Teck will probably want new equipment for Shaft Creek. Particularly autonomous trucks. That will have a major impact on lowering operating costs for an open pit.

Asking why Galore makes Teck's resource list and Schaft does not is a legitimate quesiton.

Teck owns 75% of Schaft and 50% of Galore (I think 50% is correct for Galore). If so, Schaft contributes more to Teck than Galore. Besides, Schaft has greater potential for development (and maybe even more potential for prospective expansion).

The Capex is 3.2 billion – 2.4 billion to Teck and 800 million to Copper Fox. Arranging financing does not mean that Copper Fox gets it for free.Copper Fox must pay for its 25% of the Capex from its portion of cash flow.

If Copper Fox had to arrange the 800 million on their own, do you think that they could get it and if they could, what would be the interest rate! Obviously, with Teck arranging Copper Fox’s portion, the cost of getting the capital will be lower.That is an advantage to Copper Fox (or any acquirer of Copper Fox’s interest), but in the overall scheme of things it is not a major advantage.

calvin123456789 wondered about how to value $800 million of financing done on behalf of us by Teck? One simple way is to just value the whole project as though it was done by Teck (which will be done) and then take 25% of that. Alternatively (as calvin has done), work with CUU’s estimates of cash flow from their presentation.

The Liard shares have special cash flow. I wonder if CUU’s figures take that that into account. I presume it does.

,

The headnote on this reply is that Copper Fox is taking legal action.

It is not clear who Teresa M. Tomcha represents. If it is Elmer or some other individual, then that is ok. However, as a shareholder I am not convinced that Copper Fox should be pursuing legal action. That is in spite of my view that some people have gone overboard with a few of their assertions. To me, colourful or extreme assertions are not important. I do not know about others, but I can filter out those who make outlandish claims. Those claims do not affect me and I do not think that they have material impact upon the market.

If there is a court case, it should be directed to defamation of character and it should be the sensitive person defamed who foots the bill. The only justification for the corporation being the sensitive entity is the grounds that the comments have damaged the corporation. I think that will be more difficult to prove.

Mind you, the claim could be that both the individual and the corporation have been defamed. If that is the case, I think the individual should be paying their fair share of the cost. And, I still think that it will be difficult to prove that the corporation (i.e. shareholders) have been damaged. It is for that reason that I do not want the corporation to be involved.

If the corporation is taking this action, I think there should have been a prior(or simultaneous) news release. Given that there has been no news release, I conclude that the action taken has been by an individual. I hope that is the case.

If the corporation is involved, this should be an item for discussion at the annual meeting.

Others may disagree. This is my personal opinion.

Elmer’s office in Calgary is right in the middle of the oil patch. Many oil people familiar with horizontal drilling, fracturing, etc. are in his office building. In situ mining intended for Van Dyke is akin to unconventional oil development such as SAGD, fracturing, pressure pumping, and chemical stimulation.

Perhaps Elmer is taking his cue from the oil industry.Perhaps he has new ideas from in situ oil extraction that can be applied to in situ mining. If other copper producers in the area did not have such a vision, that would explain why they did not snap up Van Dyke. I am no expert on this, but has any mining company tried horizontal drilling with well pairs – one an injector of chemicals to liquefy the copper and the other a collector to bring the solution back up?

Sombrero Butte, like Schaft Creek, is a porphyry deposit in the open. Being beneath a town, Van Dyke is a different. It requires different, unconventional mining techniques.

I read the transcript of the interchange between Don Lindsay and Grant Moenting of Paradigm Capital. It is easier and clearer to read the transcript than to listen to a replay of the conference call. The transcript is posted on seeking alpha.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2020541-teck-resources-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript

The conversation referenced possible expansion of copper output. came away with a different interpretation of Don Lindsay’s final statement that: “So the sellers' expectations are often very high and we haven't been willing to pay it.” I do not think he was referring to Copper Fox for the following reasons.

1. At the start of the conversation, Moenting asks whether Teck would prefer to expand by buying existing producing assets (immediate production) or by developing projects currently in Teck’s pipeline (build strategy). Lindsay replies that they would look at both options and they could buy an existing projeIct if it was better than the options currently in their pipeline. He goes on to explain that the advantage of owning 76% of QB or100% of Relincho (i.e. projects in their pipeline) is that they control the schedule and could delay those projects if a buy option is better. Note -- Teck owns 75% of Shaft Creek and Schaft is already in their pipeline.They can move Schaft forward if it merits a higher priority or they can put it on the backburner for a future time if some other option (either in the pipeline or on the market) has a higher priority.

2. Moenting pushes further with his enquiry, suggesting that in the current environment it is cheaper to buy than develop production. Lindsay says “it depends”, especially when buying a high-quality, long-life projects is so difficult. Lindsay affirms that the quality of resource and mine life is their priority for achieving value creation for shareholders.

3.And then Moenting questions whether that is a complete explanation. He asks whether a low price for buying production would be a consideration. Lindsay acknowledges that price is always a consideration – that they are always trying to get the right value proposition. He goes on to say that sellers’ expectations are often too high. Note that sellers in this case is in reference to projects that are not in their pipeline.

4.In reply to Sal Tharani of Goldman Sachs, (re Teck’s involvement in the sale offer of Las Bambas by Glencore), Don Lindsay said they do not comment on speculation. He went on to say that they get many offers of sale – some which merit 5 minutes of consideration, some with 5 days, and some with 5 weeks (and detailed due diligence). While Schaft Creek is certainly in the 5 weeks or more category, there has been no confirmation that Ernesto suggested a price prior to the JV or that Teck has made an offer. With so many situations on Teck’s plate, any suggestion that Lindsay is referring to Schaft Creek is pure speculation

5.Don Lindsay’s response was to a question about buying assets that (1) have existing production and (2) are outside their existing pipeline of projects. Shaft Creek does not have existing production and it is within Teck;s pipeline. Therefore, it is inappropriate to attribute his comments to Copper Fox and Schaft Creek.

The key takeaway I got from Teck’s presentation is that they are always evaluating options for the best use of capital, not only within the copper sphere but also between their 4 areas of diversification – copper, coal, zinc and oil sands. Within their objective of diversification, Shaft Creek has to compete.