Re: More to my post
in response to
by
posted on
Jun 13, 2015 12:16AM
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%)
Teck refers to optimization work on a number of their projects and indicates active studies. Other projects have descriptions like no significant activity or care and maintenance, which means they are on hold. The optimization work mentioned in press releases such as this,
http://copperfoxmetals.mwnewsroom.com/press-releases/copper-fox-annnounces-2015-schaft-creek-program-tsx-venture-cuu-201503170997140001
describes elements that are part of feasibility studies. Teck follows a process for major projects as described in the annual information form:
http://www.teck.com/res/tc/documents/_ces_portal_meta/downloads/investors/annual%20information%20form/aif%20march%202015.pdf
Converting resource to reserves requires a pre-FS or FS while cost estimates require a FS. All major projects will have a FS to provide the information required to make a production decision. The requirement in the JV agreement that a production decision be based on an approved FS is standard operating procedure. Are you aware of any reason why Teck would not book reserves or even resources for Schaft Creek if an approved FS exists?