RE:RE:RE:Geotechnical DrillingThis was a good webinar. One of the slides showed the new boundary of KSM around Snowfield. It goes somewhat to the east of the deposit, but no alternate route for the tunnel for sure. Also Mr. Fronk made clear that the initial infrastructure is the same with or without Snowfield in the mix.
What is different is that Seabridge contemplates more than 30 years of production with open pits only - before any block caving is needed - if the partner is gold-oriented. If a copper producer is the partner, block caving would happen earlier in the mine life.
Seabridge is also talking in terms of about 1 million ounces of gold production per year for the first couple of decades, making this a top-end Tier One open pit opportunity.
His estimate for completion of the new PFS including Snowfield is about one year, but this might not determine timing of a JV since the partner could easily do their own work.
He did not mention how much of the total output Seabridge would like to keep, so I assume we're working with his previous statements of 30% of the gold (he was willing to have the copper pay for the capex and let it go).
I continue to feel that Treaty Creek will be part of this project eventually, bringing even lower risk and more open pit gold into the picture. Since it will take time for Tudor to complete the picture for Orpiment, Perfect Storm, etc. I expect the first deal we see will be for Goldstorm plus the tunnel route. So the results of Seabridge drilling along the tunnel route (core is committed to be delivered to Tudor), continues to be critical.
Do your own dd. GLTA.