RE:RE:Can't reconcile this.. Help me out here folks. We can't end the night with the Pebble comparison hanging there... while that's perhaps in some of your thought-processes, to take Paul's words with any credibility should eliminate such concerns.
Supposedly, Pebble was denied a Federal permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because the Environmental Protection Agency and the indigenous tribes in the area believed there would be too much damage to the Salmon Habitat in the rivers there.
The United Tribes of Bristol Bay opposed the mine for more than 13 years prior to the decision.
Many believed the use of the clean water act in making the decision waa unlawful...
Specifically, this was an Alaskan Wetland issue which was opposed publicly for years.
I don't compare any of that too the Casino mining project. Except perhaps there too, there were many longtime investors who relied heavily on it happening.
Paul has long indicated the First Nations have all signed supporting Casino. The Tailings issue was studied and evaluated for two years, and the final version goes beyond anything we were required to do. Again, the First Nations accepted the new version. We continually hear him say things about our "Green" initiatives...
The government is building the highway toward our mine. The Seaport is being remodeled for larger mining companies to also use more easily more readily...
Rio entered the deal knowing that the gas generaters are required to make the electricity at least in the mine's beginning.
And honestly people, this mine cost at Casino is trivial to a company like Rio Tinto, especially with the short payback years.
I've never heard Paul or any other WRN representative say publicly that any group or government agency opposed us in any way.
We will see but what is actually going on soon, but I can't compare us to the Pebble project's situation... That was a sad situation for those shareholders.
Nothing presented to us has ever indicated we have such a situation in my opinion.