Some people say that you know a politician is lying when you see his or her lips moving. I like to think that isn't true, but today's news is shaking that faith. David Vardy filed an access to information request to gain access to the employment contract of former Nalcor president Ed Martin. What a bombshell that was.
Premier Ball, and Ed Martin himself went public, speaking to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and claimed Ed Martin resigned. It was subsequently released that his severance package was just under $1.4 million dollars. Weeks later it was revealed that he was paid just under $200,000 in bonuses as well. As Ball slashed jobs, and severely increased taxes, he made the case that Martin's excessive severance was required by his contract, and there was no choice in the matter. However, with Vardy's release of Martin's contract, that was not true. In fact it was a boldfaced lie that was spoken to the public as if it were the truth.
Here is Martin's employment contract . You can see for yourself that the only circumstances that require a severance for Martin is dismissal. That makes sense because if Martin quit he would be the one breaking the employment contract, and therefore would not be entitled to compensation. In any case, he is not entitled to a severance package if he quit according to the terms of his employment outlined in the contract. So did he quit or was he fired and allowed to save face? Right now we don't know for sure. The bottom line is that either way Premier Ball lied, and now he's caught in it. If Martin was fired, then he was entitled to a package - but Ball said he quit for "family reasons". Now if he did quit, then Ball is lying when he said that the contract required him to receive a severance package. So, either way Ball lied to the people of the province. In case you don't recall his exact words, here are some of the stories that covered the severance storm that Ball addressed publicly: Telegram story ; and CBC story .
Ball needs to resign now for his deception - hell let's just call it what it is: boldfaced lie to the people of the province. The people already consider themselves betrayed by Ball's broken promises made during the election, but this takes things to an all new level. A level where people know their own premier has lied to their face and been caught in the act. It's a disgrace to his office, to the province and to democracy. Resign, Mr. Ball. Do the honourable thing if you're capable.
Showing posts with label Ed Martin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Martin. Show all posts
Monday, May 23, 2016
Monday, December 16, 2013
Nalcor Lies of Omission
What's a lie of omission? A lie of omission is defined as leaving out an important fact when putting forward a story. This is what Ed Martin, President of Nalcor did this weekend on CBC's show On Point. Frankly, I was shocked. Then I was angry - and I remain angry. Here is what was said during the interview:
President Ed Martin:
"If I can just take a brief moment to explain, as briefly as I can, what's really happening there. This is really about the Power Contract with the Upper Churchill, and the Power Contract is really the original contact for 40 years and the extension. In the original contract Hydro Quebec had negotiated the ability to really get the power when they wanted it, you know, at their say.In the renewed contract, in the second part of the contract, it is very clear and different. They get a fixed amount every month, and we've said to them you have to take that, that is what the contract says. They said we would like to have it the first way. We said, well folks, a contract is a contract in this particular case, and you are going to take it that way.
Putting that aside, that's what they are trying to argue. But from our perspective, even if we treated it like the original contract, it has no impact on Muskrat Falls flow, so either way we are fine. So we obviously expect we will win that, that court action, but assuming we didn't, either way we've run the numbers and it's not going to have an impact that's going to hurt Muskrat Falls."
Cochrane:
" So you're 100% certain that nothing Hydro-Quebec is doing in the courts right now will impact your ability to operate Muskrat Falls as intended in your business plan?"
Martin:
" That's correct. They've been operating that plant for fourty years in a certain way, and if they continue to operate that plant in that fashion for fourty years, no impact on the project."
Here is the link if you want to listen to it:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/what-s-next-for-muskrat-falls-1.2464965
Point one is this, Quebec's lawsuit for a declaration of their rights under the Power Contract is not just solely affecting the Power Contract. Hydro-Quebec is suing, because apparently Nalcor/CFLCo have taken more MW of power from the Upper Churchill, since last June, than they are permitted to under the Power Contract. They are also suing over their right to operate the dam in accordance with their needs, which is what the Power Contract allows them to do. Now ask yourself this: If this Hydro-Quebec lawsuit has nothing to with Muskrat Falls, and especially the Water Management Agreement, then why is Hydro-Quebec suing over their right to operate the dam for only their needs (minus recall)?
It is apparent that Nalcor via CFLCo has been taking more MW than they are allowed to, so they must be doing so based on the Water management Agreement, because prior to that they had no grounds to take extra power. We have yet to be told by our government how much power was taken, and under what authority. However, it is clear that Nalcor is "being too cute" by applying the Water Management Agreement to take power, but not disclosing it to the public they are doing so, or what legal quandary that leaves us in - or expense. In other words, they are fighting a territory fight where the Supreme Court of Canada has already said they don't have territory, and we will pay for it, but they don't seem to care about that.
Martin also states that Quebec has to buy a minimum bloc of power under the renewal contract, and that is true. They have to buy what the average consumption they used over 40 years as a minimum monthly purchase. That's about 3500 MW. What he doesn't say is they take more than that now, and are by law entitled to. Essentially, Martin is not telling the truth here. Hydro-Quebec is not arguing about their minimum buy required. It's clear, spelled out, and they use more anyway. It's a completely false argument presented by Martin. There are only two points they are arguing: 1. Does Hydro-Quebec have the right to all the power created except the recall power? The Supreme Court decided that in 1984, and Nalcor has no right to take anything beyond recall. 2. Does Hydro-Quebec have the right to require the dam be operated to meet their needs, and their needs alone, other than recall power. The Power Contract says they do. In any case, Hydro-Quebec's case has nothing to do at all with how much power hydro-Quebec has to buy. This is just a blatantly false statement from Martin, and it really doesn't fit the criteria for a lie of omission - it's just straight out false.
Then Martin says he is 100% certain that Quebec's court action won't affect the flow for the Muskrat Falls dam. That is another stinker. Consider Nalcor's pre filed evidence to the PUB submitted in 2009:
"Uncoordinated production among the Churchill River facilities could result in either
15 excessive or insufficient water at the lower Churchill facilities. Excessive water will result in
16 spill. Insufficient water to meet delivery schedules will result in excessive drawdown.
17 Either case represents inefficient use of the available water. Flow regulation is therefore an
18 important factor in fulfilling the efficiency policy contained in subparagraph 3(b)(i) of the
19 EPCA...
22 The control of the rate at which water is delivered to a hydraulic generating facility
23 increases the plant’s ability to produce power on demand. The ability to regulate the flow
24 of water is a result of having adequate storage. The degree of flow regulation determines a
25 plant’s firm power and energy capability...
15 Irregular production at Churchill Falls will have different effects on the lower Churchill
16 facilities depending upon the uncontrolled natural inflows at various times of the year. In
17 many months, the lower Churchill facilities would have insufficient water for production
18 requirements during periods of reduced production at Churchill Falls. However, during the
19 spring runoff, there would be excess water, resulting in spillage, during periods of increased
20 production at Churchill Falls. These problems would be compounded if full CF(L)Co delivery
21 of Continuous Energy was scheduled early in one month followed by full production late in
22 the following month.
4 In the absence of a water management agreement, Nalcor would not even have advance
5 knowledge of expected flows from the Churchill Falls facility to enable it to take steps to
6 mitigate spillage through advance drawdown of the lower Churchill reservoirs.
President Ed Martin:
"If I can just take a brief moment to explain, as briefly as I can, what's really happening there. This is really about the Power Contract with the Upper Churchill, and the Power Contract is really the original contact for 40 years and the extension. In the original contract Hydro Quebec had negotiated the ability to really get the power when they wanted it, you know, at their say.In the renewed contract, in the second part of the contract, it is very clear and different. They get a fixed amount every month, and we've said to them you have to take that, that is what the contract says. They said we would like to have it the first way. We said, well folks, a contract is a contract in this particular case, and you are going to take it that way.
Putting that aside, that's what they are trying to argue. But from our perspective, even if we treated it like the original contract, it has no impact on Muskrat Falls flow, so either way we are fine. So we obviously expect we will win that, that court action, but assuming we didn't, either way we've run the numbers and it's not going to have an impact that's going to hurt Muskrat Falls."
Cochrane:
" So you're 100% certain that nothing Hydro-Quebec is doing in the courts right now will impact your ability to operate Muskrat Falls as intended in your business plan?"
Martin:
" That's correct. They've been operating that plant for fourty years in a certain way, and if they continue to operate that plant in that fashion for fourty years, no impact on the project."
Here is the link if you want to listen to it:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/what-s-next-for-muskrat-falls-1.2464965
Point one is this, Quebec's lawsuit for a declaration of their rights under the Power Contract is not just solely affecting the Power Contract. Hydro-Quebec is suing, because apparently Nalcor/CFLCo have taken more MW of power from the Upper Churchill, since last June, than they are permitted to under the Power Contract. They are also suing over their right to operate the dam in accordance with their needs, which is what the Power Contract allows them to do. Now ask yourself this: If this Hydro-Quebec lawsuit has nothing to with Muskrat Falls, and especially the Water Management Agreement, then why is Hydro-Quebec suing over their right to operate the dam for only their needs (minus recall)?
It is apparent that Nalcor via CFLCo has been taking more MW than they are allowed to, so they must be doing so based on the Water management Agreement, because prior to that they had no grounds to take extra power. We have yet to be told by our government how much power was taken, and under what authority. However, it is clear that Nalcor is "being too cute" by applying the Water Management Agreement to take power, but not disclosing it to the public they are doing so, or what legal quandary that leaves us in - or expense. In other words, they are fighting a territory fight where the Supreme Court of Canada has already said they don't have territory, and we will pay for it, but they don't seem to care about that.
Martin also states that Quebec has to buy a minimum bloc of power under the renewal contract, and that is true. They have to buy what the average consumption they used over 40 years as a minimum monthly purchase. That's about 3500 MW. What he doesn't say is they take more than that now, and are by law entitled to. Essentially, Martin is not telling the truth here. Hydro-Quebec is not arguing about their minimum buy required. It's clear, spelled out, and they use more anyway. It's a completely false argument presented by Martin. There are only two points they are arguing: 1. Does Hydro-Quebec have the right to all the power created except the recall power? The Supreme Court decided that in 1984, and Nalcor has no right to take anything beyond recall. 2. Does Hydro-Quebec have the right to require the dam be operated to meet their needs, and their needs alone, other than recall power. The Power Contract says they do. In any case, Hydro-Quebec's case has nothing to do at all with how much power hydro-Quebec has to buy. This is just a blatantly false statement from Martin, and it really doesn't fit the criteria for a lie of omission - it's just straight out false.
Then Martin says he is 100% certain that Quebec's court action won't affect the flow for the Muskrat Falls dam. That is another stinker. Consider Nalcor's pre filed evidence to the PUB submitted in 2009:
"Uncoordinated production among the Churchill River facilities could result in either
15 excessive or insufficient water at the lower Churchill facilities. Excessive water will result in
16 spill. Insufficient water to meet delivery schedules will result in excessive drawdown.
17 Either case represents inefficient use of the available water. Flow regulation is therefore an
18 important factor in fulfilling the efficiency policy contained in subparagraph 3(b)(i) of the
19 EPCA...
22 The control of the rate at which water is delivered to a hydraulic generating facility
23 increases the plant’s ability to produce power on demand. The ability to regulate the flow
24 of water is a result of having adequate storage. The degree of flow regulation determines a
25 plant’s firm power and energy capability...
15 Irregular production at Churchill Falls will have different effects on the lower Churchill
16 facilities depending upon the uncontrolled natural inflows at various times of the year. In
17 many months, the lower Churchill facilities would have insufficient water for production
18 requirements during periods of reduced production at Churchill Falls. However, during the
19 spring runoff, there would be excess water, resulting in spillage, during periods of increased
20 production at Churchill Falls. These problems would be compounded if full CF(L)Co delivery
21 of Continuous Energy was scheduled early in one month followed by full production late in
22 the following month.
4 In the absence of a water management agreement, Nalcor would not even have advance
5 knowledge of expected flows from the Churchill Falls facility to enable it to take steps to
6 mitigate spillage through advance drawdown of the lower Churchill reservoirs.
11 In the absence of a water management agreement, Nalcor would be required to utilize the
12 water as it became available. Given the limited storage capacity in the Gull Island reservoir
13 (approximately three to four days of maximum flow from the upper Churchill facilities),
14 Nalcor would have to turbine the water and produce energy at the time that it was
15 available; it would be required to “chase the flows” from the upper Churchill. Spills would
16 be likely during the period of the spring runoff, resulting in wasted energy.
Water Management Agreement Application ‐ Pre‐filed Evidence
Page 14
Nalcor Energy
Table 1: Irregular CF(L)Co Production Profile
Continuous Energy – First 20 days of month 4,765 MW
Recall and Twinco 495 MW
Total – First 20 days of month 5,260 MW
Continuous Energy – Last 11 days of month 900 MW
Recall and Twinco 495 MW
Total – Last 11 days of month 1,395 MW
1 The resulting releases into the lower Churchill reservoirs would be as follows for the above
2 production values:
Table 2: Irregular CF(L)Co Production Water Release
Daily Churchill Falls Water Release – First 20 days of month 160 million m3
Daily Churchill Falls Water Release – Last 11 days of month 42 million m3
3 During the March timeframe, uncontrolled inflows into the Gull Island reservoir will be
4 minimal and under average and dry year conditions are as follows:
Table 3: Gull Island Uncontrolled Inflows March
Daily Uncontrolled Natural Inflows – Average Year 6 million m3
Daily Uncontrolled Natural Inflows – Dry Year 0.7 million m3
5 Under average conditions, the resulting production at Gull Island would be 1,519 MW for
6 the first 20 days and 443 MW during the last 11 days of March. During a dry period, this
7 scenario would require production levels of 1,471 MW during the first 20 days of March,
8 and 395 MW during the last 11 days. Consequently, without a water management
9 agreement, Nalcor would be limited to approximately 400 MW of continuous delivery in a
10 long‐term power purchase agreement for Gull Island. Such an arbitrary constraint on lower
11 Churchill delivery schedules is unnecessary and is incompatible with the concept of the
12 efficient use of the resource.
Bottom line, by Nalcor's own filed evidence, with an affidavit sworn by Nalcor's VP Gilber Bennett, the Water Management Agreement is necessary to operate Muskrat Falls at more than 20% capacity. So, when Ed Martin says that should Quebec win in court, and those two principles are ruled void, the entire Water Management Agreement is invalid, and we are screwed. Which, of course is why I have been in Court with them. Ask yourself this: Has Nalcor made Hydro-Quebec's claim or their own Statement of Defence available to the public or media?; Have they made their legal opinions available?; and if no why not? The clear answer is that Nalcor is simply not telling the truth. In some cases they are telling part truths without telling all the truths. In other cases they are simply not telling the truth. Either way, we are being deceived, to our peril, by a government and crown corporation that is meant to defend our interests, and not cripple them.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Expose Alderon Iron Ore Corp - Part 1
Alderon Iron Ore Corp came to everyones attention in the province when former premier Danny Williams was named Special Advisor to the Chairman in 2012. A little known company that was suddenly the next Thompson Consolidated mine. It has been in the press advocating its need for Muskrat Falls power yet we know nothing about it. This series will attempt to answer some of those questions.
It all began with the incorporation of the name Comanche Resources Inc, under the Company Act (British Columbia), March 21, 1978. A little less than a year later, February 28,1979, its name was changed once more to Shawnee Oil Corporation. While it was difficult getting any information on these two names, both reappeared in the United States in later years - now defunct and registered as inactive foreign for - profit corporations. On June 11, 1981 the company changed its name yet again - this time to Enfield Resources Inc. Again, not much information was available, and again the same name reappeared in the United States. Enfield Resources Inc was formed in Delaware, May 20, 1986 and appeared in US bankruptcy court on March 10, 1989. Whether or not there is a reason behind this U.S link or it is simple coincidence is anyone's guess.
The story really starts to take life on June 30, 1989 when the company name is changed one more time - Pacific Summa Capital Corp. The records show one Dennis Kozak President and Director, with an office at Suite 411-850 Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC. It appears for the first time as a publicly traded company on the Vancouver Stock Exchange under the symbol PSU.
The Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE) was essentially the wild, wild west of stock trading in North America. Wikipedia describes it well during the period:
" In 1991, it listed some 2300 stocks. Some local figures stated that the majority of these stocks were either total failures or frauds. A 1994 report by James Matkin (Vancouver Stock Exchange and Securities Regulation Commission) made reference to 'shams, swindles, and market manipulations' within the VSE. Regardless of the low opinion several held in it, it had roughly four billion dollars in annual trading in 1991."
To be clear, this in no way suggests the companies mentioned in this article were involved in such activities, but it gives you a sense of the backdrop to this story.
On June 28, 1991 Pacific Summa Capital Corp changed its name to Pacific Summa Environmental Corp, and issued a share swap of one old for one new share. It signalled a change in the company's focus as it tried to market two products which it had US patents for: Enviro Hazmate (fire extinguisher); and Zeomix (material for toxic clean up). The company entered into an exclusive distribution deal for Zeomix which was subsequently cancelled. On June 16, 1997 the BC Securities Commission filed a Cease Trade Order against the company due to outstanding annual fees. On September 16, 1997, the Securities Commission banned Kovack from trading in the companies stock, because he failed to file insider's disclosure documents. Other members of the board at that time included Gerald Jardine, John Toljanich, and David Van Dyke. On March 10, 1998, Kovak resigned as President of the company. The company itself was suspended from the VSE on July 16, 1998. The Cease Trade Order was revoked on July, 27, 1998. Gerald Jardine took over as President and the company delisted from the VSE on November 26, 1999. Significantly, Mark Brown took over as CEO. On November 27, 1999 the company joined the TSX venture exchange. Its high value was on the VSE at $3.35 a share, and its low value was $.01 a share on the TSX when it delisted on August 8, 2000.
The next day, Pacific Summa Evironmental Corp was renamed as Traux Ventures Corp. The company by this time was carrying a deficit of $10 million dollars from its previous years, had failed to launch any successful projects, and left many disappointed investors in its wake. To launch Traux the Board of Directors initiated a 30 to 1 reverse share split. That freed them to launch yet another share offering to recapitalize the company. On April 30, 2001 Reza Mohammed took over from Mark Brown.
Reza Mohammed ran a large number of exploration companies from his tiny office in Vancouver. The companies all had the same fax and phone number, and board members - particularily one Anita Algie. Mohammed was a realtor in the Vancouver area, and earned a degree in the mid eighties. Some of the companies he ran included: Tellford Management; Cuda Capital Corp; Titus Capital Corp; Gold Key Capital Corp; etc. The one director that stands out on most of his companies was Peter Born. Born not only sat on Mohammed's boards, but he also sits on the Advisory Board of Forbes and Manhattan - a relationship that will become crucial to Alderon. Mohammed also sat on the Board of Directors of Castillian Resources Corp. Castillian was, and remains, a Forbes and Manhattan interest. It's at this stage of the company's life that Forbes and Manhattan becomes an influentual factor in the company.
Also joining Traux at this time was Senator Edward Lawson. A veteran of the Teamsters Union, Lawson was appointed as an indepedendant Senator by Pierre Trudeau and became a Liberal Senator when Paul Martin won the Liberal leadership. Senator Lawson was very involved in mineral exploration companies. Lawson's lawsuit against Sun media over a story outlining his relationships with stock fraudsters David Ward and Ed Carter created national headlines. Interestingly, the US department of Justice filed suit against the Teamsters executive (Lawson included) alledging the executive, and 26 mobsters, had conspired to hijack the union from its members. The issue was settled when the executive agreed in writing to reform the Teamsters. Lawson took over the role of Chairman of Traux.
Traux followed the path of its earlier incarnations. It achieved little. It traded alot of stock. Its overall deficit remained about $10.5 million. Its highest stock value was $.58 per share on November 17, 2003, and its lowest was $.115 on June 3, 2004. It delisted from the TSX on August 31, 2004.
On September 1, 2004, the company's name changed again - this time to Aries Resource Corp. As had become the norm the Board authorized a reverse share split of 4 old for 1 new share. Members of the Board at this time included Reza Mohammed, Senator Lawson, John Kowalchuck, Anita Algie, and John Harper. Notably, all the original Pacific Summa directors were gone at this point. A significant entry into the company was a 2 million share purchase by Doctor's Investment Group, a Bahamian registered company, owned by Michael W Taylor. Aires made an application at this time to transition into the Business Corporations Act (BC), and on the same day shareholders passed a special resolution to change its authorized capital to an unlimited number of common shares without par value. The next four years proved to be generally fruitless for the company. Its accumlated deficit increased to over $11 million. Thomas Tough, a director of Desert Sun Mining Corp, a Forbes and Manhattan interest, joined the Board. At the annual general and special meeting of September 4, 2008, shareholders passed a motion for a 10 to 1 share reverse and a name change to Alderon Resources Corp.Nineteen days later the stock completely collapsed. Reza Mohammed resigned as president on August 12, 2008. The saviours of the company were to be Emprise Capital Corp who invested in the company, appointed its Jeff Durno as president, and Robert Chisholm as director. In the words of Emprise: " Complete restructure and reorganization (of Alderon)".
The first few decades of the company's life saw it swing from one interest to another. It sold large amounts of shares, did numerous reverse share splits that crucified investors who were unlucky enough to invest, and fed numerous officers with handsome management fees. It went from oil exploration, to mining exploration,to capital fundraising, to environmental promoters, and back to mineral exploration. One thing it did not do was achieve any purposeful, positive return to its shareholders. It ended this era with a sorry $.01 per share worth. In the wild, wild west days of the VSE it behaved as most did. In its transformation to the TSX it did no better. By 2001 it was becoming infiltrated with people closely aligned to Forbes and Manhattan. The stage is now set for the Forbes and Manhattan remake - that is Part II.
It all began with the incorporation of the name Comanche Resources Inc, under the Company Act (British Columbia), March 21, 1978. A little less than a year later, February 28,1979, its name was changed once more to Shawnee Oil Corporation. While it was difficult getting any information on these two names, both reappeared in the United States in later years - now defunct and registered as inactive foreign for - profit corporations. On June 11, 1981 the company changed its name yet again - this time to Enfield Resources Inc. Again, not much information was available, and again the same name reappeared in the United States. Enfield Resources Inc was formed in Delaware, May 20, 1986 and appeared in US bankruptcy court on March 10, 1989. Whether or not there is a reason behind this U.S link or it is simple coincidence is anyone's guess.
The story really starts to take life on June 30, 1989 when the company name is changed one more time - Pacific Summa Capital Corp. The records show one Dennis Kozak President and Director, with an office at Suite 411-850 Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC. It appears for the first time as a publicly traded company on the Vancouver Stock Exchange under the symbol PSU.
The Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE) was essentially the wild, wild west of stock trading in North America. Wikipedia describes it well during the period:
" In 1991, it listed some 2300 stocks. Some local figures stated that the majority of these stocks were either total failures or frauds. A 1994 report by James Matkin (Vancouver Stock Exchange and Securities Regulation Commission) made reference to 'shams, swindles, and market manipulations' within the VSE. Regardless of the low opinion several held in it, it had roughly four billion dollars in annual trading in 1991."
To be clear, this in no way suggests the companies mentioned in this article were involved in such activities, but it gives you a sense of the backdrop to this story.
On June 28, 1991 Pacific Summa Capital Corp changed its name to Pacific Summa Environmental Corp, and issued a share swap of one old for one new share. It signalled a change in the company's focus as it tried to market two products which it had US patents for: Enviro Hazmate (fire extinguisher); and Zeomix (material for toxic clean up). The company entered into an exclusive distribution deal for Zeomix which was subsequently cancelled. On June 16, 1997 the BC Securities Commission filed a Cease Trade Order against the company due to outstanding annual fees. On September 16, 1997, the Securities Commission banned Kovack from trading in the companies stock, because he failed to file insider's disclosure documents. Other members of the board at that time included Gerald Jardine, John Toljanich, and David Van Dyke. On March 10, 1998, Kovak resigned as President of the company. The company itself was suspended from the VSE on July 16, 1998. The Cease Trade Order was revoked on July, 27, 1998. Gerald Jardine took over as President and the company delisted from the VSE on November 26, 1999. Significantly, Mark Brown took over as CEO. On November 27, 1999 the company joined the TSX venture exchange. Its high value was on the VSE at $3.35 a share, and its low value was $.01 a share on the TSX when it delisted on August 8, 2000.
The next day, Pacific Summa Evironmental Corp was renamed as Traux Ventures Corp. The company by this time was carrying a deficit of $10 million dollars from its previous years, had failed to launch any successful projects, and left many disappointed investors in its wake. To launch Traux the Board of Directors initiated a 30 to 1 reverse share split. That freed them to launch yet another share offering to recapitalize the company. On April 30, 2001 Reza Mohammed took over from Mark Brown.
Reza Mohammed ran a large number of exploration companies from his tiny office in Vancouver. The companies all had the same fax and phone number, and board members - particularily one Anita Algie. Mohammed was a realtor in the Vancouver area, and earned a degree in the mid eighties. Some of the companies he ran included: Tellford Management; Cuda Capital Corp; Titus Capital Corp; Gold Key Capital Corp; etc. The one director that stands out on most of his companies was Peter Born. Born not only sat on Mohammed's boards, but he also sits on the Advisory Board of Forbes and Manhattan - a relationship that will become crucial to Alderon. Mohammed also sat on the Board of Directors of Castillian Resources Corp. Castillian was, and remains, a Forbes and Manhattan interest. It's at this stage of the company's life that Forbes and Manhattan becomes an influentual factor in the company.
Also joining Traux at this time was Senator Edward Lawson. A veteran of the Teamsters Union, Lawson was appointed as an indepedendant Senator by Pierre Trudeau and became a Liberal Senator when Paul Martin won the Liberal leadership. Senator Lawson was very involved in mineral exploration companies. Lawson's lawsuit against Sun media over a story outlining his relationships with stock fraudsters David Ward and Ed Carter created national headlines. Interestingly, the US department of Justice filed suit against the Teamsters executive (Lawson included) alledging the executive, and 26 mobsters, had conspired to hijack the union from its members. The issue was settled when the executive agreed in writing to reform the Teamsters. Lawson took over the role of Chairman of Traux.
Traux followed the path of its earlier incarnations. It achieved little. It traded alot of stock. Its overall deficit remained about $10.5 million. Its highest stock value was $.58 per share on November 17, 2003, and its lowest was $.115 on June 3, 2004. It delisted from the TSX on August 31, 2004.
On September 1, 2004, the company's name changed again - this time to Aries Resource Corp. As had become the norm the Board authorized a reverse share split of 4 old for 1 new share. Members of the Board at this time included Reza Mohammed, Senator Lawson, John Kowalchuck, Anita Algie, and John Harper. Notably, all the original Pacific Summa directors were gone at this point. A significant entry into the company was a 2 million share purchase by Doctor's Investment Group, a Bahamian registered company, owned by Michael W Taylor. Aires made an application at this time to transition into the Business Corporations Act (BC), and on the same day shareholders passed a special resolution to change its authorized capital to an unlimited number of common shares without par value. The next four years proved to be generally fruitless for the company. Its accumlated deficit increased to over $11 million. Thomas Tough, a director of Desert Sun Mining Corp, a Forbes and Manhattan interest, joined the Board. At the annual general and special meeting of September 4, 2008, shareholders passed a motion for a 10 to 1 share reverse and a name change to Alderon Resources Corp.Nineteen days later the stock completely collapsed. Reza Mohammed resigned as president on August 12, 2008. The saviours of the company were to be Emprise Capital Corp who invested in the company, appointed its Jeff Durno as president, and Robert Chisholm as director. In the words of Emprise: " Complete restructure and reorganization (of Alderon)".
The first few decades of the company's life saw it swing from one interest to another. It sold large amounts of shares, did numerous reverse share splits that crucified investors who were unlucky enough to invest, and fed numerous officers with handsome management fees. It went from oil exploration, to mining exploration,to capital fundraising, to environmental promoters, and back to mineral exploration. One thing it did not do was achieve any purposeful, positive return to its shareholders. It ended this era with a sorry $.01 per share worth. In the wild, wild west days of the VSE it behaved as most did. In its transformation to the TSX it did no better. By 2001 it was becoming infiltrated with people closely aligned to Forbes and Manhattan. The stage is now set for the Forbes and Manhattan remake - that is Part II.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Nalcor's Chief Lies on Air - another Muskrat moment
This week the public was given a rare opportunity to ask questions of Ed Martin, CEO of Nalcor, regarding the Muskrat Falls project on province-wide radio - VOCM Openline with host Randy Simms. Having asked questions to both Nalcor, and Jerome Kennedy in the past on the Altius Royalty Trust proposal to fund Muskrat Falls, and having those questions ignored, I took the opportunity to phone in and engage Mr. Martin on the subject.
I had submitted a Twitter question that same morning covering the Altius proposal, but anticipated it may not get covered - so I phoned in as well. Just before I came on the air, host Randy Simms put my question to Mr Martin :
"@VOCMOpenLine Can Ed Martin comment on the Royalty Trust financing option with Altius?"
Mr Martin answered as follows:
" It was news to me...uh...in terms of where that came up, and, uh. So I tried to do some research into what's happening there...Let me say first off there is no Royalty Trust agreement with Altius. There is no offer of financing involved. There is nothing to that. We are doing traditional financing to this point."
Mr. Simms asks him:
"So Where does this story come from?"
Martin answers:
"I think where this comes from, only speculating, but I look back to 2003 or so, I wasn't there (Nalcor) at the time...uh...But there had been a request for proposals that had been asked for to help develop the Lower Churchill. A couple had come in for the actual development and a couple came in for the financing arrangement. One, Altius, was involved in one of those with a royalty trust arrangement, they had suggested and there's another group, I forget who they were, uh, but both of those finance proposals were put aside, uh...and really it hasn't been looked at ever since...its not anywhere near what we are trying to achieve."
Later in my telephone conversation Martin adds:
"From the Altius perspective, um, Brad, I just have to say to you I had you know that came up, somebody mentioned it to me, there has been some, uh, what do you call, uh, blog, twitters stuff going on about that and I had to ask my people is there any, you know, what, what's been talked about here? As I mentioned earlier that was something I think happened previous. We haven't looked at it for five years, six years, its been put on the back shelf and I really wasn't aware of it, so to my knowledge, and, never will...This Altius thing, uh, I can tell you it's just not on my radar screen at all, coming out of nowhere."
Mr.Simms sums up with:
"I've never, I've never heard of it or seen it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But you (Mr Martin) are saying you've never heard about it, you're saying?"
Mr Martin answers:
"That's correct."
There you have it. Ed Martin at one point of the interview says he was unaware of the proposal to the point he had to ask staff about it. Then he states it was an old proposal from 2003 when he wasn't CEO of Nalcor. Then in his final answer to Randy he states he's never heard about it. Forget for a moment all the obvious contradictions in these statements. Take a look at the truth instead.
From the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador press release August 8, 2005: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2005/exec/0808n03.htm
"As we proceed with these proposals, we are also keeping our options open regarding the ownership structure for the development ranging from a 100 per cent NLH owned and led development, to a lease/franchise option, and a variety of equity partnership options,” added Mr. Dean MacDonald.
Ed Martin stated that he is excited to lead Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at such a critical time in the province. “I am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to an organization that will work with the province in developing this tremendous hydro resource,” said Mr. Martin. “Today, we are narrowing down the field of proponents coming out of phase one of the EOI who we will be engaging as we consider our market and development arrangement options. In addition to the full development concept and financing submissions, the proposals involving services and products will remain on file for future consideration.”
"Finally, an innovative financing option in the form of a royalty trust has been proposed by Altius. This concept will be explored later in the process."
A few things are evident from the press release. Firstly, Ed Martin was head of Nalcor when the decision was made to push Altius's proposal through to the next level. Secondly, he was obviously familiar with it, and referenced the financing options in his quote. Third, the royalty trust proposal was given a distinct nod from the other submissions, and specifically referenced: "...This concept will be explored later in the process." Finally, it is all but obvious that Mr. Martin did not hear about the Altius proposal from "bloggers and twitterers."
In fact, Mr Martin's comments regarding the Altius proposal were false - a lie. Not only were they a lie, he framed the entire idea as something coming from bloggers and twitters. In essence, he mislead the listening public and tried to turn the entire Altius proposal into some sort of flight of fancy, misguided attempt of bloggers to muddy the waters. The problem with Mr. Martin lying about his knowledge of the proposal is it casts even more doubt on the credibility of his word in regard to the rest of the mostly behind closed doors planning on Muskrat Falls. If he is going to lie about one issue in public, without hesitation, what else could he be misrepresenting? As a public servant, is he not duty bound to answer questions truthfully? The public are shareholders after all in Nalcor, and they will be the ones who have to pay the enormous cost of this potential project.
Mr. Martin goes on to say that the financing portion of the project will be put out to tender. He doesn't say what the specifications of the tender will be. Will there be a Newfoundland requirement in the financing? We just don't know. What I do know, as of my two short questions to Mr. Martin, that Nalcor is prepared to deceive. It is prepared to put out half truths, slanted/stacked requirements, anything to push Muskrat Falls to fruition. Apparently that now includes the very head of Nalcor misleading the public on the airwaves of this province.
Here's the entire Ed Martin show on VOCM - my conversation with Mr Martin starts around the 1:20 mark http://youtu.be/-hIG7ACho-Q
I had submitted a Twitter question that same morning covering the Altius proposal, but anticipated it may not get covered - so I phoned in as well. Just before I came on the air, host Randy Simms put my question to Mr Martin :
"
Mr Martin answered as follows:
" It was news to me...uh...in terms of where that came up, and, uh. So I tried to do some research into what's happening there...Let me say first off there is no Royalty Trust agreement with Altius. There is no offer of financing involved. There is nothing to that. We are doing traditional financing to this point."
Mr. Simms asks him:
"So Where does this story come from?"
Martin answers:
"I think where this comes from, only speculating, but I look back to 2003 or so, I wasn't there (Nalcor) at the time...uh...But there had been a request for proposals that had been asked for to help develop the Lower Churchill. A couple had come in for the actual development and a couple came in for the financing arrangement. One, Altius, was involved in one of those with a royalty trust arrangement, they had suggested and there's another group, I forget who they were, uh, but both of those finance proposals were put aside, uh...and really it hasn't been looked at ever since...its not anywhere near what we are trying to achieve."
Later in my telephone conversation Martin adds:
"From the Altius perspective, um, Brad, I just have to say to you I had you know that came up, somebody mentioned it to me, there has been some, uh, what do you call, uh, blog, twitters stuff going on about that and I had to ask my people is there any, you know, what, what's been talked about here? As I mentioned earlier that was something I think happened previous. We haven't looked at it for five years, six years, its been put on the back shelf and I really wasn't aware of it, so to my knowledge, and, never will...This Altius thing, uh, I can tell you it's just not on my radar screen at all, coming out of nowhere."
Mr.Simms sums up with:
"I've never, I've never heard of it or seen it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But you (Mr Martin) are saying you've never heard about it, you're saying?"
Mr Martin answers:
"That's correct."
There you have it. Ed Martin at one point of the interview says he was unaware of the proposal to the point he had to ask staff about it. Then he states it was an old proposal from 2003 when he wasn't CEO of Nalcor. Then in his final answer to Randy he states he's never heard about it. Forget for a moment all the obvious contradictions in these statements. Take a look at the truth instead.
From the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador press release August 8, 2005: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2005/exec/0808n03.htm
"As we proceed with these proposals, we are also keeping our options open regarding the ownership structure for the development ranging from a 100 per cent NLH owned and led development, to a lease/franchise option, and a variety of equity partnership options,” added Mr. Dean MacDonald.
Ed Martin stated that he is excited to lead Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at such a critical time in the province. “I am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to an organization that will work with the province in developing this tremendous hydro resource,” said Mr. Martin. “Today, we are narrowing down the field of proponents coming out of phase one of the EOI who we will be engaging as we consider our market and development arrangement options. In addition to the full development concept and financing submissions, the proposals involving services and products will remain on file for future consideration.”
"Finally, an innovative financing option in the form of a royalty trust has been proposed by Altius. This concept will be explored later in the process."
A few things are evident from the press release. Firstly, Ed Martin was head of Nalcor when the decision was made to push Altius's proposal through to the next level. Secondly, he was obviously familiar with it, and referenced the financing options in his quote. Third, the royalty trust proposal was given a distinct nod from the other submissions, and specifically referenced: "...This concept will be explored later in the process." Finally, it is all but obvious that Mr. Martin did not hear about the Altius proposal from "bloggers and twitterers."
In fact, Mr Martin's comments regarding the Altius proposal were false - a lie. Not only were they a lie, he framed the entire idea as something coming from bloggers and twitters. In essence, he mislead the listening public and tried to turn the entire Altius proposal into some sort of flight of fancy, misguided attempt of bloggers to muddy the waters. The problem with Mr. Martin lying about his knowledge of the proposal is it casts even more doubt on the credibility of his word in regard to the rest of the mostly behind closed doors planning on Muskrat Falls. If he is going to lie about one issue in public, without hesitation, what else could he be misrepresenting? As a public servant, is he not duty bound to answer questions truthfully? The public are shareholders after all in Nalcor, and they will be the ones who have to pay the enormous cost of this potential project.
Mr. Martin goes on to say that the financing portion of the project will be put out to tender. He doesn't say what the specifications of the tender will be. Will there be a Newfoundland requirement in the financing? We just don't know. What I do know, as of my two short questions to Mr. Martin, that Nalcor is prepared to deceive. It is prepared to put out half truths, slanted/stacked requirements, anything to push Muskrat Falls to fruition. Apparently that now includes the very head of Nalcor misleading the public on the airwaves of this province.
Here's the entire Ed Martin show on VOCM - my conversation with Mr Martin starts around the 1:20 mark http://youtu.be/-hIG7ACho-Q
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)