Tudor Gold Corp V.TUD

Repost from Zorg on Tuo BB

[fordster]

Regarding the Frank/Seabridge symposium....

I listened to this.  Rudy mentions the Licence of Occupation and the permits to construct the portals.

The LoO expires in 5 months.  Substantially Starrted Status will not occur until 2026.  The court decision correctly points out that Seabridge has access to TC since the LoO is still in effect, but does not address what happens after it expires or the legality if stepping on Tudor's resources while building the MTT.

the LoO does not convert to a Statutory ROW until the MTT is complete.

In the interview Rudy points out that Tudor made several changes to its TC approach with the latest resource estimate.  This is similar to what Seabridge did recently when it split KSM into gold dominant and copper dominant projects.  That's like the pot calling the kettle metal.

So I'm still not clear on the time frame between this Sept. and 2026.  Who has given SEA access authority to TC during that period of time after expiration of the LoO and with no SROW?  And with the wording of the LoO regarding protection of mineral assets, who has given SEA authority to dig up any Tudor minerals while building the MTT?  

This leads me to believe there will be more litigation after the LoO expires unless a deal is made.  The hard part is that the deal needs to be fair to shareholders of the Amigoes and SEA and also needs to leave enough room going forward for the JV partner and the holders of the various NSR's (TUO and St Andrews Goldfields).  Lots of moving parts.

All I see right now are hardened positions.  Rudy not willing to compromise on a perfect deal for SEA , KK not willing to give in to that outcome at the expense of TUD shareholders.  Both are defensible positions.  I personally don't think there will be a break in the logjam until someone with vision comes in over the top, combines KSM and TC into a single project and eliminates ownership questions by owning all four companies and buying out the SAG NSR to make all overhangs go away. I don't see any companies in the free world with the capability to do that, so I'm looking to a company from China quite frankly.

The courts have encouraged a deal between the parties.  The courts are very much aware that a decision to allow SEA to overrun TUD resources would represent a major government policy change which allows for the taking of one company's resource assets and awarding them to another company.  Say goodbye to the "friendly" mining jurisdiction in BC.

As both companies have tried to spin the court decision in their press releases, it has only made the issues more transparent and obvious.

It could take a great deal of time to sort this out.  On the plus side, that would give the POG time to increase .making the eventual outcome better for all.  On the downside, delays could cause some of the parties to make rash decisions in the interest of resolutions that might not be in everyone's best interest.

I see volume in Tudor stock recently.  Is some group accumulating?  Does that make Mr. Sprott a wild card with his stake in Tudor?

Rudy thinks 2024 is the year.  If he's right it will be really interesting for all of us.  Will KK have any more time after 2024 to sew up Goldstorm and produce a final domain map, PEA, etc?  I'm open to input on all of these questions?

Do your own DD.   GLTA.  Doug

[Jetstream1281]

I generally agree with his take.....he is probably one of the most knowledgeable and consistent posters on these boards.

[cskhurasu]

I listened to this.  Rudy mentions the Licence of Occupation and the permits to construct the portals. This is complicated. I am relying on SEA's disclosure in its financial statements being correct. If not, Rudi is goinf=g to have a problem. The LoO expires in 5 months.  Substantially Starrted Status will not occur until 2026. The current EAC expires in 2026 but Rudi is

[gratvalyou]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before or is just not feasible. Can SEA just choose a different route? It seems to me if they just veer to the north they only need to cross a small portion of TC and then enter their own property bypassing the bulk of all TC's deposits. OR Im sure Newmont will have a hand in either or both projects so tunnel through the Newcrest(NEM) property to the

[fordster]

It sounds like they could. Rudi has publicly that he would be a good neighbor and rerout it...It's just that I'm not sure where he could do it and he's not being a "good neighbor" at this time. Talk is cheap.

[Jetstream1281]

They could, but I totally get Rudi's position where if TUD DOESN'T in fact need that particular piece of land he's already set to build.... I think TUD should work with them to determine that....having said that....i think the writing is on the wall....the surveys that were undertaken show a possible deposit in that area, SEA started geotech drilling and then abruptly stopped....why

[cskhurasu]

Very imaginative. But there is no evidence SEA's geotech drilling looked like it might be mineralized. There IS circumstantial evidence the cores had nothing of interest. 1) if they were mineralized why did TUD not announce them and 2) if they were hot-looking, why did TUD not follow up with more drilling there. 

[Jetstream1281]

Explain to me why SEA would stop drilling a tunnel path they absolutely MUST have to develop a mine?.....the ONLY unpermitted part of the mine?

[fordster]

Funny! Simply add your own interpretation and make it pro Seabridge! What a goof-ball!!! You must be daft to know everyone knows your game and you just keep coming back for more.

[Jetstream1281]

Of all the clowns here you are by far the biggest.... The law says that the ONLY way someone's property ownership can be transferred is to thr government under emminent domain for the use of a public project. The law says that a mineral tenure that is in place already takes precedence over any LOO or CTT or whatever other alphabet soup you want to use.... Like Doug says (and I've said

[Jetstream1281]

Also, I'd like to see any documentation anywhere saying that SEA reserves give them the right to take someone else's property...