RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:is it a gold house or a dog house.
Never said you couldn't.
In my experience, for every 1 project in Canada/USA that got a no go there are 5 in developing nations. This is from someone who has spent most of their time working in Central/South America. Everything your stating applies to all countries. Any country where the environmental responsibilites are less are hugely off put by an unstable government with little protection for international investors.
Its also an issue of stability. Corporations are faced with difficult decisions. On the one hand they can invest in places like Indonesia, where someone will simply steal your claims out from under you like Intrepid, or they can invest in places like Alaska, Yukon, Nunavut, where you know what you’re up against and you simply have to defeat your opponents.
I'll disagree with you to an extent as far as project risk in Canada. It is certainly considered. NO brainer example, Yukon is considered less risk than the North West Territories. Certain first nations groups are known to be pro-mining while others have objections. Big difference is that once agreements are in place your much better off to be in a place like Canada or the States where there is recourse to any breaching of agreement.
In contrast, look at whats happened in Argentina and Guatamala. This wouldn't be littigated in Canada or the States, and history has proven it.
To say Canada is a "high Risk" region, compared to other mining districts of course, is silly.
Of all places in the world to invest hundreds of millions into a project, the Yukon is pretty good as long as you take all the necessary steps. Its hard to dispute that fact.