Miningguy,

Good of you to tackle a significant unknown and referencing my attempt at valuing the inferred resource. I believe that this has a significant impact from our PFS NPV of $2.8B to the BFS NPV of $513M.

However I'm not following how your low case scenario is so low.

If you refer to the PFS summary: http://www.copperfoxmetals.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=319027&_Type=News-Releases&_Title=Copper-Fox-Metals-Announces-Positive-Results-of-Preliminary-Feasibility-Stu...

"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;"

Further below the summary: "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."

It's been 4 years so I'm not sure whether the $31.47 value per tonne is still reasonable. Let's assume it is, undiscounted NPV value increase in the categorized 'waste' would be: 171,160,000 inferred resource tonnes X $31.47 value per tonne X 24% CUU share w/ Teck back in = $1.293 billion. After tax per share would be: $1.293 billion X 0.75 after tax value (10% BC, 15% Federal) / 398M shares = $2.44 / share

I agree that the timing of the extraction will impact NPV but I would guestimate worst case scenario over 20 years to be around 50 cents. Hence my estimated 60 cent conservative valuation.

Perhaps you used another assumption but IMHO, the best credible assumption is using the PFS and the BFS has no indication on value. Your high case scenario is pretty close to my low case scenario.

Miningguy - if you believe your calculations are correct, then how would you explain the difference between the PFS and BFS NPV's? IMO, the above calculation explains most of the difference, but I'm not a geophysicist, maybe there's another elephant in the room.

As Vette has recently indicated, this is only the inferred resource needed to be removed to get to the M & I resource. It appears we have 3-4 times more inferred resource beyond this, which again creates a lot of potential in Schaft Creek. Thanks Vette for pointing that out. I'm not sure how much value Teck will place on potential but as I had mentioned, it needs to be enough for the CUU insiders to vote in favor of a buyout.