Reader caution - this piece is a tad "pumpish." I dunno why I want to do this, but I do. I know a lot of us browse here daily, some at SH and some at SI looking for - well - anything interesting really. And not the constant harping about whether the "Notice" was delivered, the dismal stock price, if there is an early June deadline, the woeful buy-out price we can all expect ...Folks - trust your management and funding group. You can complain when it's done if you don't like the outcome buy why constantly negativize (new word?) a stock you own.

Based on Canada Grant's Teckie friend's comment about the dumbing down of the BFS, I decided to review what intrigued me about this stock in the first place, and how far we have come. I didn't buy based on what we knew - I bought based on potential, the size of insider ownership, the 4 most sought after metals basket of goodies located on stable Canadian soil, the possibility of Teck as a partner and the probability that there would be power to the project. So I took another look at the 3 inch (sorry - metrically challenged) high BFS sitting on my desk, my notes for the past 3 years and reflected on my conversations with management, who by the way, are still in good spirits.

Here's a parlour trick to entertain your spouse - don't try this at home without supervision. If you draw a vertical line about 5 inches long (about the diameter of a wine bottled suitably emptied) and place a single dot from an HB2 pencil sharpened to your satisfaction (the kind us professional accountants use) on that line close to the middle, you have just drawn the relative size of the Schaft Creek deposit used in the BFS compared to the total CUU land claims. And remember, we didn't use all the estimated resources in the BFS, plus we labelled resources that Teck proved up 10 years ago in the pit shell not only as waste but with removal costs, and we know that Schaft deposit is open at depth and directionally. Dumbing down?

When you look at the untested portion of the geophysical signature in CUU's Mineral Resource Block Model - the Interpreted Cross Section - on their website, you have "Big Red" sitting there and we haven't managed to drill it. It's mammoth in size compared to what we have drilled and proven up. And remember, we have found a fairly strong 1:1 ratio between drill results and the geophysical surveys. And that's not the Discovery Zone (where we know there is potentially a separate deposit) , the Mike Zone or the ES Zone.

What about south of Schaft Creek - the non-included lands? The BFS did not include or comment on the aerial survey results from the second survey done in May 2012. It only included the May 2011 survey results. Well, the 2012 survey was as extensive as the 2011 one (17X 25 KM area). Any maps from CUU seem to cut off fairly close to the extent of the 2 KM included lands for the Schaft Creek deposit. Yet the Geophysical survey shows nice chargeability going south past this cut-off, and then we don't see the geophysical imprint of about a third of our claims at the bottom of the claims map. It looks like there is another "big red" high chargeability area just starting where the map cuts off. Why have we not seen this info? Ditto to the north of the GK Zone. We know they aerialed it but we haven't seen it. Dumbing down?

Why did they hastily pull the drill rigs late last summer after closing the camp the first time? Dumbing down?

So the BFS was less than we all expected. Dumbing down? Was the continued insider buying up to a month and a half ago based on our vanilla BFS? Don't think so. And no re-pricing downward of the most recent private placement.

Teck is a very experienced operator and has been privy to all the above info all along. Teck knows what Elmer and Cam know about the potential of the District and the probabilities of one or more deposits similiar to Schaft Creek. They haven't said no. We're still talking. I'm sure EE and management have studied all possible scenarios for extracting fair after-tax value from the District for themselves and the rest of us. I'm glad they are representing our best interests. If, as I believe, Teck is bringing in a partner (s) , it takes time for Teck to bring them up to speed with all the analysis of information and placing value on potential, the deal structure, involvement of 2 - 3 sets of tax and legal professionals, the sheer size of the deal and the negotiations with CUU. Ask yourself if there is another stock you'd like to be invested in right now, considering where we are in the cycle. I'm good.