The wierd thing is that we don't know what reality really is LOL!

The Feasibility Notice is the real triggering device in the Salazar Agreement to initiate the clock and get the Liard shares coming our way. The Feb 4th NR spoke of deliving the FS to Teck but omitted any reference to the Notice (or its terms) described in 5.4 of the Salazar Agreement. The Agreement is very clear on the Notice (importance, content and triggers) so there should have been no question that it should have been submitted with the FS.

If the FS Notice was sent along with the FS, we should have a clear clock starting date. Elmer is being very coy about any dates (actual FS delivery, 30 day review, 60 day JV, 120 Teck decision) which should be very much in mind. Also the Liard share transfer is triggered by the Notice (& FS). CUU is also being very coy about the Liard shares.

No dates, no clock, no Liard shares? That does seem to point to the notion that there was no FS Notice. There is more evidence pointing to no Notice being delivered than there is to it having been delivered.

I don't really undestand why we would not have delivered the Notice; that's where i get hung up. If true, how would the lack of a Notice help our case??? These triggers and their associated events are the some of the main items that form the Agreement and just about every reason to have invested in CUU.

But if we did deliver a Notice, why no mention of it in the Feb 4th (or any) NR? Why is it so hard for CUU to answer very, very simple questions around the clock? Why are the disclaimers around the FS in our news releases growing and growing?

We know more about BC Hydro's potential, future assessment of our power needs than we do about the current state of the most critical catalyst(s) in the entire CUU story.

jmho