I did notice the measurement differences, but didn't think it was too important in light of the point I was trying to make
That being that given the evidence of the 2 scenarios set out in the option agreement, the 12%NPV versus the 8%NPV and the reason for their differences, ie size of mine, where does the property that dwarfs these examples fit in that valuation logic
It simply doesn't
It may well be that this is what the delays are about. The Schaft Creek portion and our BFS may not be the best way to handle the size of this as well as the unproven potential of mineralizing at depth which has been theorized. So how does Teck value this fairly? How do we proceed from here, maybe there is a role for use in the JV partnership, but still to explore and prove up the rest. But we need some cash on the table ….
There is definitely a mine here and a much bigger one than anyone realized when the Salazar agreement was drafted. IMO
