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 (8991)	1/2/2015 7:59:11 PM
From: Hog Head	1 Recommendation Recommended By Theotokos Respond to of 10654

Looking back at the delays. I agree with Mud about Tetra, CUU inputs or discussions on the Bfs. But it was not about making it worse, But rather what they could revise or cut to make it better. Even then many expenses were left out or not calculated in the final script. If they really trying to make it look worse. It would have been far simpler to include those costs. Rather than risk a 3 way criminal conspiracy. ============================== Louel, that is a pretty compelling argument, pretty unlikely there was a criminal conspiracy. It makes sense that TT having to work towards a positive result and couldn't sandbag it even if pressed to do so. I can't see Teck doing anything actually illegal either, although they could have guided CF's steps along the way to an end that is in their benefit such as acquiring properties surrounding SC, port, auxiliary area exploration (nothing illegal there, they have no responsibility to CF shareholders). If anything, Teck has a responsibility to their own shareholders to get the best deal possible for them. Ethically, CF does have a responsibility to its shareholders to keep them informed and take actions that will benefit their investors. I think things should have been done differently, but I admit I can't see the whole picture. A lot of misleading information has been given to the shareholders regarding negative copper costs, the Salazar Agreement, timelines, successful drilling programs, weather delays and possibly if Louel is correct - the ability to unlock more value in the waste rock. Ethically, I think they have done a very poor job, but with all the disclaimers in the NRs I don't think they can be legally held to task? Non-delivery of the BFS would be hard to prove, and I'm not sure if they legally even had to deliver it? They are free to make decisions shareholders may believe to be bad - as much as we may wish they made different choices. Although I end today with much less confidence in my investment, I am thankful for my eyes being opened further and can decide where to go from here... Thanks for all the great discussion over the last few days. Meta, this place is great!