RHammer, hi. Your arguments haven't convinced me, I'm afraid. What the law allows isn't the same as what is practical.

"One good reason to stake those claims is the fact that a claim holder has first right to surface rights, which is important when the available corridor is so narrow as to allow only one heavy duty transport utility, whether rail or ore transport road."

Regardless of legislation, in this case actual conditions on the ground are the important factor. Legislation certainly allows "rights of way sufficient to house both types of access concurrently." but in order to do this, one such right of way will occupy the high dry ground of the narrow esker, and the other must be forced onto the lower swampy ground in many places.

As was disclosed at the hearing, CLF intended to run their road along the exact line of the boreholes made at KWG expense to test conditions for the proposed railway. The holes also tested mineral content, especially for signs of possible diamond deposits, but that is not relevant with regard to the right of way argument.

No linear mining claim is required in order to obtain a licence to exploit aggregate, certainly, but if you have claims in an area, you, the claim holder, have priority when allocating rights to that aggregate.

If in fact complaints were made internally within the Ministry of Natural Resources at the time the claims were staked, either those objections were overruled or found to be invalid, or the claims would not have been granted.

Of course, as was disclosed in the hearing, CLF did make an offer for the claims in question. But then we know CLF has made some questionable business decisions.

It is useful to know relevant legislation, but also the actual conditions on the ground can be fairly significant. Both will shape the course of events.

I hope public interest will be the deciding factor, and certainly not the interest of one company over others.