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. Under most circumstances an easement can be granted across claims without impeding the claim holder's use, but not here. Another reason is a claim holder has preference when allocating rights to aggregate on claims. As we know, aggregate can be quite valuable, and, again, is distributed along the narrow esker only.

If the claims were or are 'illegal' or not compliant with current laws, then the Govt or another party should have objected some time ago.

Any other company can negotiate either to purchase those particular claims, to come to an agreement regarding the transport corridor, or takeover the company. CLF did make an offer, which was rejected. They chose not to raise their bid.

The Govt can take charge of the isssue by making plans to build either road or rail along there, and will have no problem, since this would be in the public interest, which overrides any other rights.

This last would be best for all companies in the ROF, including NOT, since this would provide the shortest and most cost effective transport means for all. Perhaps a light duty service road, followed by rail?