Yeah SW, its always puzzled me as to how they would negotiate...

Yeah SW, its always puzzled me as to how they would negotiate this sort of deal.

Essentially there are three construction (capex) components to Buckland -
1) Mine
2) Roads
3) Port

BCI can't conceivably fund all (or, imo, any single) component of this themselves so a JV or farm-in would be the way to go. As I've said before, the farm-in has worked for AV before and its clearly the way he/they will want to go with Sinosteel. The split up of this will be the interesting part.

The mine and port COULD be farmed out wholly, essentially identical to the current MIN deal with IV, with royalty payments. However the 'private' haul roads could be the potential issue (or roadblock - pardon the pun!). It will be interesting to see if Sinosteel are prepared to spend potentially up to $200m on roads for a mine gate access agreement....., particularly if, in time, someone like MIN comes along with their BOSS system and proves it to be a winner, and makes the roads redundant.

I also think BCI would want control of the port, as they would want to ensure access for salt (Mardi) and any other bulk commodity that may come along requiring port access. Maybe even some Beyondie Potash from Kalium, or some Carnegie JV Potash down the track.... I'd imagine that an accessible port with a few spare million tonnes of capacity in northern WA would have no problems negotiating a deal for access. So maybe a EPC agreement for the port with an ongoing royalty per tonne of throughput, with BCI as managers (?) may be the way to go. Regular future revenue for both the EPC contractor/developer and BCI?

All speculation of course, but what else can we do atm....

It will be fascinating to see how it unfolds. The great news is, as of today the plan for Buckland has now, finally, taken another big step forward, albeit that it's a non-binding MOU. Clearly, its better than nothing.....