"I (currently) think that they have been working on a definitive JV. Firestarter said something the other day about how they are at the "how to get this done stage" and that lawyers are at meetings now working out the details. It feels like a JV to me."

IMO a JV doesn't make sense for the insiders. They've always been a proponent of having an exit strategy and a JV will keep them engaged, arguably like a limited partner whose just in it for the ride. The insiders simply want out which IMO the JV portion would be subsequently sold to another joint venturer.

I do see why Teck would want to diversify their risk and in doing so gaining a new partner would do this. The hesitation mentioned from this board stemming from the Fording Coal history seems to make sense. However diversifying risk can be done without a JV. I've always felt strong that this is a share for share deal in the making as it indirectly hedges Teck's risk on the buyout. If the deal sours (which I don't think it will), the Teck shares would go down, which means shares CUU shareholders would receive would go down as well. In essence, the purchase price for CUU would go down in proportion. Perfect scenario for Teck, plus CUU gets the deferral of taxes via Section 51 for a share for share exchange. A spinout for the Arizona property could occur as well (likely using Section 85).

GLTA