Meta, good work.
Item 5 indicates that the BFS meets the definition of a Positive Feasibiltiy if either A) or B) is satisfied.
I just re-read it and my observations are the following on item 5 B). I`ll be getting back to Option 5. A) elow, but first my observations on Item 5. B)
* The production rates at which these positive NPVs must be reached are
25,000 tons per annum (12% NPV) for i) and
50,000 tons per annum (8% NPV) for ii).
Copper Fox and Teck have been working very closely together for years on this and have known that the production potential is far, far greater than the low production hurdles envisioned in this old agreement.
If we actually aimed for BFS production levels as above then we would have a much smaller and less costly mine to build and we would target only the best grades. With a smaller capex and opex mine and higher grades a positive NPV at 12% would likely be easy to acheive, jmo. Teck and CF would have known that the production rate targeted in Option Agreement were now unrealistically too low and not applicable for a district. This imo is why Option A) is included in the contract.
5. A) States that Teck and Copper Fox can agree in advance to what a Positive Feasibility Study looks like and at what NPV discount rate. Because the Option Agreement was drafted in a `different world` and before the discovery of a mining district it is reasonable to assume that Copper Fox and Teck reached a written agreement on the new definition of a Positive Feasibility Study as allowed for in A). In this age of ultra-low interest rates I doubt that a 12% discount rate would have been agreed to, more like 6-8%.
Worth noting that Elmer himself in a public News Release refers to the feasibility as a Positive Feasibility Study.
