Exact wording in the contract that we are concerned with. Italicized and bolded important parts:

"If the report is positive under 5.5(b)(ii) but not under 5.5(b)(i), Teck Cominco may nevertheless elect, in its sole discretion, to deem the report to be a Positive Bankable Feasibility Study. If Teck Cominco does not give any notice as aforesaid, then any report that satisfies 5.5(b)(ii) will be considered a Positive Feasibility Study."

So there's 4 sections we need to be concerned with here. The 4 sections are the ones I've bolded

a) Do we fall positive under 5.5(b)(ii) but not under 5.5(b)(i)?

From my understanding, we both agree to that.

b) What does "in its sole discretion" mean?

I think we agree that it means whether or not Teck wants to or thinks that it's worthwhile. Given how long they've been informed, and the interest they've shown - I don't think they'd "in their sole discretion" say this wasn't a worthwhile project.

c) Have they given any notice? When would this have had to have happened by?

They haven't given any notice. This is probably the only real part of contention. Given how long it's been, they both would have law suits on their hand if they tried to basically trick us because it wasn't actually delivered (assuming no deal comes out). This should have happened at the latest by 120 days, which has passed. I don't think it's a coincidence that they let out a NR a day after the 120 days. That again, would lead to lawsuits for misleading investors.

d) Assuming the above is it positive and bankable?

I don't see how it isn't unless you disagree on c). If you do, then you should be shorting CUU or filing a lawsuit. If you don't you really should logically accept it's positive and bankable.