RE:RE:FROM SEA'S Q1 REPORT RE: MTTCSK, I disagree with your statement. You need to read Seabridge's report with a lawyer's eye. It does state that the LoO is still valid, subsequent to the Tudor challenge. However, it does not state that KSM has construction permits for the MTT on Tudor lands. This is what they state:
KSMCo "holds a number of permits required for the MTT including a Mines Act permit M-245 (“M-245”) covering a
portion of the MTT construction;"
The highlight is mine. They have some permits but not all, only a portion covering the MTT. This is the point of the dispute. They must still satisify the terms of the LoO to receive the final construction permits for the entire length of the MTT. In other words, they must still satisfy the rights holders, namely Tudor, Teuton and AMK.
cskhurasu wrote: Obviously, SEA's latest disclosure indicates they think they do not need the permission of TUD to construct the MTT and TUD cannot interfere with its construction on TUD claims.