RE:RE:RE:Rick Rule and his unflattering opinion of Seabridge 42:45 Tudor used the strongest of language when they said.. '..including if it is required an action for damages for a statutory taking.'
Specific Sea posters have tried to act like the Letter of Occupation changes nothing and don't make a fuss about it. No problem that SEA had the LoO before the government posted it, no big deal if a tunnel goes through TC because they can explore from surface and get the minerals.
Above is evidence that their mood has changed significantly lately.. statements that are a far cry from recently writing and then 'apologizing' for spreading rumors that TUD drills had stopped and assays couldn't be paid for... btw, not talking about you hiper, but others.
My recollection is that initially SEA asserted that TC was barren of mineralization, which we now see is not true. Many 'lies of ommission' by SEA in their past filings by not stating that permits do NOT exist for the TC portion of the tunnel.
Of note, What happened to the Joint Venture promised by SEA before Q1/2024?
I believe the SEA shareholders are alarmed, with efforts being made to put TUD/AMK/TUO in the shadows while putting SEA in the best of light.
btw, the recent change in tone and TUD critiques is convincing to me that even the strongest of SEA proponents now recognizes the merits of TUD/AMK/TUO holdings.
Good luck to most!