I pointed the contradiction out to Lynn that we have Nr'ed the completion of the FS and the about says it's a future event. This has caused problems with a couple recent people who looked into the company. Is this an error? They asked and if so why is the company missing something that simple.
We know it was done and we know Teck has not come back with a deeming. Obviously, one question arises. Did they determine that this FS does not meet their FS requirements. Not is it Bankable but is it even a proper FS? With all the audits of it and it being signed off by third party we have every right to expect that it is a proper FS. However, Teck has 120 days to change their minds or make up their minds. This seems to be the ruling clause and by appearance only, the route Teck is taking with respect to the FS.
By this respect it is safe to say by appearance that Teck has not completed their DD to make this determination. There is a lot of talk about Teck's fairness but this is being cast into doubt. There is also the relation to the marginal FS but Teck has all the historical data on the slide area that is currently classed as waste because it is currently in the inferred section. The limited drilling shows that it is good material.
Is Teck taking extra time to decide whether to place this into production? We have Elmer stating privately that Teck would act fast but this is not the case. Now we have CUU saying that it's good Teck is still talking and that they are in discussions. But this aside, why have they not updated their web site and language to indicate that they have delivered the FS and are waiting for Teck to NR them back saying it is good or bad or that they acknowledge getting it?
It's because of this that some of the buying abruptly halted. (Not because of today's NR). Lynn is forwarding my concerns to see about a qualified answer. It seems to me that CUU should be required to change that language to reflect the current position. Even if the About is just talking about the contract a milestone like this must be included. It should even include the date it was delivered.
I have no problem with Teck wanting the full 120 days DD. But if we have not heard about the delivery then some of the discussions on the boards would be correct that the 120 clock has not started and this is a material event and the company would be in breach with us. Somehow, I can't see their legal department nor the regulators allowing this lapse.
The company has to make the changes on all their public documents to reflect the exact nature of this business asap. No where in this does it say we delivered it and are waiting. Going by the website alone we have not completed the FS despite publishing it. It's my understanding that Teck has not responded and that we are just going to wait. BUT and this is a big but, how long are we going to wait before they NR the world that the clock has started. I intend to find out.
On completion of the Feasibility Study, Copper Fox earns Teck's 78% interest in Liard. Teck's earn back option to acquire either, 20%, 40% or 75%, of Copper Fox's interest in the Schaft Creek Project is triggered upon delivery of a "Positive Bankable Feasibility Study" (as defined) to Teck after which they have 120 days to make a decision.
The disclaimer language:
Teck may not accept that the delivery of the positive Feasibility Study constitutes delivery of a "Positive Bankable Feasibility Study" as defined pursuant to the terms of the Teck Option Agreement; the 120 day period that Teck has to exercise its earn back rights may not have commenced; the "Expenditures" may not constitute Expenditures as defined in the Teck Option Agreement in the quantum anticipated by Copper Fox,