Post from other boardVery interesting post from 'Mike' on yahoo finance. Worth a read - "Warning: Long read - Verbalizing daily Pebble region thoughts. Almost every time now that I read about the claimed massive and significant opposition to the Pebble project, I think to myself, Who are these people (that oppose)? The number of people in the Bristol Bay Borough and Dillingham, according to an Alaska govt website estimates is about 1000 and 5000 respectively. The Lake and Peninsula Borough, where the Pebble Project is located, has about 1700 population. I have observed, that particular names frequently appear in the negative article; whether an executive manager Alana- or relative of this or that non-profit, or a member of some Economic Development Board (most are shareholders in the local corporations/native corporations benefitting by exploiting the local labor markets in the fishing industry). These spokespeople frequently write anti-Pebble articles and cite high opposition, toxin releases and total salmon destruction and on and on. I also wonder what is the entirety or summation of these ringleaders in productivity to our economy and society? Exploiting workers to the extent that those same workers are significant participants of state aid/resources would be considered as negatives. I really do not give much valuation to any social services or public community organizing as a productive input to the economy so their production comes down to an exploitive salmon fishing industryand it is arguable if ANY of these writers are fishersbut many are from fishing families. Fishing families does not qualify these writers to assess or quantify risk to fish. And realistically, an open thinker could ask if they have assessed the risk of continuing opposition and the resultant continuing decline in the local economies in light of the higher cost of societal participation? (An example: In the 60s&70s, Native Alaskans had a significant lack of literacy which resulted in federal judges decided that the State was required to have public schools out in the depths and outer reaches of Alaska so as to educate the populace well enough to be literate to intelligently vote. HIGH COST offset by significant state OIL income. Oil income is down now, school costs are higher. Social services welfare, public health care, drug problems, crime, brain drain from the regions, all part of increasing costs to maintain the 21st century societal norms. Do these areas need a large income producer? What about a larger populace of high income workers with significant disposable incomes? Is a consistent tax base that benefits the communities and not just a few shareholders of shielded and negotiated special interest organizations (with significant nepotism) The Pebble project is needed a lot more than these outspoken critics are acknowledging. These critics are content to brandish torches to incinerate anything and any vision that conflicts with their own self-interests and are incapable of building anything that can elevate the region economically to a level that is needed to stop their downward slide."