Thanks for sending that MTS, at least they are replying now. Not much of a reply though...

Notice how he glossed over the BFS question?

They are in 'discussions', but have yet to hear back from Teck?? Your BFS question doesn't need to be answered by Teck - he must know when the clock started/ends, whether the FS is accepted by Teck and many other Salazar agreement questions that dont need to be restated again.

I have noticed that people have reported talking with management on the phone and they are more free flowing with information, but they don't say anything in writing. We need some FS/BFS/Salazar Agreement items clarified. None of which would torpedo negotiations with Teck, they are just statements of fact? I could even give them a pass on clarifying the Liard shares issue if that is too hot a potato, but basics like FS accepted, 120 day start or end, and a bit of elaboration on what parts of the Salazar are spongy or firm are not too much to expect in writing.

If they truly do not know if the FS is acceptable to Teck at this point, they are not doing their job.

My concern is that the parts of the agreement that benefit Teck (in particular the 2km area of inclusion which is a huge issue) will be strong as steel, but dates, timelines, Liard, well - basically everything that benefits us will be reeeeaaaalllly stretchy.

If our parts are stretchy, maybe the area of inclusion should be flexible too. The way it stands, they are getting a massive amount additional resource for nothing (with the backin only option) as everything is based on our FS and spending to date.

Just clear up something so we are not completely in the dark.