Ocean Point Terminals Proposes Conclusion of Water Distribution Effort, Citing Limited Participation

Ocean Point Terminals, the entity previously known as Limetree Bay Terminals, has approached the judiciary with a request to terminate a mandate compelling it to operate a water distribution initiative. This program was established for individuals reporting negative impacts due to multiple hydrocarbon emissions from the refinery throughout the initial six months of 2021.

In a motion submitted in the latter part of January, Ocean Point Terminals presented an argument centered on the observation that a minimal number of the supposed several thousand potential claimants have sought to participate in the water distribution scheme. They disclosed that out of these, 290 households have applied, with a mere 124 qualifying for the program.

Within this group of 124 households, the company highlighted that 12 have not retrieved any water at all, and approximately 86 have obtained less than half of their entitled water allocation. Moreover, Ocean Point Terminals pointed out that “four out of the six resident witnesses who provided testimony during the Preliminary Injunction hearings” — sessions that led to the reinstatement of the water program — “have not submitted applications,” according to statements from the company’s legal team.

Remarkably, only one among the 44 named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit has sought water from Ocean Point Terminals. This, the company argues, indicates a significant decline in the need for emergency water provisions.

Despite the tepid interest, Ocean Point Terminals reported incurring substantial expenses to sustain the court-mandated distribution effort, detailing costs that include approximately $138,000 in administrative fees up to the end of November, alongside over $118,302 in operational expenditures. The total financial burden of complying with the court’s order has approached nearly $300,000, a stark contrast to the $43,000 value of water distributed.

The company argues that the evident disparity between the program’s operational costs and participant engagement demonstrates a shift in circumstances, advocating for the cessation of the injunction to prevent unjust outcomes.

Contrasting with Ocean Point Terminals’ stance, plaintiffs maintain that the program’s existence underscores a tangible need among affected individuals for relief from the harm they’ve experienced. They argue that terminating the water distribution now, based on the argument of insufficient participation, would unjustly deprive around 140 individuals of essential water access. The plaintiffs propose that, instead of discontinuing the program, efforts should be directed towards refining eligibility criteria to enhance access and reduce costs, thereby addressing the needs of those most affected.

The debate over the future of the water distribution program encapsulates a broader discourse on environmental accountability and the imperative for tangible solutions to address community needs, highlighting a critical moment in the ongoing dialogue between Ocean Point Terminals and the affected residents.