Wishing, I would have thought the same.

However, I guess the point of view of timeliness of decision-making is not unimportant. With the Neskatanga involved, this could definitely have dragged out much longer. While that would be detrimental for Cliffs, it would have also been detrimental for KWG, although perhaps slightly less so?

I also feel that even though the Neskatanga stake in the process now seems to have been valued as not relevant, I can't help but think that for the rest of the decision-making, there will be enhanced background awareness by the Tribunal/Commission that this decision affects local stakeholders as well as just corporate entities. One can hope that helps in a small way?

Really, I think we're all in the dark here. I feel that the final decision will somehow be one of compromise, imposed upon all parties by the Commission. But I don't even understand the entire argument. Is Cliffs seeking an easement along the entire length of the claims? Because if so, I feel that would be difficult to support in light of KWG's alleged desire to construct a railway along the same route. However, if Cliffs is only seeking easement in a specific location (perhaps in crossing the line of claims to be able to gain access to Black Thor), then I feel that KWG is fighting a useless fight. After all, it's not hard to build a crossing at a railway.

I need to find the time to read all the documentation to understand more fully what the dispute entails. I just haven't had time because of pressures at work with a seasonal job. I'm essentially off-the-grid for four months every summer. If anyone else has done so and can provide a detailed summary of the exact areas of contention in a few paragraphs, I'd really appreciate it.