State College - 5/l/56 -3- In the case of mining we find quite a different situation, for here the national policy is often less sharply defined and there is an inherent reluctance on the part of the less financially sophisticated countries to part with their national resources or to allowed those national resources to be exploited by a foreigner. Since most of the underground wealth in a large part of the world is owned by the State, the miner is in the position of a petitioner when he seeks the privilege of obtaining a concession and developing it. In contrast to the contrator who is often invited to the party, the miner has to invite himself. The second difference is that the development of a mineral property is usually a long range project and must be approached on that basis. If the construction contract is an affair, the mining project is definitely a marriage. With these general remarks, I would like now to discuss with you some of the more specific problems that must be examined in approaching work overseas and then to go over with you two case histories - one in construction and one in mining, that may be illustrative of what we do. Perhaps the first question that must be answered is: If you put your money in, can you get it out? If the answer to that question is no, then can you find ways of avoiding putting money into the country and still find a way to take your profit out? Obviously no American concern can invest funds abroad unless it is convinced that those funds can be repatriated with a profit. First, we explore the political rules to see whether the foreign exchange regulations and policies permit the return of capital and the return of profits to us in dollars. Because political rules may be changed we also examine the underlying economic factors that determine whether the country may be forced to more stringent exchange restrictions