Forget everything you've read on this board. I think there's a confusion between what's on this board, speculation and the source material. Let's go to the source material, that is the actual agreement. No misinterpretatins from management, no disinformation from one person to another - what's written on paper and is official.

Below is a snippet of the Option Agreement between Salazar and Teck. This is section 5.5, with my bolding of what is important to us. Please, read the source material for yourself. You can find it in the link library.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1opssTdj4BuY2FkMmQzMDctNzdiZC00Njg1LTg3YzUtNTY2MzhjODRlMGFl/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CPLqmtQO

_________________________________________________________________________

Salazar may prepare a report without a wńtten agreement with Teck Cominco as contemplatèd in that studies a project of any size selected by Salazar but no smaller than that set out in (i)but in this case Salazar must then, at the same time, study a project ofthe size set out in (ii). The report will be considered to be positive if it generates a positive NPV in either of following two cases:

(i) firstly, the report will be considered positive if it indicates that production from the Property would, on a project basis, generate a NPV of at least $1.00 using a discount rate no less than 12% and assuming a mine life of no less than 12 years and copper rnetal production of at least 25,000 tonnes per annum;

(ii) secondly, the report will be considered positive if it indicates that production from the Property would, on a project basis, generate a NPV of at least $1.00 using a discount rate of 8% assuming a mine life of no less than 15 years andvcopper metal production of at least 50,000 tonnes per annum;

Where “NPV” means the net present value of the Projected Net Cash Flow, »as defined in Schedùle “E”, discounted to the date of the Positive Bankable Feasibility Study on a constant dollar basis assuming the consumption of no more than 90% of the proven plus probable reserves. lf the report is positive under §5.5(b)(i), Teck Cominco may give notice to Salazar, within 30 days of receipt of the Feasibility Notice at which production rate the repon shall be considered a Positive Bankable Feasibility Study so long as the project selected has a positive NPV. If the report is positive underl §5.5(b)(i) but is not positive under §5.5(b)(ii), the report shall be considered to be a Positive Bankable FeasibilityI Study based on the size of project >studied under §5.5(b)(i). If the report is positive under §5.5(b)(ii) but not under §5.5(b)(i), Teck Cominco may nevertheless elect, in its sole discretion, to deem the report to be a Positive Bankable Feasibility Study. lf Teck Cominco does not give any notice as aforesaid, then any report that satisfies §5.5(b)(ii) will be considered a Positive Bankable Feasibility Study.

_________________________________________________________________________

Now from that, we see that we would be under section 5.5 (b)(ii). Any confusion might possibly be attributed to the clause "Teck Cominco may nevertheless elect, in its sole discretion, to deem the report to be a Positive Bankable Feasibility Study." This means that Teck has, some given amount of time to say that it's worthwhile or not. I think this is of limited concern as they have approved all NR's as well as working with CUU in addition to them having the last 45 days prior to filing for any dispute.

I believe, the 30 days that people are referring to is this clause "Teck Cominco may give notice to Salazar, within 30 days of reciept of Feasibility Noticeat which..." However... if you read a few words back it clearly says under 5.5 (b) (i). We're not going that method. We're using 5.5 (b) (ii). The 30 days doesn't apply to us. Perhaps it may apply to the "If Teck Cominco does not give any notice as aforesaid, then any report that satisfies 5.5 (b)(ii) will be considered a Positive Bankable Feasibility Study".

Given that, the 30 days is, in my opinion read as a part of the 120 days - but they have the ability to forget the clock within the 30 days if they don't accept the study. I see this as highly unlikely given the reasons I've stated above.

NOW, we go to the recent NR. This can be found on the Copper Fox website at, http://www.copperfoxmetals.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=569008&_Type=News-Releases&_Title=Copper-Fox-Files-Positive-Feasibility-Study-on-Schaft-Creek-Project.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Company has delivered a copy of the completed positive Feasibility Study to Teck Resources Limited ("Teck"). Teck is reviewing the Feasibility Study and is discussing with the Company its earn back options available under the "Teck Option Agreement" dated January 1, 2002. There can be no assurance that these discussions will lead to Teck exercising any of its earn back options nor that the Company and Teck will enter into a definitive joint venture agreement as contemplated under the Teck Option Agreement.

_________________________________________________________________________

I'm reading this as, that they're discussing both the 30 days review period as well as the normal Option Agreement Back-In that we all know about. The rest of the NR is legal talk about no guarantee's.

All that said, I don't think Teck would take the full 120 days to begin with so whether it's part of the 120 days or not, and given there's limited to no chance of them denying the study...we should be fine.

Read the Source Material.