I can't believe I would ever say something like this, but I kind of agree with
@treefellerI'm not saying that this is a bad announcement, but the wording should be considered.
In case it helps anyone, whilst this agreement say it is binding, it is not clear what is binding between the parties.
"
Hawsons ... has signed a legally binding Agreement with Flinders Ports .. to co-operate on the potential development and operation of a greenfield port at Myponie Point ..."
So if the only thing that is legally binding that they will co-operate with each other? If so, how is that different to a Memorandum of Understanding?
Does it mean that Flinders Port will incur expenses to consider the design and cost options for different ports and a scale up? Does it bind Hawsons to reimburse Flinders Ports for those costs if Hawsons does not sign a user agreement with one or two years? Does it preclude Hawsons from using any other port options (Whyalla, Playford, Pirie) as a start up option if its cheaper?
A little bit more information on what is binding may have given this announcement a bit more substance in my opinion. If there is nothing binding other than cooperation, how is it different to a Memorandum of Understanding? Therefore, it makes me think that there must be some details that have been left out.
On the positive, it is good that Flinders Ports are not saying its 20Mtpa or we are not building a port and they are willing to consider scale up options and whilst HIO might pay more in operational costs, there will be less in the way of upfront capital.
(20min delay)