Let's think about this now folks. What was Teck really looking for in this BFS that many of us retail wish were alot better looking than ugly "Betty"? Why didn't we get beautiful "Sue" instead of ugly Betty? Well, imo as a PE and if I were Teck engineers I would first look at the one thing that is concerning to all Majors today and that is ballooning cost and Capex. Are the Capex going to be reasonable and under control? Did we put the BFS through the ringer double checking and triple checking? Yes we did and with the best consultants in the business ( Merit ). Secondly, is this going to pay me back using the worse case assumptions of grades, recoveries etc. and even discounting at 8%? And again the answer to that is yes it does. With these two questions answered the company can move forward to a purchase/back in decision.

Imo, this is what the BFS was really crafted to do. Teck has enough engineeers to do a more realistic BFS and economic analysis of what we have. They don't need the beautiful "Sue", they already know what she may look like. They wanted to see what ugly "Betty" looked like without the makeup and that is what they got thru this BFS. This is the document they can show their financiers and partners who will finance this and tell them confidently "Yes, you will get your money back plus interests for putting up 3.2B to finance this. The buyout value they will give us will not be based on the ugly Betty but the more realistic beautiful Sue. My 2 cents.