If you were using NPV for a valuation of todays buyout price - then you should really have the first 4-5 years as 0 since we have to actually build the mine. This does decrease the price down a considerable amount given how important the first few years are.

they did the best they thought they could.

I'll agree they did the best they thought they could do, but definitely not the best that could have actually been done in this time period. The amount of delays, the outcome of the BFS and misleading information leading up to it, the drills coming in and out, the fact that key areas weren't drilled...How can you say that management has actually done everything to the best of their abilities? Many of these things were things that they were criticized of during the time it was happening so it's not like they were just unaware.

One delay from TT? Fine - we can put the blame elsewhere. Several that lead up to a years delay? That's managements fault. 100%. Either they didn't follow-up properly to any real degree or they had 0 oversight. OR they knew, and lied to us about it coming out "soon". This 1 year delay was during the time of the junior bull market. If we had come to a JV deal earlier, it would have most certainly been better, or we would have fetched a selling price during a bull market - not now where we're still in a bear. Managements delays failed us in having any sort of good timing. Timing is everything.

The outcome of the BFS being similar to the PFS but not better like many of us thought? Fine - can't blame management for something being what it is. But worse by a large margin? Well where were we lead astray? Especially with the delay. The allowance of letting the BMO report of -4 cents is incredibly deceiving. The fact that the 171 inferred/waste is something that they knew about and had the ability to drill multiple YEARS after the PFS and before the BFS is a huge mistake. You can either say incompetence of not drilling it and allowing reports using those numbers or incompetence of not drilling it - or both. But at least one.

There's a lot of straight up... mistakes. There's a major lack of communication or forthcoming from management. They've obviously done things right, but they've made some very questionable decisions IMO.

I also believe we will have a successful ending.....chunky

I also believe we will have a successful ending, but mostly because of the property itself. Even with a successful ending at SC, I can't see myself following management to Arizona even if they are bargain properties. It’s not so much that they've made mistakes - but also their unwillingness to admit those mistakes and lack of communication to shareholders throughout our waiting period.

I don't really care much for the diversification, given that I want to be out when SC is done...

Or if we have diversification, it's done with a split sometime soon so the value of the purchases can actually be visible in the SP.

This seems logical to me.

Whatever the exact order, I'd imagine it would come out in a relatively short time frame. I think myself as a shareholder would be happier to see a spinoff first, and then have the option to liquidate Arizona or wait on the PEA which would hopefully be a greater percent boost when already spun off with less shares to trade - then if it was part of the already large float and presumably larger market cap CUU in its entirety.

Also makes it easier to sell properties by selling the companies. I'd also prefer the more pure plays.

It was my understanding that upon producing a "bankable" BFS, we earned 100% interest in the property plus all of Teck's Liard shares. This was to be triggered by providing the "Feasibility Notice", a mechanism described in detail in the Salazar contract.

Uhmm, okay - so the short duration that we have "100% interest" would have been 120 days where we produced the FS, and Teck hadn't backed in yet. It's pretty meaningless because as you say, Teck can back in...so it's never really 100% interest because we're pretty sure what's going to happen after.

Teck would then have to earn back one of 3 percentages of ownership described in the contract. by spending multiples of our qualifying expenses on property development (around $85 million). For the 75% ownership they currently hold they would have had to spend 4 times our $85 million beforethey earned the 75%.

Right - but if they backed in, that sum of money (which wasn't agreed upon what counted - if building a road would get them to that point) we wouldn't have 100% - so pretty moot. Any buyer isn't going to gamble that Teck won't be able to somehow spend that money and they'll somehow get to walk away with 100% when they originally valued it at some other %.

Because we would also be holding Teck's Liard Shares we would have controlling interest and be able to enforce timeline protections included in the Liard and Salazar agreements. With the JV we have now, Teck is the majority Liard shareholder - and they will not enforce any timelines against themselves. Also Salazar ripped up. So a free ride for them.

Looking back, do you really want our management having a controlling interest with timelines? Teck will move it faster. But even then - I don't see how it's a free ride for them. Salazar never mentioned the timeline, a reference document within Salazar was where the 4-year clause came in, and that was between Liard and Hecla I believe. That is what wasn't enforcable (decades old, opposed to Salazar which was just one decade old).

The Salazar was touted by the company and others as one of the main reasons to invest. If Teck didn't back in - we would own it all (including ther Liard shares). There was zero guidance from the company that the aggreement was in any way "unenforceable" until it was already trashed.

Read above. Salazar was enforcable. 4-year clause between Liard and Hecla likely wouldn't have been - or the legal battle wouldn't have been a great strategy regardless. Remember, we all want a quick turnaround with our money here. What's the most complained about thing? Timelines. When are we going to get out? People want sooner rather than later. They've been wanting that for the last 3 years.

Myself (and some others) don't buy into the part about Salazar being unenforceable - it was drawn up by Teck after all... How can they attack the agreement they wrote? The agreement was written in pretty clear terms - nothing ambigous or open to interpretation. Create a BFS and provide it to Teck with the contractually obligated feasibility notice and we owned the property and Teck would have to surrender their Liard shares to us immediately. With the opportunity to earn them back if they jumped through all the hoops in the aggrement. We would be the operator until that time.

Salazar wasn't ever unforcable. Management chose to create a new agreement because they, like us, want to turn it around quickly - unlike Salazar, where Teck would have had to spend a bunch on exploration on an order of 40x more than their currently spending on optimizing. Which do you think us is going to get a faster sale? The point where we're optimizing, or the point where we still have to spend 85M on exploring something we know is profitable, and the rest we won't be mining for more than 20 years anyway and with how NPV works...won't have any impact on our NPV (because it's 20 years away...). The board touted that because they'd have to spend so much on exploration and wouldn't want to - because they'd be paying to make us more expensive - that they'd buy us out. To be honest, if we got it right the first time, this was probably true. If this happened at the height of 2011, when we were still in a bull market, when the BFS was originally supposed to be released - that might have happened. But Elmer messed up. We took an additional year to release the BFS - and, into a now bear market. The atmosphere is different. We can't have the same strategy and it's not as easy to "force" them to buy us, so we cooperate and change some things - so we now get liquidity. Something that in the atmosphere we finished in, that was unavailable. Timing is everything. Elmer messsed up the timing, so we had to adapt to the environment. Given the environment, I think he did the right thing. That said, it's his fault we were in that environment.

I know many will disagree with me, but I truly believe we should have held our ground and if Teck walked, we lost them as a partner - but gained 100% of the property that could be improved by drilling the waste and doing some optimizations and reccommendations outlined in the FS. We would then have 100% interest (and no Liard NSR weighing down the profit) with an updated FS probably approaching 2 billion and a lower cost per pound of copper due to the waste being proved up.

That wouldn't be so bad if we did so in 2011. If we finished the BFS in time and could raise funds at $2++. We finished into a bear market. Them leaving us at that time, would have destroyed our price - which is fine because we have 4x more - BUT we would be unable to finance at any price that wouldn't cause dillution to be so bad that we would make more money. Easy #'s for illustration. Let's say 100% is worth 1M, and we have 25% - our worth 250K and let's say we had 250k shares. $1/share. Teck walks, and we own 100% but the SP plummets to 25%. We have to finance and we come out to 1M shares after all is said and done, and this is years later. Those 1M shares are still worth $1/share but much later. Not really much value created for shareholders. Get it done faster. Get it done without dillution. That's the route we're taking.

I don't think Teck would have walked anyways. We would have been in a better place then now IMHO. Others will dissagree, and thats ok. Nobody can really know what would have happened - but that's my take on it.

Difference of opinion. I would agree if we finished in time. I think you're really not taking into account the actual market and environment we're in, versus what we were in.

I'm not a lawyer and not an expert on the contracts in question, so take it with a bit of salt if you like.

I'm not a lawyer either.

Before, I would just sit back and read the forums and try to understand what you guys are posting.

It's always better to ask a "dumb" question and know the answer, than to not know. You'll never know if you don't ask, and everyone starts somehwere and no matter how much we know or how far we get - there will always be something we don't know. Don't be afraid to ask questions.

Now I have questions and I am really questioning management's ability to deliver.

I myself have concerns about managements ability to deliver, but I think yours are founded more in not understanding than in their actual ability.

I think we need answers, and I believe Management needs to deliver some answers to us.

You should ask them questions. They're pretty reachable, though sometimes they'll give generic answers.

Would we have been in a better position to sell our shares in the open market if we didn't form a JV with TECK? Did we have a clause stating we needed to give them the BFS? Seems like TECK bought 75% of SC for only $60mm. and Honestly, before... I thought that once we gave them the BFS, they had like 90 days to buy us out. Not a back-in crap or whatever, so I was stupid enough to listen to many ppl on this forum without myself validating all the clauses.

We never owned the property 100%. We had a working interest in the property. We couldn't try to sell 100% at any point, because we never owned 100% at any point. Any sale prior to the BFS release would have been with the knowledge that once the buyer produced a FS, Teck would have the agreement with them. Teck didn't buy 75% for 60M. For one, they'll be paying us up to 120M. 60M upto production and 60M for costs pre-production. They never had to buy us out. I don't think anyone claimed that they would 100% buy us out, jus that their options - at the time - seemed like it would be likely that they would buy us out. That timeframe was also 120 days, not 90. And that was to make a decision. It took longer because management allowed them that time. Backin was made very clear I think, even on the optimistic boards.

Because from the positive feasibility study, $1 billion NPV over 405 million outstanding shares is about $2.47 NPV per share. So from my understanding, is that if we didn't even form a JV with TECK, we could most likely still ask for $2+ range for our shares easily in the open market.

No...because we were always valued at 25%. People just thought our NPV would be greater than the PFS value. This didn't come to fruition - a lot of it has to do with the metallurgy and recovery rates (which the optimization is covering) - but a large majority has to do with the inferred not being included. This was a huge mis-step on managements part. Many on the board said that "Teck knew". Which they very well might/do. And we'd get full-value for it. We clearly aren't. The market isn't valuing it. Teck isn't valuing it - at least not at full price (or our asking price probably wouldn't seem as ridiculous).

So now we only own 25%, hence we get a much smaller slice of that $1 billion NPV.... and from DC14's comment: "He (referring to Mike) mentioned how important the JV "right of first offer" was as it enable's CUU to offer it one time to Teck at a price CUU believes is fair and can get on the open market."

Again, a misunderstanding... We never owned 100%. We were always valuing it at 25%. We just assumed that the NPV would be much higher. And it can be, and the assumptions in a higher BFS aren't remotely "optimistic" or rosy. They're pretty realistic. Our current BFS is very misleading.

So what is Management's plan? when are they going to executive this? because I really want to get out of this stock and recover whatever amount I can, and I don't want to take such a big loss right now. I am sure many of you guys want to get out of this stock and invest in other things.

Ask management. Everyone wants to get out. But we likely won't until the market picks up. We'll likely miss opportunities in other places, but we'll still be able to get our money back here if we wait. We're definitely undervalued, but the timeframe isn't as clear as the 120 days that we thought it once was. My guess would be fall we might be able to produce an offer and shop it around.