I have questions about how valueable any of these conventions are while we wait for a Teck decision. Maybe some meetings behind the scenes might evolve from them but I would think big investors interested in Schaft Creek will be waiting for that Teck decision.

As for us pissant investors - myself included - I don't think it is too much to ask for some clearly worded NR's that answer more questions than they raise. Ambiguous timelines (eg. 'mid to late summer' & 'FS was filed') in an environment of steadily eroding SP leaves too many questions about how the company is handling things and where we are at. The enormously blown deadlines only add to the restlessness of we little pissants. For this pissant, I would add our failed 2012 exploration programme - outside the FS related work - to the list of irritants.

The Feb 4th NR could have simply included a phrase spelling out how the FS was delivered in light of the Agreement: "The Company has delivered a copy of the completed positive Feasibility Study to Teck Resources Limited ("Teck")... [on this {DATE} along with the Feasibilty Notice per the terms of the Salazar Agreement]...."

In no way shape or form would any of CUU's internal dealings with Teck be compromised with that simple phrase but this pissant would understand a little better where my money is going.

While on the subject of pissant investors, I believe it is largely their capitulation that is dropping us notch by notch to the SP we enjoy now. In the absense of the large capital institutions, it is us wee pissants and Mr DM who are shouldering the support here. DM can't do it all.

jmho