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 : Canadian Rocket Red's Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (9378)	10/1/2006 7:46:53 PM
From: TheSlowLane	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19697

I agree (on Ecuador). If you had any intention of seizing the property, why not wait until a whole lot more money has been spent on it and there is a much better idea of what's there? Also, it would immediately curtail any further foreign investment in the country, so you'd better be ready to make a go of it on your own before pulling that. Finally, there's always an exception, but often times the rhetoric is a lot more strident before the election than afterwards, when pragmatism sets in.

To: Land Shark who wrote (9378)	10/1/2006 10:57:40 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19697

I don't think that's even a remote risk. Oct. is going to be a banner month for jrs. and ARU is going to be one of the leaders. Oh? So you don't think ARU could lose their property eh? You should do a little more dd and study what happened to Encana in Ecuador. Do you think large gold mining companies will take what happened to Encana into consideration before they gamble 100's of millions to billions of dollars? By the way, you can't get project insurance in Ecuador because of what happened to Encana. Who would take over ARU and invest development money without project insurance?