But in my opinion they should not screw their shareholders either

The only way they're screwing us is with timeframe commitments and by lack of information. Timeframes should have been managed better, I admit that - but I do understand that things don't always go according to plan. Information I also understand, because it may be necessary to get a deal done, which is ultimately what we want. At the end of the day they're not screwing us, because they are us - in that, they have a huge commitment to it just as much as we do. The only way they're better off is that they have a better idea of what's going on, which is to be expected if you're actually working for the company.

I'm sorry but I cannot see how this is in our interests in any way

I suggested earlier that doing a deal with Teck was the best realistic scneario because it would be easier to do, take less time and get us the best price (assuming 75% back-in). I agree with you, us having 100% of the project would be the best case scenario with them backing out and just taking shares and a royalty/smelter fee but that's just such a low level probability.