Actually Golfyeti the reason I wanted an explanation of the 40% vs. 38.something% is not from Teck's point of view. I fully believe Teck will take the 75% plus try to take us out. I was wondering about the attractiveness of CUU from a third party suitor's point of view, be it pension fund, a foreign group or a competitor in the industry. If I wanted to inherit CUU's position in the Agreement by buying 100% of CUU, I think it would stengthen my position if I knew Teck had to exercise the 75% option to get control of the project. Assuming I would be happy with a 25% on-going interest, then a company that builds my share of the mine for me and is a competent operator like Teck means I can sit back and earn my 25% share of the profits after the mine is paid for, and probably for the next 50 - 75 years. That plus the Liard shares, other claims and undrilled properties would be icing. And, I would control the price that the qualifying properties can be option to the JV at. Not a bad investment. On the other hand, if Teck could back in for a full 40% and put up half the money as the 75% option, and have a 50/50 say - then my investment would not be as valuable and I would have to come with cash for my share of the mine. That's a big difference in positioning.

There is no understanding that says a third party can't make an offer to CUU now, or any time. CUU doesn't have to ask Teck's permission. I would like to see a third party step up to the plate while Teck makes it's mind up. I'm hoping a third party has already asked for a non-disclosure understanding and "suitor" status from CUU so it can review the draft BFS. That would be an interesting situation for CUU management and the Board of Directors to ponder.

I would just like to know if 40% of Schaft Creek or 40% of CUU's interest in Schaft Creek (which is less) are one in the same, under the Agreement and qualify under the Agreement for a 50/50 voting participation. It doesn't look like it to me.