Re: ''bankable''
in response to
by
posted on
Feb 15, 2013 11:33PM
CUU own 25% Schaft Creek: proven/probable min. reserves/940.8m tonnes = 0.27% copper, 0.19 g/t gold, 0.018% moly and 1.72 g/t silver containing: 5.6b lbs copper, 5.8m ounces gold, 363.5m lbs moly and 51.7m ounces silver; (Recoverable CuEq 0.46%)
I'm reading the first "positive" in lowercase as defined in the same sentence that we're talking about, different bold than last time, "The report will be considered to be positive if it generates a positive NPV in either of following two cases" How is it not defined? It's even mentioned in the prior paragraph:
“Positive Bankable Feasibility Study” means a comprehensive report prepared in good faith that shows the feasibility of placing the Property or part thereof into commercial production and is positive as contemplated in this §55. The report will be considered positive in any of the following cases."
Notice the word ANY. Meaning This one, or that one, or the other one. Put together with "either" I don't see how if we're choosing (b)(ii) how anything else applies...Basically section (b)(i) just doesn't matter for us. All that said - they do still have the right to look it over for 30 days any verify everything, I see it as more of a formality than of anything to be concerned about. March 6th, we should find out we've been on the clock for 30 days (unless it's not a part of the 120 days - which I'm not totally clear on) as Teck doesn't object and many of those cautionary warnings should hopefully disappear.
I do understand that the "at their sole discretion" can cause worry, but when you look at why they might - it's difficult to come up with a reason they would.
It'd be funny (in the worst kind of way) if they objected and said that it wasn't complete as the inferred wasn't included and not representative of the actual deposit. (Don't think this will happen or that it's an actual possible reason.)