My response to Prospekt is that he/she has brought up these same concerns over and over again numerous times

Prospekt has removed the gender mystery (more than once, I believe). She is a she, FYI.

It's a rare post that brings a fresh angle or new information. We have covered off almost every nuance that can be discerned from what is publicly available to us. I do appreciate reading people's thoughts and interpretations of various agreements. Even if we had several lawyers on this board there may well be differences of opinion as to how some of these terms could be defined. I just hope it never reaches the stage where Teck and Copper Fox lawyers duel over it.

Some of what's out there is definitely vague and ambiguous and that can be pinned squarely on management for the wording of press releases.

Sure we can call the company. Many people here have. Then we get a few people reporting the gist of their conversations, as they recall it, and confusion reins again due to discrepancies.

Now that Teck and CUU either in negotiations or on the verge of entering them and with company officials indicating that lawyers are putting the brakes on the flow of information, we are largely left with our faith in management to guide us through this.

For certain, management has been far from flawless here. Deadlines have been missed more than once and the communications and promotion of this company and its Schaft Creek project are insufficient, IMO.

So I fall back on what brought me here in the first place: insider holdings. I have to trust that when it's all said and done there will either be a satisfactory deal with Teck or CUU will be left with the majority ownership of Schaft Creek. The latter scenario will undoubtedly result in short-term pain but long-term gain, I believe.

Either way, I'm not about to sell at 78 cents! It's sink or swim now. I got myself into this and I'll brave the consequences.

GLTA.