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: NOW who wrote (37750)	5/8/2006 12:32:27 PM
From: Valuepro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

tooearly, "then you think the share rise is irrational ?" For AQI and IMR? No! Lot's of people playing the lawsuit game, and many more simply unaware of the jurisdictional problems related to the mining bans (use of cyanide and open pits). That's not so much irrationality as it is ignorance, or a difference of opinion in the long-term effect of the law. Having said that, I'm playing the lawsuit thing, too, but only the lawsuit awaiting the decision. I was 60/40 AQI v. IMR. ...got stopped out on IMR and never bought back. I sold half of my AQI some days ago for a 140 percent gain. If AQI wins, I gain more. If not, I still come out ahead, though the balance of what I hold may lose half it's value, or so. I will not thereafter hold any issue with a substantial portion of it's total property holdings in Chubut province. Side note: Even though AQI's Calcatreu project is a bit across the border in Rio Negro province, the same core of people who got the law passed in Chubut, have demonstrated against AQI at Calcatreu. They don't seem to want open pit mining (and the use of cyanide) anywhere in the region.