Again, a misunderstanding... We never owned 100%. We were always valuing it at 25%. We just assumed that the NPV would be much higher...

----------------------------------

Are you sure about that?

It was my understanding that upon producing a "bankable" BFS, we earned 100% interest in the property plus all of Teck's Liard shares. This was to be triggered by providing the "Feasibility Notice", a mechanism described in detail in the Salazar contract.

Teck would then have to earn back one of 3 percentages of ownership described in the contract. by spending multiples of our qualifying expenses on property development (around $85 million). For the 75% ownership they currently hold they would have had to spend 4 times our $85 million before they earned the 75%.

Because we would also be holding Teck's Liard Shares we would have controlling interest and be able to enforce timeline protections included in the Liard and Salazar agreements. With the JV we have now, Teck is the majority Liard shareholder - and they will not enforce any timelines against themselves. Also Salazar ripped up. So a free ride for them.

The Salazar was touted by the company and others as one of the main reasons to invest. If Teck didn't back in - we would own it all (including ther Liard shares). There was zero guidance from the company that the aggreement was in any way "unenforceable" until it was already trashed.

Myself (and some others) don't buy into the part about Salazar being unenforceable - it was drawn up by Teck after all... How can they attack the agreement they wrote? The agreement was written in pretty clear terms - nothing ambigous or open to interpretation. Create a BFS and provide it to Teck with the contractually obligated feasibility notice and we owned the property and Teck would have to surrender their Liard shares to us immediately. With the opportunity to earn them back if they jumped through all the hoops in the aggrement. We would be the operator until that time.

I know many will disagree with me, but I truly believe we should have held our ground and if Teck walked, we lost them as a partner - but gained 100% of the property that could be improved by drilling the waste and doing some optimizations and reccommendations outlined in the FS. We would then have 100% interest (and no Liard NSR weighing down the profit) with an updated FS probably approaching 2 billion and a lower cost per pound of copper due to the waste being proved up.

I don't think Teck would have walked anyways. We would have been in a better place then now IMHO. Others will dissagree, and thats ok. Nobody can really know what would have happened - but that's my take on it.

I'm not a lawyer and not an expert on the contracts in question, so take it with a bit of salt if you like.