Correct, it is debateable but is it really plausible that we didn't dot the i's with the FS delivery? The Salazar agreement is pretty clear as to what and how the FS is to be delivered in order to start the clock and begin the process. Cuu had better have a damn good reason to have ignored that FS delivery operation - it isn't complicated.

What is giving us the doubt that the FS study Notice etc was not delivered was the lack of any of that info in the NR. The Feb 4th NR should have spelled that out with a statement that the FS Notice and all its trappings were delivered at such and such date per the Salazar Agreement. Instead we got very little language relating back to the Agreement which seems rather odd.

If we didn't give Teck the Notice as per the Salazar Agreement then the ball is still rotting away in our court and no clock has started. That would be tough to believe and understand.

If we have another interim agreement/script we are working from now- that might be a different matter. That superceding Agreement/JV draft could have been given to CUU shortly after the Dec 21st NR to, say, Feb 4th? Somehow there is a new "understanding" between Teck and CUU about what is going on and that understanding seemed to happen after Dec 24th telecon and Elmer saying a few days to posting the public copy to us seemingly having no clue about the Salazar terms and timelines at about PDAC. Let's hope that from CUU's perspective it isn't all about good intentions but includes a solid legal footing that we can trust a heck of a lot of money with.