RE:Thinking out Loud. The Cown land underlying the Treaty Creek claims can serve multiple purposes at the same time. As the owner, the BC government gets to decide.
SEA has done a lot of work on the tunnels from drilling the rock type along the route to the engineering and evaluation of tunneling methods and equipment.. That's required for their Preliminary Feasibility Study.
IF TC has an economic orebody you would think that the needs of both parties can be accomodated. The TC orebody would have a definite size and shape and could be avoidable according to public statements by SEA.
I find the TUD position very unclear. According to SEA's news release of last Monday, TUD is asking for SEA's tunnel rights to be rescinded because they destroy the value of TUD's claims. I don't see that disclosure in TUD's new shelf prospectus or its financial statements. Isn't that a material fact?
And what is the value of the TUD mineral interests? There is no PEA, just some drill results. Almost all the key data required to determine if TC is an economic orebody and actually has value is missing. You would think that a PEA at least would be needed and included in the Application before submitting it.
The metallurgical data on TC released to date is pretty strong evidence that TC may not be economic because much of the mineralization is refractory.
So, really, what is TUD arguing about? They haven't proved the value of their mineral claims to show their value has been destroyed by SEA's tunnel rights. And they haven't disclosed the destruction of this value in their disclosure documents which suggests it's not real. Maybe this is just a negotiating tactic by TUD?