RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Repost from Zorg on Tuo BBI posted somewhere here last week that I think Seabridge should pay $50-$100 million for another (Northern) route that would be a win for both sides. However, I took another look at the routing, and I'm not so sure where they can re-route.
Going South of the Treaty Creek glacier valley, an MTT runs into Eureka, plus somewhere the tunnel needs to cross the valley. I don't think the topography makes an efficient tunnel possible. The existing MTT has a relatively flat (horizontal) profile, with just a gentle slope. A Southern route probably cannot duplicate this. I would expect that the eventual Goldstorm mining facilities would also need to be located in this area, making a route here untenable.
Going North seems to make more sense. The major identified zone that is GR2, plus a few smaller showings. I also think that keeping an elevation profile similar to the existing MTT is more doable. The biggest issues I see with this route are 1) a longer route that is more of a semi-circle vs the current slow curve; and 2) no easily designed safety access adits. The existing route made this possible as they just go sideways out the side of the mountain. Going North, the adits would also have to go out North. Is this possible?
North, the TC3 must agree to sterilize some potential (unknown) resources along the route. It will run close to the Kyba Red Line, but it might be the sacrifice they have to concede to. In any case it is likely to be quite costly for Seabridge, even a Northern route is viable.
I would hope the government doesn't bid out the MTT route. Seabridge with its advanced project and deeper pockets would have a massive advantage.
stockzorg wrote: Quite correct rockport1. When I first did a valuation of TC my feeling was that the MTT route documented in the LoO had significant value to the owners of TC. I estimated it was worth 1% of KSM capital cost ($5B at that time) or $50 million because changing it later would probably add that much cost to the project.
My expectation back then was SEA would pursue and obtain the remaining permits allowing it to construct the entire MTT. For some reason that didn't happen.
When SEA disclosed the 40 hole drill program along the MTT route I felt they would go down to the tunnel depth only and would not find anything of note. But when they dropped it I began to suspect that a surprise had occurred.
Whatever the reason, the court finding that SEA still has access to the MTT route is because the LoA has not yet expired. In 4 months that changes.
After September SEA can ask the government for some radical eminent domain or expropriation action to strip the existing MTT route from the owners and just give it to SEA. However that carries a huge risk that the government could just strip the entire KSM project along with the MTT route and sell the package to the highest bidder to get things moving. They would have to be pretty fed up with SEA management to do that. Maybe they are.