RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Good QuestionsI can't speak for SEA but I remember that Chairman Rudi had said the tunnel route could be moved if needed to accomodate a TC economic deposit. There was no conflict until TUD decided to dispute SEA's License with their Application? It looks like TUD initiated an action and SEA is defending itself and disclosing the issues from their point of view.
It looks like the situation is no longer one of co-operation.
It doesn't make sense to me that TUD is claiming a loss of value due to the tunnels when they have not established what the value is they have lost, how they lost it and how it is calculated. You need a lot of data for that and TUD doesn't have it.
You would think all else being equal, BC is going to make decisions based on what's good for BC. They only granted SEA their tunnel permits after SEA had already obtained their Environmental Assessment Certificate. To get that SEA had to generate exhaustive data of KSM's economic benefits and environmental impact. Doesn't TUD have to show the same level of data and benefits to get equal standing?
I think BC will look to accomodate everyone's interests if it can be done. But TUD appears to have declared they can't live with that because their 'value' has been 'destroyed'.