Welcome To the Copper Fox Metals Inc. HUB On AGORACOM

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%)

Free
Message: Re: Teck back in or not !

Jul 23, 2012 08:38PM
7
Jul 23, 2012 09:01PM
3
Jul 23, 2012 09:03PM

Jul 23, 2012 09:20PM
6
Jul 23, 2012 11:53PM

Jul 24, 2012 06:54AM

Jul 24, 2012 08:08AM

Jul 24, 2012 08:31AM
1
Jul 24, 2012 08:45AM
3
Jul 24, 2012 09:15AM

Jul 24, 2012 09:26AM
2
Jul 24, 2012 09:33AM
2
Jul 24, 2012 09:39AM
4
Jul 24, 2012 09:44AM
4
Jul 24, 2012 10:03AM
24
Jul 24, 2012 10:15AM
5
Jul 24, 2012 10:23AM
3
Jul 24, 2012 10:39AM
1
Jul 24, 2012 11:03AM
1
Jul 24, 2012 11:16AM

Jul 24, 2012 11:39AM
11
Jul 24, 2012 12:10PM
7
Jul 24, 2012 12:13PM
1
Jul 24, 2012 12:14PM
3
Jul 24, 2012 12:22PM
6
Jul 24, 2012 12:27PM

Jul 24, 2012 12:33PM

Jul 24, 2012 12:33PM
1
Jul 24, 2012 12:34PM

Jul 24, 2012 12:35PM
4
Jul 24, 2012 12:36PM
1
Jul 24, 2012 12:44PM

Jul 24, 2012 01:07PM

but can't figure why Elmer would be letting the -$0.04 number from BMO in the new presentation unless he is being intentionally deceptive, which I highly doubt).

This is the key IMO. From the sounds of it, BMO has run publically released numbers through their own proprietary model. They have not seen any of the feasibility study numbers for obvious reasons.

Well, the first question is why? BMO does not cover Copper Fox. They have never participated in any of the PP's (who has!). Seems to me that they are advising them on something… say, perhaps a buy out? The material that was in the presentation was essentially a big FOR SALE sign. Elmer would not use that -0.04 if it wasn't close to what he has seen in feasibility study. I am pretty certain at this point that they actually have that number (i.e the BFS is far enough along that this has been shown to management). I can't wait for summer to end...

3
Jul 24, 2012 01:15PM

Jul 24, 2012 01:19PM
14
Jul 24, 2012 01:20PM
2
Jul 24, 2012 01:26PM
1
Jul 24, 2012 01:27PM
4
Jul 24, 2012 01:30PM
1
Jul 24, 2012 01:34PM
2
Jul 24, 2012 01:37PM
13
Jul 24, 2012 01:56PM
1
Jul 24, 2012 02:04PM
7
Jul 24, 2012 02:05PM
6
Jul 24, 2012 02:28PM
1
Jul 24, 2012 02:35PM
1
Jul 24, 2012 02:38PM
2
Jul 24, 2012 04:56PM
11
Jul 24, 2012 05:21PM
3
Jul 24, 2012 05:41PM
1
Jul 24, 2012 05:53PM
2
Jul 24, 2012 05:57PM
1
Jul 24, 2012 06:03PM

Jul 24, 2012 06:20PM

Jul 24, 2012 06:23PM
2
Jul 24, 2012 06:37PM
6
Jul 25, 2012 12:03AM
3
Jul 25, 2012 09:17AM
21
Jul 25, 2012 10:00AM
8
Jul 25, 2012 10:10AM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply