1) Is Paramount Zone considered a high-grade deposit? And large-scale in size? (paramount is a little higher grade than the Liard zone. The deposit would not be classified as a high grade copper deposit, it is the combination of the four salable metals that add to the total NSR. The size of the deposit has not been established. It is open to the east, the north and at depth. My estimate is that approximately 60% of the deposit has been included in the resource block model. That is why the results of the 2013 drilling if successful could substantially increase the size of the block model, which dictates many positive changes to theProject)

My thoughts: We do not know how big the Paramount Zone is to this day and it is open to the east and north and at depth (huge exploration potential folks). As explained above Schaft Creek is not a high grade deposit but we are not low-grade. I prefer to think of Schaft Creek as an average grade deposit. Lastly, only 60% (in Elmer's opinion) of Paramount is included in the BFS! The M&I resources outside the block model could not be included into the BFS due to safety issues based on engineering studies which could not be recovered, yet.

2) Is the Schaft Creek deposit considered high-grade when you consider the Laird/Main zone? (see answer above, Liard zone is different than the Paramount zone in geometry, depth, etc. and also contain several zones of higher grade copper-gold-molybdenum-silver mineralization (essentially the first starter pit) the chargeability does show a strong signature to the south of the Liard zone which was only tested by a few short holes and still remains a very real exploration target)

My thoughts: The south of the Liard zone also contains huge exploration potential as only a few short holes were drilled. The liard zone has several zones of mineralization and the "starter pit" is included within the BFS.

3) Does the Schaft Creek deposit have good infrastructure?( the topography is much more hospitable to construction and has a natural depression for the tailing storage facility, room for an airport, environmentally wise re PAG rock etc. the construction of the power line is the key component. The port of Stewart and road construction to the site is in hospitable terrain all works for the project)

My thoughts: This question is dedicated to Mr. TT. I will choose to listen to my Chief Executive Officer on this debate rather an online stranger. Schaft Creek does have good infrastructure! I was scrutinized for posting an article regarding "What to look for in Copper Projects". I did state Copper Fox had it all. I still believe that and Elmer agrees with my notion. First off, yes Schaft Creek is in a remote area like many other huge Copper projects but this does not mean that Copper Fox does not have good infrastructure. The article I posted identified many interesting factors such as Copper supply and demand issues favouring Copper prices in the long run but of course I got accused of pumping or posting an irrelevant article. Of all the facts that the article underlined, Mr. TT argues that we are remote and have no roads, good to know and thanks for the realization sir. Roads can and will be built, that is not an issue for me. When I stated "we have it all" I was pretty close, the only thing Mr. TT has against me is Schaft Creek is not a high grade deposit, Fine we are average grade deposit that is still very valuable and rare. Knowing we have an average grade deposit, excellent jurisdiction, and good infrastructure becuase Copper Fox has Power (NTL), and the Port facility as the article states as very important factors in determining whether this project will one day be a mine. I believe it will.

"The last thing is infrastructure. Imagine two geologically identical projects. One is next to a highway with power lines and a port facility (sounds like CUU)". Sure we are not near a highway but roads can be built and it will happen.

4) Would the joint venture partnership drill the inferred resource within the Pit Shell to upgrade to an M&I Category knowing Teck has already drilled that area many years ago? Teck now being the Operator of the project could bring those drill cores from their database and incorporate those assays (and the 2012/13 assay results) into a revised BFS? ( That decision would be for Teck to make in conjunction with the Joint Venture. The copper equivalent grade of the proven and probable reserves at SC is based on the input parameters to estimate the copper equivalent grade is 0.46% recoverable copper equivalent. The copper equivalent grade of the inferred resource within the pit shell based on the same input parameters is 0.40% recoverable copper equivalent.

Given the response I received from Elmer on the above topic, I decided to see what Greg Waller had to say on this exact same question and his response was:

"As indicated previously, we will have to assess the results of our drill program from this year to guide our decision making how to move forward. At this point, we are not prepared to discuss details of the project" (Greg Waller).

I must say I found this to be a positive reply as potentially Greg/Teck do not want to give away any revealing project developments to the public. Greg does not want to comment on the waste rock for some particular reason. I presume he does not want to give away Teck's strategy and project plans for Schaft Creek. The inferred resource within the Pit Shell is high grade mineralization which was not included in the BFS, remember this folks when trying to understand the overall grade of SC. Also, I find it Interesting how Elmer uses Copper Equivalent grading rather Copper grading in understanding the overall grade of the SC deposit (Four saleable metals not just Copper). Back to Elmer.

5) When it comes to understanding the overall grade of the Schaft Creek deposit, do you put more importance on Cu grade or Copper equivalent grading? (clearly I like the copper grade more as it does significantly impact the estimation of the copper equivalent grade. Also the ability to expand the block model to the east should also allow deepening the proposed pit to access the higher grade copper exposed in the bottom of the pit which in the current study due to safety constraints based on engineering cannot be recovered. If you look at the corporate presentation you will see the pit shell superimposed on the block model and there is a large chunk of higher grade copper at the bottom and in the east wall of the proposed pit shell that cannot be mined. However if the block model is expanded to the east based on the 2013 drilling then that should allow expansion of the pit limits, recovery of the higher grade copper on the east side of the proposed pit and conversion of the material now shown as waste to resources. If this occurs, then many aspects of the current FS related to strip ratio, revenue, mine life, etc. changes to the positive.)