RE:RE:FinallyCr00ks604 wrote: Nothing has changed. DBG did what all mining companies have to do in TCG territory. The obstacle here is to get the TCG & elders of the territory to agree on Sheslay mine development. The only hope here for that to happen is if the TCG & Chad Day are just full of hot-air blabbing to the media for attention & all the talk about cultural signifcants & burial sites is all BS. If they're serious & mine development is opposed there is nothing to buy out.
When Chad Norman Day went to the media in March, they did not have an agreement with Doubleview or the Province. The nature of the Communications and Engagement agreement (that was just announced and signed) is such that any plans to develop the Hat project would have to be communicated to the TCG. Why would they sign, knowing this?
IMO the TCG was concerned about having neither agreement in place. (and rightly so)
The archeological survey that was done prior to 2018 (when the TCG had an agreement with Hud Bay Minerals and Doubleview for the same Hat claim) it identified several areas of concern, but the area that the drilling has been taking place was not one of those areas. In fact in 2015, during archeological assessments done then, it was stated in court that the area that was being drilled was of low cultural significance. This is not to say that the whole Sheslay falls under the same description. (There are many other companies with claims in the Sheslay area) At least now the TCG have more say in areas that
are of significance.