I'm actually looking to top up by some 120,000 in the course of...

I'm actually looking to top up by some 120,000 in the course of the month. The lower the price goes the better.

At circa $2.10 the WNI scrip is in effect valued at about 3.2cents AUD. As much as I loathe Wah Nam's tactics assuming control of BRM, I'm pragamatic and will consider Wah Nam's shares. I have made a judgement that WNI share won't drop to that level and that there is sufficient liquidity through HK if I need to sell. I imagine that WNI has manipulated their own shares down to this level, so expect that there will be some upturn if a takeover eventuates.

I will continue to hold until forced takeover thus strengthening the reject numbers, but I won't be overly concerned with receiving Wah Nam shares, as I genuinely believe they will rise. So, I'm in win-win situation in my own mind - hold out for a better offer, but if it doesn't come, at least I see some upside with Wah Nam. I'm not letting my dislike of Wah Nam impede my investment decisions. In time this decision may be viewed as foolish, but I'm prepared to risk it.

It appears Wah Nam are on the ball with rail, so that in itself if resolved should be a positive to their share price. Seems FMG could end up with a railway that no-one else wants to use as they may have priced themselves out of the market. Taken from the AGO thread:

Brockman Resources saga fills infrastructure gaps

by: Matthew Stevens
From:The Australian
December 16, 201112:00AM

WAH Nam's attempt to complete its plucky two-step move on Brockman Resources has inadvertently thrown some light on the changed conversation the Pilbara's iron ore juniors are having over access to life-sustaining rail and port infrastructure.

While former Brockman chairman Barry Cussack continues to rail, rightly enough, about the way a Hong Kong limo operator poached his business, the new Wah Nam-appointed management has promptly set about redirecting the miner's efforts to engineer the rail access it needs to translate the Marillana iron ore project from dust and rock to deposit and income.

The story goes that, until quite recently, Brockman had been wedded to an access negotiation with iron ore's third force, Fortescue Metals.

As things stand, after a hiatus triggered by the change of control at Brockman, the discussions with Fortescue continue but without any great expectations of success.

Meanwhile, Brockman's new boss, ex Teck man Howard Chu, is said to have joined a far broader conversation about rail and port access.

At least five others have joined this confidential multilateral discussion. They include the state government, Gina Rinehart's prospective mine-rail-port operator, Roy Hill Infrastructure, the national rail and logistics competitors, QR National and Asciano, and the rapidly expanding iron ore producer Atlas Iron.

We are told that Brockman and Atlas are talking to each other about integrated options but continue to represent their own commercial interests in engagement with other parties.

Now, there is some subtlety to appreciate in that advice.

It would seem that, so far, the pair have eschewed the most logical vehicle through which they might pursue a fully integrated solution to the juniors' problems, an independent little beast called North West Infrastructure.

It is a joint venture company owned by Brockman, Atlas and its new wholly owned subsidiary FerrAus, and NWI's mission is to construct 50 million tonnes per annum of iron ore export port capacity within the bounds of Port Hedland's South West Creek.

There are plans for eight capesize berths along the South West Creek. NWI has been allocated two and its neighbour will be Hancock Prospecting's Roy Hill Infrastructure, which also has two berths. Fortescue has one and three have yet to be allocated.

The $7bn Hancock plan is to link a 55mtpa iron ore mine at distant Roy Hill to the Port Hedland berths by building its own 342km rail link.

For our purposes there are three things to appreciate about the Hancock railway.

First, its path would take it directly past Brockman's Marillana and near enough to Atlas's second generation development around what it calls the Turner Hub. Second, the new system could sustain shipments considerably greater than 55mtpa without interrupting the owner's efficiencies. And third, the state agreement that secures Hancock's rail path is unequivocal that the proposed link must carry third party ore.

The state agreement ensures that access will be umpired by either the state regulator acting under the rules of the state rail access regime, or by the ACCC courtesy voluntary access undertakings that satisfy the national regulator.

So it would seem quite natural that separately and together Brockman and Atlas should be talking to Rinehart and her people about how they might fit into the planning for Roy Hill.

In making our calls yesterday we were urged to "take it for granted that someone who needs rail access is going to look at every way to get his ore to market, to talk to people who already own a railway, to people who have started building one, to people who want to build one and to other people who need one built as badly as they do".

Apparently, everyone is "certainly correct" in anticipating that an integrated multi-party solution would create the most value accross the whole system.

But that might mean one or other of the potential partners to this discussion has to surrender value -- and that might well not be acceptable to the directors and shareholders involved.

Some insight into the options under consideration was provided yesterday by Brockman in its target statement recommending the Wah Nam second-bite offer for the company.

Brockman confirmed that its discussions had branched beyond the Fortescue option, that it was holding "confidential discussions" with existing and proposed infrastructure owners" and that it had drafted a term sheet for the Department of State Development that "sets out the principals by which Brockman would gain the necessary land tenure for a rail corridor from a loop on the Marillana site to the port at Port Hedland".

"The rail option is being examined and will involve an independent third party," Brockman confirmed.

My understanding is that both QR National and Asciano are talking to Brockman about this option and that others (Qube Logistics perhaps?) might be interested in joining that queue.

Both the big names are also talking to Atlas and it would seem sensible for them to have made a call or two to Hancock as well. After all, all the way through Roy Hill's approval process, Hancock has made it quite clear that third party haulage is very much on the agenda.

What's more, it is understood that the state government in particular is keen on any idea that introduces a third-party operator to any new Pilbara logistics system and has been active in promoting the QR cause in particular.

Now you might think that the problems of a couple of little iron ore wannabes should not matter that much to the rest of us. But it's worth noting that Pilbara's infrastructure generates more national revenue than any other in this country and that just six months of the revenue it sucks in from China, Korea, Japan and Taiwan is worth a lifetime's output from WA's southern mining capital, Kalgoorlie.

This stuff matters to all of us.