A "smaller mill" would have otherwise been noted at this opportunity to offer details of significance and/or of a material nature.

Nobody is saying that a smaller size project has been announced, just that some of us think that is the direction Teck is going from some of the comments in the News Release and comments Teck has made in the past. There isn't going to be an announcement that they are working on a smaller project while they are in the midst of doing the optimization studies.

Teck would be much more likely to put into production a mine that has a capex of around $1.7billion, just to make up a number, rather than $3.2 billion. They could get the smaller project going then use the cash flow to expand.

Don Lindsay has stated that they can do this with Fort Hills. Clearly it is a business model they are keen to employ.

When they said in the News Release they were focussing on the first 10-15 years, and the Liard zone, it seemed to indicate to me that was the direction they were moving. As well, the market in general has shifted from these high-capex big, big mines into smaller, more profitable projects.

I put these quotes out here before from another project but it seems logical that Teck might also move in this direction. It just makes sense because it would allow Teck to manage their cash flow better, and maintain their precious credit rating:

The 2014 Feasibility Update reflects a project with lower capital costs resulting in enhanced projected investment returns notwithstanding the lower annual production. Additionally, this operating profile preserves all the growth potential and is expected to allow the Company to flow funds for project expansion out of cash flow.

Given the market’s current preference for smaller capital projects, this feasibility update is expected to allow the Company to finalize project financing and plan construction start-up.