Kruiser.I m a bit puzzled . From the parliament documents, it...

Kruiser.

I m a bit puzzled . From the parliament documents, it appears that the stage 1 option, export through Freo, was still alive even after the knock back of the container solution.

A presentation by Cazaly on 28/6 also makes mention of the stage 1 export option.

What happens next is mistyfying.
On 26/9 Cazaly announces an extention of the DD period
On 28/9 A presentation by Clive jones doesn t make mention of the stage 1 period as export option and
On 30/9 The Annual Report does not make mention either of the Stage 1 export option.

If Stage 1 is not an option anymore, it leaves us with stage the 2 export option through Esperance.

End of June. the WA parliament discussed the Esperance port allocation.

Judge by yourself

"There is a need to expand the port of Esperance, which has traditionally been an iron ore port. There is an
opportunity for two stages of development—about 10 million tonnes per stage. The government has been
negotiating with private sector players to do that upgrade. The upgrade is shrouded in secrecy and is without any
public due process. I am not alleging corruption; I would say, though, that the method that has been used is a
recipe for corruption in the future. There are some concerning things with respect to the way Esperance port has
developed. As I say, press releases initially disclosed that the government was working with one company on the
future upgrades of Esperance port. The company would build the port upgrades and get its investment back from
other users of those upgraded port facilities. It would get an allocation for half of the first 10 million tonnes and
half for the second million tonnes—so with five million tonnes in each upgrade it would end up with 10 million
tonnes in total. I am not aware of any due process in the selection of the company. Interestingly, in more recent
press releases, the government refers to it as “an undisclosed third party” that it is dealing with, but the view
around the traps is that it is still the same company that we know was the original proponent. When an issue
arose recently about exporting iron ore through Fremantle harbour, Cazaly Resources proposed to export through
Esperance. It was saying it could do it within a year. The only problem with that is, to talk to anyone, the very
earliest we are going to see an upgrade of the Esperance port will not be until at least 2013.
The greatest concern that I have with respect to Esperance port is the issue about the allocation of this additional
20 million tonne capacity. I recently asked a question in this house to the minister representing the Minister for
Transport about who had been given an allocation for export as a result of this upgrade. The answer was that
nobody had been given an allocation, which I found quite surprising, because when I did a bit of a search on the
web I found that at least three companies had made reports to various stock exchanges around the world to say
that they have entered into agreements with the state government for an allocation and were working on the
finalisation of that arrangement.


( http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web/newwebparl.nsf/iframewebpages/hansard+-+daily+transcripts )


Curious to see how Nathan will tackle these hurdles.

Cheers

R.