I think it's more or less agreed upon that - the most likely scenario (though we don't know for sure) is that we are currently catering to Teck. Be this through allowing them some time to get their house in order or by reviewing the data thoroughly and doing DD while/prior to negotiations.

I've been wrestling with the idea if this is the best thing for shareholders or if we should just "release the BFS". I currently think that, although frustrating - that it is the best thing for shareholders, whether we like it or not.

The reason a sale to Teck opposed to someone else is for 3 reasons: Ease, Time and Price. I believe doing a deal with Teck, and somewhat catering to them is the best course of action for us because we get the most out of these 3 things by doing a deal with Teck, opposed to some other major.

Ease: I think that the many agreements that are in place and the general confusion of legal things such as the back-in agreement, the liard shares (and what comes with it) such as the 4 year clause, and the interplay between everything makes it the easiest for Teck to buy us. If another major bought us out instead of Teck the legalities are difficult for all 3 parties to deal with. On the other hand, if Teck buys SC and the option lands many of the difficulties disappear as Teck retains the Liard shares, the backin agreement is void and because of the retention of Liard, the 4 year clause doesn't apply. Even if another major wanted a part in SC, it's easier to be done by buying it from, or doing a JV directly with Teck than trying to buy SC from CUU and doing it that way.

Time: Billion and multi-billion dollar deals take a long time and are very expensive to do (legal and consulting fees). Because we've been working with Teck for so long, and possibly even negotiating with them for sometime already as well - the time to do a deal with them is going to inevitably be shorter than with another party. The time is even further exacperated by the above ease in doing a deal. I'm sure many other people have seen some of their watchlisted stocks go up, whether it's 20% or 100% and thinking "I would have been in that if CUU had paid out by now, like management had suggested". Others have obligations that they thought they would have the money to fulfill by now. Time frames are just as important as returns, and minimizing it so we have the most options for our money is important. Opportunity cost is a valuable thing that shouldn't be overlooked.

Price: My suggestion is that we would actually get the most money from Teck, opposed to trying to sell it to someone else. My suggestion for this is for a two reasons. The first is because for another major besides Teck, there's the risk of legalities, rights, how much of the deposit they own (even if Teck backs-in they have to earn it) and what sort of relationship they'd actually have with Teck (assuming Teck still wanted to backin). As another major, I'd rather buy a piece of SC from Teck after they buy it than try to get into a bidding war and bid myself up knowing Teck can pay more for 25% since they got the other 75% for so cheap. The only exception was if I was going to try to "steal the whole thing" by trying to mess them up with the 4 year clause, but it's a pretty big risk to take and somewhat dirty which may hurt their reputation. The second reason is something I've mentioned before - but if they just backin, even without 4 years - we're essentially dead weight. Teck would much rather have partners that help with financing and building etc. opposed to carrying someone who benefits from everything you do and is just a mooch. Especially in this financing climate, even Teck may have difficulty financing the whole thing by themselves as well as other projects without leveraging themselves too much or having to mothball too many projects. They have a real incentive to get rid of us, even if it means paying more. They can essentially get 75% for "free" so paying more for the rest of the 25% seems reasonable. By having 100% of the mine with no hassles, they can also go around and flip the same 25% (or more) and have the mine for "free" and even have deals where they don't have to finance anything themselves. They can only do that if they own 100% though. Because of this, they may be willing to pay more than what another party would.

I related this idea of paying an "insurance premium" on the 25% to a house that you want to buy, and are going to get part of it for pennies on the dollar (a foreclosed, short sale house as an example). However, the catch is that there are tenants who will own a portion of the house, and they're useless tenants and ones that you don't want (and you have to pay their mortgage as well). As you renovate the house, the value of the house goes up and they get that added value to for doing nothing. In fact, if anything overall they bring the value down. Because you get the rest of the house for so cheap, it may be advantageous to pay them to move out so you can own 100% of the house, renovate and if you want - get new tenants. It might make sense to pay a premium to the tenants so you don't have to may anyones mortgage, so you can get new tenants that will help you with renovations and because you got the whole thing for so cheap you can afford to pay more for the 25% than it's worth for someone else that might want to buy that portion from them.

Summary: I think that because of this, we are catering to Teck - but at the end of the day, it's in our best interest to do so because it will be harder to sell to someone else (though possible), will take longer and may not even be for a better price (because other companies will have more risks, where as Teck has an incentive to pay a premium instead).