Tudor Gold Corp V.TUD

RE:Point made JS…AI answer to CSK claim

[Larry60]

Fordy, I appreciate that you are at lest pulling stuff from TUD's spin on the wast of time and money debacle from the summer trying to negate the MTT. It did not happen,

But TUD felt the need to put out an NR of their views as well as their spin on a "converation" they had with someone at the ministry by phone AFTER TUD's motion/application was denied.

I think this excerpt from TUDs release says it all:

I clarified yesterday, should Seabridge apply for construction of some or all the Mitchell Treaty Tunnel that overlaps within Tudors mineral claims, EMLI will inform Tudor and as part of the review process and will look to understand the impacts to Tudors mineral claims and will seek to mitigate those impacts where possible. It will then be up to the Statutory Decision Maker to weigh the totality of the information when deciding on whether to authorize that additional work under M-245.  

It remains our recommendation that the best pathway to resolving this issue is for Tudor and Seabridge to come to a private agreement.

What the above exchange ignores, it that the true test is demonstrate an economic interests.  There are always mineral rights.  But those rights alone will get you nothing.


Mr market says SEA $2.5 Billion and TUD $220 million.  I think that speaks volumes to the argument that SEA will be shut down.

fordster wrote:

Based on recent developments, Seabridge Gold Inc. is not currently allowed to construct the Mitchell Treaty Tunnel (MTT) through Tudor Gold’s mineral claims. Here are the key points:

1. Mineral Tenure Rights:

   • Tudor Gold Corp. maintains its prior mineral tenure rights as the owner of the claims in question.
   • The Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Low Carbon Innovation (EMLCI) has clarified that any future applications by Seabridge Gold Inc. to construct the MTT Tunnel route shall be considered subject to Tudor Gold’s prior mineral tenure rights.
   • The Ministry’s position is that any decision regarding the MTT Tunnel route must take into account Tudor Gold’s rights granted by the License of Occupation (LOO) and mineral claims1.

2. Seabridge’s Authorization:

   • Seabridge Gold Inc. cannot currently proceed with constructing the MTT Tunnels.
   • If Seabridge applies for construction within the MTT Area that overlaps Tudor’s mineral claims, the Ministry of EMLCI will assess the impacts on Tudor’s claims and seek mitigation where possible.
   • The best resolution is for Tudor and Seabridge to reach a private agreement1.

3. Tudor’s Stance:

   • Tudor Gold Corp. is determined to protect its newly discovered resource and prevent Seabridge Gold from compromising it for MTT tunnel access.
   • The License of Occupation granted to Seabridge is expressly subject to Tudor Gold’s prior rights1.

In summary, Seabridge Gold Inc. currently faces limitations in constructing the MTT Tunnels due to Tudor Gold’s prior mineral tenure rights and the Ministry’s position1.