Interesting read and it is good to get different points of view.

There may be an error in interpretation in the 1st. article where it states ( "OR if Teck went for 75% - leaving CUU with plenty of cash and a 25% interest in Schaft Creek (and Teck’s obligation to arrange for full project funding" ). Teck earns back by spending the money not by putting it in CUU's coffers.

Not sure if I agree with the second writer who sites local " GEO " risk... seems like grasping at straws. It won't stand up to "level 4" scrutiny.