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 : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: xeno who wrote (32026)	11/2/2004 4:53:07 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

Xeno, I do not know if you are truly a local. But one thing is sure, if the locals do not want a mine, there should be no mine.

To: xeno who wrote (32026)	11/2/2004 6:46:09 PM
From: seventh_son	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

Wow, I'm famous. Well, I'm not trying to speak on behalf of Romanians or the people of Rosia Montana, but perhaps Eugen David could respond as to whether HE speaks for the majority of the residents of the town, or just what percentage of the locals he speaks for. Or whether he speaks for the population of an entire region of Romania that just might be interested in the desperately needed economic development, government tax revenue, and jobs that come with the mine rather than waiting for some sort of welfare-type hand out from the EU that will supposedly cure the chronic problems. Does your small group have, in effect, a clear veto on the development of the project? As a town with a 2000 year old history of mining, it seems ironic that such people would be so outraged by the concept of a mine being built there, and if the relocation terms granted a veto to any small group of residents (who obviously could have interests in blackmail if nothing else), it is hard for me to envision that anyone would have even contemplated the project in the first place. I will research further what the full terms of the relocation conditions are... feel free to give me your fuller description. Eugen David, in any country that I know of, when something of enormous public importance needs to be built, such as an airport, highway, or other such thing, generally people displaced are compensated in a manner seemed fair and justified, and the projects go ahead. Sometimes it is unfortunate that older people might feel a sentimental attachment to their homes and might feel that monetary reward does not compensate them, but in the end, governments are elected to make decisions on behalf of the greater good and have to be balanced in their decisions. Perhaps some Rosia Montana residents, or more likely unrealistic environmental activists speaking on their behalf, feel that they can cry foul and pretend that they are some sort of special victims because the standard of living in Romania is relatively low, and thus frame this as an exploitation of the poorer and weaker by the bigger and stronger (ie. us evil, rich Canadians). To any reasonable person, that is nonsense. Likewise, if a company like Newmont feels that they can safely build and operate a mine, and they have safely built mines all over the world in developed and less developed countries, using cyanide no less, then I would believe them. They have an enormous stake in making sure accidents don't occur since they will be held financially liable and need to maintain a reputation if they are to continue to mine throughout the world. Eugen David, I would like to say THANK YOU... because I recognized this attack as yet another knee-jerk attack on the shares of Gabriel that is no doubt an opportunity to buy cheap. I bought some more shares at $1.41 today. If you have a strong case that this mine will never go ahead, believe me, I will sell out, but I remain unconvinced that that would be allowed to happen.

To: xeno who wrote (32026)	11/3/2004 10:40:56 AM
From: seventh_son	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

Xeno / Eugen David, Since you are so familiar with the Rosia Montana case, perhaps you could comment on a 2001 document from Gabriel which states that all levels of government were supportive of the Rosia Montana mine development, and an agreement was in place that the residents of Rosia Montana would be dealt with on an individual basis based on Romanian laws and World Bank Directives for INVOLUNTARY Resettlement. I wonder if you could explain why involuntary resettlement proposals would be applicable if you assert that you can choose not to sell your property and thereby effectively veto the mine development? Here is the text document from the World Bank on involuntary resettlement. //wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/toc2/CA2D01A4D1BDF58085256B19008197F6?OpenDocument

To: xeno who wrote (32026)	11/3/2004 12:00:17 PM
From: seventh_son	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

Hey Xeno, I just talked on the phone with a gentlemen at Gabriel Resources who explained to me in great deal the status and conditions of the Rosia Montana resettlement. Under Romanian Mining Law, if a company holds the necessary permits and titles (which Gabriel does), there is a process whereby people who own claimed land can be expropriated after what has been deemed fair compensation has been provided. Furthermore, Gabriel has done detailed surveying and gone door to door in the affected land area and says that there are only 50 out of about 1000 properties (5%) where people do not seem interested in talking about a negotiated settlement for their land at this point. So, the 350 figure on "your?" website is incorrect even. Time to cover your shorts! Regards, Seventh Son