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


Ya we are hooped! goodbye B. C. Coast!!



Welp , I guess I can use my millwright ticket tp maybe find a job in Alberta in a few years :frowning: :frowning:



When will Rich Coleman stop lying about Petronas?..Petronas is out…


Najib Razak, the head of Petronas has bigger problems…


As for the state of affairs with BC LNG…Petronas can buy a turnkey LNG plant in Alaska…


And please do try and spin this into a positive…


Anywho, as for Petronas confirming any of Rich Coleman’s recent statements(Lies) they haven’t…Rich Coleman should go look for a new job as a seamstress…

After all, he creates spin out of whole cloth…


Cheers Eyes Wide Opn



zzz…zzz…zzz… snort.





Blah, blah, blah…Poor Grant G looking for negatives for this project. Funny at the local Chamber of Commerce luncheon a spokesman said they expect to have the first ship by 2021, which means shovels in the ground next year. We shall see what happens. :smiley:

1 Like


did Grant also predict that the FID for squamish would be a no as well? oh wait maybe he thinks that is a fake facebook announcement

1 Like


The only thing this spoke person is shovelling is they’re own BS.I’m a realist , I don’t see squat happening till 2025



Hello again you Prince Rupertilians…


I don’t know what you fine folk in Prince Rupert think about the LNG saturation advertising campaign on near every TV channel by the BC Liberal Government, (paid by taxpayers)…However, I think it is outrageous, and revealing,…because, if their advertisement was real, if LNG was real, was lucrative, was creating jobs they wouldn’t have to advertise to the point of ad nauseam…

“$20 billion invested in LNG and created jobs

Well…for the record, that total includes Petronas buying progress energy in 2010 for $5.6 billion dollars(half of Progress Energy’s operations aren’t even in B.C…they are in Alberta and the USA…in that $20 billion dollar total is all Progress Energy’s expenses over the last 6 years, payrole, drilling, equipment etc etc(estimated at $6 billion)…yet they don’t mention the money Progress has received for selling natural gas into our market, Alberta and USA…

Buying a turnkey operation for near $6 billion is not investment, it didn’t bring new money to B.C…

Anywho…Be well friends…

Cheers Eyes Wide Open



Are you ready for the bad BC LNG news…?



Shell Canada LNG…not a chance in hell


China will open up its upstream oil sector further between 2016 and 2020, the official Xinhua news agency reported, citing the vice minister of the Ministry of Land and Resources.

The world’s largest energy consumer will introduce private investment in upstream prospecting and push forward reforms of the oil gas prospecting system, Xinhua reported.

In addition, China will also open up the upstream uranium prospecting sector and allow private capital in the markets.

China aims to add 5-8 mega oilfields with at least 100 million tonnes of reserves and 5-10 natural gas reserves with at least 100 billion cubic meters of deposit by 2020.



Here is the big news…Japan is selling its contracted to buy LNG to India…Japan’s LNG use is in steep decline…Japan is selling the LNG at a loss…a little loss is better than a big loss.


With Japan selling excess LNG to India …The Indian market for LNG shrivels up…

Good Day everyone.


Cheers Eyes Wide Open



oh look someone used google again, wait did he also predict Kinder Morgan as no go as well?

1 Like


Petronas has been approved with 190 conditions and a wobbly market. No guarantee that it will go ahead.

Kinder Morgan has been approved with 157 conditions and considerable opposition in the lower mainland.

New prediction. Will Kinder Morgan get built? (For the record, I have no clue, but I am guessing it’s no slam dunk.)

1 Like


Petronas is busy everywhere…Iran…Indonesia…South America, everywhere it seems…add in Mexico too…

Not a blurb from Petronas on B.C…

As for Kinder Morgan…Their head office is in Houston Texas…The latest news from Houston…"Shareholders will review the project to see if it is economical, no FID issued."

CAPP has been spinning many lies about the project…the biggest myth is…Alberta oil producers will get a world price for their project, no discount…umm, no, that’s a lie…

Alberta bitumen is nasty oil, full of sulfur, Coke and paint thinner(condensate) …It has to be refined twice, first through an upgrader then refined again into sweet crude…

1/3rd of every Alberta barrel is condensate…That’s why it gets discounted when we ship it raw to the USA…

China will not pay the Brent Crude oil price for “appalling quality bitumen” it cost more to refine…they can buy straight Brent Crude…

_"Truth #2. The economic case for pipelines has totally collapsed. _

_ According to the lovestruck politicians, bitumen exports to China will make Canadians rich, and the sulfur-rich crude will miraculously command a higher dollar with marine access. _

_ But bitumen will always require higher transportation costs and more upgrading and processing due to its appalling quality. As a consequence, it has always sold at a price differential of around $6 to $7 dollars to conventional oil. _

_ This historic differential widened when the Alberta government rubber-stamped so many projects that industry flooded the North American market with bitumen between 2000 and 2008. The differential dropped again to historic norms as more and more refineries in the U.S. retrofitted to process heavy oil. _

_ The Parliamentary Budget Office explained these elementary facts in 2013, but politicians beset by hydrocarbon hallucinations have trouble reading. The PBO emphasized that eliminating the discount paid for bitumen relative to conventional oil “is not realistic, as there is a significant difference in the quality of these crude oil benchmarks that is reflected in the price difference.” _

_ Furthermore, the PBO added that, “both U.S. and Canadian production are expected to increase at a faster rate than U.S. and global demand, which can be expected to put further downward pressure on the price.” And how would more pipelines help that situation? _

_ Neither port access nor pipelines can turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. (If you want to make money with bitumen, do what the Koch brothers do: import 300,000 barrels of raw bitumen a day and refine the garbage into gasoline and jet fuel. _

_ No country now pays Mexico or Venezuela more for their heavy crudes just because they have port access. Yet Canada’s politicians live in alternate bitumen realities. _

_ These same pipeline advocates also argue that the price of oil will rise again and all will be well. But most credible analysts dispute this assumption and believe business as usual has ended in oil markets. "_


What I predict, unless Kinder Morgan can grind down the price of the bitumen, they won’t go forward…

Call it blackmail…no deal, no investment…

And more, with Trump now pushing US energy, there will be no OPEC deal to cut production…

Expect round II in the oil price wars…Will Alberta targoop producers sell their bitumen for $20 dollars a barrel…They might, but not for long…




so for almost a year you have been posting Petronas is cutting costs so it won’t go ahead with Lelu island project, now your saying they are busy investing in other countries so they won’t go ahead with Lelu island? please make up your mind.

and as for Kinder Morgan apparently the chinese are still interested in Alberta crude as for the protesters how long before ppl living along the pipeline route will get tired of the protesters in their neighbourhood

1 Like


Kind of ironic on a day the same day Grant said there would no OPEC deal to cut production they cut production for the 1st time in 8 years lol

“- Oil prices surged more than 4 percent on Thursday, with Brent crude at its highest in about 16 months, extending gains after OPEC and Russia agreed to restrict output to reduce the global supply glut more quickly.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed on Wednesday to its first oil output reduction since 2008 after the group’s leading producer Saudi Arabia accepted “a big hit” and dropped a demand that arch-rival Iran also slash output.
The deal also included OPEC’s first coordinated action in 15 years with non-member Russia. Azerbaijan said it was also willing to discuss cuts.
Doubts about the historic deal were widespread in the market.”




I have just started reading Think Like a Freak by the authors of Freakonomics which was a best seller a few years back. I am not going to swear by anything they say but I found Chapter Two pertinent to this thread which started in March and is based on a thread that started in January. The only other thread I can remember being this long was that silly word association game.

Anyway, Chapter Two is entitled The Three Hardest Words in the English Language which they claim are


They cite studies where experts in various fields - politics, economics etc - are asked to make predictions about future elections, the market etc. and the results, are interestingly enough, almost random. Think Like a Freak doesn’t use any specific examples but I will. Almost all “experts” got the 2013 BC election wrong. Most got Brexit wrong. Most got Trump wrong.

Of course we can say that those are anomalies, that we remember the obviously wrong ones. But look at the 2015 federal election where all three parties at some point were predicted to win. And even the day before the election few were predicting a majority.

The authors talk about overconfident people trying to sound smart by making “smart sounding predictions no matter how wrong they may turn out to be.” They quote Paul Krugman, the winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Economics: “Economists’ predictions fail because they overestimate the impact of future technologies.”

The authors also point out, ironically, that Krugman predicted that “the growth of the internet will slow drastically … when it becomes apparent that most people have nothing to say to each other,… By 2005, the Internet’s impact on the economy will be no greater than the fax machine’s.”

So much for experts,

Their conclusion. “Simply admit that the future is far less knowable than you think.”

That doesn’t mean we can’t make predictions. It just means we shouldn’t be be absolutely certain of our infallibility.



i’m also reminded about why ex PM Paul Martin stopped making 5 year predictions when he was finance minister, he stated it was hard enough to predict one year ahead never mind 5 years. as I stated before all these experts say one thing one day and another thing another day for that is their job. sooner or later they might get it right

1 Like


An interesting post DWhite.

This thread has been somewhat problematic. From the very beginning it was set up to be a discussion of an obviously wrong prediction by an individual. Grant was wrong…so what…get over it.

He was incorrect in predicting a specific date in the future. So? But…Wouldn’t it be nice if that one apparently minor flaw made all his prediction untrue?

Whether we admit it or not we all adopt some means of dealing with the unforeseeable – the future. The future is a frightening reality: where and how will I get shelter, clothing, warmth, nourishment, and social contact? Often that question is answered through adoption of particular religious, political, economic or social beliefs etc. Often these beliefs give us some sense of comfort – a means of being less uncertain about the future. It is after all, unknowable.

So why the conversation in this thread? From a strong sense of our responsibility to the future? Our commitment to the truth? Or just a strong desire to bully? Why such excitement in declaring again and again that Grant was wrong – maybe it was merely a way of self-re-enforcing that ‘our’ belief in the unfolding of the future is correct – that since ‘we’ know the future we can rest easy.

Neither side has presented a strong coherent argument justifying their rather narrow visions of the road to the future. Each side has repeated, in a variety of ways, a strong politically based belief. But a rational discussion of the future – not. (Both sides have presented – which will only be fully apparent in hindsight – flawed points of view).

As for some of the name calling (remember the premise of this thread was to pick apart the person who made a failed prediction) – I guess the guise of freedom of speech justifies it – but where do we start taking responsibility for using our freedoms judiciously?

But a rational discussion of the future is frightening – so let’s all hang on to our erroneous beliefs about our future: because sometimes on the North Coast that’s all we have.

Maybe with a strong belief in our fallibility, and a recognition of our inability to predict the future…we could look at changing our immediate present?

Thanks for the post DWhite.

By the way: anyone who wishes to accuse me of supporting Grant – you’re kidding me, right?



Tl;dr: Gracies_Mom and Jabber63 are too obsessed with Grant_G.



I’ve decided not to comment anymore on his posts. Merry Christmas :smiley :smiley: :evergreen_tree:



My dog licked out the container of Maclaren’s Sharp Cheddar. And he follows me whatever chair I move to watch TV. Ewwww! Maybe Petronas wants him.