Petronas LNG threatens to call off project


#1

theglobeandmail.com/report-o … e20783049/

and also

business.financialpost.com/2014/ … =e6ec-1251


#2

Best News Ever…


#3

It is only one proposal and it is reasonable that some projects may cancel…


#4

Interesting. The CEO is saber rattling to speed up the approval process.


#5

Sorry Astro, this is clearly just a negotiating tactic on the part of Petronas. Otherwise there would be no reason for them to publicize this thought process.


#6

Sure, one is threatening to cancel over delays at just the provincial level. Just wait until they have to deal with the morons at the municipal level or the idiot citizens who dont want any development or the bands that want their cut. prince rupert is an undesireable climate for large business.

Id be surprised if any of the projects go ahead in rupert and if they do its because rupert was dragged kicking and screaming just like the port.


#7

[quote=“jesus”]

Sure, one is threatening to cancel over delays at just the provincial level. Just wait until they have to deal with the morons at the municipal level or the idiot citizens who dont want any development or the bands that want their cut. prince rupert is an undesireable climate for large business.

Id be surprised if any of the projects go ahead in rupert and if they do its because rupert was dragged kicking and screaming just like the port.[/quote]

That’s the whole point of this soundbite from Petronas… to scare the province enough that the ‘morons’, ‘idiot citizens’ and bands get rolled over.


#8

Do you blame them? It is taking FOREVER for approvals to come in…this province is run by a party that is pro-business, in a province that is filled with people who want hand-out after hand-out while they drink the environmental kool-aid.


#9

Petronas asked for a 45 day extension for the provincial environmental review period, not the Province, or the ‘morons’, ‘idiotic citizens’ or bands (who never seem to have names).
< northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … 5-day.html >

There are environmental issues to be addressed, no doubt, but that is not the highest profile issue, at least not right now. It’s taxes.

The cautionary advice from the top guy in Petronas coincides quite well with the anticipated release of the Province’s proposed LNG tax policy when the legislature resumes next month. Rich Coleman wants to lower expectations that municipalities will get tax windfalls from LNG projects, a topic that was discussed at the UBCM convention.
< northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … educe.html >

According to the Vancouver Sun: “… Coleman said he wants to make sure local governments don’t jeopardize a potential $175 billion LNG program by setting industrial tax rates too high.” He says that taxes should be “fair but limited”.

Meanwhile, “Prince Rupert Mayor Jack Mussalem said his community will be a service centre for the LNG industry. But after a decade of decline following the demise of the local pulp mill and the vagaries of the logging, fishing and other port industries, Prince Rupert needs significant investment.” He wants taxes that are “fair”, but apparently not “limited”.
< vancouversun.com/touch/story … d=10226098 >

I think that those are the battle lines that the head of Petronas is really talking about. They don’t want tax policies that are set according to what municipalities think is “fair”, including to make up for a “decade of decline” in Prince Rupert that has nothing to do with the LNG business.


#10

And here, we have someone who enjoy seeing our lovely town continue to wither away…


#11

I’m sure not the only one…lol…who thinks having our coastline dotted with LNG plants can be a good thing…


#12

And yet like every other anti-industry/no pusher in this city, you offer absolutely no solution to improving the local economy outside of simply saying NO because you will lose a part of the coastline which I will assume you probably have not even visited (Lelu Island). Also, you are truly kidding yourself if you think Rupert is going to be flooded with LNG terminals “dotting our coastline”…at most we will have 1, MAYBE 2 and even 1 is probably more likely…and both are in industrial areas (Ridley/lelu corridor) away from city views.


#13

you can assume anything you like, but I can assure you i have seen the coastline of BC all the way to California…


#14

Here, we have a guy who thinks a handful of plants would somehow make the whole coastline disappear.


#15

The hypocrisy of BC people always amazes me. They want all the infrastructure, healthcare, education, trails, campsites and more that the resource economy brings us. Yet at the same time they don’t want to develop the nation’s natural resources.

I have lived in several other countries that are not as resource-rich as Canada, I can tell you that these countries are far more innovative than Canada, have much more industry, and have a much more productive workforce, yet their standard of living is nowhere near as high. Why is this? Because Canada has the resources and they don’t. Stop exploiting them, and see your standard of living drop like a stone.


#16

[quote=“investor”]

The hypocrisy of BC people always amazes me. They want all the infrastructure, healthcare, education, trails, campsites and more that the resource economy brings us. Yet at the same time they don’t want to develop the nation’s natural resources.

I have lived in several other countries that are not as resource-rich as Canada, I can tell you that these countries are far more innovative than Canada, have much more industry, and have a much more productive workforce, yet their standard of living is nowhere near as high. Why is this? Because Canada has the resources and they don’t. Stop exploiting them, and see your standard of living drop like a stone.[/quote]

Most of us have no problem with using our natural resources. We just don’t want to become a polluted cesspool like Alberta nor do we want our raw resources exported at wholesale prices with little to no economic benefit (jobs) for the average person. I couldnt give 2 fucks what the LNG/Northern gateway developments would mean for speculators. If thers no long term jobs then fuck it I don’t want it here.


#17

^^^
You DO know that the Petronas LNG terminal would mean 630 long-term good paying jobs (330 direct/300 indirect) for the Prince Rupert/Port Edward area right? 630 jobs is hardly anything to scoff at…that is 3-4 times the amount of jobs currently at Ridley Terminals and Prince Rupert Grain.

Yes the 5000 construction jobs are temporary, but those jobs will inject MILLIONS into our local economy over the 5 year building period. Not only that, but LNG/Natural Gas is a cleaner fossil fuel, much cleaner than oil and FAR FAR less damaging to the environment in the case of a spill.

There is no denying that if this terminal goes through, it will be economic windfall for the Prince Rupert area…and that is all I care about…I want to see this region get the most it can get and grow our port facilities into something that rivals those of Vancouver/Seattle/LA.

Also, please do not lump this in with Northern Gateway…Northern Gateway has nothing to do with this LNG terminal and the risks associated with NG are FAR FAR greater and the economic benefit FAR FAR less.


#18

[quote=“bthedog”]^^^
You DO know that the Petronas LNG terminal would mean 630 long-term good paying jobs (330 direct/300 indirect) for the Prince Rupert/Port Edward area right? 630 jobs is hardly anything to scoff at…that is 3-4 times the amount of jobs currently at Ridley Terminals and Prince Rupert Grain.

Yes the 5000 construction jobs are temporary, but those jobs will inject MILLIONS into our local economy over the 5 year building period. Not only that, but LNG/Natural Gas is a cleaner fossil fuel, much cleaner than oil and FAR FAR less damaging to the environment in the case of a spill.

There is no denying that if this terminal goes through, it will be economic windfall for the Prince Rupert area…and that is all I care about…I want to see this region get the most it can get and grow our port facilities into something that rivals those of Vancouver/Seattle/LA.

Also, please do not lump this in with Northern Gateway…Northern Gateway has nothing to do with this LNG terminal and the risks associated with NG are FAR FAR greater and the economic benefit FAR FAR less.[/quote]

Good points. If people want jobs in Prince Rupert, they need to stop this indiscriminate ‘anti-industry’ thing. If they want to go live in a tree and eat insects for the rest of their lives, fine. But they shouldn’t forget that everyone else has bills to pay.


#19

the thing is the 300 direct jobs will be those who are in the industry already and will be moving to the area. I believe locals will get hired but not 300 not 200 that’s for sure and yes there will be spin off jobs again those still lucky to be able to live in town will find work but most work will go to those families who have someone already working in a high paid job. so go frack somewhere else and not in my watershed. Also look at the many documentaries about LNG in Australia and all the harm that has come with job’s ask any of the locals who had to move out of town due to higher cost of living. …


#20

So 200 new families moving to town is a bad thing? Thats gonna end up being a pretty small gene pool over time. Maybe thats the problem already though.

If people have to move its because they were too dumb to plan ahead and get work training or buy a house when they were cheap. Sucks for them i guess they will have to leave and maybe next time they will make better choices. 10 years ago you could have bought a house in rupert on min wage. Whats the excuse for not?