Re: Questions that need answers
in response to
by
posted on
Apr 01, 2012 06:32PM
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%)
The reason Teck has say in what's printed is because we are working towards one of the largest mining districts on the planet and they have the purse. We do it by agreement not by force. As long as what's in the document is accurate they couldn't stop us from publishing it. They do have a way of pressuring us so we keep thing corial. As Elmer has said a few times, we don't poke Teck in the eye with a stick. I favour putting the hustle on them but have been told that it's a mutually agreed thing. Teck wants it in a certain time frame and so do we. All parties are concerned about global macro eco. Teck doesn't want this coming on stream a year late. The time cushion was gobbled up to some extent by the FS delay. They all recognize the impact.
We could have FS'ed them and got contracted to do the rest under the same conditions. This delay did not benefit us much. It did to some degree. We can get more money by selling the next block proven up. At the end of the day Teck will buy it all. I would not be surprised to get bought out and handed the remainder as the spinco. As long as they know we will sell to them what does it matter if it's done in chunks. Last year Elmer said it was not in our interest to do that but the FS changed things a lot. Now it is in our interest. I see 5 more years on this project. Possibly 2-3 spinco/ contracts in the works. I have heard rumblings that we are talking about this strategy. I'd like to find out if our other partner is coming to the table with Teck. I think they want proof that the other deposits are economic first.