Mr Bloor says "Basically, the Divisional Court ruled that the owner of mining claims has a right to explore those claims, but does not have surface rights to use the surface for any purpose or block others from using the surface for legitimate purposes. Clearly, that decision was a serious setback for advancing the project. The Divisional Court decision removes that barrier to the development of a comprehensive infrastructure plan."

However, the owner of a mining claim does have first priority in the granting of those same surface rights, unless the other party's proposed use is in the public interest.

No evidence was brought in the original hearing to show the use proposed by CLF was in the public interest, as noted by the Commissioner in the ruling. An appeal can only be granted if a misinterpretation of the law is shown, and no further evidence may be considered. The question of whether CLF's project is in the public interest therefore should not enter into a decision on granting an appeal.

Further, evidence was brought showing that CLF's proposed heavy duty road would not leave room for KWG's proposed railway on the esker, and would run directly over the line surveyed by KWG for their project. While the holder of a claim may not have the right to block others from using the surface for legitimate purposes, even more strongly another party does not have the right to block a claim holder from using the surface of their own claims for legitimate purposes. The point is that while CLF could use part of the claims for their road, after paying for that, they cannot build their road along the exact line KWG wants to use for a rail or a pipeline unless they pay somewhat more as compensation.

By this ruling it seems any party can build any transport infrastructure they want to along the line of KWG's claims, but must pay KWG for that. By existing legislation, such use cannot block KWG from using the surface of their own claims for any purpose, including transport infrastructure. Whichever way I look at it, I believe KWG's transport proposals have priority over other's use of any particular part of their claims, except if such use is shown to be in the public interest. No such public intertest has been proven.

If CLF still wants to build that road, they have to jump through a few hoops including paying KWG, getting the Minister to rule their proposal is in the public interest, which would mean they'd be required to allow others to use the road, and an environmental assessment must be done.

First Nations want a road because trucks and cars driving freely to their communities seems better than any railway which would not go directly to their locations. Such a road is most likely going to follow NOT's proposed northerly east-west route first, but this would leave a couple of locations still isolated. Ms Wynne visited Marten Falls recently, and I am sure their wish for a road was discussed, and likely is under consideration at least. I'm not sure, but does KWG's suggested southern east-west road go via Marten Falls? If so, it is very likely to get some action soon. If this road is approved, along with the more northerly road, a large part of the public interest argument for the CLF north-south road falls away.

We could end up with two east-west roads and a north-south pipeline. This would be the cheapest and fastest solution to transport in the general area. A pipeline would have a light duty service road alongside, and could be located to allow for a later railline to be built, or CLF's road if they get the cash to build after all the problems they have had.

All of the above is solely in my personal opinion, which could be mistaken.