Based on your numbers, would you agree that streaming gold is already a better option for Teck than finding a partner?  In my opinion, leaving 2B on the table seems a better choice than losing 25%-30% of the project.

This being said, the 2B loss is not really a 2B loss.  You need to compare it against the other options.

1. If Teck finances 100% of Schaft Creek at 5%, they will most likely pay at least 500M just in interest until payback is done.  So that 2B difference is already down to 1.5B.
2. Money loses value in time.  If they stream gold, they touch the money today.  To compare both options, you need to bring all future revenues in today's dollar.  I'm thinking the true loss would end up being closer to 1B.

Here are more reasons why Teck might prefer a partial or full stream vs. only financing.

• Teck might prefer to keep their liquidity for better internal projects vs. financing Schaft Creek (e.g. QB3).   
• Teck might also want to keep their debt level low to avoid being in a similar 2009 and 2015 situation.
• There's no guarantee that gold prices will not retrace back before going higher.
• There's also a possibility that they could stream gold at higher prices which would reduce that 1B difference even more

Finally, I'm also not sure if Teck could finance 100% of a project with debt.  They usually seem to finance only 50% to 60% with debt and currently they only have 400M in cash and need to buy us out first.  They might sell a couple of assets in a near future and coal business might pick-up next year, but nothing is sure at this point.

MoneyK