ANKETELL is a location on the Pilbara coast few Western Australians could pinpoint.
ANKETELL is a location on the Pilbara coast few Western Australians could pinpoint.
Even the reason for its name is difficult to find. It is most likely in recognition of a surveyor-general in the early Swan colony rather than the WWII officer after which at least one South Perth street is named.
Nestled near Rio Tinto’s iron ore export facility at Cape Lambert near the township of Wickham, Anketell could well become as big a port as Dampier or Port Hedland if the mining boom continues at its current pace.
The big question is just who will develop this asset and, as a consequence, control it?
As an export-oriented state, ports are the major interface between WA and the outside world. While railways are also important in the transmission of minerals to the manufacturers of Asia, geography makes harbours harder to replicate.
A real measure of influence, therefore, lies in who has control of allocating the berths and the timetable required to deliver them.
On the government side of things this is relatively easy. Premier Colin Barnett, as state development minister, is critical for the biggest of these projects. In fact, he has made the development of the port of Oakajee a major issue for his government.
Transport Minister Troy Buswell is another key player. Although recently appointed after a period in the political sin bin, Mr Buswell is known
to be willing to throw his weight around and has already taken a high-profile stance in denying Cazaly Resources access to Fremantle to export its ore.
Given the nature of ports, particularly the greenfield and brownfield expansion required in WA, Environmental Protection Authority chairman Paul Vogel is also very important in these developments.
Up at Anketell, the positioning for a major battle is already taking place.
Aquila has been stating the case for its API joint venture with South Korea’s Posco and US-based AMCI to become the preferred proponent for a multi-user port, which could be under construction as early as next year. API wants to be able to export up to 40 million tonnes per annum from Anketell from a stage one development that could manage 50-60mtpa.
Also understood to be pitching to develop the port is Fortescue Metals Group, which is already a major exporter from Port Hedland where it has the right to treble annual throughput from its 2010 financial year volume of 39mt.
FMG is fast increasing its output and already expanding its capacity at Port Hedland from around 55mtpa to 95mtpa. After that, a further 25mtpa capacity is possible at a fourth berth in the South West Creek area around the corner from FMG’s existing facilities.
With so much going on at Port Hedland, Aquila seems bemused as to why its rival needs to be directly involved in the Anketell project beyond its current commitment.
Aquila’s concern is that a change of plan could hold up the first stage of the port development, which it needs to get exporting. Observers suggest that delays to developing the first stage would hurt Aquila and other smaller users more than FMG, which already has its export capacity sorted for the next few years.
API, FMG and another player, China Metallurgical Group Corporation, have all been involved in a state government steering group to develop the port.
Sources at FMG, though, claim they simply want to see the port developed properly in order that its expansion to a possible 350mtpa may be undertaken as cheaply and efficiently as possible when required.
FMG believes the issues surrounding Port Hedland, where there have been ongoing battles to get berth space in a facility dominated by BHP, have highlighted the need to get the Anketell development right from the beginning.
This issue looks a little like a rerun of the efforts to develop the Oakajee port near Geraldton.
Mid West miner Murchison Metals teamed up with Japanese partner Mitsubishi to win preferred proponent status for the multi-user port, which also has state government investment.
That development has become mired in controversy as Chinese-backed rivals have sought to gain some form of influence the port after missing out the first time around.
Again, the cost and timing of the development is seen to be the big issue as other local miners seek to limit the downside of using another miner’s export facility.
They have pointed to delays in the development, the high cost of Murchison’s magnetite project and question marks over the willingness of Mitsubishi to participate as reasons for a new approach – one that includes equity for Chinese investors who are the most likely recipients of the ore to be shipped.
Port constraints for miners and others exist all around the state.
BHP has outlined a plan for an enormous expansion of Port Hedland by developing the outer harbour, which would double the facility’s ultimate capacity to nearly 900mtpa.
This giant development was something it sought to avoid by proposing to go into a joint venture with Rio Tinto in the Pilbara in order to use the region’s more easily tapped port expansion at Cape Lambert.
Governments around the world put an end to that JV possibility.
While not a port in the traditional sense, the James Price Point LNG export facility proposed north of Broome has some of the same issues surrounding it as Oakajee and Anketell.
Both Woodside Petroleum and the state government want the location developed as a hub for the Browse gas development, but others involved in that field are not so sure. BHP is one player known to want to bring the gas south by pipeline to use existing export facilities in which it already has a stake.
In that development the role of the local indigenous people, conservationist groups and celebrity opponents has added to the complexity of the commercial rivalries and state development opportunities.
Nevertheless, it is clear that having preferred proponent status is a strategic advantage for Woodside.
In the southern half of the state, the size of the developments may not have the same headline numbers but they remain equally fraught with difficulties, as companies vie for control or access to make or break export facilities.
The latest was the announcement by the state that Mineral Resources would be able to export 4.4mtpa of iron ore from Fremantle Harbour’s Kwinana bulk export wharf. The Indian-owned Griffin coalmines will also be able to export from this facility.
That gazumped Cazaly, which, in turn, announced it was looking at Fremantle as an option – before that too was quashed by the government.
One of the interesting aspects of this is its link to another major port development fracas, that of the expansion of the Cockburn Sound, or Fremantle’s outer harbour.
As Fremantle’s main harbour in the mouth of the Swan River reaches capacity, there is significant need to develop a bigger port at the industrial area of Kwinana.
However, that is costly and the state has already given the green light to a private consortium, James Point Pty Ltd, to develop a $400 million bulk commodities port in the area.
More than 10 years after winning a state tender to build the facility, James Point has been frustrated by the slow pace of the development.
The area is seen as critical for importing building materials such as clinker, for making cement, and exporting a range of commodities such as grain, coal and bauxite.
It is also viewed as the ideal place to locate a new container facility to replace the existing operations at North Quay in Fremantle.
