i think otto has mixed two issues together. one is developing aru as opposed to selling the company, and the other is government involvement. otto is very good at ferreting out information, but this idea of a $9 offer by the government makes no sense.

i would like to see aru develop fdn by itself, but it is clear to me that patrick and the board are more interested in making a fast buck, and taking the easy way out by selling the company; lock, stock, and land package. the lion's share of the profits go to the company which builds the mine, which it appears won't be us.

for example, when silver standard hired the managers with the people with the skill sets to build a mine, they weren't bluffing. they're actually building a mine in argentina. when aru hires george bee, they just use him as window dressing. if aru lacked the resources to build a mine without diluting the stock, there are ways around that.

one way would be a joint venture, either 50-50 or 60-40 with a large producer that has the expertise and capital to build the mine. but why on earth bring in the government, and not just as a partner, but as 100% owner? and the one in charge would be acosta, who is vehemently opposed to any mining in ecuador? acosta would finish building the fdn mine about the same time he would have finished debating the articles of the constitution, some time around the twelfth of never. meanwhile the people of ecuador are consigned to living in poverty for another generation.

first we get a "friendly" offer of $8.20 for a company worth at least three times as much, and now a plan to put acosta in charge of building a mine. with friends like these, we don't need enemies.