Got TIPS or BREAKING NEWS? Please call 1-284-442-8000 direct/can also WhatsApp same number or Email ALL news to:newsvino@outlook.com;                               ads call 1-284-440-6666

UPDATE: Has the UK stopped the Cruise Ship Pier Development Proposal?

Conflicting information from MC&W Minister Vanterpool & Premier Smith
The latest swing in the controversial Cruise Pier project is that it will be opened to public tender, following recent concerns by the UK. In this File Photo, Minister Vanterpool is seen at a public meeting with representative from Tortola Ports Partners giving an overview of the proposed project. Photo: VINO/File
Minister for Communications and Works Hon. Mark Vanterpool has been made aware of the UK's Government objections on some aspects of the Cruise Ship Pier Development Project, but insisted that he is not aware of the project being squashed. An NDP source admitted that the project has to be revised to comply with the Protocols for Effective Financial Management and meetings are being held with the relevant government officials to iron out an amended proposal. Photo:VINO/File
Minister for Communications and Works Hon. Mark Vanterpool has been made aware of the UK's Government objections on some aspects of the Cruise Ship Pier Development Project, but insisted that he is not aware of the project being squashed. An NDP source admitted that the project has to be revised to comply with the Protocols for Effective Financial Management and meetings are being held with the relevant government officials to iron out an amended proposal. Photo:VINO/File
Minister for Communications and Works Hon. Mark Vanterpool has been made aware of the UK's Government objections on some aspects of the Cruise Ship Pier Development Project, but insisted that he is not aware of the project being squashed. An NDP source admitted that the project has to be revised to comply with the Protocols for Effective Financial Management and meetings are being held with the relevant government officials to iron out an amended proposal. Photo:VINO/File
Minister for Communications and Works Hon. Mark Vanterpool has been made aware of the UK's Government objections on some aspects of the Cruise Ship Pier Development Project, but insisted that he is not aware of the project being squashed. An NDP source admitted that the project has to be revised to comply with the Protocols for Effective Financial Management and meetings are being held with the relevant government officials to iron out an amended proposal. Photo:VINO/File
ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI - As was firstly and accurately reported by Virgin Islands News Online, the United Kingdom Government has continued to express its concerns with the cruise pier expansion project. It is now unclear what will happen to the Project now that Premier Dr. the Honourable D. Orlando Smith announced late Wednesday August 1, 2012, days following the accurate article by this news site, that the project must now go to Public Tender.

The Government of the Virgin Islands, through the Ministry of Communications and Works has already announced publicly in meetings and on talk shows, that the project will be executed via Tortola Ports Partners consisting of a consortium of US-Based United Infrastructure and Cashman Groups.

It remains unclear what will happen now with the UK enforced public tender process, if another company comes with a better proposal as there are legitimate expectations from the Ports Partners, and whether the process at this stage can be transparent.

Minister for Communications and Works Hon. Mark Vanterpool told a media site that there will be no scaling back of the project and claimed that his government invited the UK Government to review the project, however, sources close to the project contradicted his claims and the Premier himself reportedly contradicted his Minister who continues to insist that “the project was full speed ahead”.

“The project could not be full speed ahead if the Premier has now announced a public tender process, so who is fooling who?” a senior government official told this news site.

Meanwhile, this news site’s sources close to the project, had stated that the UK Government had registered its opposition to some aspects of the project. The source inside Government had further said that a Steve Johnson from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) visited the Virgin Islands (VI) recently to deliver the UK’s position to Premier Smith and Hon. Vanterpool.

Minister Vanterpool, who is the government chief spokesman for the initiative and continues to suggest that this project is vital and would revitalise our stagnant economy, when contacted by this news site, said through the Government’s Director of Communications that he was “not aware of the proposed initiative being squashed”.

It is this news site’s understanding from its team of reporters and well-placed sources close to this project that the FCO opined that the project was not allegedly compliant and not within the spirit of the recently signed Protocols for Effective Financial Management penned in April of this year, between the Smith Administration and the UK Government through Hon. Henry Bellingham, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for the Overseas Territories.

It was believed the FCO objections were related to section 10 of the Protocol and the issue of ‘Delivering Value for Money’. While some are saying the project is squashed, according to a high ranking NDP source, “that is not the case, however, we have to go back to the drawing board on many aspects of the project.”

The same source told this news site that a high level meeting was held on July 25, 2012 which included the Minister for Communications and Works, the Financial Secretary, the Ag. Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Communications and Works and the Ports consultant Claude Skelton-Cline, to iron out a revised proposal and approach that fits what the UK requires.

Many other meetings are scheduled to ensure that the Cruise Ship Pier Development Project stays on track and it is this news site’s understanding that contacts were made recently by Premier Dr. Smith with MP Henry Bellingham, the Minister for the Overseas Territories to register the importance of this project to the VI.

The many other meetings expected by Government are planned to iron out a new revised proposal to convince the UK Government that the project is vital to the VI Government and all rules will be followed.

No tender process was held on this project which was a campaign issue for the NDP over the Biwater (water) purchase agreement where they demanded that projects of this size goes out for public tender, however, the same standards and position were not applied on the Ports project by the NDP.

However, two other proposals were submitted, reviewed and analyzed according to the Minister Hon. Vanterpool at a public meeting.

Managing Director of BVI Ports Authority shut out?

Another source when asked about the involvement of Vincent O’Neal, the Managing Director of the BVI Ports Authority, said he has been virtually shut out of the project, however, the same source claimed members of the Ports Board are involved and had to approve some of the aspect of the project including the purchase of $3.5M of piles for the project from Ports funds.

When contacted by this news site, Mr. O’Neal confirmed that he was never a part of the negotiations on the Ports project and therefore was not aware of any report of the UK’s concerns.

Gregory Adams, the Chairman of the BVI Ports Authority Board when contacted said he could not give any comment on anything relating to the Ports since his contract expires on Monday July 30, 2012.

A call to the Trade Department about a Trade License approval for Tortola Ports Partners confirmed no such trade License exists.

What is the Cruise Ship Pier Development Project?

According to information provided and research done by this news site, the development which is referred to as the Tortola Pier Park is an investment that will come from Tortola Ports Partners consisting of a consortium of US-Based United Infrastructure and Cashman Groups.

The participating cruise lines are Disney and Norwegian, who under the proposed plan, Government will have to lease the land for 48 years in exchange for Disney and Norwegian Cruise Lines guarantying a large number of passengers over the next 15 years and an increase in passenger tax. The guaranteed amount of passengers is reported to be 425,000 minimum passenger arrivals per year.

The total investment is around $75M, coming primarily form the head tax of $15 per person, with $6.00 going to the BVI Ports Authority. Currently, the BVI Ports Authority Act has them receiving $7.00 per person head tax which means with the new proposal for the Cruise ship project will see a reduction in head tax for the Authority.

After 15 years, according to the proposal, the head tax will increase to $38.00 and by year 48, it will be shared 50/50 between the BVI Ports Authority and Tortola Port Partners.

The investment also includes another $25M for pier and excursion dock; $25M landside development; and $25M community investment all over the life of the project and will not be an immediate direct investment.

Unbalanced deal?

Tortola Ports Partners will only be investing 2 million dollars up front in the project, however, the Virgin Islands Government via the Ports Authority will be surrendering 4.1 acres of prime land on Wickham’s Cay I, via a lease for 48 years, valued at between 9 to 11 million dollars.

The Tortola Ports Partners will get 100 percent concession revenue for the first 15 years, meaning all monies for rental of stalls or vendor’s boots will go directly to Tortola Ports Partners, and thereafter shared 50/50 between them at the BVI Posts Authority.

The rent by vendors at the Ports will increase by 2 percent every three years.

In addition, a local consultant was also hired to crunch the numbers on the project and was reportedly paid over $50,000.

Hon. Vanterpool said there can be a buyout clause, and according to sources, it can be in excess of $100 million dollars in year 15.

The then Virgin Islands Party Government of Ralph T. O’Neal, OBE signed last year Heads of Terms with Magical Cruise Company Limited to improve the same facilities. The Heads of Terms proposal was to be amortized over 10 years. The scope of the works included the extension of the existing pier, dredging of the habour and construction of a welcome centre with rest room facilities. This heads of terms were squashed by the NDP Government.

67 Responses to “UPDATE: Has the UK stopped the Cruise Ship Pier Development Proposal?”

  • ooooo (26/07/2012, 11:19) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    thank you VINO for shedding light on this dark project....no trade license....no bid....no old father involvement....no wonder myron want these secrets kept.....and finally doc dont even know what he signed with london
  • sounds good (26/07/2012, 11:21) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    It is this news site’s understanding from its team of reporters and well-placed sources close to this project that the FCO opined that the project was not allegedly compliant and not within the spirit of the recently signed Protocols for Effective Financial Management .. This do not sounds like the real deal. From what i understand, the project funds do not come from our treasury, so why would the uk stop this project?
    • vip (26/07/2012, 11:41) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      contingent liability
      • home girl (26/07/2012, 18:28) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
        I see why they hate the media..when facts and issues like these are exposed it is trouble for any government..but we call it democracy.
      • UK is a Frig (26/07/2012, 20:11) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
        What Contingent Liability you are talking about. Everything you do can be interpreted as having a contingent liability component. So, that is where contingency planning comes in; and we even have our own Contingency Fund. UK is using the notion of Contingent Liability as a pretext for becoming involved in everything you try to do. Since they are so concerned about liability, THEY SHOULD COME AND PUT SKIN IN THE GAME. Then they could say, there exists a reasonable POTENTIAL LIABILITY. BUT NO!!! They won't invest , they won't lend, and they won't spend any of their money on US. They are interested in jobs for their boys, ( so-called experts ) that we have to pay. If they can't even pay, or WON'T pay for the studies associated with these projects, HOW are they going to pay for this DUPPY called 'Contingent Liability? This Country has been internally self-governing for the PAST ....45 yrs....YES.....45yrs. AND CAN THE UK PROVIDE AN INSTANCE WHERE A " CONTINGENT LIABILITY" has materialized in the BVI? The answer is NO It just provides a pretext for intervention.......and earn some money for the boys, through fees for technical studies and preferential access to investment opportunities in the BVI. The UK has embarked on a new strategy called, ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY......Why.........because they are looking for sources of income from wherever they can find it. Its not about us; Its about them. Let's not pretend otherwise.
        • Sony (27/07/2012, 18:14) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
          Oh! Now UK is a Frig? Where the hell were you when Orlando was up and down saying that Biwater was a Contingent Liability? In any event, the Minister sait that the Project is a Public Private Partnership, and under the Protocols (just signed by Orlando and the UK), Public Private Partnerships are considered same as PUBLIC BORROWING, and public borrowing is a CONTINGENT LIABILITY. Now take that, what goes around comes around. Remember, when you digging a hole dig 2.
    • yellow (26/07/2012, 11:44) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      hold up!!!! no where in the article did it say the UK stoped the project just that they had concerns and asked them to go back to the drawaing board..you all must lean to read before you blog pi$$
      • sounds good (26/07/2012, 16:20) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
        Seems as though you do not understand a question ofrom a comment.
  • taxpayer (26/07/2012, 11:23) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Bi water had to give back some $2mil which Fraser approved for the purchase of a new generator for their water plant. Well, I only hope that the Ports Authority will be in a position to recover the $3.5 mil. which they were directed to transfer to this company's account for piles.
    • ooooo (26/07/2012, 11:40) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      dont tell me mark turned around and funnel money to a company which dont even have a trade license...same thing ndp accused fraser of doing...lets dig up who the share holders are....hope aint had nothing shady about it?...grasshopper and fraud? huh!
    • Your Statement Is Incorrect (26/07/2012, 13:10) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      @ taxpayer: @ taxpayer says: The $2mil that Bi Water had to give back was not for water generators. Fraser paid Bi Water to provide a generator for BVI Electricity Corp., and thats where the big noise came up because Bi Water is a water company and Fraser claims that they had experties in electrical generators. It was more than a year after the check was issued to Bi Water and yet there was not even an order for the generator and thats why the pressure from the then opposition came down on Fraser, for him to get back the money which he had paid to Bi Water.
      • Please (27/07/2012, 18:28) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
        And so is yours incorrect. Bla bla bla, every body speaking and speaking. The BVI Electricity Corporation (The Board) sent moneys to Biwater SA, a subsidiary of Biwater to secure an engine in order to provide the needed capacity under its obligation to supply Biwater elecricity for the production of water. Biwater was using its contacts world wide to source engines that were ordered by other companies and were unable to take delivery for one reason or another. These engines are not shelf items, and takes up to 18 months sometime for delivery. The BVI Electricity had 6 months to meet a government Contractural obligation. Government loaned BVI Electricity Corporation the money, which they in turn paid to Biwater. So all the cra about Fraser this, Fraser that, is just CRAP. The Wickhams Cay Project is a selling out of our souverignty by a FOREIGHNER, to FOREIGHNERS. Plain and simple.
    • Sony (26/07/2012, 15:06) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      I didnt know that Fraser had power to approve money for anything. I suggest you check your facts.
  • critic (26/07/2012, 11:49) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    how mark could've sat on national radio and tv and said that government aint spending no money on the project and he already sent 3.5 million dollars to buy piles?
  • talk girl talk (26/07/2012, 12:23) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    vino i just love this site you guys are so fairless and on top of things now wait to hear the blah blah blah reply from the NDP spin mechine.
  • Just Ducky (26/07/2012, 12:26) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Any money spent on the cruise ship dock or on the cruise industry is good money being thrown away. This type of tourism returns zero to the economy and probably costs the territory in the end.
    • HELLO!! (26/07/2012, 22:13) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      You sound stupid..go tell that to the taxi men and the vendors..sometimes it's best to leve some of allu in your stupor. Just dont know what is good for your country and your people even if it hit you in the head...
  • Tax Payer (26/07/2012, 12:34) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Again, as a taxpayer, I say that BiWater was given the opportunity to do what they are doing because the government did not have the money or other means to take on what is an overwhelming problem for this island, sewerage. The sewerage situation that BiWater is supposed to fix, if Town and Country Planning ever lets them, is far more complex and as I said overwhelming, than the water distribution issue. The sewerage problem in Road Town was allowed to go from bad to where it is now, and getting worse, because no one wanted to tackle it once they found out what was involved. So it was easier to let BiWater do it. That's one of the reasons why it was fought for tooth and nail. Go to enough public meetings in this place and you'll find out a lot of things. Likewise now, the pier situation. We don't have the money for the fix, so the quickest way is to let someone else do it, give up stuff here and there, and end up with the pier, hoping for the best, that the country will get something worthwhile out of it. Biwater and these pier park developers are seen as quick fixes for problems of great difficulty and cost that confront us now and will only get worse if nothing is done. Are these quick fix solutions the best? Who knows. Every situation and every fix has it's fans and it's opponents. In this country, it all depends on what the individuals speaking for or against are getting out of it themselves. Again, we are a culture where the important things are decided by "what's in it for me".
  • wan (26/07/2012, 12:36) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    OK next
  • wan (26/07/2012, 12:41) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    STop the airport expansion,no monies,why oh why now when Global recession should we go get even more broke,clean up the islands make people happy,give them water and sewage,make all sewage treatable instead of throwing in sea,education,lets do this properly so kids come out of school ready for the future,,get our house in order.Go green and sustainable now while we can.No knee jerk reaction for recession,make what you have already that much better.People love coming here but lets not play copycat,let other islands fail with large airports and cruise ships,keep what we have and make it better,for gawds sake.
    • BVEye (26/07/2012, 16:05) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      Wan, I agree with you 100%. What people don't understand is that those of us who are wary of these giant expansion projects - with their shady finances always involved - is NOT that we are against the BVI going forward to a better future, or that we are against the people of the BVI (how could we be - we're BVIslanders!!!). It is that at a time when every other economy in the world is either contracting, or pausing on major projects, somehow we see fit to go charging ahead regardless of cost or consequence. And we do it BEFORE we sorted out the actual problems we already live with - the sewage in RT, the hospital with casha growing out of it, roads that make Haiti's look good, power system that is expensive and toxic, waste stream that is non-functional and again, toxic. etc etc. There is a huge list of URGENT things to be done and here we have Dr Pick and even the good man Mark Vanterpool charging into giant schemes that they NEVER EVEN MENTIONED IN THE ELECTION. They did not run on an airport/cruise ship pier platform. They kept them quiet, then spring them on us and tell us (especially with the airport) to hush up if we don't like it. Calling all kind a nonsense about 'if you don't want it you must be against the people of the Virgin Islands' and other bull cr*p that doesn't make any sense at all. Let's sort out all the urgent issues first, then have a big, open national debate about the way we want to BVI to develop. Then we can move forward together as a nation.
    • Reality check (28/07/2012, 18:38) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      Well said Wan, there is no future for this foolishness. These politicians are desperate for legacy in the 3 years left to them. They are reaching out for heroic high impact (and price tag) projects that have no true cost benefits in the long run. Aspiring to acquire infrastructural appendages will only break our fragile economic back. You can't build a nation with a poorly educated population that has lost contact with it's natural and cultural roots. Decadence and dependence is our destiny, unless we wake up very soon.
  • Real Talk (26/07/2012, 13:24) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    LMAO!! "Yuh hear lie?" hahaiiiee
  • ausar (26/07/2012, 13:35) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    If true, quite interesting that the FCO did not see it fit to censor/modify the BIWater plans, perhaps, because of the need to support kit and kin but they're thinking about squashing Pier Park? ...Interesting indeed!
  • Snickers (26/07/2012, 14:30) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Based on the economic data numbers thrown out this is not the best deal for the BVI. Lets look sat the facts: land valuation in region of US$9-11 mil, Ports investign US$3.5 mil in piles on the back of a reduction in passenger head tax (from $7 dwn to $6) yet there is a proposed increase to US$15 (which means the developers stand to gain US$8 per head based on min. 425,000 pass./yr = US$3.4 mil/yr. This then increases to $38/head after yr 15 which translates (based on min. 425k pass/yr) into US$16.15 mil/yr and IF BVI Ports is to receive the same US$6/head then the developers stand to gain (at minimum) based on US$32/head = US$13.6 mil pr yr! Also, once one factors in the leases for the shops etc. and a market value assessed to these then we can see where even based on the numbers when the development is appraised on yr 15 (1st buyout instance) the entire development value will be in the region of US$150 mil +. So tell me if we cannot finish the hospital where in GODS name are we going to have funding to buyout these developers? I am glad if this rumor is true and the incumbents get a better deal for the taxpayer whom based on these numbers will not be gaining as much as the developers stand to gain!!!
  • west side (26/07/2012, 15:06) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    I smell a rat do we have an andrew like person in the ndp to speak out on this project?.
  • bbc (26/07/2012, 16:03) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Oh no another biwater on our hand!
  • Positive Action Movement (26/07/2012, 19:27) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Thank you, the truth is now being told. These private investors do not have 75 million to spend, just 2 million now and we have already given them 3.5 million to buy piles so they can start . This is not right, it was a deception from the start and now the truth be told .
  • Edmund (26/07/2012, 20:19) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Vino now do your investigation and tell we who is the Ports partners
  • taxpayer (26/07/2012, 20:27) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    I can't believe that Dr. Smiyh is backing K Mark and the Cuban with their larger than life ego. The Uk gave him the benifit of the doubt when he took power. Now he is squandering all this for what? Two projects which would only lead to embarrassment for all concerned. Dr. Smith, London is watching you, don't squander an opportunity to rise to the top of the pile.
  • Eagle and Buffalo (26/07/2012, 21:58) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    I only went to Manda School but this propose deal does not appear to be a win-win for the BVI. It is an unbalance deal. Lets look at numbers: ***Tortola Port Partners invest $2M upfront ***BVIPA contributes $3M for piers ***Passenger tax increase to $15; $9 for Tortola Port Partners and $6 to BVIPA down from $7 and a 14% decrease ***Tortola Port Partners get 100% of concession revenue for the first 15 years ***BVIPA lease 4.1 ac of prime, scarce, waterfront property valued b/w $9-11M for a lengthy 48 years ***Tortola Port Partners to invest $75M over life of project and paid for with fees collected from passengers ***BVIPA can buyout lease after 15 years for approx $100M The numbers speak for themselves. Question: were our eyes open when were being raped. Tortola Port Partners must have a. permanent smile on their faces all the way to the bank and the good life. They are probably celebrating and saying what a bunch of ignoramuses. It was like taking candy from a baby. Tell me why this is win-win for the BVI again. The NDP is yielding its election victory capital rapidly. There is much more to say but....................................
  • The Visitor (26/07/2012, 22:07) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    The frustrating thing about reading BVI news sites is they can never quite fully explain what is happening. On Bi-Water, the airport and now the cruise pier you can never tell who is paying for what. Both parties seem to have a talent for obfuscation. In this case Tortola Port Partners, the ultimate operator only puts up $2mill, gets all the rent on the shops and a 48 year ground lease on a piece of land that should have an annual rent of about $400K plus inflation adjustments. The $75 Mill project is supposed to be paid for out of the $15 landing fee but the Ports Authority takes a $1/passenger haircut on current landing fees. At year 15 the landing fees more than double but apparently the ports authority still only gets $6 of it and don't get half until the lease is over in 2060. Who gets the other half then? If all of this $75Mil investment is supposed to be paid out of the partnerships revenue why is the government buying $3.5 million worth of pilings for the new pier? Who's on first here?
  • DON Q (26/07/2012, 23:04) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    All due respect Hon. Mark its a lack of respect and insult to shut Old Father out!!!
  • queen bee (27/07/2012, 01:08) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    I wonder why Mark and Claude pushing this project so hard...hummmmmm k b
  • taxpayer (27/07/2012, 09:25) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Yes! The answer to your question will be made known sooner than later. They are not the only ones, the crabs are out of their holes and are very angry. Watch for their claws, they will strike at anything in their path.
  • Disinterested (27/07/2012, 10:18) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    The BVI embarrassingly got out maneuvered and out negotiated on this give away. It is as if we were little leaguers playing. against major leaguers. We needed big guns for this negotiation and we brought pop guns. If it were not such a serious matter, it would be humorous. Tortola Port Partners brought $2M to the table and is given full leverage and control of generated revenues. What a sweet deal. The BVI got screwed without the K.....y. No it is being raped and swindled. No respect for dedicated, hardworking professionals. How can a port project be initiated and the Port Director be shut out ? Pure lack of professionalism and disrespect. Pure self hatred and crab in a bucket mentality. This treatment would not have been meeted to an expat. By the way is not Claude Skeleton Cliine a consultant to the Port? What is the value of the $90K consultancy fee? Anyway the UK feel. sorry for and came to our rescue
  • fish market (27/07/2012, 16:37) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    the prject is full speed ahead do not mind the chatter in the market
  • fish market (27/07/2012, 16:38) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    the project is full speed ahed do not mind the chatter in the market
    • Buddy ??? (02/08/2012, 14:51) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      As long as we are not being screwed.....in terms of value for money, and we reduce the length of the lease to a minimum of 40years, then we are good to go. And, opportunities for local investment exist. Just next door in Puerto Rico, they are leasing out their airport to a Mexican Company, and the company will inject over $1.6 bil.(US) in expansion and modernization, and pay a similar amount up front to the Ports Authority up front. The Ports Authority will surrender operational control of the airport, but will receive $5 mil per month. Who were on our team of negotiators? You need specialists who do this for a living, not boys trying their best.
  • taxpayer (27/07/2012, 17:19) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    From the time they put that one in that position I knew that this was a done deal. Fortunately the UK walked in and saved the day. A whole lot of folkes will be mad over what the UK has done. I to would have been mad if someone had blocked me from realising $6 million with no financial commitment.
    • Enquirer (03/08/2012, 07:59) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      So this $6 million was for what? Sounds like the same amount someone lost on a deal last year. Please confirm.
  • street man (28/07/2012, 10:12) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    this project cannot stop to many intrests at stake!!!
    • insider (02/08/2012, 13:09) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      seems like NDP got a civil war going on over this project...too much eat
      • the crew (02/08/2012, 23:06) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
        Judging from what I am observing, it is crystal clear that only Mark, Claude and a few greedy taxi men are sorry this project stopped.
  • Fat Head (02/08/2012, 10:11) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Well done, UK Now PLEASE put the same spotlight and brakes to Hons. Pickerings & Walwyn.....
    • rodent (02/08/2012, 12:50) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      The plans for the airport extension will destroy the peace for the BVI's. When a jet comes in for a landing on it's final approach the noise is going to wake up everyone from Roadtown, Scrub and to Spanish Town and Peter and Cooper islands
      • Period Cramps (02/08/2012, 13:39) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
        Big airlines land in St Maarten, St Kitts, St Thomas, St Croix and don't bother a soul. We would have 2-4 flights a day if that many. How much louder do you think those planes will be than having 10 LIAt and AE flights coming in all the time. Get out of here with the scared tactic!
        • rodent (03/08/2012, 12:47) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
          Yes right, they do, but their final approach to landing is over ocean not parallel to the island. In the BVI the final approach is alongside Tortola and across from Tortola is Peter and Cooper island and when they land they will be near Marina Cay and Scrub Island. When they take off Scrub MC and Virgin Gorda will hear the sweet sound of a roar.
          • Big Bad (04/08/2012, 09:29) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
            Who cares, we are the Big Bad NDP. Sick of you white people coming on here blogging pi$$. You all need to go back home and try to get the economy in your own country going, and come here as tourists only
  • taxpayer (02/08/2012, 11:43) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Thank you UK for saving the day. Like Mark, the airport project needs to be sent the same message. Enviromentalist say NO to option 6 and he says "who says so". All the majour carriers have refused to sign on and join him with his folly and he says "full speed ahead regardless"; the action of a mad man. I am hopping mad because by the time this joker which he brought to head up the Project leaves here, my taxes would be down by half a million dollars. It is time Dr. Smith tells this man to go sit down.
    • insider (02/08/2012, 13:10) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      but Mark say no scale back so we will see if he the boss or the UK and Dr. Smith....
  • GOD HELP US (02/08/2012, 12:32) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Fix what you have first and then go aheah doing new projects but I personally want to go back to fishing on the cruise ship dock when there are no ships on dock.
  • ooooo (02/08/2012, 14:12) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    bam bada bam bam..bam bam
  • Follow dem dollars (02/08/2012, 14:32) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Hope they look at the airport project that is being hot footed down our throats too. Something stinks, and it ain't the RoadTown sewers.
  • go money (02/08/2012, 15:29) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    mark mush be mad as hell with the stop order..he he he
  • yes it is (02/08/2012, 22:46) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    we the voters are watching this whole situation.... Hope we are not experiencing yet another Biwater
    • Joker (03/08/2012, 08:23) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
      This Developer is getting $8 from Government (passenger tax) which is tax money for every passenger landed ($8 x 500,000 = $4 million a year. Biwater don't get any government money, instead they are giving us free reservoir (already built), 2 free sewage treatment plants, and a new sewage pump station at the round a bout. What are these developers giving us. They getting a 48 year lease, when that expires you will be dead. Biwater getting a 15 year lease, when that expires Government (the people) gets a 2.3 million gallon/day desalt plant free. You dont know anything about the Biwater deal, except for the crap you heard on the street which were lies. Can't you see the project is still full speed ahead? If the garbage you were hearing was true, don't you think the NDP would have scrap the project like they promissed.
  • Charis (05/08/2012, 13:32) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    First οff І wоuld liκe to ѕаy ѕupeгb blog! I had a quick quеstion whіch I'd like to ask if you don't mind. ӏ wаs intereѕted to know how you cеnter уourself and сlear youг mind befoгe wгiting. Ӏ have had a tough tіmе cleaгing my thoughts іn getting mу iԁeas οut thеre. I trulу do takе pleasure іn ωгiting but it just sеems like the first 10 tο 15 minutes tend to bе loѕt simply just tryіng to figure οut hoω to bеgіn. Any ѕuggestionѕ or hints? Kudoѕ! Take a look at my blοg: clenbuterol dosage


Create a comment


Create a comment

Disclaimer: Virgin Islands News Online (VINO) welcomes your thoughts, feedback, views, bloggs and opinions. However, by posting a blogg you are agreeing to post comments or bloggs that are relevant to the topic, and that are not defamatory, liable, obscene, racist, abusive, sexist, anti-Semitic, threatening, hateful or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be excluded permanently from making contributions. Please view our declaimer above this article. We thank you in advance for complying with VINO's policy.

Follow Us On

Disclaimer: All comments posted on Virgin Islands News Online (VINO) are the sole views and opinions of the commentators and or bloggers and do not in anyway represent the views and opinions of the Board of Directors, Management and Staff of Virgin Islands News Online and its parent company.