| | | I agree with most of this, but your point about how the BFS is produced simplifies the process somewhat. CUU was Tetra Tech's client, and that means that although they are independent, it does not mean that CUU and/or Teck (who were involved through CUU) did not have influence over the results. As the BFS is developed, there is communication and discussion about the emerging results, points of interpretation, and there may be disagreement. These interactions can be fractious when a major difference of opinion emerges. As all of the points in a BFS are matters of opinion (informed, educated) although normally few would be major points of disagreement. Regardless, this interaction is effectively a means for influencing the outcome of the BFS, even though the company that produces it has final say as they are signing their name to it.
I see this point neutrally, and don't think it materially affects the debate either way. However, when CUU brought in the PFS geo to consult with Tetra Tech during the BFS work, I interpreted this to reflect a divergence of opinion. I suspect it related to the waste rock, or another aspect of the resource model derivation. The result of this was that the BFS was significantly different from the PFS. CUU almost certainly knew what was coming that fall, and that is why it is so interesting that they appear to have maintained very different information on their website (as per Grant's comments, I can't confirm that). |
|
