wasn't the BFS enough info to make a construction decision?

There is probably no point saying this, as the majority on the board probably don't agree, but here we go anyway. The BFS numbers really sucked - I think the numbers can be improved, but how much with the infill drilling? All that waste rock will be non-waste with 10 shallow holes? Maybe ... but I'll believe it when I see it.

I have an investment for you: give me $3300. You won't start getting any of your principal back for 6 years. Over the course of the next 20 years, you'll get your $3300 back, plus another $500-$1500. Oh, and by the way, you'll have to pay $1200 in maintenance fees over the next twenty years.

So put in $4500, and get $5000-$6000 back over twenty years - (actually a little more than the said amounts back, but we'll discount that money because of inflation and the lost time value of money). There is the possibility you will get a whole bunch more back because there is big potential with this investment, but we don't really know.

This is, in effect, what the BFS said to me. Not a great investment as it stands. I'd never in a million years be able to sell this type of investment scenario to any investors that I work with.

But enough downer talk. I think Teck is probably interested in Schaft Creek still. But for the reasons outlined above, I think they'd like to see more drilling and a more economical case made for a mine being built before jumping in on this. So until this is done, my opinion is that they aren't in a hurry, and this could drag on.