The Tribune

If Deputy Prime Minister Peter Turnquest and Attorney General Sen. Carl Bethel are testing the waters by suggesting an escape route out of the Oban deal Prime Minister Dr. Hubert Minnis should jump in with both feet and get on with it before the plan that has sparked national outcry drowns an administration already struggling to stay afloat.

The first hint that government may be scrambling for a route out of a deal with Oban Energies to build a $5.5 billion crude oil refinery, storage and distribution facility in East Grand Bahama came when the DPM Turnquest said a few days ago that government could escape if it wanted to. That was the first time any highly placed official said an exit route was possible. Prior to that, every indication was no matter what the environmental impact assessment was or any other component of the deal the government was stuck with it. Committed. Locked in. Suddenly, there was a key to unlock? Was it the tentative first step of an exit strategy? That Turnquest - who represents the High Rock constituency of Grand Bahama and was pushing so hard for the deal - was the first crack in the armour was a clue the tide may be turning. If this is the start of an exit plan it could not have been easy for Mr Turnquest to be the first to raise the possibility Oban may never happen and, if so, we congratulate him for finding the strength to do the right thing even if he had to swallow a world of pride.

The second that government was beginning to waffle and change its position was not too long in coming. On Monday Carl Bethel announced in the Senate “It is the inalienable right of the government of The Bahamas to terminate” the Oban agreement under Clause 5 (1). Bethel is also Attorney General and if anyone in government knows what the rights of government are, it is Carl Bethel.

Within hours of the Attorney General’s pronouncement Bahamas National Trust Executive Director Eric Carey was welcoming the news, as if pulling the plug on the deal were already a fait accompli.

Celebration may be a bit premature. But if there is any further encouragement needed for the government to quash a deal that has, quite frankly, smelled from the day it was ‘ceremoniously’ signed February 18, we urge the administration to get out now.

We can only think of only a few other issues in the history of The Bahamas that aroused more public protest than the Oban deal.

In each of those, the government listened to the public outcry and responded appropriately.

One was to build a high-density community adjacent to Lyford Cay on historic property. Record crowds turned out for town hall meetings.

The first Christie administration found the funds and purchased the Oakes property, preserving it for what is now Clifton Heritage Park.

The second time a government backed down in the face of public protest was in the consideration of longline fishing. A cabinet minister, so sure it would pass, counselled fishermen to equip their vessels to prepare. Suddenly, boats from the Far East were being imported into The Bahamas. The proposed policy was soundly defeated as was another to run at an LPG line.

The history of governments responding in the face of resistance is strong and we urge them to show the same backbone now. Go the whole way and say no to Oban.

If it is easier to negotiate a withdrawal of the proposal by Oban saying it does not want to go through with it, or the climate is not right at this time, let them bow out as graciously as possible.

The deal has been issue-infested from Day One. Not only was the initial face of Oban, Peter Krieger, linked to past legal and criminal misdeeds as pointed out first by this newspaper, but he forged the name of the company president Satpal Dhunna at the now infamous sham Heads of Agreement signing.

Once the legal issues were exposed, the website came down. Krieger, originally introduced as chairman, was then presented as non-executive chairman and that title quickly changed again to ‘goodwill ambassador’ before he was seemingly banished altogether. The website came down.

Questions about the company were compounded by concerns about the financial capability of Oban Energies and the viability of the business plan itself. Five and a half billion dollars is enough money to buy the LA Lakers five times or four NBA teams with change left over. It is so much money that if stacked in one dollar bills, it would measure more than 350 miles high. One of the stipulations for project approval is demonstration of ability to complete what is proposed. To date, we have heard that the company, with the HOA in hand, has raised $10 million, a far cry from $5.5 billion.

Along with the shady background of at least one and perhaps more of the original cast of characters, and concern with financial capability, the deal smacked of a breach of everything the government promised with regard to transparency and public consultation.

Protests have raged. Environmentalists, medical professionals, civil society organisations, individuals, residents, respected business columnists and other media railed against a crude oil refinery, questioning why a country with a fragile marine and land environment like The Bahamas would consider building such a facility while countries around the world are moving away from dirty fossil fuels and developing renewable energy. Not a single crude oil refinery has been built along the east coast of the U.S. since 1977, protestors pointed out. Yet, here was The Bahamas, again in the geographical crosshairs between where the crude would come from and where it would go was going, sitting like a stooge without a voice desperate for jobs and apparently willing to sacrifice its most precious natural resource and the health of its people at the altar of a false economy.

Doctors warned of the dangers. Environmentalists decried the fact the deal was signed without an environmental impact assessment or environmental management plan despite the obvious potential impact of a crude oil refinery. The Bahamas National Trust pointed out it was within toxic fume range of three national parks, including the most frequently visited in the country, Lucayan National Park.

Civil society organisations expressed shock that the deal went as far as it did without any public consultation.

Organisation for Responsible Governance, O.R.G., acting on behalf of more than 20 business, civic and civil society groups representing thousands of persons, issued one of the strongest statements it has ever disseminated criticizing the apparent lack of transparency, lack of involvement of civil society and lack of broad consultation prior to the signing of the Heads of Agreement (HOA). Many questioned why so much land was being given away with nothing in it for Bahamians.

With everything about the deal going south, the Prime Minister found himself in the awkward position of having to confess there had been a few “missteps” along the way.

Funding, reputation, potential environmental impact and health hazards all remained questions begging answers as the outcry against the project gained momentum and one petition garnered nearly 1,400 signatures in about 48 hours.

Yet, government seemed committed to the deal – that is, until a few days ago.

Suddenly, it is as if all the voices of protest and reason may have finally found their mark.

This is not the first time a government of The Bahamas has put out feelers to assess public reaction to a dramatic change of position that it had ferociously defended before.

For those like this newspaper who have questioned the Oban deal from the start, we urge you to speak up.

It will not be easy for the Prime Minister to say ‘We made a mistake,’ though we are sure whether it is he or someone else, whoever makes the announcement will find a smoother way to spin it.

Saying sorry is a very small price to pay for protecting an international reputation and more importantly, saving an island.