I think 5% at best of what Oban would refine would end up as lubricants. Besides does the Gulf coast not produced millions of barrels of refined products already? Hard to see how Oban is truely "needed" in a world going green, which of course its not, if Oban does proceed, so to proceed/permit it is to admit failure.

No island "needs" Carnival, its like saying factory workers in Michigan "need" Mexican plants to replace them. What the Bahamas needs is no cruise ships and a vibrant land based hotel economy which you would have if you kicked out all the cruise ships. If decades of more cruise visitors and bigger ships were the "answer" everything would already be fine in the Bahamas (which its not).

Did he mention the huge refinery coming to GB?

Did he mention the plans to bring Shell and LNG into the Bahamas so the world can keep burning fossil fuels another 50 years?

If people don't like the US commenting on Bahamian prisons, perhaps citizens need to get more involved in making visits so more informed debate can be had?

Should Bahamian jails not meet generally accepted international standards?

Did you know one cruise ship getting up to speed and burning Bunker C emits as much sulfer dixoide emissions as like 6 million cars?

Explain how this is "sustainable" ?

And Park.... With all the fish and corals disrupted by all these ships and people swimming and stepping all over them how anything but a small % of the nature there now will still exist after only a couple years?

Please some one document at least the state of "before" so we can see side by side the "after" of how this debacle for light house beach turns out. I'm guessing tho the agreement lacks any consequence for a huge decline.

With all of these investments in fossil fuel power and LNG will we be pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords as our emissions reductions are clearly not going to happen anymore?

For 1 million more visitors to Disney's Lighthouse beach port that is sure some slim to none pick up in economic growth that is being forecast. With all those extra visitors why not more optimism for the Bahamas? Or is the Bahamas take from these 1 million more cruise visitors basically just peanuts? And for what should have been a National Park to begin with? (Lighthouse Beach)

Why must the presence of the cruise ships be taken as a "given" to begin with? Our only options are what "form" of cruise tourism to permit?

Would it not be simply better to just commission a study to see if we were better of canceling all cruise based tourism and then channel tourism revenues and visitors toward land based hotels (as there would then be no cruise ship product in the Bahamas)?

How have so many years passed without everyone being able to see what the "alternative" is for the Bahamas? Why on Earth would the cruise companies want to surrender more dollars to shore and lose out on their end? That is also a huge conflict of interest and thus why they should all be kicked out post haste in my view.

Are we paying down debt when times are good and putting away funds for the next huricane?

We should be when times are good.

We should start to run a budgetary surplus, it will not be this good forever based on past economic cycles.

Sorry but foreign head offices have no jurisdiction about what goes on under Bahamian law. There is only one law in the Bahamas, and that's Bahamian.

Perhaps a law is needed that regular commercial banking (not lending) must be provided to all VAT registered and lawfully operating businesses in the Bahamas.