Next CUU webcast callers will have to pre-book and be fitted with an electric dog collar and if you waste Elmer's time with a stupid question, he gets to zap you - Stephanie can edit out the screams as he graciously answers the question. I certainly appreciate the level of insight we enjoy here, and a tip of my hat to those who contribute.

Anyways, I've finally had time to listen to and digest the webcast and I got hung up on something Elmer said in the last couple of minutes. When questioned about the Salazar contract and the 4-year time limit, he said:

"We have not specifically discussed that issue with Teck, however, I'm sure sometime in the future it will come up."

I was stunned.

"We have not specifically discussed that issue with Teck . . ."

No kidding. Why would you when they're taking us out?

" . . . however, . . ."

Excuse me?

" . . . I'm sure sometime in the future it will come up."

Well, if he's sure, then it's the 75% back-in. Otherwise, why would it come up? Now we know.

I listened to it over and over, each time fixated on "I'm sure sometime in the future it will come up."

But it didn't make sense - if Teck was going the 75% route, then there's absolutely no doubt in my mind they've discussed the 4-years. And like Vette said, Elmer mentioned one too many times that Teck can do the deal early. Why do the back-in early?

But then I thought about how prepared and specific Elmer had been; he couldn't wait to answer when the FS delay question knocked at the door, he didn't allow callers to put words in his mouth. And that's when the word "sometime" jumped out at me. Did this seasoned pro just tell me as vaguely as he could the 4-year clause is a non-issue?

Yep.

I've never seen a 120-day clock and I don't think I ever will.

Cheers everyone.

PS: I know there's no such thing as a stupid question, but a little DD goes a long way to clear up any confusion.