calibre rail pty ltd document no: carp10026-rep-g-005 · calibre rail pty ltd document no:...

Calibre Rail Pty Ltd Document No: CARP10026-REP-G-005

Brockman Resources – Marillana Iron Ore Project Revision No: 0

Preliminary Feasibility Study Report Marillana Loadout Siding to FMG Tie-in Issue Date: April 2011

Addendum 4 Alternative Alignment OPT2 HA4 VA1 Page No: a

S:\PRO-Projects\2010\CARP10026 BR-Marillana Study\02 - PFS Study\12 Project Documentation\12.5 Reports\CARP10026-REP-G-005 - Rev 0 - Addendum 4 - Marillana Loadout Sidiing to FMG Tie-In.doc

Disclaimer

This report has been prepared on request of and with the inputs provided by Brockman Resources Limited and does not contains views necessarily of Calibre Rail. Calibre Rail Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report.

Copying this report without the permission of Brockman Resources Limited and Calibre Rail is not permitted.




Addendum 4 Alternative Alignment OPT2 HA4 VA1 Page No: i


CONTENTS

1.0 OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................1

2.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................1

3.0 GUIDELINES AND SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................2

4.0 BASIS OF DESIGN ................................................................................................................3

5.0 ALIGNMENT OPTION............................................................................................................3

5.1 Salient features ...........................................................................................................6

5.2 Earthworks ..................................................................................................................6

5.3 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment ..............................................................................7

5.4 Construction Camps ....................................................................................................7

6.0 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES........................................................................7

6.1 Bridges ........................................................................................................................7

7.0 SIGNALLING, COMMUNICATIONS AND ASSET PROTECTION..............................................8

8.0 COST ESTIMATE...................................................................................................................9

8.1 Estimate Comparison ................................................................................................10

9.0 RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND TRAIN PERFORMANCE MODELLING ....................................12

9.1 Work Scope ...............................................................................................................12

9.2 Work Excluded ..........................................................................................................12

9.3 Assumptions ..............................................................................................................12

9.4 The Alignment...........................................................................................................13

9.5 Train Performance summary .....................................................................................14

9.6 Scenario 1: x Locos + 240 Wagons ..........................................................................14

9.7 Scenario 2: 4 Locos + xxx Wagons...........................................................................16

9.8 Scenario 3: x Locos + 120 Wagons ..........................................................................17

9.9 Scenario 4: 3 Locos + xxx Wagons...........................................................................19

9.10 Empty train ...............................................................................................................20

9.11 Passing Sidings and Refuge siding ............................................................................21

10.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................21

11.0 PATH FORWARD.................................................................................................................22

12.0 APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................22




Addendum 4 Alternative Alignment OPT2 HA4 VA1 Page No: ii


TABLES

Table 5.1 Key Parameters for Alignment ................................................................................... 6Table 5.2 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment for OPT2 HA4 VA1............................................... 7Table 6.1 Required Bridges for OPT2 HA4 VA1.......................................................................... 7Table 8.1 Railway Capex for Studied Alignment ........................................................................ 9

FIGURES

Figure 5.1 Simplified Layout of Studied Alignments .................................................................... 4Figure 5.2 Simplified Schematic Diagrams of OPT2 HA4 VA1 ..................................................... 5




Addendum 4 Alternative Alignment OPT2 HA4 VA1 Page No: 1


1.0 OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

Brockman Resources Limited (BRL) is developing the Marillana iron ore project in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

In March 2010, BRL commissioned Calibre Rail (CAR) to study the rail connectivity options for their Marillana mines to an existing FMG rail line. A Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) report (Document No. - CARP10026-REP-G-001) was submitted in July 2010 providing engineering design and estimate for two alignments, OPT1 HA2 VA2 and OPT2 HA1 VA1 based on the FMG basis of design.

In the third week of Sep 2010, BRL requested CAR to revisit the alignments and cost estimate via a steeper alignment with reduced earthwork quantities. Guidelines provided by BRL during meeting with Ted Williams on 24/09/2010 are mentioned in paragraph 1.0 of a Preliminary Feasibility Study Report Marillana Loadout Siding to FMG Tie-in Addendum 1 Estimation for Alignment OPT1 HA2 VA1 (Document No. - CARP10026-REP-EN-0001). Addendum 1 was submitted to Brockman Resources on 25 October 2010 covering broad assessment of the alignment, train performance calculations and cost estimate.

Brockman Resources conducted a project value engineering Workshop on 05 October 2010 attended by BRL and CAR staff. To implement some of the outcomes of PVA, BRL requested CAR to design a new alignment with a modified basis of design. A new alignment was designed and Addendum 2 report was submitted for OPT1 HA3 VA1 in Nov 2010 (Document No. - CARP10026-REP-G-0003). The alignment was further modified and Addendum 3 was issued on 23 Dec 2010 For OPT1 HA4 VA1.

BRL asked CAR to implement design changes in corridor OPT2 and design a new alignment with modified basis of design. This report covers alignment OPT2 HA4 VA1.

2.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Some of the qualifications and assumptions mentioned below are common with what have been mentioned in the PFS report and Addendum 1, 2 & 3:

� The alignment has been designed with no consideration to drainage structures required except bridges;

� Camp sizes have been determined only to accommodate construction crew for the proposed railway;

� The track schematic remains the same as of OPT2 HA1 VA1;

� Requirement for additional tracks in the junction yard for train formation has neither been studied nor estimated;

� Geotechnical desktop assessment remains the same as for OPT2 HA1 VA1;

� The passing sidings and refuge siding remain same as for OPT2 HA1 VA1;

� Railway Maintenance Track (RMT) and access roads have not been modelled or estimated;






� Cut off drains, diversion drains and levees have not been designed;

� No allowances made for environmental culverts;

� Drainage design has not been done for this alignment. Drainage has been estimated on per km basis;

� No allowances has been made for formation protection works and levees;

� Cut-off drains and on-formation drains in large cuttings have not been checked for capacity;

� No allowances have been made for the impact of potential road/track crossings;

� Bridge spans and flows are estimates only and should be checked by a bridge consultant; and

� Impact of drainage structures in the section adjacent/parallel to the BHP rail line was not studied.

3.0 GUIDELINES AND SCOPE OF WORK

The guidelines and scope of work for this document (Addendum 4) are as follows:

1. Design a new alignment on Fugro surface with a steeper gradient to minimize earthwork quantities;

2. Conduct train simulations with the following combinations using EMD SD70ACe locomotives.: a. x locos + 240 wagons; b. 4 locos + x wagons; c. x locos + 120 wagons; and d. 3 locos + x wagons.

(x is the variable);

3. Calculate earthworks cut and fill volumes and do the mass-haul calculations;

4. Prepare the capital cost estimate; and

5. Generate plan and profile.






4.0 BASIS OF DESIGN

Modified basis of design for the new railway alignment design is as follows:

a. 5-year ARI in Chichester Range and 20-year in the Fortescue plains; b. Freeboard – Nil; c. Maximum gradient against loaded train 0.83%; d. Maximum gradient against empty trains 1.8%; e. horizontal curve radius: 800m; f. straight between curves: 600m; g. V shaped side drains; h. RMT not to be designed; i. formation width - 6m; j. camp structures are to be leased; k. cut off drains and diversion drains with minimum required cross section; and l. Use of EMD SD70 ACe locomotives.

5.0 ALIGNMENT OPTION

Figure 5.1 shows all the alignment options studied so far, including OPT2 HA4 VA1.

Figure 5.2 shows a simplified track schematic for alignment option OPT2 HA4 VA1.






Figure 5.1 Simplified Layout of Studied Alignments




Addendum 4 Alternative Alignment OPT HA4 VA1 Page No: 5


Bridge 1

Ch.42.9

Bridge 2

Ch.44.0

LegendProposed rail

Railway bridge

Passing siding

Waterway

Spur

Existing rail

Bridge 3

Ch.88.1

BHPBIOLine

Ch.39.3

Ch.36.3

Ch.34.7

Ch.105.5

BrockmanLine

Ch.102.0

Ch.105.0

Ch.52.3

Batterylimit

FMGMainline

Ch.117.1 Loadout

siding

BRL Stage1 rail

Rail-over-rail bridge

Figure 5.2 Simplified Schematic Diagrams of OPT2 HA4 VA1






5.1 Salient features

Table 5.1 lists the key parameters for the alignment.

Table 5.1 Key Parameters for Alignment

Sr. No.

Items OPT2 HA4 VA1

1 Corridor OPT2 2 Route length till junction with FMG mainline (km) 70.8 3 Track Length including sidings (km) 77.8 4 Maximum grade against loaded train 0.76% 5 Maximum grade against empty train 1.0% 6 approx. chainage of FMG rail line at tie-in (km) 219.5 7 Operation on FMG rail till junction of OPT 1,

banking operation section (km) 30.1

8 Earthwork in cutting –million m3 0.730 9 Earthwork in filling – million m3 0.861 10 Bridges 3 11 Linear waterway in bridges (m) 560 12 Total capex ($M) 411.10 13 Average Capex ($M per km) 5.28 14 Construction Camps (No.) 2

5.2 Earthworks

Bulk earthworks for OPT2 HA4 VA1, including diversion drains, are:

� 0.730 million m3 of cut; and

� 0.861 million m3 of fill.

� 0.180 million m3 fill in raising the level at drain crossings.






5.3 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment

Table 5.2 shows the geotechnical desktop assessment for excavation in cuttings along this alignment.

Table 5.2 Geotechnical Desktop Assessment for OPT2 HA4 VA1

Chainage Method Materials

From To Common (%) Rock (%)

Types 2 & 3F1

(%)Type 3G2

(%) Type 3C2

(%)

35.0 70.0 10 90 30 30 40 70.0 105.0 100 0 100 0 0

1 types 2 & 3F materials are suitable for top 1m below the subgrade level in transition layer,2 type 3G/3C material is suitable for layers below transition layer.

5.4 Construction Camps

Two temporary construction camps are required to meet the project schedule, one near FMG tie-in and other near mine. The camps will be established on build, lease and operate basis. The estimate considers hiring of 4 modules of construction camp of 150 men each.

Further refinements to the camp sizing and location can be done during the next study phase.

6.0 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES

Drainage design has not been done for this alignment except for 3 bridge locations. Estimate has been prepared on the basis of per km cost for drainage culverts.

6.1 Bridges

Bridge requirements have been reassessed for the alignment OPT2 HA4 VA1. Required bridges are shown in Table 6.1 below:

Table 6.1 Required Bridges for OPT2 HA4 VA1

Options Chainage (km) Total Length (m)

42.9 160 44.0 140 OPT2 HA4 VA1 88.1 260






7.0 SIGNALLING, COMMUNICATIONS AND ASSET PROTECTION

The signalling, communication and asset protection estimate has been prepared with the following assumptions:

� A basic voice radio based train order system;

� Track circuits restricted to switches and crossings only;

� Provisions of only two stream flow detectors (SFD) and one hot box and wheel detector;

� No provision for dragging equipment detector;

� No provision for broken rail detector;

� No provision for points machines;

� No provision for earthworks costs for equipment foundation (pads);

� No contractor’s overheads; and

� No fibre optic cable, only radio backbone.

A train order train control practise is considered adequate to safely operate the Brockman railway spur for tonnages up to 17Mtpa. Interface and compliance with the existing and proposed FMG systems is not in the scope of this report. The train control system can be upgraded at a later date.






8.0 COST ESTIMATE

Table 8.1 shows the summary capital cost of construction (Capex) and also comparison with OPT2 HA1 VA1 of original PFS. Operational costs have not been calculated.

Table 8.1 Railway Capex for Studied Alignment

COST ($M)*ITEMSOPT2 HA1 VA1 OPT2 HA4 VA1

Earthworks #123.98 52.35

Haul Roads 1.81 -

Track Supply & Construction 57.74 57.74

Bridges 144.93 103.60

Culverts - 28.60

Signals and Communications 41.71 26.74

Construction Facilities 104.28 42.26

Subtotal Directs 474.46 311.29

Contractor Overheads & Indirects 72.21 59.99

EPCM 61.85 39.82

Subtotal Indirects 134.06 99.81 Grand Total 608.52 411.10

Track length Km 77.58 77.80

Cost per km* 7.84 5.28 *Excludes rolling stock and maintenance facilities.






8.1 Estimate Comparison

Study/ Report EstimatedCost $M

Driving factors

Order of Magnitude (Engenium) 372.62 � Covers alignment from mine to junction � Alignment not available for comparison � Estimate breakup not available � Alignment length 112Km � Cost of borrow establishment omitted � Drill and blast rates unrealistic � Bridges not estimated � Culvert estimate on low side � BOD not available � Train consist not known � Train performance calculations not available

PFS report OPT1 HA2 VA2 685.01 � BOD similar to FMG � 240 loaded ore car train � DC traction powered locomotives � Excessive earthworks in cuttings due to easier

gradients � 6.6m formation width with standard side drains � No geotechnical study � Large camp size � Longer duration � Higher EPCM costs

Addendum 1 OPT1 HA2 VA1 513.72 � BOD modified � 120 loaded ore car train � DC traction powered locomotives � Steeper gradient against loaded trains � Signalling & communication rationalised � Asset protection optimised � Camp size and EPCM reduced

Addendum 2 OPT1 HA3 VA1 417.93 � PVA ideas implemented � New alignment OPT1 HA3 VA1 designed � Formation width reduced to 6.0m � V-type side drains � RMT not allowed for � Camps to be leased (No Capex) � Drainage with 5-year ARI � No freeboard for culverts � Horizontal radius: 800m, straight between

curves: 600m � Steeper gradients � AC traction powered locomotives

Addendum 3 OPT1 HA4 VA1 446.71 � Avoiding known BHPBIO leases PFS report OPT2 HA1 VA1 608.5 � BOD similar to FMG

� 240 loaded ore car train � DC traction powered locomotives � Excessive earthworks in cuttings due to easier

gradients � 6.6m formation width with standard side drains � No geotechnical study � Large camp size






Study/ Report EstimatedCost $M

Driving factors

� Longer duration � Higher EPCM costs

Addendum 4 OPT2 HA4 VA1 411.1 � Avoid bridges � Formation width reduced to 6.0m � V-type side drains � RMT not allowed for � Camps to be leased (No Capex) � Drainage with 5-year ARI � No freeboard for culverts � Horizontal radius: 800m, straight between

curves: 600m � Steeper gradients � AC traction powered locomotives






9.0 RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND TRAIN PERFORMANCE MODELLING

The Calibre Rail has performed train simulations on the alignment OPT2 HA4 VA1 using “OpenTrack” simulations and modelling software. The alignment branches off the FMG mainline at the Ch. 219.5 and continues about 71km to the battery limit of Brockman loading site.

9.1 Work Scope

Train performance simulations have been conducted on the FMG main line from Ch. 188.33 to the junction with the BRL spur at Ch. 219.5, then over the 71 kilometres of the BRL alignment. This is to determine:

� Locomotive performance hauling various train consists over the OPT2 HA4 VA1 alignment; and

� Train running times.

9.2 Work Excluded

The train simulation analysis contained within this report does not contemplate network capacity assessment across the combined FMG and BRL alignments. Therefore train cycles times and train set requirements have not been determined and are to be the focus of future investigations.

9.3 Assumptions

The following assumptions have been employed in completing this analysis:

Locomotives EMD SD70ACe

Wagons FMG design with ECP braking equipment

Tonnes Per Axle Load (TAL) 40 Tonnes

Wagon payload 137 Tonnes

Wagon tare 23 Tonnes

Wagon gross 160 Tonnes

Operating Speed <80 km/h

Operating days per year 300






9.4 The Alignment

The figure below shows OPT2 HA4 VA1 alignment along with a part of FMG mainline.

Altitude vs Distance

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300

Distance ( km )

Alti

tude

( m

)

OPT2 HA4 VA1 Port To Mine-20-01-2011 FMG-Mainline

FMG Main Line

Mine






9.5 Train Performance summary

Train performance calculations have been performed with following train configurations:

� Scenario 1: x Locos + 240 Wagons � Scenario 2: 4 Locos + xxx Wagons � Scenario 3: x Locos + 120 Wagons � Scenario 4: 3 Locos + xxx Wagons

Please note a speed restriction has been applied to the network between Ch. 220.97 and Ch. 235.064 reducing the track speed from 80 km/h to a maximum of 50 km/h. This has been implemented in recognition of safe train driving practice to ensure that the train is controlled at all times when descending in the loaded direction toward the junction with the FMG main line (refer to 9.4 The Alignment).

9.6 Scenario 1: x Locos + 240 Wagons

The initial analysis is to determine the number of locomotives required for optimal performance over the alignment when hauling 240 laden wagons (38,400 gross tonnes). It must be noted that 240 wagons is the FMG main line standard, with the existing crossing loops on this network configured to accommodate trains at this maximum length.

Loaded (SR) – 3 Locos and 240 Wagons (Fail)

3 Locomotives were found to be insufficient to haul 240 wagons over this alignment.

SpeedRestriction

Route Length (km)

Spe

ed(k

ph)






Loaded (SR) – 4 Locos and 240 Wagons (Acceptable)

Running Time: 2:18:54 4 Locomotives prove sufficient to haul 240 wagons and is recommended.


Running Time: 2:11:15

SpeedRestriction

SpeedRestriction






An additional locomotive does not serve to improve cycle time sufficiently to warrant further investigation. Further, the FMG main line does not currently provide crossing loops or track duplication sufficient to accommodate the increased sectional run time ability.

9.7 Scenario 2: 4 Locos + xxx Wagons

The next phase of analysis is to investigate the maximum permissible trailing load over the alignment using 4 locomotives. Commencing from the Scenario 1 finding of 4 locomotives hauling 240 wagons at an acceptable level, the amount of wagons was increased in increments of 10 (1,600 tonnes) until the limit of sound locomotive operation was reached.

Loaded (SR) – 4 Locos and 270 Wagons (Marginal)


It must be reiterated that the current FMG main line configuration for crossing loops does not permit trains of 270 wagons in length to be crossed.

SpeedRestriction






9.8 Scenario 3: x Locos + 120 Wagons

The next phase of analysis is to determine the number of locomotives required for optimal performance over the alignment when hauling 120 laden wagons (19,200 gross tonnes).

Loaded (SR) – 2 Locos and 120 Wagons (Not recommended)


The performance of 2 locomotives hauling 120 wagons is felt to be marginal, and therefore not recommended. This is due to the continuous tractive effort rating for the SD70ACe locomotive being 14 km/h, and is representative of the minimum operating speed the locomotive can travel at while counteracting friction against rail and the gravitational load against the alignment gradient. Continuous travel at a speed less than 14 km/h under these operating conditions will result in the locomotive exceeding its maximum operating temperature.

SpeedRestriction








3 Locomotives is found to be ample to haul the 120 wagon consist.

SpeedRestriction






9.9 Scenario 4: 3 Locos + xxx Wagons

The next phase of analysis is to investigate the maximum permissible trailing load over the alignment using 3 locomotives. Commencing from the Scenario 3 finding of 3 locomotives hauling 120 wagons at an acceptable level, the amount of wagons was increased in increments of 10 (1,600 tonnes) until the limit of sound locomotive operation was reached.

Loaded (SR) – 3 Locos and 200 Wagons (Marginal)


3 locomotives are determined to be able to haul a maximum of 200 wagons before encroaching upon the continuous tractive effort rating of the locomotive.

SpeedRestriction






9.10 Empty train

Empty – 2 Locos and 240 Wagons (Acceptable)

Running Time: 1:35:33 Empty (SR) – 1 Loco and 240 Wagons (Marginal)


Calibre Rail Pty ltd Document No: CARP10026-REP-G-0005





9.11 Passing Sidings and Refuge siding

Operational studies so far have not indicated the requirements for passing sidings. However one passing siding with a backtrack and a shunting neck will be required near tie-in with the FMG railway. Another passing siding will be required near mines to hold mine-bound trains. One additional line in the junction yard and shunting neck may also be required.

10.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report is prepared for BRL on the basis of information provided to Calibre. Given the large number of variables and significant changes to the basis of design, it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion at this stage.

Calibre Rail Pty ltd Document No: CARP10026-REP-G-0005





11.0 PATH FORWARD

The following engineering, surveying, geotechnical, hydrogeological and estimating work are recommended as part of a Detailed Feasibility Study in next phase:

� Geotechnical investigations on the railway route including test pits, dozer excavations, drilling, testing and reporting;

� Additional aerial surveys and verification by ground controls;

� Detailed study of bridges by a bridge consultant;

� Geotechnical drilling at the bridge foundations including testing and reporting;

� Groundwater exploration drilling, hydrogeological test work, bore testing and reporting;

� Detailed design for railway earthworks and drainage;

� Detailed design for camps, access roads and temporary infrastructure, and signalling and communications;

� Design for integration with the FMG (TPI) network;

� Construction and project schedules;

� Produce tender documents, and initiate procurement activities for long-lead items;

� Conduct heritage and environmental surveys of the alignment;

� Value engineering to identify cost savings;

� Railway operations and maintenance study;

� Network capacity modelling;

� Develop a project implementation strategy; and

� Develop a contracting and procurement strategy.

12.0 APPENDICES

Appendices Register

Appendix Title and Number A Key Plan, Standard drawings and a Set of Plan & Profiles

calibre rail pty ltd document no: carp10026-rep-g-005 · calibre rail pty ltd document no:...

Documents