PUBLIC VERSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN
OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES,
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM RALPH CLAYTON, WILLIAM RICHARD CLAYTON, DOUGLAS
CLAYTON AND DANIEL CLAYTON AND BILCON OF DELAWARE INC.
Claimants
– and –
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Respondent
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
HELD BEFORE JUDGE BRUNO SIMMA (PRESIDING ARBITRATOR),
PROFESSOR DONALD MCRAE, and PROFESSOR BRYAN SCHWARTZ
held at the offices of Arbitration Place,
333 Bay Street, Suite 900, Toronto, Ontario
on Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 8:32 a.m.
VOLUME 6 – FULL TRANSCRIPT (REVISED)
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Gregory Nash Mr. Brent Johnston Mr. Chris Eibach Mr. Alex Baer Mr. Alex Little Mr. Randy Sutton Mr. Frank Borowicz, Q.C. |
For the Claimants |
| Mr. Scott Little Mr. Shane Spelliscy Mr. Rodney Neufeld Mr. Krista Zeman Mr. Susanna Kam Mr. Mark Klaver |
For the Respondents |
ALSO PRESENT:
Lorinda Edmunds, Alison Burns, Raman Bath, Chelsea
MacDonald, Annie Ronen, Tyler Lalande, Darian
Parsons, Benjamin Tait, Derek Hehn
| A.S.A.P. Reporting Services Inc.© 2018 | |
| 940 - 100 Queen Street | 900-333 Bay Street |
| Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J9 | Toronto, Ontario M5H 2R2 |
| (613) 564-2727 | (416) 861-8720 |
INDEX
PAGE
AFFIRMED: MR. MICHAEL POWER 1842
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. ZEMAN 1842
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH: 1844
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. ZEMAN: 1896
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH: 1899
QUESTIONS FROM THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL: 1901
FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. ZEMAN: 1903
AFFIRMED: MR. JAMES WARD 1905
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MS. ZEMAN: 1905
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH: 1910
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. ZEMAN: 1976
QUESTIONS FROM THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL: 1979
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH: 1993
AFFIRMED: DR. DAVID CHEREB 1997
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MS. ZEMAN: 1997
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH: 1998
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. ZEMAN: 2051
QUESTIONS FROM THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL: 2052
[Page 1843]
Toronto, Ontario,
--- Upon resuming on Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 8:32 a.m.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: I think, since the main actor will have to catch a plane, I think we will start right away. I think people are in place.
Would you please call Mr. Power. Please take your seat.
Good morning, Mr. Power.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Could you please read the statement you have in front of you.
THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare upon my honour and conscience that I will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that my statement will be in accordance with my sincere belief.
AFFIRMED: MR. MICHAEL POWER
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you. I will give the floor to Ms. Zeman for direct.
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. ZEMAN
MS. ZEMAN: Good morning, Mr. Power.
Q. Good morning.
Q. Could you briefly describe for the tribunal a bit of your background.
A. My background is that I am the president of Atlantic Coast Materials LLC. I've been with the quarry at Bayaside since its inception in 1998. Prior to that I was vice-president/general manager of Martin Marietta Materials Canada from 1990 to 1997.
Prior to that, I was the president of Construction Aggregates which was purchased by Martin Marietta in 1995.
Prior to that I was involved with a construction company that designed and built the Auld's Cove Quarry.
Q. You have in front of you two expert opinions from SC Market Analytics; did you write anything in these SCMA opinions?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. In light of that, could you describe to the tribunal your role in assisting to prepare the SCMA reports?
A. I was contacted by Colin Sutherland about a year ago and he asked if he could bounce some questions off me sort of as a resource, and I said "Yes".
Q. Have you provided any opinion or
[Page 1844]
fact testimony to this tribunal?
A. No, I have not.
MS. ZEMAN: Thank you.
MR. NASH: Good morning. We have some handouts that I'd like to give in addition to the cross-examination binders.
There is an exhibit called -- numbered C-0756. It is a large spreadsheet. It is a source document for the SCMA reports and we are going to give you a copy of that and then copies of some other documents that are also source documents, in loose form.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH:
MR. NASH: Good morning, Mr. Power.
Q. Good morning.
Q. My name is Greg Nash. I have a few questions for you this morning. I am going to get you on your way so you can make your plane.
A. Thank you, I appreciate it.
Q. Who wrote the SCMA reports, to your knowledge?
A. To my knowledge, Colin and David.
Q. Can you turn to tab 1 in the binder in front of you, which is first report.
[Page 1845]
Could you turn please to page 11.
You will see that there's a chart, a graph, which shows at the bottom, across the page from left to right, a number of quarries; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see that the first three are blue?
A. Right. [Redacted]?
Q. That's correct.
A. Then you've got a hatched red graph, do you see that?
A. Right.
Q. [Redacted]?
A. Right.
Q. Now, you will see this is a chart which shows the [Redacted]; do you see that at the very top?
A. Yes.
Q. And aggregate can consist in different forms of rock, that's right?
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted]
[Page 1846]
[Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted] quarry?
A. Yes.
Q. Right?
A. That's right.
Q. [Redacted]
that is correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted] that's right?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. If we keep on going across the page on this chart, you see [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. [Redacted]; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. [Redacted]
A. [Redacted]
[Page 1847]
Q. Thank you. If you go to the next red line, [Redacted], there?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then we have [Redacted]; that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Then if you go over a few, we've got [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Uh-hmm.
Q. You have to say "yes" or "no" just for the record.
A. Yes.
Q. [Redacted]
A. I understand that it was.
Q. [Redacted]; that's correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And these graph lines are
[Page 1848]
[Redacted] intended to show [Redacted]; that's correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. Did you have anything to do with the creation of this graph?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Then we go [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, those red lines are [Redacted] is that right? By your read of this -- all of this we've covered in --
A. Yes, they all appear to be the same colour, yes.
Q. And the next line is the Whites Point Nova Scotia Quarry and that's in the hatched green line; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. That shows the Whites Point
[Page 1849]
Quarry [Redacted]
A. Yes.
Q. Now, of course the Whites Point Quarry [Redacted], that's your understanding?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. Do you know how [Redacted]
A. I do not.
Q. Were you consulted on any of the [Redacted]
A. Basically I was asked -- I was sent a draft of this. I was asked to compare the [Redacted]
Q. So when you are pointing to "this", you are pointing to the large page in front of you which is part of R-0756?
A. Yes.
Q. And that shows the [Redacted]
[Page 1850]
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted] is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you will see, if you go down a few lines, you've got "rock type" and the rock type going along the page from left to right, "dolomite", "granite", "trap rock", "trap rock", "trap rock", "granite", [Redacted] do you see that? Are you with me?
A. Umm...
Q. If you to go the left-hand side of the page in those columns you see the word [Redacted]
A. Right.
Q. Follow that [Redacted]
[Page 1851]
[Redacted]
Q. Right. And you see --
A. [Redacted]
Q. [Redacted]
MR. SPELLISCY: Sorry, I'm going to object to this line of questioning. Mr. Power has made clear that he talked about [Redacted] and in the letter that Canada's provided, it's clear that the scope of his knowledge and the scope of his responses to Mr. Sutherland's questions, who has not been called, was on the potential source of the [Redacted]
As we all know, scope of cross is limited to what input Mr. Power may have had, so if he is going to be asking about the [Redacted], that's an objectionable question.
MR. NASH: We will move on then. We won't waste time because Mr. Power has to catch a plane.
But you will see, if you get to the
[Page 1852]
blue line, the first blue column [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. That's correct.
Q. If you follow down that column, what is provided there is under -- at about the sixth or seventh line down, it says [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And that was [Redacted], approximately?
A. Based on -- I'm not sure what [Redacted]
Q. [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. Then if we follow down a bit further we have [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
[Page 1853]
Q. I won't take you to that. That's the [Redacted]
A. I see that, yes.
Q. Were you asked to provide that?
A. No, I was asked if it was a [Redacted]
Q. If that was a -- [Redacted] was given to you and you were asked --
A. It was on the sheet.
Q. I see. And you were asked if it [Redacted]?
A. That's right.
Q. And it was?
A. In my estimation, yes.
Q. If we go down to [Redacted] do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And then if we go down to the next line that has a figure in it, you see for [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And that was considered [Redacted] that's correct?
[Page 1854]
A. That's correct.
Q. And is that [Redacted]
A. That would be [Redacted]
Q. Is everything on here [Redacted] to your knowledge.
A. To my knowledge.
Q. So the figure is [Redacted]; that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted] right?
A. In around that, yes.
Q. [Redacted] that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted] correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted] that's correct?
A. [Redacted]
[Page 1855]
Q. Right. Could you turn, please, to page 13, which is a map of the region.
A. Right.
Q. We'll see on this map -- we'll see New York down at the bottom left; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see the blue -- going into the Bay of Fundy [Redacted] right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And there is a red dot and that's [Redacted] correct?
A. Okay.
Q. You understand that [Redacted]?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. At least the proposed project. If we go up the southeast coast to Nova Scotia and we get to the top, we see a blue dot and that's [Redacted]; is that right?
A. It appears to be, yes.
Q. Right.
[Page 1856]
[Redacted]; that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then if we go across to the left, [Redacted] do you see that?
A. [Redacted]?
Q. [Redacted] correct?
A. Right.
Q. And we go straight up the line there is a red dot there; do you see that?
A. [Redacted]
Q. There is a sort of a pinkish one; is it that what you are referring to?
A. Right. And what quarry is that?
Q. [Redacted] (indicating)?
A. Yes.
Q. [Redacted]
[Page 1857]
(indicating)?
A. Yes, that would be my guess.
Q. [Redacted].
Yes.
Q. If we go back to this chart, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. [Redacted] identified by SCMA as a [Redacted] is that your understanding? I can take you back to the graph, if you want.
A. [Redacted]
MR. SPELLISCY: I think if he's asking for a comment on what SCMA identified, Mr. Power has identified he didn't author the SCMA report.
MR. NASH: I would ask Mr. Spelliscy not to object.
MR. SPELLISCY: I would ask Mr. Nash to ask appropriate questions and I won't have to object. Mr. Power has confirmed that he didn't author the report, to the extent that Mr. Nash wants to question him on what he did provide. To the extent he wants to question him on opinions he
[Page 1858]
didn't author, pursuant to procedural order 25, clearly outside the scope of cross-examination.
MR. NASH: Could you go back to page 11, Mr. Power, and we'll come back to this map in due course.
We went through the various quarries?
A. Right.
Q. You identified where they were, in Canada, you identified the graph line with the name of the quarry; do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. If you go to the far right-hand side, [Redacted]
A. I see that, yes.
Q. A [Redacted]
A. [Redacted], yes.
Q. [Redacted]
Do you see that on the map?
A. I would say that it's either the one on the very top or the one that -- that one or the one --
Q. The one next to it?
[Page 1859]
A. One of those two.
Q. [Redacted] (indicating); is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. We'll leave this map up.
[Redacted] that's correct?
A. According to --
Q. In the graph.
A. In the graph, yes.
Q. Now, if we go back to the blue section, [Redacted] if you go back down to the shipping line, the yellow line across the middle of the page, [Redacted]
A. I see that.
Q. Did you give that figure to either Mr. Sutherland or Mr. Chereb?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Were you asked --
A. I was asked if it seemed
[Page 1860]
reasonable. It is at least, in my estimation, it is [Redacted]
Q. Further?
A. Further away.
Q. From the [Redacted]
A. From New York.
Q. In terms of the distance between [Redacted]
[Redacted]
Q. Another day.
[Redacted]
A. Possibly, yes.
Q. When you provided your feedback on [Redacted]
[Redacted]
A. Yes, I did?
Q. Did you advise Mr. Sutherland, [Redacted]
[Page 1861]
[Redacted] did you tell him, "You know something, it is probably at perhaps --
A. No, I didn't tell him that.
Q. Were you asked by him about that?
A. He asked me if these costs look reasonable and I said, "To the best of my knowledge, I would say yes."
Q. And you carefully went through these figures?
A. Yes, I did. My knowledge is [Redacted]
Q. [Redacted]?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn't actually do a calculation of a [Redacted]
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you know if anybody did?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. If you go then over to [Redacted]
[Page 1862]
[Redacted] this is the second number 3 at the top of the blue -- the second column --
A. That's right.
Q. In the blue section. That's the [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. It's a [Redacted] in that range?
A. Probably.
Q. And then going down, we see -- and they've got a number of -- we'll come back to that -- [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Sutherland that you thought that was reasonable?
A. I did, because [Redacted]
Q. So you thought the [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
[Page 1863]
Q. Did you do any actual formal calculation of that?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Were you asked to?
A. No.
Q. Then if you go over to the [Redacted]; do you see that at the top?
A. Are we talking [Redacted]
Q. Sorry, [Redacted] column 4.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you understand that to be principally [Redacted]?
A. [Redacted]
Q. A [Redacted] that's correct?
A. That's my understanding, yes.
Q. Where do we find the [Redacted]
A. That would be the green spot, yes.
Q. [Redacted]
[Page 1864]
[Redacted] right?
A. That's right.
Q. And the shipping cost for that shown on the chart is [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Right.
Q. Were you asked if that was a reasonable figure?
A. I was.
Q. Did you said it was?
A. I thought it was.
Q. And you thought it was even, [Redacted]
A. Right.
Q. [Redacted] how many days is that to your understanding to get up to there?
A. From what my understanding is and what I was told by the shipping company, based on the load-out rate of [Redacted]
Q. About an extra day longer; that's what you were told by somebody?
A. Uh-hmm.
Q. So you thought that for [Redacted]
[Page 1865]
[Redacted] correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you ask anybody to verify --
A. No, I didn't.
Q. -- that? Did you seek independent advice from anybody, any professional?
A. No.
Q. Did you go to a guy like Wayne Morrison -- do you know Wayne Morrison?
A. Yes, very well.
Q. You've known him for many, many years?
A. Yes.
Q. He used to be with CSL during your time in the aggregate industry?
A. Uh-hmm.
Q. Did you call up Wayne Morrison and say, "Wayne, what do you think? Is the shipping cost to go from New York up to [Redacted]
Did you ask him about that?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Am I to understand then that your
[Page 1866]
review of these figures was really principally based [Redacted]?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that you made estimations of the actual shipping costs and you thought they were sort of within a reasonable range?
A. They -- these costs were there.
I was asked if they looked reasonable.
Q. Right. So these costs had already been slotted in for you and you didn't offer up any changes, that's correct? Do you know who slotted those costs in?
A. I would assume it was Colin and David.
Q. Do you know that?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know if Jason Ward had any input into that?
A. Who?
Q. Sorry, Jason Ward -- sorry, James Ward.
A. James Ward?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I don't.
Q. If we go across the chart DJL
[Page 1867]
[Redacted] five columns over from the left.
A. Yep.
Q. And you thought that was reasonable, within the range?
A. I'm not sure I was asked about [Redacted]
Q. Then we get to [Redacted]
A. Right.
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yeah.
Q. Now, where is [Redacted] on this map?
A. [Redacted] would be the pink area.
Q. It would be up here (indicating)?
A. Right.
Q. Up right there. So, the figure that you were provided with was [Redacted]; that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And --
A. Also [Redacted]
[Page 1868]
[Redacted] It was just a quarry that was thought about.
Q. It was a thought?
A. It was a thought.
Q. Right. So [Redacted] load-out costs were, what the depth of water was.
Q. Right. No idea how long it would take for the ship to actually go into port and load out?
A. I had no idea.
Q. That makes a big difference, doesn't it?
A. It sure does.
Q. Because a long load-out time is time for the ship when the first ship is berthed there, just waiting to be loaded to go out?
A. That's right.
Q. So if you have a load-out rate that is many, many, many hours shorter, that will save you a lot of money in shipping; that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so going -- now, [Redacted] that's correct?
[Page 1869]
A. That's correct.
Q. And the cost per ton, again, short ton for shipping stated in this document is [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. If I understand correctly then, to go here, [Redacted] is that right?
A. Again, I said it was a reasonable cost. I did not -- I did not -- I thought it was a reasonable cost.
Q. You thought it was a reasonable cost. All right.
[Redacted] do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Where is [Redacted]
A. I would think it's the far dot on the far side.
Q. Over here. Over there (indicating)?
A. [Redacted]
[Redacted] that's your
[Page 1870]
understanding?
A. Yes.
Q. And then if we go to [Redacted] right there (indicating)?
A. Yes.
Q. And that quarry also doesn't exist and I don't even know if it was a thought in anybody's mind in 2007?
A. I doubt very much it was.
Q. Right. And so [Redacted], correct, that's the estimate?
A. That's the estimate.
Q. Let's just go over to Whites Point. And the Whites Point column, number 7, it's identified as [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And Whites Point is here (indicating). Do you see that?
A. Right.
Q. So your understanding is that the figure that was being used for shipping for Whites [Redacted] is that
[Page 1871]
right?
A. On this column it is, yes.
Q. Yes. And was that [Redacted] figure in this chart when you received it?
A. I believe it was.
Q. All right. Let's just go down to the bottom, then, of all these columns. There is a yellow line across the bottom.
A. Right.
Q. And that yellow line is [Redacted] do you see that?
A. Uh-hmm.
Q. Let's go across to the blue section, [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Then if you go over to Whites Point, [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And that [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. No.
Q. Were you asked to do any kind of a calculation as to what the -- or asked to review
[Page 1872]
for the Whites Point Quarry [Redacted]?
A. I was asked -- I based my thoughts on the fact that it was [Redacted] but I had no idea what the water draft was. I had no idea what the load-out rate was or anything else, but...
Q. So you assumed a slower load-out rate [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. And you assumed [Redacted]
A. I had no idea what their load-out --
Q. Nobody told you that?
A. No.
Q. Has anybody ever told you that?
A. No.
Q. [Redacted] do I understand that?
A. [Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Page 1873]
[Redacted]
Q. So that's an extra cost; right?
A. It is and it isn't because it's based on the tides the ships have to come, arrive and come in on the start of the high tide and it has to leave on the start of the high tide.
Q. So it has to wait for the tide to be correct to get into the --
A. Right.
Q. -- destination; that is correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted]
A. That's true.
Q. And if the tide isn't quite right, it has to wait for the tide on its way out to be quite right, right?
A. That's right.
Q. Do you know anything about the tides at Whites Point Quarry?
A. No, I don't but I'm assuming that
[Page 1874]
they would be similar.
Q. That's your assumption, yes?
A. Well, the Bay of Fundy's tidal range is roughly the same.
Q. But you don't know the --
A. I don't know.
Q. -- approach from the Bay of Fundy, out of part of the Bay of Fundy into the coast where Whites Point is located?
A. No.
Q. Correct? You didn't know anything about what the conditions were at that entry point?
A. No, I did not.
Q. If you go back to the chart on page 11. Just to put this in context, what we have is the [Redacted]; that's right?
A. That's correct.
Q. We have [Redacted]?
A. How much?
Q. [Redacted]?
A. [Redacted]?
[Page 1875]
Q. Yes.
A. [Redacted]
Q. [Redacted]
A. Then, yes.
Q. And we have [Redacted] o you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then we've [Redacted]; do you see that in the hashed red column?
A. Yes.
Q. And then we -- and they're, you know, I'm going to say in the [Redacted]; would you agree with me?
A. Yes.
Q. And then to the right we have [Redacted] about a couple of dollars more per ton?
A. Yes.
Q. Then we have Whites Point at
[Page 1876]
[Redacted]
A. Uh-hmm.
Q. [Redacted] or so?
A. Yes.
Q. So, for all of the other [Redacted]
[Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, did you know anything about the Whites Point design when you were asked for your opinion on the shipping range or --
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you know anything about the load-out rate?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you know that it's [Redacted]
A. I heard that this week.
Q. Did you know -- well, of course [Redacted]
A. Yes.
[Page 1877]
Q. What was that? What was the [Redacted]?
A. The [Redacted]
Q. So something around [Redacted] what you heard this week for the Whites Point?
A. What I heard.
Q. Now, was most of the aggregate going from [Redacted]
A. The majority of it was.
Q. [Redacted]; that's right?
A. In that timeframe, yes.
Q. [Redacted]
A. It eventually became that.
Q. In about what period?
A. When it first arrived it was
[Page 1878]
probably [Redacted]
Q. Why is that?
A. [Redacted]
Q. [Redacted]
Q. During the period that you were using them?
A. (Witness nods head).
Q. And by 2007 and 2008, as I understand it, you, [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. A [Redacted]
A. [Redacted]
Q. And those vessels went from [Redacted] correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And on s [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
[Page 1879]
Q. And your understanding is it would unload about [Redacted] correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted]
A. Roughly, yes.
Q. And the [Redacted] correct?
A. The [Redacted] approximately -- metric tonnes.
Q. Metric tonnes?
A. Yes.
Q. And then, [Redacted]
A. On certain trips.
Q. On certain trips?
A. Yes.
Q. During the 2000s or most of the 2000s up until 2007, there was [Redacted]
MR. SPELLISCY: I'm sorry, Mr. Power is not here as a fact witness so if this relates to the scope of his input into the SCMA reports I don't see how, but otherwise this question is
[Page 1880]
objectionable. He's not here as a fact witness.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: I don't know what you want to link to [Redacted]
MR. NASH: I would like to link the question as to where the [Redacted]
A. [Redacted]?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. It was going down to the south, right?
A. Yes.
MR. SPELLISCY: Again, what you have in the letter, Mr. Power, that was provided to the claimants, commented on the [Redacted]
MR. NASH: I will move on.
MR. SPELLISCY: I don't see how this goes to scope --
MR. NASH: I have to say that's a ridiculous objection. This is a fact --
[Page 1881]
MR. SPELLISCY: Would you like to contest that, Mr. Nash, because I would like to address that? Because paragraph 25 of -- procedural order number 25 is clear. The objection is not ridiculous. You are limited by the procedural rules here. The procedural rule says the scope of cross-examination is limited to what the witness has said. If you wanted Mr. Power as a fact witness you could have called him, you did not, and I take offence at you calling the objection ridiculous.
Move on.
MR. NASH: Okay.
Now, in terms of the [Redacted] that's correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. SPELLISCY: Again, how is this within the scope of his input to the SCMA report?
MR. NASH: I don't want to make any submissions on this. I don't want to waste time. We are coming short on time.
If the tribunal is of Mr. Spelliscy's view, I'm not happy but I'll be content to not ask this witness, who dealt with New York Sand & Stone
[Page 1882]
for ten years, who knows.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Go on.
MR. SPELLISCY: I'm sorry, the answer is that you can continue the question even though procedural order number 25 makes it clear that that's outside the scope of cross-examination? I'd just like clarification.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Let me get back to the question, to the precise question. Can you read that out, Mr. Spelliscy, the question that you reacted to?
MR. SPELLISCY: "Now, in terms of the [Redacted]; that's correct?"
There is nothing in what Mr. Power has provided in his input to SCMA that is on that question at all.
Mr. Nash has referred to him as a witness. He is not here as a fact witness.
MR. NASH: Moreover, it's fine. It's not an issue. I don't want to waste time.
So, were you asked at all anything
[Page 1883]
about plant efficiencies of these various quarries that we've spoken about in Canada?
A. Plant efficiencies?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Were you asked anything about [Redacted]?
A. I was asked if some of the costs were -- that were on this sheet were reasonable. I said "yes".
Q. If we go to those costs, in the blue column, number 1 showing the [Redacted] you thought it was reasonable?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And going down the various other costs, shipping is the next, then drilling, blasting, fuel, power, wear items, repairs and maintenance and supplies, were you asked whether those were reasonable?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And the total variable cost of [Redacted], you thought was reasonable?
A. That's correct.
[Page 1884]
Q. And that's based on your [Redacted] is that right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Were you asked to look at the other variable costs for the other quarries that are shown here and asked whether you thought those were reasonable or not?
A. I was asked to look to see if they were reasonable. And, again, I couldn't comment on what it is if they were -- if they were or not.
Q. And so, if you look at the far right-hand side, close to the [Redacted] Whites Point.
Were you asked if you thought those were reasonable?
A. I believe I was.
Q. And what was your response?
A. I believe I said I thought they would be.
Q. Did you have any material before you as to design --
[Page 1885]
A. No, nothing.
Q. So you -- is this something that you would consider to sort of be rough dynamics or the ballpark figure?
A. I would say it was the ballpark figure.
Q. Were you asked about any of the other quarries and their variable costs?
A. Not really.
Q. Have you been to any of these [Redacted]
Q. Right. Could you turn, please, to, in the binder to tab 8. I'm sorry, 8A.
A. Tab 8?
Q. 8A. Sorry.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: 8A.
MR. NASH: You will see, if we are at
[Page 1886]
the right place, [Redacted]
A. Invoice 04039?
Q. I've got 05038.
Maybe it is back one page. It may be in the same tab.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Where do you see the "A"? I don't.
MR. NASH: Tab 8A.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: There is 8 and then there is a page 1, 2 --
MR. NASH: Okay, so let's go to invoice 05038. It may be the first page there.
A. The first page I have is 04039 in tab 8.
Q. Let's go to the last -- do you see an invoice there [Redacted] which is 07017?
A. Yes.
Q. So this is an invoice dated [Redacted] invoice 07017, and this is an invoice to [Redacted], and it shows that there are [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Right, yes.
Q. So we take it then that the
[Page 1887]
A. That's correct.
Q. If you go back, I hope on page -- invoice number 06033 dated [Redacted]?
A. That's correct.
Q. If you go down, you see [Redacted]?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so again, that was a [Redacted] correct?
A. Yes, [Redacted] metric tonnes.
Q. In metric tonnes?
A. It was always converted to short tons for New York.
Q. And the [Redacted] is that short ton or metric?
A. That's per short ton.
Q. Per short ton. And then below that line there is a statement [Redacted] do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's [Redacted]?
[Page 1888]
A. That's correct.
Q. So that's an [Redacted] that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that would be about [Redacted]?
A. In that area, yes.
Q. On a [Redacted]?
A. Right.
Q. If we go a little -- you referred to an invoice and I think it's the last page in the tab, [Redacted] invoice 09024?
A. 09024, yes.
Q. And that's an invoice dated [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. That's correct.
Q. And do you see there below, towards the bottom where we were in the other [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. And again the [Redacted]?
[Page 1889]
A. That's correct.
Q. So the [Redacted]
A. Approximately.
Q. Go over to the next tab. That's a letter [Redacted] do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You say:
[Redacted] [As read.]
And you give the tonnage, I think it [Redacted]. And then you have [Redacted]
And on the far right-hand side there is a [Redacted] do you see that?
[Page 1890]
A. That's correct.
Q. And at that time that was your understanding of what [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted] correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Over to the next page, you state in the second line:
[Redacted] [As read.]
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And ultimately those [Redacted]?
A. Yes.
[Page 1891]
Q. And this would be your standard procedure, [Redacted]
A. We had a contract of [Redacted]
Q. Yes.
A. [Redacted].
Q. Right.
A. [Redacted]
Q. I see. If you go over to the next page, it should be a letter from you to [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. And as I understand it, in this interregnum between [Redacted] is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. If you go down the first page, we [Redacted]
A. I do.
[Page 1892]
Q. [Redacted]; that's correct?
A. [Redacted]
Q. [Redacted] do you recall that there was any change in [Redacted]
A. [Redacted]
So, the [Redacted] I think [Redacted]
Q. If you go back to the letter of [Redacted], you will see that there are [Redacted] are being charged.
[Redacted] do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. If you go above, you will see the
[Page 1893]
[Redacted] well, [Redacted] do you see that?
A. Uh-hmm.
Q. I'm going to suggest to you that for the purpose of the letter of [Redacted] we can go back to the letter of [Redacted] correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that's the same for [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. And this was the [Redacted] is that right?
A. That's right. The week before I -- [Redacted] He told me the [Redacted]
[Page 1894]
Q. And after it was s [Redacted]
A. He came back to me and said, [Redacted]
Q. If we go over to the second page of the [Redacted], we will see that in the middle of the page, regarding the [Redacted] -- are you with me? Fourth paragraph down:
[Redacted] [As read.]
So at that point what you had was [Redacted] is that right?
A. According to this, yes.
Q. Does that accord with your recollection, to the best of your recollection?
[Page 1895]
A. At that point, yes.
Q. Now, in the result, [Redacted] that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And whereas you had been [Redacted]
[Redacted] that's correct?
A. That's correct.
[Redacted] that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted] that's correct?
A. Somewhere in that area, to New York -- to the US destinations.
Q. To the US destinations but not to New York City; correct?
[Page 1896]
A. Not to New York City.
MR. SPELLISCY: So we are now at 9:30. We are beyond the scope of -- we are now talking about [Redacted] which is beyond the scope of what the report was.
My colleague Mr. Nash had said he would be done before the time. I am worried because he's got 15 minutes and we have not had a chance to ask him a few questions on re-direct. So I would do two things -- request that Mr. Nash keep his questions on the scope of the report and advise us that he can finish quickly so that Canada's rights are not prejudiced.
You will recall Canada wanted to do this examination tonight.
MR. NASH: I can short-circuit this, Mr. Spelliscy, I am finishing. Over to you.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you. Mr. Spelliscy? Oh, sorry, Ms. Zeman.
I am so used to you --
MS. ZEMAN: A bit of variation here.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. ZEMAN:
MS. ZEMAN: Mr. Power, Mr. Nash stated to you that Black Point was about to break ground. What is your understanding of the status of
[Page 1897]
that project?
A. I haven't heard anything that it's about to break ground. From what I've -- the last I heard it was still on hold.
Q. I'd like you to take a look at this very large sheet in front of you, which Mr. Nash asked you a series of questions about.
A. If we look on the far right-hand side, you see that there are two columns there for Whites Point --
A. That's correct.
Q. Both in green. Can you read the second cell on the left side and the right side out for the record?
A. Umm...
Q. Right underneath Whites Point?
A. "Based on document R-0757 and latest Whites Point's costs".
Q. Do you know what document R-0757 is?
A. No, I don't.
Q. If we go down to the very bottom, those two columns, there is some text on the left-hand side; can you read that out?
A. "Based on Plaintiff's costs..."
[Page 1898]
Q. All right. Now, you were also taken to page 11 of the first SCMA report and figure 2.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know which of these two columns Mr. Sutherland used in the report here?
A. No, I do not.
Q. So then you were asked at tab 8 of your binder here [Redacted]. These are some invoices.
A. Uh-hmm.
Q. Do these [Redacted]
A. No, they did not. There was a separate invoice always with an "A" behind it.
Q. Finally, Mr. Nash asked you about the reserves at the [Redacted]
A. [Redacted]
Q. [Redacted]
MR. NASH: Sorry, I missed the last part of that.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Mr. Nash
[Page 1899]
missed the last part of --
MS. ZEMAN: Of the answer or the question?
MR. NASH: Of the answer.
MS. SPELLISCY: Perhaps the reporter can read it back. It is in the remote transcript.
(Court reporter read back.)
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you.
MS. ZEMAN: Those are all my questions.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you very much.
Mr. Nash, yes.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH:
MR. NASH: You say [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted]
A. That was the rough scope of it, yes.
Q. Who were you told that by?
A. I believe it was the Province of New Brunswick.
[Page 1900]
Q. If you go back to tab 9, to the letter of [Redacted], as I understood what you said, [Redacted]
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted]
A. Roughly.
Q. And that you were told there was [Redacted]?
A. [Redacted]
A. Yes.
Q. [Redacted]
A. Yes, and those were based on [Redacted]?
A. Right.
Q. [Redacted]
A. No.
Q. And notwithstanding that you had
[Page 1901]
a [Redacted] right?
A. That's correct.
Q. [Redacted]
A. Pardon?
Q. Sorry. That is because [Redacted]
A. That's right.
MR. NASH: Thank you.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Any reaction on the part of Canada?
MS. ZEMAN: No.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: No? Okay, questions from the tribunal.
QUESTIONS FROM THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL:
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Just one question for you, I think we are still well within time. Please answer with "yes" or "no".
When you compared the [Redacted] did you include in your judgment of reasonableness, the distances --
[Page 1902]
THE WITNESS: The distance?
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: -- from New York? I mean, in the sense, for instance, when I compare the rates, it occurred [Redacted] when you assessed the reasonableness, did you compare also the distance --
THE WITNESS: C [Redacted]?
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Or just the transport times between themselves?
THE WITNESS: Between -- I knew what [Redacted]
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay, and with regard to the other quarries that are on that?
THE WITNESS: I have an idea, that like I said, [Redacted]. Again, it depends -- just -- that's just on sailing time.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay. Thank you.
[Page 1903]
THE WITNESS: With load-out rates and everything else, it would be different.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you, Mr. Power. I think --
MR. SPELLISCY: We have one follow-up question from that.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Oh, okay.
MR. NASH: No objection.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: I'm sorry?
MR. NASH: No objection.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Great, in the light of yesterday.
FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. ZEMAN:
MS. ZEMAN: So on this chart, Mr. Power, we looked at two columns here for Whites Point; right?
A. Right.
Q. If we go look down at the freight rate, Mr. Nash took you to the [Redacted] on the left, and what's the number on the right there?
A. [Redacted]
Q. Do you remember which one you looked at?
A. [Redacted]
MS. ZEMAN: Thank you.
[Page 1904]
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: That brings to an end your examination. I think you -- I wish you are relieved and probably in a double sense, relieved emotionally and --
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: -- have a good flight.
THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Dirk, did you want to say something or --
DR. PULKOWSKI: No, I was just going to prepare the witness table for the next witness. It may be premature.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: No, no, I think we can --
MR. NASH: Could we have a 4-minute break between this witness and the next?
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay, we will have a break until 9:45.
MR. NASH: Thank you.
--- Recess taken at 9:38 a.m.
--- Upon resuming at 9:46 a.m.
[Page 1905]
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Well, I decided that I could do without Dirk so you have -- good morning, Mr. Ward.
THE WITNESS: Good morning.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Would you be so kind and read out the statement that is in front of you?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I solemnly declare upon my honour and conscience that I will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that my statement will be in accordance with my sincere belief.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you, Mr. Ward.
AFFIRMED: MR. JAMES WARD
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Ms. Zeman, you have the floor.
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MS. ZEMAN:
MS. ZEMAN: Good morning, Mr. Ward.
A. Good morning.
Q. Could you briefly describe for the tribunal a bit of your background and experience?
A. Yes. Initially I was an industrial analytical chemist. My equivalent degree
[Page 1906]
is in chemistry.
Following that I was an asphalt plant foreman, quarry foreman, assistant quarry manager, quarry manager. During that time I was sent to Doncaster College to take engineering, mining engineering, geology, surveying, to qualify for the Member of the Institute of Quarrying in England. I was then transferred to South Africa to work for Tarmac, the same company that I was employed by in England.
In South Africa I was a quarry manager, a production manager, a technical development manager for a while. They needed a professional geologist and so I was asked to join the South African Geological Society.
They didn't recognize the full Doncaster College information to qualify me for there. Then I had to go to the University of Witwatersrand, for a year to study under a Dr. Josh Lewry [phon.] on South African geology, by which time I was admitted into the South African Geological Society as a geologist.
After performing duties in South Africa up till 1985 as a technical manager for the company, a technical development manager where we
[Page 1907]
developed into new quarries, home building, glazed, bricks, ready-mix concrete, asphalt. During that time, just to give you an illustration of some of my roles, we had a contract just to the north of Zululand to construct a road. My job was to find a source of stone. There are not many quarries north of Zululand and so we had to develop a quarry, had to find rock, put a plant in and then put a portable asphalt plant in to produce asphalt for the road.
So that's the kind of thing.
I was then transferred to the United States to help them develop the company in the United States as the technical development manager for Tarmac Roadstone, USA.
I was then asked if I would run the operations in Texas, the aggregate and trucking operations in Texas. During that time I decided it -- after 23 years with Tarmac, I would leave, so I went to Phoenix to work for Blue Circle West and I ran the ready-mix aggregates and trucking operations in Phoenix, Arizona. They decided to sell part of the company to Cemex.
I didn't want to work for Cemex, so I was offered a position back in Atlanta with Blue Circle, at which time they bought some quarries from
[Page 1908]
a company called Georgia Marble.
I was appointed president of the newly formed company Blue Circle Aggregates, and asked to develop and grow the company which I did over an 11-12-year period.
Following that, I left when -- just after Lafarge bought us. I worked for Lafarge for probably two years, almost three, and then decided that I didn't like Lafarge and took a -- or decided to leave. I left and started my own consulting business.
I then worked for an investment company to buy aggregate companies for them to develop aggregate companies throughout the United States.
I was then hired by a gentleman to acquire some aggregate operations for him and then once we had done that I was asked to work for him to merge the aggregate operations together with what he already had, run his asphalt and concrete divisions.
I sold his concrete division for him and in 2008 when the economy deteriorated dramatically I was retained for two years as a consultant but no longer managed the business and subsequent to that I've gone back to doing
[Page 1909]
consulting and looking for opportunities to develop my business.
Q. You have in front of you the two expert opinions of SC Market Analytics; did you write anything in these opinions?
A. I didn't write any of the opinions, no.
Q. In light of that, can you describe for the tribunal your role in preparing the SCMA reports?
A. From time to time, Mr. Sutherland would ask -- because of our relationship, he used to work for Blue Circle -- to prepare information for him or contribute to the information and that's exactly what I did. He would outline what he wanted and that's what I would carry out, or offer an opinion, or whatever he needed.
Q. So understanding that you didn't write any part of the reports and that it wouldn't be appropriate to correct words that are not yours, are there any corrections you'd like to make to any of the analysis that you provided to Mr. Sutherland and Dr. Chereb?
A. I did see in R-0842, that the -- I think [Redacted] is the figure that's in the document,
[Page 1910]
it should be [Redacted] which is the number of hours worked, it's four hours out in [Redacted], so it is a very minor change. I don't think it has any effect or any material effect on any opinions that would be formed.
MS. ZEMAN: Thank you.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you, Ms. Zeman.
And Mr. Nash.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH:
MR. NASH: There is a large document that we were just referring to with Mr. Power in front of you. It is Exhibit R-0756; do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. I understand that you had some role in creating this document; is that correct?
A. I contributed information to the preparation of that document.
Q. In fact, we've distributed a document which includes the whole document. And it is a series of different pages and I think it's off an Excel sheet.
In this document we see the letters on the Excel form "JW" repeatedly?
[Page 1911]
A. Yes.
Q. Was it you that actually created these documents?
A. I contributed to them. The "JW", I believe, just for clarification and to move along quickly was the fact that those -- Mr. Sutherland based his final documentation using those particular figures.
There was "JW revision" and "JW the original", I believe. If those are the documents you are referring to.
Q. And "JW" the revision, did that stand for your initials?
A. Yes.
Q. So, James Ward, where we see -- where we see a "JW" in these documents in the Excel form, that would be James Ward; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And if these copies that have been produced in this hearing, in this case, have the initials "JW" on them, do I understand correctly that you would be the last person to deal with the document; is that what -- how it happened or is it that you would --
A. No, I would not be the last
[Page 1912]
person to deal with it.
I would give it to Mr. Sutherland who would then be the last person to deal with it.
Q. I see.
If we see the initials "JW", does that mean that you are the originating author of the document?
A. It means that it contains the majority of some -- of the information that I provided.
Q. Right. Let's just go to the large first page or a portion of the first page of Exhibit R-0756.
Can you confirm for me what parts of the data in this document were contributed to or provided by you?
A. I was asked to provide a comparison of costs for the quarry, in my best estimate. It was a comparison based on equivalency, equivalency meaning that we wanted to try and put everything on the equal basis of product mix, volume -- not volumes but on utilization or sales, equals production.
So, that is why you would probably see a notation that this was in 2006, 2007, when
[Page 1913]
most quarries, to our belief were sold out, and so we tried to equate production with sales and there was a methodology to doing the costs. If you wish, I will go into the methodology because it is the difference between accuracy and precision.
Q. Just before we go there, did you have any information to verify the cost that you put into this document?
A. Umm...
Q. Let me put it this way: [Redacted] Are the figures that we see here of those things based upon your estimates?
A. To clarify that, since 1985 I have looked at a tremendous number of quarries in the United States. I've been part of a very large number of acquisitions and been privileged to obtain an awful lot of cost data on an awful lot of quarries in different operations so I am basing these costs on the information that I have obtained over the years in that form.
Q. So these costs here are what I would call your experiential cost estimates; is that
[Page 1914]
fair?
A. Based on information obtained over the period, actual information on accounts.
Q. Over the 30 years you've been involved in this?
A. Since -- in the United States, since 1985.
Q. Right. So, you didn't go to any of the companies that owned these -- these couple of investment quarries and say to them "This is my estimate; can you give me some idea if I'm in the right ballpark." Do I have that right?
A. I did not go to the official companies, no.
Q. Okay. Now, if you go to "Variable costs" over on the left-hand column, you see "wages", "stripping", "drilling", "blasting", "fuel, "power", "wear items", and so on; were those categories created by you?
A. Yes.
Q. Is all of the information in that category across the page inputted by you? Leave aside shipping for one moment.
A. Without looking at my computer I would say "yes."
[Page 1915]
Q. Is all of the information presented in this document and, again, leave aside shipping, is that inputted by you to the best of your recollection?
A. Without going back and looking at every figure, it is difficult to say but I would say the majority.
Q. Can we say the vast majority; would that be fair?
A. Yes, or by -- I mean, what do you mean by "vast majority"?
Q. Well, the majority could be 51 per cent or the majority could include 80 or 90 per cent. When you say it is in the 80 to 90 per cent range?
A. To help the tribunal, probably 75 per cent, in that order, or more.
Q. But at least all of those figures we have across the page under the heading "Variable cost" and "wages", and so on, all of that information, to the best of your recollection is provided by you; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then we have -- going down again, that column, we have "Total variable costs"
[Page 1916]
and those figures would be provided by you; that's correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then we've got freight to New York, and we have a line across for each of the quarries. Many of the squares aren't filled in but if we get over to Canada, those figures in the blue section were provided by Mike Power; that's your recollection?
A. I'm not quite sure who provided -- I know they were entered finally by Mr. Sutherland. The water transportation is not my expertise.
Q. Did you take any steps -- well, first of all, did you ever speak to Mr. Power?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you speak to him about these figures?
A. We had a very general conversation about the figures.
Q. And he -- is it based upon that conversation that you came to the conclusion that those figures were reasonable?
A. No, which? The --
Q. Shipping?
[Page 1917]
A. Shipping. I cannot comment because I have no background to judge what he was telling me, whether it would be right or wrong or anything like that, and I was more interested in certain aspects of his quarry.
Q. And did you take certain aspects of his quarry, including the variable costs there into account in inputting this information?
A. Not the transport, but the costs, yes.
Q. The other cost --
A. The cost of production, yes.
Q. If we go to the next section down, we've got freight to New York rail, we have freight to New York trucking or truck, including tolls; was it you that gathered the information for that category of cost?
A. I provided some information on the tolls in New York which is pasted onto one of the spreadsheets. I also found the industry calculation for calculating truck rates, and remember, this was, for an accurate comparison, rather than a precise determination.
Q. An accurate comparison rather than a precise determination?
[Page 1918]
A. Yes.
Q. Can you unpack that for me?
A. Yes, in my -- if I put my chemistry hat on, if I may for a moment: In the days of chemistry you had a methodology to arrive at a result. The result may be 1 part per million but you may consistently arrive at 1.1 part per million.
You are accurate in your work because you consistently arrive at 1.1 part per million, right? But the precision is off by the 0.1.
Q. And so in a case like this, were you going with the "It's off by 0.1 but otherwise it's precise"?
A. No, I was going by the accuracy of the method determining in these costs with an intent to try to obtain some precision.
Q. Did you contact any of the US quarries in the New York City/New Jersey area that were actually shipping aggregate into the New York City market to see exactly what their costs were?
A. I did not contact the quarries, no.
Q. Can we go to page 10 of the first report. I'm sorry, you will see there -- you are in tab 1?
[Page 1919]
A. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Q. That's my fault. Tab 1, page 10.
Did you create the map on that page through the use of Google Earth?
A. Yes, I contributed to that map.
Q. When you say you contributed to it, what was your contribution?
A. I took the Google Earth and took all the different aerial pictures of the quarries, identified the quarries from the information provided in MSHA of the description where the quarries are.
I identified the quarries, put them on the map and then put the information in on that map.
Q. We see that the quarries are different distance from New York City; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And do you see under that [Redacted] do you see that?
[Page 1920]
A. I -- yes, I see.
Q. And you've got [Redacted]?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree with me that delivering aggregate by truck into New York City is a very expensive proposition?
A. I've heard testimony to that effect.
Q. Did you take that into account in assessing the cost of actually getting aggregate into the New York City market?
A. My assessment was based on the information that I provided in the document which was the theoretical trucking cost plus the tolls.
Q. Theoretical trucking cost plus the tolls?
A. Yes.
Q. You did no actual calculation of actual trucking cost to get from one quarry to New York City or another quarry to New York City; correct?
A. I have, as well as Mr. Sutherland, some knowledge of trucking costs and
[Page 1921]
those played a part in contributing to the trucking costs.
Q. And in --
A. As well as the calculation.
Q. And so you actually personally went through the calculation of the cost, of trucking cost -- cost of trucking to get from these various land-based quarries in New York City for each quarry --
A. No, not each quarry, no, we used -- I used a radius, zone, and in some instances from a quarry you ask for a price and they'll say, well, it's $5 per ton to this zone or $6 to that zone, or you can get it to a specific customer, to a specific location, but it depends, there are various ways of quoting transport costs.
Q. Did you contact any of the quarries on this Google Earth map to see what they were actually experiencing as trucking cost to take in a ton or however many tons?
A. Not directly to the quarries.
Q. Not directly to the quarries.
You did your own analysis, your own calculation of that?
A. I have a lot of industry
[Page 1922]
colleagues from which I'm -- I get information from, which I believe would be privileged information to me.
Q. So you relied on people who aren't coming here to this tribunal; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you go to -- just identifying a few more of these, we've got at the top centre of the page [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Could you refer me to the page again?
Q. Same page we were on. Page 10, [Redacted]
A. Yes, I see it. Thank you.
Q. And there is [Redacted]; do you see that just down --
A. Yes.
Q. And then back up, and over to the right, [Redacted]?
A. Yes.
Q. You've identified "Truck Rail Water".
You will see that these various
[Page 1923]
quarries are different distances from New York City, and as I understand what you are telling me, is that you used a radius which would encompass the locations of all the quarries to arrive at trucking costs; is that right?
A. Different zones?
Q. Different zones?
A. Yes.
Q. And you chose a zone for --
A. Based on distance.
Q. Based on distance?
A. But not the precise distance.
Q. And how many zones were involved in identifying these various quarries and how far they were from New York City?
A. It would be every five miles.
Q. From --
A. From New York. So it would be 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and so forth.
Q. So there are some quarries that are located 20 miles from New York City?
A. Yes.
Q. And some that are located 90 miles from New York City?
A. Yes.
[Page 1924]
Q. If we go back to the chart on Exhibit 0756, the single page in front of you under the binder, you've actually -- if we go freight to New York trucking, including tolls, for all of the land-based quarries servicing the New York City, you've given them the same trucking rate regardless of which zone they're in?
A. Yes, because each zone would have a different cost base, due to accessibility to New York. If it was close to a freeway, and this kind of thing, so even though we gave the zone, the zone is dependent on the accessibility to New York.
Q. Did you actually do an analysis that does not appear here, that each quarry, within a different zone would actually expect to be, the cost of transportation, trucking into New York City, would be X and then if you go out a further zone it would be Y, and if you go a further zone it would be Z and so on? Did you do that -- what I'll call a more micro analysis?
A. In the way that you describe it, yes, but the it depends on your definition of micro.
Q. Well, there has been nothing further that we've seen that calculates trucking rates --
[Page 1925]
A. Yes.
Q. -- for each of these approximately 15 quarries; right?
A. Yes.
Q. So that hasn't -- nothing's been produced in that regard; that's correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so if you go through, then, in the calculation of the lowest cost delivered to the customer of combined aggregate, a calculation of trucking cost for each of these quarries, no matter how farther from New York City, you've identified that as being the same for each one; do I have that right?
A. That's what it appears on this document, yes.
Q. And were you the last person to enter the trucking figures for this analytical purpose?
A. No, sir.
Q. There was somebody else?
A. Yes.
Q. That would be Mr. Sutherland?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you speak to him about the
[Page 1926]
notion that various quarries are either nearer to or farther away from New York and might then engage different trucking costs to take aggregate into New York City?
A. We did discuss that.
Q. And you decided just to leave it at one rate right across the board?
A. We discussed where the locations of the quarries were and how they related to New York, the access there, and we decided that for comparative purposes, this was sufficient.
Q. You just made a blanket --
A. That -- whether there was any further discussion with other people interest from Mr. Sutherland, I don't know.
Q. And what is the variation in distance between these land-based quarries in the New York City/New Jersey area, and in terms of a comparative distance? Is it fair to say that there would be some quarries that would be as close as 20 or 25 miles, to New York City, and others that might be 150 or 200 miles from New York City?
A. In the quarries that we looked at in New York, the request was to look at all the quarries within a certain radius that could reach
[Page 1927]
New York. I believe the first radius we took was up to 35 miles. And then we said, "Well the 35-mile radius is the -- there are quarries that are right on that border or just outside."
If we then extend to 45, how would the market look at the 45, so we had some at 35 miles and some at 45 miles. So that is the distance that the quarries were looked at, anything up to 35 and then just 35 to 45.
Q. So, there were two radii, if I can put it that way?
A. Yes.
Q. One to 35 miles and one to 45 miles?
A. One to 45 miles.
Q. Did you actually know the geographical location of all the quarries that you were examining?
A. I found them on Google Earth from the MSHA description of where the quarries were, it gives you actually directions to each quarry, and so it's easy to pinpoint them on a Google Earth map.
Q. What was the nearest quarry, land-based quarry to New York City?
A. Without looking back I couldn't
[Page 1928]
tell you at this moment.
Q. Could it be as close as 15 miles?
A. I don't think -- I don't think -- I don't think I remember anything as close as 15 miles. But then again, I'm not -- I haven't measured them. And these measurements are as the crow flies, not by road miles.
Q. I see, so they're not by --
A. They're zones.
Q. As the crow flies. So it is the actual as the crow flies distance from the quarry to New York City?
A. Yes.
Q. And what borough of New York City?
A. I took the centre point of Manhattan.
Q. Centre point of Manhattan?
A. Yeah.
Q. New York City is a big place, Brooklyn is the fourth or fifth largest city in United States; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And there are various access points and traffic issues.
[Page 1929]
A. Well, more precise, I zoomed in on Google Earth and put the mid-point on the -- I think it was the 25th Street quayside.
Q. So you didn't do any analysis of the frequency of trip by trucks going from a certain quarry into another part of New York City?
A. I did not.
Q. It was a blanket analysis; is that fair?
A. Yeah.
Q. So, just going back, is it fair to say that you last actually managed a quarry in about 1977?
A. Oh, no.
Q. No.
A. No.
Q. Did you ever operate a quarry?
A. Yes.
Q. As a quarry operator, a person who gets up early in the morning and manages all the men?
A. Yes, I was a foreman -- I was an actual foreman. I was up at 4 o'clock in the morning, sometimes 24 hours a day. I was a quarry manager. I was at work at 6 o'clock, 5:30, whatever
[Page 1930]
it took, I operated loading machines, I operated crushers, I operated -- I did every job in a quarry and --
Q. Which quarry was that?
A. The ones in England. I did all the jobs in England. As a foreman we are expected to relieve -- and when I was a trainee quarry manager we did all the different jobs in a quarry to train.
The last time that I actually managed a quarry or was responsible for working with the manager to manage a quarry would be back in 2009.
Q. And the last time you were the quarry, actual person, the quarry manager -- have you read John Wall's witness statement in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. You know that he was an actual operator of quarries?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. When was the last time that you did that job?
A. It would be 1978.
Q. That was my understanding. So it's been [Redacted]
A. That was when I was the on-floor
[Page 1931]
manager.
Q. And that's in South Africa?
A. Yes.
Q. So you are 40 years away from that direct experience of doing a John Wall job, getting up in the morning and --
A. I think that's too strong a statement to say that I'm 40 years away from being hands-on in a quarry. That's wrong. If you are the president of the company, you better get down and dirty with the people. Some people may want to sit in an office; I don't.
Q. Could you go to, again, in that tab 1 to the last couple of pages of that tab.
If you go to the last page of that tab, this is part of -- it is unnumbered but it is part of your --
A. CV.
Q. -- CV, and if you go to the last page, you will see under the third paragraph, "Quarry Manager, Production Manager, Tarmac Roadstone, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1976-77"?
A. Yes.
Q. I've reviewed your CV and that's the last reference to that description of a job on
[Page 1932]
your CV.
A. Of a quarry -- yes, but then we had a quarry in Ridgeview, Durban, with a manager --
Q. Yes?
A. -- and when he was on vacation, we had some problems down there, I was actually in there helping to get the thing resolved. Because we closed Sydenham Quarry down and we merged the workforce from Sydenham to Ridgeview, during that period and we had put -- increased the production at Ridgeview and so my job was to help consolidate that so my feet on the ground management would be 1978.
Q. 1978?
A. Yes.
Q. Was your last --
A. But I wouldn't put that in my CV, but that's a lot of detail that --
Q. Of course. So I'm correct then that your last job actually on the ground managing a quarry, doing the day-to-day management of a quarry was 40 years ago?
A. My actual experience of an on-the-ground manager is 40 years ago, yes.
Q. So we've covered the chart which was the first page of R-0756.
[Page 1933]
We will come back to it but did you prepare graphs for the purpose of insertion into the report?
A. I prepared a graph that was relative to, I believe, market share based on MSHA that might have gone into the report, I have prepared that and sent it to Mr. Sutherland. I was using MSHA data for market share. Based on MSHA data.
Q. Could you go to page 11 of SCMA report 1, which is tab 1.
Was the graph which is figure 2 shown on that page the result of information developed by you?
A. I would say it's based on information that Mr. Sutherland had considered was germane to produce in this that I contributed to him, yes.
Q. And as I understand it, the process was for you to provide information into this document.
A. Yes.
Q. And I think you've said about 75 per cent?
A. Yes.
[Page 1934]
Q. Approximately. And for that information to be transposed and to be put in graphical form in figure 2 on page 11, is that right?
A. Yes, I contributed to that sheet.
Q. And what Mr. Sutherland did with it after that, it was no -- I did not contribute to.
Q. Did you review the graph that's shown on page 11 and ask Mr. Sutherland or did Mr. Sutherland ask you to verify that these costs shown on this graph represented these costs, and I'm pointing to the first page of 0756 at the bottom?
A. Yes, I was never asked to verify this line here.
Q. Were you asked --
A. But --
Q. The bottom line calculations on this document --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- are your calculations; that's correct?
A. No.
Q. They are --
A. Because the freight and everything would be -- is -- and the rest is just a
[Page 1935]
simple Excel addition. It is add this and add this.
The calculations with the information involved, no, the actual calculation in the way that Excel does it, yes. So I want to exclude the freight costs.
Q. Leaving aside the freight costs --
A. Yeah, and --
Q. Leaving that aside for one moment.
A. Yes, thank you.
Q. The rest of the information on this chart, on this Excel sheet resulting in the costs on the bottom line for the various --
A. Would have a contribution from me.
Q. And a significant contribution, isn't that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. And leaving aside freight costs, essentially everything else; is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. And when I say "freight costs", only the oceanside freight cost because you've told us that you calculated --
[Page 1936]
A. Well, and the rail.
Q. And the rail. So you got rail from somebody else?
A. We -- there was a long discussion on rail, on what it would be and I think we had just recently done a rail study and so I had information came from a rail study that we'd done for a different client.
Q. And so that's a study that hasn't been produced for review by the claimants; that's correct?
A. I don't think it would be appropriate for that to be reviewed by the claimants.
Q. Even with redactions? Okay.
So rail, truck, you did truck.
Mr. Power did ship, you've done some review of rail. Leaving those components aside, is everything else on this sheet the result of your work and your input?
A. It as a result of [Redacted] contributions, yes.
Q. If we take these figures at the bottom of the page, and just to choose a quarry, let's [Redacted] which is the fourth column on the blue part of the sheet, and go down to the
[Page 1937]
[Redacted] do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And --
A. No.
[Redacted]
Q. Well, maybe I -- thank you for that. I was on the wrong column.
If we go to the chart on page 11, we have [Redacted], it is shown in red, all the Canadian quarries, existing or proposed are shown on the right-hand side. Sorry, the red line. If we go to the [Redacted] right to the side and your figure, as you pointed out, is [Redacted]
A. Well, it's not my figure but it's the figure that is in the machine because that includes the freight.
Q. It included the freight, okay.
But did you ever check to see that that figure of [Redacted] was actually accurately depicted on the graph?
A. I don't believe I did.
Q. Because when you look at the graph it looks like [Redacted] is being depicted at
[Page 1938]
something like [Redacted]?
A. [Redacted] comment.
Q. Okay. Now there's a smaller version -- well, a larger version of that chart in front of you to your left. Just this one over there on the left-hand side of the table.
A. Yes.
Q. What has been done here is to take this graph which starts at a baseline of [Redacted] do you see that?
A. I have the graph.
Q. Do you see on the -- in the -- in this chart that I'm showing you --
A. Yes.
Q. -- the baseline is zero?
A. Yes.
Q. Zero dollars.
A. Yeah.
Q. The one in the report for SCMA, it is [Redacted] do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it your decision or somebody else's decision to start the baseline of the figure 2 graph at [Redacted]?
A. It wasn't my decision. It is not
[Page 1939]
my graph.
Q. Did you review the final draft of the SCMA report to ensure that the figures, the numbers and everything that you had provided, including the numbers you provided were accurately depicted in the report?
A. No, because I wasn't sure whether Mr. Sutherland was going to use my figures in entirety. He may have had separate information that would have flavoured the numbers that he put into the sheet.
Q. Got it. But before it was signed off on, on the draft, the final draft of the report sent to you for review, that your work was accurately depicted?
A. There was a draft and then there was another report. I did see a draft of the report, whether it was the final draft, I don't know.
Q. So neither Mr. Sutherland or Mr. Chereb called you up and said, "Jim, we're about to sign off on this document you've contributed a lot to the document, would you just take a look at it and see if it accords with your understanding of how the numbers were developed?" You weren't
[Page 1940]
asked to do that?
A. I saw a draft. I was sent a draft at some point in time and said, "This is what we are proposing to say. Would you read to it, and is it reasonable?" And that was my comment "Yes, it looks reasonable to me."
Q. And you had no changes to that draft?
A. Yeah, but I don't know what version that was.
Q. So the answer to my question is no, you weren't advised "Here's the final draft as we are going to present it, subject to your comments. Could you go through and see if we've got it right?"
A. I did not do that, no.
Q. Would you agree with me, when the graph is depicted in the form on the sheet in front of you, the larger form which is simply a duplication of that figure 2 graph that we've looked at, that the differentiation between the lowest asserted cost producer and the highest asserted cost producer appears to be much less?
A. According to the graph, yes. It is not the same graph. This one starts at [Redacted] as you
[Page 1941]
pointed out. The other one starts at zero.
Q. And the one that starts at zero makes it appear, would you agree with me, that [Redacted]
A. It's just a scale issue.
Q. Yes. Do you know who chose that scale?
A. I do not know who chose the scale.
Q. Have you ever actually designed an aggregate crushing plant as an engineer?
A. I am not a professionally registered engineer, so I cannot sign off on a -- but have I contributed to a design? Yes.
Q. You've contributed to a design performed by engineers?
A. Yes.
Q. You were never actually employed at a Tilcon quarry; that's correct?
A. No. Well, no, not the -- I was just trying to think of a quarry that's been acquired by Tilcon. So therefore that would be an inaccuracy in my answer. To the best of my knowledge, I've never managed or been employed by a company that now Tilcon owns.
[Page 1942]
Q. And you've never been employed at a Canadian quarry at any time?
A. I --
Q. Employed?
A. Not employed by the quarry, no.
Q. Right.
A. Do we have Canadian quarries, yes, that belong to Blue Circle, yes.
Q. And were they oceanside quarries such as the ones that we are considering here in the Maritimes part of Canada?
A. The ones in Canada, no.
Q. Were you ever employed as an employee of any of the quarries or the companies that own the quarries that we have seen in New Jersey/New York?
A. Well, Hamburg Quarry belonged to Blue Circle Raia and part of my job was to look at the efficiencies of Hamburg Quarry and how it related to the New York market and supplying the ready-mix operations here in New Jersey.
Q. And that was in -- what city that you were involved in at the time that you were speaking of?
A. Well, our base was in Atlanta,
[Page 1943]
but our Raia operations were based in New Jersey, in Newark.
Q. You understand that the Whites Point plant was intended to produce coarse aggregate [Redacted]
A. I understand that it was going to based on -- well, it depends on which report you read.
Q. [Redacted]
A. Those are the products that are defined in the stockpiles that I understand were defined by Mr. Bickford as being the coarse fractions, yes.
Q. And you are familiar with these product specifications?
A. Yes.
Q. And the [Redacted] is that correct?
A. It means that the material passes [Redacted]
[Page 1944]
[Redacted]
Q. So you would agree with me that a [Redacted]?
A. [Redacted]
Q. And that a given quantity of [Redacted] that's correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that includes pieces of aggregate that actually range in size within accepting limits?
A. Yes.
Q. [Redacted] correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you saw [Redacted] that's been referred to during this proceeding?
A. Yes, it was misnamed though -- in the Rev D it was misnamed.
Q. [Redacted]
A. The file I last saw [Redacted]
[Page 1945]
Q. You heard Mr. Bickford's evidence with respect to his vast, life-long experience in designing quarries?
A. I did.
Q. And you are not one of those people, that's correct? You haven't spent a lifetime designing quarries; that's correct?
A. I have spent a lifetime being involved in the analyzing and looking at the design of quarries, and the resultant situation from the design of a quarry, yes.
Q. You've never signed off --
A. Never signed off.
Q. -- as an engineer?
A. No. I've signed off as the president, though, of a company authorizing payment for the design of a quarry for a capital expenditure request, so --
Q. My point being --
A. -- I needed to understand the design.
Q. But you've never, from scratch,
[Page 1946]
created a design for a quarry; that's correct?
Is that correct?
A. For instance, in Greytown, I designed that plant because we took the plant down in Greytown to produce aggregate to make asphalt, to produce asphalt. So, in that sense, yes, I designed that plant. Did I sign off on it? No. As I said, we needed this plant to supply rock.
Q. And was that in 1976 or 1975?
A. The Greytown situation was in -- it was actually after that, it was in the '80s.
Q. In the '80s?
A. Yeah.
Q. And that was the last one that you actually designed?
A. No, when we --
Q. I am talking about you. You.
A. Me personally?
Q. Yes. Designed a quarry from scratch like Mr. Bickford has for the last 45 years.
A. If it was totally my work, yes.
Q. That was the last one; that's correct?
A. If it was totally my work.
Q. Could you go to, in the binder
[Page 1947]
before you, tab 13?
A. 13?
Q. 13. This is an exhibit to Mr. Bickford's one of his statements and it's from the website of AggFlow.
With this in mind, had you ever used AggFlow --
A. Yes.
Q. -- before this --
A. Yes.
Q. AggFlow came out in about 1995; do you recall that?
A. I don't recall exactly when it came out but --
Q. Have you actually run a design of yours through an AggFlow simulation?
A. Yes, I have AggFlow on my computer.
Q. It is a renowned software simulation product, isn't it?
A. There are opinions on that, within the industry, of the people that I'm aware of, but it is a good program.
Q. It states on the first page: "AggFlow software products are
[Page 1948]
used by aggregate producers, miners, equipment manufacturers, engineers and dealers to simulate aggregate and mining operations. The software enables users to build both simple and complex crushing, screening and/or washing plants on their computer screen." [As read.]
You would agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. If you go to the last page of that document, bottom half of the page:
"Top 25 US producers use AggFlow." [As read.]
A. Yes.
Q. Just on that point, were you here for Mr. Fougere's evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. He worked for Martin Marietta?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that he's commented on the use of AggFlow by Martin Marietta in his witness statement?
A. Yes.
[Page 1949]
Q. And in that context, if we go to the top 25 US producers use AggFlow: Vulcan which is the largest US producer of aggregate; Martin Marietta; Old Castle Materials -- that's Tilcon; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Lehigh Hanson, they are shown as, I think the fourth largest aggregate producer in the US?
A. I'm familiar with them.
Q. And Cemex and Lafarge North America which is shown as the six.
Now, AggFlow is good enough for them?
A. Yes.
Q. AggFlow is not good enough for you?
A. Yeah, it's good enough for me.
Q. Have you actually -- did you independently run Mr. Bickford's design in this case?
A. No, there was no need. It --
Q. Let me finish, please. Through the AggFlow program --
A. No.
Q. -- that had already been done by
[Page 1950]
Mr. Bickford; that's correct? You understood that?
A. Uh-hmm.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understood that he was satisfied with the results for the use of this plant as designed for the purpose of inquiry by this customer; correct?
A. Yes, that's what he said.
Q. That's what he said. Now, did Mr. Sutherland confirm your understanding that it was appropriate to use [Redacted] the shipping cost for all the land-based quarries in New York/New Jersey area, regardless of their distance from their destination?
A. Could you just rephrase the first part of your question, I apologize for asking you to do that.
Q. Not at all. Did you confirm with Mr. Sutherland that it was appropriate to use [Redacted] across the board for all quarries that were land-based in New Jersey and --
A. No, I did not confirm that with Mr. Sutherland, no.
Q. And I'm advised that at least one
[Page 1951]
of the quarries is well over 100 miles from New York City. Do you know that?
A. It could well be, yes.
Q. Now, I understood you to say earlier that you did a radius distance evaluation and that it -- you did up to 35 --
Well, depending on --
Q. Just let me finish -- up to 35 miles and then up to 45 miles and you stopped at 45?
A. Except for the quarries that might have been on rail or on water.
Q. Did you understand that there are some land-based quarries that --
A. I have to qualify one thing that might help you and it would certainly help me to be on the same wavelength.
The quarry that you may be referring to, I think I know which one it is. The definition was within a trucking radius was at 35 and the 45, but there was also a list of quarries that were submitted, I think, by one of the gentlemen that gave testimony, and don't forget to include these so I had to go back and include those which might have contributed to some of the revisions.
[Page 1952]
Q. So in your calculation of your assessment of trucking costs, you didn't actually take into account the actual driving distance; that's correct?
A. No.
Q. You didn't actually take into account the time involved in getting from quarry A to its destination in New York City; correct?
A. Because that would have been somewhat indeterminate --
Q. Is the answer "yes" or "no"?
A. No, but that it would have been indeterminate.
Q. So the answer to my question is you did not do an actual calculation of trucking costs from the actual quarry to the route that it would take, the truck would take, into New York City; that's correct?
A. I did not and I would like to qualify the answer because I would not know exactly the route. I don't know if the guy's going to go take this road or that road. Unless I drove it every day, I would not know the road conditions.
Q. And the difference in time, distance, the route, the destination into New York,
[Page 1953]
can all impact actual trucking costs, wouldn't you agree with me, including hourly rates for the driver, the use of the truck, the fuel cost, et cetera; would you agree with me on that?
A. The trucking rates are quoted by the owner of the company. So the fixed rate getting the quote from. So it becomes a fixed rate and that would not influence the quote, but would not influence the actual cost.
Q. I think my question has been misunderstood.
You didn't take into account the time, the route, the miles, the fuel used, and the hourly rates for the drivers in the calculation of trucking costs from the various quarries that you've got trucking costs --
(Simultaneous speakers - unclear)
A. Not on an individual quarry basis, no.
Q. So what I've said is correct?
A. On an individual basis it is correct.
Q. And you didn't contact any owners, operators on any of the quarries that have been cited here on that map that we referred to --
[Page 1954]
A. No, I already mentioned that.
Q. -- to confirm that your costs were even within the range of actual costs; that's correct?
A. I did not contact the actual quarries, no.
Q. Did you do any independent -- and I may have asked you this and if I am repeating myself, I apologize. Any independent analysis at all of the shipping rates from the various Canadian-based quarries?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Sutherland did?
A. I don't know. I just don't know. I don't know --
Q. He's never told you that he did; correct?
A. Yes. No, but he has lots of contacts that I don't know.
Q. May I suggest that that's pure speculation? Is that okay? It is sheer speculation; you don't know.
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Chereb did?
[Page 1955]
A. No.
Q. Now, at footnote 28 at the bottom of page 11 of the report, it states -- it's in reference to the chart. It states:
"The estimated delivered cost to customers, including trucking delivery costs on a per ton basis to final customers which are assumed to be located in the Brooklyn Bronx area..."
Just pausing there, you told me that your trucking analysis related to a point in Manhattan?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any part in writing that reference to the Brooklyn or Bronx area?
A. No.
Q. (Reading):
"Using the estimated delivered cost to customers allows us to compare the relative costs of quarries that use different modes of transportation. For example, by water, truck and rail. The cost curve also directly compares
[Page 1956]
the estimated cost to produce the coarse aggregates products that Whites Point plant sell.
The calculations in this figure are estimates and are intended to provide graphical representation of the rough dynamics of the market, rather than represent exact calculations of a cost of each quarry." [As read.]
Now, were you asked to review that statement in referencing figure 2?
A. No.
Q. So would you agree with the calculations that figure 2, that graph, are estimates; they are intended to provide a graphical representation of the rough dynamics in the market; would you agree with that statement?
A. Yes.
Q. How rough?
A. Pardon?
Q. How rough?
A. How...?
Q. Rough.
A. Rough.
[Page 1957]
Q. How rough were the dynamics?
A. I would -- I couldn't -- how do I quantify that with a reference to what? In what measure do I quantify that? If you could explain to me the scale on which you want to define the roughness of that calculation, I can give you an answer.
Q. You don't know how rough the dynamics were?
A. No.
Q. You don't know how rough the analysis was; that's correct?
A. It says there it was comparative, so I don't know about the precision.
Q. "Intended to provide a graphical representations of the rough dynamics of the market."
A. Yes.
Q. And you don't know how rough the dynamics were; that's correct?
A. I can't comment. It's not my statement.
Q. You were never asked to assess the roughness of the dynamics; that's correct?
A. No. I can't say within
[Page 1958]
10 per cent or 15 per cent. I have no idea.
Q. No idea. And you weren't asked to comment on that description of the depiction of the quarries and their costs in figure 2 to say "is that a correct characterization?"
A. I was not asked.
Q. And your understanding that the chart showing these various costs are expressed in US dollars per ton; that's correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it would be incorrect to mix up currencies; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And all of the figures you were working with were in Canadian dollars; that's correct -- sorry, American dollars; that's correct?
A. Not all the time, no.
Q. There were figures on this chart --
A. In this chart, the relative costs are in US dollars, but in preparing some of my cost analysis I was working Canadian dollars and we were doing conversions.
Mr. Sutherland did some conversions, did I some conversions.
[Page 1959]
Q. It was very important to do the correct conversions --
A. Yes.
Q. -- from Canadian to US so that you would actually have comparable costs?
A. Yes, there were conversions provided in Mr. Rosen's analysis that we used to do conversions. That's what I was advised to do if I was doing a conversion.
Q. So you used the conversion rate in Mr. Rosen's report to do the conversion from Canadian to US?
A. Yes.
Q. With the result --
A. In that particular year.
Q. In 2007?
A. Yes.
Q. And the -- it was important in that result to ensure that all expenses that were expressed on 0756 were in the same currency, being US dollars; that's correct?
A. Yes, it would be.
Q. In your analysis, when the quarries were represented as being potential or actual equivalent quarries, were you asked to
[Page 1960]
comment on that?
A. Would you mind just repeating last part of it, please?
Q. Sure. I'll take you back to figure 2 on page 11. The figure is entitled -- well, it's described at the top of "New York City Aggregate Sources, Actual and Potential". Do you see that, tab 1, page 11.
A. Yes. I have it.
Q. And the title of the chart is: "2007 delivered cost to customers of equivalent coarse aggregate".
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you understand the difference between limestone or dolomite on the one hand, and basalt and granite on the other hand for the purpose of supplying to the New York City market?
A. Yes, I'm aware of the differences in that stone.
Q. And you would agree that limestone and dolomite are not in the same class of rock for the use of the manufacture of asphalt in New York City?
A. This was not specific to asphalt
[Page 1961]
so therefore I don't think it was material.
Q. So that differentiation between the use of dolomite and limestone in products such as concrete for the laying of a sidewalk or the building of a building was not in your mind when the equivalency analysis between the Whites Point Quarry and other quarries was undertaken by SCMA; that's correct?
A. I did not make any distinction based on end use of the product because the definition of market would change what's being used in asphalt, what was being used in concrete and one would have negated the other because of some of the density issues so...
Q. If we look at the chart again and we go to the Canadian quarries and take for example, [Redacted]
A. For concrete, yes.
Q. Yes. For asphalt?
[Page 1962]
A. For asphalt, for base course, yes; for wearing course, no.
Q. The asphalt that cars actually drive on.
A. Well, that's a very thin layer on top, but most of the wearing course, no.
Q. And is that's called skid resistant?
A. Yes.
Q. It's called friction rock?
A. Yes.
Q. And there is a Superpave Standard in the United States, right?
A. For the wearing course, yes.
Q. For the wearing course?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Superpave Standard requires the adherence to strict specifications.
A. Including shape and many other parameters, yes.
Q. Exactly. And granite and basalt are qualifiers for that use?
A. Yes.
Q. Of --
A. I'm aware.
[Page 1963]
Q. If they are properly crushed?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct.
A. Yes.
Q. And limestone is not; correct?
A. No, because of the skid resistance.
Q. And did you do any analysis of the availability of what's called friction rock for supply into the New York City market as part of this analysis?
A. I did not.
Q. Do you know if anybody did?
A. I'm not aware -- I'm not aware of what was done. The division of the different sectors to which the rock was supplied, I did not do that.
Q. Did you have any knowledge of whether Corner Brook even opened up as a quarry?
A. I don't -- I have no knowledge if it's been opened up, no.
Q. Did you have any understanding of where Corner Brook was located --
A. -- in relation to Whites Point?
[Page 1964]
A. Yes, when I was doing my analysis I was given the location and I plotted that on...
Q. And if you go down and I think you were here this morning for Mr. Power's evidence. If you go down to the shipping cost, the yellow line in the middle of the page, you saw from our discussion that [Redacted]; would you agree with that? Or do you know?
A. I don't know. I can't comment. It is beyond my expertise.
Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Power "What about these rates here?" [Redacted]
A. I don't [Redacted]
Q. Did you have any discussions about these to say, "Is that reasonable?"
A. It's -- I couldn't comment. I have no -- I did not study the shipping costs.
[Page 1965]
Q. But you knew Mike Power was being relied upon for the assessment of reasonableness for shipping costs. Did you have any curiosity about that?
A. My interest in each quarry was I went to Auld's Cove back in the '70s. I am familiar with Auld's Cove. I was more interested in his -- his costs on other things and the shipping cost is beyond my expertise. I was not asked to comment on the shipping cost.
Q. Do you know if anybody was assigned to verify with Mike Power what the relative shipping costs were for the Canadian quarries, ocean side down to New York City?
A. I don't know if anybody was or not.
Q. Do you know if the Belleoram quarry ever opened?
A. I don't know if it opened or not.
Q. And there were costs, variable costs that were identified here for the Belleoram quarry?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you develop those?
A. Yes.
[Page 1966]
Q. Based on a quarry that was permitted in 2007 and never opened?
A. Well, similarly with Whites Point; the costs that were developed for that but that isn't opening either.
Q. That's a good point. You were developing costs for a quarry in Whites Point that was not built, that had never operated, that had not been shipped to or from, that had never employed anybody, and that had never actually published a design for the quarry plant and never published a marine terminal for the quarry plant. And you were able to ratchet back costs that you've been given in this proceeding to calculate a cost per ton of a production of aggregate at that quarry?
A. You would need to understand my methodology in order to understand how that could happen.
Q. So --
A. Do you wish me to describe my methodology?
Q. Well, if there is a short answer to that.
A. There is not a short answer because it involves --
[Page 1967]
Q. Then we won't --
A. -- in-depth analysis through Google Earth, cost analysis, measurements, a whole range of things. But I think it's important and I wish to say that it's difficult to comment upon the costs unless you understand my methodology.
Q. So you were here and heard Mr. Fougere's evidence yesterday?
A. Yes.
Q. And you heard that he was employed by Martin Marietta to manage that quarry?
A. Yes.
Q. And you heard his evidence regarding the [Redacted]
A. I heard his comments, yes.
Q. Did you make any investigation at the time you were writing or contributing to this report, investigation of the relative cost that might be -- might apply to an Auld's Cove quarry and your calculated costs for Whites Point?
A. Yes.
Q. And your relative cost for
[Page 1968]
[Redacted] looking down the page, total variable cost is [Redacted]; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. If you go across the page to the first Whites Point line [Redacted]?
A. Yes, is that.
Q. And then for the second line, [Redacted] now, you said you made an investigation on the variable cost between these two quarries and what investigation did you make?
A. Well on Whites Point we had two sets of information which is what this is referring to.
Q. [Redacted]?
A. Yes, we referenced the document there somewhere.
Q. Yes.
A. And then similarly we took some of the costs that were provided by the proponents of Whites Quarry in the last column.
For the other quarry --
Q. Just stopping there. That was in the EIS; right? That's what you are relying upon?
[Page 1969]
A. No, I think it was costs provided to go into -- some of them were to go into Mr. Rosen's spreadsheets. I mean, we compared those costs as well so I think this is a hybrid of all these costs.
Q. That's your calculation of the hybrid and that has never actually been produced; that's correct?
A. Well, you are comparing something that's not been produced at Whites Point, that's not been produced at a quarry that didn't open so the comparison is relative to the deposit and how it looks, and what was needed, the volumes that are going to be done, labour, et cetera, et cetera.
Some of these things had some commonality and some things didn't.
Q. So you've heard the [Redacted]
A. Yes.
Q. [Redacted]
[Page 1970]
[Redacted]
And you heard that, and you heard the description of how [Redacted]
Do you think that's reasonable?
A. Well, there's one -- there is one particular thing that's missing in this conversation out of this line of questioning. That is that in reference to Whites Point, and why are we trying -- and the same for all the other quarries, and why we chose 2006, and 2007, is because that according to the information that I was provided with and the request for me to review was relative to a certain product mix, not just the total production of the quarry, but to a certain product mix that would be sold to New York. Since there was no suggestion of sales anywhere else other than 2 million tons into New York of a certain ratio.
And so, the costs are based on that
[Page 1971]
certain ratio.
Q. And so your analysis, as distinct from Mr. Bickford's, is that in order to produce 2 million marketable tons for shipment to New York and New Jersey --
A. [Redacted]
Q. [Redacted]
A. That is why the -- that is the term -- that's why the term was used "equivalent coarse aggregate".
Q. So your analysis that [Redacted] the consequence of that is that [Redacted] isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Right. So your analysis incorporates that yield analysis, if I can call it that --
A. Yes.
[Page 1972]
Q. -- in order to calculate the [Redacted]
A. Yes.
Q. And your conclusions are based upon your assumption, your conclusion, that it would [Redacted] correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Right. And Mr. Bickford differs from you on that; do you understand that?
A. I understand he -- I think it's all in definition. In reading his statements, he is referring to the production [Redacted]
That is what I was asked to look at: [Redacted]
Those two very distinct and different things.
Q. I've got that. But your analysis was conducted through your own proprietary software; that's correct?
[Page 1973]
A. The information -- well, it's Excel spreadsheet it's not proprietary.
Q. So it's an Excel spreadsheet. So you actually took all of the inputs, put them on an Excel and you got your calculation, and that was it; that's correct?
A. I created a spreadsheet that would show my colleagues where each stage would produce what products, what the circulating load would be which is not defined in AggFlow which is something that I believe needs to be discussed further. Also, it described what the [Redacted]
So he's going to take a [Redacted]
And I did not include
[Page 1974]
that in my calculation.
Q. Instead of going through AggFlow, a recognized industry recognized software system, you used your Excel sheet?
A. No, I also made my calculations based on AggFlow and the thing about the Excel spreadsheet it's like the skeleton of AggFlow. I'm showing how AggFlow, if you were to look inside the algorithms in AggFlow, you would see it uses roughly the same algorithms that is used in an Excel spreadsheet. So there is similarity there.
Q. In any event, your model creates [Redacted], correct, for its application?
A. [Redacted]
Q. So, your -- but leaving that aside. Your analysis produces a [Redacted] correct?
A. It produces -- well, I would like to qualify the term. It produces material that [Redacted] nd therefore, you
[Page 1975]
know...
Q. Have you ever seen a quarry anywhere that [Redacted]
A. [Redacted]
Q. [Redacted]?
A. [Redacted] I have never seen --
Q. Have you ever seen any quarry -- is the answer to my question "yes" or "no"?
A. I can't answer that because --
Q. I'm asking you a fact. The question is about a fact. Have you ever seen a quarry anywhere that [Redacted]; "yes" or "no"?
A. I have not seen a quarry producing that [Redacted]
You are asking me to compare apples and oranges.
[Page 1976]
Q. I'm asking a simple question:
Have you ever seen any quarry operated anywhere that [Redacted]; "yes" or "no"?
A. No.
Q. Thank you.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: So from your movements I take that your cross-examination is finished?
MR. NASH: Those are my questions.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: And I give the floor to Ms. Zeman for the re-direct, please.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. ZEMAN:
MS. ZEMAN: Mr. Ward, you were asked many questions about the SCMA reports, including a number of questions on the cost curve that's in front of you.
A. Yes.
Q. And on the roughness of the dynamics of the market which was in a footnote in the --
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Excuse me. It had gotten stuck, but it's moving again. Sorry.
MS. ZEMAN: So you were asked a
[Page 1977]
number of questions on those aspects and a number of those questions you indicated you couldn't comment on; do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Who would be able to comment on the content of the report?
A. Probably only Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Chereb.
Q. Mr. Nash put to you that your opinion was that [Redacted]
Could you turn to page 43 of the first SCMA report?
A. Is there a tab number on --
Q. Yes, that should be at tab 1.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: And page 43.
MS. ZEMAN: There's a percentage here in the table. Can you explain what that represents?
A. Looking at the calculation, it shows a percentage difference in the operating hours of the quarry. At the bottom it says there i [Redacted] The difference being...
Q. And do you know how that
[Page 1978]
percentage was being used in calculating operating costs?
A. Yes, it was applied to the -- it was applied to the operating costs for Whites Point.
Q. What is that percentage?
A. [Redacted]
Q. Mr. Nash asked you if you understood Mr. Bickford to be satisfied with the results of his AggFlow analysis.
Q. What are your views on Mr. Bickford's AggFlow analysis?
A. I believe that Mr. Bickford [Redacted]
Q. And what information did you base your calculations with respect to production on?
A. [Redacted]
[Page 1979]
[Redacted] There was [Redacted]
Q. And where did you get your definition of the size of [Redacted]?
A. [Redacted]
MS. ZEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Ward.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you, Ms. Zeman.
No comment by Mr. Nash. But I think there are going to be questions from the tribunal.
And Mr. Schwartz?
QUESTIONS FROM THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL:
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Thanks for helping us today, sir, and if questions are beyond your expertise or too big to give a
[Page 1980]
meaningful answer, you'll just let us know.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: What I do want to explore is this concept of rough versus exact that came up during the dialogue you had today and it's come up before.
We are confidential; everything is confidential tomorrow is the last day; correct?
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: When I look, for example, at paragraph 95 at tab 1, it says under that assumption Whites Point means that there will be [Redacted]
Sorry, I'll give you a chance to catch up.
THE WITNESS: If you could state the page number again, please?
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: It's on page 33.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Paragraph 95.
THE WITNESS: Yes. I think in some of those documents that you could use the word "approximately" instead of "roughly". I mean, that would appear to be, if I'm making just my own
[Page 1981]
personal comment. I don't know, but I think.
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Just use this as an example because obviously the figures of [Redacted]
I am just trying to get a sense of how approximate, "approximate" is.
THE WITNESS: Well, I think where it says the -- well, it may be [Redacted]. I mean, that's the level of precision I think that they're talking about there with the term "approximately" from my memory of some of the calculations.
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: So --
THE WITNESS: I don't think it's [Redacted]
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: So you're saying that [Redacted]?
THE WITNESS: Well, yes, within -- yeah. That would be my interpretation, my personal interpretation.
[Page 1982]
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Okay. I'm looking at just a few paragraphs down. Paragraph 97.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: And there is a reference that's where it starts and then if you flip over the page to page 34, one-time 10 per cent contingency at the startup of the capital spending.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: So there when you are doing estimate of a startup, there is a contingency you put in in your estimates that's related to what; the first what year, the first few years of operation compared to other years; how does that work?
THE WITNESS: No. What happens is when you put together a quote for building a plant, invariably, in my experience and talking to other industry colleagues, there is a tendency to understate the cost of the plant.
There are things that you are into that you just don't see. You may find when you put the foundations in you have found that the groundwater is higher than what you think; that this doesn't fit where you thought it would seem to fit
[Page 1983]
from putting it in other plants. So there are things that happen. But when you actually go to buy a crusher, it may be that by the time you got around from approval of the plant to actually buying the crusher it's more than nuts and bolts, you might need a slightly different tensile strength on certain valves so they are more expensive.
There are many provisions in designing a plant, whether it uses 5-ply conveyer belt to 3-ply conveyer belt. In other words, that's the thickness of the conveyer belt.
For the conditions you may decide that well, because the rock is coming out coarser and sharper, we don't want the sharpness of the rock to tear the belt, so we would use a thicker belt. So there are things that you may make changes to that are not seen in the design stage and that 10 per cent contingency is there to cover those expenses.
Plus the length of time it takes you to do things. They may say, "well, we can construct that plant and build it in 10 minutes" -- sorry, in -- sorry, I used the term -- "in ten weeks", and what happens is it takes you 14 weeks. You have all those additional labour costs so those. Over
[Page 1984]
expenditures would go against that contingency.
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Okay. You are doing an estimate of a startup or you're doing an estimate of projected profitability or cost of a plant that's been in operation for year. How much of a difference am I going to see in the estimates and in your confidence in those estimates between a project that hasn't been in operation and a project that has been in operation for a year?
Here it refers to 10 per cent one-time contingency. Is that a reasonable sense of the difference between, you know, at startup versus what you know after one-year, 10 per cent?
THE WITNESS: It is on the total expenditure of capital expenditure for buying the equipment, erection and installation of electric power and everything that goes into making the plant. It is not necessarily relating to the operating costs, the cost incurred for operating for a year. It is mostly related to the actual cost of buying and constructing the plant, not operating the plant.
Did that make the distinction for you, sir?
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: I understand the
[Page 1985]
difference between capital costs and operating costs. I'm just trying to get a general sense if I'm asking an intelligible question of you're in the projection business, as are some of our expert witnesses, as I understand it. You might be asked sometimes, as I understand it, "give me an estimate of net profits of a quarry that's just starting up" versus somebody says "give me an estimate of how this quarry is going to work out after it's been in operation for a year."
One world is a startup; one world's been in operation for a year. Is there going to be about 10 per cent a fair figure of what the difference is going to be?
THE WITNESS: In my experience there is always an understatement of the cost in the order of 10, maybe 15 or even 20 per cent in the operating cost for the first year because you are going through an awful lot of teething troubles, setting up your product mix, a lot of things you don't foresee.
PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Thank you.
PROFESSOR MCRAE: Mr. Ward, could you just go back under this sheet to the last two columns with both "Whites Point".
[Page 1986]
THE WITNESS: Yes.
PROFESSOR MCRAE: There are two "Whites Point" here, and at the bottom I think your attention was drawn to this, based on plaintiff's costs. So, what's the distinction between that and the other -- and by plaintiff's costs, you mean the costs put forward by the proponent but on your costs based on -- or the other column based on costs put forward by the proponent?
I'd just like to get clarity on the difference between those two.
THE WITNESS: Yes, we are based on the plaintiff's costs in the far right. My costs are based on my estimation, using my methodology to come up with what the variable costs would be for the quarries.
We felt that rather than use my total estimates of the Whites Point costs, that since there were costs provided, we would be far more accurate and better off to use what was provided, where we could, and then we would -- and then if there were any changes to those costs, we would make them in light of being fair to the comparison.
PROFESSOR MCRAE: So the second column "7" is based on whose costs? What were the
[Page 1987]
costs that were used from the second column?
I believe that that were based on the adjusted costs, based on the necessary production required to produce that certain product mix for sale in New York City that were put into the Rosen final spreadsheet. In other words, they had a set of costs. [Redacted] set of costs in the spreadsheet.
PROFESSOR MCRAE: Thank you.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: A couple of questions from me to Mr. Ward, and they relate to the -- even though I prefer the costs -- I prefer questions rather than land, namely the cost of freight to New York by truck. That is something which, despite quite extensive questioning by Mr. Nash has still remained a bit of a mystery to me.
How you can -- first, you described -- we looked at the Google map that's in there, there are a lot of quarries, you said there are 15 quarries in New Jersey, and in order to get a hold on them you said you were drawing radiuses, radiuses?
[Page 1988]
THE WITNESS: Yes.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: I can't possibly pronounce the "radii" that Mr. Nash said, so radiuses, and you said every five miles.
THE WITNESS: Initially, yes.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Later on you said 35, 45.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, initially we tried to look at the quarries in --
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: But what was the point of these radiuses if, at the end, you come up with a figure of $14.50 that applies across the board, which means that you assume for the purposes of this sheet, that the costs are $14.50 irrespective of whether the quarry is 10 kilometres from Manhattan or 100 kilometres.
THE WITNESS: Because the actual definition cost was very difficult because some of the quarries are positioned in a route whereby during the night they could achieve load-out of a concrete customer during the night when there's no traffic, whereas other quarries might be in that -- they could either a let me start again.
You could either load out during the night time to a concrete supplier so that you are
[Page 1989]
not involved in the traffic. There may be routes that a truck driver knows where he does not get involved in traffic; I don't know those routes. We don't know those routes. We don't know exactly the route the truck driver would take when, in my experience, truck drivers will take the quickest route, normally the shortest route, because, you know, time is money to them, and so to define the cost route, to define the exact time of day they would travel, that would give you the average speed; to define all the other things, it was very difficult. That's why we used, on one of the spreadsheets, a calculation of what we derive the hourly rate for operation of a truck was and then to say that in this determination and then apply that to [Redacted]
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: That would be my next question. How did you arrive at the [Redacted] that you meant in the sheet?
THE WITNESS: Well, there would be some industry and local knowledge that I believe that I have and Mr. Sutherland has. I give him what industry information I had and he obviously has his own from my knowledge of Mr. Sutherland, so there was that. And then there was the calculation
[Page 1990]
done on the -- I forget what spreadsheet it was, what the name is, but on that spreadsheet you will see that there's a a calculation defining the operating costs of a truck which was taken from the industry.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: So the [Redacted] came, as you said, from the industry.
THE WITNESS: It came from calculations based on industry information.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: It is still -- I still don't get it but probably that's my problem.
THE WITNESS: No, sir, it's probably me that's -- in trying to come up with some kind of a trucking cost --
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Because if you say [Redacted] is some kind of an estimate --
THE WITNESS: Yes.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: -- but an estimate must be based on some experience as to what the costs are. And with regard to the costs, you say we cannot really calculate because it might be that the costs of getting the stuff from a quarry 100 miles from New York compared to the costs of doing the same exercise with a quarry 20 miles, could be the same because the truck drivers could
[Page 1991]
drive quicker; there are no toll fees to pay, et cetera.
So, to me, I just wonder: Wouldn't it have been more, how should I say, state of the art to not insert anything here, because that [Redacted] will have an impact on the final cost?
Let me just ask the last question: When you look at the last two quarries on land, the last two white quarries which is [Redacted], why did you not apply the estimate there, there is nothing in there?
THE WITNESS: No, they're rail. They would come in by rail, I believe. They are --
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: They are in the truck -- they are in the "Truck" bracket.
THE WITNESS: Under...?
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: They are in the [Redacted] procession and suddenly there is nothing there, so I wonder what was the reason for not indicating a number here.
THE WITNESS: Well, because --
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: It is not the train.
THE WITNESS: No, if you look on the
[Page 1992]
line where it says there are -- on the far left-hand corner under map reference, you would see "Location", "Operator", "County", "State", et cetera.
You will see "T" equals truck, "R" equals rail, "W" equals water. You will see that under those two quarries in that row, it says "R" meaning rail.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: So no trucks are used to get the --
THE WITNESS: No trucks, it is all rail. There would be a truck used to get it from rail if the operator was not on rail.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay.
THE WITNESS: So it signifies that it was a rail market.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you, sir.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Any further... Mr. Nash wants to -- and I expect for Mr. Spelliscy to say, "And I agree", because then you are...
MR. SPELLISCY: It is against my nature to agree, but I won't object.
[Page 1993]
PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH:
MR. NASH: Just going back to a question that you were asked on re-direct, if you could go back to page 34 of tab 1 -- actually, I apologize, this is a question arising from Professor Schwartz's question to you.
At the very top there is a reference, at the very top of page 34 there is a reference to: "Capital expenditures should be increased to include a one-time 10 per cent contingency at the start of a capital spending." [As read.]
A. Yes.
Q. So for example, if capital spending was $50 million you would budget for a one-time 10 per cent contingency at the front end of the project?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Going back to Exhibit 0756, we look at the variable cost, the cash cost, where are the capital costs of building the quarry?
A. You would not have those in there because that's a fixed cost. That would translate
[Page 1994]
1 as a fixed cost because that would be amortization
2 of the fixed cost over a period of time, it would be
3 dependent upon the volume of the material.
4 The cash costs relate to the actual
5 cost to produce in that one piece of material.
6 Q. But the capital cost is part of
7 the cost of building and operating a quarry?
8 A. But in trying to -- I apologize
9 for interrupting you.
10 Q. So, if the capital cost of the
11 quarry is $20 million, and the capital cost of
12 another quarry is $100 million, there are -- that's
13 a cost, it's not a freight cost; is that correct?
14 A. It is.
15 Q. And as you said, that would be
16 depreciated over an appropriate time period;
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And that would be then taking
20 into account as an expense related to depreciation
21 for the operation of the quarry over time?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And so the capital cost of each
24 of these quarries has not been included --
25 A. No.
[Page 1995]
1 Q. -- for your purposes here; that's
2 correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Going back to page 33 which
5 counsel did take you to.
6 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: 33.
7 MR. NASH: It is just a couple of
8 pages on in that binder.
9 MR. SPELLISCY: I am sorry, Mr. Nash,
10 you said, "that counsel took you to". Is this a
11 question arising out of the tribunal's questions?
12 MR. NASH: No, it is arising out of
13 counsel's.
14 MR. SPELLISCY: I think you already
15 said you didn't have any re-cross questions after we
16 sat down, so I would object to this.
17 MR. NASH: That's fine.
18 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: That's
19 probably true, yes. So thank you.
20 Thank you, Mr. Nash.
21 MR. NASH: That's not a problem.
22 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: I think we are
23 fine and thank you, Mr. Ward, you are relieved.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Your
[Page 1996]
1 examination has come to an end and thanks for your
2 presence and have a safe trip to wherever.
3 THE WITNESS: Atlanta, Georgia.
4 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Hopefully not
5 by truck.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
7 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you. I
8 think now we are having our bigger coffee break and
9 I think we can be quite generous, so let's have a
10 coffee break until 11:50, 11:50 sharp.
11 -- Recess taken at 11:31 a.m. --
12 -- Upon resuming at 11:52 a.m. --
13 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: If there is
14 nothing organizational to discuss, and that doesn't
15 seem to be the case, welcome, Mr. Chereb to the
16 witness stand.
17 Good morning, Mr. Chereb.
18 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
19 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Would you be
20 so kind and read the statement that is in front of
21 you.
22 THE WITNESS: Certainly.
23 I solemnly declare upon my honour and
24 conscience that I will speak the truth, the whole
25 truth and nothing but the truth.
[Page 1997]
1 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you,
2 Mr. Chereb.
3 AFFIRMED: DR. DAVID CHEREB
4 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Ms. Zeman, you
5 have the floor.
6 MS. ZEMAN: Thank you.
7 EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MS. ZEMAN:
8 MS. ZEMAN: Good morning, Dr. Chereb,
9 could you briefly describe your background and
10 experience for the tribunal.
11 A. I'm vice-president and chief
12 economist for SC Market Analytics. I am chief
13 economist because I have a background in economics,
14 PhD in economics.
15 Before that I worked for David Chereb
16 Group Inc. doing construction materials analysis;
17 before that with ARC America, a construction
18 products and aggregates company; before that, with
19 Getty Oil doing long-range planning; before that in
20 the Air Force doing space mission planning with the
21 Air Force, NASA and other people I won't mention.
22 Q. Are you one of the authors of the
23 SC Market Analytics reports?
24 A. Yes I am.
25 Q. Can you explain for the tribunal
[Page 1998]
1 which parts of those reports you contributed to.
2 A. My main input is the demand
3 dynamics. I had nothing to do with the supply side.
4 I use that as an input to take a look at relative
5 cost so I could figure out about impact to profit
6 margins on price dynamics.
7 So it is pretty much the overall
8 economic and construction environment on the demand
9 side.
10 Q. Do you have any corrections to
11 make to your reports?
12 A. No, I don't.
13 MS. ZEMAN: Thank you.
14 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you,
15 Ms. Zeman.
16 Mr. Nash.
17 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NASH:
18 MR. NASH: Mr. Chereb, do you go by
19 "doctor" or "mister"?
20 A. Whatever you want.
21 Q. Your theory is that the
22 introduction of the Whites Point aggregates into the
23 New York City market -- actually, I'm going to stop
24 for a minute while these binders can be distributed.
25 So your theory is that the
[Page 1999]
1 introduction of the Whites Point stone will [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted] that's
4 correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. [Redacted]?
7 A. [Redacted]
8 Q. And so when you made that
9 conclusion, were you aware that New York Sand &
10 Stone [Redacted]
11 [Redacted]
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Were you aware that if New York
14 Sand & Stone [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]?
17 A. Probably.
18 Q. You are not sure of that?
19 A. Well, they could [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 Q. You've concluded that [Redacted]
23 [Redacted]
24 [Redacted]
25 [Redacted]
[Page 2000]
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Do you remember saying that?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And that would be because on top
5 of a [Redacted] that's
6 [Redacted]
7 correct?
8 A. Sort of the reverse. It's the
9 [Redacted]
10 Q. [Redacted]?
11 A. [Redacted]
12 [Redacted] And let me
13 just say, this whole exercise really isn't about
14 Bilcon.
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 Q. Let's just stick with my
19 question.
20 I understand your theory to be that
21 when Whites Point starts to send stone to the New
22 York harbour [Redacted]
23 [Redacted]
24 [Redacted] is that not your theory?
25 [Redacted]
[Page 2001]
1 A. [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 Q. It is a very profitable market to
8 be in; that's correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you assume that other
11 [Redacted]
12 [Redacted]
13 [Redacted]
14 [Redacted] correct?
15 A. Eventually.
16 Q. [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 A. Don't forget the [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 [Redacted]
24 [Redacted]
25 Q. So fantastic and they can't?
[Page 2002]
1 A. [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 [Redacted]
10 [Redacted] hat's correct?
11 A. That's correct now.
12 What you're doing is saying is what
13 is, [Redacted]
14 [Redacted]
15 For instance, you say that's the [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 [Redacted] isn't that correct?
24 A. [Redacted]
[Page 2003]
1 [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 [Redacted]
10 [Redacted]
11 [Redacted]
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Yes.
14 [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted] isn't
21 that correct?
22 A. Yeah, it's a great market.
23 Q. It's a great market.
24 And during that period when it was
25 [Redacted]
[Page 2004]
1 [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. They did. They didn't [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 [Redacted] Isn't that
10 correct?
11 A. Yes. And [Redacted]
12 [Redacted]
13 [Redacted]
14 If it's a [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 Q. Right.
24 A. But it doesn't mean --
25 Q. Exactly right.
[Page 2005]
1 A. -- they don't know what the
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 [Redacted]
10 [Redacted]
11 [Redacted]
12 [Redacted]
13 [Redacted]
14 [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]; isn't that right?
18 A. [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted] That's
21 exactly right.
22 A. [Redacted]
23 Q. I'll bet it does.
24 A. [Redacted]
25 [Redacted]
[Page 2006]
1 [Redacted]
2 Q. Right.
3 A. A [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 Q. Right.
6 A. [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 [Redacted]
10 Q. Right. That reflects
11 Mr. Dooley's evidence. Were you here for that?
12 A. But not necessarily a big quarry.
13 [Redacted]
14 [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted] Maybe in a few
23 [Redacted]
24 years -- [Redacted]
25 Q. Isn't that all speculation? That
[Page 2007]
1 all speculation?
2 When you look at the history of York
3 Sand & Stone's [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 And so now you are speculating that
10 in some imaginary world in the next decade that
11 [Redacted]
12 [Redacted]
13 [Redacted] Is that not
14 pure speculation?
15 A. Yes, and so is your entire
16 50-year profit projection on a quarry that's never
17 been built and never shipped anything to New York.
18 Q. That's a different issue.
19 A. No, that's pure speculation too.
20 Q. On your theory, is it not pure
21 speculation based on no historical evidence to that
22 effect, this [Redacted]
23 [Redacted]
24 A. No, it's based on my experience
25 in looking at market dynamics.
[Page 2008]
1 Q. Is it based on your experience in
2 selling stone into the New York City market?
3 A. New York City market is not that
4 special.
5 Q. Is the answer to my question
6 "yes" or "no"?
7 A. Say it again, please.
8 Q. Is it based on your experience
9 selling aggregate into the New York market?
10 A. No, it's based on my general
11 experience on how most of the markets work.
12 Q. So you've never sold an ounce of
13 stone or been involved in the sale of an ounce of
14 stone into the New York market; that's correct?
15 A. Correct, just like you.
16 Q. Right, exactly, just like me.
17 Quite unlike Mr. Dooley; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Yes. And so your experience is,
20 I'm going to suggest to you, based upon your resumé.
21 If you could turn to tab 1, page 49 and go the next
22 page over which is unnumbered after 49.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, this resumé is as complete
25 as it has to be to describe your experience and
[Page 2009]
1 qualifications with respect to any aspect of this
2 matter in which you are involved in this; correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And you have -- I'm going to say
5 it's one of the shortest resumés I've seen.
6 You say you presented a paper on
7 "Does data mining improve business forecasting" at a
8 symposium in Edinburgh in 1998; do you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. It is the only paper you've ever
11 published.
12 A. Well, I write a monthly column in
13 a construction magazine.
14 Q. A newsletter?
15 A. Well, it's a monthly magazine,
16 yeah.
17 Q. You write a column. You don't
18 mention that here.
19 A. I guess not, no.
20 Q. So you presented one paper on
21 forecasting; is that right?
22 A. No, I actually have several
23 others. I didn't list them.
24 Q. Oh, so what else have you left
25 out of this resumé? I had understood that it was
[Page 2010]
1 complete, that it would tell us all about your
2 qualifications and expertise for the purpose of your
3 involvement in this proceeding?
4 A. I'm not sure you are being
5 serious when you ask that. Are you?
6 Q. Do you have another resumé?
7 A. I'm fairly old and I've done a
8 lot of things, so this is the relevant part.
9 Q. And so on the second bullet -- on
10 the first bullet you have 30 years' experience
11 forecasting North American construction materials;
12 do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you've got in the second
15 bullet, you've provided a specialized economic and
16 market forecasting services to the cement, concrete
17 and aggregates?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So you are a forecaster?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And your forecasting is based
22 upon your personal experience?
23 A. Could you explain "personal
24 experience"?
25 Q. Well, you answered one of my
[Page 2011]
1 questions earlier saying your analysis was based on
2 your experience?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And so your forecasting is based
5 on your experience?
6 A. Well, algorithms, experience,
7 yes.
8 Q. Algorithms?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Right. So your forecasting
11 doesn't include going out and actually visiting
12 quarries, understanding markets, it's algorithms; is
13 that right?
14 A. It's understanding markets, yes.
15 Q. Did you go out and visit any of
16 the many quarries that are commented on in your
17 report?
18 A. No, that wouldn't be appropriate.
19 Q. It wouldn't be appropriate to
20 actually see a quarry in operation to understand its
21 cost, to understand its operations, to understand
22 its delivery systems, to understand all of those
23 things to come to your conclusions?
24 A. No, because I'm dealing with the
25 demand side.
[Page 2012]
1 Q. Did anyone on your team for this
2 report go out to any number quarries in the
3 [Redacted]?
4 [Redacted]
5 A. Not that I'm aware of.
6 Q. Didn't you think it was important
7 for someone on your team to go out and see these
8 quarries and see whether they would amount to actual
9 or potential competitors at Whites Point?
10 A. If it were 40 years ago, yes.
11 But now somebody with Jim Ward and Colin
12 Sutherland's experience and the electronic tools we
13 have, they can get a pretty good bird's eye view
14 from each of the quarries.
15 Q. They can get a bird's eye view
16 from how the crow flies; isn't that right?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. From a quarry, how a crow flies
19 from a quarry in New Jersey or New York to some part
20 of downtown New York; that is correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What they didn't get from that
23 analysis is an actual reliable, verifiable
24 calculation of costs; would you agree with that?
25 A. They do not have the internal
[Page 2013]
1 financial documents for these quarries.
2 Q. They don't have any internal
3 financial documents; is that correct?
4 A. As far as I know.
5 Q. [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 [Redacted] that's correct?
10 A. As far as I know.
11 Q. You've heard that discussion this
12 morning. You've been in the room for the discussion
13 this morning about shipping?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you've heard the discussion
16 about how the cost of shipping f[Redacted]
17 [Redacted]; did you hear that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And did you hear that the cost of
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 A. I think I heard two different
23 figures, but okay, yes.
24 Q. [Redacted]?
25 A. Yes.
[Page 2014]
1 Q. And did you hear the discussion
2 this morning about [Redacted]?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you heard the discussion
5 about [Redacted]?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you saw the differences in
8 distance?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Didn't you take any step to
11 verify whether any of those shipping costs had any
12 reasonable basis whatsoever?
13 A. I'm not an expert in shipping and
14 I have no opinion about shipping costs.
15 Q. So you relied completely on what
16 Mike Power told Mr. Sutherland with respect to the
17 calculation of shipping costs; that's correct?
18 A. I relied on Colin Sutherland's
19 input and Jim's input, yes.
20 Q. Mike Power?
21 A. And Mike. I did not deal with
22 Mike Power very much.
23 Q. Did you know that he was even
24 being engaged for advice?
25 A. Yes.
[Page 2015]
1 Q. And is that why his quite
2 extensive CV was put into the report, to add
3 substantiation for the quality of the report?
4 A. Well, he's knowledgeable.
5 Q. He's knowledgeable. He's
6 knowledgeable about shipping rates. He dealt with
7 them for years. He was being charged [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 Anybody to your knowledge ask him, [Redacted]
10 [Redacted]
11 [Redacted]
12 [Redacted]
13 Do you know that?
14 A. As I said before, I had no input
15 on supply side and I have no opinion about the
16 supply side. I took it from the people on the team
17 and I accepted it as an input.
18 Q. So you relied on Mr. Sutherland;
19 that's correct.
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And he relied on Mr. Powers;
22 that's correct?
23 A. Partly.
24 Q. And he also -- anybody else?
25 A. No, you said "rely". I mean, he
[Page 2016]
1 relied on him. He relied on his own experience and
2 judgment.
3 Q. His own experience shipping stone
4 [Redacted]?
5 A. I don't mean that. His
6 experience in the aggregates and construction
7 markets.
8 Q. Is he a shipping expert,
9 Mr. Sutherland?
10 A. No.
11 Q. I don't see anything about
12 shipping in his resumé.
13 A. Once again, I have no opinion
14 about the supply side in shipping.
15 Q. Well, you are signing onto a
16 report as a co-signatory?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. We were told by Canada that you
19 could speak to all aspects of the report.
20 MR. SPELLISCY: Sorry, that's
21 actually -- well, to be clear, it does say that.
22 But you have Mr. Sutherland here. It seems very odd
23 to me to be cross-examining Mr. Chereb on
24 Mr. Sutherland's experience since you had the
25 opportunity to call Mr. Sutherland.
[Page 2017]
1 The exact language was:
2 "Mr. Sutherland co-authored and
3 developed the opinions and
4 conclusions contained in all
5 areas of the two SCMA reports".
6 [As read.]
7 And the exact language from
8 Mr. Chereb is:
9 "Dr. Chereb co-authored both
10 reports and developed the
11 opinions and conclusions
12 contained in the two SCMA expert
13 reports particularly with respect
14 to the market and pricing
15 analysis in both reports." [As
16 read.]
17 MR. NASH: So, Mr. Chereb, the letter
18 states -- I'll ask the tribunal and the witness to
19 turn to tab 3, paragraph 2:
20 "As conveyed in the parties'
21 correspondence described above,
22 Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Chereb as
23 co-signatories to the report and
24 co-owners of SCMA are able to
25 speak to all aspect of the
[Page 2018]
1 report." [As read]
2 Now, what I think you are telling me
3 now is that you can't speak to the shipping.
4 MR. SPELLISCY: No, I object to that
5 question. This is a letter saying Mr. Colin "and",
6 conjunction, not "or", are able to speak to both
7 aspects of the report and then it says "in
8 particular". And if you go down, you will see
9 exactly what we informed the claimants months ago
10 was their roles.
11 MR. NASH: We'll move on.
12 So, Mr. Chereb, did you have any
13 knowledge of what was done to support the trucking
14 figures?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you have any knowledge of
17 what was done to support the operating cost figures?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you have any knowledge of why
20 the capital cost for the various quarries were left
21 out of the analysis?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you incorporate all of the
24 material, then, that Mr. Sutherland gave you and
25 Mr. Ward gave you and what Mr. Power gave to
[Page 2019]
1 Mr. Sutherland regarding shipping in particular,
2 into the report?
3 A. Yes. My focus was: [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted] That is key.
6 Q. Sure.
7 A. Because it says there is a lot of
8 [Redacted]
9 [Redacted]
10 [Redacted]
11 [Redacted]
12 [Redacted]
13 [Redacted]
14 [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 A. Absolutely.
19 Q. And every day, that [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 that's correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. [Redacted]
[Page 2020]
1 [Redacted] the very date of your analysis, into
2 [Redacted]
3 a [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 out of this market.
10 [Redacted]
11 There is no basis on the history --
12 I'm going to suggest to you -- no evidence on the
13 record, nothing that will support the theory that
14 that [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]; you would agree with
17 that?
18 A. No, because you've
19 mischaracterized it. There is a difference between
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 [Redacted]
24 [Redacted]
25 [Redacted]
[Page 2021]
1 [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 Q. "Maybe", "perhaps", "in another
5 world", in an imaginary fantasy world, maybe they
6 would. But there is no evidence to support the fact
7 that they will; correct?
8 A. The quarry hasn't been built. We
9 don't know what would happen.
10 Q. [Redacted]
11 A. Yes.
12 [Redacted]
13 A. Yes. As your experts have said,
14 you thought [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 Q. They were [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted] Were you aware
21 of that?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Were you aware that by the time
24 the end of [Redacted]?
25 A. Well --
[Page 2022]
1 Q. Were you aware of that?
2 A. I've heard that while I've been
3 in the room.
4 Q. Were you aware that after
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Were you aware that from [Redacted]
10 [Redacted]
11 [Redacted]
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Were you aware that the last
14 [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 A. Roughly.
17 Q. Roughly. So you were aware then
18 that there's no [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted] you'd agree with that?
21 A. You're making it sound as if
22 that's forever. Why would it be forever? They
23 could get [Redacted]
24 Q. [Redacted]
25 A. [Redacted]
[Page 2023]
1 [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 A. Right.
10 Q. [Redacted]
11 [Redacted]
12 A. [Redacted]
13 [Redacted]
14 [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 [Redacted]
19 In other words, [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 A. No, that's a --
24 Q. That's a nothing?
25 A. That's a nothing.
[Page 2024]
1 Q. That doesn't worry you?
2 A. They've sold it. There has never
3 been a -- what do you call it -- [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted] that's relevant.
9 [Redacted]
10 Q. Where have you seen anywhere in
11 this record [Redacted]
12 [Redacted] You haven't.
13 A. You haven't.
14 Q. It's a fantasy.
15 A. No, no.
16 Q. You're making it up.
17 A. Are you kidding?
18 [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 [Redacted]
24 Q. Do you know anything about
25 regulatory requirements in Canada?
[Page 2025]
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you know anything about
3 environmental assessment in Canada?
4 A. No.
5 Q. You used the EIS from 2006 as
6 the -- one of the documents to consider in the
7 analysis for this report; that's correct?
8 A. Others did, yes.
9 Q. Others did. And you oversaw?
10 A. I saw what was happening, yes.
11 Q. And the basis for that idea was
12 that this early conceptual stage, environmental
13 assessment oriented document somehow had figures in
14 it which amounted to a business plan; isn't that the
15 theory you understand?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that there was another
18 "business plan" back in 2004 that showed some other
19 [Redacted] You understand that that was used for the
20 purpose of calculating the loss from Canada's
21 standpoint?
22 A. I understand that was an input.
23 Q. Right. And the idea was that
24 they were the only two contemporaneous documents at
25 the time. Is that your understanding of why those
[Page 2026]
1 two documents were used?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And is your understanding that
4 those two documents were used as the sole foundation
5 for the numbers analysis into which your report
6 feeds?
7 MR. SPELLISCY: I'm sorry, if
8 Mr. Nash is asking one of the experts for an overall
9 conclusion on the meaning and the work of Canada's
10 other experts, not his own inputs, that's an
11 inappropriate question.
12 MR. NASH: Do you have any input
13 at all into the calculated cost for the Whites Point
14 Quarry in delivering a ton of aggregate from Whites
15 Point to New York City, including the cost of
16 producing the product?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you take any steps to verify?
19 A. But I thought -- I thought based
20 on what your documents were, you were delivering to
21 New Jersey.
22 Q. Well, there is a component going
23 to New Jersey, you are quite right. Did you take
24 that into account?
25 A. Well, I thought the whole thing
[Page 2027]
1 was for internal use at Clayton. That's the reason
2 you put it -- I think in the EIS you said you were
3 going to use it internally to get a secure supply
4 for New Jersey.
5 Q. Did you see the EIS? Did you
6 read it yourself?
7 A. I heard this in testimony.
8 Q. Right. So you heard that that
9 was the intent, to send it all into New Jersey?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Right. So you didn't read the
12 EIS?
13 A. No.
14 Q. You didn't see the references to
15 New York City?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you hear John Lizak's
18 testimony yesterday about getting aggregate [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you've been assuming all
22 along that it was going into New Jersey?
23 A. No. You stated that in the
24 beginning in your documents early on, it's now New
25 York. I don't blame you. You wouldn't make money
[Page 2028]
1 going into New Jersey, so you ship into New York
2 where profit margins are very good.
3 Q. So you've based that on the EIS;
4 is that correct?
5 A. No, I based it on what I've heard
6 in this courtroom.
7 Q. I see. So is it your
8 understanding today that the only plan for the
9 Claytons was to go into New Jersey?
10 A. Of course not.
11 Q. You thought they were going --
12 A. This whole thing has been about
13 New York. My analysis is about New York because we
14 were instructed New York.
15 Q. But my original question --
16 A. The plan switched.
17 Q. My original question was: Did you
18 have any input into -- did you supervise? Did you
19 coordinate the inputs of the cost of taking a ton of
20 aggregate from Whites Point to New York City or
21 New Jersey?
22 A. Let me see... for about the
23 fourth time, no, I've had no input on the supply
24 side.
25 Q. Can you go to page 11, please?
[Page 2029]
1 A. Is this... which tab?
2 Q. First tab. Did you prepare that
3 chart?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you --
6 A. I had nothing to do with it.
7 Q. Did you verify any of the
8 information contained in that chart?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You relied upon Mr. Sutherland?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Did you have any information or
13 any input into the chart which is Exhibit -- first
14 page of Exhibit R-0756?
15 A. No.
16 Q. So your entire role, as I
17 understand it, was as a forecaster; is that right?
18 A. Forecaster and analyzer.
19 Q. And from your resumé you've
20 spoken at no conferences about aggregate production;
21 correct? You spoke of one conference in Edinburgh
22 in 1998; that wasn't about aggregate, correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. You've spoken at no conferences
25 about aggregate production; correct?
[Page 2030]
1 A. Spoken at conferences --
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. No, I've spoken about cement.
4 Q. Have you spoken -- well, I don't
5 see that in your CV.
6 A. That's not a daily log of my
7 life.
8 Q. Well, there could be a more
9 expansive description of what your life has been. I
10 think you told me that everything related to this
11 case, to explain your expertise and qualifications
12 was contained in your CV.
13 Didn't you tell me that about 15
14 minutes ago?
15 A. The relevant material is there.
16 Q. So it doesn't say that you spoke
17 at any aggregates production conference or any
18 aggregates conference at all?
19 A. No, I have not.
20 Q. And you haven't spoken to any
21 conference about aggregates markets; correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And for the purpose of signing
24 this report, you relied on the information and
25 analysis provided by Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Ward and
[Page 2031]
1 Mr. Power; that's correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And you relied upon that
4 information for the development of your analysis and
5 your conclusions; that's correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And you relied on the information
8 gathered to assess the rough dynamics of the market;
9 correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And in footnote 28, at the bottom
12 of that page, you see that it says:
13 "The estimated delivered cost to
14 customers includes trucking
15 delivery costs on a per ton basis
16 to final customers which are
17 assumed to be in the
18 Brooklyn Bronx area." [As read.]
19 Did you hear the area this morning
20 from Mr. Ward, in fact, is the shipper that he
21 chose, I think on Google maps, was in Manhattan?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You would understand that it's
24 different delivering stone in a truck to Manhattan
25 than it is delivering stone by truck to Brooklyn?
[Page 2032]
1 A. Yes, I don't know if it's minor,
2 like, 2 or 3 cents or 12 cents; I don't know.
3 Q. You have no idea?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. You have no idea if it's
6 different delivering a ton of stone by truck to
7 Manhattan or the Bronx; correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Using the "estimated delivery
10 cost to customer," now is that estimated delivery
11 cost to customer based upon information provided to
12 Mr. Ward and Mr. Power, to your knowledge?
13 A. To my knowledge, yes.
14 Q. (Reading):
15 "It allows to compare the
16 relative cost of quarries that
17 use different modes of
18 transportation, e.g. water, truck
19 and rail. The cost curve also
20 directly compares the estimated
21 cost to produce the coarse
22 aggregate products that Whites
23 Point planned to sell." [As read.]
24 And then here comes the words, and I
25 want to ask you after I read them out whether
[Page 2033]
1 they're -- in fact, why don't you read them out:
2 "The calculations in this
3 figure..."
4 Can you read that sentence for us,
5 please?
6 A. (Reading):
7 "The calculations in this figure
8 and estimates are intended to
9 provide a graphical representation
10 of the rough dynamics of the
11 market, rather than represent
12 exact calculations of cost of
13 each quarry." [As read.]
14 MR. NASH: Were you aware of how
15 rough the dynamics of the market were?
16 A. I accepted their input.
17 Q. You accepted all of their input
18 and you based your entire analysis on their input;
19 is that correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And you incorporated all of the
22 facts and assumptions which were provided by
23 Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Ward and Mr. Power for the
24 purpose of your economic modelling analysis;
25 correct?
[Page 2034]
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Including whether the facts were
3 erroneous or reliable; correct?
4 A. I trust them, just like they
5 trust me to look at my side.
6 Q. So, your acceptance of those
7 facts and assumptions was based on personal trust,
8 not on any verification on your part; correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Did you ask any questions of any
11 of them about any of the specifics about how these
12 rough dynamics were calculated?
13 A. Well, we had discussions about
14 this so I could understand it and look at it, or
15 planning sessions and analysis, we discussed it.
16 Q. But as I understand your
17 evidence, you didn't ask them "are they reliable?"
18 Not them personally, but the facts that they were
19 putting in the report?
20 A. When you trust somebody, you
21 don't ask a question like that.
22 Q. Your theory is that the
23 [Redacted] correct?
[Page 2035]
1 A. Well, I think that one addition
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 Q. Is that your assumption for the
8 purpose of your analysis, [Redacted]
9 [Redacted]
10 [Redacted]
11 A. [Redacted]
12 [Redacted]
13 Q. That's your theory?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Have you heard Mr. Power's
16 evidence this morning and Mr. Dooley's evidence a
17 few days ago?
18 A. Well, they said some years it got
19 as high as [Redacted]
20 Q. [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 Mr. Power this morning said that the [Redacted]
24 [Redacted] Do you
[Page 2036]
1 remember that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And so am I correct to say that
4 your theory is that approximately [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 A. No.
8 MR. SPELLISCY: I don't want to
9 interrupt. Our LiveNote is frozen on this side.
10 --- Reporter's Note: Technical issues resolved. ---
11 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Mr. Nash, we
12 can continue.
13 MR. NASH: Thank you. Could you
14 please turn to paragraph 19 of tab 1?
15 A. It starts off "The EIS stated"?
16 Q. I said paragraph 19. I'm sorry.
17 Page 19.
18 A. Oh. Yes.
19 Q. Figure 7a on that page: "NYC
20 Aggregates - Supplier Cost Curve Delivered to
21 Customers"; do you see that?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. And which customers is that
24 referring to?
25 A. I'm not sure.
[Page 2037]
1 Q. So you don't know if that is the
2 customer that ultimately purchases from the
3 purchaser?
4 A. No, I don't.
5 Q. And if you look at that chart,
6 did you have any input into the creation of that
7 chart?
8 A. No, I did not.
9 Q. You relied upon the chart for
10 your forecasting; correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And if you go over to the next
13 page of the chart, New York City, figure 7b, "New
14 York City Water Borne Suppliers Only CIF Cost Curve"
15 and it then says "Draft"?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is it a draft report?
18 A. That's what that says.
19 Q. Well, you signed it. Was it a
20 draft when you signed it?
21 A. Yes, I did sign it.
22 Q. Was it a draft when you signed
23 it?
24 A. Well, it hasn't changed so yes,
25 that word was there when I signed it.
[Page 2038]
1 Q. Okay. And the figures -- the
2 chart there shows CIF cost Brooklyn Navy Yard for
3 coarse aggregate; did you have any input into that
4 chart?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you rely on it? Sorry, did
7 you say "no"?
8 A. I didn't get the question.
9 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Did you rely on
10 that chart for your analysis?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. If you could go to page
13 11, please?
14 A. Page 11.
15 Q. Page 11, figure 2.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you have any input into that
18 chart.
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you rely on it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you go to page 22, please?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Figure 8a?
25 A. Yes.
[Page 2039]
1 Q. Did you have any input into that
2 chart?
3 A. I created it.
4 Q. You created that chart.
5 So that chart goes to 2008; do you
6 see that?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. And there's a note there with the
9 blue dotted line "6-Aug"; what does that mean?
10 A. Oh, that was done in August of
11 2006.
12 Q. That chart was created in 2006?
13 A. 2006.
14 Q. Was that chart created for the
15 purpose of this report?
16 A. The analysis was done in
17 August 2006 and the chart, you know, we pulled it
18 out, it was done long before this whole thing
19 started. I just created it from numbers from a
20 prior forecast.
21 Q. So, that's a forecast of yours in
22 2006 for the years 2006, 2007, 2008?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And it states above, 'As can be
25 seen", and I'm four lines down paragraph 66:
[Page 2040]
1 "... our forecast correctly
2 anticipated declining market
3 demand for the 2006-2008 period
4 when Bilcon was anticipating
5 building volume [Redacted]
6 through a potential new aggregate
7 source in Nova Scotia."
8 Now that's for the entire
9 New York State, isn't it?
10 A. This chart is, yes.
11 Q. So New York State is being used
12 as a proxy for New York City?
13 A. It's been used to understand what
14 was happening in the market.
15 Q. In the market generally?
16 A. In the New York State market and
17 New York City is about 60 per cent of
18 New York State.
19 Q. But New York City is in a
20 different position geographically than the rest of
21 New York State; isn't that correct?
22 A. It is part of New York State.
23 Q. It is part of New York State, but
24 it is very difficult to get access to. There are
25 tolls; there are weight restriction on trucks; there
[Page 2041]
1 are a whole lot of things that make it more
2 difficult to get into New York City than it does in
3 other parts of the State and I'm going to suggest to
4 you that one of them, those difficulties, are what
5 makes New York City such a lucrative market for
6 aggregate. You would agree with that?
7 A. Yes. Do you understand the
8 purpose of this chart?
9 Q. Well, I think the purpose of this
10 chart is to show that, as you see in the sentence
11 above:
12 "As can be seen, our forecast
13 correctly anticipated declining
14 market demand for the 2006-2008
15 period..."
16 A. That was pretty darn good.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Because things were awfully good
19 in 2006 when we were doing it.
20 Q. Right.
21 A. And Dodge and New York
22 Construction Board, they weren't forecasting this.
23 Q. Right. They weren't forecasting
24 the declining market demand?
25 A. Correct.
[Page 2042]
1 Q. But you've said you're aware that
2 the [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So when the market [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 A. They were just at the end.
10 New York State -- I mean, sorry, New York City did
11 better than a State overall, did better than the US
12 overall, absolutely. It was --
13 Q. You're forecasting --
14 A. It was reasonably insulated.
15 Q. You are forecasting a decline in
16 the New York market and using that as a basis, as a
17 forecasting basis to suggest that there would be a
18 decline for New York Sand & Stone. That's correct,
19 isn't it?
20 A. In the -- a decline in the cement
21 for New York City.
22 Q. In cement for New York City?
23 A. Right. That's what this is,
24 cement.
25 Q. And you concluded from that that
[Page 2043]
1 there was a part of the analysis to see, in terms of
2 forecasting, where aggregate would go and demand for
3 that because cement is sort of a general proxy for
4 aggregate; correct?
5 A. They are highly correlated.
6 Q. They are correlated. They are
7 used in the same product. They make concrete and so
8 on, so there is a relationship between cement and
9 aggregate; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you are forecasting a decline
12 in the cement market in New York State, and your
13 analysis is then used to suggest that there's a
14 decline -- there's going to be declining demand for
15 aggregates from New York Sand & Stone; that's
16 correct?
17 A. You mean in this period of time?
18 Like 2008, 2010?
19 Q. 2006, 2008, just your years?
20 A. [Redacted] This
21 [Redacted]
22 is trying to say the market got weak. The market
23 got weak. It got weaker.
24 [Redacted]
25 Q. [Redacted]
[Page 2044]
1 [Redacted]
2 A. Well, there was a bit of a
3 delay -- [Redacted]
4 (Simultaneous speakers - unclear)
5 A. So they were here and it took
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 Q. There was dancing so you don't
9 A. There was a lag, sure.
10 Q. Okay. So did you hear the
11 evidence about that from Mr. Dooley?
12 A. I believe so.
13 Q. And you ignored that evidence for
14 your purposes; correct?
15 A. You mean -- I did this a long
16 time ago.
17 Q. Yes, but you just said --
18 A. This is an independent analysis.
19 Q. [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And so Mr. Dooley had an
23 explanation for that; did you hear that explanation?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. And did you accept the
[Page 2045]
1 explanation?
2 A. No, I'm not satisfied with it.
3 Q. All right.
4 A. I looked at his chart and it went
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted] No, I don't accept that.
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 accept that?
10 A. That's the way I describe it.
11 Q. That's the way you saw it. Okay.
12 Go to page 23 then, that chart at the top of the
13 page.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. "Cement forecast from
16 August 2006".
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the cement, again, in those
19 years, the forecast is that cement [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted] do you recall that?
22 [Redacted]
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So that's conflicting with your
25 forecast; would you agree in that period?
[Page 2046]
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. And then at the bottom, paragraph
3 68:
4 "Following a similar trend,
5 figure 9 shows that construction
6 contracts were also declining
7 from 2008 to 2011."
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes. And I want to add one thing
10 about the New York Sand & Stone. That's a
11 particular seller. [Redacted]
12 [Redacted]
13 [Redacted]
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. They have varied greatly from
16 year to year so that's not -- that's not the market.
17 That's an individual company.
18 Q. Your point here in paragraph 68:
19 "Following a similar trend,
20 figure 9 shows that construction
21 contracts were also declining
22 from 2008 to 2011..."
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, if we look at the
25 [Redacted], that's the red line;
[Page 2047]
1 correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. In New York City; correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. In the boroughs of New York.
6 And it shows that [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 And you see it's fairly stable.
9 A. They are indexed to 100 in 2007.
10 Q. Right. And then there is a
11 slight decline in 2011; do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then it starts rocketing
14 up --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- to just under 190, almost
17 double?
18 A. In a great recovery.
19 Q. In a great recovery.
20 It's not what you would call a
21 declining market; is it?
22 A. Excuse me, I said declining from
23 2008 to 2011 and it declined about 10 per cent.
24 Q. About 10 per cent in the middle
25 of what everybody knows was the worst recession
[Page 2048]
1 known since 1929. It declined about 10 per cent,
2 went up in 2012 by perhaps another 10 per cent, and
3 then it rocketed up from 2012 to 2017; that's what
4 that chart shows, right?
5 A. When was the peak? 2015.
6 Q. Well, I'm --
7 A. It's declining.
8 Q. You say it's still declining?
9 A. No, no, no. We all see the
10 curve.
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. And we both agree, it was a great
13 recovery.
14 Q. It's almost twice in 2017 than it
15 was back in 2011.
16 A. It's a great recovery.
17 Q. And cement and aggregate are
18 correlated; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You have increased demand from
21 [Redacted] -- you would expect
22 you'd get increased demand for [Redacted]
23 A. Yes, it has gone up.
24 Q. [Redacted]
25 [Redacted]
[Page 2049]
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Could you turn, please, to tab 2,
3 in your rejoinder report, at page 9, paragraph 16.
4 Sorry. If you go to the bottom of paragraph 16.
5 You say:
6 "As such, while we cannot be a
7 hundred per cent certain, we are
8 highly confident that our cost
9 estimates are within pennies per
10 ton of what they were in 2007."
11 [As read.]
12 A. Yes, I see that.
13 Q. Did you write those words?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did Mr. Sutherland write them?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Did you endorse them?
18 A. I didn't question them.
19 MR. NASH: Thank you, Mr. Chereb,
20 those are my questions.
21 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thank you,
22 Mr. Nash.
23 MR. SPELLISCY: We will request just
24 a minute here to organize our thoughts to see if we
25 have any re-direct.
[Page 2050]
1 MR. NASH: I just have one more
2 question, if I can.
3 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: That's okay.
4 But you have an additional question?
5 MR. NASH: I have one more question.
6 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay. But
7 just we need the attention of the Canada. Okay.
8 Mr. Nash has one additional question
9 and then you are going to re-direct, Ms. Zeman?
10 MS. ZEMAN: Yes.
11 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay, all
12 right.
13 MR. NASH: You describe in report
14 number 1 that [Redacted]; do
15 [Redacted]
16 you recall that?
17 A. I recall that.
18 Q. Were they your words or were they
19 Mr. Sutherland's?
20 A. Mr. Sutherland's.
21 Q. Did you endorse them?
22 A. I accepted them.
23 Q. When you accepted them, did you
24 realize that [Redacted]
25 [Redacted]
[Page 2051]
1 [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 A. I wasn't aware of that.
5 MR. NASH: Okay. Thank you.
6 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay. Now we
7 can go to re-direct.
8 RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. ZEMAN:
9 MS. ZEMAN: Dr. Chereb.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Mr. Nash took you to page 23 of
12 your first report if we could turn there.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. He spent some time talking about
15 figure 9 here. And asked you some questions about
16 the wonderful recovery that happened after the
17 recession.
18 What are your views about what will
19 happen after?
20 A. Well, as you can see, up through
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 [Redacted]
24 [Redacted]
25 [Redacted]
[Page 2052]
1 [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted] that's what I think.
8 Q. So, in this context Mr. Nash also
9 asked you about the overall growth in the market.
10 Can you tell us what the compound
11 [Redacted]
12 A. [Redacted]
13 [Redacted]
14 [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 MS. ZEMAN: Thanks.
19 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay.
20 Mr. Nash? No?
21 MR. NASH: I have nothing arising.
22 QUESTIONS FROM THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL:
23 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Good afternoon,
24 sir. I think you've been here throughout, so
25 however inarticulately I may be putting the
26 questions, you know I have this abiding concern
[Page 2053]
1 about the confidence that we can place in various
2 estimates.
3 So I'm looking at paragraph 98 of
4 your report.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Similar question
7 I asked the previous witness. When the report says
8 estimate is that market would drop [Redacted]
9 [Redacted], what degree of confidence do we
10 have in that [Redacted]
11 [Redacted]
12 What sort of confidence?
13 THE WITNESS: The reason I came up
14 with [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 And then it was essential to find
21 out, well, [Redacted] So I went
22 [Redacted]
23 and looked at these [Redacted]
24 [Redacted] was if you dropped it [Redacted], you could
25 [Redacted]
[Page 2054]
1 [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 [Redacted]
4 In other words, they are going to
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 [Redacted] So that's --
10 [Redacted]
11 [Redacted]
12 Because they didn't need to.
13 [Redacted]
14 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: But to be more
15 precise, when you say [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah, you're absolutely
19 right. It's, you know, it has to be enough to be
20 significant, to send a [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 [Redacted]
24 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Okay. And
25 elsewhere in your report, I think it's paragraph 16
[Page 2055]
1 you suggest that this [Redacted]
2 [Redacted]
3 Does your report assume that that [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 [Redacted]
7 [Redacted] ow does it work?
8 THE WITNESS: Well, we assume it's
9 going to [Redacted]
10 [Redacted] It doesn't have to if they -- we
11 assume that [Redacted]
12 [Redacted]
13 [Redacted]
14 [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 [Redacted]
17 [Redacted]
18 [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 [Redacted]
24 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Your estimates
25 seem to involve different components; some of them
[Page 2056]
1 are macro, like, what's the whole State of the New
2 York economy, and the growth of the American
3 economy, population growth, declining
4 infrastructure, kind of stuff like that. It is big
5 picture stuff that doesn't depend on actions of
6 particular market players.
7 Part of the estimate here seems to be
8 based on something that depends more on professional
9 judgment on your part rather than algorithms; right?
10 You are trying to figure out [Redacted]
11 [Redacted]
12 THE WITNESS: You are absolutely
13 correct. Because you are not going to get an
14 algorithm [Redacted]
15 [Redacted]
16 First, it is absolutely true, I heard
17 before, they [Redacted]
18 [Redacted]
19 [Redacted]
20 [Redacted]
21 [Redacted]
22 [Redacted]
23 [Redacted]
24 [Redacted]
25 [Redacted]
[Page 2057]
1 [Redacted]
2 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Okay. Now, your
3 report suggests that you compared some [Redacted]
4 [Redacted]
5 [Redacted]
6 And you mentioned in your report you started doing
7 [Redacted]
8 [Redacted]
9 Looking back, how have your
10 longer-term forecasts borne out? You've given us an
11 example of a short-term forecasts a couple of years,
12 that bore out.
13 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
14 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Do you have
15 enough experience now doing medium-term, long-term
16 forecasts to have a sense of how reliable estimates
17 are?
18 A. Yes. At the National and
19 State level -- I'm going to start, like, from
20 one-year and go out. From about one-year out, they
21 are plus-minus 5 per cent. That is a very typical
22 number for us.
23 As you go out, as you might imagine,
24 you go out 5 or 10 years, deviation gets a little
25 larger and I would say it's within 8 or 10 per cent
[Page 2058]
1 at the State and National level.
2 If you get down to individual
3 counties, you get more variation.
4 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: And longer-term
5 forecasts than that, do you do those? Do you have
6 any experience with that?
7 THE WITNESS: I've done 25-year
8 forecasts, but that is kind of uncommon.
9 In today's world, with spreadsheets,
10 you can go out 50 years. You can go out 50 years.
11 And that's what I call kind of false precision. We
12 can put decimal places to them, but typically it is
13 a 5 or 10-year forecast.
14 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: And again, I
15 mentioned it with a previous witness, I don't have a
16 mathematical intuition here.
17 This is a situation where the
18 predictions get less reliable over a long course of
19 time. I can imagine certain circumstances where you
20 say short-term predictions are actually less
21 reliable because there is noise, but we can get
22 long-term projections that are fairly reliable. Is
23 it your sense that as you go out more and more, the
24 predictions get less and less; you have less and
25 less confidence in a projection?
[Page 2059]
1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: So I just wanted
3 to, I think perhaps you were speaking colourfully.
4 When you said your estimates were pure speculation,
5 were there certain -- you were asked as well, this
6 other estimate is you are speculating and you said
7 yes, but the other side is speculating.
8 I think you used the phrase "pure
9 speculation" maybe.
10 THE WITNESS: Well, we have two
11 stacks of papers; our papers and their papers. And
12 we put our best experience and knowledge into it and
13 try to come up with -- you know, my report would
14 look the same whether I was hired by Bilcon or
15 Canada. It's just my opinion.
16 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: So I'm
17 understanding, by pure speculation, you didn't mean
18 to say that -- obviously you are sending statements
19 of account when you do this; you don't send it and
20 then say yeah, but this is all pure speculation.
21 You're saying this is your best professional
22 judgment?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 PROFESSOR SCHWARTZ: Okay, thank you
25 very much.
[Page 2060]
1 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Any further
2 questions from parties? Okay. Thank you. So that
3 brings an end to your witness examination. Thank
4 you very much.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Then my
7 question would be, before we break and see each
8 other again on Monday, are there any -- maybe it
9 would be good to have a time check.
10 DR. PULKOWSKI: I would be very happy
11 to provide that, Mr. President, and perhaps
12 relatedly, based on the time remaining we may
13 consider the schedule for Monday because I don't
14 expect we will have to be here at 8:30 again, in
15 fact.
16 So on the claimants' side, the
17 claimants have used 17 hours and 54 minutes.
18 And the respondent has used 14 hours
19 and 50, 5-0 minutes.
20 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: So, that means
21 how much time would they have left?
22 PROFESSOR MCRAE: How much time do we
23 need on Monday?
24 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: So left for
25 both Monday quantum and Wednesday closing
[Page 2061]
1 statements?
2 DR. PULKOWSKI: Close to 10 hours for
3 both parties and both -- is that about right? Let
4 me see. Let me do a proper calculation.
5 Both days together.
6 MR. SPELLISCY: Each party?
7 DR. PULKOWSKI: No, both parties
8 together on the both days.
9 I think the question was: What's the
10 overall budget?
11 To be more specific, on the
12 claimants' side, 3 hours 6 minutes left; and the
13 respondent's side 3 hours more, essentially, 6 hours
14 and 10 minutes left.
15 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: For both?
16 DR. PULKOWSKI: For both exercises
17 together.
18 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: That sounds --
19 that looks like we could relax at least the morning.
20 PROFESSOR MCRAE: How much time do
21 the parties need on Monday?
22 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Do you have
23 any estimate of how much time you are going to spend
24 on Monday? Mr. Nash?
25 MR. NASH: My estimate?
[Page 2062]
1 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Estimates.
2 MR. NASH: About an hour on Monday
3 and about two hours on Wednesday.
4 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: And Mr.
5 Spelliscy?
6 MR. SPELLISCY: My best professional
7 judgment., estimate, not speculation, which is a
8 little -- I don't have an algorithm for this. I
9 would imagine that we're -- well, we also have the
10 expert presentations by our own quantum experts
11 which are included in that half hour or included in
12 the time remaining so I would imagine half an hour
13 for our expert presentation under the procedural
14 order. I would imagine we will probably use the
15 remaining two, just over two hours for the
16 cross-examination of Mr. Rosen and three hours for
17 our closing arguments on [Redacted]
18 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Sorry, and
19 three?
20 MR. SPELLISCY: Three hours for our
21 closing arguments on Wednesday. So I would expect,
22 like we have to date, to be right on track to use
23 our entire 21 hours.
24 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: I think on
25 Monday we could consider to meet at like --
[Page 2063]
1 DR. PULKOWSKI: I suppose, since the
2 investors experts will be cross-examined first so
3 that would probably presumably be the bigger package
4 in terms of time. We should probably have a normal
5 morning without an excessively early start so that
6 we get through by lunch time.
7 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: What do we
8 meaning by "normal morning"?
9 MR. SPELLISCY: I'm sure if we
10 started at 9:30, which is what the original hearing
11 time was scheduled to start, with our total of three
12 hours on Monday the claimants have said one hour,
13 then I would imagine that that's fine.
14 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: 9:30.
15 MR. SPELLISCY: 9:30 would be plenty
16 of time.
17 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: We are going
18 to see each other again, relaxed, on Monday at
19 9:30 in another room; right? Do we know the wine?
20 DR. PULKOWSKI: It will be Cabernet
21 for the tribunal and Shiraz for the parties because
22 there are two doors to the same room.
23 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay, well ...
24 DR. PULKOWSKI: It will be an
25 interesting blend. (laughter)
[Page 2064]
1 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: I hope you
2 found time to test that already a bit before we see
3 each other again, cabernet. (laughter)
4 MR. SCOTT LITTLE: Judge Simma --
5 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Yes.
6 MR. SCOTT LITTLE: I just wanted to
7 put a few things down. First off, just in light of
8 the time remaining today and the global time that
9 remains for each of the parties, we just want to
10 make note of the fact that we really don't see a
11 reason why the complete evidentiary record could not
12 have been completed today.
13 So, I'm not asking that, like,
14 changes have been made, expenses have been incurred,
15 but I just wanted to make it clear our concern over
16 the diversion from the original schedule, and in
17 case I wasn't clear enough yesterday to make that
18 request that there are cost consequences to the
19 change that has happened.
20 In light of the fact that the time
21 that the claimants do have left to conduct their
22 remaining cross-examinations, and to present their
23 closing submissions, we also want to make clear that
24 we don't consent to an extension of any time or the
25 submissions that can be made in any form, so be it
[Page 2065]
1 an extension of oral submissions or even in the form
2 of post-hearing briefs, as a supplement or a
3 replacement for oral submissions.
4 We just want to put that down on the
5 record now.
6 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay. That
7 means that you are against post-hearing briefs?
8 MR. SCOTT LITTLE: We are, yes.
9 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: I think there
10 was also an agreement at some stage that
11 post-hearing briefs -- I think it was at the end of
12 the jurisdiction liability phase.
13 MR. SCOTT LITTLE: I believe we had
14 annotated transcripts at the end of the jurisdiction
15 liability phase, but we just want to lay down the
16 marker now that we are not consenting to
17 post-hearing briefs being a supplement or a
18 replacement for oral closing submissions.
19 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: All right, so
20 that is clear.
21 Let me just say with regard to the --
22 this was a decision made by the tribunal, the
23 decision to spread out and change the schedule of
24 the rest of the exercise.
25 That decision was based, first, on
[Page 2066]
1 some input by the parties and, secondly, of course,
2 we are a bit in a situation like Mr. Chereb and
3 others, that on the basis of the experience with the
4 duration of hearings, particularly the duration of
5 re-direct, et cetera, I think we could not foresee
6 that the remaining exercise would go so efficiently
7 and take relatively much less time.
8 So, for me, the expectation yesterday
9 was that we could not possibly deal with three
10 more experts and then have both the quantum
11 exercises on the same day.
12 Let me just say as far as the
13 tribunal is concerned, for the record also.
14 MR. SCOTT LITTLE: That's fine.
15 Thank you. My part was more about taking this with
16 a view to the global time that is left for the
17 parties. We think it was more than doable to have
18 the evidentiary record closed today.
19 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay. Yes,
20 Mr. Nash?
21 MR. NASH: I think Mr. Little's
22 concerns as expressed are without foundation in this
23 sense. That we aren't going to suggest that there
24 be any extra time, and we're not going to suggest
25 that there be closing post-hearing arguments. So, I
[Page 2067]
1 hear Mr. Little putting down a marker, as he says, I
2 don't think it's necessary.
3 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: I don't
4 understand.
5 MR. NASH: I don't think it's
6 necessary. I think we are all on the same page.
7 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Okay. All
8 right.
9 MR. SCOTT LITTLE: Thank you,
10 Mr. Nash.
11 PRESIDING ARBITRATOR: Thanks to both
12 of you. So we will break and see each other again
13 on Monday in Cabernet and Shiraz at 9:30.
14 Whereupon the proceeding adjourned at 1:14 p.m., to
15 be resumed Monday, February 26, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.
[Page 2068]
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION
I, Lisa Johnston, certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
translation from the recorded proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
February 24, 2018
Signature
Lisa Johnston
I, Barrett PM, certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcription from the recorded proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
February 24, 2018
Signature
Barrett PM
I, Lisa Johnston, certify that I am not a relative, employee, or
attorney of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of
the parties' attorneys. I further certify that I am not financially
interested in this action.
February 24, 2018
Signature
Lisa Johnston
I, Barrett PM, certify that I am not a relative, employee, or
attorney of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of
the parties' attorneys. I further certify that I am not financially
interested in this action.
February 24, 2018
Signature
Barrett PM
[Page 2069]
|
A a.m 1840:9 1842:3 |
actions 2056:5 |
affreightment |
1845:19 1907:20 |
1997:17 |
[Page 2090]
| 2005:2 2020:24 2062:14 2063:3,4 |
1976:3,4 1977:12 1979:1,7 1985:20 1987:4 2019:17 2020:1,9 2026:16 2043:7 |
2006:18 2007:16 2020:20,25 2028:2 2053:15 2053:17 2055:11 2055:20 |
1956:16 1957:15 2000:24 2033:9 2060:11 |
2041:8,9 |
| problem 1990:11 1995:21 |
production 1906:12 1912:23 1913:2 1917:12 1931:21 1932:10 1966:15 1970:20 1971:21 1972:14 1973:15 1978:23 1987:4 2029:20,25 2030:17 |
profitability 1984:4 | provided 1843:25 1851:12 1852:5 1860:18 1867:21 1880:16 1882:19 1909:22 1912:10 1912:16 1915:22 1916:1,8,11 1917:18 1919:11 1920:15 1939:4,5 1959:7 1968:21 1969:1 1970:18 1986:19,20 2010:15 2030:25 2032:11 2033:22 |
purposes 1926:11 1988:13 1995:1 2044:14 |
| problems 1932:6 | profitable 2001:7 2003:7,9,10,16,17 2003:19,20,25 2004:8,9 |
pursuant 1858:1 | ||
| procedural 1858:1 1881:3,5,6 1882:7 2062:13 |
put 1850:16 1874:16 1907:8,8 1912:20 1913:7 1913:10 1918:3 1919:13,14 1927:11 1929:2 1932:10,16 1934:2 1939:10 1973:4 1977:9 1982:12,17,22 1986:7,9 1987:5 2015:2 2027:2 2058:12 2059:12 2064:7 2065:4 |
|||
| procedure 1891:2 | profits 1985:7 2020:8 |
|||
| proceeding 1944:20 1966:14 2010:3 2068:3 |
products 1943:11 1943:13 1947:25 1956:2 1961:3 1972:14,15,16 1973:9 1974:16 1978:15,16,18,21 1997:18 2032:22 |
program 1947:23 1949:23 |
||
| proceedings 1840:7 2067:14 |
project 1855:20 1897:1 1984:8,8 1993:19 |
Province 1899:24 | ||
| process 1933:20 | provisions 1983:8 | putting 1983:1 2034:19 2052:24 2067:1 |
||
| procession 1991:19 | projected 1984:4 | proxy 2040:12 2043:3 |
||
| produce 1907:9 1933:17 1943:4,7 1946:5,6 1956:1 1971:3,9 1972:6 1972:19,20 1973:9 1977:11 1978:14 1987:4 1994:5 2032:21 |
professional 1865:7 1906:14 2056:8 2059:21 2062:6 |
projecting 2055:5 | ||
| projection 1985:4 2007:16 2058:25 |
published 1966:10 1966:11 2009:11 2052:15 |
Q |
||
| produced 1911:20 1925:6 1936:10 1969:7,10,11 1971:15 1975:19 1976:4 |
professionally 1941:12 |
projections 2057:3 2058:22 |
PULKOWSKI 1904:14 2060:10 2061:2,7,16 2063:1,20,24 |
Q.C 1840:16 |
| Professor 1840:8,8 1979:23 1980:3,9 1980:19,21 1981:2,16,19 1982:1,5,10 1984:2,25 1985:22,23 1986:2,24 1987:11 1993:6 2052:22 2053:6 2054:14,24 2055:24 2057:2 2057:14 2058:4 2058:14 2059:2 2059:16,24 2060:22 2061:20 |
pronounce 1988:3 | qualifications 2009:1 2010:2 2030:11 |
||
| producer 1940:22 1940:23 1949:3,8 1961:18 2019:4,8 |
proper 2061:4 | pulled 2039:17 | qualified 1846:11 | |
| properly 1963:1 | purchase 2051:2 | qualifiers 1962:22 | ||
| producers 1948:1 1948:14 1949:2 |
property 1900:11 1900:14 |
purchased 1843:9 1900:10 |
qualify 1863:19 1906:6,17 1951:15 1952:20 1974:23 |
|
| produces 1974:20 1974:22,23 |
proponent 1986:7,9 | purchaser 1854:19 1900:18 2037:3 |
||
| proponents 1968:21 |
purchases 2037:2 2042:8 |
quality 1880:19 2015:3 |
||
| producing 1974:16 1975:5,22 2026:16 |
proportionate 1893:1 |
purchasing 2042:2 | quantify 1957:3,4 | |
| proposed 1855:20 1876:9 1885:15 1937:12 |
pure 1954:21 2007:14,19,20 2059:4,8,17,20 |
quantities 1893:21 | ||
| product 1912:21 1943:5,7,9,10,18 1947:20 1961:10 1970:20,21 1971:6,7 1972:7 1973:13,21,23 1975:4,11,15,22 |
profit 1998:5 2001:6,24 2002:14 2004:11 2004:12,14 |
proposing 1940:4 | quantity 1944:6 | |
| proposition 1920:8 | purpose 1893:6 1925:19 1933:2 1950:7 1960:17 2010:2 2025:20 2030:23 2033:24 2035:8 2039:15 |
quantum 2060:25 2062:10 2066:10 |
||
| proprietary 1972:24 1973:2 |
quarries 1845:4,10 1848:16 1849:2 1849:14,24 1850:7 1851:16 1851:17 1858:6 1858:13 1859:9 |
|||
| prospective 2054:2 2054:21 |
||||
| protect 2054:10 | ||||
| provide 1853:4 1857:24 1912:17 1933:20 1956:6 |
[Page 2091]
| 1860:19 1874:17 1875:16 1876:6,7 1883:1 1884:8 1888:8 1902:6,19 1907:16,25 1914:10 1916:6 1918:18,21 1919:9,10,12,13 1919:16 1921:8 1921:11,18,22 1923:4,11,14,20 1924:5 1925:3,11 1926:1,9,17,20,23 1926:25 1927:3,8 1927:17,20 1930:15 1937:11 1941:4 1942:7,9 1942:14,15 1945:6,10,13 1950:14,22 1951:1,13,14,21 1953:15,24 1954:6,11 1955:22 1958:4 1959:24,25 1961:7,16 1965:20 1965:13 1968:9 1970:16 1975:5 1986:16 1987:22,23 1988:9,18,20 1991:13 1992:7 1994:20 2011:12 2011:16 2012:2,8 2012:14 2013:16 2018:20 2032:19 2053:2,23 |
1858:10 1862:5,7 1863:16 1864:1 1868:1,1,25 1870:7 1872:1 1872:24 1874:22 1875:16 1876:10 1877:8 1878:21 1879:21 1881:13 1881:15 1882:2 1882:15,16 1883:12,14 1884:2,4 1885:11 1885:18,19 1898:17 1906:3,3 1906:4,11 1907:7 1907:18 1917:3,7 1920:21,22 1921:9,10,12 1924:14 1927:21 1927:22,24 1928:11 1929:6 1929:7,17,19,24 1930:1,1,7,8,11 1930:12,14,19 1931:9,21 1932:2 1932:3,8,20 1936:23 1941:19 1941:21 1942:2,5 1942:17,19 1945:14,20 1946:1,19 1951:18 1952:7 1953:14,16 1961:4 1963:19 1965:5,18,22 1966:1,7,11,12 1966:17,19 1968:20,22,23 1969:11,18 1970:2,4,6,9,21 1972:19 1974:25 1975:2,3,7,9,12 1976:23 1977:11 1977:15,21 1978:15 1978:15 1985:7,9 1988:15 |
1990:22,24 1991:10 1993:23 1994:7,11,12,21 2006:1,12 2007:14 2011:20 2018:18,20 2020:21,24 2021:7,14,20 2022:6 2023:14 2023:20 2026:14 2028:1,13 2055:9 2055:13 |
1976:16,17 1977:1,2 1979:20 1979:22,24 1987:15,18 1992:2,4,24 2011:24 2034:10 2049:20 2051:15 2052:21,25 2060:2 |
1920:4 1922:23 1936:1,2,2,5,6,7 1936:16,17 1951:12 1955:24 1991:12,13,14 1992:2,7 2023:13 1992:12 2032:19 |
| quarry 1843:4,13 1845:25 1846:3 1846:21 1847:5,5 1847:6,7,22,22 1848:3,10,12 1848:23 1849:1,7 1852:2,10 1854:14 1856:18 |
quayside 1906:9 | quicker 1991:6 | raised 2000:15 2001:4 2004:4,8 2005:3 2007:7 |
|
| quarrying 1929:7 | quickest 1889:6 | RALPH 1840:3 | ||
| Quebec 1856:15 | quickly 1896:12 1911:6 |
Raman 1840:21 | ||
| question 1841:23 1849:25 1851:21 1857:24,25 1879:25 1880:5 1882:6,11,11,12 1882:20 1893:1 1901:14 1903:6 1940:11 1950:17 1952:14 1953:10 1975:13,17 1976:14 1985:3 1989:18 1991:7 1995:4,6,7 1995:11 2000:19 2008:4,5 2018:5 2026:11 2028:15 2028:17 2030:8 2049:18 2050:3,5,8 2053:9 2060:7 2061:9 |
quite 1873:19,21 1916:10 1940:23 1956:17 1996:9 2008:17 2015:1 2026:23 |
ran 1907:20 2003:4 2022:24 |
||
| Randa 1840:15 | ||||
| quote 1889:13 1891:2 1893:20 1893:23,23,25 1894:4 1953:7,8 1982:17 |
range 1862:9 1866:1 1867:6 1874:4 1875:7,15 1875:17 1876:5 1895:7 1915:15 1944:12 1954:3 1967:11 1974:14 1972:15 1974:16 1975:6 1978:14 1999:11 2053:19 |
|||
| quoted 1953:5 | rarely 2035:2 | |||
| quotes 1891:11 | rate 1860:13 | |||
| quoting 1894:5,6 1921:16 1992:5,7 |
rateable 1966:13 | |||
R |
rated 1966:1 1862:14,22 1864:19 1868:19 1869:6 1876:18 1876:24 1877:2,3 1877:4,5 1891:23 1892:24 1903:7 1924:6 1926:7 1953:7 1959:10 1966:25 1989:14 2052:10 2062:17 2055:14 |
|||
| R 1992:5,7 | ||||
| R-0756 1849:21 1910:13 1912:13 2028:25 2029:14 |
||||
| R-0757 1897:17,19 | ||||
| R-0842 1909:24 | ||||
| radii 1927:10 | ||||
| radius 1921:1 1923:13 1925:1 1927:1,3 1951:5 1951:20 1989:16 |
||||
| radomes 1987:24 1987:25 1988:4 1988:11 |
||||
| Raia 1942:18 | rates 1849:18 1860:19 1890:16 1892:24 1903:7 1898:9 1903:21 1902:4 1903:1 1917:21 1924:25 1953:2,5 |
|||
| rail 1917:14 1920:3 |
[Page 2092]
| 1953:14 1954:10 1964:17 2015:6 |
Realtime 2068:7 | 2065:5 2066:13 | registered 1941:13 | remained 1892:10 |
| ratio 1970:24 1971:1 1972:16 |
reason 1991:20 2027:1 2053:13 2064:11 |
2066:18 | regulatory 2024:25 | 1987:18 |
| Rawson 1991:10 | reasonable 1853:6 1853:11,24 |
recovery 2047:18 2047:19 2048:13 2048:14 2051:16 |
rejoinder 2049:3 | remaining 1894:10 1894:13,18,21 2060:12 2062:12 2062:15 2064:8 2064:22 2066:6 |
| reasons 1995:15 | relate 1987:13 | |||
| re-direct 1896:9 1976:13 1993:4 2049:25 2050:9 2051:20,22 |
red 1845:17,24 1846:17,17 1847:2,7 1848:15 1855:14 1856:5 1859:12,13,15 1975:14 1937:11 1937:13 2046:25 |
related 1926:9 1942:20 1955:12 1982:13 1984:20 1994:20 |
||
| RE-EXAMINAT... 1841:6,9,14,21 1896:22 1903:13 1976:14 2051:8 |
reasonableness 1901:23,24 1902:7,8 1965:2 |
redactions 1936:15 | relating 1879:23 1880:12 relating 1984:18 |
remains 2064:9 |
| reach 1925:24 1964:8 1968:7 |
reasonably 1981:21 2042:11 |
reduce 2004:6 | relation 1963:25 2057:5 |
remember 1903:22 1917:22 1928:4 2008:2 2036:1 |
| reached 1882:13 | recall 1847:16 1858:10 1892:6 1896:14 1947:12 |
reduced 1969:21 1969:24 2020:7 |
relationship 1909:12 1974:17 1983:8 |
remind 1957:19 |
| reaction 1901:12 | reduction 1999:2 | repairs 1883:19 | ||
| reactions 2053:19 | refer 1922:12 | relative 1880:17 1933:5 1955:21 1958:20 1965:12 1967:21,25 1969:15 1970:19 1998:25 2032:16 |
repeatedly 1910:25 | |
| read 1842:12 1844:17 1882:12 1894:19 1890:20 1894:19 1897:12 1897:24 1899:7,8 1905:6 1930:15 1940:4 1943:8 1948:9,11 1956:10 1993:14 1996:20 2017:6 2017:16 2018:1 2027:6,11 2031:18 2032:23 2033:18 2033:1,4 2033:11 2049:11 |
receipt 1947:13 1953:7 2062:22 2050:14,17 |
reference 1931:25 1955:16 1955:4 1956:24 1956:1 1970:15 1982:6 1992:2 1993:8,9 |
repeating 1954:8 1960:2 1980:15 |
|
| receive 1871:4 | referenced 1968:14 1968:17 |
relatively 2066:7 | replace 1950:16 | |
| received 1881:24 | references 2027:14 | relax 2061:19 | replacement 2065:3,18 |
|
| recession 2003:18 2003:20 2047:25 2051:17 |
referred 1908:12 1958:12 1988:12 1944:21 1944:19 1953:25 1951:18 1968:12 |
relaxed 2062:10 | report 1844:25 1845:7,18 1881:19 1894:15 1896:5,11 1898:2 1898:6 1918:24 1933:3,6,11 1935:19 1936:3,6 1939:13,13,18 1943:8 1955:3 1959:11 1967:20 1977:12,15 1979:13 2011:12 2012:2 2015:2 2016:16 2016:19 2017:23 2018:1,7 2019:2 2025:7 2026:5 2030:24 2034:19 2037:17 2045:15 2049:4 2050:1,1 2051:12 2053:4,7 2054:25 2055:3 2057:3,6 2059:13 |
|
| releasing 2010:8 2024:25 2030:10 |
||||
| re-circulating 1973:9 |
relevant 2012:23 2034:3,17 2037:16 2058:18 |
|||
| reading 1955:18 1972:13 2032:14 2033:6 |
reclaimed 1973:24 | refill 1956:17 | reliable 2012:23 2058:21,22 |
|
| ready-mix 1907:2 1907:10 1942:21 |
recognize 1906:16 | refilling 1856:17 | relied 1922:2 1965:2 2014:15 2014:18 2015:18 2015:21 2016:11 2016:24 2015:4 2016:2,7 2057:9 |
|
| reality 2057:5 | recognized 1974:3 1974:3 |
refine 1972:14 | ||
| realize 2050:24 | recollection 1894:25,25 |
reflect 2036:10 1984:10 |
||
| really 1866:1 1885:9 1999:21 2000:1,2,14 2023:14 2045:6,7 2054:22 2064:10 |
record 1847:4,16 1897:15 1916:9 |
reflected 2006:24 1902:16 1990:20 2065:21 |
relieve 1930:7 | |
| records 1847:13 1897:14 2020:13 2024:11 2064:11 |
reflecting 1890:16 | relieved 1904:6,7 1995:23 |
||
| reflection 1894:14 | rely 2015:25 2038:6 2039:9,20 |
reporter 1899:6,8 2068:7 |
||
| reform 1924:6 | relying 1968:25 | Reporter's 2036:10 | ||
| regards 1950:14 1950:19 |
remain 1974:25 | Reporting 1840:23 | ||
| region 1855:4 |
[Page 2093]
| reports 1843:20 1844:9,21 1879:24 1909:10 1909:19 1976:16 1997:23 1998:1 1998:11 2017:5 2017:10,13,15 |
responses 1851:14 | 1845:9,14,16,23 1846:6,7,13 1848:17 1849:25 1850:7,11,23 1851:4 1853:12 1854:11,23 1855:3,5,12,23,25 1856:10,18 1858:7 1859:4 1862:3 1864:2,5 1864:13 1866:9 1867:11,19,20 1868:5,8,18 1869:9,14 1870:5 1870:11,22 1871:1,6,9 1873:6 1873:13,20,21,21 1873:22 1874:19 1875:20 1877:18 1880:13 1884:5 1885:20 1886:1 1886:24 1888:11 1891:9,19 1893:18,19 1894:22 1897:13 1897:16 1898:1 1900:20 1901:3,9 1901:10 1903:16 1903:17,20 1912:11 1914:8 1914:12,12 1917:3 1918:10 1922:21 1923:5 1925:3,14 1926:7 1927:3 1928:22 1934:4 1937:14 1940:15 1942:6 1962:13 1968:25 1971:19,22 1972:10 1980:8 1986:13 2004:23 2004:25 2005:17 2005:21 2006:2,5 2006:10 2008:16 2009:21 2011:10 2011:13 2012:16 |
2013:24 2019:17 2023:9 2025:23 2026:23 2027:8 2027:11 2029:17 2041:20,23 2042:23 2045:3 2047:10 2048:4 2048:18 2050:12 2054:19 2056:9 2056:18 2061:3 2062:22 2063:19 2065:19 2067:8 |
room 2013:12 2022:3 2063:19 2063:22 |
| represent 1855:15 1956:8 1987:10 2033:11 |
responsible 1930:11 |
Rosen 1978:25 1987:6 2062:16 |
||
| representation 1956:6,17 2033:9 |
rest 1891:11 1934:25 1935:12 2040:20 2065:24 |
Rosen's 1959:7,11 1969:3 |
||
| representations 1957:16 |
restriction 2040:25 | right-hand 1850:5 1858:12,14 1884:16,16 1889:23 1897:8 1937:10,12 |
rough 1885:3 1899:21 1956:7 1956:17,20,22,24 1956:25 1957:1,8 1957:11,16,19 1980:4 2031:8 2033:10,15,15 2034:12 |
|
| represented 1934:11 1959:24 |
result 1860:20 1895:2 1918:6,6 1933:13 1936:19 1936:20 1959:14 1959:19 1999:25 2020:7 |
|||
| represents 1977:20 | rights 1896:12 | roughly 1862:20 1874:4 1879:6 1900:6,9 1974:9 1980:24 2022:16 2022:17 |
||
| request 1896:10 1926:24 1945:21 1970:19 2049:23 2064:18 |
resultant 1945:13 | river 1859:3 1872:21,23,25 1873:2 |
||
| resulting 1935:13 | ||||
| required 1950:7 1972:7 1987:4 |
results 1950:6 1978:9 |
road 1907:5,9 1928:7 1952:22 1952:22,23 |
roughness 1957:6 1957:24 1976:20 |
|
| requirements 1889:14 2024:25 |
resumé 2008:20,24 2009:25 2010:6 2016:12 2029:19 |
route 1952:16,21 1952:25 1953:13 1988:19 1989:5,7 1989:7,9 |
||
| requires 1962:18 | Roadstone 1907:14 1931:22 |
|||
| reserve 1900:25 | resumed 2067:15 | routes 1989:1,3,4 | ||
| reserves 1894:10 1894:13,22 1898:17,18 |
resumés 2009:5 | rock 1845:23 1846:11 1850:10 1850:10,12,12,13 1850:22,24 1879:21 1895:15 1895:21 1907:8 1946:8 1960:23 1962:10 1963:9 1963:16 1983:13 1983:14 |
row 1992:7 | |
| resuming 1842:2 1904:25 1996:12 |
RPR 2068:6 | |||
| residential 2052:1 | retained 1908:23 | rule 1881:6 | ||
| resistance 1963:7 | return 2055:14 | rules 1840:2 1881:5 | ||
| resistant 1962:8 | Rev 1944:19,22,24 1944:25 1945:3 |
run 1907:15 1908:20 1947:15 1949:19 2022:25 |
||
| resolved 1932:7 2036:10 |
revenue 2019:16 | Rock's 1900:19 | ||
| reverse 2000:8 | rocketed 2048:3 | Running 1891:8 | ||
| resource 1843:23 | review 1866:1 1871:25 1934:8 1936:10,17 1939:2,14 1956:11 1970:19 |
rocketing 2047:13 | S |
|
| respect 1945:5 1978:23 2009:1 2014:16 2017:13 |
reviewed 1931:24 1936:13 |
Rodney 1840:18 | safe 1996:2 | |
| REVISED 1840:10 | role 1843:19 1909:9 1910:17 2029:16 |
sailing 1902:22 | ||
| respondent 1840:6 2060:18 |
revision 1911:9,12 | sale 1979:1 1987:5 2008:13 |
||
| revisions 1951:25 | roles 1907:4 2018:10 |
sales 1896:4 1912:22 1913:2 1970:23 2045:22 |
||
| respondent's 2061:13 |
RICHARD 1840:3 | |||
| Ridgeview 1932:3,9 1932:11 |
Ronen 1840:21 | sand 1852:18 1854:24 1855:2 1878:16 1881:25 |
||
| Respondents 1840:17 |
ridiculous 1880:25 1881:5,10 |
roof 1892:13 | ||
| response 1884:21 | right 1842:6 1845:4 |
[Page 2094]
| 1886:21 1887:12 1895:3,7,10,11,16 1901:4,8 1973:15 1990:9,14 2003:15 2020:1,9 2020:15 2035:9 2035:21,25 2042:2,7,18 2043:15,21,23 2045:21 2046:10 2051:1 |
1979:21,23 1980:3,9,19,21 1981:2,16,19 1982:1,5,10 1984:2,25 1985:22 2052:22 2053:6 2054:14 2054:24 2055:24 2057:2,14 2058:4 2058:14 2059:2 2059:16,24 |
1897:13 1968:7 1986:24 1987:1 2010:9,14 |
1897:9 1901:22 1902:4 1909:24 1910:13,24 1911:15,16 1912:4,5,24 1913:19 1914:17 1918:20,24 1919:16,17,22,24 1919:25 1920:1 1921:18 1922:1 1922:16,18,25 1928:4 1931:20 1937:2,20 1938:10,12,20 1939:17,24 1959:14 1960:8 1960:13 1961:20 1968:2,6 1974:9 1982:22 1984:6 1990:3 1992:2,5,6 2000:18 2009:8 2009:3,6,9,21,22 2012:4,8 2016:11 2018:8 2019:11 2027:5,14 2028:7 2028:22 2030:5 2031:3 2032:10 2039:6 2040:16 2043:1,21 2046:8 2047:8,11 2048:9 2049:12,24 2051:20 2060:7 2061:4 2063:18 2064:2,10 2067:24 |
selling 2004:1 2008:2,9 |
| satisfied 1930:6 | seconhly 2066:1 | send 1895:9 2000:21 2005:11 2019:13 2020:14 2027:4 2058:12 2055:11 2059:19 |
||
| save 1868:21 | section 1850:6 1856:16 1862:4 1863:8 1871:15 1916:8 1917:12 1972:16 |
|||
| says 1852:6 1881:6 1937:23 1957:13 1977:5 1980:10 1980:13 1981:6 1981:13 1985:8 1992:1,7 2018:7 2019:7 2031:12 2037:15,18 |
SC 1993:14 | sending 1895:6 2007:13 2021:11 |
||
| scale 1941:5,7,9 1957:5 |
SCMA 1843:16,20 1844:9,21 |
sections 1863:16 1864:8 1878:13 1883:2,4,7,13 1845:17,20 1846:16,17 1847:2,10,22 1848:1,12 1849:3 1850:2,6,9 1850:16,18,21,22 1850:25 1851:2 1851:4,7,25 1852:2,7,23 1853:3,11,16,20 1853:21 1855:6,7 1856:18 1858:2 1851:13 1858:15 1859:10 1860:2 1862:11,15 1863:7,8,9 1864:4 1867:2,12 1868:16 1870:18 1870:19 1871:12 1871:15,18,22 1875:8,11,21 1876:10 1878:1 1879:25 1880:22 1883:11 1885:25 1887:17,19,23 1888:7,19 1888:23 1889:7 1889:8,25 1890:19 1891:21 1892:12 1892:17 1892:19 1893:2 1894:9 |
senior 1902:3 | |
| scope 1851:13,13 1851:18 1858:2 1879:24 1880:23 1881:6,19 1882:8 1896:3,5,11 1899:19 |
sector 2027:3 | |||
| schedule 2060:13 2065:16 2065:23 |
secure 1845:16 | sense 1904:6 1959:18 1981:8 1984:11 1985:2 2057:1,16 2058:23 2066:23 |
||
| scheduled 2063:11 | secured 1845:19 | |||
| Schwartz 1840:8 | securities 2027:13 | sent 1849:17 1908:1 1933:7 1939:14 1940:2 |
||
| security 2027:15 | sentence 2033:4 | |||
| see 1865:6 | separate 1898:15 1935:20 |
|||
| seek 1865:6 | September 1898:7 1910:22 |
|||
| seen 1924:2 1942:15 1975:2,7 1975:11,12,17,21 1976:2 1983:17 2009:5 2024:10 2039:25 2041:12 |
series 2010:5 | |||
| segment 1958:19 | serious 2010:5 2023:14,16,17,20 |
|||
| select 1956:3 | service 1840:23 | |||
| selected 1956:16 | services 1980:23 | |||
| selection 1956:21 | servicing 1924:5 | |||
| self 2005:16 | session 1980:8 | |||
| sell 2007:21 1956:3 1977:11 2005:16 2019:20 2032:25 |
set 1981:1 1987:7 | |||
| seller 2046:11 | sets 1968:15 | |||
| setting 1985:19 | ||||
| seven 1895:20 | ||||
| seventh 1853:6 | ||||
| Shane 1840:17 | ||||
| shape 1962:19 | ||||
| share 1933:5,8 2019:14 2021:1 2046:12,12 2054:1,10,12 2056:11 |
||||
| sharp 1996:10 | ||||
| sharper 1983:14 |
[Page 2095]
| sharpness 1983:14 | 2014:17 2015:6 2015:11 2016:3,8 2016:12,14 2018:3 2019:1 |
1889:23 1897:9 1897:13,13,24 1919:21 1937:10 1937:12,14 1938:6 1965:14 1998:3,9 2011:25 2015:15,16 2016:14 2028:24 2034:5 2036:9 2059:7 2060:16 2061:12,13 |
1979:24 1982:9 1984:24 1990:12 1992:18 1993:20 2052:23 |
1925:21 1936:3 1938:22 1985:8 2004:21 2007:5 2012:11 2034:20 |
| sheer 1954:22 | sit 1931:11 2056:20 | somewhat 1952:10 | ||
| sheet 1853:9 1883:9 1897:6 1910:23 1934:5 1935:13 1936:19,25 1939:11 1940:18 1944:19 1974:4 1985:24 1988:14 1989:19 |
Shiraz 2063:21 2067:13 |
site 1969:19 | soon 1890:18 | |
| short 1852:15 1854:2,4,5 1860:11 1869:3 1881:22 1887:16 1887:19,20,21 1889:20 1894:21 1966:22,24 |
sidewalk 1961:4 | sites 1885:11 | sorry 1851:9 1863:13 1866:20 1866:20 1868:24 1879:22 1882:5 1885:21,23 1896:19 1898:23 1901:7 1903:9 1918:24 1919:1,1 1937:12 1958:16 1976:24 1980:15 1983:22,23 1995:9 2016:20 2026:7 2036:16 2038:6,9 2042:10 2049:4 2062:18 |
|
| shifting 1887:22 1888:24 |
sieve 1943:25 1944:2 |
sitting 1979:15 | ||
| ship 1855:25 1861:3 1868:9,16 1868:16 1872:12 1873:8 1878:1,6 1936:17 1969:24 1973:25 2000:16 2002:22 2006:13 2006:14 2021:15 2028:1 2057:1 |
short-circuit 1896:16 |
situation 1945:13 1946:10 2058:17 2066:2 |
||
| short-term 2057:11 2058:20 |
sign 1939:22 1941:13 1946:7 2037:21 |
six 1949:12 | ||
| shorter 1868:20 | sixth 1852:6 | |||
| shortest 1989:7 2009:5 |
signed 1939:12 1945:15,16,18 2037:19,20,22,25 |
size 1944:12 1979:9 1979:10 |
||
| shoulder 2004:17 2019:21 2020:5 |
significant 1935:17 2054:20 |
sizes 1891:23 1892:20 1893:1,2 1893:9 1944:2 |
sort 1843:23 1856:16 1866:6 1885:3 2000:8 2005:5 2043:3 2053:12 2056:10 |
|
| shipment 1895:10 1971:4 2022:14 |
show 1848:1,16 1889:22 1973:8 2041:10 |
significantly 1941:4 | sizing 1979:11 | |
| shipments 1895:3 | signifies 1992:15 | skeleton 1974:7 | sound 2020:6 2022:21 |
|
| shipped 1898:20 1966:9 1971:17 2007:17 |
showed 2001:2 2025:18 |
signing 2016:15 2030:23 |
skid 1962:7 1963:6 | |
| skill 2068:2 | sounds 2061:18 | |||
| shipping 1851:11 1854:8 1859:17 1859:19 1860:10 1860:19 1861:20 1862:13 1864:3 1864:18 1865:19 1866:5 1868:21 1869:3 1870:13 1870:24 1871:22 1876:15 1877:21 1878:13 1882:2 1883:18 1890:15 1914:23 1915:3 1916:25 1917:1 1918:19 1954:10 1964:5,10,25 1965:3,8,10,13 2013:13,16,20 2014:2,5,11,13,14 |
showing 1860:25 1883:12 1938:13 1958:8 1974:8 |
similar 1872:4 1874:1 2046:4,19 2053:6 |
slight 2047:11 | source 1844:9,11 1851:15 1894:4 1907:6 2040:7 |
| shown 1859:16,18 1862:14 1864:4 1884:9,17 1891:23 1933:12 1934:9,11 1937:11,12 1949:7,12 |
similarity 1974:11 | slightly 1875:11 1983:6 |
||
| similarly 1966:3 1968:20 |
slotted 1866:10,12 | sources 1880:18 1960:7 2042:3 |
||
| Simma 1840:7 2064:4 |
slower 1872:8 | south 1880:12 1906:8,11,15,20 1906:21,23 1931:2,22 |
||
| shows 1845:3,18 1848:25 1849:23 1886:22 1977:22 2038:2 2046:5,20 2047:6 2048:4 |
simple 1935:1 1948:6 1976:1 |
smaller 1938:3 | ||
| simply 1940:19 | Society 1906:15,22 | |||
| simulate 1948:3 | software 1947:19 1947:25 1948:5 1972:24 1974:3 |
southeast 1855:21 | ||
| simulation 1947:16 1947:20 |
space 1997:20 2002:18,19,20 |
|||
| side 1849:4 1850:5 1850:20 1858:13 1858:14 1869:20 1884:16,16 |
Simultaneous 1953:17 2044:4 |
sold 1895:15,19 1900:5 1901:1 1908:21 1913:1 1970:22 1972:17 1972:20 1974:18 1974:24 1975:4 1978:18 2008:12 2023:2 2024:2 2035:2,8,25 |
speak 1842:14 1905:10 1913:11 1916:15,17 1925:25 1996:24 2016:19 2017:25 |
|
| sincere 1842:17 1905:12 |
||||
| single 1924:2 | sole 2026:4 | |||
| sir 1925:20 1949:6 | solemnly 1842:13 1905:8 1996:23 |
|||
| solid 1846:17 | ||||
| somebody 1864:23 |
[Page 2096]
| 2018:3,6 | spending 1982:8 | 1899:17 1908:10 2003:14,15,25 2039:19 2057:6 |
stay 2055:8,19 | strategy 2055:18 | |
| speakers 1953:17 2044:4 |
spent 1945:9,11 2004:21 2051:14 2054:11 |
Steamship 1854:16 1854:23 |
stream 1877:18 | ||
| speaking 1942:24 2065:3,5 |
2063:10 | step 2014:10 | street 1840:9,23,23 1876:24 1878:14 1887:23 1888:2,3 1888:25 1889:3 |
||
| speaks 2008:4 | spoke 2029:21 | start 1938:9 1940:25 1941:1,2 1983:12 |
steps 1916:18 | ||
| special 2008:4 | spoken 2029:21 | stick 2000:18 | |||
| specialized 2010:15 | 2030:16 | started 1885:2 2029:20,24 2030:1,24,20 |
state 1850:12 1890:12 1891:17 1991:14 1992:3 1994:3 1996:18 2040:21,22,23 2041:3 2042:10 2042:11 2043:12 2056:1 2057:19 |
stockpiled 1973:16 | strength 1983:6 |
| specific 1871:11 1921:14,15 1944:25 1972:16 1973:11 1975:6 1977:11 2061:11 |
spokesperson 1863:23 |
stockpiles 1943:14 | stretch 1962:8 | ||
| spread 2065:23 | stone 1850:18 1852:18,24 1854:24 1859:10 1878:16 1881:25 1886:21 1887:12 1891:21 1891:23 1892:20,21,23 1893:2,9 1895:3,7 1895:8,9,10,11,16 1907:6 1944:4 1960:20 1999:1 1999:22,24 2000:3,6,9,21,22 2000:25 2001:13 2003:5,11,15 2004:12 2005:16 2008:2,13,16 2016:3 2020:2,10 2020:12 2022:6 2022:14,24,25 2031:24,25 2032:6 2035:9,22 2037:25 2042:3,7 2042:18,22 2043:2,18,23 2045:21 2046:10 2051:2 |
strict 1914:17 | |||
| specifically 1943:20 1944:2,7 1944:15 |
spreadsheet 1844:8 | striking 1931:7 2054:1,20 |
|||
| specification 1846:13 1943:5 1943:18 1962:18 |
spreadsheets 1917:20 1969:3 1989:13 2003:5 2058:9 |
strong 1906:19 | |||
| specifications 1962:18 |
stated 1869:3 1872:23,24,25 1873:1 |
struck 1976:24 | |||
| specified 2034:11 | spring 1916:6 | stuck 1906:19 1926:6,7,9 1964:25 |
|||
| speculate 2007:9 | springs 2005:9,13 | statement 2027:23 2036:15 |
|||
| speculating 2007:9 2055:2,14 |
squeeze 2005:9,13 | stuff 1990:22 | |||
| speculation 1954:22,23 2006:25 2007:1 2007:14,19,21 2059:4,9,17,20 2061:3,5 |
stable 1861:1,5 | statements 1842:12 1848:16 1887:22 1905:6,11 1930:15 1931:8 1948:24 1956:12 1956:18 1957:22 |
subject 1940:13 | ||
| stack 1969:8 | submissions 1881:21 2064:23 2064:25 2065:1,3 |
||||
| speech 1940:17 | stage 1943:8 1973:8 1983:17 2025:12 2065:10 |
submit 1851:22 | |||
| speed 1989:10 | submitted 1951:22 | ||||
| Spelliscy 1840:17 1851:9 1857:14 1857:18,20 1879:22 1880:15 1880:19 1881:1 1881:18 1882:5 1882:12,17,19 1892:17,19 1893:4 1903:5 1992:23,24 1995:9,11 2016:20 2018:4 2026:7 2036:8 2049:23 2061:6 2062:5,20 2063:16 2067:23 |
stages 1915:15 1980:19,11,13 1996:16 |
states 1850:1,4 1850:12 1859:13 1907:12 1913:18 1914:6 1928:22 1947:24 1955:3,4 1962:13 2017:18 2039:24 |
Stone's 1901:5,8 | subsequent 1908:25 |
|
| standard 1846:12 1891:1 1962:18 1992:21,21 |
stop 2002:7 | substance 2015:3 |
|||
| standpoint 2027:15 | stopped 1878:20 1951:9 1999:14 1999:19 1968:24 |
substantial 2000:10,22 |
|||
| start 1842:6 1873:9 1873:10 1938:23 1988:23 1993:13 2063:2,5,7,19 |
station 1873:4 1875:2 1896:25 1898:18 |
substitution 2000:10,22 |
|||
| stopping 1856:11 1861:2 |
succeed 1991:19 | ||||
| Spelliscy's 1881:23 | started 1875:2 1898:20 1899:16 |
status 1896:25 | storage 1896:8 | successful 2056:25 |
|
| spend 2061:23 | Strait 1856:2 | successive 2044:20 | |||
| sufficient 1926:11 | |||||
| suggest 1893:5 1954:1 2008:20 2020:12 2041:3 2042:17 2043:13 2055:1 2066:23 |
|||||
| suggestion 1970:22 | |||||
| suggests 1981:4 2027:3 |
|||||
| Suite 1840:9 | |||||
| summer 1894:16 |
[Page 2097]
Superpave 1846:8
1846:12 1863:19
1900:25 1962:12
1962:17
supervise 2028:18
supplement 2065:2
2065:17
supplied 1963:16
supplier 1988:25
2005:8,14 2020:3
2036:20 2050:15
suppliers 1880:19
2037:14 2055:22
supplies 1883:20
supply 1880:5
1893:24 1946:8
1963:10 1998:3
1999:15 2015:15
2015:16 2016:14
2022:5,18,19
2023:8 2027:3
2028:23 2053:14
2053:23
supplying 1942:20
1960:18
support 2018:13,17
2020:13 2021:5
suppose 2063:1
surcharge 1892:10
sure 1852:11
1867:7 1868:14
1885:17 1916:10
1939:7 1960:4
1999:18 2010:4
2019:6 2036:25
2044:9 2054:9
2063:9
surveying 1906:6
Susanna 1840:19
sustained 2019:11
Sutherland
1843:22 1859:22
1860:24 1862:17
1898:6 1909:11
1909:22 1911:6
1912:2 1916:12
1920:25 1925:23
1926:15 1933:7
1933:16 1934:6,9
1934:10 1939:8
1939:20 1950:11
1950:20,24
1954:13 1958:24
1977:7 1989:22
1989:24 2014:16
2015:18 2016:9
2016:22,25
2017:2,22
2018:24 2019:1
2029:10 2030:25
2033:23 2049:15
Sutherland's
1851:14 2012:12
2014:18 2016:24
2050:19,20
Sutton 1840:15
switched 2028:16
Sydenham 1932:8
1932:9
symposium 2009:8
system 1974:3
systems 2011:22
T
T 1992:5
tab 1844:24
1885:21,22
1886:5,8,14
1888:14 1889:6
1898:8 1900:1
1918:25 1919:2
1931:14,14,16
1933:11 1947:1
1960:8 1977:16
1977:17 1980:10
1993:5 2008:21
2017:19 2029:1,2
2036:14 2049:2
table 1904:15
1938:6 1977:20
Tait 1840:22
take 1842:9
1852:22 1853:1
1857:11 1868:9
1879:15 1881:9
1886:25 1897:5
1906:5 1916:14
1917:6 1920:11
1921:19 1926:3
1936:22 1938:9
1939:23 1952:3,6
1952:17,17,22
1953:12 1960:4
1961:16 1972:6
1973:22,23
1976:8 1989:5,6
1995:5 1998:4
2006:22 2014:10
2019:14 2026:18
2026:23 2066:7
taken 1898:2
1904:24 1990:4
1996:11
takeover 2021:17
takes 1983:20,24
talked 1851:11
2024:8
talking 1863:11
1896:4 1946:17
1972:15 1978:21
1981:13 1982:18
2024:5 2035:5
2051:14
Tarmac 1906:9
1907:14,18
1931:21
team 2012:1,7
2015:16
tear 1983:15
technical 1906:12
1906:24,25
1907:13 2036:10
technology 1969:20
teething 1985:19
tell 1861:6,8
1862:17 1928:1
2010:1 2030:13
2052:9
telling 1917:3
1923:2 2018:2
tells 1973:13
ten 1882:1 1983:23
tendency 1982:19
tensile 1983:6
term 1971:12,12
1974:23 1981:13
1983:23
terminal 1966:12
2002:16
terms 1860:7
1881:13 1882:14
1926:18 1964:10
1972:20 1973:20
1975:15 2043:1
2063:4
test 2064:2
testimony 1844:1
1920:9 1951:23
2027:7,18
Texas 1907:16,17
text 1897:23
thank 1842:19
1844:3,13,20
1847:1 1896:18
1899:9,12
1901:11 1902:24
1903:3,25 1904:1
1904:3,8,11,23
1905:13 1910:6,7
1922:16 1935:11
1937:7 1976:6,11
1979:16,17
1980:20 1985:22
1987:11 1992:17
1992:19 1993:1
1995:19,20,23,24
1996:6,7 1997:1,6
1998:13,14
2036:13 2049:19
2049:21 2051:5
2059:24 2060:2,3
2060:5 2066:15
2067:9
thanks 1979:23
1996:1 2052:17
2067:11
theoretical 1920:16
1920:17
theory 1998:21,25
2000:20,25
2005:7 2007:20
2020:13 2025:15
2034:22 2035:13
2036:4
thicker 1983:15
thickness 1983:11
thin 1962:5
thing 1907:10
1924:11 1932:7
1951:15 1970:13
1974:6 2026:25
2028:12 2039:18
2046:9
things 1896:10
1913:13,14
1965:8 1967:4
1969:15,16
1972:22 1982:21
1983:2,16,21
1985:20 1989:11
2010:8 2011:23
2041:1,18
2056:24 2064:7
think 1842:4,5,6
1857:14 1865:19
1869:19 1888:13
1889:19 1892:16
1901:19 1903:4
1904:5,18
1909:25 1910:3
1910:22 1928:3,3
1928:4 1929:3
1931:7 1933:23
1936:5,12
1941:21 1949:8
1951:19,22
1953:10 1961:1
1964:3 1967:4
1968:14 1969:1,4
1970:11 1972:12
1978:18 1979:19
[Page 2098]
1980:22 1981:1
1981:10,13,17
1982:24 1986:3
1995:14,22
1996:8,9 2003:5
2003:17 2005:5
2005:16 2012:6
2013:22 2018:2
2027:2 2030:10
2031:21 2035:1
2041:9 2052:6,23
2053:15 2054:25
2056:24 2059:3,8
2061:9 2062:24
2065:9,11 2066:5
2066:17,21
2067:2,5,6
third 1931:20
thought 1862:18,22
1864:10,11,25
1866:5 1867:5
1868:2,3,4 1869:8
1869:11,13
1870:8 1883:14
1883:24 1884:9
1884:18,22
1982:25 2021:14
2023:13,19
2026:19,19,25
2028:11
thoughts 1872:4
2049:24
thousand 2004:1
threat 2019:11,12
2021:16 2023:17
2023:21
threatening 2005:8
2005:14 2050:14
three 1845:7
1889:21 1893:1,8
1893:10 1908:8
1943:5,11
2006:19 2052:5
2062:16,19,20
2063:11 2066:9
three-year 1893:18
1893:23,23
2020:3
thrusting 2020:16
tidal 1874:3
tide 1873:9,10,11
1873:19,20
tides 1873:8,24
Tilcon 1845:10
1847:5,22
1848:10 1913:11
1913:12 1941:4
1941:19,22,25
1949:4 2000:15
2004:3,15 2005:7
2005:16 2006:21
2007:5,11,22
2019:5 2034:24
2036:5 2053:18
2053:25 2056:11
2056:14
Tilcon's 1913:12
till 1906:24
time 1851:23
1864:20 1865:16
1868:15,16
1872:12 1873:2
1875:3 1877:7
1878:5 1881:21
1881:22 1882:24
1887:2 1890:2
1893:24 1901:20
1902:15,16,23
1906:4,21 1907:3
1907:17,25
1909:11,11
1930:10,13,20
1940:3 1942:2,23
1952:7,24
1953:13,13
1958:17 1967:19
1983:3,20
1988:25 1989:8,9
1994:2,16,21
2021:23 2025:25
2028:23 2043:17
2044:16 2045:21
2051:14 2055:22
2058:19 2060:9
2060:12,21,22
2061:20,23
2062:12 2063:4,6
2063:11,16
2064:2,8,8,20,24
2066:7,16,24
timeframe 1877:19
1900:10
times 1902:13
2035:4
title 1960:10
today 1898:18
1979:24 1980:5
2028:8 2064:8,12
2066:18
today's 2058:9
told 1864:18,23
1872:16,18
1893:21 1898:19
1898:21 1899:19
1899:23 1900:3,7
1935:24 1954:17
1955:11 2014:16
2016:18 2030:10
toll 1991:1
tolls 1917:16,19
1920:16,18
1924:4 2040:25
Tom 1886:21
1893:20 2004:7
2015:8
ton 1849:3 1853:2
1853:21 1854:2,4
1854:5,22
1859:10,19
1860:11,12,16
1865:1 1869:2,3
1869:16 1875:22
1875:23 1876:1
1883:24 1886:23
1887:2,8,18,19,20
1887:21 1888:7
1888:22 1889:4
1889:25 1890:6,9
1892:15 1898:20
1921:13,20
1937:2,15 1938:1
1955:7 1958:9
1964:11 1966:14
1970:2 2013:17
2013:21 2015:8
2021:19 2024:5
2026:14 2028:19
2031:15 2032:6
2049:10
tonnage 1889:18,19
tonnages 1893:1
tonne 1854:3
1877:4
tonnes 1877:5
1879:10,11
1887:14,15
1894:18 1900:15
2023:7
tons 1852:7,15
1876:20 1878:13
1879:2,5,8
1886:22 1887:8
1887:17 1888:21
1889:20 1894:21
1895:20 1899:20
1900:22,25
1921:20 1970:23
1971:4,15,16
1972:6,7 1979:3,4
1979:6 1999:11
2002:6,8 2004:1
2021:12 2022:10
2023:2,2,3,5
2024:12 2034:23
2035:10,21
2036:4
tools 2012:12
top 1845:20
1849:24 1851:8
1855:22 1858:23
1862:1 1863:7,10
1922:10,15
1948:14 1949:2
1960:6 1962:6
1993:8,9 2000:4
2045:12
topped 2005:6
Toronto 1840:9,24
1842:1
total 1853:15
1883:23 1884:17
1889:2 1915:25
1968:1 1970:20
1984:14 1986:17
2052:2 2063:11
totally 1946:21,24
track 2062:22
TRADE 1840:1
traditional 1979:5
traffic 1928:25
1988:22 1989:1,3
train 1930:9
1991:24
trainee 1930:7
transcribed 2068:2
transcript 1840:7
1840:10 1899:7
transcripts 2065:14
transferred 1906:8
1907:11 2022:5
translate 1993:25
transport 1902:13
1917:9 1921:16
transportation
1916:12 1924:16
1955:23 2032:18
transported
1969:24
transposed 1934:2
trap 1850:12,12,13
travel 1902:15,16
1989:10
tremendous
1913:17
trend 2046:4,19
tribunal 1841:8,15
1841:22 1843:1
1843:19 1844:1
1881:23 1901:16
1901:17 1905:22
[Page 2099]
1909:9 1915:16
1922:5 1979:20
1979:22 1997:10
1997:25 2017:18
2052:21 2063:21
2065:22 2066:13
tribunal's 1995:11
tried 1913:2 1988:9
trip 1929:5 1996:2
trips 1878:23
1879:13,16,17
troubles 1985:19
truck 1917:15,21
1919:25,25
1920:3,4,7
1922:10,23
1936:16,16
1952:17 1953:3
1955:24 1987:16
1989:2,5,6,14
1990:4,25
1991:16,16
1992:5,12 1996:5
2031:24,25
2032:6,18
trucking 1907:16
1907:20 1917:15
1920:16,17,21,25
1921:1,7,7,19
1923:4 1924:4,6
1924:16,24
1925:11,18
1926:3 1950:12
1950:21 1951:20
1952:2,15 1953:1
1953:5,15,16
1955:6,12
1990:14 2018:13
2031:14
trucks 1929:5
1992:9,11
2040:25
true 1873:18
1995:19 2056:16
trust 2006:23
2034:4,5,7,20
truth 1842:15,15,15
1905:10,10,11
1996:24,25,25
try 1912:20
1918:16 1989:13
1989:15 2005:9
2021:1 2054:5
2059:13
trying 1941:21
1970:15 1981:8
1985:2 1990:13
1994:8 2001:23
2002:3 2043:22
2056:10
tunnel 1969:22
turn 1844:24
1845:1 1855:3
1858:19 1864:19
1885:20 1977:14
2008:21 2017:19
2036:14 2049:2
2051:12
twice 1861:7
1877:6 2048:14
two 1843:14 1859:1
1859:4,9 1860:2
1873:4,16 1893:2
1893:9 1896:10
1897:9,23 1898:5
1903:15 1908:8
1908:23 1909:3
1927:10 1968:9
1968:11 1970:10
1972:21 1985:24
1986:2,11 1991:8
1991:9 1992:7
2002:9 2013:22
2017:5,12
2025:24 2026:1,4
2059:10 2062:3
2062:15,15
2063:22
Tyler 1840:21
type 1850:10,11,22
1850:24
typical 2057:21
typically 2058:12
U
Uh-hmm 1847:11
1864:24 1865:17
1871:13 1876:2
1893:4 1898:11
1950:2
ultimately 1890:23
2037:2
Umm 1850:19
1897:15 1913:9
UNCITRAL
1840:2
unclear 1953:17
2044:4
uncommon 2058:8
underground
1969:22
underneath
1897:16
understand
1847:17 1852:18
1855:17 1863:15
1865:25 1869:6
1872:21 1878:12
1884:3 1891:16
1900:10 1910:16
1911:21 1923:2
1933:19 1943:3,6
1943:14 1945:23
1951:13 1960:15
1966:16,17
1967:6 1972:11
1972:12 1984:25
1985:5,6 2000:20
2011:20,21,21,22
2025:15,19,22
2029:17 2031:23
2034:14,16
2040:13 2041:7
2067:4
understanding
1847:20 1848:5
1849:8,9 1857:11
1862:8 1863:20
1864:16,17
1870:1,23 1879:1
1890:3 1896:25
1909:18 1930:23
1939:24 1950:11
1958:7 1963:22
2000:23 2011:12
2011:14 2025:25
2026:3 2028:8
2059:17
understate 1982:20
understatement
1980:13 1981:7
1985:16
understood 1900:2
1950:1,5 1951:4
1978:8 2009:25
undertaken 1961:7
United 1907:11,13
1908:14 1913:18
1914:6 1928:22
1962:13
University 1906:18
unload 1878:4
1879:2,4
unnumbered
1931:16 2008:22
unpack 1918:2
USA 1907:14
use 1892:21 1919:3
1939:8 1948:14
1948:23 1949:2
1950:6,12,20
1953:3 1955:22
1960:23 1961:3
1961:10,23
1962:22 1980:23
1981:2 1983:15
1986:17,20
1989:15 1998:4
2027:1,3 2032:17
2062:14,22
users 1948:5
uses 1974:9 1983:9
usually 1987:14
utilization 1912:22
V
vacation 1932:5
valves 1983:7
variable 1852:22
1852:24 1853:15
1883:23 1884:8
1884:17 1885:8
1914:16 1915:19
1915:25 1917:7
1965:20 1968:1,9
1970:11 1986:15
1993:22
variation 1896:21
1926:16 2058:3
varied 2046:15
various 1858:6
1860:19 1883:1
1883:17 1889:21
1892:20 1921:8
1921:15 1922:25
1923:14 1926:1
1928:24 1935:14
1953:15 1954:10
1958:8 2018:20
2053:1
vast 1915:8,11
1945:5
verifiable 2012:23
verification 2034:8
verified 1900:21
2013:7
verify 1865:4
1913:7 1934:10
1934:13 1965:12
2014:11 2026:18
2029:7
version 1938:4,4
1940:10
versus 1980:4
1984:12 1985:8
vessel 1877:21
1879:14
vessels 1878:19
vice-president
1997:11
vice-president/ge...
1843:5
[Page 2100]
vicinity 1892:15
view 1881:24
2012:13,15
2066:16
viewpoint 2023:18
views 1978:10
2051:18
visit 2011:15
visiting 2011:11
volume 1840:10
1912:22 1994:3
2040:5 2043:21
2043:24,25
volumes 1912:22
1969:13
Vulcan 1900:18
1949:2 2002:2
2005:24
Vulcan's 1894:14
1900:17 2055:9
W
W 1992:6
wages 1852:24
1883:13 1913:13
1914:17 1915:20
wait 1873:11,20
waiting 1868:17
1890:14
Wall 1931:5
Wall's 1930:15
want 1857:12
1878:1 1880:3
1881:20,21
1882:24 1904:13
1907:23 1931:11
1935:4 1957:5
1980:3 1983:14
1998:20 2001:3
2024:21 2032:25
2036:8 2046:9
2054:9 2056:17
2056:18 2064:9
2064:23 2065:4
2065:15
wanted 1881:8,15
1882:17 1893:22
1896:14 1909:15
1912:20 1977:12
2004:15 2007:6
2021:2 2053:15
2059:2 2064:6,15
wanting 2054:3
wants 1857:24,25
1992:21 2000:16
2005:16 2019:16
2019:21
Ward 1841:11
1866:17,20,21,22
1905:3,14,15,19
1911:15,17
1976:15 1979:16
1985:23 1987:13
1995:23 2012:11
2018:25 2030:25
2031:20 2032:12
2033:23
washed 1973:23
washing 1948:8
wasn't 1938:25
1939:7 1970:5
2001:19 2002:24
2002:25 2023:14
2029:22 2045:7
2051:4 2064:17
waste 1851:23
1881:21 1882:24
1974:13,14,20
1975:3,9,18,23
1976:3
water 1868:7
1872:5 1880:18
1901:23,23
1916:12 1922:11
1922:24 1951:12
1955:24 1992:6
2032:18 2037:14
water-based
1851:16,17
wavelength
1951:17
way 1844:19
1860:2 1861:4
1873:17,20
1885:14 1892:12
1913:10 1924:21
1927:11 1935:3
1969:20 2015:10
2045:10,11
Wayne 1865:9,10
1865:18,19
ways 1921:16
we'll 1855:6,6
1858:4 1859:7
1862:12 2018:11
we're 1939:21
1978:21 2035:11
2062:9 2066:24
we've 1847:9
1848:18 1849:2
1849:14 1869:23
1869:24,25
1875:10 1883:2
1910:20 1916:4
1917:14 1922:9
1924:24 1932:24
1940:14,20
weak 2043:22,23
weaker 2043:23
2044:1,1
wear 1883:19
1914:18
wearing 1962:2,6
1962:14,15
website 1947:5
Wednesday
2060:25 2062:3
2062:21
week 1876:22
1877:8 1889:11
1893:19
weeks 1983:23,24
weight 2040:25
weighted 1893:11
welcome 1996:15
went 1858:6
1861:13 1878:19
1878:23 1892:8
1895:11 1907:19
1921:6 1965:6
1978:25 2001:18
2044:20 2045:4
2048:2 2053:22
weren't 1939:25
1940:12 1958:2
2041:22,23
west 1863:24
1864:14 1907:19
1922:17
whatsoever
2014:12
white 1851:7
1991:9
Whites 1848:21,25
1849:6,11
1855:15,17
1857:10 1870:16
1870:17,20,24
1871:17 1872:1
1872:12 1873:24
1874:9 1875:25
1876:9,10,14
1877:9 1881:14
1882:16 1884:17
1885:14 1897:10
1897:16,18
1902:4,11,16
1903:15 1943:3
1956:3 1961:6,19
1963:25 1964:9
1964:18 1966:3,7
1967:15,23
1968:5,11,22
1969:10 1970:15
1971:9 1972:6
1978:4 1980:11
1985:25 1986:3
1986:18 1998:22
1999:1 2000:5,9
2000:21 2003:6
2005:8,13
2007:23 2012:9
2013:20 2015:12
2020:21,24
2026:13,14
2028:20 2032:22
Wick's 1979:13
wide 1978:14
2053:19
WILLIAM 1840:3
1840:3
wine 2063:19
wish 1904:5 1913:3
1966:20 1967:5
witness 1842:13
1878:10 1879:23
1880:1 1881:7,8
1881:25 1882:22
1882:22 1902:1
1902:10,14,20
1903:1 1904:3,8
1904:11,15,15,20
1905:4,8 1930:15
1948:24 1976:11
1980:2,17,20,22
1981:10,17,23
1982:4,9,16
1984:14 1985:15
1986:1,12 1988:1
1988:5,8,17
1989:20 1990:8
1990:12,17
1991:13,17,22,25
1992:11,15,19
1995:24 1996:3,6
1996:16,18,22
2017:18 2053:5,7
2053:13 2054:18
2055:7 2056:12
2057:13 2058:7
2058:15 2059:1
2059:10,23
2060:3,5
witnesses 1985:5
2024:7
Witwatersrand
1906:19
wonder 1991:3,20
2004:17
wonderful 2051:16
word 1850:21
[Page 2101]
1980:23 2037:25
words 1860:20
1909:20 1983:10
1987:6 2023:19
2032:24 2049:13
2050:18 2054:4
work 1906:8
1907:19,23
1908:18 1909:13
1918:8 1929:25
1936:19 1939:14
1946:21,24
1982:15 1985:9
2008:11 2026:9
2055:6
worked 1908:7,12
1910:2 1948:20
1997:15
workforce 1932:9
working 1930:11
1958:15,22
world 1985:11
2007:10 2021:4,4
2058:9
world's 1985:11
worried 1896:7
worry 2024:1
worst 1878:1
2047:25
worth 2002:24
2003:1,1 2004:12
2004:15
wouldn't 1909:19
1932:16 1953:1
1991:3 2011:18
2011:19 2024:19
2027:25 2052:4
write 1843:16
1909:5,6,19
2009:12,17
2049:13,15
writing 1955:15
1967:19
wrong 1917:3
1931:9 1937:8
wrote 1844:21
X
X 1924:17
Y
Y 1924:18
Yard 2038:2
yeah 1867:13
1928:19 1929:10
1934:19 1935:8
1938:18 1940:9
1946:13 1949:17
1981:24 1988:8
2003:22 2009:16
2054:18 2057:13
2059:20
year 1843:22
1878:14 1893:16
1906:19 1959:15
1982:13 1984:5,9
1984:20 1985:10
1985:12,18
2044:6 2046:16
2046:16 2052:5
years 1852:12
1865:13 1874:24
1882:1 1891:5
1894:5,6 1895:8
1895:20 1907:18
1908:8,23
1913:23 1914:4
1931:4,8 1932:21
1932:23 1946:20
1982:14,14
2001:17,19
2002:17,21
2003:14 2006:19
2006:24 2012:10
2015:7 2023:1,11
2035:3,11,18
2039:22 2042:2
2043:19 2045:19
2052:5 2055:2,5
2057:4,11,24
years' 2010:10
yellow 1859:17
1871:8,10 1964:5
Yep 1867:4
yesterday 1903:12
1967:8 2027:18
2064:17 2066:8
yield 1971:23
1973:12
York 1848:3
1852:18 1853:21
1853:25 1854:9
1854:24 1855:2,7
1856:1 1860:6,8
1861:3,21
1862:21 1865:20
1869:7 1872:13
1876:7 1877:12
1877:13,22
1878:7,16,17,18
1878:20 1880:6,9
1881:25 1886:21
1887:8,12,17
1888:21 1893:21
1895:3,7,9,11,15
1895:23,25
1896:1 1901:1,4,7
1901:9,22 1902:3
1902:6,15,17
1916:5 1917:14
1917:15,19
1918:18,19
1919:17 1920:4,7
1920:13,22,22
1921:8 1923:1,15
1923:18,21,24
1924:4,5,10,12,16
1925:12 1926:2,4
1926:10,18,21,22
1926:24 1927:1
1927:24 1928:12
1928:14,20
1929:6 1942:16
1942:20 1951:1
1952:8,17,25
1960:6,18,24
1961:23 1963:10
1964:12,20
1965:14 1970:22
1970:24 1971:4
1972:8,17,20
1973:25 1974:18
1974:24 1975:6
1978:18 1979:2,5
1979:6 1987:5,16
1990:23 1998:23
1999:2,9,13,16,24
2000:6,22 2001:4
2001:13,14,21,23
2002:6 2003:10
2003:15 2004:2
2005:17 2006:15
2007:2,3,7,17
2008:2,3,9,14
2012:3,19,20
2020:1,9,15
2022:7,14,19
2026:15 2027:15
2027:19,25
2028:1,13,13,14
2028:20 2035:9,9
2035:21,25
2037:13,14
2040:9,11,12,16
2040:17,18,19,21
2040:22,23
2041:2,5,21
2042:2,7,10,10,16
2042:18,21,22
2043:12,15,21,23
2045:21 2046:10
2047:3,5 2050:15
2051:1,1,24
2052:15 2054:3
2056:2
York/New 1950:14
Z
Z 1924:19
Zeman 1840:18
1841:4,6,9,12,14
1841:19,21
1842:20,22,23
1844:3 1896:19
1896:21,22,23
1899:2,5,10
1901:14 1903:13
1903:14,25
1905:16,18,19
1910:6,8 1976:13
1976:14,15,25
1977:19 1979:16
1979:18 1997:4,6
1997:7,8 1998:13
1998:15 2050:9
2050:10 2051:8,9
2052:17
zero 1938:15,17
1941:1
zone 1921:11,13,14
1923:9 1924:7,8
1924:11,11,15,17
1924:18
zones 1923:6,7,13
1928:9
zoomed 1929:1
Zululand 1907:5,7
0
0 1938:24
0.1 1918:10,12
003 1892:11
009 1888:17
04039 1886:2,13
05 1886:1
05038 1886:3,12
06033 1887:5
07017 1886:16,20
0756 1924:2
1934:12 1959:20
09 1889:4,4
09024 1888:14,15
1
1 1844:24 1883:12
1886:10 1918:6
1918:25 1919:2
1931:14 1933:11
1933:11 1943:9
1960:8 1977:17
1980:10 1993:5
[Page 2102]
2008:21 2015:11
2021:11 2036:14
2050:14 2052:14
1,000 1979:6
1,625,000 1979:6
1.1 1918:7,9
1.15 1889:20
1.2 1902:21
1.39 1853:2
1.4 1878:13 1895:7
1999:11
1.477 2035:21
1.5 1895:7
1.50 2015:11
1.6 1852:7,15
2035:19,24
1/4 1943:12 1945:2
1945:2
1:14 2067:14
10 1862:23 1865:22
1918:23 1919:2
1922:14 1923:19
1938:9,20,24
1940:25 1941:2
1958:1 1982:7
1983:18,22
1984:10,13
1985:13,17
1988:15 1993:12
1993:18 2004:12
2021:1 2035:5,12
2047:23,24
2048:1,2 2053:11
2053:22 2057:24
2057:25 2061:2
2061:14
10-year 2058:13
10,000 1887:25
1888:10,25
10,290,000 2023:7
10,295,000 1894:17
1900:14
100 1840:23
1892:11 1951:1
1988:16 1990:23
1994:12 2024:5
2047:7,9
11 1845:1 1858:4
1874:16 1898:2
1933:10 1934:3,9
1937:9 1955:3
1960:5,8 2028:25
2038:13,14,15
11-12-year 1908:5
11:31 1996:11
11:50 1996:10,10
11:52 1996:12
11th 1891:14,17
1892:7 1893:6,8
1894:9 1900:2
12 1894:21 2032:2
12.80 1892:22
120,077 1980:12
123,077 1981:3
12th 1886:16,17,20
13 1855:4 1947:1,2
1947:3 2054:22
13.4 1978:6,7
1987:8
14 1950:12,20
1983:24 2060:18
14.50 1892:22
14.60 1991:19
15 1896:8 1923:19
1925:3 1928:2,5
1958:1 1985:17
1987:23 1999:3
2005:12 2007:13
2007:22 2030:13
2034:25 2036:6
2053:8,10,10,14
2053:24 2054:15
2054:16,16,16,22
2055:1,4,20
150 1926:22
1500 1877:4
16 2049:3,4
2054:25
16.72 1891:24
17 1875:15 1876:10
2054:22 2060:17
17.25 1875:15
17.30 1875:16
17.56 1871:15
170 1892:11
1842 1841:3,4
1844 1841:5
1896 1841:6
1899 1841:7
19 1849:3 1875:22
1876:1,11
2036:14,16,17
19.63 1871:18
190 2047:16
1901 1841:8
1903 1841:9
1905 1841:11,12
1910 1841:13
1929 2048:1
1975 1946:9
1976 1841:14
1946:9
1976-77 1931:22
1977 1929:13
1978 1875:2,3
1930:22 1932:12
1932:13
1979 1841:15
1985 1906:24
1913:16 1914:7
1990 1846:25
1993 1841:16
1995 1843:7,10
1846:24 1947:11
1997 1841:18,19
1843:7 1846:24
1846:25
1998 1841:20
1st 1889:15
2
2 1870:25 1871:20
1886:10 1898:3
1933:12 1934:3
1938:24 1940:20
1956:12,15
1958:4 1960:5
1970:23 1971:4
1971:16 1972:7
1991:10 2006:13
2017:19 2024:6
2032:2 2038:15
2049:2 2053:16
2.4 2006:16 2024:6
2.50 1870:25
20 1865:22 1869:9
1888:6,10
1898:20,21,22
1899:20 1900:3,5
1900:8,9,22,25
1923:19,21
1926:20 1985:17
1990:24 1994:11
1999:3 2001:16
2002:21 2003:14
2005:12 2021:2
2023:1,2,2,3,5
2035:6 2053:12
2054:7 2055:8
20,000 1879:5
200 1926:22
2000 1877:18
2004:3 2057:7
2000s 1879:19,20
2002 1852:12
2004 1968:16
2025:18
2006 1852:17
1887:5 1895:8
1912:25 1970:17
2025:5 2035:12
2039:11,12,13,17
2039:22,22
2041:19 2043:19
2043:20,25
2045:16,20
2006-2008 2040:3
2041:14
2007 1845:18
1847:16 1849:7
1852:17 1853:23
1854:11 1860:10
1862:8 1870:9
1878:11 1879:20
1886:16,20
1912:25 1959:16
1960:11 1966:2
1970:17 2020:2
2035:20 2039:22
2042:4 2047:7,9
2049:10
2008 1852:12,17
1878:11 1895:8
1908:22 2004:3
2039:5,22 2042:4
2043:18,19,25
2046:7,22
2047:23 2052:10
2009 1888:14
1889:8 1891:6,14
1892:3,12,19
1893:6 1894:16
1930:12 2021:24
2023:6
2010 1889:15,22,24
1891:8,22
1892:13 1893:13
1895:4,10,12,14
1895:18 1901:2
2022:9,15
2043:18,24
2044:8,20
2011 1889:22
1890:6 1891:22
1892:21 1893:14
1999:6,7 2044:8
2046:7,22
2047:11,23
2048:15
2012 1889:22
[Page 2103]
1890:9 1891:22
1893:14 2048:2,3
2013 1889:16
2015 2048:5
2016 1895:14,19
2022:10 2052:11
2052:12
2017 2048:3,14
2051:21
2018 1840:9,23
1842:2 2051:22
2067:15
2020 2055:9
2051 1841:21
2052 1841:22
21 2062:23
22 1938:1 2038:22
22nd 1889:7
1891:17 1892:3,7
1892:19 1893:20
23 1907:18 2045:12
2051:11 2052:2
2300 1877:5
24 1840:9 1842:2
1888:14 1929:24
24.97 1937:6,15,21
24th 1888:17
25 1858:1 1881:3,4
1882:7 1923:19
1926:21 1948:14
1949:2 2021:2
2052:1 2054:8
25-year 2058:7
25.11 1937:1
25th 1878:24
1879:14 1887:5
1887:23 1888:4
1888:25 1889:3
1929:3 2002:5,9
26 1850:14 1851:8
2067:15
28 1955:2 2031:11
29,971.54 1886:22
2R2 1840:24
3
3 1862:1 1971:10
1971:15 1972:6
1973:20 2006:20
2017:19 2024:7,8
2024:12 2032:2
2052:1 2053:16
2054:17 2061:12
2061:13
3-ply 1983:10
3,964 1909:25
3,968 1910:1
1977:24
3.5 1862:7
3.62 1886:23
1887:2
3.71 1887:8,18
3.82 1888:22
1889:25 1892:1
3/4 1943:7,9,11,20
1943:23,25
1944:4,4,5,7,9,15
1944:18,23
1945:1,3
3/8 1943:12
30 1914:4 1923:19
2010:10
30-year-old 1875:4
30,000 1879:2
2002:8
300,000 1979:3
31st 1889:16
33 1980:19 1995:4
1995:6
333 1840:9
34 1982:7 1993:5,9
35 1923:19 1927:2
1927:7,9,9,13
1951:6,9,20
1988:7
35-mile 1927:2
39 1981:12,22
3rd 1886:1
4
4 1853:21 1854:2,8
1854:22 1860:11
1860:21 1863:8
1863:13 1869:25
1890:6 1929:23
1964:17 2013:17
2015:7
4-minute 1904:19
4,000 1876:20
1910:2
4,500 1977:23
4.02 1889:3
4.12 1890:9
4.17 1903:21,24
4.35 1884:18
1968:5
4.41 1968:2
4.50 1862:14
1870:14
40 1871:21 1923:19
1931:4,8 1932:21
1932:23 1980:14
1981:7,20,21
2012:10
41 1981:12,22
416 1840:25
43 1977:14,18
45 1927:5,6,7,9,14
1927:15 1946:20
1951:9,10,20
1988:7 2001:22
49 2008:21,22
2051:25
49,500 1879:8
49,614.53 1888:21
49,693.89 1887:8
490 1892:15
5
5 1864:4 1865:1
1867:10,21
1869:4,16,24
1891:5 1921:13
1923:18 1961:17
1964:22 2053:11
2053:21 2057:21
2057:24 2058:13
5-0 2060:19
5-ply 1983:9
5.13 1853:16
1883:24
5.44 1968:8
5:30 1929:25
50 1865:1 1892:17
1971:18 1974:13
1974:20 1975:3,8
1975:18 1976:3
1977:11 1981:18
1993:17 2001:22
2004:14 2015:11
2043:24 2044:7
2045:5 2055:4
2058:10,10
2060:19
50-year 2007:16
2019:12
50,000 2002:6
50,000-ton 1888:9
500 2035:2
500,000 2034:23
2036:4
51 1915:13
54 2060:17
564-2727 1840:25
57 1892:21
6
6 1840:10 1859:19
1860:21,25
1867:1,2,3
1869:23 1921:13
1929:25 1970:2
1970:10 2001:19
2061:12,13
6-Aug 2039:9
6.50 1870:18
1871:3 1903:19
1964:18 2013:21
2013:24
60 1874:24,25
2040:17
60-year-old
1874:22
600,000 2056:25
613 1840:25
66 2039:25
68 2046:3,18
7
7 1870:17 1892:22
1892:22 1973:18
1986:25 2021:1
2035:4,9,11
7-year 2022:11
700 2004:21
2054:11
70s 1965:6
71,716 1980:13
1981:4
75 1915:17 1933:24
75,000 1979:4
7a 2036:19
7b 2037:13
8
8 1860:12 1867:1
1885:21,22
1886:9,14 1898:8
2001:19 2035:4
2035:12 2057:25
8:30 2060:14
8:32 1840:9 1842:3
80 1915:13,14
800 2035:11
800,000 2022:10
2035:10
80s 1946:11,12
861-8720 1840:25
8a 1885:21,23,24
1886:8 2038:24
9
9 1860:15 1900:1
2035:12 2046:5
2046:20 2049:3
2051:15 2052:14
9:30 1896:3
2063:10,14,15,19
2067:13,15
9:38 1904:24
9:45 1904:22
9:46 1904:25
90 1915:14,14
1923:24 2047:7
[Page 2104]
900 1840:9
900-333 1840:23
900,000 2035:4
940 1840:23
95 1980:10,21
97 1982:3
98 2053:3