New zones and earn-back
Great News!
“The High Resolution Airborne Magnetic Survey covered a 25 kmlong by 17 km wide area.” (i. e. 425 sq. km = 42,500 hectares).Within that, “The area of "explorationinterest" is an elliptical shaped zone (approximately 4 kms wide by 20 kmslong) ….” (i. e. 80 sq. km = 8,000 hectares).
“Copper Fox holds title and a 100% working interest in a contiguous 24,003.5 hectare(59,311 acre) property which includes the Schaft Creek deposit….”Although the 8000 hectare area of “explorationinterest” falls within the size of CUU’s 100% working interest, it is unlikelythat all of that area is within.CUU surveyedbeyond their boundaries. Some of the “exploration interest”is on unclaimed land or land claimed by others.See Chappy’s map
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60356448@N04/5662015068/in/photostream
The Schaft Creek deposit is on the original claims whereasthe ES and GK zones are on the recently acquired north claims.Not so clear is whether the four newpositive magnetic features are on Copper Fox land.Perhaps a map of the “exploration interest” area was withheld to allowCUU to claim or acquire additional property (e.g. Paget Resources as astutely pointed out byimerc23)
Still of some confusion is whether the ES and GK zones aresubject to earn back agreement with Teck. The news release says that Copper Fox’s100% working interest is in 24,003 hectaresthat INCLUDES the Schaft Creek deposit on which Teck has an earn back option.Using the word “includes” implies that the SchaftCreek deposit (i.e. the earn-back) is only a part of the 24,003 hectares and the rest is not subject to earn-back (i.e. GK and ES). But then, the newsrelease goes on to say that the earn-back applies to “the Copper Fox interestin the Schaft Creek project.”The word “project”implies something bigger than the Schaft Creek deposit.
And then, the release goes on to say -- “Additionally CopperFox holds mineral claims totaling 3,947 hectares (9,752 acres) in the LiardMining District of BC not subject to the Teck earn-back.”
That's a clear statement. If the ES and GK zones are not subject to the Teckearn-back, one would expect a similar clear statement. Ambiguity exists! Can anyone clear this up.