IMO, I think it has to do with Teck not needing it if they buy us out. However if they back in it may be worth while to prove up the value. We know there is mineral there it just does not measure up to 43-101 standards.
For example at QBII, Tech is going mill the "waste" rock depening on grade and copper prices, they have to blast and move the rock anyway so you can count on them testing it for minerial and storing it for milling it when. I suspect a similar strategy at Schaft Creek.
I'm no expert and may be "inferring" too much here though :-)
When you look at the QBII feasability it states:
16.9 Mine plan
As stated previously, two mine plans were prepared for the Project. The Base Case plan includes only measured and indicated resources (MI Plan) for mineral reserves reporting, and the Development Case plan includes inferred resources (MII Plan) for locating of major infrastructure and permitting.....
16.9.2 Development Plan
The main difference between the material processed in the MII Plan and the mineral reserve is that inferred material is considered as potentially economic. In addition, there is some displacement of indicated material by higher grade inferred material mined at the same time...
They further go on to state:
The feasibility study scheduled material using a variable mine to mill cut-off, but with a fixed NSR of USD 8.00 per tonne cut-off to the low-grade stockpile. The study scheduled all stockpile material to the mill in the late years of operation. The Project’s scheduler will allow for milling of tonnes below the fixed NSR of USD 8.00 per tonne cut-off if variable costs are covered and no higher grade material is available...
