RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Permit Application... bestguesstoo: "Port Alberni is receptive to having a port facility for shipping coal. Whether or not past initiatives have been successful or not is not the point here. If Port Alberni is desperate for business then it is more likely that they will accept CEC's terms, don't you think?"
My point is the track record of the local political support for economic development is tax-based drived and has proven to unstable and unpredictable when compared to communities that have a cohesive development strategy. Jumping from one big idea project to the next big idea project to the next big idea project without taking the time to develop an economic plan normally would be viewed as a community undergoing political instability. Normally this is not viewed as a benefit in pre-project scoping due diligence in the project site selection process. Of course it is also possible that Compliance was also somewhat desperate in looking for what appeared to be a desperate community's political support. Either way really doesn't matter much because we all know decisions made in a state of desperation are rarely good decisions.
"CEC wants a coal port in Port Alberni, it is a part of their plan and they have budgeted the money to develop it."
I have not found indications in the SEDAR filings that Compliance has the financial capacity in hand to develop either the mine or the port. It is impossible to have "budgeted the money" when the money does not exist. Am I missing something in their public disclosures?
Althugh (sic), there are other shipping options if the Port Alberni option fails. Quinsam Coal ships their coal from Campbell River.
Unfortunately in terms of delivering value and/or protecting share value for shareholders Compliance did not include other port options in their Draft project scope nor are any other port options identified in the Final Guidelines. It is my view that a more prudent approach to insure investment interests were secure and a priority of Compliance would have been to include other options in the project proposal to allow for the pontentials that the Port Alberni option could not meet the thresholds of the studies required for the permit and/or the First Nations consultation requirements of full, prior informed consent. As it stands now, should the Port Alberni option fail Compliance has to start at square one. I suppose you could view that as professional management. I would tend to view this as potentially short sighted and playing fast and loose with shareholder value.
"do you have any direct evidence that CEC is not in consultation or attempting to be with First Nations peoples about this project ?"
My source of knowledge is much more reliable than Tapics news releases for sure LOL
"Do the First Nations people have the only vested interest in this project such that they can call the shots? I don't think that is consultation that leads towards an agreeable resolution. Maybe this is why you have brought up the possibility of legal action several times in your posts"
First Nations are the only parties in this have a constitutionally protected interest that is also supported in international law. I would suggest that prior to investing into projects that involve First Nations you conduct your due diligence as to what I just posted means. I bring up the possibility of legal action because that is a reality of the landscape of any project that does not meet adequate consultation thresholds of the project. The duty to insure adequate consultation rests upon the Honor of the Crown and ultimately the judicial system. And yes, it is a potential possibility should these legal obligations not be met which is a statement that would likely be accurate in any of the major projects in BC.
"As I said before, not all First Nations people are against development."
And as I said before I have never posted nor stated that "all First Nations are against development". This silly arguement you keep bringing up is amusing to me however that you tried it again. Would it be easier if we just agreed to a cut and paste silly statement and my response pointing that out so you don't have to restate the same silliness everytime?
"The management of CEC are part of the same group that successfully negotiated with First Nations in the Princeton area to build and open the Copper Mountain Mine. I have no reason to believe this will not happen again."
Here we go with you taking us down silly road again. The First Nations in the Copper Mountain Mine are not the same First Nations involved with this project are they? Of course not. If a different project, with different impacts, with different First Nations isn't sufficient for you to understand that a different outcome is possible then I would suggest perhaps different investment portfolio strategies may be something you would consider looking into that didn't involve projects that include First Nations impacts and consultation requirements. It doesn't appear to me you have a very good grasp on what this actually means and the differences between 203 First Nations in BC and the myriad of project proposals that exist.
"I'm invested in this project because I believe in CEC's management and their proven abilities. It's a calculated risk."
As I think I posted I am not telling you what to do with your money or what to invest into. I do think though just from my observation of these few posts we have exchanged that I don't think the risk you took is very calculated because it doesn't appear to me you comprehend the variances and realities of the playing field in major projects and First Nations in BC.