I find this PP very telling. If CUU honestly believes Teck will back-in (under the same terms as the 2002 Option Agreement) why not let Teck finance the EA 100% as they would if they backed-in?
You could argue they lose ~60 days of EA work but why would Teck wait 60 days to make a decision if they like SC? If CUU waits 2 weeks they will have delivered the BFS and Teck would likely indicate its interest in SC! Surely they must have some cash on their BS.
Full-disclosure: I no longer own any CUU (reasons below) but will buy back in at the right price/time/convincing argument. Reasons (IMHO):
-
No chance of a buy-out until a new FS is published - regardless of the upside we see at SC there is no way Teck's investors would be supportive of spending +$400M (shares or cash) for any % interest in an unknown project with a worse FS than Galore Creek. The street (buy-side and sell-side) would crucify Lindsay if he did this in this environment and given the NPV is only currently $67M - it should be +$5B IMO!!
-
Teck's unlikely to agree to a JV under the same terms as were agreed upon in 2002. First point, 4 year production clause. Why would Teck risk $ if the estimated construction time is 5 years? Also the 1x, 3x, 4x expenditure arrangement only makes sense for construction capex. SC probably needs $20-40M in drilling, FS work, EA work to get to a construction decision. It seems unlikely Teck would risk $20-40M if SC doesn't get the green light right away and is delayed.
I am not trying to bash CUU it just doesn't fit my risk/reward profile post-BFS at these prices. I still like SC but from reading this forum I am not convinced CUU will meet many retail investors expectations in the next year or so. My guess is Teck enters a completely new, less exciting JV arrangement with CUU and you see a reoptimized FS in the next 12-18 months.
