Find it a bit irrational to be judging the integrated business models success at this stage of the companies development.

Connacher wasn't even producing at Great Divide a year ago.

Gusella has always stressed the long range, trust like quality of this project, talking in terms of 30 year time horizons.

I suspect that a lot of the refineries success will be based on gaining access to frangible Alberta bitumen from a pipeline that shares access to Great Divide input.

This does not mean that Great Divide crude needs to wind up at the refinery. CLL can gain input credits for crude that goes elsewhere and have those credits paid by delivery to Montana, by pipeline, of similar feedstock.

Obviously the pipeline solution is still under investigation. They have achieved an awesome amount in a very short time. The refineries ultimate profitability is linked to CLL's crude transportation solution.

Don't think we should let our expectations get too far ahead. So far the refinery has not been such a burden that Gusella's grand strategy should be scrapped. The unintended comsequences of an oil price bubble should not be used as a strategy modifier. Actually it was proof of the strategy as the crude price did offset the refinery losses.

I am not willing to second guess RG's plan at this point. So far, the share price notwithstanding, I think these guys have been amazingly accurate and successful in their approach.