No, all contracts contain an execution requirement. The ones I'm most familiar with are from the oil and gas field and all of them contain performance requirements. In our case it's a specific performance milestone. The date part has been satisfied. We spent what was required before the stale date. The BFS has been dropped and now Teck's stale date comes into play.

The intention of the 30 day period is so Teck can satisfy themselves that the document is accurate. If it is then it is bankable. If not then we have to remedy it. Under all the descriptions of bankable this document does satisfy those requirements. The only way it's not bankable is if it is flawed. Remember, the bar was set very low for what is considered bankable. Positive has an accepted standard and that is anything on the plus side of the number line. For legal purposes it was set at 1 unit positive. So it has an exact definition. $1.

Of particular note:

Subsection A states what is positive if the document is done by way of agreed terms.

Subsection B defines what happens if we do it without prior agreement.

The definition of the paragraph states that if CUU aims for the lower tonnage they must also produce a report for the larger at the same time. So why this if the bar is set very high at 12% discount?

Then it sets out the 2 cases for what is positive.

Then it describes again what NPV and Net Cash Flow mean with respect to the PBFS

Then it subordinates ii to i.

Last it states that on no response it is still a BFS.