RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Interesting SEA interview w Rudi (Independent Specululator)Dude, I can't help you if you don't read the publically available documents. It has been pointed out to you many times where to find the materials. Do your own DD.
The validty of the LoO was upheld in a court challenge, giving Seabridge certain rights to the MTT. However, they must still meet the conditions of the LoO in order to receive the construction permits. One of these conditions is that they must satisfy the rights holders of the third party claims, namely, Tudor/Teuton/AMK.
Think of it as a type of eminent domain. If the government decides they are building or expanding a road, and they need your property to do so, they will use eminent domain. However, because you have property rights, they must still compensate you. The amount is what can be negotiated.
The affected owner will do everything they can to maximize the value of the property, and thus, the resulting compensation. The government side will push for something less onerous. This is a similar situation to what is happening at Treaty Creek.
Tudor et. al. are doing whatever they can to demonstrate the value of the property that will be steralized by the MTT. The bigger and more economic a deposit they can demonstrate, the greater the compensation they can argue for in any negotiation and, ultimately, receive. It is a matter of fairness under the laws of British Columbia and Canada.
In my opinion, Seabridge made a major mistake in not securing a deal between 2010 and 2014. Likely because KSM has always been a marginal project, and thus the MTT negotiation wasn't a priorty. Why spend the money on a MTT route when you don't know if the project will actually go forward? Given that the MTT was critical, they should have secured compensation terms that allowed them to pay at a later date. In this manner, the uncertainty would have been removed.
cskhurasu wrote: I don't understand how you think TUD is owed compensation for the MTT through TC. If this is true, the SEA board is guilty of a major failure to disclose a material fact. If it is not true, the TUD board has failed to disclose SEA's premptive rights to its shareholders. You are betting on TUD when all the disclosure has come from the much larger and more professional SEA with a prominent board and legal team? A vey risky proposition rockport1.