RE:RE:RE:RE:Seabridge does not have a permit for the MTTSeabridge missed all the timelines promised in the MTT Management Plan; the 9 year delay is their fault. The plan specified that work on the MTT would take place from summer 2015 and complete in summer 2020, at which time the construction disruption would be over. Here we are 9 years later, and Seabaridge has not yet even started the work!
How long does any third party entity have to sit around and wait for the work to be completed? We are three years beyond the specified completion date! Is this reasonable? Even if TUD/TUO/AMK agreed to the initial LoO (which I don't believe they did), does that mean they have to delay their own development plans because Seabridge can't get their act together? Even IF the LoO is valid, should not 9 years of failure not invalidate the LoO?
The MTT management plan also said the MTT route will pass several hundred metres away from zones of mineralization. Obviously this is no longer the case, now that almost 30 million ounces of AuEq have been defined, with the MTT route appearing to pass directly through.
@Larry60, I really have to disagree when you say the 9 year delay is good for Seabridge. They are 9 years late (and counting) on fulfilling their MTT managment plan promises. This alone I would expect to invalidate the LoO. The world has passed them by.
I guess we will see what the legal process determines.
Larry60 wrote: The 9 year argument helps SEA, it doesnt hurt it. It takes a helluva long time to get to the point of building a mine, let alone building it. SEA has raised over $600M in the past 3 years alone thats been going into BC and the ground. Anyone who understands mining knows this. Sure, if a major gets involved they can accelerte it.
TC probably 10 years away from a production decision. I hope they sell in the next 2 years so I can get my $4 and move on. Not saying well get $4, but a man can dream!!!!
If MTT really is under TUD current resource, I sure as he11 hope it will have to be altered to avoid it. If its not under current resouce, I hope they add least pay us off a few $$$ to seal the deal.
Looking at trading, I think a $1 flow through deal is imminent. Donation flow through at 1.25 maybe. So effective price around .80.
TeckPro wrote: Huh????????
The judge will ask SEA why has 9 plus years gone by and no effort been made to drill the Billion $ failed MTT.
It's arrogance personified plain and simple Mr/Ms 11 likes - :)
Behind the Mountain "between a rock and a hard place".
cskhurasu wrote: As I understand it, rockport1, there is no requirement for a contract between the BC government and TUD regarding the tunnel permits nor is there any need for an agreement. The land belongs to the BC government and they can do what they want with it. This may seem unfair to you but the BC government can do what is in their interest. Having granted SEA the permits, BC needs to decide if it is better for them to cancel the permits, get sued by SEA for billions and lose the confidence of the BC mining industry while hoping that after 10 years or more, TUD comes up with a viable PFS on TC or leave well enough alone. Not a difficult decision, it seems to me.
Can anyone explain to me why it took TUD so long to dispute the tunnel permits when they were a fact before TUD ever got involved in TC? Would it be because TUD is not happy with TC's viability as a commercial deposit?