"... should SC also be valued using 5%?  "

I've been suggesting this for years.  I never understood why a polymetalic deposit (w/multiple revenue streams = safety from diversification & optionality) should be discounted harder than a single revenue stream deposit.  

Yes, with the surge in prices, gold, moly and silver represent a larger proportion of overall revenues right now.  That is until copper gets it surge to $6 or $7. 

So yeah, we need to at least publish the 5% rate and fight for it in valuation discussions.  To use historical LT metal prices as a "reasonable average price assumption" to value an asset that will produce for decades and decades is already a form of deep discounting.  No one in their right mind beleives prices won't be much much higher in the future even in the near term not to mention the long term.  And don't get me started on the value of optionality where I could see Teck doubling the size of the mine for economies of scale and to reach the proven richer grades just below the current mine pit.  IMO, its already the plan.

And in negotiations we also need to use the same approach Teck does when presenting the value of their projects.  Teck uses MI and I in their projection.   So should we!

Let's not forget that the May 2012 Resource Estimate on Schaft Creek shows MI & I

10 Billion Lbs Copper

10.7 Million Oz Gold   (valued today at spot gold: $24,000,000,000 USD )

661 Million Lbs  Moly

98.3 Million Oz  Silver


Imagine what it would have grown to by today if Teck dared to do a proper drilling of the project during the first ten years they were operator.