RE:RE:RE:blame gamekherson wrote
Keep in mind that it is Nawar and not I who is pushing a book on investing on the unsuspecting public...
Come on, let's keep it above the belt.
1. Every investor makes mistakes.
2. Based upon my recollection, Nawar has been very cordial, patient and respectful in his posts, even when he disagreed with other posters (me included).
3. As the NATO costs continued to escalate, Nawar reduced his price targets accordingly. In his last few posts, I think his valuation had dropped below $7. As circumstances changed, Nawar adjusted his outlook.
4. I suggest we all just focus on the facts as they are released. Throwing sticks and stones at each other won't benefit anyone.
I have no position in the common shares, a very small position in the recent convertible issue.
So, yeah, it's probably easier for me to say, "let's calm down and focus on the facts"
Here's my two cents.
Is it really a nightmare for NATO?
In my opinion, MEG would have allowed the tie-in if Canexus had met certain demands.
What were those demands?
Probably dirt cheap contracts for future shipments.
Why wouldn't Canexus sign?
Probably because they believe other customers will pay higher rates once NATO is up and running smoothly.
So, this is a game of "How hard can we squeeze Canexus".
I don't know the politics of the Canadian oil patch, so I have no idea "how hard is too hard".
If MEG acts like a complete bully, will that come back to haunt them?
Will other see this as a violation of fair play and look to exact retribution some time down the road?