Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Manhattan Minerals (MAN.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Albert V who wrote (4408)	6/6/2002 1:08:43 AM
From: charred	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4504

Why take a chance of messing up the lime production. Flash floods by El Niño could happen. A small mine can make a huge disaster. No doubt a mine would benefit the area for a decade but after? Flush toilets aren't the only thing. Maybe they want something more? The main point that I wanted to make is that MAN is not telling the whole truth to you the stockholder.

To: Albert V who wrote (4408)	6/7/2002 4:33:44 AM
From: peter snowdon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4504

do we know what the land-ownership situation is in the area? after reading the NR, i assumed we were dealing with a large number of small farms (owner or on long leases) producing a mixture of market and subsistence products. in that case, i would think whether the mine takes 20% or 100% of the area is irrelevant, people won't want the principle of expropriation/selling out introduced, as they'll see it as the thin end of the wedge. mines can last 20 or 50 years; farming is forever. and as for flush toilets, well: in most parts of the world, these do more harm than good, both in terms of water conservation, and of pollution. still, i may be way off beam: can anyone point me to a good sociological study of tambogrande?! p