In comparing the way you have, looking only at cost/mtpa creates...

In comparing the way you have, looking only at cost/mtpa creates a slightly flawed argument there Ozzie. You are talking specifically about the resource that is mined from the ground but such capital works programs also include railway upgrades and port facility capacity increases. These assets can be as important if not more important than the resources that are mined. When you consider the likes of Flinders, Brockman and Atlas all chasing access to the TPI (FMG infrastructure arm), it could offer significant upside to FMG revenues (price tag of $576M pa has been quoted in order for Brockman to access the rail and port). Furthermore, infrastructure is key to growth in shipped product and therefore EPS for the shareholders. The TPI assets will be around a lot longer than 8 years and allow significantly more upside in potential third party access, cost reduction in ore production and shipped tonnage than acquiring 5mtpa from Flinders. Anyway, I know you were just throwing it out there but FMG are far from brain dead in growing to be the 4th global player in the space of 10 years.