville, wishes to mislead the public into thinking that the heads of agreement, as signed, will lock the government into an undesirable deal no matter the outcome of an impact assessment report but is this really so?

“According to the heads of agreement, once Oban has completed the EIA, the government, upon receipt of it has 60 days to offer feedback.

That clause also notes that Oban as the right to abandon the project.

‘If, as a result of the government’s review of an EIA, the government determines that the relevant portion of the development (as proposed to be constructed) cannot be implemented in a environmentally safe and sustainable manner, then the government shall propose that the developer take additional specific precautions or make specific modifications to the proposed development in order to address the government’s specific concerns,’ the agreement said.”.  I take this to mean that the developer cannot go ahead with the project until it has met the required standards as set by the government after they [the government] has scrutinized the pending EIA, if this is the case then why is Dr. Darville running down the streets with talks of the possibility of the sky falling?

Darville then goes on to say; “I would not have signed the heads of agreement without an environmental impact assessment to ensure that the project would be viable and safely protocols necessary to protect our environment in that sensitive area were in place.”   The problem that I have with this statement by the ‘good’ Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) senator and former minister of Grand Bahama is that if the project was approved in principle under the previous administration, then why is this Free National Movement (FNM) administration in the process of having to await one?  Surely the previous administration would have had one being put together, since this is the way that they did business and was not about putting the ‘cart before the horse’.

Surely there is something very suspicious about the comments of Senator Dr. Michael Darville and I find it amazing that with all of the other legitimate issues of concern that can and should be raised over this project by Senator Darville; as an opposition senator and resident of Grand Bahama, he would choose one that is moot before it is even spoken – is he this incompetent?

END