Re: Hamersley and BHP joint operations (was Re: Hamersley and NCC)

[Ian Harvey <ian_harvey@do.not.spam.me>]

See the post that started this thread.  The access question was between
Robe River (a North subsidiary) and Hamersley (Rio Tinto subsidiary).
Robe wanted access to Hamersley's track.  BHP and Hancock were just
interested parties from the sideline.  

Also, from what I've read in the papers the court case was about whether
the NCC had any say in the matter in the first place.  As the court
decision was that the NCC had no say the NCC did not release its
position on the matter - we may never know whether the NCC was for or
against the access.  

Geoff Lambert wrote:
> 
> John Cleverdon <johnc@cdi.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Rio Tinto took BHP to the Federal Court to try and force the issue of
> BHP providing access to BHP tracks for Rio Tinto's trains for a new
> Rio Tinto development.  In this action, they were backed by Alan Fels
> and the Consumer and Competition Commission (correct name?), on the
> grounds of "open access".
> 
> At any event, last Monday morning the Federal Court ruled against this
> claim.
> 
> There was some speculation by media analysts after the event that the
> cooperation might occur anyway, but given the level of aggro.
> involved, most people seemed to think that Rio Tinto will just have to
> build their own separate parallel railway, said to cost several
> hundred million $$, and to carry, I think,  29 million tonnes per year
> for about 10 years.
> 
> Geoff Lambert

-- 
IanH
Comments and questions welcome at ian_harvey at bigpond dot com
However, do _not_ send me unsolicited commercial email.