"I thought about this and you are right. He said the BFS was still expected in this quarter. The key word is, or was, "expected". It didn't happen but was only "expected" so it wasn't a lie. I just can't fathom why the ceo wouldn't have a clue why he was a year behind only weeks away from his own self imposed deadline and then blame shareholders for the decline in share price. Geeze, I haven't sold any and am not buying either so have no interest in pumping or slagging this. Just because I own it doesn't mean I have to be pathetic enough to pump it or not complain when I see something that isn't quite right. Sure... it's all old news but the share price is at eighteen cents now for a reason and after posting negative copper cost predictions along with multiple missed self imposed deadlines it might be better to look in the mirror rather than at shareholders for the failure. Kind of like getting a speeding ticket and blaming the cop for it....

I actually thought the stuff posted on the official CUU website and the quotes from Elmer were true. At the time I had no reason to think it wasn't. I still have the BMO download professing negative copper and just because they removed it doesn't make it go away. Garbage in, garbage out and it really is reflected in the share price. Last week I was thinking about the five mines that Elmer had supposedly brought in to production so decided to look them up. Wow.... It makes our eighteen cent share price look like a real success story. It isn't something I would be proud of but to each their own I guess...."

Of course he would say expected, his own people are not completing the study, so he only has a date/guidance set by Tetra Tech. Once again tho, the delay was mostly due to Tetra Tech and a man power shortage. They obviously didn't advise CUU very well or maybe they thought they could still make it. There was also pit slope problems which could have easily came up late into the FS study and cause a large delay to come up with a solution. Things in the Engineering world can be unforseen until deep into a study and potentially take a lot of effort to fix or work around.

AGAIN! with the exact same trash (I literally just posted to you about this this very morning..). You expect me to believe you aren't "slagging" this when you state the same thing and get corrected about it like five times now? BMO's study would be based off PFS material, hence why the numbers are close. I would still would ignore the BMO study and look at the actual controlled study, but thats here nor there. The BMO study falls into the same thing as the PFS and is superceded and replaced by the FS. They should be legally required to remove these old studies when the FS is released. So them removing it isn't some stupid little trick that you seem to continally have conjured up in your brain.

Tell me about some of these mines elmer brought into production, if you wouldn't mind?