LCK Price, page-1111

Your "counter argument" misses the crux of the issue, perhaps through misunderstanding the point or by deliberately papering over it. Obviously some don't understand that the project doesn't need to be blocked for it to deter the large capital investment required to develop it. The recent history of our revolving door, back flipping policy makers has set the tone that there is always a big risk that a project that has approvals inplace and millions of dollars invested can be shut down over night if there is enough noise/unrest amongst the public......hardly an attractive arena for the majors to get caught up in (why do you think gas prices are as high as they currently are?). Clearly because my point doesn't align with the more enthusiastic posters here, it is struck off as downramping.......couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm pro gas, pro development and i hope this project gains traction, the local community needs it, the state needs it, the nation needs it.......but what you or i think means nothing when the broader population starts making noise. So amid these hype driven "valuations" being offered up, maybe it's not a bad idea to take a look at the very real risks attached too?