RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Resource estimate?Have you read the KSM PEA? Just the fact there is a tunnel designed to go through Treaty Creek does not mean it can transport ore from Treaty Creek, and not even thinking in using that same tunnel for mining purposes (if you are still thinking you can access from there the deep ultra low grade zones found at CB). This has been discussed before in this forum and I'd encourage you to do your research on the subject matter.
If seabridge has to tunnel through Treaty Creek, they will have to pay for the right of way, that is no question about it, and is up to management to negotiate the best terms, but from there to mining... but will it repay for what is being spent on exploration on it over CB???? I don't think so, and none of the existing ounces on the CB will be acknowledged by SEA unless they are in a form of M+I Resource Estimate, and further than that, added to the PEA as RESERVES (a.k.a. something economically viable to be mined AT A PROFIT).
The Iron Cap will not shorten the cost of the proposed tunnel, as is still at the end of it, and what makes these kind of deposits viable are the fact that they can be open pittable, and underground mining may or may not work.
KSM(I) has been adding ounces every year, and since 2007 it more than trippled its size, but still has no plans for takeover or finance towards a mining operation.
I was more into see if there is something of true value on the Treaty Property on its own merits, rather than speculation of being the only value of the property the price tag for the right of way. That being the case, I would be so dissapointed and moving my money to some other company with true upside exploration potential, credible managament, and definitely lead by someone that knows about rocks and geology.
End of tread