Hey CrossFox,
That is an incorrect statement. Your understanding of the inferred resource was the origin of a rumour by a board member. The statement "The inferred was drilled in previous years and Teck has the assays in their database" is an unsubstantiated claim.
Copper Fox or Teck have yet to confirm to me that the above statement is true when I questioned them both about it regarding the "already drilled" Inferred resource.
Your statement "then the grade is too poor to be included" is also false.
An excerpt from one of my communications with Elmer:
4) Would the joint venture partnership drill the inferred resource within the Pit Shell to upgrade to an M&I Category knowing Teck has already drilled that area many years ago? Teck now being the Operator of the project could bring those drill cores from their database and incorporate those assays (and the 2012/13 assay results) into a revised BFS? ( That decision would be for Teck to make in conjunction with the Joint Venture. The copper equivalent grade of the proven and probable reserves at SC is based on the input parameters to estimate the copper equivalent grade is 0.46% recoverable copper equivalent. The copper equivalent grade of the inferred resource within the pit shell based on the same input parameters is 0.40% recoverable copper equivalent.
To move the waste rock into a M&I Category, Copper Fox/Teck need a few drill holes in the Laird Zone. I was also disappointed that this was not completed back in 2012 and the only reason I think is logical for Elmer not to convert the waste is because:
Elmer knows what the value the inferred will bring once converted, but he prefers Teck undertake this objective with their funds and budget while CUU enjoys a free ride as Schaft Creek gains further value from Teck dollars spent. Let us not forget, if the 2013 drill program is successful (I strongly believe this to be true) then we can expand the Pit Shell that would include 40% more of the Paramount zone which is higher grade mineralization than the current grades. There are alot of added features here that people do not realize that could change the scope and size of SC in the future. The 8 factors I posted earlier contribute to the overall (positive) change of the economics and NPV. Do I want a revised BFS to reflect our intrinsic value? YES.
5) When it comes to understanding the overall grade of the Schaft Creek deposit, do you put more importance on Cu grade or Copper equivalent grading? (clearly I like the copper grade more as it does significantly impact the estimation of the copper equivalent grade. Also the ability to expand the block model to the east should also allow deepening the proposed pit to access the higher grade copper exposed in the bottom of the pit which in the current study due to safety constraints based on engineering cannot be recovered. If you look at the corporate presentation you will see the pit shell superimposed on the block model and there is a large chunk of higher grade copper at the bottom and in the east wall of the proposed pit shell that cannot be mined. However if the block model is expanded to the east based on the 2013 drilling then that should allow expansion of the pit limits, recovery of the higher grade copper on the east side of the proposed pit and conversion of the material now shown as waste to resources. If this occurs, then many aspects of the current FS related to strip ratio, revenue, mine life, etc. changes to the positive.)
