I went to PDAC today and spoke to Jason, Shane and Mike. Elmer was there, but I only got to shake hands with him. Unfortunately for me a couple individuals got to him first and I wasn't able to speak with him as he had a meeting to rush off to. Friendly guy though. You can tell he's got a good touch with people.

I didn't go with prepared questions and I didn't take notes, so these are my recollections only and should not be carved in stone.

Everyone was very friendly, etc. and I was happy to answer what questions I had. This doesn't the mean that the answers revealed much or were even what I wanted to hear.

According to both Jason and Mike, it is their belief that Stifel has most of the shares they purchased back during the price run up in 2011. I asked Mike if this suggested that a buy-out price at least equal to the average price Stifel paid is in the offing - and he could only say "it's a possibility" (my impression = "no"). In general he was extremely good at not taking any kind of bait with regard to share price speculation on my part (and I tried!) and frankly I was left with the "higher than $1 but not as high as $3, anything is possible" feeling. He never used any price at all in our conversation, so all numbers I'm stating are strictly my impression.

Interestingly he did say that if moly was to regain 50% of what it has lost (and gold and silver stayed the same) our copper cost would be around $0. He made a point of saying that, leading me to think that anticipated metal prices are an extremely import component of our valuation. Jason asked me what my expected price was and I said I'd be happy with $3 or higher and he felt this was simply too high and unrealistic. $2 (above? below? probably below) is around where he started getting more comfortable with my valuation conjecture. The market we find ourselves in and our share price DO matter to any final buyout price according to Jason. It is simply unrealistic from his perspective to not consider our price. If it goes up, that will help. Going from $0.80 to $3.00 was not conceivable to him. However, he wasn't saying $3 was inconceivable, but it was getting there from $0.80 that made him stick. I do understand arguments made on this board that insiders buying open shares could run up the price so this share price premium method of valuation is silly - but I am passing on what I heard at PDAC.

Regarding Arizona, the water issue was considered of no concern (Jason) and Mike was really pleased about this property and seemed fired up by it. They have made a couple executive/legal trips down to Arizona and my understanding is that Jason indicated an NR is coming out shortly (weeks?) to describe assorted drilling / aerial exploration plans. This is ongoing, unlinked to Shaft. It's simply an opportunity that presented itself and so they're pursuing it in parallel.

Environmentally, Shane said they'd be pleased to submit in Q2 (end of Q2 I'm sure), but it may well be Q3. After submission, government evaluation is supposed to take a six months it will probably take a year for the provincial and federal parties to "do their thing", bringing us to late summer 2014. The status of that EA is not going to drive the liquidity event. During this discussion period with Teck, environment related questions have been asked. What about I don't know. I asked if there were show stoppers, etc. and he agreed there were no red flags, but the outcome is never 100% certain. He's been through this before, knows what to expect and is working through the process. An NDP government (he brought it up) creates some uncertainty which is never a good thing... whether this will cast a long shadow over CUU or not is anyone's guess - environmentally, or otherwise. As long as CF is still an operator of this project, we will continue to manage pursuit of the EA.

Mike went on to mention that Ernesto is a very hard bargain driver. He leaves absolutely nothing on the table and will explore multiple scenarios and will be creative about maximizing value. He has a very long term outlook. I asked about Liard. Liard was simply not underscored by Mike as having the kind of pivotal relevance that this board gives it. Any revenue wouldn't be for 11 years or so. It's just too far in the future to be a significant factor and if they take us all it's not either.

If Teck backs in 75% that gives CUU a big value boost (4x expenditure) and Mike was pleased by that. He said many arrangements by Teck are possible including a partnership, foreign funding, etc. There seem to be many, many scenarios that could play out and it's not at all clear which twists and turns this will eventually take. Bottom line, he said Teck can take care of themselves with regard to finding money.

I also overhead Jason mention a $7M tax credit to someone else and he went on to say we were well funded for now. Also, with Ernesto ponying up to each PP, the turnaround is quick and with a minimum of fees and this is a great advantage. I was simply listening in to that conversation.

Regarding the timing of news... they definitely confirmed the FS has been handed to Teck. I did not confirm if this was Feb 4th, but I am comfortable (for my purposes) assuming it was. I conjectured to Jason that March 6th would be a deadline to recognize our FS as a BFS under section (ii) - here the long pause and lack of direct response indicated to me this is not the right perspective to take. Basically - it's in Teck's hands now. They have it, they've been working alongside CF for a long time and there was universal (all three of them) belief (with conviction I sensed) that Teck is going to tell CF how it wants to proceed sooner rather than later. I interpret this to mean during the next 2 to 3 months. Teck has shown interest all along the way. Jason did throw out the possibility that they "walk" (my word, not his) in which case be prepared for a major price dive as we spent 2, maybe 3 years to dress this thing up for sale to someone else. I suggested the 2 or 3 years and he nodded. He can't know, and may just have been anchoring on my suggestion for the sake of conversation. Perhaps there is a plan B, but I didn't get an opportunity to ask Elmer about this.

Mike did indicate that Teck has a lot of data on this project and Jason indicated that the upgrade recommendations in the FS are well understood by Teck. The FS is "vanilla" and made for Teck. It is very conservative. However, CF is going to proceed as if Teck isn't going to make a decision, but of course everyone knows what the elephant in the room is. Last year they held off on more drilling etc. to avoid further delays to the FS which could have generated who knows how many more months (a year??) of delay.

Boiling it down, what I gleaned from the exchange...

First, I'm happy I went and I was left with a positive feeling about the team. I had an opportunity to get in at $0.40 (missed), $1.37 (missed) and from $2.70 down through to $0.80 (yep, those are the doors I picked), so my average is above $2. I feel there is a definite possibility that I could lose some money when this is settled.

Further, I believe we really will know in the next 2 to 3 months (hopefully a bit sooner). Whatever price Ernesto can squeeze out of Teck's interest in the Schaft Creek project is as good as can be had. Teck has shown interest all along, as well as currently by entering into discussions. We have that going for us.

But are we looking at $3+ (as I'd previously believed)? - fat chance was my impression. I'll be very happy to be wrong. Also, it's entirely possible we get a back-in and keep drilling, etc.

One more thing on the various contract terms, etc... I really got the sense that THE MAIN event was getting the FS to Teck. Teck's interest in the package we offer is our main leverage but market conditions and our share price will limit that leverage. All the rest (Liard, 4 year requirement to build a mine, etc.) is not going to drive the decision time line or our valuation to the extent it has been supposed on this board. However the port, NTL (I confirmed we are spot #3 and it's on schedule), etc. have real value. I'm not saying the contract is without value, but it's not the contract we're selling, it's the metal potential in the ground in the context of economic conditions, which trumps all. Again, they stressed two things: their relationship with Teck and the hard value of our overall package (pounds + port + power, etc.). They did not stress the contract except to state that if Teck doesn't play they can muster a good defense if needed - but that is definitely not the preferred route.

If we do get bought, I say $2 +/- 10% by May 31 2013 is my personal guess.

Mike did say, there are many options to move forward for CUU and all of them are good.

Let's see how it unfolds since there's not much else we can do right now. However, stay positive.