This document is worth a re-look - it lays out understandings...

This document is worth a re-look - it lays out understandings under which rail was granted to to antecedent companies that are now BHP Billiton & Rio Tinto
It is also obvious why these two companies are bleating on about their supposed capacity constraints -the relevant parts are below.

As I said it's time Barnett grew some gonads on this issue. If not he raises the risk of a major investment, jobs exports an royalties to evaporate - the "business as usual" stance on BHP will not match the benefits of BRM using its rail.

I further suggest that any evidence BHP presents about capacity has to be questioned how "independent & accurate" it is. I suggest the government or some truly independent go in & to a rigorous analysis of BHPs modeling. Well that's my "Pollyanna" view what should happen.


http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/praic_public_consultation_issues_paper_june2008f.pdf

State Agreements and the Pilbara Railways
Prior to the four original Pilbara iron ore projects being established, each producer
committed to an agreement with the State Government known as a State Agreement.

These enabled:
The lease of State land to the mining company for all mining operations, townships,
railway corridors and port facilities.
The construction of mining and processing infrastructure, railways and ports by the
mining company.
The mining of iron ore by the mining company and the subsequent payment of
royalties at a concessional rate to the State.
Agreement by the State that it will not resume the leased land whilst the mining
companys operations continue.
The State to retain ownership of the fixed infrastructure (i.e. the mine facilities,
railways, ports and townships, at the termination of the State Agreement).
The provision of access to third parties. The early State Agreements incorporated
haulage of iron ore, non-iron ore product and passengers, however more recent State Agreements, such as the The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd (TPI) State Agreement, have included track access provisions as detailed in the Railways
(Access) Code 2000.

Each producer has entered into a new State Agreement at the beginning of each new mining project, which has allowed the extension of any rail line from their new operations to connect with the existing lines. As previously mentioned, these agreements were intended to facilitate third party access, so long as this did not unduly prejudice or interfere with the producers operations. It was envisaged that haulage would be based on a user-pays principle, with the third party also required to pay for any expansion to the railway required to haul their iron ore.

Currently, both BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto (and their affiliates and joint venture companies) are covered by State Agreements that prescribe the provision of haulage
services to third parties. BHP Billitons Rail Transport Agreement (RTA) has been utilised by the PRAIC as the starting point for the Regime, with State Agreement
provisions being maintained where possible. However, the more recent TPI State Agreement prescribes the provision of track access to third parties; a significant
divergence from the previous State Agreements.