Re: Liard Share/Koala
in response to
by
posted on
Jan 13, 2014 10:54AM
CUU own 25% Schaft Creek: proven/probable min. reserves/940.8m tonnes = 0.27% copper, 0.19 g/t gold, 0.018% moly and 1.72 g/t silver containing: 5.6b lbs copper, 5.8m ounces gold, 363.5m lbs moly and 51.7m ounces silver; (Recoverable CuEq 0.46%)
I don't know what Teck has in mind. I do know they picked up 75% of this deposit real cheap, at least from their perspective. Are they in a hurry to turn it into a mine? I hope so. But so far, I have no evidence to point in one direction or another.
As to your other statements Koala:
We have all seen the numbers that justify building a mine & producing - are we talking the PFS or the BFS? If the latter, it's debatable if the numbers justify building and producing, at least in today's environment (and yes, I do believe that 6 years out, a lot changes in the world and in the supply of metals - it may make sense to build today with that in mind).
we all know that the numbers are for maybe a 5-10% area of the "DISTRICT" properties that make up SC and the surrounding properties - true, as far as the area encompassed by the proven deposit goes. What we don't know is if any of the other parts of the district contain economically extractable minerals. There is nothing proven, yet, in this regard, even if the signs point in a hopeful direction.
we all know the numbers that are used in the BFS were kept at the lowest possible to justify this as a "BANKABLE" project and reason to go fwd and build a mine & produce copper, (gold moly,silver) - this is hogwash. There is zero evidence for this. I know this statement has been made here many a time, but it doesn't make it true. We have to accept the BFS at face value. It is what any company looking to buy us out will use as the basis of valuation. From that perspective, I do hope it is redone (improved upon), but that will require a hang of a lot more drilling than what was done this year.