RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Proposed Deal Framework for SeGreat discussions today. However, I agree completely with JohnnyLingo. AMK is the controlling property holder and they are extremely vulnerable to a simple takeover by Seabridge due to their small market cap. Tunnel problem solved.
.
Alternatively, they need only purchase enough shares to win a proxy fight. They could then install their own board members and take over control of AMK, Treaty Creek, and the tunnel compensation. The point is, Seabridge does have options, and they really are not that expensive relative to the capital cost of a mine.
.
IMO, the best way for AMK/TUO to increase their bargaining power is to make their respective companies strong. They do this by raising their share prices to make any unwanted moves by Seabridge as expensive as possible. The sooner the better. Unfortunately, when I spoke with Teuton about a month ago, I had the distinct impression that they now have very little control over work program. AMK has control, and Teuton is a passenger.
.
One final thought...perhaps it is more likely that Silver Standard would be the eventual suitor. They are a producer, have a larger market cap than Seabridge, and currently a lot more cash. It would certainly be an interesting strategic move for them to buy out AMK/TUO or Treaty Creek. With their size, they would than have total leverage over Seabridge.
.
I'm not sure if they have the stomach for it, but they might even kick around the idea of buying KSM from Seabridge. The area is not big enough for two or three mines as evidenced by Seabridge's need to build tunnels to a mill site. Silver Standard could face a similar problem when selecting a suitable mill site for their deposits.
.
Thoughts?