Do Jamaicans support abortion in Jamaica?

Abortion ... let’s get rid of those ancient laws

By Dr Dayton Campbell:

Abortion ... let’s get rid of those ancient laws

THE World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over 22,000 abortions are performed in Jamaica each year.

Complications arising from unsafe abortion are among the top 10 causes of maternal death in the island, especially among teenagers. Review of legislation governing abortion has been 30 years in the making. Efforts by various governments to address these concerns have been halted by conservative religious groups not sensitive to the reproductive rights and realities of women, girls, their families and partners.

In Jamaica, Sections 72 and 73 of the Offences Against the Persons Act (1861) reads:

* Criminalise women who chose to terminate a pregnancy, who, if convicted "shall be liable to be imprisoned for life with or without hard labour."

* Criminalise medical professionals who facilitate a woman's exercise of choice to have her pregnancy terminated, and the parents and guardians who facilitate termination of pregnancies of girls under the age of 18. If convicted, they "shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years with or without hard labour."

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

Think! Does the illegality of abortion prevent its practice?

Is pregnancy only unwanted because the woman has been sexually reckless?

The answer to these questions is NO. The current law frustrates THOUSANDS of Jamaican women, the poor especially, who are in desperate need of abortion services. Nearly half of all pregnancies -- 41 per cent -- are unplanned (2002 Reproductive Health Survey); only 50 per cent of pregnancies were planned (2008 Reproductive Health Survey) In 2009, some 7,612 live births occurred to mothers under the age of 20 - a decrease from the 7,680 recorded at the end of 2008 (data obtained from National Family Planning Board - NFPB).

Eighty-one per cent of recent births reported by women aged 15-19 were unplanned. Nearly all of these unintentional births were mistimed (occurred earlier than desired) as opposed to unwanted (no children or no more children desired). The information is also obtained from the NFPB.

Who is affected?

According to the WHO, "abortions and complications thereof are the eighth leading cause of maternal deaths in Jamaica, affecting adolescents primarily". Between March 1 and August 31, 2005, there were 641 patients at Ward 5, which deals exclusively with abortions at the Victoria Jubilee Hospital.

All patients were from inner city communities, single, and nearly half were Christians, while a third were teenagers. About 40 per cent admitted to having had a previous termination of pregnancy and 30 per cent had two or more previous abortions.

Do Jamaicans support abortion?

YES!!!!!! Many of us support efforts to make services for the termination of pregnancy legal, safe and affordable. A 2006 public opinion survey conducted by Hope Enterprise found about "60 per cent of respondents support the legalisation of termination of pregnancy" under "special conditions" such as "incest, endangerment of the woman's physical or mental health and/or life".

From the public health perspective, we need to address these women who burden the public health system after botched abortion attempts. Evidence in Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, South Korea, Guyana and Barbados shows that where abortion is legal, maternal morbidity and mortality rates fall. Rates may initially seem to rise because of the previous under-reporting.

For women in the middle and upper income groups, the law can be circumvented by access to financial resources to pay for private medical services to procure a safe abortion. The law is restrictive and unjust to women in the lower income groups who cannot afford private medical services and therefore resort to the illegal informal market. In both instances, the quality of the service that the woman receives is entirely determined by the ethics and integrity of the individual practitioner. There are no minimum standards and no norms. Legal provision of abortion by qualified practitioners in both the public and private health care systems as recommended will ensure that safe abortions can be accessed by all women thus protecting their lives and health.

While debates on when life begins and ends may persist along the continuous range of religious perspectives, the realities surrounding this public health matter which affects so many women will not disappear unless addressed based on existing, objective realities. It is a woman's right to have all the options available to her, to be provided with information that allows her to make an informed decision, and not be persecuted for this decision. The State has a responsibility to ensure that the rights of all its citizens are protected.

The current illegal status of abortion in all circumstances exposes women to stigma and discrimination when they are faced with this choice. Women should not be punished for what is a difficult decision about their body, life and future. It is a misuse of Government power to take that right from them. Denying women access to medical services that enable them to regulate their fertility or terminate an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy amounts to a refusal to provide health care that only women need. Women are consequently exposed to health risks not experienced by men. Repealing the prohibitive provisions under the Offences Against the Persons Act concerning abortion, as recommended by the Policy Review Group would restore this right to women and prevent further stigmatization and gender discrimination.

Let us consider cases where:

- Contraception was used but it failed and the woman is not in a position to go through with the pregnancy and adequately support a child.

- The pregnancy resulted from rape or an abusive relationship.

- The pregnancy places them at severe mental, emotional and/or physical risk.

- The compromised development and health of the foetus.

To abort or not to abort is an extremely difficult decision for any woman.

There is not only the financial cost to consider, but risk to her mental and physical health as well. Adequate access to appropriate counselling services to help her consider all the options, strengthening of sexual and reproductive education at all levels, and the strengthening of family planning services, help women make the best choices.

Regrettably, pregnancy is often not a question of choice for women, not only in cases of rape and incest, but also in the everyday dynamic of gender relations where many women are subject to domination and/or the threat of violence from men.

We as a nation need debate this issue and lay the facts bare without shrouding them in misconceptions, prejudice and religious absolutism. It is about time such an important issue be dealt with once and for all, the women of Jamaica deserve no less.

What of the bright young 16-year-old girl in the inner city who is getting ready to do CSEC examinations and who is the only option to lift that family out of the abyss of poverty, who is sent for by the "don" in the community, then abused and subsequently takes the morning after pill but still ends up missing her period and later diagnosed as pregnant? Should she be forced to carry that child? Or to seek abortion on the black market? As a man of faith, I humbly suggest that we allow common sense to prevail.

Let me make it abundantly clear that I am not proposing abortion as a means of contraception, nor am I suggesting that mere poverty should be a reason for it, as I stand as a true example that it is possible to break the changes of poverty and rise from poverty to prosperity.

Of paramount importance is also the need to revise our adoption laws so that we can provide this service to those persons who are in need. I anxiously await a vigorous debate on this matter, as we seek to establish a new paradigm: to dispel myth and to embrace a true sense of liberty and prosperity.

Dr Dayton Campbell, a medical doctor and lawyer, is member of parliament for St Ann North West. His views do not necessarily represent those of the government.

June 01, 2014

Jamaica Observer

The Truth about Halliburton in Venezuela

By Franco Vielma - Misión Verdad




Franco Vielma, a Venezuelan radio talk show host and development worker with a public company, responds to the accusation that the Venezuelan government has signed a “pact” with Halliburton and that the U.S. oil company is now “coming” to operate in the country. He explains that Halliburton has operated in Venezuela for many decades, and agreements in recent years have actually reduced the scope of company’s operations in Venezuela’s oil industry. 

As a first clarification: my opinion is that any economic agreement with Halliburton is questionable and should not pass by a conscious collective unnoticed; one that recognises in Halliburton a company that is murderous against the peoples of Iraq and the world.

How Halliburton operates in Venezuela 

In order to talk about Halliburton in Venezuela, let’s begin with other important clarifications: Halliburton isn’t “beginning” operations in Venezuela. Nicolas Maduro isn’t “bringing” Halliburton to Venezuela. Halliburton isn’t “coming” to Venezuela as part of a sinister pact between Maduro and the gringos. It’s not the first time that PDVSA [Venezuela’s state oil company] signs an agreement with Halliburton. This company has been in our country for decades. Its headquarters for decades has been located in Cabimas, Zulia state.

Halliburton has been operating in Venezuela since the times of the Fourth Republic [1958 - 1998] and its moment of “splendor” was the era of the “operation agreements” in which the old PDVSA totally privatised and transnationalised its operating processes. Those that think “How could Maduro and the government bring this company in and make agreements with it?” reveal enormous ignorance about what has been happening in our country since long ago and what this has to do with our oil. But it’s difficult to blame someone for this, understanding that we Venezuelans have a century depending on oil and it’s what we know least about.

Other details to know: Halliburton as an international operator is a company that has been offering services to PDVSA both directly and indirectly, as much in the old PDVSA and the new one. Since 2007 the transnational companies that used to control the Orinoco Belt [a large inland oil reserve in Venezuela] went from the system of “operating agreements” to subordinate themselves below the operative and financial hegemony of PDVSA via the system of “mixed companies”.

This meant that, in nationalising the oil fields, installations and equipment, the transnational companies had to associate themselves with PDVSA to continue participating in the business. If not, they could withdraw themselves, receiving an indemnity calculated in Venezuela and litigated in Venezuela. That was how Exxon Mobil and Conoco Philips decided to not accept the new mechanism and a traumatic legal process began which has served the international attack against PDVSA and Venezuela.

One of the companies that decided to stay under this mechanism and is currently in association with PDVSA, in the form of two “mixed companies” called Petro.Piar in the Orinoco Belt and PetroBoscan”on the east coast of the Maracaibo lake, is Chevron. Upon Chevron and Texaco fusing, the consortium that has entered these associations is known as Chevron – Texaco.

The Bush family is among Chevron – Texaco’s main shareholders. At the same time they are historic partners of Halliburton, property of Dick Cheney, who was the right hand of Bush senior and Bush junior in their war-making adventures in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. The relationship between these characters isn’t just based in their war deals or political alliances. They have solid business between their companies, as Halliburton has historically been a fundamental operator of Chevron and Texaco, since before their fusion.

Halliburton was the main contractor of the so called “re-construction” of Iraq, making deals with enormous profits. Halliburton is also currently the main operating contractor in the oilfields of Iraq, of which many are controlled by Chevron Texaco.

The mixed companies, created since 2007, are associations between PDVSA and a transnational company, under conditions of superiority and hegemony in the association in favour of PDVSA. The majority of mixed companies in the Orinoco Belt, for example, have an average of 60 – 65% of shares in the hands of PDVSA and 40 – 35% in the hands of the international counterpart. As such, PDVSA guarantees the control of operations and strategic orientation of the business. Chevron, and by extension Halliburton, were covered by these mechanisms because they decided to stay beneath our conditions.

Chevron was a beneficiary of a set of “conditions of trust” that facilitated PDVSA to consolidate the mixed companies in 2007. In fact, these conditions continue in the present and are the same as those offered to Chinese, Russian, Argentine, or Brazilian companies. One of these conditions is that the international partner in the mixed company, although it doesn’t have total autonomy in the operative management of the assigned oilfields, can propose contracts with operators below preferential conditions, with whom PDVSA, as the head organisation that controls all operative processes, should countersign and make said agreements. That is to say, if we are associated with Chevron, we will be associated with Halliburton by Chevron’s association, as Halliburton operates in the oilfields assigned to the mixed companies PetroPiar and PetroBoscan.

To illustrate it another way: if it’s necessary to increase the production of barrels of oil in the Belt, it is necessary to make agreements with PetroPiar. If financing is necessary, Chevron will make its contribution, and if it’s necessary to undertake operations, Halliburton will participate as a contractor. PDVSA has to make these agreements with Halliburton, as it [PDVSA] is the company that has the hegemony of the Belt and has shares in PetroPiar, and it’s the one that assumes the responsibility of carrying out these agreements.

If we check the Plan of the Nation [the national development plan drafted by Hugo Chavez in 2012], the aim for the increase in extraction of barrels per day (bpd) is from 3 million bpd in 2012 to 6 million bpd in 2019. This implies accelerating all the processes of joint action with PDVSA and all its partners, especially in the Belt. It is due to this that PDVSA makes these agreements with these companies.

Currently all of the mixed companies have the obligation of re-launching operative schedules, estimating necessary financing and accelerating production. $US 140 billion is needed to put all of the Belt into operation, 7 thousand kilometers of pipes, two refineries, two deep water ports for supertankers, and thousands of drills and tillers for this end.

To make this investment sustainable, a sensible and immediate increase in current production is required, as in 2014, this goal is already lagging compared with what is set out in the “Sowing the Oil” plan, which is what governs production goals. Put another way, if PDVSA needs to meet the goal, if it’s necessary to pump more oil because the country needs more foreign currency, then it’s necessary to work with the operators that are already working and that already have operations in the oilfields of the Belt. That’s the explanation for the controversial PDVSA – Halliburton agreement.

That said, it’s necessary to make something known. This way of doing business in the framework of the new petroleum policy was thought of as a formula to restore the leading role of PDVSA and the state in the systems of production in oil deposits, without this undermining foreign investment and creating the conditions for the transnationals themselves to destroy our vulnerable system of oil production: as it also must be said, after 2002, in 2007, and in the present, vestiges of technological and operative dependence on these operators has been and is still palpable.

Our oil company has been the victim of a partial technological blockade and the scant transfer of technology by these companies. To dispense with these companies immediately means that our very vulnerable capacity to produce would also be affected, especially in the Belt, the extra-heavy oil found there and on which our national development and finances depend. The logical thing in this case, seeing it from a sovereign point of view, would be to break the link of technological dependence. There has been great advancement on this matter, but not at the speed hoped for.

As a personal reflection I should say that these agreements were thought up and signed in a time in which the world saw the destruction of Iraq. It’s painful to say it, but these agreements are part of the Chavez era, not the Maduro era. Lamentably it was Chavez, not Maduro, who signed this formula. It’s bad taste to talk of Chavez in this way, but it was Chavez who signed these agreements, with Chavez himself recognising that there existed objective conditions that implicated such a lamentable decision.

The context of the moment must be understood: Chavez made these agreements with the one and simple reason that they had to be made. No one in this country who knows the oil industry can say that it’s a good idea to cut off the international investment and technological support of the transnationals. Whoever says so doesn’t have the remotest idea of what they’re talking about, and it’s for a reason, not for imbecile caprice of Chavez or Maduro, that today PDVSA is associated with China, Brazil, Russia, Belarus, Argentina, India, Iran, Japan, among others, in our Belt, receiving their investments and technology.
 
If we review in history what could be considered incongruities, we find a bit of everything. Apart from the exceptions of the case, in Cuba, to overcome the blockade, Fidel Castro had to negotiate with Peugeot of France, a criminal company vs. labour rights in the world, so that Cuba could have modern cars. It also had to do the same with Fiat, a criminal company and financier of the Italian massacre in Libya in 2011. Cuba has even made agreements with enslaving companies like Adidas, which has sponsored the Cuban Olympic delegation. These agreements have emerged from pragmatism and what could be considered incongruities, but it would need to be checked up to what point this is bowing down or not. I leave that to the consideration of each person.

My opinion with respect to Halliburton is that we should definitely work with urgency to overcome the ties of dependency that have been maintained with this company and Chevron – Texaco. This should be done for reasons of strategic security and ethics. What I believe should be done is to assume Chevron and Halliburton as dispensable, due to ethics and the common sense of being Venezuelans living in a besieged country with the largest oil reserves in the world at our feet.

It also must be said that today Halliburton in Venezuela is not what it once was. In fact, it’s one of the operators with the least reach and its role as an actor doesn’t compare with that of other operators that work with other consortiums. If we check the operations of PetroSinovesa (China – PDVSA), PetroCedeño (France – PDVSA), and PetroBieloVenezolana (Belarus – PDVSA), we will find that their operations are of greater volume and the role of their operators is much greater in importance in the Belt. This [reality] is far from certain commentaries that buzz around that “Maduro handed the Belt over to Halliburton”.

These are complex times. I can’t but underline the over-excited and one sided nature of the comments of many “comrades” (who knows up to what point) that strive, almost with pleasure, to attack Maduro, at the expense of the ignorance that there exists over these issues and at the expense of the immature attitudes in sectors of the left-wing in our country. Certain unconcealed expressions are being made known from within our classic, divisive, and fragmented left, and a great game they give to the right-wing by manipulating information and using the sacred act of criticism and opinion to demobilize and divide Chavismo from the inside. There are things to be said, things to criticise, issues in which is it necessary to express opinion, but there are very few cases in which this issue (of Halliburton) has been discussed with the correct information.

Let’s not fall for the games of manipulation, wherever they come from comrades. Chavez taught us to by studious and inform ourselves. He taught us that necessary and conscious criticisms must be made. Let’s not allow this sacred act, of expressing opinion, which we must exercise, to become an instrument of our own destruction. I call for revolutionary cohesion and a conscious reading of what’s going on in our country.

This article is an abbreviated version of the original. Translated by Ewan Robertson for Venezuelanalysis.com

Source: Misión Verdad

 

May 28, 2014

 

Venezuelanalysis

Colombian guerrilla group FARC remains a force to reckon with

FARC's morphing rebels and the Colombian rap

By Christian Molinari

Colombian guerrilla group FARC's latest release of a rap video goes to show how the group is changing tactics: they seem to be morphing from rebel rousers hell-bent on spreading havoc, to hip hoppers embracing social media to spread a message of national unity.

The video – released in celebration of the organization's 50^th anniversary on May 27 and which comes in the context of peace talks with the government and just days before national elections – is called "Pueblo colombiano: Pa' la mesa", making a call for the Colombian people to come together to the negotiating table.

In the song, FARC also professes to have "no fear that they beat me" and calls for "the truth to be addressed," while labeling President Juan Manuel Santos' government a "circus." It follows a tune – in a very loose definition of the word – released in September 2012, called "We're going to Havana" which marked the beginning of peace negotiations, held in Cuba, with Colombia's government.

Comparing the latest video with that released in 2012, it is noteworthy how the rebel group has advanced when it comes to production skills - and melody, for that matter. What one must not forget, though, is that the FARC is still a guerrilla group responsible for the killing and/or kidnapping of hundreds, if not thousands of people, which employs drug and arms trafficking, distortion and illegal mining to fund its activities. Seeing the videos of young, idealistic commandos happily singing, chanting and prancing around, this is easy to forget.

"We've sworn to overcome, and we will overcome!" the group pronounces on the opening page of its website.

"The government and mainstream media like to trot out a storyline that the FARC is on its last legs. But I think underestimating their capacity has the potential to drag out the war while leaders look for a military solution instead of a negotiated peace," said BNamericas' Colombia reporter Arron Daugherty when consulted on the matter.

Santos comes up for reelection this weekend, and he has placed high political stakes on negotiating a peace accord with the FARC. Caught between a rock and a hard place, though, President Santos cannot be seen as being soft on the guerrillas.

Negotiations in Havana have recently brought the evasive peace accord one step further: with the latest agreement on how to curb the drug trade, participants have agreed on three of five points on the agenda. Agricultural reform and the rebels' participation in the political process were agreed upon last year, and the remaining two issues are transitional justice and reparations to war victims.

Reports are at odds over how many members the FARC now has. Regardless, they are now coming out of the remote jungle, entering cities to recruit sympathizers and employing new means such as social media to get their message across. They remain a force to reckon with, and failing to keep them engaged in negotiations would be a significant step back in the peace process.

May 20, 2014

bnamericas

Is Tony Myers of Sandy Cay Development Company who is harvesting aragonite at Ocean Cay in The Bahamas ...also an investor in U.S. Aragonite Enterprises ...which is buying aragonite from Ocean Cay?

Seeking truth

Document suggests Bahamian aragonite operator has interest in U.S. company he sells to

By CANDIA DAMES
Managing Editor
The Nassau Guardian
candia@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas

Is the owner of the company harvesting aragonite at Ocean Cay in The Bahamas also an investor in a company in the United States buying aragonite from Ocean Cay?

If the answer to this question is yes, it would mean the same people selling aragonite from our waters are selling the mineral to themselves in the United States, and this would have huge implications.

If the answer is yes, we wonder what impact this relationship is having on how aragonite is priced out of The Bahamas.

This question has emerged out of a National Review investigation into the aragonite industry and whether The Bahamas government is getting fair royalties.

This angle is one we could not ignore as we present fair reporting on what is now a national controversy.

The question was raised as a result of the discovery of a presentation available on the website plasticsindustry.org.

The presentation was made by the principals of U.S. Aragonite Enterprises, an American company, and Sandy Cay Development Company, a Bahamian firm, according to the website.

Sandy Cay has a lease with the Bahamas government to operate an aragonite facility at Ocean Cay, a 95-acre site, located nine miles south of Cat Cay, 27 miles south of Bimini and 65 miles east of Miami.

The online document states that U.S. Aragonite is the exclusive supplier of oolitic aragonite to the plastics industry.

It adds that the company was founded in 2011 and that “investors include owners of Ocean Cay, the natural source of the mineral”.

We knew from our previous interview with Sandy Cay Development Company President Tony Myers that U.S. Aragonite is one of his customers. But could it also be a company he is an investor in?

We contacted Myers with our latest questions.

When we read that line from the presentation to him, Myers said he is not an investor in U.S. Aragonite, but added that he had been in talks with U.S. Aragonite over buying a 25-percent stake in the company.

He also confirmed that he has sold to U.S. Aragonite, but said it was only one shipment, which he said he sold at $50 per metric ton.

Over the weekend, Myers showed us the invoice for this sale. According to that invoice, Sandy Cay sold US Aragonite 11,023 tons of aragonite from Ocean Cay on July 10, 2012.

Myers previously told us that his company has only sold 16 shipments of aragonite since it bought the lease in 2009 and formally began operations in 2010.

He said his shipments sold for between $12 and $20 per metric ton.

Myers showed us invoices for those shipments. The sale to U.S. Aragonite was the highest priced.

Under the 25-year lease Sandy Cay signed with the government on April 20, 2012, the government gets $2 per metric ton.

Myers previously told National Review that Sandy Cay has shipped 106,855.69 metric tons of aragonite since 2010 to various companies.

The government of The Bahamas has received $213,000 in royalties, according to a document he showed us.

Myers told us he has not yet made a profit from the Ocean Cay operation, five years after purchasing the old lease, and four years after starting aragonite exports.

When told that the U.S. company he sold to is naming his company as an investor, Myers said, “I didn’t know they did that. Technically, they should not have done it.”

He said that claim is not accurate.

But the claim is contained in the presentation on the plastics industry website that carries the names of both Myers and Marc Goldenberg, president of U.S. Aragonite.

We then contacted Goldenberg to ask if Sandy Cay is an investor.

He promised to get back to us with the answer to that question as he said he needed to check something.

Goldenberg soon contacted us back and advised that Sandy Cay is not an investor.

When questioned, he confirmed that there had been discussions with Myers to become an owner in the U.S. company, which lists its address as Salem, Massachusetts.

“We have talked about it,” Goldenberg said.

“But Sandy Cay, or Ocean Cay, isn’t an investor. At the very beginning, we were talking about that down the road, but things have not worked out.”

The online presentation that lists Sandy Cay as an investor in U.S. Aragonite is titled “Goldenberg Myers Oshenite SPI presentation”.

An agenda from the plastics conference last May in Nashville, Tennessee, lists Myers and Goldenberg as speakers on a panel titled “Bioplastics in Flexible Film”.

We found it curious that this presentation, which states Sandy Cay is an investor in U.S. Aragonite, had both the names of the Sandy Cay and U.S. Aragonite principals attached.

Goldenberg said he was not familiar with this and did not know why their names were listed together.

He confirmed that Sandy Cay is a supplier of aragonite from Ocean Cay to his company.

While Myers told us his company has only ever sold one shipment to the U.S. company, Goldenberg said Sandy Cay is “our only supplier”.

Myers said that shipment at $50 per metric ton is “the highest we’ve sold yet and every other invoice has been to non-related third parties”.

Pressed further on the matter of a reported investment relationship with the U.S. company he has sold aragonite to, Myers said, “Technically, we’re not an investor in it. Sandy Cay holds no stock in that company”.

He said the original presentation document put into the public domain by plasticsindustry.org was prepared by Sandy Cay.

According to Myers, U.S Aragonite “inserted” the additional pages, including the one that claims Sandy Cay is an investor in U.S. Aragonite.

Myers provided National Review with the presentation, minus those additional pages, when we first met with him more than a week ago.

On Friday, he acknowledged that Sandy Cay has a close association with U.S. Aragonite.

Myers noted that an investment in U.S. Aragonite would have required special approvals from The Bahamas government.

But he said the investment arrangement was never solidified as neither U.S. Aragonite nor Sandy Cay was doing well in the business.

Myers added, “It is the only customer that has not paid us. They lost so much money in trying to resell it into the plastics market. We’re not profiting by it and we’re not doing anything wrong because we don’t formally own anything in the company (US Aragonite).”

He also told National Review that Sandy Cay was only seeking that minority 25 percent interest.

“Why would I give them any preferential treatment when I would have only owned 25 percent?” Myers asked.

Referring to the statement that his company is an investor in U.S. Aragonite, Myers said, “They made that statement to try and strengthen their ties to our company, so that they can be seen as stronger.”

Goldenberg also told us U.S. Aragonite is not performing robustly.

He said it sells aragonite it gets from Ocean Cay after it works with another company to process the product.

“We sell it to the customers who would use it in certain applications,” Goldenberg said.

Myers has told us that aragonite is not refined at Ocean Cay.

Goldenberg explained that, “Raw material is useless in most applications. You can’t take the raw material and put it into plastic. You have to refine it.”

According to the presentation on plasticsindustry.org, U.S. Aragonite holds 50 percent ownership in Oshenite Performance Processing, a dedicated aragonite grinding facility.

U.S. Aragonite’s website notes that Oshenite oolitic aragonite is created naturally in the shallow waters of The Bahamas.

The website says, “Its genesis stems from an organic cycle of precipitation scientifically known as whitings, which yields a continuously renewing supply of an ultra 97-99 percent pure mineral; 20 million tons per year! It is pure from the ocean!”

Principal

Myers is also listed as the principal of another company, Ocean Cay Aragonite LLC, based in Boca Raton, Florida.

According to an online search, it was founded in 2011 and is privately held.

When we asked Myers about this company, he said, “I am a principal in it, but I’m not a shareholder.”

He said the company was set up, but never really used.

“We should have liquidated it and gotten rid of it,” he told National Review.

“We never sold anything to them. We never transferred any goods to that company, ever.”

A telephone number attached to the company online led us to a Jayson Meyers, who is listed under the rubric “officers and directors”.

Meyers said he and Tony Myers are not related, and noted that their names are spelt differently.

Meyers, whose address is listed as North Palm Beach Florida, said he is a “management consultant” for Sandy Cay.

He said he makes sure that the materials needed to operate at Ocean Cay are coordinated.

Asked whether Ocean Cay Aragonite sells aragonite, Meyers said, “It was set up to sell aragonite in the U.S. At one point it was conceived to do so.”

But he said it does not sell aragonite.

Concern

These matters have added another element to the aragonite debate that continues to rage.

Tony Myers has strongly rejected suggestions that his company is discounting its prices at Ocean Cay and benefitting from selling at a higher rate once the product gets in the United States.

We make no claim that he is indeed doing so, but report only on the trail our investigation followed.

As we opined in this space last week, it is important to get the facts out — without the hysteria.

The questions surrounding ties between Sandy Cay Development Company and U.S. companies are legitimate.

Getting the answers is important for full disclosure.

We admit there is something unsettling about the documents that are easily available through online searches.

The explanations given by Myers and Goldenberg do not fully line up.

It is also odd that the files Myers showed us reflect just one invoice for a shipment to U.S. Aragonite, when Goldenberg, the president of U.S. Aragonite, claimed Sandy Cay is his only supplier of aragonite.

While there has been a whole lot of misinformation spewed on this issue in recent weeks, the controversy has led us in an interesting direction.

There are more questions, and understandably, many Bahamians are demanding answers.

Minister of the Environment Kenred Dorsett assured on Friday that all matters connected to aragonite in The Bahamas, including Sandy Cay’s pricing structure, are being thoroughly reviewed.

We await the outcome.

May 19, 2014

thenassauguardian

U.S. blockade principal obstacle to Cuban development

Geneva, May 13, Cuba condemned the economic, financial and commercial blockade imposed on the country by the United States for more than 50 years, citing it as the principal obstacle to the fulfilment of the country’s Right to Development. The aggression persists and intensifies, constituting a massive, flagrant and systematic human rights violation, stated Cuban representative Alejandro Castillo.

During the 15th session of the Working Group on the Right to Development, Castillo commented that to justify the blockade, the U.S. government employs various political strategies, including the absurd and unjustifiable designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Castillo also emphasized Cuba’s strong rejection of the manipulation of an issue as sensitive as international terrorism, in an attempt to convert it into a political tool used against Cuba and to justify the blockade.

Castillo demanded that Cuba be definitively removed from the spurious, unilateral and arbitrary list which constitutes an affront to the Cuban people and demanded that the U.S. lift the blockade, as the international community has called for. Since the imposition of the blockade in 1962, until April 2013, the economic damage inflicted on Cuba has exceeded one trillion dollars. During his speech Castillo stated that almost 30 years after the creation of the Declaration on the Right to Development, the issues continues to be a priority for many countries, including Cuba.
 
The global economic crisis that is currently affecting all nations, the negative impact of neo-liberal globalization, the protective barriers implemented by rich countries and unequal exchange, are some of the obstacles that, at an international level, threaten the realization of this right, commented Castillo. He also stated that if there were political motivation from industrialized nations they could, quite easily, effect a big change for billions of people.

The activities of the Working Group on the Right to Development, a subsidiary body of the United Nations Human Rights Council, will continue until May 16, with the participation of representatives from all over the world. (PL)

May 14, 2014

Granma.cu

Costa Rica has shown every country in the Caribbean that preserving natural beauty pays ...appealing to those who treasure flora, fauna and natural wonders above t-shirts and trinkets

Save The Bays CEO: Costa Rica Turned Environmental Protection into Tourism Winner

CONSERVATION PAYS – Save The Bays CEO Lindsey McCoy witnessed firsthand the profits to be gained from preserving natural beauty during a trip to Costa Rica.

A leading environmentalist in The Bahamas said Costa Rica has shown every country in the Caribbean that preserving natural beauty pays, appealing to those who treasure flora, fauna and natural wonders above t-shirts and trinkets.

Lindsey McCoy, who was appointed CEO of the fast-growing environmental movement Save The Bays earlier this year, commented on the winning model Costa Rica has created after returning from her most recent re-discovery tour of the country that extends from the Atlantic on one coast to the Pacific on the other with a central mountain range overlooking its coastlines.

“And with only a tiny fraction of the world’s land mass, Costa Rica holds 6% of the world’s biodiversity,” said McCoy. “The jungles, the forests, the monkeys, the crocodiles – everything still has the feeling of being a little wild. Perhaps because they have done such a remarkable job of preserving what they have, especially the forests, they have created an oasis that appeals to anyone who wants to experience a place where the beauty of the natural world is all around you. We can do that here, too. We have so much to work with.”

McCoy on zipline
About to take the plunge. Zip-lining is among the biggest attractions in mountainous Costa Rica

Costa Rica was not always the poster country of good environmental management. In the 1960’s and 70’s, it was paying the price for deforestation from massive tree cutting to make room for cattle grazing. Coastlines were eroding. The once majestic land along with the variety of flora and fauna was declining faster in 20 years than it had in hundreds, sacrificing its majesty for the sake of farming and, in particular, a few wealthy farming families.

The political will to reverse the process, said McCoy, spawned more than a decade of revival. Costa Rica signed on to 45 international treaties, created and funded a new environment and energy department, enacted reams of legislation with strong legs and regulations, won the buy-in from hoteliers and others in hospitality.

That about-face netted dramatic results.

Today, McCoy noted, 25% of the land is in national parks. Ninety-two percent of the electricity is generated by renewable sources.

“Even more exciting is that once their policy changed and they realized the value of protected land they were able to restore much of the forests they had lost to logging and agriculture,” said McCoy. “I have always respected Costa Rica for its focus on eco-tourism and promoting its natural resources, but when I started reading more about the country I realized its commitment to the environment goes even deeper…clean energy, paying for environmental services and policy to go carbon neutral.”

It was Costa Rica, she recalled, that created the Certification for Sustainable Tourism, now a badge of honour sought after by those in the hospitality industry in many countries.

McCoy family before tubing
McCoy and her son Frye get ready to brave the rapids. A number of rivers in Costa Rica offer kayak and tubing attractions.

“The message is that Costa Rica took action to restore and protect what it knew made it a desirable tourist destination and a great place to live,” said McCoy. “The promise of a quick dollar from a developer paled by comparison to the promise of a life of beauty for the country. They understood that you did not have to give up jobs and economic growth to achieve tourism success. Just the opposite. Create the right environment and they will come.”

May 06, 2014

Save The Bays

More facts and less emotions are needed in the aragonite debate in The Bahamas

The Aragonite Hysteria

By CANDIA DAMES
Managing Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas

President of Sandy Cay Development Co. Limited Tony Myers told National Review that claims the company is making substantial sums of money from its aragonite operation at Ocean Cay are not true.

The Bahamas National Citizens Coalition, National Congress of Trade Unions of The Bahamas President John Pinder and others have claimed that aragonite is selling for $900 per metric ton on the open market, but the government is only getting $2 per metric ton.

After he was contacted by National Review, Myers, a Bahamian businessman, said the unprocessed aragonite being shipped from Ocean Cay is being sold on average for $12 to $20 per metric ton.

We requested that he show us invoices to prove his statement.

Myers was off island when we made the invoice request this weekend. He electronically provided one invoice that shows a recent sale for $12.50 per metric ton and committed to providing us with additional invoices to show the company’s prices.

He also told us the company has only had 16 export shipments since it started aragonite harvesting in 2010. He also provided National Review with documentation on those 16 shipments.

According to the documents provided to us, Sandy Cay has shipped 106,855.69 metric tons of aragonite since 2010 to various companies.

The government of The Bahamas has received $213,000 in royalties.

We admit our surprise that the shipment amount seemed so low.

Myers estimated that the resale cost of aragonite — after his company sells to U.S. companies and they complete the refining process — increases to around $75 per metric ton for the glass market and up to $400 per metric ton for the plastics market.

But he explained, “It takes a huge amount of labor, specialty equipment and electricity cost to take this mineral down to a size of three microns — a very, very small particle size, basically the size of smoke.

“It is combined or coated with a chemical called stearic acid, and then it’s moved into a compounding facility where it’s combined with plastic resin, so there’s a lot of costs that are added to it.

“So when you say oh, you’re selling it for $900 a ton, or even if you were to realistically say you’re selling it for $400 a ton, well, there’s a tremendous amount of cost or value added that has been built into the material cost from when it’s left the ocean at Ocean Cay to the time it actually meets that market.”

The aragonite does not attract the estimated $400 per metric ton sale price at Ocean Cay because it is not refined there, he said.

We were also stunned to hear Myers say the company has not yet made a profit from the operation and pressed him repeatedly on why it has stayed in business.

Myers said Sandy Cay is now poised to make money from the operation, although competition for calcium carbonate is great.

We start with those statements in the context of all that is being said nationally now about aragonite and what we as Bahamians could earn from it.

Debate

Across The Bahamas, there is growing hysteria over aragonite, a naturally occurring unique carbonate mineral found in abundance in our ocean.

Commonly, it is known as sand and has widespread uses in various industries, including aggregate, agriculture, glass, power plant desulfurization, plastics, food, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.

We are told by a citizens coalition of union leaders, pastors and civic activists that Bahamians are being raped by developers mining our precious natural resources — and that successive governments have signed sweetheart deals with investors ruthlessly scarring our environment to our detriment.

Those driving the discussion — the Bahamas National Citizens Coalition and John Pinder — tell us that, “From 1964 this outrageous exploitation of our resources has continually taken place with minimal benefits to The Bahamian people and exorbitant benefits to private citizens.”

We are also told that if the government of The Bahamas negotiated the royalties we deserve, the government could pocket as much as $300 million per month. This renegotiation could wipe out our national debt, make us all prosperous and drive down our social woes, they tell us.

We have also heard that in 18 months, every Bahamian could have at least $50,000 in their bank accounts, if only the government would act in the interest of its citizens and do the right thing.

The voices of the union leaders and the other activists have been getting louder, as have the voices of many people calling into local talk shows and demanding the government take action to stop this “criminal act” against its people.

In all of this, we have barely heard the voices of our leaders in government and we have not heard the voices of those harvesting aragonite.

The debate has largely been driven by emotions.

So we set about getting the facts. In so doing, we approached the matter without any prejudice.

What struck us in our initial probe is that the Bahamas National Citizens Coalition, John Pinder, and others driving the hysteria are largely misinformed.

Admittedly, this is a complex matter and we ourselves still have a great deal of research to do. But from our initial digging, we have started to sort through the confusion and seek to provide a more reasoned, fact-based approach to the aragonite discussion.

The first thing we did was contact Sandy Cay Development Company Ltd., the company producing aragonite sand in the crystalline form “oolitic aragonite” at Ocean Cay, south of Bimini.

Our phone call was answered and Sandy Cay President Tony Myers agreed to a meeting with National Review to share with us what is taking place at Ocean Cay and provide us access to important figures on pricing and production.

We also read Sandy Cay’s lease with the government of The Bahamas and discovered that some of the claims being made by the coalition are not true.

Despite the coalition’s statement of “fact” that the royalties negotiated by the government is renewable every two years, we have seen nothing in the 25-year lease to suggest this.

So, despite all that we have been hearing, there is nothing coming up for renewal in June, or anytime soon.

Coalition Chairman Rev. Andrew Stewart admitted to National Review when we contacted him on Friday that the coalition has not seen the lease, has not contacted the investor, and based that statement of “fact” on what he called “an assumption”.

This stunning admission casts doubt on everything we have heard so far from the coalition driving this debate.

This is not to say that the government should not step into this debate, provide clarification and lay out the facts for Bahamians dispassionately.

History

Ocean Cay, the 95-acre site of the country’s only aragonite operation, is located nine miles south of Cat Cay, 27 miles south of Bimini and 65 miles east of Miami.

The cay was originally around 30 acres and built in the 1970s.

A popular Sports Illustrated article from 1970 that is currently making the rounds on social media said the Dillingham Corporation had “exclusive rights in four Bahamian areas totaling 8,235 square miles”.

“In these areas there are about four billion cubic yards — roughly 7.5 billion long tons — of aragonite.

“At rock-bottom price the whole deposit is worth more than $15 billion. An experienced dredging company like Dillingham should be able to suck up 10 million tons a year, which will net the Bahamian government an annual royalty of about $600,000.”

It said, “On the basis of such big, round figures, the mining of aragonite seems to be a bonanza operation. In reality, it is still a doubtful venture for both Dillingham and The Bahamas.”

In 1984, Marcona Ocean Industries bought the operation and held it until 2000.

On March 27, 1992, then Minister of Works and Lands Philip Bethel signed a 21-year lease with Marcona. The royalty was between 14 cents and 30 cents per metric ton.

Marcona sold to three markets: glass, agriculture and power.

In 2000, the AES Corporation bought the lease, hoping to convince The Bahamas government to agree to the establishment of a liquefied natural gas facility there. Amid a great deal of controversy over LNG in The Bahamas, no approvals were granted and the company eventually packed up and left.

It sold to the current owner, Sandy Cay Development Co. Limited in 2009. According to Myers, it is 100 percent Bahamian owned. The previous companies were all foreign owned.

A letter dated June 3, 2010 written by Permanent Secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister David Davis to Sandy Cay’s lawyer, H. Campbell Cleare III advised that approval was granted for the company “to recommence its mining operations at Ocean Cay and to export aragonite from The Bahamas”.

Davis advised, “For a period of two years commencing from the date of this letter the royalty payable to the government shall be $2 per metric ton, payable at the time of export from The Bahamas.”

He also wrote that the island lease payment was $7,500 per annum.

Additionally, the letter advised that the company would be afforded duty exemption on the import of equipment required for its start-up operations as per the current lease. “However, this exemption will not be extended to consumables...”

The letter also mandated that the company provide the government with quarterly statements as to the amount of aragonite mined and exported and the destination of such exports.

Davis wrote, “This office stands ready to commence negotiations for the new lease, and in this regard, you are invited to prepare a first draft”.

It seems the June 3, 2010 letter from Davis — in the absence of a public release of the lease eventually negotiated — has fueled this misinformation of a two-year renewal.

The government signed a lease with Sandy Cay on April 20, 2012. It provides for “an initial term of 25 years”. It provides for “the right of renewal hereinafter”.

The lease was backdated to June 3, 2010, the date when negotiations started for the new lease.

Myers explained to National Review that after he purchased the former lease from AES in 2009, the Ingraham administration had concerns about the purchase by a Bahamian company from a foreign firm.

He said the operation was placed on hold. It resumed the following year after Davis issued the letter advising Sandy Cay that it may recommence operations while the lease negotiations take place.

Royalty

The new lease signed with Sandy Cay provides for “a royalty computed as B$2 per ton for demised mineral exported from The Bahamas encompassing the first five years of the lease, after which the royalty shall be computed as 10 percent of the sales price, with a minimum fee of B$2 per ton up to a maximum fee of B$12 per ton for demised mineral exported from The Bahamas”.

It also states that the rent for the lease is $7,500 per annum commencing June 3, 2010.

For years three to seven the lease payment is fixed at $8,250. It continues to rise up to years 23-25 where it is set at $11,250.

The lease provides for the government to have full access to Sandy Cay’s books.

Understandably, the royalty issue has taken precedent in the raging aragonite debate.

In a document it prepared for the Ingraham government titled “Oolitic Aragonite Royalty Fee Analysis”, Sandy Cay says, “The royalty fee rate should be less than the proposed B$2 per ton or for that matter far less than the new reference to in the media”.

Further to this, Myers said, “There is no way that a rate of B$350 per ton or any other rate referred to in the media can be supported in the feasibility of this operation now or ever in the future.”

The report states: “In fact, the proposed royalty rate of $2 already makes Ocean Cay uncompetitive with both U.S. manufacturers of sand and Freeport manufacturers of sand.

“Florida Sand Manufacturers: The royalty rate in Florida, where our main competitors operate from, is called a “tax on severance” as defined in the 2011 Florida Statutes under Section 211.31 and is currently eight percent of the sales value or about U.S.$ 0.72 per ton.

“Freeport Sand Manufacturers: The other main competitor for Ocean Cay is Martin Marietta in Freeport, Grand Bahama, who enjoys a full tax free and royalty free business environment under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement. “This combined with the fact that Martin Marietta is one of the strongest aggregate producers in the U.S. makes Ocean Cay’s position even more disadvantageous.”

In that document to the former administration obtained by National Review, Sandy Cay proposed a royalty fee rate either in line with the original lease or no more than eight percent of the sales price (typical sales price is between $8 to $30 per ton; so, a royalty fee of between $0.64 and $2.40 per ton).

The report said, “The harvesting of aragonite through mining, followed by manufacturing, classifying, shipping and distribution, is a costly process which requires significant capital investment and a strong sales and marketing costs.

“Unlike any other mined mineral, aragonite is organic and classified by the USDA as a renewable resource, meaning that Ocean Cay is not depleting a natural resource of The Bahamas.

“According to scientific data combined with carbon analysis it is proven that aragonite is forming on a daily basis on the banks of The Bahamas. Ocean Cay is merely practicing underwater agriculture by harvesting the aragonite which is growing daily.

“We hope that you sincerely appreciate the costly investment we have made in this facility to produce one of the only green renewable minerals in the world. We sincerely need your support in making this project a success, consequently your understanding of our commitment and the costs associated with this is critical in making this a success for both Ocean Cay and The Bahamas.”

Profit

Again, Myers said Sandy Cay has not and is not now making a profit.

So how has it been able to stay in business and why is it still in business?

Myers told us, “Through years of scientific and market research funded by us and the acceptance of independent public institutional research, we have now finally obtained global recognition and acceptance of ooilitic aragonite as a sustainable mineral.

“Major global companies like Procter and Gamble, McDonald’s and Walmart are concerned over the environmental impact of the packaging of their products.

“The ecological concern has been a catalyst for their interest in oolitic aragonite.

“And all of these companies really recognize sustainability and the need for protecting our environment.

“The also recognize the fact that this mineral is unique in the fact that it is a major contributor to carbon sequestration from our environment.

“They love how the product fits into their global concerns, but it must be fairly priced and competitive within their respective markets.”

Myers added, “They think oolitic aragonite is a great replacement to normal calcium carbonate because normal calcium carbonate also uses this market, but this is much better.

“It’s not damaging the environment. It’s being regenerated every year and they have to show to their consumers...that they’re interested in cleaning up the environment. They’re interested in using ecologically sound materials.”

Myers believes Sandy Cay in the future will turn a profit.

“We hope that this will generate into a business whereby we’re able to sell more into the plastics market and we are slowly making some very good inroads,” he told National Review.

“We’ve made some small steps toward a successful business, and The Bahamas will be recognized for this contribution in a fair and equitable market driven manner.

”The Bahamian people and our company shall in due course reap the rewards of the hard efforts of our governments in developing this resource.”

May 12, 2014

thenassauguardian