SI
SI
discoversearch

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
An SI Board Since February 2011
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
10654 112 0 CUU
Emcee:  louel Type:  Moderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
9004If teck signals they Are not going to proceed, they need to spin off and recapitCUUallin21/3/2015
9003Are we supposed to deduce from these seemingly serious potential scenarios that Metacomet11/3/2015
9002I think we know what Teck is trying to do but whether or not they will be succesexplorationguy21/3/2015
9001I went back through the previous resource estimates to look for a smoking gun toexplorationguy11/3/2015
9000That is hard to say. As no one has the advantages Teck has in the area. Seconlouel-1/2/2015
8999I think I'll take my chances thanks I even added some more today. Like I saiZep70-1/2/2015
8998Looking back at the delays. I agree with Mud about Tetra, CUU inputs or discussiHog Head11/2/2015
8997Teck sees a securement of future reserves and a viable future mining operation wMetacomet11/2/2015
8996People seem to have a tipping point like a teeter totter. Either a project islouel11/2/2015
8995zep should know the answers by now as hes asked these same questions before ,andUnderhill69-1/2/2015
8994I guess time will tell who got it right. I'm an adult whatever way it goes iZep70-1/2/2015
8993So why did Teck even bother backing in. They didn't back in They formed abrundall11/2/2015
8992This is just speculation on my part as I have no idea what the real answer is buCanadaGrant-1/2/2015
8991Just because you believe that Copper Fox and Teck are above reproach. The twlouel11/2/2015
8990I think you have asked that question before. Teck is too risk adverse to mine thmudguy-1/2/2015
8989They must have seen something they like,otherwise why waste time and money. TimeZep70-1/2/2015
8988So why did Teck even bother backing in. That's what I would like to know toHALT-1/2/2015
8987So why did Teck even bother backing in. They formed a JV gave us 20 mil and contZep70-1/2/2015
8986Without that expected upside, the deposit is truly just OK..This has been evidenmudguy11/2/2015
8985You really think that the folks who wrote the BFS couldn't figure that out?Metacomet-1/2/2015
8984If we didn't meet it - how could CF have stated they have a positive BFS in Metacomet-1/2/2015
8983The main volume of waste rock is the over burden of the north pit slope that musHog Head-1/2/2015
8982We met the size in (ii) but not the 12% in (i). Then a decision was up to Teck texplorationguy-1/2/2015
8981It surprises me, to hear a statement like that from you Brundal . I did nobrundall-1/2/2015
8980The problem, in my opinion only, is the requirement for the FS to meet 5.5 (b) (Hog Head-1/2/2015
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News