Will Petronas pull the plug in March 2016? Was Grant's prediction true?


did i miss something in the article or did they get some dates wrong or did i read it wrong, is this referring too Lelu island?
“By the end of the year we should have completed more than 50 percent of the complex and we’re on track to start operations in the first quarter of 2019,” said Md Arif Mahmood, Petronas downstream CEO and group executive vice-president.

um they have not broken ground or even started Clearcutting ? so how can they have 50 % done by the end of year? something does not add up…



This refers to petrochemical complex in southern Indonesia.



Pengerang is in Johor. Malaysia. :slight_smile:



You have to read further down. I haven’t figured out how to quote a certain section of an article.



Drag your mouse and high light text you wish to quote. A quotation prompt will appear. Done.



Thank you very much :smiley:

1 Like


No problem, you’re welcome. :slight_smile:



My bad. Thanks MiG. :malaysia:



Grant G must be some choked that he hasn’t had anything to post since August 9th. That or he has chosen to not grace us with presence. :smirk: His pull the plug date is 6 months passed.



You really do miss him.



Nope, can’t say that I do. I just find it funny that he makes a topic about Petronas pulling the plug in March 2016 then makes posts with links trying to back up his claim. Now 6+ months have passed since he created the topic. The project may or may not happen, but Grant G was WRONG about the date. The moral of the story is don’t make a topic about predictions with a set time on a public forum. :wink:



Who cares about the date!??!??



federal natural resource minister stated in an interview that the government would give it’s decision on October 2, and it sounded like they will grant the export license



It’s not about the date, it’s about Grant pretending that he has some insider super secret knowledge and is a keen industry pundit, etc.

"I’m a great predictor of the weather. I’m the best, even with my weird French accents. Everyone bow down to the huge walls of text that demonstrate my ability to predict the weather. Watch, I’ll show you how good I am at predicting the weather.

It will rain on Tuesday.

Wait, what? It didn’t rain on Tuesday? It was really sunny? That doesn’t mean anything. The fundamentals for rain are there. In a sense, it did rain on Tuesday, just as I predicted. Despite no actual water falling from the sky.

Just wait! it will rain on Wednesday for sure then.

No? Still sunny on Wednesday? Open your eyes! The entire world knows it rained on Tuesday … errr. Wednesday. You’re the only one insisting that the lack of rain means there was a lack of rain.

Let’s just wait for um tomorrow, I mean Thursday, I mean Friday. Look, it will eventually rain! It still hasn’t rained, but trust me. I know what I’m talking about.

I’m still a great predictor of the weather, see?"

Would you want that guy to be your weatherman?

That’s exactly how Grant has been with this issue – he insisted that he knew exactly what was going on, and every day that ticks by, it shows that he really doesn’t know what’s going on.

Next he’ll tell us that the NDP actually won the last election, even if they didn’t, and that prediction of his was correct as well, because they could win the next one… or the one after that…



Hahahahaha, I predict a reply from Grant in the near future.



hold it the NDP didn’t win the last election? damn it LOL

1 Like

1 Like


Just to keep it interesting. Is Grant G or anybody willing to bet Rich Coleman on his date specific prediction.

Coleman, who is also the Minister of Natural Gas Development, said he
expects a final investment decision on one of three major liquefied
natural gas export proposals before the May 9, 2017 provincial election.

Then he talks specifically about Petronas indicating a willingness to “RESTART our discussions around our project development agreement.”

The federal government’s environmental review decision on Pacific
NorthWest LNG near Prince Rupert is expected by October 2, but Coleman
indicated economic uncertainty remains around the project, which is
backed by Malaysian state-owned Petronas.

He said it is “quite likely” that he would meet in October with the
president of Petronas in Malaysia and the presidents of the four
minority partners to “restart our discussions in and around our project
development agreement.”

“We really need to figure out the numbers,” he said. “The numbers
have really got to be tightened down. Because the price of gas in Asia
right now is so cheap, because of the price of oil. Just about nobody is
globally competitive on a long-term contract they signed before the
market crash.

“I know the number they have to get to in order to make it
financially viable, I think they’re about 50 cents to a dollar away from
that, but it’s a lot better than it was six months ago.”

Does that mean BC is willing to sell our gas even more cheaply to ensure this project goes ahead.?



LOL sale our gas cheaply LOL too funny, you do realize natural gas is sold on the open market right?



Sure doesn’t pay to ask questions around here? Asked one back in January and someone from the no camp says “go fyck yourself”.

Ask one now and someone from the yes camp convulses into giggles implying that the question and the questioner are just plain dumb.

Oh well. I guess people just have to defend whatever turf a question might be threatening.

So I am sorry Jabber63. I thought I was giving you something positive after all of Grant’s negativity.

Perhaps my question as dumb as you think it is should have read is BC willing to sell off - ie give away - our gas more cheaply to ensure the project goes ahead.

Remember last summer (2015) when the legislature met to discuss the project development agreement. Not everybody thought it was all that good a deal for BC. (And before you get all hot and bothered, I have no opinion on that agreement. I am just stating that some people didn’t see it as a good deal for the province.) I googled “Petronas project development agreement” and this was near the top of the list.


Again, I am not arguing one way or another with the author’s opinion. But he ends with this line:

“Having campaigned on that hype in the provincial election two years ago, it appears our provincial government is willing to accept a bad deal over no deal.”

You can disagree with that sentiment but the sentiment is out there.

Now Rich Coleman wants to meet with the president of Petronas and the presidents of the four minority partners to “restart our discussions in and around our project agreement.”

So what exactly does restarting discussions about an agreement actually mean? What does he mean by WE really need to figure out the numbers? Could a “bad deal” become worse? or if you want to spin it differently could a good deal become less good? Is the province willing to sweeten the deal to ensure the project goes ahead.

And just for clarity, my question has nothing to do with whether I think the project will go ahead or whether I want the project to go ahead. I am just asking a question.