Oban oil refinery project still under review by Cabinet committee

NASSAU, BAHAMAS – Nearly three years since the government inked a controversial heads of agreement with Oban Energies, a Cabinet committee is reportedly still reviewing the matter.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Peter Turnquest confirmed the matter was still under review during a recent interview with Eyewitness News.

The government signed the agreement with Oban in February 2017 for a $5.5 billion oil refinery and storage facility project in East Grand Bahama.

It did so in the absence of an environmental impact assessment (EIA), which was just one of the controversial elements of the deal, heavily lamented by environmentalists.

There was also widespread public outcry over a clause in the agreement that prevented the government from scrapping the deal based on anything in the EIA.

After months of pushback, Prime Minister Dr. Hubert Minnis admitted his administration made missteps with the deal in its haste to boost Grand Bahama’s economy.

The government pledged to strike a better deal and had engaged in negotiations with Oban officials early last year.

Asked about the status of those negotiations, Turnquest said: “As you know Cabinet established a committee to look into that, that committee is still looking into the matter and how we might want to go forward, so for me to comment on it may be a bit premature.

“I don’t want to say too much about it, save to say that events certainly given us additional consideration, so I’ll leave it to the committee to speak formally on it.”

Equinor – formally known as Statoil – confirmed that 55,000 barrels of oil spilled at the South Riding Point facility in East Grand Bahama during the passage of Hurricane Dorian.

The company has advised that all free-standing oil and oil liquid has been recovered since the September spill, however recovery efforts to the nearby impacted forest is expected to last for six months.

Environmentalist group Save The Bays (STB) has asserted that the Equinor oil spill should be incentive for the government to reject the Oban project, noting that it would be insane for the Minnis administration to continue “courting another dangerous and reckless facility”.

 

  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest
Op-Ed: Brave ‘Papa Tax’ Davis and his mid-year budget

In February 2015, the Registrar General Department entered into a contractual agreement with VRC, formerly known as Sunshine Shredder, to digitize its company files as part of a long-overdue transition from paper-based records to a modern, paperless system. The initial cost of the contract was a staggering $89,000 for the first month, followed by an ongoing monthly fee of $85,000. Notably, the agreement lacked a clearly defined project timeline or end date, raising immediate concerns about fiscal oversight and accountability. Tragically, while scanning commenced, the project quickly revealed an alarming absence of quality control and verification protocols. The digitization process, meant to enhance access, accuracy, and operational efficiency, was executed with such poor foresight that the resulting digital records are effectively unusable by the Company Section. The core issue lies in the contract specifications. VRC was commissioned to scan and input data into only three (3) fields, despite the operational requirement being six (6) fields for full functionality within the Department’s systems. This fundamental oversight rendered the digitized records incomplete and incompatible with current needs. Attempts to rectify this monumental error have proven financially unviable. Discussions to incorporate the additional fields revealed that doing so would triple the cost an egregious escalation with no guarantee of improved results. To make matters worse, in 2024, when the Registrar General’s office relocated to a new building, the internal scanning unit comprising trained staff who could have potentially salvaged or improved the process was dismantled. These personnel were reassigned to other departments, effectively dissolving any in-house capacity for quality control or intervention. This sequence of decisions paints a troubling picture of systemic mismanagement, questionable contractual negotiations, and a lack of strategic vision. The public deserves transparency, and those responsible for this financial and operational fiasco must be held to account. A project intended to usher in digital transformation has instead become a cautionary tale of waste and ineptitude at the expense of taxpayers and national record integrity.

Add New Playlist

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?
Hide picture