Yes, I think that $113Million is the annual Net Cash Flow of the CUU share at the base case of NPV 8%.

That means that almost any other valuation would be higher.

Incidentally, Rick Mills, was talking about projects that were not yet in production.

We have often heard that we can use the NPV 5% once the environmental assessment is approved. The NCF at 8% is about 30% of the NPV at 5%. The ROV is sky-high.

This is just one method of valuing projects suggested by someone with a lot of experience. We don't really know, of course, how this will relate to the realized value of our share of SC. We also have that 1.8% of Liard (?) that is not included in this JV with Teck.

I guess the point is if you have a project that will pay you $113Million per year after payback, for 20 years--how much of a multiple do you pay for it? Do you pay five years earnings to get 15? That's all he's doing, is suggesting a standard assumption for the industry.

In our case they probably assume that the mine life will be longer than 20 years. They can probably assume that the average cost per pound of copper could even be lower than the $1.04 it is today. Teck's average cost per pound of copper is around $1.79, which is much higher than the median of $1.50. Don Lindsay always talks about the cost per pound and how important it is in their decision-making.

Another way of looking at it is if we were to keep the project and receive 27 cents per year for 15 years, or $4.10 per share in total. ($113M/413M shares = $.27) I think that is a deal I would take.