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: louel who wrote (8962)	1/1/2015 7:25:25 PM
From: Metacomet	Respond to of 10654

The BFS, was not produced or influenced by Copper Fox or Teck. I believe that is correct. However, I also believe that our management did not make a serious effort to optimize the type of project defined by the terms of Salazar Given the amount of funds expended, all over the property, It is a fair question to ask what were we doing there, if not trying to meet the goals in Salazar? ..and for whose benefit

To: louel who wrote (8962)	1/1/2015 7:54:38 PM
From: mudguy	2 Recommendations Recommended By Hog Head minder Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10654

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).

To: louel who wrote (8962)	1/1/2015 8:13:24 PM
From: brundall	Respond to of 10654

Pre Feas's have had and are acceptable if discrepancy rates are within 30% , research it. It is a fact How does one rate a PFS that has a copper cost discrepancy of 135% between it and the subsequent BFS?

To: louel who wrote (8962)	1/1/2015 8:38:01 PM
From: Hog Head	3 Recommendations Recommended By Metacomet minder Zep70 Respond to of 10654

Good post Louel! I didn't know about the Mineral Tax Act. The rest of it makes a lot of sense too. I would add my opinion to the part about the project not being profitable at today's metal prices, though... I think if time and money wasn't spent on exploring the zones outside the Salazar and focus could have been maintained on the part that counts we wouldn't be left with 171 million tons of waste (not waste)? I would like to think that if the property was proven up as a qualified person *should know* it would need to be - we would have a BFS that wasn't marginal at all? A QUALIFIED person that has brought 5 mines to production maybe wouldn't have made this type of mistake if the eye could have been kept on the prize? How could this have happened as it did? No wonder questions are being asked - our QP is an experienced geologist? The BFS's failure to properly prove up the property (waste, not waste) was a spectacular failure for one of the Venture's darlings. An unexplained disaster of mammoth proportions. Who would get to keep a 300k+/yr job after that? How many hundreds of millions did that evaporate from our market cap? Maybe I am misunderstanding what happened, but we have never gotten that much deserved explanation Grant has been asking for? I would be happy to get some frank acknowledgement that someone dropped the ball or at least some explanation how this oversight that cratered our investment happened in the first place. I think a significant part of why many are so upset is that management continues on as if it never happened? Someone blew it - who was it? In my opinion, I think management's biggest weakness is the tendency to get distracted/sidetracked. Whether its other SC zones or other projects such as Arizona, Carmax or TBA for that matter. The district concept isn't something we were paid for. All the Titan and Mira surveys didn't help the BFS, and that was the only target we NEEDED to hit. I think we could have nailed the BFS, and explored the district properties later. Wouldn't that have provided more shareholder value? And the time cost? We probably could have had this wrapped up long ago when the market was still receptive, but thats spilt milk I guess...A management team that could singularly focus on the target at hand would have likely provided a better result for all shareholders.