Canadian Money Forum banner

301 - 320 of 336 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
Berkshire refused to comment, so it is all speculation for the reasons they withdrew from the plan.

They possibly considered the lack of viability in the Teck project as an indicator of problems.
Actually, the spokeswoman said it was due to the "current Canadian political context"
With ongoing legal opposition and illegal protests against pipelines, as well as a vocal anti resource development PM and government, we can be pretty sure what the political context is.

Unless of course you think she was lying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
These projects cost enormous capital, and the viability in a fossil fuel industry decades into an uncertain future, is causing companies to put their money elsewhere.
Nope...they WANTED to invest here but illegal blockades and a weak PM who did nothing about it convinced them to take their business elsewhere. This isn't the first time and won't be the last time that it happens. Why would anyone want to invest in Canada when they know that a few thugs can shut them down and the authorities won't do a thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts
Another pullout influenced by the blockades.

Warren Buffett, one of the world’s most influential investors, has pulled out of a proposed $9 billion liquefied natural gas project in Quebec over concerns about railway blockades and infrastructure challenges.


alas the above ^^ is more falsification. The article is misleading. The headline is a bald-faced lie, although it's typical of the type frequently published by right-wing postMedia.

neither Warren Buffett nor berkshire has offered one word as to why berkshire is not participating in Energie Saguenay's decades-old dream to build an LNG deepwater terminal on the st-lawrence river near tadoussac. Not a word. Not even a comma.

it was a canadian spokesperson who added the reference to "political context." Stephanie Fortin, director of public affairs for canadian company Energie Saguenay, unfortunately took it upon herself to add the two qualifying words, according to the globe & mail.

why ms Fortin decided she had the right to speak for US conglomerate berkshire hathaway is unknown. But speak out rashly & stupidly, she did.

meanwhile, total silence from buffett & from berkshire. Berkshire is a longtime successful in canadian enterprises. As far as the public knows today, berkshire is not planning to invest in new gas pipeline deals anywhere on the planet, due to the unstable & challenged nature of the global O&G industry today.

here are the facts from the globe & mail:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-berkshire-hathaway-drops-out-of-energie-saguenay-investment-citing/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
Let's be clear, the spokesperson said, on the record, that the political context is why the investor withdrew.
Unless you present information to the contrary we have no reason to believe she is lying to us.

Does this person have a history of lying? Is there any evidence she's lying in this case?
Does the statement she made appear congruent with the situation?

Based on all that I believe her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,679 Posts
alas the above ^^ is more falsification. The article is misleading. The headline is a bald-faced lie, although it's typical of the type frequently published by right-wing postMedia.

......................

here are the facts from the globe & mail:
hehe, from now on I'll try and not confuse the true facts that come from the left media and ignore the false statements from the right...

ltr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
alas the above ^^ is more falsification. The article is misleading. The headline is a bald-faced lie, although it's typical of the type frequently published by right-wing postMedia.

......................

here are the facts from the globe & mail:
hehe, from now on I'll try and not confuse the true facts that come from the left media and ignore the false statements from the right...

ltr
CBC and the Globe article linked to both say that the reason was the political context.
The spokeswoman was actually quoted in the Globe article.
Apparently far right media like the CBC and Globe and Mail simply can't be trusted to report a quote accurately.

I am very skeptical of the media (see posts on use of CFR), but to suggest they are resorting to falsified quotes to push their agenda is alleging actual malice.
That's a particularly bold claim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts
Let's be clear, the spokesperson said, on the record, that the political context is why the investor withdrew.
Unless you present information to the contrary we have no reason to believe she is lying to us.

the lying parties are the parties trying to pretend that the statements doubting the "political context" for Energie Saguenay came either from warren buffett or else from berkshire hathaway.

as mentioned previously, neither buffett nor berkshire have said anything about the Saguenay. Not one word.

it's even possible that the rumour buffett or berkshire "might" be interested in investing in the tired old idea of a deepwater LNG terminal on the st-lawrence river is a 100% made-in-canada rumour. I wonder if buffett himself has even heard of this particular use of his name? certainly both jason kenney & francois legault are pushy enough to float such a rumour.

as already mentioned above, the spokesperson doubting the "political context" & thus inappropriately attempting to put words into buffett's mouth which he never uttered, is canadian stephanie fortin from canadian company Energie Saguenay.

obviously mlle Fortin has an agenda. Just like the O&G old-timers who will use any ruse to pretend that the global collapse in energy prices is somehow the unique fault of tiny canada & specifically the fault of the current liberal government.

it's time for the O&G old-timers to wake up to 2020. All over the planet - on every single continent - the O&G industry is in deep, deep, deep, deep trouble. It's the *R* word.


* * * * *

dreams about a deepwater LNG terminal on the south shore of the st-lawrence river - across from tadoussac, where the saguenay river empties into the st-laurent - have been around for at least a couple decades.

in a former rendering of the idea several years ago, such a LNG port would have handled fracked gas from new england in the US, together with gas from wells just south of montreal city. That plan got nixed.

a subsequent rendering of the same idea had an early version of Energy East built along the south shore of the st-lawrence as far as cacouna (across from tadoussac). This dual-purpose pipeline would have carried both gas & alberta bitumen.

at cacouna, the bitumen pipe would have segued off from the gas pipe & turned southeast, heading for the new brunswick border & the port of st-John. But early on, TRP itself nixed that plan & instead promoted a bitumen only pipeline more or less as the crow flies from montreal east to new brunswick.

there was massive, substantial opposition in quebec to both of the above ideas. The whales were part of ithe opposition. The st-lawrence river at tadoussac is the breeding ground for the beluga whale colony.

there was other massive opposition to a deepwater LNG terminal for the saguenay river. Right now it's a dormant idea.

young voters in quebec do not support current premier francois legault. He's kind of a temporary placeholder who represents a baby boomer generation of retirees. Younger voters are heading to the renascent parti quebecois, which is no longer seeking separation from canada. Young quebec voters have much in common with the NDP, the greens & the ottawa liberals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Well, humble can make all the excuses in the world to defend his view, but the fact is that billions in investment was lost due to a few thugs that were allowed to shut down the economy with impunity. This wasn't the first time, and it certainly won't be the last time.

I'm 58 and retired with a pension so I'll be fine, but if I was 20 and concerned about my economic future I'd move out of Canada and leave people like humble to try to survive on their own in their fantasy socialist paradise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,825 Posts
Petronas cancelled a $36 billion LNG project in 2017, citing a weak future business outlook. Fossil fuel companies are finding it difficult to raise investor cash.

Berkshire sold some assets and bought some other stocks. It looks like Berkshire did the math and didn't see a sufficient return on their capital.

Berkshire hasn't commented on their decision and don't appear interested in offering any reasons for their decision.

Alberta's Premier Jason Kenny has hinted at using taxpayer dollars and public service pension fund capital to pay for projects, because investor interest just isn't there.

These are huge capital intensive projects that require a 50 year payback horizon. Investors are questioning if these projects will still be around in 50 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
the lying parties are the parties trying to pretend that the statements doubting the "political context" for Energie Saguenay came either from warren buffett or else from berkshire hathaway.

as mentioned previously, neither buffett nor berkshire have said anything about the Saguenay. Not one word.

Berkshire didn't issue a public statement, but they assuredly told the company they pulled the investment from why they were doing that.

There are 2 possibilities

1. When they pulled out, they were clear about their concerns, they want to keep the door open in the future if other projects present themselves. The spokeswoman then relayed a concise statement on the reasons.
That is all logical and reasonable.

2. Berkshire said absolutely nothing, and provided no reason why they pulled the project. The spokeswoman then stood at a press conference and lied about the reasons.
This would damage future business relationships.
I don't think this is likely.

Looking at those I think the first option is much more logical, reasonable and believable.
The second option doesn't make any sense.


Finally, Warren and Charlie likely had nothing to do with the details of the deal. They hire good people to do the hard detailed work for them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts
my bad. The proposed deepwater LNG terminal won't be built upon the fair southern shore of the st-lawrence river after all.

they were planning to build up the saguenay fjord almost as far as lac st-jean, at what is presently a small split maritime facility partly located near the town of la Baie & partly located - this is the deepwater pier i believe - at a riverside settlement named la grande Anse.

ships loaded with liquified natural gas would then ply up & down the 54 nautical miles of the magnificent saguenay fjord, a world-famous tourist magnet of high mountains & pristine waters where the colonies of dolphins, beluga & humpback whales live & play.

the indigenous atikamekw people of nearby wemotaci have already said they're not having a gas pipeline on their territory. Hundreds of quebec MDs have protested against shipping LNG through the picture-perfect fairytale saguenay fjord. The enviro protest movement hasn't even begun to complain yet.

afaik, smaller tankers able to navigate the sagueney fjord might not be best suited to cross the atlantic ocean. Therefore i'm asking myself whether the plans include transshipping the highly flammable compressed gas from small saguenay tankers into larger oceangoing tankers from a bigger terminal to be built at, say, cacouna.

then there's the shrunken market for LNG for the present & for the near future. World is experiencing a glut of fossil fuels. On the eastern coast of north america, LNG is easily available from established US export terminals.

this is going to be one aitch of a nightmare story. You were thinking that RCMP locking up a few protestors on wet'suwet'en territory in BC was bad enough? saguenay will be worse, if plans go ahead to build it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
no, you're not 58 & retired w a pension

better give it up bass player aka tygrus aka prairie guy. Everyone knows who you are. It's a pretty bleak picture.
Yes, I am 58 and have been retired for almost 5 years now. If I prove it, will you promise to leave the forum?

I don't know who those people are that you keep accusing me of being. I do play some guitar...was there a "guitar player" on the forum in the past? Perhaps they also proved you wrong repeatedly and you still haven't gotten over it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Petronas cancelled a $36 billion LNG project in 2017, citing a weak future business outlook. Fossil fuel companies are finding it difficult to raise investor cash.
Weak future business outlook heavily caused by the rest of the world leaving Canada in the dust. Australia alone in 2019 exported 77 MT of LNG, more than 5X the capacity of the first phase of LNG Canada.

https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/1/australia-takes-crown-worlds-top-lng-exporter/

Teck's Frontier has taken 9 years and still haven't gotten a final approval to begin construction, Norway found a giant oil field (Johan Sverdrup) in 2010 and had it operational 9 years later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
this is going to be one aitch of a nightmare story. You were thinking that RCMP locking up a few protestors on wet'suwet'en territory in BC was bad enough? saguenay will be worse, if plans go ahead to build it.
You're right, it will be a nightmare.
I'd bet that they won't lock up ANY protestors, at least for a few weeks or months.
It fits into Trudeaus anti-development agenda, rather than reject the projects outright, he'll let the protestors block it.

This is really going to damage the ability of Canada to attract investment.
Look at what the no arrest laws have done to California cities.

We have this on a national scale, as long as you're protesting jobs and investment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Our PM cancelled yet another world tour/vacation to tell us that he caved in to a few unelected dictators and their thugs and then told the rest of Canada that he was powerless to do anything.

This is the very same guy who shut down a criminal investigation into his actions. He can do THAT but he can't stop a few bullies from shutting down our economy.

And once again the media refused to hold him accountable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,016 Posts
The first call is actually up to the Provincial Premiers, or their Attorneys General. In Quebec and Ontario it is the OPP and Surete de Auebec. The army and the RCMP have to be invited in by the Provinepce.

And how do you cover off thousands of kms or rail lines across Canada with various choke points? You cannot.

Even if the army and police forces were called in this would only be resolved one way. Through negotiation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
The first call is actually up to the Provincial Premiers, or their Attorneys General. In Quebec and Ontario it is the OPP and Surete de Auebec. The army and the RCMP have to be invited in by the Provinepce.

And how do you cover off thousands of kms or rail lines across Canada with various choke points? You cannot.

Even if the army and police forces were called in this would only be resolved one way. Through negotiation.
I'm all for negotiating, however once you start attacking our national infrastructure, we have a law enforcement issue.

That's the problem, when attacking infrastructure is seen as a valid way to get what you want on a poltiical issue, we're encouraging terrorism, and that's a serious problem.
Right now it's a small number of crazy people who just want to cause trouble, but what about when some nontrivial portion of the country follows their lead.
 
301 - 320 of 336 Posts
Top