Thanks for the information Vette. I've still been on Stockhouse until recently and the bashing there is just too much, great to see familiar posters here.

I've looked at the PFS and BFS to better understand the differences and if/how the landscape has changed.

PFS:

http://tmx.quotemedia.com/article.php?newsid=13059409&qm_symbol=CUU

BFS:

http://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item.aspx?bid=Z-C%3aCUU-2027894&symbol=CUU&region=C

Resource estimates are comparable, pricing and timing as well. The only main difference in arriving at their apparent NPV appears to be the inferred resource, or removal of by product in the mountain, which is not permissible in the BFS.

Per the PFS:

The revenue generated by all the by-products covers all operating
costs and adds a credit of (US) $0.32 /lb of copper produced to the
revenue stream. Thus, a negative operating cost for copper is
estimated;

For the base case, recoverable rock value per tonne is US $31.47 and cash operating costs are US $12.49 per tonne. The PFS confirms the viability of Schaft Creek and highlights the advantages of the project including: location, comparatively low capital expenditure requirements and operating costs and high metal recoveries.

Per the BFS:

The feasibility study recommends diamond drilling to determine the extent to which the 171.16 million tonnes of inferred resource that lie within the proposed open pit, now treated as waste, can be upgraded to either a measured or indicated mineral resource. If successful, this would categorize this rock as a revenue generator.

Furthermore it indicates more analysis down the road:

The feasibility study makes recommendations for further development of the project that could enhance the economics of Schaft Creek including:

Copper Fox undertakes a diamond drilling program at Schaft Creek with a goal to determine the extent to which the 171.16 million tonnes of inferred resource, that lie within the pit shell, can be upgraded to a measured or indicated resource. To the degree such a program is successful it will remove the affected material from being categorized as a rock-removal expense to an ore-bearing material and as such, a revenue generator;

As I'm sure most would agree, it appears that the BFS is simply more conservative by taking out any by-product value and treating it as waste. If the BFS were more aggressive, it may have included in its NPV 171,160,000 X 31.47 = 5.3B of by-product revenue before taking into account PV. That would increase the NPV anywhere between $1 billion to $2 billion, which would mirror closer to the PFS NPV. Is this how others read it as well? Is $31.47 still reasonable in today's market? I thought I heard in the conference call that the removal cost is now $2 per tonne, if that's the case I'm not sure if the revenue per tonne is accurate anymore.

The BFS base case is simply the worst case scenario. Even if the by-product revenue per tonne is a fraction of what the PFS indicated, it would materially change the NPV and CUU's share. The problem is trying to get a value on what I see as a moving target. Clearly CUU management has established a floor on CUU's worth, certain factors will increase the valuation of CUU from that point. If anyone has an idea of CUU's valuation, I'd love to hear the logic. GLTA.