RE:L6 first posting in stockhouseKawwwwllll,
Thank you for remembering that post! I stand by every word. Not to mention TUD was at $1.25 then in a deep bear market. Where is it now in the recent BULL market of a liftetime? Down another 33%! And it went down significantly after that event I was refencing. Maybe it was all because of my post???? So funny.
Im still not bothered by the tunnel.....no way can it go through heart of TC resource......at leas tno without $$$$$$. What bothered me then, and now, is the way in which TUD has been handling it..................
Just like it bothers me how the"head of capital markets" gave that wonky paid for interivew on CT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How have we performed since then?????????? like deja vu.........all over again!!!!!
BTW, it was not my first post on SH............it was myu 5th!!!!!
karlschranz wrote: Always remember it :-) Post by
Larry60on Jul 19, 2023 2:35pm 
330 Views
Post# 35548450
Good Questions
A little taken aback by squable with SEA. Its an old issue so should nto be a surprise that it exists. But, expectation was that it was being worked out between friendly neighbours. Clearly it is not. It does make me worry. Not sky is falling worry, but negative nontheless: 1) How did we find out about this court proceeding? SEA press released it Monday morning with a very detailed explanation. And a very confident tone. Did not hear anything from TUD until Tueday afternoon, almost a day and a half later, and it was very limited in tone. SEA release: https://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item/Z-C!SEA-3433589/C/SEA 2) Was risk disclosed in last weeks Prospectus (as a poster asked) or elsewhere? There is NO specific reference to it. In the AIF, they list generic risks that may apply to it e.g. Title, regulation etc., but do not specifically mention the tunnel as a problem..They do talk about Seabridge's "plans" for a tunnel in the property history section in AIF, but do not refer to it as a right nor as an issue for TUD. Pretty crazy that TUD was concerned enough to take legal action YET DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS CONCERN AND IT WAS ONLY SEA PRESS RELEASE THAT GOT THE NEWS OUT THERE (and forced TUD to put a NR) 3) Did TUD know about the tunnel licence granted 10 years ago? YES. It is a matter of public matter and AMK and TUO were part of the proceeding under which it was granted. I knew of this issue when TUD was at .25 but given low valuation of $20M and prospects, was not too concerned. At a $300M valuation, it is of concern. I ASSUMED IT WAS UNDER CONTROL IN A FRIENDLY MANNER AS TUD HAS BEEN QUIET ON IT. Ken Konkin is a great Geo. I have full confidence in him building out the resource. But who is running this? Where is the board? What kind of legal counsel do they have that we hear about the actions TUD initiated from SEA? As I said at begining, sky is not falling but this is VERY disturbing.