The Tribune

By LARRY SMITH

In her examination of the irregularities surrounding the so-called Bahamas Agricultural and Marine Institute (BAMSI) on Andros this week, Candia Dames wrote that Bahamians have had enough of the government’s negligent handling of our affairs.

“The tolerance for our officials’ flippant and arrogant responses to critical issues is waning,” she said in The Nassau Guardian. “The culture of slackness (will) only be addressed if there are clear messages that those responsible for abuse are held to account.”

Punch columnist Catherine Kelly went further: “You can hear the frustration as Bahamians call in to radio talk shows, trying to articulate why they think everything has gone so horribly wrong for their tiny country ... They point to widespread corruption, criminality and violence … Clearly the people are at the breaking point and the Christie administration seems powerless to diffuse the ticking time bomb.”

And fellow Punch columnist Nicki Kelly pointed out that “the fire at BAMSI exposed the lies and illegalities that have become a hallmark of this project since it was first conceived”.

The government’s defence over the BAMSI fiasco boils down to this statement from Deputy Prime Minister Philip Davis: “But for the actions of an arsonist, this issue would never have arisen.”

An incredible admission in Parliament by a senior lawyer who is also a senior public official responsible for the disbursement of public funds.

In other words, if some ass hadn’t acted stupidly, we would have all gotten away with this; and you, the public, wouldn’t be any the wiser.

Let’s take a closer look at just one of the issues involved - the lack of insurance cover. Arson (the setting of a fire deliberately) is included in the coverage, unless the fire is set by the insured or by someone acting on his behalf (which needs to be proven). If the insured (or his agent) destroys his own property then he cannot collect from his insurance policy. He can, however, go to jail if convicted for the offence.

We asked a leading insurance expert to comment on this. For obvious reasons, he requested anonymity.

“What I find interesting in the whole BAMSI discussion over insurance is that there was no mention that, if there was insurance and it was placed with a company not registered under the Insurance Act 2005 (eg a ‘Southern Alliance’), that is an offence under the Act.”

So would a disaffected employee of the contractor be considered an agent acting on his behalf?

“I doubt that would succeed. They would have to show that the person setting the fire was acting on behalf of the insured (whether remunerated for his action or not), so a disaffected employee of the contractor would in all probability be considered as acting against his employer’s interests by setting fire to the property.

“Recall the new highway to LPIA - a disaffected employee dug up a portion of the new highway, and (to the best of my knowledge) the insurers of those works settled the claim to repave it. I believe the cause of the employee’s disaffection was, in each of these two instances, not being paid their wages by their employers (the contractors).”

Then there is the Alice in Wonderland matter of the destroyed building’s replacement. After initially suggesting that the fire damage amounted to a paltry $120,000, the Deputy Prime Minister later put the cost of the fire at $2.5m, for which he said the contractor was responsible.

Audley Hanna - the contractor, who is reputedly one of Davis’ political generals - obligingly said he would rebuild at his own cost, although he didn’t know where the money would come from. But Davis then said the reconstruction would now cost $5.5m, citing design changes and VAT as two of the reasons, meaning the government would have to shell out another $3m.

According to my insurance source, “the new estimate of $5.5 million quoted by the DPM is staggering, and I am not sure how changing the accommodation from single occupancy to double occupancy in the dorm rooms accounts for such a large increase over the original cost - it makes one wonder if the taxpayer is not only covering the cost to rebuild, but the cost of the original building (again) to enable the contractor to ‘repay’ at loss?”

Maybe we should ask Alice, when she’s 10 feet tall?

Delays over aragonite promises

A year or so ago, we experienced one of those political firestorms in a teacup, when an hysterical controversy flared up about aragonite exports. The controversy died just as quickly after the government promised to review the matter.

“With respect to aragonite, we are looking at the entire legislative framework because the existing legislation that is on the books is quite dated,” Environment Minister Ken Dorsett said last May. But on Monday, the Guardian pointed out that we are still waiting for Dorsett to make his long-promised report on the state of the country’s aragonite resources.

Not only did Dorsett undertake a review, but Bahamas Agricultural Industrial Corporation chairman Arnold Forbes was instructed by the Prime Minister to explore the viability of state-run aragonite mining operations. We have heard nothing from that quarter either.

In his budget address last year, Perry Christie said the government would “review potential revenue associated with the sustainable use of our natural resources (to) ensure that the people of the Bahamas get fair compensation for the exploitation of our natural resources”.

Meanwhile, Peter Turnquest, who is now deputy leader of the Free National Movement, called for a select committee to produce an independent, non-partisan report on the aragonite mining industry. But since the issue fell from the headlines last summer, there has been no further public discussion.

A year ago, various uninformed individuals were claiming that the country was sitting on a gold mine, but Bahamians weren’t getting their fair share from the sale of valuable natural resources like aragonite.

There is nothing especially valuable about aragonite. It is just a form of limestone sand that occurs naturally in many places around the world. Sand is probably the most widely quarried, dredged or mined mineral in the world, and is used in the manufacture of iron and steel, glass, cement, fertiliser and chemicals.

Limestone is a very common rock. But quarried limestone in North America averages about 74 per cent purity after crushing, whereas Bahamian aragonite averages 97 per cent purity. This makes it superior for many industrial applications. But that advantage must be weighed against the high cost of transporting the sand from wherever it is excavated in the Bahamas.

According to geographer Neil Sealey in his book, Bahamian Landscapes, aragonite is a dense crystal form of calcium carbonate: “As oceanic water moves onto the Bahama banks it is warmed and precipitates a sediment called oolite, which appears as a fine white sand … not very different from the formation of salt in a salt pan by the evaporation of sea water.”

There are four areas of aragonite deposits in Bahamian waters, estimated to contain tens of billion of tons - enough to supply world demand for decades. But the deposits near Bimini are closest to mainland markets, and this is where some degree of extraction has taken place since the 1960s.

“We are looking at the science,” Dorsett told the Guardian this week. “The research is taking time. The thing is so incredibly important to us that we cannot make the wrong decisions.”

This is a strange comment because the science of aragonite deposition is quite clear, and so is the history of extraction. And it should not be difficult to assess the market potential at any one time. This is yet another example of incompetence, delay and obfuscation on the part of the government.

What do you think? Send comments to lsmith@tribunemedia.net or visit www.bahamapundit.com.