Boys.... What ever happened to the four year clause it? The Liard shares?
CanadaGrant, that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I choose to disagree, agreeably.
The Liard shares, which was the vehicle for our ownership percentage of Schaft Creek, haven't gone anywhere. In fact, have you noticed that we ended up with a greater percentage of Schaft Creek then we had anticipated? Not sure many here have. We had it crunched it at 23.75% IIRC but we always rounded it up to 25% for simplicity. Another positive about the deal, not a negative.
The four year clause did exist in very old underlying agreements (between private entities, Hecla etc, and that's why they couldn't show those agreements) and I have an email from Elmer confirming the exsitance of the clause. The enforceability of the four-year clause as you know was always put in doubt, even by Elmer. The old four year clause woud have been based on the anticipation of a much smaller mine. However Elmer exposed a mining district with the need to built a world class mega mine. The four-year clause would not likely have have been enforceable under this new reality. If the deposit is feasible, which it is, and it is potentially much more profitable than the BFS shows, which it is imo, and it is safe, which it is, the mine will be built. You have to look through the '171 MT of waste' smoke screen, which I believe Teck does, and trust Teck's greed. With a profitable mine in their back yard, and few other projects on the go, I can't see any reason for Teck to mothball SC, like letting paint peel as you describe.
Teck is drilling and the mega-mine NPV clock continues to tick loudly.
JMHO
