Evidence of meeting #26 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was shell.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Chairperson, Follow-Up Committee of Shell Refinery
Mr. Wallace, it's very simple; it was to find buyers. The community in Montreal rallied around the refinery. Hundreds of people were going to lose their jobs. The union and the governments asked me to chair the effort, and I agreed to do it.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
When you say “governments”, what are those two governments?
11:15 a.m.
Chairperson, Follow-Up Committee of Shell Refinery
Well, four, actually. There are two municipal governments involved, the City of Montreal and the City of Montreal East, the federal government, the provincial government, and the union. I agreed to do this pro bono, voluntarily, as did Mr. Delage and everybody who helped us on this. Therefore, those sitting on the committee were representatives of those different stakeholders, so the governments, the municipalities, the union, and Claude and me.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I appreciate that, just so we understand what the committee--
11:15 a.m.
Chairperson, Follow-Up Committee of Shell Refinery
For those five people who just tuned in, that's the background.
11:15 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you for that.
Did you base that model on the work you did...? Was it done anytime previously, that you know of, or is this the first time this has happened?
11:15 a.m.
Chairperson, Follow-Up Committee of Shell Refinery
It's the first time I've done it for a large plant such as this, but I was convinced--I was saying earlier in French that I know that communities always rally. In the pulp and paper industry, which I know well, when those mills close, when those big plants close, there's always an effort in the local community to try to find a buyer.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I appreciate that.
Mr. Boles, the rest of the questions are for you.
Shell was here obviously before us. They gave us the impression that your company had provided a letter of intent or an expression of interest--it depends on your definition of what those are--that there was no, what they would call, technically, bona fide, in writing, actual offer. Would you agree with their assessment of the process to date?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Through the letter of intent that I'm assuming you put in front of them, that was the basis by which you were going to negotiate with Shell to hopefully come to a conclusion that would result in a bona fide offer. Is that correct?
11:15 a.m.
Business Development, Delek US Holdings
Generally, yes. Just as a matter of clarification, we provided them with an expression of interest, the term their process identified, and we discussed that likely there wouldn't be a letter of intent. Neither one of us wanted a letter of intent. That wouldn't have been our preference. Our preference would have been to negotiate an agreement.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
So the agreement would be borne out of the expression of interest then. Is that correct?
11:15 a.m.
Business Development, Delek US Holdings
Yes, and we discussed many matters around a possible transaction through that.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
The letter of interest allows you to sign confidentiality agreements between the two of you so that you can actually sit down and discuss things, what the real numbers are, and so on. Is that correct?
11:15 a.m.
Business Development, Delek US Holdings
The confidentiality agreement was the very first document.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay.
Your company put out a press release just a few minutes ago that the discussions are now defunct, or you're no longer talking to Shell. Is that your company's choice, or is it just because Shell doesn't want to sit at the table with you any longer? What was that press release telling me?
11:15 a.m.
Business Development, Delek US Holdings
I haven't seen it, but it was likely driven by the lawyers, so it's some legal matter that was probably appropriate. I'm not saying it wasn't appropriate. It's something we felt like we could do. We continue to be interested. We think maybe there are ways that can be explored where all parties would participate in getting a transaction done, but in terms of the discussions that were ongoing, those have been...let's call them terminated.
11:20 a.m.
Business Development, Delek US Holdings
By time, by circumstance. We're not currently talking to Shell. We don't have any intention to talk to Shell, unless, for some reason, they're willing to come back to the table, because we can't get around this issue of the turnaround, you understand. If we're willing to explore alternatives for that, we stand ready to discuss, but we are currently not discussing a transaction.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay. So as a representative of the company, if Shell sent your organization a letter saying “We're still willing to discuss things”, you'd be back at the table discussing with them. Is that correct?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
But your company has no intention of sending them a letter saying your company would like to continue discussions?