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: Zep70 who wrote (8987)	1/2/2015 5:05:17 PM
From: HALT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10654

So why did Teck even bother backing in. That's what I would like to know too.

To: Zep70 who wrote (8987)	1/2/2015 5:11:59 PM
From: mudguy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10654

I think you have asked that question before. Teck is too risk adverse to mine the really rich properties in less stable jurisdictions, and they are not in the top tier of majors competing for the coveted properties anyway. That is what happens when you are protected by a dual class share structure and controlled by a family (however astute they might have been with past dealings). The property is probably mineable and they can hold it indefinitely for a $24M outlay. They could hold it for 50 years for a pittance. They now have the luxury of doing it when they please. What is material to you as a shareholder is that at the rate CUU is burning their capital, they won't exist in a few years and Teck will own the whole darn thing. This is like watching a slow motion train wreck. The resolution just won't come, but it is getting closer. When the company goes looking for money, they will be turning a page with the previous cohort of shareholders.

To: Zep70 who wrote (8987)	1/2/2015 5:14:53 PM
From: CanadaGrant	Respond to of 10654

This is just speculation on my part as I have no idea what the real answer is but if CUU did produce a positive BFS and Teck walked away, would they not have had to turn over the Liard Shares to CUU under the Salazar Agreement? Not sure exactly what they are worth but haven't seen anything indicating they have been turned over to CUU either....

To: Zep70 who wrote (8987)	1/2/2015 5:17:37 PM
From: brundall	1 Recommendation Recommended By Nav2006 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10654

So why did Teck even bother backing in. They didn't back in They formed a JV gave us 20 mil They didn't give us $20 million....we sold them 75% of Schaft Creek and surrounding lands, port etc for $24 million and continue with optimization which cost money, $2.5 million is less than Teck spends on office supplies in a year. Why wouldn't they optimise their 75% for pocket change? why they must like something about SC otherwise they just could have said the hell with it,it's not worth it and we would be trading at a penny if that. They did like something about Schaft Creek......they liked it enough that they placed a valuation for 100% of the property of $25 million....then if they like it enough to build a mine the valuation increases to $75 million They could have walked and said No Thanks and saved money but they didn't, Why? see above.....