Everglade Maine; Natural Growth

Are both sites estimated to yield the same amount of product?  If so, we have to go with site 1 for greater profitability.  What's the point of a business venture if it's not going to yield a profit??  As far as deforestation goes, promise to plant trees around the site and donate money to a clean air act or some other environmental cause.  We can turn it around to be the good guys by helping out the community of the greater Everglades area...
As far as I can tell, the region does not have any rail lines, or any mass transportation for that matter.  Our rail lines will be the first and therefore the money saved from using site 1 instead of 2 could be used to help get a passenger rail line going as well which will in turn alleviate congestion as well reduce air pollution which will in turn help the environment out as well as the people of the area.

I agree with Aspirin4o.  The 'green' meddlers would never agree to a dig that close to Everglade.  Maybe since they are so worried about the environment, they will sponsor the railway to encourage growth farther away.

The "Green" Meddlers aren't DEFINATELY going to sponsor the railway! I mean, everything they can do to mess with Anterage Mining they will do.
What I propose is to develop the site nº1 and try to create a campaign in the local media against the man-eating giant racoons (I guess it wont be hard!) and from there use the public opinion in our favor against any other environmental group that wants to mess with Anterage Mining. The site number 2 doesn't seem viable at all so yeah you got the idea...

In all actuality, the sites are fairly even in distance as the crow flies.  Also with site 2 being almost directly north of the river that flows into bay, there is a nice little valley that could pose a great threat of dirty runoff from the site straight into the river and therefore in the bay.

As far as the environmentalists sponsoring a rail line; most groups of that nature are just protestors and don't really have any fundings, especially something with that big of an undertaking.

We are going to harm the wildlife in either site, why should the forest wildlife be considred more sacred than the prairie lands.  In all actuallity, both sites will eventually be exposed.  Why not start with site 1, get your feet planted, then move to site 2 and then acess will already be partially set up for site 2.

 LETTER FROM ANTERAGE MINING CO.

Spine charmer, you have a good idea for "getting our feet planted" at site 1. And Maravarone, GREAT idea to turn the public against the "man eating" racoons. As for water runnoff, Site 2's runoff goes north west, as Site 1's goes twords the bay. If site 1 is exavated, then alot of the untouched farmland will be completly unuseble, however Site 2's runoff path affects almost no farmland. Currently this is the biggest debate at town hall, and we need to figure somthing out, due to the fact that the concil is leaning twords site 1. Please submit your ideas.

Thank you, Anterage Mining Co.

Jan24; DOC54436-576-567567

ALLEDGED LETTER FROM GRIMEY INDUSTRIES TO ANTERAGE MINING CO. (date unspecified, source unable to be verified)

In Confidence
Dear Directing Committee,

It has come to our attention that you seek a mining permit for sites labelled Site 1 and Site 2, with reservations for the effectiveness of your campaign versus that of the local environmental groups.

We have come to experience a similar disturbance to our mining operations by several segmented environmental groups in our own area, under the collective banner of the Wilderness Warriors.  While this group has some leverage at the local government level, we have managed to largely overcome this hurdle by substituting local councillors prone to this environmental pressure with councillors on our payrole.  The expense becomes far less than catering to council demands that are in line with the environmental agenda, and the entire operation therefore becomes far more efficient and profitable.

We understand that your operation is somewhat smaller than Grimey Industries, as we are now moving into coal, silica, iron-ore and are currently evaluating the financial viability of uranium and gold deposits.  However the principal remains the same.

If your endeavours to supplant members of council are met with resistance, for a small annual profit-percentage tribute from your operation over the first 10 years of operations we would be willing to lend the services of our cleaning crew.  This crew will be able to clean up your problem and leave your operation free of resistance.

You must understand the sensitivity of this proposal, hence the discretion.  If you find our proposal to be viable, please contact our office and arrange a meeting between your Director and a member of our group that at this point will remain un-named.

Sincerely,
Mr. Woodenyoolyk Tuuno

OK, first - I hope that letter was burned right after it was read to us (the CEO and the Directing Committee of AMCO).
Secondly - the proposal made by Mr. Tuuno is not bad, concidering the eternal starvation for money, that every goverment official suffers from.
And thirdly - in the worst possible case we can use the "cleaning crew". The compensation requested for their assistance is not unreasonable.

Overall, after that generous proposition and seeing the other members of the Committee prefer Site No.1, I say we go for it.

LETTER FROM ANTERAGE MINING CO.

We have recently recived a letter from a Mr. Woodenyoolyk Tuuno, non of here at AMCO have thought of this before, I don't know why, since EVERY major company in Amerika does it. we have went through the pros and cons of each and have came up with the following list;
Pros: Get to do anything we want

Cons: Do nothing we want

so I think the decision is clear.

sencerly, anomonus

AMCO:
Doc: 3534-357-357357