I agree pretty much with Luker's view of the way things went, except the disagreement arose from CLF wanting to use precisely the route surveyed by KWG for rail, even down to using their engineering studies and soil samples, and also making a very low take -it-or-leave-it offer as compensation for the right of way.

As presented by CLF during the hearing into their application, they intended to leave no space on the high ground for any others to build a railway at a later date. A rail line takes more space than a service road, which could fit through the narrow spots alongside the surveyed route.

CLF has at least one 'private' road in the US for ore hauling and supposedly allowed others to use it, but there was litigation & complaints about their attitude to such other users who felt CLF gave lipservice only to the concept of 'sharing', I believe. Can't find the article about that, but remember reading it several years ago when CLF appeared in the ROF. If my memory is correct, then even if they did say they'd share, I'd doubt their sincerity.

CLF did originally want a rail link, and even suggested their preferred engineering company, Kierk Oegard, to do the needed studies. KWG paid $15million for this, and probably KWG thought this would be a shared cost with their 'partner' CLF.

An east-west road might be begun soon, perhaps with an ice road this winter.