It was discussed here that if we followed the Salazar and that Teck has to spend $360 million, it will be on exploration. If Teck wants to back in 75%, why as a partner, do you want them to spend that amount of money on exploration and no on the construction cost? It's almost if say you want to own part of my new house, I'm asking you to spend majority of the money on architectural drawings and not on the actual construction cost. Doesn't make sense.

I would like to suggest that if both parties to the contract agreed to allow spending on construction instead, that would no longer be a problem. Why wouldn't they both agree to that?

As for Teck shelving us. What difference does it make if we CUU owned 100% of SC? If Teck doesn't see SC is worth developing, then who will if we owned 100%? If Teck doesn't think a project in their own backyard in BC isn't worth it, do you think CUU is able to build a $3.2 billion mine?

Alone, I agree with you - there is no way for us to build a mine. The market is in the toilet and our current market cap is around 80-90 million. I would think (perhaps wrongly) that our market cap as 100% owners of a ready to go project with an NPV of at least 2 billion (after fixing the FS, removing the waste, etc.) would be better than it is today, and also when this market turns (and it will) we would have been in position to make a killing - if we could survive till then. There is a good argument that we wouldn't be able to. I dont think Teck would have let us walk away with 100% regardless. I suppose all of the above really doesn't matter as the milk has been spilt so to speak...

I have read the many posts that Teck will move on this soon, and I sincerely hope they are right. The nagging concern in the back of my mind is Teck's public statements of direction to their shareholders.

They have clearly said that Fort Hills is their current multi-billion dollar project, with QB2 and Relincho following. They have also stated clearly that they are tightening their belt and have laid off 10% of their workforce. I do understand they have committed to 2.5 million to work our property this year, and I agree it is a fair bit for a company thats belt tightening. Is it enough to indicate they are going to move forward soon? That I am not sure. Hopefully. The delayed JV meeting is a key item right now - why? Hopefully good news...

Is it in Teck's character to surprise the market with an announcement of a production decision on a 3 - 4 billion dollar project build out that was previously not even mentioned on their copper projects page? I have not followed Teck previous to this investment, so I have no answer to that. Hopefully that is what they do? They did tell their shareholders that they were considering getting into iron ore - and they were only just considering it. They seem to be pretty up front with their intentions, but like I said earlier - I have not followed Teck.

The JV shows that CUU is confident in the economics of SC. They are willing to give Teck the 75% and let them be the operator and find out exactly how much value is in the ground when they do their work.

I understand why you come to that conclusion and it certainly has merit.

Let me preface this by saying that Im not discounting it, but explaining why I personally feel different about it.

My 'cup is half empty' tendency tells me that CUU is not confident. They would have demanded more (cash, protections, timelines, an expiry date where ownership would revert, follow Salazar with modified earn multiplier, etc.) if they felt they were holding a straight flush. We are currently shouldering all the risk in this project. Teck can decide to shelve for future use and we are done. How could we have agreed to the JV without any kind of protections if we were confident? I cant wrap my head around that.

I am not trying to bash - these are some of the risks that worry me personally. If you are comfortable with these risks, that's awesome and I'm not trying to change your mind.

I am not trying to get anyone to sell their shares. Im still holding all of mine too. I just want to discuss this and maybe get some answers? Please de-risk them and we all can sleep better.

This may be pie in the sky, but maybe if valid concerns are expressed to management they may come out on record and address them? I dont think they are going to worry about a couple squeaky wheels, but if a consensus builds that we need some answers - that, along with the low SP may pressure them into releasing some useful information that they might not otherwise? Who knows...