"...no private entity owns or controls any transportation route through mining claims, whether for their sole purpose or whether they are open to sharing it - it doesn't matter because they are mining claims"

Hi ANL: I do agree wholly with you on this!

My answer was kind of shallow on my side, I'm sorry... I just wanted to make sure that my 5-star friend Edgy was well aware of the fact that KWG's refusal to allow Cliffs to use the route claims for its own 100% mine was not driven in any way by despotic flairs.

KWG, in a move of pure self-defence, naturally refused the unfair proposal made by its "partner'. Hence, Cliffs brought them to court! Not the other way around.

I think everyone would safely say that mining claims cannot be used to appropriate a public or semi-public road bed... I dare to also think that no one would want to allow a private company to expropriate the same at the expense of its private partner for mercantile, mingy purposes...

As goldhunter11 points it out, KWG always had a plan to dispose of its route claims for the RoF development (ONTC, etc...)

GLTA.

(Before someone notices the norontless substance of our debate, let me argue that we are now entering a Ring-of-fire way of seeing things! KWG and Noront are to become more and more 'joined-at-the-hip' in the months to come, liking it or not...)