"just guessing ,the recent moves to expand production from the...

"just guessing ,the recent moves to expand production from the majors is about marginalised profit against risng costs."

Do you mean that as iron ore prices fall, (and thus cause profits to fall, all other things remaining the same, which they rarely do) that they need to increase supply of iron ore to get a corresponding saving in fixed costs (i.e. spread the fixed costs more thinly over a bigger volume of product supplied? e.g. get more throughput out of the railway and get better capacity utilisation generally e.g. out of the railway wagons? If so then we seem to be in a cycle where a fall in the iron ore price requires a supply increase: I always thought supply was supposed to contract as prices fell. Thanks in advance for any help you can give on that one. Yes, I understand the big 3 operating in the Pilbara need to keep they profits static or, ideally if possible, growing. But increasing the supply for ever more in the absence of corresponding demand growth will cause further falls in the iron ore price - they can't escape the problem of some or all of them having to take a hit to their profits at some point. Are you saying the problem is they are all fighting to decide who should take the hit to their profits? They are all fighting to supply more while hoping others will cut back? That sort of puts Andrew Forrest's behaviour in context?