Good points Ebear. I for one could use more A investments in my portfolio and fewer S investments. One concern I have is based on recent events do we have a strong enough BOD who is able or even willing to bring this deposit to production.

Not at present, but that could change.

Secondly, once you involve the Ecuadorian Gov't you are now on a slippery slope. When this Party gets voted out , how does the next party justify their existence? They simply demand a bigger slice of the pie.

There is always that risk of course. Still, if you follow what they're trying to achieve, the end result should be a more equitable investment climate, with strong institutional, and constitutional protections. Remember, we are going to them with a proposal that solves a lot of their immediate and long term problems. Why should they, or any subsequent power interfere with something like that? Even if they tried, the institutional protections would kick in, and the democratic impulse would rise to oppose them. Look at the support we had in our area vis the mandate. When I talk about dealing with Ecuador, I'm really talking about the people. Now that they have a representative democracy, lets make sure it stays that way, by engaging the people in honest commerce and raising their standard of living. Dictatorships thrive on poverty. Kill the poverty, and you kill the dictatorship.

Personally I now feel we are done come sept/oct, one way or another (even though I'm on record with Safe as saying no buyout until 2010). And this leads me back to your byline-- Just cut me a FAIR deal.

Come on now...chin up! Remember, it ain't over until Fattmman stops singing, and last I checked he was chirping as loud as ever over on SH.

ebear