Elmer's response re. Teck slide from Q report last week. My ? His response in brackets. He did call Teck and agreed it's confusing
So they’re saying SC has potential for up to 100% increase in potential? From what basis? (I believe that the potential to grow annual CuEq production beyond that set out in the 2021 Schaft Creek PEA is significant. Teck are not saying that the Schaft Creek annual CuEq production could grow by 100%. The slide shows that if Teck includes on a 100% basis; the annual CuEq production for Schaft Creek as set out in the 2021 PEA, and 50% of the CuEq production from the other two projects, then Teck’s total combined CuEq production would grow by approximately 400,000 tonne/year from 1.5 Mt/year to 1.9Mt/year. ) What does the 100% they used attempt to communicate? (as indicated earlier, the slide is confusing and the 100% refers to CuEq production on a 100% basis/does not imply ownership)
Spoke to Teck, the slide was never meant to show/imply ownership but to show potential future increases in CuEq based on the copper projects in which Teck has an interest.
The slide divides the projects into those where Teck has greater than 50% interest and those where Teck has less than 50% or less.
Disclosure of production/potential production from a project is commonly/but not always; stated on a 100% basis [same as Copper Fox did for the result of the Schaft Creek 2021 Preliminary Economic assessment]
For example; the slide shows QB2 expansion at 100%. Teck owns 60% of QB2., Zafranal 100%, Teck owns 80% of this project.
The slide is confusing.
