That's malarky.

Management had two major failures. Even though "we've faired better than other comapnies during the down turn", in my eyes those are low expectations and we never would have been where we were if management didn't make mistakes. To say that management is amazing and flawless is rubbish. They're alright because they did what they were supposed to do .... but didn't go above and beyond and even though they did what they were supposed to do they didn't do it in a timely fashion.

1st flaw of management: Timing. You can say whatever you want about the long term and how it will still pay off - and that's true, but money isn't just money. Time value of money. Making 100% is great. Making it in 1 year opposed to 2 years is better. Even at the most conservative of estimates given by managements guidance, they were a year late and were even misleading about how long it would take in multiple instances. You can say it wasn't their fault and it was TT's fault or that persons fault - and maybe that's true in one or two instances (though as management it's their jobs to know what's going on). But in several cases? There's a common denominator and that's management. Even when we finished our BFS a contractual 120 days wasn't met with! Terrible time management. This goes on to other things, because their news reports were so vague and had limited information, they'd have to spend time out of their day talking to shareholders way more than they should have. People didn't have enough trust in Jason and didn't get what they needed from the NR's. It's managements job to make sure their shareholders know what's going on - but they shouldn't be doing that by spending an hour talking to one shareholder, and especially to do that multiple times a day. If they fail with this sort of basic time management, it's almost not a wonder everything was so late.

2nd flaw of management: Bare minimums. This applies in news reports which I alluded to earlier and how they would put the bare minimum work into it because of legal considerations. The second goes into the BFS - the missing waste ... they should have drilled that a long time ago. You can say "But Jay it would have delayed the BFS even more!". That may be true, but not if they had actually planned this a little better. They had known about the waste WELL before when the BFS was expected. As in, more than a year and could have fit it into their drill plans. It was either intentional and I think any argument about how "Teck already has the drill cores" is ridiculous because that doesn't matter for what's best in CUU shareholders interest - or it was unintentional and it was a messup. They're either not trying to maximize shareholder value or made a mistake. The new contract is okay and there are definite pros and cons, but many of the things that made this a safe investment are gone. Mothball clause, expected timeline etc. Now we have...well we won't go broke and can continue puttering a long because we have some cash. You're right that management couldn't sell at 2.75, but they sure could have done a PP anywhere near that level so we didn't need what we got in this agreement.

Management has done okay. But they have far from done well or exceeded any shareholder expectations. I may think management could have done better, but I still think we're worth more tomorrow than we are today. The problem with this investment is when it materializes and if we get to capitalize on the rest of the market being in the shitter.