Seabridge Gold Inc T.SEA

Quote from Rudi in 2020

[Paw556]

“We’ll continue on with our plans and if they do find something I’m sure we’ll be good neighbors, we’ll sit down and see what could be done in terms of perhaps moving the tunnel route if needed,” Fronk said.
https://www.terracestandard.com/news/seabridge-gold-starts-drilling-along-proposed-tunnel-route-north-of-stewart-6049419

That seems a very reasonable attitude. What went wrong?

[fordster]

It's just been a fake sales pitch thus far. It doesn't give Seabridge much credibility.

[cskhurasu]

It seems to me that the source of the apparent conflict between TUD and SEA is that they have different views on what how far TUD has to go to prove the economic value of TC. SEA sees TC as an early stage exploration project while people on the TUD BB are calling it a mine as if it has reserves and permitted mine plans.  The TC limitations Rudi has mentioned in his interview are the

[fordster]

As stated, CSK: Tudor is coming. Your new attitude has your pendulum swinging the other way now. You should probably advise Rudi to knock off the God Father attitude and start showing public cooperation. The truth is, there's no room for the MTT. What will Seabridge do then? You let us worry about how feasible things are

[curtis111]

Well Ken Konkin seems to be very impressed and he has actually put a mine into production.  Where in the Land Act Part 5 Section 50 does it state a mine plan or any other regulatory approvals need to be in place for them to apply. Some outstanding case law maybe? Please point me in the right direction? Actually, take a look in CanLII and find me a decision that would support anything you

[MarcusA]

Spot on, Curtis! They come up with conditionals without any footing in the Law. Sec. 50 just refers to minerals and that even implies minerals "that may be found". Tud certainly meets that criterion and does not have to prove anything beyond that in order to make Sec. 50 apply. But, as you say, they are free to give as a judicial tutorial...