geologist or mining engineer help please, page-35

The slurry pipeline put out there by Pelm is a curveball worthy of consideration. Environmental concerns with Fortescue River Valley would be a big issue. Charmichael’s have said an elevated track (30km) might be required and thus a buried slurry pipeline may be even more preferable. FMG have a tenement that borders Marillana and they may have ambitions that would involve sharing the spur line/slurry pipe line cost.

Another curve ball worth consideration is whether or not FMG will use BRM to further its BHP access agenda. FMG may choose to only consider a rail request from BRM once it has been rejected by BHP. It would be a very good test case that FMG could use to good effect on competition and environmental grounds. Even more so if BRM is forced to go West via UMC's proposed spur line (110km)to hook up to FMG's line. One can only imagine the headlines FMG would help newspapers write if BHP refuses BRM access despite its mine being metres away from BHP's track. WR's past connection with BHP and FMG will obviously be a factor in how this curve ball is played out (if at all).

The WA Government has completed a draft access regime and made it available to some stakeholders for comment on a confidential basis. I would be very surprised if BRM does not have a copy. BHP is in an unenviable position. On the one hand it doesn’t want to grant access. On the other hand it must appear to be behaving in accordance with general principals of access. It has big picture strategic issues to protect re the RIO acquisition (that FMG has indicated it will oppose on competition grounds) and FMG’s persistence in seeking to have its trains run on BHP lines. Carting some ore on behalf of BRM may be a prudent way of getting FMG off its back somewhat by gaining the upper hand in the public debate. It would certainly make Ministers more amenable.

I do not accept BHP’s contention that it does not have rail capacity. Access principals require that capacity to be facilitated even if this means capital expenditure. To do otherwise would be a clear abuse of power by the owner of a natural monopoly asset. I would expect BRM would use FMG's port facilities.

I am pretty sure that BHP would prefer a State determined access regime over a declaration of service by the NCC. BHP must surely be under pressure to meet WA Ministerial expectations re access to juniors if this is to happen.

I know I am a maverick on this issue, but its also a personal interest I have related to my past work experience. I am honestly leaning 70/30 in favour of a BHP access agreement being reached. I am also fully invested in BRM and so you should attach caution to what I am saying.