…don't anyone get excited; not much new to add to what has already been more ably reported. I talked briefly with Michael Smith. He introduced himself as Mike and was friendly and approachable. There was another, younger individual at the booth chatting with a couple of people but his name tag was hidden by his jacket so I couldn't tell who it was.
I'd made up my mind prior to attending that I wasn't going to ask questions about drilling. It's not an area of expertise for me - actually nothing about mining is an area of expertise for me - but I figured that discussion regarding the wisdom or otherwise of drilling decisions made last year was moot. Besides, any drilling outside of the area pertinent to the FS can't be billed to Teck anyway (correction welcome) and if CUU's timeline is longer than the average retail investor's, why spend money last year with the possibility/likelihood of Teck back-in/buyout? Better to wait for Teck to make up its mind and then, if necessary, drill away, imo. I know there are different points of view on this.
Consequently, I didn't spend longer than a few minutes with Mike Smith. I didn't take notes so there's nothing verbatim here. I confirmed that the start date was Feb 4. I started by saying that I assumed that there would be an NR in the event Teck considered the PFS as not bankable. Mike assumed that I was concerned about CUU's survival in any form and interjected to say that Copper Fox would be moving ahead with or without Teck. I then asked what I had meant to ask as a corollary to the above; would there be an NR if Teck accepted the PFS as bankable and would the NR include mention of transfer of Liard interest, or would lack of an NR simply assume bankability? Mike said that the degree of Liard transfer would depend on the percentage of CUU taken by Teck (as we know). He went on to say that the value of Liard wouldn't become apparent for a number of years - I said I wasn't so much concerned about Liard's value as I was in the symbolic value that transfer of Liard shares would provide as an indication that the agreement was being followed. Sorry, Meta. I'm positive that Mike wasn't being evasive; I just didn't think to ask a follow up question in an attempt to reconcile what Mike said with the phrase "...is triggered upon delivery of this feasibility study to Teck".
I asked if the agreement could be changed during discussion without informing shareholders (as a 'for instance' I was thinking of ES' 120 days plus but I didn't mention anything specifically); Mike was a bit nonplussed by that question. Responded by saying that any material change had to be made public; not only did Copper Fox want to remain onside with its investors but, more importantly, wanted to remain onside with the regulators as well.
Mike did say that once Teck had arrived at a decision, there would be an NR issued jointly by Teck and CUU. I interpret that as being different from an NR issued by CUU after approval by Teck. "Issued jointly" is verbatim.
As I say, I doubt if this adds much to forum knowledge except to say that I'm glad I went. Direct contact is reassuring.
