A lot of talk about Teck walking entirely. I just don't see why they would when they can negligibly get 20% for minimal risk or 75% if they believed in the project. There's no reason to walk away unless they believed the FS was flawed which from what I gather, isn't the case.

The risks of them not buying us out that we discussed before seem negligible at this point in time based on how management has been acting. I can totally see them not buying out the whole thing and us having to shop around. Some of the risks we talked about were the 4 year clause... but we don't seem to be even enforcing the 2002 option agreement, why would they enforce the 4 years clause? There's no risk (besides expenditure costs and opportunity costs of time/capital) for just backing in.

Can someone tell me why Teck might back out entirely?

We have a good geopolitical climate (and although it might not be the absolute best if the NDP get in, compare our worst case to the alternatives). We have no environmental issues and though our EA might be late there's no forseeable potential problems either. We have room for expansion, and a lot of it. We're already profitable even without it. The mine/deposit it self seems great - and those are what Teck will be looking at. Our only problems seem to be with management, timelines and the complexity of our agreements - none of which really effect Teck taking this to production/backing in.