I don't think we'll ever agree on this but here goes...

The contract gives minimums. We exceeded the minimums. We exceeded them by a lot. The contract gave no upper bound on any of those parameters so I can't see how we could think that we would get a different treatment -within the Agreement - by going with such high production. It wouldn't be the first time we found fault with the Agreement.

One other way to look at it, for the 12%, we probably would still not have met it at the level of the production in §5.5(b)(i) at 25k tonnes per annum. That's an educated guess. Just as we are seeing arguments to go to 180 ktpd mining production to boost economics, rolling down production to the 25k tonnes of copper production (about 1/3 of our 130,000 ktpd mining production) would probably not result in a very good number. Less revenue combined with the high 12% discount.

Maybe RT could shine a light on that kid of scenario.

I dont' even think that interest rates in 2002 were really that high but they were higher than our near 0 rate now. US Prime charged by banks was 4.67% in 2002.

It is plausible that both parties have found a mutual interest in putting the Agreement aside and exploring new ideas together but apparently we are only in 'discussions' (lol!). The info coming out of management from folks calling in is that they are not holding teck's feet to the fire on the 120 days nor the Liard shares. There has to be a reason for that.

jmho