Thanks for the info Prospekt. I am still very confused regarding the anti-mothball / 4 year clause we had previously...

Today you are saying:

"There weren't any time limits, just a minimal amount of dollars to be spent every year. It would not have been a quick production decision guaranteed....

...There were no anti-mothball clauses in the Salazar Agreement beyond the need for Teck to spend about $250K per year, and that has been bumped up to $500K about in the current contract.

This 4-year clause supposedly existed between Liard and Teck. Now Copper Fox would also be a party to that contract since we own about 25% of SC, and whatever percentage of Liard. So, if this clause existed we would also be required to complete the mine within the 4-year period or else lose our share. This is not a clause we want to promote, since it is held over our heads as well and would be even if Teck walked."

But your earlier take on it was quite the opposite:

"This agreement is not between Teck and Copper Fox, and never involved Salazar. The agreement exists between Liard and Teck. When Teck optioned the properties off Liard it meant that Liard gave Teck the right to explore and mine the property but they couldn't hold those rights forever and not act upon them. The four-year clause would give Liard the right to take the claims back if Teck stopped working on them. Quite reasonable.

When we earn Teck's interest in Liard we presumably inherit the four-year clause as well. It is then assumed if Teck chooses to earn-back 75% they will still have to adhere to that time-frame. When we produce the Feasibility study we will be the major shareholder of Liard, and Elmer is on the board. If any legal matters need settling that might be a good time to do it."

http://agoracom.com/ir/CopperFoxMetals/forums/discussion/topics/534097-4-year-clause/messages/1687352#message

Many more postings along the same lines for most of the big posters here...

So which is it?

It is understandable why I am so confused (I'm sure there are others). I talk about protections and clauses that were the defacto standard previous to abandoning the Salazar and it is implied that I don't know anything - but you personally was one of the proponents of this view.

Yes, I did believe you, Vette and many others that we HAD 4 year clause and anti-mothball protections. Everybody believed it (and invested because of it) - but now somehow its being suggested now that we never ever had them, and nothing was lost when Salazar was abandoned?

I do respect you Prospect and you are a very intellegent person who has a great handle on this project and copper mining. This is in no way an attempt to put you down, but more to reinforce the reasons why I believe what I do regarding this project and that there seems to be a lot of double-talk on this topic...