I'm sure many on the WGO forum would much prefer to talk about...

I'm sure many on the WGO forum would much prefer to talk about WGO then BCI, but since you make false remarks, such as "low grade left overs." I have to correct them like I did in my last post. You've got yourself all worked up for some unknown reason after that post of mine,(I was trying to be nice), and feel you have to correct (sic) my errors. OK, I'll take your post line by line.

"the BCI iron ore is grade 57% for starters and 54% long term"

54%Fe is for the CID. 57%Fe is for their DSO/reserves. At the moment BCI is exporting 57.6%Fe with a LOI figure of 12.15%. Post sintering figure for the blast furnace is 65.5% CaFe "AS I QUOTED." I'll do a calculation for you.

1000Kg minus 121.5Kg LOI (Carbonates and Crystallized Water burnt off during sintering) = 878.5Kg

576Kg(Iron content) divided by 878.5Kg = 65.57% CaFe. (Blast furnace feed)

All resources will have a total iron content on average. These resources will usually have clay sections that need to be seperated from the mesa. After these clay sections and/or low grade iron sections are seperated you're left with a JORC compliant DSO number. So for BCI, their average resource is 54%Fe and their grade that they decide to use was 57%Fe. Miners can raise or lower their DSO Fe figure, as long as for fines producers to is above 62% CaFe, which is the Asian mill cut-off at the moment. BCI could if they so wanted to drop their DSO figure to 55% Fe. And it would still give the Asian mills a post sintering 62% CaFe + furnace feed. BCI CANNOT have a 54% long term export figure even if it wanted to, because Asian mills wouldn't except it.

"as for MY's knowledge/experience with BCI to get infrastructure into place, what did he do?"

You tell me. You seem to be the one who knows all about Mike. Otherwise you won't write as much. Or was it just a 'vibe' on your behalf. I did give you a couple of reasons in my last post. But they seem to have been largely ignored by yourself, so I don't know what good it would do by me further expanding on these examples.

"did MY not give FMG 50% of the project to use FMG's railway?"

Yes he did. I take it you think that was a bad idea (only guessing because you didn't give an opinion). One of the best things Mike ever did. It's frustrating that I need to stick up for Mike in doing that deal. Because, to be frank, you have absolutely no idea why Mike did or didn't do that deal. I could give you paragraphs on why he did that deal, but I have better things to do with my time. Read some old BCI posts where the subject is discussed if you could be bothered in learning why he made that decision. But I will say, NO major in the Pilbara, including FMG wants to give anyone third party rail access. It's critical that any mine gets rail. It's a tribute that Mike got it. Without infrustructure, you've just got a pile of dirt in the Pilbara.

"are not BCI still trucking ore?"

What, do you really think on any mine that they load ore straight onto a train? FMG, RIO and BHP ALL truck their ore to the reclaimer at the railhead. Yes, BCI trucks further then some others, but SO WHAT. BCI's opex figure at the moment is $40t. That's the only figure you need to worry about. BCI trucking or whatever is a red herring, it all goes into the opex cost. $40t is one of the lowest in the Pilbara.

"fill me in on the real facts when you get a chance"

I did. I SAID 65.5% CaFe in my first post. You came back giving me a 57% Fe figure for DSO/Reserves. Before you start being condescending to me ... how about you check some REAL FACTS yourself. BCI at the moment is exporting 57.6% Fe and not 57% Fe. 57% Fe is just a number used for JORC.

"WGO will probably not try to jump onto the SDL railway so it looks like MY's "give away 50% of the project" method is not applicable to WGO"

Mike, Terry or whoever would make the best decision for that companies circumstances at that time. It has NOTHING to do with Mike's decision in the Pilbara for BCI. All companies are different and a savvy operator makes decisions accordingly. I'm really battling to answer this one, because it's a strange statement to make.