accc merger concerns, page-2

Hi Speves,

You have put forward a good common sense theory as to why BHP should accept third parties onto its rail, as a competitive gesture to assist in the BHP/Rio merger, as have several posters previously. I also agree that is what a rational BHP should look at doing....whether they will or not remains to be seen. I am on the record for saying I would like it from an economic point or view. From a strategic point of view the imperative is less clear.

FMG is more closely aligned strategically and a FMG/BRM tie up would be a significant third force in Iron Ore. Not forgetting the forthcoming Hancock rail third party possibility too, as Westcott rightly reminds us. I guess the reason we have not spoken of the Hancock rail option much is that the rail line was not definite until recently..and WR has not said much about Hancock either. However we should all bear in mind that Hancock and Stand Alone rail are options BRM could potentially take.

Just an aside, does anyone know if the Hancock rail is one of the four rail options being assessed in the DFS?

I grow more impressed with the NWIOA as a collective negotiating body the more I see of it. Initially I thought it had the potential to splinter, but it seems to be staying the course, and impressively so. I'm sure we all with them luck as we turn into a critical 3 months or so on rail. I think the NWIOA is be best way to play rail discussions with BHP for BRM.