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 Oil & Gas Companies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (21195)	3/7/2013 6:36:06 PM
From: marcos	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24928

She has five points, the first three deal with risk reduction as i recall, the fourth with indian land claims, and only the fifth addresses what should be rather obvious to any rational person in the first place - that a party being asked to take on all risk of a dangerous venture might reasonably be offered some portion of the reward it produces You can spin it any way you like, you'll find that demonisation of british columbians will get you nowhere, your time and effort would be far more effective working up a viable project ... no serious proposal has been made so far, got to cut risk way back, way way back, and yes something of reward as well, otherwise go east, which imho should be done as well [and first] Meantime you could take up the research challenge kidl turned down - have your neighbourhood sprayed a few inches deep with the skunkiest most toxic dilbit you can find, send us fotos and full documentation on advantages and disadvantages you discover in it over a few generations, we'll consider the matter and get back to ya

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (21195)	3/7/2013 7:00:20 PM
From: LoneClone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24928

Soon-to-be ex-premier Clark has so bungled the Gateway issue that it will be one of the major elements of her demise. Most BCers don't approve of her 'give us this and this and this or we'll say no' approach because they would say no no matter what carrots are offered. Over the years I have seen the Cascadia promotion wax and wane. IMO the real border between that particular us and them lies between Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara, where northern California becomes southern California (though of course the biggest transition in values lies at the BC-Washington border). The logical borders for Cascadia would run between the middle of California and the Arctic Ocean, bounded by the ocean on the west and the continental divide on the East. OK, maybe it should end at the Yukon border, but we get the Alaska panhandle back. LC