"It's not an incentive, it was done to protect the interests of the original claim holders--Liard."

Right

That is what incentives (or disincentives do)

My point is the same

Whatever it is, whenever it was created, for whoevers favor it is meant..

It has taken on vastly changed importance, if it exists and is enforceable

I agree that many of the terms are problematic going forward and will probably be revised in any subsequent agreements

Teck probably cannot abide CUU control in a JV, should the prescribed arrangement be created, nor the 4 year clause as currently interpreted

I think that for the purpose of the current negotiations, these gotchas will cause Teck to lean toward the buyout of the Copper Fox interests, but failing that, we can probably expect new agreements that provide for Teck to control the activities going forward, assuming they opt to participate fourther in the Schaft Creek project