Expansion in Prin......Port Edward!

General Forums General Chat
21

Train that is certainly Crazy I have to question your statement that “…the sale of Watson Island to a legit purchaser?” doe that means in your honest opinion that WatCo was not a legitimate company? And this from your inside information that said "yes Crazy, WatCo is managed by a guy who has been instrumental in the development of North Eastern BC Coal for the last few decades and because of this has a part in putting so many people in BC to work both in the coal industry, transportation and shipping sectors, fully supported partnering with First Nations on all projects and sold his last company for $3.3 billion dollars is just another Ni Ritao?

Your honor, the defense for WatCo rests on the count!

I will agree that if you talk to the principals on the city’s side they are not going to say they are screwed, if you read the response to the civil claim (thanks again BT!) and you didn’t read anything else it seems like a solid case but they are two sides and we will have to see where this plays out but if you are going to tell me that with approximately 16 LNG projects proposed for BC that they will all see the light of day I will say no. Will all the largest ones come to fruition? No. Will we see one of two be built? Maybe. Will we see a small LNG facility on Watson Island three years from now? I will go out on a limb and you have to take my word for it but definitely probably not and where will the city be then?

WatCo plan was reasonable, not pie in the sky stuff, they were legit because of those millions of dollars they handed over to the city, what is your connection Ed offering us? (just kidding, you have no friends or connections!).

22

are either of these companies publicly traded? im too lazy to look.

23

WatCo is 100% owned by Colonial Coal, which is listed on the TSX.

Very little is known about WILNG. There is no record of them being listed on a stock exchange. Dunn & Bradstreet and other reporting services did not have any information on them, last time I checked. All that can be said at this point, based on public records, is that they are represented by Ed Neibauer, who has a history in the petroleum sector in Colorado and Utah.

24

So given that watco is publicly traded one could gain financially should they be able to obtain inside information?

Seems that would not only be highly unethical but illegal as well. Assuming crazy train isnt full of shit about having inside information it may be worthwhile to check the investments of those close to insiders. Im not saying theres illegal activity but if lips are that loose about important legal and financial issues itd be worth it to take a deeper look into whats going on.

25

You could have shorted Colonial Coal back in January/February but it being a venture coal company it was trending downward with the rest of the herd so no one would have noticed plus the fact it was trading in the 28 cent range you would not have made much money in the trade unless we were talking huge dollars but unless you take into account a spike in share volume in late January there is not much smoke.

A lot of people of some connection to this, many people think they have a little inside information, I doubt there is anyone with a smoking gun that will either win or loose the case for WatCo.

26

Good to know. I dont really know much about stocks etc. still rather disconcerting that people are apparently rather loose lipped about such important matters for the city. Combined with all the secrecy towards the general public this paints a very bad picture of how city hall is being run.

27

[quote=“Northbynorthwest”]
A lot of people of some connection to this, many people think they have a little inside information, I doubt there is anyone with a smoking gun that will either win or loose the case for WatCo.[/quote]

You mean we don’t have our own BCRail scandal. No Basi/Virk. Darn.

But you are right. It is pretty hard not to know somebody with connectiions to city hall if you have lived in Rupert any length of time. In my 40 years here, I have been on a first name basis with four of the five mayors (John Kuz being the exception) and, as I type this I cannot recall how that came about. I don’t socialize with any of them, I don’t belong to any of the same groups or organizations that they do. I really have nothing to do with them. It’s just Rupert as well as a politician’s desire to get to know as many of his constituents as possible.

That’s why I have a harder time accepting some of the personal attacks directed at council. MLAs and MPs are well compensated and can make fairly lucrative careers out of their decision to run for office. And they are insulated by being down south or back east representing a political party that some of us may loathe. But councilors are our neighbours. They are here, trying their best (flawed as they be) to help the city. And for the record, while I may have voted for some of our current council in past elections, of the current crop, only one received my vote to get them elected this time around. No vested interest here.

As for inside information, I have asked questions of “people in the know” and been told “I can’t tell you everything but I can tell you this…” and because I hadn’t read it in the newspaper I might assume that it is “inside” information when in fact it isn’t. When I expressed my concern about Watco, that we were continuing to drag out something that appeared to be solved I was told, “Not everything is as it seems. You will have to wait and see how this plays out” leaving me with the impression that the city was on the right track. Coming from a person I know and with connections to the city, I can think I have “inside” information when in reality I don’t.

But all that aside, let’s play some more speculation.

What logical reason can there be for the decision to drop Watco for WILNG? There has to be a reason. And I can’t imagine it comes from council. It had to come from lawyers or staff. Some of us are assuming, that it is just dumbass decision making by council but that’s too easy. Why drop a legitimate purchaser and get an albatross off our necks? Why prolong this long running soap opera? Maybe, we actually do have our very own BCRail scandal and somebody, somewhere is ready to make a haul. Or, maybe, just maybe, the city knows what it is doing?

28

[quote=“jesus”]
… Im not saying theres illegal activity but if lips are that loose about important legal and financial issues itd be worth it to take a deeper look into whats going on.[/quote]

It is illegal for a council member to release any document that the City is holding in confidence, or to release any information considered in a lawfully closed council meeting before the information is released to the public or discussed at a public council meeting. The City can recover damages from a council member who breaches confidentiality if it results in a loss or damages. See section 117 of the Community Charter: < bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC … section117 >.

Employees may be in breach of their employment contracts, which could provide grounds for dismissal.

If a breach of confidentiality involves personal information, a council member, officer or employee of the City can be subject to a fine under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The stock market question is interesting, but it is outside of the scope of WatCo’s damages claim against the City, which is for breach of contract and unjust enrichment relating to the $2 million that they paid the City.

Perhaps WILNG learned something from that. They do not appear to be paying monthly fees to the City in return for an exclusivity agreement. That appears to explain the $475,000 decrease in revenue from Watson Island reported in the CFO’s financial report to end of June, considering that WatCo was paying about $90K a month and the agreement was terminated in February.

Of course, there is no law prohibiting the Mayor and council from clarifying their deal with WILNG or inviting WILNG to provide some information about their plans for Watson Island. The City has been in discussions with Imperial about Lot 444 and quite a bit of information has been provided to the public.

Yes, it is disconcerting that some people with “connections” may be getting information before the general public. Rupert can be rather “old boy” at times.

29

I dont know who you are… but you’re informative. I like you.

30

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“jesus”]
… Im not saying theres illegal activity but if lips are that loose about important legal and financial issues itd be worth it to take a deeper look into whats going on.[/quote]

Yes, it is disconcerting that some people with “connections” may be getting information before the general public. Rupert can be rather “old boy” at times.[/quote]

Wait a minute.

On the one hand, council is criticized for not being open enough. Now, when an anonymous poster on a public forum suggests that he received “insider” information, the city is criticized for being too loose lipped in the way it does business.

Crazy Train probably misspoke (miswrote) in his attempt to defend council against this forum’s negativity (to be fair, his perception of negativity) toward council. We have no clue what information he was given or who gave it. It may have been nothing more than what I received from the person I spoke to which was basically, “I wish I could tell you more. This is what I can tell you. Be reassured. Blah Blah Blah.” Now maybe the reassurance part is a lie. But wouldn’t it be inappropriate for that person to tell me that the city was out to lunch especially when the case is before the courts.

Or, perhaps, Crazy Train’s conversation was with a very close friend, maybe even a spouse who, trusting Crazy Train, in a moment of candor, passed on more than should have been. Does that reflect on the entire council or how the city does business?

Bash council all you want, but let’s be fair. We shouldn’t use some vague reference posted on this forum as evidence of wrongdoing.

31

[quote=“DWhite”]

[quote=“BTravenn”]

Yes, it is disconcerting that some people with “connections” may be getting information before the general public. Rupert can be rather “old boy” at times.

Wait a minute.

On the one hand, council is criticized for not being open enough. Now, when an anonymous poster on a public forum suggests that he received “insider” information, the city is criticized for being too loose lipped in the way it does business.

Crazy Train probably misspoke (miswrote) in his attempt to defend council against this forum’s negativity (to be fair, his perception of negativity) toward council. We have no clue what information he was given or who gave it. It may have been nothing more than what I received from the person I spoke to which was basically, “I wish I could tell you more. This is what I can tell you. Be reassured. Blah Blah Blah.” Now maybe the reassurance part is a lie. But wouldn’t it be inappropriate for that person to tell me that the city was out to lunch especially when the case is before the courts.

Or, perhaps, Crazy Train’s conversation was with a very close friend, maybe even a spouse who, trusting Crazy Train, in a moment of candor, passed on more than should have been. Does that reflect on the entire council or how the city does business?

Bash council all you want, but let’s be fair. We shouldn’t use some vague reference posted on this forum as evidence of wrongdoing.[/quote]

No one is being unfair here. That goes too far.

The original statement was “I’m not at liberty to discuss what evidence I have seen. I am not directly involved but I do have connections who have shared some inside information.” That was described as “rather disconcerting”, which is a fair and apt way of framing the issue.

The reference to “seen” suggests that written information has been disclosed.

There are legal issues around disclosures of confidential information. I doubt that anyone’s ass is on the line, but the council would be well advised to review how information is being handled, including by staff, when the City is involved in legal proceedings.

As for 'council is criticized for not being open enough. Now … the city is criticized for being too loose lipped in the way it does business", some issues “must” be discussed in closed meetings and other issues “may” be discussed in closed meetings (see sections 89-93 of the Community Charter).

Sometimes public bodies get it wrong. The Information & Privacy Commissioner has made numerous orders that information that was treated as confidential be disclosed. When it comes to legal proceedings,though, non-disclosure is the norm until there has been a decision. There is no dispute about that.

That aside, when the council properly excludes the public from its’ deliberations, information is supposed to be treated as confidential unless or until it is disclosed to the public; there is no in between where information is disclosed to some of the public but not to the rest.

32

I don’t want to be defending Crazy Train who by his last comment may not be even reading this.

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
Like I said before, I’m not directly involved so those that I am connected to could be blowing smoke up my ass for all I know. With that said, feel free to carry on with your negative spin towards our elected officials and the decisions that that make in an attempt to rectify the problems that they all inherited, with the exception of Nelson Kinney, all while fueling cynicism and despair rather than hope and promise. I give up.[/quote]

And I really don’t want to be defending city hall. But what the hell.

All of this may be disconcerting if we actually knew what Crazy Train saw? heard? assumed? if anything and from whom. Is this a one off or as you suggest by your “old boy” comment typical of how city hall really does do its business. And if it is typical, what other situations have occurred and how have they been played out.

We can speculate all we want here, but without a whole lot of facts it is still speculation and unfair to lump all of city hall as culprits.

And speaking of speculation, I would still like to know what people think may be the reason for dropping Watco in favour of WILNG. Because I can only think of three.

  1. Council is stupid or, at the very least, is following some very bad advice.
  2. Somebody is crooked.
  3. The right decision has been made.

And I guess we won’t really know until all the facts are made public or some other “insider” posts something on HTMF.

33

[quote=“DWhite”]

And speaking of speculation, I would still like to know what people think may be the reason for dropping Watco in favour of WILNG. Because I can only think of three.

  1. Council is stupid or, at the very least, is following some very bad advice.
  2. Somebody is crooked.
  3. The right decision has been made.

And I guess we won’t really know until all the facts are made public or some other “insider” posts something on HTMF.[/quote]

There are other, probably more likely, possibilities.

Sometimes parties end up talking at cross purposes because what they agreed to (in writing, orally or by conduct) is unclear or they may have different interpretations of what they agreed to. That’s why courts apply an objective test of what a ‘reasonable’ person (ie the judge) would have thought under the circumstances, rather than what the parties (subjectively) thought they had agreed to.

A lot of the dealings between WatCo and the City were quite informal. That does not mean that they did not have or amend an agreement, but it looks like the Court will have to consider a lot of evidence, some of which will be conflicting.

This strikes me as more challenging than the SunWave cases, where in the end the Court made a decision based on general principle (about the need for certainty of title when municipalities acquire land through tax defaults) rather than the details of what transpired between the parties.

The Court did not rule out that SunWave could pursue damages, so that was probably a consideration when the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The contents of that agreement are largely unknown, according to the Mayor because there is a confidentiality clause, but a public body cannot contract out of duties of disclosure under FIPPA (see sections 17 and 21 in particular). That’s just an aside.

While SunWave owed the City money, WatCo paid the City $2 million. Their position is that the money should be either paid back or the deal should be completed. The City’s position seems to be that the council had an unfettered discretion to walk away at any time and keep the money, regardless of what the City’s negotiators had said or how much WatCo had invested in the negotiations. That’s a tough issue.

I have no opinion as to who is most likely to win, but I don’t think the case will be a slam dunk for either WatCo or the City. I think that the trial is going to be lengthy, difficult, and probably costly as well, even leaving aside the revenue shortfall from Watson Island which is starting to add up.

As for knowing the facts, a good start would be to read the Court filings by both sides, which I’ll send to you if you want.

34

[quote=“BTravenn”]
I have no opinion as to who is most likely to win, but I don’t think the case will be a slam dunk for either WatCo or the City. I think that the trial is going to be lengthy, difficult, and probably costly as well, even leaving aside the revenue shortfall from Watson Island which is starting to add up.

As for knowing the facts, a good start would be to read the Court filings by both sides, which I’ll send to you if you want.[/quote]

Thank you, but I will pass on the court filings (too lazy, too dumb) which I am now wondering is what Crazy Train saw. Maybe his source explained them from the city’s perspective. Would that be inappropriate given that you and perhaps other members of the public have access to them and can presumably read them and form opinions if so inclined.

I told my “insider” (for want of a better word), that I was concerned that we were losing revenue and that an issue that had been dragging on for what seemed like forever and was now looking like it was over, is now being dragged along further with no end it sight. As I have pointed out, I was reassured (with no real evidence or inside information) that there was good reason for the city’s actions. Given all that is at stake, I would hope that the city’s position is more slam dunk than you portray.