RE:RE:RE:SEA TunnelsYes, I agree with your take here. They will all benefit from some form of co-operative tunnel or transportation link. As you state, the greater the value of the entire stable of camps, the higher the incentive for all parties involved.
What does really change for SEA however, is that surely, they are now the ugly sister. TC is now the younger, prettier one. Any suitors will be wooing her first, no?
Countrygent wrote: I believe there will be a potential tunnel route through TC - it’s not solid deposits.
SEA’s issue is finding the clear route. There will be one.
I believe TC shareholders may be glossing over the access and ore handling issues for development of what might come at TC ... which may all have to be downhill and closer to the highway. Wouldn’t ore movement capacity, and mill, staging, tailings, water, power all be more economical done in tandem? Which means more jobs, royalties, taxes and downstream economic activity for the Province. In terms of leverage and negotiating power, I agree SEA being landlocked puts them in a weaker or perhaps better stated “discounted” negotiating position, first on just being that much farther away in dollar terms of longer access development, second on having to find and negotiate an access. Exhibit A the Pretivm purchase - discounted value, but another asset for leverage for access. The existing permission ... is a long shot. They gambled that they could state they were having no negative impact on TC, they had insufficient basis to say so, and their nightmare scenario developed with valuable ore bodies right in their way.
And they have a credibility issue now with all third parties. But my own POV is the bigger, the more valuable TC becomes, the better for SEA and KSM.
Follow the money?
cg