The company, in my opinion, has never been entirely clear on the access issue.  Even now after acquiring additional claims, ostensibly for bolstering access, the truth remains unclear. 

The quote and like below presume that the approvals of the new claims are not required to enter negotiations with interested parties.  That is likely a fact.  The real question is, how many interested parties would conclude a deal without proof of access being available first? 

The below is extracted from Leapfrog's posting at https://agoracom.com/ir/libertystar/forums/discussion/topics/749667-deal-no-deal/messages/2289666#message  To me, this sounds like BG talking to BG, especially as the MEPs have not been granted.  That may not stop "negotiations", but you would not hear about that formally, at least not until a deal is signed most likely after the MEPs are approved (should that happen), which is a departure from what is suggested below.

No matter, substantive news will come when it will come - next week, next year, later?  I will not hold my breath. 

"Regarding the necessity of these MEPs for access, the more correct way to view them is necessary to assure access under all possible future contingencies."  ...    "Likewise, they are not necessary to continue discussions with any prospective venture partners; rather, removing any question of access security puts to rest one more potential question that may arise during such discussions. The new MEPs give us certainty, security, flexibility, mobility and options."