I'm not expert in mining law (not even close), but in searching a bit, I never saw the kind of staking made by KWG on a huge imaginary line likely to hold a route. Was the intention to mine those claims, or to collect a potential non-mining fee? Intention seems to be taken into account in reading the following decision... GLTA. BaBe

Hoov had a great comment on this issue. See here.

Apparently, KWG's lead lawyer representing their case against Cliff's easement application in front of the mining commissioner, helped write parts of the Far North Act and I remember talk that KWG had a "written opinion" supporting their position.

KWG's intent was never to collect a potential non-mining fee. There is much evidence starting almost 3 years ago to the contrary; owning part of BD and being obligated to find a way to make it marketable to earn the last 5% of the total 30%, the $15M RR feasibility study, the application for short RR operator, the request for a tax opinion from the CRA, the application for PPP funding, the samples being tested, purchase of aggregate rights, etc.

I think it would be fair to say that the approx. 6,300 KWG shareholders are holding their breath?

The famous quote of the day:

“We’re not the big, bad mining company that comes in here and rolls people over…we have to earn our right to grow.”

Joseph Carrabba, May 1, 2012, Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business luncheon in Thunder Bay, full article here tbnewswatch.com