Sorry - this is a bit long winded. Just listened to the conference call again. Knowing that the BFS was designed to meet the minimum Salazar/Teck Option Agreement requirements for positive acceptance and provide an unassailable 43-101, and knowing all the other conservative facts and figures used to arrive at the less than breathtaking BFS conclusions (19 year mine life, higher Capex payback period/the whole waste tonnage cost penalty and revenue non-inclusion/the decreased metal recoveries/longer mine start-up timelines and a host of other situations were have talked about here - let's listen to what the experienced geologist who will be negotiating our share price for both us and himself has to say in his remarks:

- a safe geo-politically based location/believes project will be expanded/Paramount open to the east, north and at depth/Discovery zone is another deposit/mine life extended (18-20 years for just converting the waste from inferred)/at least 4 major areas of improvements agreed upon by all the geologists and engineers - upgrade inferred to M+I, increase metal recoveries, shorten timeline to mine construction, increase throughput from 130 T/Day

- now that's with just 1% of the total lands included and as Elmer says, there may be 6 or more targets in the Schaft mineral trend alone -and so far the 1:1 mapping to drilling has held up fairly well - definitely one of the reasons they are concurrently building 2 65 T/day lines and providing space for a third.

So ... Teck will not be exercising any part of the Option Agreement. Teck has worked along side of CUU during the entire exploration stage and knows as well as Elmer what the possibilities are. To me, the most important comment of the entire conference call was something not previously publically stated by our well-respected CEO. He basically said "If I were Teck, I'd take the whole thing in a 100% buy-out and one could attract a senior partner that would probably fund the whole thing". If Elmer's "reasonable and fair price" for our shares is - let's say $5.00 - that's approx. $2.1B for all the BFS property, all the other lands, Mess Creek, the approx. 25% on going Liard share of the first 30% net profits each year, the cash in the Company as a result of all the options and warrants exercised, (not going to include Arizona), the power line and Stewart Terminals agreements, the elimination of time constraints imposed in the Option Agreement, plus ... the Copper Fox hats and T-shirts. Didn't Teck just claim 80,000 hectares - an area almost as big as we are -right next to us?, ...and then there's Galore.

So Teck's question is - would a senior partner be interested in -say- a third of all this potential for $2.1B plus one third of the capex? What if we sweetened the pot by rolling in our claims? Wouldn't a world major (possibly with an Australian accent) be interested in participating in a potential 75-100 year mining operation in a safe jurisdiction? If Teck could cover all their inital acquisition costs going forward plus a share of the capex, reduce its exposure to the current economy, have a partner to share in the long term property exploration costs, still have the Liard nets profits seniority and bag 66% of the balance of profits going forward, wouldn't Teck shareholders be very pleased with that deal? So Ernesto and company have some strong bargaining power for obtaining a "fair and reasonable" price. In listening to Elmer on the call, he knows and his geology equivalents at Teck know just what an impact this District will have on the world mining scene. I'm glad he's on our side.