I agree with JayJ that CUU's BFS is "positive" and "bankable" because we have met "any" and "either" of 5.5(b)(ii) and (b)(i).

Below is an interesting article about: "The Use and Abuse of Feasibility Studies".

Any possibility that Teck is waiting 30 days to get approval from the bank? (Per below bolded and underlined info.)

"The definition of a "bankable" document is theoretically:

A document which outlines the technical risks inherent in a mining project, delineates methods of eliminating those risks, and quantifies the potential economic returns that can be attained at various commodity prices.

The bank itself will ultimately define what is required in a document that it will utilise to justify financing a mining project, so realistically, one could say that there is no such thing as a bankable document.

The term "bankable" feasibility study initially seems to have an added ring of veracity over the more mundane phrase "feasibility study". Adding "bankability", after all, seems to imply that the study is like money a party can take to the bank. Unfortunately, the term is misleading ... At the very least the knowledgeable lender, experienced in lending to mineral projects, will require that its own consultants and internal research departments review the study. The lender often then requires the parties to augment the study as support for the lending request. One can argue in good faith, then, that there really is no such thing as a "bankable feasibility study" except after the selected financing lender prepares or approves one. In short, it would be far less misleading if the term were "Bank-Approved" Feasibility Study."

http://www.cartaexploration.com/downloads/external%20pdfs/Use%20and%20Abuse%20of%20Feasibility%20Studies.pdf