No LNG!


#1

cbc.ca/m/news/business/iea-c … -1.3100301


#2

680news.com/2015/06/04/canad … port-says/


#3

Quite a sensational thread title, yeah?

IEA saying that it doesn’t expect anything to happen anytime soon, doesn’t mean it definitely will not happen.

Looking forward to what Petronas’ decision will be.


#4

Petronas will go ahead once Lax gets more money and they move the dock further out into the channel, what the report does not state is that the cost to build the plant and pipeline has dropped by 20% or more and labour in canada for that work is easier to come by now that alberta is in trouble. Petronas already stated that lower prices now will not affect their decision for they take a 25 year outlook


#5

Furthermore, clearly the OP does not have an understanding of the PNW LNG project in how it is different than some of the other proposed terminals.

Petronas is a state-owned/run energy company (unlike Shell, BG, Chevron, Woodside, Exxon ect which are private companies), thus the LNG from this plant is going to be directly injected into the Malaysian supply for that country, where they compete in a low competition type structure (much like BC Hydro does in BC). Furthermore, the terminal has built-in purchase contracts through its multiple ownership structure; as of today not one of those owners has chosen to abandon or sell its portion of this project…you would think if everything was so damn dire, one of them would have jumped ship already at the very least.

Petronas will not be selling much of the LNG it produces at this terminal on the open market like some of the other proponents of other LNG terminals will be doing. As a result, current worldwide LNG prices (and supply) mean much less in reality to this project than it does others.


#6

vancouversun.com/touch/story … d=11112497


#7

old news, Petronas is making a preliminary announcement sometime next week if you believe their timeline from a week ago to their board members,
and as to the IEA report of course most projects will not get built and I wouldn’t say the most promising ones are delayed, for one reason , they have not started their public consultations yet on the environmental side of things, if you add a year or 2 for that then building of course they won’t be built until at least 2022 so again it is a nothing report
and also the IEA a year or 2 ago stated LNG would be basically the next gold rush there wouldn’t be enough to meet the rising demand, so one report from them say we have too much and another we don’t have enough so take the reports how you wish


#8

lngworldnews.com/chinas-gas- … y-by-2020/
contradicts IEA report


#9

m.economictimes.com/industry/ene … 572323.cms

It’s not worth anything anymore!


#10

and when the price of LNG was way higher then the contracted price formula did India say they would pay more? of course not, companies sign long term deals knowing prices fluctuate sometimes you pay higher then the spot market and sometimes you pay less then the spot market, over 25 years they all equal out, Qatar will probably tell India a contract is a contract is a contract, if they do renegotiate i’m sure the long term contract would be alot worse for India if they went with spot market prices instead of oil prices.


#11

Its funny if LNG is such a dead horse, why is there still so much activity around it here in the northwest ? We still have 4 offices open here in Rupert. Company(s) are still flying employees in and out. I don’t believe we are hearing the whole story, nor do I believe that the media knows.


#12

Well, just came across this Globe and Mail article. Further proof that the LNG development is not dead like allycat1521 is going on about.

“Exxon Mobil selects on-shore LNG system for Prince Rupert site”:

theglobeandmail.com/report-o … e24866990/


#13

most of the articles say that LNG will not be built until after 2020, to this I say no kidding because most of them have not done the public consultations for environmental review. Petronas has done all this and are trying to get the Lax approval with some more modifications, also when they talk about the cost of the terminal which if memory serves me is about $12 billion, Petronas only pays 62% of that since they only owned that amount, and their agreements with their partners means they pick up the rest.


#14

So…what was the OP trying to say in regards to there being no hope for LNG in BC?


#15

biv.com/article/2015/6/lng- … -says-iea/


#16

This has nothing to do with PNW LNG…the economics of that project (as stated previously) are not the same.

The article is also incorrect in stating this project has no First Nation support…in fact it does…it has support from almost all First Nations, except for Lax.


#17

lol


#18

Still wishing for an economic apocalypse, allycat1521?

They should not matter whatever their “decision” is, they’re in a political mess right now.


#19

we’re doing fine without it!


#20

So you’re fine with Rupert being one of the most impoverished places in Canada? Give your head a shake.