This is an interesting angle to consider, thanks Prospekt for your information on this.

I admit I don't know about this subject but I thought that the BFS was 43-101 compliant, with TT qualified to do it and Elmer qualified to oversee. Heck, didn't they also get an additional review from someone else on contract before they gave the BFS to Teck....I forget the name. Anyway, given all of this I'm wondering how it couldn't be compliant, and bulletproof from that perspective.

If it IS compliant then Teck is doing their own review and optimization work as part of their own way of operating as a solid, respectable company. I'm guessing they also learned their lesson from Galore which is why Elmer did what he could to deliver a BFS that wasn't going to be another Galore, particularly when it came to capex.

Yes, there is still the mystery about the drilling of the waste and we have debated that. This little mystery does stink and the variety of answers given (most recently labour) makes me believe that Teck wants Schaft under the radar until they make their next move. When they do make their move they will have to justify it to their shareholders and will use the optimization work and all their own numbers to back it up to make their case that Schaft isn't another Galore. The optimization work will also help justify to themselves that Schaft is worth the price EE is asking. Oh to be a fly on the wall of these JV meetings....and Teck internal meetings on Schaft.

K