Seabridge Gold’s KSM consultation risk widens as Gitxsan government withdraws 2013 support letter

Seabridge Gold Inc. (NYSE: SA; TSX: SEA) faces a fresh stakeholder complication at its giant KSM gold-copper project in British Columbia after the Gitxsan Huwilp Government withdrew a support letter dating back to 2013 and called for meaningful consultation with neighbouring Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha. The withdrawal does not itself cancel KSM’s approvals or determine the outcome of the provincial review, but it raises the political and consultation stakes around a project into which Seabridge says more than C$1.4 billion has already been invested.

The immediate issue stems from a June 8, 2026 British Columbia Supreme Court decision concerning the province’s 2024 determination that KSM had been “substantially started.” The court found that the provincial Crown had not adequately fulfilled its consultation obligations toward Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha and sent the matter back for reconsideration following further consultation. The current process gives Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha until September 28 to make written submissions addressing whether KSM had in fact reached the substantial-start threshold.

The distinction is commercially important because substantial-start status determines whether an environmental assessment certificate that would otherwise face an expiry deadline remains valid for the life of the project. For a development as large and capital intensive as KSM, uncertainty around that determination affects more than legal procedure: it can influence permitting visibility, potential joint-venture discussions, financing assumptions and the timing at which additional construction commitments are made.

Why did the Gitxsan Huwilp Government withdraw its support for KSM?

The Gitxsan Huwilp Government told the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office and other parties that it wanted Seabridge Gold and the provincial government to engage collaboratively and meaningfully with Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha during the court-ordered consultation process. To underline that position, it withdrew its September 4, 2013 support letter for KSM, with its co-chairs subsequently indicating that the withdrawal would remain in place until they saw what they considered proper treatment of Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha.

That is different from announcing outright opposition to the mine. The Gitxsan action is tied specifically to consultation and the treatment of another Indigenous group, while Seabridge said it remained committed to addressing the concerns raised and described its relationship with the Gitxsan Huwilp Government as respectful. The company also said Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha had indicated that it was not opposed to development as a principle and remained willing to engage with Seabridge.

The dispute nevertheless illustrates how Indigenous consultation can remain material even after a project has completed an environmental assessment and attracted large amounts of pre-construction capital. KSM received environmental approval years ago, but the substantial-start determination created a separate consultation obligation because it carried important consequences for the longevity of that approval.

What is Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha seeking from the current KSM process?

According to Seabridge, Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha has focused current concerns on KSM’s proposed tailings management facility. The company argues that the facility was considered during the earlier environmental assessment and says further consultation over its technical design would occur through future permitting processes, while Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha has challenged whether consultation around the project and its territorial implications has been sufficient.

The underlying legal decision is therefore more significant than a disagreement over a single construction feature. Legal analysis of the June ruling notes that the province’s consultation obligations can evolve when evidence concerning Indigenous rights or territorial claims changes over the long life of a major project. That creates an important precedent for proponents of projects that spend years or decades moving from environmental assessment through engineering, permitting and financing.

Seabridge also operates within a complex landscape of overlapping Indigenous interests. The company has agreements with the Nisga’a Nation and Tahltan Nation and says businesses affiliated with Indigenous communities have received approximately C$515 million of KSM contracts over the past four years. At the same time, competing or overlapping territorial assertions mean one set of agreements does not automatically resolve consultation questions involving another group.

How much is at stake for Seabridge Gold at the KSM project?

KSM is not a peripheral exploration asset. Seabridge describes the British Columbia development as its principal project, and the court record characterizes it as one of the world’s largest undeveloped gold and copper projects. The development concept includes open-pit and underground mining and significant supporting infrastructure, while Seabridge has continued spending on roads, camps, site preparation, transmission infrastructure and technical work.

The company says cumulative investment has now exceeded C$1.4 billion, including more than C$650 million since 2021. That expenditure helps explain why the “substantially started” determination carries such weight: the legal question is effectively whether the work already completed was sufficient to preserve the environmental certificate beyond its original statutory timetable.

Seabridge is also seeking a joint-venture partner for KSM, meaning regulatory certainty can have direct implications for transaction negotiations. A prospective partner evaluating a multibillion-dollar mine must assess not only resource quality and commodity prices but also whether existing approvals remain durable, what additional consultation may be required and whether permitting schedules could change.

The Gitxsan Huwilp Government’s withdrawal of a 13-year-old support letter therefore should not be overstated as a project cancellation, but neither is it merely symbolic. It broadens the stakeholder pressure surrounding a consultation process that already has legal consequences and places greater attention on the September 28 submission deadline and the provincial government’s subsequent reconsideration.

For Seabridge Gold, the key issue is now whether additional consultation can resolve the procedural deficiencies identified by the court without materially altering KSM’s development pathway. With more than C$1.4 billion invested and a potential joint-venture process tied to the project’s future, the next regulatory decision carries significantly more financial weight than the administrative language of a “substantial-start” review might suggest.