Tudor Gold Corp V.TUD

Tunnel Truth

[cskhurasu]

The ability of this site to confuse the truth is amazing. Let's try this one more time.

1. Several months ago Tudor filed an application with the BC regulators to cancel certain approvals SEA has in place to build the MTT. These permits give SEA the authorization to construct tunnel portals on TUD claims.
2. SEA opposed their application.
3. The regulators responded that the approvals granted to SEA were valid and rejected the request by Tudor to cancel them.
4. The regulators also confirmed that any future authorizations must continue to take into account rights held by third parties such, as their original approvals did. SEA's release confirmed this point.
5. Tudor only holds surface exploration rights. TUD does not hold any mining rights.
6. The authorizations granted to SEA do not interfere with TUD’s exploration rights which is why they were granted.
7. If TUD actually held a Mining Permit (vs an exploration permit), the MTT could impact TUD’s ability to mine and the regulators would have to consider TUD’s mining plans.
8. To get a Mining Permit, Tudor needs to complete the environmental assessment and then apply. This is likely an 8-10 year process, assuming TUD can develop an economic and environmentally viable design.

This will be decided by the regulators in due time. Until then, you can say whatever you want.

[fordster]

Let me bullet point the facts for you CSK: Seabridge does not have a permit to construct the MTT Tunnels. Seabridge does not have a right of way for the MTT Tunnels and Seabridge has never applied for a right of way for the MTT Tunnels. The Licence of Occupation that Seabridge Gold Inc. does have is expressly "subject to the prior mineral rights held by Tudor". Now quit

[Jetstream1281]

This post is a little ironic as it twists the ACTUAL truth... TUD owns not just mineral rights but a mineral TITLE....this is a subsurface right, to explore, not just a surface right.  As such, any tunnel application cannot interfere with TUD's right to explore. In order to actually produce the material they would need a mining permit but to say that they have no subsurface rights is

[fordster]

Hey...JS, reread Seabridges recent notice...it seems it's a lot of words that mean nothing, as you dissect it out. Does the title actual tell the truth: but went over everyone's head? I'm not familiar with your lingo.

[Jetstream1281]

Surface rights are a given with property ownership... For example, if they want to build a subway tunnel under my house, I can't stop them from doing that, I can only stop them from coming onto my property to do it. But if I have the subsurface exploration rights and someone wanted to build a tunnel under my house, I could block that by saying that would interfere with my right to explore

[Jetstream1281]

As far as SEA notice, it tells the truth ina  way, just not the whole truth....It is true that they still have the LOO....had they lost that they'd have absolutely NOTHING. But what it does is it infers that they have some sort of right to build a tunnel....which is simply not true. They have a LOO which they can act on provided it doesn't interfere with TUD's right to explore

[Jetstream1281]

I would say the only way that the government would move in SEA favor was if TUD had no plans to explore the area but still opposed the tunnel....given that they are actively exploring that area, SEA is SOL without their cooperation...The government has basically said....sort it out yourselves...and Ken promptly stated his position....They will oppose any move by SEA that compromises their mineral

[Larry60]

Well said. Credit where credit is due.