kentcrek,
yep, three things happened.
1) the permit expired. APril 2014. And Tulco was on the old one.
2) SFRX was granted the rights to a new one without Tulco in a state court. March 2015
3) SFRX applied to a federal (district)court to get the admiralty claim. NO date is shown on that. It says "Currently filing", whatever that means.
Of course, some look at that and come to the conclusion of the permit expired and leave it at that, when that is #1 of 3 actual events. Oh, they are correct in what they say. It did expire. But that is an incomplete truth, and not the whole truth. It still is not an accurate picturew of where that site is at. It is much further along than just "expired".
They let the permit expire and then looked like they were moving on. But that blanked out areas came into play, and they started working on getting the permit back, but only in their name. It says all that in those three statements in the filing, although not in those exact words. that's where they are at. I'd sum it up as < Making progress, but still working with the district court to get what I would call "quiet title" so they have no issues if they find something of value on the site. > That is a LAND term, for property where someone might have a claim against a title, and I know is probably not the accurate term to be used here, but that's the only word "I" know to describe what they are doing.
Bottom line, it is moving forward, but needs to get final everything before they go down and bring up whatever is there. I personally think it will not happen in 2015, to get the district approval and the state permit. So I'm focused on site #3 for now. I think that is coming SOON.
Still, it's a lot more than JUST ""the permit expired".
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
