Wow, that was a really compelling comeback.

Here are facts. The NR says that there is a "back in option held by Teck"and that there is "a 30% carried Net Proceeds Interest held by Laird." That what CUU said today (in the present tense) but if the February 4th submittal was a Positive Bankable Feasibily Study, CUU would already have earned the Laird Shares and, because the 120 days have passed (evidently), Teck's back in would have expired. It's pretty much all there in the NR. Ignore it if you like.

As to the other point, my first post in this series refered to the ongoing discussions. I only brought it up again because others seemed intent on distorting what I said.

Regards,

Volpino

Just to be clear, I am not saying there won't be a deal. I am just saying that it's not happening under a clock imposed by the contract nor do I believe that CUU has earned the Laird shares. In my opinion, they are signalling that they are talking and that something may happen or may not happen. The fact that they are still talking is a good thing.

Regards,

Volpino

I don't really understand where you are saying I have gone astray.

I am drawing inferences from NR. There is no mention of the February 4th submittal being a bankable positive feasiblity study; the first paragraph calls it a "technical report pertaining to a feasiblity study." But in the fourth paragraph it refers to "delivery of a Positive Bankable Feasibility Study (as defined) to Teck" as the necessary triggering event. If the February 4th submittal was a "Positive Bankable Feasible Study," why didn't they call it that?

The rest of what I said follows from the terms of the Salazar agreement.

Regards,

Volpino

Based on news, it seem pretty clear that (i) CUU did not deliver a "bankable" positive feasibility study; (ii) CUU did not earn the Laird shares; and (iii) 120 day run following the delivery of the positive (but evidently not "bankable") feasibiity did not terminate Teck's back-in rights. How all this happend without any material events occuring since Feburary 4th is not at all clear but, apparently, that's where we are.

The contract says that Teck may exercise its back in rights at any time. What I think we have going on here are discussions about that or maybe a buyout but there is no clock running on the discussions.

I am not going to opine on legalities but don't think that it has been very fair that we are relegated to reading "tea leaves" as we are here. But it also seems like a good sign that CUU still has hope that Teck may opt for some kind of joint participation. Perhaps CUU thinks that all will be forgiven (and it would be, at least by me) if they ultimately come back to us with a good deal.

Also, for whatever my impressions are worth, I don't think we can draw any inferences from the statement in the disclaimer that CUU may or may not undertake any further "activity" on the property. Seems like to me that they are just putting us on notice so that so that we won't have a legal claim if they don't undertake any development efforts in the future. Basically just boiler plate protection for them

Regards,

Volpino

Not that I think it will make much difference but probably the 120th day is actually tomorrow, June 5th, assuming that the "Feasiblity Notice" was delivered by hand on February 4, 2013. Under Section 18.1 of the Salazar agreement, any hand-delivered or faxed notice is deemed to be actually delivered "on the business day following the day it was delivered." If by mail, it's five business days later.

Assuming hand-delivery on February 4, 2013, the notice would therefore be deemed to be delivered on February 5, 2013. Following the usual rule that the day something is issued or done does not count in the determimination of a period in which to act, the first day of the 120 day period would have been February 6, 2013 which makes June 5, 2013, the 120th day according to my calculations.

Regards,

Volpino

According to the Salazar document, if the FS is positive under Section 5.5 (b)(ii) (which our apparently is) and Teck does not give notice within 30 days of delivery, the report "will be considered a Positive Bankable Feasiblity Study." That would qualify CUU to receive the Laird interests and put Teck on the clock to make an election within 120 days.

If Teck really hasn't got back to CUU, that provision should be controlling. But Jason didn't seem to attach any significance to Teck not yet getting back.

Confusing as usual. I speculated earlier that CUU might have waived this provision. I really don't know what else to make of this because I would think that (if it hasn't been waived) the non-event of Teck 'not getting back' would be a considered a material event because it makes the PSF a Postive Bankable FS. Yet, neither CUU nor its Board members seem to be treating the non-event as having any significance.

Regards,

Volpino