RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Re:EncanaOh I agree with you Ferret. There are a lot of moving parts (perhaps too many) to getting LNG shipped out of B.C. Although there is also an approval process in the U.S. (FERC),-- and despite the criticism it gets for approval delays, they don't seem to be of the magnitude of Canada's bottlenecks. It is unusual for oil majors to be so outspoken about delays and gov't approvals. Their style is more the quite diplomacy or just the simple decision to move on to another project. It's always good to have a number of projects in the pipeline so that can not lose sight of the best fit in terms of profitability. I don't know how Petronas stacks up with the likes of Exxon, Chevron, Conoco but my guess is that it would trail. Perhaps they just didn't read the politcs or the approval process in Canada. The CEO must be quite disappointed to be the first out of the gate but now racing in the middle of the pack with all that lead lost.They have been careful to offload some of their risk to other willing parties along the way. To date, I have not seen any of those back out. The U.S. does have a commanding lead in the LNG startup with one of those terminals being in Oregon. Specboy is quite right in his post,- that one way or the other, LNG is going to be shipped out of North America and when it does (I think as early as 2016) it will put a bid under prices and perhaps even flatten some of the seasonality that we see in nat-gas prices. But I would like to see Canadian gas shipped out of B.C also, so that Canada can export it's own product as opposed to having the U.S do it for us. It would mean more jobs for B.C. and Alberta. The global competition for LNG, especially in the U.S will act as some restraint on the B.C. gov't in imposing unreasonable tax regimes that could kill the golden goose. But many LNG terminals will be needed.