For his and all of our sakes, I hope the Salazar language and what appears to be a lack of adherence to its terms and conditions doesn't end up biting us all - further!!

I'm not sure I understood your whole post.

I think Teck is adhering strictly to the contract where the contract is written clearly. For example, they transferred the claims when earned in early 2010 and they have kept the 2 km claims isolated as required by the contract.Tomorrow they may indeed deliver a definitive JV to CF for review. As I have said in the past, I don't think we will necessarily hear about it until CF completes their review and agrees to it.

I believe they will stick with the 120 days that the contract calls for from delivery of the feasibility notice. Elmer has just told Liddy that it is 4 months when she asked about the start date being February 4th.

As Elmer also told Liddy, Section 5.5 is not a well worded clause and is interpretive. I think we've all come around to agreeing that Teck has the right to determine that the feasibility is a "Positive Bankable Feasibility Study." The contract also states that if Teck does not give notice it will be considered "bankable" nevertheless. The problem lies in the time allowed for Teck to make this decision. The contract actually does not specify any time period at all. However, in the paragraph above relating to a different clause, it gives Teck 30 days. I think it is logical to conclude that the 30-day period is therefore reasonable. This, however, would be interpretive as Elmer has stated.

Given this, Elmer is probably content to let the Liard shares stay with Teck until Teck is ready to discuss what they ultimately want to do with this project. On the flip-side Teck is not readily handing them over and I think that is a good thing and might be an indication of their interest.