Bechtel Coy About Payment For Port Work

Bechtel senior port and marine project manager Rex Gundle and CBRM Mayor Cecil Clarke speak the same language: I think it's a form of Esperanto. Whatever it is, it's not especially effective for conveying information.

Here is Gundle on Thursday explaining to CBC Information Morning host Steve Sutherland what Bechtel has accomplished for its "client" -- Harbor Port Development Partners -- to date:

"...the first thing we did was look at the general first gut check, the first assessment and be able to see the viability. And looking at the viability, looking at the challenges, look at the opportunities, having a background in the port industry myself, it allowed me to work with the clients -- both Marlene Usher and Albert [Barbusci] and Barry [Sheehy] -- to reach out to the shipping community and to the port operating community and be able to work within the streams to help develop marketing material that gave the proper opportunity for each individual stakeholder for the project."

Got that?

Earlier in the interview, asked who Bechtel's client was, Gundle had said the firm was "under contract" to "Harbor Ports [sic] Development Partners" (which he later referred to as a "group," although we know it comprises two people, Barbusci and Sheehy).

However, Gundle considers the "team" to be the CBRM, the Port of Sydney, Bechtel and now China Communications Construction Company.

Asked who was paying him, Gundle laughed and said, "I really don't want to get into that subject but we are engaged by the client and there are certain confidentialities that I must maintain."

Why is a representative of the "world's largest private construction company" shy about admitting he gets paid for his work? Could it be because admitting Bechtel was being paid would make Mayor Clarke's pride in the firm's participation in the port project seem misplaced? Gundle was also clear that Bechtel would be a "partner" in any future project, not an investor.

Gundle then insisted the project was "Purely private, everything about this is a private venture."

And here I must confess myself to be truly puzzled because our Mayor seems very involved in this "purely private venture;" and our port would, by definition, appear to be a public asset; and the greenfield site definitely belongs to the CBRM; and the Sydney Ports Development Corporation is surely not a private company in the usual sense of the term given that its directors are  Mayor Clarke, CBRM CAO Michael Merritt and Councillors Jim MacLeod, Kevin Saccary, George MacDonald and Clarence Prince.

It's all as clear as harbor mud.

The interview is here. Part II will air Friday morning. Stay tuned...

Posted by
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW


1,430 19

19

Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.
Depth
Joe Ward Follow Me
With no actual investment in place other than about $500k in the Port of Sydney cashbox (courtesy of Lisa Raitt), Bechtel should be careful not to associate their brand too closely - in the parts of this that are botching communications and transparency. If they want to lump into the HPDP "consortium", then they are in business with CCCC, a firm blacklisted by the World Bank for corruption (collusion, bid inflating, etc, all alleged). They had better put away the non-engineering "gut checks" and get to the engineering stye business analysis to find out if the risk they are taking is justified. Is there a probable return? How hard would it be to say who you are under contract with, or the nature of any partnership? It's just silly. And once again that communication strategy results in posts like this new article, which is certainly valid and will raise reasonable concerns for anyone searching the web for all those very specific keywords and stakeholder names embedded within it. Definitely some digital legacy building here, even if not the kind of legacy desired.
Joe Ward Follow Me
"Everything about this is private". In what way can the team consist of the CBRM, the Port of Sydney Corp (owned, funded, and incorporated by the CBRM), the HPDP (under contract with the CBRM); and the key asset greenfield site + harbour (owned/partially owned by the CBRM)... ... and this still be a *private* engagement? ;)
Joe Ward Follow Me
Mary, does this sound to you as though HPDP is the client paying Bechtel *with* funds from the Port of Sydney Corp? Thanks to some excellent question follow up by Steve Sutherland (as per usual), Rex Gundle's answers could reasonably be interpreted as including that possibility. It would also be reasonable their (i.e. Bechtel's) proposed enthusiasm for bringing CCCC onboard would be to solidify funding and have them act as an engineering sub-contractor.
Mary Campbell My Post Follow Me
Joe, sorry for delayed response. I've listened carefully to both parts of Gundle's interview and I still don't know who is paying Bechtel, despite Steve Sutherland's very direct question ("Who is paying you?"). Gundle says Bechtel has been "contracted" by HPDP but he also refers to the Port of Sydney Development Corp as a "client." The idea that HPDP is paying Bechtel out of pocket really stretches the bounds of credulity, but it could be the case -- we just don't know. And that's the problem: why should we be parsing these interviews, reading the entrails, trying to discern something as simple as 'Who is paying Bechtel for its work on the Port of Sydney file?' How could that qualify as classified information?
Joe Ward Follow Me
Wendy Bergfeldt goes in depth with Marlene Usher, Dec 22nd on CBC Mainstreet. Must listen. http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2680859165
Joe Ward Follow Me
Here is a summary of some of the key points shared by Usher. This will be good to compare to other statements. https://capebreton.lokol.me/notes-from-cbc-mainstreet-interview-with-marlene-usher
Joe Ward Follow Me
Part II: http://www.cbc.ca/informationmorningcb/2015/12/18/bechtel---rex-gundle---pt-2/
Joe Ward Follow Me
Here's something interesting. Bechtel is actually showing leadership in developing port alternatives that would eliminate most of the advantages indicated for a Sydney port (no obstructions, deep harbour, and available acreage to accommodate larger ships). Specifically, they are talking about developing *offshore ports*, that would be suitable for the US East Coast, and that could take on traffic from China through the Suez Canal. http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/136396/interview-offshore-ports-the-way-foward/ So imagine either an artificial island (as they build in the Khalifa port), or an offshore rig-like structure in water of suitable depth - with an estimated build out time of ~3-4 years. It is notable that they see this as being most advantageous for mining operators, but state that it's useful for container shipping operators as well.
Joe Ward Follow Me
See also: http://www.datamyne.com/blog/transport/bechtel-floats-plan-offshore-port-east-gulf-coast/ Quote: "Bechtel is proposing to build an offshore port along the East Coast or Gulf Coast. The behemoth engineering company says the new port, with an annual capacity of 4 million TEUs, would eliminate the need for hugely expensive dredging of channels and berths at some of the main ports, as well producing big savings in freight costs and emissions reductions."
Mary Campbell My Post Follow Me
That is VERY interesting...
Joe Ward Follow Me
Here is an offshore port project already greenlighted in the United States (Louisiana). Must be of a smaller scale as it mentions (in description) a cost of only $25 Million. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDe2REfkSXg
Joe Ward Follow Me
Correction: "The entire $10 billion facility should be completed in five years."
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
THAT would link up with Havana very nicely. I think that with Cuba opening to international finance, we will see it there. From that part of the states you can get to Chicago or LA by train.
Joe Ward Follow Me
Note: Sheehy also made reference to this in a Chronicle Herald article. That was where I picked it up: http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1247455-don%E2%80%99t-undersell-port-of-sydney%E2%80%99s-potential "Construction giant Bechtel has proposed building an artificial island to provide a “hub” where these super-ships can transfer containers to smaller vessels. This project would cost billions of dollars. Do you suppose Bechtel would be proposing this scale of investment if it thought there would be no vessels to use it?"
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
No, not at all, but if that is the way they are going, as you say yourself, our advantages as a location are null and void. They could build it off Boston, or wherever they want to. I think we would all be more clear if we separated the question of whether or not Sydney will ever have a port, and the question of whether or not this gang who are pushing it now really care about it.
Shauna Winters Follow Me
I'm so confused
Mary Campbell My Post Follow Me
You're not alone! But the main point for me is that Bechtel was paid -- the Port of Sydney Development Corp paid them more than $150,000 for their work. So they are not here as 'partners,' they are here as paid contractors (or were here, I haven't heard much about them lately!)
Shauna Winters Follow Me
It is a tangled web for sure! I'm glad that you and gocape Breton team are asking the pertinent questions and hopefully we can get some answers. Its almost like we need a flow-chart to keep up with the characters in this soap opera. Ps how do I get a job like bechtels?
Michael MacNeil Follow Me
Shauna you should read some of the other articles that Mary researched. You think this is confusing, it is a big web that they weaved. Remember CME, the promise of 100 or so jobs if they got a hold of Archibalds Wharf, well it seems that they are in this big web also. The scary thing about all of this, is that it seems the way it is set up, a municipality can do anything they want and answer to nobody.What worries me is that I think that this file is getting so lets say dirty, that the Federal and Provincial government want nothing to do with it.Once this group uses up the $500,000.00 that Lisa Raitt sent down last election, then they will try to get rid of the CAP and our Taxes which are too high now will go through the roof to keep this tangled web growing.

Facebook Comments

View all the LATEST
and HOTTEST posts
View

Share this comment by copying the direct link.

  • Our Sponsors

Using this website is subject to the Terms of Use that contain binding contractual terms.