the other side of the coin- to repeat note in apr

the other side of the coin- to repeat
note in april 2009 price was still only 60

and cwrn was saying they could make a profit at 45,which was close to their total costs in 2011,except 1st ship may have been more expensive because of libya war fuel surcharge

this year a mex ebitda royalty of 7.5% took effect, raising costs

WA- western australia in the article

australia imposed a 30% export tax may 2012,which should've hurt australia's proximity advantage- certainly hurt fortescue

but when price fell to an 18 month low of 87.50 couple years ago cwrn waited for price to rise as it did -to 140 by end of that year

now w price under 80 we can assume cwrn has been waiting for price to rise again -thus no apparent ships despite current inventory-was ca 110 in feb or mar when cwrn would've finished permit audits for this year- but not likely to rise much above 100 w the big three's strategy to flood the market to eliminate competitors- if china doesnt subsidize its mines- 50% would have to close-if the big 3 cant make up the supply difference price could rise until chinas more long term solutions

in the meantime, considering long range forecasts, long term solutions would logically be sought, like beneficiation advertised in Apr 2012 PR, fertilizer options, including an onsite plant publicly discussed by cwrn 2011-2012,
pelletization, similar to a fertilizer plant, and trucking of aggregate to the CEMEX Ensenada plant, which cwrn did in 2011-2012

so one or more of these options is likely in the planning stages-

plus get that shiploading station! to bypass port problems and ca 70000 ton actual ore ship port limitations (due to draft) so the larger capesize ships noted by navials website and their lower per ton ship costs can be utilized!