By DENISE MAYCOCK
Tribune Freeport Reporter
dmaycock@tribunemedia.net
PRIME Minister Hubert Ingraham criticised Opposition Leader Perry Christie's involvement with a foreign oil company that is seeking to explore for oil in Bahamian waters.
Mr Ingraham was speaking at a mass rally in Grand Bahama on Tuesday night at the Sunrise Shopping Centre.
"The Leader of the Opposition, a former Prime Minister, who is seeking to once again hold that high office, has publicly stated that he is a paid consultant for a foreign oil company. This company is seeking to explore for and drill for oil in Bahamian territorial waters," Mr Ingraham said.
"In Friday's Nassau Guardian, The Leader of the Opposition said the following about his involvement with this foreign oil company: 'I consult on work the firm deems I am qualified by the office I've had, with the knowledge that I have in terms of government."
Mr Ingraham said the foreign oil company is seeking the Government's approval to drill an oil well in Bahamian waters by next year.
He noted that Mr Christie's Deputy Leader's law firm is also involved with the very same foreign oil company.
Mr Ingraham also stated that Mr Jerome Gomez, the PLP candidate for Killarney, was the foreign oil company's resident country manager before it set up its own office in the Bahamas.
The Prime Minister indicated that the approval of drilling for oil in the pristine waters of The Bahamas is among the most important decisions that any Government of the Bahamas will ever have to make.
He stated that the decision by the Government should never be influenced by any financial relationship that exists between the company seeking the permit and its paid consultants and attorneys.
"It is a decision with wide ramifications that will affect the very nature and essence of who we are as a country," said Mr Ingraham.
Prime Minister Ingraham said that when Mr Christie agreed to become a consultant for the company it would have been with the full knowledge and intention of using his position, past and present, and his access to government agencies, whether as Government or as former Government, to influence a decision by the Bahamian Government with respect to any application by that company.
He stressed that as the country prepares for a general election, the leaders of both major parties have an obligation to be transparent and upfront with the Bahamian people on such a critical issue.
"The Leader of the Opposition must answer some critical questions.
"The Bahamian people deserve and demand to know how long he has been a consultant for the oil company?"
Mr Christie explained that his role as consultant is to issue advice as needed on whether or not the company needs someone to speak to the issue of environmental impact (studies); the issue of whether or not in his judgment a matter is worthy for the government to approve, whether or not an application is ready, whether or not they should employ and who goes on the board of directors, whatever views they ask of the firm regards it as necessary, they would consult him on it.
Mr Ingraham said it sounds as if Mr Christie, the leader of the Opposition, is involved in operational matters on behalf of the company.
"In many jurisdictions, the services he described would be called lobbying - in plain English: influence peddling.
Was he hired for his legal expertise or because he was a potential prime minister?"
"Is it a mere coincidence that a foreign oil company decided to hire as consultants and pay handsomely, the two most senior leaders of the Official Opposition, and potentially two senior leaders of the Executive branch in the country in which they are seeking to drill for oil?"
Mr Ingraham stressed that there must be no question or appearance of the possibility of a grave conflict of interest or the potential for secret deals which can compromise the individual who serves as prime minister.
He said the FNM government will not agree to any drilling for oil in the Bahamas until all necessary and appropriate regulations are in place.
Mr Ingraham stressed that it is important that the country be fully and competently in a position to regulate oil exploration activity to protect the environment and that of the world's ocean beyond from harmful and risky activity in Bahamian waters.
"I am not unmindful of what happened in the Gulf off the coast of Louisiana just two years ago. And certainly, we do not have the resources, human or financial, nor the billet, to respond as the US Government responded.
"We are not now in a position to so regulate and oversee drilling operations in our waters," Mr Ingraham said.
"My greatest obligation is to do what I think is the right thing to do at any given time to protect the best interests of you, the Bahamian people, and that of future generations.
"I will not take any deliberate action to cause harm to our country regardless of the promised financial reward for a select few consultants and legal representatives. We in the FNM do not go that way. We accept that we are different, distinctly different from them.
Mr Ingraham said putting Bahamians first is a solemn duty, one that he has sworn to uphold.
He said If Perry Christie really wanted to put Bahamians first, he would not have agreed to become a paid consultant for a foreign oil company.
"This has cast doubt on where his true allegiance will be when it's decision time," Mr Ingraham said.
"I have no such conflict of interest. My only interest will be your interest. My only interest will be to put every Bahamian man, woman, and child first," Mr Ingraham said.
Comments
Arob 12 years ago
Yes Prime Minister, I concur that the current law (The Petroleum Act) is inadequate. There is a need for revised and additional oil/petroleum regulations. But, who represented the Government (the interests of the Bahamian people) during the meetings with the oil company?
There are two issues: first the environmental impact: A layman’s look at the current Petroleum Act, indicates amendments are needed. The Act concentrates on the oil rig but does not mention the transportation of oil “supertanker”. The two largest disasters were different in that BP’s disaster ($40 billion and counting) was at the oil rig and Exxon Valdez’ disaster ($4.3 billion) involved a supertanker. Second, the economic impact: some Bahamians believe that the economic impact is immediate that is, the public treasury will be flowing with surplus revenue. Others believe that the price of gas at the pumps will plummet and still others believe that the cost of electricity will at last become acceptable. Sir, what do you say?
Other questions about the agreement: if oil is found, how long before we (Bahamians) feel the positive financial impact?
Will the oil, like our salt, be exported as a raw product and later imported for our consumption?
Does the agreement involve the refining of the oil in The Bahamas?
And if yes, will the oil refined in The Bahamas be labeled for export only or will it be used locally?
Philosopher_King 12 years ago
Ladies and Gentleman, This is the last frontier of a visionless FNM/PLP governments attempt to revitalize our one trick pony economy. Let us all thank the DNA for bringing this issue to the forefront when both relic parties where trying to remain silent on it during this election period. Hoping to not have any public debate on what is probably the most important economic issue in a generation. The duplicitous FNMs Dear Maximum Leader is once again talking out both sides of his mouth. All reasonable people familiar with his agile ability to pivot on the issue when instructed by his true masters know if he's able to renegotiate an oil deal to replace the PLP players from the stage with his usual suspect financial benefactors he’s going to flip flop faster than fish out of water and be all on board with the idea of oil rigs dotting the horizon like it was his in the begining. My questions are similar to Arob can we responsibly exploit this valuable resource to the benefit of all Bahamians or will this just be another boon for the foreign investor and the wealthy local traditional merchant class who merely act as facilitators of it’s exploitation. Nothing would be more tragic than like many Third World dictatorships only a handful at the upper crust see any real economic value from it; while the masses of people languish under the yoke of back breaking high electrical and gas prices. Above all things this is the real reason The Dear Maximum Leader is still seeking public office one last lap, to be able to redirect the potential financial windfall from oil proceeds in the favour of his financial benefactors. Similar to his promises and insinuation to end plethora of PLP deals in ’97 only to implement many of the same things he railed against after the disastrous Stop, Review and Renegotiate in our favour policy got him caught with his pants down when the Great Recession hit us broadside.
Philosopher_King 12 years ago
Sorry meant to say '07 not '97
Gadfly 12 years ago
Arob you have put forth some good faith, reasonable and mature questions. They are exactly the type of questions one would expect from an informed and responsible citizen. I believe that it is important, especially when dealing with complex national or international issues, for our citizens and even more so our politicians to be measured, accurate and honest. PhilosopherKing has asked us to thank the DNA for bringing this issue to the forefront, and I ask thank the DNA for what? The DNA has been anything but measured, accurate or honest on this issue. Instead of focusing on this important and complex issue in a substantive and constructive manner, the DNA has instead attempted to gain political mileage, stirring up controversy with misstatements, inaccuracies, personal attacks and conspiracy charges with absolutely no supporting evidence. In fact from the post of PhilosopherKing above, I am not sure whether the writer just abhors and dislike the PM that much or whether he is simply using a page out of the DNA playbook on this issue in using the old debate trick of personal attacks when the facts are not on your side. On the issue of oil drilling, it would same to me that the actual positions of the DNA and PLP are quite similar, in that both parties are for drilling now. The facts are that it was the PLP that issued the license to BPC under the terms of the outdated legislation put in place under the Pindling government in 1971 and it is the PLP that appear to be conflicted on this issue. The FNM implemented a moratorium in 2008 on drilling to amongst other things ensure a comprehensive review of our regulatory, legislative, environmental, financial and tax structure and to provide greater public consultation on this substantive and complex issue. The moratorium effectively suspended the license of BPC and is still in place; however, from the perspective of BPC they still believe they have a valid contract and license. This creates an obvious tension and conflict between the interests of BPC and the government on a very complex and important national and international issue, in which every Bahamian is a stakeholder. Let's not further complicate it by gratuitously politicizing the issues.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID