InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

$Money Bags$

04/03/10 8:08 AM

#63990 RE: rich sears #63989

The sell off has very little if anything to do with any resistance. Have you not watched pink sheet stocks before. There is an ebb and flow. It's kind of like when you get a realtor, they pretty much access the same crap we can now with the internet. Most feel more comfortable with one and therefor they accept they are gonna get plugged for 3-6%, it's a calculated risk. Same with a pink sheet stock, you know the cost of progress is tons of new shares coming into the market. You just have to calculate your risk, from .0012 it's not bad. Until these share run out, we'll continue to get beat down, but after that....(If they are done before the permit approval/rejection)
icon url

scotyler100

04/04/10 6:32 AM

#63995 RE: rich sears #63989

Lol... nice letter... This will do just the opposite IMHO ... It will strengthen LaidLaw energy and bring in more interests...and again wood isn't a concern here there's more than enough for many many years to come..

Nice job rich sears for sharing that letter with us...

Rich ?.. By the way how many shares do you own of LLEG?

Regards

No one is to buy or sell stock with anything I say in this post . Do your own dd. Glta
icon url

king oil

04/04/10 10:24 AM

#63998 RE: rich sears #63989

The report is full of contradictions.

It argues for increased localized burning of wood for heat, which typically contributes many more pollutants and contaminants to the environment than a state-of-the-art biomass facility. Burning wood for heat is limited and short-sighted. Electricity can be used for almost any power requirement.

It argues against increased competition and higher prices for low grade fiber. Low prices for wood products is probably the single biggest threat to the forests. Low prices encourage land owners to seek other more profitable uses for their land, like farming and building, which of course requires clear-cutting the land and eliminating the forest. Higher prices for low-grade wood would encourage land-owners to maintain sustainable forests on their land.

It tries to include all proposed plants, regardless of their approval status, financing, or chances of success. If every proposed plant considered every other proposed plant, nothing would ever be approved.

It argues for continuing to export wood to Canada. Now that makes sense. Let's do nothing for the NH economy so that we can continue to send wood to Canada so they can turn it into energy and sell it back to us at a higher price. It's no wonder companies continue to locate outside the US.

The Wilderness Society did a poor job with this one.