Good question Golfyeti. The engineering studies that they refer to are not the same as Detailed Design. The Detailed Design process will be a $100M dollar commitment from Teck whereas an engineering study is a simple report or analysis. Similar names, but very different definitions.

Yes, it's me again. From the outside looking in. I was tempted to buy back in last week because I thought Teck might unveil some big plans for Schaft Creek. Those plans did not materialize.

I disagree that no additional drilling is required at Schaft Creek. The amount of drilling at Schaft Creek is very low compared to other deposits that are in development:

Schaft Creek - 100,000m

Red Chris - 594,000m

Mt Milligan - 220,000m

Blackwater - 357,000m

Quebrada Blanca 2 - 322,000m

Sierra Gorda - 327,000m

The mineralization within the pit still appears to have gaps in it (in particular, the eastern wall at 6361000). This will affect the economics of the mine. Teck is not going to spend $3B building a mine without first spending a few million to determine whether these areas are mineralized. The mineralization outside the pit is also very poorly defined. This will affect the mine life. With the current data, the mine life is restricted to 21 years. Any larger pit shells are not economical at this point. If Teck wanted to advertise this as a long life asset I would expect they would complete some more drilling to prove up additional mineralization. For comparison, they drilled enough at their QB2 site for a 39 year mine life. So in my opinion, additional drilling is required before Teck moves forward with this project.

I also don't understand how the board viewed the news today as positive. Not only is Teck not completing any drilling, they make no mention of the Environmental Assessment. The EAA is a critical path item in the development of Schaft Creek. Without it, construction cannot begin and a mine decision will not be made. I have a hunch that the EAA that Elmer turned over to Teck was nowhere near as ready for submission as he lead us to believe. The feasibility study had a production date of Jan 2020 and it looks like things are already a year behind schedule.

I also don't understand the excitement around the "Engineering Studies". The BC Hydro Facility Report is an engineering study. The baseline aquatics report that was "due" July 2013 is also an engineering study. Galore Creek has been doing engineering studies for years. A Resource Estimate or Feasibility Study would be mentioned directly if they were underway. Teck does not simply surprise their shareholders by working on things secretly.

No drilling. No EAA. No path forward. I don't see Schaft Creek being developed any time soon. That's my negative/realistic view of things.

I see you guys got drill results today. I followed CUU closely for a while so I thought I'd share my thoughts. I'm not a current shareholder so hopefully this message doesn't get banned.

I'll start with what I like about the news release today:

- Hole 435 appears to be within the current pit limits. This means this material was being mined anyways, so the fact that it's well mineralized is great news for the NPV. This is by far the best news in this release in my opinion. It would be nice if Elmer could show slices of the reserve model with the new drill data overlayed. This would give us an idea of how much new mineralization we "discovered".

- Hole 432 is mineralized near the surface and appears to be at least partially within the current pit limits. It appears that this area was not included in the block model (ie treated as waste).

- Hole 433 has the potential to upgrade some of the inferred to indicated which means it can be included in a feasibility study. The grades are low but if this is within the pit shell then it was counted as 0% copper in the feasibility study. Again, it's difficult to know without seeing how these drill holes compare to the block model data.

- Elmer got these results out in December as promised, +1 for credibility

And now, on to the bad:

- It appears that the drill program was less than 3000m of drilling, not 10,000m as Elmer outlined this past summer. -1 for credibility

- Both the Discovery zone and the Mike zone appear to be very low grade. I'm especially disappointed about the Mike zone because that could have been easily mined from our existing pit if the grades were decent.

- It doesn't look like the main pit was tested to depth. I'm very curious what type of grade is down there. It's not very relevant for the economics, but I'm curious how deep the deposit goes and if they can find grades similar to Seabridge Gold's.

- The drills appear to have encountered a lot of difficulty. I'm not a geologist, but this might pose geotechnical issues for the pit. I'm especially disappointed about 438. That hole would have lined up perfectly with the big red anomoly.

- The number of drill holes is quite low. I'm not sure how much waste/inferred can be upgraded with these results.

So what now? Unfortunately it looks like these results only give us a peak of what's to come. Teck won't move forward with building a mine without knowing what's along the east pit wall within the pit limits. The only way to quantify this data is with more drilling. If we see Teck announce a big drill program this spring, then it would be a sign that they are fast tracking Schaft Creek. (For reference, they are spending $270M on developing QB2 and $65M developing Relincho.) Until then, I'll still be watching.

You are correct. I sold the majority of my shares at $0.89 on Dec 24 after the botched feasibility study and then the remainder of my shares in August. I've been fairly negative since the BFS but everyone here was too busy cheering to listen to my criticisms. Feel free to criticize me some more and tell me how foolish I was for selling out.

Once again I posted some useful info and I'm criticized for pointing out that Teck says they will be spending less on their development properties next year. I won't be posting anymore. Good luck with your investments. Have fun with Elmer in Arizona.

Well the good news for you folks is that the latest Teck presentations at least acknowledge the existence of Schaft Creek. The bad news is that it's on a slide that says "overall, less field activities and lower spend levels planned in 2014" for their development properties.

Not bad, Seabridge:

Seabridge Gold Drills Spectacular Intercept Within Deep Kerr Deposit at KSM

51 meters of 3.07% copper and 1.47 g/T gold