Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Copper Fox -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (8561)	12/7/2014 8:38:10 AM
From: mudguy	1 Recommendation Recommended By Theotokos Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 10654

I still think we assume too much of Ernesto in this. We assume he is a smart investor in mining, because he is in other industries. We assume he is taken care of, etc. He may be wealthy, but he could be along for the ride like everyone else. His only leverage is if they have an offer to sell. Perhaps they had something in 2011 and his expectations were too high, or perhaps he got caught up into the pump like many others and now he is completely illiquid and dependent on the company and Teck making a deal. His position on the board is just one vote. He can easily be outvoted. I doubt it is that adversarial, but I don't think this the end game is sorted out for Ernesto. Mind you, I doubt he cares as much about this as most people on these boards.

To: Metacomet who wrote (8561)	12/7/2014 2:19:53 PM
From: louel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10654

"IMO, Teck did not like the provisions of Salazar" = 100% correct " told Elmer they were not going to deliver the shares" - Transfer of Liard shares under the earn in contract would have been enforced in a court of law if they really wanted them and stuck to the Salizar . Canada's court system is as honorable as any. Our Supreme Court is not run in Kangaroo fashion. "screwed that one up, although they tried, else the PFS was pure fraud" - Not sure one could prove fraud but I see it as being the one in error for reasons previously posted. Having been in the resource industry for years I have had to deal with access problems at times. They can be costly and lengthy. At times it makes a project not worth pursuing. I would contend one of the ace cards Teck had in their negotiating pocket is found in section 5 and 6 of BC's Resource access act. The undetermined cost of access could weigh heavily against CUU's bargaining position, sale value by further reducing the already minimal IRR. Should they have pushed the issue. I said this would have to be considered on the Stockhouse board before the BFS ever came out. Elmer knew about this as it was mentioned in the BFS. However these costs were left to be determined in turn leaving loose ends resulting in a weaker hand. Cuu or it's new owners would be entitled to use the road but at what cost ? Deemed ownership 5 Unless the written consent or permit required for a right of way on Crown land under section 3 provides otherwise, the recipient of the written consent or holder of the permit is deemed to be the owner of the facilities placed in the right of way Industrial use of access road 6 (1) Subject to this section and to regulations made under the if an access road is deemed to be owned by a person, every person desiring to use the access road for the purpose of obtaining access to an existing mineral title, or for forest harvesting or another industrial purpose, is entitled to do so. (2) A deemed owner of an access road may, in respect of the use of the access road under subsection (1), require a reasonable payment from that person in respect of the actual maintenance costs of the access road, and may also require (a) a reasonable payment to reimburse the deemed owner for actual capital costs incurred by the deemed owner in order to accommodate any special needs of that person, and (b) if the use by the other person results in the need for substantial capital expenditure on the access road by way of rebuilding to a higher standard, a reasonable payment by way of reimbursement for that capital expenditure. (3) A deemed owner of an access road under subsection (1) may require the recorded holder to make or cause to be made a reasonable payment to reimburse the deemed owner for a portion of the actual capital costs incurred by the deemed owner in constructing the access road if use of the access road is for the purpose of establishing access to and from (a) a producing mine for which a mining lease has been issued under section 42 of the or (b) a mineral title from which production of ore exceeds or will exceed 10 000 tonnes.