or
Remember me
Back
The power to grant a right of way licence is likely not expressed as a power of expropriation of valuable economic interests, or there would be an expropriation scheme with compensation included. What has probably occurred is SEA overreached in providing an assurance that they were not interfering with any known economic interests. But they didn't drill to check - they just made some major assumptions. TUD was in no position to categorically deny the basis on which the licence was issued until there had been drilling - speaking of which, was there ever public disclosure or assays done on the preliminary route drilling by SEA, I'm assuming it may have only been for geophysics and rock structures, and in any event too shallow to hit the deeper Goldstorm domains? TUD has a legitimate complaint if SEA made false assurances upon which the licence and route was based.
Surely, because both projects require downhill mill access, it actually makes sense to jointly plan and develop access that can service both properties - SEA's current proposal wouldn't have that capacity. But SEA will go nuts because TUD is still so far away from proving up bankable feasability they will have to wait. The government will want both properties to become economic engines. What is their skin in the game? Not to be sued by either party for economic loss. Best guess, they revoke on the basis a key assurance from SEA, along the lines of "no significant economic loss to the TC property holders, is no longer sustainable. Try again Rudi. Play nice with Kenny and work something out. These two properties cry out for consolidation and a larger phased mining plan feeding a single, larger mill. But the economics of that mean SEA must wait, or find a joint buyer perhaps. I'd be suprised if they leave the licence now Goldstorm has such a large potential mining footprint. Just my opinions of course. We'll see. Lawyers wet dream. cg
Receive investor kits and email updates from Stockhouse and directly from these companies.