Tudor Gold sues B.C. over Seabridge mine tunnel dispute

[Redator]

Tudor Gold (CVE: TUD) has filed a lawsuit against the Canadian province of British Columbia, alleging it allowed rival Seabridge Gold (TSE: SEA)(NYSE: SA) to tunnel through its mineral claims in the Golden Triangle, a resource-rich region stretching 500 kilometres from Stewart toward Yukon and Alaska.

The case, launched in the Supreme Court of B.C. on October 3, challenges the legality of a conditional mineral reserve connected to Seabridge’s Kerr–Sulphurets–Mitchell (KSM) copper, gold, silver and molybdenum project. 

The reserve prevents Tudor, which owns the neighbouring Treaty Creek property, from obstructing or interfering with construction or operation of the Mitchell Treaty Tunnels (MTT) — two proposed 23-kilometre tunnels linking the east and west sides of the KSM site.

British Columbia renews Seabridge’s KSM licence of occupation for 20 years

The Vancouver-based miner alleges the province’s Chief Gold Commissioner (CGC) reversed an earlier promise to safeguard its mineral rights. About 12.5 kilometres of the planned tunnels would cross through Tudor’s Treaty Creek claims. The company has battled the issue for nearly a decade, after the commissioner rejected its request to rescind the conditional mineral reserve protecting Seabridge’s tunnelling rights.

The KSM project is one of the world’s largest undeveloped gold deposits and also holds significant silver, copper and molybdenum resources. The mine is expected to operate for 33 years. Tudor and its partners, meanwhile, have explored the adjacent Goldstorm deposit, which is also rich in copper, gold and silver, since the early 2010s.

Compensation sought

In its lawsuit, Tudor asks the court to declare the reserve invalid or beyond the province’s authority. Failing that, the company seeks compensation for expropriation or damages for misrepresentation. This action is separate from an earlier appeal Tudor filed against a decision by CGC Donna Myketa, which Seabridge disclosed on July 14.

Tudor’s claim cites a 2012 provincial statement indicating the reserve did not apply to the Treaty Creek claims. A 2014 amendment, however, extended the reserve’s scope to include existing claimholders. Seabridge argues Tudor had ample time to challenge the change but did not do so after acquiring its interest in 2016. The company also contends Tudor’s arguments about property rights contradict the Mineral Tenure Act.

Seabridge wins round #1 of tussle with Tudor over KSM licence

Seabridge said in a statement it is confident the province has acted within the law and that “authorizations for the (tunnel) are appropriate and reliable.” Chair and CEO Rudi Fronk said the claim is the latest in a series of lawsuits Tudor has filed to oppose the tunnel and noted that “in every instance, the B.C. government has reconfirmed our approvals.”

“If Tudor were to be successful in certain of its claims, it could have consequences for the KSM project,” Fronk said. “While this action proceeds, we will continue advancing our current plans for the benefit of shareholders, local communities and the First Nations who have strongly supported our progress.”