Re: Cuu or Lvn
in response to
by
posted on
Mar 21, 2019 12:14PM
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%)
It confirms they don't know what Teck will say at the next JV meeting or any other meeting. It's been that way for 6 years.
So here's my problem with this. Why the h*ll did Elmer agree to these terms of the JV agreement? Under the old JV agreement we had huge leverage to force Teck to spend something like over 100M to earn their 75% interest. We could of stuck to that or used that to put a time limit clause in the agreement that stipulated that after 5 years if Teck did not live up to the terms of spending they would lose their 75% interest in SC. This is common in JV agreements- a time clause to prevent the other party from just sitting on their ass to starve out the other partner. Why why did Elmer agree to leave the JV agreement open ended?
Besides that what happened to Elmer's word that Teck would have to inform Laird if SC would be developed or not after 5 years? What happened with the negative cost to produce Cu that was left on their website right up until we got that bombshell of a Feasibility report? And on and on. If it sounds like I am pissed you guessed right and I don't put the blame on Teck, at least they are acting in the best interest of their shareholders, but who is Elmer acting in the best interest of?