Economic News

[winners]

Can some kind souls here explain to me why is it that just in January 2017, Aramco had announced its withdrawal of partnership with Malaysian state-oil firm Petroliam Nasional Berhad in a US$27 billion (RM119.6 billion) refining and petrochemical project and then 6 days ago, they subsequently announced again to invest $7 billion into this same oil refinery and petrochemical project in Malaysia's southern state of Johor. Why does Aramco needs to do this flip-flop? Maybe I'm missing something which the so-called "experts" here can enlighten me? I further understand that Snowbird had given his version which some here had claimed to be biased. So, I would also like to hear the unbiased version.

 

[rotikok]

Can some kind souls here explain to me why is it that just in January 2017, Aramco had announced its withdrawal of partnership with Malaysian state-oil firm Petroliam Nasional Berhad in a US$27 billion (RM119.6 billion) refining and petrochemical project and then 6 days ago, they subsequently announced again to invest $7 billion into this same oil refinery and petrochemical project in Malaysia's southern state of Johor. Why does Aramco needs to do this flip-flop? Maybe I'm missing something which the so-called "experts" here can enlighten me? I further understand that Snowbird had given his version which some here had claimed to be biased. So, I would also like to hear the unbiased version.

Aramco never announce any withdrawal news. This hearsay news come out from Singapore Strait Time citing from reliable informant. No one know who this informant is nor able to verify his/her insider news. This piece of fake news further magnified by international news media like reuter etc.... until then, no one from petronas nor aramco come out and confirm the news.

I dont know what had happen, my guess is, the informant maybe saying the withdrawal is between Pertamina and Aramco (Aramco didnt invest in Dumai, Balongan, Balikpapan refinery project, only invest cilacap refinery project in indonesia). So this informant telling the news.... and strait time reporter too sotong, never heard pertamina in his reporter life, so come out as aramco cancel petronas news, those two company start with P and got T in between, maybe the reporter got mix up.

Anyway, just my guessing.

 

[winners]

Aramco never announce any withdrawal news. This hearsay news come out from Singapore Strait Time citing from reliable informant. No one know who this informant is nor able to verify his/her insider news. This piece of fake news further magnified by international news media like reuter etc.... until then, no one from petronas nor aramco come out and confirm the news.

It was Reuters which first reported the withdrawal news and their very own New Straits Times had subsequently referred to it as well.

Whoever is speaking the truth, PETRONAS should have refuted the report by their own New Straits Times, which they didn't. Whatever this case may eventually turns out, I just hope that PETRONAS will not be disadvantaged by the Saudis. ARAMCO, being many times more richer than PETRONAS, may manipulate the latter to its advantage with ease.

 

[winners]

So this informant telling the news.... and strait time reporter too sotong, never heard pertamina in his reporter life, so come out as aramco cancel petronas news, those two company start with P and got T in between, maybe the reporter got mix up.

So, you should also be implying that the editor in their own New Straits Times is even more sotong since he is supposed to know the difference between PETRONAS (from his own country) and PERTAMINA at his finger tips. Why you just discriminate only the reporter from The Straits Times?

 

[rotikok]

It was Reuters which first reported the withdrawal news and their very own New Straits Times had subsequently referred to it as well.

Whoever is speaking the truth, PETRONAS should have refuted the report by their own New Straits Times, which they didn't. Whatever this case may eventually turns out, I just hope that PETRONAS will not be disadvantaged by the Saudis. ARAMCO, being many times more richer than PETRONAS, may manipulate the latter to its advantage with ease.

So, you should also be implying that the editor in their own New Straits Times is even more sotong since he is supposed to know the difference between PETRONAS (from his own country) and PERTAMINA at his finger tips. Why you just discriminate only the reporter from The Straits Times?

My memory serve me perfectly correct, so i try to google out what i read few months back, digging out the history. Come to my surprise, I failed.

Ok first, it is from the very beginning coming out from the straits times, singapore media. Not New strait time, which is a malaysia media; I never said new straits time as i clealy never add a "new" for straits time. So I tried to google "aramco petronas" for site:http://www.straitstimes.com between 23/1 to end of 31/1. No, nothing had came out, singapore strait time already deleted off everything, not even a single news came out. Dont believe, try google it yourself. Then i tried on New straits time, reuter WSJ, all got news result coming out from 24-25 Jan.

This is NST on 25 Jan cited from reuters; " industry sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on today.": http://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/01/...elves-plans-malaysia-venture-petronas-sources

This is 24 Jan news from Reuters, funny enough, it is said the source was from WSJ: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN1FE0OQ
Extract:Jan 24 Saudi Aramco -

* Axes plans for Petronas joint venture - WSJ, citing sources

* Concluded project led by Petronas, wouldn't generate sufficient returns after conducting a feasibility study - WSJ, citing sources

Source text: on.wsj.com/2kq893D

So I follow where reuter quoted, WSJ

And this is from WSJ, updated on 26 Jan (i wonder how is the original news look like), need to pay to read, but the first paragraph said that, "according to three people familiar with the matter"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-...joint-venture-1485311157?mod=wsj_nview_latest


So reuters is not the original source maker, reuters quoted from WSJ. Other media that follow the news quoted from reuters, which is not the very origin of the news source. The news in WSJ only open for subscribers to read, that may tell where WSJ got the piece of news from. Why I blame strait time for fake news reporting? Because i remember clearly Straits time was quoting someone in the industry, the informant, saying the project did not generate sufficient return that the aramco want hence they scrap the plan, and they clearly report that the informant is someone from singapore working in the industry. Now the fake news report had been deleted by singapore strait time, i have nothing to prove my point..hai

Just in case you were wondering since there is no fake news to prove my point, and why im so sure strait time was faking the news. I google again, newsone, to channel news asia, other singapore media all got news report coming out between 24-26 Jan saying the aramco scraped the plan. And singapore strait time, between 22 Jan up until 31 Jan did not even a piece of news coming out??? Of course they did, they are the original news source, but they knew it is fake news, so that deleted everything. Dont believe me, go google it yourself, I did not make up the story, the strait times never reported any aramco scraped plan news and deleted everything. Such a big news organisation, other singapore media got report, they didnt even come out with a single piece of news? Or they did but they deleted. Want to prove them wrong also cannot, really KNS.

 

[winners]

I google again, newsone, to channel news asia, other singapore media all got news report coming out between 24-26 Jan saying the aramco scraped the plan.........
Such a big news organisation, other singapore media got report, they didnt even come out with a single piece of news? Or they did but they deleted. Want to prove them wrong also cannot, really KNS.

So, at the end of the day, did they or did not they? A simple issue and you get everyone confused with your long posting. By the way, The Straits Times and AsiaOne (although you had mentioned NewsOne in your above post, probably by mistake) belong to the same parent: Singapore Press Holdings. If as according to you, this fake news had already been deleted from The Straits Times, why is it still not deleted from AsiaOne?

Your hidden agenda is very clear. You knew that this news had originated from WSJ and subsequently being repeated and quoted again by Reuters. But instead of pointing the fingers at the source, you deliberately accused ONLY The Straits Times, which now you claimed that it has been deleted. So much for your impartiality. Also, if "the informant" had been quoted in The Straits Times as according to what you had claimed to have read online, there will also be a hardcopy (newspapers, which I'm sure the Malaysian Embassy in Singapore would have subscribed) and PETRONAS should rightfully vindicate itself with a follow up press briefing. Otherwise, it'll affect their standing and reputation. There is also no need for you to additionally confuse and deviate further by bringing in PERTAMINA into this discussion. This is what had been concocted by yourself. You claimed that The Straits Times had provided fake news, but you had provided even worse faked news, LOL.

My concern is not to let the Saudis take PETRONAS for a ride, especially when Malaysia is presently in desperate need for more FDIs. Those Middle Easterners are not known to be truly generous, unless with conditions (drafted well in their favor) attached.

 

[snowbird]

Aramco never announce any withdrawal news. This hearsay news come out from Singapore Strait Time citing from reliable informant. No one know who this informant is nor able to verify his/her insider news. This piece of fake news further magnified by international news media like reuter etc.... until then, no one from petronas nor aramco come out and confirm the news.

I dont know what had happen, my guess is, the informant maybe saying the withdrawal is between Pertamina and Aramco (Aramco didnt invest in Dumai, Balongan, Balikpapan refinery project, only invest cilacap refinery project in indonesia). So this informant telling the news.... and strait time reporter too sotong, never heard pertamina in his reporter life, so come out as aramco cancel petronas news, those two company start with P and got T in between, maybe the reporter got mix up.
Anyway, just my guessing.

You are 100% right about Aramco never announce their withdrawal from the deal, they had always been very keen on this project but at their offer price and their terms and conditions!
Malaysia was not happy with the offer and the Saudi's terms and conditions, hence they walked away from the negotiation.
As late as 11.02.2017, the Second Finance Minister Johari Abdul Ghani was quoted saying :

“The funding of this project until its completion has always been based solely on Petronas’ own strength.
The possibility of having Aramco as a partner to share the project was only an option.
Since Petronas could not agree to some of the terms, the two parties decided to stop the negotiations and move on.”

Are you suggesting that the Minister is talking nonsense?
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ca.../arab-investors-fleeing-prove-it-says-johari/

When RAPID was first announced, crude oil was above US$120 and Petronas was flushed with cash and hence had never thought of needing an investing partner.
But now with crude oil below US$50, Petronas had no means to carry on the RAPID alone without getting a bank loan or finding a partner with hard cash.
Getting a bank loan is out because no banks are keen to loan to the O&G industries these days with many banks already experiencing severe defaults from this industry.
Since more than 2 years back, Petronas had been on a drastic cut back on operations expenses like retrenchment and capex expenditure, all these were publicly announced.
So, the change of mind should be the Malaysians, confirming the deal the last minute accepting the Saudi's offer.
Who has the money, who can demand the best price.

Look at the final deal, the price Aramco paid and they get a 50% stake in the project.
For Aramco, this project will definitely enhance their portfolio for their coming IPO.
For US$7 billion, Petronas lost 50% of the project which is worth much more, and now, who is the controlling party, who has the final say in decision making?
Was it really a fire sale?
Is this a win-win situation?
Think about it.

 

[rotikok]

So, at the end of the day, did they or did not they? A simple issue and you get everyone confused with your long posting. By the way, The Straits Times and AsiaOne (although you had mentioned NewsOne in your above post, probably by mistake) belong to the same parent: Singapore Press Holdings. If as according to you, this fake news had already been deleted from The Straits Times, why is it still not deleted from AsiaOne?

Your hidden agenda is very clear. You knew that this news had originated from WSJ and subsequently being repeated and quoted again by Reuters. But instead of pointing the fingers at the source, you deliberately accused ONLY The Straits Times, which now you claimed that it has been deleted. So much for your impartiality. Also, if "the informant" had been quoted in The Straits Times as according to what you had claimed to have read online, there will also be a hardcopy (newspapers, which I'm sure the Malaysian Embassy in Singapore would have subscribed) and PETRONAS should rightfully vindicate itself with a follow up press briefing. Otherwise, it'll affect their standing and reputation. There is also no need for you to additionally confuse and deviate further by bringing in PERTAMINA into this discussion. This is what had been concocted by yourself. You claimed that The Straits Times had provided fake news, but you had provided even worse faked news, LOL.

My concern is not to let the Saudis take PETRONAS for a ride, especially when Malaysia is presently in desperate need for more FDIs. Those Middle Easterners are not known to be truly generous, unless with conditions (drafted well in their favor) attached.

Now you can say anything you want since i cannot prove with that fake news that they had deleted. No, you didnt believe it even exist....well i have nothing to prove my point too, you win.

But, I do not agree that both media from same parent will not repeat each other. Asiaone and straitstimes belong to same parent company, do you mean their report will not be repeated? After come out at asiaone, then straitstimes, because from same parent company, will not repeat the news. What about Newscorp? Applying same logic, same parent company, New York Post will not repeat the news after Wall Street Journal reported it?

And lets not forget, news coming out from asiaone is late until Jan 25, 2017, that piece of news is not the original news that we are talking about and they are saying the news is from Reuters. This piece of news suggest that asiaone did not know what straitstimes had done, which come as no surprise, this two news media, come from same parent but not in the same office.

I dont know whether in the end it turn out on their newspaper. If can, I will try to find it out, perhaps you can help me to dig it out if convenient to you. All I have done is read it from their straitstime online news, after follow the link from google news alert ( i had put several key word for google to alert me on latest news update). I will not subscribe to WSJ just to prove my point, but anyone can provide that piece of WSJ news for free, welcome.

"and PETRONAS should rightfully vindicate itself with a follow up press briefing. Otherwise, it'll affect their standing and reputation. " Well, as we know, neither aramco nor petronas stand out to say anything, even after people believe the news coming from big name like Reuter, both party remain silent.

Ok la, I have nothing to backed up my claim, this, I have to admit, and admit technically this argument i already in the losing side. The pertamina thing, I already written clearly, even at the closing saying, "JUST GUESSING", why i purposely stress that it is guessing, so that you do not take it as "fake" since i already told you it is just my guess.

 

[snowbird]

Budget cuts affect public universities

With severe budget cut by hundreds of millions RM, there is a hiring freeze of new academic staff while some seniors have to retire as they have not been offered a contract to continue.
It is understood that thousands of staff are affected.
Worse, many good academics have already left the country and taken up employment in countries like Japan, Singapore and Australia where their talents and abilities would be better appreciated.
Those good academics who have left the country, especially those who conduct critical research which might not be appreciated by local universities and they would not be able to see their careers develop here.

But the funny thing is they have enough budget to send hundreds of soldiers and equipment to the Middle East to fight in somebody's war.

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/how-budget-cuts-affect-public-universities

 

[sgtsk]

Aramco never announce any withdrawal news. This hearsay news come out from Singapore Strait Time citing from reliable informant. No one know who this informant is nor able to verify his/her insider news. This piece of fake news further magnified by international news media like reuter etc.... until then, no one from petronas nor aramco come out and confirm the news.

I dont know what had happen, my guess is, the informant maybe saying the withdrawal is between Pertamina and Aramco (Aramco didnt invest in Dumai, Balongan, Balikpapan refinery project, only invest cilacap refinery project in indonesia). So this informant telling the news.... and strait time reporter too sotong, never heard pertamina in his reporter life, so come out as aramco cancel petronas news, those two company start with P and got T in between, maybe the reporter got mix up.

Anyway, just my guessing.

How about here

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se...rce=Facebook&xtor=CS1-10#link_time=1486350819

 

[rotikok]

You are 100% right about Aramco never announce their withdrawal from the deal, they had always been very keen on this project but at their offer price and their terms and conditions!
Malaysia was not happy with the offer and the Saudi's terms and conditions, hence they walked away from the negotiation.
As late as 11.02.2017, the Second Finance Minister Johari Abdul Ghani was quoted saying :

“The funding of this project until its completion has always been based solely on Petronas’ own strength.
The possibility of having Aramco as a partner to share the project was only an option.
Since Petronas could not agree to some of the terms, the two parties decided to stop the negotiations and move on.”

Are you suggesting that the Minister is talking nonsense?
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ca.../arab-investors-fleeing-prove-it-says-johari/

When RAPID was first announced, crude oil was above US$120 and Petronas was flushed with cash and hence had never thought of needing an investing partner.
But now with crude oil below US$50, Petronas had no means to carry on the RAPID alone without getting a bank loan or finding a partner with hard cash.
Getting a bank loan is out because no banks are keen to loan to the O&G industries these days with many banks already experiencing severe defaults from this industry.
Since more than 2 years back, Petronas had been on a drastic cut back on operations expenses like retrenchment and capex expenditure, all these were publicly announced.
So, the change of mind should be the Malaysians, confirming the deal the last minute accepting the Saudi's offer.
Who has the money, who can demand the best price.

Look at the final deal, the price Aramco paid and they get a 50% stake in the project.
For Aramco, this project will definitely enhance their portfolio for their coming IPO.
For US$7 billion, Petronas lost 50% of the project which is worth much more, and now, who is the controlling party, who has the final say in decision making?
Was it really a fire sale?
Is this a win-win situation?
Think about it.

Talking nonsense....errr....ya haha. In my earlier reply, I already explain. anyway, between what he said, and what Aramco CEO said:"
http://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/02/216159/aramco-denies-rapid-pullout-rumour-says-it-here-stay
“During the discussions, there were no plans to pull out or break out from the agreement,” Amin told a press conference after signing a Share Purchase Agreement with Petronas today.

He said Saudi Aramco had full teams working with Petronas to iron out the details of the partnership.

“When news first broke out (that Saudi Aramco had withdrawn), we didn’t want to elaborate because we were preparing the agreement. It was only a matter of time before we celebrate (our partnership).


So you see, totally contrasting each other. So who to believe? Malaysia second finance minister (oh ya, minister that involve in the signing is abdul rahman dahlan, not this second minister) or aramco CEO? you decide.

By the way, just USD 7B get 50%.... up until now we do not know how the arrangement is, whether there is loan involved? Petronas also put 7B in rapid and get the other 50% of stakes?

Im not trying to imply that petronas will only pay 7B for everything, the whole PIPC is certainly costing more. Just the rapid project, i believe it is a fair deal.... to date, no evident able to show that whether the deal is fair or not.

See, I always clearly state, what i think, what the fact was, what might not be true, what is not true. I do not try to mingle what i think and make it into fact for people to believe what i said. If im wrong, im more than happy anyone to come and correct me. Think about it, are you trying to say something that you are not sure and trying to brainwash other to believe it as facts? Cheers

 

[rotikok]

How about here

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se...rce=Facebook&xtor=CS1-10#link_time=1486350819

Already February news, I also only able to found out this news....what about the one between 23 Jan to 24 Jan about aramco and petronas? Nothing!

 

[winners]

Now you can say anything you want since i cannot prove with that fake news that they had deleted. No, you didnt believe it even exist....well i have nothing to prove my point too, you win.

But, I do not agree that both media from same parent will not repeat each other. Asiaone and straitstimes belong to same parent company, do you mean their report will not be repeated? After come out at asiaone, then straitstimes, because from same parent company, will not repeat the news. What about Newscorp? Applying same logic, same parent company, New York Post will not repeat the news after Wall Street Journal reported it?

And lets not forget, news coming out from asiaone is late until Jan 25, 2017, that piece of news is not the original news that we are talking about and they are saying the news is from Reuters. This piece of news suggest that asiaone did not know what straitstimes had done, which come as no surprise, this two news media, come from same parent but not in the same office.

I dont know whether in the end it turn out on their newspaper. If can, I will try to find it out, perhaps you can help me to dig it out if convenient to you. All I have done is read it from their straitstime online news, after follow the link from google news alert ( i had put several key word for google to alert me on latest news update). I will not subscribe to WSJ just to prove my point, but anyone can provide that piece of WSJ news for free, welcome.

"and PETRONAS should rightfully vindicate itself with a follow up press briefing. Otherwise, it'll affect their standing and reputation. " Well, as we know, neither aramco nor petronas stand out to say anything, even after people believe the news coming from big name like Reuter, both party remain silent.

Ok la, I have nothing to backed up my claim, this, I have to admit, and admit technically this argument i already in the losing side. The pertamina thing, I already written clearly, even at the closing saying, "JUST GUESSING", why i purposely stress that it is guessing, so that you do not take it as "fake" since i already told you it is just my guess.

Until now, you still don't get it. My point is you need not to just specifically voiced out against The Straits Times, when there are other news media (WSJ, Reuters and even their own New Straits Times) which had similarly quoted the same news and yet you simply ignored. If you are not biased against The Straits Times, I don't know what is? Also, just because Snowbird had mentioned about ARAMCO getting the assets of PETRONAS for a song in this second deal, is it necessary to be so sarcastic in your follow up reply?. He is not "guessing" like you, but at least this is a possible likelihood. Otherwise, why the flip-flop and with a reduced amount of investment by ARAMCO for this second time round?

As for your "guessing" by bringing in PERTAMINA into this discussion, I would advise you to make a more PRACTICAL & LOGICAL guess in future instead of trying to distort the discussion further by emphasizing between the "P" and "T" by that sotong reporter from The Straits Times. PERTAMINA totally has no involvement in this discussion. PERTAMINA has no relevance to this topic and your conjecture is totally unnecessary. It's tantamount to when we are talking about JB here but you bring in Jakarta. Be rational.

 

[winners]

When RAPID was first announced, crude oil was above US$120 and Petronas was flushed with cash and hence had never thought of needing an investing partner.
But now with crude oil below US$50, Petronas had no means to carry on the RAPID alone without getting a bank loan or finding a partner with hard cash.
Getting a bank loan is out because no banks are keen to loan to the O&G industries these days with many banks already experiencing severe defaults from this industry.
Since more than 2 years back, Petronas had been on a drastic cut back on operations expenses like retrenchment and capex expenditure, all these were publicly announced.
So, the change of mind should be the Malaysians, confirming the deal the last minute accepting the Saudi's offer.
Who has the money, who can demand the best price.

Look at the final deal, the price Aramco paid and they get a 50% stake in the project.
For Aramco, this project will definitely enhance their portfolio for their coming IPO.
For US$7 billion, Petronas lost 50% of the project which is worth much more, and now, who is the controlling party, who has the final say in decision making?
Was it really a fire sale?
Is this a win-win situation?
Think about it.

All the above makes sense. It'll be a big waste to PETRONAS if they are selling their share in this project to ARAMCO for a song. They should have thought of scaling down the project until times are better. But then, the purpose of doing as such could be for another reason.

 

[snowbird]

All the above makes sense. It'll be a big waste to PETRONAS if they are selling their share in this project to ARAMCO for a song. They should have thought of scaling down the project until times are better. But then, the purpose of doing as such could be for another reason.

Waste or not for Petronas is really up to them.
With massive cut in capex expenditure for 2 years running, there is no way for the project to proceed smoothly without new funds coming in.
Halfway through and you needed to money badly to proceed and someone comes along offering you a deal so either you take it or everything remain status quo and remaining status quo is not the best option.
Remain status quo is no good as with the on going budget cut in operations expenditure, many more staff may be retrenched and stalling of the economy especially in Johor and is bad for the coming GE.
As for the Saudis, according to their Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih : "the Malaysian deal will help expand Aramco’s portfolio ahead of its initial public offering next year, which is touted to become the world’s largest IPO reported to valued @ US$2 trillion."
Which means that RAPID facilities will be touted as an Aramco's initiative.
So, spending US$7 billions is a tiny little fraction of expenses and small effort but big effect.
Maybe if they had approached the Chinese, and the Chinese will but anything and they might get a better deal, who knows.

But getting a partner holding 50% stake is also a great risk.
Especially when the partner is a biggest giant in the same business.
Being half the owner has plenty of say or maybe even having a bigger say.
Having a foothold in MY, Aramco can easily expand its control the region.
Do you guys notice that all the foreign news always never fail to mention about the Saudi's US$700 millions "donation" to Najib whenever this deal is being reported?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/02/28/saudi-malaysia-oil-deal/98514948/

 

[snowbird]

Talking nonsense....errr....ya haha. In my earlier reply, I already explain. anyway, between what he said, and what Aramco CEO said:"
http://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/02/216159/aramco-denies-rapid-pullout-rumour-says-it-here-stay
“During the discussions, there were no plans to pull out or break out from the agreement,” Amin told a press conference after signing a Share Purchase Agreement with Petronas today.

He said Saudi Aramco had full teams working with Petronas to iron out the details of the partnership.

“When news first broke out (that Saudi Aramco had withdrawn), we didn’t want to elaborate because we were preparing the agreement. It was only a matter of time before we celebrate (our partnership).


So you see, totally contrasting each other. So who to believe? Malaysia second finance minister (oh ya, minister that involve in the signing is abdul rahman dahlan, not this second minister) or aramco CEO? you decide.

By the way, just USD 7B get 50%.... up until now we do not know how the arrangement is, whether there is loan involved? Petronas also put 7B in rapid and get the other 50% of stakes?

Im not trying to imply that petronas will only pay 7B for everything, the whole PIPC is certainly costing more. Just the rapid project, i believe it is a fair deal.... to date, no evident able to show that whether the deal is fair or not.

See, I always clearly state, what i think, what the fact was, what might not be true, what is not true. I do not try to mingle what i think and make it into fact for people to believe what i said. If im wrong, im more than happy anyone to come and correct me. Think about it, are you trying to say something that you are not sure and trying to brainwash other to believe it as facts? Cheers

I actually totally agreed with you that Aramco had NEVER plan to pull out of the negotiation.
Do you notice that all the news confirming this is on Aramco saying so?
What about Petronas?
Even the news you quoted had Abdul Rahman cleverly saying : "there was never a decision by Saudi Aramco to withdraw from the negotiations", with no mention about their own part.
So that Finance Minister was not talking rubbish after all.
And that news was reported by New Straits Times, which is BN's mouthpiece.

And about the deal.
The Malaysian had broke all the rules by awarding Aramco 50% stake, especially to a company in this all important O&G industry.
For foreign partnership, the most should be 49/51, with MY having the higher share.
Perhaps that's why the negotiation took so long because the Saudis wanted a controlling stake at the lowest price.

 

[snowbird]

By the way, interest free loan for ECRL, no matter how i see it, the only losing party will be the China. Have you taken inflation into consideration? What is RM 55B means after 20 years, further more malaysia hold the ringgit printing machine right? Just in case you cant understand simple logic, give you a simple example. 30 years ago north south highway cost RM5.9 B to complete, let say in 1987, 5.9B, bank loan 30 yaers to repay...but hey, 1987 5.9B is hell lot of money, malaysia gov where got so much money to squander, this will be your worry back in year 1987. By the time 2017, do you still think RM 5.9B difficult to repay? IF you want to build north south highway in 2017, do u think the whole project will only cost a mere RM 5.9B?? So simply, inflation will help us repay part of the loan. The mistake you made is to assume money value is constant regardless of time...it is not.

First, I need to correct myself on the Chinese soft loan for the ECRL.
It was a LOW interest loan instead of interest free loan that I mentioned and to be repaid over 20 years.
When a country takes a loan from another country, it is usually in US$ or in the lender's currency and after all, the RM is not widely interchangeable internationally.
The borrowing is actually RMB 14.5 billions (RM55 billions now) so I believe the repayment will be in RMB! http://www.chinagoabroad.com/en/rec...gned-to-build-malaysia-s-east-coast-rail-line
The Chinese will provide : "detailed engineering and design of the ECRL, procure all materials and equipment, and deliver the facility to Malaysia"., so will be leaving very little business and job opportunity for the locals.
With the weak RM, in time to come, the repayment with interest will be very much more than the RM55 billions.
Good example is the 1MDB.
The borrowing was in US$ and was about RM42 billions then had now it became almost RM52 billions, still rising and not including the extra high interest rate.

Actually i dont find arab news conflict with hishammuddin statement leh.... participate in a coalition can be many type like stand at back polishing tanks also consider alliance, as long as not a fight ie carry a gun to fight in a war should be ok. Few years back ady mention, malaysia help for evacuation.
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/m...s-in-riyadh-to-assist-evacuation-not-to-fight

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ill-with-troops-from-20-nations-a6874771.html

Whether they do more than what they supposedly should be doing, we dont really know either...maybe if got fatality coming from malaysia side, only then we can get to know the true nature of the assistance. Whether it is forced to do so because of USD 700M? I dont think it is likely so, remember Houthi was Shia based military group, maybe abang adik malaysia indonesia more than willing to help....of coz because malaysia do not officially want to drag into such issue, they may secretly helping too. Do not underestimate sunni brotherhood among themselves, really no need to use 700m to force la... what is 700m mean to saudi? Perhaps just few days of expense and they ady forget liao.


The men were sent to the Middle East for the North Thunder exercise and MY is the only country in SE Asia to participate.
Even Indonesia, a much larger Muslim country is not participating, perhaps the President didn't receive US$700 millions donation, so not obliged to do so.
Even Brunei, another Muslim country, also didn't send any men there; they could send at least 20, 30 men and a couple of aircrafts to show support and brotherhood.
And North Thunder, according to the Saudi Foreign Minister is to : “push back and confront the terrorists and those who promote their violent ideologies,”
Besides fighter jets and transport aircraft that MY sent, fighter pilots are among the men sent so they shouldn't be "polishing tanks" there like what you imagine.

Feel that I have to correct you on some of the things you said la.
Perhaps you are one of those who actually believes that the world famous US$700 millions was a donation from the Saudis.

 

[rotikok]

Until now, you still don't get it. My point is you need not to just specifically voiced out against The Straits Times, when there are other news media (WSJ, Reuters and even their own New Straits Times) which had similarly quoted the same news and yet you simply ignored. If you are not biased against The Straits Times, I don't know what is? Also, just because Snowbird had mentioned about ARAMCO getting the assets of PETRONAS for a song in this second deal, is it necessary to be so sarcastic in your follow up reply?. He is not "guessing" like you, but at least this is a possible likelihood. Otherwise, why the flip-flop and with a reduced amount of investment by ARAMCO for this second time round?

As for your "guessing" by bringing in PERTAMINA into this discussion, I would advise you to make a more PRACTICAL & LOGICAL guess in future instead of trying to distort the discussion further by emphasizing between the "P" and "T" by that sotong reporter from The Straits Times. PERTAMINA totally has no involvement in this discussion. PERTAMINA has no relevance to this topic and your conjecture is totally unnecessary. It's tantamount to when we are talking about JB here but you bring in Jakarta. Be rational.

Erm.... let me clarify few thing before you shoot.

1. Why Im targetting on the straits times and not WSJ or reuters since none of the source said it is from Straits times? As I said, google news alerted me on this news, it was first came out by straits times and none, not even WSJ nor reuters coming out with the news first. Subsequently it becoming like Reuters is the original source while others quoting from Reuters.

So I insists to point my finger on the straits times. DO i have any prove? No, i said it is already deleted, the only weak evident is they do not even quote other news source about the scrapped deal, no news had came out from them.

So im here to just give you my account of the whole incident, believe or not, entirely up to you. I already admit, im on the losing side, i cant prove anything, you can even say i remember wrongly, or they do not even bother to requote other ppl news etc...but i still firmly pointing my finger on straitstimes.

2. Read earlier reply, my sarcastic reply is followed after he ignore the point im drawing out and go straight ahead with his 拾到宝 conclusion. Go read again, my tone of reply is drawing out the possibility because i know that we do not know the details, so snowbird reply, with such confirmation tone, is inaccurate. Read again between words, you think snowbird is guessing? Read again mine, I told clearly about the possibility.

3. Now this question is for you since you know better. You asked "why the flip-flop and with a reduced amount of investment by ARAMCO for this second time round?"
So you know the first around investment amount for rapid? Tell me, quote me with evident, i will be appreciated and would not be hesistate to say, you are rights. The whole discussion, they only talk about jointly issuing loan arrangement and not until the king visit, they only telling their real investment amount... prove me otherwise.

4. You were asking why there is a flip flop in news (and not aramco flip flop, i will willing to accept if you prove me wrong). I told you that the news is coming out from straits times, and aramco did cancel investment around the same time...but it is not with petronas, but with 3 refinery from pertamina. I already told you, my guess is, this sotong reporter might get the company wrong and made a blunder. Not a rational guess?

 

[rotikok]

All the above makes sense. It'll be a big waste to PETRONAS if they are selling their share in this project to ARAMCO for a song. They should have thought of scaling down the project until times are better. But then, the purpose of doing as such could be for another reason.

Not trying to be the expert in this field...but i only know the upstream really jialat, oil price so low. What about downstream primary secondary and tertiary petrol chemical products? Also bad ah...or your projected future is also bad? if not then why are you saying scaling down the project until times are better? I also suspicious about those project whether they can be fruitful because i dont know much about petrol chemical products markets, esp the demand side of such products in the future. Jurong island is already really big, still not enough meh? or going to be a competition between each other...?? i dont know.

Waste or not for Petronas is really up to them.
With massive cut in capex expenditure for 2 years running, there is no way for the project to proceed smoothly without new funds coming in.
Halfway through and you needed to money badly to proceed and someone comes along offering you a deal so either you take it or everything remain status quo and remaining status quo is not the best option.
Remain status quo is no good as with the on going budget cut in operations expenditure, many more staff may be retrenched and stalling of the economy especially in Johor and is bad for the coming GE.
As for the Saudis, according to their Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih : "the Malaysian deal will help expand Aramco’s portfolio ahead of its initial public offering next year, which is touted to become the world’s largest IPO reported to valued @ US$2 trillion."
Which means that RAPID facilities will be touted as an Aramco's initiative.
So, spending US$7 billions is a tiny little fraction of expenses and small effort but big effect.
Maybe if they had approached the Chinese, and the Chinese will but anything and they might get a better deal, who knows.

But getting a partner holding 50% stake is also a great risk.
Especially when the partner is a biggest giant in the same business.
Being half the owner has plenty of say or maybe even having a bigger say.
Having a foothold in MY, Aramco can easily expand its control the region.
Do you guys notice that all the foreign news always never fail to mention about the Saudi's US$700 millions "donation" to Najib whenever this deal is being reported?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/02/28/saudi-malaysia-oil-deal/98514948/

1. New funds need not have to be in the form of equity, they can borrow to fund the project on their own and the project 100% theirs. Aramco came in with equity because they see them as strategic partner....they provide oil
2. errr... help expand Aramco’s portfolio do not mean RAPID facilities will be touted as an Aramco's initiative. Expand portfolio means rapid 50% shares will be in aramco portfolio, thats all, any sensible ppl by just reading it "expand portfolio" will not know anything about the initiative.
3. they are in the same business in upstream...aramco downstream presence remain small, their first downstream venture was late until 2005...so this business joint venture can consider as not so virgin-like virgin venture.
4. aramco have bigger say...maybe, but lets not guess, time will tell.
5. aramco also have other investment in the region
6. yes, 700m usd keep coming out. But foreign news never say that saudi is using it as ransom to force petronas into such deal. Use 700m force to kiss najib.... perhaps hahaha

I actually totally agreed with you that Aramco had NEVER plan to pull out of the negotiation.
Do you notice that all the news confirming this is on Aramco saying so?
What about Petronas?
Even the news you quoted had Abdul Rahman cleverly saying : "there was never a decision by Saudi Aramco to withdraw from the negotiations", with no mention about their own part.
So that Finance Minister was not talking rubbish after all.
And that news was reported by New Straits Times, which is BN's mouthpiece.

And about the deal.
The Malaysian had broke all the rules by awarding Aramco 50% stake, especially to a company in this all important O&G industry.
For foreign partnership, the most should be 49/51, with MY having the higher share.
Perhaps that's why the negotiation took so long because the Saudis wanted a controlling stake at the lowest price.

Wahh...good argument. Since petronas not saying anything, perhaps it is petronas want to get out of the deal while aramco pulling petronas into the deal. Beat me, possible too. So it is sensible for Johari to said :According to Johari, however, the project was never led by the Saudis in the first place. He said Petronas had been executing it on its own “since Day One”.
“The funding of this project until its completion has always been based solely on Petronas’ own strength. The possibility of having Aramco as a partner to share the project was only an option. Since Petronas could not agree to some of the terms, the two parties decided to stop the negotiations and move on.”
“We need to make sure that foreign investors coming into our country will create win-win situations for us and them. Things cannot be one sided.”

So aramco want to be big boss in this project...haha so no matter how hard petronas want to chase away aramco, they cant as saudi will stick like a fly.

50% is a 50%, ie equal voice. Malaysia got law say foreign ownership cannot over 50% meh? even touch 50% alraedy against the law liao?

 

[rotikok]

First, I need to correct myself on the Chinese soft loan for the ECRL.
It was a LOW interest loan instead of interest free loan that I mentioned and to be repaid over 20 years.
When a country takes a loan from another country, it is usually in US$ or in the lender's currency and after all, the RM is not widely interchangeable internationally.
The borrowing is actually RMB 14.5 billions (RM55 billions now) so I believe the repayment will be in RMB! http://www.chinagoabroad.com/en/rece...oast-rail-line
The Chinese will provide : "detailed engineering and design of the ECRL, procure all materials and equipment, and deliver the facility to Malaysia"., so will be leaving very little business and job opportunity for the locals.
With the weak RM, in time to come, the repayment with interest will be very much more than the RM55 billions.
Good example is the 1MDB.
The borrowing was in US$ and was about RM42 billions then had now it became almost RM52 billions, still rising and not including the extra high interest rate.


Feel that I have to correct you on some of the things you said la.
Perhaps you are one of those who actually believes that the world famous US$700 millions was a donation from the Saudis.

Using past history to bias against ringgit. After so much investment pulling into the country, from China to saudi and later april will be india, in 20 years time, ringgit will be even lousier than now esp when our reliance on oil is getting smaller and smaller? But yea....maybe yuan perform more strongly, then we all eat shit.

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nati...hlan-no-foreign-exchange-risks-for-ecrl-loan/
PETALING JAYA: There will be no foreign exchange risk for the East Coast Rail Line (ECRL) loan, as alleged by former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

In a statement Thursday, Barisan Nasional strategic communications director Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan (pix) said the soft loan facility for the ECRL is in a mix of Chinese yuan and ringgit, not just ringgit alone.

"There will be no exchange rate exposure risk for us as at the point of the first draw-down of the loan, the yuan-ringgit exchange rate for loan repayment purposes will be fixed for the remainder duration of the loan," said Abdul Rahman, who is also Minister in the Prime Minister's Department.

Now can rest assure, with low interest rate, with fix exchange rate to eliminate volatility, inflation will work its way to eat away part of the cost. Of coz, if rm up against rmb, we cannot gain advantages from strengtening of ringgit too.

"repayment with interest will be very much more than the RM55 billions." of coz la, unless it is a negative interest rate, if not surely more than RM 55B.

Donation.... see also know is corruption la. But i do not believe that money is being used by saudi to gain any unfavourable deal/ransom with malaysia government. Maybe they so brotherhood love, saudi help najib to cover up only nia to explain the money jib launder out from 1mdb. Maybe saudi do not even give them that donation at all. Prove: king kiss jib.

At least for now, all unfavourable deal, ransom etc that you all drew suspicion on, doesnt seem quite valid to my eye.

Oh... 700m to blackmail malaysia military.... i can also give reason such as " bcoz malaysia join the north thunder, saudi reward 700m as gesture a of thankfulness for malaysia to participate in the anti terror exercise. Rmb, what saudi said about the donation? It was donated in support of Najib’s fight against extremism.

But malaysia already officially denial their real participation in the fight against houthi military. And i dont quite believe malaysia was force into the war becoz of 700M, will be too forcing to make such linkage.