Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 61-75 of 81
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  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.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  Correct.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  We do not.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  We don't want to fund the purchase price for a company that has closed its doors. There might be many ways to organize a transaction, but we certainly don't want to put up $150 million and then all we have is somebody standing at the door with a shotgun.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  Let me try to be responsive to what you said. It's my understanding that Shell has made arrangements for supply to be brought into the country. They have been working on interim supply arrangements for those customers for a while, and that was an issue in the last set of documents that we shared with each other around the transaction.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  I don't want to pay the purchase price for something that is closed. That is not a risk I entertained when I decided to start working on this transaction.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  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.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  Yes, and we discussed many matters around a possible transaction through that.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  The confidentiality agreement was the very first document.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  Everything.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  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.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  We own one refinery, two terminals, and a pipeline.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles

Industry committee  I don't believe we were side-swiped, to use your term. It was a very quick negotiation. We explored matters as we went along. We entered the process in late April, early May. We had a June 1 deadline, and we were trying to do as much raw due diligence work as we possibly could and discuss negotiation matters as we went along.

July 20th, 2010Committee meeting

Jim Boles