At current 51 cents a share, I do not care whether it takes 2 months or 2 years.

Why? Because I could not find a replacement investment oppportunity that, based on the factual evidence disclosed to date, has better upside potential than CUU.

Can you?

If your $400 million forecast is in range of happening, CUU, by keeping its 25%, would receive some $100 million of it - for doing very little and spending nothing - nice work if you can get it!

Unfortunately, the "next big event" has been delayed by a number of factors including, in my opinion:

- the delay in delivering the FS,

- followed by the ultra conservative FS that was finally delivered in February;

- prevailing market conditions for juniors;

- inability to bridge the gap between Teck's bid and CUU's ask

The deal announced last week was likely the best compromise that could be achieved (which is probably why it took so long).

CUU never had a choice about Teck taking 75% - their Option Agreement gave them every legal right to do that.

CUU's only real leverage was in the requirement that Teck spend 4 times CUU costs of some $85 million on further exploration - based on work that had already been done, this was likely a waste of money for Teck and of zero monetary benefit to CUU.

So, compromise appears to be that Teck pays cash to CUU and then spends $60 million on further drilling etc programs - which should benefit both parties.

CUU's upside is in the fact that (a) they receive cash to explore Arizona lands; and (b) Teck finances 100% of Schaft Creek development - effectively CUU receives 25% of all the benfits while doing nothing other than participating in management of the development.

The iquidity event has been delayed to some future date - as reflected in the current share price.

However, based on what was included in the FS and, more particularly, what could not, by the rules, be included, the future value of CUU shares should be significantly higher than today's closing price. The questions are - when and by how much?

The share price will likely languish until a material event is announced. I am holding until this happens because I believe that, based on my business experience and all the information published to date, the potential upside will substantially exceed the value of selling now and reinvesting. That is the way I see it, others will inevitably see it differently. Only time will tell which decision was correct.

In the last seentence of my post I wrote "CUU would then" - it should have been "CUU shareholders would then"

My guess is that they tried to sell their 25% interest to Teck but could not meet EE's asking price (he owns 50+% of CUU and obviously wants to maximize his returrn on its sale to a third party - which is good news for all shareholders) because:

A. There was too big a gap between CUU's market price and what the Board deemed as fair value for their shares; and

B. Teck's share price had hit a low meaning that any form of share deal was not acceptable to Teck.

So the JV was thee best deal that could be done at that time.

CUU has frequently stated that it is an exploration company that finds resources for others to mine. It is unlikely that this view has changed - especially with $20 million of cash to spend on Arizona development.

The new Schaft Creek drilling program is likely focused on delivering the results needed for Teck to justify EE's asking price to its own shareholders in particular and the market in general. Positiive results will also increase CUU's share price and make some form of share for share deal likely.

From a tax perspective, selling CUU's shares is significantly better than selling the interest in the Schaft Creek asset ie.

1. if the shares are sold, shareholders would pay tax at capital gains rates on the difference between their cost base and proceeds of sale; but

2. on a sale of assets, CUU would pay tax on the gain at regular tax rates and then shareholders would pay tax on the proceeds they receive.

So, a sale of CUU shares is a better deal for all of us. Part of this process would require CUU to transfer, by way of dividend etc, its shares in the Arizona company to its shareholders at a low cost base. CUU would then be able to either keep the Arizona shares or sell them.

The presentation on CUU's website states that $85 million had been spent by Dec. 31, 2012 - do not know whether all of this would be eligible for inclusion in Teck's requirement.

Under JV agreement, Teck pays $60 million directly to CUU. Payments to be made in 3 defined instalments. In addition, Teck pays for first $60 million of development costs which, based on its 25% ownership, is worth $15 million to CUU.

Therefore, CUU would receive $75 million through JV agreement compared to up to $85 million under prior agreement.

While CUU appears to be receiving less money, it is actually receiving much more value.

Why?

Because under the prior agreement, all $85 million would have been spent on further exploration on Schaft Creek - CUU would not deposit any of this cash in its bank account.

Under the JV agreement, CUU should now have deposited $20 million in its bank account with the potential to receive a further $40 million in cash.

As Teck is now responsible for financing all future Schaft Creek costs, CUU now has the cash it needs to explore the potential of its land in Arizona.