Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clark Kent who wrote (78080)	11/22/2023 10:46:59 AM
From: stuffbug	Respond to of 78403

Your post omitted one of the key paragraphs near the beginning of the press release: As I clarified yesterday, should Seabridge apply for construction of some or all the Mitchell Treaty Tunnel that overlaps within Tudors mineral claims, EMLI will inform Tudor and as part of the review process and will look to understand the impacts to Tudors mineral claims and will seek to mitigate those impacts where possible. It will then be up to the Statutory Decision Maker to weigh the totality of the information when deciding on whether to authorize that additional work under M-245. A similar process would be undertaken should Tudor apply for additional works within their mineral claims that overlap the authorized work in M-245 within Seabridge's License of Occupation area. It remains our recommendation that the best pathway to resolving this issue is for Tudor and Seabridge to come to a private agreement. Statutory Decision Maker would have the final say in any dispute. In an EMLCI showdown, I wouldn't be very comfortable if I were in Tudor Gold's shoes. Seabridge owned the License of Occupation prior to Tudor's acquisition of the mineral rights. Management failed to review publicly available information.