Re: JV Meeting
in response to
by
posted on
Oct 27, 2014 11:50PM
CUU own 25% Schaft Creek: proven/probable min. reserves/940.8m tonnes = 0.27% copper, 0.19 g/t gold, 0.018% moly and 1.72 g/t silver containing: 5.6b lbs copper, 5.8m ounces gold, 363.5m lbs moly and 51.7m ounces silver; (Recoverable CuEq 0.46%)
I think having functional control of the Liard board via majority ownership of the shares we could decide to enforce or relax timeline protections provided within the agreement.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that Teck had full control of the Liard shares up until they relinquished them to us--so they could have voted to remove any time constraints or anything else they didn't like before they handed them over to us. They could have simply cancelled, or re-negotiated, the Agreement under which we believe the 4-year clause existed between Liard and Hecla.
I didnt think about that - and it is a good point. A good reason why discussion is good. It may be seen as dirty pool, but I think you are probably right on target.
-----------------------------------------
As I understand it (admittedly not an expert), they had to declare their intended backin percentage within 120 days and then work towards backing in, with us as the operator directing the spending of the funds.
Almost correct. They did have 120 days to declare, and Teck had to spend 4X expenditures to earn 75%. It's not clear to me that Copper Fox would have been the operator, although I know we used to say that but I can't read it in the contract. It specifically states that while Teck is earning-back their share they have the right to, "...do such prospecting, exploration, development or other mining work thereon or thereunder as [Teck] in its sole discretion may consider advisable..." There doesn't seem to be a requirement to spend any amount of money per year until after they earn-back their 75% and a JV is formed. Teck would have the sole right to decide whether to put it into production.
I was basing that we would be the operator on previous discussions here. I hope there was some basis for it, but I dont remember what it is.
I do think having the property and shares under our ownership until backin was earned would have been strong encouragement for Teck to move forward. Also, it would have left us with something very valuable for our efforts if everything fell apart. We have what we have I suppose - there is no going back, lets hope for the best going forward.