But when I look at Teck spending all this money, yet trying to cut spending and a possible 600 job cut from Teck, hummm

Then Teck only spent a small amount of money on Shaft Creek this year. Tells me that they are not in a hurry with us.

hmmm... you said this Dogger.

I dont see Teck jumping on this anytime soon. Heck they just spent a bunch on money and another company buying shares ....AGM or something like that?

You said a bunch of money. What you're saying to me and you can correct me if I perceived your post incorrectly is that SC is not #1 priority on Teck's list. They much rather use their money on another company such as AQM. $1.5 million on AQM instead of Schaft Creek.

So if this is the case? Then would the old contract or JV agreement that I and others invested in .....would that not have been better? Taken the chance of battling over the agreement which I might add.....was the agreement that Teck put in place.

Getting the Laird shares back and not have someone hold on to them....reguardless of supposedly tax purposes. Really you think we are in the best place we are now?

Teck would have been on a timeline with the old agreement. Im sure our SP would not be where it is.

Everytime I phone the office and spoke with Elmer before and after we dropped the BFS, Elmer has told me many times.....Teck could jump on this at anytime.

All I know ... the original agreement....Teck had 4 years to jump (period).....now ....the new agreement, they bought themselves years and years if need be, to invest in other companies and possibly jump on some other new possible mine up and comming. So now we sit and wait.

I do agree with certain points especially with the 4 years to jump (period). However, I've learned that forcing a large miner to act or spend money within 4 years or within any time period does not make good business sense. Junior explorers objective is to monetize the asset they have and sell it to a miner or at least be a part of the process in bringing it into production.

If CUU does forces Teck's hand and they see the risk of not fulfilling the obligations and lose the project all together, you're basically asking Teck not to back into this project.

CUU got the most important part of the agreement and that is the financing aspect. Teck will take us 100% into production. CUU will not get diluted by going to market for money in order to fulfill their capex obligations. I don't think I've seen any other juniors that has this financing agreement. Even Augusta had to sell off their gold and silver streams.

Yes this agreement allows Teck to "mothball" this project right? I talked to Elmer and he said within Liard Copper, there are other parties and certain criteria prevents Teck from mothballing it.

That being said, I don't see any difference in a 4 year strict timeline or Teck mothballing it. IF Schaft Creek is that ugly duckling and it's not economically feasible, Teck doesn't need 4 years to decide if they want to bring this into production. They will know if they want it or not, they are not going to waste time on this project. A good example is Catalyst Copper. Teck decided not to back into it.