Ann: Iron Ore Scoping Study Update, page-14

"Anyone thought of the effect to CAP or HAV if either project gets up and running first given there is '10Mtpa - 12Mtpa spare capacity' on this rail, so not enough for the two of them?"


Yes, I did a few weeks back. If there were enough strategic passing loops you could get to 20 Mtpa (See Post #: 38011816). So both HAV and CAP can share the rail: 10 Mtpa each.

Assuming SIMEC/HAV go the rail route.

In the ASX release this week, it said "investigations into both rail and slurry pipelines to transport concentrate from the mine site to Whyalla are being carried out".

For the benefits of a 25 Mtpa slurry pipeline from the Braemar region (along with other answers to questions some people on this forum might have re: water and energy), take a look at this Magnetite Mines Question and Answer document from 5 January 2016.

http://magnetitemines.com/images/downloads/attachments/QuestionsandAnswersontheMawsonIronProject.pdf

The GFG Group in Australia manufactures steel pipeline.

Deloittes in a November 2013 Regional Mining and Infrastructure Planning document said a slurry pipeline could be potentially scalable to 50 Mtpa. That report was prepared for the South Australian Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

https://dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/asset...for_the_Yorke_and_Mid_NorthBraemar_region.pdf

Cheers

These are only my random thoughts and it does not constitute investment advice. Before acting on any information you read and before making any financial or investment decisions, you should always consult your advisor(s) or other relevant professional experts.