It is opinion, of course. Why do you keep coming back to that? All it does is to vilify posters and censor voices. Opinion is the premise of these boards and constitutes much of what little value they add to the investment process. We can all read the news reports, some can read the technical reports, but making sense of it requires opinion. That is why Vette was so successful- he could digest the news and make people understand it. Speculation is a strong word and actually is rarely appropriate for a description of what people post.
My opinions are what they are. I owned this company starting in the summer of 2010, and held nearly 500K shares in early 2011 at the peak. I made off pretty well with an six bagger and traded it for another $0.50 or so over a few years on a few big swings so I consider it almost an eight bagger. The reason I can say that is I did not dismiss opinions contrary to my own and learned a lot in the process. My average sell left nearly $500K on the table, so this colors my perspective about how I read people blindly posting to hold on faith or dismissing reasoned arguments as speculation.
You did not respond to my question last night. What were the contradictions that you saw in my post? I stand by it- I do think permitting is the real issue with SC and have so for years. That means even if this gets past the near term issues (liquidity of CUU), then gets the nod from Teck (medium term), they need to permit digging out the side of a mountain in a beautiful remote area near a provincial part, in a watershed that drains into a prized salmon river that flows into Alaska. The first enviro shots over the bow have already occurred, but you won't read much about them on these boards. Assume what you want, but there are several reasons why Teck has not moved the JV to submit an EA. Some are obvious (economics), some are not. If you are interested it is possible to figure it out from some of the old reports that Shane posted on the company website, if they are still there. A hint: it is never what is said, it is what is not said that constitutes the risk. The KSM documents are helpful too, albeit a big read.
It is all part of the process. I think building mines is necessary for society, just like digging up oil and cutting down trees, but society is getting increasingly intolerant of what is needed to obtain these resources. It can be done with balance and appropriate safeguards, but it constitutes a major investment risk, just like the crazy business practices that occur under the watch of the venture exchange.
You may see that as negative, perhaps even contradictory, and some revert to call it bashing. I call it due diligence. |
