You seemed to think changing economics might be fortuitous for us back here

They can botch or sandbag alot but not commodity prices.  You may have noticed that my opinion of the project's real economics has not waivered much. My hope was that at some point much higher prices might actually force Teck to look into or beyond the BS FS.  I occasionally need to cling to some hope.  It ain't coming from management's track record or BS machine that's for sure.

 

oh geez, I said FACTS.

Always had the right to back in for 25,50 or 75% they chose 75%

You know what Salazar contractually required.  The only choice Teck had un Salazar (which you know they trashed after all the hype) was to select which option Teck would try to EARN with mine development spending.  

Tiring, very tiring.

 I am sorry you are bitter but,  you and I have only our selves to blame for putting us in this boat

I disagree and for years I have detailed the facts about it. 

Love your one-liners Art!

;)

Even with "better management" your not going to see a mine built with poor economics and thats what we have had the last few years.

The mine had great economics at -0.32/lb before Elmer starting talking about Salazar 4-year clauses, mining districts, multiple drilling programs and "you won't believe the numbers".  All of which was BS.  He delivered under Salazar a grossly botched or intentionally sandbagged FS and let Teck fully back in without havinig them hold up their part of the bargain to earn their interest with hundreds of millions of contractually required mine development. 

You can blame the economics if you want, but I know it is CF Management that misled us and F'ed-up the economics.

JMHO

Reno, that's about the forth time you ask that ridiculous question.  Repetition is against AG rules.

If I am not here representing my estranged wife's holdings then I am otherwise here taking pride in warning the inoncent and unsuspecting newbs about how deceiving, slimey and stinky this thing is.   If you have facts (vs conjecture) to the contrary you have always withheld them from us.

 I also harbour great disdain for both hypers and bashers.  I guess I have a bone to pick with with deceivers in general.

Management clearly trumps geology.  We would have had and should have had a fully operationaly mine by now if it weren't for inept management.

If you want to keep stringing along current and new suckers then at least do it with some facts.  The floor is now wide open to you and your foxy pom poms.

Welcome to the forum NIC.  You really didn't have to wait five years before offering your first AG post with a sentiment like "I have a good feeling". 

We are open to all views here so long as they are supported or substantiated with some sort of facts or sound reasoning.  BTW, insinuations that you have some sort of insider information or undisclosed news is against AG rules.  I mention this only because of your chosen alias 'NEWSISCOMING'.  We haven't had news in years (not the good kind anyway) so the alias is pretentious at a minimum.

Oh, and don't bother pointing out that Copper Fox news releases count as "news".  We're well aware of the history of misguidance, hollow promises, hype, fluff and constant regurgitation that news releases have delivered.

Best of luck with your sentiments on CUU.  I sincerely hope you can offer something substantial and factual so as to shine some light in this cold dark hole in the ground.