01-22-2014, 12:16 PM
You may be correct Palm, 
But if I may demonstrate more clearly what I mean:
12 Apr 2013 http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news...ng-project "Woodside proposes Canadian LNG project"
18 Jan 2014 http://www.smh.com.au/business/woodside-...310gy.html "Woodside seals LNG export deal with British Columbia government"
It may be more than just "might", "possibly", "potential" "future possibilities" "could", etc etc. But you are correct that by my demanded standards for information, I do expect Woodside to provide a written confirmation about this project before I will accept it as a confirmed project.
But if I may demonstrate more clearly what I mean:
12 Apr 2013 http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news...ng-project "Woodside proposes Canadian LNG project"
18 Jan 2014 http://www.smh.com.au/business/woodside-...310gy.html "Woodside seals LNG export deal with British Columbia government"
It may be more than just "might", "possibly", "potential" "future possibilities" "could", etc etc. But you are correct that by my demanded standards for information, I do expect Woodside to provide a written confirmation about this project before I will accept it as a confirmed project.