Re: Indirect Holding is the key
in response to
by
posted on
Mar 23, 2012 02:37PM
CUU own 25% Schaft Creek: proven/probable min. reserves/940.8m tonnes = 0.27% copper, 0.19 g/t gold, 0.018% moly and 1.72 g/t silver containing: 5.6b lbs copper, 5.8m ounces gold, 363.5m lbs moly and 51.7m ounces silver; (Recoverable CuEq 0.46%)
I would not want to be on the board at TT. This is a major embarr(ass)ment. It will have an industry wide impact. Elmer said to others that changing companies would cause huge delays and it was better to fix the problem. Teck insisted we use them. Was the old company that bad? Was there another problem not mentioned? Hmmmm. So we went from one turkey to another. At least we can work on the inside with this one. This reminds me of the 80's when results were delayed months and report writers had all kinds of problems keeping up with the demand for studies. It was a bit different back then. That's when there was a lot of critisism about the value of these studies. Justly so. Still, I see something else must be afoot. Why no options struck? Land or studies? Negotiations for contractual purposes or extensions? This would impact the spirit of the contract. I can see both companies having a bit of grief over this. Time is short.
I think we'll find out soon what the black out is about but we won't know the full details of what went on in the back room. Probably never will. I hope they are talking contracts for the spinco. This fits with my main theory that we have a sliding scale deal. Why wouldn't Teck offer the same deal on the North and just take the proven? Let us do what we do best.