Feasibility Notice is defined in 5.4. It reads:

"Upon Salazar completing a Positive Bankable Feasibility Study on the Property, Salazar shall fortwith prvide Teck Cominco with written notice (the "Feasibility Notice") which shall include a copy of said study and statement in reasonable detail (date of invoice, name of supplier, short description of charges and amount of expenditures) showing Expenditures incurred in preparing said study. Unless the Option in respect of the Indirect Holding has terminated as contemplated in 6.3, Salazar shall not be entitled to make a production decision in respect of the property or to produce from the property unless Teck Cominco elects not to exercise its Backin Right or the Back-in Right expires."

I think both sides have a point. On one hand we haven't used the term Feasibility Notice ever and management is reluctant to admit anything in writing and very evasive on the phone. I don't see why this would occur - why we wouldn't utilize our only leverage and the only thing that separates our company from the dying junior crowd.

On the other hand, how could they have the document up on SEDAR, be in discussions with Teck (officially announced, not just backdoor discussions) have taken their full time uploading it and try to say "we never sent them a notice" with a straight face and think legal action wouldn't be taken - even out of principal? How would they expect their careers to continue after all the blunders that have happened already and doing something THAT stupid? Even outside of that - the Feasibility Notice just seems to be a short form of the actual Feasibility....isn't that what they were saying "We need to upload a shortened version to SEDAR" in terms of us not getting on the clock right away. Isn't that exactly what's defined and what we have?

I'm not happy with managements clarity.