GS, I too don't care who transports the ore, but it seems that...

GS, I too don't care who transports the ore, but it seems that BHP will do it for quite a price (again according to that article I posted). BHP is more convenient because the line runs on Marillana and there should be less cost because no trucking 35km or spur line required. However, whatever deal YML strike up, it needs to look at the life of the mine rather than just for 5 or 10 years. I still believe that the best option needs to be determined once there is more clarity about the amount of mineralisation in Marillana - so 2nd quarter next year is the most likely date for releasing a decision. If a spur line costs $80million for construction - that is less than $1 per tonne of ore resource if there is 100MT. Will FMG transport YML's ore for at least $1 per tonne less than BHP? If they are prepared to do it - then the spur line is looking a good option. If Marillana has more than 100MT, then the FMG option (if cheaper transport rate) starts looking more attractive. I still believe FMG would also be quite keen to get YML on board with a spur line because of the benefits for transporting ore from their tenement adjoining Marillana. I don't know what Abuman has heard, so can't comment whether the BHP access is considered a done deal.

A rail agreement will boost the share price, as will an upgrade of resources beyond the 100MT or a deal with a Chinese steel mill. Orlando G has been putting forward figures which show the significant upside that exists with YML, so the next couple of years are going to be pretty interesting.

BTW, yesterday I attended a presentation by Chris Richardson of Access Economics - he's predicting 2008 is going to be a huge year based on the strength of iron ore and coal income. All good for YML I believe.