Tudor Gold Corp V.TUD

Point made JS…AI answer to CSK claim

[fordster]

Based on recent developments, Seabridge Gold Inc. is not currently allowed to construct the Mitchell Treaty Tunnel (MTT) through Tudor Gold’s mineral claims. Here are the key points:

1. Mineral Tenure Rights:

   • Tudor Gold Corp. maintains its prior mineral tenure rights as the owner of the claims in question.
   • The Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Low Carbon Innovation (EMLCI) has clarified that any future applications by Seabridge Gold Inc. to construct the MTT Tunnel route shall be considered subject to Tudor Gold’s prior mineral tenure rights.
   • The Ministry’s position is that any decision regarding the MTT Tunnel route must take into account Tudor Gold’s rights granted by the License of Occupation (LOO) and mineral claims1.

2. Seabridge’s Authorization:

   • Seabridge Gold Inc. cannot currently proceed with constructing the MTT Tunnels.
   • If Seabridge applies for construction within the MTT Area that overlaps Tudor’s mineral claims, the Ministry of EMLCI will assess the impacts on Tudor’s claims and seek mitigation where possible.
   • The best resolution is for Tudor and Seabridge to reach a private agreement1.

3. Tudor’s Stance:

   • Tudor Gold Corp. is determined to protect its newly discovered resource and prevent Seabridge Gold from compromising it for MTT tunnel access.
   • The License of Occupation granted to Seabridge is expressly subject to Tudor Gold’s prior rights1.

In summary, Seabridge Gold Inc. currently faces limitations in constructing the MTT Tunnels due to Tudor Gold’s prior mineral tenure rights and the Ministry’s position1.

[Jetstream1281]

Also reality is the fact that they can't even apply for a permit without finishing the geotech drilling first....until that happens, there is no permit and therefore no tunnel.

[Jetstream1281]

I'm not opposed to SEA having success....but I'm 100% opposed to them achieving it at the expense of my investment in TC.

[Larry60]

Fordy, I appreciate that you are at lest pulling stuff from TUD's spin on the wast of time and money debacle from the summer trying to negate the MTT. It did not happen, But TUD felt the need to put out an NR of their views as well as their spin on a "converation" they had with someone at the ministry by phone AFTER TUD's motion/application was denied. I think this excerpt from

[CobraShelby]

Actually Larry it is SEA who started this with their new on :  Published November 20, 2023 Tudor Reply was fast  : same day a couple hours after  Nov 20, 2023 Look like ecery one read his own interpretation of these 2 documents. [url=https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:297dde90-4083-4f39-9d54-9f9c1e16efad]Ministry of Energy[/url] [url=https://acrobat.adobe.com

[CobraShelby]

Link was wrong  Actually Larry it is SEA who started this with their new on :  Published November 20, 2023 Tudor Reply was fast  : same day a couple hours after  Nov 20, 2023 Look like ecery one read his own interpretation of these 2 documents. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:297dde90-4083-4f39-9d54-9f9c1e16efad https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid

[fordster]

Simply put, it's not as CSK has been claiming. No, it's not going through without a huge battle and then if it did go through, fine: Seabridge has to pay for the sterilization of our claim. So tell me Larry. If it's a "sure thing", then why must Seabridge do all this drilling and hand it over to Tudor for analysis?: because there must be a comprehensive knowledge BEFORE this

[CobraShelby]

Calm Down Fordster. We will have a deal before them , don't forget who his leading the charge here to us . You keep arguing for no reason with them  Have a good weekend 

[TeckPro]

Correct! All this individual has done is to perpetuate posting inaccurate and hypothetical information regarding our investment in TUD.  Even though I have been called "CRAZY" by this SEA pumper (which is defamatory), SH had chosen to allow this behavior regardless of the fact I reported these insulting comments. NOTED!!!!! Please be guided accordingly! TP

[CobraShelby]

Hello TPro agree 100 % you are not Crazy, you stand up on false statement.    My journey on AMK 2008 /Tud 2016 investment as started in 2008 and I have seen it all . By replying to them, since they will never change their mind and they will keep raising inaccuracy fact  is giving them too much importance and vision on this board , but I am glad some do.   Last post from

[TeckPro]

Hey Cobra, thanks for the support! I agree with everything that you have said and didn't realize you have been invested for such a long time. The reason I still visit this thread is to get accurate, relevant information regarding my investment in TUD. Posters such as yourself have been a valuable source since I've only been an investor since 2020. Thanks again, cheers! 

[cskhurasu]

TUD's exploration claim and rights thereunder will not be sterilized by the MTT. You can explore from surface all you want and SEA can't interfere with that. But you have no other rights. You have what you have. And SEA has greater and superseding rights to construct the MTT because it has reserves and an EAC..  Larry60 has a point. SEA would not have its market cap if its entire

[Jetstream1281]

The greater, prior, and superseding rights are TUD's mineral tenure....SEA cannot even apply for a permit before completing Geotechnical drilling....and if they do, TUD's PRIOR mineral tenure .... including a high grade deposit....will quash that in an awful hurry....