As web stated, a judge would have to wonder why we have provided a 5 year plan. But the onus is still on CUU to prove why when our contract states 4.

Also, if the reason we can't build it in 4 years is because the capex increases too much and it's no longer worth it to mine, does our BFS actually meet the contractual agreement?

I don't think we would have to prove anything--it's not our contract to build within 4 years. The contract is between Liard and Teck, or Liard and Hecla even. Nothing to do with us. Teck has an option to back in whether we give a 10-year plan to build or not. They have to make a reasonable decision given the information that they have about the time to build and the capex, those are the facts, so make a decision.

The capex as is specified in this feasibility meets the requirements of the agreement and Teck has a one-time only decision to make. It is profitable today to build this mine and that's all that is necessary to force the decision out of Teck.

In terms of the 4-year clause that I think exists in an agreement with Liard, well, we'll own 80% of the voting shares in Liard pretty soon. I think contracts can be re-negotiated at that point. However, while we own the shares, we're not likely to want to change that clause. By the time Teck earns their 75% ownership back they could change it I guess. We'll be long gone by then, or maybe close enough to production that we'll be in the mood to extend the terms. To get that 75% Teck has to spend close to $400 million, and arrange financing to carry the project through to production.