1. Transport Infrastructure challenges for bulk iron from the
Braemar Iron Formation.
The viewpoint of the Braemar Iron Alliance
SA Transport Infrastructure Conference, Adelaide
21 June 2011
Andrew Woskett, Spokesman for the Braemar Iron Alliance
Managing Director, Minotaur Exploration Ltd (ASX: MEP)

2. Cautionary Statements
This presentation has been prepared by the management of Minotaur Exploration Limited (MEP) on behalf of the Braemar Iron
Alliance, an unincorporated body, for the general benefit of analysts and industry and does not constitute specific advice to any
particular party or persons. Information herein is based on publicly available information, internally developed data and other sources.
Where an opinion, projection or forward looking statement is expressed in this presentation, it is based on the assumptions and
limitations mentioned herein and is an expression of present opinion only. No warranties or representations are made or implied as to
origin, validity, accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability of the information. MEP and Alliance members specifically disclaim and
exclude all liability (to the extent permitted by law) for losses, claims, damages, demands, costs and expenses of whatever nature
arising in any way out of or in connection with the information, its accuracy, completeness or by reason of reliance by any person on
any of it. Where MEP or the Alliance expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to the success of future exploration and the
economic viability of future project evaluations, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and is believed to have a
reasonable basis. However, such projected outcomes are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors which could cause actual
results to differ materially from projected future results. Such risks include, but are not limited to, exploration success, metal price
volatility, changes to current mineral resource estimates or targets, changes to assumptions for capital and operating costs as well as
political and operational risks and government regulatory outcomes. MEP and the Alliance disclaim any obligation to advise any
person if it or they become aware of any inaccuracy in or omission from any forecast or to update such forecast.
The following presentation is a visualisation of possible infrastructure solutions to
support potential future iron ore mine developments. Locations nominated for the
provision of infrastructure facilities are for illustration purposes only and should not be
considered viable technical, economic, environmental, social or State solutions for any
future requirements

3. Braemar Ironstones: The infrastructure challenge
1. The Braemar Iron Alliance: members and objectives
2. The Braemar Iron Formation: where, what and why it is Australia’s next big Iron province
3. Mining development scenarios
4. Transport Infrastructure challenges:
 Rail haulage of concentrates and lump ore
 Concentrate Slurry transfer
 Port capacity
 Freight cost penalty

4. The Braemar Iron Alliance
The Braemar Iron Alliance comprises: The Braemar Iron Alliance intends to:
Bonython Metals Group (private) Define and articulate the demand case to
Carpentaria Exploration (ASX: CAP) federal, state & local governments and
Havilah Resources (ASX: HAV) infrastructure investors for coordinated transport
Minotaur Exploration (ASX: MEP) and common user infrastructure to suit the
Royal Resources (ASX: RRL) needs of the iron ore mining industry along the
Sinosteel PepinNini JV (SPCM) Braemar Iron Formation

5. Braemar Ironstones: Australia’s next big Fe province
This presentation is based on a range of views held and assumptions made by members of the Braemar Iron Alliance, none of which
are yet supported by definitive feasibility studies into potential development of mineral resources.
The integrated, multi-user infrastructure facilities envisaged herein are hypothetical in nature and scope and there can be no level of
certainty that this or any concept may eventuate
The term "Exploration Target” used herein should not be misconstrued as an estimate of Mineral Resources and Reserves as defined by the JORC Code (2004),
and the term has not been used in that context. It is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource.
Refer Cl 18 of the JORC Code (2004).

6. Braemar Ironstones: who is involved?
Iron mineralisation stretches for over 200km from SW of Broken Hill to Peterborough in SA
The formation straddles the heavy duty E-W rail link to Port Pirie on Upper Spencer Gulf

7. Braemar Ironstones: the potential mining scale
Alliance members foresee potential for up to 50
billion tonnes of mineable magnetite ore to be
defined through exploration over the next decade
(‘Exploration Target’)
with scope for say 5 pits each mining 50 million
tonnes of ore p.a. and beneficiating around 10Mtpa
of concentrate each
for total annualised output of ~50Mtpa of blast
furnace quality magnetite concentrates grading 65%
- 70% Fe
and a foreseeable 100 year life of mining across the
Braemar ironstones

8. Braemar Ironstones: Transporting Concentrates & lump iron
product to Port
๏Rail:
• Main continental E-W standard gauge rail line runs right
through the Braemar Iron Formation
• Deposits are a 150km - 300km rail trip from Port Pirie
where a Pellet Plant could be established
• ARTC to upgrade E-W corridor in 2012
• Existing unused line capacity of 10Mtpa
• Rail access to each mine requires a 35km ‘spur’ into
train loading bins
• ‘balloon loop’ required at each mine for train turn
around and 24 hour loading/unloading
• Need 2,000m long trains, 25 tonne/axle, 100 tonne
wagons and 20,000 tonne train set capacity minimum
• Future line duplication needed to provide sufficient train
paths beyond 10Mtpa
• Need significant stockpile hardstand and negative
pressure storage sheds at Port or Pellet plant

9. Braemar Ironstones: Transferring Concentrates to Port
๏Slurry Pipeline:
• Slurry transfer is a cost effective alternative to rail
haulage for a long-term mining project
• Slurry transfer applies to concentrate movements
• We envisage a 300km long buried pipeline to Port Pirie
or 380km to a deep water port location
• It requires a 600mm diameter Concentrate delivery
pipe + Return Water Line
• Examples:
✴Century Zinc’s 300mm diameter concentrate pipeline is
304km long, moving concentrate in slurry
✴Minas Rio iron project, Brazil, 600mm diameter pipeline
is 522km long, to transport 24.5Mtpa of concentrate
• 2-3 intermediate Pump Stations
• Port Dewatering station & Concentrate storage
• both rail and slurry line solutions could be used to
transport >25Mtpa of concentrate

10. Braemar Ironstones: Port for bulk loading of Concentrates
Biggest challenge to development of new mines is lack of bulk handling port infrastructure:
• Port Adelaide: capacity is only 1.7Mtpa and too far away for the transport volumes given
• Port Pirie: capacity expanding to 8Mtpa, but has very shallow draft capability of ~4m
• Port Bonython: extra rail distance incurs additional haulage charges via Port Augusta
Braemar Iron Alliance sees an emerging requirement to berth 200,000 DWT ‘Cape
Size’ vessels for sea freight of iron concentrates, Pellets & direct shipping ore:
 up to 100Mtpa port capacity, all bulks
 up to 250 ships loaded per year
 6,000tph loading rate
 320m long, double sided berth
 Need 20m draft in Spencer Gulf
 Port Pirie not suitable
 Alternative deep water sites in Spencer
Gulf
 jetty length ~3km?
 Capital cost maybe +$750 million

11. Braemar Ironstones: Sea Freight differentials, SA vs WA
Ex Port Hedland
3,200Nm
Ex Spencer Gulf
5,300Nm
Note: Nm means nautical miles

12. Braemar Ironstones: Sea Freight differentials, SA vs WA
Extra sea voyage distance of 2,100 km & time from SA imposes a cost penalty to be overcome:
Sea Freight ex Port Hedland, WA
Destination Distance Nm Cost US$/tonne
China 3,200 $9.7
Japan 3,400 $10.4
~US$100M
Sea Freight ex Spencer Gulf, SA per year
Destination Distance Nm Cost US$/tonne Penalty US$/t penalty for
25Mtpa
China 5,300 $13.8 $4.1
trade. Ports
Japan 5,300 $13.8 $3.4 need to be
competitive
Source: Citigroup, AME
Note: Nm means nautical miles

13. Transport Infrastructure challenges for bulk iron from the
Braemar Iron Formation.