My personal opinion that we should have held strong and kept our protections and risked losing Teck as a partner

There weren't any protections under Salazar. They didn't have to take it to production then either. They could have chosen the 75% option but taken a decade to spend the money to earn-in. Or, they could have spent $20 million looking into the project and then decided against it and walked.

============================================

Yes, but the Liard had timeline protection. If we were the majority shareholder of the Liard (isn't the combination of our shares and Teck's around 93%), WE would be in control of the Liard interests and could elect to amend the 4 year timeline to a more reasonable amount of time.

Same as Teck right now - they are in full control of the Liard and I'm sure they are electing to forego the 4 year clause.

Would it have held up in court - that is the definition of speculation for sure. I personally think that the courts would have held up the spirit of the agreement if Teck was obviously trying to drag it out, but just my opinion for sure. If Teck had to spend $340 million to earn in and was only spending a few million a year, I think the courts could sort it out. We did spend $80+ million exploring this property in good faith after all.

I am trying to say we would have a more protected end game if we held strong (at least I think so). If Teck walked we would own 100% interest in the property and its accessories and 93% interest of the Liard and we could wait it out till the next cycle and unload our improved FS of say 2 billion (maybe much more) or so with lower cost per pound and keep all the proceeds of the sale instead of 25% when/if Teck makes a production decision.

And, the company never provided us any guidance that the agreements were not worth the paper they were written on - quite the opposite... What is an investor to do?

I will drop this subject now as its obvious most don't share my point of view.