RE:Seabridge financing , what that means for Tudor?You forgot to mention one thing, there is no economic basis for this project. Treaty Creek is an order of magnitude too low a gold grade for refractory treatment, and is non-existent as a significant copper resource. Read Section 13 of the JDS Engineering April 2023 Technical Report filed on Sedar. It won’t conventionally leach. So despite < 1g/t gold mill head and low corresponding sulphide concentrate grades, would need to crank up a large oxygen plant and a chain of autoclaves to oxidize all that sulfur for a few grams of gold. Plus all the auxiliaries that go with that and no power line anywhere nearby = $$billions in added Capex and Opex. It doesn’t pay! Also as Tudor has incorrectly stated there would be no gold equivalent (that includes a copper or silver credit). So why put that in the resource? Silver in autoclave residue is locked unless another very expensive process step is added and there is not enough silver to justify it anyway. Due to the low grade and high pyrite the best copper float concentrate grade achieved was 2%, with low recovery, and the product Cu grade is still 1/10th of what it needs to be sold. This testwork was even stated to have been done on high grade (not representative) samples and still it didn’t come close to working. It shows Treaty Creek has nothing in its favor, and the project won’t be built as promoted.
KSM has both direct gold leach response (no autoclaves) and a copper by-product is shown it can be produced, and the project is still considered risky, why its been hard to attract partners. For Treaty Creek, “Worlds Biggest New Gold Discovery” based on the published MRE it’s flawed big time.