Re: I don't get it
in response to
by
posted on
Jan 05, 2013 09:45AM
CUU own 25% Schaft Creek: proven/probable min. reserves/940.8m tonnes = 0.27% copper, 0.19 g/t gold, 0.018% moly and 1.72 g/t silver containing: 5.6b lbs copper, 5.8m ounces gold, 363.5m lbs moly and 51.7m ounces silver; (Recoverable CuEq 0.46%)
So where do'es that now put the release of the BFS , late 2013 . I shudder to think how much moaning there would be if this was the case . Here's a sample post from August 2013
Uhmmm no. They could have drilled a long time ago. We've been supposed to have finished the BFS 2 years ago. THAT'S the delay. I'd hate to think that over those 2 years they never thought it would be good to drill the pit up knowing what can be included. Maybe not during year 1, but sometime around year 2 (and this is afte r the BFS was originally supposed to be done - the 2 years before that they could have drilled too) we should have had an idea - even if we decided to move where the pit was. And even if we moved it, we should have recognized it as a possibility. Others are speculating that Teck gave an "okay" and "this is fine" for buying the inferred - but I think it's irresponsible of Teck to do so and I think for CUU the risks for doing so were heavily outweighed by the rewards. The only reason I can think of not to, is that Teck may say something like "We'll give you X% of the value of the inferred in the pit" but Elmer thinks and Y% of the inferred would be upgraded, and X% > Y% by a decent margin. Again though, I don't see Teck being that irresponsible - and am going off of what we know, opposed to possibilities that we have no way of proving.
So in theory , Copper fox could have built a Heli-pad and bought two copters , one for Elmer's use and the other for EE's use and Teck would agree to pay 4x if an audited report showed them
No...It obviously has to be related to exploration of SC and the optioned lands. I'm going to say that drilling is related, and directly related to exploration. It would get approved and be nearly impossible to say it wasn't a "real expense".