It was quite interesing to read the discussions/debates on the above on the NOT board. Posters are experienced folks and the back-and-forth is educational. Since this involves more KWG than NOT it should be made available here, but with my own opinions mixed in. For the original excahnges, see NOT board.

First, in case you have not read KWG MD&A, pages 4-5 give a good summary of CCC activities. Most of the stuff is there with the exception of the AG granted a 30-minute appearance at the June Appeal hearing, and CCC has served notice to seek leave to challenge the AG appearance.

Here is my understanding of the situation:

- The claims: There was talk about some internal objection within the MNR when the CCC claims were applied, but in the end the applications were granted. Hence the claims are legal. There should be no speculation if there were internal disputes, or questions raised, within the MNR. If they were not legal then why the claims were granted, and why nobody, especially the MMND (the MNR already issued the permits), brought up this point at the Commissioner's hearing on CLF easement application? In fact, the Commissioner was wondering, out loud, in her ruling about the lack of appearance from the government at the hearing.

- If the AG wants to intervene at the hearing then it could be viewed as (a) it's too late to intervene, or (b) trying to introduce NEW evidence (which is not permitted at this Appeal hearing). This could be the main argument of KWG team in their objection to the AG appearance in June.

- The case at hand: It's CLF Appeal to the Commisioner's decision not to grant CLF easement application on the same esker corridor for it's own "private road" to take the ore out from its proposed BT mine. This is at the detriment of KWG business cases for BD and BH and other companies in the RoF. The easement application was thrown out mainly because of this non- public component of CLF road. So, the Appeal should focused on the question if the Commisioner has erred in making her judgment not to grant the easement. In my opinion, her judgement was fair and based on facts presented to her at the hearing. The Court of Appeal will look at the available evidence (no new evidence) to adjudicate.

- Speculation: If the Appeal Court decided that the Commissioner erred in making her decision and awarded the easement to CLF based on the new information (interpretation of the laws or what-not) without looking at the entire picture then I would say the decision of the Appeal Court would be subject to challenge to higher courts. The entire picture includes the business case for KWG, compensation, CLF current financial status to afford a $3.3B projects that would required matching funds of $600M from the Ont Gov (rumour says the previous Premier has promissed the matching funds and subsidies) and hefty subsidy over manny years for the electricity to running the electric arc furnace. CLF is also faced with internal turmoil, shareholders are demanding CLF to sell off non-US holdings (including those related to the RoF, in fact CLF has decided to postpone the BT project indefinitely). In addition, CLF is facing at least 3 class-action suits for mis-management of the company's funds (allegation: Management blew $8B). If KWG business case were torpedoed by CLF easement application and appeal then CLF should be prepared for another court case, for loss of opportunity and damage caused, from KWG.

MOre speculation: Appeal Court would rule that CLF Appeal has no merit, and CLF would have to pay all court costs and time spent for the case to CCC/KWG. Hopefully, this would deter CLF form going further all the way to the Suppreme Court. There may be some surprise though. CLF may drop the Appeal all together to simplify its many law suits and ask KWG for forgiveness. One less law suit is better than one more.

Before Casablanca intervention, and when CLF financial status were much better, CLF could have solved this KWG thorn on the side by initiate a TO for the rest of KWG (the other 86%). But, now it's too late, the company is broke, and faced with several class-action cases and the demand from its shareholders for a change of management and BoD. Crystal ball says: CLF would have a whole-sale change management and BoD soon. New manegement would try to repair the damages to its image and financial positions by divesting most of its holdings to please its shareholders (holding off the class- actions?).

Does anybody, the Appeal Court, the current government, the new goverment on 12 June, want to wade in this mess by giving a favourable, or an appearance of a favourable, treatment to a foreign company, which is financially broke (perhaps, it could not even have enough money to build its proposed private trucking road), over a Canadian company that has a promising game plan? Answer: Nobody.

Just my opinion folks.

goldhunter