Oil terminal sale will hurt economy –BIM

Short-term relief but long-term pain.

That was how the Barbados Integrity Movement (BIM) summarized the possible impact of the proposed deal between Government and regional petroleum giant Sol Group for the sale of the country’s lone oil terminal, the Barbados National Terminal Company Limited (BNTCL).

BIM leader Neil Holder said the sale could end up being detrimental to the Barbados economy, despite the anticipated US$100 million windfall that Government would receive.

Neil Holder

The Fair Trading Commission (FTC) recently released details of the presumptive sale, that is already being met with staunch opposition from Rubis Caribbean which contended that the merger would create an oil storage monopoly that would diminish Rubis’ standing in the market.

While the Sol Group is led by Barbadian Sir Kiffin Simpson, information released on the FTC’s website revealed that the Sol Group would purchase the terminal through BNTCL Holdings Limited, incorporated on November 7 last year as a domestic company to the parent company, Sol St Lucia Limited.

Speaking Wednesday afternoon at a press conference at Divi Southwinds in Christ Church, Holder claimed the arrangement would result in protracted haemorrhaging of badly needed foreign exchange.

He argued that “BNTCL will be owned by an external corporation which will have to repatriate profits back to St Lucia in US dollars.”

The leader of the newly formed political movement suggested that the private oil storage monopoly created by the sale could also push up the cost of fuel to Barbadians, despite the fact that the agreement states that “the Government of Barbados through the Division of Energy will retain regulatory oversight and control the final pump price to the consumer. The Sol Group’s ownership of BNTCL does not allow it to determine final pricing to the consumer”.

It added that “any increase as it relates to the increase in throughput rates for the BNTCL services, will be absorbed by the Government through its cess mechanism and as such the consumer is not impacted by the proposed acquisition”.

However Holder is challenging Governments capacity to deliver its promise.

“With BNTCL possibly becoming the private storage, Government will have to apply certain taxes at the pump to recoup any increases applied by the BNTCL Holdings limited to make its operations profitable. How can Government assure Barbadians that fuel price will not escalate, as these assurances are worth nothing based on past experience?” he said.

In addition, the BIM spokesman accused the ruling Democratic Labour Party of not levelling with the public on the true cost of the BNTCL, as figures ranging from US$60 million to US$120 million had been bandied about since 2016.

“BIM needs to know what is the agreed purchase price, as this not clearly stated anywhere. The Fair Trading Commission could not provide BIM with the sale price, therefore we in turn can’t provide Barbadians with the sale price. The FTC is supposed to be investigating this matter but they are asking us to refer to the Central Bank report [of December 2016], which list the price at US$100 million.

“Barbadians cannot accept from the FTC that what they are doing could be fair and impartial if they are not operating with all of the information that they need and if they are not providing the public with the actual sale price ,” Holder contended.

4 Responses to Oil terminal sale will hurt economy –BIM

  1. Jennifer February 23, 2017 at 3:38 am

    BAD MOVE. AS USUAL, THINKING ABOUT ONE FEEDING OF FOOD AND NOT ON FUTURE MEALS.

    Reply
  2. Samantha Best February 23, 2017 at 5:42 am

    I believe that too much emphasis is being placed on the FTC’s role in this matter. The issue here is what has the FTC been asked to do? Was the sale fair? Were the laws adhered to?

    RUBIS is behaving like a spoilt child: they submitted a bid for the purchase as well. If they had won would they be “crying” now?

    Is BIM really serious about running the affairs of this country?

    Reply
  3. hcalndre February 26, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    @ BIM, you said that its a bad deal, the”16″ say its a good deal, should you be right, what should be the punishment for them besides losing the government? Confiscating their assets? Is was said that the investors who lost their hard earn cash with Clico was greedy and to this day they have not been compensated.

    Reply
  4. BaJan hoy February 27, 2017 at 8:30 am

    Asking Neil Holder any questions is a total waste of time. He has the mental capacity to to put a few sentences together but the boy is only suited for a circus. Ignore his senseless mouthings…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *